Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March 2023 was +0.20 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is up from the February 2023 anomaly of +0.08 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains 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 15 months are:
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2022 | Jan | +0.03 | +0.06 | -0.00 | -0.23 | -0.13 | +0.68 | +0.10 |
| 2022 | Feb | -0.00 | +0.01 | -0.01 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.50 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.15 | +0.27 | +0.03 | -0.07 | +0.22 | +0.74 | +0.02 |
| 2022 | Apr | +0.26 | +0.35 | +0.18 | -0.04 | -0.26 | +0.45 | +0.61 |
| 2022 | May | +0.17 | +0.25 | +0.10 | +0.01 | +0.59 | +0.23 | +0.20 |
| 2022 | Jun | +0.06 | +0.08 | +0.05 | -0.36 | +0.46 | +0.33 | +0.11 |
| 2022 | Jul | +0.36 | +0.37 | +0.35 | +0.13 | +0.84 | +0.55 | +0.65 |
| 2022 | Aug | +0.28 | +0.31 | +0.24 | -0.03 | +0.60 | +0.50 | -0.00 |
| 2022 | Sep | +0.24 | +0.43 | +0.06 | +0.03 | +0.88 | +0.69 | -0.28 |
| 2022 | Oct | +0.32 | +0.43 | +0.21 | +0.04 | +0.16 | +0.93 | +0.04 |
| 2022 | Nov | +0.17 | +0.21 | +0.13 | -0.16 | -0.51 | +0.51 | -0.56 |
| 2022 | Dec | +0.05 | +0.13 | -0.03 | -0.35 | -0.21 | +0.80 | -0.38 |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.14 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.08 | +0.17 | 0.00 | -0.11 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.12 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.23 | +0.16 | -0.14 | -1.44 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
The USA48 region had the 2nd coldest March in the 45-year satellite record, 1.44 deg. C below the 30-year normal. The coldest March was in 1981, at 1.91 deg. C below normal.
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for March, 2023 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
Record warm absolute sea surface temperature, even without El Nino.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
Record warm when you exclude the cold anomalies below 6oS. https://www.farmonlineweather.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=global&lc=global&c=ssta
Atlantic is warm while pacific appears to be transitioning to el nino, while warm la Nina anomalies still persist. So both sides of the pacific are warm until on one side gains dominance. Interesting weather, not climate.
Nothing was excluded from that average.
And what exactly are “warm La Nina anomalies”? La Nina COOLS the planet.
If you want climate, compare the UAH average for this decade so far to the average for each of the other decades in the record. Then acknowledge that the average for this decade so far is lower than expected due to three years of La Nina.
La Nina warms our cold 3.5 C ocean, El Nino dumps oceanic heat into the atmosphere.
Since warming our cold ocean is global warming, but if concerned about land surface air temperature, a warmer ocean surface temperature {El Nino} causes a warmer land surface temperature- but it’s been cold, though it’s been wetter, where I live.
Though CO2 levels are at a record high and our thermosphere is at it’s warmest due to Solar Max [as compared to last 10 years].
Solar wind
speed: 513.7 km/sec
density: 10.60 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 54
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 127 sfu
Updated 03 Apr 2023
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 22.20×10^10 W Warm
Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×10^10 W Cold (02/2009)
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.8% Below Average
48-hr change: +0.7%
Though not very active at moment and might
be very active in next week, I think it’s
going to take off in next couple months and thermosphere
will far exceed the levels it reached in April. Or it’s
presently down about 2 x 10^10 w from April peak.
Or I think it could get about 30 x10^10 [which is quite
bit lower the record of “49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)” but quite
a bit warmer than it has been for couple decades-
but it’s just a guess.
In terms of CO2:
February 2023: 420.41 ppm
It should be higher in March, but in couple months it will “seasonally lower down again”
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
“presently down about 2 x 10^10 w from April peak.”
I meant March peak, but maybe peaked Jan when Sun was
more active, but month of March and even now it’s higher
than it’s been in 10 years.
Here looking at graph:
https://www.spaceweather.com/images2023/01apr23/TCI_Daily_NO_Power_Percentiles.png
So, more 10 years, but I don’t it will peak higher than 2002 {it could] but doubt it will remain as high as 2000 to 2004 AD- but it might.
La Nina causes the deeper oceans to warm somewhat. The immediate effect on the ocean SURFACE during La Nina is COOLING. He was talking about surface temperatures.
“La Nina causes the deeper oceans to warm somewhat. The immediate effect on the ocean SURFACE during La Nina is COOLING. He was talking about surface temperatures.”
I live in Southern California, La Nina is probably why I getting such cold weather. And maybe why I got hurricane get close to me during summer.
But it’s weather not global climate, and isn’t La Nina close to not being La Nino- or at moment or last month, it would have had less of La Nino effect.
And it seem El Nino is longer lasting effect in terms warming the global air.
I guess question regarding La Nino, and global warming, is the southern Hemisphere ocean still not warming northern Hemisphere.
But I think that is rather complicated question.
Yes – that’s what I said – La Nina has a general cooling effect on the atmosphere.
And ENSO is neither a weather nor a climate event. It’s time scale lies in between the two. Unfortunately as there is no general name for such an intermediate effect, people get to use semantics to pretend it is either climate or weather. It AFFECTS weather, but is not weather itself. Apparently for many deniers, La Nina is climate but El Nino is “only weather”.
” Record warm when you exclude the cold anomalies below 6oS. ”
*
Interesting idea.
However, their latitude band averages within global temperature data (sea, land, atmosphere) are always weighted with the cosine of their respective latitude before final averaging into time units.
Thus, when you consider the temperatures below 60S, think of the weighting associated to them.
While a 2.5 degree latitude band just near the Equator is weighted with 0.9998, the bands below 60S or above 60N are weighted from 0.4810 down to… 0.0218 near the Poles.
The average weighting of the 12 bands near the Equator is 4 times higher than that for the 12 bands near the Poles, what clearly weakens the effect of the polar regions.
This latitude weighting has of course nothing to do with the area weighting provided by geometric projections.
The exact formula for latitude weighting:
Tg[i:j] =
∑[x=i:j] Tlat(x) * cos(rad(x)) / ∑[x=i:j] cos(rad(x))
where ‘rad’ converts x from degrees into radians between 0 and π/2.
Oh this scanner…
binny…”their latitude band averages within global temperature data (sea, land, atmosphere) are always weighted with the cosine of their respective latitude…”
***
In other words, they are fudged. The keepers of the surface record are notorious for fudging not only the current record but the historical record as well.
As Robert Mitchell has pointed out, the surface crowd have omitted temperatures below 60 S.
Besides all that Binny, what would you know about a cosine weighting function? You have enough trouble with straight line trends, never mind averaging over a period of time if the data should take on a cosine shape. The cosine function is obviously an attempt to model data and as such it obfuscates the reality.
Besides all that, what possible relationship could their be between weather and the cosine of a latitude? Do you even understand what a cosine is?
“In other words, they are fudged.”
You think weighting by area is fudging???
” Besides all that Binny, what would you know about a cosine weighting function? You have enough trouble with straight line trends, never mind averaging over a period of time if the data should take on a cosine shape. ”
*
Here Robertson again shows the immeasurable level of his ignorance, incompetence and stupidity. He is not even able to download any data, let alone to process it and to present us a graph showing what he did.
And he certainly wouldn’t be able to create a list of cosine weighting factors for say a 2.5 degree grid, but drooling on this blog, he can!
*
Imagine! This is the guy who is not even able to correctly compare anomalies computed out of different reference periods!
And who is dumb enough to gullibly suck what his authority chiefio aka E.M. Smith tells about NOAA time series:
– only one station in the Canadian Arctic
– faked temperatures in Bolivia during the 1990’s
– no stations in the Californian mountains
– etc etc etc.
He is so stupid that he doesn’t even grasp how necessary it is to apply latitude weighting not only wrt temperatures, but also when processing e.g. sea ice or ice sheet data.
Without that weighting function, the small pieces near the Poles would have the same surface as the grid cells at the Equator!
*
And above all: what he completely ignores is that when you generate time series out of UAH’s grid data without taking that latitude weighting into account, your series are… plain wrong, especially Northern and Southern Extratropics.
What a dumb, stubborn, ignorant, opinionated ass. All what he is able to do is to distort, misrepresent, discredit, denigrate and lie.
*
All what Robertson writes about, be it viruses, Einstein (time dilation used in GPS, the precession of the perihelion of Sun-near planets), astronomy, the Russian aggression in Ukraine, and so on.
*
Robertson is the guy who best fits the good old French saying:
” C’est l'idiot du village, avec ses grosses chaussures à clous et, en guise de cervelle, un petit pois sous le crâne ” .
Any donkey knows more about everything than people like Robertson.
“This latitude weighting has of course nothing to do with the area weighting provided by geometric projections.”
Even though its produces the same results.
Blindsley Hood
” Even though its produces the same results. ”
No, it doesn’t. Not at all.
2. I have already explained that UAH’s Mollweide-based presentation of their monthly anomalies resp. lifetime trends shows everywhere, from the Equator to the Poles, exactly the same values as in the grid cells – of course unlike the time series generated out of them, which are perfectly weighted according to the formula
∑[x=i:j] Tlat(x) * cos(rad(x)) / ∑[x=i:j] cos(rad(x))
where rad converts x from degrees into radians between 0 and π/2.
*
2. And you were also explained that a simple cosine based weighting, as you wrongly proposed to W. Eschenbach, is not correct for contents.
Regardless what you weight on the sphere, you have to use the formula above. Should doubt as usual about this fact, feel free to construct a new spherical integration theory. Nick Stokes might laugh a bit.
And your proposal was wrong anyway because unlike latitude weighting of e.g. temperatures which affects a vector, Mollweide is a surface area transformation of a rectangle into a sphere, which needs squared cosines as weighting factor.
*
3. Conversely, I have to admit that I possibly made a mistake in the HadISST1 ICE corner because I weight there exactly like in their SST corner.
Because sea ice (and of course ice sheet) values are akin to surfaces, rather than being attributes of them, I probably should use there squared cosines as well.
Who knows? Maybe the difference seen here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ebdqPl_tmxazXAMchHEU87zVvvPdonef/view
then luckily disappears (I attributed it to an excessive evaluation of the data by NSID~C).
“No, it doesnt. Not at all.”
So cosine weighting does not have the same results as area weighting that is also based on latitude (such as a Molweide projection)?
Sure. Idiot.
What is your calculation for a 2.5 degree grid in a equal area calculation and how precisely does it differ from a cosine weighting for the same grid?
(Assume for the minute that the globe is a perfect sphere)
P.S. An equal area weighting means just that, an equal area at the equator and the poles.
Blinny obviously does not think that 30N to 30S is 50% of the area of the sphere. (Cos(60 degrees) = Cos(1.0472 radians) = 0.5)
Blindsley Hood
I thought you would one day understand the problem, but I was too optimistic.
Though I admit to have myself used the term ‘cosine weighting’ above in my reply to Robertson (it is improperly used everywhere), you nonetheless actually should know what the whole world means with it when talking about temperatures – especially because we discussed that stuff last year.
However, it seems that like the brazen troll Robertson, you obviously only remember things written by others when what they wrote fits your personal narrative. Otherwise you silently ‘forget’ them.
*
By the way, people like you, manifestly lacking real technical skill in the domain we are talking about, can call me an ‘idiot’ as long as they want. That won’t change the level of their incompetence.
*
I explained to you so clearly last year that cosine weighting makes sense ONLY FOR AREA.
Here is – for the umpteenth time – the comparison between UAH6.0 LT original and a cosine weighted generation from UAH’s LT grid data:
https://tinyurl.com/4budtf4r
And here is the comparison between UAH6.0 LT Original and a correctly weighted generation from the same UAH grid data:
https://tinyurl.com/2p9xfykc
based on the formula
∑[x=i:j] Tlat(x) * cos(rad(x)) / ∑[x=i:j] cos(rad(x))
I found it in 2016 in a text book online but lost the link to the explanations.
As you cans see, there is no difference between Spencer’s generation and mine, as they are based on the same weighting mechanism.
*
Hence one can use the cosine weights for e.g. sea ice or snow, but not for e.g. snow-water equivalents, wind, rain or temperatures as they are not proportional to the areas they decorate.
You think I’m wrong? Ask Roy Spencer.
Do you think he and John Christy are wrong? Feel free to come up with a new theory: you are being hailed by all the Pseudo-skeptics in the world.
Simply because the global LT trend – given a rough cosine weighting – then drops from the current 0.13C/decade to 0.08…exactly what you want as a future reality, isn’t it?
*
Will you now finally stop stalking me with your boring cosine and Mollweide stuff?
Nate, there are a couple of things that warm the oceans. Plastic pollution and higher salinity. CO2 actually cools the oceans.
Evidence?
Anything which prevents ocean from being transparent, cools ocean,
don’t have anything on higher salinity- other more sunlight and less wind and wave will give higher surface salinity. Less waves is less mixing- or less warming.
You made no mention of CO2 in your response. That was what was being challenged.
“You made no mention of CO2 in your response. That was what was being challenged.”
Oh, CO2 is suppose to cool in polar regions.
I don’t think CO2 cools.
But if CO2 cools in polar region it would be important.
AQ,
What has CO2 to do with the temperature of anything?
Surely you are not silly enough to believe that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter, or removing it makes air colder? Only joking – of course you do!
Delusional SkyDragon cultists share your belief. Your religion is your affair – as Thomas Jefferson said, as long as your religion neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, why should I worry what you believe?
Is there anything else you’d like to know? You seem to be a wee bit short of facts.
gbaikie
“Suppose to” according to who?
Google: cooling effect of co2 Antarctica
First hit:
Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide actually cools part of Antarctica
https://www.science.org/content/article/rising-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-actually-cools-part-antarctica
So only central Antarctica. Not “polar regions”. And only for 6 months of the year.
“The boundary layer (BL), where this IR originates, is in thermal equilibrium with the surface skin. This is due to the massive back and forth conduction between the two entities. When a photon is sent from the BL to the surface you disrupt this equilibrium. The 2nd Law doesnt like this imbalance and it is rectified by more energy conducting back into the BL. IOW, back where it came from. Both the BL and surface skin are exactly as they started.
When the IR energy initiates an evaporation, the energy disappears from the BL-SS combo. It is hidden as latent heat until it condenses which is often high in the atmosphere.”
Richard, this has been repeatedly debunked, here and elsewhere.
1. Heating is not cooling. Adding extra heat from CO2 cannot result in cooling. Certainly some of the extra heat can end up in the atmosphere via evaporation, but a warmer atmosphere results in a warmer surface by reducing convection and radiation.
2. The boundary layer is indeed thin, but conduction within seconds to minutes carries that heat below the surface and wave action mixes it down further.
3. In reality the net IR from the ocean surface is always upward. It is used to measure the ocean T by satellite. The CO2 increase simply REDUCES the NET upward flow of IR. With a steady solar SW input, and a reduced LW output the ocean must warm. And it has warmed.
“So only central Antarctica. Not polar regions. And only for 6 months of the year.”
“Central Greenland is now the record-holder for extreme cold in the Northern Hemisphere. The WMO confirmed on Wednesday that an automated weather station named Klinck, located near the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, measured a temperature of -69.6C (-93.3F) on December 22, 1991.”
Because central Greenland not cold enough? Or not big enough?
Or is it elevation of land?
I would guess if has to do with the atmosphere at given elevation,
say 5000 meter, the arctic troposphere is as cold as antarctic troposphere.
And if about the elevation of land- it’s one reason I don’t believe it, as follows my general rule, ocean warms, land cools.
And could be about Ozone holes. And both south and north have them.
But main issue, is I think CO2 does cause some warming and I think CO2 doesn’t do some cooling.
And this largely related to Mars and Venus.
Nate, it’s called evaporative cooling. You can look it up in Wiki.
Evaporative cooling doesn’t require the presence of CO2, and is not enhanced by it at atmospheric pressures.
Evaporation requires heating.
If you think heating is cooling then Im worried about you.
Seriously, though, that myth has been thoroughly debunked.
Nate
Evaporation cools the surrounding air, which gives up its energy to the evaporation process.
However ‘evaporative cooling’ is a term used in air conditioner technology, so that is clearly where he heard the term and formed his belief. And he clearly believes that this means it applies to CO2 in the atmosphere. What he doesn’t understand is that the technology works by evaporating liquid CO2 (clearly not at 1 atm pressure).
Gaseous CO2 doesn’t provide this cooling because there is no phase transition left to absorb energy.
This is what these people do … they google a phrase and apply it improperly without proper research.
AQ, evaporative cooling requires addition energy. As CO2 levels increase we get higher boundary layer IR directed at the surface. This IR can only instigate evaporation and does not cause warming due to the existence of thermal equilibrium at the surface. The loss of this energy, as the created water vapor convects upward, is a cooling process.
Nate, evaporative cooling requires energy. It can come from heat (kinetic energy) or it can come directly from IR photons.
The part climate science has been missing is the IR energy that directed at the surface from increasing CO2 cannot cause any warming. The reason is simple once you think about it (that is the hard part).
The boundary layer (BL), where this IR originates, is in thermal equilibrium with the surface skin. This is due to the massive back and forth conduction between the two entities. When a photon is sent from the BL to the surface you disrupt this equilibrium. The 2nd Law doesn’t like this imbalance and it is rectified by more energy conducting back into the BL. IOW, back where it came from. Both the BL and surface skin are exactly as they started.
When the IR energy initiates an evaporation, the energy disappears from the BL-SS combo. It is hidden as latent heat until it condenses which is often high in the atmosphere.
Mother Nature is very tricky. She gets CO2 to enhance the water cycle without causing any warming. However, since this is a cooling effect she needed to added some energy back to the surface. Hence, the widening of the 15 mm frequency band which traps a little more energy from the atmospheric window.
Richard M, The physics of boundary layers (BL) is quite complex, especially over rough surfaces, such as the Earth. The roughness induces turbulent flow, i.e., mixing, with the effects very near the surface being like a thin conductive interface. A flow of cold air over a warm wet surface would result in energy leaving the surface as both sensible energy (the air warms) and as latent energy (water is converted to gas). conversely, a flow of warm air over a a cold surface could result in energy loss from the air to the surface, both by sensible heat loss to the surface and latent heat loss via condensation.
Your discussion of the effects of CO2 IR radiation misses the fact that the BL radiates in both directions, so the next layer above is warmed by the out bound emissions from the BL. Think of multiple layers and one might appreciate that each layer is both warmed from below and thence warms the layer above. Because of convection in the troposphere, the higher layers are cooler than the lower ones and thus the net effect of GHG emissions is to move more energy from the surface upward thru the troposphere. Above the tropopause, there’s no longer significant convection, so the IR radiation eventually exits the Earth.
AIUI, the widening of the 15 micron CO2 bands/a> is due to pressure effects, which also changes the GHG emission/absorp_tion vs. altitude.
E Swanson,
you are correct about the boundary layer being complex. However, that is mostly irrelevant to the process I described. The radiation upward is a different topic and not really relevant to the fact the downward radiation ends up cooling the surface.
Keep in mind that while increasing CO2 does increase the amount of upward radiation, it also slows down the speed of that movement. The two changes compensate and keep the upward flow constant.
As usual, Richard M posts his personal thoughts and thinks it’s enough.
What about backing up your strange claims
” The radiation upward is a different topic and not really relevant to the fact the downward radiation ends up cooling the surface.
Keep in mind that while increasing CO2 does increase the amount of upward radiation, it also slows down the speed of that movement. The two changes compensate and keep the upward flow constant. ”
with some real, approved science?
Simply writing such things directly out of the own imagination: that’s a bit brazen, isn’t it?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1468738
We have a real world demo of surface heating with a microwave oven heating a cup of water. The microwaves only penetrate ~ few mm. Evaporation from this layer doesnt compensate for the extra heating. Because of conduction and convection, the whole cup gets hot within a minute.
Another experiment I did, and anyone can repeat it.
Point a ceramic 150 W IR heater downward at a cup of water. This produces thermal wavelengths of IR that penetrate microns.
The water gets hotter. QED
Try it yourself!
The required equipment
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/W/IMAGERENDERING_521856-T1/images/I/71LzwsVUCIL._AC_SL1500_.jpg
https://www.amazon.com/Simple-Deluxe-Infrared-Amphibian-Incubating/dp/B07KLZCDQH/ref=asc_df_B07KLZCDQH/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=309821834089&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=1854583572364361748&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9001873&hvtargid=pla-626637556755&psc=1
Nate appears to be confused. I’ll be more specific.
“Adding extra heat from CO2 cannot result in cooling. ”
The heat is moved. It cools the boundary layer/surface layer and moves the latent heat into the upper atmosphere after the water vapor condense. So, in a sense you are right. There’s no overall cooling, but that was not the topic of my comment. I will discuss how this upper atmospheric heat is handled at another time.
“The boundary layer is indeed thin, but conduction within seconds to minutes carries that heat below the surface and wave action mixes it down further.”
I am referring to the atmospheric boundary layer in my comment, not the ocean. This is where the CO2 exists which radiates IR towards the surface. In fact, it’s just the lower 10 meters that does almost all the work.
While the ocean boundary layer would do some mixing, the conduction from the ocean skin back into the atmosphere works at micro second speeds. And, with the enhanced evaporation the ocean boundary layer is losing energy which causes the mixing to bring energy up to the surface.
“The CO2 increase simply REDUCES the NET upward flow of IR.”
Nope, the added CO2 has no effect on the overall temperature as I have shown. That keeps the upward radiation constant. In addition, within the atmosphere the individual photon flow gets a little slower and there is an increases the amount of photons. These two changes cancel out leaving the net flow constant.
Nate says: “We have a real world demo of surface heating with a microwave oven”
Not equivalent. The energy for a microwave does not come out of the air within the microwave. It comes from your electrical outlet. If that’s the best you can come up with, I can only shake my head.
Bindidon says: “What about backing up your strange claims with some real, approved science?”
It appears you think I said something unusual. Everything I stated is very simple physics. You can learn about it from any Physics textbook.
When you increase CO2 you will increase the number of energy transfers between CO2 molecules simply because you have more molecules. And, the distance covered by the transfer is shorter because you run into another CO2 molecule quicker. This is very simple logic.
More energy being transferred with each transfer a shorter distance. Both change as a log function of the concentration of CO2. Do the math.
“While the ocean boundary layer would do some mixing, the conduction from the ocean skin back into the atmosphere works at micro second speeds. And, with the enhanced evaporation the ocean boundary layer is losing energy which causes the mixing to bring energy up to the surface.”
Indeed heat deposited on the skin layer can be conducted downward as well as upward. And evaporation can remove some of it.
But in the end there can be only warming from this extra energy input. It is beyond preposterous to claim it would result in cooling.
The experiment with the ceramic IR heater pointed downward at a bowl of water is an experimental test of your claim that additional DWIR should result in cooling. The experiment showed clear warming..
Your claim is falsified.
The source of the IR is irrelevant to the claim. And would make no difference tegardless.
“But in the end there can be only warming from this extra energy input. It is beyond preposterous to claim it would result in cooling.”
And why is that? Because extra energy warms the water at the surface. That could result in evaporation, but never MORE than the extra energy could vaporize. In reality it is always less, since some of the heat is conducted away.
And the experiment confirms this.
Nate says: “Indeed heat deposited on the skin layer can be conducted downward as well as upward. And evaporation can remove some of it.”
The important question is what happens the majority of the time. When the IR photon is produced, energy is removed from the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL). When that photon is absorbed at the surface, energy is added to the surface skin. These two events create an energy imbalance.
The net result is energy will be conducted back into the ABL at a higher rate than it is conducted towards the colder deep ocean. It’s a statistical computation based on the good old law of large numbers.
Since conduction back into the ABL restores thermal equilibrium, it will win out very quickly.
I realize this nut is going to a tough one to accept by AGW supporters, but it is based on the most simple thermodynamic law, the 2nd law.
Nate says: “The experiment with the ceramic IR heater pointed downward at a bowl of water is an experimental test of your claim that additional DWIR should result in cooling. The experiment showed clear warming..
Your claim is falsified.”
Once again your energy is coming from outside the “system”. There’s no thermodynamic imbalance created between the air and the water. Hence, there’s no conduction back into the air.
It’s good you are challenging the process. It will help you to understand exactly why this occurs in our atmosphere. The energy is coming from the ABL which cools it. This is the key reason why the energy simply conducts back into the ABL.
“Once again your energy is coming from outside the ‘system’.”
The original issue was whether the ocean warmed or not with dwir. It does.
Now you seem to expand the system to include the atmosphere which emitted the dwir, and say well, that balances out.
Duh. But pointless. The ocean still warms as a result of CO2. The land also warms. The atmosphere also warms.
The main forcing is at the TOA. And its warming effects are felt throughout the system.
Nate says: “The original issue was whether the ocean warmed or not with dwir. It does.”
No, it original issue was whether CO2 cooled the oceans. The CO2 is in the atmosphere. Not one of your experiments have come close to replicating this situation.
The rest of your comment is just babbling your beliefs. You stopped trying to understand the physics. Pure denial.
At least I have experiments.
You only provide a random walk of unsupported assertions, that often violate the real laws of physics, such as the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Come back when you can show actual evidence, real physics or sound logic that supports your original nonsense claim that ‘CO2 actually cools the oceans’
Nate continues to babble: “You only provide a random walk of unsupported assertions, that often violate the real laws of physics, such as the First Law of Thermodynamics.”
Everything I stated is based on very basic physics. If it wasn’t you’d be able to find something wrong. The fact all you can do is babble means even you recognize this fact. You just can’t admit it.
With that I will move on to the 2nd part of the process.
We’ve already seen that increasing CO2 simply leads to an increase in evaporation with the increase in energy from CO2 expanding the 15 mm frequency band now stored as latent heat.
Since water vapor is a light weight molecule, more of it will create a stronger source of convective currents. The speed at which convective currents rise will be increased. Once again, very simple logic.
The speed of the convective currents determines how high in the atmosphere the water vapor reaches. Therefore, it will now be carried higher into colder parts of the upper troposphere. The result is more of the water vapor condenses into liquid or solid water. There’s less water vapor left behind.
This process releases the energy collected from the surface and would lead to a warming of this part of the atmosphere if not for the reduction in water vapor. With less water vapor the trapping of upwelling IR is reduced. More IR gets to space faster. This compensates for the warming. We are left with no net warming either at the surface or in the upper troposphere.
What we get is more beneficial precipitation to enhance plant growth in concert with the higher CO2 levels. This actually makes sense.
“Everything I stated is based on very basic physics. If it wasnt youd be able to find something wrong.”
Some physics, then lots of not physics, just assertions of the form ‘then this will happen, and then this other thing will happen’ which are the behaviors of a complex system, and thus conjecture.
Whereas when real physics is applied and what happens is calculated (rather than conjectured) for this system, such as with Manabe and Wethereld 1967, or better with GCM models, it is found that CO2 produces warming of the surface (land and ocean) and the atmosphere.
And the water vapor produces feedback and additional warming.
A good example of the erroneous conjecture is this:”The result is more of the water vapor condenses into liquid or solid water. Theres less water vapor left behind.
This process releases the energy collected from the surface and would lead to a warming of this part of the atmosphere if not for the reduction in water vapor. With less water vapor the trapping of upwelling IR is reduced.”
The measurements show the opposite: water vapor has been increasing, as the troposphere warms, and the increase results in more trapping of upwelling IR.
Would you please link to a peer-reviewed paper which demonstrates that CO2 cools the oceans. You’ll have to excuse my unwillingness to accept the unsupported musings of someone who doesn’t even qualify as an amateur.
Nate claims “The measurements show the opposite: water vapor has been increasing”
The opposite of what? I clearly stated water vapor would increase. That’s what happens with increased evaporation. You just stated I am right.
Since water vapor greenhouse effect is saturated at low levels of the atmosphere, it doesn’t matter whether it is increased there. What matters is in the higher atmosphere where it is not saturated.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
As we can see, it has decreased as predicted by this simple logic.
AQ provides a nice example of basic physics denial: “Would you please link to a peer-reviewed paper which demonstrates that CO2 cools the oceans. ”
You actually need a peer reviewed paper to explain simple physics to you? LOL. If you can’t understand the very basic physics I presented then you aren’t capable of understanding science period. That means even a simple climate paper would be way beyond your grasp.
“The speed of the convective currents determines how high in the atmosphere the water vapor reaches. Therefore, it will now be carried higher into colder parts of the upper troposphere. The result is more of the water vapor condenses into liquid or solid water. Theres less water vapor left behind.”
Riiiight. Again conjecture. The water cycle and cloud formation and how it changes with GW is not ‘simple physics’.
Unlike your conjectures, GCM models have to consider and include the complexity.
Each time you say stuff like “You actually need a peer reviewed paper to explain simple physics to you” you sound quite ridiculous.
Nate is clearly stressed out: “”Unlike your conjectures, GCM models have to consider and include the complexity.”
GCMs do not “include” the complexity at this level. They can’t do clouds, do you really think they are modelling convection currents? As a result, they make assumptions. Those assumptions lead to the non-existent tropical hot spot. Obviously, their assumptions are wrong and I’m pointing out why.
“Each time you say stuff like You actually need a peer reviewed paper to explain simple physics to you you sound quite ridiculous.”
Why did you leave out the question mark? If you are going to quote me, include the entire context.
“They cant do clouds, do you really think they are modelling convection currents? As a result, they make assumptions.”
And yet for you, its just simple physics at work. You don’t need assumptions.
So stupid.
The GCM can reproduce the large scale convection patterns and how these change under AGW. That’s why they are called General Circulation Models.
Indeed clouds are harder.
These models find warming of surface and atmosphere, and a water vapor increase that adds to the GHE, a positive feedback.
It is very unlikely that you have found the secret sauce that these models missed.
GCMs are just a computer-aided form of a thought experiment. Everything is dependent upon the variables you use and how you choose to manipulate them and what effects you recognize and what effects you ignore.
Nate says:
”Unlike your conjectures, GCM models have to consider and include the complexity.”
Nate argues that computers think and should be obeyed.
Bill stalks and baits.
“GCMs first assume CO2 generated IR causes warming and actual physics shows it wont.”
False they use physics and complex Earth properties to find addwd CO2 causes warming.
You have delusions that they have missed the key and basic physics that you have discovered.
Play with Modtran which uses real physics You can add extra CO2 or extra water vapor, and it will calculate the changes in UW or DW IR, at various altitudes.
Test your speculations.
http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot
Richard, the problem with your ‘physics’ scenario is aptly described by Bill:
“Everything is dependent upon the variables you use and how you choose to manipulate them and what effects you recognize and what effects you ignore.”
Nate says: “And yet for you, its just simple physics at work. You dont need assumptions.
So stupid.”
Look, if you have some actual physics that I have left out, feel free to point it out. But, you don’t. All you have is denial.
I have provided solid physics to support my claims as to why the GCM assumptions are wrong. GCMs first assume CO2 generated IR causes warming and actual physics shows it won’t. The models then claim that enhanced convection will not occur which is again refuted by basic physics. Sorry, your worship of GCMs is unfounded and you cannot provide any science to support your view.
“The models then claim that enhanced convection will not occur which is again refuted by basic physics.”
False. You erroneously assume the models are not using physics to find out what happens to convection. They certainly do.
Nate, models use code, not physics. They can’t simulate at physical levels. The models would take centuries to simulate a few minutes of real time. That’s why they make assumptions. All you are getting with GCMs is the assumptions coded in by the programmers.
“Nate, models use code, not physics. They cant simulate at physical levels.”
That’s quite ignorant, Richard.
The models are solving physics equations from fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. The same ones solved in numerical weather models, the ones that do a damn good job of predicting the weather.
Using numerical computation to solve physics equations was done first in the Manhattan Project.
It is quite normal and useful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model
“AGCMs consist of a dynamical core which integrates the equations of fluid motion, typically for:
surface pressure
horizontal components of velocity in layers
temperature and water vapor in layers
radiation, split into solar/short wave and terrestrial/infrared/long wave”
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
7 day change??
Look at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/urbanization-effects-on-ghcn-temperature-trends-part-iii-using-population-density-1880-2015/#comment-1464773
That was also said 7 (or so) days ago.
So its a 14 day (or so) cooling now.
Nah
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Are you saying that the tropics is not going to feed into higher latitudes?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/mdrglob.png
Blindsley Hood is an adept ace at showing what cools while silently keeping hidden what gets warmer:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Comme il est ennuyeux et opinionâtre, ce mec!
Ooops?! ‘opinionâtre’ ?! An unwanted synthesis of ‘opinionated’ and ‘opiniâtre’, as it seems :-{(
Duh.
Whereas Blinny does not want to acknowledge any data that does not show warming. In fact the data shows both warming and cooling and the future will determine which is the most relevant.
Blindsley Hood
As long as NOAA’s CFSv2 forecasts for ENSO showed it falling and falling into a strong La Nina, you and a few other die-hard coolistas never tired of posting the link to it.
But now the CFSv2 data points to an even stronger El Nino and therefore no longer shows what you want it to show – simply because you are wedded to an imminent global cooling.
And then – wonder of wonders – instead of the suddenly wrong NOAA forecast, I remember connections to very short cooling phases.
It’s the exact same attitude as your domineering display of the latest monthly UAH readings (11, OMG) lower than for the same month a year ago.
I had shown you results of SQL queries from my database, which proved that this was nothing special: it happened already three times in UAH’s history.
But that didn’t bother you, because only the short-term counts for you – but of course only if it’s about an upcoming cooling off!
*
This, Blindsley Hood, is what really matters:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Just like a year ago!
I think you ‘predicted’ an El Nino, 1, 2 and 3 years ago also.
As usual, Blindsley insidiously insinuates Hood, which he cannot prove, and which is false at that.
In the summer of 2021 I was still a 100% fan of JMA TCC’s ENSO forecasts (based on Nino3).
It took me weeks to accept that they were wrong and that TCC had completely underestimated ENSO’s turn from a week-long El Nino to a stronger La Nina, in contrast to NOAA’s CFSv2.
I wrote many comments defending TCC – until I finally saw their own backtrack showing values like NOAA.
And of course: I was then stalked – mostly by the dachshund aka Eben, but also by… Blindsley Hood.
I never predict anything: like many others – you included, I follow the path laid out by those I consider competent enough.
Blinny complains that others get things wrong, but never him of course.
“Are you saying that the tropics is not going to feed into higher latitudes?”
The random short-term noise in a part of the equatorial Pacific generally does not measurably feed into higher latitudes.
What does is sustained warming of the Eastern Pacific over months that delivers sustained convection of latent heat and moisture into the troposphere which is then transported around the Globe.
That is scheduled for the Fall.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/uah-tropics.jpeg
for last months tropical data. This months follows in a few days.
Rebuttal? Seems not.
Ok guys, answer me this.
Dr. Spencer wrote recently about heat island effects etc. Does the same effect influence the look down satellites measurements? Well, enough to make a difference?
Reanalyzer? Whats that? A new kind of thermometer?
Averages for each decade:
80s … -0.28
90s … -0.14
00s … -0.03
10s … +0.12
20s (first 39 months) … +0.21
This despite being in La Nina for most of this decade so far.
Yep. The average ONI is -0.7 from 2020/01 to present. The 2010’s average was 0.0.
In the real world decades start at 1 and end at 10. There’s only been 27 months in the 20s. I realize this will throw a wrench into your calculations.
Starting at 1 for each decade…
UAH TLT
80s … -0.28 C
90s … -0.14 C
00s … 0.00 C
10s … +0.14 C
20s … +0.15 C
ONI
80s … +0.05
90s … +0.05
00s … -0.05
10s … +0.05
20s … -0.83
FWIW my analysis shows a 0.14 C per 1 unit change in ONI response for UAH TLT from ENSO. If we adjust the 20s by 0.14 C * (-0.83 – 0.05) = 0.12 C then we would have an ENSO adjusted 20s value of +0.27 C.
UAH TLT (ENSO corrected)
80s … -0.27 C
90s … -0.13 C
00s … 0.01 C
10s … +0.13 C
20s … +0.27 C
“In a recent YouGov survey, 64% of Americans said the next decade will begin on Jan. 1, 2020, and end on Dec. 31, 2029. But nearly 20% said they weren’t sure and slightly fewer people said the next decade won’t start until Jan. 1, 2021.”
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/27/791546842/people-cant-even-agree-on-when-the-decade-ends
” In the real world decades start at 1 and end at 10. ”
Though there was no ‘year 0’, the ‘real world’ is what we all use every day.
The third millennium started at 2000, and no one did wait for 2001 to start it – especially not all software packages worldwide.
Actually that is incorrect.
The “3rd millennium AD” began in 2001.
But “the 2000s” began in 2000.
Similarly, the “3rd decade of the 21st century” began in 2021.
The “2020s” began in 2020.
The “first decade of my life” began on the day I was born.
The “fifth decade of this data set” began in December 2018.
But no one goes around talking about “the 3rd decade of the 21st century”, so in that respect you are correct. Everyone thinks of “the decades” as meaning the 80s, 90s, etc.
Formally you are of course right, but I suppose you have understood what I wanted to say.
What a ridiculous statement.
A decade is a 10-year period – nothing more. It starts whenever you choose it to start. But I have never heard someone saying “last decade” or “next decade” and meaning what you claim.
AQ…besides the point that your stats are meaningless, what other point might you be trying to make?
What we are seeing in your stats is on-going interference by NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut in the fudging of surface temperatures.
So you continue to assert without proof. How sad is it that you don’t understand that I was dealing with satellite data, not surface temperatures. Perhaps you’d care to explain how surface temperature data affects UAH averages.
I am questioning your math, your ability to calculate a meaningful average. For example, you claim an average of -0.03 which has been achieved largely by UAH moving the baseline range by a decade.
If the average after the baseline adjustment is 0.03C then before the adjustment it was above the baseline. That’s what you need to watch carefully with averages, is the context from which the average is taken.
Personally, I’d forget about the math and look out the window to experience the weather and the ocean level. The math can only offer a ballpark figure that is misleading. The graphs deal with fractions of degrees C which is meaningless.
The baseline is not relevant. What is important is the CHANGE over time. It makes no difference whether those values are -0.28, -0.14, -0.03, +0.12 and +0.21, or whether they are +0.72, +0.86, +0.97, +1.12 and +1.21.
I have been teaching maths for 35 years, so excuse me for not taking maths advice from someone who doesn’t understand that DIFFERENCES are preserved after changing the baseline.
And NO, that was NOT the only thing you were questioning. You are now trying to run away from your ridiculous claim that NOAA has changed the UAH data.
The only time you need to be careful with baselines is if you are comparing things that are on different baselines.
Which is not the case here. As has been said a zillion times here, anomalies are used in order to measure change over time (and compare results for any locations/regions with ease).
Anomalies are an obfuscation of reality therefore they are not representative of that reality. Specifying a baseline that represent a 30 years average, obviously skews temperatures from one 30 year period to the next.
Even if you use absolute temperatures, stating a global average based on them is essentially meaningless. Stating a global average of 15C does nothing for someone freezing his/her butt off in the winters of the Arctic or Antarctica.
I think it reached 15 C here the other day and by night time it was down to about 3C. So, what does a 15C average tell you globally for people in specific areas?
It’s all mathematical bs to me but I do understand UAH offering it professionally.
Yes, you are indeed crediting Roy Spencer and John Christy with engaging in “mathematical bs.”
In reality, you are simply ignorant of the utilities and limitations of using anomalies, and your claptrap is what is obfuscating the matter.
Barry,
You wrote –
“Yes, you are indeed crediting Roy Spencer and John Christy with engaging in “mathematical bs.””
I couldn’t see that particular credit. Could you provide a quote – or are you just making stuff up ?
Last line of his post:
https://i.imgur.com/FGaeZIy.png
Barry,
You wrote
Yes, you are indeed crediting Roy Spencer and John Christy with engaging in mathematical bs.
I couldnt see that particular credit. Could you provide a quote or are you just making stuff up ?
You have provided a link to something or other. I take it you can’t provide a quote, and you are trying to avoid looking foolish.
OK.
Robertson: “It’s all mathematical bs to me but I do understand UAH offering it professionally.’
This ornery site barred me from posting a copy and paste of the quote earlier today. The link was to a screen shot of it.
“Its all mathematical bs to me but I do understand UAH offering it professionally.”
This is clearly how Gordon feels about science in general. Science will file his opinions in the appropriate place.
Stats for March –
7th warmest March, but still a lot cooler than March 2016, at 0.64.
Of the top 10 warmest March’s 7 have happened in the last 10 years.
My forecast for 2022 (just a simple linear extrapolation) saw a bit of a rise, up to 0.13 +/- 0.13C from 0.09C.
“Pause” is now starting in July 2014. I think this might be the first point in a while where there is no starting point that will give you a trend Of 0.3C / decade. But the tend since September 2007 is still twice the overall trend.
That’s according to the fudgers at NOAA, GISS and Had-crut.
Claiming one month or one year is warmer than another has more to do with opinion than fact. We are dealing with small fractions of a degree warming, and based on the size of the planet and how poorly it is covered by surface thermometers, averages must be relegated to the garbage bin.
Gordon Robertson,
“Thats according to the fudgers at NOAA, GISS and Had-crut.”
No it’s according to UAH. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you. I’m nearly quoting the figures supplied by Dr Roy Spencer in this very blog post. I make no claims on their accuracy.
Bellman’s analysis is based on UAH data, I believe.
barry,
You wrote –
“Bellmans analysis is based on UAH data, I believe.”
And this is supposed to be, what? Important? Meaningful? Can you name someone who cares what you “believe”?
He made the same reply to my comment. I clearly made a comment on UAH figures, then he claimed that these figured had been “fudged” by NOAA. That’s what happens when people recite mantra – they recite it without thinking.
AQ,
You wrote –
“He made the same reply to my comment. I clearly made a comment on UAH figures, then he claimed that these figured had been “fudged” by NOAA.”
You claim an anonymous person made an unstated reply to an undefined comment, but you were supposedly very clear about something apparently irrelevant to NOAA.
If you are trying to say something, just say it – you are allowed to quote what someone said, disagree, and provide reasons for doing so, if you wish. Or you can just dance around the point, stirring up a veritable storm of vacuity.
Are you disagreeing with something that someone said, or just hammering your keyboard for no good reason?
Swenson,
Gordon said that the monthly rankings Bellman gave are ‘fudged,” attributing the fudging to NOAA, GISS and CRU.
Instead they are from UAH, which Gordon lionises.
The man doesn’t think. Neither do you.
Temperature still oscillates in the 0.0-0.5C band. It has been there for almost a decade. In what direction and when will the next step change?
stephen…no one knows, we have not been around long enough to witness a long term average and how the planet behaves in a so-called normal mode.
Even scientists studying this down the road will be out of luck since NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut have fudged the record so badly it will be completely unreliable.
While CO2 continues to accumulate in the atmos the long term trend will be upwards, punctuated by occasional el Ninos that make it look like a step-jump, as Roy demonstrated here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/
Roy Spencer: “Why did I do this? As a couple of people already guessed, it was mostly to show how a linear trend superimposed upon a cycle can yield periods of rapid change, followed by no change, then rapid change once again. In other words, a linear trend combined with a sinusoidal cycle can lead to plateaus.”
barry,
You wrote –
“While CO2 continues to accumulate in the atmos the long term trend will be upwards, . . . “.
Do you have a particular physical reason for believing you can predict the future? Four and a half billion years of CO2, H2O, and continuous sunlight has resulted in a fall in temperature.
Obviously, reality is not a factor in your belief that you can foresee the future. How are you at predicting the stock market, or horse racing outcomes? Some deluded SkyDragon cultists seem to believe that “maths”, and “formulas”, combined with advice from farmers with greenhouses, enable “experts” to divine the future!
I believe you are delusional, but others may flock to you – in awe at your ability to predict the future.
Good luck.
Median for last 5 years: +0.21
Median for previous 5 years: +0.15
In the U.S., still frost and snow in the west, tornadoes in the east.
https://i.ibb.co/mFbDGss/gfs-toz-NA-f072.png
https://i.ibb.co/dWsJVFw/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f072.png
The planet has been warming for hundreds of years. I don’t know why anyone would expect the warming to suddenly stop now. The current pause may go on a while longer, but it will end… just as the previous pause ended.
Mechanism?
If I knew that, I wouldn’t be here leaving random comments… I’d be doing the talk show circuit and making millions.
At least we can enjoy your honesty here… :-{)
For recorded history we’ve had fairly stable temps with small variation.
So without a mechanism in mind, such as AGW, the sensible prediction would be small variations around a long term gradual cooling trend since the Holocene optimum, which was ~ 8000 years ago.
The hockey stick is fake (although the author who likes to file lawsuits is obviously a very honest and competent scientist who just made an innocent mistake). The Medieval Warm Period was real. The Little Ice Age was real. The current warming is evidenced from the 19th Century and probably started in the 18th Century. Where is the mechanism for that? Stable weather and climate is a Climate Change talking point for uninformed people.
It’s a whole hockey league of hockey sticks now. And FWIW Mann not only accepts the MWP as real he has even hypothesized the primary mechanism being the AMOC.
bdgwx,
That would be Michael Mann the faker, fraud, scofflaw, deadbeat, and self styled “climate scientist”, would it?
Maybe you could explain why the Earth, after cooling for four and a half billion years, suddenly changed course, and started to heat up.
CO2 and H2O have been in the atmosphere for billions of years, I believe, but you may have more up-to-date information.
Mike Flynn,
A hockey league is many teams.
A bit like the Sky Dragon cranks here, but without the sock puppets.
There are now more than 3-dozen ‘hockey sticks’ in the research literature, based on different proxies, different methods and done by different groups around the world.
You reckon they’re all fake?
barry,
You wrote –
“You reckon theyre all fake?”
Of course. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?
Yes.
barry,
And why is that? “Just because”, perhaps?
No.
That has to dumbest thing Ive ever read. The climate has never been stable before. It is chaotic and always changing. Our recorded history is basically a grain of sand if youre talking about justhe MWP and the LIA.
Nice self-referential sentence to open with!
AQ,
You wrote-
“Nice self-referential sentence to open with!”
Your keyboard needs mindless pounding again, does it?
Idiot.
Are you asking for permission to pound my keyboard? Sure, if that tickles your fancy. It comes with male and female connectors – I suspect you’ll be needing the former.
AQ,
You wrote-
Nice self-referential sentence to open with!
Your keyboard needs mindless pounding again, does it?
Idiot.
skeptikal…no one knows the extent to which the Little Ice Age cooled the planet for over 400 years till it ended circa 1850. It is estimated to be 1 to 2C, and globally, even though the cheaters at the IPCC are claiming it was a local phenomenon. I am still looking for their explanation for how Europe can cool 1C to 2C while the rest of the planet remains at a normal global average.
In France, the Mer de Glace glacier near Chamonix, expanded so enormously that it swept down a valley, wiping out farms and villages that had been established for 100s of years. One can only imagine the increase in ice depth of the mountains and glaciers elsewhere in the world, especially in solid land masses like Greenland and Antarctica.
It could take another century or more for those ice regions to normalize and that takes a lot of solar energy and heat spread from the Tropics to melt the ice back to normal. That’s especially true since those regions get a limited amount of solar energy, and none for some of the year.
Syan Akasofu, who has expertise as a geophysicist (he pioneered research on the solar wind) claims we should rewarm at 0.5C per century. If he’s right, we have warmed about 1C since 1850, about 170+ years, and if the figure is correct about the LIA lowering global averages 2C, then we have at least another century to go to get back to normal.
Instead of bragging about their endlessly ignorant and incompetent stuff, people like Robertson should try to educate themselves, e.g. by spending a few weeks in the European Alps and visiting hydrologists at ETH Zurich in Switzerland who have been monitoring glacier retreat for decades.
Here is a report published in 2011 by these ETH people:
https://www.bafu.admin.ch/dam/bafu/de/dokumente/hydrologie/externe-studien-berichte/gletscher-und-abflussveraenderungen-im-zeitraum-1900-2100-in-sieben-einzugsgebieten-der-schweiz.pdf.download.pdf/gletscher-und-abflussveraenderungen-im-zeitraum-1900-2100-in-sieben-einzugsgebieten-der-schweiz.pdf
It’s in German of course, and the pdf file is moreover full of copy&paste blockers (thanks, Adobe), so Google Translator might not help much.
*
ETH Zurich is anything but a bunch of climate alarmists, and this work was commissioned by Switzerland’s Department of Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications.
But as we know, people like Robertson prefer to cowardly discredit such people and denigrate their work, conveniently hidden behind their fake blogger pseudo-identities.
We are not talking about glacier activity in the Alps over the past few decades, we are interested in how much they have receded since 1850 at the end of the Little Ice Age. More importantly, we want to know how much they expanded since about 1300 when the LIA struck.
I have already posted about the Mer de Glace glacier in the French Alps and how, during the LIA, it expanded down a valley, wiping out established farms and villages in its way.
Klimate Klowns are trying yo make it appear as if the Mer de Glace was always a certain length and that anthropogenic forces since 1850 have caused it to recede.
What kinds of idiots ignore that a glacier had grown enormously since 1300 due to a mini ice age then began receding after the mini ice age ended, and blame the recession on anthropogenic gases.
That’s the issue I have with the IPCC and those pushing this catastrophic global warming nonsense. They are all blatant liars and/or too stupid to look at the real evidence.
Bndidon, you can paste the link into ChatGPT and ask for it to translate from German to English. You should check the results, as the AI is no more perfect than google translate. But it will put out a complete translation that you can copy, and then save it to pdf or other app to link here.
You’ll have to sign up with ChatGPT, but after that it’s a cinch. Be sure to check the results, though. The AI has strengths and weaknesses that google translate doesn’t, so you could ask ChatGPT to print out the original German, copy that from the interface, and then run it through google translate or other translation engine. ChatGPT can solve a few problems like this.
Actually, the document is too long for ChatGPT to translate in entirety. If you can break it into smaller chunks then you could do it piecemeal. Not a good workaround after all, sorry. ChatGPT can give you the original text or translation for any particular page, but not the whole document. I just asked it to translate page 10 and gave the link, and it did it no problem.
Sorry barry: my interest in things like ChatGPT is equal to zero dot zero.
binny…”Robertson again shows the immeasurable level of his ignorance, incompetence and stupidity. He is not even able to download any data, let alone to process it and to present us a graph showing what he did”.
***
Why should I re-invent the wheel? Roy has already done a magnificent job of analyzing the real data and presenting it to us on a very informative graph, complete with a red running average curve. I have every faith in Roy and his work, I think he is a scientist of integrity, one of the few left
Perhaps you would explain to the good readers of Roy’s blog that you are here representing climate alarmists and that your sole purpose is to misrepresent what Roy presents here on his blog.
****
“And he certainly wouldnt be able to create a list of cosine weighting factors for say a 2.5 degree grid, but drooling on this blog, he can!”
***
Once again, why do we need cosine weighting factors? You can’t even explain what it’s doing. If we are talking lines of latitude, which are measured as the number of degrees departure of a radial line from the Equator, the cosine is obviously the ratio of the radial line length to the length of a line along the equator, when formed with a right angle to a vertical line. The sine is the ratio of the opposite length (vertical line) of the same triangle formed, and neither line is on the surface of the planet.
So, explain to me what mumbo-jumbo this cosine function is supposed to represent. Obviously it’s nothing more than statistical jargon to enable yet another climate model.
And don’t forget, I took a year course in advanced statistical and probability theory for engineers while at university. I don’t pretend to remember a lot of it, mainly because I was up to my butt in alligators trying to cope with other EE and math courses. We quickly learned to priorities and I’m afraid probability and statistics was not rated that high up the ladder of my requirements.
Still, I remember enough to understand when I am hearing bs. There is no need to be applying cosine weighting functions when we are dealing with an already fudged linear trend. I am referring to the surface data not the UAH sat data.
****
Imagine! This is the guy who is not even able to correctly compare anomalies computed out of different reference periods!”
***
That’s rich, coming from someone who has no concept of what an anomaly is. Even when I provide the definition of an anomaly from his authority figure, NOAA, he still doesn’t understand.
NOAA defined an anomaly as a deviation for a long term average, and that anomalies above the average represent warming while those below represent cooling.
When you start introducing statistics without understand why they are being applied, or the context of applying them, you move into a fairy world of pseudo-science. All I have tried to point out is the 24 year flat rend we have experienced since 1998, with the exception of an unexplained and sudden jump step following the 2015 super EN.
You cannot claim a flat trend and a positive trend in the same range, therefore the declared positive trend of 0.13C/decade is wrong in that range. That smooth 0.13C/decade warming claim suits the anthropogenic meme but it is plain wrong. The truth is, we’ve had 24 years of relatively flat trends since 1998 and that throws the anthropogenic theory out the widow.
****
“And who is dumb enough to gullibly suck what his authority chiefio aka E.M. Smith tells about NOAA time series:”
***
Let’s put it this way Binny van der Klown, E. M. Smith has done stellar work researching the chicanery of NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut, and I’d rather accept his good work than the blethering of a nutter Klown like you.
Surely the point of area weighting is to correct for the fact that lon/lat areas are different sizes depending on latitude. Thus, if you do an unweighted average the tropics will be given more weight in the average just because the grid boxes are larger than at the poles.
Area weighting the globe gives a slightly lower long term warming trend than without area weighting.
https://towardsdatascience.com/the-correct-way-to-average-the-globe-92ceecd172b7
Barry,
I suppose you can explain the weighting that results in the Earth having cooled over the last four and a half billion years – and then reversing itself, and deciding to warm up for no particular reason?
Inconvenient fact, four and a half billion years of cooling, I know. How do you justify denying fact in favour of fantasy?
A temperature is what it is. If “weighting” is based on anything except fantasy, then one thermometer can be selected and “weighted” to indicate the “global average”, surely? This would save a considerable amount of time, effort, and money.
Or is “weighting” just a delusional SkyDragon euphemism for torturing data into the shape needed?
Why would I try to have a conversation with a barking dog?
Barry,
You wrote –
“Why would I try to have a conversation with a barking dog?”
Presumably, you are asking some sort of bizarre gotcha, but I’ll play your silly game. I don’t know – why would you try to have a conversation with a barking dog?
Do you often have conversations with dogs? Cats?
Sounds strange to me, but I suppose you believe you get something out of it.
Carry on.
Presumably you do not know what is a gotcha, Mike Flynn.
barry…from article…
“…a 1 x 1 grid box occupies less area as it moves from the tropics to the pole”.
***
This is a load of tommy rot. A 1 degree x 1 degree area is exactly the same on a sphere at any location. The author is far too gullible to be writing about this. He has likely never studies triple integrals used to calculate surfaces on spheres.
If modelers are using a Mercator projection to derive 1 x 1 degree cells they are the fools. Their models should b programmed to treat the Earth as a sphere, not a flat-Earth model as he admits.
If you are using a Mercator projection, you should be smart enough to realize a 1 x 1 degree square does not look the same on a Mercator projection yet data from that area should be over the same area.
This is a problem when trying to model the Earth’s surface, or anything else. If you have no idea what you are doing, you will run into issues like this.
The focus of this thread is cosine weighting, Why would you need it unless you are applying it to a non-spherical projection of a real sphere? It would not be required on a real sphere. Then again, climate models don’t apply to a real Earth.
I guess you failed spherical coordinates. Just like you failed the moon’s phases.
I guess you failed spherical coordinates. Just like you failed the moon’s phases.
AQ,
Ah, given up on describing the GHE, have you?
Why don’t you divert into stupidity – making pointless dribbles like “I guess you failed spherical coordinates.”
That’s fairly pointless, isn’t it? Do you think somebody cares what you “guess”?
Maybe you could hazard a guess about the role of the GHE in creating four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, or would that be too much of a strain for a delusional SkyDragon cultist? Go on, guess away!
Dimwit.
Mike, Mike –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Gordon:
“A 1 degree x 1 degree area is exactly the same on a sphere at any location.”
Dear me, how can you say something so ignorant?
Latitude lines are equidistant, longitude lines get closer together the nearer to the poles you are. Therefore the area of a 1 degree by 1 degree grid box gets smaller the nearer the poles you are.
You can see this quite easily in this image.
https://tinyurl.com/24byrfea
If area weighting produces a lower long term warming trend, I don’t know why it would be called a ‘fudge’ done by ‘alarmist’ researchers.
barry,
Well, if a “trend” depends on “weighting”, what would be wrong with creating a cooling trend?
Or does the weighting depend on the current opinion of the weighter?
It might be more productive to look into the reasons for thermometers showing rises in temperature. Some believe that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, Im more inclined to believe it is due to higher temperatures in the vicinity of the thermometers.
What do you think?
Given that weightings depend solely on gridded areas, there is no room for opinion. There is no “weighter” – the weights are simply ratios of areas.
AQ,
Ooooh, the “weightings” depend on the “gridded area”, do they?
So someone who said “If . . .”, and “I don’t know . . .” was delusional? What is the “gridded area”, anyway? Would that be an actual measured surface area, a calculated projected area based on an ever changing geoid or something else entirely?
Next thing, you’ll be trying to convince people that “surface temperature” actually refers to the temperature of the Earth’s surface! Ah well, at least the ex-chairman of the IPCC said “The science is very clear — its loud, articulate and incontrovertible. On this basis I think its time the world moved on,” so that must mean something about something.
Maybe you are confused, and are really referring to the weighting applied when Kriging. Kriging is a deterministic method of interpolation wherein the weight applied to the estimated value is a function of the distance from known data points – beloved of some “climate scientists”, who just make up data to look clever. Called “torturing the data” by some.
Have you managed to figure out the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of global cooling, or have you just decided that the Earth was created “as is”, around 4004 BC, as ArchBishop James Ussher (Professor, Trinity College) calculated. Not an opinion, a professional professorial calculation.
I suppose he was wrong – in your opinion of course, without actually checking his calculations!
Fool.
Has it occurred to you to seek your own answers by doing some research? Of course it hasn’t – your goal is muddying the waters, not seeking answers.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Has it occurred to you to seek your own answers by doing some research? Of course it hasnt your goal is muddying the waters, not seeking answers.”
A gotcha followed by an unsupported opinion!
Who but a fool would demonstrate such ineptitude? I assume that you are attempting to be gratuitously offensive, but of course I generally decline to feel offended, insulted or annoyed by the actions of retarded persons, so you might be wasting your valuable time.
Here’s something you might like to find for me, if you want to be helpful – a description of the GHE which accords with observed fact. I can’t find one.
Only joking, I’d be sending you on a fruitless chase after a fantasy. I’m far too nice to do anything as annoying as that.
Carry on.
Thanks for confirming my previous comment.
AQ,
I take you cant provide a description of the GHE, then?
Colour me unsurprised. Nobody can.
Carry on.
Thanks for conceding by omission that weightings depend only on area.
Nice doing business with you.
AQ,
I take you cant provide a description of the GHE, then?
Colour me unsurprised. Nobody can.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Here –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Why do you keep lying?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Pseudomod
It would be wiser on your part to invite Swenson to stop trolling.
He, and nobody else, is the biggest troll on this blog.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Thanks for the stupid reply.
#2
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
binny…”All what Robertson writes about, be it viruses, Einstein (time dilation used in GPS, the precession of the perihelion of Sun-near planets), astronomy, the Russian aggression in Ukraine, and so on”.
***
Thanks for the opportunity to respond to your inaccurate allegations.
On viruses, I have quoted an expert, someone who discovered the first virus in the ocean, Stephan Lanka. He became interested in claims about viruses and decided to investigate them from the first mention of them in modern literature. What he found is astounding.
As late as 1935, one scientist claimed that no virus could meet the requirement of Koch’s Postulate. By 1953, another scientist had made an erroneous claim about viruses and was awarded the Nobel Prize. Of course, a Nobel prize is not offered on the basis that what the scientist has claimed is true, only on what the Nobel committee thinks is cool.
The truth is, we know far less about viruses than what is claimed today. Virus theory is so messed up these days that a perfectly good method for physically isolating a virus has been replaced by a method that infers a virus rather than detects one.
****
Time dilation is not used in GPS. There is no instrument that can measure time dilation. If time could dilate, all of our clocks would be wrong and the Earth’s rotational speed would need to change since time is based on it.
Furthermore, Einstein’s theory infers that lengths change as well as we approach the speed of light, which is more nonsense. I am sure Einstein was a good guy and he did good work with the discovery of the photoelectric effect, but, really, what else of any use has he discovered?
****
I have never talked about the precession of perihelion.
****
Re the Russian aggression, I have heard no one talk about the mindless aggression of the Ukrainian government in Kyiv on fellow Ukrainians in the Donetsk region. They have treated them brutally while the West stood around cheering and arming them the government.
“I have heard no one talk about the mindless aggression of the Ukrainian government in Kyiv on fellow Ukrainians in the Donetsk region.”
Because the trouble there was neither mindless nor without provocation. The Ukrainian government intervened after Russian-backed, pro-Russian forces in the region seized government buildings and began a local insurgency, while Crimea was being taken by Russia.
Your myopic and twisted framing of this issue is likely why you don’t get many people parroting your nonsense.
“KIEV (Reuters) – Ukraines parliament approved a law on Thursday that grants special status to the Ukrainian language and makes it mandatory for public sector workers, a move Russia described as divisive and said discriminated against Russian-speakers.” Other similar patriotic laws have since been passed. This will teach the brutal Russian sub-human beasts a damn fine lesson, I suppose.
Imagine if Canada banned French or English. Maybe the US could insist that Government workers were only allowed to use English. No more “Felice Navidad”, or similarly un-American activities. Or China could decree no more Tibetan, English, or Portuguese would be allowed. Bad luck for Tibet, Hong Kong, or Macau people. Follow Ukraine – if it’s Ukrainian, it must be excellent.
The Crimea reference is interesting, though. The Ottomans, British, French and Sardinians fought the Crimean War against the Russians, in Crimea presumably. When did the freedom loving Ukrainians conquer Crimea? Or were they given Crimea by someone who didn’t actually own it?
When are you going to help out in Ukraine? I admire your passion, but I won’t be joining you. Along with more than 75% of the world’s population, Im happy to leave it to people like you.
Good luck.
> Imagine if Canada banned French or English.
Imagine if you knew something about Canuckistan, Mike Flynn.
Anything.
Winsome Wee Willy,
I’m happy enough to leave the imaginary world to you.
Imagine if you were not braying, Mike.
Worried Wee Willy,
Im happy enough to leave the imaginary world to you.
I know that you will keeping braying, Mike.
You always do.
barry…”The Ukrainian government intervened after Russian-backed, pro-Russian forces in the region seized government buildings and began a local insurgency, while Crimea was being taken by Russia”.
***
You are talking about two separate incidents. The rebellion in the Ukraine circa 2014 was by Russian-speaking Ukrainians. They were rebelling against armed Ukrainian nationalists ousting a democratically-elected Ukrainian president for whom they had voted.
You mention nothing about the protest of Ukrainians against that president, that became violent when armed nationalists intervened. Why do you support the undemocratic removal of a Ukrainian president by force and support the suppression of other Ukrainians who protested the ouster?
The Russians took Crimea back in retaliation over the illegal removal of the Ukrainian president. From what I have read, the Ukraine had no claim to it, and when they annexed it, the Russians were weak.
The Ukrainians never owned Crimea, it was part of the former USSR.
I don’t care what you think, from my POV, you don’t call yourself a democratic country and allow your president to be removed in a coup. No other democratic country would stand for that. Heck, here in Canada, they called out the troops when there was a faint suggestion of it during the trucker’s convoy standoff.
Gordon,
“The Russians took Crimea back in retaliation over the illegal removal of the Ukrainian president.”
In your universe, it is apparently ok for one country to invade another if they disapprove of that country’s domestic issues.
“You are talking about two separate incidents.”
Rubbish. The Ukrainian government suppression that you brought up as if it justified a Russian invasion, was directly a result of the insurgency in the Donbas region of Ukraine, which was armed and backed by Russia, which had been agitating secession there for years.
Post-soviet Ukraine is hardly a model for peaceful democracy. Like many countries with recently-shifted borders and new independence, it has been riven by competing interests from various groups. Russia has interfered in the Ukraine to foment these divisions. None of this justifies an international invasion.
Gordon,
“Furthermore, Einsteins theory infers that lengths change as well as we approach the speed of light, which is more nonsense.”
That wasn’t Einstein, it was Lorentz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lorentz
Keep your eggheads straight.
Bumbling diversionary Bobby,
You don’t seem to be able to provide a copy of the description of the GHE, but you have plenty of time to waste on pointless diversions.
I know that you are trying to be as unhelpful as possible by refusing to supply a copy of the description of the GHE that accords with reality. What’s the matter, Bobby? Top-secret submarine stuff, is it? The secret submarine heating method – keep CO2 levels above 5000 ppm, and the GHE makes the submarine so hot that it can run turn water into steam, and run underwater steam engines with the excess heat! Only joking – it’s the sort of nonsense that a delusional SkyDragon cultist is likely to believe!
Or does the GHE only work in the imaginations of delusional SkyDragon cultists, who can’t translate their wishful thinking into words on paper?
By the way, George Fitzgerald predated Lorentz, and both speculated in an endeavor to explain results from experiments showing the apparent absence of the luminiferous ether. Einstein had a bit of a think, and came up with explanations for some previously unsupported hypotheses by employing his special theory of relativity.
You just copy random bits off the internet, don’t you? It might not make you look as clever as you hope. I can copy stuff off the internet faster than you can. Do you admit that this makes me look cleverer than you?
Dimwit.
Mikey,
I have already provided a description of the greenhouse effect for you.
So you are lying, you have a bad memory, and you are stupid.
“keep CO2 levels above 5000 ppm,”
On submarines, no they don’t. And you would know that if you passed a submarine qualification board and was entitled to wear the dolphins.
bob…Lorentz should have gotten credit for it even though he too was wrong. It was his formula for relative motion that Einstein borrowed for his own relativity theory. He also borrowed e = mc^2.
Here’s a good, short video on the Lorentz transformation, which transforms the coordinates of a stationary body A as viewed from a moving body B.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHqD2aDn8Vk&ab_channel=MichelvanBiezen
Couple of things to note.
1)The time equation is tA = tB/(root [1 – u^2/c^2])
note that u = velocity
This clearly suggests that time can change, which is a load of nonsense. The only time we know is the time based on the Earth’s rotation. If time changes, the Earth’s rotational velocity must change.
2)the other formula is for length, LA = LB. root(1 – u^2/c^2)
This bs as well. There is no way the atoms in a mass are going to lengthen or shorten based on velocity.
Einstein should have noticed such basic errors before he carried on with the work of Lorentz.
You should distinguish between time periods and time.
It’s not time that changes, it’s the experience of time that changes, I suggest you read some science fiction.
Because you can’t get Einstein’s papers.
bob, please stop trolling.
Believe What You Say
“Spider analogy is excellent”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ2qOWLh12E
It has been something I have wondered about.
Since the mass of the troposphere is constant (deviations can occur during El Nino and La Nina) the global temperature is limited. Real climate change occurs when changes in solar activity result in changes in circulation in the stratosphere. The polar vortex in winter works its way up to the equator, as shown in the graphics below.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2023.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
Incorrect. The average height of the tropopause has risen about 100 metres over the last 20 years.
AQ,
You know this because . . .?
Because that is common knowledge to good Climaball players, Mike Flynn.
You had more than 10 years of training. When will you do any research?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The major troll – here as anywhere else on the blog – that’s Flynnson, and no one else.
Bindidon, you ought to be able to recognize that Little Willy is a troll.
Antonin Qwerty says:
”Incorrect. The average height of the tropopause has risen about 100 metres over the last 20 years.”
How was that measured? Climate models?
” the global temperature is limited”
That’s a new one…
We are still waiting for ANY demonstration of how it isn’t limited Nate.
Regale us again Nate of what your crystal ball says about how much warming we should expect from a doubling of CO2.
Bill tries the reverse the standard of proof ploy.
Nate admits to not being able to give an answer. Why is that Nate seems a lot of others in here seem to have an answer. Do you disagree?
Bill fails at the reverse the standard of proof ploy, and fails to understand that he has failed, and why.
Index Nino 3.4 is clearly “fluctuating”.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Your interpretation of this being … ?
You ask because . . . ?
Mike please stop trolling.
G,
You are confused. Who is Mike?
If you are referring to me, I comment as I wish, and how I wish, so you are wasting your time if you think your request is likely to influence me. Is there a particular reason that you think I should take notice of you?
I might take notice if you could provide a description of the GHE which accords with observed fact. Otherwise, I assume you are just another delusional SkyDragon cultist, preferring fantasy to fact. Would you value the opinion of such a person?
Mike Flynn,
You are Mike.
Galaxie500 = Willard
Projections
Exactly, gb.
You’re projecting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The New Pause lengthens to 8 years 9 months
“I have set out these new calculations in some detail because once it is more widely known it will help to bring the climate nonsense to an end.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/03/the-new-pause-lengthens-to-8-years-9-months/
It’s whistling in the graveyard.
The Earths Green Future is Forked
https://judithcurry.com/2023/04/03/the-earths-green-future-is-forked/
I rather look at it in simple terms, China was Mexico, other countries will be Mexico for corporations [or the global order],
and their hoped for future is Mexico.
And if most of world population doesn’t follow order, then some wars can be made.
It’s actually pretty funny – how brain dead the ‘analysis’ is, as well as the fact that people lap this up like those who give astrology credence.
Method – run a linear regression starting around the highest anomaly in the record. This will give you a downward trend to present. Based on this hilariously obvious cherry-pick, claim stuff about the trend.
Many in the climate debates predicted that the new “pause” would start when we got a new highest global temperature.
I’ll predict that when the trend goes positive, ‘skeptics’ will pick their new start point around the next record-breaking global temperature and recycle all the talking points.
Sometimes dumb is funny. This is one of those instances.
The snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades measured 237% of average for the date, which is the time of year when snow is generally at its peak and provides a good idea of how much water will melt off for cities and farms. Mondays snow level reflects 61.1 inches of water.
The accumulation of snow marks the most snow since the state Department of Water Resources established its modern network of monitoring sites in the mid-1980s. Its also more than the 227% of average that was found during the April snow survey in the blustery year of 1983 and comparable to the epic year of 1952, which also tallied 237% in April.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/climate/article/california-s-booming-snowpack-ties-70-year-17875978.php?fbclid=IwAR15spIYTufkaCPsPJx531FPl2tc2uLiLQoLcs1o2QD8wSOxtB0621kK4LI
Global warming = more glaciers
Check your score
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1464450
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1464499
I don’t share my predictions. But this was the first time I’ve ever predicted the anomaly precisely, and the first time in months I’ve been close.
AQ,
Yes, occasionally guesses are correct. Not often enough to be useful or dependable, of course, even when called “predictions” or “forecasts”.
dont share my predictions ?
sure share a lot of trolling , what a twerpy reply
The irony of you replying to my innocuous non-trolling comment with a trolling one to complain about my supposed trolling.
Indeed, it would appear Hunga-Tonga is still a player.
When you made this claim earlier, you used NASA to back up your claim. I then pointed out that the NASA press release you referred to stated that IF this happened, and IF it was noticeable above the noise, it wouldn’t begin for about three years. Three years after that press release is August 2025. Now you choose to ignore that correction … based on WHAT?
Wrong Ant. I’m not ignoring anything. Your false accusation merely reconfirms your interest in trolling.
The H-T volcano was *unprecedented*, so we may not get all the details for years. NASA has admitted it will cause warming, as already confirmed by UAH. But, they are wrong about the methodology.
If there is enough interest here, maybe Dr. Spencer will expound on it. I suspect he understands it better than most.
Now, you can get back to your trolling….
Sorry to interrupt your trolling.
NASA made no such “admission”. They said it MIGHT cause warming. They said that if it happened it would not begin for about 3 years. And they said it might not be evident above the noise.
Here is the report on the NASA press release. Try reading it yourself:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/08/05/volcano-eruption-tonga-record-climate/
AQ,
In their usual waffling fashion, NASA admitted in had precisely no clue as to the effects of the eruption.
Here’s part of NASA’s press release (from NASA’s website) –
“This extra water vapor could influence atmospheric chemistry, boosting certain chemical reactions that could temporarily worsen depletion of the ozone layer. It could also influence surface temperatures. [ . . . ] and the huge amounts of water vapor from the eruption may have a small, temporary warming effect, since water vapor traps heat. The effect would dissipate when the extra water vapor cycles out of the stratosphere and would not be enough to noticeably exacerbate climate change effects.
The dimwits don’t seem to realize that “climate” is just the statistics of historical weather – hence saying something silly like “exacerbate climate change effects” just demonstrates the usual delusional SkyDragon inability to accept reality.
All quite irrelevant – climate does not “control” anything at all. It’s just a name for some statistics.
Swenson takes a dump on Clint’s fantasies. Nice to see troll on troll action…
Nate,
You wrote –
“Swenson takes a dump on Clints fantasies. Nice to see troll on troll action”
Were you trying to be gratuitously offensive, or just demonstrating pointless idiocy of the delusional SkyDragon variety?
Diverting either way. Got any more?
Ant, here is just one quote: HT-HH may be the first volcanic eruption observed to impact climate not through surface cooling caused by volcanic sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming caused by excess H2O radiative forcing.
You are free to interpret that any way you want. Facing reality is your responsibility. Trolling, with all its desperate tactics, is NOT being responsible.
When you struggle to support nonsense like ‘passenger jets flying backwards’, you’ve lost the debate about who is the troll.
No need to be shy, Pup:
https://www.wionews.com/science/tonga-underwater-volcano-impact-can-affect-ozone-layer-heres-what-you-should-know-503705
We all know you like Indian news outlets.
Would you like assistance with the word “may”. It really isn’t a difficult word.
Here is a quote which you “forgot” to provide:
“Milln speculates that the water vapor could start having a warming effect on the planets surface temperature once the accompanying cooling particles dissipate IN ABOUT THREE YEARS.”
Is there a reason you ignored that one?
As I stated Ant, You are free to interpret that any way you want. Facing reality is your responsibility. Trolling, with all its desperate tactics, is NOT being responsible.
I said 0.24 +/- 0.2 C. My model predicted 0.09 C for 2023/02. My worst recent prediction was 0.11 C for 2022/07. I was off by -0.25 C which fell outside my 95% CI window.
My preliminary estimate for 2023/04 is 0.19 +/- 0.24 C. I can refine that a bit throughout the month using global circulation models by I can only improve the skill by a modest 0.04 C. The UAH TLT values have a lot of noise in them. Christy et al. 2003 cite the uncertainty on monthly values as +/- 0.20 (2-sigma).
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha …..
We don’t do a good job of teaching science – so it’s never a good bet to assume that just because scientists have answered climate change denial questions a thousand times, that would be enough. Moreover, the creativity of the scientifically illiterate is boundless.
It gets worse…
Bordo has a disciple!
Willard is an idiot!
Mike Flynn is braying!
Willard is an idiot! Mike Flynn doesnt seem to commenting at all.
Willard lives in a fantasy world, where his fantasies are considered superior to fact.
Poor Wee Willy.
Mike Flynn denies being Mike Flynn!
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn denies being Mike Flynn!”
Typical delusional SkyDragon cultist failure to realise that facts are not subject to stupid fantasies.
Maybe someone values your opinion, but I doubt it!
“Willard denies being an idiot” makes no difference to the fact that Willard is indeed an idiot.
Just as Willard claiming to have a description of the GHE makes no difference to the fact that he is lying.
Carry on dealing, fool.
Mike Flynn keeps playing dumb!
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Quantum theory is a stretch indeed, but chaos theory fits very well. A better concept is to predict turbulence at low Reynolds Number above 1600. The atmosphere is far more complex than flow in a smooth pipe, so chaos theory fits. The humorous part is the very significant distribution of climate model predictions being presented as a consensus. The basic facts are simple, but the big picture is extremely complex. If one takes a serious look at the famous Trenbeth energy budget, it is very clear that a mere 1% increase in predicted latent heat effect from clouds changes the entire result. If climate really was a science topic instead of a political topic, there would be very robust debate about all of the uncertainties. Instead, we have scientists behaving like politicians and politicians pretending to understand science. It is a mess that will not be easy to sort out in the short term until genuine long term effects are demonstrated.
Tim S,
In one of his lectures, Richard Feynman pointed out that the operation of the uncertainty principle (supported by the most rigorous experiments in the history of mankind) prevents predictions of future states of fluids, without mentioning chaos at all.
As Feynman also pointed out, the properties of dry water are significantly different from wet water, and devoted seperate chapters to their treatment. Not a joke.
It seems the atmosphere acts chaotically, and therefor future states are unpredictable in any useful way. Richard Feynman reached exactly the same conclusion using quantum physics. Feynman said “Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment.”
If it agrees with reproducible experiment, thats good enough for me. Better than the unsupported religious doctrine followed by SkyDragon cultists.
There goes Swenson Mikey Flynn trying to be all smarty pants again.
“It seems the atmosphere acts chaotically, and therefor future states are unpredictable in any useful way.”
No that is not it, chaos is not why climate states are unpredictable.
Since your brain has only one more than three neurons, that makes your comments unpredictable.
maguff…your derision typifies your abject ignorance of the point the good Senator is trying to make, Here’s a response from one of his critics…
“Dr Marshall : Its the radiation that gets absorbed. The earth radiates heat. Mostly its infrared…”.
That is the ignorance you are defending. The Earth does not radiate heat, it radiates infrared energy that has nothing in common with heat. There is no heat to trap.
The Senator is trying to make a point, that it is the glass in a greenhouse that traps heat and that a gas like CO2 cannot trap heat. If you can prove otherwise, let’s hear it.
“…it radiates infrared energy that has nothing in common with heat. “
I have an infrared heater in my travel trailer that keeps me warm and toasty during winter camping trips.
As usual, you’re full of shit.
TM,
Technically, Gordon is correct.
Radiation is not “heat”, regardless of what you may choose to think.
Heat is a result of radiation interacting with matter.
If your infrared heater has no power source, it is still radiating infrared – yes, really.
If you believe it will keep you warm and toasty while it is colder than you, you are probably thinking the same as GHE believers who think that cold CO2 must heat things because it is radiating infrared radiation. Yes, it does – continuously.
All quite irrelevant, I suppose, except that some people believe that colder CO2 can increase the temperature of a hotter surface and make it hotter still.
Your experience with your unpowered infrared “heater” shows that it, like CO2, will not keep warm or toasty at all.
No GHE – just ignorance and wishful thinking.
Swenson,
You are trying to be all smarty pants saying radiation is not heat.
But the truth of the matter is radiation transfers heat.
And CO2 transfers energy from the atmosphere to the surface which adds that energy to the heat transferred from the Sun to the surface.
Swenson is a scientifically illiterate troll.
Notice how he debunks his own strawman. What an idiot.
bob, “heat” is the transfer of energy from HOT to COLD. The atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of Earth.
You can’t understand this because you’re viewing reality through a toilet paper tube.
That ain’t science.
Clint R.
You moron, I didn’t say otherwise.
The fact that the heat transfer is always from hot to cold, doesn’t prevent the atmosphere from causing the temperature of the surface to rise.
It can do that without transferring heat from the atmosphere to the surface.
If you were smart, you could figure that out.
Too bad, your science textbooks are still wrapped in plastic.
Bumbling Bobbby,
You wrote –
“You are trying to be all smarty pants saying radiation is not heat.”
If you say so. You don’t seem to be disagreeing, do you?
For my own amusement, I will explain. Radiation is heat. You are confused about heat transfer. Heat is radiated whether it is received somewhere or radiated to outer space. Heat transfer occurs when matter receives the radiation. Receipt has no effect on transmission. The part you do not understand is that the receiving body will also transmit heat based on its temperature and the net heat transfer will depend on the spectra of each surface (or gas), the surface area (or concentration), and the difference in temperature to the 4th power. The part about the different spectra makes it complex, but not impossible to observe and measure.
> Radiation is heat.
Incorrect.
Revise and resubmit.
“Senator Rennick argues Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle (which describes quantum scale effects), means we cant accurately model the climate (somewhat larger than quantum scale).”
Absolutely correct. Even the the IPCC admitted that prediction of future climate states is impossible.
If you dont like the uncertainty principle, just ignore it. Try and convince others you can predict the future, and see how many will pay you for your efforts.
Only joking – you cant predict the future any better than a 12 year old child, so your chances of finding someone even more stupid than yourself to pay for your fantasy are remote.
Feel free to try.
And you said this *just because*, Mike?
Weepy Wee Willy,
If you say so, Wee Willy, if you say so.
There will be a big drop in Australia’s temperature in three days.
https://i.ibb.co/HChzvpX/ecmwf-T2ma-aus-13.png
Will you be advertising the next rise in temperatures just as fervently?
And you pose a singularly pointless gotcha because . . . ?
Because ren is a cycle nut who keeps trying to find cool events in a warming world, Mike Flynn.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Another snowstorm in the Midwest with several degrees of frost.
https://i.ibb.co/7rnmTbw/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-04-04-181311.png
Aberdeen South Dakota.
https://i.ibb.co/VNYhGvr/Snap-Shot-20230404-183131.jpg
811 inches of snow at the Alta Ski Area in Utah. More snow on the way.
Putins Disaster: The Russian Military Is Destroying Itself in Ukraine
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/04/putins-disaster-the-russian-military-is-destroying-itself-in-ukraine/
linked from: https://instapundit.com/
I think Russia Military is growing.
They might running out of criminals, but it’s pretty easy to make
criminals.
Protestors can insurrectionist. And given less rights than murderers.
gb…I have been hearing from the western media for a year now about how badly the Russians are losing. They are still there but they are solidifying what they went in there to get. The western media regards that as a loss since they are no longer progressing.
Climate change is a natural cycle driven by on made things, but these chemtrails I am seeing in the sky of UK aren’t natural and it looks like geo engineering.
This, but unironically:
https://www.volts.wtf/p/how-to-think-about-solar-radiation#details
wee willy…”Even if greenhouse gas emissions halted entirely right now, we would continue to feel climate change effects for decades due to existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere…”
***
More proselytizing from the climate religion zealots. They have failed to prove a trace gas like CO2 can do anything in the atmosphere so they have decided to claim it does anyway.
Come on, Bordo.
But Religion is boring –
https://climateball.net/but-religion
Leave boring to Pup and gb.
Woeful Wee Willy,
If you choose to be bored, thats a personal decision. Deranged SkyDragon cultists generally blame it on others.
Do you?
“Cargo cults are marked by a number of common characteristics, including a “myth-dream” that is a synthesis of indigenous and foreign elements, the expectation of help from the ancestors, charismatic leaders, and lastly, belief in the appearance of an abundance of goods.” – wiki
The cargo cult of global warming believes in magical climate time before the Industrial Revolution.
And there were Luddites
“Opponents of the introduction of labor-saving machinery. The original Luddites, followers of a legendary Ned Ludd, were British laborers of the early nineteenth century who smashed textile-making machines that threatened their jobs.”
Who evolved into people wanting govts to give them solar panels and wind mills, which one could argue is better than wanting to smash textile-making machines. Wind mills were big thing to pump water out when you living under sea level. Solar panels came from Space exploration.
They continue to be uneducated.
You are usually so incoherent body cares to reply to your comments, gb.
That makes you in a privileged position to talk about cargo cults.
“That makes you in a privileged position to talk about cargo cults.”
But only in the sense of willard’s rules of climateball.
Not really, gb, but –
https://climateball.net/but-climateball/
Congratulations!
Willard says:
”Even if greenhouse gas emissions halted entirely right now, we would continue to feel climate change effects for decades due to existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and warming could accelerate, as we reduce the aerosol pollution that happens to be acting as a partial shield.”
Willard echoes more ridiculous alarm. A few decades of warming forstalled? What are we talking about here Willard? If we end fossil fuel emissions the greenhouse effect will immediately begin to diminish. . . .we may have some continued good weather before it starts to get cold and stormy again and gee it might take a few decades for that to happen.
And aerosols! We don’t know if the net effect of aerosols is positive, negative, or neutral.
The aggravating thing about institutional science is they don’t owe the population anything. No fiduciary or professional duty of any sort for which the population could seek damages for bad advice.
And generally when that’s the case all sorts of ridiculous claims are made. For example how many medicine shows can you find on the internet with some PhD sponsoring it? Some put in little disclaimers but all promote the ”possible” benefit.
When your primary funder wants something and grants you both cash and immunity in providing what they want do you actually believe they are all going to turn down that opportunity?
Gill, Gill,
Figure 4:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/aerosols-and-their-relation-to-global-climate-102215345/
You sure like to say stuff!
Do continue, please.
There is plenty of half baked science in the realm Willard.
We really don’t understand albedo well-enough to actually come to any conclusions about it due to the fact Stefan Boltzmann equations establish that emissivity is the inverse of albedo and as such in accordance with SB equations the TOA when emitting 239w/m2 must be as warm as a blackbody surface that emits 341w/m2.
This is true for all full spectrum reflectors. there are apparently some reflectors that unevenly reflect spectra frequencies but I am only aware of some advertising claims by the sellers of a few specialized white surface paints that claim having a higher emissivity than their albedo factor.
Where you see some of this where little agreement exists is on the emissivity and albedo of water where reflection depends upon the angle as opposed being able to measure it uniformly.
I actually had a conversation with Kevin Trenberth on this and he acknowledged there was scientific disagreement on the matter of emissivity. For example he provided me with reference on ocean emissivity. I read it and noted the author was offering a different emissivity than Trenberth’s figures so I responded noting that to Trenberth. He acknowledged it and said he didn’t agree with the author.
Additionally here we are talking about the fact that aerosols have differing lifetimes in the atmosphere and some like soot increase uptake of solar energy both in the atmosphere and after they leave the atmosphere. I don’t see any of that stuff in the reference you provided.
tim…chem trails are either jet streams (contrails) from aircraft flying around 35,000 feet or they are a particular form of cloud formation that resembles furrows in a ploughed field.
Take a look at this set of cloud formations, particularly the one titled ‘Altocumulus undulatus clouds…’ about halfway down the page. There is even one looks like a flying saucer.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/gallery/2012/aug/23/meteorology-cloud-shapes-in-pictures
Would those look like your contrails if located at a higher altitude?
Another one…amazing stuff. I saw a set similar to that over Vancouver, Canada one evening.
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/16598401.stunning-sky-snaps-cloud-formation-west-oxfordshire/
Here’s another variety taken locally…
https://globalnews.ca/news/7621685/fingerprints-in-the-sky-meet-altocumulus-undulatus/
note…there are times when aircraft contrails persist and new ones are superimposed, After a while they criss-cross.
Metabunk has been debunking this crap for over a decade.
https://www.metabunk.org/tags/chemtrails/
A major snowstorm from Nebraska to Minnesota.
These are very heavy snowfalls. There will be no drought.
https://i.ibb.co/BT81n2v/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-04-04-223205.png
I thought of interesting question related to climate change.
Would the people living in a totalitarian state have better lives
if the entire world was a totalitarian state?
What I mean by a totalitarian state, or example of one, is the North Korea state.
So, would North Koreans or the leader of North Korea [either]
be happier or have better life, if entire world was governed as the North Korea is being governed?
If unaware of North Korean, or more aware of the Soviet Union, you can change North Korea to Soviet Union.
Or Iran, Cuba, Canada, and perhaps the US.
aq…”Given that weightings depend solely on gridded areas, there is no room for opinion. There is no weighter the weights are simply ratios of areas”.
***
Is it too far beyond you to see a uniform sphere as a set of circles? Start with a circle on the x-y plane and rotate the circles into the page till they rotate 360 degrees about the y axis. Now visualize the entire sphere as being made up of circles.
If you can understand that, what you are claiming is that 5 degrees on the circles, as measured from the x-axis, is a different size than any 5 degree arc at other places on the circle.
On a uniform sphere, a 1 x 1 degree square is the same size anywhere on the sphere’s surface. There is no need to use cosine weighting on a real sphere but it seems the rocket scientists at GISS are too stupid to work it out using triple integrals. Or maybe the computer they use to run their model sputters and dies when confronted with a triple integral.
What you don’t get as an alarmist is the use of cosine weighting gives them another excuse to fudge the data. Who is checking on them and when someone bothers to check, like M&M with the hockey stick, alarmists try to brush the cheating under the rug?
They are still claiming the hockey stick is legit even though the errors in it are too horrendous to contemplate. Mann created the hockey stick, and guess who his buddy is who helps him run the uber-alarmist site realclimate? Why, it’s none other than Gavin Schmidt, now the head of GISS.
You are seriously naive, AQ. I have always wanted to visit western Australia and I may have to come down there and give you a 7 day seminar on logical thinking.
A band of with 10 degrees about the equator (ie. 5N to 5S) is literally that – a band.
The “band” of width 10 degrees which runs from 80N to to the pole is a CIRCLE.
You clearly have no concept of how latitude is measured.
https://tinyurl.com/latitude-bands
Look at the diagrams.
How anyone with half a brain could believe that the band 0 to 10N and the “band” 80N to 90N could possible have the same area is beyond me. Either you have no concept of latitude, or you have no concept of area.
The area of the former is 11.4 times the area of the latter.
AG…you are hung up on lines of latitude and longitude.
Think of radial lines from the centre of a sphere, where they meet the surface of the sphere. Start with the Equator. We have two radial lines spreading out till they form 1 degree separatoin along the Equator. Then we measure down 1 degree from each point and run two more radial lines to those points. Now we have a 1 x1 degree square on the surface.
Note that degrees are not a good form of measure since the distance between lines formed by an angle varies with the distance from the vertex. A square area on any surface is the same area anywhere on the surface.
Try it with the North Pole. All we are doing is rotating the Earth by 90 degrees so the Equator runs through the North Pole. Same 1 x 1 degree square. I realize the Earth is slighly oblate but I am using a perfect sphere.
When you start messing with lines of latitude and longitude you have a different game altogether. Surface areas on a real sphere do not depend on artificial lines of latitude and longitude, they depend only on radial lines drawn from the centre of the sphere to where they cut the surface.
Note further, that the real degrees formed by radial lines are dependent only on the separation between the lines. They are not dependent on artificial system like the system of latitudes and longitudes.
Feel free to offer a tiling of a sphere into equal “squares” which can be described by a coordinate system whose scale suggests that equality.
Come on genius – show you are better than every mathematician who has lived.
AQ,
How are you going finding a description of the GHE?
Does it have something to do with spheres, mathematics, tiling, or coordinates?
Or is it that you are just another delusional SkyDragon cultist, with a fanatical and unreasoning belief in something you cannot describe?
Go on, “explain” the “concept” of something you cannot describe, because it doesn’t exist!
Dimwit.
Right here, Mike –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Swoon.
Gordon
Notice how your buddies will never correct you when you are wrong. For deniers, solidarity wins in the face of ignorance.
AQ,
And Gordon is supposed to care because . . .?
You idiot, you can only be gratuitously offensive to people who agree to be offended – generally dimwitted delusional SkyDragon cultists, who believe that science means a consensus of fools, and cant even describe the pillar of their cult beliefs – the “greenhouse effect”.
I choose not to be offended, annoyed, or insulted by dummies like you, and there is precisely nothing you can do about it. Maybe you could try some sly homosexual or masturbatory innuendoes – do you think that might make other dummies think you are clever?
Give it a try, if you like.
[sniggering at reality avoiding nutcase]
Gordon
Case in point …
AQ,
You wrote –
“Gordon
Case in point ”
Well, that certainly doesn’t look like a description of the GHE, does it?
It looks more like a delusional SkyDragon cultist trying to appear clever – for no discernible reason at all – and failing miserably anyway.
Maybe you could “explain” the “case” “in point”, do you think?
You are looking like more of a masturbator than a master baiter.
[laughs at idiot trying to avoid reality]
Mike Flynn,
The point is this –
No U,
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Here is a sphere with 10 degree x 10 degree grid.
https://cdn.britannica.com/63/2063-050-89E52B49.jpg
Very clearly, the 10×10 sectors near the equator are larger than near the poles. The same is true for a 1×1 grid.
1 degree of latitude is always about 40,000 km/360 degrees= 111 km
1 degree of longitude varies from 111 km down to 0 km.
Standing near the south pole, I could easily cover 10 degrees latitude with one step!
That is not correct.
Ten degrees of latitude at the poles is the same distance as ten degrees of latitude at the equator.
The reason area falls at the poles is that the lines of longitude get closer together.
You mean to say that at the poles you could easily cover 10 degrees of LONGITUDE with one step.
I meant to say NEAR the poles, not AT the poles.
Yep! I got sloppy at the last line.
But the overall point stands. Weighting is important and necessary. A 1×1 grid area changes from equator to pole.
tim…”Weighting is important and necessary. A 11 grid area changes from equator to pole”.
***
Only on a system with lines of latitude and longitude. If you calculate surface area on a sphere there is no mention of such nonsense. There is no reason on a real sphere why a surface area at one part of the sphere should be different from an equal area at any other part of the sphere.
I messed up by going with degrees instead of square measure. If the claim had been for a 10 square miles grid, instead of a 1 x 1 degree grid, I’d have been alright. Still, on a real sphere with no lines of longitude, a 1 x 1 degree square area would be the same anywhere on the sphere.
I recall reading the problems they had sailing in the old days. They could get their latitude using the Sun but there was no way to get longitude until they got a really accurate clock.
“Only on a system with lines of latitude and longitude. ”
But that IS the system being used! That is how the satellite data is being presented. You can muse about other system you wish were used instead, but that doesn’t change the need for cosine weighting for the satellite data.
“If the claim had been …”
But it wasn’t. You shouldn’t be claiming people are wrong when you are judging by the unknown thoughts that are in your head.
It is actually sine weightings. The area of the band between latitudes alpha and beta (alpha > beta) in the same hemisphere is
(sin alpha – sin beta) * area of hemisphere.
Cosines give the circumference of the parallels of latitude, which then have to be integrated to give area.
Or … if “A” is the area of a 1×1 degree patch at the equator, then A*cos(theta) is the (approximate) area of a 1×1 degree patch at latitude (theta).
There is more than one way to describe the situation.
I’ve just realised that that actually gives the exact answer, provided the latitudes you plug in are the centre of your square.
So for the square between latitudes 80N and 81N you would need cos80.5. And you would need to compare it to a square between 0.5S and 0.5N.
tim…good point. In his frustrating, AQ leveled all forms of accusations against my competence but he could not explain his issues, or understand mine.
However, you are wrong about being able to cover 10 degrees of latitude at the Poles with one step. You could certainly do that with lines of longitude but not latitude.
I had over-looked the fact that lines of longitude converge at the poles whereas lines of latitude are parallel all the way to the poles. I was thinking strictly in terms of radial lines emanating from the centre of a sphere and spreading out to encompass a surface area on the sphere of 1 x 1 degrees.
The guy at GISS explained it incorrectly. He claimed the problem was the lines of latitude but its the lines of longitude. He called it a flat-Earth problem, obviously meaning a Mercator projection.
When they collect the data, they could easily create a planetary map that shows the surface in equal squares rather than messing with this kind of obfuscated nonsense. Then again, they don’t collect surface data from each square they create it in a climate model based on samples from other areas. If they wanted to, given today’s computer power, create a proper spherical surface with equal areas and superimpose it on a map with lines of longitude and latitude.
Only the satellites scan the surface almost completely and there’s no reason the sats couldn’t use a proper spherical set of parameters rather than condensing it into a poorly thought out system of latitudes and longitudes where one set is parallel and the other converges.
“[he] leveled all forms of accusations against my competence but he could not explain his issues … ”
No one should have to explain — this is basic geometry that any engineer should know.
Your points would also be more calmly addressed by others if you weren’t throwing around your own accusations left and right (naive, alarmist, too far beyond you to see, far too gullible, … ).
PS, you can’t create a planetary map “that shows the surface in equal squares rather than messing with this kind of obfuscated nonsense”. Squares can’t cover a sphere. You would end up with gaps or overlapping regions, both of which create their own problems. You can create various surfaces like a ‘soccer ball’ on various scales, but they you deal with hexagons and pentagons and no easy, standard way to index the regions.
Much easier to stick with standard longitude and latitude and do a simple cosine weighting.
Tim,
All this is just a means of avoiding the inconvenient fact that the Earth has managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years. The surface cooled in spite of the mythical GHE, in spite of the Sun pouring four and a half billion years of sunlight into the Earth. If you disagree, you might be helpful enough to tell me your reasons.
Try and describe the GHE in such a way that it agrees with fact, and you will discover that you cantt. You might as well keep arguing arguing about the irrelevant and inconsequential.
Mike Flynn,
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Most obliged.
Worthless willard, you keep using that same link. And as usual, you don’t understand it.
The presentation starts with the usual blah-blah — Sun warms the surface, and surface emits to atmosphere. That’s nothing more than *It’s the Sun, stupid*. There is no mention of how the atmosphere can warm the surface. It’s just the usual hand-waving and gobbledygook.
Keep linking to that worthless video. It proves you’ve got NOTHING.
Pup,
You got NOTHING.
Get some material.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Are you a contortionist? You have managed to put your foot in your mouth, before shooting yourself in the foot.
Grand effort, laddie!
Did I, Mike?
tim…the engineer in me does know and I relayed the mathematics of dealing with a sphere. It’s not my problem that some geographer decided to make lines of latitude parallel and lines of longitude converge at the poles.
And it’s not my problem that you alarmists don’t know enough about math to understand what I’m saying.
There is NO way of tiling a sphere with any more than eight equal “squares”.
And there is no problem with tiling it with unequal squares and weighting for area.
You are inventing “problems”.
AQ,
This is you “explaining” the GHE, is it, or you just being an irrelevant idiot?
“Weighting”? Squares?
Are you delusional or just retarded?
You can’t even describe the GHE, so you fly off on any passing tangent, by the look of it. Feel free to prove me wrong – your description needs to reflect reality, of course.
Yes, I’m laughing. Now is your chance to shut me up.
Fool.
Mike Flynn,
AQ was making a geometric point.
Cheers.
“And its not my problem that you alarmists dont know enough about math to understand what Im saying.”
That is backwards! I (and others) understood you just fine. You were assuming a ‘square’ 1×1 degree patch that is always ~ 110 x 110 km.
The problem was that YOU didn’t follow that the data is presented using 1×1 degree longitude and latitude; ie that the slice gets narrower toward the poles.
You doubled down on your error and it took multiple posts for you to finally realize the correct interpretation.
tim…”(naive, alarmist, too far beyond you to see, far too gullible, )”.
***
If the shoe fits….
It is hard to take people seriously who claim one set of rules for themselves, but a different set for others.
Tim,
You wrote –
“It is hard to take people seriously who claim one set of rules for themselves, but a different set for others.”
Don’t take him seriously, then. Do you think anybody cares whether you do or not?
Have you figured out a role for the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling? It’s hard to take someone seriously if they can’t even describe something they claim has planet heating abilities.
Mike Flynn,
Bordo may want to be taken seriously.
You obviously do not.
Cheers,
I explained the concept to you half an hour before you wrong your comment I am replying to.
Half an hour AFTER you wrote this concept you replied to my explanation, still attempting to discredit it, despite the fact it is EXACTLY the same explanation provided here which you have accepted.
It seems denial is your reflex reaction.
AQ,
You wrote –
“I explained the concept to you half an hour before you wrong your comment I am replying to.”
Maybe you could rewrite that sentence in English.
By the way, claiming to “explain” a “concept” is pretty stupid. Did someone ask for your “explanation” of a “concept”? I doubt it, but feel free to produce evidence to the contrary, if you wish.
Are you still trying to avoid facing the reality that the Earth is now colder than it was when the surface was molten? Maybe you could “explain” the “concept” that resulted in this cooling, which presumably involves a GHE which you can’t describe – much less “explain”!
Carry on.
Having AQ explain something is like listening to Great Thunberg explain why we should all be riding bicycles and living in tents.
Gordon
It is not my problem that you have never familiarised yourself with technical language. But of course, you are always looking for an out clause after exposing your ignorance.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Gordon
It is not my problem that you have never familiarised yourself with technical language. But of course, you are always looking for an out clause after exposing your ignorance.”
It is not my problem that you make breathtakingly bizarre and unsupported assertions, either. Maybe you could “explain” the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, but I am sure you will look for an out, to disguise your ignorance – and stupidity, for being so transparent in your attempts to avoid facing reality.
Come on, now. Demonstrate that you not a fraud and faker like Michael Mann, or Gavin Schmidt (a strange guy, who claims to be a “climate scientist”, for some unknown reason).
Or just write yourself an out clause, if you prefer.
What are you braying about, Mike?
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
AQ,
You wrote
Gordon
It is not my problem that you have never familiarised yourself with technical language. But of course, you are always looking for an out clause after exposing your ignorance.
It is not my problem that you make breathtakingly bizarre and unsupported assertions, either. Maybe you could explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, but I am sure you will look for an out, to disguise your ignorance and stupidity, for being so transparent in your attempts to avoid facing reality.
Come on, now. Demonstrate that you not a fraud and faker like Michael Mann, or Gavin Schmidt (a strange guy, who claims to be a climate scientist, for some unknown reason).
Or just write yourself an out clause, if you prefer.
Can’t you work things out for yourself, Mike?
If Antonin decides not to play your silly gotcha game, what do you intend to do about it?
Only joking – you have no power to do anything at all!
Gordon,
“The guy at GISS explained it incorrectly. He claimed the problem was the lines of latitude but its the lines of longitude.”
No he didn’t. He said:
"Because a 1º x 1º grid box occupies less area as it moves from the tropics to the pole."
That’s all he said about why lat/long grid box areas are different.
There have been attempts to subdivide the global surface areas in different ways, such as with tripoint areas, or deriving a symmetrical polyhedron. Any choice adds a layer of complexity, and it seems that it is just more convenient to go with the same grid system used in other disciplines.
Greta Thunberg deleted her doomsday prediction. Does that now mean we’re all safe?
Still got super volcanoes and space rocks. And idiot leaders with nuclear weapons.
She deleted it because, like James Hansen in 1988, she was wrong. According to her, by now we should all be dead. How long are alarmists/eco-loonies going to adhere to this propaganda and abject nonsense?
Gordon,
The little autistic doomgoblin has changed her mind, perhaps?
Good for her! Maybe she has become aware of facts that resulted in her changing her view.
Unlike some deranged SkyDragon cultists who will no doubt go to their deathbeds refusing to believe that the Earth somehow managed to cool for four and a half billion years, in spite of CO2, H2O, and sunlight.
Luckily, not a single past or present physical fact has been harmed by the opinions of Greta Thunberg.
Swenson
Greta may change based on evidence but you cannot! Have you found any support for your false narrative that the Earth surface has continued to cool for 4.5 billion years? Roy Spencer blog you are posting to proves you wrong! Evidence means nothing to you does it?
Norman, speaking of “surfaces”, have you found Earth’s “real 255K surface” yet?
No you haven’t, but you will claim you’ve supported your nonsense before. If you had any such support, you’d be linking to it every day. You know how much you love links.
Clint R
You are so dense and dumb! I did not claim there is a real surface that is 255 K. That is Ball4 claim not mine. There is a radiating surface which averages a brightness temperature of 255 K. I have linked you many times to the supporting evidence. Guess what? You ignore the evidence just like Gordon Robertson or Swenson. None of you cult minded idiots know science or accept evidence. Too cult minded to think and reason. The three of you endlessly repeat your cult mantras with no thought.
You appear to be no longer supporting Ball4’s nonsense. Yet, you won’t fully admit that.
Yes, B4 started the nonsense, but I recall you fully supporting him until you realized that neither of you could provide any viable technical reference. I informed you that several different layers of the atmosphere have temperatures of 255K, so that’s probably what you now claim as *support*. But, youre afraid to provide ANY support.
And your continued effort to insult and falsely accuse means youre only an incompetent troll, unable to discuss as a responsible adult.
Most of Earth surface is about .2 billion years old, or less than 1/20th of 4.5 billion years?
I will also note all mythical snowball earths were earlier than .2 billion years ago.
And why do you deny that geothermal heat, warms the ocean?
Hey, maybe she just grew up.
“Luckily, not a single past or present physical fact has been harmed by the opinions of Greta Thunberg.”
Carbon Taxes went up 1 April 2023. There are twits in our government who subscribe fully to the opinions of Saint Greta of the Temple of Climate Doom.
Carbon Taxes and Green Policies matter. Places like Saudi Arabia are watching Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, et al make policies that will choke off their carbon fuels based economy. So Saudi Arabia et al will seek to replace the US dollar as the world reserve currency. They are tired of accepting the toilet paper, that US dollar has become, for real goods. If/When there is a new reserve currency what do you think will happen to US dollar and US economy? If US economy collapses what happens to Canada and Europe?
So yeah, Greta’s stupid opinions do matter because there are a lot of stupid people who believe them. Climate Change Narrative is an extraordinary popular delusion.
Gordon
Please link to her claiming that we would all be dead by now.
If she “has deleted it”, you will have no problems finding it on Wayback Machine.
AQ,
And if he doesn’t, what then? What do you intend to do about it! Nothing at all?
If you believe that someone is wrong, just say so, and produce some support for your dissent. This refusal to produce any support for your slimy innuendos is just another example of delusional SkyDragon cultists saying nothing, and then demanding that others “prove” you are wrong!
Go on, provide a description of the GHE, to prove me wrong when I claim that no GHE description of the GHE exists which agrees with fact. How hard can it be, you gutless wriggling guttersnipe?
Go on, crawl away while I laugh at your attempts to turn your fantasy into fact.
No GHE.
Mike Flynn,
Two things.
First, as a Sky Dragon crank, you are the one dissenting.
Second, https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Worthless willard, you keep using that same link. And as usual, you don’t understand it.
The presentation starts with the usual blah-blah — Sun warms the surface, and surface emits to atmosphere. That’s nothing more than “It’s the Sun, stupid”. There is no mention of how the atmosphere can warm the surface. It’s just the usual hand-waving and gobbledygook.
Keep linking to that worthless video. It proves you’ve got NOTHING.
Pupusa,
You’re just saying STUFF.
That means YOU got nothing.
MORE than TEN years like THAT.
Bring MATERIAL.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Deranged SkyDragon cultists and failed physicist content creators believe science is about experts and consensus.
Richard Feynman said science is belief in the ignorance of experts [and failed physicist content creators?],
Repetitively posting links which you are too coy to give a reason for so doing, just makes you look weirdly obsessed. Your links contain nothing of value – at least nothing you are prepared to state.
You’re a strange object, Wee Willy.
Carry on being diverting.
One of my favorite lines, Mike FLynn:
https://climateball.net/but-my-guru/#feynman
Thanks for reminding me I should work on that page.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Eastern Circulation in the Central Pacific. Will La Nina return?
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/spac/mimictpw_spac_latest.gif
Earlier, AQ wrote –
“There is NO way of tiling a sphere with any more than eight equal “squares”.”
And who cares? Even if it were true?
Of course, AQ will will not provide a definition for “squares”., leaving himself a weasel exit.
For example, on a sphere, an equilateral triangle may have 3 included angles of 90, giving a total internal angle sum of 270! A square may be constructed of 4 such triangles, being a quadrilateral with 4 equal sides, and equal diagonals. Obviously, AQ has a particular definition of a “square” in mind, but is too coy to let anyone know what his secret definition is.
Oh well, talking vague nonsense about tiling spheres allows him to avoid the reality that he cannot even describe the GHE.
I wonder what his next attempt will bring forth?
While you were busy googling that information that you are pretending you always knew, why didn’t you also google “square on a sphere” – the definition is the first thing that comes up.
The only equilateral triangle on a sphere which has an angle sum of 270 degrees is an octant. Four octants which are not joined only at a vertex make a hemisphere, not a square. It has one “side”, no diagonals, and no angles. Googling needs to be accompanied by thinking.
The point was the necessity for an area weighting. For more than eight squares, and without introducing unnecessarily complex shapes, consider that proven.
AQ,
You live in a bizarre fantasy world. What are you babbling about? No googling required.
Here – start at the North Pole. Head South one unit. Head East one unit. Head North one unit.
Three sides, each one unit. Equilateral triangle. Three 90 included angles. Total 270. Four of them sharing a common vertex create a figure with 4 equal sides and equal diagonals. A square, or are you going to redefine it with another name because you don’t like my definition?
If you want to start complying about 2d planes and definitions, then why are you even talking about areas on a sphere and their shapes?
Are you trying to say that a quadrilateral with equal sides and equal diagonals is not a square?
You said “There is NO way of tiling a sphere with any more than eight equal “squares”.”
Maybe you need to look at Newton’s fluxions, if you want another way of doing it. An infinite number of infinitely small squares will do.
Nup. An equilateral triangle also requires equal angles. Your top angle is different from the other two.
AQ,
You idiot SkyDragon cultists just redefine anything to mean anything else, For example, slow cooling is defined as really getting hotter.
Equilateral means equal sides – according to Wikipedia, anyway. “In geometry, an equilateral triangle is a triangle in which all three sides have the same length.”
I you want to redefine it to require equal angles, go for it.
As to your silliness “Your top angle is different from the other two.”, you are displaying your ignorance. Try Google if you dont believe me. Heres the first reference that bobbed up (dont say I dont try to help those less fortunate than myself) – “It is well known that a spherical triangle of 270 degree triangle is constructible on the surface of a sphere; a globe is a good example.”
So how did you work out that the “top angle is different from the other two.”.
Three angles of 90 degrees, 270 degree total. Four such triangles can make a quadrilateral with equal diagonals – a square, unless you want to call it something else.
Maybe you should concentrate on trying to be annoying. You seem to be just as inept at that as trying to understand basic geometry.
Go on, try to annoy me, if you like. You cant, and there is nothing you can do about it, is there?
Carry on.
Your purpose of introducing equilateral triangles was to construct a square. If you insist on going with Wikipedia definitions instead of definitions from mathematical textbooks, their definition of a square is that it has four equal sides AND four equal angles. Four of YOUR triangles do NOT form a square under that definition.
“Equilateral triangle” *also* means straight sides. On a plane, those straight lines. The extension to a spherical surface is great circles.
“Here start at the North Pole. Head South one unit. Head East one unit. Head North one unit.”
The first and last sides are great circles, but not the 2nd side. This is no more a triangle than a piece of pie is a triangle.
Tim
Damn, I can’t believe I didn’t pick up on that.
But of course the same applies to the grid “squares” defined by latitude and longitude.
Which only adds further weight to the fact that a sphere cannot be ‘covered’ (because Gordon and Mike do not understand ’tiled’) by equal-area squares.
So many diversions on so much irrelevance.
Oh well.
First AQ. Wrote – “If you insist on going with Wikipedia definitions instead of definitions from mathematical textbooks, their definition of a square is that it has four equal sides AND four equal angles. ” OK, you haven’t given an example of your “definition from mathematical textbooks” but no matter. You were making assertions about undefined “squares” on a sphere, remember.
Now a “square” on a sphere comprised of four equilateral triangles as I have described satisfies your definition, but I surmise you are going to provide yet another definition when you realise that the one you have provided, supports me, rather than you. No use bleating about included angles – spherical geometry is different to plane geometry.
Second, the wondrously fantasizing Folkerts, who wrote – Equilateral triangle” also means straight sides. On a plane, those straight lines. The extension to a spherical surface is great circles.” Well, no. As even AQ pointed out, lines of latitude are “straight”, on a sphere. So by starting at the North Pole, walking South for 1 unit, East for 1 unit, and North for 1 unit means you arrive at your starting point, after traversing an equilateral triangle. Equal internal angles a# well.
For both of them, here’s a different approach from math.stackexchange –
“Fix a point to be the north pole of your sphere. If one takes four equally spaced meridians, so that adjacent meridians are separated by 90 then the four intersections of the meridians with any parallel (i.e., line of latitude) will define a square, and one can show that every square arises this way. One can see that as the chosen parallel approaches the equator, the side lengths monotonically approach one-quarter the circumference of the sphere. So, if you allow the degenerate square with four 180 angles, that is the solution. If you do not, there is no maximum.”
You will note, a square with four 180 angles. 720.
As to AQ saying “Which only adds further weight to the fact that a sphere cannot be ‘covered’ (because Gordon and Mike do not understand ’tiled’) by equal-area squares.”, I can only say his lack of mathematical knowledge is arguably equal to his lack of knowledge of physics.
Lines of latitude are NOT straight. A straight line is the shortest path between two points. For the surface of a sphere, that is a great circle.
A plane flying ‘straight’ from US to Europe takes a great circle route over the arctic.
ME: The extension to a spherical surface is great circles.
SWENSON: Well, no.
DISCUSSION SWENSON IS QUOTING: Square on a sphere = the 4-sided polygon with equal length sides and equal angles, sides are determined by 4 different great circles.”
A circular sector with an angle of 1 radian is NOT an equilateral triangle on a plane.
Walking 1 unit south; 1 unit east; 1 unit north from the north pole is NOT an equilateral triangle on a sphere.
Ah…AQ has sunk to the level of overlooking the obvious while introducing red-herrings.
A while back I read an article by a Russian that the interior angles of a triangle don’t always sum to 180 degrees. That’s true if the size of the triangle is similar to the size of the sphere. However, the curvature of the Earth is essentially flat on average in any location and a triangle meeting the Russian’s requirement would have to be immense in order for the size of the angles to become an issue.
I am using square measure in that context, where the square is proportional to the curvature of the Earth. At any rate, it doesn’t matter because square area is square area for the purposes of my point.
I hope you are not under the impression that if I lay out an area of 100 km x 100km on a flat area of the Earth that the angle between sides will be significant. They may not be absolutely square but the areas will be identical.
The angle sum is not relevant to the argument. That was something Flynn raised which I was challenging independently. Regardless of how close the internal angle sum is to 180 degrees, it is not possible to even approximately cover a sphere with your squares without introducing a haphazard arrangement. And there is no need to even try, given that weighting by area works perfectly.
AQ,
Ducking and weaving won’t help you. You don’t want to accept fact, that’s your affair.
Feel free to disregard a quote from a specialist mathematician “So, if you allow the degenerate square with four 180 angles, that is the solution. If you do not, there is no maximum.”
Minimum 2 squares to tile a sphere. Maximum? Infinite.
Just for fun, the largest non-degenerate square which can tile a sphere is one with internal angles of 120.
Reality. Not fantasy.
You are obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Who is this “specialist mathematician” you speak of? What papers and/or textbooks has he taught on this particular topic? And the solution to precisely what problem? – please cite the EXACT wording of the problem in full context.
And why did you misrepresent me? “As even AQ pointed out, lines of latitude are straight, on a sphere.” I said precisely the opposite. Lines of longitude are straight. Lines of latitude are not. Pretending Sydney and Perth have the same latitude, the shortest path from Sydney to Perth is NOT along a parallel of latitude. You certainly have serious comprehension issues.
Climate experts hit back at Australian politician’s bizarre theory about gravity’s role in global heating
Rennick met with scorn, derision and plenty of corrections over viral tweet and claim that scientists are cancelling gravity
Rennick’s question “do gases trap convection”, “doesn’t even make sense as a statement.
Rennick’s biography says he has degrees in taxation, commerce and finance
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/05/climate-experts-hit-back-at-australian-politicians-bizarre-theory-about-gravitys-role-in-global-heating?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
The fact that someone can see through the hoax, even with very little knowledge of science, is very troubling to the cult.
Just think if this person actually understood how much perversion of reality is involved in supporting the hoax:
* Passenger jets fly backwards
* Ice cubes can boil water
* Reality is best viewed with blinders
* Radiative fluxes simply add
* Earth has a “real 255K surface”
* Fluxes can be added, subtracted, averaged and are “conserved”
The list goes on and on.
> Reality is best viewed with blinders
You suck at trolling, Pup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1467499
Clint R.
You got a lot of straw there.
I have a strong suspicion that senator Rennick is taking advice from this other nutjob https://tinyurl.com/banned-nutjob
I have a strong suspicion that you are a deranged SkyDragon nutjob.
Fair enough?
TM,
Richard Feynman said “Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of the Experts”. A quote from the US National Institutes of Health.
Name one “climate expert” who can calculate averages of past weather observations better than a 12 year old.
There is no GHE – neither you nor anybody else can even describe such a mythical beast.
Trying to make others look stupid won’t turn fantasy into fact. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, in spite of CO2, H2O, sunlight, radiogenic heat, and all the rest. Cooled.
Accept reality.
Thermometers respond to heat, and eight billion people generate a lot of it in the region of thermometers.
Dr Spencer seems to be looking into such things, unlike delusional SkyDragon cults of the fanatic variety.
None of that addresses the topic at hand. Focus!
TM
Dr Spencer seems to be looking into such things, unlike delusional SkyDragon cultists of the fanatic variety. Irrelevant, if you say it is, I suppose.
As to you quoting “Rennicks biography says he has degrees in taxation, commerce and finance”, Gavin Schmidts qualifications are Bachelor of Arts and PhD in applied Mathematics. Michale Mann is a geologist, also a faker, fraud, scofflaw, and deadbeat. Both self proclaimed “climate experts”.
What was the topic at hand, again, or cant you actually describe it?
Like you cant describe the GHE, either?
Swenson, one of these things is not like the others; can you spot the outlier?
“What was the topic at hand, again, or can’t you actually describe it?”
The topic at hand is the gravito-thermal effect.
The reason you frequently get lost in thought is because it’s unfamiliar territory.
Degrees in taxation, commerce and finance have a more relevant degree than a degree in geology or mathematics.
So the outlier is more qualified in the current debate where harm from rising CO2 or modest temperature variation has not been established.
Of course one should add in some others more qualified and experienced on the climate science side like Richard Lindzen and William Happer.
Plus I doubt you can find any efforts at deception from these that would rise to the level of Mike’s Trick.
Bill Hunter you’re an accountant, and a f***ing idiot.
https://ibb.co/VvYJFft
A predictable response from somebody who has absolutely nothing to offer.
#2: Bill Hunter youre an accountant, and a f***ing idiot.
Tyson you are just a gullible child if you think that this isn’t primarily about the movement of affluence and power from the poor to the rich.
maguff…”Rennicks question do gases trap convection, doesnt even make sense as a statement”.
***
It makes perfect sense to anyone who thinks about it. Heat is transferred from the surface to higher altitudes by convection. He is asking if GHGs trap those molecules as the glass does in a real greenhouse.
The answer is obviously no.
Alarmists have peddled the theory that the glass in a greenhouse traps infrared energy. That makes no sense since there is no proof that trapping IR causes any heating. The alarmists have applied that theory to the atmosphere, inferring that CO2 can act like glass and trap IR. Even if the GHGs can trap 7% of surface radiation, it does nothing.
However, the other part of their theory is that the trapped IR is back=radiated to the surface to raise the temperature of the surface above what it is warmed by solar energy. That part makes absolutely no sense.
You have your idea, of what makes sense, backwards.
“It makes perfect sense to anyone who thinks about it.”
So think about it then!
The Earth cools to space via radiation, not convection. If it cooled by convection it wouldn’t have an atmosphere.
TM,
I agree wholeheartedly. As Fourier pointed out a long time ago, during the night the Earth loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of its remnant interior heat.
That no doubt accounts for the Earth cooling over the past four and a half billion years. If you have an alternative reason, let me know. I change my views if new facts come to light, and I assume any reasonable person does.
On the other hand, GHE believers just reject reality, but provide no alternatives.
Swenson,
So the nigh-time low each night is equal to or lower than the night-time of the night before.
So you got a source that says Fourier actually said that.
I think not.
Maybe look up a weather almanac and see if what you claim is true.
bob, please stop trolling.
Tom Harris is speaking today on Action4Canada Empower Hour
Climate Change and 15 Minute City.
https://action4canada.com/
For this who are new here:
https://action4canada.com/who-we-are/
Basically two freaks.
So, wee willy, you are advocating allowing our children to be exposed to sexual perverts. Is that what you stand for?
How about you other alarmists? Is that what you stand for? Do you think it is OK to have a country pass laws to prevent people from criticizing Islam?
For those of you who are new here:
Willard is a well known troll on Roy Spencer’s website.
Basically a boring freak that seeks to undermine discussion and principles of democratic free speech.
And how exactly does he seek to do that?
See if you can answer without appearing to describe Swenson or Clint.
AQ,
You wrote –
“And how exactly does he seek to do that?
See if you can answer without appearing to describe Swenson or Clint.”
Can’t you work things out for yourself? If he decides not to play your silly gotcha game, what do you intend to do about it?
Only joking – you have no power to do anything at all!
Witless fool.
> Cant you work things out for yourself?
So says Mike Flynn, our in-house Sammich Requester.
Thanks for link, Ken, I was wondering if anyone in Canada is taking action against the perverts in LGBTQ. I am not worried about what they do personally, that is their right in Canada. However, when they start influencing children, that should be of concern to everyone with decency.
The challenge for you, Gordon, is to join the local AC4 chapter and get active in it. You have understanding of the issues, particularly on the climate change narrative.
How Climate Alarmism Killed Real Environmentalism
–Many of the environmental problems confronting the planet have nothing to do with CO2 emissions and, in many cases, are worsened by misguided steps being taken to curb CO2 emissions.–
https://amgreatness.com/2023/04/04/how-climate-alarmism-killed-real-environmentalism/
from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Well, not sure one can say, “environmental problems confronting the planet” but one could say, environmental problems confronting mankind
and nature world. Or environment problems are things like a train wreck with toxic material. Or air pollution caused improperly burning
coal in Chinese cities. How cities are managed. And host factors badly effecting the local environment. But it’s a human problem rather a planet problem.
Other than being cold, the planet doing fine.
Severe thunderstorms with freezing rainfall in Canada.
https://i.ibb.co/L6xXpTG/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-04-05-195410.png
Tornadoes in the eastern US on a cold front.
https://i.ibb.co/Bcxy6TM/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-04-05-200606.png
test
Why we should cheer that Earth’s population just passed 8 billion
https://fasterplease.substack.com/p/why-we-should-cheer-that-earths-population
from: https://instapundit.com/
–There have been perhaps three major pulses of overpopulationism, or more correctly, malthusianism. The Reverend Thomas Malthus in the 18th Century was the first who warned that human population growth, an exponential, was at risk of outstripping agriculture, whose outputs only grew linearly. His belief that the working classes supposed tendency to procreate was what led to the existence of poverty led some 19th century politicians to oppose charity or poor relief laws as counterproductive as this would only result in greater numbers of these lower orders.
Understandably then, 19th century radicals, including Karl Marx, considered malthusianism a villainy, as it placed blame for class society on the supposed loose sexual morals of the poor rather than on the capitalist system. While those who today fret about overpopulation or overconsumption such as Greta Thunberg or Jane Goodall might be thought of as on the left, or at least green left, the classical left viewed Malthusianism as an ideological enemy.–
I guess I should say I am classical lefty rather than more left of Bernie Sanders. But classical lefty sounds outdated. Maybe classical lefty space cadet.
But the tests show that I am libertarian.
But libertarian party doesn’t represents libertarian values- they are more anti-libertarian, so bit confusing to say I am libertarian.
gb…”so bit confusing to say I am libertarian”.
***
gb…I find it much easier not to identify with either side. Each side has it’s good points and it’s bad points. Take the good from either side and reject the bad.
And, yes, there is good on the Left. I have associated with Left wingers during my life and they were seriously decent people who wished no one harm, including right wingers. I have also associated with right-wingers who were decent people and wished no one harm.
I have also met a few people who were both right and left wingers. They made their money using right-wing principles but lived their lives on the Left. Ironically, I don’t see anything wrong with that if they cause no harm.
When I say left-winger, I am not talking about the current set of idiots who are branded left-wingers but who are simply idiots. One of them, in California, is knocking West Virginia for stopping the brain-washing of elementary school kids about transgenderism. These idiots want to encourage children to decide whether they are male or female in elementary school.
Mental illness is behind such idiocy, not left-wing principles, whatever that means.
–gbso bit confusing to say I am libertarian.
***
gbI find it much easier not to identify with either side. Each side has its good points and its bad points. Take the good from either side and reject the bad. —
Well, politicians might say they have good points, but what do is the bad points. I don’t identify with either side. I simple terms I would favor a monkey which followed public opinion polls- that is about only good point of politicians.
I also want them to say, they aren’t going to start a war. If say it, it doesn’t mean they won’t, but I want the monkey to say it.
12 Ways the Planet Could Truly Be Saved | Bjrn Lomborg | EP 345
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/04/12-ways-the-planet-could-truly-be-saved-bjorn-lomborg-ep-345/
listening for 12, meanwhile:
1 test artificial gravity.
2 Explore moon, quicker.
3 explore Mars.
Still waiting.
4. globalize home schooling.
Waiting:
3 a: Homing schooling includes how to make clean water.
b: basic medical health.
Lomborg’s number 5 was improving public school {not paying teachers more] and basically, what I mean by home schooling- having “tools” to teach a kid on individual level.
I will listen to rest later. Number 1 thru 4 were good ideas.
Parents should already be teaching those concepts to kids outside of school. If they aren’t, the issue lies with them, not the system.
AQ,
And you believe that somebody should value your opinion for what reason?
Because you are clever? Powerful? Anonymous? A deranged SkyDragon cultist with a brain the size of a pea?
Or do you have a completely different reason? Dont by shy or coy, let everyone know why anyone should pay attention to the unsolicited, unsupported opinions of an anonymous nutjob.
The topics is things which could be done [which is cheap and will save our world- or will have high return on dollar invested.
Or small number of things which saves a lot lives. As compared to
200 things which are very costly, probably won’t happen or happen so
far in the future that’s just pointless.
Wealthy parents which are christian aren’t teaching their child their
religion. So, parents should do a lot things, but you might be able to help them do this. So a government or a non-profit or a for profit
could help people, but since so many are poor and dying- it might be
good idea to focus on the most needy.
Not indoctrinating children with religion is a POSITIVE.
AQ,
You wrote “Not indoctrinating children with religion is a POSITIVE.”
In your opinion, presumably. All your opinions plus $5 cash, will no buy a $5 cup of coffee.
Keep opining.
What’s your opinion on the demonstrated fact that nobody has managed to provide a GHE description which accords with fact?
“Not indoctrinating children with religion is a POSITIVE.”
indoctrinate:
: to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs
The goal should be to teach politics, rather than to indoctrinate students in/with a narrow set of political beliefs.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/indoctrinate
I said, educate.
And it seems it would good to educate about other religions and even global warming cargo cult.
But also if believe in global warming, educate about that also- plus also compared to other religions.
So, cargo cult of global warming believe we should stop using fossil fuels, and we should use alternative energy- but maybe not nuclear energy or hydrodams. Instead our faith indicates we shall use solar panels and wind mills to power electrical grids.
We also want to get rid of cows.
Some, global warmer believe in the god Gaia, she is perhaps angry we are using fossil fuels. {Why she made them is mystery- but probably because wants to vex humans, whom she regard as plague upon her].
Got thru #8 which related to land ownership.
And forgot about ocean settlements – which is same as number 8 but
includes ocean real estate.
Of course as I have said, if Mars has mineable water and
other aspects which related to Mars actually being a habitable
planet [Ie can humans live in lower gravity world- related to
testing artificial gravity {My 1} then you will get ocean settlements
[on Earth}. You also get people living in Venus orbit, but that’s also related to My #1.
I didn’t listen until 9 to 12.
Anyhow, the ones from 1 to 8 would be very significant if done,
But does compare to my take:
1 test artificial gravity.
2 Explore moon, quicker.
3 explore Mars.
4. globalize home schooling.
a: Homing schooling includes how to make clean water.
b: basic medical health.
4 is global home schooling rather than just poor and near death,
so helps US, Europe, and etc and cost extending to everyone, is
not much. Or not just about poor, roughly zero cost to them, and
cost something to everyone.
Testing, artificial gravity, about 1 billion dollar- but you have do, so 1 billion, now rather than later. Speeding up lunar exploration- 3 billion. But delay lunar base, save 10 billion, and quickly start crew Mars without first doing lunar base. Make lots of bases on Mars, +20 billion.
Oh, assuming lunar water looks like it’s mineable- ie, companies are investing in mining lunar water and artificial gravity “works fairly well”, put artificial gravity station in Venus orbit- 30 billion dollars. [though depending testing artificial gravity it might require more money-50 or 100 billion- as have make bigger and stronger- like say 1 km radius- but same applies to testing it. We have not tested it at all, but if have test to 1 km radius- one could say Mars exploration is delayed and then you instead do lunar bases, or your space exploration is all about how to make artificial gravity “work”. Also when test artificial gravity it might “prove” Mars is not habitable- saving money on not trying to explore Mars. The moon doesn’t need artificial gravity- most stuff done on Moon can done by people staying on Earth- it’s only 1.5 second light speed delay.
You make space power satellites from Moon- but humans aren’t going to be spacefaring civilization any time soon.
tim…”[GR] Only on a system with lines of latitude and longitude.
[Tim]But that IS the system being used! That is how the satellite data is being presented.
***
Yes Tim, but it’s not the sphere I was talking about. On a real, uniform sphere, a surface area at any point will be the same surface area at any other point.
Furthermore, there is no reason why GISS and others need to use a gridded system based on latitude and longitude. It’s more convenient but it adds a complication that is not worth it, like having to use weighting. Using modern computer models, it’s far easier to ignore lines of latitude and longitude and go strictly with polar coordinates.
I corrected myself later, pointing out that I had failed to account for lines of longitude converging at the Poles, and that I should have used square measure rather than degrees, which are dimensionless unless a specific radius is implied. On a real sphere, using polar coordinates, that is never a problem, it applies only to artificial coordinates like longitudes superimposed on a real sphere.
You took a shot at me about my attitude to those with whom I disagreed. That had not been my practice if someone did not flame me. As I recall, you started the holier-than-thou shots, talking down your nose to me about elliptical orbits, as if you were the authority and I was some uneducated passerby.
AQ is hopeless since he cannot post without taking shots. Much of the time, his entire post is comprised of flames.
How would you describe the boundaries of that region without latitude and longitude? If I found the data for a given region, how would know where it sat on the earth?
And as I have been trying to tell you, there is no way to tile a sphere with more than 8 equal-area quadrilaterals. There will be gaps – how would you account for them?
On a sphere, polar coordinates become SPHERICAL polar coordinates. That is PRECISELY what latitude and longitude are. If you try to apply PLANAR polar coordinates to a sphere, angles do not increase linearly with distance, and your problem with unequal areas becomes even worse.
And you have not explained the issue with weighting. You call it a “complication”, but it is not complicated for computers, and it gives PRECISELY the right answer. Is it a complication simply because you have difficulty with the concept?
And your final sentence applies equally to you.
It applies more so to Swenson and Clint. Why don’t you complain about them? Is it only an issue when shots are taken at YOU?
Ant makes ANOTHER false accusation — It applies more so to Swenson and Clint.
Ant, I don’t insult needlessly or without reason. I prefer to NOT insult. I prefer to only discuss the science. But your cult has NO science. Your cult rejects reality. Your cult has NO respect for honesty. Want to take an honesty quiz?
Do passenger jets fly backwards, yes or no?
I have never claimed “passenger jets fly backwards”.
Their stall speeds would seem to be too large compared to any wind they are likely to fly into.
But smaller planes with much lower stall speeds CAN and HAVE flown backwards RELATIVE TO THE GROUND.
I attack for PRECISELY that reason. And YOU (under your previous moniker) were the first person to attack me when I arrived here, before I had attacked anyone.
AQ,
“I attack for PRECISELY that reason.”
Really? You “attack” because “smaller planes with much lower stall speeds CAN and HAVE flown backwards RELATIVE TO THE GROUND.”
Are you deranged? Do you think your “attack” has any effect on anybody at all?
You are both incompetent and impotent, not to say ignorant and stupid! Maybe you believe that somebody might tremble in their boots at being “attacked” by some powerless SkyDragon troll, but I guarantee you cannot name such a person who is not presently suffering from a severe mental defect.
Have you managed to figure our how the Earth managed to lose its molten surface, and cool to its present temperature? Magic, perhaps? Reverse GHE? Not enough CO2 in the atmosphere, do you think?
Go on, “attack” as hard as you can, while I laugh in your face.
Peabrain.
I certainly hope for your sake that lack of comprehension was only a deliberate point-scoring attempt on your part. If not then it’s time for you to seek help.
AQ,
What form of mental defect leads you to think I care in the slightest about your “hopes”?
Do you suffer from delusions of grandeur – imagining you are wise, powerful, and influential?
You can’t even describe the GHE, can you? Maybe you believe that if you “hope” hard enough, a GHE description will magically appear!
Keep hoping, dummy.
“But smaller planes with much lower stall speeds CAN and HAVE flown backwards RELATIVE TO THE GROUND. ”
Indeed. I’ve done it in a Piper Cub, a Tiger Moth and, on one alarming occasion, a T21 glider.
“Swenson” is referring to my past observation that a passenger jet flying East along the Equator at noon is moving forward at 1000kph relative to the Earth’s surface while travelling backwards at 30,000 kph along the Earth’s orbit.
I’m afraid that “Swenson” lacks the mental flexibility to move beyond a terrestrial frame of reference.
EM,
You wrote –
“Im afraid that “Swenson” lacks the mental flexibility to move beyond a terrestrial frame of reference.”
I suppose you think that I should be concerned by your “fear” for some bizarre reason. Feel free to be as “afraid” as you like. I dont care. Why should I?
So Flynn and Clint now deny that the earth spins. It only gets worse.
But I’m not sure where your speed of 30 000 km/h comes from.
A point on the equator rotates at about 1650 km/h, and the earth rotates around the sun at about 108 000 km/h.
Given the scenario, I assume you mean the former, so I’m not sure about your reference to the earth’s orbit.
All that blah-blah doesnt answer the simple question, Ant:
Do passenger jets fly backwards, yes or no?
Antonio
Sorry, I was using my somewhat antique memory.
It’s all about reference frames and vectors. Using your figures:-
A passenger jet flying East at an airspeed of 1000kph is moving at 1000kph relative to the air around it.
Assuming no wind it is also moving at 1000kph relative to the surface below it.
Since the Earh’s atmosphere is being carried Eastwards at 1600kph the aircraft is moving Eastward at 600+1600= 2200kph.
Relative to the solar system the Earth’s orbital motion is carrying the aircraft Westward at 108,000-2200=986,000kph.
Since the aircraft is pointing to the East while being carried Westwards around the Sun it is moving backwards ( smile emoji ).
aq…”How would you describe the boundaries of that region without latitude and longitude? If I found the data for a given region, how would know where it sat on the earth?”
***
Easy. You use polar coordinates to layout the planet using one point as a reference. You could also superimpose the latitude/longitude grid on it for physical reference.
When you use polar co-ordinates to describe a sphere in math you don’t even have to draw the sphere for reference.
As explained elsewhere, planar polar coordinates do not give a linear scale when applied to a sphere. Spherical polar coordinates ARE latitude and longitude.
AQ,
Presumably, you think has some relevance to your indescribable GHE, but you are too shy to say what it is.
Come on, man up. Don’t be scared – tell everyone what a clever chap you are, and that you are only pretending to be stupid and diversionary because you can’t describe the GHE!
Off you go now.
I like the approach of Nick Stokes and Clive Best. Use icosohedral binning to map the Earth’s surface as a grid of triangles of equal area. This removes the problem of weighting for latitude.
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9181
AQ.
You wrote –
“Why dont you complain about them? Is it only an issue when shots are taken at YOU?”
Ooooooh! Is that a childish display of petulance, or just a really, really, silly, attempt to be annoying?
You also wrote “And you have not explained the issue with weighting.” And why should he? Do you think “weighting” has something to do with a GHE that you strangely cannot even describe in any way that agrees with fact?
Spouting unsupported assertions like “And as I have been trying to tell you, there is no way to tile a sphere with more than 8 equal-area quadrilaterals.” You can try to tell anybody anything – but it may not mean its true. You might “try to tell” somebody that you have a description for the GHE, but you would be lying or completely delusional, because you have not such thing.
Try looking on the internet – do you think it will help?
Youre a fool.
Forgot to post this link earlier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZhDI_2yXO4&ab_channel=ArtCenter-Howtodraw
And I suppose you believe those are equal-area squares on the sphere. It is ART, nothing more.
“its far easier to ignore lines of latitude and longitude and go strictly with polar coordinates.”
First of all, “polar coordinates” are 2D. There are similar spherical coordinates for 3D surfaces like spheres, but spherical coordinates basically ARE longitude and latitude.
I would be fascinated by what other system you would propose. Geodesic polyhedra would be one option, but that is hardly ‘simpler’ to use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic_polyhedron
Transverse Mercator works well enough, particularly for latitudes south/north of 60N/S
I like the approach used by Nick Stokes and Clive Best. Use icosohedral binning to map the Earths surface as a grid of triangles of equal area. This removes the problem of weighting for latitude.
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9181
It still has the issue of describing the location of each triangle to the layman. If you want to find the triangle for your part of the globe, what do you look for?
It should not be beyond the wit of the coder to give latitude and longitude coordinates for the centre of each triangle.
aquerty…”Gordon
Please link to her claiming that we would all be dead by now.
If she has deleted it, you will have no problems finding it on Wayback Machine”.
***
I’m sure you’d have found it by now if it was there. Problem is, Google deletes any criticism of eco-weenies like Greta. So, I had to go to Yandex, who are remarkably open-minded compared to reports on Russian media.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-03-14-greta-thunberg-deletes-tweet-world-ending-2023.html
“In June 2018, the Swedish activist tweeted that a top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop fossil fuels over the next five years.
Here’s another beaut from the snotty-nosed rug-rat…
https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/world/greta-thunberg-calls-for-downfall-of-capitalism/
I saw her recently, scolding the rest of us for ruining her future.
This kid has an obvious vitamin deficiency. Would not surprise me in the least if she came out next week claiming to be a man.
The tweet does not say that humanity will be wiped out in 2023.
Jeez, can people not read?
“In June 2018, the Swedish activist tweeted that a top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop fossil fuels over the next five years.”
You quoted this, Gordon. Can you not understand it?
But what has happened here is that Gordon is uncritically parroting a talking-point from some conservative website. This talking point completely mischaracterises the tweet. That’s what these pits of disinformation do.
barry,
You wrote –
“The tweet does not say that humanity will be wiped out in 2023.”
That is why you cant describe the GHE, is it? Or are you just being an irrelevant dill for no reason at all?
Barry
An appearance by Flynn is always an acknowledgement that someone needed saving from their nonsense.
aq…”An appearance by Flynn is always an acknowledgement that someone needed saving from their nonsense”.
***
Who is Flynn? The lads just show up to have a laugh.
Then that would be a valid reason for me to “show up” without you crying about picked on, right? Are people not permitted to have a laugh at your expense? After all, you provide so much comedic material. Viz. the phases of the moon.
AQ,
You are free to comment as you wish, when you wish, and how you wish.
I do.
You can’t describe the GHE, so you might as well try to be to be annoying or gratuitously offensive, but it doesn’t look like yo have the talent.
Keep at it – you might get better.
Indeed I am. I don’t need your permission.
Am I free to attack Gordon as you and he attack me? Should I cease every time he starts bawling?
AQ,
You wrote –
“Indeed I am. I dont need your permission.
Am I free to attack Gordon as you and he attack me? Should I cease every time he starts bawling?”
You are most definitely deranged! Can’t you think for yourself, or are you really as lackin* in self esteem as you pretend?
You said you don’t need my permission, and then you start groveling, seeking my approval.
Grow a pair. Be a man. Stand up for yourself, and make your own decisions! You accept that you are powerless and ineffectual, but trying to get sympathy because you can’t help yourself being an idiot, is likely to generate more laughter than support.
Have you considered taking up trolling? Or do you think it would require more intelligence than you can muster? Maybe between you and the rest of the delusional SkyDragon cultists you could accumulate the IQ of a box of hair.
Only joking – you can’t add IQs any more than you can add unspecified fluxes.
Once again, Barry has managed to flip the quote to suit his narrative. I don’t care what it means, the point is, alarmists are conditioned to believe something drastic will happen if we don’t cut emissions immediately.
It would not be all that bad if Greta wasn’t also one of those paranoids who think the only solution for the future is to destroy western civilization and rob it of its assets to bail out Third World countries.
She’s a nut job, plain and simple, but I’ll bet Barry has a picture of her on his bedroom wall.
“Barry has managed to flip the quote to suit his narrative.”
No, the quote says what it says. It does not say what you said. You got it wrong. Man up.
“I don’t care what it means”
That may explain why you got it wrong.
Thunberg is over the top. You know who cares about her for one second in this forum? You.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Barry
An appearance by Flynn is always an acknowledgement that someone needed saving from their nonsense.”
What a witless attempt to draw attention away from the fact that neither barry not yourself can provide anything at all to contradict the hypothesis that the Earth’s surface was once molten, and has since cooled.
And no, I don’t have to “prove” it, any more than I have to “prove” the existence of gravity. On the other hand, without fools like the pair of you being able to even describe the “greenhouse effect”, such a thing obviously only exists in your fantasies.
You seem reluctant to accept that I am called Swenson, preferring to refer to me as a figment of your imagination, whom you no doubt can’t “prove” even exists! Shades of the incredibly inept and delusional Willard!
You’re an ignorant fool, in denial of fact. You might as well keep trying attention away from your stupidity. Your attempts may succeed with people even more stupid, but that is no great recommendation, is it?
[laughing at pretentious and foolish cultist]
” You seem reluctant to accept that I am called Swenson… ”
*
Flynnson, you are so stupid, or so bold, or both, that you cannot grasp the fact that so many people have been following your unscientific, aggressive, egomaniacal, and above all completely superfluous prose for many years.
It’s so easy to see that there’s no real difference between Mike Flynn’s and Swenson’s stuff!
“No GHE,” “4.5 billion years [since molten state],” “Some think CO2 when put between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter,” and a few other wonderful blooms make this abundantly clear.
Only uneducated or even brainless people would overlook such obvious evidence.
I have not done any analysis of what has been written in this blog behind the alias Amazed, but I wouldn’t be surprised if I saw a resemblance. Perhaps the pseudonym “Flynnamazon” then fits better in this case?
And… it’s also interesting that
– Mike Flynn disappeared just before Amazed walked in (only for a short time, what a shame)
and the
– Amazed, in turn, disappeared just before Swenson started posting his trash.
Binny,
Oh dear, are you annoyed because you can’t turn fiction into fact using your fantasy powers?
You wrote –
“Flynnson, you are so stupid, or so bold, or both, that you cannot grasp the fact that so many people have been following your unscientific, aggressive, egomaniacal, and above all completely superfluous prose for many years.”
So many people, you say. How many, do you think?
Actually, I don’t care. I leave seeking applause and worship to idiot SkyDragon cultists, who believe they can foresee the future, but can’t explain why they believe it.
It’s a good thing you have no power or influence of any sort. Do you think you could possibly perform you self proclaimed mind reading abilities to find a copy of a description of the GHE which agrees with fact, or is that too hard even for you?
If you do not care for any facts I might present, just ignore them. You could always present a contrary view, and provide alternative facts to support it. Only joking, you just whine, and do your best to deny, divert, and confuse.
There is no GHE, dummy. That’s why you can’t even describe it.
Psst, Mike Flynn –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Norman wrote –
“Swenson
Greta may change based on evidence but you cannot! Have you found any support for your false narrative that the Earth surface has continued to cool for 4.5 billion years? Roy Spencer blog you are posting to proves you wrong! Evidence means nothing to you does it?”
Norman, if you dont accept an hypothesis, you are quite at liberty to demonstrate that it is wrong, by reproducible experiment. The process is well known to scientists.
If you wish to believe something other than the Earths surface was originally molten (Hadean Eon), you are free to do so. Archbishop Ussher believed the Earth was created in 4004 BC. Lord Kelvin believed that the Earth could be no more than 40 million years old – and so on.
You can believe in the existence of phlogiston, caloric, the luminiferous ether – whatever you like. I dont need to convince you of anything, do I? You can work it out for yourself.
You cant even describe the GHE that you seem to believe in. That implies you are an anonymous religious fanatic, and quite delusional. Feel free to support any other conclusion.
Dingbat.
Don’t knock Archbishop Ussher.
He counted generations in the Bible to induce the time since the Creation. He got the beginning of the Universe wrong by 13.7 billion years, but he got the beginning of written records spot on.
He is a profound example of what happens when you try to use the bible as a science text. The bible is not a source of science knowledge.
Ussher made his calculation in 1601. At the time science was barely a concept and the Bible was the best historical data available. He did well with what he had.
Otherwise I agree with you. I spent many years teaching people who got their biology, geology and astronomy from the Bible. As one of them said, “My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts!”
“the Bible was the best historical data available”
The Bible was just one source of anecdotal information available at the time.
I think the key word is “available”.
The Book of Numbers and other Old Testament genealogical data came originally from the Torah, which might go back as far as Abraham.
There might be some data from the Fertile Crescent, where cuneiform was invented. The only other good source I can think of is the Chinese, who have kept a government bureaucracy running for 3000 years. Neither would have been available to Ussher.
The world consists of more than just Europe.
Swenson
Seems like when you can’t come up with evidence to support your claims you just post nonsense. Look at Hawaii. The islands were molten rock 5 million years ago. They cooled from molten state many years ago. Is the surface still cooling now?
[[Due to the eruption of the Mauna Loa Volcano, measurements from Mauna Loa Observatory were suspended as of Nov. 29. Observations starting in December 2022 are from a site at the Maunakea Observatories, approximately 21 miles north of the Mauna Loa Observatory.]]
March 2023: 421.00 ppm
March 2022: 418.81 ppm
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
Looks like it’s flattening.
But they could be measuring it wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHLafd2MU-k
“GREENHOUSE THEORY’S GREATEST WEAKNESS”
Jim Steele
Qualifications?
AQ,
And he should respond because . . . ?
I’m struggling to find the part where I said “you should respond”. Comprehension issues again? But he thanks you for diving in to save him again.
AQ,
I agree you are struggling. You asked a question, unless you have redefined a word followed by a question mark to be “not a question”.
Idiotic SkyDragon cultists often try to appear clever by being obscure, and then whine that they are misunderstood.
By the way, have you managed to provide a description of the GHE, or have you given up due to such a description being non-existent? About as impossible as providing a copy of Gavin Schmidt’s “climate scientist” qualifications (mythical), or Michael (Fraud, Faker, Scofflaw and Deadbeat) Mann’s Nobel Prize (imaginary).
Not doing too well with answers? Gee, maybe you should try a diversion – bang on about irrelevant things like “weighting”, and demonstrate appalling ignorance of non-Euclidean geometry.
Carry on being an idiot troll. No facts will be affected.
Mike Flynn,
Sierra Jim’s best qualification is that he’s playing Climateball like a boss:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/like-a-boss/
2016. Time flies.
“Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalists Journey to Climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition. He shares his expertise regards climate change, ecology, and environmental stewardship.”
So unqualified in radiative physics then.
AQ,
Would these be some sort of “radiative physics” appearing in the description of the GHE, or the “radiative physics” which so-called “climate scientists” like Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann etc., are totally unqualified in?
Which sort of “radiative physics” was involved in the four and a half billion years of the Earth’s cooling, do you think?
You don’t to seem to know what you are talking about. Maybe you mean “radiation physics”, and its underlying theoretical basis? Maybe all you can do is parrot sciency sounding jargon – things like “forcing”, “back radiation”, “global surface temperature”, “positive feedback” – and all the rest of the nonsense.
Troll away.
Rules out Michael Mann then.
Swenson,
“Which sort of radiative physics was involved in the four and a half billion years of the Earths cooling, do you think?”
So what was the temperature of the Earth before 4 1/2 billion years ago, you know it’s older than that, don’t you?
The surface of the Earth cooled from its molten state, due to the collision with another planet sized body by radiating away the heat.
That kind of radiative physics.
Until the surface was nearly completely frozen over with glaciers nearly to the equator on two or maybe three occasions.
From which it has had periods of warming or cooling on various time frames.
Even you say it warms during the day and cools at night, contradicting another claim of yours that it has only cooled.
Alas, the “argument from authority ” is only valid when the source is actually an authority on the subject under discussion.
Rules out Michael Mann then.
https://www.youtube.com/@jimsteele9246/videos
Thanks for the link. I learned a lot about how ocean temperatures flow.
Imagine knowing nothing about a subject, for which expert opinion is diverse, and ‘learning’ about it by reading only one extreme end of the spectrum of opinion, an outlier opinion.
Of course that is choice some make, to feed one’s own biases.
Does his argument make sense? If it does then that is his qualification.
His arguments do not make sense. That is a disqualification.
IYHO of course.
For example. His description of the behaviour of energy absorbed by the sea surface from DWLWR is in error. It does not all radiate immediately. Some transfers by conduction warming the air above the surface film and the water below.
He is also mistaken about the mechanism by which DWLWR affects the temperature of the bulk ocean .There is a small amount of direct warming of the surface film. The larger effect is that because the surface film becomes slightly warmer than the water below, the film acts as a barrier slowing heat flow from ocean to atmosphere and raising the equilibrium ocean temperature.
Jim Steele?
Oh, that is the guy who claims that not climate change is responsible for coral bleaching, but… sea level falling!
Ha ha ha haaah.
Sea level falling at the Great Barrier Reef? That is really the very best.
Let us look at some PSMSL tide gauges located in the near of it.
Here are the trends for the satellite era (PSMSL id, first resp. last reporting year, name, lat, long, trend without resp. with vertical land movement correction (VLM) ):
0953 | 1960 | 2020 | CAIRNS____________ | -16.92 | 145.78 | 33.57 | 18.53
1397 | 1976 | 2018 | PAPEETE-B_________ | -17.53 | -149.57 | 6.96 | 9.03
1629 | 1985 | 2020 | MOURILYAN_HARBOUR_ | -17.58 | 146.08 | 33.96 | 35.00
0637 | 1959 | 2022 | TOWNSVILLE_I______ | -19.25 | 146.83 | 44.45 | 14.42
1492 | 1992 | 2022 | CAPE_FERGUSON_____ | -19.28 | 147.06 | 43.62 | 42.73
1569 | 1983 | 2018 | SHUTE_HARBOUR_2___ | -20.28 | 148.78 | 33.88 | 18.34
0564 | 1960 | 2020 | MACKAY____________ | -21.10 | 149.23 | 43.08 | 13.62
1246 | 1969 | 2020 | HAY_POINT_________ | -21.28 | 149.30 | 40.96 | 26.06
1760 | 1993 | 2022 | ROSSLYN_BAY_______ | -23.16 | 150.79 | 43.39 | 43.76
2072 | 1986 | 2020 | PORT_ALMA_________ | -23.58 | 150.87 | 35.72 | 25.80
0825 | 1978 | 2020 | GLADSTONE_________ | -23.85 | 151.31 | 44.00 | 24.87
We see that most gauges have a VLM trend being lower than that without VLM: this means that the portion of the Australian coast shows subsidence. Means not the sea level falls, but the land.
Typical nonsense.
1397 | 1976 | 2018 | PAPEETE-B_________ | -17.53 | -149.57 | 6.96 | 9.03
This is a mistake of course. Shouldn’t belong to the list.
Texas A&M University – Atmospheric Sciences
https://atmo.tamu.edu/about/faculty-statement-climate-change/index.html
1) We are in a 40-60 year warming trend.
2) Any human contribution to recent warming is transitory, as is any warming from natural factors, such as solar variability, unforced variability, or volcanic activity during this period.
3) The most likely scenario for the future is that a cooling trend will follow. Some evidence exists that this current warming trend has already peaked.
Sources?
Anecdotes are not data.
Start with UAH data at top.
didn’t think so.
Reality can be a bitch, huh?
Clint R
Are you the only one who still doesn’t know that UAH LT (though only in revision 6.0) is an absolute outlier?
I’m sorry for you…
Have you ever compared all these time series? I think no.
Yes Bin, making false accusations is indeed trolling. That’s what you do so well.
Your cult has flunked both science and personal integrity. But your failed attempts to pervert reality are always fun.
TM,
You quoted –
“Our best estimate is that humans are responsible for most or all of this warming.”
Seems fair to me. No GHE necessary.
I note that your quote does not mention the GHE, CO2, or H2O.
Did you intentionally choose that quote to support me?
“2) Our best estimate is that humans are responsible for most or all of this warming. Natural factors, such as solar variability, unforced variability, or volcanic activity, have likely had little cumulative effect over this period.”
Our best estimate is that natural variability is responsible for most or all of this warming. Evidence is needed to state otherwise and there is none. As you stated, anecdote doesn’t cut it.
“Our best estimate is…”
Source?
Who’s we?
That’s the accumulated knowledge from watching countless Youtube presentations and reading hundreds of papers on the subject.
You’ve read hundreds of papers and yet you can’t provide one source?
https://www.scirp.org/html/3217.html
Why do you keep citing non-luckwarmers, Gill?
The entire topic global warming is based upon proxies of temperature records.
For instance we are in what is call the Holocene interglacial period- and record of past glaciation period and interglacial period.
Things like the Holocene was not as warm as past interglacial periods in which sea levels rose meters higher than present sea levels and during glaciation periods there were colder periods than the present global temperature. This evidence past human settlement well below current sea level. Evidence of ice sheet no evidence found of ice sheets before our present Ice Age.
You offer our own theory and evidence or cite some one else. I can point to someone who it can explain by changing amounts atmosphere if want to believe that.
But I think the Little Ice Age is generally accepted and I don’t think our atmosphere has change much since that time.
Akasofu is one of the major authorities for many. Especially people like Robertson never stop to appeal to his authority.
I found in a first reading interesting things (page 1214-15).
*
1. ” The linear trend of the recovery from the LIA can also be seen in sea level changes (Jevreje[v]a et al.)
Figure 2(c) shows the global sea level from 1800.
{ tinyurl.com/3zujxeeh }
It is clear that the sea level began to increase in about 1850
and continued rising almost linearly to the present. ”
*
Firstly, Jewrejeva’s evaluation of tide gauges is highly questionable, and was subject to many criticisms. Especially her anomaly construction based of such a simplistic method as the so-called ‘first difference’ makes professionals’ hair stand on end.
Moreover, the first really reliable tide gauges were Brest (France, 1807), Swinoujscie (Poland, 1811), Sheerness (UK, 1832), Cuxhaven (Germany, 1843), Maassluis (Netherlands, 1848), San Francisco (US, 1854), Warnemuende (Germany, 1855), New York (US, 1856), etc.
45 of the 50 oldest tide gauges (starts between 1807 and 1887) were in Europe, most of them in Sweden and Germany.
This gives a clear indication of how ‘reliable’ any global sea level assessment will be when starting around 1800, let alone in 1700!
That is the reason why most recent evaluation no longer process data anterior to 1900.
**
2. ” There is no accurate Arctic Ocean data until satellite observations became available in the 1970s. The only long-term observation of sea ice is available from the Norwegian Sea. Figure 2(d) shows changes in the southern edge of sea ice in the Norwegian Sea.
It has been receding from about 1800 to the present at almost the
same rate (Vinje). In the lower part, satellite data are shown. ”
*
Interesting!
What about reading
Observed sea ice extent in the Russian Arctic, 19332006
Andrew R. Mahoney, Roger G. Barry, Vasily Smolyanitsky, Florence Fetterer (2008)
https://tinyurl.com/nhk6n3wa
or simply looking at the HadISST1 ICE data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ebdqPl_tmxazXAMchHEU87zVvvPdonef/view
**
After reading just a page of Akasofu’s prose, I find that he is as happy to use unreliable data analysis as he is to leave it out – depending on whether it fits his narrative.
That does not motivate very much to read further.
*
HadISST1 ICE source:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
Bindidon it makes sense in Akasofu’s view that significant sealevel rise began in the mid-19th century as this is the acknowledged end of the LIA.
Up until then the preponderance of evidence suggested sealevel was falling due to glacial increases. The preponderance of evidence also shows that glacial decreases were greatest in the latter half of the 19th century slowing in the early 20th century then accelerating again. If the pattern continues glacial decreases are apt to slow over the next few decades. Many glaciers already show that explaining the massive decrease in alarming studies of shrinking glaciers in all parts of the world. Instead the focus has narrowed to a few more behemoth glaciers like West Antartica and the largest glacier in Greenland that simply by its mass is more resistant to change. If that proves out to be true is hard to say as there probably isn’t any reliable data on these glaciers in the 19th century to gain an understanding of natural variation patterns.
then of course you throw in some Greenland glaciers that in the 21st century retreated far enough to uncover Viking farms 800 to 1200 years old showing these Glaciers to be within the ranges of normal climate variation.
https://climateball.net/but-this-odd-place/#greenland
Willard says:
”Why do you keep citing non-luckwarmers, Gill?”
Akasofu clearly acknowledges warming is occurring Willard. He also isn’t denying human interference in the climate.
Akasofu just makes the elementary observation that to understand the human interference in climate you first must understand how climate changes naturally. In addition he supports the view using the same science that CAGW scientists have proposed. . . .hundreds of years of feedback, and clear and abundant empirical evidence of significant global cooling during the LIA.
When he wrote this mainstream science was politically aligned with Al Gore’s inconvenient truth and the attempts of that film to make a lot of science go away in claiming no significant climate change for thousands of years. That claim is no longer made as it never had any basis. When was the last time you heard a so-called credible source make that claim? I haven’t heard it for at least 10 years.
Gill, Gill,
Even Sky Dragon cranks admit that warming is occuring.
That’s the GW part.
Please.
who said there was no warming occurring? I mean sky dragon cranks, cargo cultists, and mainstream science are hand in hand believing warming is happening.
Here’s some evidence. Sorry about the presentation, but the data is sound.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
The problem with the natural variation hypothesis is that all the natural variations are small and together would cause slow cooling.
The two artificial variations, GHGs and land use generate a predicted warming which matches observations.
No offense, but I prefer IPCC AR6.
Which part of IPCC AR6 do you prefer? The executive summary or the main body of the work?
Not as concise. AR6 covers the ground better, but not in a single simple graphic.
AR6, Chapter 3, titled Human Influence on the Climate System, is required reading for anyone [Ken] making the extraordinary claim that “natural variability is responsible for most or all of this warming.”
Can Ken provide references disproving any of the research in chapter 3?
TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
”Can Ken provide references disproving any of the research in chapter 3?”
Obviously you don’t understand how science works. Science can’t disprove the claim God Exists. Nor any similar such claim.
God is not natural variability, Gill.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Willard says:
God is not natural variability, Gill.
———————–
How do you know Willard?
The problem with your theory here on natural variation resulting in cooling falls flat on its face with the first claim on deforestation.
The claim is that deforestation results in a lighter surface and thus reflects more light.
a) per Stefan Boltzmann equations the reflection of light has no effect on an equilibrium temperature.
b) there are more impacts from deforestation, the largest being if we accept CO2 as a warming influence, deforestation greatly diminishes CO2 uptake. Sustainably harvested forests don’t necessarily have a great impact as older trees are removed that reduces trees dying and rotting on the forest floor but as we can see from tree rings growth accelerates as a tree gets larger thus carbon uptake accelerates. Some arguments are made but not scientifically supported that mature forests are carbon neutral. That of course is unfounded as the great oil reserves at least in major part comes from the sequestration of carbon uptaken by by ancient forests. Did physics and chemistry change some time in the near past and that is no longer the case?
You can’t just start waving your arms and dismissing natural climate change. The challenge here is to actually do the science to establish the right of the plutocracy to use regulation to make it more difficult for the least fortunate by allowing the elite to both profit while the poor suffer.
Climate change needs to proven to be from CO2 first and just saying it is by fiat does not provide justification for allowing the use of carbon just because you are rich or well enough off that you feel an increase in carbon prices is something you personally can afford.
This kind of draconian oppression seems to always rise in affluent societies. Democracy has its limits and such democracy needs to be held to spend their money to improve science, fire the institutions advocating shortcuts for their own benefits, improve the civil service and bring sanity back.
I would make it simpler, all climate projection have been wrong and IPCC, no one can predict the future global temperature.
What could be the reason other than unpredictable natural variability.
So all they can do is provide “projections” rather than prediction.
No can say how much warming is from CO2. And CO2 increase in theory
water vapor. How much from CO2 and how much from H20?
If anyone knew this there would just one projection- host of them and all wrong.
Indeed gbaikie. Certified Public Accountants are prohibited from predicting in their public attestation role. They are allowed to project, if and only if such projections are accompanied with disclaimers.
Science doesn’t know where the line is. Neither do CPAs. It all subjective and varies wildly depending upon the plethora of motivations, especially pecuniary interests, of the individual.
“per Stefan Boltzmann equations the reflection of light has no effect on an equilibrium temperature.”
*facepalm*
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is based on blackbodies, which neither reflect nor transmit light. This law does not even consider reflection and transmission.
Yes, the albedo of an object makes a difference to its equilibrium temperature. A black surface in the sun will be warmer than a white surface of the same material in the sun, for example, because the white surface reflects much of the sunlight striking it.
Not only is this so in physics, it’s part of our everyday experience.
What a daft comment you made, Bill.
“3) On our current trajectory, the increase in global average temperature this century will exceed the Paris Agreements goal of staying well below 3.6F.”
The rationale for Paris Agreement goal has never made any sense. Humans flourish when climate is warmer. There is anecdotal evidence from history that civilizations rise when climate warms and fall when climate cools.
ken…”The rationale for Paris Agreement goal has never made any sense”.
***
That’s because it’s not about global warming or climate change, it’s about the UN’s lifelong mission to get money from wealthy countries and transfer it to poorer countries. Ideally, they’d want to be the top dog, running the show.
Mayans – drought from excessive logging is the leading theory.
Drought is a leading cause of civilizational collapse. Akkadians experienced 300 years of drought when the ME warmed several thousand years ago.
It is not that the climate changes, it is the things affected by a changing climate that cause the collapse. Hot temperatures didn’t kill of the Akkadian civilization, but the mega-droughts that came as a result is what immediately caused the collapse.
“Continued increases of atmospheric and oceanic temperatures present the risk of serious challenges to human society and ecosystems. It is difficult to quantify such challenges, except to say that the potential magnitudes of impacts increase rapidly as the magnitude of global warming increases.”
Evidence is required to support extraoridnary claims like this.
The geological and historical data show the earth has been warmer for most of the past ten thousand years than it is now. There were only serious challenges to human society and ecosystems when the climate dramatically cooled as it did at the start of the little ice age. An example is the famine of 1315 – 1317 where Europe lost a third of its population.
Global warming is mostly about higher global water vapor.
One could start with a question- and if can’t answer it, you know nothing. Where on Earth would you get the highest increase in global water vapor.
Is it uniform. Has been uniform. Has been more somewhere and will continue to have more in future.
Anyhow California drought is over, and no one predicted it.
“The geological and historical data show the earth has been warmer for most of the past ten thousand years than it is now.”
Untrue. There is no reputable source for this. It is possible the globe was warmer just after the climb out of the last glacial period 9000 years ago, but since then it likely has been cooler than present most if not all of the time. The globe was warmer in the previous interglacial 120,000 years ago.
The biggest climate change human civilization witnessed was the drying of the Sahara Desert.
It seems the biggest climate change we could ever witness again, it the greening of the Sahara desert, again.
Though humans might spend hundreds of billion of dollars to make the Sahara desert green, again.
And could be a good investment to make happen.
Remind me to advise anyone planning to attend Texas A&M University Atmospheric Sciences, to find a better university.
Whatever it takes to separate the wheat from chaff.
Texas A&M University Atmospheric Sciences should be closed for not teaching scientific method.
It seems that my post has struck a nerve; it hit a vein.
Good old dad used to say: If you can’t run with the big dogs you’d better stay on the porch.
Tyson gives a hip hip hooray for plutocracy.
Reject ESG.
ESG stands for Environmental, Social, and Governance, and it refers to a set of criteria that companies use to measure and report on their performance in areas such as sustainability, ethical behavior, and corporate governance.
Criteria set by whom and measured by what?
Ayuh. It means banks are not lending to oil companies and are thereby distorting the economy, causing inflation, and ignoring fiduciary duties.
The ‘woke”green’ policies are destroying the value of the dollar. The countries who have accepted US dollar as global reserve currency are looking to use a currency that isn’t being devalued so rapidly by stupid policies. When (not if) the US dollar is replaced, there will be trillions of worthless dollars flowing back to USA. There will be a sovereign debt crisis.
80% of countries are considering to use BRICS as reserve currency including Saudi Arabia and Mexico. Who can blame them? There is no incentive to trade hard commodeties and goods for currency for currency when US government is printing trillions.
Therefore reject ESG before the US currency is forced to collapse because of it.
Sounds like you “reject ESG” based on your politics. Can you even list one criterion of ESG?
You are one of those people who blows out the candle and then sits there cursing the dark.
“Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing refers to a set of standards for a companys behavior used by socially conscious investors to screen potential investments.”
“Environmental criteria consider how a company safeguards the environment, including corporate policies addressing climate change, for example.”
“Social criteria examine how it manages relationships with employees, suppliers, customers, and the communities where it operates.”
“Governance deals with a companys leadership, executive pay, audits, internal controls, and shareholder rights.”
We can stop here. we know climate change is about fairy dust and unicorns. When a company focuses on Climate change claptrap we know its ignorning its fiduciary responsibilities.
Shareholder rights is all about corporate fiduciary responsibility.
ESG is a socialist construct that has nothing to do with rights and freedoms and everything to do with trying to force others to conform to your socialist agenda that you cannot force through into law in any place that still actually abides by democratic principles.
An example is a company like say Air BnB refusing service to the parents of someone whose political opinion the Air BnB management disagrees with. This isn’t about democratic governance. Its about managing relationships they don’t like instead of engaging in fairness in the provision of service to anyone. ‘Othering’ on the basis of political opinion is socialism at its worst.
> This isnt about democratic governance.
You must be confused once again, Kennui.
Why are you ranting against corporations?
How ESG works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVUEUJxXxEM&ab_channel=FoxNews
How Freedom Fighters still brown nose corporations even after they realize they’re anti-democratic:
https://youtu.be/Y888wVY5hzw
How ESG works part II:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/did-esg-help-sink-svb-progressive-climate-bank-bailout-federal-reserve-treasury-biden-insurance-9db64b0b
ESG at work part III
https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/features/could-western-investors-esg-strategies-keep-the-lights-off-in-africa/
Reject ESG.
ESG at work part IV … what happens when government gets infected with ESG radicals.
Steven Guilbeault recently tweeted: “Inflation can be tough on Canadians but we can’t neglect the climate crisis. Future generations will bear the cost of inaction”
He apparently deleted the tweet once he realized how negligent he is regarding his role as MP and Minister of Environment. Its malfeasance.
The fact is that Steven Guilbeault is a radical.
He is a true believer and thinks that everything is justified in the name of fighting climate change.
If your family has to get screwed over financially, it doesnt matter to him so long as Canada is taking climate action.
Hes willing to destroy tons of jobs, alienate entire provinces and regions, enrich the energy sectors of hostile foreign powers, and ruin Canadas economic prospects, all to fulfill his radical ideological vision and impose that vision on the rest of us.
This ‘imposing of his vision on the rest of us’ is the naked face of ESG.
If I had a rocket launcher some son of bitch would die.
Ken,
In the USA, more people are killed with hammers than assault rifles and rocket launchers combined.
Just a hint.
Mike Flynn,
There are less people named “Mike Flynn” than people not named “Mike Flynn.”
Just a hint.
Ken, again with the politics and the culture wars!
I couldn’t give two flying f***s about Air BnB.
I look at ESG from an Engineer’s point of view.
The Engineer’s Code of Ethics includes principles that encourage engineers to prioritize the health, safety, and welfare of the public, as well as the protection of the environment. In this way, the Engineers’ Code of Ethics is closely aligned with the ESG framework, as both aim to promote responsible and sustainable business practices.
However I know from experience that engineers experience conflict between the requirements of the employer on the one hand and their responsibility to society on the other.
The ESG framework levels the playing field so that all projects are evaluated based on the same criteria. Whether my project is in Brazil or West Texas I have the reasonable expectation that I will not be outbid by a competitor who cuts corners in his waste handling facilities for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinvestment
Has been very effective in some notable cases, like the ending of Apartheid in South Africa.
“The Engineers Code of Ethics includes principles that encourage engineers to prioritize the health, safety, and welfare of the public, as well as the protection of the environment. In this way, the Engineers Code of Ethics is closely aligned with the ESG framework, as both aim to promote responsible and sustainable business practices.”
This is how ESG is sold: the alleged aim is to promote responsible and sustainable business practices.
Except it isn’t working that way. Its not responsible or sustainable to deny coal fired electricity to people who have not enough access to light up an electric light bulb.
Its not responsible or sustainable to say that there is climate change due to combustion of fossil fuels despite the lack of evidence and then deny services such as banking to business that can’t operate without fossil fuels.
Its not responsible or sustainable to distort an economy on the basis of ESG principles when it undermines the economy to the point of economic collapse.
Its not responsible or sustainable to take away access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels without there being a viable (key word viable) alternative. ‘Green’ is not viable; in fact ‘Green’ energy is more detrimental to the environment than any fossil fuel industry. Even hydro is not viable unless you have the geography.
“Its not responsible or sustainable to say that there is climate change due to combustion of fossil fuels despite the lack of evidence ”
C’mon Ken, you can’t possibly still be denying that there is strong evidence?
“Green is not viable; in fact Green energy is more detrimental to the environment than any fossil fuel industry.”
And where could you possibly have gotten that ridiculous idea?
Newscorp.
Coal and oil: friends of the environment?
“Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can accumulate in fish to levels of concern for human health and the health of fish-eating wildlife. Mercury contamination of fish is the primary reason for issuing fish consumption advisories, which exist in every State in the Nation. Much of the mercury in the environment originates from combustion of COAL”
https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/mercury#:~:text=Mercury%20is%20emitted%20by%20natural,%2C%20industrial%20uses%2C%20and%20mining.
“Most of the sulfur dioxide released into the environment comes from electric utilities, especially those that burn coal. Some other sources of sulfur dioxide include petroleum refineries, cement manufacturing, paper pulp manufacturing, and metal smelting and processing facilities. Locomotives, large ships, and some non-road diesel equipment currently burn high-sulfur fuel and release sulfur dioxide into the air. In nature, volcanic eruptions can release sulfur dioxide into the air.”
“Short-term exposure to high levels of sulfur dioxide can be life-threatening. Generally, exposures can cause a burning sensation in the nose and throat. Also, exposure can cause difficulty breathing, including changes in the body’s ability to take a breath or breathe deeply, or take in as much air per breath. Long-term exposure to sulfur dioxide can cause changes in lung function and aggravate existing heart disease.
Sulfur dioxide dissolves easily in water to form sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid is a major component of acid rain. Acid rain can damage forests and crops, change the acidity of soils, and make lakes and streams acidic and unsuitable for fish. Sulfur dioxide also contributes to the decay of building materials and paints, including monuments and statues.
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/sulfurdioxide.htm#:~:text=Most%20of%20the%20sulfur%20dioxide,metal%20smelting%20and%20processing%20facilities.
Yes TM, your pathetic quotes did seem like you were slitting your wrists.
No harm done, I hope. Your cult’s meltdown is just starting. Hang in there.
Hey, Pup.
Here’s you with NOTHING:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/comet-ison-time-lapse-video-take-2/
You didn’t told us you liked astrology!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I missed the discussions earlier about Jim Steele’s “GREENHOUSE THEORY’S GREATEST WEAKNESS”
Unfortunately he makes the same mistake as many. His version of the “theory” has the same gap. Sun warms Earth’s surface, and the emitted infrared warms the atmosphere. That’s all true. It’s the Sun, stupid.
But, the missing gap is how does CO2 in the atmosphere then warm the surface?
The answer is, or course, it can’t. CO2’s 15μ photons have less energy than those emitted at the spectrum peak from an ice cube.
That’s why this is so much fun.
> the missing gap is how does CO2 in the atmosphere then warm the surface?
No it doesn’t, Pupmaster Troll, and no it isn’t.
Will this absolute idiocy finally stop one day?
Like H2O, CO2 does not ‘warm the atmosphere’.
These gases help reduce IR emissions from the Earth’s surface into space. And compared to H2O, the contribution of CO2 is still anything but high.
But Clint R doesn’t believe it, of course, as he’s ‘convinced’ that CO2 is more likely to magically transform atmospheric heat into infrared radiation and hence contributes to global cooling instead.
As we know, Clint R ‘knows’.
*
Hint
CO2 indeed contributes to cooling: in the mesosphere and the thermosphere.
A model estimate of cooling in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere due to the CO 2 Increase over the last 3-4 decades
Akmaev, Fomichev (2000)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252661005_A_model_estimate_of_cooling_in_the_mesosphere_and_lower_thermosphere_due_to_the_CO_2_Increase_over_the_last_3-4_decades
OMG! I have overlooked: it’s model-based.
Vade retro, Satanas!
Oops?!
” Like H2O, CO2 does not ‘warm the atmosphere’. ”
should read
Like H2O, CO2 does not ‘warm the surface’.
Its not that simple Bindidon.
CO2 has only one weak capability to warm the surface and only to equilibrium.
Water has a much more capable of way of doing the same thing. But water also has a chemical phase change occurring that isn’t necessarily limited to the rules of thermodynamics.
In fact even mainstream science ascribes to the viewpoint that water is absolutely necessary for any substantial warming. Connecting CO2 to increases in water vapor therefore is critical to the theory.
There is even some science that demonstrates that CO2 can have effects on the amount of water vapor.
As a result the majority of scientists believe CO2 can cause some temperature rise but among them there is virtually no agreement by how much. Those that band around the mid point of the modeling exercise do so entirely politically and do so ignorantly because the only reason to is to advocate for action.
And I say ignorantly I mean there is practically no group of people more isolated from what matters as are physicists.
> Connecting CO2 to increases in water vapor therefore is critical to the theory.
Gill, Gill,
Put water in a kettle.
Find a way for the kettle to gain energy.
Watch and observe.
Please.
All this nonsense about CO2 stopping energy from being radiated to space from the surface doesnt seem to apply at night, does it? Or over the past four and half billion years, or during winter or during a solar eclipse . . .
Fourier was right – during the night the surface loses all the heat of they, plus a little of its remnant heat.
All the idiot GHE believers here can do is accuse me of being someone else – a fat lot of good that will do them!
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
Witless Wee Willy,
Thanks for asking, donkey.
All this nonsense about CO2 stopping energy from being radiated to space from the surface doesnt seem to apply at night, does it? Or over the past four and half billion years, or during winter or during a solar eclipse . . .
Fourier was right during the night the surface loses all the heat of they, plus a little of its remnant heat.
All the idiot GHE believers here can do is accuse me of being someone else a fat lot of good that will do them!
What are you braying about, Mike?
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Glad you asked. donkey,
All this nonsense about CO2 stopping energy from being radiated to space from the surface doesn’t seem to apply at night, does it? Or over the past four and half billion years, or during winter or during a solar eclipse . . .
Fourier was right during the night the surface loses all the heat of they, plus a little of its remnant heat.
All the idiot GHE believers here can do is accuse me of being someone else a fat lot of good that will do them!
” All this nonsense about CO2 stopping energy from being radiated to space from the surface doesn’t seem to apply at night, does it? ”
*
As usual, Flynnson is screwing the blog by posting his stupid crap again. Slowly but surely he manages to beat every onanist.
So, according to the ‘genius’ Flynnson, the Earth doesn’t emit IR at night, which puts the poor GHE gases H2O, CO2 and a few others out of work until sunrise, doesn’t it?
Aha.
Let’s take a quick look at the SURFRAD stations in the US which continuously observe downwelling and upwelling solar and IR.
1. Fort Peck, Montana
https://i.postimg.cc/YCPR4g67/SURFRAD-Fort-Peck-MT-upwelling-IR-050423.png
2. Goodwin Creek, Mississippi
https://i.postimg.cc/sXhYqDNR/SURFRAD-Godwin-Creek-MS-upwelling-IR-050423.png
We can clearly see that the IR upwelling does by no means drop to zero at night.
*
{ Perhaps the ‘ingenious’ Flynnson recently discovered that GHE gas molecules are all sleeping at night? Who knows? }
*
Unfortunately, there are no SURFRAD stations in the Tropics, let alone at the Poles, which would give us interesting comparisons with these US stations located between 30N and 50N.
*
And let’s not forget the lesson of this ‘scientifically oh so perfectly trained teacher’:
” Earth surface has continued to cool for 4.5 billion years. ”
To be honest, I’m literally ‘Amazed’.
*
Fourier was a real genius and a great science man – unlike the dumb Flynnson.
Unfortunately, he did not have the necessary measuring instruments.
Bindidon, FYI, there are some other active stations with current data at high latitudes:
https://bsrn.awi.de/nc/stations/maps/
since you like working with data, you might try thar for Point Barrow, Alaska or Ny-lesund, Spitsbergen:
https://bsrn.awi.de/fileadmin/user_upload/bsrn.awi.de/_processed_/0/e/csm_BSRN-Station-Arctic_4b32510b79.png
E. Swanson
I didn’t watch this thread’s corner.
Thanks for the reply.
Until now I didn’t process any SURFRAD data: I just posted their plots.
This here
https://bsrn.awi.de/nc/stations/maps/
I never saw before. Sounds interesting.
Hunter boy
” CO2 has only one weak capability to warm the surface and only to equilibrium.
Water has a much more capable of way of doing the same thing. ”
*
Again you show the typical behavior of Pseudoskeptics: all are unable to read because they merely scan documents for the presence of what they discredit or the absence of what they want to see.
If you would have read my comment instead of blindly searching for keys in it, you would have seen:
” And compared to H2O, the contribution of CO2 is still anything but high. ”
*
If you had saved yourself your redundant answer, you would have saved me the work of reading and answering it.
So what was the point of your post Bindidon? You didn’t appear to be refuting anything.
“CO2s 15μ photons have less energy ”
Go ahead and walk through this CO2 laser beam, Clint:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Carbon_Dioxide_Laser_At_The_Laser_Effects_Test_Facility.jpg/600px-Carbon_Dioxide_Laser_At_The_Laser_Effects_Test_Facility.jpg
Its photons are too low in energy to hurt you!
Troll Nate, this is another example of why you’re braindead. This has been explained to you numerous times, but you can’t understand it.
There are NO lasers in the sky.
Maybe that’s simple enough for you?
“There are NO lasers in the sky.”
Indeed so, as the CO2 emitted photons in the laser dramatically illustrated, the fact that
“CO2s 15μ photons have less energy”
did not stop them from being abs.orbed by a surface, adding to the internal energy of that surface, and thus warming it.
Oh well. You are wrong once again.
Correct Nate, there are no lasers in the sky. Hopefully you will remember that, rather than making a fool of yourself, again.
But that’s not likely, huh?
bill h…”Which part of IPCC AR6 do you prefer? The executive summary or the main body of the work?”
***
There’s no difference, Bill. The Summary is released before the main body and before the main body is released, it is amended to fit the Summary. Those who write the main body reports can complain but it generally falls on deaf ears.
That’s why the IPCC is corrupt. The Summary is written by 50 politically-appointed Lead Authors who have the power to amend the main report.
Above the Lead Author category is the Coordinating Lead Author position and we saw that power abused in the Climategate email scandal. One of them, Phil Jones of Had-crut, bragged that he and a fellow CLA (Kevin) would see to it that certain papers from skeptics would not reach the review stage. One of those papers was co-authored by John Christy of UAH.
C’mon, Bordo.
You still can’t get your “but Emails” Bingo square straight.
Phil wasn’t referring to any of JohnC’s papers.
Twas another contrarian duo.
Yes corruption is pervasive in molding science opinions to conform to a political consensus. But useful information is left in there for careful readers willing to wade through all the information and put it in context by reading the underlying studies as well.
Might as well repeat myself.
All this nonsense about CO2 stopping energy from being radiated to space from the surface doesnt seem to apply at night, does it? Or over the past four and half billion years, or during winter or during a solar eclipse . . .
Fourier was right during the night the surface loses all the heat of they, plus a little of its remnant heat.
All the idiot GHE believers here can do is accuse me of being someone else a fat lot of good that will do them!
Mike Flynn,
We already been over that silly talking point:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/22/science-uncertainty-and-advocacy/#comment-713525
Wandering Wee Willy,
What are you braying about, you donkey?
Maybe somebody cares about what you “already been over”, but you can’t name him, can you?
Just in case somebody missed me repeating myself, here it is again –
All this nonsense about CO2 stopping energy from being radiated to space from the surface doesnt seem to apply at night, does it? Or over the past four and half billion years, or during winter or during a solar eclipse . . .
Fourier was right during the night the surface loses all the heat of they, plus a little of its remnant heat.
All the idiot GHE believers here can do is accuse me of being someone else a fat lot of good that will do them!
Keep calling me Mike Flynn if you like. It makes you look delusional and desperate, but who cares? Not you, obviously.
Mike, Mike,
Why would anyone accuse of being anyone else than Mike Flynn?
We all know you are Mike Flynn.
As for your eternal sammich –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Enjoy.
Wandering Wee Willy,
What are you braying about, you donkey?
Maybe somebody cares about what you “already been over”, but you can’t name him, can you?
Just in case somebody missed me repeating myself, here it is again
All this nonsense about CO2 stopping energy from being radiated to space from the surface doesnt seem to apply at night, does it? Or over the past four and half billion years, or during winter or during a solar eclipse . . .
Fourier was right during the night the surface loses all the heat of they, plus a little of its remnant heat.
All the idiot GHE believers here can do is accuse me of being someone else a fat lot of good that will do them!
Keep calling me Mike Flynn if you like. It makes you look delusional and desperate, but who cares? Not you, obviously.
Theoretically there is someone somewhere in the world who looks just like another, has all the same red-herring obsessions, uses identical catch-phrases, has the same tendency to incessantly repeat these catch-phrases, has an equal mastery of strawmen, and has the same inability to learn.
So yeah, there is a tiny but non-negligible chance that he is not Mike Flynn, but is his doppelganger.
Notwithstanding the same business hours, Nate!
Leave it to Willard to fully investigate the issue down to an analysis of business hours in the desperate attempt to sling an ad hominem that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the topic of the debate. Boy I bet you come up with a whole passel of conspiracy theories using that type of investigative technique. The total inapplicability of your efforts suggests you are also an Area 51 nutcase.
Gill, Gill,
Twas MarkB’s.
Don’t you remember anything?
Please.
wee willy…”Ive been wondering which of CE or WUWT is the better place for Mike to play his cute little game of rejecting elementary physics…”
***
1)you lack the background to recognize elementary physics.
2)Whoever Mike is, he likely would not have to deal with the same set of alarmist idiots at WUWT.
Come on, Bordo.
You still are putting words in my mouth.
And Mike Flynn is the beloved Sky Dragon crank we all know and love.
Just in case the dumb Flynnson missed me repeating myself, here it is again.
*
” All this nonsense about CO2 stopping energy from being radiated to space from the surface doesn’t seem to apply at night, does it? ”
*
As usual, Flynnson is screwing the blog by posting his stupid crap again. Slowly but surely he manages to beat every onanist.
So, according to the ‘genius’ Flynnson, the Earth doesn’t emit IR at night, which puts the poor GHE gases H2O, CO2 and a few others out of work until sunrise, doesn’t it?
Aha.
Let’s take a quick look at the SURFRAD stations in the US which continuously observe downwelling and upwelling solar and IR.
1. Fort Peck, Montana
https://i.postimg.cc/YCPR4g67/SURFRAD-Fort-Peck-MT-upwelling-IR-050423.png
2. Goodwin Creek, Mississippi
https://i.postimg.cc/sXhYqDNR/SURFRAD-Godwin-Creek-MS-upwelling-IR-050423.png
We can clearly see that the IR upwelling does by no means drop to zero at night.
*
{ Perhaps the ‘ingenious’ Flynnson recently discovered that GHE gas molecules are all sleeping at night? Who knows? }
*
Unfortunately, there are no SURFRAD stations in the Tropics, let alone at the Poles, which would give us interesting comparisons with these US stations located between 30N and 50N.
*
And let’s not forget the lesson of this ‘scientifically oh so perfectly trained teacher’:
” Earth surface has continued to cool for 4.5 billion years. ”
To be honest, I’m literally ‘Amazed’.
*
Fourier was a real genius and a great science man – unlike the dumb Flynnson.
Unfortunately, he did not have the necessary measuring instruments.
Starship Could Launch Monday According To FAA Notice
By
Russ Niles –
Published: April 5, 2023 Updated: April 6, 2023
17
“The FAA has let it slip that next Monday (April 10) is the target date for the launch of SpaceXs Super Heavy rocket but paperwork might delay it. According to Reuters, a planning notice issued Tuesday says Monday is the primary expected date for the first launch of the 394-foot behemoth. Tuesday and Wednesday are also possibilities. ”
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/starship-could-launch-monday-according-to-faa-notice/
Weather:
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/starship-could-launch-monday-according-to-faa-notice/
Monday windy and cloudy- it seems forecast favors Wednesday
Galactic radiation is increasing again.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
Solar wind
speed: 412.8 km/sec
density: 4.41 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 33
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 137 sfu
Updated 06 Apr 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
NOTE: Due to a temporary technical malfunction at the source, daily values of TCI will not be available for the rest of this week.
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.1% Below Average
48-hr change: +0.4%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Not going spotless, have spot coming to nearside
medium size coronal hole near equator
probably take a week or so before getting active, again.
Hasn’t been a good time to go to Mars- and probably won’t for years, but could send cargo for crew.
Solar wind
speed: 468.5 km/sec
density: 2.67 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 49
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 136 sfu
Updated 09 Apr 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
NOTE: Due to a temporary technical malfunction at the source, daily values of TCI are not available this week.
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.0% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.9%
“The black blob is a sunspot. It is the likely source of several jets and plumes of hot plasma flying over the sun’s southeastern limb during the past 24 hours. The sunspot will turn to face Earth this week.”
So, not going to go spotless:)
I am on look out for spots near equator, “black blob” is, but I more interested spot in process of forming near equator and don’t know how old “black blob” is- or possible it could fade before it arrives to our nearside- or some small chance for spotless.
It’s getting close to mid April, and thought it pick up by then. I guess I will see how wrong I was in next few days.
Or new spots forming on near side in couple of days- and closer to equator.
Since Kennyi can’t buy a clue, let’s hammer the point home:
https://www.theverge.com/23643837/founders-fund-peter-thiel-svb-silicon-valley-bank-esg
If any Freedom Fighter tries to sell you that 10y notes are woke, figuratively reach for your wallet.
It must suck to be a boring troll with no remaining credibility.
SVB was the 10th largest bank in USA. It was in no way a ‘smaller bank’.
When Yellen says that a similar bank in Wisconsin would not have depositors gauranteed that sends the message that our banking system is operating on ESG principles deciding who is a ‘good’ customer and who is not. US banking system is on life support. and its all because of stupid ‘woke’ policies that ESG espouses.
Which part of “SVB itself lobbied for this” you do not get, dummy?
SVB counted as a regional bank:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/feds-barr-sees-need-for-stronger-regulation-of-regional-banks-after-svb-182255016.html
More than one third of SVB investements were in failed green energy companies that went bankrupt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vRPxHB9Kfc&ab_channel=TomNelson
It must suck having to rely on Newscorp to get your financial advices, Kennui.
Here’s something a little more serious on ESG:
https://youtu.be/WDOUYT77Jlc?t=1190
An underappreciated benefit of ESG for those who customize indices is that they are not forced to block a whole investing sector like energy, but focus on those with that meet the clients’ requirements.
If you have some money, you might also appreciate how to generate tax harvesting alpha.
Go ‘Woke’ go broke.
Fill your boots.
Im getting attention from our sockiest sock puppet, with his ineffective flak. That means Im over the target.
Makes my day!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
binny…”These gases help reduce IR emissions from the Earths surface into space”.
***
So what does that do? Cooling at the surface has already taken place by the time the IR leaves the surface, The IR represents the difference in kinetic energy of electrons in surface atoms, which represents heat in the surface. Capturing 7% of surface emissions might warm the CO2 a fraction of a degree C but that warming is instantly swamped through collisions with nitrogen and oxygen molecules that out-number the CO2 molecules by 2500 to one.
Gordon,
Bindidion refuses to accept that slower cooling is still a drop, not a rise, in temperature.
Coastal regions with more H2O in the air, cool more slowly than arid desert regions, at night.
The diurnal range is also not as great.
All have cooled since they were molten, obviously.
SkyDragon cultists have some odd ideas. That is their right, just as Pastafarians profess belief in their deity, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Belief is one thing, fact is another.
Heres an official description of the FSM –
“The Flying Spaghetti Monster is depicted as a tangle of spaghetti with many Noodly Appendages, flanked by two delicious meatballs, and with a pair of googly eyes upon stalks. Such a depiction is merely a guess, of course, as the FSM is understandably invisible to all known forms of scientific detection.”
The GHE has no description at all, and is likewise invisible to all known forms of scientific detection. Even more mysterious than the FSM.
AAs usual, the stupid pseudo-skeptics Robertson and Flynnson are so wrapped up in themselves and their ignorant boasts that they couldn’t even properly read what I wrote.
maguff…”AR6, Chapter 3, titled Human Influence on the Climate System, is required reading for anyone…”
***
The fact that you read that nonsense marks you as an idiot. The fact that you believe it makes you an even bigger idiot.
The fact that you post it here marks you as a jerk. The IPCC is the body who allowed Coordinating Lead Author Phil Jones to block a paper from John Christy of UAH simply because he is a skeptic and they didn’t like what he had to say.
You would be welcomed by the brain-dead over at realclimate or skepticalscience. Then again, your not smart enough to impress them over there and you certainly are not smart enough to impress anyone here.
I wasn’t going to read it. But Gordon gave inspiration to reead, but it appeared to just crap.
I don’t care how confident some idiots who have been constantly wrong are.
gb…I liken reading an IPCC report to reading a travel brochure. In the latter, they paint a glossy picture in your mind of traveling and hide all the warts. Same with the IPCC reports, mainly bs alleged to be fact.
I liken it to people saying solar panels and wind mills are cheaper than coal electrical power.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-632695
Gordon Robertson, the fact that you believe that the earth’s shadow is what causes the phases of the moon marks you as an idiot.
The fact that you post such nonsense here marks you as a gullible idiot.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
barry…”[Bill per Stefan Boltzmann equations the reflection of light has no effect on an equilibrium temperature.
[Barry}*facepalm*
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is based on blackbodies, which neither reflect nor transmit light. This law does not even consider reflection and transmission”.
***
Why the facepalm Barry? S-B was originally not based on a blackbody, it was based on Tyndall’s experiment in which he electrically heated a platinum filament wire between about 500C and 1500C. That’s hot, but it’s not in the blackbody range, nor does a glowing filament have the theoretical properties of the blackbody. Therefore, S-B is valid only between those temperatures. It is also valid only for hotter bodies radiating to cooler environments, not in the opposite direct as some seem to think.
Stefan had already worked out a theoretical T^4 relationship and Tyndall’s experiment confirmed the ratio he needed between radiation around 500C and 1500C.
Check this out….
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.03199.pdf
“It is well known that the laws of thermal radiation, the laws of Planck, Stefan-Boltzmann and Wien, in their classic form, are not exact in describing thermal phenomena. These deviations appear even under ideal physical conditions designed in metrology labs, in contrast to realistic physical systems, e.g. [1]. They always exist because any radiating body or cavity (emitter) has a finite size and a shape. The finite size effects are usually neglected in the textbook derivations of thermal radiation laws [2, 3], and their magnitude is assumed to be well below experimental precisions [4, 5]. However, in this paper we show that a deviation, several orders of magnitude larger at present metrological conditions, first conjectured by H. Weyl [6] in his theory of thermal radiation [7] and derived by V.P. Maslov in new statistical physics [8, 9], is measured in experiments”.
***
Note here that they seem to be trying to emulate blackbodies, but when Stefan derived the T^4 relationship, it was specific to temperatures between 500C and 1500C. They had no means of modeling blackbodies other than the glowing platinum filament.
Read what you quoted Bill saying. Hopefully that will get you back to the point.
You need to understand that the Stefan Boltzmann equation for a gray body is q = ε σ T4 A
Since amount absorbed must equal amount emitted for equilibrium all you have to realize that means ε σ T4 A (absorbed)= ε σ T4 A (emitted). So T4 never changes the only factor that changes between blackbody emissions and graybody emissions is the ”ε” variable which gives you different ”q’s” for different emissivities of the same temperature.
and you can thank Nate for coming up with the reference for that:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
The Stefan Boltzmann law (or constant) only applies to blackbodies. Yes, you can extend the equation to account for non-blackbodies, but this is not the S/B law itself.
But none of that really matters. What matters is that you said reflection plays no part in determining equilibrium temperature, and that is completely wrong, which the reference provided by Nate, and which I’ve provided in the past, demonstrates by including the emissivity ε in the equation for greybodies.
The fact that you said the S/B ‘equation’ proves this earned a facepalm.
And when you’re off-point, can you at least not be wrong?
“While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
You have to be careful barry, that equation with the two fluxes is NOT the S/B Law. The equation is a perversion of the Law. The equation has no useful purpose, hence people call it “bogus”.
Here’s the actual S/B Law, in equation form:
S = εσT^4, with typical units for S of “W/m^2”.
When two fluxes meet in air there is no way to simply add/subtract them. If you can’t simply add photons, then you can’t simply add fluxes. If you BELIEVE you can simply add photons, then add two 15μ photons for us. What’s your answer?
You have a bucket and two hoses, each providing one gallon per minute.
The fact that the combined flow is 2 gallons per minute does not mean you have to add water molecules together.
You don’t have to add water molecules to add flow, same goes for photons, you don’t have to add photons to add fluxes.
Another thing Clint R found on the interwebs that he doesn’t understand.
We already know you don’t understand any of this bob. You’re braindead.
Maybe you should stop trying to look at things through your toilet paper tube?
“When two fluxes meet in air”
They don’t. They pass through each other.
You have some crazy ideas, Clint.
Clint R,
Do you understand that photons do not interact with each other?
Fluxes add, but you don’t understand basic physics.
barry and bob have been studying! That’s good. Now, let’s see if they can apply what they’ve learned.
Photons and fluxes do not simply add. So the idea that two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface will result in the surface emitting 630W/m^2 is invalid.
Do barry and bob agree?
(Watch the denial, distortions, and evasions. That’s why this is so much fun.)
Turning on 1 bar of a radiant heater immediately makes your skin warm.
Turning on a 2nd bar of a radiant heater immediately makes your skin even warmer.
I guess you think that this doesn’t happen, and that radiant heaters with more than one bar is an advertising gimmick.
In the real world turning on the second bar adds another, equal flux of radiative energy to your skin. The rays don’t bounce off. They are added to the rays hitting your skin from the first bar.
You can do this experiment in 10 seconds with a radiant heater.
And everyone reading this knows full well that this is true, and that you are wrong.
Yes, barry. Five days late in your response should definitely be enough time that Clint R has moved on, so you will probably be able to slip in a last word unnoticed.
“Five days late in your response” and DREMT is our resident expert at this technique!
But somehow for him its just fine.
…five days late in your response should definitely be enough time that Clint R has moved on, so you will probably be able to slip in a last word unnoticed.
“The equation is a perversion of the Law. The equation has no useful purpose, hence people call it bogus.”
Yes, such ‘bogus’ equations are found in many physics and engineering textbooks and online courses, according to Clint.
They are considered to be ‘bogus’ because they are ‘not useful’ to the Sky-Dragon-Slayer narrative.
And he wonders why his posts have no credibility.
Such nonsense is not found in anything of value. It is a conjured up equation that provides no useful information. Math is NOT physics. This bogus equation is in the category of the plates nonsense.
Add two 15μ photons for us, troll Nate.
If you can’t do that, you’ve got NOTHING.
“Add two 15μ photons for us, troll Nate.”
Two 15μ photons hitting a blackbody surface add their total energy to the surface, regardless of its temperature. Twice as much as energy as one 15μ photon would.
If you disagree give us an actual science reason.
We know you won’t have one, and will just toss ad-homs. Because you are just here to troll.
FIrst, the photons have to be absorbed.
Next, the frequency of the photons MUST increase the mean vibration frequency of the absorbing object to raise its temperature.
Even then, photons do NOT simply add.
Just as radiative fluxes do NOT simply add.
Make no mistakes Nate — YOU are one of the trolls here. You have a long history of insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Did I mention you don’t understand ANY of the relevant physics?
“FIrst, the photons have to be absorbed.”
Done. As I noted it is a blackbody. And Kirchoff’s law says so.
“Next, the frequency of the photons MUST increase the mean vibration frequency of the absorbing object to raise its temperature.”
Nah. That aint physics.
As shown with the CO2 laser example, its emitted photons have a much lower vibration frequency than Clint’s body. And even Clint seemed to realize that those photons would be abs.orbed by his body and would burn him badly.
“Even then, photons do NOT simply add.”
Nah, that aint physics either, just made-up nonsense. See laser example. Clearly its photons energy is getting summed and thus burning Clint’s body. This will be true for any sources of photons.
You got it ALL wrong again, troll Nate. At least you’re consistent.
* No black body was mentioned. My comments dealt with reality.
* Kirchhoff is spelled with two “h”, not one. And his Law does NOT require photons to be absorbed. His law indicates that absorbed photons will match emitted photons, i.e. have the same wavelength. Again, photons with the same wavelength will NOT raise the object’s temperature. You don’t understand ANY of this.
* The temperature of an object is determined by its mean vibrational frequency. That IS physics. You don’t understand ANY of this.
* CO2 lasers are not a part of the discussion. Your desperation is obvious. Even a laser is NOT an example of photons simply adding. You don’t understand any of this.
“Two 15μ photons hitting a blackbody surface add their total energy to the surface”
so yes a blackbody was mentioned.
“* Kirchhoff is spelled with two h, not one. And his Law does NOT require photons to be absorbed. His law indicates that absorbed photons will match emitted photons, i.e. have the same wavelength. Again, photons with the same wavelength will NOT raise the objects temperature. You dont understand ANY of this.”
Well you might be right about the spelling, but not the rest.
As I said, for a blackbody, the 15 micron photons hitting it must be abs*orbed, because a blackbody emits perfectly at all wavelengths, and by Kirch(h)offs’ law it must then abs.orb perfectly at all wavelengths.
“The temperature of an object is determined by its mean vibrational frequency. That IS physics. You dont understand ANY of this.”
Not what you said. You said “the frequency of the photons MUST increase the mean vibration frequency of the absorbing object to raise its temperature.”
Which definitely AINT physics. But feel free to find such physics from a real source and show it to us.
“* CO2 lasers are not a part of the discussion'”
The frequency of CO2 laser photons are much much lower than the mean frequency for IR emitted by your body.
Yet they WOULD RAISE THE TEMPERATURE and burn the sh*t of your skin. Thus you understood not to walk through it.
This ability of CO2 lasers thus FALSIFIES your faux physics claims that “the frequency of the photons MUST increase the mean vibration frequency of the absor.bing object to raise its temperature.”
So naturally you want to avoid discussing CO2 lasers, loser.
Oh, is Clint R talking about CO2 lasers? He started a new thread on that subject, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471055
Why is DREMT in my thread?
…he started a new thread on that subject, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471055
It’s hard to delve into a post so full of wrong, but you may as well learn that the Stefan-Boltzmann law only applies to blackbodies.
This is why I facepalmed when Bill said that “per Stefan Boltzmann equations the reflection of light has no effect on an equilibrium temperature.”
In the REAL world, the S/B equation includes emissivity, ε.
A “black body” is an imaginary concept.
Physics can be very confusing if one only goes by things on the Internet they don’t understand.
The original S/B Law can be written as
q = σ T4 A
That is a mathematical expression of the stated law, that “the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature T.”
And of course you can add a function for emissivity to the equation, which Bill seems to be entirely unaware of when he states:
“per Stefan Boltzmann equations the reflection of light has no effect on an equilibrium temperature”
So is Bill right or is he wrong, Clint?
It’s hard to comment on a quote taken out of context, barry. But “…the reflection of light has no effect on an equilibrium temperature” is true.
Have you taken the “honesty quiz” yet?
“Note here that they seem to be trying to emulate blackbodies, but when Stefan derived the T^4 relationship, it was specific to temperatures between 500C and 1500C. ”
Gordon weirdly thinks that nothing has progressed in this area beyond what we knew in the 1890s.
In the intervening century the SB law was tested over a wide range of T, even down into cryogenic temperatures.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Stefan-Boltzmann-law
“Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.“
That’s the SB law. A lot of people try to pretend that the SB law is the equation where there’s a term for the hot body and a term for the cool body, or a term for the hot body and a term for the cooler surroundings. However, that’s not the SB law. It doesn’t really have a name, but some people here have referred to it as the radiative heat transfer equation, or RHTE. The RHTE seems to lead people to all sorts of crazy conclusions.
“It doesnt really have a name, but some people here have referred to it as the radiative heat transfer equation, or RHTE. The RHTE seems to lead people to all sorts of crazy conclusions.”
Unhappy with how heat transfer works in the world? Just make fun of the terminology. Or pretend it doesnt exist!
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Nate thanks for bringing up that reference as it supports what I have been saying.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
”For objects other than ideal black bodies (‘gray bodies’) the Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be expressed as
q = ε σ T4 A ”
Here you have the calculation for the emission/absor-p-tion rates for gray bodies and from this one formula (you can derive
1) emission rate of a gray body
2) absor-p-tion rate of a gray body
3) equilibrium of that gray body being T4 where emission equals abor-p-tion.
Perform this calculation for the earth system and you will find the mean temperature of TOA which is 278.7K emitting 240w/m2. Now since according to mainstream greenhouse effect science what is entrained in the convection system the no GHG surface effect of this makes a higher emissivity surface 278.7K also. . . not the 255K claimed by mainstream science who applies the blackbody formula without the emissivity factor to arrive at a different T4.
This leads me to believe that science in ignoring or pretending ignorant of the formulas above chose a figure that would exaggerate the effect of CO2 by a factor of 3. Perhaps this was a necessary conclusion to take sunlight variation out of the equation such now it needs 9 to 1 versus 3 to 1 to work its magic.
Now I am not claiming all this to be fact but its a scenario as an auditor that requires solid evidence to eliminate. And this does not require a widespread conspiracy it just requires a small nugget planted by a scientific reference way back in the 1970’s that became a religious icon the questioning of meant virtual exile from the feeding trough as it is clear none of this has been elucidated upon now for approximately 50 years.
If you can find something that clearly defeats that scenario I would be greatly interested in it.
“Perform this calculation for the earth system and you will find the mean temperature of TOA which is 278.7K emitting 240w/m2.”
Show us the details of how you get that number, Bill, so we can audit it.
A couple of issues. The IR window from 8-14 microns, for a clear sky, is mostly direct from the surface, which on average is 288 K, and has on average a high emissivity
“The emissivity of most natural Earth surfaces is a unitless quantity and ranges between approximately 0.6 and 1.0, but surfaces with emissivities less than 0.85 are typically restricted to deserts and semi-arid areas. Vegetation, water and ice have high emissivities above 0.95 in the thermal infrared wavelength range.”
For a cloudy sky the emissions come from cloud tops which are colder than 288K.
Outside the window, the TOA spectrum has deep valleys due to CO2 and water vapor.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fred-Ortenberg/publication/291164378/figure/fig2/AS:648594344390664@1531648350772/Spectrum-of-Earth-Thermal-IR-radiance-recorded-from-space-a-Desert-Sahara.png
So in those valleys, the emission is drastically reduced at the TOA, but I believe that the emissivity of the atmosphere in these valleys can also be considered to be very high. That means that the T needs to be very low. And that would make sense because those emissions come from high altitude.
“Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.
And some of us are able to deduce that when two such surfaces at different temperatures are parallel, close together and facing each other, that the net flow of radiant heat from the hotter to the cooler will simply be the DIFFERENCE in their SB emissions.
And sure enough experiments confirm this deduction.
While others want to pretend that some other unexplainable thing happens instead.
Troll Nate, “net flow of radiant heat” is NOT a valid concept.
Validity does not apply to concepts but to claims, Puppourri, especially to make an argument.
Something you obviously know NOTHING about.
Besides:
https://engineeringlibrary.org/reference/radiant-heat-transfer-doe-handbook
Read more, troll less.
You suck at trolling anyway.
I missed this, And sure enough experiments confirm this deduction.
Troll Nate, you are making up crap….again.
Pupperoni adds another NOTHING burger.
I’m getting attention from the worthless willard, with his ineffective flak. That means I’m over the target.
Makes my day….
Yes, Pup. You’re trolling.
Thanks for your confession.
Pathetic, hated troll, please stop trolling.
Gaslighting Graham still forgets the magic words.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Im getting attention from the worthless willard, with his ineffective flak. That means Im over the target.
Makes my day.”
Clint admits what we have all suspected.
He seeks attention. As a troll, he gets satisfying negative attention.
Troll Nate, when you’re finished with your false accusations, try this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1470118
“Two black bodies that radiate toward each other have a net heat flux between them. The net flow rate of heat between them is given by an adaptation of Equation 2-12.”
Q˙=σ A (T1^4−T2^4)”
From this source:
https://engineeringlibrary.org/reference/radiant-heat-transfer-doe-handbook
and many others.
Oh well.
Neutral readers can clearly see that Clint’s method of argument is to just shamelessly deny basic physics.
Not sure why he thinks that is even an argument.
Troll Nate, you won’t find that bogus equation in a reputable physics book. You will only find it on questionable Internet sites.
The sites are not questionable, except by science denying sky-dragon-slayers such as yourself, who offer no alternative sources that agree with their fictional physics.
Here is 2nd one.
https://physics.info/radiation/
A third one.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
They all agree.
Same equation here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
and here:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/14-7-radiation/
It is standard.
We can go on citing physics sources for this ‘bogus’ equation, Clint, but you can’t cite any reputable sources for your claims.
And that’s just one of the reasons why we know you’re making this up.
Not one single reference for your claims that:
Warm objects can’t absorb radiation from cooler ones
Fluxes incident on a surface are not additive
These claims of yours are truly what is bogus. That’s why you can’t substantiate them after multiple requests over more than 2 years.
“They had no means of modeling blackbodies other than the glowing platinum filament.”
There *have* been advances in science in the past 150 year. More measurements made. Over wider temperature ranges. With other materials. The means that scientist had 150 years ago are not all that we have to go on today.
"The RHTE seems to lead people to all sorts of crazy conclusions…"
…like with the Green Plate Effect. Some people misuse the RHTE by holding Q constant and then calculating what the temperatures of the plates would be with that amount of heat flow between them. However, heat flow tends towards zero wherever possible…and with the GPE, it’s perfectly possible. What should be done is to use the RHTE to calculate that with the plates at the same temperature, heat flow between the plates has gone to zero, as it should (wherever it can). Then we get to the correct 244 K…244 K solution.
They also seem to want to put the "temperature" of space into the RHTE! As we’ve established already, space is the absence of surroundings, and so it should not be going into the RHTE at all. Some people want to put it in there as if it’s some sort of extremely low temperature "surroundings"…and that’s just completely wrong. Space is mostly just a huge vacuum, a void, a complete lack of "surroundings".
They also don’t take into account that with the blue and green plate temperatures going into the RHTE already, the fact that the green plate radiates into space according to its temperature and emissivity is already included in the calculations! The emissions from the green plate into space are included in the fact that there is a term for the green plate in the blue and green heat flow calculation. It’s a given that if the green plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate when heat flow has gone to zero, that it will be emitting 200 W/m^2 to space on the other side.
At 244 K…244 K, you have heat flow at zero between the two plates, as it should be, and overall 400 W input into the two-plate system, and 400 W output from it. Everything is in balance. That’s that.
“As weve established already, space is the absence of surroundings …”
Well, no. There are surroundings in space. Tiny bits of gas for billions of light years is not ‘nothing’.
And then there is the simple fact that microwave radiation can be measured from space, and that radiation corresponds to 2.7 K. It really doesn’t matter what it comes from. You can call space ;the absence of surroundings’ if you want, but it still experimentally produces 2.7 K blackbody radiation. It would be “wrong” to say that your THEORY about space cancels EXPERIMENTS that measure microwaves. Experiment always wins.
"You can call space ‘the absence of surroundings’ if you want…"
…OK Tim, thanks…I will. That’s what it is, after all. Especially from the point of view of whether you should incorporate it into the RHTE or not. It makes absolutely no sense to include it in the RHTE, because it’s not like it’s "extremely low temperature surroundings". Of course, your religion needs it to be, so you will protest…but that’s of no concern to reality.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] it has absolutely nothing to do with semantics.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] As weve established already, space is the absence of surroundings
Yes, exactly. No contradiction there, obviously.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] it has absolutely nothing to do with semantics.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] As weve established already, space is the absence of surroundings
When people (like Tim) try to dismiss arguments as “just semantics” they’re trying to imply the point is some trivial issue over the definition of words. That’s clearly not the case here. No matter what words you highlight.
“In the simplest terms, a concept is a name or label that regards or treats an abstraction as if it had concrete or material existence, such as a person, a place, or a thing. It may represent a natural object that exists in the real world like a tree, an animal, a stone, etc. It may also name an artificial (man-made) object like a chair, computer, house, etc. Abstract ideas and knowledge domains such as freedom, equality, science, happiness, etc., are also symbolized by concepts. It is important to realize that a concept is merely a symbol, a representation of the abstraction. The word is not to be mistaken for the thing. For example, the word “moon” (a concept) is not the large, bright, shape-changing object up in the sky, but only represents that celestial object. Concepts are created (named) to describe, explain and capture reality as it is known and understood.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept
You never really have anything to offer on the physics, do you, Little Willy?
[MIGHTY TIM] The green plate is losing energy. Since everything beyond the green plate is space, then the energy is going to space.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] The green plate cannot heat space.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] it has absolutely nothing to do with semantics.
You can’t heat a vacuum. That’s not “just semantics”. It’s not some trivial point about the meaning of words. It’s a fundamental physical fact…and it’s a huge part of what debunks the GPE.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more
[MIGHTY TIM] When people (like Tim) try to dismiss arguments as just semantics
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Even putting aside the semantics of heating space, your scenario doesnt balance.
It does balance. There is 400 W/m^2 input into the 2 plate system, and 400 W/m^2 leaving it. 200 W/m^2 leaves to the right of the green plate, and 200 W/m^2 leaves to the left of the blue plate.
“You cant heat a vacuum. Thats not ‘just semantics’. Its not some trivial point about the meaning of words. Its a fundamental physical fact”
We’re promoting our feelings to ‘fundamental physical facts’ now?
In the old times, that required evidence, a legit source, etc.
Couple of questions come to mind:
-Where does the heat that the JWST emits to space go?
– Why does space send blackbody radiation @ 3 K back to us?
-Does space really have nothing in it?
” It makes absolutely no sense to include it in the RHTE, because its not like its “extremely low temperature surroundings”. ”
The occurrence of Arguments from Incredulity is definitely increasing.
More feelings converted erroneously into unsupported, completely made up ‘facts’.
I especially like the ‘it’s not like’.
So let’s go with actual facts.
-As noted by Tim space has a background blackbody radiation @ 3K.
-Any object in space receives that radiant flux from space.
-If the object is a blackbody, it will abs.orb that radiant flux, by Kirchoff’s Law.
So it actually makes a whole lot of sense to include it in the RHTE.
And all observations are JUST LIKE the object is in 3 K surroundings.
…does balance. There is 400 W/m^2 input into the 2 plate system, and 400 W/m^2 leaving it. 200 W/m^2 leaves to the right of the green plate, and 200 W/m^2 leaves to the left of the blue plate.
We point out the glaring flaws in their logic and physics, again and again, and each time they pretend no one ever told them any of it, and just repeat the same illogic over and over.
“There is 400 W/m^2 input into the 2 plate system, and 400 W/m^2 leaving it. 200 W/m^2 leaves to the right of the green plate, and 200 W/m^2 leaves to the left of the blue plate.”
The First Law of Thermodynamics, (1LOT) must be satisfied for each body.
Reminder of 1LOT. deltaU = Q – W.
There is no work here. There is NET heat input to a body Q, and internal energy of that body U.
So deltaU = deltaQ.
The flaw is obvious. The GP is emitting deltaQ = -200 J/m^2 of heat flux each second to the right, and receiving NO NET heat flux from the left.
Thus 1LOT requires that deltaU for the GP is negative its internal energy U must = -200 J/m^2 each second, IOW its temperature must decrease.
Similarly the BP is receiving 400 J/m^2 of heat from the sun each second, and emitting 200 J/m^2 each second to the left to space. And NO NET heat flux to the right.
Thus deltaQ for BP is positive 200 J/m^2 each second, its internal energy must increase by 200 J/m^2 each second, IOW its T must increase.
This decrease of GP temperature and increase of BP temperature will continue until an energy balance is achieved, and 1LOT satisfied for each plate.
If anyone tries to claim 1LOT only needs to be satisfied for the system, and not for each separate body, they need to show evidence from a real source to back up this extraordinary claim.
…balance. There is 400 W/m^2 input into the 2 plate system, and 400 W/m^2 leaving it. 200 W/m^2 leaves to the right of the green plate, and 200 W/m^2 leaves to the left of the blue plate.
> If anyone tries to claim 1LOT only needs to be satisfied for the system, and not for each separate body, they need to show evidence from a real source to back up this extraordinary claim.
Exactly, Nate.
Oh, interesting quote…is that what Nate’s saying? Sorry, I don’t read his comments. Little Willy, have you ever seen Nate or any of the others produce any support for their repeated assertion that their little “1LoT calculations” need to balance for each separate body, rather than the system as a whole?
The First Law of Thermodynamics applies universally.
Some here are inventing a new rule that it applies only to ‘systems’ whatever that means.
It can be violated for certain bodies if they are part of a ‘system’ whatever that means.
Gee it would be great if they could show us where this new vague rule comes from?
But they never ever back up their Arguments by Assertion.
…Little Willy, have you ever seen Nate or any of the others produce any support for their repeated assertion that their little “1LoT calculations” need to balance for each separate body, rather than the system as a whole?
And I would simply point out that in the real physics solution, with 267 W/m^2 leaving from the BP side and 133 W/m^2 leaving from the GP side, this ALSO balances for the system as a whole, but with very different temperatures.
So the ‘1LOT applies only to the system’ rule does not provide a unique solution. In fact there are an infinite number of solutions which could satisfy it.
There is no physics or common sense reason to settle on the equal temps ‘solution’, which was, after all, really just a guess.
…Willy, have you ever seen Nate or any of the others produce any support for their repeated assertion that their little “1LoT calculations” need to balance for each separate body, rather than the system as a whole?
Vagueness is a trolls best friend, so let’s try to un-vague the word ‘system’.
“A thermodynamic system is a body of matter and/or radiation, considered as separate from its surroundings, and studied using the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamic systems may be isolated, closed, or open. An isolated system exchanges no matter or energy with its surroundings, whereas a closed system does not exchange matter but may exchange heat and experience and exert forces. An open system can interact with its surroundings by exchanging both matter and energy. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system
Is the GP or the BP a body of matter considered as separate from its surroundings?
Of course.
…have you ever seen Nate or any of the others produce any support for their repeated assertion that their little “1LoT calculations” need to balance for each separate body, rather than the system as a whole?
Now they will evade facts and reality by playing the ‘covering of eyes and plugging their ears and loudly saying La La La I can’t hear you’ game.
Its what they do.
…you ever seen Nate or any of the others produce any support for their repeated assertion that their little “1LoT calculations” need to balance for each separate body, rather than the system as a whole?
I’ll also note that elsewhere people brought up a Joe Postma article, where he invoked 1LOT
“We utilize the First Law of Thermodynamics for this:
dU = Q = m Cp dT
The d means change and we want the change to be zero, which means unchanging temperature dT = 0, which means thermal equilibrium.”
But he pointed out that he was using it before without mentioning it explicitly because most people get it:
” We already used this for the results above, without explaining it, as I know that most of you implicitly understand this equation and its universal presence.”
He continues:
“Could introducing the second plate in this scenario result in a higher temperature for the first plate? If the first plate did achieve a higher temperature, then it would have to emit more than F / 2 to the hemisphere facing the source. However, because the plate is thin, then it also would emit this to the second plate. To conserve energy, then the second plate would have to emit less than F / 2 to the hemisphere facing away from the sourcebut how could the second plate possibly emit less than F / 2 when it in fact receives more than F / 2? Do you see how the logic breaks down when you invent backradiation heating? Very neat!”
I simply want to point out how he is again using 1LOT here (without mentioning it) when he says:
“but how could the second plate possibly emit less than F / 2 when it in fact receives more than F / 2”
Except he is applying it to the INDIVIDUAL GREEN PLATE.
Thus he is saying “I know that most of you implicitly understand” that 1LOT applies to the individual plates also!
So lets apply that logic again to the GP in the TEAM’s scenario:
“The GP is emitting deltaQ = -200 J/m^2 of heat flux each second to the right, and receiving NO NET heat flux from the left.”
IOW, How can the GP possibly emit F/2 when in fact it receives 0?
JPs identical logic, which is 1LOT being applied to the GP.
Do you see how the logic breaks down?
…ever seen Nate or any of the others produce any support for their repeated assertion that their little “1LoT calculations” need to balance for each separate body, rather than the system as a whole?
Nate says:
”but how could the second plate possibly emit less than F / 2 when it in fact receives more than F / 2”
Nate you will need to provide some heat transfer equations to your gish gallop. That will get you straightened out.
Bill, you need to catch up on the discussion before posting…
Do you think 1LOT (conservation of energy) applies to the individual Blue and Green plates, or not?
Joe Postma quote says that it does.
Bill, have you ever seen Nate or any of the others produce any support for their repeated assertion that their little "1LoT calculations" need to balance for each separate body, rather than the system as a whole?
Note that I’m not asking if 1LoT should apply to each body, I’m asking if you’ve ever seen any member of Team GPE support their silly idea of how 1LoT should be applied to each body?
Yep Nate just rattled off some disparate facts and then draws an illogical conclusion.
Of course its very difficult to see that without some basic heat transfer equations. So he relies on a gish gallop to make his point.
Every engineer who proposes a building energy or powered device design must provide the calculations to the Underwriters Laboratory if they wish to certify their designs.
Of course academia sees themselves above that. . . .they are perfectly happy to rely on the gish gallop.
“then draws an illogical conclusion”
Illogical how? Why?
I note dispute of the facts.
I note no disputing of the facts by Bill.
Does Bill think an isolated plate can emit 200 W/m2 without replacement, and NOT cool?
Nate says:
I note no disputing of the facts by Bill.
Does Bill think an isolated plate can emit 200 W/m2 without replacement, and NOT cool?
——————————-
without replacement? yes it will cool if its emitting a net of 200watts toward a cooler target. But it won’t cool if its emitting that toward a warmer target.
Why is this so very difficult for you to understand?
The GP is emitting 200 to space without replacement according to DREMT and Joe Postma.
Does it cool?
Come on Nate. Both DREMT and Postma understand energy transfer equations. . . .something you obviously don’t. Reference to where they claim an object can emit 200watts/m2 continuously without an energy source. I figure you can’t figure out what they are actually saying.
Here Bill,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1470400
And my response is
“The First Law of Thermodynamics, (1LOT) must be satisfied for each body.”
And the this is denied.
“Have you ever seen Nate or any of the others produce any support for their repeated assertion that their little 1LoT calculations need to balance for each separate body, rather than the system as a whole?”
Oh dear, Bill…is he starting with his misrepresentations again? That’s just one of the many, many reasons I stopped responding to him.
Oh he’s reading my posts? Does he deny that he is denying that 1LOT applies to each body?
And if he now accepts that 1LOT applies to each body, Great!
But then he is stuck with no logical explanation for this:
“The sky-dragon-slayer argument seems to be that the GPs emission on the source side is blocked by the BP (cancelled by the BPs emissions), so it cant lose energy on that side. So it only can emit from one side.
Therefore the GP emits 200 on one side only.
Left unexplained is how it replaces the emitted 200, since the 200 it received from the BP has already been cancelled!”
So he need to decide which logical failure he prefers.
…dear, Bill…is he starting with his misrepresentations again? That’s just one of the many, many reasons I stopped responding to him.
Bill, is he pretending not to read my posts, while reading my posts, again?
He is quite childish isn’t he?
In case anyone doubts the extreme illogic of the claims being made by these guys, here it is in Joe Postmas own words:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471841
…Bill…is he starting with his misrepresentations again? That’s just one of the many, many reasons I stopped responding to him.
“Billis he starting with his misrepresentations again? ”
Nah. Hard to do that with direct quotes.
…is he starting with his misrepresentations again? That’s just one of the many, many reasons I stopped responding to him.
Hunter says:
Nate you will need to provide some heat transfer equations to your gish gallop. That will get you straightened out.
Nate says:
Bill, you need to catch up on the discussion before posting
——————–
A reference, or not, to your heat transfer equations would explain all.
A commenter to JP
“Okay got it (I think). Is this right: the (green) plate emits F on both sides. But the emission toward the source is cancels with the F abs.orbed from the source. Then the emission of F toward space balances the F absorbed from the source.”
JP:
“Right”
So Joe Postma acknowledges CANCELLATION of ‘F abs.orbed from the source’ by ’emission toward the source’.
The he seems ok with UNCANCELLING it: “Then the emission of F toward space balances the F absorbed from the source”
Nope!
Bill, you should recognize this: it is straightforward double counting. Accounting fraud!
JP also talks about this in terms of the RHTE, which expresses this cancellation effect into a single equation:
JP: “It is like the heat flow equation, where heat is the net difference between emissions:
Q = s * (T1^4 T2^4)
Only the difference between emission is heat: this does not mean that the cooler body is not emitting, but that its emission is ‘negated’ by the stronger emission from the warmer body”
Indeed so, according to this equation, if the two plates have equal T, then there is complete cancellation, and ZERO Net energy transfer.
So Joe Postma acknowledges CANCELLATION of F abs.orbed from the source by emission toward the source.
The he seems ok with UNCANCELLING it: Then the emission of F toward space balances the F absorbed from the source
Nope!
————————————-
According to your mathematical extrapolation the green plate should not have gotten to a temperature sufficient to emit F from two sides.
In Postma’s scenario the greenplate is only losing F to space.
The idea of a equilibrium isn’t specified as being for an insulated surface it just raises a question of what it takes to get to equilibrium. Here we have different physics on the surface of the earth and in space. because air transports energy both by the movement of molecules, collisions, diffusion, and convection.
But you are extrapolating from an idealist perspective of the world that naturally arises from the math. You are treating it like a banking operations where all transactions are transparent. You can deposit a dollar in a bank and get a dollar back without any loss.
Now to be clear I am agnostic on this argument as this is a bit like auditing a computer. The first bank fraud I was exposed to was in my orientation training as a recent accounting graduate in a film that wanted to be sure we didn’t overlook really small stuff.
This bank had a program that paid interest and where you should get back say $1.10 at the end of the year (these were higher interest years) the bank was actually paying back $1.099 and the crook was transferring the $.001 to his own account using the computer for cover.
Well the same issue is at play in the real world also. The green plate does not exactly perfectly transmit energy a plate without absorbing energy.
It has a coefficient of conduction that is a form of resistance. It isn’t considered to be ‘insulating’ because insulation is an earth based notion of heat traveling through something such like glass in a gaseous environment (guarded shield).
Insulation is a standard not some indication of a physics outcome that can be translated from environment to environment willy nilly via a guy that believes the world operates from one standard.
On earth its the insulation value slowing energy traveling through air by two means that establishes the standard.
It is widely acknowledged that the air is the insulation not the glass. And you want to assign an insulation value R=2 to a single pane of glass in space. Does that make any sense? . . . .Maybe. In space its only one means of energy movement on earth its multiple means.
Like I said I don’t know the standards for insulation in space. I assume aerospace thermal engineers do. One has to wonder if Postma actually knows or if he deduced it incorrectly.
I am skeptical of both Postma’s and your take on this and want to see the how the standard is set for a space environment. But I am not dying to see it because it seems pretty irrelevant to the greenhouse effect as the only relevance it seems to have is in differences of a insulated surface without an atmosphere to an insulated surface with an atmosphere. Nowhere in the discussion except in the ridiculous 3rd grader radiation model does it arise anywhere in atmospheric physics except as some kind of ghost haunting the place, a ghost experiments can’t even apparently exorcise. We apparently need a priest to do the job.
I have no doubt the answer is out there somewhere in an aerospace study. So while we argue on different sides of the matter it might be easy to find out if any insulation value as you claim exists in space.
Fact is the slight variations seen in some of the greenhouse tests leave some space for different outcomes in space. Your argument that a vacuum gap is more insulating than an air gap doesn’t work because the vacuum gap is only more insulating against the travel of energy through air, which remains on both sides of the insulating unit. So yes vacuum gaps are more insulating on earth, in the atmosphere, than gaps filled with air. But you can’t extrapolate that slowing of heat transfer to space willy nilly. . . .I would think OBVIOUSLY!
The fact you can’t see the flaws in your own logic speak loudly to me that you have no idea what your are talking about. And the fact you can’t refer me to any literature on the matter confirms it.
“ccording to your mathematical…yada yada yada”
. The F input from BP to GP is cancelled by output F from GP to BP.
Net input to GP is 0.
The GP emits F on its other side without being replaced by any input.
The issue is simple accounting fraud.
As an auditor you should be able to easily understand..
But you completely ignore the issue and go off on a gish gallop to who knows where, Bill.
“Your argument that a vacuum gap is more insulating than an air gap doesn’t work because the vacuum gap is only more insulating against the travel of energy through air, which remains on both sides of the insulating unit. So yes vacuum gaps are more insulating on earth, in the atmosphere, than gaps filled with air. But you can’t extrapolate that slowing of heat transfer to space willy nilly. . . .I would think OBVIOUSLY!“
Exactly, Bill. Not sure what Nate is waffling on about now as obviously I don’t even read let alone respond to his comments, but you nailed it the other day when you mentioned how radiative insulation functioned via the reflectivity of the material. So, in the vacuum of space, reflectivity would be what matters as far as insulation goes. The plates in the GPE thought experiment are perfectly conducting blackbody plates. Zero reflectivity! So, that’s that.
The GP is emitting energy without being replaced. That just won’t work because it is a violation of conservation of energy.
All else is an attempt to distract from this key issue and makes clear that people have no answers.
…the plates in the GPE thought experiment are perfectly conducting blackbody plates. Zero reflectivity! So, that’s that.
Nate wants to do math and claim a conservation of energy violation.
But he didn’t address any point I made.
Here below is a response to Barry criticizing his mathematical conclusions and why they fall short of proof.
This applies equally to Nates argument.
Bottom line is why does the Stefan Boltzmann emissivity factor allow for a temperature of say 16.5C and an emission rate of 40watts with an emissivity factor of 0.1. . . .is this something relating to the ghostly nature of backradiation that can’t warm things already at equilibrium with the only power source.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1472884
Other things that suggest that backradiation doesn’t even exist is the fact that until mirrors, fancy elements, an electronic wizardary was employed an IR detector could not detect any photons from a colder source. . . .they had to ice down the detectors. With all the tricks they now use everybody thinks photons are being detected but they may be detecting photong being lost from the sensor vs photons gained.
Spooky effects at a distance.
Bill doesnt address the basic issue of energy conservation at all, goes off on tangents to nowhere, then whines about being ignored!
DREMT, in deep denial, gets fed obviously flawed logic from a con-man, can’t think for himself, and believes it anyway!
Who cares about conservation of energy? Not you guys!
“The GP is emitting energy without being replaced. ”
This is a violation of energy conservation, a fundamental requirement.
This a result of the sky-dragon-slayer, Postma/DREMT solution to the GPE, Bill.
Try to focus on that key issue, and address it.
If you can’t, then you can’t, then their solution is bogus. Nothing else matters.
“Nate wants to do math and claim a conservation of energy violation.”
Oh, is that what he’s doing? Presumably he’s echoing what barry is saying in the sub-thread below this one, and knowing Nate, he’s probably just repeating himself over and over again, desperately trying to get the last word. barry doesn’t even understand the basics, as he asked below, about the BP on its own:
“How does a blackbody surface irraditated [sic] at 400 W/m2 fail to be 290 K?”
Oh dear. They’re not having a very good debate, this time.
Facts are irrelevant, thats how delusional thinking works.
…oh dear. They’re not having a very good debate, this time.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1470991
TEAM Sky-dragon-slayer just aint honest.
…dear. They’re not having a very good debate, this time.
And they are weirdly confused about who decides if their argument is convincing.
…they’re not having a very good debate, this time.
Nate says:
”Bill doesnt address the basic issue of energy conservation at all, goes off on tangents to nowhere, then whines about being ignored!
The GP is emitting energy without being replaced.
This is a violation of energy conservation, a fundamental requirement.
This a result of the sky-dragon-slayer, Postma/DREMT solution to the GPE, Bill.
Try to focus on that key issue, and address it.
If you cant, then you cant, then their solution is bogus. Nothing else matters.”
I address the issue here Nate. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1473042
In short the very fact that GP is emitting to space and there is a time element in the travel time of energy the GP has nothing to emit until it receives it from the BP.
Thus the GP doesn’t stay at equilibrium with each photon it emits to space and the BP instantly replenishes that equilibrium because the flow is 400w/m2 not zero. Zero is just a picture of a static situation and your math is lacking facts.
This is why science calls this some kind of quasi-equilibrium where a flow of energy is occurring and objects are one temperature.
Only if you ‘perfectly’ insulate the GP can a steady equilibrium be achieved. And of course perfection is impossible so at a minimum a steady equilibrium is just a case where leakage is very low.
These are dynamic processes and uneducated or poorly educated scientists should not apply. . . .like uneducated accountants, engineers, doctors, et al.
“Thus the GP doesnt stay at equilibrium with each photon it emits to space and the BP instantly replenishes that equilibrium because the flow is 400w/m2 not zero.”
One photon at a time is not gonna work, Bill. Think it through.
You will never get enough energy transferred from BP to GP to replace the 200 W/m2 emitted by the GP to space that way. A slight drop in T results in a slight heat transfer according to the RHTE, the one mentioned by JP.
Only when the T difference Between the plates becomes significant will you get enough heat flow to replace the outgoing energy.
That is why 1LOT is used to find the required Temps.
When you mention quasi equilibrium, what you are getting at is a steady-state situation.
In this problem the steady state has a steady flow of 400 W/m2 of heat into, thru, and out of the system. Some goes out thru BP and some thru GP.
In order to have that steady heat flow thru the system there is a required steady T difference between the plates, according to Q = sigma(Tb^4 -Tg^4), the RHTE. Note that JP quotes this.
The Q has to be large enough to replace what is exiting the GP, which works out to be 133.3 W/m2. And 267 W/m2 exits the BP.
…they’re really not having a very good debate, this time.
The accounting problem that DREMT has ackowledged but ignored, simply goes away when you drop the erroneous assumption that the plates need to be at the same temperature.
There is no science nor common sense reason for the plates to be at the same temperature. Really not sure where they got this idea.
It leads to all sorts of crazy results. The plates emit energy without replacement. And heat flow is discontinuous through the system.
Such heat flow interruptus doensnt actually happen in nature.
In reality there needs to be a steady T gradient when there is a steady flow of heat through a system, and Bill knows from his experience with windows, that this is the case.
There is no political message connected to this basic fact about heat.
…they’re really, really not having a very good debate, this time.
Nate where is the accounting problem?
The BP loses 400w/m2 to the GP and the GP loses 400w/m2 to space.
Accounting is done any way that you want to do it. You need to account for things by the substance of the transaction. Thats why the application of mathematics in physics is entirely dependent upon experiments.
Yes you have all kinds of mathematical arguments why a 16.5C plate can warm a 10C plate instead the 10C plate must make the 16.5C plate hotter. Greenhouse experiments show that doesn’t happen when the 16.5C plate is only receiving 400w/m2 from the source.
There seem to be some logical reasons why that happens. When a surface is exposed to 400w/m2 it causes that surface to vibrate and with thermally conductive materials like metals, glass, and stone that vibration moves very quickly through the material like an earthquake vibrating at a fault moves through the earth’s crust and rocks areas up to hundreds of miles away.
So the object could in space when not exposed to free convective air to add another cooling mode could warm to the 16.5C and find itself emitting 400w/m2 to space and nothing back to the plate. You get your panties all in a twist over the thought of the plate needing to cool to half that level to get net radiation from the source to the first surface. I get that. Thats why the experiment must be conducted with near blackbody materials to see if your thought experiment is correct or if there is a sufficient transport of heat through the object to not obstruct the movement of energy. Your argument just declares that to be a fact and like Bernie Madoff you make up an accounting for your listeners based upon what he thought must be true.
It is funny how that works. Bernie really thought his investment strategy would work and it was just a temporary glitch that he had to get beyond. You would make a fine Bernie Madoff imagining innumerable ways to account for stuff to fit your world view.
Accountants though must go down to each transaction and find out if its true. So what accountants do is dissemble the entire web of transactions using empirical evidence to see the true substance of the transactions.
So your cries of accounting fraud ring completely hollow without the experiment showing that indeed blackbodies in a radiation field in space perform as you claim when all factors like view factors and such are considered.
In accounting this can be very difficult sometimes where the illusion of transactions are manufactured, receipts, obligations, etc. A thought experiment is entirely manufactured except for the precepts that have been tested as factual.
“Nate where is the accounting problem?”
Its been explained a half dozen times. Even DREMT sees it.
“The BP loses 400w/m2 to the GP and the GP loses 400w/m2 to space.”
For the umpteenth time, the GP is an isolated body. It is emitting energy as it should based on its T to space.
That energy is not being replaced, as discussed. As a result it should Cool, but the slayers insist that it doesn’t.
You must be wearing blinders if you cant see this is a problem.
Or politically you need suck up to slayers.
“So your cries of accounting fraud ring completely hollow without the experiment showing that indeed blackbodies in a radiation field in space perform as you claim when all factors like view factors and such are considered.”
Bill the whole centuries long exercise of developing the laws of physics becomes pointless, if you can’t apply those laws to anything, which is what you are suggesting.
They are laws because they have been experimentally tested in many situations. The SB law: tested. The 1LOT: tested. The RHTE: tested.
If you still require an experiment go ahead and do it. The rest of us can be confident that the laws of physics work.
“The BP loses 400w/m2 to the GP and the GP loses 400w/m2 to space.”
Close…the BP loses 200 W/m^2 to the GP and the GP loses 200 W/m^2 to space…the other 200 W/m^2 is lost to space from the Sun-facing side of the BP…but you seem to have the right idea. I assume Nate is still making the exact same argument over and over again. Oh well.
“Closethe BP loses 200 W/m^2 to the GP and the GP loses 200 W/m^2 to spacethe other 200 W/m^2 is lost to space from the Sun-facing side of the BPbut you seem to have the right idea.”
I see DREMT is simply repeating the same false claims over and over and over, without ever addressing the key issue:
How does the GP lose 200 W/m^2 to space, while that energy never gets replaced?
Never mind that the BP has a problem. It is receiving 400 W/m^2 of heat input from the source and is only emitting 200 W/m^2 of heat output.
Why is that? On the space side it emits Q = 200 W/m^2. On it its other side ALL AGREE that it is emitting Q = 0 to the GP.
…I assume Nate is still making the exact same argument over and over again. Oh well.
“BP loses 200 W/m^2 to the GP.”
As we know, it was argued that the GP could not ‘lose energy’ in the direction of the BP because every vector of flux from GP is met by an equal flux from the BP.
With identical temps, the situation is perfectly symmetric.
Then the BP cannot lose energy to the GP either.
More failed logic from JP that is gobbled up by gullible followers.
…assume Nate is still making the exact same argument over and over again. Oh well.
Nate will never admit he is wrong. We can continue to parade evidence in front of him, multi-compartment boxes, greenhouses, whatever and he refuses to consider the issues those pose.
Further he won’t do his own experiment and show how these shells will warm something inside of the them in accordance with the math he has laid out here.
Nope he is a hopeless cause. He will argue and argue while never ever providing any evidence until he is the last man.
Then rather than admitting he is wrong he will quietly slip out of here and stick his head in the sand.
Bill cannot muster the brain power to understand very simple failed logic. He appears to have lost all auditing skills and can no longer detect obvious accounting fraud.
He refuses to believe the validity of basic laws of physics, such as conservation of energy, demands completely unnecessary experiments.
He is intent on evading honest fact-based debate, and focusses on trolling.
“Nope he is a hopeless cause. He will argue and argue while never ever providing any evidence until he is the last man.
Then rather than admitting he is wrong he will quietly slip out of here and stick his head in the sand.”
Yes, indeed. Everyone who has ever experienced debating Nate for long periods of time has said the same things about him. Kristian, Chic, you, me…he’s just utterly relentless. Do you realize that he has written well over 70 comments on this one thread alone? I haven’t read them, but I did a quick count of the comments under his name just out of a sort of morbid curiosity, since I keep seeing his name coming up so many times. I assume most of them are about or addressed to me. Can you imagine being that obsessive that you write over 70 comments to someone who is no longer responding to you!?
I’m afraid he has some rather serious problems.
They cannot win on the facts or simple logic, so they try their hardest to make it all about the messenger.
…I’m afraid he has some rather serious problems.
Yep some people think science is hear tell. Never experiments, never asks for proof.
Hunter troll, echoing grammie pups denial, repeatedly asks Nate:
This and his earlier comment demand that Nate do experiments, while ignoring all my experimental results, such as the easily replicated Glass Plate version of grammie pups “244-together-244-separated” crap. Hunter didn’t understand how double pane windows work and perhaps still doesn’t.
Swanson already described the results of his "glass plate" experiment as akin to removing a cooling device from a CPU – thus, nothing to do with the GPE, which is supposedly a demonstration of back-radiation warming/insulation. Double pane windows do not function via back-radiation, and have absolutely nothing in common with the GPE besides the vague similarity that both involve flat plates/panes.
A swing and a miss from Captain Enraged.
Nate says:
They cannot win on the facts or simple logic
———————–
Obviously if you have to leap to logic to support a basic heat transfer problem you have a huge problem.
Obviously experiments have been done in aerospace design. The question is why you don’t need to know if any exist that support your logic.
Bill thinks the loss of any debate on this forum can be dodged by demanding an experiment.
So go test the free energy from nothing concept experimentally, and if works you’ll get lots of investors from Joe Postmas blog.
My CPU comments were an attempt to put a little sense of reality into grammie’s head:
I did not claim that the example was identical to the GPE, though grammie pups’ warped brain seems to think it so.
Nate says:
Bill thinks the loss of any debate on this forum can be dodged by demanding an experiment.
————————–
Only if science is used as the measure Nate.
…a swing and a miss from Captain Enraged.
Other messengers getting the blame for DREMTs failures to make any convincing argument over 5 years.
Bill demands the experiment that Swanson already did and Bill already ignored. Bill demands an experiment whose theory is tested regularly with multi-layer-insulation (MLI) in space, such as on the JWST.
And yes MLI also works even for blackbody surfaces with emissivity = 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
“The principle behind MLI is radiation balance. To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the StefanBoltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space. The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W. So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”
Nobody on the sky-dragon-slayer-accounting-fraud-peddling team has ever rebutted this article.
So there is no evidence that Bill cares at all about experiments.
…swing and a miss from Captain Enraged.
“I dont respond to Nate, or even read his comments”
Sure thing.
…and a miss from Captain Enraged.
Sure, DREMT is obviously perfectly happy to be physically wrong on the GPE as DREMT has meticulously explained over a period of about 5 years.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (“plates pressed together”) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
…a miss from Captain Enraged.
"…but another transfer of energy…in EMR BP to GP does occur after the switch"
There is a transfer of energy from BP to GP, via conduction, before the switch, and a transfer of energy from BP to GP, via EMR, after the switch. So, there’s a transfer of energy from BP to GP before the switch, and a transfer of energy from BP to GP after the switch. The transfer of energy from BP to GP is therefore not an additional transfer of energy occurring only in config. B. The "back-radiation" transfer from GP to BP, on the other hand, only occurs in config. B. It does not occur in config. A. That is the only difference, in transfers, between the two configurations.
“So, theres a transfer of energy from BP to GP before the switch, and a transfer of energy from BP to GP after the switch”
Yep, but not at the same rate.
Immediately after the separation, the transfer rate drops to near 0, because radiation is much less effective at transferring heat than conduction, and the temperature difference which drives radiative heat transfer is initially near 0.
It is baffling why people keep failing to account for these plain facts.
…that is the only difference, in transfers, between the two configurations.
Deniers deny. And everybody can see it happening.
…is the only difference, in transfers, between the two configurations.
Nate says:
transfer from the GP to the BP being returned from the BP to the GP
An extra imaginary arrow drawn on a cartoon? That aint physics.
——————————-
Nate spends all day promoting a ‘thought experiment’ then denies anybody else the dispensation of dreaming up whatever they want.
You are right Nate all thought experiments aren’t physics. . . .including yours.
My comment was misplaced, it was meant to go in the sub-thread below this one. For anyone reading through from up here wondering what configurations I was suddenly referring to, they should start with this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1476574
“denies anybody else the dispensation of dreaming up whatever they want.”
‘Dreaming up’ is exactly what DREMT was doing, and I won’t deny him that right.
But I can point out that it is not from any known science.
…for anyone reading through from up here wondering what configurations I was suddenly referring to, they should start with this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1476574
Nate says:
Dreaming up is exactly what DREMT was doing, and I wont deny him that right.
But I can point out that it is not from any known science.
——————————–
I agree.
And if what he was modifying was from any known science he would be wrong to do that too. But it appears that what he is modifying was contrary to known science. . . .and instead is correcting it to known science.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
“like with the Green Plate Effect. Some people misuse the RHTE by holding Q constant ”
I don’t know what iteration of this idea you are imagining, but typically the heat IS held constant. A “blue plate” in vacuum receives a constant Q (like 400 W/s) and each side radiates (like 200 W/m^2 ) to surroundings that are close to 0 K.
Then an unpowered “green plate” is placed close to – but not touching – one side of the blue plate. Suppose the green plate is 244 K to start with. As you say, heat flow TO green from blue is zero. But heat from FROM green to space is not zero, so green cools, because it has a net heat loss.
Similarly, BLUE still has the constant 400 W/m^2 in, but is losing 200 W/m^2 from one side only, so it WARMS.
Balance is NOT achieved when Green loses 200 but gains zero; nor when blue gains 400 but loses 200.
All delightfully wrong, Tim. Green cannot heat space! Nothing can. It’s just a void, a vacuum. That’s where you all go wrong, and that’s why you’ll never get the right answer with the GPE. You think of there "having to be" this temperature gradient from the "hot Sun" to "cold space" and through the plates…it’s a complete fairy tale. It’s not correct, certainly not from the point of view of this thought experiment, to even think of space as having a temperature at all.
“Green cannot heat space! ”
Why not? The green plate is losing energy. Since everything beyond the green plate is “space”, then the energy is going “to space”.
Even putting aside the semantics of ‘heating space’, your scenario doesn’t balance. In your scenario:
* the Green Plate is receiving 0 W/m^2 from the Blue plate, and emitting 200 W/m^2 from the other side.
* the Blue Plate is receiving 400 W/m^2, losing 0 W/m^2 to the Green Plate, and emitting 200 W/m^2 from the other side.
Folkerts, there is NO evidence you understand any of this.
The green plate is receiving 200 W/m^2, NOT 0 W/am^2!
You obviously have NO experience with radiative physics. You just make crap up. You made up the bogus math that leads to ice cubes being able to boil water. Your cult has no grasp of physics, rejects reality, and is dishonest.
Take the honesty quiz. I predict you wont pass.
Do passenger jets fly backwards, yes or no?
Pup, Pup,
That line is for EM.
Keep your pet lines in line.
Tim, it has absolutely nothing to do with "semantics". Nobody is denying that the green plate radiates to space…but that fact is incorporated into the RHTE between the blue and green plates. As I said up-thread:
"The emissions from the green plate into space are included in the fact that there is a term for the green plate in the blue and green heat flow calculation. It’s a given that if the green plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate when heat flow has gone to zero, that it will be emitting 200 W/m^2 to space on the other side.
At 244 K…244 K, you have heat flow at zero between the two plates, as it should be, and overall 400 W input into the two-plate system, and 400 W output from it. Everything is in balance. That’s that."
The green plate cannot heat space. You can’t "heat up" a vacuum. The green plate is just radiating out into a vacuum based on its temperature and emissivity. Simply put, there is no reason for the blue plate not to warm the green plate until it’s at the same temperature as the blue plate. You just believe that there has to be this temperature gradient from the Sun, through the plates, and out to "cold space"…but you shouldn’t be thinking of space as being "cold". When you stop thinking that, your whole narrative collapses.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] it has absolutely nothing to do with “semantics”.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Some people misuse the RHTE by holding Q constant
Yes, exactly. No contradiction there, obviously.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] it has absolutely nothing to do with semantics.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Some people misuse the RHTE by holding Q constant
When people (like Tim) try to dismiss arguments as “just semantics” they’re trying to imply the point is some trivial issue over the definition of words. That’s clearly not the case here. No matter what words you highlight.
“the meaning of a word is its use in the language”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#MeanUse
I’m not arguing about the meaning of words.
Folkerts has refused the honesty quiz.
The conclusion is obvious.
The fraud will continue.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Im not arguing about the meaning of words.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Some people misuse the RHTE by holding Q constant
You like to arrange quotes together as if there were a contradiction, when there is none.
[MIGHTY TIM] The green plate is losing energy. Since everything beyond the green plate is “space”, then the energy is going “to space”.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] The green plate cannot heat space.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] it has absolutely nothing to do with semantics.
You can’t heat a vacuum. That’s not “just semantics”. It’s not some trivial point about the meaning of words. It’s a fundamental physical fact…and it’s a huge part of what debunks the GPE.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more –
[MIGHTY TIM] When people (like Tim) try to dismiss arguments as just semantics
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Even putting aside the semantics of heating space, your scenario doesnt balance.
Willard, please stop trolling. You’re just not that proficient at it.
Mike Flynn,
Every time Mighty Tim reminds him to balance his plates properly, Gaslighting Graham gaslights him.
This time it was by projecting his own semantic arguments.
Thank you for helping me make my point across.
Do continue.
No object in the universe, nor theoretical blackbodies, emits at 0 W/m2. Any surface emitting 0 W/m2 of energy would be colder than any object in the universe.
This silly notion infers that as more energy is directed at a surface, that surface consequently emits LESS energy.
DREMT, in your conception, if you touch the inward side of the green plate your fingertips would freeze solid in an instant, while the back of your hand would be warmed by the blue plate.
Surely you can see that your 0 W/m2 notion is arrant nonsense?
I might have mixed up Tim’s statements with yours in the last post, DREMT. Feel free to correct it.
I’ll quote you on this, though.
“Simply put, there is no reason for the blue plate not to warm the green plate until it’s at the same temperature as the blue plate.”
Yes there definitely is.
The blue plate is receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun
The green plate is receiving 200 W/m2 from the blue plate
How can GP possibly heat up to the same temp as BP when it is receiving half the energy?
Yes, barry, you definitely mixed up Tim’s statements with mine. I did not say anything about an object emitting 0 W/m^2.
We’ve done the GPE dance a dozen times already. Let’s try something different. Let’s see if you can answer my line of questioning.
Firstly: do you agree that, where possible, heat flow tends towards zero?
“Firstly: do you agree that, where possible, heat flow tends towards zero?”
Just to point out, this is a feeling, not physics.
It is completely vague, unsupported, and therefore meaningless.
In any situation where constant heat is flowing into a multi-part system, there must be a means for heat loss through (ie between the parts) and out of that system, in order to reach a steady state temperature.
Anybody suggesting the heat flow through the system goes to zero in that situation, is simply making up a non-existent and nonsensical rule.
What some people are confusing the GPE with is a closed system not being heated from the outside.
THEN, heat flow between the parts tends to zero, and the T of the parts equalize. The system reaches equilibrium.
The GPE does not qualify. It is a system being externally heated by the sun.
Heat flow never goes to zero in the GPE system.
“you have heat flow at zero between the two plates … ” and yet you also have 200 W/m^2 leaving the green plate. If that energy is not coming from the blue plate, where is it coming from?
barry, when the plates are in exact contact, they have the same temperature. Why would a slight separation, with no losses and in perfect conditions, be any different?
You get so confused with radiative physics. Remember how hard it was for you to understand ARRIVING fluxes? You kept trying to figure in view factors, like an idiot.
Have you taken the “honesty quiz” yet?
“barry, when the plates are in exact contact, they have the same temperature. Why would a slight separation, with no losses and in perfect conditions, be any different?”
Really? we’re going with incredulity as an argument? Thats a new one!
“with no losses and in perfect conditions, be any different?”
is of course vague and meaningless. A troll’s best friend.
The reality is that with plates in contact there is heat flow Into one side, in between them, and then out the other side.
Out of contact there still needs to be heat flow in-between them, else the blue plate with heat flow IN but none OUT will heat up indefinitely!
Riddle me this, Pup –
Take two cottages at temperature constant, and put them right next to one another so that they become a semi-detached house. They become warmer.
Why is that?
??
Poor troll Nate understands NONE of this.
In radiative physics, energy can flow between two objects with the same temperature. But “heat” does not flow between objects with the same temperature.
With the plates in contact, energy flows from blue to green, maintaining both plates at the same temperature, with ideal conditions and no losses.
With the plates slightly apart, energy flows from blue to green, maintaining both plates at the same temperature, with ideal conditions and no losses.
Tim, I already explained twice:
“The emissions from the green plate into space are included in the fact that there is a term for the green plate in the blue and green heat flow calculation. It’s a given that if the green plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate when heat flow has gone to zero, that it will be emitting 200 W/m^2 to space on the other side.”
That’s three times now. This is the problem with discussing the GPE. Team GPE ain’t honest. They receive an explanation. They then ignore most of the explanation, quote maybe a few words from one sentence, then repeat their request for an explanation. They just, basically, don’t listen. They cannot accept what is being explained to them, so they do whatever they can to reject it out of hand.
I will wait to see if barry responds to my question.
Gaslighting Graham gets caught a silly semantic game about the notion of space and the interpretation of the heat transfer equation. Then he gets caught denying that he played that sill semantic game. Then he gets caught projecting that silly semantic game onto Mighty Tim.
Now we’re into another villainous Sky Dragon crank monologue.
Here is where we ought to be:
[MIGHTY TIM] In your scenario: the Green Plate is receiving 0 W/m^2 from the Blue plate, and emitting 200 W/m^2 from the other side; the Blue Plate is receiving 400 W/m^2, losing 0 W/m^2 to the Green Plate, and emitting 200 W/m^2 from the other side.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] The emissions from the green plate into space are included in the fact that there is a term for the green plate in the blue and green heat flow calculation. Its a given that if the green plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate when heat flow has gone to zero, that it will be emitting 200 W/m^2 to space on the other side.
Readers might wonder how things balance out.
To be a Sky Dragon crank should be a balancing act.
Clint R already pointed out that Tim is completely incorrect in his statements. The green plate does not receive 0 W/m^2 from the blue. It receives 200 W/m^2 from the blue.
“But ‘heat’ does not flow between objects with the same temperature.”
Yep, that agrees with physics.
“In radiative physics, energy can flow between two objects with the same temperature.”
That aint physics.
Again 1LOT is delta-U = Q – W. There is not other ‘energy’ term other than heat or work.
Thermally radiated flux aint WORK, then it must be HEAT. There is no other option.
If you disagree please show us a legitimate source for that. It needs to identify what this mysterious other energy is. And show us an example.
And now Gaslighting Graham tops it off with his renowned handwaving.
As long as they can get the last word, any goes for Sky Dragon cranks such as Gaslighting Graham.
This is the problem with discussing the GPE. Team sky-dragon-slayer aint honest.
They receive an explanation for why their arguments are flawed and dont agree with either physics or logic. They receive facts from real sources that disagree with their claims.
They then ignore this, then repeat their illogical claims, and repeatedly express their incredulity, as if nobody found a flaw and everyone is just as incredulous as they are.
Nor do they ever provide any legitimate sources that back up their assertions.
No handwaving. Tim was incorrect to say the green receives 0 W/m^2 from the blue. Simple as that.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] No handwaving.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Pup already pointed out that Mighty Tim is completely incorrect in his statements.
Correct, and there is no contradiction there.
“Clint R already pointed out that Tim is completely incorrect in his statements. The green plate does not receive 0 W/m^2 from the blue. It receives 200 W/m^2 from the blue.”
False, this has been explained and ignored repeatedly. It receives NO NET heat or any other energy from the BP.
All agree that BP sends 200 W/m^2 to the GP.
But then some conveniently forget that the GP is sending 200 W/m^2 back to the BP, and that by Kirchoffs law it must be abs.orbed by the BP.
Thus the NET heat (or energy) received by the GP from the BP is zero.
The NET heat (or energy) received by the BP from the GP is zero.
Sorry no magic, no sleight of hand, no mysterious new form of energy accepted, only valid physics.
“the use of gestures and insubstantial language meant to impress or convince”
Tim was wrong, Little Willy. The GP receives 200 W/m^2 from the BP, not 0 W/m^2. The GP cannot heat space. You cannot heat a vacuum. The GP just radiates 200 W/m^2 to space due to its temperature and emissivity. The narrative that there has to be some sort of temperature gradient from the hot Sun, through the plates, and out to cold space is completely false. It is more appropriate to think of space as having no temperature, than it is to think of it as being extremely cold surroundings.
Again, I dont know why this needs to be said, but repeating false, debunked, fake science, does not magically convert it into correct, real, valid science.
They can repeat their denials of basic physics and failed logic as often or as loudly as they want, it will not change anything.
But I encourage them to claim the not-so-prestigious Last Wording Consolation Prize.
Perhaps that will soothe their pain.
They simply have to repeat any of their false claims again.
So go right ahead.
I patiently await a response from barry or Tim. Obviously readers will be well aware that I don’t respond to Nate, or even read his comments, so I’m not sure why I keep seeing his name popping up so much in this thread. Little Willy is merely a minor irritant whose comments such as "another villainous Sky Dragon crank monologue" reveal his extreme bias. He genuinely seems to think of people who don’t agree there’s a Greenhouse Effect as "villains". Ridiculous.
Troll Nate, your lack of understanding makes this most entertaining.
You now prove you don’t understand either 1LoT or 2LoT!
1LoT refers to both “heat” and “work”, being forms of energy transfer. But 1LoT does NOT preclude there being other forms of energy, such as electromagnetic, for example.
Thanks for the fun!
You still have not solved a simple riddle, Pup –
Take two cottages at temperature constant, and put them right next to one another so that they become a semi-detached house. They become warmer.
Why is that?
Irritant, cease.
> “you have heat flow at zero between the two plates” and yet you also have 200 W/m^2 leaving the green plate. If that energy is not coming from the blue plate, where is it coming from?
Exactly, Tim.
Gaslighting Graham has little more than pure, unadulterated gaslighting.
…and I explained that already, three times now. I await a response from Tim (otherwise I’ll have to assume that he concedes the point).
Clint sez “1LoT refers to both ‘heat’ and ‘work’, being forms of energy transfer.”
As I said.
“But 1LoT does NOT preclude there being other forms of energy, such as electromagnetic, for example.”
It does. Any non-heat EM sources such as energy delivered to a resistor from a power supply or battery are considered WORK.
Thermally emitted radiation is electromagnetic, but it is not work, it is simply results from a body being warm, so it must be Q, heat in transfer from one body to another.
All physics sources agree. What I assert is easily fact checked.
You guys only declare made-up physics, with nothing at all to back it up.
Thanks for the comedy!
“so Im not sure why I keep seeing his name popping up so much in this thread. ”
Some people erroneously think they are in charge of threads and who is allowed to post in them.
Again, if see fake science, no matter who posts it, I respond and point out why it is flawed, and correct it.
No one is obligated to respond to me. But if they don’t respond to the facts and science in my posts, then that is a good indicator that they have no sensible answers.
DREMT, I made a point I hoped you would address. I think it succinctly guts your proposal that GP and BP are the same temperature.
The blue plate is receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun
The green plate is receiving 200 W/m2 from the blue plate
How can GP possibly heat up to the same temp as BP when it is receiving half the energy?
What say you?
…and I made a point I hoped you would address, barry. Instead, you’re insisting on re-asking a question that you always ask, and that I have gone to enormous lengths to explain to you, previously. You’re just going to pretend I’ve never explained it to you before, right? Like I’ve never mentioned that the 400 W/m^2 to the BP comes from a point source Sun, whereas the 200 W/m^2 to the GP comes from an infinite parallel plate, and the difference that makes? No? Not ringing any bells? It won’t matter if I explain it to you again, for the umpteenth time. You people refuse to even try to understand. That’s why I wanted to try something different, this time.
So, I ask you again…do you agree that, where possible, heat flow tends towards zero?
“comes from a point source Sun”
And??
Always there is a flimsy excuse…words lacking logic.
“Like I’ve never mentioned that the 400 W/m^2 to the BP comes from a point source Sun, whereas the 200 W/m^2 to the GP comes from an infinite parallel plate, and the difference that makes?”
In case you needed a reminder, barry, here again is the argument for why this matters:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/05/19/green-plate-analyzed-and-demolished/
Now, I really will be wanting you to answer that question of mine…
After all this time people are still deferring to the faux authority of the con-man Joe Postma.
Even 5 years later, they have been unable to find any legitimate sources to corroborate his fake physics.
…now, I really will be wanting you to answer that question of mine…
And even JP, con-man though he is, admits that 1LOT applies to the individual plates!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471393
…I really will be wanting you to answer that question of mine…
I will simply note that DREMTs ‘answer’ to Barry was not an answer, but a deferral to the authority of a con-man, Joe Postma, who made a very illogical argument.
Reading the comments we can see that several people are confused by his logic, poke lots of holes in it, and then they seem to disappear when he gets annoyed with them.
…really will be wanting you to answer that question of mine…
DREMT,
“Like Ive never mentioned that the 400 W/m^2 to the BP comes from a point source Sun, whereas the 200 W/m^2 to the GP comes from an infinite parallel plate, and the difference that makes? No? Not ringing any bells?”
Yes it does ring bells, and I remember find it completely unconvincing.
We are agreed that BP receives 400 W/m2 from the sun. Doesn’t matter whether from another plate or a pin-point, that is the energy received by BP.
We are agreed that BP emits 200 W/m2 from one side, and 200 W/m2 from the other.
Thus, GP receives 200 W/m2 from BP.
BP received 4– W/m2 from the sun.
What difference does it make if the energy source is a plate or a pinpoint? There is still no way for GP to become as warm as BP, because it is receiving half the energy.
If you explained further than this, you’re going to have to remind me, and I hope we stick with the discussion.
barry, you’re not paying any attention. I linked to an article which contains a detailed account of the argument. Purely, I might add, to save me the effort of going through it again myself. Scroll up. Click on the link. Read. I’m not interested if you find it “convincing” or not. Your question has been re-answered, for the umpteenth time, so that’s that.
Now, please answer my question, and try not to wait another 24 hours before you do so.
“Im not interested if you find it convincing or not.”
And conveniently, it is someone elses argument, he doesnt feel the need to defend it.
Indeed ‘winning’ for the poster has nothing to do with making a convincing, logical, or factual argument, it is just about bullying people and scoring imaginary points.
…now, please answer my question, and try not to wait another 24 hours before you do so.
“We are agreed that BP receives 400 W/m2 from the sun. Doesnt matter whether from another plate or a pin-point, that is the energy received by BP.
We are agreed that BP emits 200 W/m2 from one side, and 200 W/m2 from the other.
Thus, GP receives 200 W/m2 from BP.
BP received 400 W/m2 from the sun.
What difference does it make if the energy source is a plate or a pinpoint? There is still no way for GP to become as warm as BP, because it is receiving half the energy.”
You make perfect sense, Barry.
The sky-dragon-slayer ‘argument’ seems to be that the GPs emission on the source side is blocked by the BP (cancelled by the BPs emissions), so it can’t ‘lose energy’ on that side. So it only can emit from one side.
Therefore the GP emits 200 on one side only.
Left unexplained is how it replaces the emitted 200, since the 200 it received from the BP has already been cancelled!
Also why this blocking (cancelling) effect doesnt apply also to BP being blocked on one side by the GP, so that the BP would also only be emitting on one side only @ 400, is left unexplained.
Its all quite illogical. But the followers of JP eat it up anyway.
OK, barry, I’m feeling generous, so I’ll even quote the relevant passages for you from the linked article:
"A – Distant Point Source
With a point object as the source, then the view factor of the source relative to the plate is negligible, i.e., the point source occupies almost no or basically no angular view factor as viewed from the plate. Why is this important? It is important because it means that thermal radiation emitted from the plate on the side of the source can emit to open space, that there are no opposing vectors of input radiation from the source except for the infinitesimal vector pointed directly toward the source; being infinitesimal, it may therefore be ignored.
The result is that, for the equilibrium state of the plate, we must consider than it can emit freely to the entirety of both hemispheres of either side of the plate’s view. Thus, if we consider that the plate is very thin in terms of its thermal conductivity, so that both sides of the plate emit the same energy, then for a given input flux F from the source either side of the plate emits F/2, and then you may compute the resulting temperature via the usual way with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law: T = (F / 2 / σ)1/4
B – Plane Parallel Source
In this scenario we consider the plate and source as extending “infinitely”, or at least being very close together, such that the view factor of the source occupies the entire hemisphere of view from the first plate. How is this different? This results in every single vector of emission from the plate being met with an opposing vector of input from the source. That is, the plate cannot lose energy in the entire hemisphere of potential emission facing the source. Whereas with the point source the plate may emit to empty black space all around the infinitesimal point source, with the plane parallel source the plate now cannot emit to empty space because that space is now occupied by input from the source.
Thus, now to conserve energy the plate must emit all energy only on the side facing away from the source, since there is empty space on this hemisphere. And so, given an input F from the source, now the plate must emit F on the side facing away from the source, resulting in a higher temperature with no division by two of F of T = (F / σ)1/4."
So, basically, the key is that a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit. There is nothing happening to block any emission from either side of either plate. It’s just that with the blue plate, on the side facing the point source Sun, it emits to space along every direction in the entire hemisphere of possible directions without receiving anything back. There is only that one direction, perpendicular to the plate and directly pointing at the Sun, along which it is receiving all of its energy. So it cannot lose energy in that direction only, because that is the direction from which it is gaining all of its energy. It can lose energy in every single other direction though on the source facing side, and obviously also along every single other direction on its other side, facing the green plate. The blue plate loses energy to the green plate, the green plate gains all of its energy from the blue.
So the blue plate, essentially, has two "losing sides". It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.
The green plate, on the other hand, has only one "losing side", the side facing space. On the side facing the blue plate, it is gaining its energy along every single possible direction, since the blue plate fills the green plate’s entire field of view on that side. Remember, a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Thus, with only one "losing side", you divide by one for the green plate. The 200 W/m^2 input remains 200 W/m^2 output…
…and that’s all there is to it.
Now, I really will have to insist that you please answer my question.
“Its a given that if the green plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate when heat flow has gone to zero,”
Well that’s your problem, that’s not a given, the green plate is never emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate, and also heat flow never goes to zero.
bob drops by with more utterly unsupported drivel.
You can’t handle it when you are shown to be wrong.
The green plate never sends 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate, it only starts with 200 and sends half back and half away to space.
It goes up a little when steady state is reached but never to 200.
I’ll let you try a crack at the math, you can even find an on line calculator to help you.
Being shown to be wrong would be a novelty that I welcome, bob. Hasn’t happened so far. I refer you to the issue settlers I’ve written above, and await a response from barry, the only person I’m interested in talking to on this sub-thread. That’s that.
” This results in every single vector of emission from the plate being met with an opposing vector of input from the source. That is, the plate cannot lose energy in the entire hemisphere of potential emission facing the source. ”
Ok so the emission of the GP toward the BP is met with ‘an opposing vector of input from the source’ which is the BP.
IOW they CANCEL out. That means 0 Net input from the source. Fine.
Then the point of logical failure occurs here:
“Thus, now to conserve energy the (Green) plate must emit all energy only on the side facing away from the source (BP), since there is empty space on this hemisphere. And so, given an input F from the source, now the plate must emit F on the side facing away from the source”
No! The input from the source F has already been CANCELLED.
But now it has magically been resurrected! It is an Easter miracle!
Oh darn. Its just Joe Postma being an idiot and committing accounting fraud. He is double counting!
DREMT,
“In this scenario we consider the plate and source as extending ‘infinitely’, or at least being very close together, such that the view factor of the source occupies the entire hemisphere of view from the first plate. How is this different? This results in every single vector of emission from the plate being met with an opposing vector of input from the source. That is, the plate cannot lose energy in the entire hemisphere of potential emission facing the source.”
1) This corroborates that you think the GP emits 0 W/m2 towards the BP
2) It is completely unphysical. GP must shed energy from both sides, being a blackbody. There is no mechanism to prevent it. The author provides none, and no physics text will ever provide one
3) This does not explain how GP can warm up to be as hot as BP despite getting half the energy. What – is the BP a perfect mirror on the side facing GP? Then it is not a blackbody, and it is not shedding F/2 towards GP.
So what does the author think happens between the two plates? Nothing. They simply remove the activity between the plates and treat them as if they were pressed into one thin plate.
The GP is transparent and non-conductive in the author’s mind. Or, to put it more simply, they’ve made it disappear.
That’s not just unconvincing, it’s a rejection of physics.
“do you agree that, where possible, heat flow tends towards zero?”
I don’t understand what you’re asking. Is this about entropy?
Heat is measured in a transfer of energy. Zero transfer is an equilibrium state. If you’re asking if heat flow tends towards equilibrium the answer is yes. However, many systems have a steady state heat flow, where the flow itself doesn’t change (on average). These states are possible because heat flow tends to equilibrate.
You’re going to have to rephrase the question for me.
barry says:
1) This corroborates that you think the GP emits 0 W/m2 towards the BP
————————-
STRAWMAN ALERT! No Barry when are you going to get this straight? It doesn’t matter what the GP emits!!! What matters is how much energy the GP loses to the BP and that is the number that is zero.
I will ignore the rest of your gish gallop as none of it is relevant if no energy is lost by the GP to the BP. For the BP to be warmed by the green plate it must be a recipient of a net positive radiation from the GP.
But why are we talking about this Nate says the GPE is completely different issue than the GHE and that talking about it is sewing confusion and obfuscating.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471879
Nate says:
Ok so the emission of the GP toward the BP is met with an opposing vector of input from the source which is the BP.
IOW they CANCEL out. That means 0 Net input from the source. Fine.
Then the point of logical failure occurs here:
No! The input from the source F has already been CANCELLED.
But now it has magically been resurrected! It is an Easter miracle!
———————————
Nate is willfully mixing up the thought experiments like the GPE with the GHE in the atmosphere on Earth, which is an entirely different problem.
This allows him to sew confusion, and obfuscate, and if so, he should be ignored.
No, barry. As I said:
“Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit. There is nothing happening to block any emission from either side of either plate…”
…now read on. I went to some lengths to explain it to you completely, in my 10:52 AM comment, but I cannot understand it for you.
Does heat flow between two objects tend towards zero, wherever possible, barry? It’s a simple enough question. The answer is yes, by the way. Hot objects tend to warm cool objects until they’re at the same temperature, wherever possible…and yes, there’s always a heat source present somewhere. If there were no heat source present, the objects would be at or near 0 K!
Now that Barry has responded,
“Does heat flow between two objects tend towards zero, wherever possible, Barry? Its a simple enough question.”
Yes, whenever possible, however in the GPE it’s not possible, so it doesn’t.
Bill reverts back to his childish playground mode: ‘I know you are but what am I”, and remains ever confused about whats being discussed.
DREMT has shown a Joe Postma quote that contains a dramatic self-goal. He pretends a cancelled flux from the Blue plate to the Green plate is somehow still there!
Here is his JP answer to a commenter:
“The emission on the source-side (of GP) is negated by input”
The commenter then notes the logical problem this creates
“Its possible that the plane/point source distinction is throwing me off, but this still doesnt make sense to me. I agree that the sourceward side of the (green) plate will ‘cancel out’ with the incoming flux, but in this case wed say that both the incoming and outgoing fluxes are being canceled not just the outgoing. So if we assume F coming in and F going out on the sourceward side (of GP), then both Fs cancel and there is no net flux on the sourceward side. But then we have the problem of there being a flux of F on the nighttime side of the (green) plate. Where does that energy come from?”
He is correct.
Can DREMT or Bill or anyone explain this?
bob, it’s really quite sad when some people can’t get it through their heads that I only wish to talk to barry on this sub-thread. Why are you still responding?
Its a good thing to have aspirations…
I’ll let this commenter to the JP article, answer DREMTs question.
“Here is a way to see Q is NOT necessarily 0 between any two objects in steady state. Take two blocks of copper and connect them with a wire. Supply a constant heating power S to block 1 (e.g. with a resistor), and remove a constant heat flow S from block 2 (e.g. with a thermoelectric cooler).
Eventually each block will reach a steady state temperature. But is the heat flow between them zero? No! Obviously heat will flow between them through the wire the amount of heat is exactly S.”
…it’s really quite sad when some people can’t get it through their heads that I only wish to talk to barry on this sub-thread. Why are you still responding?
When one posts really idiotic wrong things, and people respond and debunk those claims, it would be nice to have a built in excuse to ignore those debunkings.
It would be nice…
…really quite sad when some people can’t get it through their heads that I only wish to talk to barry on this sub-thread. Why are you still responding?
That’s what I thought, when found out and shown to be wrong, some people just refuse to talk about it.
…quite sad when some people can’t get it through their heads that I only wish to talk to barry on this sub-thread. Why are you still responding?
He and Joe Postma agree that people who poke holes in their logic are annoying and need to be shut down.
Thats how I got banned from JPs blog.
…sad when some people can’t get it through their heads that I only wish to talk to barry on this sub-thread. Why are you still responding?
DREMT,
In all the language that the author is using, GP does not emit to BP. Nor does the author anywhere state that GP emits to BP. If you think they do, please quote it. I’ll quote to demonstrate:
“…the point source occupies almost no or basically no angular view factor as viewed from the plate. Why is this important? It is important because it means that thermal radiation emitted from the plate on the side of the source can emit to open space, that there are no opposing vectors of input radiation from the source except for the infinitesimal vector pointed directly toward the source; being infinitesimal, it may therefore be ignored…
…we consider the plate and source as extending ‘infinitely’, or at least being very close together, such that the view factor of the source occupies the entire hemisphere of view from the first plate. How is this different? This results in every single vector of emission from the plate being met with an opposing vector of input from the source. That is, the plate cannot lose energy in the entire hemisphere of potential emission facing the source. Whereas with the point source the plate may emit to empty black space all around the infinitesimal point source, with the plane parallel source the plate now cannot emit to empty space because that space is now occupied by input from the source…
…to conserve energy the plate must emit all energy only on the side facing away from the source…”
This kind of language is repeated over and over.
And the math proves the point – In the author’s conception GP must emit F/2 from the side facing away from the BP. F/2 is the the total energy GP receives, therefore it cannot be emitting F/2 towards BP, or the FLoT is broken. Energy cannot be created.
And the author says it themselves – F/2 is being emitted from the BP to space and the GP to space, and there is no accounting of any kind for emissions between them. The another simply vanishes that part of the equation, and does it quite openly, by saying the 2 plates are the same as 1 plate.
“…No energy is lost between the two plates, and the energy lost to space is emitted from the first plate on the hemisphere facing the point source, and from the second plate on the hemisphere facing away from the point source. Thus, you should be able to see in your minds eye that this scenario actually reduces to the single-plate case, where the gap between the plates is merely an infinitesimal slice of space where the second plate becomes the new outer surface of the first plate.”
Whatever the author thinks is going on between the 2 plates, the obvious ploy is to scrub it entirely – nothing to see here, folks.
And still neither the author nor you has explained how it can possibly be that GP becomes as warm as BP when it receives half the energy that BP does. This is simply not addressed, and I would raise the same objection to the author.
Ok, in the comments Postma says:
“The surface still emits thermal EM… it is just that this emission does not equate to loss of energy because there is incoming energy from all direction vectors of emission.”
Having settled that, the issue is that Postma has created energy and broken the First Law of Thermo.
GP cannot emit all the energy it receives on one side (towards space), and then emit more energy on the other side. Where has this extra energy come from?
barry insists that Postma is saying something that I know for a fact he isn’t saying.
Again, barry:
“”Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit. There is nothing happening to block any emission from either side of either plate…”
…now read on. I went to some lengths to explain it to you completely, in my 10:52 AM comment, but I cannot understand it for you.”
Here is the comment, again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
Now, barry, since we know that heat flow between two objects goes to zero wherever possible, perhaps you could explain why you think it is not possible in the idealized scenario of the Green Plate Effect, where you have perfectly conducting infinitely large parallel blackbody plates in full view of each other, in vacuum?
DREMT,
You should have read the comment I made immediately following the one you did.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1472392
Postma’s issue is that he has broken the FLoT.
You say: “since we know that heat flow between two objects goes to zero wherever possible, perhaps you could explain why you think it is not possible in the idealized scenario of the Green Plate Effect, where you have perfectly conducting infinitely large parallel blackbody plates in full view of each other, in vacuum?”
The two plates can never be in thermal equilibrium while the sun shines. As I said in my reply to your original question, there are many instances in the universe of a steady-state system. Our Earth is full of them. That’s why we have a higher average temperature at the surface than 10 kilometers high up in the atmosphere, for example. The GPE is a steady state system once the 2-plate system reaches thermal equilibrium with the input from the sun.
Postma is simply wrong. BP receives twice the energy that GP does. There is no way that GP can warm up to the same temperature. You haven’t answered this, and neither has Postma. I read all the comments to make sure.
You can’t explain how GP gets as warm as BP while receiving half the energy that BP does.
Postma doesn’t explain where he gets the extra energy from for the GP to emit a total of F from both sides, when it only receives F/2 from BP.
Both of you are creating energy, violating FLoT.
No, barry, Postma has not violated 1LoT by creating energy. There is 400 W/m^2 input to the plates, and 400 W/m^2 leaving the plates, 200 W/m^2 leaving to the left of the BP and 200 W/m^2 leaving to the right of the GP. If he had created energy anywhere, there would have to be more energy leaving than there was coming in…
“The two plates can never be in thermal equilibrium while the sun shines.”
Why not?
“As I said in my reply to your original question, there are many instances in the universe of a steady-state system. Our Earth is full of them. That’s why we have a higher average temperature at the surface than 10 kilometers high up in the atmosphere, for example”
Sure, I’m not suggesting otherwise. The GPE, on the other hand, is an idealized thought experiment with two perfectly conducting parallel plates in a vacuum that are treated as being infinite in size wrt each other such that there are no losses. There is no reason for the two plates not to come to the same temperature.
“Postma is simply wrong. BP receives twice the energy that GP does. There is no way that GP can warm up to the same temperature. You haven’t answered this, and neither has Postma. I read all the comments to make sure. You can’t explain how GP gets as warm as BP while receiving half the energy that BP does.”
It’s all been explained, barry. I just can’t understand it for you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
“Its all been explained, barry. I just cant understand it for you:”
Yeah it has been all explained, with a glaring accounting fraud:
“And so, given an input F from the source, now the plate must emit F on the side facing away from the source”
No! The input F from the source was already cancelled by the emission of F from the GP back to the source.
The GP is emitting energy to space that is NEVER being replaced by the source!
As Barry notes, “Both of you are creating energy, violating FLoT.”
Some people here are simply too far down the rabbit hole to see that this is an obvious problem.
“There is no reason for the two plates not to come to the same temperature.”
Other than the fact that, as JP admits, no energy gets transferred between the plates!
JP: ‘It is like the heat flow equation, where heat is the net difference between emissions:
Q = s * (T1^4 – T2^4)
Only the difference between emission is heat: this does not mean that the cooler body is not emitting, but that its emission is ‘negated’ by the stronger emission from the warmer body
Indeed so, according to this equation, if the two plates have equal T, then there is complete cancellation, and ZERO Net energy (heat0 transfer.
If so then GP is clearly emitting energy without replacement, and must cool down.
Thus there needs to be a temperature difference, and a nonzero heat flow between the plates in order to remove the heat input to the system.
Heat-flowus-interuptus is unphysical.
…it’s all been explained, barry. I just can’t understand it for you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
What happens in the mind of those who are fed obviously flawed logic by their authority figures, but they belive it anyway?
Do they lose the ability to think independently? Do they think everyone in the world who has knowledge of this subject must be lying to them?
It reminds of the people who are told by their cult leaders that the world would end on a specific date and time, and when it doesnt, they continue to believe.
It is a great mystery.
…all been explained, barry. I just can’t understand it for you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
DREMT,
“There is 400 W/m^2 input to the plates”
There is only 200 W/m2 input to the GP.
Postma says it himself when he says:
“for a given input flux F from the source either side of the plate emits F/2”
Input from sun to BP is 400 W/m2
BP emits 200 W/m2 from each side
Input to GP from GP is 200 W/m2
If GP is receiving 200 W/m2, where does the extra energy come from for it to emit 2 x 200 W/m2 from each side, same as BP?
“There is no reason for the two plates not to come to the same temperature”
Of course there is. GP is being shaded from the sun by BP. BP only gives half of the energy to GP that it receives from the sun. Postma tells us this.
“for a given input flux F from the source either side of the plate emits F/2”
This is 100% clear.
BP gets F
GP gets F/2
There’s no way that GP can be the same temp as BP when it gets half the energy. I don’t understand how you can’t see this.
My point was clear, barry. There is 400 W/m^2 input to the plates, from the Sun, and there is 400 W/m^2 leaving the plates, to space. 200 W/m^2 leaves to the left of the BP, and 200 W/m^2 leaves to the right of the GP. If Postma were creating energy, there would have to be more energy leaving than there is coming in…but there isn’t. So, unless you’re saying that Postma is “destroying” energy somewhere else along the way, then Postma is not “creating energy”.
Once again, try reading through this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
Let’s start from the section that you refuse to quote from or even look at, apparently, the part where I explain things in my own words:
“So, basically, the key is that a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit. There is nothing happening to block any emission from either side of either plate.”
Take the side of the BP, facing the Sun. Presumably you are aware that there is virtually an entire hemisphere of directions of emissions that miss the Sun completely. There is only one direction, pointing at the Sun, perpendicular to the plate, which actually “hits” the Sun. Now, the BP is gaining all of its energy from the Sun, along that pathway. So, the plate cannot lose energy in that one direction facing the Sun. Right? Not that it doesn’t emit, or that the emission is blocked, or anything like that…it’s just the plate can’t lose energy along the very pathway from which it is gaining its energy! To do so, it would have to be heating the Sun! Presumably you are happy to agree, that the Sun heats the BP, and the BP does not heat the Sun. Now, follow the rest of what I said. It’s really not that difficult to understand.
I’m reminded of what I said earlier:
“It won’t matter if I explain it to you again, for the umpteenth time. You people refuse to even try to understand. That’s why I wanted to try something different, this time.”
I go to the ends of the Earth to try and explain it, and it’s not like it’s the first time you’ve ever heard it…but you still act like you haven’t heard it before. Very tedious, barry.
Nate,
“Left unexplained is how it replaces the emitted 200, since the 200 it received from the BP has already been cancelled!
Also why this blocking (cancelling) effect doesnt apply also to BP being blocked on one side by the GP, so that the BP would also only be emitting on one side only @ 400, is left unexplained.”
Yes, I edited out a sentence from a post yesterday that made the same argument. If F/2 from GP is cancelled towards BP, then F/2 from BP to GP must also be cancelled. Therefore, according to Postma’s reasoning, BP must emit 400 W/m2 towards the sun.
The problem with Postma’s reasoning is that he starts with a derived 1st Law heat flow equation and immediately states that there must be equilibrium between the 2 plates. Instead of making dT a variable, as it should be, he makes it a constant (zero).
I guess his thinking must be that because heat flow tends to zero, therefore it IS zero within the 2 plate system.
It’s circular reasoning. He makes his conclusion his premise.
Everything else flows from that premise, and when he is challenged in the comments, his reply is to look away from the criticism and to look at the heat flow equation. An equation where it is preordained that the plates are the same temperature.
barry, your problem is that it isn’t just a question of simple “accounting”. It’s thermodynamics. Nobody said it was going to be straightforward.
You think I can’t see it from your POV!? I get what you’re saying….completely. I just disagree with you. I’m not convinced that you get what I’m saying though, or that you even begin to try to want to understand.
DREMT,
Restating Postma’s argument does not contend with my rebuttal one scintilla.
I understand what Postma is doing.
“We utilize the First Law of Thermodynamics for this:
dU = Q = m Cp dT
The ‘d’ means “change” and we want the change to be zero, which means unchanging temperature dT = 0, which means thermal equilibrium.”
His premise is that the plates are the same temperature even before he starts his argument.
He seems to think that because because heat flow tends towards zero, that therefore it MUST BE zero between the two plates.
My challenge attacks this premise. Simply repeating what Postma says won’t respond to my challenge, because he does not himself investigate his premise.
“a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy”
This does not answer the question. It avoids it, because it is rooted in the premise being challenged.
The question is the simplest, most direct way of skewering the flaw in Postma’s thesis.
How does GP warm up to the same temp as BP when it only receives half the energy that BP does?
You need to answer that without presuming that the plates are the same temperature to begin with, which Postma insist his readers take for granted.
Lest there be any doubt Postma premises his reasoning on the plates being the same temperature, he gives another equation in the comments:
“Here’s the heat flow equation for plane parallel geometry:
Q = sT1^4 sT2^4
At equilibrium Q = 0, and the emissions are thus equal: sT1^4 = sT2^4”
https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/05/19/green-plate-analyzed-and-demolished/#comment-72354
His premise is wrong. There is no reason for the plates to be the same temperature, or at least no physical reason given.
The view factors he refers to are irrelevant to my challenge of his premise and certainly don’t answer the question.
You seem scared to quote from, or apparently even to read through, my version of Postma’s argument in my own words. Is it because I make it so easy to understand that there’s no way for you to obfuscate your way out? Perhaps you just mentally block it out, rather than try to deal with it, or even look at it.
You mention that Postma makes a premise that heat flow tends towards zero. You guys make the premise that heat flow will be fixed at a certain value from Sun, through the plates, and out to the “cold of space”, treating space as though it were some sort of extremely low temperature “surroundings”, rather than what it actually is – the absence of surroundings. It’s a vacuum! From the point of view of this thought experiment, it should be treated as having no temperature. That then sinks your entire narrative.
As to who is repeating themselves, I’d say we’re pretty even on that front. You keep saying that I’m not answering your question, I maintain that I answered it from the beginning. Here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
In fact, that comment fully deals with all your complaints and queries, if only you would take the time to try and understand it.
DREMT,
I read what you wrote. There are all sorts of problems with it, but rather than writes reams of point by point rebuttals I have elected to go with the most direct, simplest rebuttal. None of what you wrote challenges it. I’ll quote you:
“So, basically, the key is that a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit.”
You’re saying there is a nett balanced energy exchange between the 2 plates. This is you starting with the same premise as Postma, when I am challenging that premise. This is you not responding to my question but merely repeating Postma’s premise.
“It’s just that with the blue plate, on the side facing the point source Sun, it emits to space along every direction in the entire hemisphere of possible directions without receiving anything back.”
So you’re saying that the GP emits to the BP, and then receives its own emission “back.” So now GP is heating itself?
I presumed you would not be saying something so daft, but now I have to ask, as there is nothing else that comes this close to answering my question. Is this where the extra energy is supposedly coming from?
“So the blue plate, essentially, has two “losing sides”. It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.
The green plate, on the other hand, has only one “losing side”, the side facing space. On the side facing the blue plate, it is gaining its energy along every single possible direction, since the blue plate fills the green plates entire field of view on that side. Remember, a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Thus, with only one “losing side”, you divide by one for the green plate. The 200 W/m^2 input remains 200 W/m^2 output”
If GP is the same temp as BP, then it emits 200 W/m2 from each side.
View factor is irrelevant to this understanding. It’s simply the S/B law.
So if GP is receiving 200 W/m2 from BP, and sending 200 W/m2 in BP’s direction, then this is an equilibrium state. This satisfies Postma’s premise.
Unfortunately, the GP is also sending 200 W/m2 spacewards. Where did this extra 200 W/m2 come from?
Analogy:
Every second you give me $1, and I give you $1.
Our transaction is ‘negated’. Nett zero transfer. Equilibrium.
But every second I’m also giving $1 to the guy behind me.
All the money I’m getting, I’m getting from you. Where is the extra dollar per second coming from?
There’s no loss from me to you, because you keep giving me a dollar back. But we are both ’emitting’ – our exchange keeps happening. So how can I emit a dollar a second to another guy at the same time when you have all the money?
Your answers always create energy that isn’t there. You say there is no energy “loss” from GP to BP, but you also confirm that energy is being emitted from GP in that direction.
And if GP is emitting more than 200 W/m2 in total, as it must be under Postma’s scenario, and it only receives 200 W/m2 from the BP, where is the extra energy coming from?
Please be specific. Please explain how GP gets 400 W/m2 delivered to it, which is what is required for it to be the same temp as BP.
Perhaps introducing temperatures will simplify.
Blackbody BP is radiating at 400 W/m2, which by S/B law equates to a temperature of 16.7 C.
If GP is also 16.7C, then it must likewise be radiating 400 W/m2 total.
But it only receives 200 W/m2 total from BP, the only source of heat to GP.
Where is the extra 200 W/m2 coming from to heat the GP up to 16.7C?
barry quotes me: “It’s just that with the blue plate, on the side facing the point source Sun, it emits to space along every direction in the entire hemisphere of possible directions without receiving anything back.”
then says:
“So you’re saying that the GP emits to the BP, and then receives its own emission “back.” So now GP is heating itself?”
barry…where are you getting that from? In fact, I go on to say:
“There is only that one direction, perpendicular to the plate and directly pointing at the Sun, along which it is receiving all of its energy. So it cannot lose energy in that direction only, because that is the direction from which it is gaining all of its energy. It can lose energy in every single other direction though on the source facing side, and obviously also along every single other direction on its other side, facing the green plate. The blue plate loses energy to the green plate, the green plate gains all of its energy from the blue.
So the blue plate, essentially, has two "losing sides". It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.”
Which I think explains what I actually mean perfectly clearly. Then, carry on reading:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
By the way, the temperatures of the two plates in Postma’s solution are actually both 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2 each. They are not both 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2 each, as you seem to be suggesting in your second comment. Sheesh. You really need to pay more attention, barry.
bobdroege says:
You cant handle it when you are shown to be wrong.
———————————
Doing the math in accordance with your beliefs is proof of anything Bob.
If you can point to a scientific law that prohibits DREMTs and Postma’s points of view or an experiment that establishes that, that would be different.
I get both points. And there is a peculiarity about radiation I haven’t seen any law address or any experiment in space done carefully enough to establish which viewpoint is correct.
That peculiarity is Stefan-Boltzmann emissivity factor that allows an object to warm to an equilibrium even when reflecting light and warming to that temperature while emitting less. Thats very peculiar if we were to accept your viewpoint while DREMT’s and Postma’s point of view doesn’t seem to add much to that peculiarity.
There is that discussion of a photon not being there unless somebody is there to observe it. Its akin to that philosophical question of does a tree falling in a forest make a sound if nobody is there to hear it. While philosophers wrestle over that point. . . .it seems Schroeder’s cat kind of makes it somewhat a reality for photons. . . .warming without actual capture of a photon.
An experiment is in order, a well designed and documented experiment. Something run for a long period of time that allows for very slow warming that results for shiny objects from reflection but doesn’t head off the warming. It seems it must work from some kind of chain reaction.
I think its curious and one either needs to see the operation in action and record its results are be left in the dark about it.
I have seen plenty of contrary examples but each can be explained by the loss of heat via convection and involves surfaces oriented to allow convection. e.g. it doesn’t work for down facing surfaces so reflective insulation on a ceiling doesn’t help your room stay warm and because of that standards were invoked in the 1970’s to prevent sellers from making claims about it being insulation that could do that.
barry quotes me:
“So, basically, the key is that a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit.”
then invents:
“You’re saying there is a nett balanced energy exchange between the 2 plates. This is you starting with the same premise as Postma, when I am challenging that premise. This is you not responding to my question but merely repeating Postma’s premise.”
No, barry. It’s me saying that “the key is that a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit.”
Why must you put words in my mouth? Not only should you continue trying to understand the comment I keep linking to, you also should re-read:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1472797
DREMT,
You’re still not answering the question.
“By the way, the temperatures of the two plates in Postma’s solution are actually both 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2 each.”
This is terribly wrong.
If the BP by itself receives 400 W/m2 from the sun, then it must radiate at 400 W/m2 to achieve equilibrium with the source – it does this by radiating 200 W/m2 from both sides, which is twice the area being irradiated by 400 W/m2 from the source.
I’m fairly sure you would agree with this – it should be self-evident.
So for Postma to be right, introducing the GP would then lower the temperature of the BP.
Sorry, DREMT, Postma and you don’t make any sense. How does a blackbody surface irraditated at 400 W/m2 fail to be 290 K?
“If the BP by itself receives 400 W/m2 from the sun, then it must radiate at 400 W/m2 to achieve equilibrium with the source – it does this by radiating 200 W/m2 from both sides, which is twice the area being irradiated by 400 W/m2 from the source.”
No, barry. The BP by itself emits 200 W/m^2 at a temperature of 244 K. In both Eli’s solution, and Postma’s. Look it up. In Eli’s solution, adding the GP causes the BP to rise in temperature to 262 K, emitting 267.7 W/m^2, and the GP is at 220 K, emitting 133.3 W/m^2.
In Postma’s solution, both the BP and GP are at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2.
You don’t even understand the basics…
…and I have answered your question. Stop repeating yourself.
“If you can point to a scientific law that prohibits DREMTs and Postmas points of view”
Exactly Bill, That’s why we specifically point to Conservation of Energy, otherwise known as the First Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT).
It is straightforwardly being violated. The BP source delivers F to the GP, and the GP emits F back to the source.
Thus, as JP agrees, 0 net energy is transferred from the source to the GP.
And yet they insist that the GP also emits F to space. But obviously it cannot be doing that without replacement of that energy from the source.
So this is a straightforward violation of a scientific law, 1LOT.
DREMT will try to distract and deny, but never explains this problem away.
Ah yes, I see where I went wrong. 290K is what the temp would be if the plate only emitted to one side. The area difference affects the temp as well as the rate of emission. 244K it is.
I read over all your replies, and in not one of them have you explained how GP gets the full 400 W/m2 delivered to it in order to be as warm as BP. You’ve affirmed that BP gives GP 200 W/m2, but you haven’t once said where the extra 200 W/m2 comes from to heat GP up to the same temp as BP.
“barry, your problem is that it isn’t just a question of simple ‘accounting’. Its thermodynamics. Nobody said it was going to be straightforward.”
This is as close as you got to even acknowledging there was a deficit that needed to be accounted for. So please don’t tell me you’ve answered the question when you’ve actually just dismissed it out of hand.
This question has nothing to do with what GP loses, and everything to do with what it receives. GP requires the same energy input as BP to rise to the same temperature. BP gets 400 W/m2 and so must GP. But GP is getting all its energy from BP, which is radiating to GP at 200 W/m2. Where dows the extra 200 W/m2 come from?
The response that GP doesn’t lose energy to the BP misses the point.
The response that you’ve explained it before (when you haven’t) avoids the point.
But you’re 12 posts down without attempting an answer, so it’s too much to hope by now. Probably because Postma never answers this question either.
The problem with Postma’s thesis is that the plates being the same temperature is a premise rather than a derived result. He never explains or questions this premise, and from this flawed assumption everything else flows.
Except for an answer on how the GP gets as warm as the BP when it only gets half the energy.
Your question was answered, fully, quite a while ago, barry. Here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
Now, you might not understand the answer, and you might not ever accept the answer, but please stop trying to pretend you have not received an answer. Will you ever get round to answering any of my questions, or responding to the points I raised that you ignored? Probably not.
Oh well. Until next time, when you will pretend again that none of this was ever said.
Barry’s right with his several posts above.
gramie pups, however, is delusional to think his version of physics is correct. Here’s just one example apparently taken from Joe the Postman:
WRONG! Where are grammie’s numerous earlier rants about view angles? The Sun’s view angle from the BP is very small and the emissions fill the rest of the view. The BP can’t “heat” the Sun, but it can radiate to deep space in all other directions. Of course, the net energy flow goes into the BP, because the BP’s emission temperature is far below that of the Sun.
The same is true for the GP, which receives half the emissions from the BP but emits only half of that from each side, so the net energy transfer is from the BP to the GP and then to deep space. The GP can not be at the same temperature as the BP because that would require an IR input of 400 watts to a 1.0 m^2 plate when we know less than that can be sourced from the BP side which emits 200 watts per 1.0 m^2 plate initially. As Barry and others have pointed out, time and time again, where’s that 400 watts per 1.0 m^2 plate come from so that the GP’s temperature is 244k?
"WRONG! Where are grammie’s numerous earlier rants about view angles? The Sun’s view angle from the BP is very small and the emissions fill the rest of the view. The BP can’t “heat” the Sun, but it can radiate to deep space in all other directions. Of course, the net energy flow goes into the BP, because the BP’s emission temperature is far below that of the Sun."
Swanson shrieks "WRONG!" and then proceeds to write a paragraph in agreement with what I said. Swanson cannot follow a discussion. We already know this.
In his next paragraph he repeats barry’s question, that I’ve already answered several times over. Here again is the answer:
So, basically, the key is that a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit. There is nothing happening to block any emission from either side of either plate. It’s just that with the blue plate, on the side facing the point source Sun, it emits to space along every direction in the entire hemisphere of possible directions without receiving anything back. There is only that one direction, perpendicular to the plate and directly pointing at the Sun, along which it is receiving all of its energy. So it cannot lose energy in that direction only, because that is the direction from which it is gaining all of its energy. It can lose energy in every single other direction though on the source facing side, and obviously also along every single other direction on its other side, facing the green plate. The blue plate loses energy to the green plate, the green plate gains all of its energy from the blue.
So the blue plate, essentially, has two "losing sides". It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.
The green plate, on the other hand, has only one "losing side", the side facing space. On the side facing the blue plate, it is gaining its energy along every single possible direction, since the blue plate fills the green plate’s entire field of view on that side. Remember, a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Thus, with only one "losing side", you divide by one for the green plate. The 200 W/m^2 input remains 200 W/m^2 output…
…and that’s all there is to it.
Nate says:
Exactly Bill, Thats why we specifically point to Conservation of Energy, otherwise known as the First Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT).
Thus, as JP agrees, 0 net energy is transferred from the source to the GP.
And yet they insist that the GP also emits F to space. But obviously it cannot be doing that without replacement of that energy from the source.
So this is a straightforward violation of a scientific law, 1LOT.
————————-
That is incorrect Nate and here is why. You have acknowledged that there is zero net energy being transferred from the source to the plate and you ask how then can the GP also emit energy to space.
The answer is incredibly simple. There is zero transfer from the BP to the GP because of equilibrium, but the instant the GP emits a photon to space there is no longer an equilibrium proving without a doubt that radiation is faster than your brain.
Thus there is no violation of the 1LOT you just imagine it to be so because your brain is mired in mud and you completely missed the lack of equilibrium occurring faster than your brain synapses operate.
“barry, your problem is that it isnt just a question of simple accounting. Its thermodynamics. Nobody said it was going to be straightforward.”
Finally DREMT admits there is an accounting problem.
The accounting problem is otherwise known as the creating energy from nothing problem, and it is a straightforwardly not allowed in physics.
Otherwise we get perpetual motion machines. But maybe DREMT can be sold one of those.
So now that problem is settled we can take a macro view of the situation.
Insulation is a system that ‘slows’ the rate of natural heat movement from place to place.
In the GPE experiment we have radiation across a vacuum and conduction through a plate. From the coefficients of conduction and heat loss equations we know most metals conduct heat over short distances at a very rapid rate to obtain a slowing of 50% representative of the 3rd grader radiation model thats a very large temp difference. Thus there is no slowing (significant anyway) of heat transfer and thus no insulation. . . .proving once again to the world the perils of thought experiments.
“The answer is incredibly simple. There is zero transfer from the BP to the GP because of equilibrium, but the instant the GP emits a photon to space there is no longer an equilibrium”
Exactly Bill. It is a mistake to assume equilibrium as JP and DREMT do.
Equilibrium requires equal temps and 0 heat transfer.
Thus we need unequal temps to satisfy 1lot here.
We require the BP to warm and the GP to cool until a steady state is reached. And that happens when the BP is emitting 266.7 and GP 133.3 W/m2.
Then the NET transfer from BP to GP is 266.7-133.3 = 133.3 W/m2 and this is C exactly what the GP emits to space.
That gives T of 262 K and 220 K for the BP and GP.
grammie pups insists that:
Again and again, grammie pups repeatedly asserts his ignorance of physics. It’s well proven that both plates emit from their respective surfaces and between the two, energy is also transferred in both directions. But the net flow of energy is from the hot plate to the cooler one. You and Joe the Postman have not provided any physical mechanism to support your assertion above, which is your only reason to deny the GPE.
“It’s well proven that both plates emit from their respective surfaces…”
…and I haven’t suggested otherwise. Learn to read, and follow a discussion.
Nate says:
”The answer is incredibly simple. There is zero transfer from the BP to the GP because of equilibrium, but the instant the GP emits a photon to space there is no longer an equilibrium – Exactly Bill.
It is a mistake to assume equilibrium as JP and DREMT do.”
No its not. It is often referred to as equilibrium and often it is pulled back and perhaps more accurately called a quasi-equilibrium.
As much as you want to reduce it to a static diagram you have to somehow have a way of showing the flow of energy. A photon by photon train of energy could mean an incredibly small pulse of going one photon under equilibrium 50% of the time and full up equilibrium 50% of the time. How would you express that on your 3rd grader radiation model after correcting for one half of a photon?
400watts/m2 – 3.313E-34w/m2. I can’t even get Excel to give me the decimal to go with 399watts/m2.
“No its not. It is often referred to as equilibrium and often it is pulled back and perhaps more accurately called a quasi-equilibrium.”
You were correct the first time. Now you dont want to be correct if we agree and you and Postma disagree?
It is mistake to assume equilibrium as Postma does, with T equal and Q = 0 , because, as you discovered, we require a heat flow between the plates and then out of this system, to satisfy 1LOT.
DREMT,
No, you’ve never answered the question. You’ve never even acknowledged it.
You haven’t said whether you agree there is an energy deficit to GP or not, much less explained how there isn’t one.
If you think there isn’t a deficit, then explain how GP gets 400 W/m2 to heat up to the same temperature as BP. We know that
GP gets 200 W/m2 from BP, so where is the rest coming from?
Not once have you dealt with this. Neither has Postma. You just keep repeating or paraphrasing his thesis. But his thesis is premised on the two plates being the same temperature. You won’t find any answers from him about how they get to be that way.
If you won’t question this premise then you will never answer the question.
And the next time you tell you’ve answered this question, be assured that you have not even come close.
Nate says:
Thus the GP doesnt stay at equilibrium with each photon it emits to space and the BP instantly replenishes that equilibrium because the flow is 400w/m2 not zero.
One photon at a time is not gonna work, Bill. Think it through.
——————————————
Well certainly across the entire plate its more than one photon at a time, but I am talking here one molecule at a time.
Nate says:
You will never get enough energy transferred from BP to GP to replace the 200 W/m2 emitted by the GP to space that way. A slight drop in T results in a slight heat transfer according to the RHTE, the one mentioned by JP.
Only when the T difference Between the plates becomes significant will you get enough heat flow to replace the outgoing energy.
That is why 1LOT is used to find the required Temps.
When you mention quasi equilibrium, what you are getting at is a steady-state situation.
In this problem the steady state has a steady flow of 400 W/m2 of heat into, thru, and out of the system. Some goes out thru BP and some thru GP.
In order to have that steady heat flow thru the system there is a required steady T difference between the plates, according to Q = sigma(Tb^4 -Tg^4), the RHTE. Note that JP quotes this.
The Q has to be large enough to replace what is exiting the GP, which works out to be 133.3 W/m2. And 267 W/m2 exits the BP.
—————————————
Well you are making a lot of assumptions about the fate of backradiation. As we know photons can be reflected. And the passage of vibrational energy is much quicker through a thin plate than via emitting photons.
Thus right off you are making a claim of a slowing of net radiation received by a heated body that isn’t cooling itself by giving up heat.
And as I have been saying its the outcome of a real experiment, carefully conducted that will determine the outcome. and in conducting such an experiment you need strong controls over emissivity or otherwise you will have reflection of photons, gaps between plates than will reduce energy being received by the GP for flat plates and square distance issues with concentrically larger spherical shells, and careful accounting of energy entering a leaving the system. . . .all issues overlooked by Swanson in his experiment.
For example lamp black which is kind of the standard actually reflects about 5% of light. https://www.omega.co.uk/literature/transactions/volume1/emissivitya.html
So you can go on and on yappering about what you think is happening but the rate of flow is so fast there isn’t really any way to measure it. Like a film with every other frame being transparent move the film through a projector at 1000frames per second and your movie is going to play at 500 frames per second you simply assume that the thermopile you are using is processing a signal as fast as the signal in front of you.
Thought experiments generally suck. Its like an auditor going into an assignment and never gathering any evidence and just going yep process looks convincing!
Bill,
“Well you are making a lot of assumptions about the fate of backradiation. As we know photons can be reflected.”
The GPE is done with blackbodies, so no radiation is reflected.
You seem to have a problem with this. Blackbody physics are done to put a radiative/heat flow problem in its simplest state and make it easier to derive principles.
This is and has been absolutely standard for more than a hundred years. The fact that real bodies are not perfectly black only adds an emissivity factor to the equation, it doesn’t change the principles one bit.
A blackbody absorbs all radiation incident on it. It doesn’t matter what the temperature of the source is, that is its function.
IRL a surface absorbs radiation according to its optical properties, not according to its temperature. This is a concept many ‘skeptics’ here reject.
grammie pups pontificates again:
grammie’s repeated claim is pure nonsense. The GP gains energy from the BP and the BP gains energy from the BP, since each radiates toward the other with the same view angles. Given black body surfaces, the energy from each plate is absorbed by the other. The only difference is that the heated BP emits more energy toward the GP than the GP emits toward the BP in return, so there’s a net transfer of energy from the BP to the GP. The obvious result of this thought experiment is that the GP exhibits a lower temperature than the BP.
grammid is on the “losing side” in the debate, yet he keeps on denying the truth, throwing up ever more absurd attempts to continue with his lost cause.
DREMT,
“Will you ever get round to answering any of my questions, or responding to the points I raised that you ignored?”
Ignored? let’s see.
Yes, heat flow tends towards equilibrium. Answered that ages ago upthread.
Your key point that GP doesn’t “lose energy” towards BP is irrelevant to my query about how GP gets 400 W/m2 delivered to it to be the same temp as BP.
The view factor difference between point sources and plates does not respond to my query one tiny bit. You keep talking about losses/emissions, I keep asking where GP gains 400 W/m2 from to heat up to the same temp as BP.
That’s all you have to do – show me how GP is getting 400 W/m2 delivered to it when BP only emits 200 W/m2 to it.
If your answer doesn’t start with,
“The extra 200 W/m2 comes from…”
or
“There is no deficit because GP gets 400 W/m2 in this way…”
or
“The GP only gets 200 W/m2, but is the same temperature as the BP because…”
Then you are not only not answering the question, you are avoiding it. As you have all along.
barry says:
April 13, 2023 at 9:06 PM
Bill,
Well you are making a lot of assumptions about the fate of backradiation. As we know photons can be reflected.
The GPE is done with blackbodies, so no radiation is reflected.
————–
All that tells me Barry is there is no experiment as there are no blackbodies.
One would think you believe that the process of becoming a real scientist is to go to trained parrot school. Oops thats the wrong school! Thats the political science major.
Bill,
You didn’t say anything of any substance there.
The S/B equation is derived from blackbodies. The sigma in that equation is a constant expressing the rate of emission of a blackbody at a given temperature, an empirical measurement. This is the BASIS for any radiative transfer equation that also includes different emissivities. In fact, the value for the emissivity of an object is expressed as a ratio of a blackbody.
If you have a problem with blackbody theory then you must doubt the S/B equation and the entire field of radiative transfer.
Of course my comment that I keep linking to answers the question, barry. The fact is that you don’t need 400 W/m^2 from the BP to warm the GP to 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2. You only need 200 W/m^2 from the BP, because the GP only has one “losing side”, the side facing space. Whereas you do need 400 W/m^2 from the Sun to warm the BP to 244 K, because the BP has two “losing sides”. What I’m pointing out here is that my comment does answer your question, not that you necessarily understand or accept the answer, but it answers it. I deal with what you see as the problem in it. Here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
…and my answer is not based on the premise that the plates must come to the same temperature. It is based only on the premise that a plate cannot lose energy in the direction from which it is gaining its energy. Like with the BP, it gains its energy only in the one direction perpendicular to the plate, directly from the Sun. It cannot lose energy in that direction, otherwise it would have to be “heating” the Sun! It does lose energy in the entire hemisphere of directions on the source-facing side, besides that one direction, however, because it is not gaining energy from space.
Finally, there are questions I asked and points I raised that you have still not responded to. You probably never will. That’s just the way it works with you guys.
Swanson pontificates and declares victory:
“The GP gains energy from the BP and the BP gains energy from the BP…”
…yet he apparently has no clue about directionality of energy flow. The GP gains its energy from the BP and the BP loses energy to the GP. The GPs temperature is set and maintained by the BP!
“All that tells me Barry is there is no experiment as there are no blackbodies.
One would think you believe that the process of becoming a real scientist is to go to trained parrot school. Oops thats the wrong school! Thats the political science major.”
Nice try at a Hail Mary, but there are plenty of experiments on NEARLY black bodies that differ negligibly from the predictions for a true blackbody.
These are bodies that emit 99.7 % of the radiation as blackbodies would (in theory) and abs.orb 99.7 % of what a blackbody abs.orbs.
The differences in results for the temperatures of the plates in a GPE experiment with these real world parameters can be found, and are negligibly different from those predicted for a true blackbody.
So as usual, desperate Bill offers up another nothingburger.
“You only need 200 W/m^2 from the BP, because the GP only has one losing side, the side facing space. ”
Repeating illogic doesnt magically turn it into logic.
DREMT seems to realize that there is an accounting problem, but ignores it, with the faint hope that somehow, some way, it won’t matter.
Here’s the problem, in JPs own words.
“Ive said this before but it bears repeating it seems: no energy is LOST on the source-facing side, because at equilibrium any vector of emission is met with a vector of input (for plane parallel view factor).
Heres the heat flow equation for plane parallel geometry:
Q = sT1^4 sT2^4
At equilibrium Q = 0, and the emissions are thus equal: sT1^4 = sT2^4
But the plate has a temperature, and so it emits sT2^4 on the other side, conserving the input of sT1^4.”
So first, he simply ASSUMES, without any science rationale, that the plates need to be at the same temperature.
Then he clearly finds that the emitted flux of the GP toward the BP is EQUAL to the incoming flux from the BP to the GP. They CANCEL!
And that is why the net heat (energy) transfer is Q = 0.
But THEN he says the GP is still emitting to space, because it has his assumed temperature, BUT the INPUT flux from the BP is SOMEHOW no longer cancelled.
It has been resurrected!
This is the accounting fraud.
But later, before making his critics disappear, JP appears frustrated with their poking this same hole in his logic, he tells them:
“The source supplies F, and that F shows up on the other side of the plate, therefore energy is conserved. Trivial, when you simply use the math”
“So theres the result. You see the math. You see how energy is conserved. Thats it. Stop there. All the answers are there and theres no more math to do.”
IOW He tells them to basically just ignore the problem between the plates!
The fundamental problem is that he has ASSUMED without a good reason, from the start, that the plates have equal temperatures.
And that is what leads to the conservation of energy problem.
While physics doesnt assume, and just SOLVES for the temperatures of the plates, which turn out to be different.
And then you see the math and you see that energy is conserved for the system and for each plate.
…the GPs temperature is set and maintained by the BP!
grammie pups is having so much fun spreading lies that can’t admit that he’s wrong. Either that or he is a pathological liar, perhaps trying to qualify as a politician or priest promoting a bronze age religion. When cornered, he just ignores the challenge. So he writes:
This reply is a response to my basic point that the BP also receives energy from the GP. The GP’s temperature is “set” as the result of the IR energy flowing into and out of it at steady state. As Barry and Nate both point out, the GP’s temperature can not settle at the same temperature as the BP, since a 1.0 m^2 GP can not emit 400 watts total, as the GP can’t receive 400 watts from the BP.
Same old story, different version, same old lies.
Swanson is reduced to insults and false accusations. Guess that means he concedes the point.
Yeah, grammie pups, I concede that you don’t have a serious reply based on physics. Have you done the Glass Plate Experiment yet? No? Don’t you want to PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT that all this GPE stuff is wrong? What are you waiting for, smart ass?
I’m happy that there’s no GPE. Always will be. Shriek with passionate fury for the rest of your life, Swanson. Rain down your eternal hatred on those who just happen to think differently to you all you like. It won’t make any difference.
No GPE.
Nate says:
”You only need 200 W/m^2 from the BP, because the GP only has one losing side, the side facing space.”
Repeating illogic doesnt magically turn it into logic.
—————————–
thats correct.
But logic must be built on sound tested principles. Its not logic if it isn’t. Its like science fiction. Often science fiction turns out to be somewhat true, often it doesn’t. Here we are arguing about who are favorite science fiction author is, nothing more.
“Im happy that theres no GPE. Always will be.”
DREMT debated with a moron, himself, and declared himself the winner.
Everyone outside the Moron Cult is still bothered by energy being created from nothing.
Actually the whole GPE argument is pretty meaningless. We have a GHE how it works is the point in contention because only by knowing how it works can we predict future warming.
We look at strategies to insulate the James Webb satellite and the insulation theories of the spinners doesn’t even seem to be considered. . . .going straight to rare metal reflectors as the primary method. But is that because of the rare earth metal lobby?
Corruption is so very deeply embedded everywhere via power seeking. In one system its money in another its just plain physical power.
Science is the greatest thing in the world because it is used to determine how much freedom we should have. And here we have thought experiments, ”manufactured science” making those determinations. This is a simple experiment if carefully constructed. Its unimaginable that not a single proponent can point to an experiment to show what is so. Instead it has been thrown into a political orientation where one side gets inculcated and the other forced to give up freedoms.
Obviously if climate change is natural there would be no political foundation for action.
I recognize a huge uncertainty here in the most basic levels of the science. The spinners have to be right to wield the power they desire to wield. I would think they above all would demand proof. . . .unless of course they have been too well trained as a parrot.
grammie pups writes his usual conclusion: “No GPE.”.
That makes him happy, since he doesn’t have to provide any sort of proof for his repeated empty assertions, he just reverts to his usual MO of ignoring the evidence.
Have you done the Glass Plate Experiment yet? I know it can tough to use a spray can to paint something a solid color, but even a moron like you could do it. If you can’t handle the effort maybe you could get Hunter troll to do it, since he appears to think some sort of proof is necessary. Turn your computer off for a few days and do it.
OK, Swanson.
Hunter wrote:
But Hunter troll, the Sun Shield doesn’t use “rare earth materials”:
Swanson, you can go now. You’ve done your bit. You usually explode into the argument very, very late on, spew some venomous hatred towards me and add very little to the debate that hasn’t been said by others already, whilst failing to follow what’s been said, generally. You’ve done all those things, now. So, you can go. No need for you to hang around unnecessarily.
“Actually the whole GPE argument is pretty meaningless.”
Auditor Bill is unable or unwilling to account for the obvious accounting fraud and failed logic perpetrated by his sky-dragon-slayer friends with their version of the GPE.
Thus he tries to change the subject.
Here’s a question for him. Why is the sun able to transfer heat to the BP?
Is it perhaps because the sun is hotter than the BP?
Yes, we have a Hot Sun transferring heat to a warm BP, that makes sense and satisfies 2LOT.
We also have a warm GP transferring heat to the very cold space. That also makes sense and satisfies 2LOT.
In both cases, there is a T difference driving the heat energy transfer.
The slayers want us to believe that the BP though at the same T as the GP, can still somehow transfer 200 W/m^2 to it.
That makes no sense, and fails 2LOT.
Nate says:
”Auditor Bill is unable or unwilling to account for the obvious accounting fraud and failed logic perpetrated by his sky-dragon-slayer friends with their version of the GPE.
Thus he tries to change the subject.”
Accounting fraud. I can claim to have purchased a piece of land even make a receipt as evidence for you. However, before accounting for it you might want to verify I own the land.
Of course if you think that is unnecessary I think I know of a bridge you might be really interested in.
p.s. seems to me proving what you say would be as easy as getting a basketball and suspending it inside of a glass IR opaque globe using some strong threads to suspend it. That and a few thermopiles should demonstrate to you how idiotic your idea is.
Oh shoot we have already seen several such experiments in greenhouses, multi-compartment boxes and you still believe it works.
Even evidence doesn’t dissuade you and all you do is keep spewing.
So I guess if you did the experiment you still wouldn’t believe your own eyes either.
DREMT,
Congratulations on finally answering the question. No, you hadn’t answered it before, because you hadn’t acknowledged that GP was only getting 200 W/m2 and no energy from anywhere else.
So let’s see the answer.
“The fact is that you don’t need 400 W/m^2 from the BP to warm the GP to 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2. You only need 200 W/m^2 from the BP, because the GP only has one “losing side”, the side facing space. Whereas you do need 400 W/m^2 from the Sun to warm the BP to 244 K, because the BP has two “losing sides”.”
We agree that GP emits from the side facing the BP. Postma says the same in the comments.
If GP is emitting any energy at all towards BP, then its emission to space must be less than 200 W/m2.
GP is only getting 200 W/m2, so that HAS to be the case.
The trick you and Postma keep relying on is using the equilibrium between the two plates to say that the GP doesn’t “lose energy” towards the BP, but you then treat that as if GP doesn’t emit anything towards BP.
When called on it you say, yes yes, of course GP emits.
But you don’t explain how GP can emit anything at all towards BP when the total of the energy it receives from BP is emitted to space.
So when you say that GP only has “one losing side,” you are basically admitting that GP is not emitting to the other side.
And when you say, “of course GP emits from both sides,” you can’t explain how GP emits the total of its received energy to space while emitting yet more from the other side.
I repeated the circular argument here so you can understand how it looks to me. The math you and Postma provide says that GP can’t be emitting from the inwards facing side. There is no energy left to do so.
I perfectly understand what Postma is arguing. That’s why I know the flaw starts as soon as he preordains that the plates must be at the same temperature.
Remember, this is not a result he arrived at by deduction. It is his starting premise, and it is the root of all the energy accounting problems in his thesis.
I’ll distil those points down into a question for you.
This is going to make you squirm. You’re going to have to deal with the GP side that is emitting but not “losing energy.”
What is the rate at which the GP side facing the BP is emitting? You’ve said it IS emitting, so is it 200 W/m2 or something else?
"Congratulations on finally answering the question. No, you hadn’t answered it before, because you hadn’t acknowledged that GP was only getting 200 W/m2 and no energy from anywhere else."
I had answered the question already, barry. Everything I said to you in my last comment, you could have already got from the post I have repeatedly linked to. So that’s a false accusation, right from the off. Here is the explanation for you again:
"So, basically, the key is that a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit. There is nothing happening to block any emission from either side of either plate. It’s just that with the blue plate, on the side facing the point source Sun, it emits to space along every direction in the entire hemisphere of possible directions without receiving anything back. There is only that one direction, perpendicular to the plate and directly pointing at the Sun, along which it is receiving all of its energy. So it cannot lose energy in that direction only, because that is the direction from which it is gaining all of its energy. It can lose energy in every single other direction though on the source facing side, and obviously also along every single other direction on its other side, facing the green plate. The blue plate loses energy to the green plate, the green plate gains all of its energy from the blue.
So the blue plate, essentially, has two "losing sides". It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.
The green plate, on the other hand, has only one "losing side", the side facing space. On the side facing the blue plate, it is gaining its energy along every single possible direction, since the blue plate fills the green plate’s entire field of view on that side. Remember, a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Thus, with only one "losing side", you divide by one for the green plate. The 200 W/m^2 input remains 200 W/m^2 output…
…and that’s all there is to it."
Note once again that my explanation is not based on the premise that the plates must come to the same temperature. It is based only on the premise that a plate cannot lose energy in the direction from which it is gaining its energy.
"What is the rate at which the GP side facing the BP is emitting? You’ve said it IS emitting, so is it 200 W/m2 or something else?"
The GP is emitting 200 W/m^2, barry. That naturally means both sides of the plate are emitting 200 W/m^2.
Now barry, a question for you. From one of my previous comments (and a point that you always ignore):
"…with the BP, it gains its energy only in the one direction perpendicular to the plate, directly from the Sun. It cannot lose energy in that direction, otherwise it would have to be “heating” the Sun! It does lose energy in the entire hemisphere of directions on the source-facing side, besides that one direction, however, because it is not gaining energy from space."
Do you think the BP can "heat" the Sun in that direction, or not? I put "heat" in scare quotes because I realize you will probably reject that term, so you can substitute in "insulate" or "result in the Sun having a higher temperature" or whatever you feel the need to put in there.
If you answer "no", then the obvious follow up question is: "Why do you think the BP cannot warm/insulate the Sun if you think the GP can warm/insulate the BP?"
If you answer "yes", then I guess all I can do is laugh.
barry says:
This is the BASIS for any radiative transfer equation that also includes different emissivities. In fact, the value for the emissivity of an object is expressed as a ratio of a blackbody.
If you have a problem with blackbody theory then you must doubt the S/B equation and the entire field of radiative transfer.
—————————-
You haven’t provided a validated source of what part of blackbody theory I disagree with Barry.
Typically people who make such vague claims do so because they are angry and have no idea about what they are talking about.
If you can’t come up with anything specific well try to pull your head out of your arse at least.
DREMT,
“The GP is emitting 200 W/m^2, barry. That naturally means both sides of the plate are emitting 200 W/m^2.”
You’ve made a mistake.
With just the BP alone, it is receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun. The emitting surface area is twice the area being irradiated, so it emits half the received energy from one face and half from the other. And this is also what Postma says.
“…for a given input flux F from the source, either side of the plate emits F/2”
GP is emitting a total of 400 W/m2 if both sides are emitting at 200 W/m2.
That makes perfect sense if the plates are the same temperature. At the same temperature their total emissions must be equal.
Of course, we still have to figure out where GP gets 400 W/m2 from.
But you’ve just before told me it only gets 200 W/m2.
There is no way GP can be emitting more than the total of 200 W/m2 that it receives.
If it is emitting 200 W/m2 from each face, that is twice the amount of the energy that is irradiating the GP from BP.
Even if there is no nett loss between GP and BP, there is still an extra 200 W/m2 to account for.
1LoT remains broken.
DREMT,
“Do you think the BP can “heat” the Sun in that direction, or not? I put “heat” in scare quotes because I realize you will probably reject that term, so you can substitute in “insulate” or “result in the Sun having a higher temperature” or whatever you feel the need to put in there.”
As Postma’s theoretical sun has no surface area BP can’t irradiate it. The point source sun is unaffected by BP.
Bill,
“You havent provided a validated source of what part of blackbody theory I disagree with Barry.”
Yes, you weren’t terribly clear. Just some mumbled issue with blackbodies.
“All that tells me Barry is there is no experiment as there are no blackbodies.”
Some implication that without experimentation blackbody theory science isn’t enough.
Do you even know what you were saying?
With Bill it’s:
Ignore what you say and go off on a tangent.
Ignore the accounting fraud and go off on gish gallop.
Ignore energy conservation and demand experimental proof.
With DREMT it’s:
Ignore what you say and repeat the nonsense talking points.
Ignore what you ask and repeat the failed logic.
Ignore the failure of the logic and repeat the failed logic.
They know they can’t win in an honest debate.
"You’ve made a mistake.
With just the BP alone, it is receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun. The emitting surface area is twice the area being irradiated, so it emits half the received energy from one face and half from the other. And this is also what Postma says."
No mistake, barry. What Postma says, and what I’ve been at pains to try and explain to you, is that you divide the 400 W/m^2 received by the BP from the Sun by 2 because it can "lose" energy from both of its sides. It has two "losing sides". It then emits 200 W/m^2. Whereas the GP, receiving 200 W/m^2, has only one "losing side", the side facing space. So you divide the 200 W/m^2 by one. It then emits 200 W/m^2. You need to distinguish between energy emitted from a plate, and energy "lost".
When emitting to another object, the plate enters into a "transaction" with that object. For the emitted energy to be "lost" from the plate, the plate has to be "heating" that object. So, for the BPs emissions on the source facing side to be "lost" from the plate in that one single direction perpendicular to the plate, the BP would have to be "heating" the Sun. For the GPs emissions on the BP facing side to be "lost" from the plate in every single possible direction, the GP would have to be "heating" the BP.
When emitting to space, the emitted energy is, of course, "lost".
So, directionality of energy flow is important. As we can see, the Sun "heats" the BP, and the BP "heats" the GP. That is to say, the Sun "loses" energy to the BP, and the BP "loses" energy to the GP.
The GP doesn’t "heat" the BP, just as the BP doesn’t "heat" the Sun.
Your answer to my question was a complete dodge, by the way, barry. The Sun is treated as a point source to the BP, but Postma is (again) at pains to point out, emissions in the one direction directly perpendicular to the BP do "hit" the Sun. So, do they warm/insulate it? I repeat the question to you…and don’t respond again that it cannot be irradiated by the BP, because I’ve just confirmed that it can.
“Whereas the GP, receiving 200 W/m^2, has only one “losing side””
While completely ignoring the fact that the 200 W/m^2 it receives is immediately returned to sender, with its own 200 W/m^2 emission!
“and both sides of the green plate emit.”
IOW the GP has no side in which it can GAIN energy.
Only losing energy, it must cool down.
Undoubtedly DREMT will simply repeat this accounting fraud again and again and again, ignoring its ill-logic.
DREMT,
“No mistake, barry. What Postma says, and what I’ve been at pains to try and explain to you, is that you divide the 400 W/m^2 received by the BP from the Sun by 2 because it can “lose” energy from both of its sides. It has two “losing sides”. It then emits 200 W/m^2.”
Yep, BP emits a total of 400 W/m2, 200 W/m2 from each side. As it must to be in equilibrium with the input.
“Whereas the GP, receiving 200 W/m^2, has only one “losing side”, the side facing space. So you divide the 200 W/m^2 by one. It then emits 200 W/m^2. You need to distinguish between energy emitted from a plate, and energy “lost”.
Your math and what you describe are in contradiction.
You tell me the answer upthread that of course GP is emitting 200 W/m2 in both directions. And now your math has it only emitting from one side.
We can undercut this contradiction by starting with Postma’s premise.
Per the S/B law temperature and the rate of emission are proportional.
There is no distinction between emission and loss for the blackbody temperature of the GP. As the premise is that both plates are the same temperature, then we know for certain that GP must be emitting a total of 400 W/m2, 200 W/m2 from each side. Because that is what BP is emitting at the same temperature.
But GP is only receiving 200 W/m2 on one side.
There is no view factor you can point to, no amount of “no loss” verbiage that can account for the fact that the total energy input to GP is half the input to BP. They cannot possibly be the same temperature.
“Your answer to my question was a complete dodge, by the way, barry.”
It was the correct answer. What Postma said was:
“With a point object as the source, then the view factor of the source relative to the plate is negligible, i.e., the point source occupies almost no or basically no angular view factor as viewed from the plate. Why is this important? It is important because it means that thermal radiation emitted from the plate on the side of the source can emit to open space, that there are no opposing vectors of input radiation from the source except for the infinitesimal vector pointed directly toward the source; being infinitesimal, it may therefore be ignored.”
If you’d asked about our own sun I’d say what you already know I would. The sun, at 0.99 emissivity, absorbs nearly all incident radiation that falls on it. Warmer bodies absorb radiation from colder bodies, sensationally, but as long as the colder bodies do not become any colder in the process the 2LoT is not broken by this ordinary transfer of radiative energy.
While the sun receives some energy back from the planets, the temperature difference between ours and another without planets would be infinitesimal, considering the distance, temperatures of the planets and miniscule view factors.
Postma has led you to believe that “no loss” is meaningful. All it means is that both inward faces are emitting energy at the same rate. Those emissions don’t disappear, they are just in equilibrium – nett zero flow.
And his presumption that they are the same temperature is the precise cause of the accounting deficit.
Because OF COURSE GP is going to be cooler than BP, because BP is sending AWAY from GP half the energy that it is getting from the sun. BP is blocking the sunlight and sending half of it back out to space as IR.
This should be totally obvious to anyone who has ever stood in the shade. It’s amazing you don’t see it.
“BP emits a total of 400 W/m2, 200 W/m2 from each side.”
That’s clumsily put by me – GP emits from each side half of what it would emit if it only emitted from one side.
Put another way, a meter square thin blackbody emits 400 watts total, 200 Watts out of each side.
But I reckon you got what I mean.
barry says:
Some implication that without experimentation blackbody theory science isnt enough.
Do you even know what you were saying?
———————————-
No Barry. I understand blackbody theory. I am just discussing the extrapolation of this theory.
Blackbody theory, and a theory it is is well founded non-experimental theory. i.e. if the body absorbs all the radiation it will reemit all it absorbed back at the source. This was deduced by S&B out of measuring what was emitted by various bodies. It emits what it absorbs. Kirschhoff’s law compliant. The calculated the energy and applied the emissivity factor for the non-blackbodies they were testing. And on the basis of you emit what you receive it also concluded via the emissivity factor that non-blackbodies also warm to the same temperature despite NOT absorbing the radiation they just warm more slowly. Emissivity = albedo for non-transparent bodies. So why wouldn’t a blackbody plate passing radiation by conduction warm up to the same temperature as one that doesn’t absorb it?
As I said you can do math but the math of absor-p-tion isn’t the math of how much something warms and that was shown in blackbody theory.
So I am just complaining about using math here in an unscientifically established way. Postma’s heat is not ‘lost’ on the warm side is likewise not completely convincing as we also extrapolate that the reason cooling is reduced by the BP
barry, I fully and completely grokked your argument over five years ago, now. That’s how I know it’s wrong. You’re not telling me anything new. In fact, you’re just repeating yourself over and over again. My explanation, which I have linked to or quoted so many times now that it must be getting close to double figures, refutes your argument. My argument refutes your argument, yet all we are doing here is just repeating our arguments to each other over and over again, until one of us gets the last word. Completely pointless, as always. Just "doing the GPE dance", as I predicted we would way, way, way, way, way up-thread.
You’re still dodging my question. The emissions from the BP, in that one direction perpendicular to the BP, "hit" the Sun. So why doesn’t the BP "heat" or "insulate" the Sun, or "cause it to come to a higher temperature", if you believe the GP can do that to the BP? The correct answer is that the BP can’t "lose energy" in that direction, because that is the direction from which the BP is gaining its energy. The energy flow simply isn’t in the direction BP -> Sun, the energy flow is in the other direction, Sun -> BP! You people simply don’t care about things like that at all, though. You just don’t take it into consideration.
The GP emits towards the BP, but in the "transaction" entered into between BP and GP, the BP is supplying the energy to the GP. The GPs temperature is set and maintained by emissions from the BP. The BP "loses" energy to the GP, and the GP "gains" energy from the BP. The GP does not "lose" energy to the BP! In the same way that the BP does not "lose" energy to the Sun… …since that would require the BP "heating" the Sun!
How could the addition of the GP possibly result in the BP coming to a higher temperature if the GP cannot heat the BP directly, and it also cannot insulate the BP (all plates are perfectly conducting blackbodies; no thermal resistance, no reflectivity)?
Eli’s original solution refutes DREMT’s position on the GPE. DREMT has never been physically correct commenting on the GPE.
grammie pups wrote another batch of nonsense:
Yes, grammie, you’ve been repeating these same old claims for years, completely ignoring any evidence which refutes them. No doubt, the energy flows from the Sun to the BP on one side and from the other side, the net flow is from the BP to the GP. But that doesn’t mean that energy radiated by the GP is NOT ABSORBED by the BP. Your latest attempt to ignore reality is:
In other words, you are again just asserting something about physics for which you have no basis in fact. It’s pure BS, an absolute denial of known physics. Both Nate and Barry have repeatedly shown you why this “premise” is bogus, but you plow onward, oblivious to the obvious problems in your world view. I’ve presented experimental results which refute your claims, which you also ignored, the last one so simple that even you could replicate it.
If you had a job or some position of authority for which your assertions were important, you would find that you would be called to defend them and would suffer the consequences if you could not provide convincing proof.
Swanson, you were dismissed a while ago. Why are you still commenting?
DREMT,
I’ve answered your question – sun absorbs radiation from all sources, so yes, a Sun with planets around it is warmer than a sun with planets not around it.
How does this dodge your question?
“The energy flow simply isnt in the direction BP -> Sun, the energy flow is in the other direction, Sun -> BP! You people simply dont care about things like that at all, though. You just dont take it into consideration.”
This is you mixing up energy and heat. They are not the same thing, and energy does indeed flow both ways, while heat only flows one direction (or not at all).
This is the perennial mistake ‘skeptics’ make. As Gordon says over and over, right about something for once, EM radiation is not heat.
But you and other SkyDragon slayers keep treating radiation and heat as if they are the same thing.
If you truly grokked what I’ve been saying you would know that the GP, receiving only half the energy of BP, couldn’t possibly be as warm as BP.
If it is emitting all the 200 W/m2 energy it receives out of one side, then the inside surface must be colder than space, as it is not emitting any W/m2 at all.
But wait, it is actually emitting 200 W/m2 as well! But how is it emitting 2 X 200 W/m2 when it only receives 200 W/m2?
Round and round you go, hopping from the GP emitting 200 W/m2, to 2 X 200 W/m2, to emitting all the energy on one face, to emitting energy on both sides…
Postma’s math requires GP only to be emitting from one face. It gets 200 W/m2 from BP, and all that energy is beamed to space from GP, because “no loss.”
But as soon as you point out that GP has to emit to both sides, why then there is an extra 200 W/m2 available for the GP inside face to emit. Of course! That’s the preordained equilibrium between the 2 plates!
But now GP is emitting 2 X 200 W/m2 again, but only getting 200 W/m2.
Perhaps you have actually tricked your own mind into believing Postma’s model doesn’t have accounting problems, and you don’t realize that claiming “no loss” to make one side of GP action vanish entirely is schtick rather than science.
The true answer to the GPE is that GP gets 200 W/m2 BP, and emits 100 W/m2 out of each side, just as BP receives 400 W/m2 and emits 200 W/m2 from both sides. But this means energy out of the 2-plate system is less than energy in.
So both plates must get warmer until they emit a total of 400 W/m2.
2LoT is not violated because the GP does not get cooler while BP gets warmer. Heat is not being transferred from cold to hot. Both plates warm up. So where is the extra energy coming from?
There is no extra energy. Watts is a RATE of energy, and by introducing the GP we have slowed the RATE at which BP loses energy. Both plates are blackbodies, so they absorb all energy and emit all energy.
BP must increase its rate of energy emission to compensate for the extra energy it is absorbing from GP.
2nd Law of Thermo is not busted because GP is LOSING no heat to BP. GP is ALSO warming up, because now BP is radiating more to it.
They both heat up until the 2-plate system is again in equilibrium with the 400 W/m2 input.
This answer has no accounting errors, no invented physics, and does not break the 2LoT.
It also satisfies the obvious position that GP must be cooler than BP because GP is shielded from the sun and receives less energy than BP does.
barry says:
The true answer to the GPE is that GP gets 200 W/m2 BP, and emits 100 W/m2 out of each side, just as BP receives 400 W/m2 and emits 200 W/m2 from both sides. But this means energy out of the 2-plate system is less than energy in.
———————————–
We realize that is your claim.
But we are still waiting for proof of your claim.
grammie pups posts another laugh, ending with:
The pursuit of Truth, maybe? I have an unusual dislike of liars. Besides you can’t stop me from pointing out how idiotic you-all are.
Bill,
What do you mean by proof? Do you need me to set up two infinite plates in space and record the results?
Tell me where you think the GPE fails standard physics in any way.
Meanwhile, you might reflect that any surface receiving constant energy must warm if its loss of energy is slowed. That’s why people put on sweaters when it’s cold. The sweater generates no heat, it simply slows the rate at which heat is lost.
Same with the GPE.
So what’s the issue?
barry repeats himself yet again, utterly certain that he’s right. He tries to lecture me on the difference between heat and energy, whilst in the same breath telling me that the BP does make the Sun warmer! Oh, the irony. No, barry, it is your little gang on here that always likes to mix up heat and energy. You need the energy the Sun receives to be heat, in order for it to warm. Or, you need to insulate the Sun. Which you won’t be able to do with a perfectly-conducting blackbody plate. Same story with the BP and GP.
As you think the Sun is warmed by the BP, barry, then you need to recalculate Eli’s solution to the plates to account for the higher flux the Sun will then emit to the plates.
“Round and round you go, hopping from the GP emitting 200 W/m2, to 2 X 200 W/m2, to emitting all the energy on one face, to emitting energy on both sides…“
No, barry. You are trying to imply that I keep changing my story. I do not. Your problem is you simply don’t understand, and you don’t even try to. I have been completely consistent in my argument throughout:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1473672
“barry repeats himself yet again, utterly certain that hes right.”
Illogic is not logical.
400 is not equal to 200.
0 is not equal to 200.
Energy is not created from nothing.
All things that non-delusional people can be certain are true.
By the way, barry…I mentioned that the GP enters into a “transaction” with the BP…if the result of that “transaction” were that the 200 W/m^2 emitted from the GP towards the BP was returned from the BP back to the GP, then your little “accounting problem” would evaporate completely. All your caterwauling about the energy not balancing for the GP would be resolved.
DREMT,
“barry… tries to lecture me on the difference between heat and energy, whilst in the same breath telling me that the BP does make the Sun warmer!”
Analogous to how a sweater makes you warmer. Does putting on a sweater that is colder than your skin break the 2LoT when your skin gets warmer?
Is the sweater warming you up? That’s what you would say to get your child to wear it.
“No, barry, it is your little gang on here that always likes to mix up heat and energy. You need the energy the Sun receives to be heat, in order for it to warm.”
No, heat would be what is transferred if the plate or planet got COLDER while the sun received its energy. That’s the DEFINITION of heat. Unless the Sun gains heat at the expense of plates/planets, then heat is definitely NOT what is not being transferred.
You and your gang really need to understand the meaning of heat. It is a transfer process where the body gaining energy does so at the expense of the source. Radiation is NOT heat.
“Or, you need to insulate the Sun. Which you won’t be able to do with a perfectly-conducting blackbody plate. Same story with the BP and GP.”
Insulating works ok as an analogy. Plates and planets slow the rate at which sun loses heat.
“As you think the Sun is warmed by the BP, barry…”
You can say that colloquially, but not formally, because no heat is being transferred.
“…then you need to recalculate Eli’s solution to the plates to account for the higher flux the Sun will then emit to the plates.”
Sure, if you want to make the calculations more complex. It doesn’t change the principle one tiny bit.
Or you could re-read Postma’s article where he says that that there is action going on, but because it’s so infinitesimal we can ignore it for simplicity’s sake. Do we want to deal with 400 W/m2, or 400.0000000001 W/m2?
“By the way, barry… I mentioned that the GP enters into a ‘transaction’ with the BP…”
Is this where they both absorb each other’s energy? Something tells me you put scare quotes around transaction for a reason.
“…if the result of that ‘transaction’ were that the 200 W/m^2 emitted from the GP towards the BP was returned from the BP back to the GP, then your little ‘accounting problem’ would evaporate completely.”
A perfectly conducting BP that emits freely towards the sun returns all 200 W/m2 to the GP?
Nope, BP absorbs 200 W/m2 extra and emits another 100 W/m2 from each side.
So now the 2-plate system is emitting the equivalent of 500 W/m2. More than it receives. 1LoT violation.
Worse, now the GP must get hotter because it is receiving 300 W/m2 from BP. In Postma’s conception this means that it must be emitting 300 W/m2 to space. So now the 2-plate system is emitting the equivalent of 600 W/m2.
But if we take your premise on fully, Postma would require all 400 W/m2 coming from BP to GP to be emitted spacewards by GP. That’s what his GP does, emits ALL energy from BP to space, because the inwards facing fluxes are “negated”, right?
That’s still 600 W/m2 equivalent being emitted by a 2-plate system that receives only 400 W/m2
No, creating more energy that isn’t there definitely does not solve the accounting problem.
The accounting problem happens for one reason only – Postma makes the plates the same temperature. You’ll never get an energy balance that is physical with that presumption.
DREMT,
It’s time we addressed the elephant in the room – the reason Postma makes the plates the same temperature.
GP and BP are blackbodies. Blackbodies absorb all radiation incident on them.
Do you understand that BP absorbs all the radiation being emitted towards it by GP?
If not, why not?
“Analogous to how a sweater makes you warmer. Does putting on a sweater that is colder than your skin break the 2LoT when your skin gets warmer?”
A sweater insulates. A perfectly-conducting blackbody plate in a vacuum has no properties of insulation, barry. No thermal resistance, no reflectivity.
“No, heat would be what is transferred if the plate or planet got COLDER while the sun received its energy. That’s the DEFINITION of heat. Unless the Sun gains heat at the expense of plates/planets, then heat is definitely NOT what is not being transferred. You and your gang really need to understand the meaning of heat. It is a transfer process where the body gaining energy does so at the expense of the source. Radiation is NOT heat.”
So, with the plates pressed together at 244 K…244 K, and then separated the plates becoming 262 K…220 K according to Eli’s solution, then according to your own definition of heat, the GP is transferring heat to the BP. Cold is transferring heat to hot, in contradiction of 2LoT.
“Sure, if you want to make the calculations more complex. It doesn’t change the principle one tiny bit. Or you could re-read Postma’s article where he says that that there is action going on, but because it’s so infinitesimal we can ignore it for simplicity’s sake. Do we want to deal with 400 W/m2, or 400.0000000001 W/m2?”
I mostly just want to laugh at you for thinking that the BP can warm the Sun, or that planets make the Sun warmer…but at the same time, I will correct you here. Postma is referring to the fact that the direction perpendicular to the plate is only one direction out of an entire hemisphere of potential directions, and in that sense it’s infinitesimal. It’s infinitesimal when it comes to deciding to split the 400 W/m^2 to the BP by two rather than 1.9999999999999.
“No, creating more energy that isn’t there definitely does not solve the accounting problem”
It wouldn’t be creating more energy that isn’t there. If the 200 W/m^2 emitted from the GP to the BP was returned from the GP to the BP, your little “accounting problem” would be solved completely. It’s such a simple and obvious solution to your problem that I had assumed you would have worked it out already…perhaps I overestimated you.
Whoops, that should have said, “If the 200 W/m^2 emitted from the GP to the BP was returned from the BP to the GP…”
“Do you understand that BP absorbs all the radiation being emitted towards it by GP?
If not, why not?”
Even though there are now at least two questions I have asked you that you have not answered, I will once again be the better man and attempt to answer your questions. I understand that a blackbody absorbs all radiation it receives, by definition. I also understand that a blackbody should not be used as an excuse to violate the laws of physics, however. Whether you consider the radiation from the GP to be absorbed by the BP and then immediately reemitted, without affecting the temperature, or whether you consider it to simply be reflected due to Clint R’s much-discussed “wavelength mismatch”, I’m not sure. I don’t claim to know the fate of individual photons. All I know is that the radiation from the GP cannot warm the BP, or result in it coming to a higher temperature.
“should not be used as an excuse to violate the laws of physics, however.”
OMG
So sez the repeat offender!
Who does it 2 sentences later…
“whether you consider it to simply be reflected due to Clint Rs much-discussed wavelength mismatch, Im not sure.”
which immediately contradicts his assurances that
” I understand that a blackbody absorbs all radiation it receives, by definition. “
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1475130
…all I know is that the radiation from the GP cannot warm the BP, or result in it coming to a higher temperature.
“Whether you consider the radiation from the GP to be absorbed by the BP and then immediately reemitted, without affecting the temperature, or”
which illustrates the principle at work here:
They don’t care how or why, or if the mechanism is logical or not, obeys the laws of physics, or not, they just ‘know’ that the plates need to end up at the same temperature…because, that is their belief.
…I know is that the radiation from the GP cannot warm the BP, or result in it coming to a higher temperature.
And the more they repeat this principle, the clearer it becomes that no science, facts or logic are required for the maintenance of this belief.
…know is that the radiation from the GP cannot warm the BP, or result in it coming to a higher temperature.
which makes it clear that is a religious belief…
…is that the radiation from the GP cannot warm the BP, or result in it coming to a higher temperature.
And makes clear that sky-dragon-slayers are a lot like a cult, whose beliefs are not falsifiable and cannot be questioned…
…that the radiation from the GP cannot warm the BP, or result in it coming to a higher temperature.
Test
DREMT,
When you split the plates GP doesn’t get colder because it’s giving heat to BP. It gets colder because it’s getting less energy from BP. It’s why we stand in the shade on a sunny day.
Pressed together this perfect emitter provided no resistance to BP energy loss, but split apart it now sends energy back to BP.
Conduction and radiation operate under the same laws of thermodynamics but by different mechanisms for transferring heat. You don’t seem to understand that. Postma considers 2 plates pressed together as a fine analogy for their radiative configuration.
Radiation is not heat. Keep repeating that when you think that by GP sending radiation to BP it is also heating it up. It’s only slowing the rate of heat loss. The sun is providing a constant rate of energy, and this is what heats the BP up. Remove the sun the instant before you introduce the GP, and the BP won’t get warmer, it will just cool more slowly than if the GP wasn’t there. That’s all ‘back radiation’ can do without a power source maintaining an energy flow.
DREMT,
“I will correct you here. Postma is referring to the fact that the direction perpendicular to the plate is only one direction out of an entire hemisphere of potential directions”
I’m well aware that Postma’s idea is solely about vector relationships, and not about radiative transfer from plate to Sun, which presumably he thinks impossible. He seems to think that by cancelling vectors radiation is also cancelled. ‘Negated’ as he puts it.
“If the 200 W/m^2 emitted from the GP to the BP was returned from the BP to the GP, your little ‘accounting problem’ would be solved completely.”
I just went through why that is manifestly not the case. You’re welcome to scroll up. To start with, BP can’t emit the 200 w/m2 it receives from GP back to GP, because half that energy is heading out the sunward side of BP. And that is hardly the only problem.
“Whether you consider the radiation from the GP to be absorbed by the BP and then immediately reemitted, without affecting the temperature, or whether you consider it to simply be reflected due to Clint R’s much-discussed “wavelength mismatch”, I’m not sure. I don’t claim to know the fate of individual photons. All I know is that the radiation from the GP cannot warm the BP, or result in it coming to a higher temperature.”
Stop equating radiation and heat. They are not the same.
The sun is hotter than the BP, the BP is hotter than the GP. The flow of heat is hot to cold throughout. This is a steady state system.
You keep thinking 2LoT is broken by GP radiating energy to BP, resulting in BP having a warmer temperature. This is no more the case than my skin getting warmer by putting on a sweater that is colder than my skin. The slowing of the loss of heat is what causes the warmth. The sweater does not transfer its heat to my skin. The GP does not transfer its heat to BP. The sun provides all the heat and energy for this transaction, and, just as you can with conduction and convection, you can rearrange the internal dynamics of a system to get different temperature results through the system. I close a window, I change the dynamics of the system. I put on different clothes, I change the dynamics of the system. I replace the heatsink on my CPU with one identical in size but better conducting material – I’ve changed the dynamics of the system. I coat the black wall behind the 3 bars in my radiant heater with chrome – I’ve changed the way the energy flows.
All these cases result in different temperatures within the system, even if the energy being pumped into these systems remains constant. Same with the GPE. You seem comfortable with convection and conduction slowing the rate of heat loss from a body, but for some reason you’ve decided radiation can’t do that.
All objects that emit radiation also absorb radiation. The ability to do so does not depend on the temperatures of the source and the body, it has everything to do with the optical properties of the surface/gas. That’s why they are called blackbodies, whitebodies and greybodies. It is the properties of a surface, not its temperature, that determines what radiation it will absorb.
What are the 2 questions you asked that I didn’t answer?
barry, this is how our conversation went:
"[BARRY] No, heat would be what is transferred if the plate or planet got COLDER while the sun received its energy. That’s the DEFINITION of heat. Unless the Sun gains heat at the expense of plates/planets, then heat is definitely NOT what is not being transferred. You and your gang really need to understand the meaning of heat. It is a transfer process where the body gaining energy does so at the expense of the source. Radiation is NOT heat.”
[DREMT] So, with the plates pressed together at 244 K…244 K, and then separated the plates becoming 262 K…220 K according to Eli’s solution, then according to your own definition of heat, the GP is transferring heat to the BP. Cold is transferring heat to hot, in contradiction of 2LoT."
You can’t wriggle out of it now, barry. You’ve made it as clear as you possibly could that the warming of the BP is at the expense of the GP. That’s all that’s changing! The heat source (Sun) is a constant throughout. What is happening, according to Eli’s solution, is that the BP gets warmer at the expense of the GP. You said it yourself:
"…but split apart it now sends energy back to BP"
..and that energy is treated as heat in Eli’s solution, by your own definition! As clear a violation of 2LoT as there possibly could be.
You’ve just conceded the argument, barry.
Team GPE is bust.
The laws of physics need to be upheld. You believed that your solution was strictly adhering to 1LoT, but it did so at the expense of violating 2LoT. With no 2LoT violation, the energy emitted from the GP towards the BP will not increase the temperature of the BP. Thus we know that this energy must be returned from the BP towards the GP, which just happens to also satisfy 1LoT.
So your solution was "incomplete thermodynamics".
"You seem comfortable with convection and conduction slowing the rate of heat loss from a body, but for some reason you’ve decided radiation can’t do that."
On the contrary, barry. Radiation can do that…but radiative insulation functions via reflectivity.
“The laws of physics need to be upheld.”
Yes.
Then why do they immediately suggest a violation of the laws of physics is what happens?
“Thus we know that this energy must be returned from the BP towards the GP”
Kirchhoffs law: a perfect emitter is a perfect abs.orber.
“You keep thinking 2LoT is broken by GP radiating energy to BP, resulting in BP having a warmer temperature. This is no more the case than my skin getting warmer by putting on a sweater that is colder than my skin. The slowing of the loss of heat is what causes the warmth. The sweater does not transfer its heat to my skin.”
Yep Barry, when they have an erroneous notion so deeply stuck in a crevasse in their head (back radiation is a 2LOT violation), then they just TUNE OUT whatever you say that contradicts this notion.
https://tenor.com/en-GB/view/saw-game-over-gif-5416896
Yes it is again game over because DREMT pretends to debate, but actually just ignores what his opponents say as they debunk his nonsense claims.
That, as they say, is that. No response from barry means the discussion is over (I expect he will respond later tonight after I’m asleep, but there’s nothing he can say now, anyway).
Wrong DREMT 8:46 am, ….and that energy is treated as 1LOT energy transfer in Eli’s solution, by any definition! As clear in accord of 2LoT producing entropy as there possibly could be.
Eli’s original solution refutes DREMT’s position on the GPE. DREMT has never been physically correct commenting on the GPE.
DREMT is publicly busted on this blog yet again by many more physically informed commenters.
Ball4 blurts out some nonsense in a deliberate attempt to irritate.
Being called out as DREMT is for obviously being physically wrong on the GPE is indeed irritating. Especially when the correct solution to the GPE has been available for over 5 years AND that solution is known to the irritated DREMT.
Oh, I’m not irritated. The more physically informed commenters are aware that Ball4’s comments are attempts to irritate, though. It’s called "trolling".
Ah, more name calling debate by DREMT. I see the attempts at irritating DREMT really have been successful despite DREMT’s failed attempt at diversion.
I will predict the DREMT irritation will continue to be evidenced by DREMT’s name calling which will continue due to lack of any successful DREMT ability to win the debate on the GPE physics.
I called you no names, except your screen name, Ball4. On the other hand, I’ve been repeatedly called names throughout this discussion, by several. I accused you of "trolling", which is not name-calling, it’s an accurate description of what you’re attempting to do. Your next comment will no doubt be an even better example of it than the last.
“It’s called “trolling”.” is not debate with any basic atm. physics, DREMT, & neither is:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471671
This kind of repeatedly failed debate just shows DREMT really is irritated and not able to defend in DREMT comments with basic atm. physics as in eqn.s Eli used long ago.
…and so, my prediction was proven correct.
DREMT,
I see. So when I close the door on a Wintry night the door is giving up its heat to the rest of the room in violation of the 2nd Law.
GP has not spontaneously given its heat to BP. Half its energy supply has disappeared. It gets cold because of that. To then say that this means it has transferred its heat to the BP is to say that the door has given up its heat to the room.
We can change the configuration of any number of thermal systems to achieve the same result without breaking the 2nd Law. We can make it two plates pressed together in a heated room and then move one to seal a window, making the room and other plate warmer while the plate in the window gets colder. I can move the heatsink on my CPU away from the CPU and the CPU gets hotter while the heatsink gets cooler. I can take a bright white T-shirt off and get warmer from the sun while the T-shirt cools next to me. Did the T-shirt give up its heat to me?
The conductive situation you advanced is just the same as the GP not being there at all, thermally speaking. Credit for the inventiveness of the challenge, but if you have to change the system to get the answer you want you’ve already lost the point.
What are the two questions I didn’t answer?
Wriggly barry bashes some silly straw men, then says:
"The conductive situation you advanced is just the same as the GP not being there at all, thermally speaking. Credit for the inventiveness of the challenge, but if you have to change the system to get the answer you want you’ve already lost the point."
The change to the system in having the plates pushed together is irrelevant, barry. The fact is, when the plates separate, you think they would progress from a state where they are both at 244 K…244 K to a state where they are at 262 K…220 K. This all happens with radiation as the only means of energy transfer. The only thing that changes on separation is, as you wrote of the GP:
"…but split apart it now sends energy back to BP"
So there you have it. The BP is gaining in temperature at the expense of the GP, due to a transfer of what must