Home/Blog
A new paper by Santer et al. provocatively entitled “Exceptional stratospheric contribution to human fingerprints on atmospheric temperature” goes where no serious climate scientist should go: it has conflated stratospheric cooling with global warming.
The paper starts out summarizing the supposed importance of their work, which is worth quoting in its entirety (bold emphasis added):
“Differences between tropospheric and lower stratospheric temperature trends have long been recognized as a “fingerprint” of human effects on climate. This fingerprint, however, neglected information from the mid to upper stratosphere, 25 to 50 km above the Earth’s surface. Including this information improves the detectability of a human fingerprint by a factor of five. Enhanced detectability occurs because the mid to upper stratosphere has a large cooling signal from human-caused CO2 increases, small noise levels of natural internal variability, and differing signal and noise patterns. Extending fingerprinting to the upper stratosphere with long temperature records and improved climate models means that it is now virtually impossible for natural causes to explain satellite-measured trends in the thermal structure of the Earth’s atmosphere.“
The authors are taking advantage of the public’s lack of knowledge concerning the temperature effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, making it sound like stratospheric cooling is part of the fingerprint of global warming.
It isn’t. Cooling is not warming.
The researchers’ first mistake is to claim they are reporting something new. They aren’t. Observed stratospheric cooling, even in the middle and upper stratosphere, has been reported on for many years (e.g. here). Lower stratospheric cooling has been evident in our Lower Stratosphere (LS) temperature product for over 30 years (first published here). Dr. Richard Lindzen tells me he had references to stratospheric cooling in his 1964 PhD dissertation. So why haven’t we heard about this before in the news? Because it has virtually nothing to do with the subject of global warming and associated climate change.
So, why mention stratospheric cooling in the context of climate change?
Climate researchers have been searching for “human fingerprints” of climate change for decades, something measurable that cannot be reasonably explained by natural variations in the climate system.
I will agree with the authors that stratospheric cooling (especially in the mid- to upper-stratosphere) is probably the best evidence we have of a human fingerprint on global temperatures, at least up where there is very little air, where no one lives, and where there are no observable resulting impacts on weather down here where life exists. Water vapor remains an uncertainty here, because more water vapor would also cause cooling, and our understanding of natural variations in stratospheric water vapor is quite poor. But for the sake of argument, I will give the authors the benefit of the doubt and agree that most of the observed cooling is probably due to increasing CO2, which in turn is likely mostly due to burning of fossil fuels.
Infrared radiative cooling by water vapor and carbon dioxide has long been known to be the primary way the stratosphere (and even higher altitudes) lose heat energy (gained from sunlight absorption by ozone) to outer space. This cooling mechanism is part of the so-called greenhouse effect: greenhouse gases warm the lower altitudes of planetary atmospheres, and cool the higher altitudes. In fact, without the greenhouse effect, weather as we know it would not exist. The greenhouse effect is energetically analogous to adding insulation to a heated house in winter: for a given rate of energy input, the inside of the house becomes warmer, and the outside of the house becomes colder.
The stratospheric cooling effects of CO2 and water vapor was first described theoretically by Manabe and Strickler (1964). Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere enhances upper atmospheric cooling, lowering temperatures. The temperature effect up there is large, several degrees C, meaning it is easier to measure with current satellite methods, as the authors of the new study correctly point out.
But what then happens in the troposphere (where we live) in response to more CO2 is vastly more complex. Theoretically, adding more CO2 should warm the lower troposphere radiatively. This warming then gets mixed throughout the depth of the troposphere from convective overturning (basically, “weather”).
But just how much tropospheric warming will be caused by increasing CO2?
After 30 years and billions of dollars expended on the effort in research centers around the world, the latest crop of climate models (CMIP6) now disagree on the expected amount of tropospheric warming more than ever before. This is mostly because of the insufficiently understood effects of water, especially the response of clouds (the climate system’s sunshade) and precipitation processes (which limit the most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor) to warming.
I consider it irresponsible to conflate stratospheric cooling with the global warming issue. Yes, strong cooling in the upper stratosphere is likely a fingerprint of increasing atmospheric CO2 (putatively due to fossil fuel burning), but for a variety of reasons, that is not reason to believe climate models in their predictions of tropospheric (and thus surface) warming trends. That is a very different matter, and the models themselves demonstrate they are not yet up to the task, now disagreeing with each other by a factor of three or more.
So now you hopefully understand why entitling such a paper “Exceptional stratospheric contribution to human fingerprints on atmospheric temperature” is essentially a non sequitur on the issue of global warming.
“The authors are taking advantage of the publics lack of knowledge concerning the temperature effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, making it sound like stratospheric cooling is part of the fingerprint of global warming.”
I am puzzled why you think a scientific paper published in a scientific journal like PNAS, is “taking advantage of the publics lack of knowledge”. Isn’t it peer-reviewed by scientists and intended primarily for scientists?
“I will agree with the authors that stratospheric cooling (especially in the mid- to upper-stratosphere) is probably the best evidence we have of a human fingerprint”
This seems contradictory of the above statement. The two effects tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling were predicted to come together. We are in fact seeing both, and you agreeing that this is good evidence of human causation.
Nate:
You say peer reviewed by “scientists” as if they are all immune to bias on the subject, and you say the paper is “primarily for scientists” despite really sloppy reporting on the paper, with wild claims leading to a misinformed public, for example:
“…the potential of these rapid changes (stratospheric cooling) to visit sudden and unanticipated turmoil on our weather below.”
https://www.wired.com/story/the-upper-atmosphere-is-cooling-prompting-new-climate-concerns/
Yes, stratospheric cooling might be a fingerprint of human influence *in the stratosphere*. The models can get that right, because the physics is much simpler, but they get tropospheric warming wrong (which obviously most models do, because with a predicted range of 1.8 to 5.6 deg. C for 2XCO2, most of them will obviously be wrong).
-Roy
Why not quote the full para:
And why not quote the explanation:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/climate-change-upper-atmosphere-cooling
Where’s the sloppy reporting?
Anything is possible. Strange how ‘most’ of it says everything is always getting warmer.
Strange how “the potential of these rapid changes aloft to visit sudden and unanticipated turmoil on our weather below” becomes “everything is always getting warmer.”
Not strange is how Willard denies AGW as about ‘everything is always getting warmer’.
Except the lower stratosphere.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/uah_ls.jpg
The bullseye of the Bingo:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
Stratospheric Cooling became part of the campaign agains public comprehension of radiative climate forcing so long ago that Roy was still assuring readers of Science of a cooling trend in the satellite temperature record. :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-war-against-fire.html
Upon discovering he’d gotten the sign wrong, Roy had the exemplary good grace to publish a retraction,
But another watt per square meter of forcing later he faces election to the American League ClimateBall Hall of Fame as the undisputed doyen of But Whatever.
Couldn’t he just dust off and reword the satellite radiometric trend corrigendum . and publish it it WUWT and the US and Australian editions of the Spectator ?
“really sloppy reporting on the paper,”
Not uncommon. I don’t think the authors can be blamed for that.
And reviewers don’t have the ‘public’s lack of knowledge’ problem.
So this seems to be a red herring.
“But the Press” is another weird trick:
https://climateball.net/but-the-press/
Nice summary..
“The models can get that right, because the physics is much simpler, but they get tropospheric warming wrong (which obviously most models do, because with a predicted range of 1.8 to 5.6 deg. C for 2XCO2, most of them will obviously be wrong).
-Roy”
Most will obviously be wrong, because they include a time element in their prediction. But without including time element and just looking at temperature number, a few more “could be” correct- or close enough.
> Yes, strong cooling in the upper stratosphere is likely a fingerprint of increasing atmospheric CO2 (putatively due to fossil fuel burning), but
Quite a big *but* to cry about irresponsibility, Roy!
Putatively? Good grief.
There is evidence that much of the increase in CO2 is due to ocean off-gassing. Meanwhile, the more widely touted explanation is combustion of fossil fuels. So ‘Putatively’ is the correct stance because no one really knows.
Prepare to be mesmerized:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/
But no natural cycles/influences are longer than 5 years.
Show us one that explains the T record.
Are you assuming that there are no natural oscillations that are longer than 5 years?
Asked many times, you are unable to show us evidence of one that accounts for the T record.
So then, is this science or wishful thinking?
” no one really knows” whether anthro CO2 is causing the rise?
Lots of evidence, so science knows.
Evidence and physics supports natural warming. We know CO2 didn’t do it from Miskolczi’s analysis of NOAA radiosonde data. It’s called falsification and is real science.
Miskolczi’s analysis assumed “the various cloudy conditions of the actual atmosphere are regarded as maintaining their established average state”. So assuming at the start added CO2 ppm can have no effect does result in finding added CO2 ppm has no effect.
The atmospheric mass balance argument, essentially:
CO2_atm_growth = (CO2_natural_emissions – CO2_natural_sinks) + CO2_anthro_emissions
Given the observation 0 < CO2_atm_growth < CO2_anthro_emissions
Implies the net natural term (in parenthesis) is necessarily less than zero.
re: “putatively”
It must be difficult to balance an aura of credentialed credibility with reflexive contrarianism. Over the years, it seems Dr Spencer’s kryptonite is the carbon cycle.
Told ya
https://i.postimg.cc/g2tcbmRX/cartoon-coolingandwarming.png
“…it is now virtually impossible for natural causes to explain satellite-measured trends in the thermal structure of the Earths atmosphere.
Well it’s virtually impossible for Ben Santer to explain nature causes because his sees only what his mind thinks is there, nothing else, and as long as he’s convinced himself he’s seen it all, he sees nothing.
Dr. Santer should correct himself for not knowing the ocean temperature sets the lower tropospheric temperature, naturally.
Sunshine warms the ocean that then warms the LT with a 2 month lag.
https://i.postimg.cc/L4QZQd3J/UAH-LT-v-Had-SST3.jpg
“Sunshine warms the ocean”
But what causes it to change its warming of the ocean over time?
More H2O means more clouds?
You’d probably be better off trying to figure why the ocean cools off during periods like the little ice age. The natural explanation then follows is the ocean is warming up to its normal temperatures since the end of the little ice age.
“More H2O means more clouds?” Maybe maybe not. Clouds at night keep the surface warm. And more H2O is a feedback effect of warming from CO2.
There has been much discussion about climate sensitivity. The claim is more co2 will raise the earths temperature, but there is an amplifying effect. The claim is a 1 degree rise due to a doubling of co2 results in a 3 degree rise overall. We see a natural irradiance variation of about a quarter watt per meter squared and a period of about a decade, but there is no sign of a cyclic signal in the CERES satellite data on the earths energy imbalance. An FFT on the satellite data should show what the climate sensitivity is; right now, it looks like its zero.
Nate,
Arid deserts are really, really hot. Not a lot of water vapour – where did the feedback from CO2 go?
Actually, the hottest places on the planet have the least “greenhouse gases”.
Negative GHE, perhaps.
What do you think?
Swenson, I think as usual, you ignore all other relevant factors to mislead people.
I wonder, do deserts get more sunshine than other places?
I wonder, is it easier to heat a place with little water to evaporate?
I wonder, does moist air contain more heat (enthalpy) than dry air?
Which city’s air contains more heat?
Phoenix in the desert @ 40 C and 30% Relative Humidity (RH), or moist New Orleans @ 30 C and 80% RH?
Hint: the warm moist air in New Orleans contains 85 KJ/Kg of heat and the hot dry air in Phoenix contains 76 KJ/Kg.
https://www.herramientasingenieria.com/onlinecalc/psychrometrics/psychrometrics.html
Clouds during the day keep the surface cool.
Yes, but water vapor in a clear sky keeps it warmer.
And remember Venus has lots of clouds but a huge GHE which makes it much hotter than Mercury.
Venus has massive atmospheric pressure and vastly different atmospheric composition.
Nate,
Not according to Professor John Tyndall, who noticed that the less water vapour in the atmosphere, the hotter it was during the day, and the colder it was during the night.
You know as little of physics as you do of chaos.
Tell me how reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface makes it hotter, fool?
Me: “Yes, but water vapor in a clear sky keeps it warmer.”
“Not according to Professor John Tyndall, who noticed that the less water vapour in the atmosphere, the hotter it was during the day, and the colder it was during the night.”
So the cooler it is during the night agrees with what I’ve said.
But as explained to you earlier, but you ignored, water vapor comes from evaporation of water, which requires heat.
So in a drier place, like the desert, it can get hotter during the day because none of the solar heat goes into evaporating water.
Then when you have air with more water vapor, it’s heat content is higher even when at a lower temperature than dry air.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1494751
Martin Mlynczak, an atmospheric physicist at the NASA Langley Research Center, told Yale E360.
Carbon dioxide impacts the upper atmosphere differently than the lower atmosphere. In the lower atmosphere, CO2 traps heat, causing warmer temperatures. However, “In the thinner air aloft, most of the heat reemitted by the CO2 does not bump into other molecules. It escapes to space,” Yale E360 stated. “Combined with the greater trapping of heat at lower levels, the result is a rapid cooling of the surrounding atmosphere.” (BS) Per the study, it’s “virtually impossible for natural causes to explain satellite-measured trends in the thermal structure of the Earth’s atmosphere.”
SO IF THERE WERE LESS CO2 NOT RADIATING HEAT INTO THE OUTERMOST ATMOSPHERE IT WOULD GET WARMER?. HOW? THEY THINK CO2 IS LIKE EVAPORATIVE COOLING? NONE OF THAT MAKES SENSE TO me.
This part “Combined with the greater trapping of heat at lower levels, the result is a rapid cooling of the surrounding atmosphere”
makes perfect sense. More CO2 traps heat more heat in the troposphere that would otherwise have heated the stratosphere.
Nate claims: “More CO2 traps heat more heat in the troposphere that would otherwise have heated the stratosphere.”
Not true. The added IR comes from the atmospheric window which completely avoids the stratosphere.
“The added IR comes from the atmospheric window which completely avoids the stratosphere.”
Evidence?
Modtran shows CO2 changes in 13-15 microns range.
Nate Modtran is a computer model unsupported by a statistically sensible argument for how it works in the real world.
Modtran is calculating the optical properties of the atmosphere, which is perfectly feasible.
Not understood and therefore dismissed by the Ignorati.
It might be useful to know that RRTM is probably the most widely used radiative transfer model. It is incorporated into many of the worlds top regional and global circulation models for weather forecasting and was used for the design and development of the GOES-R satellites. It is tested countless time everyday in the real world. It is consistent with the older and less capable MODTRAN model.
Here is more information on the model itself.
http://rtweb.aer.com/rrtm_frame.html
Here is simple application of it for computing the global energy balance.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/rrtm/
Nate a greenhouse doesn’t work that way. you say modtran is feasible and i don’t disagree. but feasible doesn’t mean it works. you need a statistically sensible argument that it does and you aren’t aware of any such argument.
bdgwx says:
”It might be useful to know that RRTM is probably the most widely used radiative transfer model.”
Well it seems nature and the IPCC are at odds on how to apply it. . . .that is of course with the ”assumption” that all warming is the result of human emissions. Unless you have a statistically sensible argument eliminating alternative theories it will remain an assumption.
“feasible and i dont disagree. but feasible doesnt mean it works.”
You have evidence otherwise? No.
Expertise? No.
Your opinion on this subject is? Worthless.
Nate my opinion doesn’t mean a thing. I agree. What I look for is if there is a statistically sensible science case for it. That has never ever been forthcoming and it is manifested by the fact that while energy is absorbed by CO2 scientists totally disagree both with if and by how much warming that will create. Some even believe it might result in slight cooling. Getting the opinion of the world’s governments on what they consider the best science is simply realizing that governments are controlling mechanisms and they will always fall, due to human nature of those who govern, on more control.
When the argument is about science facts, and you lack the expertise, you cannot substitute politics or conspiratorial thinking when a science argument is required. It just doesnt work and isn’t convincing.
Nate the only statistically sensible science argument anybody needs to produce to rally an army to attack climate change is one by those that are pro war.
You have been asked to refer us to a statistically sensible science argument to support your pro war position and have always failed to do so. EOS.
I used the phrase ‘statistically sensible argument’ in a long discussion with RLH that involved…statistics, and you had no clue what it was all about.
So you latch onto it, and turn it into a string of repeated meaningless buzzwords. Gibberish.
So Nate says no science is necessary for what he wants to promote. Fine Nate. We already knew that.
Sorry Nate, I get my views from real scientists like Dr. William Gray.
“The main problem with the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory is the false treatment of the global hydrologic cycle which is not adequately understood by any of the AGW advocates. ”
Increased evaporation at the surface enhances convective currents (basic physics) which drives water vapor higher into the troposphere which is colder. This leads to more condensation (basic physics). The net result is less high altitude water vapor (basic physics) which compensates for the additional IR CO2 absorbs.
Real scientist Dr. William Gray then needs to read up on, and learn from, L’Ecuyer et. al. 2015 which includes an adequate understanding of the global hydrological cycle in Earth’s longer term observed energy balance. The observed surface evaporation is shown balanced by precipitation during climate time frames which is why “real scientist” Gray calls it a “cycle”.
“I get my views from real scientists like Dr. William Gray”
who said in 2006:
“And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle 40s to the middle 70s.”
All others are not real scientists because they dont agree with Dr Gray?
“Increased evaporation at the surface enhances convective currents (basic physics) which drives water vapor higher into the troposphere which is colder.”
So warming results in cooling?
This is your ‘one weird trick’ to vanquish AGW, and it is indeed weird.
Nate says:
”Increased evaporation at the surface enhances convective currents (basic physics) which drives water vapor higher into the troposphere which is colder.”
Well an actual scientific physics description of how additional heat absorbed in the upper atmosphere gets back to the surface would certainly help. Models and theories that say it will happen falls far short of actual science.
I recently responded to a climate cult member who thought stratospheric cooling proved all aspects of climate change theory. I told them I agreed that CO2 is likely a big reason for the stratospheric cooling, but meaningless when it comes to understanding the real impact of CO2.
The expansion of the near 15 mm frequency band only compensates for the lower tropospheric cooling which CO2 is also causing. Climate cultists won’t accept that CO2 has a cooling influence in both parts of the atmosphere.
The reasons are different however. In the stratosphere, the cooling occurs due to the inverse lapse rate. In the lower troposphere, the cooling is caused by increased evaporation at the surface (aka the water cycle).
“Skeptics’ all seem to have ‘one weird trick’ to vanquish AGW, but all different.
Berry has already falsified AGW with three papers.
We’ve been over this repeatedly .
Berry’s hypothesis requires CO2 molecules to be pumped from the deep ocean to the atmosphere against both the laws of diffusion and the laws of thermodynamics.
Until he comes up with a mechanism that is coherent, consistent and consilient nobody except denialists is going to take him seriously.
We’ve been over it, and you still don’t understand. That’s a new one. And you still haven’t explained how that human carbon got into the deep ocean. That’s OK; neither has the IPCC.
Ent,
Berry is a physicist. He understands that mass is conserved, all mass, including carbon. He used a concept called conservation of mass to explain it. If you had any math skills, you’d understand his explanation is correct.
“Berry is a physicist. ”
So what? Thousands of other physicists disagree with him, and you dismiss their views.
It isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing. We know the physics is correct. You can’t dispute the conservation of mass. So, at that point, is the math correct? Even Happer says Berry’s math is correct.
Nothing wrong with the math. Doesnt mean it is applicable to the Earth’s carbon cycle.
Lots of previous work shows more complex equations which incorporate the buffering factor of the ocean, are required.
This article from the American Institute of Physics explains in simple terms the significance of the Revelle Factor to atmospheric CO2.
https://history.aip.org/climate/Revelle.htm
Is the physics correct?
The deep ocean CO2 concentration reflects the atmospheric concentration when the thermohaline circulation brought it down from the surface 1000 years ago. Nowadays the thermohaline circulation is delivering water with more dissolved CO2 due to a higher atmospheric concentration and near surface CO2 is also higher than it was.
This creates a concentration gradient with higher CO2 concentration above and a lower CO2 concentration below.
To move CO2 as Berry’s hypothesis requires needs three things.
1) For CO2 to move against the concentration gradient.
2) A mechanism for pumping the CO2.
3) An energy source to power the mechanism.
Berry’s papers are behind a paywall, he refuses to debate outside his website and Nate and I are banned from it.
As his advocate here perhaps you might explain what mechanism is involved and it’s energy source.
“Nate and I are banned”
which does not make you correct on this point. Only dissenting.
“near surface CO2 is also higher than it was”
Sure coal and oil appeared by magic.
“the thermohaline circulation brought it down from the surface 1000 years ago”
The thermohaline circulation in only 1000 years old? I think not.
“The Carboniferous Period lasted from about 359.2 to 299 million years ago* during the late Paleozoic Era.”
That is when a lot of coal and oil was formed. i.e. The CO2 concentrations in the air of CO2 decreased at the same time.
RLH
“Nate and I are banned”
It means that we can’t debate with Berry, just with his proofreader Anderson.
the thermohaline circulation brought it down from the surface 1000 years ago
The thermohaline circulation in only 1000 years old? I think not. ”
I agree. It has been going for at least 10,000 years which allowed CO2 to cycle from the poles to the deep ocean and back to the surface ten times. Since CO2 concentration was around 280ppm throughout that was plenty of time for the deep ocean concentration to stabilise.
The Carboniferous Period lasted from about 359.2 to 299 million years ago* during the late Paleozoic Era.
That is when a lot of coal and oil was formed. i.e. The CO2 concentrations in the air of CO2 decreased at the same time. ”
Remember why. Plants evolved the ability to make lignin at the beginning of the Carboniferous but decomposed only evolved the ability to digest lignin 50 million years later.
The result was that enormous amounts of lignin accumulated, providing the raw material for most coal deposits. depletatmospheric CO2 and
Sorry.
The result was that enormous amounts of lignin accumulated, providing the raw material for most coal deposits and depleting atmospheric CO2.
Consider that the Carboniferous started warm and ended with glaciation. I wonder if the reduction in CO2 might have caused the change?
Limestone, dolomite and chalk form WAY more deposits that either coal or oil.
They are probably the biggest deposits of CO2.
“Extensive chalk deposits date from the Cretaceous Period (145.5 million to 65.5 million years ago)”
None of that involved lignin.
…than either coal or oil…
SPA, let’s try this again.
Consider a bag containing 400 blue marbles. Each day you add 100 blue marbles to the bag and remove 100 marbles at random from the bag. The amount of marbles in the bag remains steady at 400 marbles; all of them blue.
Then I come along and add 100 red marbles to the bag in one shoot. The bag now has 500 marbles of which 400 are blue and 100 are red. The mixing ratio is 20% red.
You are still adding 100 blue marbles and removing 100 marbles at random at each day though. Because the mixing ratio is 20% red that means about 20% or 20 of the red marbles will be randomly chosen for removal and replaced with blue marbles. After one day the mixing ratio has decreased to (100 – 20) / 500 = 16%. There is still 500 marbles in the bag. And because the mixing ratio has changed the next removal will only reduce the red marble count by about 16. The new mixing ratio after day two is (100 – 20 – 16) / 500 = 13%. There is still 500 marbles in the bag. Repeating this process over a 5 day period results in a mixing ratio of (100 – 20 – 16 – 13 – 10 – 8) / 500 = 7% with 500 marbles remaining in the bag. After 10 days it is 2%. After 25 days you no longer have any red marbles in the bag, but the bag still contains 500 marbles.
Here is the epiphany. I am THE cause of the increase of marbles your bag from 400 to 500. This is true despite the fact that my unique red marbles have completely washed out after 25 days. Just because you no longer see red marbles in your bag does not in anyway invalidate the fact that I and I alone caused the number of marbles in your bag to increase. In the absence of my action of adding 100 marbles you’d still only have 400 marbles in your bag.
Do you understand this simple example?
Whats wrong with 500 marbles?
Except that all life on Earth removes carbon for your bag.
…from your bag…
BGDWX,
Do you understand that your model doesn’t describe Berry’s model or the Physics Model (Conservation of Mass)? The input sets the balance level. Lb/E=inflow. Lo/E=outflow. Outflow is proportional to LEVEL. Inflow sets the balance level.
dL/dt=Lb/E-Lo/E, when dL/dt=0, inflow=outflow. This is the same for all carbon, fossil fuel and natural.
SPA,
Yes. I understand bag of marbles example does not describe Berry’s model nor is it intended to be an exact analogy the real world. What it is intended to do is provide an example that can be used to discuss fundamental concepts that also come into play in the real world.
I’ll ask again. Do you understand the concepts going on in the bag of marbles? What is the residence time of the marbles? What is the adjustment time of the marbles? Who is responsible marble increase in the bag?
Yes, I understand your little colored marble exercise.
Residence time and adjustment time are meaningless in Berry’s physics model. E time is e-folding time. The IPCC uses “turnover” time. What is that?
The bag of marbles certainly can’t represent faithfully what Ed is saying for he lost his.
bdg…”Consider a bag containing 400 blue marbles”.
***
Can none of you alarmists talk science without resorting to inane thought experiments? I doubt it, you have no real science outside of thought experiments and consensus.
Residence Time (or turnover time, flushing time, retention time, etc.) is the time a parcel of mass spends in a reservoir. It is not a concept that the IPCC created. It is a concept in use in many disciplines of science anytime their is a reservoir with a flow rate. It is mathematically defined as T = m/f where m is the mass of the reservoir and f is the flow rate through it.
The residence time of the bag of marbles is 500 marbles / 100 marbles/day = 5 days.
Do you understand that the decay of the mixing ratio of red marbles does not tells us anything about who is responsible for the increase in marbles from 400 to 500?
Do you understand that the law of conservation of mass unequivocally says that the marble transfer I initiated necessarily means I’m the one responsible for the mass increase?
If you understand these concepts we can build on the example and make it a little closer to the way the real world works.
“the Physics Model” is a standard mathematical model. It will not work if it makes incorrect assumptions about the ocean, as Revelle discovered.
Here is the Bolin and Erickson paper that uses a more appropriate physics model containing the Revelle Factor, and with it accurately predicted the rise in atmospheric CO2, in 1958, that then occurred over the next 6 decades.
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/bolin.1958.carbon_uptake.pdf
Berry was unaware of this paper when I pointed it out to him. Then I was banned.
For someone supposedly trying to understand the Earth’s carbon cycle, not being familiar with the key pioneering work in the field is like trying to explain planetary motion without being familiar with Kepler’s or Newton’s work.
Berry’s main mistake is in the belief that the ratio of human markers vs natural markers is the same as the ratio of mass that got their via humans vs nature. Those are not the same thing.
In the marble example the observation that the ratio of red marbles to blue marbles decays to 0% does not mean that agent producing the red marbles is 0% responsible for the increase in the marble count. In the same way the observation that human CO2 molecules to natural CO2 molecules decays from X% towards 0% does not mean that humans are responsible for only X% of the increase of CO2 molecule count.
Berry also does not seem to understand even the generalized concept that changes in mixing ratios within a reservoir act independently of changes in mass amount of the reservoir and that they can even change in opposite directions. This is true for any reservoir type. This isn’t a concept unique to the carbon cycle nor is it an invention of the IPCC.
GR said: Can none of you alarmists talk science without resorting to inane thought experiments?
The intent of thought experiments (like the bag of marbles) is to create a simple and intuitive example that can be used to explain fundamental concepts that are much easier to understand.
And as I’ve said repeatedly. If someone cannot understand fundamental concepts in a simple idealized example they will not be able to understand the far more complex real world.
bdgwx,
Why do you add blue marbles, not some mix of red and blue?
Geoff S
It is to keep the scenario as simple as possible. Once it is understood it can be changed to bring it closer to reality.
bdgwx says:
The intent of thought experiments (like the bag of marbles) is to create a simple and intuitive example that can be used to explain fundamental concepts that are much easier to understand.
————————–
What should be easily understand is talking about a 200 marbles in a bag with a billion other marbles. Sure if you can show they are the only blue ones in the bag thats a good argument, but just trying to figure that out in a bag with a billion marbles you better have some pretty rigid controls in place and be able to explain what they are.
What Gill is saying is that, like Ed, he lost all his marbles a long time ago.
We already knew that.
Willard please stop trolling
“Weve been over this repeatedly .”
Yep.
Stephen’s one weird trick is to come back periodically to proclaim again that Berry has falsified the anthro CO2 rise, having forgotten all the flaws in his work that had previously been pointed out to him.
I noticed that Berry claims that his publication is peer-reviewed. It is published in Science of Climate Change. It appears this “journal” is operated by a group out of Norway called Klimarealistene which translates to Climate Realists. It looks like it is a contrarian blog that peddles the same myths, meme graphics, strawmen, etc. as any other contrarian blog just in Norwegian. It appears that Berry is redefining what “peer-review” means.
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/
https://klimarealistene.com/
Wow! Many crackpot ‘publications’ there. They are in a different reality than ours.
Nate’s idea of a statistically sensible science argument is to wildly wave ones hand in the air while spewing ad hominem.
I suppose if you were on the other side you would be impugning Science and Nature magazines as Nazi propaganda since it is owned by a firm founded by a registered Nazi. Right?
What a magazine or any other privately owned journal chooses to publish is their basic right as long as they are willing to accept liability for what they publish. But that doesn’t make any article wrong and no article is made right either by the owner of the publication. Science just doesn’t work that way. You need a sound and statistically sensible science argument and be prepared to show evidence that the article is correct or wrong depending upon your inclinations. Simply declaring it correct or wrong isn’t sufficient.
Troll Bill offers up a good example of dead-thread last-wording, in hopes that nobody will notice. And naturally it is full of unsupported nonsense.
Nate still lacks a statistically sensible science argument to support his claims so he attacks the guy that points that out.
Nah, you’re just my stalker spewing your usual pointless venom.
Stalker? You stalk Roy on his forum and can’t even to point to the science why you think he is wrong. All you are is a troll.
I stalk Roy?
You’re dreamin.
By your own definition Nate.
There’s a Bingo of One Weird Tricks:
https://climateball.net/the-bingo/
There is a certainty about some people (i.e. Willard) being idiots.
Berry’s weird trick is to assume the Earth’s carbon cycle is simple, while ignoring all previous work showing that it isn’t.
Berry’s weird trick is to assume that carbon obeys the conservation of mass. So do ALL atmospheric physics textbooks EVER written.
It’s odd you mention the law of conservation of mass because Berry’s conclusion are a violation of it.
How so?
BGDWX,
Do you agree that dL/dt=inflow-outflow describes atmospheric carbon?
So nothing? You’re pushing an agenda. Not physics.
Here, Troglodyte:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1494591
Yes. I agree that dL/dt = inflow-outflow. That is the law of conservation of mass.
Berry’s conclusion violates it because he says only 33 ppm of the CO2 in the atmosphere is attributable to humans.
His egregious mistake is embodied by this statement: “Since
human carbon must obey the same rules as natural carbon, the physics carbon cycle model computes the human carbon cycle using the e-times found in IPCCs natural carbon cycle (22).”
His methodology is using the residence time to make a statement about who caused the mass change. Notice that he is NOT using the law of conservation of mass to figure out who caused the mass change.
You CANNOT use the residence time of a reservoir to determine what caused mass changes in that reservoir.
What he effectively did was calculate the mixing ratio of molecules that still have the human markers. The mixing ratio of molecules with human markers is NOT the same as the ratio of mass caused by humans.
“Berrys weird trick is to assume that carbon obeys the conservation of mass. So do ALL atmospheric physics textbooks EVER written.”
Sure, Stephen, and baseballs obey the law of gravity. But if you ignore air resistance, then you will think that even you can regularly hit home runs.
bdgwx says:
You CANNOT use the residence time of a reservoir to determine what caused mass changes in that reservoir.
What he effectively did was calculate the mixing ratio of molecules that still have the human markers. The mixing ratio of molecules with human markers is NOT the same as the ratio of mass caused by humans.
—————————–
Unfortunately bdgwx your criticism doesn’t hold water.
You first need to understand the ‘entire’ carbon reservoir in the carbon cycle. Concluding only 33ppm is based upon the assumption that Henry’s law governs the reservoir proportionally as based on established experimental chemistry only.
Political activists of all stripes draw their own conclusions that maximize what it is they want to maximize.
Years and years of litigation and regulation support work makes that perfectly clear.
So all I see in this thread from your side, at best, is the pot calling the kettle black.
Coming from your side its a cinch if you assume that the warming world is 104% due to carbon emissions.
But without that assumption you have no basis. So your argument is effectively the fallacy of confirming the consequent.
Now I have been asking for sometime for anybody to post a statistically sensible argument or any experimental proof that CO2 is responsible for virtually all the warming versus being the consequence of that warming. Nate demurred after calling out others for such evidence. Seems were are at an impasse.
So far AFAIK Henry’s law is the only actually established evidence. We know that humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by a minimum of 33ppm. . . .and we have some idea regarding how much CO2 has increased in total based upon a single sampling location. But that assumes that CO2 is uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. But the lack of a written blueprint of how man made emissions have caused the major increase (above 33ppm) in carbon in the atmosphere is far from proven. It may well be but as I said what someone wants to pick as an answer is highly variable.
What we know is that enough energy is deposited into the atmosphere from human emissions to ‘potentially’ warm the surface by 1 deg C for a doubling of CO2. However, most scientists disagree on how much surfact warming will actually result after feedback.
Even in the practice of medicine it is very difficult to estimate such effects even when the tested variable can be manipulated. Thats because its difficult to keep variables from changing in the natural environment when we don’t understand the effects of any of those variables any better.
As a result even with huge advantages (many test subjects) medicine advances slowly and politics has stayed out of most of that advance which is very helpful.
What we have here though is politics entering the equation because science is perceived as moving too slowly by some of the more impatient sorts.
Bill Hunter, I standby what I said. I’ll repeat. You cannot use residence time to draw a conclusion about who is responsible for a mass change in a reservoir. Nor can you assume that the agent most responsible for mixing ratio changes is the same agent most responsible for mass amount changes.
bdgwx says:
”Bill Hunter, I standby what I said. Ill repeat. You cannot use residence time to draw a conclusion about who is responsible for a mass change in a reservoir.”
Well thats true no matter what method you are using unless you fully understand how the CO2 thats there got there.
Its no more an overreach to say in general only 33ppm is the anthropogenic contribution as it is to claim anything else as 33ppm is the only part of the contribution you can trace to its source and the chemistry involved.
There is lot wrong in Bills latest gish gallop.
Such as “based upon a single sampling location”.
Then there’s today’s politics time-travelling back to the 1950s to influence the discoveries about the carbon cycle that made it possible to correctly predict the anthropogenic rise of atmospheric CO2 over the next 60 y.
Anyone who wants to learn about these discoveries can read a nice history of that period here:
https://history.aip.org/climate/Revelle.htm
And go farther with their knowledge by reading and understanding this key paper from that period:
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/bolin.1958.carbon_uptake.pdf
BH, It is an overreach to say that only 33 ppm of the 133 ppm rise is the human contribution because only 25% of the human markers washed out. It is no different than the bag of marbles example above. It is an overreach to say that I’m 0% responsible for the marble increase from 400 to 500 because none of the red marbles I added are in the bag anymore. I’m still the one that added 100 marbles. If I didn’t add those 100 red marbles then the number of marbles in the bag would not have increased. It’s an incredibly simple concept to understand which leaves me baffled as to why Berry and others cannot understand it.
What is your source bdgwx?
Nate says:
”Then theres todays politics time-travelling back to the 1950s to influence the discoveries about the carbon cycle that made it possible to correctly predict the anthropogenic rise of atmospheric CO2 over the next 60 y.”
Texas sharpshooting has been a sanctioned sport for as long as there have been self-proclaimed Texas Sharpshooters.
The law of conservation of mass.
Thats ridiculous bdgwx!
The marbles in the bag have no red marbles. If what you are talking about is the ‘entire’ carbon reservoir you have to recognize that mankind added zero carbon to it.
If you want to exclude parts of the reservoir then you need to fully understand the ins and outs between the included part and the excluded part.
Since we don’t know any of that, the human contribution is completely unknown beyond the molecules that bear the earmarks of fossil fuel combustion which can only be reasonably assumed the result of human burning of fossil fuels.
Nutcases with political agendas that understand any of this will make assumptions about those ins and outs and their causes as sort of a ‘fad’ theory. A theory akin to the unregulated nutritional supplement market without the legally-mandated disclaimers regarding medical advice.
“The law of conservation of mass”
Nobody created Carbon. It was there already. It was just moved from one point to another.
“Since we dont know any of that, the human contribution is completely unknown”
Bill pretends to be unaware that FF carbon has been sequestered from the carbon cycle for millions of years, and is only now being added back into it.
We know that. But Bill doesnt. Because he has lost his marbles.
No Bill, the law of conservation of mass is not ridiculous. If I transfer 100 marbles from my possession into the bag then I have 100 less and the bag has 100 more. Therefore I am the cause of the marble increase. This is true despite the fact that the markers associated with my transfer are washing out. Likewise, when humans transferred 465 GtC from the fossil stock into the carbon cycle then the fossil stock has 465 GtC less and the carbon cycle has 465 GtC more. Therefore humans are the cause of mass increase. This is true despite the fact that markers associated with the human transfer are washing out. It is literally that simple.
RLH, no offense but duh. That’s how the law of conservation of mass works. Specifically humans moved carbon from the fossil reservoir to the carbon cycle. And because mass also isn’t destroyed that necessarily means the carbon cycle now has more mass than it did before. Humans moved the mass therefore humans are the cause of the decrease in the fossil reservoir and increase in the carbon cycle.
bdgwx says:
No Bill, the law of conservation of mass is not ridiculous. If I transfer 100 marbles from my possession into the bag then I have 100 less and the bag has 100 more. Therefore I am the cause of the marble increase.
———————
thats true for the marbles you are adding to the bag in your hand.
But its not necessarily true for the carbon cycle and that because the carbon reservoir is huge, the carbon does not remain in the corner of the carbon reservoir that is the atmosphere, we don’t understand well how carbon moves around the corners of the carbon reservoir and finally the carbon you put in the reservoir had to be first extracted from the reservoir. So all you are doing is moving marbles around in the bag, briefly removing them and putting them back.
Nate says:
”Bill pretends to be unaware that FF carbon has been sequestered from the carbon cycle for millions of years, and is only now being added back into it.
We know that. But Bill doesnt. Because he has lost his marbles.”
Perhaps millions of years but there is one helluva shitload of it compared to the carbon in the atmosphere or the entire ocean for that matter and there is no science that says its sequestered permanently. We have very little idea of how much interchange there is.
Bottom line Nate is if CO2 doesn’t warm the climate or even maybe cools it slightly our contribution is like the 33ppm as stated.
Since you have acknowledged you have no statistically sensible argument for warming of the atmosphere by carbon emissions you can’t say one way or the other that our contribution is greater than that.
BH,
The law of conservation of mass applies to the carbon cycle as well regardless of how big it is or how it moves around once it is there.
You can also use the law of conservation of mass within the carbon cycle itself. Because both the biosphere and hydrosphere are gaining mass that necessarily means they cannot be the source of the mass increase in the atmosphere. There must be another source adding mass to the atmosphere in such a great quantity that it is enough to account for the increase in all 3 reservoirs (atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere).
“Perhaps millions of years but there is one helluva shitload of it compared to the carbon in the atmosphere or the entire ocean for that matter and there is no science that says its sequestered permanently. We have very little idea of how much interchange there is.”
Bill makes no sense, but in the end is always certain that ‘we’ meaning ‘he’ don’t know anything.
“Bottom line Nate is if CO2 doesnt warm the climate or even maybe cools it slightly our contribution is like the 33ppm as stated.”
Can’t win the current argument, try to change it change it into a metaphor!
” we dont understand well how carbon moves around the corners of the carbon reservoir ”
There is a miswiring in Bill’s brain, which erroneously transfers ‘things Bill doesnt know’ into the ‘things science doesnt know’ department.
bdgwx says:
”There must be another source adding mass to the atmosphere in such a great quantity that it is enough to account for the increase in all 3 reservoirs (atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere).”
Well glad you made that clear. Thats how political science works. they simply ignore by far the largest reservoir of carbon in the carbon cycle which is the geosphere. You also left out the cryosphere. You left out more than 99.9% of the carbon in the carbon cycle in order to make a political point. . .certainly not a scientific point. Unless of course you are gullible enough to believe its a scientific point.
”Our planet is one giant, finely balanced ecosystem. Life as we know it depends on a complex series of interactions between five interdependent systems: air (atmosphere); land (geosphere); ice cryosphere); living things (biosphere); water (hydrosphere). Collectively, these are known as the Earth System.”
https://tinyurl.com/2dk9f43e
Nate says:
”Bill makes no sense, but in the end is always certain that we meaning he dont know anything.”
Nate once again resorts to ad hominems and mindless spew rather than a statistically sensible argument. He knows nothing folks.
BH, the law of conservation of mass is not a political science law. It is a physical science law similar to the law of conservation of energy. And I’m not ignoring any carbon. When I say biosphere I am including the soil and permafrost. I just call it the biosphere because the carbon compounds are of primarily organic origin. Some sources actually just call this the land reservoir (Friedlingstein et al. 2023) even though it includes living vegetation and is primarily organic. Either way, make no mistake, I am including vegetation, permafrost, soils, etc. And before you accuse me of ignoring the slow carbon cycle (ie. rock weathering and like), which BTW operates at 1/1000 the rate of the fast carbon cycle, or any other relevant talking point understand that just because I haven’t written a 1000 page response to you including all of the minutia of the carbon cycle does not mean that I or more aptly scientists have ignored it.
bdgwx says:
”BH, the law of conservation of mass is not a political science law. It is a physical science law similar to the law of conservation of energy.”
Of course it isn’t unless of course you aren’t using the correct mass and ignoring the largest part of the carbon cycle. When you don’t ignore some of the carbon moving between reservoirs one can they determine if your partial look of only .1% of the carbon reservoir is correct. If more than .1% of the total carbon interchanging between parts of the earth’s carbon reservoir it must be accounted for you to conclude anything about the conservation of mass. You haven’t done that.
bdgwx says:
”And Im not ignoring any carbon.”
Thats completely false! You are ignoring way more than 99.9% of the earth’s carbon.
bdgwx says:
”And before you accuse me of ignoring the slow carbon cycle (ie. rock weathering and like), which BTW operates at 1/1000 the rate of the fast carbon cycle, or any other relevant talking point understand that just because I havent written a 1000 page response to you including all of the minutia of the carbon cycle does not mean that I or more aptly scientists have ignored it.”
Well at least you anticipated that. Fact is being 1/1000th the rate as you say than the fast carbon cycle it has way more than a 1,000 times more carbon in it. Its only something some people want to ignore to jump to conclusions by. . .thats political science.
Limestone is 44% CO2 and comprises 15% of sedimentary rock. Its among the fastest weathering rocks and it pretty much covers the entire earth surface including the bottoms of the oceans.
As NASA says: ” It is likely that changes in ocean temperatures and currents helped remove carbon from and then restore carbon to the atmosphere over the few thousand years in which the ice ages began and ended.”
These are chemical processes that are going to primarily vary in relationship to temperature and relative abundance. Fact is bdgwx is you DID ignore it. You didn’t mention it until you anticipated where I was going all the while claiming to have fully accounted for your conservation of mass argument. You are just too easy bdgwx. You need to start thinking for yourself rather than just listening to what your daddy tells you. You are certainly smart enough to do that.
BH said: You are ignoring way more than 99.9% of the earths carbon.
That is an extraordinary claim. I know of about 45,000 GtC in the shallow (endogenic) reservoirs. If you’re saying I’m ignoring 99.9% of the carbon then there must be 45,000,000 GtC in the shallow (endogenic) reservoirs that I (and presumably scientists) don’t know about, but which you do. And if I include the deep (endogenic) reservoirs which I know of about 1e9 GtC of carbon then there must be 1e12 GtC that I (and presumably scientists) don’t know about, but which you do. And I’m not even including the carbon that I know must exist below the mantle. Can you provide extraordinary evidence for the claim that there is 45,000,000 GtC in the shallow (exogenic) reservoirs and/or 1e12 GtC in the deep (endogenic) reservoirs?
“Nate once again resorts to ad hominems and mindless spew rather than a statistically sensible argument. ”
Bill seemingly forgets how often he butts-in to my conversations with others to weigh-in with nothing but tossed ad-hom grenades directed at me, and misrepresentations of my posts.
bdgwx says:
That is an extraordinary claim. And Im not even including the carbon that I know must exist below the mantle. Can you provide extraordinary evidence for the claim that there is 45,000,000 GtC in the shallow (exogenic) reservoirs and/or 1e12 GtC in the deep (endogenic) reservoirs?
Nothing extraordinary about bdgwx. Its notable that your argument just waved it off. Thats because its political science.
Fact is 15% of sedimentary rock (surface rock) is limestone which is 15% carbon dioxide. the ocean bottom is almost 100% coated with thick layers of high carbon materials. Your thousand to one ratio is way small in relationship to how much carbon is available to chemical and erosive processes. Fossil fuels are but a drop in the bucket. The net anthropogenic contribution is a small fraction of one part per million to the surface reservoirs.
Sources on this are innumerable. I don’t have time today to begin to tap the literature. What should be remarkable is the total ignorance of this within IPCC arguments. But its not surprising to an old hand like myself. Wearing horse blinders in pursuit of political objectives is the soup du jour in processes like the UN and many other fora.
Nate says:
” ”Nate once again resorts to ad hominems and mindless spew rather than a statistically sensible argument. ”
Bill seemingly forgets how often he butts-in to my conversations with others to weigh-in with nothing but tossed ad-hom grenades directed at me, and misrepresentations of my posts.”
Thanks again Nate for acknowledging that you don’t have one shred of a statistically sensible argument here.
BH, If you are unwilling or unable to provide a source of your claim that there is 45,000,000 GtC in the exogenic and/or 1e12 GtC in the endogenic reservoirs then I don’t have any choice but to dismiss it.
Thus Bill demonstrates his now classic “misrepresentations of my posts.
One reason why honest debate with him isn’t possible.
bdgwx says:
”BH, If you are unwilling or unable to provide a source of your claim that there is 45,000,000 GtC in the exogenic and/or 1e12 GtC in the endogenic reservoirs then I dont have any choice but to dismiss it.”
The earth’s crust is 27,700,000,000 Gigatons. Carbon makes up .025% of it. That works out to 69,250,000 GtC.
Certainly you are welcome to dismiss it. But thats one heckuva a lot of marbles unaccounted for in your conservation of mass argument. Seems to me you can discard that argument.
Nate says:
Thus Bill demonstrates his now classic misrepresentations of my posts.
One reason why honest debate with him isnt possible.
———————-
Now Nate is getting pouty. He claims I misrepresented his statistically sensible argument he made and seems to be missing.
BH,
Can you provide a reference for that 69,250,000 GtC figure?
And what is 69,250,000 GtC / 1e12 GtC?
first link i saw said 70,000,000 GtC but I didn’t save the link.
https://www.britannica.com/science/carbon-chemical-element
.025% of earth’s crust
https://tinyurl.com/2yda62em
The mass of the Earth’s crust 2.77 * 10^22 kg
you will have to do a little math.
one can also calculate that ~39,000,000 GtC of that is in limestone which was laid down as part of the normal processes of the earth belching CO2 up from and through the crust into the oceans and atmosphere and supporting robust life on this planet. so that is one helluva lot of loose and unaccounted for marbles for any conservation of mass argument.
and of course the earth’s crust makes up only about 1% of the earth’s mass.
BH,
Yeah, those are the links I got when I googled for it. The intent of my questions was actually to get you to rethink what you wrote. Specifically I wanted you to double check your math because 0.025% * 2.77e22 kg does not equal 69,250,000 GtC. It is actually 6,925,000 GtC.
Remember, you said I’m ignoring 99.9% of the carbon. I know of about 1,000,000,000 GtC. 7,000,000 GtC is only 1/143 of what I know and 1/143000 of what you said is there.
My reference is Lee et al. 2019: A Framework for Understanding Whole-Earth Carbon Cycling.
bdgwx says:
”I know of about 1,000,000,000 GtC. 7,000,000 GtC is only 1/143 of what I know and 1/143000 of what you said is there.
My reference is Lee et al. 2019: A Framework for Understanding Whole-Earth Carbon Cycling.”
well I did make a mistake with a decimal. But as you say you claim you have accounted for the exchange rates of 1,000,000,000 GtC with in the earth’s reservoirs and I am not seeing anything like that in the reference you provided. It says it doesn’t know what the rate of exchange is with the bulk of the carbon reservoir. . . .despite throwing out a figure with a question mark after it.
to me as an accountant thats freaking hilarious. Imagine reading a financial report with question marks after the figures. LOL!
What is 0.025% times 2.77e22 kg, Gill?
BH,
Now you’re moving the goal post again. First, it was a challenge that you cannot use the law of conservation of mass to determine the cause of the increase. Then it was that I (and presumably scientists) forgot about 99.9% of the carbon. Now it is that we do the rates of exchange.
Except…the only exchange rate that isn’t known or even estimated is the transfer between the lower and upper mantle which works on billion year time scales. All of the exchange rates that operate on 10,000 year or less time scales are known. Once again we can apply the law of conservation of mass. Multiplying the rates by time we can see that the only natural reservoirs that are even capable of accounting for the addition mass in the atmosphere are the terrestrial biosphere and surface ocean. And, like as been said repeatedly, those can be eliminated with a further application of the law of conservation of mass since their mass is increasing too.
bdgwx says:
Now youre moving the goal post again. First, it was a challenge that you cannot use the law of conservation of mass to determine the cause of the increase. Then it was that I (and presumably scientists) forgot about 99.9% of the carbon. Now it is that we do the rates of exchange.
Exceptthe only exchange rate that isnt known or even estimated is the transfer between the lower and upper mantle which works on billion year time scales. All of the exchange rates that operate on 10,000 year or less time scales are known.
Once again we can apply the law of conservation of mass.
————————
Thats certainly not true.
You would not make a good accountant as one must close the loop not leave it open.
The In and Out between the reactive marine sediment and ocean is ‘estimated’ to be .06 up to .08 down. The net corresponds to the .02? movement into the sediment.
Since its obvious they aren’t measuring it but using some kind of proxy like estimated biota sinking to the bottom they are only scratching the surface.
It’s actually 0.6 GtC up and 0.8 GtC down for a net of 0.2 GtC down. Let’s say the up doubled to 1.2 GtC for a net of 0.4 GtC up then it would take 1600+ years to deliver the increase seen in the hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere plus the amount of time it takes to move through the deep ocean and surface ocean. But you still have a law of conservation of mass problem. Where did the 670 GtC of human carbon go if not into the atmosphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere?
bdgwx says:
Its actually 0.6 GtC up and 0.8 GtC down for a net of 0.2 GtC down. Lets say the up doubled to 1.2 GtC for a net of 0.4 GtC up then it would take 1600+ years to deliver the increase seen in the hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere plus the amount of time it takes to move through the deep ocean and surface ocean. But you still have a law of conservation of mass problem. Where did the 670 GtC of human carbon go if not into the atmosphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere?
———————-
well before one answers that question one has to establish if your premises are correct. Where is your reference to the work done to establish your premises? Do you even know or did you just copy it from the paper you already referred to?
Intelligent climate realists (aka “skeptics:) do not deny AGW, which includes CO2 emissions, the urban heat island effect, land use related albedo changes, dark soot falling on Arctic ice and snow, and a reduction of air pollution, all of which can cause global warming.
I also add deliberately, or accidentally, inaccurate “manmade” temperature measurements and adjustments, that can create “global warming” on paper, which does not exist in reality.
It is only CAGW that reasonable climate realists object to. Sometimes described as AGW x2 to AGW x4.
CAGW has never before happened. So there are no historical data for CAGW. And there are never any data for the future climate. Therefore, CAGW predictions MUST BE data-free.
A data-free prediction is not science, especially after always wrong CAGW predictions since the 1979 Charney Report, and over a century of always wrong environmental predictions of doom.
The data-free CAGW prediction is not science, and that is why Climate Realists do not accept it. I consider CAGW predictions to be climate astrology.
In my opinion, the stratosphere scare will not work because few people ever heard of the stratosphere, and no one lives there.
For the annual IPCC “How to Climate Scare the Fools in 2023 Contest”, I submitted: “Climate Change Will Kill Your Dog”. That will scare more people than the stratosphere malarkey.
This RS article was in the top four of my daily list of 20 climate science and energy articles, recommended on my blog this morning. Dr. Spencer is a consistently good author, who makes my job as a blog editor easy.
At the link below is my daily list of 20 conservative articles refuting the coming climate change crisis hoax, and the completely unnecessary Nut Zero: Also, a list of 20 good conservative articles follows, on various other subjects. No ads. No money for me. I just want to publicize the best 40 conservative articles I’ve read every day.
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
Nate responds with the typical science denial we see from most climate cultists. No facts, just pure denial.
Also, there may be multiple reasons humans aren’t responsible for the warming we’ve seen. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
What post are you responding to, and why here, Richard M?
Infrared radiation in the upper stratosphere is released when an O2 molecule breaks down into monoatomic oxygen in the presence of another air molecule. O2 is broken down only by absorbing the highest-energy UV photon. These particles are released during solar eruptions. When these eruptions are fewer and weaker the temperature in the upper stratosphere must drop. A lesser role is played by galactic radiation, which can also produce ozone, but mainly at high latitudes and in regions with weaker geomagnetic fields. Secondary galactic radiation in the form of neutrons also produces radioactive carbon in the stratosphere from nitrogen, which combines with oxygen. The amounts of water vapor and tropospheric CO2 in the stratosphere are negligible and play little role in terms of stratospheric temperature. The following graphics show how an increase in solar activity affects the temperature in the upper stratosphere.
https://i.ibb.co/9yJTXwL/mgii-composite-2.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2023.png
Temperatures in the lower stratosphere can rise during very strong volcanic eruptions when large amounts of volcanic ash, carried by strong stratospheric winds, enter the stratosphere. Particulate matter absorbs the entire range of solar radiation. Then temperatures near the Earth’s surface drop.
The decline in ozone production may affect the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2023.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_toz_sh_f00.png
The leftists bring out Santer et al. again. Regurgitating the same ole playbook.
You might like:
https://climategen.org/blog/my-climate-story-ben-santer/
so Seitz points out the BS Santer statistical study done by Santer for AR3 that failed to survive the ipcc publication date and Santer’s response was to pull the tobacco card! LOL!
Can you buy a scientist? Apparently yes.
Indeed. The leader petrol lobby, the tobacco lobby and the fossil fuel lobby have done so repeatedly.
You think the climate lobby is any different?
Indeed! One should never believe somebody who lacks either the appearance of independence or any enforcable obligation to provide you with facts versus lies.
You might also like:
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/Kenya/gasoline_prices/
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Do you any reason for posting random irrelevancies, or are you attempting to imply intelligence through idiocy?
If you say so, Mike Flynn.
Or if your silly sock puppet says so.
“Prosecutor: Have they been proved to be unsafe?
Tobacco company representative: I believe they have not been proved to be unsafe”
Difficult to make someone believe if their job depends on them not believing.
Fred Seitz reminds me of Clarke’s First Law.The
“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”
Elderly Lord Kelvin said in 1902 “Neither the balloon, nor the aeroplane, nor the gliding machine will be a practical success”
My favourite is Richard van de Heit Wooley.
On appointment as Astronomer Royal, he reiterated his long-held view that “space travel is utter bilge”. Speaking to Time in 1956, Woolley noted “It’s utter bilge. I don’t think anybody will ever put up enough money to do such a thing… What good would it do us?”
Sputnik 1 went up in 1957.
So far, he’s proven correct.
Nate says:
”Elderly Lord Kelvin said in 1902 Neither the balloon, nor the aeroplane, nor the gliding machine will be a practical success”
Yep in the future we might be saying the same kind of stuff about Ben Santer. . . .except he isn’t anywhere near getting to a point where we will care about him, unlike William Thompson.
In the future contrarian cranks may win:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/01/11/can-contrarians-lose/
They always do. Which is a problem when doing science.
Willard says:
”In the future contrarian cranks may win.”
Yeah that sometimes happens. But what happens most of the time is some visionary scientist actually figures out how it works well enough to actually write it down.
Gill, Gill,
It does not happen sometimes. It always happen.
Remember Galileo. Every single contrarian won because he did.
No what happens Willard is when science gets overturned it considered to be no longer science in order for science to continue to have a perfect record.
Santer is just another alarmist clown.
Well, Gordo, at least he understands how the MSU/AMSU instruments work and how the resulting data is processed. So far, you do not.
Wasn’t it you Swanson examining that data who came to the incorrect conclusion that Arctic summer time temperatures were increasing and baked up the idea and wrote a paper that UAH was too cool because of that?
Arctic summer time temperatures is not increasing, Gill?
Nope! Been decreasing. Winter temperatures in the Arctic have increased.
The thing not stated wee willy is that Oreskes attacked Seitz and two other scientists after thy were dead. Oreskes is the historian, or whatever, who claimed consensus is a valid form of science.
This nonsense about attacking skeptics in relation to the tobacco industry is shear desperation not to mention idiotic. It is par for the course with alarmists like Santer. The fact that it shocked him suggests he suffers from terminal naivete.
Bordo forgets that we still have the Tobacco Documents:
https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/tobacco/results/#q=Seitz&h=%7B%22hideDuplicates%22%3Afalse%2C%22hideFolders%22%3Atrue%7D&subsite=tobacco&cache=true&count=4398
Hmmm, digging into the archives of an anti-tobacco lobbyist group. Since most of those documents don’t even seem to be about ”Fred Seitz” did you find any that represented a smoking gun for Fred having sold out his fame for a few dollars?
Most people that do that lack fame and are instead doing it to gain fame. . . .or a promotion.
Gill, Gill,
What does the fact that Big Tobacco has correspondence with other people than Fred tells you exactly?
Wandering Wee Willy,
Back to the point.
How many words does your non-existent GHE description contain?
Yes, I know, I’m taunting the mentally disabled – you.
Learn to live with it, idiot.
Mike Flynn,
“Back”?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard says:
”Gill, Gill,
What does the fact that Big Tobacco has correspondence with other people than Fred tells you exactly?”
What it tells me is completely irrelevant Willard. . . I am not advancing a narrative on the topic. I was just inquiring what you found that was relevant within the correspondence. Having trouble answering that question? I am not surprised somebody who simply believes what their daddy told them usually doesn’t bother to even look.
Gill does not advance narratives:
> Most people that do that lack fame and are instead doing it to gain fame. . . .or a promotion.
He is just offering theories.
Thats not a narrative its a fact that is true as it is simply an application of the laws of supply and demand.
People who cheat are more likely to be lacking anything to lose. As price goes up demand goes down.
Coming back to Sanger et al 2023 and stratosphere temperatures.
The stronger Sun hypothesis predicts that increased solar insolation would produce a warmer troposphere and a warmer stratosphere.
A cooler stratosphere indicates that the solar hypothesis is wrong since it does not fit the evidence.
Remember “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Sorry, Eben, it is not “the Sun, stupid”.
Do I live in Dystrophic man’s head ?
Do you mean Santer et al or Sanger et al?
Santer.
I hate my autocorrect!
Virtual Planetary Laboratory team members have also participated in projects related to comparative planetology of planetary atmospheres and orbital dynamics. In Robinson and Catling (2014), VPL scientists used simple models to explain why Earth, Titan, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have a local minimum in their atmospheric temperatures near 0.1 bar (Figure 2). By understanding the generalities of this phenomenon, Robinson and Catling were able to conclude that many exoplanets will also have 0.1 bar temperature minima, which could be used to help deduce the surface temperature or pressure of a potentially Earth-like planet, thereby constraining its habitability.
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/annual-reports/2014/vpl-uw/solar-system-analogs-for-exoplanet-observations/index.html
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
“At atmospheric pressures below 0.1 bar, transparency to thermal radiation allows shortwave heating to dominate, forming the stratosphere. At higher pressures, the atmosphere becomes opaque to thermal radiation, causing temperatures to increase with depth and convection.”
The problem with the media is that reporters who know very little if any basic science report highly speculate studies as absolute fact. Very often they start a sentence with the phrase “in the latest study”, as if that makes it more meaningful, or “with climate change we can expect”. Most of the public think that weather has always been the same pattern every year, and any change from year to year is evidence that “climate change is already happening”. Odd weather events and “new records” for 30 year-old weather reporting stations are another source of disinformation.
Most of the public have been told that ‘it is always getting hotter’ to the point that they believe it to be fact.
People are always surprised when I tell them that the El Nino event of 1878 was at least as big as the one in 2016.
Not only that, the public is mislead as to the degree of warming, that it could be catastrophic.
roy…from article…”Cooling is not warming”.
***
Why is it necessary to walk alarmists through such basic science? They confuse infrared energy with heat. IR is not heat.
In some posts above, alarmists are taking shots at Berry’s theory about the ocean continuing to increase it’s out-gassing of CO2, contradicting the IPCC view the increase is due only to anthropogenic CO2.
Another no-brainer. It is a well-established fact that CO2 is absorbed in colder water and out-gassed in warmer water. The Little Ice ended circa 1850 after 400+ years of cooling the oceans. As the oceans gradually warm, they out-gas CO2.
What’s the beef, this is basic science? The oceans will continue to out-gas Co2 as they warm from the LIA. Berry simply stated it more eloquently and in greater detail.
This is a double whammy. The LIA would also have reduced atmospheric CO2 levels, since the colder oceans absorbed some of it. It makes sense that with warming oceans, the level in the atmosphere would begin to increase. Over 400+ years, the reduction in atmospheric CO2 was likely significant.
What is wrong with alarmists brains that prevent them understanding even the very basics of science?
Scientists & the media really need to start using a different term other than “the greenhouse effect” – because it’s misleading, & only gives a very rudimentary idea of what’s going on.
It implies Earth is surrounded by a glass shell, blocking convection with space.
The fact of the matter is, Earth’s atmosphere is an open system, and as such is constantly losing heat to space. Greenhouses don’t do that.
exactly.
> It implies Earth is surrounded by a glass shell
It’s obviously not.
The Earth is hollow.
Weary Wee Willy,
As Joe said –
“The fact of the matter is, Earths atmosphere is an open system, and as such is constantly losing heat to space.”
You respond “The Earth is hollow.”
How many words are there in the Greenhouse Effect description you claim to have? Or are you just going to respond “The Earth is hollow”?
Idiot. The Earth is cooling, fool.
Mike Flynn,
The Earth cools more slowly than the Moon.
Why is that – is it because there’s tin foil all around it?
Deceitful cretin.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You idiot. The Moon has a far greater surface/mass ratio! Of course it cooled faster! What rate does each cool at presently? You don’t know, do you?
Have you now changed the description of the GHE to “a phenomenon which results in cooling of matter?” You can’t actually say, can you?
That’s because you have no description. If you did, you could at least say how many words are in it!
And you can’t!
What a fantasizing idiot you are!
Mike Flynn,
Are you suggesting that you now dispute that the atmosphere plays a role in slowing down the cooling of the Earth?
That would be a rare case of a sock puppet contradicting its master!
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Are you suggesting that you now dispute that the atmosphere plays a role in slowing down the cooling of the Earth?”
Are your gotchas getting more richly bizarre than ever?
Are you suggesting you are not an idiot?
Why won’t you tell anyone how many words there are in the GHE you can’t produce?
Have you given up on claiming the GHE causes warming, cooling, both or neither?
[laughing at idiot desperately clutching at barbed wire fragments while drowning]
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
Something, I guess.
Who cares?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ok Ok, to satisfy both the warmists & skeptics it should be called,
‘the greenhouse -with lots of large holes- effect’, or something to that effect.
“The Earth is hollow.”
Just as it is flat. Idiot.
Joe says:
”Scientists & the media really need to start using a different term other than the greenhouse effect because its misleading, & only gives a very rudimentary idea of whats going on.
It implies Earth is surrounded by a glass shell, blocking convection with space.”
No doubt they would if they could. . . .but its a problem they haven’t yet figured out.
“only gives a very rudimentary idea of whats going on.”
No surprise there. Science generally can’t be accurately described in a phrase.
Also see ’10 gallon hat’ by Tim F.
“Newton’s law of universal gravitation is usually stated as that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.”
Feel free to describe the “greenhouse effect” using as many phrases as you like.
Does it heat or cool objects? How much? Where? At night? And so on.
I’m only taunting you – you can’t describe the GHE at all, no matter how many paragraphs you use.
Oh well, I guess you can’t help being an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
The Moon cools fast. No atmosphere.
The Earth cools more slowly. Atmosphere.
The greenhouse effect.
Willard surmises that if he begs the question he will make a convincing argument.
Gill uses words he fails to understand once again.
Nope! You left out that the earth also warms more slowly.
Since you are a card carrying member of that science cult that believes a man can become a woman and vice versa. . .one can just assume you will believe anything yo daddy tells you.
Gill, Gill,
If does not matter much if the Earth warms more slowly if in the end it cools more slowly.
Take jobs with pension plans. The young might complain about getting less wine money right now. But the old won’t whine complain about having more for retirement.
It’s as simple as that.
willard claims that warming more slowly doesn’t affect mean temperature over time while cooling more slowly does.
willard obviously will claim anything his daddy tells him to claim.
Gill claims he does not understand stocks and flows.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“The Moon cools fast. No atmosphere.
The Earth cools more slowly. Atmosphere.
The greenhouse effect.”
You didn’t mention –
The Moon heats fast. No atmosphere.
The Earth heats more slowly. Atmosphere.
Both have cooled.
What are you babbling about? “Greenhouse effect”? Maybe you are confused because you are an idiot. You can’t admit that your “greenhouse effect” results in a drop in temperature, can you?
That’s because you are delusional, as well as being an idiot.
Keep it up.
Mike Flynn,
There’s something about the atmosphere that creates an effect.
An effect according to which the cooling of the Earth is being slowed down.
How would you call that effect?
Willard says:
Theres something about the atmosphere that creates an effect.
An effect according to which the cooling of the Earth is being slowed down.
How would you call that effect?
——————————-
Its called the Greenhouse Effect Willard. The problem is if you don’t know how it works you can’t know how it varies.
I can only shake my head.
“The Moon cools fast. No atmosphere.
The Earth cools more slowly. Atmosphere.”
Actually, the amount of energy radiated from both objects is darn near identical after factoring in albedo.
Richard M,
Shake away.
As I said, the airless cools much more quickly, and to lower temperatures, than the Earth.
No atmosphere, you see.
In reverse, the Moon also reaches a higher temperature, in a shorter period of time, than the Earth. The Earth’s atmosphere prevents about 35% of sunlight even reaching the surface.
Too much head-shaking may have scrambled your brain. It certainly hasn’t made you look intelligent by rejecting reality.
Richard M says:
I can only shake my head.
The Moon cools fast. No atmosphere.
The Earth cools more slowly. Atmosphere.
Actually, the amount of energy radiated from both objects is darn near identical after factoring in albedo.
————————-
Yes indeed its true. But the takeaway is that the moon has more extreme climate than the earth. Greenhouse gases, clouds, etc. make the climate less extreme.
Thats the takeaway. Folks have been doing a whole lot of lying on something that is incredibly simple.
Nate you already struck out and clearly demonstrated that you had no supportable explanation for an alternative to a glass shell either here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1488801
So just stop pretending you do.
Nothing there but the usual blather from my stalker.
Yep the usual blather that Nate has zero response to even after spending 15 days trying to figure out a response.
Nope, just not taking the bait..and going down yet another rabbit hole to nowhere.
Greenhouses have internal convection, and lose heat to the outside by conduction and radiation, but not by convection.
The Earth’s atmosphere has internal convection, and loses heat to space, but not by convection.
So not that different, actually.
I agree the atmosphere works like a greenhouse and I agree for the same reason you outlined above.
But Modtran doesn’t work like that.
Earlier, EM wrote –
“The result was that enormous amounts of lignin accumulated, providing the raw material for most coal deposits and depleting atmospheric CO2.”
And now I suppose you want to complain about mankind restoring the CO2 to the atmosphere?
It’s obviously wonderful plant food, otherwise there wouldn’t be so much biomass under the ground in the form of “fossil fuels”. Is it the fact it has to be taken out of the ground?
So do iron for steel, lime for concrete, raw materials for plastics, minerals for making glass, and all sorts of other things.
Run away, find an isolated place, and starve while you freeze in the dark if you like. More stuff for me!
Carry on.
“And now I suppose you want to complain about mankind restoring the CO2 to the atmosphere?”
Go right ahead.
You’d like a return to Carboniferous conditions. Average temperature 5C warmer. High sea levels. Coastal plains all flooded. All our infrastructure under water but think of the fishing!
EM,
Are you sure? The fact that fossil fuels are found up to 12 km below present sea levels might indicate that sea levels might actually fall, not rise.
As to average temperature, returning CO2 to the atmosphere is not going to reverse the cooling that has occurred over the past four and a half billion years (up to the start o& the Carboniferous), any more than CO2 can restore the heat from your cooling hot beverage.
You say a lot of silly things, rejecting reality. The GHE is nonsense, and you can’t even tell me how many words are in its description, because you can’t count what doesn’t exist, can you?
Go on, tell me the benefits of restricting food production by withholding that essential plant food, CO2. There are even idiots who want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, ensuring the demise of the human race! You are not one of those, I hope?
I’ll wager you won’t even commit yourself to an “optimal” level of CO2 in the atmosphere, giving factually based reasons for your view!
I’m always prepared to support my views with facts. You?
“The fact that fossil fuels are found up to 12 km below present sea levels might indicate that sea levels might actually fall, not rise. ”
The land also rises and sinks, witness fossil sea shells round on Mt. Everest.
” cooling that has occurred over the past four and a half billion years ”
Distinguish between the Earth’s interior and it’s surface. The interior has cooled steadily forfour and a half billion years.
In the past billion years the surface has varied irregularly between averages of 5C and 25C.
“Go on, tell me the benefits of restricting food production by withholding that essential plant food, CO2. ”
After 2 million years adapting to CO2 between 180 and 280ppm some plants are not coping well. Their biomass has increased, but a smaller proportion of it is edible.
“Ill wager you wont even commit yourself to an optimal level of CO2 in the atmosphere, giving factually based reasons for your view!”
Actually I can. The planet does not have an optimum temperature. Biomes move with the changes.
We do have an optimum. Our civilization was mostly built in the 19th and early 20th centuries and optimised for local conditions when the global average was around 13.8C.
We are now 1C above that optimum and drifting further away.
EM,
You are talking nonsense again, but at least you accept the reality that sea levels have varied in a roughly 15000 m zone in the past, say from oil now at 12 km below sea level, to marine fossils at 6 km above present sea levels.
As to average “global” temperatures, nobody can say with any accuracy what the present average global temperature is. Talking about temperatures in the past billion years is just silly.
You ask the following silly question “Distinguish between the Earths interior and its surface.”
Why? Before the advent of man, the source of ephemeral surface heating was the Sun. If you are trying to imply that the surface magically heated and cooled, while the matter beneath just kept on cooling, you need to be prepared for laughter. Maybe you can produce an inert object with a core temperature over 100 C, the surface of which will spontaneously get hotter and colder when exposed to continuous sunlight.
You claim you can provide an optimal CO2 level, then claim there isn’t one! You go on to claim that “our” civilization is optimized for local conditions, and a global average of 13.8 C – which is just nonsensical word salad.
You really have no clue, do you? Putting more CO2 back into the atmosphere (a side benefit of producing energy to better mankind as a whole) seems to have more advantages than disadvantages. Particularly, combined with the H2O which is also a combustion product of fossil fuels, food production increases, diurnal variations decrease, leading to increased habitable areas for humans.
Panic if you wish. Neither you, nor anybody else, can prevent the climate from changing. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Accept reality, or look like an idiot.
I agree; the earth does not have an optimum temperature.
That is probably the best message we can give to the climate wankers.
The best is the enemy of the good, just like the crank is the enemy of the contrarian.
Just like Willard is an idiot.
And the cycle nut.
Just because I believe that there are natural oscillations (of varying periods) does not mean I think that they are sine wave like cycles.
Just because you try to portray cycles as sine waves, that does not mean periodic functions are not cyclical.
Orbital factors are predictable, most natural systems other than that are oscillations, not cycles.
P.S. Statistical analysis uses sin (and cos) waves but as most wavelet analysis (for example) shows these normally are not regular.
What does ARMA stands for, again?
This one?
https://arma.org.uk/
P.P.S. “A major drawback of the SMA is that it lets through a significant amount of the signal shorter than the window length. Worse, it actually inverts it. This can lead to unexpected artifacts, such as peaks in the smoothed result appearing where there were troughs in the data. It also leads to the result being less smooth than expected since some of the higher frequencies are not properly removed.”
“From a statistical point of view, the moving average, when used to estimate the underlying trend in a time series, is susceptible to rare events such as rapid shocks or other anomalies. A more robust estimate of the trend is the simple moving median over n time points”
Or you could just go with what VP said.
“In ARMA it is assumed that the time series is stationary and when it fluctuates, it does so uniformly around a particular time.”
“a time series with cyclic behaviour (but with no trend or seasonality) is stationary”
“with no trend or seasonality“
“In general, a stationary time series will have no predictable patterns in the long-term.”
> with no trend or seasonality
Exactly.
Now, what is climate change?
Well on Earth we sure have seasons. And even anomalies have regular signals in them.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Now, what is climate change?”
Are you really so stupid or ignorant that you don’t know what climate is?
Rhetorical question – of course you are so stupid and ignorant that you don’t know what climate is.
You might be an idiot, but at least you are capable of boasting about how stupid and ignorant you are.
Carry on.
[sniggers at dimwit trying for a gotcha]
Mike Flynn,
If I emphasize change, chances are that I’m not asking what climate is.
Cheers.
Willard normally claims that is an upwards trend in the climate then argues that even with a trend, climate is stationary. You can’t make these things up.
> even anomalies
Are anomalies stationary?
Richard usually claims that climate change can be explained with cycles, and is about to discover why this is false.
Willard lies as always. Cycles (implying regularity) are not the same as natural patterns (which do not have a regular, repeatable rhythms, like clouds/weather systems/fronts, etc.)
Natural factors are very rarely predictably cyclic (except for orbital factors).
“Are anomalies stationary?”
Nope.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg
And for one that returns to the center line
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-tropics.jpeg
Richard is confused once again: natural cycles are cycles. That’s why we call them cycles. They contain some kind of periodicity. That does not imply we can predict their occurrence, their amplitude, or whatnot. First they’re chaotic, and second they’re noisy. And noise is stationary.
wee willy, why are you so dense as to take on Richard, who is light years ahead of you in the field of statistics?
C’mon, Bordo.
You wouldn’t be able to recognize someone who knows stats even your betting account depended on it.
“natural cycles are cycles. Thats why we call them cycles.”
Natural cycles are oscillations. Thats why we incorrectly call them cycles.
Cycles are like sin waves. Oscillations are natural with a predominant period but other things too that beat against that predominant period.
P.S. We need to split things into 2 separate areas.
1. Is things that are predictably periodic like orbital factors, 24 hours and 365.25 days for instance. Lunar cycles, though predictable, are quite complex.
2. Weather fronts, pressure, clouds, precipitation, even global temperature which by their very nature (when not related to 1) are quite chaotic.
> Oscillation is the repetitive or periodic variation, typically in time, of some measure about a central value (often a point of equilibrium) or between two or more different states. Familiar examples of oscillation include a swinging pendulum and alternating current
Not a cycle, obviously.
> Cycles are like sin waves
Richard might never let go of that false notion.
This is the unit root to all his conceptual difficulties.
Willard will always be a idiot.
“All real-world oscillator systems are thermodynamically irreversible.”
Real-world oscillator systems INCLUDE regular cycles. They are not limited just to them.
99.97% a greece
https://youtu.be/wT1Hs6fP4Gk
Only an idiot would believe that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is man-made. One of those idiots, as revealed in the video, is Barack Obama.
I noted in the video that the quote is attributed to John Cook, claimed in the article to be from a university. Cook, who runs skepticalscience has an undergraduate degree even though he passes himself off as a solar scientist. He is currently employed as a cartoonist.
The real studies that began the 97% claim, pre Cook, used sample sizes of about 1000 and 3000 respectively and they asked one simple question to which anyone, including myself, would have to reply in the affirmative. One of those studies is by Naomi Oreskes, a person who claims consensus is a valid form of science.
Oreskes was called by Mike Mann in his libel suit. The more one pursues the source of the 97% claim, the more one is lured into a black hole of deceit.
The thermosphere in the 25th solar cycle does not reach the warm level and the graph drops. In this cycle, there will be one stronger solar peak and solar activity will decline rapidly. Unlike in the previous cycle, spots appear synchronously in both solar hemispheres.
https://spaceweather.com/images2023/03jun23/TCI_Daily_NO_Power_Percentiles.png
Blackbody properties and blackbody emission curve are physical abstractions.
–
It is not defined the actual physical mechanism a blackbody emits
EM radiation.
–
Real materials emit EM radiation.
–
The material’s emissivity (ε) is the physical criteria of how well a material emits EM radiation, compared to black body.
–
A real material’s emissivity ε = 1 means that at temperature T the material emits of the same exactly intensity EM radiation as does the black body at the same temperature T.
–
The material’s emissivity ε = 1 does not mean the material’s emission spectra curve should be the same of the black body.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…blackbody theory dates back to about 1850, when Kircheoff first offered the theory. His theory references only bodies in thermal equilibrium. The point is, it is not even a theory but an unproved hypothesis.
There is an excellent explanation of the theory by mathematician Claes Johnson, which includes the pros and cons of the theory. Blackbody theory is usually presented incorrectly.
Read the chapter ‘1.3 Blackbody radiation in Words’…
https://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf
From the paper…
-“A blackbody acts like a transformer of radiation which absorbs high-frequency radiation and emits low-frequency radiation. The temperature of the blackbody determines a cut-off frequency for the emission, which increases linearly with the temperature: The warmer the blackbody is, the higher frequencies it can and will emit. Thus only frequencies below cut-off are emitted, while all frequencies are being absorbed”.
-“A blackbody acts like a censor which filters out coherent high-frequency (dangerous) information by transforming it into incoherent (harmless) noise. The IPCC acts like a blackbody by filtering coherent critical information, transforming it into incoherent nonsense perceived as global warming”.
-“The net result is that a warm blackbody can heat a cold blackbody, but not the other way around. A teacher can teach a student but not the other way around. The hot Sun heats the colder Earth, but the Earth does not heat the Sun. A warm Earth surface can heat a cold atmospheric layer, but a cold atmosphere cannot heat a warm Earth surface. A blackbody is heated only by frequencies which it cannot emit, but has to store as heat energy. There is no “backradiation” from the atmosphere to the Earth. There is no “greenhouse effect” from “backradiation”. fig. 5 propagated by NASA thus displays fictional non-physical recirculating radiation with an Earth surface emitting 117% while absorbing 48% from the Sun”.
Thank you, Gordon.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I am new to the climate change debate but I do have a question. Adding energy to a gaseous system can raise the temperature, yes. But the atmosphere is not constrained except by gravity. So why wouldnt the system also change volume, PV=nRT, minimizing the temperature rise? If there is a simple explanation I appologize.
stephen p. anderson
I am hoping you have enough science left in you to consider evidence. I know you strongly believe in Berry’s assessment of CO2 in the atmosphere but strong evidence proves he is incorrect. You can still believe what you want but evidence does not support his ideas at all.
First, the human race is emitting currently 34 billion metric tons of CO2 a year. The atmosphere has a mass of 5.1480 x 10^18 kg. 34 billion metric tons equals 34 x 10^12 kg. If you divide up you get that this amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere would add 6.6 PPM per year (per mass). The rise in CO2 is at this time 2.6 PPM per year so you are adding much more CO2 than it is rising in the atmosphere. That is one blow against Berry but the biggest is actual measured evidence to prove his ideas are without merit.
Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04
This is a year of monitoring CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This does not show any outgassing of CO2 from the oceans and you suppose. The Southern oceans are warmed in our winter but the CO2 concentration is highest in the North were most CO2 emitters are. It even shows CO2 levels dropping during Summer months in North as plant growth consumes atmospheric CO2 but then in Winter the CO2 levels increase again (this could not logically be from ocean outgassing as the water is much colder and in the Artic getting covered with ice).
If you look at the evidence with an open mind you will see Berry’s hypothesis is wrong and disproven by the evidence available. I can’t make you reject it but the evidence certainly does.
Norman,
Maybe you should read his papers instead of offering something he has already demonstrated as false. He goes through the mathematics of all human emissions from 1750 to the present based on your (IPCC) numbers and estimates. He demonstrates mathematically that humans could have only caused at most 30ppm of the 130ppm increase. Maybe you should stop assuming and look at his Physics Model.
“Maybe you should read his papers”
Stephen, you will never get balanced view of this issue unless you read papers other than Berry’s. Like the ones from 60 y ago that showed that his model was insufficient.
The ocean is warming; albeit slowly. So off-gassing must occur. The only real point of contention is how much of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to off-gassing and how much is due to emissions.
I too tend to think the global increase in atmospheric CO2 is mostly emissions. But I think Berry is right in that not all of it is emissions.
It doesn’t mean anything; the earth does not have an optimum temperature.
The ocean certainly outgasses. But it also takes carbon from the atmosphere as well because of the over pressure. The rate of uptake has increased more than the rate of outgassing which is why the ocean is a net sink. According to Takahashi et al. 1993 (DOI:10.1029/93GB02263) a change dT = 1 C results in about a 17 ppm reduction in buffering due to the increased outgassing. So had the ocean not warmed by about 1 C then it would have taken 99 ppm from the atmosphere instead of the 82 ppm that it actually took. It might be useful to know that humans pumped 315 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere. Of that 82 ppm got taking by the hydrosphere, 99 ppm got taken by the biosphere, and 130 ppm stayed in the atmosphere. See Friedlingstein et al. 2023 (DOI:10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022) for details.
No, that’s stovepipe physics and a misapplication of the Bern Model. Berry corrects that too. Studying physics and calculus at Caltech and then getting his Ph.D. in physics at Nevada made it simple.
BGDWX,
You and Nate, and Ent need to confer. You can’t keep your stories straight.
I lot of people have PhDs. Having one does not justify assuming that the agent most responsible for the mixing ratio of reservoir parcels is the same agent most responsible for the mass within the reservoir.
FWIW,
https://wcdirectory.ametsoc.org/uploads/curriculum-vitae/edwin-x-berry-berry-8545.pdf
No real chemistry there, and 1965 was a looooooong time ago.
Stephen, really? He went to CalTech, so he must be right.
That is horrible logic.
In reality, man has only contributed about 16-20ppm of the 420ppm CO2. However, Berry took the most conservative approach, made the most conservative assumption, and concluded that man contributed 30ppm. Natural emissions dwarf human emissions. And Mother Earth adapts to the changes. Berry’s math falsifies AGW and supports the evidence (EVIDENCE-that’s for you Norman) CO2 follows temperature on short and long time scales.
stephen p. anderson
I downloaded the Berry CO2 paper and am reading through it. I think he makes a wrong assumption that he goes on to disprove. He makes the claim that the IPCC claims that human made CO2 stays in the atmosphere and only natural made returns to sinks. I do not believe any scientist is making this claim and I think he is correct to disprove it if someone did.
He gives an example of a bucket being filled with water. I can use this to show you how human added CO2 will increase the total flow of CO2.
Without a new source of CO2 there would be a net balance in ocean and atmosphere with some fluctuations caused by various effects but overall you would not get more CO2 without some input source.
Something in my post is messing up the submission. Sending it in parts for you to analyze stephen p anderson
So with the water bucket example he has an input source and a hole that removes the water and the bucket achieves a certain level based upon how much is added and how much is removed. In nature the inflow comes from the outflow, it just circulates between sinks and atmospheric CO2.So if you have this bucket with circulating water you can get variations in the bucket level, say the inflow changes but the total amount does not. Now you have a new source of water that was not part of the previous circulating system. Even if you add a much smaller amount than the total amount circulating the bucket level will increase over time.
Assuming the inflow does not increase the outflow.
Norman,
All your blather about buckets is admirable, but it still wont help you.
CO2 warms nothing, no matter how many buckets you put it in.
Maybe you could tell me how many words are in the description of the GHE, if you are too shy to post the description itself. And no, an irrelevant link to something that is not a description, is not a description.
I’ll help you out. You could start by saying “The GHE is a phenomenon which may be observed . . . “, then follow with a useful description. Or maybe it can’t be observed at all? Maybe the fact that the Earth has cooled, rather than getting hotter, is not due to the GHE phenomenon?
Come on, destroy the skeptics by demonstrating that you have a valid description of the GHE at your fingertips. Wave it proudly, and don’t hide your light under a bushel (or a bucketful of CO2, if you prefer).
If you can’t even describe the GHE, people might well assume that you are just another delusional SkyDragon cult idiot, don’t you think?
Off you go, now. How hard can it be?
RHL
I think you are an intelligent poster so I can reason with you. I think Berry’s Logic it terribly flawed and he is only looking at a portion of the issue and not the larger picture. He is so wanting to prove AGW wrong he blinds himself. I think he might be quite intelligent but I think his logic is very poor.
The level in the bucket will still increase even with an increase in outflow because you are adding more to the whole, the inflow is from the same source as the outflow.
Maybe think of the hydrological system and ocean level. You can have various sinks for ocean level. Ice on land lowers the level, water vapor in the air lowers the level. Rivers and lakes on land lower the level. Water stored in deep underground systems can permanently lower the level if it is not removed.
So the ocean level can vary as different sinks store more or less of the ocean portion but the total water of the entire system does not change. Now if you start massive irrigation projects and start pumping out deep reserves of water that was no longer part of the hydrological system then the ocean level will rise relative to the variations. It might go down if more ice is being formed on land but it will not go down as much with the addition of the new source of water. You are adding to the total amount and that is where Berry’s logic is so bad. He is concerned mostly that nature is emitting far more CO2 than man so man’s effects are minimal. The glaring difference is humans are adding from sources that were no longer part of the carbon cycle. It will increase the overall amount so the natural flow will increase and can vary but the overall amount will go upward for all parts of the carbon cycle. Plants will store more, water can hold more (Henry’s Law), atmosphere will store more. Everything will go up. Just as with the water cycle. If you add more water to the system each portion can store more because it has more.
I think Berry is missing this in his paper and it is a glaring logic problem. Most likely why he would not attempt to get it published because that would be a question asked.
If you add more substance than the overall amount increases, right?
> I think you are an intelligent poster
That’s overly generous, Norman.
Norman: Anything to with inflow and outflow IRL has to deal with the position of them relative to the surface. You can create more inflow by moving the input to a lower level (as any sailor will tell you).
You need a better model to describe what you are thinking of.
> not all of it is emissions
Ed is right.
It is more than all of it:
https://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2015/01/more-than-all.html
I haven’t been keeping up with Ed Berry’s research, but if it annoys Norman and the other trolls so much, Ed must be doing something right.
I know my tomato plants are so big they’re scary. The monsters must be consuming large amounts of CO2. They compete with the trees, bushes, and grass. I hope they don’t run out of food.
> I havent been keeping up with Ed Berrys research, but
Sums up your decade of trolling under various sock puppets, Pupman.
You might like:
https://theclimatebrink.substack.com/p/is-co2-plant-food
If Skeptics could ever get organized, things could get straightened out. Industries that add CO2 to the atmosphere could get tax breaks based on how much they add. This would benefit the transportation industry — planes, trains, and truckers.
Some say we cant get to 800 ppm, but they said we couldnt get to Moon.
I concur, Clint. This planet will need all the CO2 in the atmosphere it can produce once it turns cooler. However, it’s (cooling) one of the Creator’s ways of curbing our excesses. Then we get to start again.
We will need more CO2 in the atmosphere to feed 10 billion hungry mouths. CO2 can not warm, it can only cool. But at 800 ppm, any cooling would be lost in the noise.
We actually have more than enough to feed 10B people, Pupman:
https://medium.com/@jeremyerdman/we-produce-enough-food-to-feed-10-billion-people-so-why-does-hunger-still-exist-8086d2657539
Why is that?
Wistful Wee Willy,
Appeals to journalism now? Predictions of imminent doom, even?
You really are exceptionally gullible if you believe anyone can foresee the future better than a twelve year old child.
Climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations. Of course it changes, you idiot. Sometimes for the better – the breaking of a drought, or for worse – the coming of a drought.
Do you your climate is going to get better or worse? Hotter, colder, drier, wetter?
Does everybody else like the same climate as you?
You are an idiot. Accept reality.
Mike Flynn,
Do you have a point, and why is the Earth atmosphere slowing down the cooling of the Earth?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Are you claiming that the GHE is responsible for cooling the Earth?
If so, you are more of an idiot that I thought.
Ah, the magic of the indescribable GHE! Cools, heats, does both simultaneously – or neither.
There is no GHE, you fool. You can’t even decide whether it should heat or cool the planet.
At least you are forced to accept the reality that the Earth has cooled.
Good for you (although you don’t really have a choice, do you?j.
Mike Flynn,
You claim that there is no greenhouse effect. You also claim that the Earth atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth.
How do you reconcile the two claims?
Thanks in advance!
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
You claim that there is no greenhouse effect. You also claim that the Earth atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth.
How do you reconcile the two claims?
Thanks in advance!”
Of course there is no greenhouse effect. Delusional SkyDragon cultists invented the term for no particular reason that I can see – and you can’t think of one either, can you?. I suppose you believe in the gas-operated electrical rubber guitar effect, too. I can’t describe that any better than you can describe the greenhouse effect, so neither exists.
As to the cooling of the Earth, what are you babbling about? What is the role of the non-existent GHE in cooling? None at all, unless you can at least describe the mythical GHE.
If it doesnt exist, how can it have an effect?
Mike Flynn,
So you can’t reconcile the claim that there is no greenhouse effect with the claim that the Earth atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth.
That’s fair. Neither would I.
Cheers.
Witless Wee Willy,
There is no greenhouse effect.
Mike Flynn,
You keep asserting that there is no greenhouse effect. Yet you keep claiming that the atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth.
Is it just the name that displeases you, deceitful cretin?
wee willy…addressed to a mysterious Mike Flynn…
“You keep asserting that there is no greenhouse effect. Yet you keep claiming that the atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth”.
***
Newton explained it. The difference in temperature between the surface and the atmosphere in contact with it determines the rate of heat dissipation. Nothing to do with radiation or GHGs.
Of course, convection makes it work. The surface heats mainly O2/N2 molecules and they rise, allowing cooler air to reach the surface. The rate of dissipation is controlled by the temperature of the descending air.
Explanation courtesy I. Newton, as channeled by G. Robertson, Esq.
Witless Wee Willy,
There is no greenhouse effect.
To be an esquire you have to be a gentleman, Bordo.
C’mon.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“If Skeptics could ever get organized”
Tee hee hee. They can’t even agree on which ‘one weird trick’ proves AGW wrong.
No tricks needed, troll Nate. Reality proves GHE wrong.
The cooling trend claimed for the lower stratosphere isn’t as simple as it would appear. As shown in the attached graphs, all three groups which provide MSU/AMSU data products for the Lower Stratosphere show little cooling after about 1999. Simply calculating a trend over the entire data set would produce a negative rend, but this result is strongly influenced by the warming spikes from El Chichon and Pinatubo.
Data for UAH and RSS last year:
https://app.box.com/s/ou8mtneeceekeek5an2263k3osrclyws
PFD file of NOAA STAR data (may require download):
https://app.box.com/s/7gnza1xap51gglofgx6y0ptvhuvdryak
I noticed that too. Do you have any ideas to what is going on?
bdgwx, it’s real easy to figure out *what is going on*.
Your cults nonsense isnt working. Reality always wins. So you have to torture the data, in your continuing effort to pervert science.
Buzz off Clint. Some people are making real contributions to the discussion. All that your insults do is discourage discussion.
BUZZ OFF CLOWN.
Ken, where have I ever insulted anyone that didn’t insult me first?
Why do you fake skeptics feel the need to attack REAL Skeptics?
Jealousy? Envy? Immaturity?
Perhaps here, Pupman:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/do-gcms-model-a-flat-earth/#comment-114329
Ah, the good ol’ days
Ken,
You shouted “BUZZ OFF CLOWN.”
If nobody “buzzes off”, you are powerless to do anything at all about it!
Why issue commands that you can’t enforce? Do you really think anybody is going to do what some anonymous commenter demands? At least Bindidon would threaten torture or slow death by disease if people failed to dance to his tune. He is also an impotent idiot.
Maybe you could toss a few facts into your comments. “Discussions” by delusional SkyDragon cultists change nothing at all.
Mike Flynn,
Kennui made an inexcusable mistake –
He should have said BUZZ OFF BUFFOON.
When you’ll grow up you and Pupman might one day become clowns.
For now you’re just sock puppet buffoons.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
test
C’mon, Bordo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
bdgwx, I should have read the Santer et al. PNAS paper before posting. They mention the change in trend for the LS/TLS data and suggest it’s a combination of a reduction in the effects of the recovery of the Ozone Hole over the Antarctic combined with an increase in the altitude of the Trpopause due to the GHE warming. One other point of interest is that the NOAA STAR TLS has a peak emission weighting at a lower altitude than RSS or UAH.
There are some differences between the three data sets, some of which is due to the different base periods each group selected to calculate their anomalies. One other point of interest is that the products may have theoretical peak emission weighting at somewhat different altitudes.
How does any of this gobbledygook affect the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years? Is CO2 in the atmosphere a modern phenomenon?
CO2 levels have been far higher in the past, but the planet cooled anyway.
What are you babbling about?
Mike Flynn,
We have CO2 in the atmosphere since a long time.
We have CO2 produced by humans since humans are here.
The two types of CO2 have a different signature.
Ask any chemical engineer.
Long live and prosper.
How does any of this gobbledygook affect the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years? Is CO2 in the atmosphere a modern phenomenon?
CO2 levels have been far higher in the past, but the planet cooled anyway.
What are you babbling about?
Mike Flynn,
Today, the Earth has an atmosphere.
Yesterday, the Earth had an atmosphere.
Tomorrow, the Earth will have an atmosphere.
The atmosphere slows down of the cooling of the Earth at all time.
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Today, the Earth has an atmosphere.
Yesterday, the Earth had an atmosphere.
Tomorrow, the Earth will have an atmosphere.
The atmosphere slows down of the cooling of the Earth at all time.
Cheers.”
And? No increase in temperature? No imminent danger of boiling, roasting, frying, or toasting? That’s a relief – no need to worry about CO2 then, is there?
By the way, did you forget to include “The atmosphere slows down the heating of the Earth at all time [sic].”?
You don’t need to to thank me – from time to time, I help out those less fortunate than myself. God knows why.
Mike Flynn,
You copy-pasted my comment. Then you played dumb.
Do you know any chemical engineer by any chance?
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Mike Flynn,
Today, the Earth has an atmosphere.
Yesterday, the Earth had an atmosphere.
Tomorrow, the Earth will have an atmosphere.
The atmosphere slows down of the cooling of the Earth at all time.
Cheers.”
And? No increase in temperature? No imminent danger of boiling, roasting, frying, or toasting? Thats a relief no need to worry about CO2 then, is there?
By the way, did you forget to include “The atmosphere slows down the heating of the Earth at all time [sic].”?
You dont need to to thank me from time to time, I help out those less fortunate than myself. God knows why.
Mike Flynn,
Once again you copy-pasted my comment and played dumb.
Do you know any chemical engineer by any chance?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Those seem like reasonable hypothesis to me.
bdgwx, is there ANY cult nonsense that does not seem reasonable to you?
Ice cubes boiling water, reasonable?
Passenger jets flying backward, reasonable?
15μ photons warming a 288K surface, reasonable?
You swallow it all, just like the rest of the cult idiots.
Two of your rhetorical questions refer to the same Sky Dragon crank talking point, Pupman.
You only have three talking points. Why forget one?
Worthless willard, as a troll you have the advantage of never having to make sense. You just throw up any nonsense because you don’t have to clean the walls.
Someday, you’ll have to grow up.
The three Dragon cranks talking points are about plates, the Moon, and the zero-dimension energy balance model, Pupman.
Ten years of sock puppetry and you still suck at trolling.
swannie…if y0u had not claimed heat can be transferred cold to hot, by its own means, then adamantly defended that position, I might be more inclined to take you seriously on other matters.
Someone claimed you have had a paper published, how about submitting one about your theory that heat can flow, by its own means, from cold to hot.
“how about submitting one about your theory that heat can flow, by its own means, from cold to hot.”
Scottish physicist JC Maxwell has already established that could happen between 2 gases in contact at different temperatures, Gordon, as you have been told many times before. Maxwell’s theory was then generalized by a German physicist Boltzmann by 1871. There is no need for a new paper.
When Maxwell went to school in Scotland, they called him Daftie Maxwell. Daft as in foolish.
Maxwell was wrong about several things. Of course, he was operating in the dark, having no knowledge of the relationship between electrons and EM.
You, on the other hand, have no excuse. The proof is out there in spades that heat cannot be transferred by its won means from cold to hot.
It’s ok & expected for a science rookie like Gordon to be repeatedly wrong about JC Maxwell work but inexcusable & laughable for Gordon to comment on a science blog before learning how the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of gas particle KE works to transfer thermodynamic internal energy from a colder to a warmer gas.
Gordon could at least ask for help understanding from more astute commenters.
I am puzzled by the apparent proposal of Ball4 ‘that Maxwell said that heat can flow by its own means from a colder to a hotter gas’. Perhaps I have misunderstood what is intended here? Please put me right.
On further reading, I find below Gordon Robertson saying
“your premise that a cooler body can increase the temperature of a hotter body. Direct contravention of the 2nd law.” Unless you have something remarkable to add, don’t bother to try to sort this out for me. It’s probably unsortable in the present company. Gordon Robertson has his fixed idea. Cancel my request for an explanation in more detail.
Christopher, what is remarkable is the work of Maxwell-Boltzmann in statistics showing the distribution of molecular speeds exchanging momentum and kinetic energy with each other in a system at thermodynamic equilibrium resulting from kinetic theory.
M-B distribution showed there is a portion of the number of molecules vs. KE in the cooler sample at certain higher energy states than the number of molecules in the warmer sample. For that M-B regime in number of molecules vs. energy state, KE & momentum moves from the colder sample to the warmer sample producing universe entropy thus in accord with 2LOT.
On net though, of all the molecules contacting each other momentarily at any instant, the total molecular speed KE transfers from warmer object to cooler since the avg. energy is greater than the most probable energy value producing universe entropy in the process thus also in accord.
You should be able to research their work on your own or google string one example at: “ECE6451-28”
Ball4 7:50AM. Thank you for your reply. You have lost me. I don’t understand, and I don’t see where this is going.
Ball4 at 7:50AM 19 June. Ahh! Now I see what you are getting at:
You are talking about two bodies of gas in direct contact, so that molecules can pass between them. This is a problematic scenario, because it admits diffusion of different components of the gases. If the gases are of different composition, so that diffusion of matter is likely, then, according to Max Born, who I think is right, it is not justified to speak of heat transfer; the situation is too complicated.
We may restrict ourselves to the case when the two gases are of one common molecular species. Then you are saying that some fast molecules may pass from the low temperature gas into the contiguous high temperature gas, and that some slow molecules from the low temperature gas may pass into the contiguous high temperature gas. That is a microscopic account. Statistically, those microscopic contributions will be outweighed by others. Is that what you mean? I think heat transfer refers to net macroscopic transfer of energy, not to such microscopic considerations.
Is Gordon clear about what you mean here?
What I mean is M-B distribution of ideal gas particle speed thus KE.
M-B distribution of molecular speeds in Maxwells ideal gas kinetic theory applies to a sealed gas container in equilibrium with the thermodynamic internal energy of its environment. There is no mixing with anything outside the container. KE is exchanged both ways across the border.
At any instant, there is a measure of the total KE of the molecules in the container which is not transferred across the border; only the KE is transferred. There is also a measure of the avg. KE of those molecules which is termed temperature.
Science rookie Gordon is hardly ever clear about physics relevant to the atm.
Ball4 8:17AM 22 June. I am still not clear about what you mean or where you are going.
How is the container sealed? What is the nature of the “border”. Are the walls rigidly held in place? Evidently they are impermeable to matter. Are they impermeable to conduction and radiation of heat? How is kinetic energy (KE) “exchanged both ways across the border”? What does it mean to say that “sealed gas container [is] in equilibrium with the thermodynamic internal energy of its environment”? What is the nature of the surroundings [environment] that possess the thermodynamic internal energy with which the container is in equilibrium?
What is this relevant to?
Relevant to the start of this subthread at 6:47 pm.
You were “puzzled” & my responses show that M-B long ago worked out energy “can be transferred from cold to hot” in ideal gas kinetics. All your questions can be answered by looking up their work. Gordon has not accomplished the pre-req.s to understand M-B; perhaps Christopher has done so.
Ball4 4:43PM 22 June. You are not stating your position clearly enough to make it coherent to look up the classic literature. You talk of just one “sealed container” at the same time as talking of a warmer and a cooler sample. That is incoherent. To persuade a reasonable reader, you would need a coherent statement of your position.
Christopher, to someone that has accomplished the pre-req.s, that the M-B sealed container can be warmer or cooler than its environment ought to be evident. It might even be in equilibrium with its environment. You are making a good case that Christopher, like Gordon, has not accomplished the pre-req.s to understand even the basic studies in meteorology.
Ball4 June 22 8:25 PM
I prefer to stay with conventional terminology. You are talking about a vessel that contains the ‘system’, with walls that separate it from its surroundings. I need you to specify respectively the natures of the system, of the walls, and of the surroundings. Then I need you to specify the process or processes that you are talking about. That is what is needed for a coherent statement of your case.
Christopher’s answers are all provided in the work M-B published in the late 1800s. A modern beginning text book on meteorology such as Bohren & Albrecht ‘Atmospheric Thermodynamics’ 1998 sec. 2.4 “The Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution of Molecular Speeds” will provide the specifications Christopher seeks.
Ball4 June 23, 2023 at 11:20 AM
I am seeking to know specifically and explicitly what Ball4 is focusing on to draw to our attention that he is expecting us to check in his sources, not a general exposition of the topic. Ball4 has made some statements that are not coherently specific; I am seeking coherent focused specification of his own point, not a general exposition of the topic.
(To prevent distracion, right here and now I will refrain from comment on Bohren & Albrecht’s Atmospheric Thermodynamics 1998.)
As I’ve written all along in this sub-thread my own point is specifically, explicitly, and coherently focused with citation on: “learning how the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of gas particle KE works to transfer thermodynamic internal energy from a colder to a warmer gas.”
Ball4 says: June 24, 2023 at 9:32 AM
“As Ive written all along in this sub-thread my own point is specifically, explicitly, and coherently focused with citation on: learning how the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of gas particle KE works to transfer thermodynamic internal energy from a colder to a warmer gas.”
Thermodynamic internal energy is a property of a thermodynamic body or system. Thermodynamics is simply concerned with macroscopic properties and processes.
The MaxwellBoltzmann distribution of gas particles is not simply concerned with macroscopic properties and processes. Instead, it is concerned to explain macroscopic properties and processes in terms of microscopic factors.
Thermodynamic processes are considered in two ways. As differences between thermodynamic states specified by state variables. And as physical processes with no holds barred. As a formal science, thermodynamics abjures talk of physical processes with no holds barred, and cleaves strictly to talk of differences between thermodynamic states specified by state variables, with one crucial exception: thermodynamics recognises a distinction for closed systems between transfers of energy as thermodynamic work and transfers of energy as heat. For closed systems, transfers of energy as work are fully and precisely specified by changes in state variables other than temperature and entropy. The prime examples are pressure and volume; they may be called worklike variables. For closed systems, processes that transfer energy not fully and precisely specified by worklike variables are transfers of energy as heat.
It is regrettable that at present the lead of the Wikipedia article on heat is a shambles.
According to Planck (1926), friction is the most characteristic mode of transfer of energy to a body as heat. Another mode of transfer of energy to a body as heat is radiation. With exceptions for intermediate magnetic fields, radiative transfer obeys the Helmholtz reciprocity principle. I think you are perhaps concerned with transfer of energy as heat from one thermodynamic system to another in direct contact with it? In this case one can recognise both radiative and conductive transfer. In some cases, such as in stars, radiation dominates. In some other cases, conduction dominates.
Your wording … how the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of gas particle KE works to transfer thermodynamic internal energy from a colder to a warmer gas is vague or incoherent. For a rational discussion, I would need something clear and coherent.
Correction: where above at June 24, 2023 at 10:03 PM I wrote
“For closed systems, processes that transfer energy not fully and precisely specified by worklike variables are transfers of energy as heat”
I ought to have written
“For closed systems, processes that transfer energy not fully and precisely specified by internal energy and worklike variables are transfers of energy as heat.”
Christopher, physically for closed systems, processes that transfer energy not fully and precisely specified by worklike variables are transfers of energy by virtue of a temperature difference. Neither work nor heat exist in an object which does contain thermodynamic internal energy.
The M-B distribution of molecular speeds in a container of ideal gas is neither vague nor incoherent. You can learn why by reading the citation I provided or reading another reliable text of your choice.
Ball4 June 26, 2023 at 9:52 AM.
You have lost me. Thank you for your posts.
Gordo is stuck with his usual denialist claim that thermal IR radiation violates the 2nd Law. Perhaps it’s his duty to publish his proof that this is true, thus proving that all the text books on such are wrong. We await his deep dive into the world of peer reviewed scientific publication.
ES,
All radiation is thermal. IR radiation is radiation with wavelengths greater than visible light.
All radiation is subject to the same physical laws.
I am assuming that you believe that radiation can be lost by a cold object (making it drop in temperature) with the energy being absorbed by a hotter object (making it hotter).
The consequence of course, is that the now colder object would continue to get colder, and the hotter to get even hotter, until the colder object reached a ground state at absolute zero!
Complete balderdash! You are quite mad. You couldn’t possibly be so ignorant, could you?
Breaking the conservation laws (the energy raising the temperature of the hotter object had to come from colder) doesn’t work. Your colder object has to magically create energy to replace that which was passed to the hotter object.
Is this your silly attempt at justifying the mythical which you can’t describe?
“All radiation is thermal.”
So if I apply power to an LED its emitted radiation is thermal?
Balderdash.
As is all that follows it.
Nate, an LED is a manmade device. The S/B Law does not apply to LEDs.
You can’t understand ANY of this.
“The S/B Law does not apply to LEDs.”
More laughs induced by Clint R who doesn’t realize the S/B law theory was proven by manmade devices since BB radiation does exist.
—
Swenson 1:02am also laughably issues yet another comment failure “All radiation is thermal” since there exists external radiation in addition to thermal radiation or the sun could not warm the Earth thru deep space.
Flynnson throws up another strawman claiming it produces results which are obviously “Complete balderdash!”. Trouble is, his strawman has nothing to do with the GHE, since his warm body must also include energy supplied from an external source if it is to represent the GHE. The GHE does not “magically create energy”, the energy supply comes from the external source.
Yes Ball4, quoting me exactly is a good learning technique — highly recommended.
Read my words, quote me exactly, and you can’t go wrong. Understanding may take awhile, but hang in there.
Memorization helps.
Thanks for agreeing you were wrong Clint R 8:55 am; that’s a good first step on the path to learning about the S/B law, hang in there, stay the course, crack open a physics book & after some reading comprehension occurs: your physics understanding will increase.
But unfortunately, your blog laughable comments may then decrease & lose the long earned title of blog laughing stock
“Nate, an LED is a manmade device.”
True, but does nothing to support Swenson’s erroneous belief that ‘all radiation is thermal’
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Swenson writes “All radiation is thermal.” I would say that laser light is not ordinary thermal radiation, but is still radiation.
test
LeoStellas CEO raises his sights in the satellite revolution
https://cosmiclog.com/
“Its been four years since LeoStella, a joint venture created by BlackSky and Thales Alenia Space, opened the doors of its Tukwila factory and began building Earth observation satellites that BlackSky could launch into low Earth orbit, otherwise known as LEO.
Since then, the company has taken on other customers as well including Loft Orbital Solutions, which offers a turnkey solution for flying and operating satellite payloads; and NorthStar Earth and Space, which is building a satellite constellation to monitor space traffic.
This week, LeoStella announced the completion and delivery of its 20th satellite which happens to be the third satellite its built for Loft Orbital.”
And the Sun:
Solar wind
speed: 412.7 km/sec
density: 0.51 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 151
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 169 sfu
Updated 06 Jun 2023
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.00×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.7% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.7%
“HOW BIG WAS CARRINGTON’S SUNSPOT? If you want to have a bit of fun with ChatGPT, ask it the following question: “How big was Carrington’s sunspot?”
ChatGPT’s response: “Richard Carrington’s observations of the great solar storm in 1859 did not provide a direct measurement of the size of the sunspot.”
Poor Carrington must be turning in his grave. The astronomer made beautiful drawings of the sunspot,…”
“On Sept. 1st, 1859, two kidney-shaped beads of blinding white light appeared just above a giant sunspot he had numbered “520.” He had never seen anything like it.
“Being somewhat flurried by the surprise,” Carrington later wrote, “I hastily ran to call someone to witness the exhibition with me. On returning within 60 seconds, I was mortified to find that it was already much changed and enfeebled.” They watched the lights fade away.
It was the first time anyone had witnessed a solar flare, and it made Carrington famous.”
Solar wind
speed: 360.0 km/sec
density: 6.86 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 133
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 172 sfu
Updated 07 Jun 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.17×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.6% Below Average
48-hr change: +0.2%
It is getting a bit more active.
I was guessing June and July would more active,
and so far, not close, but it might happen.
Spots are growing, maybe they will grow a lot more.
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
05 June – 01 July 2023
Solar activity is likely to be at low to moderate levels (R1-R2,
Minor-Moderate) throughout the outlook period, due to several
complex regions currently on the visible disk and the anticipated
return of several regions that have produced moderate level activity
currently on the farside of the Sun. ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
So they saying no to my guess about June {and July}.
I am guessing June has about 30% chance of proving them wrong.
I give would higher odds, but they should know a lot more, than I do.
Solar wind
speed: 335.0 km/sec
density: 4.10 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 177
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 172 sfu
Updated 08 Jun 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.21×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.8% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.1%
We still have couple of moderate sized coronal holes on nearside.
“SUNSPOTS THROUGH THE SMOKE: Elon Musk wants to go to Mars. Canada is a lot closer. Smoke from Canadian wildfires is turning skies across northeastern provinces and US states the color of the Red Planet. One side effect of the rusty gloom is the sudden visibility of sunspots.
“Smoke has filtered the sun an eerie orange color on and off for weeks here along the East Coast,” reports Neil Winston of Calvert County, Maryland. “As the sun dips low in the sky, it has made an opportunity to image the numerous sunspots without a solar filter.”
I will note, the sun when low on horizon is dimmer than a Mars’ sun- or you shouldn’t look at the Sun when on Mars- it will damage your
eyes. Maybe it would be safe during period of a heavy Mars global dust storm- when, the sun is low on the horizon on Mars.
I posted something else, somewhat related:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1495654
Solar wind
speed: 298.2 km/sec
density: 7.32 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 149
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 169 sfu
Updated 09 Jun 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.21×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.8% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.1%
“MANY FARSIDE SUNSPOTS: Helioseismic maps of the farside of the sun show multiple large active regions, probably sunspots. This means the sunspot number should remain high as the sun turns on its axis in the weeks ahead. Disappearing Earthside sunspots will be replaced by farside counterparts.”
Well most of sun we not seeing- on what is nearside.
3 numbered spots {probably were small] have disappeared on nearside in terms of matter of days on nearside, a lot changes in a week.
I waiting for “the anticipated return of several regions that have produced moderate level activity currently on the farside of the Sun”
and I guess we had them- unless they just about to peak around the corner.
Anyhow looks like it’s going to stay about same for next couple days.
Will later part of June and first part of July be stronger or weaker
it seems chances are lower than 30%.
Is the parrot just resting?
Is it going to almost same as 24, weaker first peak, followed by stronger second peak. Or are going to have stronger first peak, followed by weaker second peak.
Or nothing like 24.
Well, it seems safe bet is the above forecast:
“Solar activity is likely to be at low to moderate levels”
And we will have wait for something exciting.
Solar wind
speed: 366.3 km/sec
density: 6.13 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 116
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 164 sfu
Updated 10 Jun 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.32×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.1% Below Average
48-hr change: +0.8%
Seeing nothing coming from farside with spots leaving from nearside.
Coronal holes making a sad face.
Solar wind
speed: 389.9 km/sec
density: 0.89 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 116
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 146 sfu
Updated 13 Jun 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.40×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.4% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.6%
“QUIET TUESDAY: With every visible sunspot in decay, NOAA forecasters have lowered the chances of solar flares today to 15% for M-class flares and only 1% for X-flares.”
Nothing coming from farside, and spots will be going to farside {not right away- a day or two}. I guess we got that activity they were talking about on the farside or it disappeared. So NOAA appears right about moderate to low activity for June. One could say we have moderate activity, but I tend think going towards low.
Are going to get spotless in week or in month?
I tend to think it will take months before this happens.
Solar wind
speed: 356.8 km/sec
density: 2.79 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 98
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 146 sfu
Updated 14 Jun 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.40×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.2% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.1%
“NEW SUNSPOTS: A pair of new sunspot groups is emerging near the sun’s southeastern limb: movie. One of them is potentially large and could pose a threat for flares as it turns toward Earth later this week”
Spots have left and are leaving but farside spots have arrived and coming. The new 3333 spot looks healthy/strong/vibrant but not sure they mean that one or other one {not numbered yet] following it.
Solar wind
speed: 634.4 km/sec
density: 5.11 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 107
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 144 sfu
Updated 15 Jun 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.24×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.5% Below Average
48-hr change: +0.9%
A lot of different coronal holes.
Continues to be moderate to low solar activity.
Updating the Update:
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
12 June – 08 July 2023
Solar activity is likely to be at low to moderate levels (R1-R2,
Minor-Moderate) throughout the outlook period due to several complex
regions currently on the visible disk and the anticipated return of
several regions that have produced moderate level activity currently
on the farside of the Sun. ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
But it seems it is generally fading, but it’s an unpredictable
sun, but can guess that a spotless day seems unlikely within a month,
and fading could turn around give us some very memorable sun spot action.
But seems pretty certain my guess of June and July being more active
is going to wrong.
The parrot is not dead, it’s just resting.
I’m probably not the target audience for this blog post, but as a scientific critique of the paper it’s bizzare.
“… it has conflated stratospheric cooling with global warming.”
The phrase “global warming” does not appear anywhere in the paper.
“The authors are taking advantage of the publics lack of knowledge concerning …”
Alternatively, it’s a technical paper intended for a technical audience.
“The researchers first mistake is to claim they are reporting something new.”
They cleverly conceal this by citing Manabe 1967 in the first sentence of the abstract. Also in quite a few of the 67 referenced papers.
“So, why mention stratospheric cooling in the context of climate change?”
Because it’s a projected effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 as per Manabe 1967 as cited in the first sentence of the abstract and other references as repeated throughout the paper.
“But what then happens in the troposphere (where we live) in response to more CO2 is vastly more complex.”
As noted in the paper. Also, kind of the point of looking at less noisy metrics in addition to the TLT as noted in the paper.
Mark B, Dr. Spencer is trying to stand against all the nonsense that has taken over science. You can endlessly pick apart his words, if you are attempting to distract from his message.
You have to ask yourself if you prefer reality or perversion.
Do you want to belong to a cult that claims ice cubes can boil water?
Roy was talking about the press, Pupman.
Have you tried reading?
Clint R says: You have to ask yourself if you prefer reality or perversion.
You, on the other hand, might be the target audience.
Exactly Mark, I prefer reality.
That’s why it is funny how you desperately attempt to attack Spencer while ignoring all of the perverted trolls here.
wee willy…re tobacco documents…
Do you understand that back in the ’60s, people were considered weirdos if the did not smoke. If Seitz or anyone else spoke on behalf of the tobacco industry no one would have even noticed.
Then, some 50 years later, idiots who are alarmists try to denigrate scientists like Seitz, after his death in 2008. The alarmist hero, Naomi Oreskes, co-wrote a book in 2010, which was focused on destroying the reputation of Fred Seitz due to some dubious connection to the tobacco industry back in the ’60s. The cowards wrote a book and Seitz was not around to defend himself.
The theme of the book is seriously weak. Oreskes is try to discredit scientists like Seitz and Singer by trying to draw a parallel between their statements on behalf of the tobacco industry in the 60s and their current skepticism about global warming. Why can’t she discredit them on the scientific facts?
If alarmists like Oreskes had the basic science to back them, they would not need to stir up unrelated muck, they could simply present the facts and the average person would get it. They don’t have those facts, therefore they are reduced to cretinous ploys like trying to tie scientists to oil and tobacco companies and/or spreading fiction about a no-existent greenhouse effect.
C’mon, Bordo.
Don’t tell me you still smoke.
Only when I’m with a hot woman. Never saw the sense in smoking.
So you never smoke.
Fair.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ent…earlier you made a statement about fossils being found high on Everest. It would seem obvious, based on such evidence, that Everest was at some point covered in water to a high altitude.
A major problem with geology is absolute verification. I was watching a program on earthquakes in Mexico and all of their early detection alert systems were near the oceans, focused on the fault line that ran off the coast. Wouldn’t you know that an earthquake of significant strength happened between them and the ocean, rendering the early alert useless.
I hear so many people talking about plate tectonics as if it is a fact. It’s not, it’s a theory, actually, more of a hypothesis, that many geologists still argue about. One of the glaring problems with the theory is that earthquakes tend to have an epi-centre. If a slip is occurring along a 200 mile fault line, why is there not numerous quakkes happening along the 200 mile fault? In fact, there should be one major quake over the 200 miles.
The truth is, many geological theories have little or no proof. Whereas it may seem obvious that seashells near the top of Everest strongly suggest that area was once at sea level, we simply don’t know. Rather than keeping our minds open to other possibilities, we focus on the obvious and set ourselves up for missing the less obvious.
That’s what we are currently experiencing with global warming/climate change. Someone jumped on an obvious theory that anthropogenic gases that built up following the Industrial Era are warming the atmosphere. Not only do they believe that, they are starting to claim it is misinformation to claim otherwise.
Derp.
Cat got your tongue? Or is it a derp>
As usual Gordon, you need to look up terms you are using lest you make a fool of your self.
Look up what an epicenter is in regards to earthquakes.
Your post shows that you do not know what an epicenter is.
And yes, the top of Mt Everest was once at sea level, the sea level was not once at the top of Mt Everest.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
It’s the Sun Stupid
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/06/the-sun-in-june-2023/
norman…”So with the water bucket example he…”
***
Just curious, do you prefer sitting on an overturned water bucket at home. We had a character in Scotland called Oor Wullie who sat on a metal upturned bucket we refer to in Scotland as a pail.
Don’t know if this will make it through.
https://m.facebook.com/BeingScottish/posts/on-this-day-in-1936-the-oor-wullie-comic-strip-first-appeared-in-the-sunday-post/10158276072673559/
It’s braw being Scottish.
If not, try this…
https://www.scottishtourer.co.uk/blog/2021/05/25/searching-for-oor-wullie-the-scottish-icon-when-out-in-a-motorhome
Just as a matter of interest, the US DOE paid to publish this –
“The greenhouse effect gets its name from the process that actually occurs in a greenhouse. In a greenhouse, short wavelength visible sunlight shines through the glass panes and warms the air and the plants inside. The radiation emitted from the heated objects inside the greenhouse are of longer wavelength and therefore are unable to pass through the glass barrier, maintaining a warm temperature in the greenhouse.”
Maybe they are talking about the mythical “greenhouse effect”, rather than the non-existent “greenhouse effect”?
These Government funded idiots don’t even seem to understand how a “greenhouse” operates.
Maybe Willard the Idiot can’t describe the “greenhouse effect” because he can’t decide which “greenhouse effect” to describe.
Mike Flynn,
It’s easy to describe the greenhouse effect.
The atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth because of it.
You accept that, and yet deny the greenhouse effect.
Deceitful cretin.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Its easy to describe the greenhouse effect.
The atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth because of it.
You accept that, and yet deny the greenhouse effect.
Deceitful cretin.”
You still havent described the greenhouse effect, have you? Bob, duck and weave – the Earth cools. If you want to believe that the Earth cannot cool without the “greenhouse effect”, go for it.
Nobody else seems to agree.
Carry n with your idiocy.
Mike Flynn,
There is no need for me to describe the greenhouse effect.
You did.
Like teh Jesus, you freed us all.
Thank you.
“Bob”
Da dude doesn’t seem to know who he is arguing with.
As for Newton’s law of cooling, apply this:
“In the case of heat transfer by thermal radiation, Newton’s law of cooling holds only for very small temperature differences.”
I assume they mean smaller than 280 K or so.
Sharpest knife in a drawer full of hammers.
Bumbling bobby,
Newton’s law of cooling –
“The rate of heat loss of a body is directly proportional to the difference in the temperatures between the body and its environment.”
If you don’t like it, you can “apply” anything you like. It makes no difference – unless you are a delusional SkyDragon cultist, of course, who doesn’t accept Newton’s Law of Cooling, and think Newton didn’t really mean what he wrote.
You can “assume” anything you like. You can “assume” you are clever, but you remain an idiot, as ever.
Only an idiot would put a sharp knife in a drawer full of hammers which only an idiot would put in a drawer.
Idiot.
A pair of incompetent dim nitwits. Oh well.
You have obviously never heard of bobbing [and weaving], nor ducking [and weaving]. To bob, duck and weave is more or less synonymous with performing the lateral arabesque in this context, but Dumb and Dumber appear to be having an incompetence competition, to see who can outperform: the other.
[laughter ensued]
Moron Mike,
It’s bob and weave.
Not bob, duck, and weave.
Cheers.
Swenson,
Now I am the one laughing, you don’t understand how to apply Newton’s Law of Cooling.
The Earth cools by at least five different mechanisms, Newton’s Law only applies if you can limit it to one mechanism.
It’s bad to be relegated to the janitor’s closet when you think you are smart enough for the corner office.
Little Willy, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Willard invented a non-existent effect –
“Mike Flynn,
Theres something about the atmosphere that creates an effect.
An effect according to which the cooling of the Earth is being slowed down.
How would you call that effect?”
What a stupid gotcha! An effect which slows the cooling of the Earth? Some nameless “effect”, existing only in Willard’s fantasy.
Here’s something from UK school which might help Wee Willy (although it is for 14 year old students, and possibly beyond Wee Willy’s understanding) –
“So why do things cool down?
It’s very simple.
An object will cool down if its temperature is greater than the temperature of its surroundings.”
For anyone marginally less stupid than the idiot, Newton’s Law of Cooling states “the rate of loss of heat from a body is directly proportional to the difference in the temperature of the body and its surroundings.”, according to at least one source.
Obviously too much for an idiot like Willard to comprehend, who believes objects cannot cool without the application of an “effect” which he can’t actually describe!
He’s not the sharpest tool in the toolbox.
Mike Flynn,
Once again you invoke the Law of Cooling.
If size was all that matters, why would you be talking about the atmosphere, and why would your spouse choose you?
Weak Wee Willy,
What are you burbling about, fool?
14 year old physics too much for you, is it?
Idiot.
Braying again, Mike?
The atmosphere. Why does it matter. Go ahead, improv.
Weak Wee Willy,
What are you burbling about, fool?
14 year old physics too much for you, is it?
Idiot.
Moron Mike,
Playing dumb again?
At least you did not call me Bob this time.
Cheers.
Weak Wee Willy,
What are you burbling about, fool?
14 year old physics too much for you, is it?
Idiot.
Moron Mike,
The atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth, and Newton’s Law of Cooling does not explain why the atmosphere is warmer than space.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Our Sky Dragon Cranks are so close to getting it:
[MORON MIKE] The difference in temperature between the surface and the atmosphere in contact with it determines the rate of heat dissipation.
[BORDO] the rate of loss of heat from a body is directly proportional to the difference in the temperature of the body and its surroundings
All they need is to ask themselves why is the atmosphere warmer than space.
Witless Wee Willy,
Have you lost it completely?
You wrote –
“All they need is to ask themselves why is the atmosphere warmer than space.”
Presumably, you imagine that you have unearthed some previously unknown gem of knowledge – that if two things have different temperatures, one is warmer (or colder) than the other.
Bad luck, Willard. Nothing new there. No greenhouse effect needed or mentioned in the laws of thermodynamics.
You don’t need to ask yourself anything – why would anybody appeal to the authority of an idiot? Rhetorical question of course.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You are right. I have uncovered some deep, hermetic knowledge –
Two of our Sky Dragon cranks may have rediscovered the greenhouse effect!
Wonderful, innit?
Wee Willy Wanker, this would be the mythical “greenhouse effect” which you cannot describe, but claim to be responsible for the continuous and remorseless cooling of the Earth?
You are surely an idiot of the first water.
Newton’s Law of Cooling is enough for me. I suppose you ascribe Newton’s Laws of Motion to another effect which you also can’t describe?
You are an idiot twice over.
Keep it up. No adverse side effects from laughing at idiots like you, I believe.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Moron Mike,
There is no need to correct you.
You are not even wrong, as Pauli would say.
Cheers.
Wee Willy Wanker, this would be the mythical “greenhouse effect” which you cannot describe, but claim to be responsible for the continuous and remorseless cooling of the Earth?
You are surely an idiot of the first water.
Newton’s Law of Cooling is enough for me. I suppose you ascribe Newton’s Laws of Motion to another effect which you also cant describe?
You are an idiot twice over.
Keep it up. No adverse side effects from laughing at idiots like you, I believe.
Correct me if Im wrong.
Moron Mike,
Newton’s Law of Cooling does not explain why the atmosphere is warmer than space.
Cheers.
Space is not warm nor cold.
If in spacesuit, you need refrigeration.
If on Mars [which is somewhat close to vacuum] a spacesuit, doesn’t
a heater, it needs refrigeration.
In terms of living mammal, space is warm.
The reason a spacesuit would “need refrigeration” is if it’s being irradiated by solar flux. In the “shade”, the spacesuit would require warming.
” In the ‘shade’, the spacesuit would require warming.”
Now you understand why the Green Plate is colder.
Would the GP be colder if it were in full contact with BP?
Now you understand why you don’t understand ANY of this?
Here’s an experiment to find out: Heat an iron skillet on the stove with burner on high for 2 minutes.
-Hold your hand 5 mm away from its surface for 5 seconds.
-Now put your hand in full contact with the surface for 5 seconds.
Did your hand get colder or hotter in full contact?
What can you conclude about the transfer of heat by conduction vs other modes?
No it wouldn’t.
But do have heated boots and gloves, because ground can be cold and objects one has to handle, can be cold- or a lightyear from any star, space is not hot or cold.
Though there is solar wind everywhere, and it’s very hot but it’s very low density.
Or it’s like our thermosphere or Low earth orbit is +1000 C and it’s not hot or cold.
The baseline temperature of outer space, as set by the background radiation from the Big Bang, is 2.7 kelvins, gb.
Perhaps that is not cold enough for you?
You missing the fact that Humans are not reptiles.
But things can passively cool to your 2.7 K. So, living in space gives free refrigeration. Or spacefaring civilization does not require active cooling for refrigeration whether for beer, or ice cream or something much colder, like LOX and other rocket fuel.
So free sunlight and free refrigeration costs.
Humans on Earth surface spend a lot energy using refrigerators.
Because for some things, 15 C is not cold enough.
Earth cold air has some advantages, it cools engines, and one use it
to make LOX.
If mining Mars atmosphere you going to get a lot waste heat- so another reason you need lake on Mars- so can heat water to get rid of waste heat from mining Mars sky. And of course to cool your powerplants.
Humans are not reptiles, so space is not warm or cold?
OK.
Liquid cooling and ventilation garment
“A liquid cooling garment (LCG) is a form-fitting garment that is used to remove body heat from the wearer in environments where evaporative cooling from sweating and open-air convection cooling does not work or is insufficient, or the wearer has a biological problem that hinders self-regulation of body temperature. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_cooling_and_ventilation_garment
Astronauts commonly wear a liquid cooling and ventilation garment in order to maintain a comfortable core body temperature during extra-vehicular activity (EVA). The LCVG accomplishes this task by circulating cool water through a network of flexible tubes in direct contact with the astronaut’s skin. The water draws heat away from the body, resulting in a lower core temperature. The water then returns to the primary life support system (PLSS), where it is cooled in a heat exchanger before being recirculated.
In an independent space suit, the heat is ultimately transferred to a thin sheet of ice (formed by a separate feed water source). Due to the extremely low pressure in space, the heated ice sublimates directly to water vapor, which is then vented away from the suit.”
Willard,
You wrote –
“Humans are not reptiles, so space is not warm or cold?
OK.”
You obviously don’t understand the mechanism of cooling, nor understand why mammals need cooling in circumstances where reptiles need heating.
Carry on being a troll of the supremely idiotic and ignorant variety.
Mike Flynn,
You obviously know why the atmosphere slows the cooling of the Earth.
Yet you will not spell it out.
Would it be because you are a deceitful cretin?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
You obviously know why the atmosphere slows the cooling of the Earth.
Yet you will not spell it out.
Would it be because you are a deceitful cretin?”.
What part of Newton’s Law of Cooling do you not understand, idiot troll?
You do realise that the atmosphere is colder than the surface, don’t you? How about the mantle being hotter than the surface?
Are all delusional SkyDragon cultists as thick as you? Reject reality if you wish, convince yourself that the Earth has not cooled over the past four and a half billion years, that the surface does not cool each night – or even that you are a complete blithering idiot, as thick as two short planks!
It makes no difference to the facts, does it?
If you want to keep whining and plaintively bleating, be my guest. You seem to enjoy looking like a fool.
[derisive laughter for dimwitted reality denier]
Mike Flynn,
You realize that the atmosphere is warmer than space, right?
Cheers.
Space has no temperature.
The baseline temperature of outer space, as set by the background radiation from the Big Bang, is 2.7 kelvins (−270 C; −455 F).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space
Sure, but it’s more accurate to think of space as having no temperature.
> Sure, but
Hmmm.
If space has no temperature, then perhaps heat can’t escape to space, for Stefan’s law (or Newton’s law for that matter) only applies to bodies with temperature…
You can’t heat space, it’s (largely) a vacuum. That’s not to say objects don’t radiate out to space based on their temperature and emissivity. They do…and if said objects are not receiving enough radiation to keep them warm, said objects will cool. Does that mean space is being “heated”, in the process? Of course not.
“its more accurate to think of space as having no temperature”
Not sure why people keep forgetting that their personal feelings about stuff aint physics.
‘No temperature’ is neither accurate nor useful for determining heat transfer.
…can’t heat space, it’s (largely) a vacuum. That’s not to say objects don’t radiate out to space based on their temperature and emissivity. They do…and if said objects are not receiving enough radiation to keep them warm, said objects will cool. Does that mean space is being “heated”, in the process? Of course not.
Exactly, Nate.
https://www.space.com/how-cold-is-space
The idea that space is the absence of matter or that space has a uniform temperature are not very accurate. The most plausible candidate for space as emptiness would be the microwave background, which indeed has a temperature.
Of course we could say that an astronaut stuck outside the space station will not freeze to death, because there is not enough particle to convert or conduct temperature, and the space suit prevents radiation to reach the body. This, at least, is less confused than to say that non-radiative gases *holds to* but does not [a-word] radiation!
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/space-human-body/#:~:text=One%20common%20misconception%20is%20that,space%20itself%20has%20no%20temperature.
“One common misconception is that outer space is cold, but in truth, space itself has no temperature.”
“This, at least, is less confused than to say that non-radiative gases *holds to* but does not [a-word] radiation!“
There is no confusion at all, for those who understand that N2/O2 can receive energy through collisions with other molecules, and directly via conduction from the surface. N2/O2 does not need to absorb IR energy directly to gain energy.
Graham does not always hold that that molecules *hold* to energy, but when he does it is because radiation *collides* with them.
No, that is not what I said. It is not the radiation that is colliding with them. You really need to learn to read.
And so Gaslighting Graham has returned!
“There is no confusion at all, for those who understand that N2/O2 can receive energy through collisions with other molecules, and directly via conduction from the surface. N2/O2 does not need to absorb IR energy directly to gain energy.“
🤷
Why do I waste my time?
A blog post is quoted as evidence about the T of space?
By “Mark Springel is a research assistant in the Department of Pathology at Boston Childrens Hospital”
If we put a thermometer in interstellar space, away from sunlight or gas clouds, what T would it settle on?
HINT: its only way of thermally equilbrating with its surroundings is by radiation.
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/space-human-body/#:~:text=One%20common%20misconception%20is%20that,space%20itself%20has%20no%20temperature
That explains things pretty well.
Let’s look at this part:
–What does this mean for future space missions?
The prospect of interplanetary missions compounds known health concerns regarding space travel. With our current technology, a manned mission to Mars would take more than two years, and by conservative estimates, simply getting to Mars might take 6 to 8 months. Radiation measurements recorded by NASAs Curiosity rover during its transit to Mars suggest that with todays technology, astronauts would be exposed to a minimum of 660 120 millisieverts (a measure of radiation dosage) over the course of a round trip [14]. Because NASAs career exposure limit for astronauts is only slightly greater at 1000 millisieverts, this recent data is cause for great concern.–
We need to study the effects of artificial gravity. We should have already done it. We didn’t know effects of microgravity, and we are likely not to know the effects of “artificial gravity” and it seems
it will take more time then determining effects of microgravity- which I would say, we still don’t know much about- other than it disable humans upon returning to Earth. But key aspect is the human body adapts to it’s environment {more proof, God wants humans to become a spacefaring civilization. Or also God is good. But than again, perhaps not, maybe we being fooled and the entire glorious Universe can only to look at with telescopes.}.
But anyhow, the radiation issue is problem, but a lot radiation more than 1/2 can blocked, and Starship could/might get to Mars in 6 months {or less}. But having solar grand min, is going to change those levels, higher, and we don’t know how much higher.
But possible we won’t get a solar grand min.
And it also good idea to use the orbit of Venus. Using Venus lower time of planetary launch window. It’s possible to do round trip of Earth {to Venus] to Mars and back in 1 year rather than more than 2
years. And Venus is closer to sun and has less radiation- how much lower, I don’t know. We should find out.
Anyways we should find out what effect of a year in Mars artificial gravity is. And also test longer. But even 6 month of time would give some clues of it’s affect, or even 3 months.
What could the effects be?
Maybe people would live longer, or maybe just bad or worse effects.
It’s a crime, we have tested it.
Anyhow, Musk is partnering some group who might get it flying in a year or so.
— Nate says:
June 9, 2023 at 3:43 PM
If we put a thermometer in interstellar space, away from sunlight or gas clouds, what T would it settle on?–
How about a dead human in 1 AU distance from the Sun.
It would mummify.
So within a month should have Egyptian mummy at Earth orbital distance. How warm would it be?
Put it in interstellar space, and it might picked up by
the heart of gold spaceship.
So anyway, as I was saying…space has no temperature.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=space+has+no+temperature
Space has no kinetic temperature; space does have a measured brightness temperature.
Ball4 troll, begone.
Yeah, anybody interfering with DREMTs fertilizing of this blog needs to begone.
Troll Ball4, begone.
So? Nobody answered my question about the temperature measured by a thermometer in deep space.
OK. Since it can only equilibrate with its surroundings by radiation, it will ultimately read 2.7 K, and then emit radiation equal to what it receives from the background radiation of space.
Begone, Ball4 troll.
“There are five known Icehouse periods in Earth’s climate history, which are known as the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Late Paleozoic, and Late Cenozoic glaciations”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
“The Huronian glaciation (or Makganyene glaciation) was a period where several ice ages occurred during the deposition of the Huronian Supergroup, rather than a single continuous event as it is commonly misrepresented to be. The deposition of this group extended from 2.5 billion years ago (Gya) to 2.2 Gya, during the Siderian and Rhyacian periods of the Paleoproterozoic era.”
…
One or more of the glaciations may have been snowball earth events, when all or almost all of the earth was covered in ice.Although the palaeomagnetic evidence that suggests ice sheets were present at low latitudes is contested,and the glacial sediments (diamictites) are discontinuous, alternating with carbonate rocks and other sediments indicating temperate climates, providing scant evidence for global glaciation.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huronian_glaciation
“The Cryogenian (from Ancient Greek: κρύος, romanized: kros, meaning “cold” and γένεσις, romanized: gnesis, meaning “birth”) is a geologic period that lasted from 720 to 635 million years ago.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenian
“The Andean-Saharan glaciation, also known as the Early Palaeozoic Icehouse,[1] the Early Palaeozoic Ice Age, the Late Ordovician glaciation, the end-Ordovician glaciation, or the Hirnantian glaciation, occurred during the Paleozoic from approximately 460 Ma to around 420 Ma,..”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andean-Saharan_glaciation
…
“At its height during the Hirnantian, the ice age is believed to have been significantly more extreme than the Last Glacial Maximum occurring during the terminal Pleistocene.”
“The late Paleozoic icehouse, also known as the Late Paleozoic Ice Age (LPIA) and formerly known as the Karoo ice age, was an ice age that began in the Late Devonian and ended in the Late Permian, occurring from 360 to 255 million years ago (Mya),”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Paleozoic_icehouse
…
“Data from Serpukhovian and Moscovian marine strata of South China point to glacioeustasy being driven primarily by long-period eccentricity, with a cyclicity of about 0.405 million years, and the modulation of the amplitude of Earth’s obliquity, with a cyclicity of approximately 1.2 million years. This is most similar to the early part of the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, from the Oligocene to the Pliocene, before the formation of the Arctic ice cap, suggesting the climate of this episode of time was relatively warm for an icehouse period.”
So, first one: “2.5 billion years ago (Gya) to 2.2 Gya” lasted
300 million.
Second one: “720 to 635 million years ago” was 80 million years.
Third: “460 Ma to around 420 Ma” was 60 million years
Fourth: 360 to 255 million years ago was 95 million year.
And ours is 33.9 million years.
I just checking exactly what is meant when it’s said, Earth not mostly been in an Icehouse climate.
But if just say in last billion years {cause it’s round number]:
80 + 60 + 95 + so far 33.9 million equals: 268.9 million of 1000 million, so just over 1/4 of the last billion years.
But one ask different question, in last billion, when has been as cold as the Last Glacial Maximum [which was about 20,000 years ago]
Or slightly different, when has been as cold as our last couple million years {when Greenland became a “permanent” ice sheet]?
But of course, failing to evidence, doesn’t mean there was not more icehouse global climate. Or haven’t found it, yet.
Of course another aspect is the evidence we yet to find in in terms
past impactors, of safe to say we had 5 dinosaur extinction type of impact events in last billion years. Of course in terms sheer numbers, the amount super volcanic events. Such as Yellowstone or 20 other ones found on land, and who knows the number under the ocean, firing off every 1/2 million years, or so.
So, hundreds to thousands of these in last billion years.
Oh, I wonder how many super volcanoes are under the continent of Antarctica and big island of Greenland?
Two intelligent answers to ‘It’s the Sun, Stupid!’ are for example Javier’s comments within Archibald’s old head post he repeats since 15 years with minimal changes over time:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/06/the-sun-in-june-2023/#comment-3730908
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/06/the-sun-in-june-2023/#comment-3730905
Gordon and others.
entearlier you made a statement about fossils being found high on Everest. It would seem obvious, based on such evidence, that Everest was at some point covered in water to a high altitude.
A major problem with geology is absolute verification.”
You may have encountered plate tectonics, the current geology paradigm. Continental plates move across Earth’s surface driven by currents in the underlying mantle.
Where their edges interact you get earthquakes and volcanoes.
When two plates collide you get a crumple zone where the edges get pushed up into a mountain range.
The Himalayas formed when India collided with the Southern edge of Asia.
Sediments formed on the continental shelf underwater were pushed six kilometres upwards fossils and all. The sea level was never that far above the geoid.
Absolute variation is something you don’t get in science. Particularly in field sciences, you can’t do lab experiments so you depend on the evidence left behind.
From that you build hypotheses and test them by seeking further evidence.
Gordon Robertson.
Tell me more about absolute verification.
How do you acheive it?
What examples of absolute verfication can you give?
When you can’t achieve absolute verification, what degree of verification would allow you to accept something as a working hypothesis?
> How do you acheive it?
Smoking.
Absolute verification requires an eye-witness account. Someone, somewhere, must have witnessed plate tectonics in action. No one has. We need an eye witness that India collided with the southern part of Asia.
BTW, there is another theory for orogenesis (mountain building). I don’t have it handy, I just know there is one. No one has ever witnessed a mountain range forming, and as Swenson points out, the Earth’s crust would have had to be lot hotter and more pliable than it is now in order for plate tectonics to explain it. With that more pliant crust, internal forces could explain mountains.
For the Big Bang, we need an eye-witness or at least evidence that significant mass can suddenly appear out of nothing.
For evolution, we need an eye witness or clear cut evidence that one species converted to another. That would require fossils with intermediate qualities of both species. We also need clear cut evidence of so-called natural selection.
In particular, we need evidence that life could have formed from 5 elements then gone on to create more complex structures with high degrees of intelligence. They tried it in the 1950s and all they got was a blob of tar, while reaching the conclusion that the environment required to create the blob could not support life as we know it.
Sorry mate, even though I am not religious, intelligent creation is the only viable explanation. Although I am quite prepared to die and never be heard from again, I find it kind of neat, the possibility that some kind of intelligence exists well beyond our minds. When I observe the wonderful and natural intelligence behind the human being, I feel encouraged.
For space-time, we need evidence that time exists. We also need to become aware of what part the human mind plays as observer. The human mind is prone to distortion and is not reliable for observing relative motion. It has trouble distinguishing whether the Sun rises in the morning or if it’s the Earth horizon descending.
The only alternative is to descend into the dark world of thought experiment. It cheers me that a far more qualified person than myself, Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, thought Einstein screwed up royally by resorting to thought experiment. I personally think big E, did not understand that time has no existence.
ps. I don’t care about working hypotheses. I’m happy to claim I don’t know.
C’mon, Bordo.
Science’s most important results come under the form of laws. These laws are often universal. Being universal, they apply to every single instance they cover. How can you verify *every* instance of a law?
Take the Law of Cooling – The rate of heat loss of a body is directly proportional to the difference in the temperatures between the body and its environment. Have you checked every body in the universe, every environment, and every temperature?
No, you have not. You simply generalized your observations.
wee willy…”Take the Law of Cooling The rate of heat loss of a body is directly proportional to the difference in the temperatures between the body and its environment. Have you checked every body in the universe, every environment, and every temperature?”
***
This is something you would not understand unless you had actually done science. If you look up a table of different elements and different substances you will find just about every element/substance listed as to its rate of heat dissipation.
How do you think they got them? By measuring them.
It is known in chemistry how different combinations of atoms, and atoms bonded by electrons (molecules), behave under different conditions. It’s no longer a mystery because certain scientists have worked it out in a lab.
Of course, alarmist climate scientist would know nothing about that since none of them have ever been in a lab. If they had been, they’d know that alarmist science is a load of bollocks.
Come on, Bordo.
You speak of atoms. Have you verified every single atom of the universe? No, you did not.
That is the point you keep missing. That point refutes verificationism.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The legal system has a similar problem and is also unable to achieve absolute verification. They have come up with two standards of proof.
In criminal trials guilt must be demonstrated by evidence and shown “beyond reasonable doubt”.
In civil cases the standard is “on the balance of probabilities”. The case is decided on the evidence in favour of whichever party is more likely to be correct.
Science is somewhere in between. Scientists tend to pick the hypothesis which best explains the evidence. While aware that it is not perfect, they tend to treat it as provisionally correct until better evidence or a better hypothesis comes along.
The mistake made by the climate drnialists is to suggest that scientists believe in AGW as Christians believe in God.
Scientist do not believe in and AGW climate change, they just regard it as the best working hypothesis and treat it as true until something better replaces it.
I came here initially because I was promised something better than AGW, but no luck so far.
Dealing with chaotic systems is not easy. It is always possible to create a ‘solution’ which does not hold long term. Also it is always possible to tilt the perception by altering what actually happened in the past in order to create statistics that are more favorable for your viewpoint.
Exactly, EM.
Beliefs are like bets, or rather the only part that matters in the public sphere is what you would bet:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/06/03/beliefs-and-bets/
Until contrarians put money where their mouth is, what they personally believe is of little concern. And Sky Dragon cranks like our duo of sock puppets will do as they please, as usual.
Willard will be an idiot as usual.
A safe bet.
How mu can you afford to lose, Kennui?
How *much*, that is.
In viewing your posts following this one, I’ve already won.
Oh, Kennui.
Bets between adults do not work like that.
EM,
You wrote –
“Scientist do not believe in and AGW climate change, they just regard it as the best working hypothesis and treat it as true until something better replaces it.”
Higher thermometer temperatures is obviously due to increased heat in the environment – if it is happening around the globe, and man-made heat is responsible, that is AGW.
Climate is the statistics of weather. Weather is constantly changing. The statistics of the thing that is changing also change. That’s climate change.
What more do you need? What previously unexplained phenomenon needs a new hypothesis?
Are you claiming that you need an invented “greenhouse effect” to explain the cooling of the Earth over four and a half billion years, or the cooling of the surface each night? You seem to be confusing science with delusional SkyDragon cultism, but I may be wrong of course. You probably think so, but you can’t say why. For example, you cannot describe this “greenhouse effect” in any way that accords with fact, can you?
Here’s part of what Wikipedia says about the scientific method –
“It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation.”
What observations need any more explanation than those supplied by present physical laws?
You can’t provide any, but you think a “greenhouse effect” which you can’t describe, is needed to explain non-existent observations. Doesn’t seem very scientific to me.
ent…”Scientist do not believe in and AGW climate change, they just regard it as the best working hypothesis and treat it as true until something better replaces it”.
***
We skeptics have proved here that AGW is not even a good hypothesis. We keep challenging alarmists to explain the current greenhouse effect and thus far no one has offered a clear cut explanation based on physics. In fact, the best ones offered contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics and Newton’s Law of Cooling.
The typical explanation is one based on the S-B equation. Alarmists calculate an estimated temperature for an Earth with no atmosphere or oceans then compare it to an equally derived number of 15C for an Earth with both oceans and an atmosphere. The difference comes to around 33C and they offer that number up as proof of a greenhouse effect with absolutely no explanation of how it works, based on a real greenhouse. Recently, someone claimed the GHE is not meant to replicate a real greenhouse but still don’t explain what it means and why it is called a greenhouse effect.
A while back, I offered evidence based on the Ideal Gas Law that CO2 in the atmosphere could warm it no more than the mass percent of CO2, which would be about 0.04C for every 1C overall warming. Then I noticed, right under my nose, that G&T had offered a similar number using a heat diffusion equation.
Note that heat diffusion is not heat conduction, it represents the amount of heat CO2 at 0.04% could diffuse into a volume of atmospheric gas. G&T calculated, for a doubling of CO2, the amount of heat it could create would be in the neighbourhood of 0.06%.
I have seen nothing from alarmists to prove their version that CO2 can increase atmospheric temperature by 9% to 25%. They draw these numbers out of a hat. Yet that’s what the models use to get their wildly exaggerated warming prediction.
> We skeptics
C’mon, Bordo.
You’re a contrarian. A special kind of contrarian. A Dragon crank.
Rejoice.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Modicus Dickus, please stop trolling.
These are not the special words, Bordo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Credit to RLH who has made three bets with me.
Thank you.
Ent, I’ve got a bet for you — I bet you’ll be trolling here anonymously for the next six months, spouting your same nonsense like “passenger jets fly backward”. The bet is $50, payable to Dr. Spencer.
Take the bet?
You keep using that kind of bets, Pupman.
Bets may not work like you try to use them in your trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
A year ago, water vapor molecules had been increasing about 7 times faster than CO2 molecules. Sect 2.8 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . NASA/RSS has now reported average global water vapor through Dec 2022 at https://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r02_198801_202212.time_series.txt . The trend from Jan 1988 thru Dec 2022 is 1.36 % per decade so the increase in water vapor molecules in 3.5 decades is 0.0136 * 10000 * 3.5 = 476. From Mauna Loa data the CO2 increase in that time period is 420 – 350 = 70. With that, water vapor molecules have been increasing 476/70 = 6.8 times faster than CO2 molecules.
Descrip_tion of how the water vapor measurements are made is at http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor
Measured water vapor (28.73 base is added to the TPW anomalies) through Dec 2022 is graphed along with a calculated trajectory in Fig 7 at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com . Sect 6 there shows probable source of humanitys contribution to the extra water vapor.
Starlink: Over 1.5m subs
May 9, 2023
By Chris Forrester
“A cash-flow prepared for Starlink some years ago by an investment bank suggested that the 1.5 million mark was not likely to be reached for some time. The first Starlink satellites were launched in May 2019, although the service became available in some limited locations in 2020.
Starlink passed the 1 million subscriber mark in December 2022.
In other words, Starlink has taken barely three years to achieve this new and very impressive subscriber number and which qualifies the business as the largest supplier of satellite-based broadband, and equally impressive has taken just four months to add around 500,000 users (from December 2022 to now).”
https://advanced-television.com/2023/05/09/starlink-1-5m-subs-worldwide/
What will happen when SpaceX gets a successful Starship test launch- some time in next couple of months.
Musk had planned to launch starlinks on first attempt, and he might do it, on second attempt.
Scientists Beam Solar Power From Space to Earth in World First
Space
06 June 2023
By Matt Williams, Universe Today
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-beam-solar-power-from-space-to-earth-in-world-first
I mentioned this before- more about it.
And it’s related to starlink- get internet in remote location, but with beam power. you get electrical in remote location.
I wrote about it months ago, not sure I posted it.
But SPS have been about feeding an electrical grid- sending power to location of 100 square km footprint. But for years I have been thinking it of evolving into being able to get electrical anywhere.
But it might “start with” being able to get electrical anywhere, before any grid power is done.
Order in chaos: Atmosphere’s Antarctic oscillation has natural cycle, discover researchers
June 6, 2023
by Jade Boyd, Rice University
“Climate scientists at Rice University have discovered an “internally generated periodicity”a natural cycle that repeats every 150 daysin the north-south oscillation of atmospheric pressure patterns that drive the movement of the Southern Hemisphere’s prevailing westerly winds and the Antarctic jet stream.”
https://phys.org/news/2023-06-chaos-atmosphere-antarctic-oscillation-natural.html
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
People have been finding all sorts of periodicities in the statistics of chaotic systems, since chaos was first thought about.
How tempting to analyze the stock market, for example, run various Fourier analyses, and then use the resultant knowledge of recurrent cycles to accumulate a vast fortune. Fantasy, of course. Chaotic systems, by definition, are unpredictable in the sense that the expert’s results are no better than the twelve year old’s.
Sad but true.
If you don’t accept chaos theory, Richard Feynman comes to the same unpredictability conclusion in respect of any physical system like the atmosphere, from a QED viewpoint.
It doesn’t really matter, though. Finding a “pattern” in an Antarctic “oscillation” is of no practical use whatever. Showing that the finest current “climate models” do not reflect reality, is just pointing out the blindingly obvious – a complete waste of money, effort, and time.
I might just as well breathlessly announce that I have discovered that winter is colder than summer – except when it isn’t! Nobel Prize worthy? Probably not, unless you think like a “climate scientist”.
swenson…”How tempting to analyze the stock market, for example, run various Fourier analyses, and then use the resultant knowledge of recurrent cycles to accumulate a vast fortune”.
***
I once did a statistical analysis of our local Lotto, the 6/49. Six numbers are drawn from balls in a container and they are number 1 to 49. If you calculate the number of individual permutations of 6 numbers per draw, drawn without replacement, the number of possible combinations is over 13 million. I realized quickly that even if I spent $100, when tickets were a dollar each, the 100 combinations barely dented the 1 in 13 million+ chances of getting the winner.
In other words, if you buy 1 lotto ticket with 1 in 13million+ odds, buying 2 tickets gives you 2 in 13 million+ odds. Although one’s intuition might suggest more is better, the odds speak for themselves.
So, I got a print out of all the winning numbers. It became apparent in over 1000 draws, that the results nearly always had at least 1 number in the categories 1 – 9. 10 – 20, 21 – 30, 31 – 40 and 41 – 49. One draw had the numbers 1,2,3,4 and two other numbers, but that occurred once in over 1000 draws.
1000 draws is a spit in the ocean compared to 13 million+ draws.
I sorted all the draws by columns in a spreadsheet calculator and noted that 78% of the time there was a number between 1 and 10 in each draw. I did the same for each column with the draw number sorted from smallest number to largest. The trick, though, was still to pick the right number between 1 and 10. Given that, I had to predict the next number given that number. Then the next and the next.
One thing I did notice was that out of 1000+ draws, no combination of 6 had been repeated. That encouraged me when I selected a set of numbers to check and see if they compared to any other set.
It was encouraging, that making basic presumptions revealed the draws were not as random as one might expect. After all, the chance of drawing 1,2,3,4,5,6 is the same as drawing 1, 14, 25, 32, 41 and 44, yet patterns like the latter were far more normal over 1000+ draws than the odds might suggest. Maybe over a million draws that might change but who knows if the machines issuing the balls were completely random.
I began spending $100 dollar to buy 100 tickets and using a refined system based on what I just described, I started getting 4 numbers out of 6 on a fairly regular basis. However, 4 out of 6 only got me $75 or so, and even a 5 out of 6 only got $2500. I needed the full 6 to win a million.
It was a tremendous amount of work doing the compilations then filling out 100 cards to have them scanned. I did not spend more than several hundred dollar over a period of time but the thing I learned was the meaning of odds. It’s difficult to imagine what one in 13 million means till you try to beat it.
Then again, someone winds it nearly every weeks or so. If they had considered the odds and not played…
Oh, Bordo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
;>
Mike Flynn,
Bordo tells a story in which he tried to predict lottery results.
Do you not have a bit about that kind of predictions?
Cheers.
But some people believe they are lucky.
And there are many gods of luck.
Fact is that many people pervert their gods into gods of
luck.
As some religious expert would say, they treat God as their
butler- asking God to doing things for them.
But in global warming cargo cult some people actually know that the effects warming of CO2 has not been measured.
There are many repeating cycles in global climate.
We are in an icehouse global climate, and there been 5 of them found.
Also a critical cycle of the Milankovitch cycles- this cycle tells
you that we have past the interglacial peak global temperature and are heading towards a glaciation period.
Willis Eschenbach looked at it, and saw nothing. But main issue related to it, was lack of data.
Which I would say include all this cargo cult of global warming,
laziness.
And I repeat, 15 C is cold.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/09/dig-deeper-learn-more/
Dig Deeper, Learn More
3 hours ago
Willis Eschenbach
wee willy… aka modicum dickus…re why the atmosphere is warmer than space.
There is this thing called gravity and it orders atmospheric molecules into a negative pressure gradient as it binds them to the planet. A negative pressure gradient in such conditions translates to a negative temperature gradient, meaning the atmosphere is hotter in general near the surface and cooler with increasing altitude.
The fly in the ointment is the stratosphere, where O2 molecules absorb UV from the Sun causing them to warm slightly. This warms the stratosphere from about -55C at the base of the stratosphere to -15C at the top. Not exactly what one might relate to warming.
The point is, as the atmosphere increases in altitude it gets cooler in general. As such, it acts as a natural buffer between the planets surface and space. It is an insulator to heat in that heat will not flow significantly through air via conduction, however, a large parcel of air at a certain temperature can rise through the atmosphere via convection. As that parcel rises it gradually loses heat as it thins out in the negative pressure gradient.
As R.W. Wood pointed out, the retention of heat by nitrogen and oxygen for significant periods of time, is a better explanation for the action we call the greenhouse effect than the normal explanation of the GHE. The difference is, the glass in a real greenhouse traps that heat but in the atmosphere it dissipates gradually and quite naturally with altitude.
The energy budget theory completely ignores that large natural dissipation of heat internally. Rather it offers an incorrect and exaggerated amount of heat back-radiated from GHGs in the atmosphere to the surface. In other words, those who created the energy budget were ignorant of basic thermodynamics and basic physics.
It should be noted that the natural dissipation of heat with altitude is not a ‘something for nothing situation’. The atmosphere and oceans have been pre-heated for eons by the Sun and the current equilibrium state is not one of a natural energy in – energy out situation. It is more of a heat maintenance situation and the natural dissipation of heat is accounted for in such a situation.
Come on, Bordo.
As far as natural dissipation is concerned, you are the pro.
So you are suggesting that radiative gases are responsible for the greenhouse effect.
I can believe that.
Woeful Wee Willy,
There is no greenhouse effect. Like all delusional SkyDragon cultists, you claim everybody else can describe the mythical greenhouse effect, but you are unable to do so – possibly for reasons of mental incompetence, I suppose.
Carry on dreaming.
Mike Flynn,
You accept that the Earth cools more slowly because of its atmosphere.
Yet you claim there is no greenhouse effect.
Deceitful cretin.
Sure, because it’s not the GHGs that insulate.
Looks like Graham’s respite cured his JAQing off.
It’s not the GHGs that insulate.
“Its not the GHGs that insulate.”
You mean it’s not just GHGs that radiantly insulate, but
the entire mass of atmosphere, also??
And/or referring other factors other than radiant effects of
gases within atmosphere which have insulating and/or warming/greenhouse effect??
GHGs don’t radiatively insulate. The N2/O2 doesn’t radiatively insulate. The N2/O2 is the planetary insulation, however, because it “holds onto” the heat better than the GHGs, because it is not so radiatively active as GHGs. It “delays the cooling” by orders of magnitude more than GHGs can.
“It delays the cooling by orders of magnitude more than GHGs can.”
Yeah I agree, roughly. But it’s mass also reflects and defuses sunlight, though wraps sunlight around the edges of planet, also.
More sunlight would reach the surface if there was 1/2 of mass of atmosphere, but 1/2 mass of atmosphere would have less uniformity
of global temperature {which is mostly what greenhouse effect is].
Anyhow, they call Ozone a greenhouse gases despite it directly being energized by sunlight’s UV light.
Do think this “greenhouse gas” warms Earth?
Obviously if UV is not absorbed in upper atmosphere, it would absorbed at surface, so does, it warm a bit more if absorbed in higher atmosphere compared to lower, is the question.
I do think doubling of C02 does have a yet to measured warming effect.
It seems to me the warming over last century, has been mostly, a recovery from Little Ice Age.
And ocean cooled a bit during LIA, and has warmed a bit from the time of 1850 AD.
You agree with the suggestion that non-radiative gases are the true radiative gases, gb?
Nobody is making that suggestion. For what is actually being suggested, scroll up and read.
“The N2/O2 is the planetary insulation, however, because it holds onto the heat better than the GHGs, because it is not so radiatively active as GHGs. It delays the cooling by orders of magnitude more than GHGs can.”
Another thing.
Comparison of Earth and Venus.
Venus is mostly CO2 with 3.5% Nitrogen.
Venus upper atmosphere [including it’s thick [tall] clouds]
is heated by sunlight. So one could say nitrogen is a small factor
in ” delays the cooling by orders of magnitude more than GHGs
can.”.
So what delays cooling with Venus or is there little delay from
Venus air and say clouds delay. Or what delays?
Venus absorbs very little sunlight as compared to Earth and as compared to how close [twice the sunlight[ as compared to Earth.
And spends a long time in night.
Or perhaps it’s the longer night is what causes delay. Or the upper atmosphere has a 4 to 5 earth day delay, so longer night in terms of it’s upper atmosphere.
I say CO2 doesn’t cool, largely because of Venus.
Though I would also concede that Venus lacks exploration.
Plus new evidence regarding the youngness of Venus surface, and perhaps it’s volcanologically active surface is causing the apparent delay of heat loss.
Anyhow, how would you explain Venus, in terms of “delays the cooling by orders of magnitude more than GHGs can.
[GRAHAM] The N2/O2 is the planetary insulation, however, because it holds onto the heat better than the GHGs
[ALSO GRAHAM] because it is not so radiatively active as GHGs.
[OXFORD REFERENCE ON RADIATIVE GAS] Any gas (such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and ozone) that [A-word] incoming solar radiation or outgoing infrared radiation.
Little Willy apparently cannot read.
Apparently Graham has returned to gaslighting.
Not in the least, no.
Gordo regurgitates another blast of his delusional physics, for example his mention of vertical convection. He wrote:
The air mass “rises” because the cooler, denser air surrounding it flows under it and lifts it. The fact is, the warmer parcels may have a lower density because they also include more water vapor, which has a lower density than air. As the parcel rises, the WV precipitates, forming clouds of liquid water, which also adds thermal energy to the rising column, warming it. As the parcel rises further, the cloud liquids can freeze, adding still more thermal energy to the rising parcel. The process causes the rising air to gain sensible “heat” by converting latent energy.
The result is that the rising air will tend to be warmer than the surrounding cooler air even as the two masses mix via entrainment. Gordo also wants to forget that the upper air must then be cooled for it to sink. That cooling is the result of GHG’s emitting IR energy to deep space. And, as the cooler air descends, it is compressed and warms.
The atmosphere convection acts as a thermodynamic heat transfer system, it’s not “natural dissipation of heat” with altitude. The energy exiting he atmosphere above TOA must equal that which enters the atmosphere minus that reflected or scattered.
As Gordon said:
“…the retention of heat by nitrogen and oxygen for significant periods of time, is a better explanation for the action we call the greenhouse effect than the normal explanation of the GHE.”
The N2/O2 is the planetary insulator, not GHGs.
swannie…”Gordo also wants to forget that the upper air must then be cooled for it to sink. That cooling is the result of GHGs emitting IR energy to deep space. And, as the cooler air descends, it is compressed and warms”.
***
Swannie doesn’t seem to understand that the heated surface air is rising into an ever-decreasing atmosphere of pressure and temperature. That means the rising air parcel must expand into ever decreasing pressure and temperature.
If you are standing atop Mt. Everest, or even at base camp at 18,000 feet, you would not expect a sudden blast of warm air from an air parcels that began at sea level, or even a lower altitude.
Must keep things in perspective, Swannie. A parcel of rising air will lose its heat naturally as it rises and that heat does not have to be radiate to space based on a cockamamey theory that only GHGs can radiate away atmospheric heat. By the time heated air rising to the altitude of the upper troposphere most of the heat will be gone.
Gordo repeats his usual ignorance of thermodynamics as he continues to define “heat” as energy content. To be sure, an ideal gas will exhibit an increase in temperature as it is compressed or, conversely, will cool when it’s pressure is reduced. But, if this process is adiabatic, the internal energy will remain the same. As an example, in the atmosphere, descending air will exhibit an increase in temperature as it is compressed and the opposite is true for rising air masses. Weather events called Chinook winds are examples of this process.
What Gordo completely fails to understand is that the descending air has been cooled before it can sink. Another good example of this would be the down drafts from large thunderstorms as they mature.
BTW, Gordo, I forgot to include that clouds also radiate IR, doing so in both directions. The outward radiation from the top of the cloud to deep space provides another mechanism which cools the upper air while the downward IR radiation below the cloud ceiling warms the surface. But, above the tropopause, there are only GHG’s which can radiate.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Cult Leader gremmie, thank you for your support. We can always count on you to butt in with a mindless post when something important is being discussed.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Whiny Wee Willy does not like Newton’s Law of Cooling.
He wrote –
“Take the Law of Cooling The rate of heat loss of a body is directly proportional to the difference in the temperatures between the body and its environment. Have you checked every body in the universe, every environment, and every temperature?”
He does not realise that a physical law holds until someone demonstrates by experiment that it doesn’t.
Willard’s silly and irrelevant nonsense is about as silly as challenging Newton’s Laws of Motion because they haven’t been tested against every body in the universe, every environment, and every temperature!
I asked the witless fool what part of Newton’s Law of Cooling he did not understand. His comment indicates he understands none of it. An idiot trying to pretend he isn’t. No, Willard, there is no GHE. Trying to dismiss physical laws because they don’t conform to his bizarre fantasy is likely to generate more derisive laughter than applause.
Willard just thinks he knows better than Newton. Mind you, Newton’s Law of Cooling is only normally used when the difference in T is small.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_cooling
Isaac was no verificationist, dummy.
He was a lot smarter than you. For sure.
You realize that the point was about verificationism, right?
Willard, please stop trolling.
You realize that I was talking about you?
You realize I was not talking about Newton, like, not at all?
RLH,
I’m not sure why Wikipedia inserted that piece of opinion about small temperature, unless they consider bright red heat as a small difference of temperature compared with 25 C or so.
Maybe the Wikipedia editor was thinking only of the lower temperature “linear” portion of the cooling curve, a first order differential equation. Newton’s Law of Cooling is used in hardening of steel, quenching from over 1000 C.
Newton’s law can be derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann law, based purely on radiation being proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature etc.
Once again, Wikipedia ignores fact in favour of misguided opinion.
Moron Mike,
Have you tried *corroborating* with another source?
If you are to opine on verificationism, you might as well learn the lingo.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Moron Mike,
The Law of Cooling:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/56553/are-newtons-law-of-cooling-and-stefans-law-related
Cheers.
“Newtons law can be derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann law, based purely on radiation being proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature etc.”
Not quite Mike. A T^4 dependence can be approximated as linear for small T changes.
So if radiation is the dominant heat loss mechanism, Newton’s law of cooling applies only for small T differences.
Swenson,
Can you provide any data supporting the hypothesis that the Earth has cooled according to Newton’s Law of Cooling for the last 4 1/2 billion years or so?
Bobby Buffoon,
Newton’s Law of Cooling – Law.
Show a situation where it doesn’t apply, it is no longer a law.
Off you go, now.
Swenson,
I already did that.
It only applies when there is only one mechanism of cooling.
The surface of the Earth can cool by at least five different mechanisms, some of which do not follow the heat loss being directly proportional to the temperature difference, one being heat loss be radiation which follows a different law.
Further more, it only applies when the thermal conductivity of the substance in question is constant, which is not always the case.
Sorry old man, you are taking your junior high school science and arguing with those who know better.
You have been schooled, now go ahead and call me a buffoon again.
It makes me horny.
Bumbling bobby buffoon,
You wrote (re Newton’s Law of Cooling) –
“It only applies when there is only one mechanism of cooling.”, which of course you can’t actually describe.
According to you.
You are a buffoon, who thinks you can change or amend physical laws to suit your delusional SkyDragon cult beliefs. Good luck with that.
If you don’t want to accept reality, you don’t have to. That’s what makes you not only a buffoon, but an idiot into the bargain.
Swenson,
“which of course you cant actually describe.”
Newton’s Law of Cooling only applies to conduction and convection.
Cooling due to phase transfers and radiation follow other laws.
If you could only use an encyclopedia, you might find I am correct, and not appealing to my own authority.
swenson…”Im not sure why Wikipedia inserted that piece of opinion about small temperature…”
***
Obviously, the wiki article is wrong. Newton would surely have allowed for that in his law if it was the case.
richard…”Mind you, Newtons Law of Cooling is only normally used when the difference in T is small”.
***
Either that or the wiki article is wrong, which is far more likely. Experience tells us that the greater the temperature difference the faster a surface will cool.
Mike Flynn,
Have you considered convening with Bordo before writing that rant?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Moron Mike,
The Law of Cooling:
https://knowledge.carolina.com/discipline/physical-science/physics/newtons-law-of-cooling/
Long live and prosper.
It still applies if the difference in T is small.
Define small.
So it applies. Idiot.
Perhaps you should have a talk with Nate.
Meanwhile, enjoy this tidbit:
You’ll never guess who wrote this.
“Define small.”
Something close to 1 or 2.
Can you provide any data supporting the hypothesis that the Earth has cooled according to Newton’s Law of Cooling for the last 4 1/2 billion years or so?
Wee Willy Wanker,
Its a Law. It stands until you can demonstrate otherwise, fool.
Go your hardest.
Swenson,
No data, no laundry.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Facts are not laws, Moron Mike.
Your turn.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (17502018)
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx
“The assumption that the increase in CO2 since 1800 is dominated by or equal to the increase in the anthropogenic component is not settled science. Unsupported conclusions of the dominance of the anthropogenic fossil component of CO2 and concerns of its effect on climate change and global warming have severe potential societal implications that press the need for very costly remedial actions that may be misdirected, presently unnecessary, and ineffective in curbing global warming.”
Sky Dragon cranks have already been there:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1125682
I did not know you were an Ed fan, Kennui.
Funny…I just discussed the Skrable et al. 2022 publication with someone else this morning. They make the same tiresome and egregious mistake as Salby, Berry, Harde, etc. That is they erroneously believe that the ratio of human markers to natural markers is the same as the ratio for the attribution of the agent(s) responsible for changes in mass amount. I’ll repeat again and as many times as needed…the modulation of mixing ratios of identifying markers (like isotopes) is different than the modulation of mass amount. The agent most responsible for the modulation of mixing ratios is NOT the same as the agent most responsible for the modulation of mass amount.
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/06000/Comment_on_Skrable_et_al___2022_.9.aspx
Uggh..I can see why Ken didn’t give us a link to this terrible paper.
Oh I see he did. My bad..
Commenter:
“I was, however, perplexed by some conclusions regarding global warming the authors deduced as they moved beyond their actual findings to dabble in climate science. Specifically, Conclusion 3 asserts that the huge increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (from 410 ppm today) is mostly due to increases in temperatures from solar insolation in 1950 and afterwards. The publication of this paper in HPJ seems inappropriate because it has nothing to do with health physics (if we acknowledge that the Societys aim is radiation safety). Also, publishing this work in a journal having no relation to climate science shielded this manuscript from peer review by actual climate scientists. A cursory review of the data casts doubts on both the implication of insolation variations and on the oversimplification that fossil fuel-related CO2 is the only significant anthropic driver of global warming.”
bdg…”Ill repeat again and as many times as neededthe modulation of mixing ratios of identifying markers (like isotopes) is different than the modulation of mass amount. The agent most responsible for the modulation of mixing ratios is NOT the same as the agent most responsible for the modulation of mass amount”.
***
What you are repeating is that you have no idea what component of the current atmosphere is made up of anthropogenic CO2.
What is this agent? How do you measure it with a station on the flanks of a volcano that spews CO2?
Ken
Excellent info.
Great news for Germans
https://notrickszone.com/2023/06/07/german-government-prepares-to-end-meat-consumption-rations-of-just-10-grams-daily/
Although I’d like to see us evolve to a point where we no longer feel the need to kill and eat animals I think it is dumb to think that can be legislated. This legislation is not for the benefit of animals, it is clearly a politically-correct nonsense aimed at control.
That’s from the Only-Tricks-ZOne for gullible people.
This
“The German governments SRU Council on the Environment recommends all citizens be limited to a meat equivalent of just 2 sausages a month in an all-encompassing totalitarian behavior control plan.”
is fake news. It can only found on propaganda sites.
At one time, that would have been immediately regarded as a hoax. With the current politically-correct idiots one cannot be sure.
They have cross-dressers, a sexual fetish, now claiming to be members of the opposite sex, even though they are biologically not. In other words, a sexual fetish is now regarded as evidence of a mistake of nature.
They are lobbying to get rid of police and offering no bail release to known criminals. It’s no longer unusual that a government would try to limit the meat intake of the population. I did not think even the German government with it’s inane political-correctness could be that stupid.
As noted, it is for gullible people.
Gullibility is one thing, bigotry is another.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
For those who live in the US:
> If the unsmoothed Land-Ocean Temperature Index value for 2023 reported by NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is above 1.02 degrees Celsius, then the market resolves to Yes. Outcome verified from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
https://kalshi.com/markets/gtemp/global-average-temperature-deviation#gtemp-23
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/giss-recent-1.jpeg
P.S. GISS shows that 1998 was much cooler than 2016. UAHJ does not.
RSS also
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/rss-global-1.jpeg
Wold you buy or would you sell, Richard?
I would wait and see, especially if you promote it.
Fair. 33 cents is a lot for many.
It is not the money that is concerned.
“Kalshi is the first federally regulated financial exchange that allows people to trade on the anticipated outcome of events, from “Will the Fed hike rates in its next meeting” to “Will the creation of GPT-5 be announced in 2023″.”
A fool and his money are soon parted.
[RICHARD] It is not the money that is concerned.
[ALSO RICHARD] A fool and his money are soon parted.
Also: Willard is an idiot.
[RICHARD] Blinny just insults people who were correct when he was wrong.
[ALSO RICHARD] Also: Willard is an idiot.
Would you accept what an S-G filter shows?
What does it show?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/giss-recent-1.jpeg
Yes. And what does it show?
That the future may not be upwards as your very short term ‘trend’ shows. Wasn’t it you who derided me on short term noise?
Define short term.
Define signal. Define noise.
Climate signals are long-term trends or changes in the climate system due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. The signals of human-caused climate change are distinct from the noise of natural climate variability as well as other ways, such as aerosol pollution, that human activities can affect the climate.
“Climate signals are long-term trends or changes in the climate system due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.”
Therefore ocean gyres are not involved.
Here we go again…
Climate is driven by solar activity and moderated by ocean currents.
Ocean gyres are involved in climate. Big.
GHG emission are bit player; hardly any effect on climate at all, particularly when compared to the effect of gyres.
GHG emissions isn’t even distinguishable from noise. Particularly when you consider that Ed might be right about off gassing.
AGW warms the oceans too, Kennui.
Unless you think the gyres form some kind of dynamo?
Are ocean gyres due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions?
Are you really suggesting that the gyres themselves generate warming?
We might have found a new source of energy!
wee willy…”Are you really suggesting that the gyres themselves generate warming?
***
Gyres help move ice out of the Arctic Ocean into the North Atlantic. Of course, the ice loss is blamed on global warming.
Warmth makes things warmer, Bordo.
Why is it warmer now?
Can’t be natural processes – we’d be cooling.
Unicorns?
C’mon.
I am suggesting that oceans gyres are long term natural patterns that may take decades or even centuries to operate when taken as a whole.
“Can’t be natural processes wed be cooling” or warming.
In principle, yes.
In reality, not at this moment:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-is-not-part-of-natural-climate-variability/
So you do not accept that 1878 and 2016 are as warm as each other. Even though there is evidence and papers that say that they were.
That’s not what the paper said, Richard, and I suspect you know it.
How about 1934? It is rated the warmest year in North America and there is no reason that was not globally. No on in 1934 was compiling global temps let alone measuring them globally.
C’mon, Bordo.
North America is not the world:
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1900
“Thats not what the paper said”
Willard just invents things. For instance
“Huang et al. (2020) performing an ensemble analysis of the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 5 (ERSSTv5) report that the 18771878 El Nio had a peak monthly value of Nio‑3 index of 3.5C, stronger than those during 19821983, 19971998, and 20152016.”
and
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/11/jcli-d-19-0650.1.xml
“How Significant Was the 1877/78 El Nio?”
01 May 2020
“In conclusion, the strength (2.83.5C) and uncertainty (0.5C) of the 1877/78 El Nio event are quantified by evaluating the selection of certain parameters in the ERSSTv5 ensemble. The strength of the 1877/78 El Nio appears approximately equal to those during 1982/83, 1997/98, and 2015/16.”
and
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2183901-a-freak-1870s-climate-event-caused-drought-across-three-continents/
“A freak 1870s climate event caused drought across three continents”
“It’s not easy to forget the deaths of 50 million people, but we have managed it”
“I am suggesting that oceans gyres are long term natural patterns that may take decades or even centuries to operate when taken as a whole.”
Where’s the evidence that any of these natural patterns explains the T record that we had?
Science aint hopes and dreams, it requires evidence.
“Persistently warm weather by CET series over period May to July. The summer of 1868 was very hot & dry, with some of the highest temperatures ever recorded for the second half of July occurring in this year. There was a remarkable spell of hot days, with temperatures over 30degC in England. For the south-east of England specifically, a maximum temperature above 32degC was recorded in each of the months from May to September, and in July specifically, the temperature exceeded 32degC on 9 days; the soil was very dry (lack of precipitation), which would of course mean that solar energy was most effective”
Next Richard will assign global temperatures using paintings.
“Where’s the evidence that any of these natural patterns explains the T record that we had?”
The evidence of high T in the past (in the oceans particularly) has been minimized. See above.
Willard will always be a warmista idiot.
“AGW warms the oceans too, Kennui.”
How does AGW warm oceans?
As far as I can determine, oceans are warmed by sunlight, not by heat transfer between ocean and atmosphere.
Oh, Kennui:
> Most of the excess atmospheric heat is passed back to the ocean.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
Kids know more about climate that you, and you played Climateball every day for years now.
Also, Richard forgot to quote the part where his pet paper mention global temps in the 19th century.
Not that CET is at all representative of the northern hemisphere.
Or that Willard recognizes that the ocean data he relies on is so sparse, especially in the southern hemisphere.
https://imgur.com/gallery/Ulah5KV
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/06/09/world/el-nino-weather-impact-explainer/
Could is not will and is often used to ‘prove’ things.
I notice that Willard relies of things that does not exist, like southern sea surface data.
I notice Richard has yet to find a quote in his pet article in which the authors support his claim about global temperatures in the 19th century.
I note that there are papers that show the 1878 event affected 3 ocean basins and 3 continents but, for some reason, the available surface temperature data does not reflect this. Could it be that the data has been artificially cooled by those who want AGW to be of large import. Like Willard.
“The strength of the 1877/78 El Nio appears approximately equal to those during 1982/83, 1997/98, and 2015/16.”
Boyin Huang, Michelle LHeureux, Zeng-Zhen Hu, Xungang Yin, and Huai-Min Zhang
01 May 2020
I note:
“The year 2022 was the sixth warmest year since global records began in 1880 at 0.86C (1.55F) above the 20th century average of 13.9C (57.0F). This value is 0.13C (0.23F) less than the record set in 2016 and it is only 0.02C (0.04F) higher than the last year’s (2021) value, which now ranks as the seventh highest. The 10 warmest years in the 143-year record have all occurred since 2010, with the last nine years (20142022) ranking as the nine warmest years on record.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
I also note:
“if you just want to keep things simple, then watch Chris Farley play El Nio on Saturday Night Live.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/what-el-ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93southern-oscillation-enso-nutshell
“Generally, observations over the global oceans are sparser and less reliable in the past compared with modern times (Freeman et al. 2017). For example, the areal coverage of in situ SST observations in 2 2 grid boxes is lower in the 1900s and 1950s (30%40%) than in the 2000s (70%) (Huang et al. 2017). Consequentially, biases and random errors of SST observations are larger before the 1950s than after (Kennedy et al. 2011a,b; Huang et al. 2016b, 2020).”
Yet GISS (and others) claim they know the global temperature to a quite precise number back to the 1800s (and before).
e.g.
https://imgur.com/a/M7TMQFi
Note how the confidence hardly changes despite the noted sea surface coverage (or lack of) noted above.
“The year 2022 was the sixth warmest year since global records began in 1880 at 0.86C (1.55F) above the 20th century average of 13.9C (57.0F).”
1876-1878 was just before that period. I wonder what it showed.
Richard appeals to ignorance.
In fairness that’s what he got.
Thanks. I’ve participated in these prediction markets before. I was not aware of this one though. I think the market is undervalued right now. According to my model it should be trading $0.50 or above .
ARBITRAGE ALL INEFFICIENCIES!
I did the PredictIt market for GISTEMP back in 2020. My experience was that since participants were limited to I think $1000 invested the arbitrage had limited efficiency. The “smart” money that used modeling could only weakly arbitrage due to the investing limit. And what limited arbitrage there was played out slowly sometimes. When the price needed a downward correction the arbitrage was fast because participants could unwind their positions with the click of a button. But when the price needed an upward correction the arbitrage was slow because the “smart” money could not always add to their positions.
It’ll be interesting to see how the Kalshi market works. It looks like the investing limit is $25000 which should make the arbitrage work better theoretically. I’m just not sure how much of the “smart” money knows about this prediction market yet.
I mentioned PredictIt in a comment two days ago because of its contract on the GOP nomination:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/06/03/beliefs-and-bets/#comment-218526
The CFTC tries to block the service to US citizens:
https://www.predictit.org/platform-announcements
BTW…a word of caution if you want to play the GISTEMP prediction markets. I do my own machine learning modeling and even run the GISTEMP code on my own computer to get an edge and my efforts pale in comparison to the level of modeling and dedication others put into this. I learned very quickly that there is always someone out there that can make better predictions than I and utilize them faster as well. The point…at $0.31 for the YES it seems undervalued to me, but does someone know something I don’t?
Agreed. If you do not know who’s the patsy at your Poker table, that usually means it’s you.
One solution is to use past results from your model and to adjust your position size and your stop accordingly. Ralph Vince has a nice book on this.
One could also observe that only patsy play poker.
Oh, Richard.
Oh Willard.
I don’t play Poker much. Twas not the point. Poker can be fun for some. It can be a profession.
Remind us of what Edmund said of games. Or was it science?
“I don’t play Poker much”
That figures.
I knew more Poker players than you ever will, Richard.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Great news for dumb ignoramuses
https://www.vzhh.de/sites/default/files/styles/crop_default/public/medien/167/bilder/Meat_and_Cancer_%C2%A9_cancer_research_uk.png?itok=epox0ZDh
Higher rates of stomach cancer have been related to processed meats like bacon, which used to be cured by nitrates. May not be the meat per se but the process used to cure it and cook it. In Scotland there has been a high rate of stomach cancer in Scots who indulged in the traditional ‘fry up’, a term used in reference to food cooked in the fat of bacon.
I recall as a child in Scotland having an aversion to food cooked in grease. Of course, as a child you had no say in the matter and were forced to eat it. In my life, I have witnessed untimely deaths caused by cancer in people who ate such diets.
Of course, there are always exceptions. I know of one lady who indulged in such diets, was grossly overweight, but did not smoke or drink. She lived till 92.
A word on behalf of the animals…I don’t eat meat due to my aversion to seeing animals killed when there are perfectly good non-animal proteins available which can be made into delicious meals. I have not eaten meat for well over 20 years and I can’t imagine why I ever ate it. I am perfectly content and healthy on a vegetarian diet.
I can understand people eating meat when it is the only good form of protein available, like out in the wilds. In our society, it’s just not necessary.
It just occurred to me that the danger of eating animal products is not so much cancer as heart disease. The way we cook meat produces oxidants which help cross-link arteries as well as clogging the arteries.
It’s too bad more people aren’t vegetarians. It would help hold done the price of good beef. I had to pay about $50 last week for 4 tenderloins from Costco. Pricey, but worth every cent…
One of the effects of increasing CO2 is increased plant growth rates. Could that possibly contribute to increased forest fire risk?
Don’t know, but there is a myth out there that fresh cut wood won’t burn. Forest fires are proof that is wrong.
I do not know under what conditions fresh cut wood will burn, but I do know that forest fires spread primarily by the undergrowth which is most small and dried wood. A crown fire burns mostly needles, leaves, and bark, not the trunk. There is also some evidence that crown fires spread to some extent by radiant heat. Imagine that!
FYI
https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/background/summary/fwi
I just realized that high school educated fire fighters know more about radiant heat transfer than the radiant heat deniers who post nonsense on this sight. Flashover is caused by radiant heat, and it is the CO2 and water vapor in the fire smoke that make that possible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashover
“The hot buoyant smoke layer grows in depth, as it is bounded by the walls of the room. The radiated heat from this layer heats the surfaces of the directly exposed combustible materials in the room, causing them to give off flammable gases, via pyrolysis.”
Seeing is believing:
https://youtu.be/69D78AhVziQ
Tim,
Come on. Who’s radiant heat deniers? So are you saying fire smoke in a room proves GHE? Why don’t you write a paper?
Your incredulity is inversely proportional to your curiosity, Troglodyte:
> When the layer of hot smoke within an enclosure grows deep enough to reach an opening, such as a door or window, the smoke flows out through the top of the opening into the adjacent space. The increased volume of the hot gases in the smoke and their accumulation in the upper layer result in a small but noticeable pressure increase inside the compartment. Since gases follow the path of least resistance, the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the compartment drives the flow of smoke through each opening. Ambient air will therefore flow back in through the bottom of the opening to replace the gases that have exited the compartment. The demarcation between flows is often visible in a doorframe or window.
https://guides.firedynamicstraining.ca/g/fd203-enclosure-fires-sd/118397
What hot gases in the smoke, again?
Seems like a whole lotta convection and conduction going on. Just like in the atmosphere.
Seems like you still lack the curiosity to read the page, Troglodyte:
> To understand what can happen later in the fire development, however, it is crucially important to recognize that the hot smoke that is collecting near the ceiling is also emitting thermal radiation to its surroundings throughout the life of the fire. Thermal radiation from the ceiling and walls back into the fire enclosure increases in intensity as the surfaces heat up. This combines with radiation from the upper layer, leading it to preheat, begin to pyrolyze and produce fuel vapours from any combustible items in the enclosure. Radiation therefore has a major impact on the fire environment as the fire continues to grow.
Op. Cit.
Is your incredulity nearing flashover?
The proof requires some measure of intelligence and an understanding of the relationship between black body radiation and a type of spectrum that seems to involve a forbidden word.
But, just like in the atmosphere, you want to ignore the chief means of heat transfer to the atmosphere, conduction, and convection.
Willard,
So if you use a radiator to heat your home, is most of the heat transfer radiant heat that heats CO2 and H2O, or is it conductive and convective heat transfer to air which induces natural circulation? By the way, the air is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, hint, hint.
stephen, I gave Gordon the benefit of the doubt that he is not trolling, but just confused or worse. I gave you the same opportunity to learn something useful. By your trolling answer, you failed the test. I do not care what your problem is.
Is there supposed to be anything new here?
Everything in the universe radiates IR, proportional to absolute temperature.
All gases can be heated by absorbing IR. All heated gases emit IR.
All gases cool if they are emitting more energy than they absorb.
No amount of inert matter can raise the temperature of a gas which is warmer.
Thus, there is no GHE – and which is why nobody can describe the GHE.
As a side matter, firefighters wear clothing they with the best insulation qualities they can find – to keep them cool.
> All gases can be heated by absorbing IR.
How noble of you, Mike! Wink wink. Nude nudge.
Have you thought this through?
“All gases can be heated by absorbing IR. All heated gases emit IR.”
Mike must’ve never been warmed by the radiant heat of a fire, that passes effortlessly through the air in between.
Tim S,
Can you have conductive heat transfer from warm gases or vapor to colder gases or vapor or from warm objects to colder gas or air? Yes or no?
Nate must have never lit a fire, left the room, then returned, and the air in the room was warmer.
Yes I have. True, indoors the radiant heat heats the walls of the room and then the air.
But I was thinking more of an outdoor fire. If you doubt that it is radiant heat passing through the air to warm you, just face away from the fire, or sit behind someone.
I have long thought skiing on Mars would be a thing. One could also sunbath on Mars, but can you surf on Mars?
It seems you could, but it might be expensive activity- so you might ask would it be a better place to surf as compared to Earth- and therefore perhaps worth the effort.
Now skiing has problem on Mars, due to ice not being slippery, like it is on Earth which also related to making roads of ice on Mars- but doesn’t seem like particular barrier to skiing on Mars.
If have lakes on Mars, sunbathing is just a dome over the lake with enough air pressure in it. And one could do the same with surfing- but it seems you need a rather big dome- so it’s expensive. Would it somehow be to worth it?
For instance, you could fly like bird on Mars, and it wouldn’t have cost much, would flying be more fun than surfing?
This related to looking at sun on Mars:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1495652
The Nanny State Strikes Again: 30C Heat Health Alert?
“Once again, we find ourselves facing the alarming media rhetoric and an overly cautious government agency response that typically emerges at the first sign of weather that strays from the mild and mundane. This weekends forecast? A scorching 30C (or for our American friends, a balmy 86F). Cue the heat-health alert, with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) making it sound as though we are bracing for a Saharan onslaught, rather than a warm summer weekend.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/08/the-nanny-state-strikes-again-30c-heat-health-alert/
Well, people could be used to wearing a heavy overcoat.
Here, where I it was 52 F at night. and going to be 82 F as daytime
high {and already 78 F} and highest forecast of week going to be
86 F next Wednesday. A couple week it when over 90 F [32 C].
Where do you learn wisdom?
[Dennis asked.]
You get wisdom from exploration.
But Dennis question is getting wisdom from institution [or I guess, books and other forms of media- though not going to get it from
corporate news].
Though you get wisdom by exploration and so, our lack of space exploration means we lack wisdom.
I have said exploration is basis of science, but guess one can also
say, science without exploration is foolish.
Our Cold war PR of sending a man to Moon, had some science connected
to, and very transformative, even though exploration was more of after thought. Or the risk and cost was worth it, if part of a war effort. Whereas gaining wisdom, was not by it’s self, worth the risk
and national costs.
And one could say because costs and risk has lowered, the wisdom gained from going to the moon could regarded as worth it
bob d…”In the case of heat transfer by thermal radiation, Newtons law of cooling holds only for very small temperature differences.
***
Where is there any heat transfer by radiation in the atmosphere? Alarmists claim heat is transferred from the surface to GHGs in the atmosphere but heat cannot be transferred physically from the surface to GHGs.
As IR is produced, the heat associated with it is lost at the radiating surface. IR cannot transfer heat since it has none of the properties of heat, being an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. Also, IR will pass through a vacuum but heat can’t.
I get it that energy from the Sun heats the Earth but it is not done by transferring heat physically from Sun to Earth. It is done via two transformations of energy, from heat to EM and from EM back to heat. Those transformations must obey the 2nd law. That means, heat on the Earth cannot be transformed to IR with that IR heating the Sun. Or heat from GHGs being transformed to IR and heating the hotter Earth’s surface.
If the IR is captured by GHGs cooler than the surface, heat will be created but it is new heat and has nothing to do with the heat in the surface. The new heat is not heat from the surface therefore it is not transferred from the surface. IR has the property of being able to induce heat in a cooler object but it is carrying no heat of its own.
Newton’s Law of Cooling is about temperature difference between a surface and its environment. That means heat has to be transferred physically as energy between the two and that can only happen via conduction and convection.
When you talk about heat dissipation at the Earth’s surface, it can happen via conduction, convection, and radiation. It happens by conduction when air molecules in contact with the surface are heated and by convection when the heated molecules rise naturally. Note that heat must always be associated with atoms (mass). Any heat in a mass associated with the production of EM/IR is lost during the conversion process.
I get it that heat APPEAR to be transferred by EM/IR but in the pursuit of precision in science we need to do better than using inference. We get away with inferring the Sun is revolving around the Earth when we claim it rises in the East and sets in the West but is it too much trouble to ask that we at least form a mental picture that the rising/setting is an illusion due to relative motion produced by a rotating Earth? In the same manner, it’s an illusion that heat is transferred via radiation as heat.
If we don’t make the effort to be as precise as possible, our minds become caught in a perpetual state of distortion.
Gordon,
“Where is there any heat transfer by radiation in the atmosphere? Alarmists claim heat is transferred from the surface to GHGs in the atmosphere but heat cannot be transferred physically from the surface to GHGs.”
You don’t have a clue.
IR has energy, that’s a property of heat, which has the same units as energy, meaning heat has energy, so they both have a property in common.
I heard it said you flunked out of university, is that true.
bob…”IR has energy, thats a property of heat, which has the same units as energy, meaning heat has energy, so they both have a property in common”.
***
This has to rate as one of the most idiotic replies you have ever offered. You indicate a clear misunderstanding of the meaning of energy, seeming to presume it is some magical quantity that exists as a generic entity, even though it takes on different forms with totally different properties.
Energy is a word we use very loosely to describe a motivating force of some kind.
No, Bob, IR does not have energy it is energy. It is a form of energy totally different than the energy that is heat. And heat does not have energy, it is energy as well. They are radically different forms of energy, which is a total unknown.
Energy has no measure. We measure the effect energy has on something. With IR moving through space and being absorbed by matter, we measure the effect the IR has on electrons in the absorbing material. Whether we measure a change in temperature or a change in electrical current, we are measuring an effect of energy not the energy itself.
You stay back at 1st year science level if you like, I moved on from it long ago.
Gordon,
“Energy has no measure.”
Well, I used to work for a company that sold energy, so it was measured at the point of production as well as at the point of sale.
You probably have such a device connected to your computer.
It is simply defined as the ability to do work, and you can measure it by the amount of work produced by the energy.
I would assume that you would say that we can’t measure work either.
So, how do we explain the process of heat dissipation via radiation and what affects the rate of dissipation? A thermos might give us a clue. A thermos is often a glass flask designed so there is a vacuum between the inner flask shell and the outer shell. If a hot liquid is inserted into the flask, heat via conduction and convection is stifled by the vacuum. Some heat will obviously escape via small areas of the flask not protected by the vacuum.
I found that preheating the flask with boiling water before adding hot coffee kept the liquid temperature hotter for longer. I could fill the thermos with boiling hot coffee at 6 am and still have it be hot at noon.
This kind of proves that radiation is not a good means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures. Hot liquid will heat the inner flask wall and it should radiate to the outer flask wall through the vacuum and warm it. The vacuum does slow down the rate of heat dissipation from inner wall to outer wall, but radiation from the hotter inner wall should eventually heat the outer wall. It certainly does not dissipate much heat over 6 hours.
However, suppose we take two the newly filled thermoses and insert one in a bucket of ice while we sit the other, painted black, out in the hot sun on a summer’s day. Which one will cool faster?
We have to note that a thermos is not a perfect insulator and that heat does escape via conduction and convection to a certain degree. Some heat will obviously be lost via conduction and convection according to Newton’s law of cooling. How about via radiation? Will subjecting the outer thermos covering, in which the vacuum flask is suspended with insulators, to different temperatures, affect the rate of radiation?
Take your thermos apart and tell me how the surfaces look?
Do they look like mirrors?
That might help you figure out how they work.
Look even closer, Bob. Are the surfaces on the inside surfaces of the thermos flask like mirrors? I mean the surfaces containing the vacuum.
You are suggesting that the mirror-like surfaces prevent IR emissions but we know from residential construction that until recently no concern was given to IR losses because they are essentially negligible at terrestrial temperatures.
Recently, they have begin using reflective material to reflect IR back into homes but it makes little difference to heating costs. The main R-rated insulation is still aimed at slowing heat loss via conduction.
I have two different types of thermoses. One is the type you describe and the other uses a stainless steel flask with styrofoam replacing the vacuum. It works pretty good but it does not retain the heat like a glass vacuum flask.
Metal will block IR so it should not be a concern in that type of flask. Therefore the concern is heat loss via conduction and convection on the outer shell. It would seem the main difference is the use of styrofoam as an insulator versus a vacuum. Radiation makes little or no difference.
As I said, radiation is not significant at terrestrial temperatures.
> radiation is not significant at terrestrial temperatures.
Your summer red neck must be cute, Bordo:
https://youtu.be/sTJ7AzBIJoI
As does your red face.
I do not have the complexion, Richard.
Whereas you
Gordon,
“You are suggesting that the mirror-like surfaces prevent IR emissions”
Not at all.
The vacuum flask prevents conduction and convection, and the silvered surfaces reflect IR.
Your red face does not stem from your (lack of) complexion.
Yours does.
Willard is an idiot (with a red face).
Richard just insults people who were correct when he was wrong.
gordo loves to display his ignorance of physics. His latest case is his utter failure to understand how a Thermos bottle works. SEE: Dewar Flask, something which has been discussed numerous times on this blog, especially the sort which employ mirror coatings on the inner surfaces.
Willard is still an idiot (with a red face).
Richard still insults people who were correct when he was wrong.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard won’t accept that there are data gaps in the early record. Instead he relies on things ‘just being right’ that are possibly made up by people who have an AGW agenda.
Richard accepts data gaps so much that he never shows uncertainties in his toy grsphs, and is willing to fill the gaps with some cycle nuts stories. But at least he is starting to be more open about his nuttery.
Willard:
https://imgur.com/gallery/Ulah5KV
shows some of the data gaps.
Once again, Swannie sticks his size twelves firmly in his moutht, failing to explain how I got the thermos theory wrong. My theory duplicates the theory at Swannie’s link.
Gordo, the original Dewar flask used metal walls. Newer designs, such as the widely available Thermos bottles, use glass which has the inside surfaces coated with highly reflective silver. The coating results in improved insulation between the inside and outside which keeps hot contents hot for a longer period and the same for cold contents. Back when I was in grade school, I used to carry a lunch box to school including a Thermos bottle, with which I learned the hard way that the shiny glass could break.
Your reflective insulation would also reduce energy conduction, but only if it is installed properly. I added some foil covered sheathing to a single wide I owned a few years back. It’s insulation effects were enhanced by the layer of vinyl siding, which provided a dead air space between the sheathing and the outside environment.
But, as usual, you end pontificating denialist nonsense:
“Newtons Law of Cooling is about temperature difference between a surface and its environment. That means heat has to be transferred physically as energy between the two and that can only happen via conduction and convection.”
A good counter example is that the Earth’s surface cools MORE on a clear night than on a cloudy night, due to the additional radiative cooling direct to space through the IR window.
Nate,
You wrote –
“That means heat has to be transferred physically as energy between the two and that can only happen via conduction and convection.”
No, Nate, rewriting Newton’s Law of Cooling won’t help you create a non-existent GHE.
You probably reject descriptions such as this “Newtons law of cooling describes the rate at which an exposed body changes temperature through radiation . . . “.
Precisely why, as you say, the surface cools more rapidly at night, given clear skies and low water vapour. John Tyndall explained why, nearly 200 years ago.
You need to keep up with changes in knowledge.
nate…”A good counter example is that the Earths surface cools MORE on a clear night than on a cloudy night, due to the additional radiative cooling direct to space through the IR window”.
***
But, but, but…IR wont pass through a window, will it?
Could it be, that on a clear night, the atmospheric air descending to the surface to replace rising, heated air, is cooler on a clear night?
“But, but, butIR wont pass through a window, will it?”
It is called the IR window because IR passes through it for wavelengths of 8 to 13 microns. There are water vapor lines in it, so more IR passes through when the air is dry.
And indeed this is what causes the surface to cool faster on clear dry nights.
It is unclear what Swenson is on about.
Nate,
You are confused. All radiation emitted by the surface at night is lost – never to be seen again. Gone. Vanished.
That’s why the surface cools.
Even the entire Earth system – lithosphere, aquasphere, atmosphere and all the rest, continuously loses energy to the vastness of space. Incoming energy from the Sun is quite insufficient to replace it, resulting in the progressive cooling of the Earth over the past four and a half billion years.
You may be aware that the hottest and coldest places on Earth have the least amount of so-called “greenhouse gases” above them. You are obviously too stupid to understand why, and too deluded to try and educate yourself, so I won’t bother trying to explain the reasons.
Delusional SkyDragon cultists like yourself are only slightly in touch with reality. Do you really believe that a GHE which you can’t describe is responsible for surface cooling in both the short and long term?
Of course you do.
Carry on.
“You are confused. All radiation emitted by the surface at night is lost never to be seen again. ”
OK so you think the IR window to space, open or closed, doesnt matter?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_window
The same amount of IR from the surface escapes to space???
You don’t make sense. And maybe thats fine for the purposes of trolling.
Nate,
You wrote –
“OK so you think the IR window to space, open or closed, doesn’t matter?”
Inasmuch as all radiation emitted by the surface leaves to outer space, your question is meaningless. There is no IR window. All IR emitted by the surface is lost.
That’s why the surface cools.
Even you don’t believe the surface heats in the absence of sunlight, do you?
“There is no IR window.”
Denying basic science facts is for losers.
Here’s another one you need to deny:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Equation 3.
“Net Radiation Loss Rate
If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as
q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ah (3)
where
Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)
Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)
Ah = area of the hot object (m2)”
So the T of the cold place matters.
“Climate change has important implications for the health and futures of children and young people, yet they have little power to limit its harm, making them vulnerable to climate anxiety.
…
We surveyed 10 000 children and young people (aged 1625 years) in ten countries (Australia, Brazil, Finland, France, India, Nigeria, Philippines, Portugal, the UK, and the USA; 1000 participants per country).”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/08/climate-anxiety-doomsday-cult-or-mental-illness/
No children from China, which the country emitting the most CO2.
Australia, Brazil, and Finland are not emitting much CO2- and what does Australia have to worry about. Brazil has nothing to worry about. Finland might less frozen.
India not emitting much, global transport emits about as much.
Maybe Australia could figure out how to stop the “natural burning of coal”- as there a lot of this occurring in the world {including in US and China} as well as in Australia. But that is something AUSSIE politicians could do and are responsible for doing something about- maybe the would less money to waste on wind mills, but stopping a coal fire, would far more important as global thing.
And France, India, Nigeria, Philippines, Portugal, the UK, and the USA are likewise not the problem and have nothing to worry about.
China likes it’s warming- but it’s still a cold country.
Who to blame- teacher unions.
Burning Mountain, the common name for Mount Wingen, is a hill near Wingen, New South Wales, Australia, approximately 224 km (139 mi) north of Sydney just off the New England Highway.[2] It takes its name from a smouldering coal seam running underground through the sandstone. Burning Mountain is contained within the Burning Mountain Nature Reserve, which is administered by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_Mountain
The danger for children is idiots teaching them lies about global warming/climate change. As if that’s not bad enough, they are now teaching them its OK to embrace a perverted lifestyle before they understand anything about the sexual feelings involved. Also, they are pushing children toward the perversion of thinking they are the opposite sex, that nature made a mistake and assigned them the wrong sex.
Yeah, it’s not good.
But parents are responsible for their children.
And it’s quite possible that the children, will correctly, blame their parents.
Come on, Bordo.
Cut the bigotry. It is not cool, and you got all these other ruminations.
I await your follow-up on Mount Pelee.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
There was a comment somewhere above that seemed to suggest that the MaxwellBoltzmann distribution is a distribution of temperature. Unless there is something new in the science that I am not aware of, that is not correct. It is almost a philosophical question, but the relationship between the bulk temperature of a gas, sonic velocity, and kinetic energy has always been about the average kinetic energy. The distribution does not suggest a distribution of temperature, but the random chance result of collisions that do not occur in a straight line. It is easy to imagine a molecule that is hit form two sides and slows momentarily until the next collision without losing temperature or internal energy. In that sense, Maxwell’s Demon is nothing more than a thought experiment, and the kinetic theory of gases does not require the internal energy of each molecule to precisely match its kinetic energy at all times.
Maxwell’s Demon is interesting for several reasons.
Maybe I’ll have time this weekend to explain.
Maxwell’s Demon is demonstrated by a technology that uses a membrane to separate N2 and O2 from air. The O2 molecule is just a bit smaller (but heavier with a lower sonic velocity), so it leaks through the membrane faster. N2 purity on the pressure side of the membrane is increased by restricting the output and slowing the flow rate.
Tim S,
It’s interesting technology, but nothing at all to do with Maxwell’s Demon.
Unfortunately, all attempts to translate the Demon from fantasy to fact have failed. The Laws of Thermodynamics remain intact.
It would be nice, for example, to have a team of Demons furiously separating molecules with different velocities in sea water, powering a mighty liner across the ocean, leaving a trail of ice cubes in its wake (water, after the Demons had extracted its heat energy to power the liner’s engines).
Delusional SkyDragon cultists believe in such fantasies, having imaginary Demons who can extract the heat from a colder objects to make warmer ones even hotter!
Wikipedia has it both ways, saying “Real-life versions of Maxwellian demons occur, but all such “real demons” or molecular demons have their entropy-lowering effects duly balanced by increase of entropy elsewhere.” In other words, real-life demons exist, but they don’t, really.
That’s helpful – not!
The membrane selects O2 strictly by its atomic radius. I agree that the laws of physics are not violated, but it is a separation process that is somewhat different than a RO membrane which does not select by size. The RO effectively separates by surface tension allowing the water molecules to free themselves from from an area of high ionic strength to an area of low ionic strength.
What does this have to do with heat an the 2nd law?
tim s…I think you are right about Maxwell and his collaboration with Boltzmann. I am not knocking the overall work of Maxwell just the nonsense he engaged in with Boltzmann re the use of statistical analysis to represent gas atoms/molecules interacting.
Maxwell needed to use a thought experiment as his Demon because he lacked the understanding of EM and how it worked. In fact, he and Boltzmann resorted to statistical theory in desperation, trying to work out the basis of internal gas mechanics.
With regard to Maxwell’s Demon, in the wiki article on that subject, they state…
“The second law of thermodynamics ensures (through statistical probability) that two bodies of different temperature, when brought into contact with each other and isolated from the rest of the Universe, will evolve to a thermodynamic equilibrium in which both bodies have approximately the same temperature.[7] The second law is also expressed as the assertion that in an isolated system, entropy never decreases”.
The 2nd law has absolutely nothing to do with statistical probability, nor has it anything to do with isolated systems or entropy increasing/decreasing. The 2nd law is about the direction of heat transfer and Clausius stated it as follows…’heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from colder body to a warmer body’.
In a moment of idiocy, Boltzmann wrote a formula for entropy as …S = k.logW
There is no physical interpretation for that formula because it is a statistical analysis of gas particles based on probability. Besides that, it does not address the definition of Clausius, that entropy is a summation of infinitesimal heat quantities, rather, it treats entropy as a measure of disorder when it is a measure of heat.
Clausius explained in the same breath which he defined the 2nd law, that with an irreversible process, entropy can indicate disorder and I think Boltzmann took his statement far too literally and thought entropy as a measure of disorder. Disorder is a secondary outcome of a process involving heat transfer when it is irreversible but entropy itself was intended by Clausius to me a summation of heat quantities.
Clausius invented and defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat in a process at temperature, T. He derived a formula for entropy, S, as…
S = integral dq/T
q = heat, there is no reference to disorder whatsoever.
Entropy is a measure of heat and nothing else. It has nothing to do with the chaotic movement of molecules in a gas, even though Boltzmann represented it as such and Planck was stupid enough to blindly follow the definition of Boltzmann rather than the correct definition by Clausius.
Because scientists have tended to buy into the statistical analysis of Maxwell and Boltzmann, rather than the actual definition by Clausius, which is the correct definition, since he defined entropy, that has lead to heat being redefined to suit the statistical definition, completely obfuscating the meaning of heat as energy. To the statistical crowd, heat is now regarded as a statistical entity rather than a real physical form of energy.
This is the legacy of Maxwell and Boltzmann, who in a state of abject ignorance rewrote the good work of Clausius to make it appear that heat is a statistical entity. Boltzmann, in particular, is responsible for obfuscating entropy as a statistical entity. He was trying to create a statistical explanation for the 2nd law and entropy and he failed. I have seen it stated that he took his own life based on that failure.
It is plain to me that Maxwell did not understand heat or the physics related to gas particles in motion, therefore his Demon is a lot of nonsense. He can be forgiven his ignorance since it would be 20 years or so before the electron was discovered and another 15 years before Bohr connected electromagnetic energy to the electron.
Maxwell was a mathematician, not a physicist. It’s not clear to me what Boltzmann was, but I hardly consider him a physicist. In fact, many scientists of that era were more philosophers than physicists and I include Einstein and Planck in that category. I regard Clausius as a true physicist because he stuck to the basics of science, analyzing the real world phenomena.
Maxwell did good work. For example, Faraday could not get his work accepted because he lacked the mathematical skills to present his work to the snobs of the day who held court in the field of science. If you could not state your work mathematically, it was ignored. Maxwell, worked with Faraday to present his work mathematically and that helped Maxwell gain insight to the field of electromagnetic energy.
Maxwell had no idea what EM was, he had only a mathematical relationship based on the observations of Faraday. Some of the inferences reached by Maxwell on EM were plain wrong,
It needs to be made clear that it was Faraday who did the physics and Maxwell who did the math. Boltzmann was a student of Stefan, who derived the T^4 relationship between radiation intensity and temperature, and I regard Boltzmann as a troubled passenger who managed to mess up physics more than he helped it. His work is of no value when it comes to visualizing physics and that is part of the problem we still have today. Too much of physics is in a state where it cannot be visualized and/or explained subjectively.
Planck admitted freely and without embarrassment that he manipulated the math to arrive at his formula using his invented quantum number, h. For that, I admire him. He did not try to hide the fact that he arrived at a relationship for EM based on mathematical fudging. As Feynman put it, the theory works, but no one knows why.
Gordon,
You wrote –
“As Feynman put it, the theory works, but no one knows why.”
Well worth saying again.
I agree…As Feynman put it, the theory works, but no one knows why.
Brownian motion and random walk are real life observable effects of the distribution.
Gee Gordon, we had no idea that Maxwell was all wrong about E and M, and he and Boltzmann were all wrong about entropy and molecules.
Glad you’re here to clean up the horrible messes they left us with.
When can we expect to see that work?
What to do with all those dead scientists under the bus Gordon is driving.
So what is the story with Gordon? Is he stupid, delusional, or just a very creative and long winded (worded) troll?
You might wish to start here:
I have become curious about something. The core of the Earth is alleged to be molten. Its also a fact that the deeper you dig into the Earth, the warmer it gets. Where is that heat coming from surely not from the Sun. Whats the possibility that the Earth generates some of its own heat from geothermal processes?
When I studied a bit of geology, we learned that the Earth is actually oblate, like a pumpkin. That shape apparently comes from the stress of the gravitational pull of the Sun the Moon. As the Earth moves in its orbit about the Sun, it is flexing due to those stresses, and cracks in the Earth heat up as they rub against one another.
There are estimates that the Earths core may be in the vicinity of 5,000 to 6,000C. That heat has to go somewhere. There is also a theory that the core may be turning at a differnt rate than the rest. There would be immense friction in that case, and immense heat generated.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/08/gordon-robertson-on-a-molten-core/
Willard, please stop trolling.
The core of the Earth is alleged to be molten.
Well the charges have been dropped like ringing a bell.
The core of the Earth has been found to be solid.
Ed Berry? Bahahahahaha … hahaha!!!
The Sun shines over Germany
https://notrickszone.com/2023/06/09/europes-climate-suffers-from-lack-of-clouds-and-rain-not-from-a-co2-increase/
And the UK.
Unsurprisingly, the ‘5-year moving average’s published on Gosselin’s TricksZone
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/0_5-768×503.png
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/0_7-768×437.png
and some others
were not criticized by the blog’s statistics braggart.
*
SRMs (along with the context in which they appear) are false precisely when they are ‘suspicious’, such as here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_OjIZLluXonnGUjzX5wvjXxA4pS4frJn/view
In such suspect cases, the absence of a CTRM in the chart automatically invalidates everything around the chart.
SRMs contain distortions. Which is what VP complained about. Not that Blinny thinks that VP made sense (or Nate Drake for that matter).
From the article…
“It thus is much stronger than the so-called back radiation effect exerted by increased levels of greenhouse gases, which is assumed to be just +3,222 W/m2”.
***
Either this is a typo or the Europeans need to stop using commas in place of decimal points. I think that should read 3.222 W/m^2. Then again, it does not seem right to state that to three decimal places.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Forest fires that have gathered strength over the last month have forced tens of thousands of people from their homes and sent a smoky haze billowing over a large swath of the United States.
About 4.3 million hectares (10.6 million acres) have already burned, roughly 15 times the annual average of the past decade. Warm, dry conditions are expected to persist in the months ahead.
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/wildfires-burn-across-canada-with-little-relief-sight-2023-06-08/
But arson, but arson.
I know, I know.
Stop arson around.
Ken,
There’s bound to be fire , if there’s arson around.
I am guessing that many of these fires are caused by eco-loonies trying to make it appear like the fires are caused by a changing climate.
Its the eco loonies in our government what is setting the fires.
There is something ROTTEN in the state of Canada. His name is Trudeau and he is legion.
> I am guessing
You get that part right, Bordo!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Dry, hot weather also breeds more lightning. In a normal season, half of Canada’s wildfires are started by lightning, but those fires account for more than 85% of wildfire destruction. The other half are human-caused.
What might seem like slight increases in average temperatures have major consequences.
“Most fires in the boreal forest of northern Canada are started by lightning. A one-degree Celsius increase in temperature amounts to about 12% more lightning. So the warmer it gets as the climate heats up, the more triggers there are for fires to burn,” said Struzik.
In Quebec, for example, fires were sparked by lightning, but officials in Alberta have said that the cause of fires there is currently unknown. Elsewhere in the country, these fires have been human-caused in various ways from discarded cigarette butts to sparks from passing trains. ”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-did-the-wildfires-in-canada-start-cause-nova-scotia-quebec/
Not sure anyone noticed, but Roy pulled his new post after a short while, in which he was Just Asking Questions about arson.
Just now?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
wee willy…”Why is it warmer now?”
***
Duh!!! We emerged from the 400+ year Little Ice Age circa 1850. The planet has been warming since.
So the planet has been warming because it has been warming.
I suppose it’s better than to brag about having created a spreadsheet that is 15 times the max size!
Willard,
Don’t be such an idiot. If you step into sunshine from shade, are you really so stupid as to think the heat you perceive is due to CO2?
Not terribly convincing, Wee Willy.
Mike Flynn,
You’re just a silly sock puppet who repeats the same things over and over again. You’ve been doing that for a while now.
Not convincing.
Perhaps you’ll like:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
Or not.
Nobody cares.
Cheers.
Willard is an idiot. But nobody cares.
Willard,
Dont be such an idiot. If you step into sunshine from shade, are you really so stupid as to think the heat you perceive is due to CO2?
Not terribly convincing, Wee Willy.
Moron Mike,
If you stood on the lit side of the Moon without a space suit, would you feel you’re missing an atmosphere?
Cheers.
Willard,
Dont be such an idiot. If you step into sunshine from shade, are you really so stupid as to think the heat you perceive is due to CO2?
Not terribly convincing, Wee Willy.
Moron Mike,
If you keep repeating your silly comments, what kind of atmosphere does that leave to your fellow Sky Dragon cranks?
Cheers.
Willard,
Dont be such an idiot. If you step into sunshine from shade, are you really so stupid as to think the heat you perceive is due to CO2?
Not terribly convincing, Wee Willy.
Moron Mike,
Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor.
Do you think an atmosphere would keep him warm for a longer time than without an atmosphere?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
no. It has been warming since whatever caused it to cool during the LIA stopped cooling it.
Get with the program wee willy, this is not rocket science.
C’mon, Bordo.
You don’t know?
That’s saddening. You’re the Sky Dragon cranks’ know-it-all.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Warming is better than cooling.
Burn out dead wood.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation. This is a preview; your comment will be visible after it has been approved.”
Really?
Fahrenheit 451.
A warm Doctor Pepper is better than Dragon Crank Kool-Aid.
Am I doing this right?
Willard, please stop trolling.
SC 25 vs SC24 in perspective
https://i.postimg.cc/FzkRwkQP/Clipboard01.jpg
tim s…”I just realized that high school educated fire fighters know more about radiant heat transfer than the radiant heat deniers who post nonsense on this sight. Flashover is caused by radiant heat, and it is the CO2 and water vapor in the fire smoke that make that possible:”
***
Tim…you won’t find many skeptics here who blindly accept the doctrine taught in universities if it makes no sense.
I studied electrical engineering at the uni and they taught us that electrical current moves through a circuit positive to negative, which is bs. I brought it up with an EE prof since I had studied electronics previously and we were taught, for good reason, that current as electrons and their charges flow negative to positive.
The prof did not get defensive, he simply explained that positive current flow is a convention dating back to the 1920s. He explained it did not matter what direction it flowed as long as we kept the voltage drop signs consistent in a circuit.
To me, it does matter. Convention does not belong in universities and when you use a term like radiant heat transfer, you are following not only a convention, but an anachronism dating back to the 19th century. It was believed back then that heat could flow through air as heat rays and we now know that is nonsense.
Bohr proved in 1913, that heat is not transferred via radiation and the kinetic energy representing heat is lost when it is converted to EM. The EM can flow through air, or a vacuum, but it is not heat being transferred, it is electromagnetic energy that has nothing to do with heat.
When you refer to radiant heat transfer, you are inferring that heat is being transferred via radiation. It is not, the heat, as KE, that produced the IR is lost, when electrons transition to a lower energy level. Although the EM transferred from a hotter source can produce heat in a cooler target, the heat created is new heat and has nothing to do with the heat at the source. The new heat did not come from the source.
If you want to engage me in such discussions, you need to drop the anachronisms and use precise language.
Radiation at the temperature of a fire has a far greater effect than radiation at terrestrial temperatures. If it was that much of a danger, then workers working next to the open flame of a blast furnace would be cooked by radiation from the fire in the furnace. We know that UV from solar energy, especially in the Tropics or during summer can burn flesh but it does it slowly. I have never heard of workers getting tanned or burned by radiation from flames, even in a hot source.
Has it ever occurred to you that the fireman were misinformed? Are they possibly talking about super-heated air causing flashover, which is related to plasma and not radiation.
At Mount Pelee, in 1901, balls of super-heated plasma rolled down the slopes and across the water, setting ships on fire.
It has been many years since I’ve thought about Maxwell’s Demon. Tim S mentioned it above, and it occurred to me that it would be a useful teaching aid. Many people are confused about entropy, especially as it involves 2LoT. Maxwell’s Demon is easy to understand.
First, some brief history that hopefully ties it all together. Carnot gets the credit for starting it all, about early 1800s. Then, Clausius took it (Thermodynamics) to a new level, with the formulation of 1LoT and 2LoT. Clausius was the one that came up with the name, entropy. Then others, such as Maxwell, Boltzmann, and Kirchhoff joined in. As they were all REAL scientists, they were constantly challenging themselves and each other. Maxwell came up with the concept of the Demon, as a way to testing if 2LoT could really hold up. It caused them all to have to think more deeply.
Wiki actually does a good job of describing Maxwell’s Demon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
Basically a box is divided by a partition into two equal sides. Both sides contain the same gas, at the same temperature. There is a door in the partition that can be opened to allow gas molecules to pass to the other side. A supernatural being, demon, can determine if a gas molecule coming at the door is high or low kinetic energy. He opens the door such that molecules with higher energy are gathered on one side of the box while molecules with lower energy are gathered on the other side. The result, of course, is one side of the box then has a higher temperature than the other side of the box.
Additionally, it is specified that the door is massless. So the force required to open it would be zero, as in F = ma = (0)a = 0. And if the force is zero, the work is zero, as in W = Fd = (0)d = 0.
So in the Demon scenario, no work is added, yet the molecules are organized’, seemingly violating 2LoT.
Most of the scientists of the time recognized that there was no violation of 2Lot. They assumed (correctly) that something was happening to allow the organization’. Maybe the door was massless, but what about the arm that moved it?
It was about a century later when the answer became clear. Claude Shannon solved it in 1948 with his work with communication systems at Bell Labs. The demon was adding intelligence. The demon was able to determine the energy of the molecules and open/close the door accordingly. Intelligence became a factor in 2LoT considerations. Shannon had developed what he called Information Entropy.
https://www.historyofdatascience.com/claude-shannon/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)
> Intelligence became a factor in 2LoT considerations.
Are you trying to replace Bordo, Pupman?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Shannon should have used a different word. Clausius took the word from the Greek word entropia, which Clausius intended as a reference to ‘transformation’. He wanted to use the word energy but it was already in use.
Transformation is a major concept in the work of Clausius and although he commented that the net result of an irreversible processes is disorder, he did not intend entropy as a measure of disorder. Based on his equation, S = integral dq/T, entropy is obviously a reference to energy…thermal energy.
Shannon obviously mistook the meaning and presumed entropy is a measure of disorder. That mistake has been perpetuated to the point that people these days think entropy is a measure of disorder.
Gordon, you’re trolling again.
You’ve got NOTHING, but you’re attacking Skeptics.
Shannon got it right, you’ve got it WRONG.
Your own words: “he [Clausius] commented that the net result of an irreversible processes is disorder, he did not intend entropy as a measure of disorder.”
REAL world processes are all irreversible, Gordon. You don’t even know how to misrepresent Clausius.
But, I’m glad you’re a troll now. I was tired of trying to defend your nonsense.
clint…you’re doing the attacking, I am trying to discuss, the way we used to. My beef is not with you and I am not out to make you look bad, my beef is with modern scientists who are murdering science, especially outsiders who have no idea what entropy means.
Clausius adopted the word because in Greek it means ‘transformation’. Why would he use such a word to describe disorder, especially after going on about transformations in reference to heat and work?
I got out of control with you once, when you took a shot at me, but I have let that go and hoped we could get along. Now you are taking shots again. Where is the anger coming from?
Personally, I don’t care if anyone disagrees with me. I am on no ego trip about being right. Nor do I kid myself into thinking I am always right.
When Swenson disagrees with me he states that and we discuss it calmly. We may agree to disagree and that’s cool with me. No insults. Same with Dremt.
I have laid it out for you. Entropy as defined by Clausius is quantified by his formula…
S = integral (dq/T)
I am not claiming to be an authority on this nor do I feel a need to win an argument. All I am doing is presenting evidence.
Since T is constant, you can pull it outside the integral sign and …
S = 1/T.integral dq
It’s blatantly plain that entropy is a summation of heat quantities since an integral sign as a sign of summation.
In words, he described entropy as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat of a process at temperature T.
Clausius claimed entropy represents heat. After defining it, he added that since most processes are irreversible, entropy can indicate disorder. It’s obvious from his equation that it does not measure disorder, but heat.
Boltzmann tried to derive entropy and the 2nd law using statistical mechanics and he failed. It appears many scientists have adopted his failed method and his mistaken view that entropy is about disorder.
” he failed” I think you mean he failed to convince you.
Cuz he certainly didnt fail in the field of Thermodynamics.
Certainly Clausius agreed that heat was simply the motion of molecules.
If so, then it makes sense Thermodynamic quantities like entropy ought to be related to the properties of molecular motion. Then Maxwell and Boltzmann explained what properties those are.
Unless you doubt the existence of molecules, I don’t see why you have a problem with this.
Gordon, acknowledging that you’re a troll is not an insult — it’s reality. You offer nothing except your incompetent opinions and troll tactics, over and over. You didn’t know E/M can easily be measured. You don’t understand current flow. You don’t know how to measure energy. Now you can’t understand entropy.
The entropy equation you keep using refers to temperature and energy, which you also can’t understand. You reject the reality that the concept of entropy has vastly expanded in the last 150 years. You reject both Boltzmanns work and Shannons work.
I was patient with you because I liked that you thought for yourself. But even thinking for yourself, you MUST recognize and accept reality. You’ve merely formed your own personal cult. That ain’t science.
Now, you get to spew another 5000 word blog-clogging, rambling, hodgepodge of your worthless opinions. I won’t be responding.
What if Russia nuked it’s polar arctic sea ice.
So, we have the right to a warm water port, and we will make one.
Next winter, they plan to use, say 200 nukes.
Drill thru sea ice, put bomb, 100 meters underwater, and space it every 20 km.
So 200 x 20 = 4000 km of cleared ice.
So, going to do it, unless war in Ukraine is peacefully resolved- we get free access to the warm port in Black sea.
Circulation in the central South Pacific remains consistent with La Nina, and SOI is again positive.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/spac/mimictpw_spac_latest.gif
SOI for May 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/soi-2.jpeg
I gather that +ve means trending toward LN. In you graph, is there a positive trend or are trends not applicable?
Does it have to be above 1 to indicate a LN?
A positive SOI indicates easterly winds in the central South Pacific.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
Thanks, Ren. I understand it has something to do with air pressure above the water at either end a line between Tahiti and Darwin.
SOI is currently -15 for the 1 month average.
NOAA data is the below.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/soi-2.jpeg
The long term average SOI is not relevant to my post that the current month SOI is -15.
Long missions, frequent travel take a toll on astronauts’ brains, study shows
“As we enter a new era in space travel, a study looking at how the human brain reacts to traveling outside Earth’s gravity suggests frequent flyers should wait three years after longer missions to allow the physiological changes in their brains to reset.
Researchers studied brain scans of 30 astronauts from before and after space travel. Their findings, reported in Scientific Reports, reveal that the brain’s ventricles expand significantly in those who completed longer missions of at least six months, and that less than three years may not provide enough time for the ventricles to fully recover.”
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Long_missions_frequent_travel_take_a_toll_on_astronauts_brains_study_shows_999.html
A key issue regarding microgravity is that life adapts to the different environment.
A possible solution is using artificial gravity.
But an artificial gravity environment is a strange environment- unlike microgravity and natural gravity. And we don’t know how life adapts to this new environment, or artificial doesn’t = natural gravity. Plus you adapt to microgravity, then artificial gravity, natural gravity of Mars, back to artificial gravity, then microgravity and finally Earth gravity, which might be worse than Earth to microgravity, Mars gravity, and microgravity and Earth gravity.
Can you do a crewed mission to Mars without humans landing on Mars?
It has been proposed.
But you need to test artificial gravity.
So, Earth gravity, mirogravity [or not], and artificial gravity at Mars {but a what artificial gee- Mars or Earth or 1/2 or 3/4rd Earth artificial gravity??}.
So, crew go to Mars orbit. Mars orbit is less radiation than “open space” at Mars distance to Sun. It could be less than ISS radiation.
Mars surface could a lot less than ISS radiation.
So, in Mars orbit you have two starship docked and spinning and Starship can get to Mars in 6 months or less because they can use Mars atmosphere to shed the extra velocity needed to get to Mars within 6 months. The fastest we every done it, is about 7 months.
From orbit, one has short distance of speed of light delay so from orbit, one operate robotic assets on the Mars surface in real time.
So crew to Mars orbit, is just a better way to use robotic exploration. And with the Moon exploration, we going to have more experience with real time operation with robotic assets {it’s 1.5 second time delay with Earth though if have crew at Gateway station it’s roughly no delay.
It’s been proposed, but I don’t like it. But another thing proposed in less than 1 month in orbit mission, which I dislike even more.
My preference is land crew on Mars surface, and plan on having them there for a long time. But also always have abort option- plan to stay 4+ years, but if there are emergencies situations, have pathway for quickest return- which means have use Venus orbit as one of the pathways back to Earth.
But if have artificial gravity in Mars orbit one have option returning Mars space station, rather returning to Earth. Or build up Mars orbiting station so it can handle various things which solve emergency situations.
So could do, Mars spacestation doing robotical Mars surface exploration, build up this station to handle emergencies situation, and then land crew on Mars surface.
Anyhow, it seems no matter what kind of Mars crewed mission, one is going using a lot robotic assets to explore Mars.
Grand Solar Minimum update
https://tinyurl.com/yc2uty6t
One talking GCR levels and other talking of solar Max to will volcanic activity.
I will note that our solar max has high levels of GCR, when it should lower levels during Solar Max.
And in Solar Max of 26, the GCR levels are predicting it being worse
our current high amount of GCR.
And of course during the solar min they will be even higher amounts of GCR.
Or will have in period since 2019 of higher GCR and it’s going to get worse for going to Mars with crew, and really bad during solar min.
…to will volcanic activity
I meant to write: to do with volcanic activity
Or one arguing the it’s to do with solar min [as solar min has higher GRC] but since we in solar grand Min, we have higher GRC, and weakness of 26 max will have say around +5 Oulu Neutron Counts
Or currently:
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.1% Below Average
48-hr change: +0.8%
And in a solar max it should be, around -5%
Or typical solar Max stay around -5% and can peak below -10%
Or going to have change this graph:
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
so the line can drawn much higher.
How might SC 25 look like?
https://tinyurl.com/SC-25-ahead
I would say, McIntosh is closest. And McIntosh indicates weakest solar max.
But I tend to think it will be weaker.
And all are weak.
No more meat for bindidogs
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/beef-company-ceo-climate-change-argument-against-cows/
nate…”Gee Gordon, we had no idea that Maxwell was all wrong about E and M, and he and Boltzmann were all wrong about entropy and molecules”.
***
Nate, you have no idea, period. I did not say Maxwell was wrong about EM in general, I said he got some things wrong. His equations still stand. I happen to admire Maxwell, but I have gotten over my hero worship of scientists. I am far more critical of them than I was at one time. That does not make me right and I await constructive criticism of my views.
Here is an excellent article explaining Maxwell’s equations. Note, as I claimed, that Maxwell simply put the math to existing science already done by the likes of Faraday.
https://www.fiberoptics4sale.com/blogs/electromagnetic-optics/a-plain-explanation-of-maxwells-equations
This is not what I am talking about re Maxwell. He made predictions based on this math and he was wrong. I offered an apology on his behalf since there was no way for him to know at the time that EM is produced by electrons in atoms.
Some have criticized his equation as not predicting the photoelectric effect but that effect has nothing to do with electromagnetic energy in the form Maxwell presented it. His equations are about EM fields after generation, and not electrons torn from the surface of material.
And, yes, Boltzmann was wrong about entropy and his approach to molecules in a gas was so obfuscated it cannot be visualized. I am calling for an end to this kind of obfuscated science where we must rely on math with no ability to visualize what is going on. That mans getting past quantum theory.
Heck, even the S-B formula depends on Boltzmann’s constant which is derived from obfuscated math. The original constant of proportionality created by Stefan referred to EM intensity and not EM power. That’s basically why we are mired in the current nonsense about the GHE whereby S-B was applied incorrectly to presume a fictitious temperature for an Earth with no atmosphere and no oceans.
In electronics, it is not possible to visualize electrons but we can verify the theory in part my measuring with meters and viewing with oscilloscopes. Furthermore, we can produce an arc and see something going on. We can measure the current in the arc and and equate that to the measured charge on an electron to tll how many of them are likely in the arc.
With the Clausius definition of heat and entropy we can visualize those as well. Heat becomes the KE associated with atomic motion and entropy is the sum of infinitesimal heat transfers and a constant temperature. Try defining it using Boltzmann’s mess.
If we cannot visualize what is happening we become dependent on mathematical speculation. Physicist David Bohm described such equations as garbage and that effectively describes Boltzmann’s equation for entropy.
Boltzmann’s equation for entropy is based on disorder and not on the the definition of Clausius, who invented and defined the term. Boltzmann was an arrogant SOB to even try redefining entropy. The result of all the idiots who follow his science is heat and entropy being redefined in such a manner no one can understand them.
Planck used Boltzmann to develop his equation and it was so obfuscated he admitted to having no confidence in it.
“… entropy is the sum of infinitesimal heat transfers and a constant temperature.”
No. Only in Gordon’s imagination & not in reality since constant temperature in such a process can only occur with an infinite reservoir of which none exist on Earth.
—
Maxwell-Boltzmann successfully proved some thermodynamic internal energy transfers from colder to warmer body during a process as two bodies come to an equilibrium temperature.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Maxwell-Boltzmann successfully proved some thermodynamic internal energy transfers from colder to warmer body during a process as two bodies come to an equilibrium temperature.”
I suppose it’s like your description of the GHE – everybody else has details of these experiments, but not you. Like that other idiot, Donald Rumsfeld, you are sure they are somewhere – North, South, East or West. All people have to do is look, is that it? Why should you help?
I understand, Ball4, you are an idiot who hasn’t learnt how to cope with reality.
How many words are in the description of the GHE, or can’t you count them?
Deluded fool.
Many commenters can count the words in any correct description of an earthen GHE, except inept Swenson laughably can’t begin to count, or even understand, the words in a correct GHE description.
Do carry on, laughing at inept Swenson comments is great entertainment.
Ball4,,
You wrote –
“Many commenters can count the words in any correct description of an earthen GHE, . . . “, but not you, is that it? Are you too superior to waste your time counting, or cant you count?
Maybe you haven’t a description of any sort of GHE, let alone an “earthen” one. Do you think the description is inscribed on earthen tablets, perhaps? That sounds a little religious to me.
How many words are in the description of the GHE, or cant you count them?
Go on, keep trying to deny reality. The Earth has cooled, you idiot. The surface cools every night.
Deny away.
ball4…”constant temperature in such a process can only occur with an infinite reservoir of which none exist on Earth”.
***
Clausius explained that T is kept constant by drawing the heat from a bath large enough to keep the heat supply constant.
If you really want to understand this, read Clausius on transformations.
I regard Maxwell and Boltzmann as a couple of passengers in this area. Maxwell was a mathematician, not a physicist. Clausius specialized in physics and he based his research on real life phenomena. Maxwell and Boltzmann were a pair of nuisances trying to apply statistical analysis where it did not belong. As a result, we are left with theories that cannot be visualized.
Anyone can take known data and fudge math till they get a working theory. That’s what Planck did with his equation. He fudged math till he got a relationship. For all we know, the same applies to Bohr’s theory re electrons in orbitals and Schrodinger’s wave equation. Feynman summed them aptly by observing that they work but no one knows why.
We seem to have stopped doing real physics a century ago. Let’s get back to doing real science rather than dabbling like withc doctors in the quantum mechanics world.
The advent of WW II scared us into such research because we feared that Hitler was working on a nuclear weapon. That forced us to escalate research in that direction and it paid off, albeit in a Draconian fashion.
These days we must suffer through propaganda about killer viruses because science took a wrong turn and got the theory wrong. We have tests for these so-called killer viruses that don’t work, yet out of desperation we cling to the belief that they do. We force a vaccine on innocents that was never adequately tested, and because they are based on the same lacking viral theory, they cannot work either.
What I want to see is science getting back to basics. We cannot see at the atomic level, or measure. So, why are we not working on finding ways to do that? Why are we messing with stupid theories like quantum theory or the kinetic theory of gases, which are based on intagibles?
What happened to real science?
Nothing has happened to real science; it is practiced every day in industry leaving science rookie Gordon far behind.
Gordon, in any real thermodynamic internal energy transfer process between a rigid enough, fixed volume reservoir and a similar system in contact, the temperature of the reservoir must change even though that change be exceedingly small. It is possible to “sneak up” on the infinite reservoir by taking the limit of the entropy change as the reservoir’s specific heat capacity Cv approaches (but never reaches) infinity. Mathematically that limit does exist even though the infinite reservoir with constant T in any real process does not exist on Earth.
The actual integral for dS is much more complicated than Gordon writes because in reality the temperature does change during such a process in both real volumes over time.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“Maxwell and Boltzmann were a pair of nuisances trying to apply statistical analysis where it did not belong.”
Gordon, this is science denial and trolling, and not ‘sticking to the science and talking about it in a classy manner’.
“we feared that Hitler was working on a nuclear weapon. That forced us to escalate research in that direction and it paid off”
with the help of quantum theory.
“We cannot see at the atomic level, or measure.”
Sure we can. And quantum mechanics is verified.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-of-STM-images-nc-AFM-images-and-3D-molecular-structures-model-30_fig1_323946137
Ball4 writes:
“Maxwell-Boltzmann successfully proved some thermodynamic internal energy transfers from colder to warmer body during a process as two bodies come to an equilibrium temperature.”
Perhaps he will explain in more detail what he means here?
On further reading, I find below Gordon Robertson saying
“your premise that a cooler body can increase the temperature of a hotter body. Direct contravention of the 2nd law.” Unless you have something remarkable to add, don’t bother to try to sort this out for me. It’s probably unsortable in the present company. Gordon Robertson has his fixed idea. Cancel my request for an explanation in more detail.
Gordon quite obviously hasn’t accomplished the training to understand M-B. Your request is a good one and Christopher seems to have the training to understand so I answered above at 7:50 am.
tim s…”So what is the story with Gordon? Is he stupid, delusional, or just a very creative and long winded (worded) troll?”
***
Maybe if you had the ability to respond with intelligence and a scientific curiosity, you might find out. Insults and ad homs go in one ear and out the other, unless I’m having a bad hair day.
I am still awaiting an intelligent response from you.
C’mon, Bordo.
Which way does electricity flow?
Willard, please stop trolling.
btw…I just noticed that I replied in detail to another one of your ad hom rants and you failed to respond. Strikes me that you are the type who is long on talk but limited in substance. In other words, your level of scientific understanding is severely limited and that you comment in blogs due to a need for acceptance.
I have a higher calling. There are people out there who will be seriously harmed if idiotic alarmists have their way. That’s my only interest. However, in pursuing that calling I am beginning to notice chinks in the armour of scientists who are normally worshiped as being great but none of the worshipers can explain their alleged greatness, because most of them don’t understand the science involved.
That’s all I am doing, challenging accepted values. If I am wrong, that’s OK. Thus far none of you alarmists have even come close to proving me wrong. Worse still, you are content to sit back and sling ad homs and insults when you could use your time better by proving me wrong.
C’mon, Bordo.
TS is just a run-of-the-mill contrarian. You could be one if you started to study science.
I’m trying to post this link to a nice page, but for some reason it does not work. So here’s the shortened version:
https://tinyurl.com/which-way-electrons-flow
Willard, please stop trolling.
This guy has roughly the right idea but here’s where he gets confused.
“A major disadvantage to this thinking is that electrons can take minutes to hours to move from one end of a wire to another end, and everyone “knows” that electricity travels close to the speed of light”.
***
He thinks the holes left in an atom’s valence band when an electron leaves one atom and jumps to another counts as a current flow. Current is measured in coulombs per second where the coulomb is a measure of the charge produced by 6.2 x 10^18 electrons. Note that current is charge flow, and not electron flow. The charges have a means of moving independently of the electrons.
It was explained to me a long time ago using this analogy. If you have an old-fashioned wooden ruler with a slot down the centre, and you fill the slot with shooting marbles, touching each other, you can hold the first marble and tap it and the end one will shoot off. That is how electric charges as energy move electron to electron, hence atom to atom, down a conductor. The charges move at the speed of light but the electrons move only a few centimetres per second.
I suppose you could apply that to protons if they were free but I have never heard of a current in a conductor with a proton flow. If there was such an animal, the wire would disintegrate since the proton nucleii hold the wire together.
Therefore, electric current is due to the charges. Even though an atom is left with a temporary positive charge when an electron vacates, we have to remember that electrons are being added to one end of the conductor as fast as each electron moves on. Therefore, I seriously doubt that any atom has the time to form a positive charge.
Even at that, with the simple model, an electron vacates one atom’s valence band, leaving a temporary hole. That hole is not a charge, it is just a hole. The entire atom can be claimed to have a net positive charge but the empty pace is not an electrical charge, like a proton. Therefore, it is empty holes moving in the opposite direction to the electron flow.
Remember, the electron is moving slowly compared to the charge, which moves at the sped of light. THERE IS NO EQUIVALENT CHARGE MOVING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION!!! Such an equivalent charge is found in protons, and they are bound to the nucleus in a conductor and cannot move.
Any hole would move at the same speed as the slower electron, therefore you’d have a negative charge moving -ve to +ve at the speed of light in one direction and a hole moving in the opposite direction at a few centimetres per second. Major trouble.
My argument is that conventional has no place in a university. It might cause a lot of trouble to change the current convention but if we did, we’d be teaching truth rather than bs.
The question arises as to how many other disciplines are teaching similar crap?
Gordon, it’s all about “convention”.
Positive current flows into the positive terminal of a battery during charging, but flows out of the positive terminal during discharge.
You would understand this stuff if you actually had a degree in EE.
clint…you’re a bit confused about the difference between a battery, which relies on cations and anions inside the electrolyte and the current flowing in the external charging circuit. Positive charge flow in the electrolyte positive ions but that is not possible in a copper conductor.
Current flows in an electrolyte using positively and negatively charged ions. However, at the external +ve and -ve terminals of the battery, the only current flowing is electrons. There is no way positive charges can flow through conductors since all the positive charges are in the nucleus and frozen in place.
Any time I have charged a battery I connect positive to positive and negative to negative. When the battery is discharging, the negative terminal gives off electrons. You have to be careful when referencing the terminals whether you are viewing them wrt the external circuit or wrt the electrolyte. When you charge the battery, you want to return electrons to the negative terminal to reverse the chemical process in place during discharge and that means injecting electrons into the external negative terminal.
You and I should not be butting heads, we need to keep the rabble alarmists in line.
If you look up Hall effect, Gordon, you will find that it can be used to determine whether the charge carriers are positive or negative in a conductor.
Basically a magnetic field causes the charge carriers to be pushed sideways to the current direction. If the carriers are positive, moving in the direction of the current, they are pushed in one direction, say to the right for an upward magnetic field. This produces a Hall voltage that is high on the right and low on the left.
If carriers are negative and moving opposite to the direction of the current, they will also be pushed to the right. This produces a Hall voltage that is low on the right and high on the left.
In some doped semiconductors, it is found that the charge carriers are positive. The ‘hole’ model is used to explain this. If you don’t like this model, come up with an alternative to explain the Hall effect results.
“These positive charge carriers are called holes. Holes are actually missing electrons in the atomic lattice of the semiconductor, but they act essentially like positive charges.”
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node74.html
rlh…”These positive charge carriers are called holes. Holes are actually missing electrons in the atomic lattice of the semiconductor, but they act essentially like positive charges.”
***
You are referencing semiconductor theory, where slabs of silicon are intentionally doped to produce and excess of electrons or a dearth of electrons. With an excess of electrons, the silicon is called n-type and with a lack of them it becomes p-type.
Shockley invented the concept of holes to represent areas in the silicon where electrons were missing. In one of his papers he revealed the holes were not real wrt to positive charges but served only to offer a visualization.
Personally, I have stuck with the real charge carriers, electrons, while ignoring hole flow, and have never encountered a problem. Since arrow is diode and transistor diagrams represent conventional current flow, I visualize electrons flowing against the arrows and everything is hunky dory.
Although it’s not wise to talk in term of one electron, if an electron enters a p-type, it enters into a hole. Then it moves to another hole, and another. As it moves, the hole appears to move the other way. In a p-type silicon, electrons are called minority carriers, because they are outnumbered by holes, by design.
Here’s where it falls apart. If a so-called hole reaches a copper conductor, there is no doping in copper. It has nothing but copper atoms and the holes built into copper atoms bonded in a lattice with valence electrons. The reason copper is a good conductor is the availability of electrons in its valence shell that are free to move.
No one in the electrical or electronics field ever talks about hole flow in a copper conductor, only in a semiconductor, where an excess or dearth of electrons is intentionally doped into the silicon. There is no positive charge flowing in copper as electrons vacate an orbital, leaving a so-called hole.
As I pointed out earlier, charge moves through a copper conductor at the speed of light, apparently moving electron to electron, while the electrons move a few centimetres per second. That means any holes created by electrons vacating them are moving in the other direction at the same slow rate. There are no charges moving in that direction. If there were charges moving +ve to -ve, they would need to move at the speed of light to balance the -ve charges moving -ve to +ve.
Here’s a mechanical analogy. Draw a line in the ground with a hole dug in the ground. Now dig another hole along the line and use the material extracted to fill the first hole. Repeat for 10 feet. The holes dug appear to move in the direction you are moving down the line. Can you claim the empty holes have mass and that mass is shifting along the line as holes? That’s what some claim in EE theory.
GR: I don’t think I was disagreeing with you. Holes are just the absence of electrons.
nate…”If you look up Hall effect, Gordon, you will find that it can be used to determine whether the charge carriers are positive or negative in a conductor.
Basically a magnetic field causes the charge carriers to be pushed sideways to the current direction. If the carriers are positive, moving in the direction of the current, they are pushed in one direction, say to the right for an upward magnetic field. This produces a Hall voltage that is high on the right and low on the left”.
***
Your basic electrical/electronics theory is lacking.
There are two basic particles in atoms that carry charge. One is the electron and the other is the proton. They have equal and opposite charges but the proton has some 1800 times the mass of the electron.
There are no other charge carrying particles in an atom.
When an electron is removed from the valence band of an atom, the entire atom is said to carry a positive charge.
This is not a real charge in a copper conductor, it is simply an indication that the atom is lacking its full complement of electrons in its valence band. In other words, it has a relative positive charge, not an independent positive charge that can move.
BTW…I regard this theory as being a little too cute. With bazillions of electrons flowing between atoms, I find it a bit too convenient that atomic nucleii in a solid with multiple layers of electrons orbiting the nucleus, can remain ordered while electrons are literally ripped from and injected into their outer orbital.
I am not confident that the theory I learned and which I am repeating here is all that solid. For the purpose of debate, it serves a purpose.
However, with those atoms solidly bound in a copper conductor, those charged atoms are going nowhere. However, if the charged atoms were moving in a liquid like an electrolyte, the charge would be meaningful wrt to other charged atoms in the electrolyte. In a typical electrolyte of sulfuric acid, it breaks up into H+ and SO4- ions, which are charged molecules/atoms.
A basic error made my people applying electronics theory incorrectly is confusing the meaning of holes in semiconductors. Schockley, who invented the concept of holes in the 1930s, acknowledged in a paper that he never intended the concept to be taken literally, as if holes were charged particles moving in a semiconductor. He offered the theory of holes only as an aid to visualization.
With regard to the Hall effect, it is nothing more than a magnetic field diverting electron charges laterally from their normal direction of flow. The actual positive charges in semiconductors are protons in the nucleus of silicon atoms or in the impurity donor atoms that make the silicon an n-type or p-type. They cannot move because they are tightly bound in a lattice.
BTW, a similar action occurs in field effect transistors. A charge on a gate either attracts (enhancement) or repels (depletion) electrons flowing in the source-drain channel. That cause a channel to restrict and expand, causing the resistance of the channel to vary. The action is similar to the grid action in a vacuum tube.
rlh…”GR: I dont think I was disagreeing with you. Holes are just the absence of electrons”.
***
Sorry, Richard, I misinterpreted your response. On re-reading it, I get your point. Hopefully, my reply did not come across as snarky, that was not my intention.
clint…”Gordon, its all about convention.
Positive current flows into the positive terminal of a battery during charging, but flows out of the positive terminal during discharge.
You would understand this stuff if you actually had a degree in EE”.
***
I argued your interpretation with an EE prof and he was good enough to be good-humoured about it. I was concerned that the theory I had learned, negative to positive, might interfere with my EE studies. He assured me it did not matter so-long as I kept the sign of my voltage drops consistent during circuit analysis.
My concern is that universities are still promoting this convention rather than doing the right thing and teach the proper theory.
Another concern is the amount of similar bs which is taught at the university level. I think we both agree that the theory currently being promoted re heat being transferred both ways via radiation is bs. It’s right there in mechanical engineering texts that heat can be transferred in both directions.
That too is based on convention. The convention was established in the mid 19th century that heat flowed through air as heat rays. If that was the case, then heat may be able to flow in both directions even though Clausius stated that radiation must obey the 2nd law. Why that crap is still taught today is beyond me.
“With regard to the Hall effect, it is nothing more than a magnetic field diverting electron charges laterally from their normal direction of flow. The actual positive charges in semiconductors are protons in the nucleus of silicon atoms or in the impurity donor atoms that make the silicon an n-type or p-type. They cannot move because they are tightly bound in a lattice.”
As I said, the Hall effect detects the charge of the current carrier. And in many cases, doped semiconductors, not metal, it detects that the carriers are positively charged.
It makes no sense to say “that make the silicon an n-type or p-type. They cannot move because they are tightly bound in a lattice.”
If the protons don’t move they cannot be the current carriers!
The Hall effect observations are direct evidence that the current carriers are positively charged and are the holes.
You don’t believe in them, so you ignore this evidence. Your choice.
Our education system gets a lot of criticism, but I am certain that even the most average high school science student (like many of the trolls on this site), understand more fundamental physics and physical chemistry than you have demonstrated. That’s right, even a high school student gets enough physical chemistry to understand why chemicals have different spectra and why small molecules are particularly active.
wee willy aka modicum dickus…
“You might wish to start here:
I have become curious about something. The core of the Earth is alleged to be molten. Its also a fact that the deeper you dig into the Earth, the warmer it gets. Where is that heat coming from surely not from the Sun. Whats the possibility that the Earth generates some of its own heat from geothermal processes?
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/08/gordon-robertson-on-a-molten-core/ ”
***
Thanks Modicum Dickus for establishing that I have been commenting since at least 2008, 15 years, and that I have evolved over that 15 years. You, on the other hand, have only appeared out of your rat hole recently.
Perhaps you could explain what was wrong with my 2008 comment? Or perhaps you don’t accept that temperatures at the Earth’s core are equivalent to temperatures at the Sun’s surface.
Gordon,
Fritz Perls wrote “. . . it is not surprising to learn that a great astronomer said: “Two things are infinite, as far as we know the universe and human stupidity.” Today we know that this statement is not quite correct. Einstein has proved that the universe is limited.”
Willard’s stupidity quotient seems unlimited. He is reduced to attempts at being annoying, but he is both impotent and incompetent, due to his marginal attachment to reality.
But hey, in WillyWorld, he is seen as wise and respected, rather than reality of being an idiot and an object of derision.
He can’t even decide whether his mythical GHE makes things hotter or colder! How sad is that, even for a delusional SkyDragon cultist.
Mike Flynn,
What are your braying about?
If you could tell if you think if an atmosphere on the planet Endor would keep Chewbacca warm for a longer time than without an atmosphere, that would be great.
Willard, please stop trolling.
swenson…”Two things are infinite, as far as we know the universe and human stupidity”.
***
Speaking of myself, I identify with the extent of human stupidity. Even though I am not religious in a conventional sense, I thank the Creator regularly for allowing me to survive my own stupidity. Wee willy takes that stupidity to a different level.
> I have evolved
You did?
Perhaps you ought to tell Moron Mike your new position on that old silly take of yours that is now is!
Willard, please stop trolling.
What Role Will NASA Play In Developing ISRU On The Moon?
https://www.universetoday.com/161894/what-role-will-nasa-play-in-developing-isru-on-the-moon/#more-161894
“Ice mining isnt technically challenging, but there is a lack of data about where sufficient amounts of ice might be found. Plenty of speculation has focused on south polar ice caps that might hold water in their permanent shadows. Some missions in the near future, such as PRIME-1, hope to explore ices availability in those regions further. But for now, while the technology might be there, there is no guarantee that the resource itself is.
That is precisely the role NASA sees itself playing derisking the efforts of collecting water, oxygen, and metals from the surface of the Moon to a point where commercial partners will come on board to support the development of the infrastructure themselves. Engaging those commercial partners early and often will be vital to getting their buy-in, but there still needs to be a killer app that can only be created on the Moon in order for its true commercial potential to take off.”
Killer app, hmm.
That Mars is habitable and has mineable water would be Killer app in regards to the Moon.
Many have said that the Moon is gateway to solar system and that makes it a gateway. And if the Moon has mineable water, than that could make Mars more habitable.
If NASA can determine that there is no mineable water on the Moon, it should quickly turn to Mars crew exploration of Mars. But if they can find mineable lunar water, they should also quickly turn to Mars crew exploration. And if do lousy job of determining either- they should pack it up and leave exploration to someone, else. If can’t do the Moon, you are incapable of exploring Mars.
A way to look at it, is we probably going to be exploring the Moon for more than a century, but NASA lunar crewed exploration should take a short period to time, wheres Mars crew exploration program will require decades.
If the plan was to explore the Moon for decades, one would not say explore the Moon and then explore Mars.
With the Moon we are largely exploring it, because there could mineable water in polar regions which is at the surface. If it was supposed lunar water was 1000 meters below the surface rather than at the surface, we might not look for it. You have ask how many holes to do need to drill. Anyways we looking for mineable water at the surface of small region of the Moon. One might make one deep- say 100 meter hole on lunar surface for “scientific reasons” and you will drill holes on Mars 100 meter or more deep. So might also want to drill 100 meter hole on the Moon, because you will be drilling holes on Mars, you could drilling hundred of holes on Mars.
You are not interested in mining the surface of Mars, you interested in whether Mars is a habitable planet. And the Moon doesn’t need to be a habitable planet/Moon. Or no claims the Moon is habitable- doesn’t seem to have much water and it’s gravity is 1/6th of Earth’s.
Mars has more gravity, it has lots of CO2 and N2 and trillions of tonnes of water. And it Mars didn’t seem habitable, we would not be spending tens billions of dollars on robotic exploration of it.
We would just focus on the Moon.
So Mars is vast region to explore, and we have not even decided where is best place to explore, is.
And probably where we started will be related to where it’s is easier to land and have a Mars base. With one base on Mars, it’s easier to explore the rest of Mars, but we probably end up with having many bases on Mars. Or first base might be anywhere close to caves on Mars, and we want to explore caves on Mars- and have a base near caves or in caves. Caves are better than drilling, but probably going to do a lot of drilling. We might drill into what think in underground cave structure.
Anyhow Mars crew exploration program is not flags and footprints or Apollo program- it will require at least 2 decades.
And during those decades, there could be a lot things going on with the Moon- many countries are interested in Moon- though if no mineable lunar water, less interested. And Congress might fund various kinds NASA projects regarding the Moon during those 2 or more decades exploring Mars- if Congress funds it, then NASA would do it while exploring Mars. Which true of anything- like outer planets, Mercury, or whatever.
So Mars exploration is going to take a large part of the NASA budget, like ISS, did- which was about 1/2 of entire budget. Or Congress will have increase NASA’s budgets depends on what else “big projects” it wants other than, Mars exploration.
And part of doing Mars program will include ending the ISS program.
One might even say, just starting lunar Gateway station may require ending ISS program.
Without Starship working {it’s still being tested] NASA might have spend a lot more time with lunar crew program and gateway station.
But if FAA doesn’t delay the launch, Starship could be starting it’s part of lunar program before end of the year with test lunar landing the Starship on lunar surface in early part {before summer} of 2024 and be launching from KSC by that time, also.
gb…every time you talk about Mars I feel like going out for a Mars bar.
How was your coffee this morning?
I didn’t really get enough coffee this morning.
But I got another one, now.
But Mars is sort of like global warming- I am not very
interested in either.
But I have been interested in why NASA hasn’t explored space.
One of my answers to Fermi paradox, is the universe for some reason has bureaucracies.
And when people talk about Heaven is seems it’s some sort of horrible
bureaucracy.
“One of my answers to Fermi paradox, is the universe for some reason has bureaucracies. ”
You may be right. One possible explanation for the Fermi Paradox is that every civilization has bureaucracies.
They are willing to fund astronomers to build cheap telescopes to listen for signals.
They are unwilling to fund expensive transmitters which would be heard over interstellar distances.
Let some other planet spend the money!
Another possibility is that there are predators out there.
The predators are stealthy to avoid alerting prey civilizations.
They prey keep quiet and hope to go unnoticed.
Fortunately, except for a few over-the-horizon radars, our radio traffic is weak enough to drop below the noise level beyond about 1 light year.
Another possibility is that n=1. In which case we are the only candle in the dark. It would be a shame to snuff it out through our own stupidity.
“They are unwilling to fund expensive transmitters which would be heard over interstellar distances.”
And “They prey keep quiet and hope to go unnoticed.”
makes sense.
We could build powerful directed light or radio beams to query who is out there, but is it a risky idea?
“We could build powerful directed light or radio beams to query who is out there, but is it a risky idea? ”
If superior technology brings superior morality and ethics then subcontract will be benign. Otherwise otherwise.
Considering the moral and ethical status of the three most technologically advanced countries on the planet I would prefer to assume that a “dark forest” exists out there and keep my head down.
I suspect that anybody out there who is advanced enough to come an here and hurt us, already knows we’re here…
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
So why doesn’t Earth’s core fry us all? For a start, the core is surrounded by a mostly solid mantle of rock. The crust we live on floats on that mantle, giving us more protection than empty space would. But the most important reason we dont all melt is the difference between heat and temperature. Roughly speaking, heat is energy and temperature is density of energy, basically how much energy is crammed into a given size.
A spark from a sparkler can have a temperature of 1,500C, but won’t really hurt you. On the other hand, a bath of boiling water at only 100C would kill you. That’s because the bath contains much more heat energy.
To melt the whole Earth, you would need much more energy than the heat in its core. The Sun is huge and could easily do that, of course but luckily its 150,000,000km away.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/how-hot-earth-core/
“Roughly speaking, heat is energy and temperature is density of energy, basically how much energy is crammed into a given size”.
***
You are an idiot, wee willy. Heat is energy and temperature is a human invention to measure the amount of heat relative to a set point, like the freezing point and boiling point of water.
C’mon, Bordo.
What is being measured when we measure temperature was here before anyone could measure it.
You silly semantic game is silly. You have no training in it. You suck at it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
OPEN PROBLEM
Probably no other country than Iceland has so many geothermal resources on its territory, so why is this country called Iceland?
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/08/where-does-earth%e2%80%99s-energy-come-from-a-note-from-mark-duffett/#comment-58201
It’s said that with all that Texas drilling, Texas might have found a lot geothermal resources.
A Viking named Flki Vilgerarson came to Iceland ; his daughter drowned en route, then his livestock starved to death. The sagas say that the rather despondent Flki climbed a mountain and saw a fjord (Arnarfjrur) full of icebergs, which led him to give the island its new and present name.
~wikipedia
Definition of a Bore; someone who goes to the encyclopedia, finds what he is looking for, then closes it. I guess this definition is out of date but the answer took all of 5 minutes to look up on wikipedia.
You really are a bore.
Definition of a reactionary populist:
In political science, a reactionary or reactionarist can be defined as a person or entity holding political views that favor a return to a previous political state of society that they believe possessed characteristics that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore a past status quo.
Meanwhile, reactionary populism describes extreme right-wing populism and is practically synonymous with the radical right. It is most associated with anti-immigration policies and extreme nationalism; Donald Trumps campaign was a perfect example. This sort of parties has also very strong followings in many European nations today.
https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/reactionary-populism/
You are a reactionary populist crank, Kennui.
Willard, please stop trolling.
better question…why are you quoting a 2008 post from Jennifer Marohasey’s site. Still looking for dirt on me?
C’mon, Bordo. No need to clutch your pearls. We all can see them daily.
You might like this reminder as to why I call Kennui Kennui:
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
Willard, please stop trolling.
“The name Iceland is primarily a gender-neutral name of English origin that means Land Of Ice.
Iceland is a place name, the moniker of a Nordic Island Country in Europe. Iceland’s capital is Reykjavik. Iceland was formerly named Garoarsholmur (Garoars Isle) and/or called Snaeland (Snowland).”
That’s the joke, gb.
If you want to know more –
http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2015/02/Inhofe-Cheeseburger.png
Willard, please stop trolling.
Dullard.
Kennui only rouses himself from his torpor to cajole other Warriors to be more interesting – without, of course, ever contributing anything of interest himself. Ennui has limited weaponry at his disposal, but his majestic affectation of boredom provides an effective defense to attacks. When pressed in battle he will announce his intention of moving on to a more stimulating forum, but instead he will generally lurk quietly until the threat passes.
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxrB7PDLJ18&t=576s
How Wireless Energy From Space Could Power Everything
| Ali Hajimiri | TED
from:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/06/ted-talk-on-space-based-solar-power.html
Have I got a deal on a perpetual motion machine for you.
Well, do you doubt Starlink is going to make billions of dollars?
Why would starlink make billions dollars? Because it is global internet AND it will be a lot cheaper than it is, now.
Economy of scale will allow lower costs, and lower price will get more customers {+ 1 billion of customers}.
Same applies with SPS- except it’s not beam a lot power to one spot, and then but in a grid. Instead, beaming power to a ski slope or village or islands or wherever, including ISS. Or other space stations or other satellites.
So if you subscribe to starlink you get internet anywhere. If you subscribe to beamed power, you get electrical power anywhere.
It doesn’t mean you don’t use grid power, it means you use grid power and get some amount of electrical power, anywhere. Or it means you need to buy less batteries or worn out rechargeable batteries will last longer.
So amount of power beamed to you could vary depending on your subscription, it could less than 50 watts. Beaming electrical power which is only 50 watts- solves global poverty.
How much is solving global poverty, worth?
But you could also get say up to 1 kw or more. Then you doing off grid type stuff. But you have like .5 Kw which buy during peak hours so reduce electrical bills and get power anywhere you want it.
So the requirement of .5 or 1 kw it requires a bigger receiver on your end and you order more wider footprint of power.
So could solar panel on your roof which also receives beamed power.
And could then decide you want x amount not delivered to roof, and instead it tracks and beam it to different receiver- some place you going camping or at the beach or whatever.
So monthly amount and pay for what much you need.
And you get power and internet with same receiver. So with fixed solar panel on roof, it can give solar power, beamed power, and internet.
It doesn’t like Atlantic hurricane season is doing much. yet.
And it seems quite likely that we are in a Grand solar min, and possible we have past the solar max peak. And could be returning to solar min like condition within 6 months, but more than a year or two before we in the solar min 25.
And so, this isn’t any about global climate, but should effect global weather as seems it’s already done.
But also there are theories that in coming years of Grand solar min,
it could cause more volcanic activity and it seems depending upon what kind eruptions that happen, it could be characterized as effecting global climate by some amount- and affect global weather.
And decades of grand solar min and it’s volcanic activity could have significant effect upon global climate- if returning global climate conditions of 1970’s is called a significant effect.
If nothing else it should have some effect upon members of cargo cult of global warming.
And in say 5 years, we have past Pause, turn into the “Great Pause” and in another 5 years be having whispers of global cooling.
But it seems expecting little ice age like conditions is not at all likely, unless little ice age conditions is very cold weather events.
But it seem it would require a rather significant volcanic eruption.
And one argue it’s not global cooling, but rather short term cooling from the eruption and no one could have predicted it.
A current argument is we alarming amounts of global warming and that government must spend trillions of dollars [more] to stop the warming. Of course we had many decades of this so called alarming amounts global warming, and have spend trillion of dollars and the trillions of dollars have done nothing to prevent alarming amounts of global warming.
Governments have done nothing to lower global CO2 levels, and onlt they have done is increased global CO2 emission with stupid governmental policies.
It is currently the peak of solar activity in the 25th solar cycle. It can be seen that it is no higher than in cycle 24, which was much weaker than the previous few cycles.
https://i.ibb.co/6vhby4H/353614541-733611445432501-7402278709732241978-n.jpg
https://solen.info/solar/polarfields/polarfields.png
Palmoswki
You should have a closer look at what you show.
You compare the peak of SC 24 which occurred in 2014 (i.e. 5 full years after start in Dec 2008) with the current situation (3 full years after start in Dec 2019).
Moreover, you seem to have automatically discarded the SC predictions in favor of the CMs. Why?
*
What about waiting till May 2025?
That’s because the polarity change is already underway as of March 2023 and the spots appear symmetrically in both solar hemispheres, unlike in cycle 24.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20230611.png
Take a look at Ap.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/solar.png
Bindiclown is clueless about how the Sun wirkt
https://i.postimg.cc/gk0YJPvH/Fyb-6A.jpg
Only the dumbest dachshunds like Eben think I wouldn’t know about HSSN:
https://tinyurl.com/2p9459c2
You behave more and more like a dumb, ultra right wing German boy.
Nothing in your answers is a real hint on what you personally claim.
Earlier, someone demonstrated a certain degree of ignorance by writing –
“Mike must’ve never been warmed by the radiant heat of a fire, that passes effortlessly through the air in between.”, after I pointed out that all gases can be heated by absorbing IR, and all heated gases emit IR.
All gases have a temperature, and emit IR, commensurate with their temperature. Likewise, they absorb IR emitted by objects hotter than themselves.
Depending on the physical properties of the gas, such as specific heat and density, molecular structure and so on, it will absorb more or less photons that it intercepts, as John Tyndall showed over 150 years ago.
Some idiots think that the atmosphere is transparent to IR, but cannot then explain why the atmosphere heats up during the day, nor why it cools at night. Approximately 35% of the radiation from the Sun never reaches the surface, as both John Tyndall and NASA have measured.
Vacuum is truly transparent to IR, resulting in surface temperature on the Moon reaching about 127 C, compared with maybe 90 C on Earth.
But facts are anathema to delusional,SkyDragon cultists. Not only can they not describe their non-existent GHE, they can’t even decide whether it is supposed to make thermometers hotter or colder!
What a bumbling pack of idiots.
You don’t mean the John Tyndall that first one who described the GHE?
You couldn’t possibly mean the guy who noted that because H2O and CO2 gases are transparent to solar radiation (visible and short-wave IR) but lack transparency to long-wave IR:
“Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat; but checks its exit, and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.”
Not him? Because he plainly described the GHE, and thus your repeated protestations that no one can describe it look rather silly when you also try to use him as your authority.
Wrong Nate. That is NOT a description of the GHE. That’s a description of how Sun heats the planet, or as you may have heard, “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
Sun heats the surface, then the surface heats the atmosphere. But the idea that CO2 can then somehow re-heat the surface is absolute cult nonsense. CO2 is a weak coolant, allowing low energy photons to escape to space. Add enough CO2 to the atmosphere, say 2000 ppm, and you could notice a slight reduction in Earth temperatures.
Clint R
Just totally wrong on many levels. You have chastised Gordon Robertson for peddling nonsense on this bog so you go ahead and do the same. CO2 cools the upper atmosphere NOT surface. CO2 lowers the amount of heat leaving the surface. Radiant energy from a cold object can be ab*sorted by a hotter object. That is reality, verified by experiment done by Roy Spencer and established physics. Your spewing nonsense does not change physics at all, it just makes you look ignorant.
Sorry Norman, but I no longer respond to your troll tactics. The rules have been explained to you. You’re welcome to clean up your act and try again, but we both know that isn’t going to happen…
Clint R
You are still totally wrong regardless of your rules. You do not know real physics at all, just your stupid opinions over and over.
See why I have rules for you Norman?
Your comment contained your opinion, an insult, and a false accusation.
A responsible adult would have known not to use such tactics.
Clint R
How about this. You claim a hot object cannot absorb energy from a colder one. This goes against established physics with a working radiant heat transfer equation that states that the heat lost by the hot object is the amount of energy it loses via emission minus the amount it gains from its surroundings. Roy Spencer also did an actual experiment on his blog that verified this established and much used physics.
Since you make the claim this equation is bogus, you need some really strong experimental evidence to prove established science is wrong and you view is correct.
Science and reality are about evidence not statements of belief. Established and used science says radiant energy will be absorbed by a hotter object. It does not violate 2nd Law in the least as the Heat flow is still from hot to cold. But as the cold object gets hotter less heat flows from the hot to cold.
I will see if you reply and provide valid evidence to support your claim.
That’s better Norman. You’ve avoided the childish insults and misrepresentations. But you’re still using veiled false accusations and straw men.
Clean it up so that I will believe you will keep it clean. No back-sliding.
Norman,
You wrote –
“Roy Spencer also did an actual experiment on his blog that verified this established and much used physics.”
Well, no, he didn’t, if you are implying that a colder body can lose energy to a warmer one, without itself becoming colder itself. Conservation of energy means that as a warmer body acquires more energy and heats, the colder must lose an exactly equivalent amount – the total does not change.
In your magical kingdom, a colder body can emit infinite amounts of energy, without becoming colder in the process.
Accept reality. Physical laws, such as the conservation laws, are called laws for a reason. No matter how devout your faith, or how passionate your belief, you haven’t demonstrated your ability to break any physical laws.
Are you an idiot, or just abysmally ignorant?
Clint R
Will the EMR emitted by colder surroundings slow down the rate of heat transfer from a warmer body?
Does the temperature of the cold surroundings have an effect on the rate of heat loss of the hotter body?
In these questions assume radiant heat transfer is the only mode of exchange, a vacuum condition where convection and conduction are not taking place and no other sources of energy are involved.
Norman,
You wrote –
“Does the temperature of the cold surroundings have an effect on the rate of heat loss of the hotter body?”
Of course it does. That’s why the hotter body cools – heat loss. Didn’t you know that heat loss is called cooling? Newton’s Law of Cooling will let you calculate the rate of cooling, if you feel like it.
No wonder you can’t describe the GHE – you are probably stupid enough to think that slow cooling really means “getting hotter”! It doesn’t – the temperature is falling.
Congratulations, Norman! You did it. A comment without any troll tactics! Good job.
Your two questions are basically the same, so will have the same basic answer — No.
That is the simple answer and is good 99.9% of the time. But in reality, there is a more complicated answer. The complications are emissivity and ΔT. In a simple scenario, with both objects having the same emissivity and also having a large ΔT, the simple answer works. With different emissivities and temperatures very close together, complexities arise.
But for Earth and space, the 99.0% holds, i.e., space does not affect Earths emission.
Clint R
Thank you for answering the questions. To make it more than your opinion do you have any evidence to support your “no” answer? Currently established physics says the temperature of the cold surroundings does affect the rate of heat transfer so I would need more than your opinion. An experiment or something.
Norman, first a word of caution, don’t automatically assume it’s just my opinion. That’s getting into the realm of “false accusation”. You don’t want to go there. It’s okay to ask for more details, if you don’t understand. But automatically attacking because things don’t match your beliefs is cultism.
Unfortunately the literature on “radiative physics” is rather polluted. That’s because it is not a field of study common to most people, so mistakes never seem to get corrected. For example, you see the “radiative heat transfer” equation all over the Internet, but you never find it is a reputable physics book. The bogus equation has NO scientific derivation, and is easily debunked. It is popular among the GHE cult, because they believe it means “cold” can warm “hot”.
To understand concepts like this, you need a basic understanding of absorp.tion, entropy and temperature. Remember that absorp.tion requires wavelength compatibility. Photons not absorbed, or transmitted, are reflected. Reflection is VERY common, and happens all the time.
A basic discussion of entropy is here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1496363
A basic discussion of temperature is here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1493684
“Currently established physics says the temperature of the cold surroundings does affect the rate of heat transfer so I would need more than your opinion.”
Indeed.
“For example, you see the radiative heat transfer equation all over the Internet, but you never find it is a reputable physics book. The bogus equation has NO scientific derivation, and is easily debunked.”
So no source at all to support this false assertion that established physics is bogus.
What he said to Gordon applies perfectly here to Clint:
“But even thinking for yourself, you MUST recognize and accept reality. Youve merely formed your own personal cult. That aint science.”
Nate,
I know all you goofballs worship Tyndall as your GHE God but reading his supposed description of GHE is, well, lacking. As a matter of fact Tyndall said CO2 has an insignificant contribution to the atmosphere. Of course it has been removed from most of the internet sites.
stephen…”Tyndall said CO2 has an insignificant contribution to the atmosphere. Of course it has been removed from most of the internet sites”.
***
He also said any warming would be a good thing, as did Arrhenius.
” As a matter of fact Tyndall said CO2 has an insignificant contribution to the atmosphere.”
Oh he did? Got a quote?
> You couldnt possibly mean the guy who noted that because H2O and CO2 gases are transparent to solar radiation (visible and short-wave IR) but lack transparency to long-wave IR:
Good point!
Weepy Wee Willy,
Why couldn’t I possibly mean John Tyndall?
You can’t say, can you?
That’s because you’re an idiot!
Carry on.
Moron Mike,
You don’t mean anything. But you mean well.
Keep it up, deceitful cretin!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nate,
Tyndall also speculated that meteoric impacts made the Sun hot, that the luminiferous ether existed, and various other speculations. Like every other scientist, sometimes his speculations proved to be wrong.
His experiments showed that about 35% of solar radiation doesn’t even reach the surface, and that the surface (ground) temperature increases with altitude. Some idiots believe that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer makes it hotter!
You could read his later books, if you wanted to. He changes his views about several things, based on meticulous experimental results.
You wrote –
“Because he plainly described the GHE, and thus your repeated protestations that no one can describe it look rather silly when you also try to use him as your authority.”
Well, no, he didn’t. You claim he did, but you cannot find any reference to a “greenhouse effect” in any of Tyndall’s published works. You will no doubt claim that you didn’t really mean “greenhouse effect”, but something else, I suppose. Go on then, provide Tyndall’s description of the “greenhouse effect” if you are delusional enough to believe that you are connected to reality! Oh, something backed by experiment, of course.
Idiot. The Earth is cooler now than four and a half billion years ago, and the surface cools every night.
“Because he plainly described the GHE, and thus your repeated protestations that no one can describe it look rather silly when you also try to use him as your authority.”
“Well, no, he didnt. You claim he did, but you cannot find any reference to a greenhouse effect in any of Tyndalls published works.”
He had to call it what we call it today for it to count as a description of the GHE??
Wrong idiot.
You missed the point of his simple, clear, description again.
It takes real effort to remain ignorant in the face of such clarity!
Try again:
Now, you already reluctantly agreed that gases can be transparent to certain wavelengths.
With this: “Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat; but checks its exit”
he is saying that H2O and CO2 are transparent to solar emitted wavelengths. But they are not transparent to terrestrially emitted wavelengths.
Thus by simple logic, he finds ” and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.”
That’s it. A basic description of how the GHE works.
And yet you have no sensible rebuttal.
Oh well.
You idiot.
As I pointed out to your fellow dimwit, Willard, if you had bothered to read Tyndall’s words, he was talking about nighttime. He pointed out that without an atmosphere, temperatures would rapidly drop to those of the dark Lunar surface, and mankind could not survive.
Likewise, without an atmosphere, temperatures would rise to those of the sunlit Moon – some 127 C or so, once again eliminating mankind.
Maybe you could describe the GHE, before lurching off into telling everyone “how the GHE works”. Are you now claiming that the “greenhouse effect” is just another name for the atmosphere?
Tyndall believed the earth had cooled. You don’t seem to accept the fact that the atmosphere didn’t stop theEarth cooling. Or do you believe the GHE is responsible for objects cooling?
If you do, others might believe that you are an idiot, as I do.
“f you had bothered to read Tyndalls words, he was talking about nighttime.”
False. This is made up. No quote no credit.
Tyndall offered a clear description of the GHE. What you incessantly ask for.
Calling me an idiot followed by no rebuttal of Tyndall shows that you are a just a loser and a troll.
Now you will continue to lie and pretend that no one has offered a description of the GHE, when obviously it was offered 150 y ago by Tyndall.
Your inability to understand it is a YOU problem.
Flynnson once more insults other people with a stupid
” What a bumbling pack of idiots. ”
This absolute idiot wrote once more:
” All gases have a temperature, and emit IR, commensurate with their temperature. Likewise, they absorb IR emitted by objects hotter than themselves. ”
though having been contradicted so many times with the hint that Earth’s main atmospheric constituents (N2, O2)indeed absorb and emit IR, but with an intensity of, for N2, about 1,000,000 times less than H2O and CO2, and for O2 about 10,000 times.
This is really the beginning of dementia, isn’t it? The same behavior as Robertson, who endlessly repeats the same nonsense all the time – regardless of any correction he himself wasn’t able to contradict.
Binny,
Yes, I wrote “All gases have a temperature, and emit IR, commensurate with their temperature. Likewise, they absorb IR emitted by objects hotter than themselves.
You disagree?
Maybe you think gases are heated by magic? By colder magical objects?
Maybe you don’t believe that people claim to be able to measure “air temperature”? You may not believe that superheated air exists, but it will kill you really, really, quickly whether you believe it or not
Maybe you could state what you are complaining about, and support it with fact. Otherwise, you will just look like an idiotic sour kraut, of the delusional SkyDragon cultist variety.
The surface cools every night, idiot.
Swenson,
“O₂, N₂, H₂, He, or Ar, which do not have absorbance bands in the infrared region of the spectrum. This booklet is an introduction to the principles behind FTIR gas spectroscopy and will address basic FTIR theory, how it works, and the practical aspects that must be considered for FTIR analysis of gases.”
A little light reading from ThermoFisher
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://assets.thermofisher.com/TFS-Assets/MSD/brochures/gas-phase-ftir-spectroscopy-introduction-BR52338.pdf
Bereft bobdroege,
You believe anything, don’t you? Do you really believe that IR only consists of the wave number band from 3200 to 1200?
You are an idiot. All matter in the universe emits and absorbs IR. I could ask you how a gas maintains a temperature of 20 C without absorbing IR, but you would only start whining about reality.
You could always gain some understanding of spectroscopy and spectrometry, and the characteristics of IR (light) sources before you essay at trying to look clever. Is all of this supposed to have some relevance to a GHE which you claim someone else (but not you) can describe?
Maybe you should let that imaginary person explain why you are an idiot, and save me the trouble. Not that I mind, but it’s too easy to take advantage of the intellectually disadvantaged.
Have you considered taking up trolling? Willard keeps at it, so it can’t be hard, can it?
Give it a try.
Swenson,
“Do you really believe that IR only consists of the wave number band from 3200 to 1200?”
No, the band is a little wider than that.
I linked to a company that makes and sells spectroscopy equipment, they disagree with you.
Who do you think is correct?
Bumbling bob,
You wrote –
“I linked to a company that makes and sells spectroscopy equipment, they disagree with you.”
You idiot, I took the values off their website!
You also wrote “No, the band is a little wider than that”. Infinitely wider – all the way from infinity (or zero, if you prefer wavenumbers), to whatever frequency at which visible light occurs.
You really have no idea, do you?
IR is all light with wavelengths longer than those of visible light. An infinite number. Yes, frequencies don’t occur in discrete steps, and nor do temperatures, whether you think they should or not.
Maybe you believe that oxygen and nitrogen don’t absorb or emit IR, but then you might have difficulty in explaining how the temperature of air goes up when rapidly compressed, with all components having the same temperature, and emitting the same wavelengths.
Have you located a description of the GHE yet? Are you keeping it a secret, perhaps?
Idiot.
.
Swenson.
It’s not the range of IR which they disagree with you, anyway the IR range is not all light with wavelengths longer than visible light, at a certain point you have microwaves and then radio waves at longer wavelengths.
The gases O2, N2, He, Ar, and H2 are not active in the IR range.
You want to divert the argument to what is the range of IR, well then, isn’t that nice?
I think you don’t understand how compressing a gas causes it to heat up, you have to add energy to do that, and that additional energy is what causes the temperature increase in accordance with the Ideal Gas Law, you know PV=nRT?
Since I have already provide you with a description of the Green House Effect, further descriptions are available for a lost item fee. 50 bucks and I’ll provide that for you.
Swenson,
“You idiot, I took the values off their website!”
God damn, but you are stupid, you took that range off of a chart representing the spectra of a few common gases, not meant to represent the whole IR range.
Do continue to be stupid, it makes me horny.
binny…”Earths main atmospheric constituents (N2, O2)indeed absorb and emit IR, but with an intensity of, for N2, about 1,000,000 times less than H2O and CO2, and for O2 about 10,000 times”.
***
Why does N2/O2 have to emit in the IR band to cool the planet? We know O2 emits in the microwave spectrum and that has to cool the planet.
Temperature recovery during MM
https://i.ibb.co/pQvLG0W/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-06-12-124532.png
The largest temperature drops will be approaching during the local minima between cycles 25 − 26 and cycles 2627 when the lowest solar activity level is achieved using the estimations in Figure 2 (bottom plot) and Figure 3. Therefore, the average temperature in the Northern hemisphere can be reduced by up to 1.0C from the current temperature, which was increased by 1.4C since Maunder minimum. This will result in the average temperature to become lower than the current one to be only 0.4C higher than the temperature measured in 1710. Then, after the modern grand solar minimum 1 is over, the solar activity in cycle 28 will be restored to normal in the rather short but powerful grand solar cycle lasting between 2053 and 2370, as shown in Figure 3, before it approaches the next grand solar minimum 2 in 2370.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243
” Therefore, the average temperature in the Northern hemisphere can be reduced by up to 1.0C from the current temperature, which was increased by 1.4C since Maunder minimum. ”
This is known as wrong since years.
The temperature increase appeared since the end of the Little Ice Age, what is a completely different statement.
The Maunder Minimum was only a small part of the LIA.
“The Maunder Minimum occurred during the coldest period of the LIA between 1645 and 1715 AD when the number of sunspots was very low.”
“the ocean data […] is so sparse, especially in the southern hemisphere”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard invents things.
https://imgur.com/gallery/Ulah5KV
Richard has concerns about data coverage, but only when it suits him.
He also forgets his own words.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The Dalton Minimum occurred between 1790 and 1830 so the Industrial Era seems to have begun between the two. The IPCC claimed the warming after that was due to increased CO2 emitted in the Industrial Era but some of us think of it as a re-warming following this peak in the LIA.
C’mon, Bordo.
The Dalton minimum occurred when Lucky Luke was around.
Willard, please stop trolling.
New experimental forecast update
https://i.postimg.cc/gcvMZFk1/nino1-2-jun2023-plume-S2-S.png
Do you have a data source for that graph?
I hide the sources so Bindiclown doesn’t steal them
Not from me you don’t : ).
Good idea, dachshund…
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/current/compare_n12.cgi?var1=2023&var2=jun
Internal Server Error
Looks like Blinny can’t do the Internet as well as he can’t do maths/graphs.
For Blinny
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jun/nino1+2_Jun_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
Yeah he stole it again
Badly. That’s always the problem with Blinny. Never quite accurate enough.
Typical 500 for NASA and NOAA, they aren’t able to keep their dynamical data online.
So what.
Strange how you don’t check your own posts. Mind you, about what we expect from you.
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/current/compare_n12.cgi?var1=2023&var2=jun
For Blinny.
Looks like only the comparisons pages are broken. All other pages post quite well. Mind you, those pages are almost useless anyway, with most of their refs (apart from 1) being blank.
Never mind, I found it
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/current/plumes.cgi
What I find quite interesting is
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jun/nino3.4_Jun_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
which shows how often the next 9 months predictions are correct/wrong.
Here we can see if the 9 months projections (in red) correspond to how things actually turned out (from 1989), Now it is possible to see how often the model they use gets things warm (or cold) compared to reality.
edit: …1982…
The below is for Nino 1.2 (use last line of the post I gave earlier)
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jun/nino1+2_Jun_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
I’ll just post this here again, so that RLH can again pretend it doesnt exist.
https://tinyurl.com/3zu6jyhj
The dynamical model average was 87% accurate for October as predicted in May.
Nate: Everybody knows about the spring predictability barrier. Posting it again does not change anything.
However this graph shows how often the model predictions are wrong, by sometimes over 2 degrees (even in June – see 1997 for instance)!
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jun/nino3.4_Jun_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
“Nate: Everybody knows about the spring predictability barrier. Posting it again does not change anything.”
My source says otherwise for dynamical models. You continue to pretend it doesnt exist!
87% accurate in May for the Fall. Does that sound like a spring barrier to you?
P.S. Percentages do not show the range – which is important here.
You could be 100% wrong 1/20th of the time and still be at 80% (or so).
P.P.S NASA uses a dynamical model.
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/current/plumes.cgi
Checkout all the buttons on the ‘historical time-series’ line.
As to the SPB, plug “Spring Predictability Barrier” into google.
Try https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/spring-predictability-barrier-we%E2%80%99d-rather-be-spring-break for instance
So your cup is 87% full, but you see it as 13 % empty.
OK, good luck with that bet.
Ah how percentages are sometimes used to blind people. It is only 87% SOME of the time, not always.
Have you see how NASA has determined Nino 1.2 for this month?
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jun/nino1+2_Jun_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
And Nino 2
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jun/nino2_Jun_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
and Nino 1
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jun/nino1_Jun_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
“It is only 87% SOME of the time, not always.”
Sorry that makes no sense.
87% is the correlation coefficient between the average model predictions and the observations.
That is an extremely high correlation.
And FYI the June model prediction for October is 92 % accurate.
That means the likelihood of it being significantly wrong is very low.
But go ahead and bet on an improbable outcome.
My links show that you may well be correct on ‘average’. But that does not mean you are correct.
The range and spread are just as important as the average percentage, not that you will acknowledge that at all.
And you think you know statistics. Huh?
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jun/nino1+2_Jun_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
How often do you think that the June prediction for the next few months lines up with what actually happened?
And if you want the Nino 3.4 data
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jun/nino3.4_Jun_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
In the later post I call your attention to 1983, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2021
where the predictions and reality differ by more that a degree (by eye).
That is 15 cases out of 42 which makes your 87% claim somewhat suspect.
“The range and spread are just as important as the average percentage, not that you will acknowledge that at”
Range and spread affect a correlation coefficient.
Again if it is 0.87, the range and spread aren’t that significant.
I think you are looking at one model rather than a model average.
This suggests using the average of dynamical models is a better predictor.
Your statistic seems to hide the real deficiency of the actual data and forecasting. 15 cases out of 42 which makes your 87% claim somewhat suspect to say the least.
Climate.gov and its ENSO blog at least admit that things are not as rosy as you claim.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/why-making-el-ni%C3%B1o-forecasts-spring-especially-anxiety-inducing
Contrast (as they do) the difference between 1997 and 2014. You would have it that they are the same likelihood of occurrence. They were not. As the data at
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jun/nino3.4_Jun_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
clearly shows.
Another case of statistics being used to conceal rather than reveal what is actually going on.
“I think you are looking at one model rather than a model average.”
Ah, another of what is essentially false claims. Averaging together all the models without an accuracy ranking of what actually happened is plain wrong and will produce an ‘accuracy’ that far exceeds their actual ranking.
“This suggests using the average of dynamical models is a better predictor”
The data at (last line of historical time series)
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/current/plumes.cgi
suggest you are wrong.
NASA uses a dynamical model.
“15 of 42”
Where is that from?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1497597
These are just visual and lacking any quantitative measure of accuracy. Calculate the correlation coefficient for these.
“Averaging together all the models without an accuracy ranking of what actually happened is plain wrong and will produce an accuracy that far exceeds their actual ranking.”
This makes absolutely no sense.
If an average of dynamical models has a strong record of predictive success than WHY can’t we use it?
The multi-model anomaly plume for this year that previously broke the Spring Barrier.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/inline-images/C3s_web_seasonal_update_20230601.png
From here:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/seasonal-forecasts
Averaging together the readings from a stopped cock does not make it a more accurate timepiece. Although statistics can be used to ‘prove’ otherwise.
Likewise, if a thermometer randomly reads +-10c, an average will produce something more ‘precise’, but it will still only be +-10c accurate.
“If an average of dynamical models has a strong record of predictive success than WHY cant we use it?”
Because it is no more likely to be accurate for this particular year than sticking ones thumb in the air. Being a slave to statistics without understanding its limitations is no way to be a scientist.
“Calculate the correlation coefficient for these.”
NASA does not do that calculation (or provide the data that might allow others to do so).
Conflating together a particular years prediction with an ‘average’ statistic means you do not appreciate what random can do to your data.
Cliamte.gov understands (see above). You do not.
“’15 of 42′
Where is that from?”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1497548
edit: Sorry I meant here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1497548
Just you making the claim 15 of 42. Not telling us where from.
RLH said: Because it is no more likely to be accurate for this particular year than sticking ones thumb in the air.
That’s not what the data says. The data says ENSO models are not only more skillful than “sticking ones thumb in the air”, but they are also more skillful than persistence or climatology techniques. Going further, the dynamic models demonstrate more skill than statistical models through the SFB.
RLH said: Averaging together the readings from a stopped cock does not make it a more accurate timepiece.
No, but it does make the average less uncertainty than measurements upon which the average is based.
RLH said: Likewise, if a thermometer randomly reads +-10c, an average will produce something more precise, but it will still only be +-10c accurate.
That depends on how much of the +-10 C uncertainty is random vs systematic. For example, if 0% of the uncertainty is systematic then the average of 5 measurements has an uncertainty of +-4.5 C. 25% is +-6.3 C, 50% is +-7.8 C, and 75% is +-9.0 C, and 100% is obviously +- 10C. This can be solved via JCGM 100:2008 equation 16 which is the familiar law of propagation of uncertainty.
The other interesting thing is that the law of propagation of uncertainty tells us that when the measurement model forms an anomaly value then the systematic component of uncertainty disappears. For example, consider the +-10 C thermometer again where 50% of the uncertainty is systematic then the average of 5 anomalies with baseline compute as the average of 5 measurements has an uncertainty of only +-4.5 C which is less than the uncertainty of the absolute average of +- 7.8 C from above. Here we have traded all of the systematic component for a slightly increased random component. Anyway, there are many reasons why anomalies are useful in science. The fact that the uncertainties are lower is certainly among them.
If an average of dynamical models has a strong record of predictive success than WHY cant we use it?
Because it is no more likely to be accurate for this particular year than sticking ones thumb in the air. Being a slave to statistics without understanding its limitations is no way to be a scientist.”
I’m sorry, that is just plain stupid.
I noted that “an average of dynamical models has a strong record of predictive success” as measured over MANY years.
So yes, logically, that would suggest it likely will be successful this year as well.
You are not making any sense.
From here (or similar)
ttps://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jun/nino3.4_Jun_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
as the ref shows.
“You are not making any sense”
Later this year we will see who is more accurate.
Nate (and others) don’t mind be incorrect by a degree or more as the actual data shows.
The irony of using anomalies (a form of statistical model) to ‘prove’ a dynamic model is lost on some people.
RLH said: Ah, another of what is essentially false claims. Averaging together all the models without an accuracy ranking of what actually happened is plain wrong and will produce an accuracy that far exceeds their actual ranking.
That is not correct. The law of propagation of uncertainty says that at the worst the uncertainty of the average is no more than the uncertainty of the individual elements upon which the average is based. And that only happens when the errors of the individual elements are 100% correlated across all of the elements which would only happen if there was no random error and the systematic error was the same for all elements.
So why are the predictions at (the red lines)
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/current/plumes.cgi
historical time series so inaccurate in some years?
See also
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jun/idm_Jun_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
where in some years the predictions are in the opposite direction to the actual outcome.
And
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jun/tasi_Jun_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
“Nate (and others) dont mind be incorrect by a degree or more as the actual data shows.”
You are showing results for one model, only. You’ve done no analysis to quantify the accuracy.
The source I showed you had quantitative analysis of the accuracy of a multi-model average.
These are apples vs oranges.
“Later this year we will see who is more accurate.”
A science method that has proven accuracy of 87% (May) or 92% (June) for predictions of October, vs. what?
Cooling hopes and dreams?
RLH said: So why are the predictions at (the red lines) […] historical time series so inaccurate in some years?
It is because there is uncertainty in the prediction. Each prediction results in some kind of error. The dispersion of the error is expressed as an uncertainty.
BTW…keep in mind that the red line is one model…NASA GEOS S2S v2.1. Each model would have its own error and thus uncertainty.
” experimental forecast ” what is that, Eben?
You think forecasts count as experiments???
You think the predictions are accurate compared to the actual results?
Gordon:
–
“There is no greenhouse effect from backradiation. fig. 5 propagated by NASA thus displays fictional non-physical recirculating radiation with an Earth surface emitting 117% while absorbing 48% from the Sun.
–
Exactly. Earth’s surface emits almost the same amount of energy, as it receives from both, the sun and the inner core.
–
It is “almost”, because Earth’s surface is never in a 100% radiative energy equilibrium.
Currently, Earth’s surface is in some millennia long natural warming trend, thus Earth’s surface annually accumulates some more energy than Earth’s surface is able to IR emit to outer space.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Case Closed: It Was a Lab Leak
“The Sunday London Times, out today, has a long, long article about the origins of the covid-19 virus in the lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Until the far-off day when Chinese sources open up honestly, it will stand as definitive proof of not just the lab leak hypothesis, but the conclusion that covid-19 was a human creation. Its conclusions are unqualified:
Scientists in Wuhan working alongside the Chinese military were combining the worlds most deadly coronaviruses to create a new mutant virus just as the pandemic began.
Investigators who scrutinised top-secret intercepted communications and scientific research believe Chinese scientists were running a covert project of dangerous experiments, which caused a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and started the Covid-19 outbreak.
The US investigators say one of the reasons there is no published information on the work is because it was done in collaboration with researchers from the Chinese military, which was funding it and which, they say, was pursuing bioweapons.”
ttps://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/06/case-closed-it-was-a-lab-leak.php
Linked from:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/
REVEALED: reporters at @thetimes working alongside the internets most prominent SARS-CoV-2 origins conspiracists combined the worlds most idiotic lab leak theories to create this long read of nonsensical reheated horseshit.
So lets get into this tepid excuse for journalism
https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1668239114037067776
If you think The Times is an accurate source on anything, then there is a London Bridge I need to sell you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus does not exist anywhere in nature. After more than 3 years of intense study, no intermediate animal has been identified to make the jump from bats to humans. The very first strain was exceptionally efficient at infecting humans, and later strains became even more efficient. The Chinese Communist have lied about everything and have refused the most basic investigation. The WHO were manipulated by the Chinese, and participated in a public relations stunt designed to appear like an investigation. Top secret information from a foreign source (Thailand?) claim to have proof of the lab leak. Gain-of-function research was known to be done at the lab and can completely explain all of the above. Despite that, some still claim it came directly from nature. I have to admit that the space alien theory cannot be disproved.
A lot of fun for the opinionated Coolistas and Zharkova lovers:
Gradual onset of the Maunder Minimum revealed by high-precision carbon-14 analyses
Hiroko Miyahara & al. (2021)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84830-5
” We find that a 16 year-long cycle had occurred three solar cycles before the onset of prolonged sunspot disappearance, suggesting a longer-than-expected preparatory period for the grand minimum.
As the Sun has shown a tendency of cycle lengthening since Solar Cycle 23 (19962008 CE), the behavior of Solar Cycle 25 can be critically important to the later solar activity. ”
Wonderful.
*
An interesting paper:
Solar cyclic activity over the last millennium reconstructed from
annual ¹⁴C data
I.G. Usoskin & al. (2021)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.15112.pdf
There are many papers written from both sides of this. Only one side will be correct.
It is pretty obvious From Bindiclown’s constant nagging on your posts that he is totally clueless about The sun , re-posts snippets of websites he finds on Googl without even knowing what it is about
Falcon 9 deploys 53 Starlink satellites on SpaceX’s 40th launch of the year
https://www.spacedaily.com/
1/2 way thru year, but will be less than 80. But should have total 4 Falcon Heavy and 2 or 3 starship launch attempts. Or more payload to orbit than in 2022 {which was insane amount}.
But 2024 will more insane, and not just SpaceX, globally it could be wild.
Vulcan Centaur Dream Chaser 1 is scheduled early 2024 and Vulcan Centaur Peregrine is to be announced {TBD} but probably before Fall of 2023. And New Glenn is thought to launching in 2024 and New Glenn is planned to put crew on the Moon. And should expecting a lot out of India and China in 2024 {though also Japan}.
Though the world’s past leaders, Russia and Europe are struggling.
US-German satellites show California water gains after record winter
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/US_German_satellites_show_California_water_gains_after_record_winter_999.html
“Early data shows the greatest net gain of water over the winter in nearly 22 years, but the state’s groundwater levels still suffer from the effects of years of drought.
After years of intense drought and diminishing groundwater, California just saw its greatest year-over-year water gains in two decades, according to data from the GRACE-FO (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On) satellite mission, a partnership between NASA and the German Research Centre for Geosciences (GFZ). This past winter’s bonanza of atmospheric rivers alleviated some of the water deficit that the state incurred during periods of drought over the last 10 years, which included the three driest years on record in California.”
Aussie Academics: Scaring School Children Improves their Climate Behaviour
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/12/aussie-academics-scaring-school-children-improves-their-climate-behaviour/
Oh dear, I forgot about Aussie {and New Zealand} they might worse
than the US and Canada.
I was hearing about how they beyond crazy with the unneeded
Lockdown stuff. And probably haven’t even recovered from that stupidity, yet.
Neumann Space signs contract with Space Inventor to provide greater access to space
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Neumann_Space_signs_contract_with_Space_Inventor_to_provide_greater_access_to_space_999.html
“Neumann Space, a technology leader of in-space electric propulsion today announced that it has signed a contract with Space Inventor, a leading European manufacturer of microsatellites that will enable it to gain greater access to space as part of its program of in-orbit demonstration (IOD).
As part of the contract, Space Inventor will provide Neumann Space with the opportunity to integrate its next generation Neumann Drive as an IOD payload on board a 6U EDISON Satellite scheduled for launch in the second half of 2024.
The EDISON Mission is a part of the European Space Agency’s Pioneer programme, designed to support emerging companies seeking to provide new and innovative satellite communications technologies and services.”
I have no idea what this is
🙂
Something Versus Nothing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7og2_48D6FQ
Dennis is having fun in Serbia.
Europe is more enjoyable than America- wokeism is
lacking in Europe as is other things. European leadership is disparaging what is happening in US {though probably in Canada, I would add}.
“The removal, for a single summer night, of the aqueous vapour from the atmosphere which covers England would be attended by the destruction of every plant which a freezing temperature could kill. The moon would be rendered entirely uninhabitable by beings like ourselves through the operation of this single cause.” – John Tyndall.
It seems as though delusional SkyDragon cultists refuse to accept that a reduced rate of cooling is still cooling. It is obvious to most people that the surface cools at night, in the absence of sunlight.
Still no description of the GHE – probably because it doesn’t exist. Its supporters are not even prepared to say whether their GHE makes thermometers hotter or colder!
Not one of them will acknowledge having a description in their possession. They keep claiming that it’s “over there”, or “on the internet” – somewhere else, just like Donald Rumsfeld’s weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which were also nowhere to be found, being imaginary!
Bumbling idiots, furiously trying to convince others that fantasy is preferable to fact.
Mike Flynn,
Deceiful cretin:
https://theconversation.com/john-tyndall-the-forgotten-co-founder-of-climate-science-143499
Wee Willy Wanker,
Of course it does you fool – at night! Otherwise, as Tyndall wrote –
“The removal, for a single summer night, of the aqueous vapour from the atmosphere which covers England would be attended by the destruction of every plant which a freezing temperature could kill. The moon would be rendered entirely uninhabitable by beings like ourselves through the operation of this single cause.”
Are you one of those delusional SkyDragon cultists who believe falling temperatures are due to “CO2 heating”?
You donkey, Tyndall’s experiments showed that about 35% of sunlight doesnt even reach the surface (as NASA agrees, more than a century later), resulting in lower, not higher, maximum temperatures! Oh well, if deranged GHE believers want to believe that less sunlight means higher temperatures, Im not surprised.
They are probably ignorant idiots like you.
Carry on.
Moron Mike,
What are you braying about?
It seems that Sky Dragon cranks work hard not to get that reducing the rate of cooling of a planet results in a warmer planet.
Do continue to play dumb!
You put the lid on the pot
The water starts boiling
Take the lid of the pot
The water stops boiling
You do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself about
Willard, please stop trolling.
The planet saver called Kerry
https://youtu.be/myIV79Uvp6Y
Earlier, Willard wrote –
“It seems that Sky Dragon cranks work hard not to get that reducing the rate of cooling of a planet results in a warmer planet.”
Willard has definitely lost touch with reality if he refuses to accept that the planet has cooled, rather than becoming “warmer”. Reducing the rate of cooling of anything which is cooling does not make it “warmer”, whether it’s a planet, or a Thermos of soup.
Sure, the Earth is warmer than absolute zero, but so is everything in the universe.
No, Willard, you idiot – slow cooling does not result in warming, no matter how many “silly semantic games” you try to play. Stick to idiotic trolling attempts – you’ll appear less stupid.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You still play the moron –
“Sure, the Earth is warmer than absolute zero”
The atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth.
Slows down.
It’s not just a difference in temperature.
It’s a difference of temperature in time.
Deceitful cretin.
Wee Willy Idiot,
Well, gee. The Earth has taken four and a half billion years to cool to its present temperature. What are you whining about? Lord Kelvin was a bit out, wasn’t he – he calculated the age of the Earth to be no more than 40 million years. He was ignorant of radioactivity and radiogenic heat. He thought it should have cooled faster, too.
Are you claiming that the GHE is responsible for the slow rate of cooling of the Earth? Or are you just being an idiotic troll? You wrote –
“It’s not just a difference in temperature.
It’s a difference of temperature in time.”
You are certainly babbling now. So the surface has cooled – that’s hardly earth-shattering news. Do you think the Earth should have cooled faster than it has? It didn’t, you idiot.
What you “think” affects not a single physical fact. If you need a GHE to explain the cooling of the Earth, you are quite deranged. You might as well stick to trolling – you have now decided that the GHE allows the Earth to cool, rather than get hotter, but you still refuse to describe the GHE!
I don’t blame you. Why look like more of an idiot than you are?
Carry on.
Moron Mike,
The Chewbacca Defense again?
Deceitful cretin.
At last you have revealed part of the GHE description –
The greenhouse effect is a phenomenon, which can be observed as follows –
“The atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth.
Slows down.
Its not just a difference in temperature.
Its a difference of temperature in time.”
Is that it, or is there more?
Moron Mike,
Another:
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1497308
Deceitful cretin.
Willard, please stop trolling.
clint…who has hidden behind several other nyms in the past, talks to me about trolling. He has claimed…
“You didnt know E/M can easily be measured. You dont understand current flow. You dont know how to measure energy. Now you cant understand entropy.
The entropy equation you keep using refers to temperature and energy, which you also cant understand. You reject the reality that the concept of entropy has vastly expanded in the last 150 years. You reject both Boltzmanns work and Shannons work”.
***
I began to notice an immaturity in your character a while back in the manner you became intolerant with posters who disagreed with you. Rather than take the time to explain your disagreement, you simply attacked. It occurred to me that you simply lacked the understanding of science to respond coherently but I gave you benefit of the doubt. After this unwarranted attack on my abilities I am now convinced you are just another dumbass with a big mouth.
No energy can be measured directly because no one knows what energy is. Whatever it is, energy motivates matter to do something or other, but the source of that motivation is a mystery.
EM cannot be measured directly because there is no instrument that can detect it to measure it. A traditional method with lower frequency EM is to use an antenna in which EM induces a voltage/current. The voltage/current is another form of energy called electrical energy, so we use electrical energy to measure EM. But what is electrical energy?
The relationship between electrical and magnetic energy was investigated in the 19th century by experimenters like Faraday. Lenz, etc. They found the phenomenon indirectly by holding a compass near a current-carrying conductor and noted that the compass needle deflected, indicating a magnetic field.
To this day, no one knows what an electric field is, or a magnetic field. They know the properties but cannot explain the energy. They can distinguish one energy from another based on the properties but they cannot explain the energy itself. So, how do you measure something you know nothing about? You do it by observing the effect it has on matter.
As far as current flow is concerned, if you dare to contradict my understanding of current flow I will kick your sorry butt.
I explained entropy to you and you were too dumb to understand the explanation, which I took straight from the words of Clausius. He explained it in words as a summation of heat quantities, but you don’t even understand heat, regarding it as a measure of energy without stating the kind of energy.
I warned you not to mess with me, and if you insist, I will gladly reveal you as the idiot you are. It will surely be a major embarrassment for you to be shut down by someone you regard as a troll.
You don’t even know what a troll is.
Same rules now apply to you, Gordon. If you want to learn, drop the troll tactics.
Troll Fight!
We’re gonna have a Troll Fight!
Get your tickets!
Popcorn anyone?
Trolls are winning. UN is trying to push censorship on everyone with a contrary opinion to the narrative.
The UN are far to stupid to be trolls. They really believe their propaganda and a real troll does not care about understanding, he/she simply wants to disrupt and interfere.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
You don’t need a ticket, you are a contestant, the odds are in your favor.
clint is too stupid to understand the meaning of troll. No troll who values his trolling, would ever write a lengthy post on the basics of physics. A troll is far more likely to offer insults and ad homs, which can be effectively posted in short blurbs. Trolls hate detail and get agitated when posts get longer than a few sentences. They don’t want detail getting in the way of their hate speech.
An especially good indicator of a troll is his emotional state and maturity level. He tries to control, and when his control is resisted, he breaks out the insults and ad homs.
Another mark of a troll is his inability to deal with criticism. When someone disagrees, the troll responds with anger and more insults.
Finally, some trolls fancy themselves as group leaders and teachers. When someone challenges that control, the troll responds with the typical ad homs and insults.
norman…”You claim a hot object cannot absorb energy from a colder one. This goes against established physics …”
***
Not really, Norman. It is a well-known fact that energy cannot move from a region of lower potential energy to a region of higher potential energy, by its own means. We all know that water from a pond won’t flow freely up a hill, unless it is pumped. A boulder won’t spontaneously raise itself to a higher level.
We also know that heat can’t be transferred from a lower potential energy state to a higher potential energy state, by its on means. When we do move heat from a colder region to a hotter region we do it by means of special gases and we compress the gas with a compressor. When we compress the gas, we raise its pressure and its temperature, and we can release that heat through a radiator to a hotter region that the cooler region from which the heat was extracted to warm the gas.
We can’t compress the gas without a machine to compress it and the power to run the machine.
Quantum theory corroborates that for heat. In order to raise the temperature of matter it is necessary to excite electrons in atoms to a higher energy states. Bohr proved that the energy and frequency of EM has to be specific in order to have it be absorbed by electrons in atoms. That specificity cannot be met by EM from cooler bodies which contacts a hotter body.
Gordon Robertson
You are scrambling concepts together that don’t match at all. In simple terms you are trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
Yes a rock cannot move from a lower gravitational potential to a higher one without an energy input. That is NOT at all the same as an object radiating energy.
I have told you to try a simple experiment to prove you are not correct in your declarations. Why you will not do it is your own problem.
I have done it, take an IR camera and stand between a hotter object and a colder one. Turn the camera to the hot object. Only IR gets through the lens to the array and only IR from the object it is pointed act goes through the lens. The hot object will show up in the camera based upon the IR it gives off. Turn to the cold object and it also gives off IR.
Also it is hopeless with you on molecular vibrations. You need to let it go, You just can’t understand how it works and keep ignoring it. A whole science of spectroscopy based upon it that identifies unknown compounds based upon it, equations on molecular vibrations that work and produce results that can be measured and you still reject established and used science. When you are at that level of science denial it is hopeless. You don’t even want to learn. In one post said you are humble and can admit you are wrong. I see zero evidence of that at all. You are wrong and just ignore the mounds of evidence that prove you are wrong (like many IR spectrometers that produce IR spectra of compounds based upon their known molecular vibrations).
Science denial gets really old on this blog. Wish the science deniers would at least try to learn some before they choose to post.
GR is a blatherskite. He only writes his own; he doesn’t read anyone elses or if he does, he isn’t learning from it.
There is no point in casting pearls before swine.
[KENNUI] Trolls are winning. UN is trying to push censorship on everyone with a contrary opinion to the narrative.
[ALSO KENNUI] GR is a blatherskite. He only writes his own; he doesnt read anyone elses or if he does, he isnt learning from it. There is no point in casting pearls before swine.
These two comments have been written at a 2-min interval.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ken…I have tried to engage you in a conversation about your authority figure, Happer. You have offered nothing that would suggest you understand what Happer is talking about. I have pointed out several issues with Happer’s paper yet you seem unable to address my critique.
I have also tried to encourage you to work out the science for yourself. You seem prone to finding an article that suits you and regurgitating it, even if you misunderstand what the article is saying. Why don’t you consider studying at a university level? You may not even have to attend university if you begin at a level you can fully understand then apply yourself.
For example, you read a wiki article on the Moon, in which it was clearly stated that the Moon orbits the Earth, yet you insisted for some reason that it is orbiting the Sun. You mistook an implied orbit of a non-existent barycentre for the orbit of the Moon about the Sun and called me a blatherskite when I tried to point out the error.
Who is the real blatherskite here?
We agree on important issues like climate alarm, the truckers’ protest, Trudeau being an idiot, and the covid nonsense, so I have no interest in making you look bad. However, I can do nothing about you agreeing with Norman and his pseudo-science. The fact that you don’t contradict what he wrote earlier suggests to me that you fail to grasp the error in his post.
C’mon, Bordo.
We all know the answer to rhetorical question.
It’s Mike Flynn.
Now, if you could stop politicking, that’d be great.
Willard, please stop trolling.
norman…”Yes a rock cannot move from a lower gravitational potential to a higher one without an energy input. That is NOT at all the same as an object radiating energy”.
***
You are missing the underlying point. As you raise a rock above the surface, you are increasing its potential energy. If the rock is released at a higher potential energy, it will fall to the surface due to gravitational force. The rock cannot move from the surface, by its own means, to a higher level of potential energy.
This principle is exactly the same for a body radiating energy in that energy of any type cannot move from a lower state of potential energy to a state of higher potential energy by its own means. The mechanism differ but the principle is still the same.
With radiation, the mechanism involves electrons and their energy levels. The energy levels of electrons are governed by the temperature of the mass in which they exist. If you increase the temperature, the electrons will move to higher energy levels and if you increase it enough, they will leap right out of their energy orbitals, resulting in the destruction of the mass.
That applies equally to radiation. If electrons are bombarded by EM radiation from a much higher temperature source, they will jump to ever increasing orbital energy levels. However, if that heat source is lower than the ambient mass temperature in which the electrons exist, they will not even absorb the EM.
—–
“I have done it, take an IR camera and stand between a hotter object and a colder one. Turn the camera to the hot object. Only IR gets through the lens to the array and only IR from the object it is pointed act goes through the lens. The hot object will show up in the camera based upon the IR it gives off. Turn to the cold object and it also gives off IR”.
***
The cameras are not measuring heat, they are responding to frequencies emitted by either body. As Swenson keeps pointing out, all matter above 0K emits EM. It’s not surprising then that both bodies at different temperatures are emitting IR.
You are inferring something more. You are inferring that IR given off by the cooler body is absorbed by the hotter body, and that is not possible.
—-
“Also it is hopeless with you on molecular vibrations. You need to let it go, You just cant understand how it works and keep ignoring it. A whole science of spectroscopy based upon it that identifies unknown compounds based upon it….”
***
I keep trying to explain that the word molecule is simply a name for two or more atoms bonded by valence shell electrons. There is nothing in a molecule but the nucleii of various atoms and the electrons that bond them. Therefore, any radiation into or from a molecule is subject to electron radiation and absorp-tion.
Electron bonds and electronegativity account for all of the vibration and rotation. Electrons set up all the polarities in molecules, without them, molecules could not exist nor would there be any charges, as referenced in dipoles.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “I keep trying to explain that the word molecule is simply a name for two or more atoms bonded by valence shell electrons. There is nothing in a molecule but the nucleii of various atoms and the electrons that bond them. Therefore, any radiation into or from a molecule is subject to electron radiation and absorp-tion,”
I keep telling you the correct science answer and you continue to reject in favor of your misguided beliefs. There is a charge difference in some molecules and when they vibrate the charge vibrates as well generating an electromagnetic field. If the vibration goes to a level above ground state it will release the energy in the form of an IR photon and go down to a lower vibrational state. The charges are what is moving in the molecule. The electrons are not transitioning in this energy exchange, only the charges of the molecules that vibrate back and forth and have a specific frequency of vibration that matches the IR emitted.
You are so anti-science it is not really funny. You don’t know enough real science to realize how ignorant you are as you blather on and on about things you know nothing about.
You are far far from a humble learner that can admit when they are wrong. You are very arrogant and stuck in your twisted deluded thinking that no evidence can change.
Here you claim most arrogantly “You are inferring something more. You are inferring that IR given off by the cooler body is absorbed by the hotter body, and that is not possible.”
Based on what??? Your opinion of how you think things should work. You have no evidence at all to support it but you make it as a factual claim when it is not at all. Just your misguided ignorant opinion of things you can’t understand.
Basically you are a science denier. You will not examine evidence and when presented to you you reject it without consideration.
https://www.masterorganicchemistry.com/2016/11/23/quick_analysis_of_ir_spectra/
The link is of a whole established science you deny and reject in favor of your own invalid interpretation of EMR emission. Just based upon what you believe and nothing more.
Gordon,
“We all know that water from a pond wont flow freely up a hill, unless it is pumped.”
The trees beg to differ, they don’t pump water from the ground to the treetops.
bobdroege,
Of course they do. Do you believe the tree gods magically make water flow uphill?
Pumps are not all mechanical contrivances. Biological pumps exist, and trees use one type, as this extract from Nature points out –
“Unlike animals, plants lack a metabolically active pump like the heart to move fluid in their vascular system. Instead, water movement is passively driven by pressure and chemical potential gradients.”
I have to point out that if you dont like my use of “pump”, you shouldn’t have changed a pond into a tree.
Cold objects do not magically create energy to heat hotter ones (if they didnt, the cold body would get even colder, which it doesn’t), and the reason you cannot describe the GHE is because it doesn’t exist.
Thanks, Swenson, it’s a chore, at times, keeping up with the dimwits. I reasoned there was some sort of pumping action but you put it better…”Do you believe the tree gods magically make water flow uphill”?
It’s actually called capillary action, like how I use a capillary tube to draw a sample up into the tube to deliver a precise amount of fluid for testing.
Under certain circumstances, water does flow up hill.
Come on, Bordo:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-large-trees-such-a
Hard to tell if you are more incredulous than incurious.
bobdroege, Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint R
Above you posted this: “For example, you see the radiative heat transfer equation all over the Internet, but you never find it is a reputable physics book. The bogus equation has NO scientific derivation, and is easily debunked. It is popular among the GHE cult, because they believe it means cold can warm hot.
These are you words and it is very easy to prove them wrong.
Here:
https://tinyurl.com/3kpbf5ta
If the link works it takes you to a site that offers free heat transfer textbooks. I downloaded three of them and all three include the “heat transfer” equation in the texts and verify that the heat transfer of a hot object is based upon what it emits minus what it receives from its surroundings. If you dig deeper you also find they are most certainly aware of reflection but that does not alter the radiant heat transfer equation.
There are three that prove your statement false. Do you have even one source that proves you correct? If so link to it I would be interested in reading it. Also evidence is NOT LINKING to posts you made on this blog. That is not science. Science is about evidence. Links to your own posts is circular reasoning and invalid as evidence. Support your claims.
“…all three include the heat transfer equation in the texts and verify that the heat transfer of a hot object is based upon what it emits minus what it receives from its surroundings”.
***
I think you are misunderstanding the situation for radiation. The difference between the two temperatures determines the direction of the heat transfer. It does not imply that heat is being transferred both ways simultaneously.
The Sun is hotter than Earth therefore it heats the Earth through the conversion of EM. Radiation from the Earth does not heat the Sun.
A large quantity of ice suspended above the Earth’s surface does not heat the surface, but radiation from the surface can cause heating in the ice.
I have seen this crap presented in textbooks but they never offer a concrete example. What good is an equation that has no application?
If radiation is applied, it is normally with convection and conduction as part of the problem. Heat can only be transferred one way by conduction/convection, so why would radiation involved be transferring it both ways?
Gordon, yet again, EMR is NOT heat. EMR transfers internal thermodynamic energy both ways between objects.
Heat cannot be transferred either way by conduction & radiation between solids since the vibrating molecules remain fixed in place; radiation is involved with 2 bodies in view emitting/absorbing EMR both ways.
b4…”EMR is NOT heat. EMR transfers internal thermodynamic energy both ways between objects”.
***
In the first sentence you correctly claim EM is not heat. In the second sentence you contradict that by claiming it transfers internal thermodynamics energy, which is heat.
I don’t know how you got so screwed up about the reality of heat as energy. You mince words by differentiating internal energy as heat but you cannot understand the same energy flowing from that body into another body that is connected to it as a heat flow. Fourier had no problem with that when he created his heat flow equation.
Clausius claimed that all internal energy is comprised of heat and work. Work represents the internal vibrations of atoms and heat is the energy that motivates them to move. The internal energy of the 1st law was defined by Clausius and he explained it in words as a summation of internal work and heat. Thompson convinced him to substitute the words energy for heat and work. I think Thompson should have minded his on business.
Gordon still cannot understand the same energy flowing from that body into another body that is connected to it is a KE flow since the vibrating molecules remain in each solid body & only transfer (“flow”) their thermodynamic KE both ways.
Same with EMR exchange between bodies: EMR is NOT heat. KE is NOT heat. Internal energy is the total KE of all the object’s molecules at any one time & no one can tell if that internal energy came about from work or a difference in temperature. There is no work in a body; there is no heat contained in a body.
Gordon remains living in the 1800s when heat was thought to be a physical substance that could be poured from one body to another which was disproved experimentally by Joule mid-century.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “If radiation is applied, it is normally with convection and conduction as part of the problem. Heat can only be transferred one way by conduction/convection, so why would radiation involved be transferring it both ways?”
Heat is transferred only one way. Energy is transferred both ways in conduction as well. If the hot object is conducting to a colder one the amount of heat conducted depends upon the temperature of the colder receiving object. The warmer the cold one is the less heat is transferred.
Here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatcond.html
Conductive heat transfer also depends upon the temperature of the cold body the heat is conduction to. You can play with the calculator to see the effect.
Thanks for proving me correct, Norman.
You will never find that RTE in any credible physics book.
Clint R
You seem confused. I did not prove you correct. You are proven wrong. Heat transfer text books DO include the Radiant Heat Transfer equation.
Again if you have any physics book you consider “credible” (a word you throw out with no context) give me the name of the book and publisher and I can research it.
So far every text book I have read on heat transfer includes this equation as do College level lectures you can find online.
If you don’t provide evidence than you are just stating your unsupported opinion.
“An opinion is a statement describing a personal belief or thought that cannot be tested (or has not been tested) and is unsupported by evidence. A hypothesis is usually a prediction based on some observation or evidence. Hypotheses must be testable, and once tested, they can be supported by evidence. If a statement is made that cannot be tested and disproved, then it is not a hypothesis. Sometimes it is possible to restate an opinion so that it can become a hypothesis.”
https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/node/651#:~:text=An%20opinion%20is%20a%20statement,can%20be%20supported%20by%20evidence.
What you posted is an opinion. It is your personal belief (what you believe credible is) and you have no supporting evidence of any physics book on radiant heat transfer that does not include this equation.
Norman, you’re back to trolling, again. Consequently, I won’t waste me time.
I recommend reality. You should try it.
Clint R
The post is not at all trolling. You asked for credible physics books that include radiant heat transfer equation. I linked you to 3 available ones you can download. No I am not the troll here. I defined opinion for you which is also not trolling. You have yet to provide evidence to support your claim.
All wrong, Norman. You’re twisting and distorting my words. You’re TROLLING.
I mentioned that the bogus equation will not be found in a credible physics book. I said it was common all around the Internet. So, you provided links to prove me right.
You’re a troll, but you prove me right. Thanks.
Clint R
The link I posted to is physics textbooks. You are very wrong and highly stupid to reject the link without looking at it. Just how really stupid are you? I have not experienced this level of total stupidity.
Troll Norman, this is why I have to have rules for you.
Your immaturity is in full view.
You have NOTHING, so you’ll be here all day with your childish insults arguing about the definition of a “physics book”.
Get a life, grow up, and accept reality.
A staggering store of water is revealed in Earths crust
Modelling work shows that crustal groundwater accounts for more water than the worlds ice caps and glaciers.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02232-z
Old story and modelling.
Or roughly, we have no clue.
I was thinking of underground water on Mars and wondering what chance
the there Alien life there- though one wonder the same thing about the Moon.
Why is China drilling a hole more than 10,000 metres deep?
“An oil company in China has started drilling a hole that would be the deepest in the country and among the deepest in the world”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2376788-why-is-china-drilling-a-hole-more-than-10000-metres-deep/?utm_source=flipboard&utm_content=topic%2Fenergy
Newer news. Maybe they will find water.
I don’t know why they are drilling such holes but if they are thinking of filling them with water or nuclear waste they had better look up the geological record.
The US military decided to bury nuclear waste fluids a mile deep near Denver circa 1966. No sooner had they dumped the liquid than Denver began experiencing serious earthquakes. It has since been determined that the fluids lubricated basement rocks under Denver causing the city to suffer earthquakes.
We are currently experiencing the same problem with fracking. Oklahoma, that never had problem with Earthquakes, began experiencing them when fracking began. In a similar manner to Denver, fracking pumps water under pressure into the Earth to force oil to a higher level. The fluid lubricates existing faults causing them to shift.
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/4111086
I don’t nuclear waste or fracking lessen the threat of larger earthquakes.
gb says: “I don’t [eat] nuclear waste”
You left out a word gb, so I fixed it for you.
No charge.
I don’t believe injecting nuclear waste or fracking lessen the threat of larger earthquakes.
Or it’s thought/believed that because California hasn’t had enough earthquakes we are due for a big one.
And I don’t believe injecting nuclear waste or fracking could lessen the threat of larger earthquakes.
tim s…”The SARS-CoV-2 virus does not exist anywhere in nature”.
***
That statement is far more factual than your post reveals. Before I say more, I am in no denial that something serious happened globally in 2020, however, there was never a physical identification of a virus. The paper issued by Wuhan scientists in January of 2020 stated only that a virus had been inferred, in line with the method developed by Luc Montagnier for HIV. Even the RNA-PCR test issue by Christen Drosten held no indication that he had physically isolated a virus.
Montagnier admitted many years after he was credited with discovering HIV that he had, at no time, seen the virus on an electron microscope. In lieu of that he inferred a virus using a new method that he claimed was equivalent to physical isolation. Stefan Lanka, who discovered the first virus in the ocean disagreed, claiming there was no physical evidence to prove the HIV virus. Even Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR method used by Drosten, was emphatic that PCR cannot be used diagnostically to amplify a virus that cannot be seen on an electron microscope.
Let’s face, it, we’ve been had by hysterical politicians who would not know a virus from a hole in the ground, or a changing climate from the same hole. The world is currently being run by emotional twits who think its OK for men with men’s tackle to declare themselves female and compete with women in womens’ sporting events, or use their washrooms. Modern politicians cannot tell the difference between a genuine freak of nature and a sexual pervert.
Stefan Lanka, not only discovered the first virus in the ocean, he has offered, for some time, 100,000 Euros to anyone who can produce scientific proof the measles virus exists based on the current scientific literature. Some dweeb claimed the prize in a German court and won the first round based on an error in the lower court ruling. In a higher court, in which the court produced its own expert, the expert agreed with Lanka and the dweeb lost the case.
During the latter court case, Lanka produced evidence that is damning to the method developed by Montagnier that has replaced the old physical method for positively identifying a virus using an electron microscope. The basis of Montagnier’s proof is that cells from a person with AIDS killed healthy cells in a lab. Lanka has since proved that the healthy cells die anyway due to the preparation. The healthy cells are starved to ensure they die and they are treated with antibiotics to prevent a bacterial infection.
No one had thought to investigate that prior to Lanka’s revelation by running a parallel test for it. Now we have a serious problem in that many of the popular modern viruses, such as measles, were ID’ed using the same methodology. Every SARS virus since the inference of HIV has used the same incorrect method.
That does not mean no viruses exist, it simply means no one has ever seen one. It also means that the RNA used to ID the viruses was inferred, therefore cannot be used to positively ID a virus.
Guess what? That makes the covid test and vaccine are fraudulent, for the simple reason they have been positively claimed to work and there is no proof that they do.
Sure. https://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/news/covid-19-vaccine-development
Immediately, I am suspicious of a virus depicted in colour with such detail when electron microscope graphics only produce a thin slice (billionths of an inch) in black and white. The electrons in an EM could not penetrate a sphere of that diameter, especially with all the alleged spikes protruding. Electrons in the spokes would surely divert the electron beam causing it to scatter, and the body itself would not allow the electron beam to pass through. An EM micrograph depends on electrons passing through the sample slice so they can be collected as an image.
The truth is, no one has seen a virus in such detail and the physical aspects are purely speculative.
The article does not address how they isolated the virus physically.
Colour is usually added to BW graphics in order to make things clearer.
“The truth is, no one has seen a virus in such detail and the physical aspects are purely speculative.”
Virus exist. Anyone claiming otherwise is a prat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/viruses
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01336-y
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230609/Mechanistic-insights-into-how-the-SARS-CoV-2-virus-affects-the-nervous-system-alters-its-function-and-causes-neuropathology.aspx
Lanka only won on a technicality
“the higher court also noted that one of Lanka’s criteria, that the proof be contained in a single scientific paper, rather than multiple papers, had not been met by Bardens (clause 122).”
Richard…I regard Barden as an idiot so I am biased. I prefer to think that Lanka won it based on the evidence he produced, with which the court-appointed expert agreed.
Normally, you find articles from those critical of Lanka, At this link he explains parts of the case in his on words.
https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/wissenschafftplus-won-measles-virus-process.pdf
I don’t know if this interests you but at this link Lanka expounds on life and the corona virus. This is a guy who has taken an inordinate interest in his science by tracing the origins of the science itself. I find it interesting to see where it all came from.
https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2021/08/13/the-virus-misconception-part-iii-corona-simple-and-understandable/
“I prefer to think that Lanka won it based on the evidence he produced”
You would be wrong.
You might offer your proof of that. I just sent you my proof, where is yours?
And while you’re at it, try checking your arrogance at the door. Someone with a master’s degree should be able to offer a scientific evaluation rather than opening his mouth and letting his belly rumble.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-german-measles-idUSL1N3721SR
GR. Someone with your claimed expertise should not come across as the idiot you do.
From your link…”on Feb. 16, 2016, the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court overturned the Ravensburg courts ruling (here), saying that in a strictly legal sense, the six studies submitted by Bardens fell short of Lankas criteria for proving the measles virus exists…”
Are you seriously unable to understand the ruling and what the case is about? I offered you two links that give insight into the reasoning of Lanka and you take the word of a third party with no credentials in the field.
Lanka is trying to establish that the entire field of virology has taken a wrong turn along the line, or worse still, the current theory has no basis in history. You are willing to accept the bs of current pundits who cannot explain the underlying science itself.
I would think that someone like you, with a degree, would have more interest in the scientific reasoning of an expert in the field but your interest seems to be solely in negating anything Lanka claims. Whereas that kind of reasoning is followed by some Brits, particularly of the toffee-nose persuasion, I would hope you are more enlightened. Monty Python based their humour on twits like you.
I can understand you disagreeing with Lanka and offering your own take on the science but dismissing him based on a third party review is plain ignorance. Particularly when your view is based on not wanting to hear the truth.
> Are you seriously unable to understand the ruling and what the case is about?
The ruling was that Stefan had the right to ask for a refutation contained in one single paper. Since he has been offered six, he rejected it. So Richard is right – Stefan could save face and money on a technicality.
Idiot.
C’mon, Bordo.
Next you’re gonna tell us about Duesberg, like you did in 2016:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/12/u-s-now-colder-than-all-of-last-winter/#comment-231633
Or perhaps in 2014:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/climate-changes-inherent-uncertainties/#comment-103181
Or in 2013:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/exploding-russian-meteor-an-asteroid-fragment/#comment-69950
You’re basically a chatbot, Bordo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
wee willy…can you try offering corroborating proof for your statements or even offering a rebuttal that makes sense? I see no point in your posts about Duesberg other than poop disturbing.
C’mon, Bordo.
It’s easy to see that you’re basically a chatbot:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/correcting-recent-u-s-weekly-death-statistics-for-incomplete-reporting/#comment-457112
Name drop after name drop after name drop.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., revealed in his book, The Real Anthony Fauci, that Fauci engineered the ruination of Duesberg’s career. He had that power because he controlled the funding.
I don’t care what your view may be, it’s unethical in anyone’s books for a person in control of funding to suppress a scientist because his views diverge from the norm.
Duesberg said nothing different than the conclusion reached by Luc Montagnier years after he had been credited with discovering HIV. Montagnier admitted eventually that HIV does not cause AIDS, that AIDS is caused by oxidative stress related to lifestyle. That’s pretty well what Duesberg claimed yet his career was ruined for saying it.
As predicted:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1497455
Gordon, you are a sick person. At least try to be humorous, and not just ridiculous.
Tim S, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Willard posted part of his GHE “description” –
“The atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth.
Slows down.
Its not just a difference in temperature.
It’s a difference of temperature in time.”
No, Im not joking. Willard believes that the GHE is “the atmosphere”. Maybe he believes that a vacuum flask, which slows both cooling (and heating) of its contents, does so because of the “greenhouse effect”.
At least he didnt spout any nonsense about CO2 making thermometers hotter.
I don’t blame any other delusional SkyDragon cultists for not disclosing their description of the GHE. Cooling always occurs over time, possibly to Willard’s disbelief. Over a short time, such as night, a long time, such as four and a half billion years, or a very short time – as you will discover if you plunge your hand into a flask of liquid nitrogen.
Willard is an idiot if he believes that the GHE is responsible for rates of cooling. Is Willard confused? Delusional? Retarded?
Who knows?
Mike Flynn,
The atmosphere is not an effect:
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/atmosphere/what-is-atmosphere
Deceitful cretin.
Earlier, Willard posted part of his GHE “description”
“The atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth.
Slows down.
Its not just a difference in temperature.
Its a difference of temperature in time.”
No, I’m not joking. Willard believes that the GHE is “the atmosphere”. Maybe he believes that a vacuum flask, which slows both cooling (and heating) of its contents, does so because of the “greenhouse effect”.
Now Willard wants to avoid mentioning the GHE at all costs. He can’t describe it, doesn’t know whether it is supposed to make things hotter or colder, and has lurched off into quoting that the atmosphere is “a mixture of gases”. Well, yes, I did know that.
Willard is now obsessed with the atmosphere, and now thinks it has nothing to do with the greenhouse “effect” (which of course he can’t or won’t describe). As he wrote “the atmosphere is not an effect”. Well, gee, I knew that too. All Willard’s babbling about slow cooling was for nought, apparently, part of Willard’s efforts to convince people that the atmosphere is a mixture of gases!
What an idiot he is! Maybe he’ll delve into his fantasy and extract a description of the GHE, but I doubt it.
You are laughable, Wiltard. You’re a blend of Goebbels and Gollum.
You are a troglodyte, Troglodyte:
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm
Willard, please stop trolling.
If E. Swanson is up for more experimentation he could demonstrate the unscientific opinions of those who claim a cold object has no effect on a hot object via radiant energy.
I asked Clint R if the rate a hot object cooled would be effected by the temperature of the cold surroundings. His claim was no. Gordon also believes this (neither will provide any evidence to support their claims).
I am sure an experiment will not convince them but it would be nice to see if done.
E. Swanson has a vacuum pump and a bell jar. The experiment would just be very simple as to minimize any alternative explanations.
It would be to heat up some object (say a plate from a previous experiment) to a set temperature in a high vacuum to eliminate convection and conduction. Measure the temperature of the bell jar and record the rate of cooling and make a graph as previous.
Then all that gets varied is the temperature of the bell jar. You could use hot and cold water and record the temperature of the jar in all cases and set up graphs for each temperature.
The established science states that as the bell jar temperature increases the rate of cooling will decrease, it will take a longer time for the hot object to cool. Cool the jar with ice water and the hot object should cool at a faster rate. Pretty simple experiment that would eliminate endless opinions from Gordon Robertson and Clint R.
we all know they will not accept the evidence but the science minded posters will most certainly applaud your effort.
The Moon’s light doesn’t warm Earth. But you could change the lunar surface, so it does warm Earth.
Which might be a good idea, because Earth is in an icehouse global climate.
Norman, you’re an idiot.
Nobody except delusional SkyDragon cultists believe that cooling results in temperatures rising.
You wrote –
“If E. Swanson is up for more experimentation he could demonstrate the unscientific opinions of those who claim a cold object has no effect on a hot object via radiant energy.”
Who claimed that? You are confused, deluded, or retarded. Newton’s Law of Cooling doesn’t say that – rather than the complete opposite!
Name someone who isn’t a delusional SkyDragon cultist, who doesn’t accept Newton’s Law of Cooling, if you can!
I guess you are trying to support a GHE which you can’t describe. You won’t even state whether the GHE is supposed to make objects colder or hotter. I point out that cooling, whether fast or slow, is still cooling. Temperatures are dropping.
You can’t describe the GHE, but you believe it exists. That’s religion – not science.
Which makes you an idiot, if you don’t know the difference.
Swenson
I usually ignore your posts since they are just a scrambled mess of nonsense. I think Wiilard likes to engage you. Since you lack logical thinking you will not understand this at all and may respond with some more illogical thought process. If you are adding a continuous amount of energy to a system but slowing the cooling rate the system will increase in temperature. This is called logical thinking, try it sometime.
How a braindead cult idiot remains braindead.
Norman tried to behave like a responsible adult, in an effort to trap me. He actually was able to ask a question without using his usual troll tactics. When I answered with a detailed, easy-to-understand explanation, Norman bolted for the door.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1497312
Now, he’s here on his knees to E. Swanson! E. Swanson doesn’t have a clue about any of this. He doesn’t even know the difference between 1LoT and 2LoT. Norman is that desperate!
If you’re in a cult, you must avoid reality.
A Clint meltdown is underway.
It is astonishing really the level of denial of the basic observable reality that the colder the surroundings, the faster warm objects cool, even by radiation.
It is a perfect example of someone unable to “recognize and accept reality.” and having “merely formed his own personal cult. That aint science.”
It is also astonishing the level of hypocrisy on display here, his having found repugnant in his own colleague, the very behaviors he is displaying above.
Thanks for verifying you don’t understand the issues, troll Nate.
Holy Kafka trap, Pupman!
Clint R
Your post is nonsense. Where is the responsible adult you claim to be. Your post sounds like a tantrum. I just requested E Swanson do an experiment since he has the equipment. You are a science denier so his evidence will not alter your unsupported opinions. You will go on with your cult opinions.
All wrong, troll Norman, as usual.
You’re wrong and you continue to prove me right.
I can live with that.
Clint R continues to display his cult minded perversions. He makes unsupported claims and believes (add some pixi dust) that will make his false cult claims true. It is funny to watch this cultists squirm out of his false assertions when confronted with reality.
Note how a cultists operates. Cult Clint did not accept evidence that 3 physics book use the radiant heat transfer equation but the cultists will not give a physics book that does not use it. Cultists divert when cornered and ignore evidence. Cult Clint offers an excellent study on how Cult minded people operate. Ignore evidence, deny science, divert and if all else fails throw out insults to cover your tracks. Cult Clint will continue to babble on about things he can’t understand. Watch and learn from Cult Clint on how to steer clear of ignorant Cult mentality.
Wow troll Norman, now you’re dropping two loads at once!
And I saw your other load upthread.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1497768
Surely there must be something useful you could do with your time?
Note for those interested in Cult Mentality and wish to understand how it operates Cult Clint offers some more examples.
Again note he offers no support for any issue brought up previous (more precisely that 3 textbooks prove his assertions false but that does not matter to a Cultist he still claims, falsely, that I am wrong and he is right…how a cult mind reaches such a conclusion is part of their mentality)
I am doing very useful blogging now. I am helping people understand Cult mentality and you are an excellent example of how it works. Keep posting so we can all learn more and then learn how to avoid such thought processes. Thanks for you aid in improving logical and rational thought by acting in opposite function.
Norman dumps another load!
And now he’s only calling his links “textbooks”. He’s dropped his con of posing them as “physics books”.
He calls his nonsense “useful blogging”! THAT is what “braindead” looks like.
Bordo outdoes himself:
[BORDO] I offered you two links that give insight into the reasoning of Lanka and you take the word of a third party with no credentials in the field.
The two links he offered are an interview with Lanka, and an editorial from Lanka. Lanka has no credentials in virology. And what a reasoning:
If we look at this explanation objectivity, it is unfalsifiable.
So no wonder he’s confident that nobody will ever refute it!
Also, let it be noted that the reasons why Lanka won is because he was allowed to declare that he did:
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-german-measles-idUSL1N3721SR
Classic bridge troll story.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Snow may continue to fall in the mountains of California.
https://i.ibb.co/1ZJcq2j/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
I usually just glance through the trash here, but something caught my eye. Temperature is a fundamental property of matter and the common link to define the nuclear weak force. The relation between the nucleus and the electrons is a wave function that is common to all atoms and a direct measurable effect that defines temperature. The interesting part is that the nucleus knows what temperature it is outside. It is not just about the electrons. It has no direct relation to physical properties and thermodynamics for different molecules. There is a wide range of different effects. Molecules have vastly different physical and thermodynamic properties because of the way chemical bonds resonate with temperature. This also explains why greenhouse gases tend to be small molecules. They are more free to resonate and that is why emission and (that forbidden word) always have the same spectrum.
Tim S,
Maybe you could describe the GHE?
I don’t believe you can describe the GHE in any way that reflects reality, but I may be wrong.
By the way, do molecules emit different wavelengths if they are all at the same temperature?
The National Radio Astronomy Observatory claims “The intensity of the emission and the distribution of frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum depend upon the temperature of the emitting matter.”, and maybe you could tell why this is incorrect.
Of course, if you happen to be a delusional SkyDragon cultist, you can’t even describe the GHE!
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. Science requires some degree of intelligence, and some of it is intuitive. Start by learning about resonance as it pertains to wave forms, then the concept of degrees of freedom as it related to the various ways that a molecular bond can move, flex, elongate, shorten, twist (CO2 has double bonds aligned perpendicular with respect to the tetrahedral bonds), and just wiggle in general. The rest is an IQ test. Then you might be able to explain the relationship between the spectrum of a particular molecule and black body radiation.
The problem is that it is water vapor, which is lighter than air, that carries heat in the troposphere, not a negligible amount of CO2. That’s why the temperature of the troposphere drops during La Nina. And when there is a shortage of water vapor in the north, it gets cold in the mid-latitudes, as it is now in the US and Europe.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=global2×pan=24hrs&anim=anigf
Greenhouse gas radiation considerations apply to the atmosphere from the stratosphere upward.
Palmowski
What about ‘Start by learning…’ as Tim S invites you to do, instead of posting a reply that has not anything to do with what he meant?
Binny,
What about trying to describe the GHE? Is the GHE responsible for temperature falling at night?
Willard believes that the GHE is responsible for temperature falling over time, but even you wouldn’t fall for that, would you?
How would you describe the GHE phenomenon yourself? How hard can it be, even for a sour kraut?
If it’s all too hard, you could try a diversion, and start whining about stalkers, dachshunds, dog turds – or whatever turns you on. Throw in a bit of “blah blah blah” if you think that makes you look clever.
Off you go, now.
The GHE was described clearly in terms simple enough for even Swenson to understand 150 years ago. And he has seen it here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1497284
Swenson had no sensible rebuttal.
But he continues pretend that no one can describe it.
What a loser.
Nate,
If you are referring to John Tyndall, he never mentioned a GHE, did he?
You just make this nonsense up as you go along. Unfortunately, claiming that everybody else in the world has described the GHE, but forgot to give you a copy, makes you look like a delusional idiot.
Still no GHE description, is there? That’s because it doesn’t exist!
You idiot.
Mike Flynn,
Tyndall described the greenhouse effect.
He did not know about your silly acronym, so he did not mention it.
Deceitful cretin.
Again, a bit of arrogant and ignorant blah blah blathered by the Flynnson boy, one of this blog’s dumbest stalkers.
Tyndall described the EFFECT of the Earth’s surface being warmer because of H2O and CO2 being present in the atmosphere.
“He did not know about your silly acronym”
Yep. And silly trolls will try silly semantics.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Tyndall doesn’t mention “greenhouse effect” either. I agree, the GHE is a silly acronym, referring to something that doesn’t exist. Do you think your fellow delusional SkyDragon cultists will accept reality, and stop using the silly acronym GHE?
Maybe you could describe the GHE, rather than just claiming that everyone else except you has a copy of said description? Why don’t you have one? Does nobody trust you not to lose it?
Or are you sticking to your claim that the atmosphere is the GHE, causing the Earth to “cool over time”?
Idiot.
Moron Mike,
What are you braying about?
Here is Tyndall again:
https://theconversation.com/john-tyndall-the-forgotten-co-founder-of-climate-science-143499
Deceiful cretin.
Tim S,
You have appointed yourself explainer-in-chief, have you?
You write –
“That wet air can then transport heat to the upper atmosphere.”
Well, gee. So can hot air – for example, in the hottest regions on Earth, which strangely enough (pardon the sarcasm) are characterized by an almost complete lack of H2O in the atmosphere – deserts.
At night, the surface cools – regardless of atmospheric composition. The surface radiates energy, and the temperature drops. Every night.
Over the last four and a half billion years, the surface temperature has dropped.
If you don’t want to believe facts, that’s your choice. You still can’t describe the GHE, so you just keep babbling irrelevant nonsense.
Carry on.
Willard & others have already correctly described & explained the GHE so Swenson demonstrates too inept to have noticed.
Swenson incorrectly writes: “The surface radiates energy, and the temperature drops. Every night.”
No. Sometimes the mercury thermometer kinetic temperature registers an increase overnight. Swenson is too inept to have noticed.
Swenson incorrectly writes: “Over the last four and a half billion years, the surface temperature has dropped.”
No, in regularly monthly update on this site global TLT has increased in recent climate timeframes. Swenson is too inept to have noticed.
Do carry on, laughing at Swenson ineptness is priceless.
Ball4, like all idiot SkyDragon cultists, claims that everybody except himself has described the GHE, but forgot to give him a copy, so he can’t actually say what the explanation is – how long it is, what it claims, what it consists of, and so on.
He wrote –
“Willard & others have already correctly described & explained the GHE so Swenson demonstrates too inept to have noticed.”
I suppose some people might value Ball4’s opinions, but they would certainly be too embarrassed to admit taking notice of the opinions of an admitted idiot.
The somewhat dimwitted Ball4 refuses to acknowledge that the temperature drops at night, and apparently denies the fact that the Earth’s surface is no longer molten, ie, that it has cooled!
Or maybe Ball4 has decided a lack of sunlight is not really nighttime, and that a drop in temperature is not really cooling.
What an idiot he is!
The question of what effect different greenhouse gases have on the overall atmosphere and climate is different than the question about the basic behavior of greenhouse gases. All they do is ab… (forbidden word) and emit radiant heat. Individual gases behave differently and have different overall effects such as condensation of water vapor.
Tim S,
All gases absorb and emit “radiant heat”. That’s why air, for example, has a measurable temperature.
You try to avoid looking foolish by writing “The question of what effect different greenhouse gases have on the overall atmosphere and climate is different than the question about the basic behavior of greenhouse gases.”
You can’t answer either question, can you?
You can’t even say whether there is any predicable effect of “greenhouse gases” on weather at all! All blather and nonsense.
Carry on with the stupid evasions.
Tim…absorb is not forbidden, it’s absorp-tion. Something to do with p and t.
When there is a lack of water vapor in the south it gets very cold in South America.
https://i.ibb.co/Y0QMg1p/gfs-T2m-samer-1.png
https://i.ibb.co/pJ870nK/gfs-T2ma-samer-1.png
Tim S,
I take it that not only can you not describe the GHE, you don’t believe in normal physics.
You obviously don’t have the faintest idea why you cannot distinguish one gas from another merely by measuring the frequency of emitted IR.
I could suggest you try, but I know you wont, preferring to believe you can divine the constituents of the air at 20 C, by merely measuring the IR which it emits!
You must be a delusional SkyDragon cultist, after all. You can’t even describe the GHE, can you?
Idiot.
“You obviously dont have the faintest idea why you cannot distinguish one gas from another merely by measuring the frequency of emitted IR.”
But another Swenson has an idea how to do it:
“For IR light, many things are transparent, depending on the frequency.”
Tee hee hee, the idiot makes up BS and doesnt agree with himself!
You trolled and I gave an answer that went right over your head, but others might relate to or benefit from. Your reply is more trolling which does not even make you a little bit clever — just a troll.
Tim S,
Maybe you could describe the GHE? Only joking, of course you can’t!
Nobody can.
Keep burbling about irrelevancies, if you wish. The surface will still coo each night, regardless of “greenhouse gases”.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, regardless of “greenhouse gases”.
Explain away – someone might value your opinion.
As long as the Earth’s average atmospheric pressure hovers around 1013 hPa, a strong increase in surface temperature is not possible, because such pressure allows intense ocean evaporation. A large increase in pressure will cause an increase in ocean surface temperature in the tropics, which is now limited.
This is how the pressure in Tahiti has changed since June 1, 2023.
https://i.ibb.co/tMzvMzp/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-06-14-121144.png
In the long run you will get your wish.
As the Sun becomes a red giant all the water in the oceans, 1.35*10^21kg, will evaporate. That will increase the mass of the atmosphere from 5.14*10^18kg to 1.36*10^21kg.
The 4000 times increase in mass will produce a 4000 times increase in surface pressure from 1013 hPA to 4 million hPa.
Someone else might enjoy calculating the resulting surface temperature.
Oops. Decimal point error.
That should read.
“The 400 times increase in mass will produce a 400 times increase in surface pressure from 1013 hPA to 405,000 hPa.”
To put that in context the surface pressure of Venus is 91,000 hPa and it’s surface temperature is 460C.
EM,
A cylinder of hydrogen at 700 bar, and a similar cylinder at 1 bar are at the same temperature, after cooling to ambient temperature.
Pressure alone has no influence on temperature. Parts of the ocean at 10 km depth have very high pressure, but are just above freezing.
Even on Earth, the surface has temperatures of between -90 C and +90 C (approx) with the same nominal pressure – 1 bar.
Surely you don’t believe pressure causes temperature increases?
Mike Flynn,
Here you go:
https://youtu.be/xiWZVra_qgU
Deceitful cretin.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Yet another irrelevant link?
Still convinced that the GHE is “cooling over time”?
You really are a delusional nitwit, aren’t you?
Questions, questions!
Moron Mike,
Have another bite:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/E8vw4dRgIGc
Deceitful cretin.
Swenson
“Surely you dont believe pressure causes temperature increases? ”
My compliments.
There’s a type of fringe physicist who automatically assumes that under all conditions high pressure equates to high temperature.
I’m glad to see that, like myself, you’ve avoided that trap.
Swenson
You’ll have spotted that for the conditions I described to occur, solar insolation would have to exceed the Komabayashi-Ingersoll limit. Hence my reference to the Sun entering the red giant stage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komabayashi%E2%80%93Ingersoll_limit
Willard, please stop trolling.
I suggest that all here read this.
A lot of the confusion on this website arises because of words which have different meanings for laymen and scientists.
https://skepticalscience.com/how-to-speak-science.html
Robertson permanently, intentionally ignores everything about emission and absorp-tion:
” Why does N2/O2 have to emit in the IR band to cool the planet? We know O2 emits in the microwave spectrum and that has to cool the planet. ”
*
1) – O2’s emissions in the microwave range (60 GHz, i.e. 5000 micron) are so weak that they can’t play any role;
2) – the IR spectrum relevant for this is around Earth’s atmospheric window, i.e. between 5 and at best 40 micron.
*
For the umpteenth time, some numbers and charts.
O2, 2500-7500 micron: ~2000 lines, peak intensity around 5E-7
https://i.postimg.cc/j2GNqLSN/O2-2500-7500-micron-sbaa.png
Here are, for comparison:
H2O, 5-40 micron: 40,000 lines, peak intensity around 5E-2
https://i.postimg.cc/28j83ntx/H2-O-5-40-micron-sbaa.png
CO2, 5-40 micron: ~160,000 lines, peak intensity around 1E-3
https://i.postimg.cc/YCgVHsxD/CO2-5-40-micron-sbaa.png
*
Yes, genial ignoramus Robertson!
Under consideration of their respective atmospheric abundance, but without considering their respective numbers of emission/absorp-tion lines, O2 cools about 100,000 times less than H2O and still 10,000 times less than CO2.
With N2, it’s even far far worse: 10,000 times less than O2.
N2, 5-100,000 micron: ~150 lines, peak intensity around 6E-11
https://i.postimg.cc/cHyTcRtK/N2-5-100000-micron.png
” O2 cools about 100,000 times less than H2O… ”
should read instead
” O2 ‘cools’ about 100,000 times less than H2O … ”
The quotation marks are here… mandatory, to say the least.
binny…”O2s emissions in the microwave range (60 GHz, i.e. 5000 micron) are so weak that they cant play any role;”
***
Tell that to NOAA. They designed AMSU units to be flown in satellites to detect the radiation you claim is too weak as not to be able to play a role. NOAA’s instruments are measuring the temperature of the atmosphere using those same O2 molecules.
If the O2 is radiating in the microwave spectrum, the O2 molecules are cooling. They represent 22% of the atmosphere as opposed to the insignificant 0.04% for CO2. There is not intensity control for cooling in O2 molecules, they radiate and they cool.
I would further a guess that both O2 and N2 are radiating at other frequencies as well, hence cooling.
Robertson’s stupidity and ignorance are of such an incredible level… Or is it simply dementia?
” Tell that to NOAA. They designed AMSU units to be flown in satellites to detect the radiation you claim is too weak as not to be able to play a role. NOAAs instruments are measuring the temperature of the atmosphere using those same O2 molecules. ”
Is it possible to be so dumb?
The emission energy in the 60 GHz band is of course enough to be detected by satellites, but can’t play even the least role in a planetary radiation budget.
*
” I would further a guess that both O2 and N2 are radiating at other frequencies as well, hence cooling. ”
Moreover, he is not even able to accurately read a comment:
Under consideration of their respective atmospheric abundance, but without considering their respective numbers of emission/absorp-tion lines, O2 ‘cools’ about 100,000 times less than H2O and still 10,000 times less than CO2.
With N2, its even far far worse: 10,000 times less than O2.
N2, 5-100,000 micron: ~150 lines, peak intensity around 6E-11
https://i.postimg.cc/cHyTcRtK/N2-5-100000-micron.png
*
Is such a dumb idiot aware of what ‘100,000 micron’ means?
“15 cases out of 42”
Where do you get that idea?
You should not lump statistical models in with dynamical models. They are a different animal.
My source is showing that dynamical models do better through the Spring Barrier.
https://tinyurl.com/3ajf985f
Wrong place, was intended for RLH, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1497548
“You should not lump statistical models in with dynamical models. They are a different animal.”
But using an average of the 2 is perfectly acceptable?
P.S. Which do think will predict this year more accurately?
We don’t know which member will predict this year more accurately. That is whole point of uncertainty. What we do know is that the average of all members has better skill over the long term than any one member alone.
That’s not to say that one of the members can (and often does) exhibit better skill than the ensemble average for a specific scenario. But we don’t know which one it will be until it has already happened. Maybe GEOS-S2S will better track ENSO this year and maybe it won’t. We just don’t know. So instead we use the average of all members.
Take for example the 2022/12 and 2023/01 IRI forecasts. For the period MAM the model with the least error from 2022/12 was CFS, but from 2023/01 it was UKMO.
Do you believe that an average of dynamic and statical models provides anything useful?
…statistical models…
Yes I do.
“But we dont know which one it will be until it has already happened.”
But we don’t record which one is more accurate after the fact either.
Yes we do. You just take the difference between the forecast and the observation.
Do you think that the NASA model
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/current/plumes.cgi
is of any use?
Yes I do.
Nate
What do you think are the chances of us finding the keyword ‘Spring [Predictability] Barrier’ in any thread of this blog that Roy Spencer posted during the last La Nina period?
Hmmmmh.
You could start here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/
For last year you could try here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/
And as was 100 % predictable, Blindsley H00d aka ‘RLH’ deliberately ignores that according to the web site he was never tired to refer to during the last years:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
La Nina ended last February, as it passed over its -0.5 treshold.
Thus, when I write
” … in any thread of this blog that Roy Spencer posted during the last La Nina period? ”
I of course mean those Spencer threads dated BEFORE February 2023.
Finding a source such as
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/current/plumes.cgi
provides another view.
For Nino 3.4 try here
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jun/nino3.4_Jun_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
This is how NASA thought this year would proceed
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jan/nino3.4_Jan_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
Consider the 2022/11 forecast from NASA GEOS-S2S via IRI vs the persistence and climatology techniques. The cumulative RMSE for S2S through the MAM period was 0.17 vs 0.35 and 0.34 for persistence and climatology respectively. That gives S2S an RMSE skill score of 1 – (0.17 / 0.35) = 0.51 and 1 – (0.17 / 0.34) = 0.50 respectively. 0 means equal skill. Values greater than mean superior skill. Values less than 0 mean inferior skill. As such S2S exhibited superior skill relative to the low-effort forecasting techniques.
And yet in Jan 1994, 2021, 2022?
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jan/nino3.4_Jan_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
Also, look at how much it varied between Jan and Jun most years.
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jun/nino3.4_Jun_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
You can always cherry pick some event and say it proves your point. Taken as a whole, things are quite random (switch between the 2 links above).
GOES-S2S does not always outperform climatology. However, over the long term it does show superior skill. See Molod et al. 2020 [https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031767].
Switch between the 2 links above (or do you need me to create a flicker gif?) Then you will see how consistent (not) this source is.
Jan and Jun are months 1 and 6.
Molod et al. are those who produce the report, so it is unsurprising they promote it.
Molod et al. 2020 is the standard way of making a citation. When more than one author is listed you typically type out the first author’s last name then say et al. Authors do typically back their own works. If they didn’t think it contributes positively to the body of evidence then they wouldn’t have published it.
BW: I was just pointing out that Molod helps create the report which then says it is the best thing since sliced bread. Of course she does.
Have you done the 1 and 6 month comparison yet? Notice how much changes in those few months? Which means, quite clearly that if it was good predicting just a few months ahead, it changes its mind quite a lot over that short a time.
RLH, This is you, as usual, getting into weeds. Obsessing over individual trees in one season, when you should be looking at the forest long term.
You look at one model, and like Maxwell’s Demon, select and highlight instances of poor agreement, without quantifying overall performance.
Whereas we have available a multi-model mean that overall performs with high skill.
Nate: This is all seasons from 1989, not just one. Have you done that flicker comparison as mentioned above?
A mean that is 50% high and then 50% low will then average to 0. Still not a useful predictor as to the validity of the prediction. How statistics can be used to confuse people.
P.S. I deliberately chose Jan and Jun as either side of the SPB. Thus seeing how much its value changes.
Nate: Was it not you who said that averaging together dynamic and statistical models was a useless exercise?
“A mean that is 50% high and then 50% low will then average to 0. Still not a useful predictor as to the validity of the prediction. How statistics can be used to confuse people.”
It will still reduce the correlation coefficient. You are demonstrating that you don’t know what one is.
Look, hurricane path and strength projection models have some error bar, though it has been getting smaller.
Last year Hurricane Ian’s NOAA 48 h projected strength was Cat 4, and projected path went through Tampa, FL.
While the strength prediction was accurate, the actual landfall was ~ 50 miles south of Tampa. Some models were closer.
So, should we no longer evacuate when the Hurricane evacuation warning is issued?
IOW, would you bet your life on the projections being quite wrong?
RLH: Have you done the 1 and 6 month comparison yet?
Yes. It is in the Molod et al. 2020 publication.
Well the statistics are suspect then as the value scan vary as much as 2C between the 2 depending on which month/year is chosen.
You do understand that a +50% and -50% at Jan and Jun can average to zero but that the separate forecasts can be up to 50% wrong.
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jan/nino3.4_Jan_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jun/nino3.4_Jun_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
edit: …the values can vary…
Flicker between January and June?
Now you try to shift the focus to the poorness of January projections for the year, when the whole discussion up to this point was about May and now June projections for October.
This is an obvious moving of the goal posts.
FYI here is the March CFS forecast.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/CDB_Archive_html/bulletin_032023/Forecast/figf4.gif
So far it has been right on target.
Here are all model projections from March and April.
So far the Dynamic model mean (green) has been doing better that the Stats model mean (purple).
March
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/CDB_Archive_html/bulletin_032023/Forecast/figf13.gif
April
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/CDB_Archive_html/bulletin_042023/Forecast/figf13.gif
Observed
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/ssta_c.gif
RLH said: You do understand that a +50% and -50% at Jan and Jun can average to zero but that the separate forecasts can be up to 50% wrong.
Yes. We know GOES-S2S (or any model for that matter) is not 100% correct. That’s why we say the forecasts have uncertainty. The question is…is the uncertainty low enough for the model to be useful. In the case of GEOS-S2S it is. As you can see in Molod et al. 2020 it has an anomaly correlation coefficient score > 0 for all leads times up to and including 9 months and for each initialization month.
BTW…if the sum of the errors nets out to zero that means the model does not have a systematic bias. Most models do have at least some bias so GEOS-S2S probably does as well, but most of the uncertainty is almost certainly (the pun was intended) random.
Nate: I am only looking at where there are projections in both series. Simply put, the values for any given month vary quite considerably in the 2 sets. Sometimes by up to 2C.
BW: “We know GOES-S2S (or any model for that matter) is not 100% correct”
But the statistics are used in such a way as to make it more than a 50% chance, even though the individual months forecast can be up to 2C or more in error.
RLH, I’m not sure what “to make it more than a 50% chance” means. And I think there may be a misunderstanding about what uncertainty is and how it is quantified. Uncertainties are only expressed with the maximum error if the dispersion of the errors is rectangular. The GOES-S2S errors (like most errors) are close to gaussian. That means smaller errors are more likely than larger errors. So while the maximum error might be 2 C it is not as likely as 1 C nor is 1 C as likely 0.5 C. Unless otherwise noted uncertainties are assumed to be expressed in standard form meaning that a normal distribution is assumed. For example an uncertainty +/-1 C does not mean that 1 C is the maximum possible error. What it actually means is that 1 C has a 32% chance of occurrence, 2 C has a 5% chance of occurrence, 3 C has a 0.2% chance of occurrence, and so on.
BW: So you are saying that 2C only has a less than 5% chance of occurring even though there are more than 5% occurrence in the data? Are your calculations wrong or is the data?
edit: …that a 2C error is only…
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jan/nino3.4_Jan_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jun/nino3.4_Jun_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
Take, for instance, 1982. Of the months that there are overlaps in the 2 series, most of them are at least 1.5C in error and at least 2 are over 2C.
A lot of other years are the same. Looks like the SPB is more important to the forecasts than your given statistics show.
RLH said: o you are saying that 2C only has a less than 5% chance of occurring even though there are more than 5% occurrence in the data? Are your calculations wrong or is the data?
It was just an example. I don’t know the actual RMSE values for GEOS-S2S. And different lead times will have different RMSE values. Longer lead times will typically have higher RMSE values than shorter lead times.
RLH said: Looks like the SPB is more important to the forecasts than your given statistics show.
The statistics show the SPB. That’s how we know GOES-S2S is not immune from it.
Another case of the made up figures being more important than the actual data.
“we know GOES-S2S is not immune from it {the SPB}”
but at least 80%+ accurate despite that.
“The statistics show the SPB…”
It’s the 2 graphs, not your made up statistics.
RLH said: Another case of the made up figures being more important than the actual data.
I’m confused. If you think the NASA data is made up then why do you keep posting links to it?
RLH said: but at least 80%+ accurate despite that.
Not according to the NASA data. The Jan forecast with a 2 month lead only has an ACC score of 0.7. By the time you get to a 9 month lead it is only 0.4.
RLH said: Its the 2 graphs, not your made up statistics.
I know. The ACC scores within Molod et al. 2020 are computed from the same data as the 2 graphs you posted. Specifically Jun has a higher score than Jan for all lead times. Clearly the SPB has reduced the skill of GEOS-S2S.
“If you think the NASA data is made up then why do you keep posting links to it?”
Because the statistic you quote as you have admitted are not real but something you made up.
RLH said: Because the statistic you quote as you have admitted are not real but something you made up.
I did no such thing. I’ve not made up any statistics here. In fact, the only statistic computed by me is the cumulative RMSE skill score for the 2022/11 forecast through the MAM period of 0.5 which AFAIK is correct. The other statistics come from Molod et al. 2020.
“Nate: I am only looking at where there are projections in both series. Simply put, the values for any given month vary quite considerably in the 2 sets. Sometimes by up to 2C.”
Of course. There is no question that Jan projection 10 months ahead will be poor compared to June projecting 4 months.
But this discussion has been about recent projections from May and you repeated erroneous claims that they are bad.
Nate: In Jan sometimes the prediction for Jun is a El Nino when it actually turned out to be LA Nina, and vice versa.
Not a real mistake of course /sarc.
BW: So you are absolutely convinced that this year will be the warmest ever/a very strong El Nino. As
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jun/nino3.4_Jun_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
shows.
This is what was predicted in Jan
https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/climateforecasts/geos5/S2S_2/validation/jan/nino3.4_Jan_2023_historic_spaghetti_S2S-2.1.png
RLH said: So you are absolutely convinced that this year will be the warmest ever/a very strong El Nino
No.
“Nate: In Jan sometimes the prediction for Jun is a El Nino when it actually turned out to be LA Nina, and vice versa.”
So obviously you have realized that you are not winning the debate as it was, about the projections of this May for this Fall-Winter, and thus try to move the goal posts back to what was projected in January, which no one here was arguing about.
This shows the weakness of your argument.
And what science-based alternative to the current projections of El Nino this year can you offer?
Belief that cooling is always coming is not science.
Despite Nate’s desperate posts, this shows the inaccuracy possible in all projections of the future. A El Nino projected where a La Nina actually happens is not just some argument about figures/statistics.
“Belief that cooling is always coming is not science”
I follow the actual data, not unscientific beliefs.
BW: “No.” Is this so you are never wrong?
It is a no for a new record because my expectation right now is for UAH TLT to come in at 0.32 +- 0.16 C. That means there is only a 16% chance of a new record. It is a no for a very strong El Nino because my expectation right now is for ENSO 3.4 to peak at 1.3 in the ASO period which is only a moderate El Nino.
BTW…my general rules of thumb are “absolutely convinced” is 5-sigma and “confident” is 2-sigma. So even with my current expectation of a 65% chance of a new record in GISTEMP I’m nowhere close to being “convinced” of a new record there either.
“I follow the actual data, not unscientific beliefs.”
Then what science-based alternative to the current science-based projections of an El Nino this Fall can you offer?
Blindlsey H00d’s diverting behavior is simply incredible.
I’m not talking about what you just discovered a posteriori!
I’m talking about the fact that YOU YOURSELF never mentioned the ‘Spring [Predictability] Barrier’ even once before Feburary 2023 on this blog!
*
” For last year you could try here. ”
In the thread you mentioned, only Bill Hunter wrote about that, and NOT you!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1427409
*
Thus we bypass this very last link, and go back further in the past.
Mention right now any place where you were speaking about this ‘Spring [Predictability] Barrier’ during the activity of the last La Nina, Blindsley H00d!
Blinny first asks
“in any thread of this blog”
and then later changes it to
“any place where YOU”
About as accurate as his VP low pass calculations (wrong) and his not understanding why 5 pass S-G are preferable (wrong also).
I see that I now need to explain latent heat which is a major effect in the overall atmosphere. The claim that CO2 lasts forever and water vapor is transient, actually increases the impact of water vapor.
Evaporation of water from a surface body is a process that removes heat from the water. Wet air has a higher enthalpy (heat) than dry air at the same temperature. That wet air can then transport heat to the upper atmosphere. When wet air condenses to form clouds and rain there is very little change in the overall enthalpy. It is a mostly adiabatic process. Latent heat is exchanged for sensible heat (temperature) and the sensible heat is then released to outer space by the greenhouse effect. Cooled water returns to earth to complete the process.
But I would mention that a cubic km of air with clouds in it, has more heat content than a cubic km of air without clouds in it.
Water molecules have a higher heat content (enthalpy) than air molecules at the same temperature. A psychrometric chart demonstrates this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychrometrics
There is an example of a chart halfway down in the link. Notice that the lines of constant enthalpy move from low temperature and high humidity to high temperature and low humidity. Any combination of temperature and humidity on that line has the same enthalpy. As noted, the chart accuracy depends on altitude, but the concept is valid at any altitude. The adiabatic formation of clouds and rain follows a line of constant enthalpy with the rainfall depicted by the difference in water content of the air on the far right side of the chart. It is a weight per weight ratio so must be converted by a factor of 29/18=1.6 to get a molar ratio.
Tim S,
You wrote –
“Water molecules have a higher heat content (enthalpy) than air molecules at the same temperature. A psychrometric chart demonstrates this:”
Nonsense. The chart indicates nothing about “water molecules”. Nor does your reference.
You just make up nonsense as you go along, hoping that nobody will challenge your role as “explainer-in-chief”.
Maybe you really meant to say something else? Maybe you were trying to explain why you can’t describe the GHE, perhaps?
You are doing a good imitation of a delusional SkyDragon cultist, if you are not already one.
Idiot.
“The claim that CO2 lasts forever and water vapor is transient, actually increases the impact of water vapor.”
Good point, Tim S.
Tim S
” Latent heat is exchanged for sensible heat (temperature) and the sensible heat is then released to outer space by the greenhouse effect. ”
Can you provide an article confirming your thoughts?
*
This is anyway not what I until now understand under Earth’s ‘greenhouse effect’.
It’s just basic thermodynamics, Bin.
But feel free to share what you “understand under Earth’s ‘greenhouse effect’.” No one seems to be able to describe it. (And that means in a manner that does NOT violate the laws of physics.)
Are you saying that the top of the atmosphere does not radiate T away?
Here is the official NASA Energy Budget:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Study it. There will be quiz at the end.
Tim S,
Are you stupid enough to believe the fiction you post?
“Earth’s climate is largely determined by the planet’s energy budget, i.e., the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation. It is measured by satellites and shown in W/m2. The imbalance (or rate of global heating; shown in figure as the “net absorbed” amount) grew from +0.6 W/m2 (2009 est. to above +1.0 W/m2 in 2019″ – your reference.
Go on, tell everyone how gullible you are.
Unfortunately for you and NASA, the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, “energy budget” notwithstanding!
The idiots at NASA have no clue – their “back radiation” has no effect on the surface, being emitted by a colder atmosphere. Not only that, but even with an extreme low level inversion at night, where the atmosphere is hotter than the ground, the ground still cools.
Off you go now, quiz yourself. Ask yourself how you could possibly be so stupid as to deny reality.
We don’t need to study it, it’s wrong. There cannot be twice the energy leaving the surface as what enters.
” There cannot be twice the energy leaving the surface as what enters.
“There isnt. The fluxes balance.
Shortwave insolation + back radiation = Shortwave reflection + longwave radiation + conduction + convection + evapotranspiration.
tim s…”Evaporation of water from a surface body is a process that removes heat from the water. Wet air has a higher enthalpy (heat) than dry air at the same temperature. That wet air can then transport heat to the upper atmosphere”.
***
It makes no sense that wet air has a higher heat content than dry air at the same temperature. Temperature is a relative measure of heat, and if a parcel of wet air measures 20C and a parcel of dry air measures 20C, they both have the same heat content. I think you may be thinking of the effect of relative humidity.
It’s the other way around for latent heat, evapouration involves the absorp-tion of heat into the water to break the weak hydrogen bonds holding the H20 molecules together.
Latent heat is not transported anywhere, it is a local heat that is used in this case to break bonds in water to produce vapour. Sensible heat is as the word sensible reveals, heat that can be sensed, as in touch.
The vapour released retains the temperature of the water and when it rises and condenses then it releases heat. So, water absorbs heat to evapourate and releases heat when it condenses. However, at sea level, the temperature of the vapour we feel on our skin is sensible heat. Therefore, any rising vapour must be sensible heat. When the vapour condenses, it release that sensible heat as latent heat, since the vapour needs to give up heat to condense.
The distinction between latent and sensible heat is the latent heat is absorbed or released at a constant temperature. It’s not clear to me why the heat released during condensation is called latent heat when it seems clearly to be the release of sensible heat.
There seems to be a good deal of confusion about this on the Net. I think that’s because people are not looking to the depth of the atom/molecule. When water, as in an ocean, is heated by solar energy, the latter injects heat into the water causing the water molecules to become agitated to the point they can break weak hydrogen bonds holding the molecules together as a liquid.
Calling that latent heat seems ingenuous since the idea of latent heat seems better aimed at the conversion of water to steam at 100C. One can hardly claim that solar energy heating water in an ocean does that at a constant temperature.
Anyway, when the released water molecules rise in altitude, at some point they begin cooling, losing the energy that helped them get released by breaking hydrogen bonds. The cooled hydrogen molecules lose energy and can form water droplets again when the hydrogen bonds take effect.
One has to ask the question of what this means wrt heat. Are the water molecules losing heat due to a state change or are they simply losing heat due to altitude, which means they lose kinetic energy? I think it’s the latter, and as they lose KE the weak attractive forces between them are better able to form the bonds required for water droplets. I think the heat has already been lost by the altitude.
It’s the same for nitrogen and oxygen but they don’t form droplets when they cool.
Something just occurred to me. If water is heated in the Tropics, it is heating the nitrogen and oxygen molecules as well. Therefore they rise as well as the water vapour and the temperature of the rising parcel should be uniform. In this uniform mix in the Tropics water vapour could make up 2 or 3 percent of the air mixture.
At higher latitudes, where the ocean water is cooler, the percentage of WV will be progressively lower. Water temperature in the Tropics can be 30C whereas water temps at the poles can be 0C, even in summer. I know the average ocean temperature at my latitude near Vancouver, Canada averages about 10C and I can attest to that, having gone into it for a swim during summer off the Pacific coast of Vancouver Island. It’s cold.
However, the air above the ocean, with my head sticking out of the water, was much warmer than 10C, suggesting solar energy heats air molecules as well. I think more study has to be done into just how much solar energy heats the atmosphere.
“It makes no sense that wet air has a higher heat content than dry air at the same temperature”
Try spraying yourself with a water spray in hot air which then evaporates (creating wetter, cooler air). Where do you think the energy has gone? You do feel cooler, correct? (Swamp cooler demonstration).
RLH,
In the humid tropics, the water spray is useless. The water just sits on your skin, making you feel wetter, and adding to the sweat dripping off you.
But wait – there’s more! H2O vapour is less dense than dry air, so a given volume of “wet air” may or may not contain more “heat content” than dry air.
Quite irrelevant anyway, the atmosphere is chaotic, so an infinitely small change to conditions may result in completely unpredictable future states. That’s why accurate weather forecasting is impossible. Naive predictions, based on projecting the past, are as good as anything. They can be done by a 12 year old, but are used commercially – forecasting wind strength and direction for wind farms,
Still no GHE. Nobody can even describe the elusive mythical beast, it seems.
S: What part of “hot {dry} air” did you not get? Swamp coolers work in the USA, so I believe.
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/do-swamp-coolers-work/
RLH,
You wrote “What part of hot {dry} air did you not get? Swamp coolers work in the USA, so I believe.”
Well, your initial statement was “Try spraying yourself with a water spray in hot air . . . “.
I responded to that statement on the basis that you meant what you wrote. Your attempted sarcasm falls a little flat, when you challenge my [admitted] inability to read your mind, and to “get” something which you didnt actually write.
I do “get” the principles of evaporative air conditioning, unlike you.
Maybe you should have read your linked article, which says –
“But in a testing environment like the one we were usingin the coastal Northeast, on a day when the humidity outside was already above 50%we were essentially setting these swamp coolers up to fail. With the air as saturated as it was, the machines couldn’t do much except over-humidify the room, making it danker without any significant cooling or comfort. It was the same unpleasant feeling you get when your sweat wont evaporate on a muggy day.”
The worst place to expect a “swamp cooler” to work, – is in a swamp! Oh well, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the America public (wrongly attributed to HL Mencken, but who cares).
“Evaporative cooling is loosely based on an ancient, time-honored process known as sweating. You may have heard of it. Our bodies automatically cool themselves down by releasing moisture through the skin…”
Cooling by sweating or evapouration of moisture from the skin in not what we are debating. I think what Swenson was getting at is the water sprayed on the skin may not do the trick in certain warmer environments. I don’t know, it never gets that hot around here.
S: I placed a reference to swamp coolers in my original post precisely because I know how they work. Thank you. I forgot to mention that I was talking about hot, dry, air in the main simply because I did not think anyone would challenge that is how SC works.
richard…you missed the point of my statement. Temperature is a measure of relative heat levels. If two bodies are at the same temperature they have the same level of heat in them.
Ergo, if wet and dry air is at the same temperature, it has the same heat content. If you use a water mister you are changing the relative humidity of the air and the ‘apparent’ temperature. It may feel hotter than you think it is but it’s not.
I think this is similar to the wind chill index offered in colder climates in winter. The temperature remains the same but a wind can give the impression it is much cooler. It can be more than an impression actually, the wind has an effect on exposed skin and even though the temperature remains the same, the effect on the skin by the wind produces the same effect as a colder air temperature.
It is probably about the rate at which heat escapes from the skin.
“if wet and dry air is at the same temperature, it has the same heat content”
Wrong. Wet air contains moisture which requires energy to heat/cool the water as well as the air. That is without the phase change that vapor/liquid/solid requires.
Gordon,
“If two bodies are at the same temperature they have the same level of heat in them.”
No they don’t, it depends on the heat capacity of the body.
Water a 100 C, has more heat than air at 100 C.
For anyone who might get drawn in by some of this nonsense, most psychrometric charts are produced by air conditioning manufacturers and used in the design and application process. They have never been challenged by the science community. In fact, they provide useful information. In really humid conditions such as tropically areas, humidity is the primary load on an AC unit.
I am not debating the merits of adjusting the relative humidity in a building I am claiming only that air at the same temperature has the same amount of heat in it.
Tim S,
Well, that’s informative – not.
You wrote –
“In really humid conditions such as tropically [sic] areas, humidity is the primary load on an AC unit.”
Primary load? What are you babbling about? Are you talking about evaporative air conditioning, or refrigerated air conditioning? Do you know the difference?
You could always fly off at a tangent, and start waffling about dew points, wet bulb temperatures, comfortability indices, and anything else to divert attention from your inability to even describe the GHE that delusional SkyDragon cultists proselytise.
Idiot.
“It makes no sense that wet air has a higher heat content than dry air at the same temperature.”
Technically it has more Enthalpy. But that means it requires more BTU to be removed from it with an air conditioner, to cool a space containing it, to the same temperature.
The precise effect is that the water has to condensed before the temperature can be lowered. Dew point is a limitation. As the air passes through the coils it continues to drop water and cool such that most of the water is condensing on the inlet side of the coil. This water then has to be drained by some means. The flip side is that not only are swamp coolers worthless in humid conditions, but so are cooling towers. In Florida, they use large cooling ponds instead of cooling towers. The pond is designed so the water flows along channels to increase the residence time in the pond. Cooling is by, you guessed it, radiation at night.
Yes, and the moist air does contain in effect more heat, as measured by the amount of heat required to be removed from it to cool it.
“SpaceX’s huge Starship rocket could fly again before the summer is out.
A fully stacked Starship, the biggest and most powerful rocket ever built, launched for the first time ever on April 20.
The test flight, from SpaceX’s Starbase site in South Texas, aimed to send Starship’s upper-stage spacecraft most of the way around Earth. But that didn’t happen; while the vehicle notched some significant milestones, it also experienced several serious problems, and SpaceX sent a self-destruct command a few minutes after liftoff.”
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-next-test-flight-summer-2023
SLS might launch every two years. Starship might launch every month- the only factor delaying it, is the FAA.
But once FAA is not a problem and SpaceX has successful test launch the Starship, the goal is once a week, then, once a day. Or an insane launch rate. Or launch starships as fast as Falcon 9 and then go faster with 5 to 8 times more payload.
Of course Musk wants 3 times a day or more.
One every month doesn’t require ocean launch- though it’s borderline.
It seems once a week does require ocean launch- and we also are back to FAA inhibiting it- cause it’s new and whales- or something else.
Once per month and 50+ of falcon-9 per year, will be exciting but will to required to get lunar crew exploration on schedule. And could have that in 2024.
But also in 2024, will could New Glenn rocket being launch and it’s reusable, also.
Rule, anything reusable require many launches per year- or you are wasting money. The plan with Space Shuttle in terms of it being reusable was once a week- it never got close.
So, New Glenn will also have to got to point of launch once of month also- or more like once a week.
And entire world is moving towards reusable rockets.
Clint R
YOU: “Troll Norman, this is why I have to have rules for you.
You are very wrong and highly stupid
Just how really stupid are you?
I have not experienced this level of total stupidity.
Your immaturity is in full view.
You have NOTHING, so youll be here all day with your childish insults arguing about the definition of a physics book.
Get a life, grow up, and accept reality.”
You are wrong again. It does not at all show any immaturity on my part. It does however correctly use the word “stupid” most correctly.
Stupid: “lacking intelligence or reason”
Yes I use the word correctly. Sorry if you can’t handle the truth about yourself.
Only you would think a link to three textbooks, each written by different authors at different times would prove you are correct in your stupid thought process that no reputable physics books use the heat transfer equation.
Only a really stupid person would come to such a conclusion.
So yes you are a very stupid poster. I stand correct in this fact.
Facts are you are a very stupid person. You lack intelligence or reasoning. Not much hope this will change. Double down with another dumb post. It is what you do. Over and over.
Norman,
If you can’t describe the GHE, you are preaching religion.
Good luck.
Poor Norman is in full-tilt meltdown. All of his false beliefs are being shot down. His false idols are falling before his eyes.
He’s reduced to dropping worthless loads all over the blog. All he’s proving is how braindead he is, and how effective I am at uncovering fake and frauds.
I can live with that.
Clint R
No you are wrong again (as usual for you).
YOU: “Poor Norman is in full-tilt meltdown. All of his false beliefs are being shot down. His false idols are falling before his eyes.”
Not in meltdown in the least. What false beliefs did you shoot down?
Folks here is another example of Cult mentality from Cult Clint. He thinks making the claim “All his false beliefs are being shot down. His false idols are falling before his eyes.”
Now that is scary cultish. What false beliefs? He never supports this just declares some unknown opinion he made up. He is a weird one that Cult Clint. Talks about some false idols. If just makes one say WTF? Who knows what this one is talking about, does he even. Sounds like gibberish.
He claims he uncovers fake and frauds. A cult tactic of reversing the reality. He is the one who is the fake fraud. If anyone wants to know.
Recap of Cult Clint strange minds.
Here he challenged me with this:
“Clint R
Above you posted this: For example, you see the radiative heat transfer equation all over the Internet, but you never find it is a reputable physics book. The bogus equation has NO scientific derivation, and is easily debunked. It is popular among the GHE cult, because they believe it means cold can warm hot.
These are you words and it is very easy to prove them wrong.
To which I found three heat transfer physics books that all include the radiant heat transfer equation.
Here:
https://tinyurl.com/3kpbf5ta
Rather than show signs of intelligence, research the textbooks and consider his statement wrong he doubles down on stupid with this post.
“Thanks for proving me correct, Norman.
You will never find that RTE in any credible physics book.”
This lead me to conclude Clint R is mostly a braindead cult minded idiot.
Illogical is proving someone correct by clearly proving them totally wrong.
So that is the extent of a Cult minded idiot. If you want to learn more wait for his posts. 99% of them are his own made up bullshit that he never supports. He also likes to annoy other posters. Honorable mention he proposes these tests that can have any answer and thinks people are stupid for not answering his unanswerable points.
Norman, you’re trolling yourself???
Clint R
I did not think you had the intelligence to follow that post. It was a recap of showing just how stupid you are and how sad that state is.
You seem to have found a new favorite word like you did going by the other name. In that era you used “hilarious” now you use troll even though you do not have the slightest idea what it means. You get these favorite pet words and then use them excessively. Like you did with “ball on a string” a while back. Very cultish mentality.
Norman, although I’m enjoying your full-tilt meltdown, I also feel a little sorry for you. So, even though all you can do is insult and falsely accuse me, I’m willing to help.
If you will stop trolling here (commenting anywhere on Spencer’s blog) for 30 days, I will completely explain why your false idol is false. You worship that bogus equation like it has supernatural healing powers. I can explain why it is bogus so simply that any responsible adult could understand.
If you agree, see you July 15, 2023.
(Use the time off to learn about science and reality.)
Clint R,
Norman can’t describe the GHE. He can’t or won’t even say whether the GHE is supposed to warm or cool the surface.
At least Willard claims that the GHE is “cooling over time”, as silly as he is.
Norman is just another delusional SkyDragon cultist, preaching to the converted, deifying something that he cannot describe. He just claims others have described the GHE, but have not made Norman privy to the secret description!
He’s an idiot, unless he can show otherwise.
Clint R
You have used that tactic on me and other posters. It is a Cult minded tactic. The Cult pretends to have secret knowledge that they will reveal.
It is a Cult minded tactic to make ridiculous claims “You worship that bogus equation like it has supernatural healing powers.”
That is a wild claim…worship? supernatural healing power? Very strange word choice.
I do not falsely accuse you. I have posted your own words and clearly explained why they are false.
Here read this: ‘A false accusation is a claim or allegation of wrongdoing that is untrue and/or otherwise unsupported by facts.[1] False accusations are also known as groundless accusations or unfounded accusations or false allegations or false claims. They can occur in any of the following contexts:”
How about you quit posting for 30 days and find out why you are so incredibly stupid. Look in the mirror and ask yourself “what happened to me that I turned into this idiot?”
Once you find out why you became so stupid, find a path back to a rational thinking human. Can you do this? It would be nice to see a former idiot show signs of thought.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman says: “I do not falsely accuse you.”
And that was right after you falsely accused me, Norman. So I have to re-impose the rules. Sorry, but I will not respond to your childish troll tactics.
Swenson, exactly. Norman has been shown to be wrong so many times. He has both his feet in his mouth constantly.
These are tough times for him. His cult heroes are falling rapidly. He doesn’t know who to worship anymore.
Clint R,
I will probably be accused of trolling, or subjecting the mentally incompetent to ridicule, but Norman is as much contortionist as delusional SkyDragon cultist.
He can put his foot in his mouth while simultaneously shooting himself in the foot.
Maybe Norman is a bit grumbly because neither Willard nor bobdroege have given him much guidance on a GHE description. Willard seems to think that the GHE depends on “cooling over time” (but says the GHE is a “silly acronym”). Bobdroege ends his seventeen word GHE “definition” with “moar hotter moar better”. Obviously, Norman is faced with a hard choice – discriminating between two idiots. Dumb and dumber?
Judging by their comments, they incline more toward the mental midget type, rather than the opposite.
Still no GHE description. Or a description of the “greenhouse effect”, if it comes to that. All I know is that it results in cooling of some form, which appears a bit superfluous, considering that cooling is explained by current physical knowledge.
Mike Flynn,
Norman described the greenhouse effect many times over the years.
So what are you braying about?
Keep playing dumb, it suits you perfectly!
Worthless willard, find Norman’s GHE description that you like best and provide it here.
You know my terms, Pupman. They’re the same as yours –
Disappear for three months and I will.
Swenson
Since you ask I will tell. I can certainly guarantee it won’t change your posts. 2 posts later you will say I never provided a description. You will do this same cycle hundreds if not thousands of times and you will never tire or get bored repeating the same things over and over.
It starts with you accepting this fact. In cold winter months (not sure if you have them in Australia where you live) if you go outside with just shorts in below zero weather you will eventually freeze to death. Your body produces heat energy through metabolism but only at a certain rate (can vary based upon activity). You put on a coat and the rate of heat loss is considerably reduced. Your body energy production is now enough to keep you from freezing.
If you accept that; that is the beginning of wisdom and understanding.
When the GHE is talked about they are talking about the average surface temperature or air temperature a few meters up. Basically the region of space people live in.
The surface has four main ways to lose heat energy. Radiant, conduction, convection and, because of a water surface, evaporation. The surface is heated primarily by the solar input, it is the major source of energy for the system.
If you alter any of the 4 heat loss processes it will change the surface temperature. If radiant energy loss increases the surface will cool, if evaporation increases the surface can cool. If radiant heat loss is reduced the surface temperature goes up (just like putting on a coat).
Carbon Dioxide in the air reduces the radiant heat loss of the surface by some degree which scientists are measuring and observing. This will cause the surface to increase in average temperature with the same solar input.
Swenson
Here is some science for you.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_648b3948e60cb.png
This graph clearly shows the GHE and how it works.
It shows Downwelling solar. It has net solar which is the amount of solar absorbed by surface which heats the desert sand and warms the air above.
It has the upwelling IR from the sand surface (warmer than the air above). This is the radiant energy that would be lost without GHE. Around 600 W/m^2 per day and a little over 400 W/m^2 at night. With no GHE present the surface wou9ld not get as warm during the day and would cool much faster at night (like if you take your coat off in winter your skin cools much faster than with it on).
You can see the Downwelling IR which causes the GHE which is a reduction in the amount of radiant heat the surface loses.
It is around 400 W/m^2
You get the IR net which is negative. The surface is losing energy by radiant means only at a reduced rate. Rather than being over 400 W/m^2 with no GHE present, the radiant heat loss is reduced from this number to a lower 200 W/m^2. Reducing rate of heat loss will cause a surface receiving energy to warm in day and slow the cooling rate at night so it does not get as cold.
There I gave you a good description of GHE and provided you with supporting evidence.
Norman,
You wrote –
“There I gave you a good description of GHE and provided you with supporting evidence.”
No, you didnt. You provided a graph which shows solar radiation makes the surface warmer.
I already knew that. Is the GHE supposed to make the Earth hotter or colder?.
You make a silly assertion “With no GHE present the surface would not get as warm during the day and would cool much faster at night.” The surface of the Moon reaches about 127 C with no “greenhouse gases” at all. None.
Even on Earth, the hottest places on Earth are arid desert regions, with the least amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, whether you like it or not.
Does your GHE “description” account for reality? Of course not, because you are a reality denying fanatic.
Try again.
Swenson
The graph I linked you to is from Desert Rock Nevada and it still has a considerable Downwelling IR.
I gave you a description. You fumbled around on unrelated points to say I did not give you a description.
No one can give you any description because you can’t logically process it.
I will say it simply. The GHE warms the surface (on average…NOTE on average we are not talking about peaks…that is a diversion you like to use…The Moon gets much warmer and much much colder so your peak argument is from the mind of an idiot) by reducing the radiant heat loss of the surface.
Deserts are also hot because a powerful cooling mechanism has been reduced and that is evaporation. Moon gets really hot because it rotates slower than Earth so more solar energy reaches a given surface area and it has not convection to remove surface heat, only radiant heat. Earth has multiple ways to lower heat from the surface.
Norman,
No, Norman, playing the averages card doesnt help.
You may feel like explaining why the Moon’s (GHG free) maximum temperature is higher than the Earth’s (with GHGs), or you may not. The Moon’s higher temperature occurs after the same exposure time, as it must, receiving about 35% more radiation than the Earth. Professor John Tyndall’s observations, more than 150 years ago, are backed up by NASA.
No matter how much you say “I will say it simply. The GHE warms the surface (on average “, the fact is that the Earth’s surface temperature has dropped over the past four and a half billion years. You might not like it, but there it is.
The GHE (which Willard refers to as “a silly acronym”) hasn’t “warmed” anything for four and a half billion years. Unless your “description” accounts for this, it is just your fantasy.
You may keep confusing the GHE with sunlight if you like, but remember that half the globe is continuously radiating energy, and cooling, at any given time.
Try harder. Still no GHE description according with reality to date.
Swenson
Where is your evidence that the Earth surface has cooled for 4.5 billion years. Repeating an untrue fact a million times does not make it true. Supply evidence for this claim. I have provided evidence you are wrong. Provide evidence to support your claim. The Earh Surface is solar heated so it will not keep cooling if the Sun keeps shining. It can vary based on different things but no clear cooling trend exists.
ent…”Swenson
Surely you dont believe pressure causes temperature increases?
My compliments.
Theres a type of fringe physicist who automatically assumes that under all conditions high pressure equates to high temperature.
Im glad to see that, like myself, youve avoided that trap”.
***
This is a far more complex problem than it appears to be. I think we should be discussing topics like this rather than taking shots at each other.
Disclaimer…I am not offering the following as an expert simply because I don’t know at a specific level. I am merely pointing out the issues.
The basis of this problem is the Ideal Gas Law which is…
PV = nRT
If we have a constant volume, V, and the number of molecules/atoms, n, is constant, then we can lump the constants together as …
P = (nR/V) . T
It becomes immediately obvious that P and T are in direct proportion.
That’s the theory but what about the reality? How can we hold V and n constant and vary P? We can vary T by heating the volume and we know intuitively that P will increase. Therefore, it seems that adding heat increases the KE in the gas meaning it increases the average velocity of the molecules.
But how??? What is heat and how does it raise the average velocity of the molecules. I claim that no one knows, just as no one knows what any energy is. However, we can say that heat is associated with the atoms and molecules and that it increases the velocity of gas molecules and causes atoms in solids to vibrate to a greater degree. Conversely, removing heat from a gas or a solid causes the atoms/molecules to move slower and vibrate less.
To vary P with constant V we need to add more molecules of air and that complicates the equation. We could restate the equation as …
P/n = (R/V) . T
where P/n is in constant proportion but increasing, then we know that adding more pressure must increase the temperature. But why?
It comes down to the very difficult question regarding the nature of heat. Pressure is defined as force per unit area and with a gas in a container, pressure is the sum of all the forces applied to the surfaces by gas molecules.
Someone suggested that heat is the average kinetic energy of gas molecules in a gas. Others have claimed temperature is a measure of that average kinetic energy but there is a confusion between heat and temperature. Heat is the energy that motivates the molecules and temperature is a human system of measuring the relative energy level as heat.
It is obvious that temperature is a relative measure of heat since it is based on two set points, the freezing and boiling points of water. Planck stated as much in his book on heat, that temperature is a human invention. So, in the IGL, where PV = nRT, T refers to the relative level of heat in the gas.
I read an explanation of gas compression, wherein a piston in a cylinder forces the gas to a higher pressure as the gas volume is decreased. As the cylinder compresses the gas it does two things. It does work on the gas and increases the pressure.
Actually it does something else. At the initial volume, the energy in the gas was spread out over a greater volume than when the compression began. At half-volume, that total internal energy is not spread out over half the volume therefore the energy density increases. As work is done on the gas molecules their velocity increases and since KE = 1/2 mv^2, it means the average KE increases, hence the heat, hence the temperature.
The energies in question are heat and work. Pressure is a force applied over a surface area therefore the gas molecules hitting the wall are doing work. However, something has to motivate the molecules to move and produce a force and the motivator is heat, whatever it is.
There is a fly in this ointment, however. If the cylinder and the pistons are made of metal, that metal can transfer heat out of the gas in the cylinder, therefore the pressure can increase and the temperature increases only till the KE bleeds off as a heat transfer.
But, what about an adiabatic compression? The temperature may stay higher, longer, but eventually in a non-perfect insulator, the heat should also bleed off.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Gordon,
It’s just another example of thermodynamics in action.
Hotter things cool, colder things warm, until they are at the same temperature as their [ever changing] environment. Of course, this implies that a steady temperature will not occur until the heat death of the universe when all matter is in thermal equilibrium.
So much for the “energy balance” of the climate clowns. Any point on the Earth’s surface is either getting hotter or colder (apart from twice a day, at maximum and minimum temperature inflection points).
That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.
I agree with you. I guess what I am trying to say is that none of us actually knows what goes on at the atomic level, but some think they do. The nonsense about the GHE and the heat budget are theories gone out of control.
I tend to talk in a probing manner. I make assertions but they are intended more as a question aimed at forcing a response. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing but many feel the need to accompany the disagreement with ad homs or insults and I can play that game too.
The Zen point about the human mind keeps surfacing. It goes that God gave us a brain, but it doesn’t work properly. That’s the Cosmic Joke. The pursuit of enlightenment is geared to compensating for the defect in the human mind, which amazingly can bypass the defect. Therefore we were given faulty brains but also the awareness they are faulty, if we want to see it, and the ability to bypass the impairment.
I gained the insight a while back that I am never going to overcome my stupidity or the defect, therefore I might as well enjoy it by being an insufferable clown, with as much humour as possible. I can see clearly now that a problem exists, and I could enter a Bhuddist monastery and get to the crux of the matter, but it’s far more fun being stupid. However, it drives my g/f to distraction, even though she sticks with me.
One thing I like about you is your insight. You can see through my bs, and the bs of others, with humour and light-heartedness. I love to laugh at myself and a lot of the laughter comes at the expense of people taking me far too seriously. Of course, that’s the nature of the Web or email correspondence, no one see the expression on a person’s face as to intent.
> I guess what I am trying to say is that none of us actually knows what goes on at the atomic leve
About time you realize it, Bordo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/hurricane-harvey-1-million-hiroshima-bombs-per-day/#comment-260027
Channel your ignorance. It is infinite.
Willard, please stop trolling.
tim s…”The relation between the nucleus and the electrons is a wave function that is common to all atoms and a direct measurable effect that defines temperature”.
***
You can’t denigrate my little buddies, the electrons, like that without me jumping to their defense.
The wave function is a hypothetical explanation created by Schrodinger that relates the kinetic and potential energies of electrons in hypothetical quantum orbitals. No one knows if there is any truth to it and I seriously doubt that it represents the physical reality.
If you look at the wave function, it is a balance between KE and PE in electron orbitals. It is a blessing in the sense it helps explain the properties of atoms with more than one electron and a burden in that it completely obfuscates the reality.
Besides that, when Pauling went to Europe in the 1920s to learn quantum theory, he found it did not work as written. He had to use his considerable experience with molecular shapes to adjust the wave equation to make it work properly.
—
“The interesting part is that the nucleus knows what temperature it is outside”.
***
It has no mechanism for detecting temperature. Temperature is a human invention based on the set points of the freezing and boiling of water.
—
“It is not just about the electrons. It has no direct relation to physical properties and thermodynamics for different molecules. There is a wide range of different effects. Molecules have vastly different physical and thermodynamic properties because of the way chemical bonds resonate with temperature”.
***
Afraid you are wrong there, Tim. Schrodinger’s wave equation is strictly about electrons and their quantum orbitals.
With regard to chemical bonds, the bonds are electrons, hence the properties of all molecules are about electrons and the different charges they create. Pauling coined the tern electronegativity to describe the different effects atoms have on attracting electrons to them. For example, in the CO2 molecule, which can be represented as…
O=====C=====O
the O-atom is more electronegative than the C-atom. The double dashed lines represent electron pairs forming the chemical bonds and since O is more electronegative, it causes the orbiting electrons to accumulate toward the O end of each bond. That creates a dipole bond either side of C-atom with the O end of the dipole more negative than the C end.
There is nothing more in a molecule than atoms bonded by electron bonds. Since the nucleus plays little part in the molecules it is mainly the electrons and their relative charges that affect the shapes and properties of molecules.
If you look up hydrogen bonds and van der Waal forces you will see they are all related to electrons. Of course, without the positive nucleus there would be no atoms, therefore no molecules.
Tim S wrote “The interesting part is that the nucleus knows what temperature it is outside.”
Really? Maybe Tim S, self appointed “explainer-in-chief” can explain what his incomprehensible word salad means.
I doubt it.
For people who are at least slightly educated, intelligent, and thoughtful, nuclear reactions and radioactivity are functions of temperature. This absolutely requires that the nucleus has interaction with the electrons. Others may just simply like to display their status as a troll — something that you sadly seem proud of.
How can any reaction be a function of a human invention? Only in math? We need to go beyond math to understand what the math is based on.
The nucleus does have an interaction with the electrons and the reaction is electrostatic in nature, namely positive and negative charges. Nuclear forces are related to internal forces i the nucleus.
The Bohr radius is defined as the distance between the nucleus and the lowest energy level of the electron in hydrogen, and it is stated using the mass and charge of the electron. The Bohr radius is also part of the wave equation.
ps. I have no problem interacting with Swenson and we don’t agree on everything. Part of that may be due to our ability to see through the bs about the GHE, the energy budget, etc.
Tim S,
You wrote –
” . . . nuclear reactions and radioactivity are functions of temperature. This absolutely requires that the nucleus has interaction with the electrons.” You definitely wouldn’t accept the reality expressed in this quote “The rate of radioactive change is independent of pressure and temperature. A radioactive change is always spontaneous. It is not controlled by temperature, pressure or nature of chemical combination.”, would you?
Are you deranged? You also wrote “For people who are at least slightly educated, intelligent, and thoughtful, . . . “.
Facts dont depend on what people think of them.
As Richard Feynman wrote “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” You don’t even have a theory, so this obviously doesn’t apply to a fantasist like you!
Do you have a reason for posting the nonsense you do, or do you just hammer away on you4 keyboard hoping that the truth is out there?
[sniggering at ignorant idiot]
I stated that it is interesting and it is. Conventional science says that the nuclear strong force is independent from the nuclear weak force. In most cases that rule holds. More recent research is now challenging that notion. Stay tuned.
I’ve taught the Bohr model of electron orbitals to 11 year olds as a “lie to children”, a simplified model of reality easier for them to understand.
In practice the Bohr model fails quickly. It cannot explain bond angles and hybrid orbitals in carbon.
The concept of an electron speeding in circles around a nucleus rapidly becomes meaningless.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_hybridisation
EM,
Oh, how things change!
“However, such a scheme is now considered to be incorrect in light of computational chemistry calculations.”
“This means that in practice, hybrid orbitals do not conform to the simple ideas commonly taught . . . ”
Teach lies for children, and fix it later with opinions? Only joking, but just samples from your reference that show the “experts” sometimes present opinion as fact.
Such is life.
Swenson.
Vocabulary confusion alert, usage of the words opinion and fact.
https://skepticalscience.com/how-to-speak-science.html
EM,
Another pointless link to a cartoonist’s site (he dressed up as a Gestapo officer (Reichsfuhrer) for some bizarre reason), I believe?
Any idiot who writes something like “How to speak science” should be viewed with suspicion, if claiming any authority on English usage. Anyone who appeals to the authority of an idiot is not terribly clever – in my view, anyway.
Now, you appear confused about the difference between opinion and fact. What are you confused about?
Once again Gordon, you are not very creative or humorous — just ridiculous. You are not even really trolling, because there nothing even remotely in need of response.
tim…I take your comment for what it’s worth, that you lack the ability to respond adequately.
Tim S
What else but such a bunch of nonsense can we expect from a guy like Robertson who
– denies time dilation, even the existence of time,
– doubts about the need to consider aspects of special and general relativity and the Sagnac effect when implementing systems like GPS,
– denies the impossibility to exactly calculate the precession of the perihelion of all planets exclusively with Newton’s gravitation formula, and
– who even disputes our Moon’s rotation around its polar axis.
*
The very best is that he is not even able to understand basic concepts in e.g. temperature data processing as discussed on this blog.
Whenever you post a link to a chart comparing two anomaly time series, e.g.
https://i.postimg.cc/xT6mR007/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022-wrt-1991-2020.png
he always reacts with a nonsense a la
” You, on the other hand, create graphs that are clear lies. You have had the temerity in the past to post graphs showing UAH and NOAA in lock-step. ”
Incredible… but true.
Binny,
You still can’t describe the GHE, can you?
Incredible but true.
Flynnson
All you are able to do is to endlessly repeating your unscientific nonsense and to permanently insult others.
Never would you be able to scientifically contradict the following two reports:
– Dufresne/Treiner (2011)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jacques-Treiner/publication/275205925_L'effet_de_serre_atmospherique_plus_subtil_qu'on_ne_le_croit/links/555642e008aeaaff3bf5f055/Leffet-de-serre-atmospherique-plus-subtil-quon-ne-le-croit.pdf
– Harde/Schnell (2022)
http://hharde.de/index_htm_files/Harde-Schnell-GHE-m.pdf
*
You would at best polemically discredit their findings with your as usual stupid, ignorant and superficial blathering.
Binny,
I’m assuming both your links are irrelevant, and neither contains a description of the GHE, because that would break from the delusional SkyDragon cultist practice of being as unhelpful and uncooperative as humanly possible.
What’s in your links, delusional SkyDragon cultist? I wager no description of the GHE, but assertions that it does, indeed, exist – in someone’s fantasy, at least.
Flynnson
I repeat for the obviously dementia-ridden pseudoscience follower:
All you are able to do is to endlessly repeating your unscientific nonsense and to permanently insult others.
Bindidon, The Harde-Schnell paper is quite interesting. They conclude that:
We know others around here claim that this would be a violation of the 2nd Law, a subject of continual argument. They also provide much discussion of the underlying physics, for those interested. This work provides another nail in the coffin regarding denialist claims about the real world effects of “back radiation”.
They also conclude that their results suggest that increasing CO2 concentrations will result in only a minimal warming, which one must take with some skepticism, given that the experiment does not model the entire atmospheric column. For starters, their experiment does not consider the effects of the reduction of pressure broadening of the CO2 emission lines at higher altitudes as they appear to be running the experiment at surface pressure. Still, they have put in a lot of work, the results of which are worth studying.
Some commentary on the Harde/Schnell experiment:
"1) They dismiss the Woods’ experiments as not being relevant when they are precisely and perfectly relevant, providing all of the backradiation one requires to test the GHE, just as ALL greenhouse buildings in existence do. The Woods experiments use a passive ceiling, which can “emit backradiation” according to prescription, and they do not demonstrate backradiation heating. Claiming that the exact same physics will work differently with a partially-emissive gas for the ceiling which cannot “backradiate” as well as a fully-emissive solid surface is, simply, pseudoscientific sophistry. A solid surface with full emission of “backradiation” doesn’t perform the RGHE at all, whereas a partially-emissive gas does? That’s not logical, rational, or could follow the existing laws of physics of emission.
2) They actually have two power sources, indicated by the supply feed to provide the temperature of the “Earth plate”, as well as the supply feed to provide the temperature of the “atmosphere plate”. This is no a longer a system which represents the Earth and atmosphere, and thus, the experiment isn’t even the correct experiment, anymore. The Woods-type experiment is the correct one, where you have a heated surface, and a passive receiver ceiling. Their receiver, the “atmosphere plate”, is not passive, but has a power supply attached to it via the supply feed to provide its temperature. So that’s two independent power systems, which is not what the Earth experiences, nor what the Woods experiments do. The real atmosphere does not have an independent power system or supply feed doing something to its temperature, and neither do the Woods experiments, and hence, you find consistency between the Woods experiments and the actual Earth & atmosphere: we do not ever measure temperatures above the heating potential of sunlight on the surface of Earth."
Cult Leader grammie insists on ignoring the work done by Harde & Schnell, pointing to the old Woods experiment as some sort of proof. Woods showed that greenhouses work primarily by cutting convection and as V. Pratt showed, do not really prove anything about “back radiation”, since Woods had to add a glass plate over his rock salt plate to equalize the rate of solar heating into his boxes. Also, read Abbot’s reply to the Woods paper.
grammie thinks there are two power sources in their experiment, whereas the upper loop is intended to achieve a zero degree difference between the top of the tank and the “earth-plate”, which is to be maintained at 30C. If the delta T is zero, there is neither heating nor cooling of the earth-plate. Besides, it would appear that there is some additional material between the earth-plate and the top of the tank, perhaps more Styrofoam.
"Cult Leader grammie…"
There is nobody here commenting by that name. Increase in maturity.
"…insists on ignoring the work done by Harde & Schnell, pointing to the old Woods experiment as some sort of proof."
…no, the person I was quoting mentioned Woods, and rightly so.
"grammie thinks there are two power sources in their experiment…"
…no, the person I was quoting thinks there are two power sources in the experiment, and they would appear to be correct. From the paper:
"Different to other experiments we use two plates in a closed housing, an upper plate, called earth-plate, which is heated to 30°C, and a cooled plate at the bottom, stabilized to -11.4°C (atmospheric plate, atm-plate)."
One is heated, one is cooled, both (presumably) require power sources to achieve this.
Cult Leader grammie fails to understand heat transfer, yet again. The setup is designed to remove as many variables as possible to focus on the back radiation emitted by the CO2 toward the earth-plate. Keeping the two surfaces at nearly constant temperatures will aid in the investigation. It’s a feature, not a bug, as they say.
BTW, grammie, what-ever-you-call-yourseslf, there’s no “moderator” on this blog, since trolls like you would have been banned years ago.
"Cult Leader grammie fails to understand heat transfer, yet again."
That’s false, and also there’s nobody here commenting by that name. Increase in maturity.
I’m happy with the comment. That settles that.
Sorry for your loss.
> theres nobody here commenting by that name
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“There is extra solar forcing caused by the gravitation of planets which is a likely reasonof the main part of global warming.”
What says You? Does she make sense?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYOMKLDbeYE&t=1376s&ab_channel=TomNelson
No.
I was wondering who Ken was asking.
I accept the notion that more than 90% of global warming is warming
our cold, 3.5 C ocean.
And it’s my opinion, we have recovered from cooler period which is called the Little Ice Age.
And that they named warmer period before this, and cooler periods before this, but in terms of long term trend, for over 5000 year, Earth has cooling.
We are in interglacial period and compared to past interglacial periods, it hasn’t been a very warm interglacial period.
No one knows exactly why the Holocene interglacial period wasn’t very warm, but what is called last glacial maximum is generally considered
the coldest known glacial maximum within our current Ice Age:
“The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) occurred about 20,000 years ago, during the last phase of the Pleistocene epoch. At that time, global sea level was more than 400 feet lower than it is today, and glaciers covered approximately: 8% of Earth’s surface. 25% of Earth’s land area.”.
The LGM is used as rough yardstick to compared, past 4 known Ice Ages and it’s there were some of these Ice Ages which were much colder
than our Ice Age which is called The Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
The recovery from LGM can be called global warming- massive and rapid
global warming which took thousands of years.
The Holocene period is considered different than past interglacial period in that it, in that it had sudden warming, followed by rapid cooling, and then followed by more rapid warming.
It’s not know why exactly the Holocene was different, but I would say perhaps it’s related to Holocene being a cooler interglacial period.
But around 10,000 years ago, the Holocene had higher sea level and was significantly warmer and wetter then it is now.
All interglacial period start out being wetter and warmer, and this
time period is called the Africa Humid Period, wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period
Anyhow all interglacial periods, have African Humid Period, and follows is drier and cooler period which we are presently in. Which long ten thousand year period of gradual cooling but within long cooling tread, there are warmer and cooler periods in which iceheets
form on North America continent [and elsewhere] which increse and decrease until there is another Glacial Maxium which followed by massive global warming.
15 C air temperature is cold.
She thinks it’s going to cooler, but the Grand Solar Max is coming in several decades.
And I would say warmer might be average of 16 C.
And also 16 C air temperature is cold.
But it seems what cause the most global warming is if the Sahara desert were to turn in grassland and forests.
And humans could do this, in next couple decades, or maybe the Grand Solar Max could also help do this.
US temperature anomalies as of June 15, 2023.
https://i.ibb.co/qWkhNxF/gfs-T2ma-us-1.png
There was earlier discussion of the response of plants to climate change.
One limit on the spread of a species is the average annual temperature. Their distribution tends to follow upper and lower average temperature contours. Thus they have limits defined by minimum temperature which correlate with latitude and altitude.
Global warming is changing the position of these limits. Higher temperatures are allowing plants to grow at higher latitudes and higher altitudes.
For example:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-65903065
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-65903065
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth, a smooth rocky planet? With 70 % water on its surface?
Are you kidding us, Vournas?
Binny,
Well, the Earth is smoother than a billiard ball, and the lithosphere comes from. Greek root “lithos”, meaning “stone”.
Smooth and rocky. Maybe you are confused by the miniscule (but important) amount of water and atmosphere sitting upon, and surrounding, our smooth rocky planet.
I assume your comment was due to ignorance rather than malice. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Yes, Earth is a smooth rocky-type planet. That means Earth is not considered as a Gaseous Planet.
–
You do not know that, do you?
Not surprising though. You even dispute our Moons not rotation around its polar axis.
–
Are you kidding us, Bindidon?
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” Not surprising though. You even dispute our Moons not rotation around its polar axis. ”
Indeed, Vournas.
Our Moon spins about its polar axis kin the same time as it orbits Earth: that was already understood millennia ago.
Even Newton mentioned this fact in his Principia Scientifica (Book III, Prop XVII, Th. XV).
The spin period and the inclination of the lunar axis wrt the Ecliptic were computed with an high accuracy by Tobias Mayer in 1750 on the basis of numerous observations.
Later on, Lagrange, Laplace and many others till present scientists came to nearly the same results.
You and the lunar spin denial gang can deny that as long as you want.
Oh and I forgot to mention Cassini who was woefully discredited on this blog as an ‘astrologer’ just because he was working in his young years for a rich astrology fan!
He was the first who computed the lunar spin period and the inclination of the lunar axis, about 70 years before Mayer.
Binny,
Lunar spin doesn’t seem to have much to do with –
“Earth, a smooth rocky planet? With 70 % water on its surface?
Are you kidding us, Vournas?”
Changing the subject, much? What did Cassini say to support your opinion that Earth is not a smooth rocky planet?
You idiot.
Bin, are you seriously STILL believing in ancient astrologers? Are you unable to think for yourself?
Of course the answers are both yes. Thats the result of being braindead.
A person interested in science and reality would realize the Spinners have NO workable model of orbital motion without spin. Non-Spinners have the famous ball-on-a-string. But your cult has NOTHING.
Kinda revealing, huh?
Mike Flynn,
Christos already knows that the Earth is smoother than a billiard ball, e.g.:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/ten-things-you-dont-know-about-the-earth
But at least his spamming is not as obnoxious and disruptive as your buffoon act.
binny…”Our Moon spins about its polar axis kin the same time as it orbits Earth: that was already understood millennia ago.
Even Newton mentioned this fact in his Principia Scientifica (Book III, Prop XVII, Th. XV)”.
***
Correction…the translator of Newton’s work interpreted Newton’s words to claim that. He did not have Newton to interpret the meaning. However, Newton found no importance in such a claim otherwise he would have spent considerable time elucidating on the subject. It is mentioned only once in each Principia volume with no explanation of what it means.
Elsewhere in Principia, Newton stated…
1)the Moon moves with a linear motion
2)the effect of Earth’s gravitational field is to bend that linear motion into a curvilinear motion
3)the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the Earth
Those statements combined indicate that Newton knew the Moon moves with a curvilinear motion without local rotation. The translator seems to have been influenced by the idiotic notion of Cassini that the Moon also rotates on a local axis.
Bindidon, you also think the physically not existing term TIME is dilated.
Do you really believe in the dilation of time, Bindidon?
–
Do you, also, think there is a kind of the temperature dilation too?
–
I wouldn’t be surprised if you said so.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
” Do you really believe in the dilation of time, Bindidon? ”
I don’t believe in it, Vournas.
Science isn’t a matter of belief.
*
And you?
Do you also deny
the need to consider aspects of special and general relativity and the Sagnac effect when implementing systems like GPS,
and
the impossibility to exactly calculate the precession of the perihelion of all planets exclusively with Newtons gravitation formula?
Tell us everything!
Do you, or do you not accept Newton?
You said above:
“Indeed, Vournas.
Our Moon spins about its polar axis kin the same time as it orbits Earth: that was already understood millennia ago.
Even Newton mentioned this fact in his Principia Scientifica (Book III, Prop XVII, Th. XV).”
–
Now you claim:
“the impossibility to exactly calculate the precession of the perihelion of all planets exclusively with Newtons gravitation formula?
–
***
What one may expect from you is:
“You and the lunar spin denial gang can deny that as long as you want.
–
Because of yours, no matter what scientific argument, the continuous insisting on lunar rotation on its Polar Axis!
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The planet is not Global warming fast enough so Climate Shysterz are now trying to move the goal post
https://www.eco-business.com/news/15c-for-planet-1c-for-people-scientists-step-up-climate-warning/
Thanks for that, Eboy:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06083-8
Wonky Wee Willy,
You quoted –
“Here, we use modelling and literature assessment to quantify safe and just Earth system boundaries ”
Oh yes?
Safe and just system boundaries? Modelling? Literature “assessment”.
Still sticking with your assessment that the GHE is just cooling over time? No wonder you said that the GHE is just a “silly acronym”. Not only that, it is quite meaningless. Objects cool naturally, as you know, no need for any new “effect”!
Why do you advertise your stupidity? Because you can?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Here is one description of the greenhouse effect:
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-dummies
Here’s a simpler one, just for you:
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons
Enjoy!
Wonky Wee Willy,
You idiot. You haven’t linked to a description of the GHE at all, have you?
Feel free to prove me wrong.
[he’s an idiot troll, but at least he’s stupid]
Moron Mike,
Here is you –
(P1) The Moon’s surface gets hotter than the Earth’s.
(P2) The Moon does not have an atmosphere.
(C) The greenhouse effect is impossible.
Let’s apply it –
(P1) The Eastern Antarctic Plateau car reach -94C.
(P2) The Eastern Antarctica Plateau does not have a door.
(C) Freezers are not possible.
Do you have other silly arguments like that?
Witless Wee Willy,
Is that your latest attempt to describe the GHE?
You fail again.
Idiot.
Moron Mike,
No, it’s a proof that your argument is absurd, and that you’re a deceitful cretin.
Deceitful cretin.
It’s too bad the panels making such decisions are stocked with fraudsters.
Mike Flynn imitates Pupman:
Refuses to clock on links. Asserts that they don’t contain the sammich he’s requesting.
Besides Bordo’s maniacal episodes, our Sky Dragon cranks got little else.
Swenson was right again, and you’re wrong again, worthless willard.
Neither of the two links describes the GHE. In fact, both link find fault with the cult nonsense.
This is so far over your head.
Oh, Pupman. How do we know that you checked the links? Let me use the same trick you did –
It’s obvious you didn’t check, for if you did you would have found multiple descriptions of the greenhouse effect.
Your turn.
I repeat for Clint R, the second best poster of this blog wrt discrediting science:
Never would you be able to scientifically contradict the following two reports:
Dufresne/Treiner (2011)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jacques-Treiner/publication/275205925_L'effet_de_serre_atmospherique_plus_subtil_qu'on_ne_le_croit/links/555642e008aeaaff3bf5f055/Leffet-de-serre-atmospherique-plus-subtil-quon-ne-le-croit.pdf
Harde/Schnell (2022)
http://hharde.de/index_htm_files/Harde-Schnell-GHE-m.pdf
*
You would at best polemically discredit their findings with your as usual stupid, ignorant and superficial blathering.
From 1st link:
A simple explanation of this effect uses an analogy with the greenhouse effect produced by a glass window.
From 2nd link:
However, up to now even many climate experts do not know or understand how greenhouse gases (GH-gases) are affecting our climate.
I dont know with is funnier — your incompetence or your ignorance. But, together….
Hey, Pupman –
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/description
Are you sure you understand what “description” means?
Worthless willard, you don’t have a “description”. You’ve got the definition of a “description”.
See how worthless you are?
Typically, all pseudo-skeptics, rather than reading articles from cover to cover and constructing an overall, scientifically sound contradiction to what they read, deliberately pick little sentences out of the articles and then discredit the articles as a whole on the basis of those alone tiny texts.
OMWAR specialist Clint R is one of the the most professional in this discrediting field.
Yes Bin, it’s so easy to discredit the crap you throw against the wall.
Got a model of OMWAR, yet?
How about a description of the bogus GHE?
Got anything except crap?
But at least his spamming is not as obnoxious and disruptive as your buffoon act.
It’s easy to refute Sky Dragon crap, Pupman.
Got Joe’s model yet?
How about you leave for three months so I can identify the various descriptions of the greenhouse effect you keep ignoring?
Got anything except your usual trolling tactics?
Willard, please stop trolling.
OK, genius, Berry hypothesizes that outflow is proportional to the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Falsify it.
There is no net outflow.
Check the data.
Outflow is 78.4 PgCyr^-1
Uptake is 80.0 PgCyr^-1.
Net C flow is 1.6 PgCyr^-1 from the atmosphere to the ocean.
https://climateilluminated.com/CO2_facts/carbon_cycle/carbonCycle_IPCC_AR5.html
ent…that’s from the crooked IPCC. Do you have a source with integrity?
And just as equally predictable, Bordo fails to explain his rebuttal, resorting to ad homs and insults.
That is often the MO of someone proved wrong.
Ant,
Since you reintroduced the IPCC’s carbon cycle, how did human (155PgC) carbon get into the deep ocean?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Stephen P Anderson
Stop dodging the question.
Since the net carbon flow is demonstrably from the atmosphere into the ocean Barry’s hypothesis that there is a net flow in the other direction is falsified.
As Swenson is fond of quoting; “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Berry is wrong.
Goodnight. See you in the morning.
Ant,
The first step, attempt to understand his hypothesis.
ent…”Since the net carbon flow is demonstrably from the atmosphere into the ocean Barrys hypothesis that there is a net flow in the other direction is falsified”.
***
It depends on the ocean temperature. Obviously, with colder oceans as experienced during the LIA the net flow would change. Even with current conditions, the net flow depends on the part of the planet referenced. Net means average and like global temperatures, they vary considerably with location. The net is a misleading number.
Besides, CO2 content in the atmosphere is not an exacting science. It’s simply not possible to measure a net flow.
Gordo,
Berry hypothesizes that outflow is proportional to the level. The higher the concentration in the atmosphere then, the higher the outflow. This doesn’t say anything about inflow. The Ant doesn’t understand first-order linear differential equations.
Static in the attic – on Grand Solar Minimum and volcanoes
https://youtu.be/hZEz-X1Jjy0
Interesting video overall, especially to see the various minima that made up the Little Ice Age. I fail to see the connection between solar energy and cosmic rays wrt volcanic activity. If you have an opinion on that or related material I’d appreciate hearing/seeing it.
Maybe Mars will become more appealing.
I rather live in an ocean settlement- at least the earth doesn’t open up and eat you.
Earth has never been safe, but so far, it’s the best of times.
second try, same as the first…
binny…the second link reveals one of the mot stupid explanations of the GHE I have ever encountered. However, I will begin with the first link, with a quote…
“State-of-the-art radiative models can be used to calculate in a rigorous and accurate manner the atmospheric greenhouse effect, as well as its variation with concentration in water vapour or carbon dioxide. A simple explanation of this effect uses an analogy with the greenhouse effect produced by a glass window. While this analogy has pedagogical virtues and provides a first order explanation of the mean temperature of the Earth, it has an important drawback; it is not able to explain why the greenhouse effect increases with increasing carbon dioxide concentration”.
***
repeat…”…it is not able to explain why the greenhouse effect increases with increasing carbon dioxide concentration”.
Enough said…
The 2nd link is the doozie. It starts out mentioning the R.W. Wood experiment, which disprove the GHE, and misrepresents it. They state…
“But experiments recording the temperature at the floor and ceiling of the interior, rather than looking only to a single temperature for each box, measure a 5C larger floor to ceiling decline for the salt rock box than the glass box, while the bottom of the boxes have almost identical temperatures (V. R. Pratt, 2020 [6])”.
Back to the old Pratt argument that was disproved because he failed to use glass and substituted plastic wrap.
But what seals the fate of the paper is this statement…
“These measurements clearly demonstrate that contrary to the often misinterpreted 2nd law of thermodynamics a warmer body can further be heated by absorbing the radiation from a colder body, here the radiation from the cooled plate and a GH-gas. They also confirm that GH-gases are still emitting IR-radiation in backward direction under conditions as found in the lower atmosphere. The measurements are well confirmed by extensive LBL-RT calculations”.
***
The old argument that the 2nd law doesn’t really mean what it states that heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body. As evidence, they cherry pick poor old Clausius, who was severely limited by the populist view of his day that heat was somehow transferred between bodies of different temperatures by ‘heat rays’.
To his credit, however, Clausius saw through that nonsense. Even though he thought heat could be exchanged both ways by radiation, which made some sense given the belief of his day, he still maintained that heat transfer by radiation must obey the 2nd law.
Since 1913, when Bohr discovered the real relationship between EM and heat, we have known that heat cannot be transferred directly from a hotter body to a cooler body via radiation. The energy representing heat in the hotter body must be converted to a different kind of energy, EM, to be transferred through space. Then it must be converted back, but only by a body of a cooler temperature. No heat is physically transferred through space, it must be converted to a different form of energy.
There goes the back-radiation nonsense that is the basis of this paper. It is simply not possible to radiate energy from a hotter body to cooler GHGs in the atmosphere and have the GHGS warm then radiate energy back to the surface, that is claimed to raise the temperature of the heat source. That not only contradicts the 2nd law, it is perpetual motion.
ps. don’t claim I cherry picked parts of each study, I read through both and addressed their noticeable weaknesses.
“…it is perpetual motion.”
No Gordon, the motion will cease when the sun ceases driving the motion.
No 2LOT violation since Gordon continues to comment as if EMR is heat when actually EMR is NOT heat. The relevant energy doesn’t move thru the atm. by its own means since atm. science rookie Gordon obviously misses the sun is driving the atm. energy transfer process.
Ball4,
Energy in the form of photons does indeed move all by itself. Through the atmosphere, through space, through glass. Once ejected from an electron at the speed of light, the photon proceeds on its merry way, until it interacts with another electron.
You need to get up to speed with modern physics.
Maxwell’s wave theory, brilliant though it was, led to the conclusion that an ultraviolet catastrophe must ensue, and we wouldn’t want that, would we?
You are an idiot, but you try to excuse yourself on the grounds of ignorance and stupidity.
It might just work.
b4…misses the point. If a surface emits EM, and another surface at a lower temperature absorbs it, that surface cannot radiate EM back to the original surface in order to raise its temperature. That’s what contradicts the 2nd law and represents perpetual motion.
Ergo, recycling heat to increase temperature is not allowed.
Gordon,
If the first surface is being heated by another source, recycling of the energy is allowed by the second law of thermodynamics.
Gordon’s 5:01 pm point was wrong, so fixing atm. thermodynamics rookie Gordon’s statement in line with bob: If the sunlit surface emits EM, and another surface in the atm. at a lower temperature absorbs it, that surface can radiate EM back to the original surface in order to raise its temperature when that surface is not already in system equilibrium creating universe entropy thus in accord with the 2LOT. EMR is NOT heat.
There is no perpetual motion since the sun is driving the process which will stop when the sun stops driving the process.
—-
Physics inept Swenson 8:23 pm wrongly claims a photon “Once ejected from an electron at the speed of light … since the photon is emitted from an air molecule. Swenson thus hasn’t yet demonstrated competence in relevant physics.
Planck’s et. al. work fixed the UV catastrophe. Study Planck.
Gordo insists that Harde & Schnell is wrong, repeating his usual mantra as “proof”:
Harde & Schnell present a serious attempt to quantify the effects of CO2 and other GHG’s. Gordo might actually read the long version of their paper before he is to comment further.
No need to read the longer version, both are obviously based on your premise that a cooler body can increase the temperature of a hotter body. Direct contravention of the 2nd law.
Like I said: “Gordo insists that Harde & Schnell is wrong, repeating his usual mantra as proof”.
Gordo, the anointed one, tell us how “back radiation”, as in the GPE, could possibly result in your “perpetual motion”? A detailed description pf the physics would be nice.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
The Greenhouse Effect is actually quite simple. Applying it to earth is quite complex, but the physics itself is simple.
A layer of a material that is (mostly) transparent to incoming high frequency light (eg sunlight) and (mostly) opaque to outgoing low frequency light (eg thermal IR from the earth) will have a warming on surfaces below that layer.
Here is one simplified, idealized system to see how this works. We will assume there is a surface that is a blackbody. We will assumer there is a thin, single layer above that is completely transparent to incoming light and completely opaque to thermal IR (ie is acts like a blackbody for thermal IR). Everything is a vacuum (to eliminate conduction and convection). [Also assume no other complications like other heat sources, chemical changes, phase changes, etc.]
Three quick rules to remember:
a) Blackbodies are perfect emitters of thermal IR; P/A = (sigma)T^4
b) Blackbodies are perfect absorbers
c) When there is a steady temperature, power in = power out
First consider an uncovered surface. Say we have a steady 240 W/m^2 of incoming sunlight. All is absorbed by the surface (rule b), and the temperature will stabilize at T = (P/(sigma*A))^(1/4) = 255 K (rule a), with the surface emitting 240 W/m^2 (rule c) outward to space .
Now consider adding a layer of our ‘wonderglass’ a small distance above the surface. There is still 240 W/m^2 of sunlight being absorbed, but all of the thermal IR is coming from the layer above surface. When the temperature stabilizes, this layer emits 240 W/m^2 outward to space (rule c), and is 255 K (rule a).
Because the inner side of the layer is also 255 K, it emits 240 W/m^2 inward toward the surface below (rule a). Because the surface is a blackbody, it absorbs all of this radiation + the 240 W/m^2 from the sun = 480 W/m^2 (Rule b). The surface will be 303 K (rule a).
Voila’! The greenhouse effect!
Note that the surface and the layer are both balanced, with (power in) = (power out). Note also that energy always moves from warmer to cooler:
* 240 W/m^2 from the hot sun to the warm surface
* 240 W/m^2 from the warm surface to the cool layer
* 240 W/m^2 from the cool layer to cold space.
**********************
Further note: Yes this idealized. Applying this to the actual earth would be difficult to say the least. But nothing above is negated if the surface is not a perfect blackbody. Nothing is negated if the in coming light is not a steady 240 W/m^2. Nothing is negated if we have many layers that each only partially absorb outgoing thermal IR. In any reasonable set of conditions, a covered surface will be warmer than an uncovered surface.
**************
If you object, state a specific thing you object to. No ad hom. No strawmen.
[Also, I am on vacation, so I may not reply quickly]
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-dummies
wee willy…the dummy in question refers to you. Do you have something more intelligent for the rest of us?
I have this one, Bordo:
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons
Willard, please stop trolling.
tim…”The Greenhouse Effect is actually quite simple. Applying it to earth is quite complex, but the physics itself is simple”.
***
Tim…this is the problem, you cannot offer a simple explanation of the GHE, you rely on a convoluted thought experiment that requires reference to the non-existent blackbody. Even at that, you misunderstand BB theory.
You claim blackbodies are perfect emitters of IR and they are not. They are claimed to absorb all EM input but they can only emit EM under a cutoff frequency, which determines the temperature. Ergo, BBs do not emit all the energy they absorb. They retain enough to maintain a temperature.
I would prefer to scrap BB theory because it represents an anachronism dating back to the mid-19th century. It has been superseded by better physics and only diehards cling to the theory.
Whenever you have to resort to math and abstract theories to explain a theory it means you cannot explain it.
“…you cannot offer a simple explanation of the GHE..”
Park your car in the sun on the shopping center asphalt pavement with windows down, engine off, in the noontime mid-summer Phoenix calm day. Now roll up all the windows. Experience the GHE.
NB: No worries since Swenson, Clint, DREMT all write you won’t get warmer than ambient at all since there is no GHE.
Ball4,
Park your car on the shopping center asphalt pavement at night in the middle of winter in Moscow.
Freeze to death. See if I care.
Try and describe the GHE, idiot. You can’t.
That you are both ignorant and stupid is a clear as night and day (terrible play on words, but hey, nobody’s perfect).
Go on, tell me the role of the GHE in the Earth having cooled for four and a half billion years. If you can’t get your head around that, tell me the role of the GHE in nightly cooling.
Still too hard? Ask me why I think you are an idiot.
[sniggering at deranged SkyDragon cultist]
No worries since I won’t freeze to death inept Swenson, the sun will still be shining as usual on the atm. somewhere during nighttime in Moscow so the GHE will be at work keeping me 33K warmer on avg. than without the earthen GHE & I’ll be toasty experiencing the GHE again at sunny noontime in Moscow in the winter.
b4…”Park your car in the sun on the shopping center asphalt pavement with windows down, engine off, in the noontime mid-summer Phoenix calm day. Now roll up all the windows. Experience the GHE”.
***
This is a bit dumb, even for you. How does the atmosphere warm like this with no windows or car body to trap the heat?
As Joe Postma put it, we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
Gordon, as usual Joe is wrong, just like DREMT. Earth’s gravity acts as the car body with rolled up windows trapping the atm. inside the Earth system just like the car & a farmer’s greenhouse. That’s why they call it a GHE.
Ball4 is very keen to drag me into something, as usual.
Ball4 says: “Park your car in the sun … Experience the GHE.”
Ball4, the problem here is that much of the warming is due to restricted convection, not due to thermal IR. So if you had windows that were indeed transparent to thermal IR, the car interior would STILL get quite warm. You have NOT demonstrated the GHE.
You would need to compare three cars:
1) with no windows.
2) with windows made of something like polyethylene that blocks convection but transmits thermal IR.
3) with windows made of something like glass that blocks convection and also blocks thermal IR.
(2) and (3) will both be hotter than (1). Only if (3) was hotter than (2) would you have evidence of the GHE.
“Timthis is the problem, you cannot offer a simple explanation of the GHE”
No. I provided a simple explanation. It does NOT require blackbodies (they only make it simpler to understand when introducing the ideas). I can’t fathom how anyone would think a single light source, a single surface and a single layer above surface is ‘convoluted’. Some concepts require a synthesis of more than one idea.
“You claim blackbodies are perfect emitters of IR and they are not.”
Yes, they are. Blackbodies perfectly follow the S-B law: P/A = (sigma)T^4. Any non-blackbodies imperfectly emit less than this.
” [blackbodies] can only emit EM under a cutoff frequency”
And what would that frequency be? What is the “cutoff frequency” for blackbody at 300K?
“It has been superseded by better physics and only diehards cling to the theory.”
An interesting claim. Can you point us to the ‘better physics’ you are using? Perhaps in a textbook or a wiki page or a university physics webpage?
Tim,
One quick thing to remember. Berry has falsified AGW.
You believe that Berry falsified AGW.
Regrettably your faith is not sufficient; you need paradigm changing evidence.
Until you provide sufficient evidence my scepticism will continue to trump your belief.
Let me me make it easy for you.
Berry’s hypothesis requires that the ocean CO2 content is decreasing by at least 4 PgCyr^-1.
There is no evidence that ocean CO2 content is decreasing and substantial evidence over many years that ocean CO2 content is increasing.
Barry’s hypothesis is bullshit.
EM,
Richard Feynman wrote “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
If nobody involved has any theory which is supported by experiment, then it is just a battle of speculations. Quite pointless, but many hobbies seem equally so. Tarot readers may argue about their decks, but does the choice of deck affect the ability to predict the future?
If the CO2 concentration hasnt stopped the Earth from cooling in the past, why should it be different now? Nobody at all seems to be prepared to provide any sort of cogent reason.
Can you?
Unfortunately for the inept non-cogent Swenson comment, added atm. CO2 concentration has a theory supported by experiment which is no different than the past.
“Tim,
One quick thing to remember. Berry has falsified AGW.”
As noted, Stephen is a one-weird-trick pony, and this is it.
Usually he waits longer after its debunking, to repeat the claim.
Fraudkerts admits: “Yes this idealized. Applying this to the actual earth would be difficult to say the least.”
Fraudkerts, you just falsified all of your previous blather.
You don’t have a viable description of the bogus GHE. You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.
Maybe if you keep keyboarding
More nonsense from Fraudkerts: [Also, I am on vacation, so I may not reply quickly]
WRONG Fraudkerts, you got terminated by your Podunk “community college”. You may be begging on a street corner with a cardboard sign. That ain’t “on vacation”.
Oh, Pupman.
Looks like you suck at more than Dragon crap.
Willard, please stop trolling.
No scientific response, just insults. That means Pupman has conceded. Excellent.
Tim Folkerrs,
You wrote –
“Say we have a steady 240 W/m^2 of incoming sunlight.”
Say we don’t – nighttime for example.
The surface cools – no radiation is retained. The surface just keeps emitting radiation at all frequencies and cools as a result. It keeps doing this until the Sun rises again. As Baron Joseph Fourier said, during the night, the Earth loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of its primordial heat.
You also wrote –
“In any reasonable set of conditions, a covered surface will be warmer than an uncovered surface.”
Unless you consider the Moon to be totally unreasonable. Its uncovered surface gets considerably hotter than the covered Earth’s.
You also wrote “No ad hom. No strawmen.” Oh dear, getting delusions of grandeur, are you? I write what I want, when I want, and how I want.
You refuse to accept the reality that the Earth has cooled, or that the surface does so every night. You can’t describe the GHE, but you believe in it anyway. That makes you either a fool, or a religious fanatic, or a delusional SkyDragon cultist of the idiot variety.
If I have hurt your feelings, let me know, so I can have a good laugh at your expense.
Here’s bobdroeges “definition” of the GHE “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.” Only seventeen words, but encapsulates the same amount of stupidity as your much longer comment.
Enjoy your holiday.
Swenson,
If I wasn’t interested in making fun of your concepts of science I could give a more detailed version of the greenhouse effect, but then I already did that for you.
You seem to think all matter interacts with light the same way, but that’s not true, try studying some physics, chemistry, astronomy, or even biology.
CO2 in the atmosphere makes the surface warmer by emitting IR which reaches the surface and adds its energy to the energy from the Sun.
posting issues…
bob d…”CO2 in the atmosphere makes the surface warmer by emitting IR which reaches the surface and adds its energy to the energy from the Sun”.
***
You advise Swenson to study science yet you make a rubbish statement like this.
GHGs cannot warm the surface for two reasons…
1)the GHG temperature is equal to or cooler than the surface temperature, therefore no heat can be transferred
2)the peak of the solar radiation is many times the peak of the IR from the GHGs and it is totally out of phase. Therefore the signals will not add.
In other words, adding a low amplitude IR signal frequency to a frequency representing green light, at the peak of the solar spectrum, will not change the shade of green or the intensity. However, if you add a frequency close to the frequency of green, it will change the hue.
1) is wrong, since EMR is NOT heat.
2) is wrong, the SW & LW signals add and subtract as shown by experiment.
Light emitted by green grass illuminated by sunlight contains all the colors of the rainbow with amplitudes that our brains perceive as green.
Gordon.
“1)the GHG temperature is equal to or cooler than the surface temperature, therefore no heat can be transferred”
No heat is transferred from the GHG to the surface, because the heat transfer is from the surface to the GHG
“2)the peak of the solar radiation is many times the peak of the IR from the GHGs and it is totally out of phase. Therefore the signals will not add.
You can add signals that are out of phase, who says you can’t.
Really, try harder.
"No heat is transferred from the GHG to the surface, because the heat transfer is from the surface to the GHG…"
…and in the blink of an eye, bob has switched from claiming on another thread that in the GHE, heat does transfer from cold to hot, but it’s OK because the Sun is sending heat to the Earth as the "other change" occurring at the same time…
…to claiming that in the GHE, heat does not transfer from cold to hot, as he says here: "the heat transfer is from the surface to the GHG…"
…amazing.
DREMT,
That’s because the heat transfer is defined as the difference in two energy flows.
And in the other thread my claim was that the second law does not prohibit the transfer of heat from cold to hot, not that that is actually happening.
I believe I said “including the downwelling IR, which does add energy to the surface which becomes warmer.” Note I did not say there was heat transfer from the atmosphere to the surface.
Post where you actually think I said there was heat transfer from the atmosphere to the surface and we can discuss it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1497641
Bumbling Bobby,
Here’s your “definition” of the GHE –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Well no, it doesn’t. That’s why the Moon’s surface gets hotter than the Earth’s. No CO2.
You want to have another crack at actually describing the GHE? Your present seventeen word effort makes you look like an idiot.
You wrote –
“You seem to think all matter interacts with light the same way, but thats not true, . . . ”
Maybe you could quote my exact words, and provide support for claiming that something you can’t quote, isn’t true. But you won’t, because you are an ignorant idiot.
Back to the GHE – what is its role in planetary cooling? You can’t or won’t say?
Why am I not surprised?
No surprise needed, Swenson is too inept in atm. science to understand the earthen GHE.
Ball4,
Back to the GHE what is its role in planetary cooling? You can’t or won’t say?
Why am I not surprised?
Swenson,
Are you really do stupid you don’t get that was only for you
“You want to have another crack at actually describing the GHE? Your present seventeen word effort makes you look like an idiot.”
I am making fun of you with that definition.
The Green House Effect doesn’t stop a planet from cooling, why would it?
Inept Swenson 1:45 am, increasing the earthen GHE cools the upper troposphere & lower stratosphere, not the whole planet.
Swenson says: “Say we dont nighttime for example.”
That doesn’t change anything! During the “day” part of a cycle, a covered surface warms up more than an otherwise identical uncovered surface. During the “night” part of the cycle they both cool down — but a covered surface is warmer at ‘dawn’ than an uncovered surface! Repeat the next day. The through all the gyrations, a covered surface is ALWAYS warmer than an uncovered surface. That is the GHE applied to a system with a varying input.
That should not be a difficult concept!
” during the night, the Earth loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of its primordial heat.”
First this is only APPROXIMATELY true; a poetic description. It is not some ‘rule of physics’. If dawn one day is warmer than dawn the previous day, then the earth only lost PART of the heat of the day.
But even that is beside the point. A covered surface might vary between 0C and the max and min each ‘day’, while an uncovered surface might vary between -20C and 0C. Both ‘lose all the heat of the day’ but there is still warming due to the IR layer.
Also — not a difficult idea.
“I write what I want, when I want, and how I want.”
Sure. If you want to insist on presenting logical fallacies to try to support your position, I can’t stop you.
And sure. If insults make you happy, I can’t stop you there either. Have fun!
Tim, please stop trolling.
Unusual warming detected in the Earth’s oceans recently:
https://twitter.com/BMcNoldy/status/1668255350305193985
https://twitter.com/MichaelRLowry/status/1669367789730013194
We might experience a really warm El Nino this time around.
Come on, Swannie, you’re slumming.
As usual, Gordo wants to close his eyes and ignore reality. Those graphs represent actual measurements, which may represent another example of unpleasant climate change.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
I was thinking that there probably no government more fanatical about global warming than the German government.
Can think of more fanatical government regarding global warming?
Can you imagine any government ever becoming more fanatical?
It would be unrealistic to have any other government with such insanity.
And so the next question, what have the German government done to lower CO2 emission, at all?
It seem only thing they done is try to get rid of the nuclear power- or done the opposite to lowering CO2 emission for their country and the entire world.
The way to lead is by example. Obviously.
Though French went all out on nuclear power- though it had nothing to do global warming. It was because they ran out of coal.
And US has endless amounts of coal and switched to using natural gas use, and thereby reducing global CO2 by the most- but climate fanatics oppose the use of natural gas, so again, nothing to do global warming solutions advocated by the fanatical global warming cargo cultists.
tshoot…
binny…The Sagnac effect has nothing to do with time it is about a difference in phase angle between beams of light that are rotating.
If the effect is considered with GPS units it has nothing to do with time dilation. It is far more likely to be related to the relative velocity of a satellite and the effect that has on communication signals between the sat and a ground station.
The following article, specifically about the Sagnac effect and GPS, reveals the problem with using photon theory with comm receivers/transmitters. Photons would be required to move in a straight line whereas real communications signals are waves that spread out in a cone-shape at high frequency.
Photon theory is accep.table to explain the EM emission of an electron in an atom even though that theory fails in several ways. For one, if each photon emitted by an electrons has a specific frequency, how do the individual photon merge to form a wavefront? Also, since a photon is intended to particalize light, how can a particle with no mass have a frequency?
It seems obvious that EM generated by an electron which is orbiting at a bazillions cycles per second can somehow form a coherent wave-ike energy with the same frequency that the emitting electron orbits its nucleus. Since communications units like GPS are broad.casting a wide variety of frequencies, it seems ingenuous to reference them using photon theory.
We got along well for decades with the notion of waves in comm theory and photons seem radically out of place.
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/8366
Is the Arctic September sea ice doomed to disappear in the 2030s?
https://judithcurry.com/2023/06/15/is-the-arctic-september-sea-ice-doomed-to-disappear-in-the-2030s/#more-30198
“A recent paper Kim et al. (2023), hereafter K23, got some media attention, e.g. this article at CNN: The Arctic may be sea ice-free in summer by the 2030s, new study warns.
K23s key conclusion: Results indicate that the first sea ice-free September will occur as early as the 2030s2050s irrespective of emission scenarios.
Russians should be happy, if it was true.
Meanwhile, cold China is doing it’s best to emit the most amount CO2 as is possible and is supported by corporate international community.
It seems to me that term socialism has gone out of favor, but is China the most socialistic country in the world?
The Canadian dictator was saying how much he admired China and he is a true blue socialist.
Does anyone agree with him?
Earlier, Willard demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge of physics. He wrote –
“If space has no temperature, then perhaps heat cant escape to space, for Stefans law (or Newtons law for that matter) only applies to bodies with temperature”
Typical for a delusional SkyDragon cultist, who determined that GHE is just a “silly acronym”, and thinks that “cooling over time” really means “getting hotter”.
I’m not sure why Willard refuses to believe that all matter above absolute zero emits IR radiation. In a vacuum, underwater, in a lead casket, surrounded by a gaggle of GHE worshipping fanatics – it makes no difference. Pray, scream, dance up and down – everything above absolute zero emits IR, and nothing can stop it.
Willard’s non-belief alters nothing.
Mike Flynn goes on his usual rant.
First he offers a random quote.
Then he luzes.
Then he repeats something he already said a hundred times since the beginning of the current month.
Then he lulzes again.
To describe the greenhouse effect for morons is trivial –
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons
Mike is a deceitful cretin.
Once again, Willard provides an irrelevant link.
Willard has stated that the GHE is a “silly acronym”, and is “cooling over time”.
Still no GHE description. Witless Wee Willy can’t even describe the role of the “silly acronym” (as he describes the “greenhouse effect”) in nightly cooling!
What a whining idiot!
Once again Moron Mike fails to click on a link.
What a moron!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Flynnson’s dementia
” … all matter above absolute zero emits IR radiation. ”
is at the same level as Robertson’s.
To such people you can explain the same thing 100 times in a row, but they then come back with the same idiocy again.
Binny,
If you dont want to admit that all matter above absolute zero emits IR, you are perfectly free to do so.
If you believe passionately in a GHE which you can’t even describe, likewise.
If people think you are just another whining sauerkraut, they are perfectly free to do so also.
You don’t really support freedom of expression, do you? It’s a good thing you are completely powerless to stop me commenting how I wish and when I wish.
Keep whining – it won’t do you any good.
By the way, how are you getting on with finding a description of the GHE? Willard thinks it is “cooling over time”, bobdroege says “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.” (Willard disagrees), and Norman and Ball4 claim both are correct, but they lost their copies!
What’s your description? You don’t have one, do you? Maybe you could follow one of Willard’s silly links.
Good luck.
I have not lost my copy; obviously the dog ate inept Swenson’s copy.
Ball4,
You can’t lose what you never had, can you?
Not necessarily, Swenson’s dog ate it before Swenson got it.
Flynnson
I repeat, for the obviously dementia-ridden pseudoscience follower:
*
O2, 2500-7500 micron: ~2000 lines, peak intensity around 5E-7
https://i.postimg.cc/j2GNqLSN/O2-2500-7500-micron-sbaa.png
Here are, for comparison:
H2O, 5-40 micron: 40,000 lines, peak intensity around 5E-2
https://i.postimg.cc/28j83ntx/H2-O-5-40-micron-sbaa.png
CO2, 5-40 micron: ~160,000 lines, peak intensity around 1E-3
https://i.postimg.cc/YCgVHsxD/CO2-5-40-micron-sbaa.png
*
Under consideration of their respective atmospheric abundance, but without considering their respective numbers of emission/absorp-tion lines, O2 absorbs/emits about 100,000 times less than H2O and still 10,000 times less than CO2.
With N2, its even far far worse: 10,000 times less than O2.
N2, 5-100,000 micron: ~150 lines, peak intensity around 6E-11
https://i.postimg.cc/cHyTcRtK/N2-5-100000-micron.png
*
Yes, Flynnson: all matter emits/absorbs IR.
You can post your stupid foolery as long as you want, Flynnson.
Binny,
You wrote “Yes, Flynnson: all matter emits/absorbs IR.”. Of course it does. Tell me something I don’t know. I accept your creation of a mythical person called “Flynnson” as showing your delusional fixation. If you didnt mean me, please let me know.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, non-existent GHE notwithstanding.
Surely you can’t agree with that, as well. Otherwise, you would necessarily agree that the GHE did not prevent the surface of the Earth from cooling.
Why don’t you agree that the Earth has cooled since its surface was molten?
Are you still delusional?
Gridding of weather station temperature measurements – Part 1
Recently, the Hunter boy wrote, in the last one of many similar posts:
” LMAO!
Now you are denying your own posts in response to me? Refer back to your most recent post to me re: USHCN and where you claimed to regrid it. You posted links to the raw data and your processed data and essentially all the warming arose in the processing of the data.
AFA Roy is concerned review his most recent posts regarding his work with USHCN. Probably goes back to the beginning of the year. ”
*
Nowhere did I post any link to a graph showing such things with regard to USHCN data for the CONUS area. Nor was the Hunter boy able to show where Roy Spencer blamed data gridding for temperature increase.
What I did was to compare the ungridded distribution of daily temperature maxima/minima for CONUS since 1920 with a similarly ungridded evaluation for the whole Globe.
This maxima/minima distribution idea stems from John Christy, who ‘dissected the past’ about 2 years ago in order to show for CONUS a decrease of extreme temperatures over time:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210112005636/https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Record-Temperatures-in-the-United-States.pdf
The evaluation – unsurprisingly – had let the Globe look like CONUS’ backyard. No wonder when you compare stations within CONUS to about as many stations outside of it.
A grid-based evaluation gave a completely different picture because now, around 200 CONUS grid cells compete fairly with around 2000 grid cells outside, what fits much better to the real CONUS/Globe surface ratio.
*
Let’s now have a closer look at the terrible US warming allegedly due to averaging station data into the grid cells encompassing them, by comparing the ungridded resp. gridded variants for about 1200 USHCN stations:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bLvMj3qspnwh80spXZ2JnILyUyC9VykL/view
or by doing the same for about 8500 available GHCN daily stations located within CONUS, with at least 30 years of activity:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LZftDa4rad7oXOM_eoxSrO5b-iiiSU9T/view
*
1. CONUS (1200 HCN)
1900-2022
no grid: 0.03 +- 0.01
grid: 0.05 +- 0.01
1979-2022
no grid: 0.17 +- 0.04
grid: 0.19 +- 0.04
2. CONUS (all 8500 available)
1900-2022
no grid: 0.02 +- 0.01
grid: 0.03 +- 0.01
1979-2022
no grid: 0.16 +- 0.04
grid: 0.17 +- 0.04
*
Nota bene: the trend for UAH LT above CONUS for 1979-2022 is ‘only’ … 0.18 C / decade!
The USA is only a small part of the globe. Who knew?
The US is in America, as is Canada, Mexico, and Argentina. The US is a small part of the globe but America is a significant portion.
The odd part is that Hawaii is a state in the US but it’s not even in America. Yet it’s claimed to be in the United States of America.
Go figure.
Bindidon says:
1. CONUS (1200 HCN)
1900-2022
no grid: 0.03 +- 0.01
grid: 0.05 +- 0.01
——————–
Hmmm, the gridded temperature data is 167% of the ungridded data. What are you whining about?
What a simple-minded reply, Hunter boy.
1. Why did you explicitly omit
1900-2022
no grid: 0.02 +- 0.01
grid: 0.03 +- 0.01
computed for the 7 times greater station set, which gives within the same grid cell set a denser measurement area but gives half the trend difference?
2. Moreover, a trend difference of 0.02 / 0.01 C over 120 years isn’t much compared to the same difference for 44 years.
Bindidon says:
1. Why did you explicitly omit
1900-2022
no grid: 0.02 +- 0.01
grid: 0.03 +- 0.01
computed for the 7 times greater station set, which gives within the same grid cell set a denser measurement area but gives half the trend difference?
2. Moreover, a trend difference of 0.02 / 0.01 C over 120 years isnt much compared to the same difference for 44 years.
——————————–
Now Bindidon can’t even correctly characterize a trend. If it has only warmed .02 over 120 years Bin why do you have your panties in a bunch about it?
bindidon is trying so hard to blubber his way out of this he failed to notice that nothing was explicitly omitted.
He knows the discussion was limited to the figures he posted regarding USHCN stations and now he wants to distract from that.
Hunter boy
” He knows the discussion was limited to the figures he posted regarding USHCN stations and now he wants to distract from that. ”
Wrong!
It’s clear to me that you completely ignore MY major point, which was that if you compute a time series for the Globe without averaging station (or satellite) data into grid cells, you inevitably will obtain a distorted figure.
And what I originally have shown was as a continuation of what John Christy did (I explicitly went away from USHCN because it is of course US-local, and switched to the HCN stations in GHCN daily, in order to have the same data set as source for US and Globe).
1. CONUS (no grid)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a2Zike4y2GgZ5NdRqdElapLcEJiQiyVZ/view
2. Globe (no grid)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m95BCNnhwpS1yO1LSVCrf6gOy2EOWCcl/view
3. Globe (grid)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17KWfBfbbCs8u4AHIbu8XGrONYskYDKeD/view
4. CONUS (grid)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_OjIZLluXonnGUjzX5wvjXxA4pS4frJn/view
What matters for me here is not the ridiculous difference between chart (1) and chart (4): it is the huge difference between chart (2) and chart (3), which makes clear what happens when you construct a global average based on single stations.
If you don’t understand that: your problem.
*
I admit: it was a mistake to restrict the generations for (1) and (4) to USHCN which, like USCRN, is a station reference network, and not a complete station set for climate data collection. My bad.
That YOU prefer to concentrate on USHCN with a poor set of 1200 stations though 7 times more are available in the US: that is your problem again.
Bindidon says:
”Its clear to me that you completely ignore MY major point, which was that if you compute a time series for the Globe without averaging station (or satellite) data into grid cells, you inevitably will obtain a distorted figure.”
Years of litigation support tells me the more you allow manipulation of numbers the more out of whack they get.
The whole idea of anomaly is presented in this case because the GHE is supposed to warm globe evenly but thats not good enough because even that is a lie.
My suggestion would be for anybody concerned about warming, pick up the raw data from the nearest weather station and check to see how much it has warmed during your lifetime and decide if that has been for good or bad then leave it at that.
when things go wrong in this world its almost always due to large masses of people being rallied to go fix problems allegedly caused by others.
“GHE is supposed to warm globe evenly”
Strawman alert.
“pick up the raw data from the nearest weather station”
And if Global Warming is not apparent in your backyard, then it aint happening?
And don’t worry about its UHI effects?
And if you look in your wallet and see lots of money, then there is no poverty in the world?
And if you look in your fridge and see lots of food then there is no hunger in the world?
Brilliant, as usual.
Nate, CO2 is supposed to be evenly distributed and thus the forcing must be evenly distributed. If I am wrong about that please post a statistically sensible argument that says otherwise.
C’mon, why play dumb about the Earth’s complexities?
Regions have varying conditions, varying climates, varying feedbacks, etc.
The Arctic is warming faster because it has ice-albedo feedback.
The ocean is warming slower because it has high heat capacity and upwelling cold.
The Earth has a general circulation pattern, so the tropics sends most of its heating to higher latitudes.
What kind of feedbacks did Europe and China have during the LIA?
Not following you down any rabbit holes today.
Well at least Nate acknowledges that the science surrounding natural regional variation is indeed a rabbit hole in the science for which he has zero statistically sensible arguments for.
Combine that with the warming that one can squeeze out of the homogenization and gridding processes via optimization software.
auditors routinely find such biases in estimated outcomes about 300% out of whack purely manufactured by such algorithms.
In business and in malpractice suits these kind of differences in outcomes by the litigating parties is very common. It is then left to the presentation of facts (which Nate thinks is a ‘rabbit hole’) to a judge and jury to rather haphazardly makes a decision on which party will prevail. In post normal science government processes the government simply decides by fiat. Like in lets subsidize high fructose corn syrup because it will be beneficial to our reelection prospects.
Rabbit holes are dug by you, just you, Bill.
Its the job of an auditor to label a Rabbit Hole when he finds a Rabbit Hole. Scientists only publish when they get the result they want. . . . or the guy with the bag of money wants.
“Scientists only publish yada yada BS ”
Yes we are quite aware of your anti-science feelings, and that you reject its findings whenever required by your ideological beliefs or your tribe’s orders.
No sensible rationale needed.
That’s why honest debates with you on the science just aint possible.
You’ve made your bed. Now quit bitching that people have stopped debating with you.
Gridding of weather station temperature measurements – Part 2
The same comparison for the Globe shows something quite different:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YIq3Lg8wcPEifp_BtIp_m42kf1PIKegX/view
{ More about CTRM vs. SRM/S-G in a later comment. }
Trends for the Globe
1900-2022
nogrid: 0.06 +- 0.01
grid: 0.14 +- 0.004
1979-2022
nogrid: 0.21 +- 0.02
grid: 0.27 +- 0.01
*
Why is the difference between ungridded and gridded time series for the Globe so much greater than it is for CONUS?
To understand the reason, one must look at the data collected for the grid, which includes the number of measurements per grid cell, and has to sort the cells by decreasing number of measurements:
1. Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bhi4a5WUUBOISZ3Dhd8Ua7o3u-l9xcJz/view
The leftmost 10 % of the cells in the grid contain 67 % of the measurements, and show an average trend 4 times less than the total: the cooling bias in the ungridded processing is inevitable.
2. CONUS
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W6OqDJ5iWkxaAtc_Liqz1HfzAvHblhqS/view
In comparison to the Globe, the slope of the trend distribution by decreasing measurements for CONUS is nearly 40 times lower than for the Globe.
No wonder then that gridding has a MUCH LOWER effect for CONUS than it has for the Globe.
*
The Hunter boy should try to digest it all and hopefully come back with more meaningful reactions – or simply admit he was wrong.
*
The very best is when people like Robertson and the Hunter boy rant all the time against NOAA, GISS and other Hadleys about gridding, but aren’t even a bit aware of the facts that
– (1) all four UAH atmospheric layer data sets are constructed using a (2.5 degree) grid
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
whose cells inevitably must contain all different daily satellite-borne sensings related to each cell (possibly with a much finer resolution, possibly differing from source to source),
and that
– (2) anomalies wrt the chosen reference period must be constructed separately for all sensing sources (otherwise the anomaly construction makes no sense)
and that
– (3) a final monthly average then must be constructed cell by cell in the same way as for surface stations.
*
I do my very best to imagine the UAH team producing their monthly anomalies without gridding. Oh Noes.
Binny,
I admire your passion. Is there any point at all? What do you think you achieve?
If you believe that you can predict the future, I wish you well.
Let me know how you went, when the future occurs.
Until then, I assume you are deranged.
“I do my very best to imagine the UAH team producing their monthly anomalies without gridding. Oh Noes”
So Blinny has an observation that the monthly LT time series is constructed from a gridded base. Surprise.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2023_v6_20x9.jpg
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
P.S. I am unsurprised that unweighted data has different values to weighted data.
And as usual, Blindsley H00d, the man on his Majesty’s secret climate services, is ‘unsurprised’ about what is 100 % evident.
What he manifestly is unable to comment is:
– why does gridded data show a higher trend for the Globe than ungridded data?
– why is this not the case for CONUS?
Did he understand the difference between
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bhi4a5WUUBOISZ3Dhd8Ua7o3u-l9xcJz/view
and
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W6OqDJ5iWkxaAtc_Liqz1HfzAvHblhqS/view
and how the charts were constructed?
*
Why is Blindsley H00d absolutely unable to technically contradicting me, by doing the same job and presenting us his results, instead of comfortably keeping on superficial, sissyish, discrediting blah blah?
“why does gridded data show a higher trend for the Globe than ungridded data?”
Because weighting data produces different results to unweighted data. Idiot.
“More about CTRM vs. SRM/S-G in a later comment”
Make sure you include VP’s observations on the subject and explain why a 5 pass S-G is recommended by Nate Drake over a single pass S-G.
It’s enough when you do that, Blindsley H00d.
You are anyway only able to stubbornly ‘include observations’ made by others.
Just trying to get you to acknowledge facts that everybody else knows.
You are such a bloody manipulator, Blindsley H00d.
Firstly, NOT everybody else knows about differences between SRMs and CTRMs.
Secondly, I never disputed the fact that CTRMs are a better way for filtering than SRMs. NEVER!
*
What you deliberately omit in your posts is how much of what CRMs eliminate out of temperature and similar data time series is, as you claim, only leakage and similar ‘distortion’s, and not useful data.
You try to establish by definition some identity between such time series and noise-sensible data, without proving anything of what you claim.
You are very certainly not able to provide for a scientific answer to this fundamental question.
“NOT everybody else knows about differences between SRMs and CTRMs”
Sure. Most people do not know that SRMs have a large amount of distortion in them.
“CRMs eliminate out of temperature and similar data time series”
Accurate filters eliminate high frequencies. That is what they are supposed to do. You know, accurately.
“You are very certainly not able to provide for a scientific answer to this fundamental question.”
Filters are a very well studied part of science and engineering. Unlike your pathetic attempts which get thigs wrong that even you have admitted.
edit: …get things wrong…
Do you know why Butterworth filters are so respected? Do you know why CTRMs are so well respected in the digital domain?
Blindsley H00d
It seems that you intentionally omit what matters:
” The very best is when people like Robertson and the Hunter boy rant all the time against NOAA, GISS and other Hadleys about gridding, but arent even a bit aware of the facts that
(1) all four UAH atmospheric layer data sets are constructed using a (2.5 degree) grid
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
whose cells inevitably must contain all different daily satellite-borne sensings related to each cell (possibly with a much finer resolution, possibly differing from source to source),
and that
(2) anomalies wrt the chosen reference period must be constructed separately for all sensing sources (otherwise the anomaly construction makes no sense)
and that
(3) a final monthly average then must be constructed cell by cell in the same way as for surface stations. ”
*
Are you dumb enough not to understand that all that was a reaction to posts written by the Hunter boy aka ‘Bill Hunter’?
As usual, nothing else than sissyish replies from your side, instead of reading and scientifically commenting all the nonsense Hunter wrote against gridding in the last months on this blog.
Just as UAH has been doing for ever.
P.S. GISS history carefully omits how little global data it has before the satellite era.
You are such a disingenuous liar, Blindsley H00d.
The entire data and all the software used by GISS is available online. Search for it, you boaster!
But you would never be able to replicate their work: I’m not even sure that you would ever be able to download the stuff on your computer before starting to do anything with it!
Did they mention this?
https://imgur.com/gallery/Ulah5KV
Why do you so sissyish ask, Blindlsey H00d?
Why do you insuate things all the time, instead of proving them by own work?
Answer, as always: because you lack any technical skill even to exactly replicate the work of others, let alone to do it by yourself.
Blinny won’t admit that he bases his observations on something that simple research proves to be problematic.
the problem isn’t the amount of data the problem is the randomness of the data and if over time it has been consistently random.
Based on basic theory you can look at one weather station and tell if it has warmed.
But basic theory doesn’t cover how global climate changes over time on multi-decadal and longer processes.
If you don’t have random coverage you don’t have a global record you have a record that can change regionally over time and create a false signal of global change. . . .and that doesn’t even scratch the surface re: a LIA recovery which seems likely to be global in nature and itself underwent the mainstream science community expending great efforts to make it go away.
binny…” The very best is when people like Robertson and the Hunter boy rant all the time against NOAA, GISS and other Hadleys about gridding, but arent even a bit aware of the facts that
(1) all four UAH atmospheric layer data sets are constructed using a (2.5 degree) grid…”
***
I have not commented on gridding other than to point out that the gridding used by NOAA, hence GISS and Had-crut because they use NOAA data, have hardly any coverage on the oceans and not much more on the land. Meantime, UAH covers 95% of the surface with sat AMSU scans.
If I recall correctly, I worked it out to 1 thermometer for every 100,000 sq. km on land and 1 for every 90,000 sq km on the oceans.
NOAA liberally fudges both the land and the ocean air temperatures using interpolation and homogenization in climate models. They are no longer a scientific organization but a load of talking heads for the idiots in the Democratic party and other climate alarmists.
Bindidon says:
”As usual, nothing else than sissyish replies from your side, instead of reading and scientifically commenting all the nonsense Hunter wrote against gridding in the last months on this blog.”
Thats a lie. All I wrote about was how when you presented in this forum raw US data it showed little warming until you processed and gridded it. So I asked if the same can be said about the global data.
” All I wrote about was how when you presented in this forum raw US data it showed little warming until you processed and gridded it. ”
Where did I ” present[ed] in this forum raw US data it showed little warming ” ?
Where was that, Hunter boy?
You are always speaking about things you never are able to show the source of – just like your claim that Roy Spencer ever would have attributed warming to gridding!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/urbanization-effects-on-ghcn-temperature-trends-part-ii-evidence-that-homogenization-spuriously-warms-trends/
As I predicted global cooling is beginning
https://youtu.be/D_B10L9bV18
You predicted that the next dip would cross the zero 1981-2010 baseline back in 2020. That never happened. And now the temperature is starting to increase again. You’re going to have to reconsider how you form predictions because whatever you’re doing now isn’t working.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2020-0-48-deg-c/#comment-454034
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
At 11,053 feet, Mammoth Mountain boasts the highest summit of any California resort, making for deeper, better snow, and beautiful vistas. With 3,500 skiable acres, an average of 400 inches of snowfall, 300 days of sunshine per year, and a season that typically stretches NovJune, Mammoth delivers big smiles on the slopes from first-timers to Olympians.
The 22/23 winter season is officially our snowiest season on record with over 700″ at Main Lodge and close to 900″ at the summit.
https://youtu.be/2atkBJSwSBk
ren…does NOAA have a thermometer station at the top of Mammoth Mountain, or on any of the Sierra summits? According to chiefio, NOAA uses only 3 thermometers to cover the entire state, and all are near the ocean.
No, no! I’m not the best in googling!
The Blindsley H00d boy never gets tired in mentioning his good old mentor ‘Nate Drake PhD’.
1. I searched for ‘Nate Drake Savitzky Golay’
Result: 36 links, with five matches:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Nate+Drake+savitzky+golay&newwindow=1&hl=en&ei=MqGMZJudJ4WSxc8Pu9mCyAc&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwib_ru1rcj_AhUFSfEDHbusAHk4FBDy0wN6BAgFEAY&biw=1785&bih=840&dpr=1
You easily will imagine who is the person referring to ‘Nate Drake’ in these five documents, won’t you?
And I’m sure you won’t wonder that in each document you find the same little sentence:
” I ran a 5 pass-multipass with second order polynomials on 15 year data windows as per the Savitzky-Golay method ” Nate Drake PhD
*
2. I then searched for ‘I ran a 5 pass-multipass with second order polynomials on 15 year data windows as per the Savitzky-Golay method’.
Result: 94 links, with five matches:
https://www.google.com/search?q=I+ran+a+5+pass-multipass+with+second+order+polynomials+on+15+year+data+windows+as+per+the+Savitzky-Golay+method&newwindow=1&hl=en&ei=55eMZPaUIseakwW1gLKQCg&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwi2pITHpMj_AhVHzaQKHTWADKI4PBDy0wN6BAgcEAQ&biw=1785&bih=840&dpr=1
*
I invite the author of these documents to tell us a bit more about Nate Drake :–)
Nate Drake PhD first came up with the 5 pass S-G with his comment on one of my threads.
e.g.
RichardLH says:
February 11, 2014 at 10:54 pm
…
been sparing with Nate Drake PhD and Jai Mitchel on WUWT and Nature.
…
The Nature links have long since gone as they have deleted them.
I immortalized him further on one of my comments in
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/r-code-for-simple-rss-graph/
…
#”I ran a 5 pass-multipass with second order polynomials on 15 year data windows as per the Savitzky-Golay method.” Nate Drake PhD
…
I use it because the 5 pass S-G produces virtually the same as a CTRM with the same window does. As I have said and proved many times before.
Blinny just ignores all these facts as he used to do with VPs CTRMs (because he could not follow the simple instructions VP gave including how to do it all using Excel!).
P.S. If you want the words in precisely that order then enclose the phrase given in quotes in Google.
Blindlsey H00d
” I immortalized him further on one of my comments in
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/r-code-for-simple-rss-graph/ ”
You are and and will always be a laughable liar inventing things you can’t replicate.
Sheeesh!
It is not my fault that Nature does not keep comments on articles forever. Are you saying that he did not say what he did? Are you saying that his 5 pass S-G does not follow closely what and CTRM of the same window provides?
Or will you just plow on blindly as you did with VPs efforts.
Are you saying? Are you saying?
Let me tell you, Blindsley H00d, that if you were not so opinionated all the time and denigrating all what I do all the time but without having been ever able to contradict me, then I would have shown quite a different reaction.
It is your condescending, polemic, sissyish behavior that led me doubt about the CTRMs you endlessly show on your school boy charts, and not Vaughan Pratt’s intelligence you brazenly steal.
So you do agree that he said what he said (as well as everything else) and your arguments are just as stupid as you are.
He said what he said. His 5 pass S-G follows closely what a CTRM of the same window provides?
Happy now?
And you, as usual, are just plain wrong. As even you have admitted.
For those interested the June IRI ENSO forecast just got published.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table
The peak for the El Nino shifted up from the May forecast of +1.3 to the June forecast of +1.5 during the SON period.
And some stats models are still showing it will be a La Nina by then.
” … showing it will be a La Nina by then. ”
How many of them in comparison to the rest, Blindlsey H00d Sissy?
Only one at present (but BCC RDZM, which was the lowest last month, did not report this month).
BCC RDMZ is present this month. I was wrong on that.
Blinny just won’t accept that he is wrong more often than he is correct. Even if he belatedly admits that he is wrong and has been since the start.
Did we read correctly?
” Only ONE at present… ”
Oh Noes.
And Blindsley H00d the childish liar tries as usual to dissimulate his own failures concerning USCRN (mediasn vs. means, and subhourly vs. hourly data in monthly anomaly series: I won’t forget).
And his school boy evaluation of HadISST I won’t forget as well.
“BCC RDZM did not report this month”.
If it continues to be the same that would be 2.
Highest is only of interest to warmistas. Lowest is not allowed for those who do not follow this agenda.
In cases of statistics, the standard belief is that median is less likely to be deflected by extremes rather than a mean.
Blinyy, who apparently never did statistics, does not support what most of those who study statistics know.
For BCC RDMZ see above correction.
” Highest is only of interest to warmistas. Lowest is not allowed for those who do not follow this agenda. ”
Again this polemical, sissyish, lying blah blah.
You, Blindsley H00d, belong to those who point always and only to cooling matters. You show that all the time.
People like me on the contrary look at… the mean (or, if necessary, this median you always refer to but… never use on this blog).
And this ‘BCC RDZM’ you consequently, ideologically refer to, very certainly has nothing to do with a mean or a median.
You don’t even have the balls to admit that you are a 100 % Coolist.
I just follow the data, as my blog shows. Blinny gets things wrong all the time, as even he admits.
P.S. Blinny only wants maximums, never minimums. Warmista to the heart.
edit: make that nearly a La Nina
The statistical model forecast is +0.8. And the IAP-NN is lowest at -0.1. That’s still not a La Nina.
Looks more like there are several predictions and that most of past predictions are usually wrong.
The only valid comment on ENSO looks to be anything based on actual observations.
Warmistas say it is continuously getting warmer (and the press that follows them also).
Straw man.
We are saying that there is a long term warming trend partly obscured by a lot of short term variation.
What part of ‘it is continuously getting warmer’ is not ‘a long term warming trend’?
ent…you can say that you just can’t prove it.
EM,
“We are saying that there is a long term warming trend partly obscured by a lot of short term variation.”
After four and a half billion years of long term cooling, do you think it’s possible that anthropogenic heat is causing this warming?
If so, this should be noticeable in areas like the UK (islands) after the Industrial Revolution, and Japan, after their Industrial Revolution, about a century later. Any effect would be noticed as a rise in nighttime minima, which of course would be reflected in higher average temperatures, even if daytime maxima remained unaffected.
An example of the “flaw of averages”.
On the other hand, you could attribute warming to a mysterious and elusive effect which sprang into existence a few hundred years ago, and which is so mysterious and elusive that nobody can actually describe it.
I’m in favour of thermometers responding to heat. What are your thoughts?
I have a suspicion you prefer something which nobody can refute, because you cant really say what it is, what it does, or how it works. Maybe you could consult with your colleagues, and let me know – if you feel like it, of course.
> What part of “it is continuously getting warmer is not a long term warming trend”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_function
Wonky Wee Willy,
What are you trying to say?
Or are you just trying to appear clever through obscurity?
It might not be working as well as you think.
Mike Flynn,
Why should I care if you are playing dumb once again?
Deceitful cretin.
Willard, please stop trolling.
As Wilard pointed out
“such that a continuous variation (that is a change without jump) of the argument induces a continuous variation of the value of the function”
Thus proving that there is a continuous warming in warmistas minds.
What part of there has been a long term warming trend are you in denial about?
It is a synonym for continuous warming. That’s all.
A 30y trend does not imply a continuous increase, dummy.
No wonder you project 5y window six times and believe it is like a 30y trend.
A 30 year OLS implies nothing outside of the 30 year window. Neither before or after that range of dates.
Done much stats have you?
The 5y window is for your usual filter, dummy. The OLS does not tell you if the underlying function you are trying to estimate is continuous. It obviously is a step function, as I showed you. And a step function is usually discontinuous, dummy.
So we’re reverting back to promoting the strawman “Warmistas say it is continuously getting warmer” then?
It is simply a synonymy for “a long term warming trend”.
No, dummy, it is not continuous:
https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/image.gif
We need better cycle nuts.
That all depends on your choice of range (and OLS width).
Warming comes in steps, and a step function is discontinuous, dummy.
“It is simply a synonymy for “a long term warming trend”
So we’re back to my original question:
What part of there has been a long term warming trend are you in denial about?
Yes. It is an ensemble so there are several predictions. All of them will have some level of wrongness. They always do. However, they still provide useful skill relative to persistence or climatology. That’s a statement based on actual observations.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
b4…”1) is wrong, since EMR is NOT heat.
2) is wrong, the SW & LW signals add and subtract as shown by experiment.
Light emitted by green grass illuminated by sunlight contains all the colors of the rainbow with amplitudes that our brains perceive as green.
***
1)you are agreeing with me then, heat cannot be transferred from cooler GHGs to a warmer surface because EM is not heat and the EM from a colder body cannot warm a colder body.
Heck, that would be dumb, like using ice to warm a house.
2)if you take two sine waves that are in phase, you can add them and get twice the amplitude. However, if they are 180 degrees out of phase, adding them gives you a net of zero amplitude.
Now take a sine wave of amplitude 10 and combine it with a signal of 1000 hz where the latter is 1/1000 the amplitude of the original sine wave. You get essentially zero net signal added.
> like using ice to warm a house.
C’mon, Bordo:
https://youtu.be/MNlkNG6IjzQ
Aren’t you supposed to be a Canuck besides being a crank?
Willard, please stop trolling.
We Canucks use ice to warm our homes all the time. How do you think igloos work?
Exactly, Kennui. We even use ice to warm our drinks:
https://tinyurl.com/boiling-water-with-ice
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon’s statement: “and the EM from a colder body cannot warm a colder body” is wrong when the system is not at equilibrium as proven by Planck’s experimental evidence wherein a colder body EMR was shown to be absorbed by a warmer body. EMR is NOT heat
I’m actually a Scotsman, based on my DNA. I was born in Scotland and both my parents are as Scottish as one can be. You can’t change a person’s DNA by legally adopting them in another country. The debate is over how much Pictish DNA I have in me. Seems a lot, based on my cantankerous nature.
The Picts ran off both the Romans and the Vikings, the Romans building Hadrians wall right across Britain in an attempt to keep them out. One Roman legion is reported to have gone off to the Scottish Highlands to sort out Picts out and were never heard from again.
Heck, even our PM Trudeau has a Scottish heritage since his grandmother is of Scottish heritage. His mother, nee Sinclair, has a father who is Scottish by birth. I don’t like to reveal that about Trudeau since he’s such a girly-boy twit. That would explain his undying support for the LGBTQ crowd, especially his support for boys wanting to be girls.
It’s said there are two types of people in this world, those who are Scottish and those who want to be Scottish. Is that your angle, wee willy? Are you frustrated because we won’t let you be Scottish?
> I’m actually a Scotsman, based on my DNA.
C’mon, Bordo.
You can say that you just can’t prove it.
But if you were, you’d be the truest one.
Worried Wee Willy,
“But if you were, youd be the truest one.”
Have you repaired your nonsense generator, and are testing it?
It seems to be copacetic.
My birth certificate says it. Under DNA, it says Scottish, possibly Pictish.
C’mon, Bordo.
Your birth certificate does not come with DNA test results.
Speaking of which, it’s quite obvious you never took one, for they usually look like this:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/reporters-dna-ancestry-tests-caught-me-off-guard/
Nobody’s pure bread, certainly not the Scots, whom got invaded almost every single year after the first millennium of this era.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Try your DNA test again, if you want to waste your money. Don’t be at all surprised if your ancestry has suddenly changed.
Another thing to consider is that for a surprisingly high number of people, the person identified as their father, is not their biological father. What a surprise – literally!
Commercial DNA testing companies use computer matching algorithms, but the matching database is built on peoples’ self described ancestry. Their fathers may not be who they thought they were, either.
Still, I guess it’s a bit of fun. A good money spinner, based on peoples’ desire to know that we’re not all the same, after all! Oh dear, racial differences do exist!
Vive le difference!
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Bordo is the one who clings to his DNA lineage.
But I like when you emphasize the cretin part.
Do continue, deceitful cretin.
“Your birth certificate does not come with DNA test results”.
***
Come on we willy, I was yanking your chain. Besides, like Swenson, I don’t have a lot of faith in DNA tests.
There are claims like no two snowflakes are alike, or no two fingerprints are alike. How does anyone know that? I think the claim that no two people have similar DNA signature is just as suspect.
C’mon, Bordo.
We all know you’re yanking chains. That’s all you do.
I suppose you recognize who first wrote “you can say that you just can’t prove it” in this thread.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ent…”We are saying that there is a long term warming trend partly obscured by a lot of short term variation”.
***
The long term trend may be petering out. According to Akasofu, the planet should rewarm from the Little Ice Age at 0.5C/century. Depending on how much the planet cooled, it could take two centuries to fully rewarm from 1850, which could take us to 2050.
I would think, due to the nature of cold weather in the northern and southern hemispheres each year, the warming may accelerate slightly from now till 2050, or it may cool due to the current solar cycle.
Too complicated to predict.
One thing is certain, CO2 at 0.04% can contribute nothing significant to the warming.
It’s the Sun stupid
https://youtu.be/XJOazhVmf9w
“But the Sun” makes for sad eboyz predictions:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1498478
Yet another ‘here’s our one weird trick’ to vanquish AGW.
So you proof of AGW is ….. AGW.
edit: ….your proof…
Here are some Sun based predictions #1
David Archibald
In 2006 he predicted a 1.5 C decline in global temperature through 2020. https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/eaea/17/1
In 2007 he predicted a 1-2 C decline in global temperature through solar cycle 24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44397307
In 2009 he predicted a 2.2 C decline in mid-latitude temperature through solar cycle 24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43735352
Here are some Sun based predictions #2
Monckton
In 2013 he predicted 0.5 C of cooling by 2020. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/
Easterbrook
In 2008 he predicted up to 1.0 C of cooling from 2000 to 2020. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/
In 2014 he predicted up to 1.0 C of cooling from 1998 to 2023. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/cause-of-the-pause-in-global-warming/
Noice.
If you know of any ensuing bets, am trying to collect them all:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/06/03/beliefs-and-bets/
The Monckton prediction above had an offer of a bet.
https://www.desmog.com/2013/08/28/monckton-challenged-climate-bet-john-abraham/
The story is lengthy and includes calling Abraham an “overcooked prawn” and submitting a 100 page response to Abraham. You could devote an entire blog post to it.
https://mind.ofdan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/response_to_john_abraham.pdf
Little Willy, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
binny…”Flynnsons dementia
all matter above absolute zero emits IR radiation.
is at the same level as Robertsons”.
***
Binny, like all alarmists, lives in an alternate universe, where nitrogen and oxygen, unlike other atoms, refuse to emit EM/IR. Yet even NOAA, an uber-alarmist, admits that oxygen and other terrestrial objects emits in the microwave region. Heck, their satellite telemetry depends on microwave emissions from O2.
When any atom, whether in a singular form or as part of a molecule, emits energy, it has to cool. Therefore, the very oxygen NOAA depends on to gather temperature data, must cool as it emits microwave radiation, yet NOAA and other alarmists deny that N2 or O2 in the atmosphere can cool via radiation.
They put all cooling in the atmosphere down to a trace gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. Either they are seriously stupid or they are seriously dishonest. The GHE/AGW theory makes no sense in terms of physics.
I know that R. W. Wood claimed circa 1909 that N2 and O2 cannot radiate away the heat but that was 4 years before Bohr found the relationship between electrons and EM absorp-tion/radiation. Wood was right, however, that real greenhouses warm due to a lack of convection and not due to trapped IR. That disproved the notion that IR trapped by CO2 warms the atmosphere.
Added IR emitted from added CO2 enables the sun to warm the lower troposphere, equally cooling the upper atm. regions. The entire atm. is trapped in the Earth system by gravity.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
norman…”The established science states that as the bell jar temperature increases the rate of cooling will decrease, it will take a longer time for the hot object to cool. Cool the jar with ice water and the hot object should cool at a faster rate. Pretty simple experiment that would eliminate endless opinions from Gordon Robertson and Clint R”.
***
I reserved comment on such a scenario, claiming I did not know what mechanism is involved. Newton’s Law of Cooling covers only a situation where an object is in touch with an environment, like the Earth’s surface with the atmosphere as its environment. I really don’t know how the temperature of the jar walls in your scenario would affect radiation. I’d sure like to know.
I did say wrt to Swannie’s original experiment in the evacuated Bell jar, that the raised GP blocked radiation from the BP, causing it to warm. That’s because I presumed the GP to be metal and metal is known to block EM. Also, it is close to the BP whereas the jar wall’s are a significant distance away.
Earlier in the same comment you inferred that I disagreed that changing the temperature of the atmospheric temperature at the surface atmosphere interface would affect the rate of surface heat dissipation. That is Newton Law of Cooling and I agree that changing th atmospheric temperature will affect the rate of surface heat dissipation.
I’m not sure whether NASA is still happy with its previous wishful thinking –
“Why is this process called “The Greenhouse Effect? ”
Because the same process keeps glass-covered greenhouses warm. The Sun heats the ground and greenery inside the greenhouse, but the glass absorbs the re-radiated infra-red and returns some of it to the inside.” – NASA
“The Greenhouse Effect obtained its name from the behavior of a greenhouse. A greenhouse’s glass allows shortwave radiation to enter but then prohibits outgoing longwave radiation from exiting, thus warming the air in the greenhouse.” – NASA
“The “greenhouse effect” is the warming of climate that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere resemble glass in a greenhouse, allowing sunlight to pass into the “greenhouse,” but blocking Earth’s heat from escaping into space. – NASA
Mind you NASA currently tells lies to kids, hoping they are completely stupid –
“As you might expect from the name, the greenhouse effect works like a greenhouse! A greenhouse is a building with glass walls and a glass roof. Greenhouses are used to grow plants, such as tomatoes and tropical flowers.
A greenhouse stays warm inside, even during the winter. In the daytime, sunlight shines into the greenhouse and warms the plants and air inside. At nighttime, it’s colder outside, but the greenhouse stays pretty warm inside. That’s because the glass walls of the greenhouse trap the Sun’s heat.”
NASA seems to change its mind, depending on which way the wind is blowing.
Maybe if they had managed to actually describe the GHE, they might be able to explain it in physical terms, rather than trying to think of an irrelevant analogy.
I have watered plants in greenhouses at night in summer and they are no hotter than the outside air. At least, no hotter than one might expect from an enclosure at night in summer. My bedroom in the house was hotter than the greenhouse at night.
It’s interesting that NASA flip-flops from greenhouses being warmed by trapped IR in one explanation then claiming it’s due to sunlight in another. They don’t seem to get it that trapped and recycled IR cannot warm anything. If it is trapped and recycled all night it should keep the greenhouse hot all night.
catching up on old posts….
norman…”I keep telling you the correct science answer and you continue to reject in favor of your misguided beliefs. There is a charge difference in some molecules and when they vibrate the charge vibrates as well generating an electromagnetic field”.
***
Norman, you fail to grasp the meaning of charge. I have studied this in depth and I don’t need you explaining an incorrect definition of charge.
There are only two charged particles in an atom, the electron and the proton. There are no other sources of a charge in atoms. Molecules are only atoms bonded by valence shell electrons. Therefore, the only source of charges in molecules are the negatively charged electron or the positively charged proton.
The positively charged protons in the nucleus serve one purpose and that is to hold the electrons in their orbits. Their charges play no part in anything to do with the bonding process that produces molecules or in molecular properties, including vibration and rotation. Any charge on an atom is due to an excess or lack of electrons. In fact, any of the properties of molecules are due to electron charges or the lack of them.
In the electrical/electronics field, there is another definition for polarity wrt positive/negative. If you have more electrons in an area than in another area, the area with most electrons is claimed to be more negative than the area with less electrons. That’s the case with the +ve/-ve charged molecular dipole bond like in CO2. Therefore +ve and -ve can refer only to electrons without reference to protons and their positive charges.
That’s the case with the hydrogen bonds that link water molecules together. The difference in the +ve and -ve charges is caused by electronegativity where one atom attracts orbital electrons to it creating an area with excess electrons hence a ***RELATIVE*** negative charge. The +ve end has nothing to do with protons and their +ve charges, they are represented by electrons where there are fewer electrons in one area than another.
> catching up on old posts
Good idea:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/new-lewis-curry-study-concludes-climate-sensitivity-is-low/#comment-300631
Time flies like an arrow, Sky Dragon flies like a banana.
And Willard indulges in flights of fancy, in which he imagines himself to be powerful, wise and respected.
Reality – completely impotent, idiotic, and ridiculed.
Willard’s “description” of the “greenhouse effect” – “cooling over time”.
If Willard is Dumb, bobdroege is Dumber –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
NASA sounds positively intelligent by comparison, saying that the “greenhouse effect” is related to greenhouses!
Still no description of the GHE which makes any sense.
“Still no description of the GHE which makes any sense.”
Ahh, he’s finally adjusted his silly meme to the reality that GHE descriptions have been repeatedly shown to him.
Now it is all about the descriptions not making sense… to Swenson.
Well that’s no surprise.
Norman,
Bobdroege’s definition –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Willard’s description –
“Cooling over time”
If these make sense to you, you are a strange lad indeed.
Of course, you don’t have a description at all, so nobody can accuse you of saying anything.
By the way, you don’t believe O2 and N2 can absorb and emit IR. OK, if you are stupid enough to believe that they are at absolute zero, good for you. Even in liquid form, both absorb and emit IR. Of course, having absorbed enough IR, they change into gases, and keep absorbing IR from objects which are emitting IR at shorter wavelengths.
Come on, Norman, you don’t have a GHE description that makes sense. Like the other nutters, you can’t come up with anything that makes any sense at all.
Idiot.
Swenson
First you need to support you claim that the Solar heated surface of Earth has continued to cool for 4.5 billion years. Where is your evidence to confirm you declaration? You have not provided any yet but you feel the compulsion to call me stupid.
And here YOU: “By the way, you dont believe O2 and N2 can absorb and emit IR. OK, if you are stupid enough to believe that they are at absolute zero, good for you. Even in liquid form, both absorb and emit IR. Of course, having absorbed enough IR, they change into gases, and keep absorbing IR from objects which are emitting IR at shorter wavelengths.”
What is your supporting evidence that O2 or N2 absorb or emit any significant amount of IR? Actual measurements show they do not and they have valid theory as to explain why. What is your profound source, other than your opinion, that O2 and N2 absorb and emit in the IR band of the EMR spectrum? Making claims does not make them science.
So far not one of you so called Skeptics (Swenson, Clint R, or Gordon Robertson) has ever supported your claims. You make assertions and call everyone idiots but you offer zero evidence of any kind to support any of your claims. Why is this? If you like science than be scientific. You need to support your claims with evidence. Just saying N2 and O2 absorb and emit IR does not make it so. What experiment or measurement do you have to support this claim? Start supporting the claims you make!
Swenson
This:
https://media.cheggcdn.com/media/4bd/4bd69bdd-8a7c-4d44-88b8-ed1fa34ff7e4/phpyzJ2gA.png
This is a spectrum of IR that is emitted from Earth system and makes it to a satellite detector. If you look at the graph it shows that there is what is called an “atmosphere window” for IR. A region in the IR band that has no absorbing molecules so the IR is what the surface would emit directly to space. The IR is going through miles of O2 and N2 but not being absorbed. This is evidence. Your declarations to contrary of evidence are not science. They are unfounded opinions.
Mike Flynn,
Cooling over time?
What are you braying about?
Do you really think that is my description of the greenhouse effect?
Why are you such a deceitful cretin?
Deceitful cretin.
Norman,
If you don’t believe the Earth’s surface was once molten, you are perfectly free to do so.
If you don’t believe that liquid nitrogen emits different wavelengths of IR than nitrogen at 500 C, that is your right.
If you don’t believe that liquid nitrogen changes into a gas by absorbing shorter wavelength (higher frequency) IR than the nitrogen is emitting, you are either stupid, delusional, or ignorant.
You can believe anything you like.
I notice you are remarkably coy about specifying what you believe in. You refuse to supply the description of the GHE which you claim to have, coming up with all sorts of bizarre excuses!
Is the GHE supposed to warm or cool? You won’t commit yourself. Is the atmosphere chaotic? No answer.
You may wonder why I call you an idiot. That’s because you are an idiot. The answer is clear to others.
Carry on being evasive.
Gordon Roberston
You kind of get it but you don’t really understand it. Gordon I studied Chemistry you don’t need to lecture me on the topic I am well aware of bonds.
The dipole is what vibrates in the molecule. The plus side and the minus side move toward and away from each other at a specific frequency based upon the type of molecule. At the right frequency IR energy will be absorbed and cause the amplitude of the vibrating molecule to increase. The charged dipole will move farther apart but still at the same frequency. When if drops back to a lower vibrational state it will emit an IR photon of a distinct frequency.
There is a whole branch of Chemistry (IR spectroscopy) that relies on understanding this idea.
You can say what you want but it sounds ignorant to me. Like someone who quickly read some article, did not understand it and comes up with their own ideas on how things should work (based on limited knowledge) and reject science that works and is used all the time in labs around the world.
You are a science denier and will probably always be one. I do not know why I would want to follow such a stupid path as you walk on.
Gordon Robertson
The charged dipole in CO2 which vibrates is not present in nonpolar molecules of N2 and O2 so when they vibrate they do not have a changing electric field. This is why they do not emit in the IR bands except under unusual conditions like the N2 emissions in IR band from Upper Atmosphere. A temporary charged state is created in the Nitrogen that can emit. N2 will not emit or absorb IR since there is no charged moving while the molecule vibrates.
You said if you are wrong you are humble enough to accept it. Well in the world of Chemistry and molecular vibration you are clueless. Linus Pauling himself understands molecular vibration and that it is responsible for the majority of emission in the IR band of the EMR spectrum.
https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1945ApJ…101…39S
Nutty Norman,
When you rapidly compress nitrogen at 25 C, say to 500 C, it gets hotter – it’s now 500 C! You are so detached from reality that you believe a gas at 500 C is not radiating IR, the wavelength of which is proportional to its temperature,
If you compress the gas to say, 499.999 C, the IR wavelength emitted is a little longer than it is at 500 C. Any gas can be made to radiate IR of any frequency, whether you accept it or not.
And, in a mixture of gases, all the gases are both absorbing and emitting the same IR wavelengths at thermal equilibrium. That’s why removing CO2 from a sample of air changes the temperature not one iota. CO2 at 25 C is at exactly the same temperature as O2 or N2 at 25 C – and emitting the same IR wavelengths.
Keep claiming that everybody except you has a sensible description of the GHE. What do you think of bobdroege’s and Willard’s thoughts on the GHE? They make no sense to me, but might to you. Of course, you don’t have a description of your own, do you?
Maybe some delusional SkyDragon cultist will believe you do, I suppose.
Idiot.
Swenson
Again you are giving your opinion on how you think things work with no evidence at all.
What evidence do you offer to demonstrate that Nitrogen at 500 C is emitting IR?
I have offered you a valid description of GHE multiple times. Either you are not human (a chatbot that can’t reason) or you just post things to post.
Again if you go outside in below zero F night without a coat and remain in this condition you will freeze as the amount of heat your body generates is not enough to keep you from freezing. If you put on enough clothing you can stay outside as long as you want and will not freeze. Your metabolism did not go to an extreme high level the clothing reduced the rate of heat loss to the cold environment. Your skin surface stays warm.
If you can’t understand that a coat keeps you warm in a cold environment you will not understand the GHE reduces the rate of surface radiant heat loss. With GHE your heat loss is reduced so the surface will reach a warmer temperature.
It is most certain you can’t understand GHE and will ask a million more times for a description. A true broken record. If you are not a chatbot that some asshole launched on this blog then you need to seek help. Your ability to think, reason and ponder are nonexistent. It is possible you are a very old person in rest home with access to computer and you have deep dementia and can’t remember what you wrote, what you asked for and what the response to your queries was. If so I guess I can live with it. My Father had dementia and also could not remember what he just talked about a few minutes earlier. I will give the benefit of doubt that you are a lonely dementia patient and this blog is the place you feel alive even though you endlessly repeat the same things over and over.
Norman, what you’re describing is the insulation properties of the atmosphere. That is NOT the bogus GHE. The atmosphere is most definitely a “blanket” for Earth, keeping thermal energy from being released to space faster than it arrives from Sun.
But the bogus GHE claims CO2 (with other radiative gases) is heating the surface. The bogus science claims Sun is NOT causing the warming, it is CO2. They claim Earth’s surface only gets 168 W/m^2 from Sun, which is only about half the flux from an ice cube!
> the insulation properties of the atmosphere
What’s that, Pupman?
Tell me like I’m a 4y old Sky Dragon crank, or Bordo.
Clint R
The GHE works by reducing the surface radiant heat loss. The Sun does not add as much as you seem to think it does. It does not provide enough energy to keep the Surface as warm as it is.
It is like the coat and your body on a cold freezing night. Your metabolism adds the energy but only so much. The Sun provides enough energy to keep the surface warm because of the GHE reducing the amount of radiant heat energy lost by the surface like the coat does for you skin surface. The skin stays warm under the coat because the coat is reducing the rate heat is lost to the cold environment.
It is an insulating effect for the surface but deals with radiant energy instead of conduction and convection with the coat.
Clint R
https://tinyurl.com/5n7snr8k
The Solar input to a square meter of desert surface. This is a summer time measurement with no clouds that day. The actual amount of solar energy available to be absorbed by surface peaks at 800 W/m^2. There is more solar energy reaching the surface but a few hundred watts are reflected away.
You can calculate the total amount of energy a square meter receives from the Sun in a 24 hour period. You have a parabola that has a base of 14 hours (50,400 seconds) and a height of 800 W/m^2.
Formula for area under parabola is 2/3(Base)(Height).
You calculate and a square meter will receive 26,880,000 Watts in 24 hours. If you had this same amount of energy given off continuously for 24 hours (26,880,000 watts/m^2)/86,400 seconds and you come up with 311 Watts/m^2. The Sun supplies less energy to a square meter of surface than would ice maintained at 0 C (315 Watts/m^2). The surface would be much colder without GHE just like your unprotected skin would be on a very cold winter night.
Norman, you’re making the same mistakes as your cult. You’re trying to treat flux as energy. You have to remember, flux is NOT conserved. It can NOT be added, subtracted, and divided as we can do with energy.
You don’t understand radiative physics and you’ve never had a course in thermodynamics. That, along with your devotion to your cult makes it very hard for you to understand. Fortunately, I can make things very simple.
Think of flux as temperature. That’s a safer analogy than thinking of it as energy. If you have a hot plate at 200°F, it will burn you if you put your hand on it. But in your incorrect thinking, if you only touch 25% of it, it will be at 50°F and will not burn you. If you only tough 10%, it will be at 20°F, and will be colder than ice. That’s why you believe your cult nonsense that Sun is warming Earth less than ice can. You don’t understand any of the science.
I’ll bet you won’t accept any of this. Prove me wrong.
Clint R
Your point about a hot plate is NOT at all what I think, believe or am saying.
You can do the math yourself and find out what the facts are.
I gave you the math I used.
Watts/m^2 is equal to joules/sec m^2/.
With a flux that goes from zero to 800 W/m^2 a one square meter can receive so much energy from the Sun.
You can take the total energy a square meter receives from the sun in 24 hours and then divide that up to make it a continuous flow of energy and the amount of energy is equal in both cases.
If you have a variable energy source or a constant one, the total energy delivered in a time period is identical.
In this case the Sun delivers 26,880,000 joules of energy in 24 hours. A continuous source of energy for the entire 24 hours that delivers at the rate of 311 joules/second will deliver 26,880,000 joules.
Without the GHE the Sun would warm the ground during the day but it would cool much faster at night. Roy Spencer devoted an entire blog post to show this. Maybe you should read about what he thinks. I believe it might help you grasp where I am coming from.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/
Norman Idiot,
You wrote –
“What evidence do you offer to demonstrate that Nitrogen at 500 C is emitting IR?”
Because it’s hot, you fool!
How do think it cools? By magic? No, it emits IR. All matter in the universe emits IR, although you live in a fantasy where the laws of physics don’t apply.
That’s why I refer to you as an idiot. All you do is ask silly gotchas, like a petulant child.
Keep it up.
Swenson
So basically you are not going to support your claim that Nitrogen emits IR. You just declare it does and that is the end of it.
Sorry you are so anti-science. Maybe someday you will know what science is and is not.
Declaring things you believe is not science. Evidence is required also logic and rational thinking.
Thanks for proving me correct again, Norman. You couldn’t understand my simple explanation of why you can’t treat flux as energy.
You just parroted your lame example. The math is correct, but your physics is a disaster. You’re STILL treating flux as energy.
Then, you try to hide behind Dr. Spencer, who doesn’t challenge the GHE nonsense based on physics, he challenges it from his area of expertise.
You can’t get anything right.
“Think of flux as temperature. Thats a safer analogy than thinking of it as energy.”
Uggh, thinking of flux as something it isn’t, is not a safe bet, especially if one is trying to mislead.
If Clint could understand how energy can be obtained from flux, that would be most helpful.
As Norman did here:
“You can calculate the total amount of energy a square meter receives from the Sun in a 24 hour period.”
Troll Nate, flux relates to temperature via the S/B Law. There is no such relation of energy to temperature.
But, this is all over your head.
“no such relation of energy to temperature.”
Oh? Temperature doesnt relate to internal energy?
More energy added to the Earth’s surface results in warming.
Oh well.
“If you had this same amount of energy given off continuously for 24 hours (26,880,000 watts/m^2)/86,400 seconds and you come up with 311 Watts/m^2. The Sun supplies less energy to a square meter of surface than would ice maintained at 0 C (315 Watts/m^2).”
Yep this is valid math and physics. He’s using the SB law, that you like, and conservation of energy.
It shows that the Earth surface must be emitting more energy than it it could possibly receive directly from the sun.
Troll Nate, at least Norman makes enough sense we know hes wrong.
Youre just throwing words out, hoping something will work. Thats what worthless willard does. Youve got to make a lot more sense just to be wrong!
” Binny, like all alarmists, lives in an alternate universe, where nitrogen and oxygen, unlike other atoms, refuse to emit EM/IR. ”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1498400
Slowly but surely, it becomes too boring.
As are you.
We’re only days away from solstice and the Polar Vortex remains weaker than normal. Combined with the approaching El Niño, we should expect unrealistically higher anomalies in UAH Global — 0.2C, 0.3C and even 0.4C HIGHER.
Don’t expect meaningful results until the Hunga-Tonga Effect has dissipated.
UAH’s lower stratosphere anomaly grid in the recent months
1. May 2023
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T8tTkEdQ1v0t7rvKDSPj19DW629-XHTr/view
2. Apr 2023
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OQL4JaF3yfi-wEWcYOw2xdE-5zPYz7ye/view
3. Mar 2023
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TUE4leZ2uf_6TFxtF31lydvFb1gUGiEB/view
4. Feb 2023
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13vO_2kCWdqV8gOIL3DKTED-e2OeE4B4q/view
5. Jan 2023
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFZCRuzrcpatPcVNsVhMWyhsjWB1KCPS/view
*
Stratosphere genius Clint R will for sure explain us all about this.
*
And don’t be surprised if another genius enriches this comment with his usual, condescending ‘Mollweide versus Mercator’ prose (which of course has no chance of getting me to distort the images I post to such an extent that viewing the polar regions requires a magnifying glass).
Blinny does not understand ‘visual distortions’ and why map makers think that Mercator is a lousy way to look at area based measurements (you know like temperature).
P.S. “viewing the polar regions requires a magnifying glass” that occupy such a small area of the globe.
P.P.S I prefer (for May 2023)
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
P.P.P.S Blinny thinks that all the circles are the same size
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#/media/File:Mercator_with_Tissot's_Indicatrices_of_Distortion.svg
You see?
As predicted, the British Setter
https://i.etsystatic.com/43481651/r/il/7ee59e/4963161579/il_1140xN.4963161579_b7z0.jpg
came along an left a wonderful series of dog poos.
*
And good ol’ dog Blindsley H00d is so totally confident in himself that he didn’t even realize that the graphics represent the low stratosphere and not the low troposphere.
But that is a detail that in no way affects him.
The main thing was that he was able to show the blog that he has an answer to everything – no matter how wrong she was.
Blinny thinks that distortions do not matter. Even ones he creates for himself.
“the graphics {badly} represent the low stratosphere and not the low troposphere”
There. Fixed it for you.
Even more dog poos by the opinionated British Setter…
” Blinny thinks that distortions do not matter. ”
Everybody here – except Blindsley H00d – understands that the representation of a rectangular data grid with rectangular color cells is no distortion at all.
The goal is here of course not to make the polar regions of size equal to the tropical region: that is only Blindsley H00d’s dumb allegation.
The goal is here to make all cells of equal size and hence equally visible without the need for a magnifying glass.
Please compare (1)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vmu_penDkcZYjcs6wMVj9DvZFC7CWmA9/view
with (2)
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/december2021/2021_Trend_Map.png
*
Everybody having a brain sees that
– (2) is the geometrically correct way to represent the UAH trend grid
BUT that
– (1) is more comfortable when having to look at the lowermost and uppermost latitude bands.
That’s all, but Blindlsey H00d will continue to stalk me about this until he dies.
“no distortion at all”
Blinny is just deluded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#/media/File:Mercator_with_Tissot's_Indicatrices_of_Distortion.svg
Tissot would disagree.
“a rectangular data grid”
Only Blinny does not understand that Lat/Lon is not rectangular.
Next he will be telling us the Earth is flat.
RLH,
According to an “energy budget” graphic prepared by Kevin Trenberth, John Fasullo and Jeff Kiehl, the Earth is, indeed, flat.
Not only that, perpetual daylight reigns, temperatures are measured in W/m2, temperatures can be added and subtracted willy-nilly, and the flat Earth has become hotter since its creation due to excess heat. Of course, Trenberth can’t find the heat, so he just writes it off as a “travesty”. Problem solved!
Possibly not the brightest light in the room, old Kevin. Just a little dimmer than some.
An accurate filter with a long enough period will remove all of the daily and yearly cycle much better than any anomaly calculation ever will do which will leave a small residual of the anomaly base chosen in there.
How about curve fitting yourself within a Millikelvin:
https://judithcurry.com/2012/12/04/multidecadal-climate-to-within-a-millikelvin/
As I use VPs recommendations I am not sure how I can improve things.
Willard: Do you agree
1. With VPs knowledge about filters and maths.
2. With his overall conclusions.
Richard, do you agree:
(1) Curve fitting without a physical explanation is exploratory at best.
(2) You probably have misread Vaughan’s conclusion.
Willard, please stop JAQing off again.
For anybody unaware of Willard’s masturbatory references, Willard used the phrase “JAQing off” to criticism anyone Just Asking Questions which Willard could not answer cogently.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Deceitful cretin.
Willard, please stop trolling.
1) I do not curve fit. Filters do not do that.
2) How do you read them?
3) how do you think I read them?
Richard,
Yes, you do it all the time.
You’re the one who’s interested in them. So you go first.
Like the cycle nut that you are.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard is an idiot and deluded. Only he would think that a filter (such as a badly distorting SRM) is curve fitting.
Richard boches anther formal concept.
What else is new?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“How about curve fitting yourself within a Millikelvin:”
OK, you’ve got me intrigued.
How about it?
Idiot.
Mike Flynn,
What about what?
Deceitful cretin.
Willard, please stop trolling.
German Szientist Fritz Vahrenholt
https://notrickszone.com/2023/06/17/german-scientist-fritz-vahrenholt-attributes-part-of-modern-warming-to-the-decrease-in-clouds/
Eben,
I haven’t read the paper, but any fool should know that shading a thermometer from the Sun results in a decrease in temperature. Less clouds, less shade, higher temperature.
Do people really deny such simple observations? Don’t they wonder why Stevenson screens were used? To shade the thermometers from the direct rays of the Sun, and keep them cooler.
Reminds me of my experience a few years ago while camping in desert climate about 150 miles NE of Vancouver, Canada. It was so hot (45C in shade)) in our campsite that we had to move. Wasn’t the heat so much as the blistering heat from the Sun and zero convection.
We went to a nearby hotel to escape the heat and get some fluid intake. The hotel owner told us that locals, for a joke, would set a thermometer out in the Sun and watch it reach 55C. They’d have bets on how high it would go.
That’s the human spirit, to find humour in so-called catastrophe. Even if the planet does warm significantly, people will find a way to cope by means of humour. Alarmist who believe it will mark the end of the planet are idiots.
From the pilot
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/06/bad-news-for-electric-planes-batteries-only-last-a-few-weeks/
As I see it, the only batteries they could use would be lead-acid batteries and one would think they’d be far too heavy to be of practical usage in an aircraft.
Electric cars like the Tesla don’t use lead acid batteries, they use arrays of lithium-ion batteries like one would find in cordless drills. I find that concept to be ridiculous.
Even lead-acid batteries have issues when discharged and recharged repeatedly. Normally, the batteries are discharged a bit when a car starts. It takes several hundred amps to turn a car over before it starts and can run off the gasoline. That’s not too much of a drain for a lead acid battery, which can run easily for 5 years with that kind of charge/discharge while being slowly recharged by the alternator.
However, the load on such batteries that would be required to sustain a flight for 90 minutes, would surely drain the battery significantly. The pilot or owner would not have time to sit around waiting for a slow charge, they’d need a fast charge, and that is hard on a battery.
First time I heard of planes running on batteries, I thought it was a joke.
Earlier, Norman attempted to describe the GHE without describing it –
“The GHE works by reducing the surface radiant heat loss. The Sun does not add as much as you seem to think it does. It does not provide enough energy to keep the Surface as warm as it is.”
Well, no, Norman. The surface cools at night, losing all the warmth of the day, plus a bit of its interior heat. Precisely zero IR is prevented from leaving the surface, which is why it cools.
Norman is correct in stating that the Sun does not provide enough energy to maintain the Earth’s present surface temperature. Fairly obvious, as the Earth’s surface is no longer molten, liquid water exists, and several kilometers of ice cover the Antarctic continent.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature, but Norman refuses to accept reality.
Willard is another idiot who thinks that the GHE is related not to “cooling”, but “cooling over time”.
Cooling, not heating. What a pair of idiots – dumb and dumber.
Swenson
In your attempt to critique can you at least try to be rational and think about what you are trying to say.
I stated, and with evidence, that the GHE works by reducing the surface radiant heat loss.
This does not mean the surface is stopped from radiating IR and I never claimed it did. If you are rational and thinking you should be able to understand that.
Quickly posting with no thinking behind it does not make me dumb only you.
Here to show you again since you seem to miss it.
https://tinyurl.com/ycyxnah3
The Downwelling IR does not stop or inhibit the upwelling IR and I never stated that it did. The heat loss by radiant means is the amount emitted (blue line in graph) minus what it regains from the downwelling IR (red line) and the total heat loss is the green line. The rate of heat loss is reduced so it does NOT cool as rapidly at night as it would. You make the claim that it does but provide zero evidence. You call me dumb yet I give you evidence. You just offer your unsupported opinion which is unscientific and goes against your own Feynman Quote.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
Richard P. Feynman”
You have no evidence to support your claim that the solar heated surface has continued to cool for 4.5 billion years, you have not supported you claim that N2 (against evidence) emits in the IR band.
Norman
You wrote –
“The rate of heat loss is reduced so it does NOT cool as rapidly at night as it would.”
You are as deranged as Wee Willy Wanker. Slow cooling is not heating.
The Earth is cooling very, very, slowly at present. About one to four millionths of a Kelvin per annum. Look up the peer reviewed literature before you start whining.
Why did it cool faster in the past? Two reasons – it was molten, and radiative energy loss is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature, and the reserves of radiogenic isotopes were vastly higher in the past.
But you think cooling of any sort must actually be heating, because you are mentally defective.
Accept reality – or not, as you wish.
Swenson
Slowing down the cooling rate will increase the temperature of a heated surface. You need some logic and rational thinking to be able to understand this.
YOU: “The Earth is cooling very, very, slowly at present. About one to four millionths of a Kelvin per annum. Look up the peer reviewed literature before you start whining.”
Yes the Earth as a whole (core included) but not the solar heated surface. You need logic to understand the difference between the “Earth” and a subset of it “The Earth’s surface”. Not the same.
The surface is solar heated so even if the core cools the surface does not need to. Where is your evidence that the SURFACE is cooling???? I put it in CAPS so you don’t mix up surface of Earth with the whole Earth.
You also are so devoid of thinking that you confuse “cooling” with “rate of cooling”. The surface is solar heated and you slow down the rate of cooling you increase the temperature of the surface. Pretty simple. If you lower the rate of any of the cooling mechanisms you will increase the solar heated surface temperature. If you stop convection the temperature goes up. If you have less evaporation the temperature goes up. Why is this so difficult for you to process?
Norman, you donkey,
You wrote –
“Slowing down the cooling rate will increase the temperature of a heated surface.”
Don’t you understand what you write? Cooling is not heating. The temperature is dropping, the surface is getting colder.
You babble about a “heated surface”. At night, the Sun is not around to heat the surface. Nor is anything else, except the interior heat of the Earth, or ephemeral anthropogenic heat, in the majority. And still the surface cools.
Here’s an example – put some hot soup in the best insulator I can think of – a Thermos (vacuum flask). It cools quite slowly, but it cools nevertheless. It gets colder, it doesn’t heat up!
You are delusional. The surface of the Earth has cooled since it was molten, despite four and a half billion years of sunlight.
Maybe you could try describing the GHE, and then come to realise why nobody can do it.
Slow cooling means getting colder, not hotter.
Off you go now.
Norman claims: “Slowing down the cooling rate will increase the temperature of a heated surface.”
NOT in the case of Earth where the hearing is due to solar photons and the “slowing down” is due to CO2 15mu; photons. You don’t understand radiative physics and thermodynamics. And the fact that you believe Sun provides less flux to Earth than ice cubes means you’re a braindead cult idiot. That’s not an insult. It’s reality.
You need some logic and rational thinking to be able to understand this.
Clint R
You changed what I said.
I said the Sun will provides less energy to a square meter of desert surface (Desert Rock, Nevada) in summer than a a large block of ice maintained at 0 C would over a 24 hour period. This is factual and you can dispute it if you want but you would be wrong.
You changed my point of total energy received to this : “You dont understand radiative physics and thermodynamics. And the fact that you believe Sun provides less flux to Earth than ice cubes means youre a braindead cult idiot. Thats not an insult. Its reality.”
I never stated that the Sun provides less flux to the Earth than ice cubes (you might realize the ice has to be heated to maintain its temperature or it would cool as it radiates so you are adding energy continuously to the ice). So if the ice continues to add energy to the surface it will gain 10 hours on the Sun. Add it up…315 Watts for 10 hours…
315 joules/second times 36,000 seconds equals 11,340,000 joules more energy during this time than the Sun provides.
You should read more carefully before you launch your accusations about my intellect. I am talking about energy provided and you switch it to flux and tell me I am an idiot. That does not seem an intelligent assessment of what I posted.
The Sun provides a peak flux of 800 W/m^2 that can be absorbed, the rest is reflected away and not part of the input energy that heats the desert sand.
For a few hours the Sun will add 800 joules per second to the ground but it does not add this amount continuously and for 10 hours it is adding no energy at all.
Wrong again, Norman. I didn’t change what you said. Here are your exact words:
“The Sun supplies less energy to a square meter of surface than would ice maintained at 0 C (315 Watts/m^2).”
You’re STILL trying to confuse energy with flux. And even worse, you don’t understand energy. You believe because energy can be added, that always results in higher temperature. But you can’t boil water by adding more ice!
You’ve now started the needless blah-blah and false accusations. Next will come the insults. You’re trolling again.
We have to face the very real possibility that you’re so braindead you will never understand any of this. The fact that you actually believe, like your cult, that ice can provide more warming to Earth than Sun should tell you something —
Clint R
You are taking my point out of context. Are you happy to do this.
Look at the whole paragraph!
Here: “You calculate and a square meter will receive 26,880,000 Watts in 24 hours. If you had this same amount of energy given off continuously for 24 hours (26,880,000 watts/m^2)/86,400 seconds and you come up with 311 Watts/m^2. The Sun supplies less energy to a square meter of surface than would ice maintained at 0 C (315 Watts/m^2). The surface would be much colder without GHE just like your unprotected skin would be on a very cold winter night.”
In the context I am quite correct. You have just selected a portion of the longer point. In 24 hours the Sun will deliver less energy to the surface than ice would (if it was maintained at 0 C).
Please consider the context before trying to point out I said something incorrectly.
I am not at all confused by energy and flux and adding energy will increase the temperature if the mass stays the same and the substance is not at a transition point (liquid or gas phase changes).
You like to point out that I do not have a degree in Thermodynamics but what are your credentials? You say a lot of things that are completely false! Like the Radiant Heat Transfer equation is bogus and no reputable text book includes it. I gave you a link where 3 textbooks included it and you ignore the evidence.
I am certain you have zero level of physics training. I know you have no thermodynamics at all. Not sure what your expertise is in but certainly not science. You never support any claims.
norman…”If you lower the rate of any of the cooling mechanisms you will increase the solar heated surface temperature”.
***
Only if that surface is being fed energy to replace the energy lost by heat dissipation. In that case, the surface arrives at an equilibrium temperature based on heat in versus heat out. If you stop the heat out, the temperature must increase.
However, if the heat is not replaced as an input, and you cut off the output, in a totally ideal situation, the surface will maintain its temperature indefinitely. We live in a real world where there will be a leakage of heat, therefore, the surface will gradually cool, and the temperature cannot increase.
That was my argument against Swannie’s experiment. His BP was continually heated, and before the GP was raised, it was losing heat via radiation in all directions. With the GP raised, radiation was cut off on that side, effectively reducing the total heat dissipation, therefore the BP had to warm. The warming had nothing to do with a contravention of the 2nd law, as claimed by Swannie, whereby he concluded the BP warmed due to radiation from the colder GP.
Wrong again, Norman. Your cult claims Sun provides less than 170 W/m^2 to Earth. That’s less than ice emits. And, you swallow that without question!
You believe the atmosphere is heating the planet, not Sun. But, you don’t realize the atmosphere is NOT an energy source. The ONLY energy source is Sun. You’re braindead.
You’ve now started the needless blah-blah, false accusations, and insults. You’re trolling again.
We have to face the very real possibility that you’re so braindead you will never understand any of this. The fact that you actually believe, like your cult, that ice can provide more warming to Earth than Sun should tell you something —
Clint R writes up front: “Your cult claims…” so Clint R has now started the needless blah-blah, false accusations, and insults. Clint R is trolling again.
Clint R, an admitted troll by Clint’s own comment, also missed 70 W/m^2 out of the total 240 sunlight absorbed by the rotating Earth planetary system over many annual observations. Typical for Clint.
Troll Ball4, its a pity you dont have to clean your mess off the walls. If you had to clean up after yourself, you might grow up.
Gordo repeated another favorite mantra RE my GPE demo:
Gordo had never provided a detailed description of this effect, based on physics, because that doesn’t happen. The BP’s temperature does not instantly rise after the GP is hoisted into position. The warming occurs after the GP has warmed then radiates IR which the BP can then absorb, etc.
Then too, Gordo ignores the fact that both plates are surrounded by the bell jar, which radiates IR toward each. If Gordo were right, all radiation from the BP would be “cut off” by the presence of the bell jar.
Clint R
Let us talk about not putting your words in my mouth.
YOU: “You believe the atmosphere is heating the planet, not Sun. But, you dont realize the atmosphere is NOT an energy source. The ONLY energy source is Sun. Youre braindead.”
No it is not what I believe or even post. You will not find a post in which I made this claim.
The Sun provides so much energy to the surface. I have given you the data. You are science-denier so you can’t accept reality or facts and go off on tangents and make up stuff.
The atmosphere lowers the rate of radiant heat loss of the surface so that the amount of energy the surface receives from the Sun is enough to keep the temperature at a comfortable average of 288 K instead of a much colder 255 K. I am not claiming the atmosphere is an energy source. I am stating the opposite. The graphs I linked you to clearly show my position.
You do not have to make up a claim I am not making.
A coat is not an energy source but it does keep your skin warmer in freezing weather than if you did not have one on. You still lose energy to the cold even with a coat on just at a slower rate so your body’s metabolism can keep your skin warm.
This is my claim. Distorting it to something I never claimed and then calling me “braindead” is a strange way to make a point.
I clarified my position. You can say this is wrong (even though evidence shows it most correct) but please at least try to accurately portray my position on this topic.
Sorry Norman, but you can’t hide from reality. All of your blah-blah and troll tactics won’t help. Your cult believes Sun supplies less flux to Earth than ice. The claim is about 163-168 W/m^2, depending on which source. Ice emits 315W/m^2.
And, as you’ve indicated, you fully swallow all that your cult spews. It’s a cult, it ain’t science. And you’re a loyal follower.
Sorry Clint R, but you can’t hide from reality of observed measurements. All of your blah-blah and troll tactics won’t help.
Science measures our Sun supplies more radiant energy intercepted by rotating, seasonal Earth than ice emits. The measurement is about 342 W/m^2 on avg. depending on which source. Ice emits only 315 W/m^2 so most of the earthen oceans are liquid water on the surface as opposed to say Enceladus’ oceans.
And, as demonstrated in comments, Clint R fully swallows all that climate sophistry spews. That’s a cult, it ain’t science. And Clint R is a loyal climate sophistry follower.
“measurement is about 342 W/m^2 on avg. depending on which source.”
And about 30% is reflected into space, so, only 240 W/m^2 is abs.orbed by Earth.
The Earth’s surface @ 288 K average T, and emissivity e ~ 0.9 it emits on average, by the SB law, e*sigma*288^4 = 350 W/m^2.
Clint has no explanation for the how the Earth’s surface is emitting much more than the sun’s input.
Clint R
You are a funny fellow. You must be a Russian as you tend to report the exact opposite of reality.
YOU: “Sorry Norman, but you cant hide from reality. All of your blah-blah and troll tactics wont help. Your cult believes Sun supplies less flux to Earth than ice. The claim is about 163-168 W/m^2, depending on which source. Ice emits 315W/m^2.
And, as youve indicated, you fully swallow all that your cult spews. Its a cult, it aint science. And youre a loyal follower.”
Your own words are what you are in reality that you can’t accept.
You are a stupid troll that is more interested in provoking posters with endless insults and not supporting any science. You still support nothing.
I supply real world measurements that clearly show that in a 24 hour period of time, the Sun will not supply as much energy to the surface as would a large heated body of ice. For a few hours the Sun will far exceed what ice delivers to the surface but then the Sun is up only 14 hours out of the 24 in the Summer Desert. It delivers zero energy for 10 hours while the ice continues to deliver 315 joules/sec to a square meter of surface.
No your stupid trolling is not working. You are shown to be a moron that can’t do math on your own. You can’t discredit what I posted with reason or logic so you go into the troll tactic.
When your are an idiot and can’t do math then attack someone who is much smarter than you and can do math. It is all you have to cover you ignorance, attack and keep attacking and know one will see how stupid you are. Your game here is over. only a handful of unscientific conspiracy fanatics might listen to your bizarre ranting. Most know you are a trolling idiot and I think most ignore you. Once in awhile they attempt reasoning with you like Tim Folkerts, but after a couple posts with you, they see you are a trolling idiot and give it up for a while. You were an idiot when you posted as g/e/r/a/n and have not learned a bit of science since.
Norman, keep believing ice can warm Earth more than Sun. Now all we have to do is get rid of all polar ice caps, sea ice, and glaciers, and Earth will cool down!
See why youre a braindead cult idiot?
Clint R, laughingly ice 315 is lower than solar 342. You’ve got that backwards again. The sun warms Earth more than ice warms Earth. But your incorrect comment is good for a few laughs.
Nutty Norman,
Re Nitrogen and IR –
Of course, you won’t claim that Nitrogen doesnt emit IR, because you know that you would look like a delusional idiot. Go on, declare that Nitrogen doesn’t emit IR, because it is at absolute zero at all times!
You’re an idiot, Norman, and delusional to boot.
Have a tantrum, poke yourself in the eye with a hot needle – see if I care.
Swenson
Once again you have not provided any evidence to demonstrate Nitrogen emitting in the IR Band. You seem to come here only to throw out insults. You lack any rational thinking. Just throw out things and insult. Rather than post so quickly why not find some proof of your claims. Give evidence of nitrogen emitting IR.
I posted a graph of IR emitted by Earth system and in the bands lacking CO2 and H2O the IR intensity is equivalent to the surface being strong evidence that N2 does not absorb any significant amount of IR or emit much either. It can emit some in complex interactions but they are not very common so the amount is exceedingly small and not important in any discussion of surface energy flows.
Norman,
You wrote –
“Give evidence of nitrogen emitting IR.”
Air temperature.
Idiot.
Here you go Norman, N2 emissions in the IR band…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/nitrogen-active-in-the-ir-a-ghg/
Here’s some more information for Gordo, et al.:
The natural greenhouse effect of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2)-2012.
But, can he understand it?
Swannie…the paper is based on calculations and models and compares the overall effect of O2 and N2 to CH4. I question that mainly because no one has ever done an actual study based on the actual effect of O2 and N2 on surface radiation. The paper ignores the fact that O2 emits in the microwave band.
Having said that, I don’t care about the effect of N2/O2 in the IR band, I am more interested in what Swenson talks about, that all atoms must radiate and absorb EM from 0K upward. That is a fact and it is being completely ignored. Any scientist worth his/her salt would want answers to that but all you find on the Net is vague studies in that regard.
Gordon, many have done experiments based on the actual effect of O2 and N2 on surface radiation. Gordon is just an uninformed rookie not having read up on the extensive literature cited in the paper & elsewhere.
norman…”The heat loss by radiant means is the amount emitted (blue line in graph) minus what it regains from the downwelling IR (red line) and the total heat loss is the green line”.
***
You are confusing heat with IR. You cannot subtract incoming IR from outgoing IR and claim it as a heat loss. Alarmists use that bad science to get past the 2nd law.
Besides, the graph implies that CO2 absorbs all surface radiation and back-radiates nearly the same amount. CO2, at best, absorbs only about 7% and back radiates a fraction of that amount since an equal amount is radiated vertically upward and laterally.
This graph is fraudulent.
Gordon Robertson
No the graph is not fraudulent. Your lack of science creates this false accusation that has no merit.
Back Radiation comes from the temperature of the air with GHG in it that radiates. It is not just about IR absorbed, it is also the other heat transfer mechanisms that add energy to the atmosphere (convection, latent heat)
https://tinyurl.com/yc7d55nh
This is a graph of Summer Desert Air temperature and Downwelling IR. You can see the temperature and the DWIR correlate. If you go to Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculator you get an emissivity for the dried desert air of around 0.7. Most still probably from WV even desert air still has Water Vapor. The atmosphere absorbs most the IR emitted by the surface.
You can try to calculate it yourself if you don’t believe this (use Beer’s Law) but Clive Best has the Earth surface IR in the CO2 bands is all absorbed in around 25 meters at current levels of CO2.
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169
Now here is a moist air
https://tinyurl.com/4hhwv837
This is combination of clouds, water vapor and CO2. The emissivity of this air is higher than the Desert Air around 0.87 emissivity.
Carbon Dioxide contribution to DWIR varies because it overlaps with Water Vapor.
Current Physics (this is what I will stick with on the definition of heat…you and Ball4 are free to come up with your own ideas on what it means but I will stick with the current accepted use of this word).
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
IR is a form of energy. When it is absorbed it will increase temperature, when it is emitted the temperature will go down. It it transferring energy from one place to another and the amount can be measured with various calibrated instruments.
There IS NO VIOLATION OF 2ND LAW!! You can reduce heat loss without being a violation of 2nd Law. Heat cannot transfer from cold to hot. Energy can. Heat is the net energy transferred. The hot object transfers more energy to the cold object than the cold object transfers to the hot object. NO VIOLATION! The hot object cools and the cold object warms. The rate of change is what takes place in the GHE. The heat loss via radiation is reduced so the solar heated surface will reach a higher steady state temperature.
norman…”This is a graph of Summer Desert Air temperature and Downwelling IR. You can see the temperature and the DWIR correlate. If you go to Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculator you get an emissivity for the dried desert air of around 0.7″.
***
You just explained it, they applied S-B incorrectly. The sigma in I = sigma.T^4 applies only in the range 500C to 1500C. There is no way it applies at terrestrial temperatures. That’s how they got the graph they got, by computation using an inadmissible formula.
If you are right, and an S-B calculator can calculate the temperatures correctly, then the graph was derived in the same manner, using an S-B calculator.
The sigma in I = sigma.T^4 applies only in the range 500C to 1500C.
That’s wrong Gordon, sigma is experimentally confirmed for all photon energies & by 3 constants of nature, two of which are speed of light and Planck’s constant so there is no limitation to any temperature range.
Gordon Robertson
Don’t be a science denier. I have already linked you, in the past, to lower temperature validation of Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Just because earlier experimenters determined it at the higher range does not mean other scientists have not experimented over a much larger range.
I will not keep sending you links on this as you ignore them and deny science. No real reason trying to educated someone who is unwilling to learn. You can research it yourself or you could do your own testing.
norman…plot a T^4 curve and check the linearity.
Stefan based his T^4 relationship in the range of 500C to 1500C based on an experiment by Tyndall.
If you look at the T^4 relationship for ice, it shows far too much radiation energy from it. Something is wrong.
If ball4 has no answer, you can bet he will create one, sans proof.
It would be OK if he offered it as a theory but B4 cannot help himself and he passes of his hypothesis as fact.
Gordon Robertson
Most of your bad science comes from this total Crackpot. You pretty much parrot what he says. When you post it sounds like it comes straight from this lunatic. He is not a good source of any science information. That you use this crackpot pseudo-scientist as your primary source is a poor reflection on your rational thinking ability and your overall science knowledge.
https://nov79.com/
If you had a real science background you could poke holes in his absurd claims all day long.
If T^4 relationship for ice really did show “far too much energy from it” as Gordon incorrectly writes, then my IR thermometer based on T^4 and emissivity 0.95 would not read 32F when pointed at a lab glass of ice water and 212F when pointed at some 1 atm. boiling tap water.
The something that is wrong is Gordon.
norman…”The charged dipole in CO2 which vibrates is not present in nonpolar molecules of N2 and O2 so when they vibrate they do not have a changing electric field”.
***
The dipole in CO2 exists between straight O-atoms and C-atoms. The configuration is like this…
O=====C=====O
Those dashed lines on either side of C represent real electrons orbiting the C and O atoms. As you know, we can’t tell how they actually orbit but we do know there is a probability field around the C and O atoms that indicates the likelihood of locating an electron there.
Due to the greater electronegativity of the O atoms, meaning it attracts electrons better than the C-atom, that probability shifts toward the O-atoms, setting up greater negative charges in that area. Meantime, the C-atom end of each dipole is +ve wrt to the O-atom end.
That’s your dipole and it is caused purely by bonding electrons. By the same token, there is a natural vibration in the orbits due to the strain between the -ve electrons charges and the +ve nucleus charges from protons.
If any one those bonding electrons receive extra energy, by absorbing EM, for example, they become more energized, adding to the vibration. If the molecule receives heat as energy, the bond becomes more excited.
I am not arguing about how CO2 absorbs EM and translates that to an increased vibration in the bonding electrons in CO2. I know the electrons are the only particles in atoms or molecules that can absorb EM or be affected by heat. I am simply saying there are no other magical attributes in molecules that can cause them to vibrate. The charges to which you refer are due to -ve charges from bonding electrons.
I also know that in a straight hydrogen atom, electron transitions from the 4 and 5 orbital shells to the 3 orbital shell produces IR emissions. I don’t see why pure oxygen and nitrogen atoms cannot do the same. The only think coming to mind is that oxygen and nitrogen exist in the atmosphere as molecules, not straight atoms. That means two N and two O atoms are bonded together by their valence shell electrons.
I drew a diagram for CO2 bonding above. The N2 bonding is similar to the bond between C and O except the N2 molecule has 3 sets of bonding electrons. Look up Lewis structure for N2.
Note…the N2 and O2 molecules do not form polar dipoles because the N and O atoms on either end are of equal electronegativity.
Abstract of a paper talking about IR emissions from molecular nitrogen…
https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-9-1-195
” Abstract of a paper talking about IR emissions from molecular nitrogen…
https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-9-1-195 ”
*
Robertson still did not manage yet to grasp the fundamental difference between far IR (>> 5 micron, mostly terrestrial) and near IR (< 5 micron, exclusively coming from solar radiation).
*
As Robertson deliberately ignores that the following charts were created by SpectralCalc UNDER CONSIDERATION OF THE GASES’ RESPECTIVE ATMOSPHERIC ABUNDANCE, I wrote this again.
Thus, he does not need to divert and manipulate with this stupid hint on CO2’s 0.04 %.
*
1. Solar (0-5 micron)
N2 solar:
https://i.postimg.cc/RVg8kwWF/N2-0-5-micron-sbaa.png
O2 solar:
https://i.postimg.cc/k4bP9sV9/O2-0-5-micron-sbaa.png
Note the absorp-tion/emission INTENSITIES measured in cm^-1/cm: they peak at 6 * 10^-9 for N2, and at 5 * 10^-5 for O2.
Earth emits nothing in the rane between 0 and 5 micron; thus, no terrestrial radiation can be absorbed and reemitted ny N2/O2.
*
2. Terrestrial (5-100,000 micron i.e. ~3GHz, WiFi frequency)
N2 terrestrial:
https://i.postimg.cc/2SW-kFnF1/N2-5-100000-micron-sbaa.png
O2 terrestrial:
https://i.postimg.cc/qBQx43K6/O2-5-100000-micron-sbaa.png
Note the absorp-tion/emission INTENSITIES measured in cm^-1/cm: they peak at 6 * 10^-11 for N2, and at 1 * 10^-6 for O2.
*
In comparison to these ridiculously low intensities, H2O absorbs/emits at an intensity of 10^-2, and CO2 at 10^-3, but in the range from 5 to 40 micron.
Comparing N2’s and O2’s absorp-tion and emission ability to that of H2O / CO2 is about as dumb as comparing Earth’s inner energy due to radioactive decay and core cooling, to the energy coming from solar radiation.
But Robertson and his gullible acolytes will continue to stupidly deny this.
Maybe the problem is that Binny speaks English as a second language.
I have never compared the ability of N2/O2 to the ability of CO2 to absorb IR. All I have done is support Swenson’s claim that all matter above 0K must radiate energy.
Whether N2/O2 radiates energy in the IR band or elsewhere, it stands to reason, that N2/O2 heated at the surface, or by incoming solar, must get rid of the energy as surrounding temperatures get lower. There are three ways it can get rid of the heat: by radiation, convection, conduction. The alarmist theory completely ignores gases that make up 99% of the atmosphere while focusing on a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere.
I have offered an alternate method. As N2/O2 rise due to convection they move through an ever decreasing pressure gradient. Eventually, those gases must lose heat due to simple expansion into a lower pressure gas.
Binny’s statistical analysis tells us nothing about the effect of N2/O2 in the atmosphere, leaving us with the ridiculous notion that all warming in the atmosphere, and cooling, is due to trace gases.
Ross McKitrick does not think the current forest fire situation is related to warming/climate change.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/ross-mckitrick-the-truth-about-forest-fires-goes-up-in-climate-change-smoke/ar-AA1cAMQU?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=cc489e68b7d84cf2be7f478a3851d155&ei=18
Who?
Glad you asked.
Ross McKitrick, part of the McIntyre and McKitrick team who demolished the Mann et al hockey stick.
2022 year-end highlight clips
https://tinyurl.com/jx4unraf
Beliefs and Bets
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/06/03/beliefs-and-bets/
I’ll bet most people won’t read your link article.
How much?
What?
NOT ALL Germans are stupid
https://notrickszone.com/2023/06/18/german-princess-gloria-on-green-new-deal-going-to-be-worse-than-communist-east-germany/
Good. Glad to see a European female countering the idiotic, snotty-nosed Greta Thunberg.
“Normally I dont put much stock in European royalty and what they have to say.”
That sums it up.
Sums up what, Nate? That people professing to be royal are idiots?
swenson…”Trenberth cant find the heat, so he just writes it off as a travesty. Problem solved!
Possibly not the brightest light in the room, old Kevin. Just a little dimmer than some”.
***
Trenberth is frustrated because one of his grad students, John Christy of UAH, went on to out-shine him. For someone with a colossal ego like Trenberth, that had to hurt. Trenberth has had to scrape the bottom of the alarmist propaganda barrel in a feeble attempt to counter John’s success at UAH, with Roy Spencer, establishing a real global average temperature using satellite data.
It is a tremendous credit to John that he had the integrity to go against the propaganda taught by Trenberth. John actually stuck to the science and had the integrity to talk about it in a classy manner.
“John actually stuck to the science and had the integrity to talk about it in a classy manner.”
Good thing for you to try to emulate Gordon.
I am influenced by the integrity of John Christy and Roy and that’s why I write as I do. I’ll be damned if I will stand by while alarmists like you force humans into a lifestyle in which they have to struggle over an idiotic load of pseudo-science.
Spoken by a guy who keeps posting idiotic loads of pseudo-science and ignores requests to provide proof.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1498658
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1499471
Swanson, please stop trolling.
norman posted this link as a reference for his misunderstanding of science…
“This:
https://media.cheggcdn.com/media/4bd/4bd69bdd-8a7c-4d44-88b8-ed1fa34ff7e4/phpyzJ2gA.png
This is a spectrum of IR that is emitted from Earth system and makes it to a satellite detector”.
***
The graph is credited to G.W. Petty (2004) so I found the book he wrote on atmospheric radiation to have a look-see. Although I could not find that particular graph in the book there are graphs similar to it but none of them actually offer a description as to how the graph was derived.
I know from similar graphs that they come from computation and not actual telemetry. Nevertheless, I decided to read through the book quickly and I am sorry I did.
Norman is high on textbooks but having studied from many of them I have learned to be somewhat skeptical of a textbook’s ability to cover all the science it purports to cover. This book is no exception.
The author reveals a gross misunderstanding of EM by trying to equate it to magnets while inferring that the magnetic field creates an electric field. That is nonsense. Even though he talks about quantum theory he fails to grasp that quantum theory is based on electrons and their electric charges. Electric charges produce electric fields with which magnetic fields can interact but magnetic fields alone do not create electric fields. Magnetic field can cause an electron to move but any field created is due to the charge on the electron.
The author goes on…
“The existence of thermally emitted radiation becomes more apparent to us when the temperature differences are larger. A wood- burning stove radiates heat that you can feel on your face from across a room”.
Absolute nonsense. You can’t even feel the radiation from a 1500 watts ring on an electric stove from 4 feet. Heat felt from a wood stove comes from heated air molecules that get to you by convection.
Typical of modern authorities on radiation, the author claims…
“By integrating Planck’s Function over all possible wavelengths, you get the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states that the theoretical maximum amount of total (broadband) radiation that can be emitted by an object is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Thus, doubling the temperature of an object leads to sixteen-fold increase in the maximum amount of radiation it can theoretically emit”.
The author fails to grasp that S-B was derived from an experiment by Tyndall that involved heating a platinum filament wire electrically from about 500C to 1500C. Planck’s equation was derived by fudging math based on the S-B equation. If the author does not understand that, he will not get it that air molecules at nearly 500C less in temperature cannot be subjected to an equation derived from temps between 500C and 1500C.
Then he blathers…
“9.2.2 Vibrational Transitions
The covalent bonds between two atoms in a molecule arise from a balance of attractive and repulsive electrostatic forces. The former dominates when the two atoms are relatively widely separated…”
More nonsense. The covalent bonds between two atoms result from electrons being shared between the two atoms. It has nothing to do with +ve and -ve charges between the nucleus and orbiting electrons.
This pseudo-science is typical of texts on radiation theory yet Norman abides by the nonsense and argues from it.
“Heat felt from a wood stove comes from heated air molecules that get to you by convection.
No Gordon. Hold your hand a bit less than an inch above a candle and same distance to the side. Discover the reality of the results of convection.
“The author fails to grasp that S-B was derived from an experiment by Tyndall that involved heating a platinum filament wire electrically from about 500C to 1500C.”
No, that is Gordon’s false writing. The authors are correct. Experiments over all temperatures including Tyndall’s confirm the authors work. IR thermometers also confirm the authors work.
Try keeping yourself warm with a candle flame, or even a 100 watt incandescent light bulb.
Prove that S-B has a linear relationship between temperature and radiation intensity over a range from 0K to 5000K. If you knew anything about exponentials, you might get it that a T^4 relationship is far from linear.
“Absolute nonsense. You cant even feel the radiation from a 1500 watts ring on an electric stove from 4 feet. Heat felt from a wood stove comes from heated air molecules that get to you by convection.”
Weird Gordon. Stand outside on a cool night facing a campfire. Your face is warmed. Now turn around and face away. Your face is cooled.
Because it was radiant heat transfer from the fire that was warming your face, when facing the fire, and radiant heat transfer from your face that cooled it when facing away from the fire.
“The author fails to grasp that S-B was derived from an experiment by Tyndall that involved heating a platinum filament wire electrically from about 500C to 1500C. Plancks equation was derived by fudging math based on the S-B equation. If the author does not understand that, he will not get it that air molecules at nearly 500C less in temperature cannot be subjected to an equation derived from temps between 500C and 1500C.”
Gordon, this is the opposite of ‘sticking to the science and having the integrity to talk about it in a classy manner’.
Experiments did not stop after Tyndall in the 1860s, and the testing of the SB law and Planck’s law has been extended down to cryogenic temperatures.
And they still work.
How about posting a link to these S-B applications. While you’re at it, you might try addressing the Tyndall experiment and how Stefan used it to confirm his T^4 law.
Gordo wrote more nonsense
I have a 30,000 BTU propane wall heater which I used for a while. When it was running, I could feel the IR radiation from it at a distance of ~25 feet. The convection from it went straight up, also heating the space.
swannie must be forgiven his ignorance, he also thinks heat can be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body by its own means.
Swannie…you are not feeling radiation you are feeling heat convection. Convection does not just go straight up, it goes in every such direction that drafts take it.
Or, are you claiming that heat transferred via convection from a heater only heats the air above it?
No, Gordo, I was NOT refereing to the warming by convection. I used a radiant heater for a while, then switched back to a convection unit. I could easily sense the warming from the radiant unit, while the convection unit took some time to warm the space. In my enclosed heated space, the convection unit heated the air from the ceiling down. I could stand a couple of feet away from the convection unit and feel little heating.
Gordon Robertson
You have zero Chemistry. Please don’t lie to us and claim you took a course in any type of Chemistry. You demonstrate total arrogant ignorance about the subject.
Covalent bonds include all the electric forces including the positive charges of the nucleus. You can bluster on and on about how scientists are stupid and only you know but that is extreme arrogance.
The person you quoted is quite correct about covalent bonds. You don’t know enough about Chemistry to rationally think about the topic. You reject and entire branch of Chemistry that determines unknown compounds using IR spectroscopy and the entire theory it is based upon. You are a complete science denier and a true pseudo-scientist. You reject all evidence, and only believe your own made up version of science.
Here is a Chemistry description of covalent bonds. Another science article you will reject and deny, not because it is wrong or incorrect thinking, mainly it goes against your what Gary Novak has taught you.
https://tinyurl.com/mr2mcsaf
norman…you are skipping all over the place. Who is Gary Novak? I get my info from chemistry experts like Linus Pauling.
Covalent bonding theory makes no mention of the positive charges in the nucleus. We know those charges are involved in holding atoms together due to the mutual attraction between them and the negative charges on electrons. Without those equal and opposite charges, the atomic would not exist.
You have to distinguish between the atom itself and the molecule formed by two or more atoms. The atom is held together by equal and opposite electrostatic forces and when you bring that atom closer to another atom which is held together in the same way, they must have a method of joining to create a molecule.
Not all atoms can join together to form molecules. Those atoms with differences in the number of electrons in their outer shells (valence electrons) are more likely to bond together, especially if they can share electrons to create a neutral atom.
Covalent bonding is about atoms sharing electrons to form more stable aggregates, called molecules. The only electrons that can be shared are available electrons in the outer shells. No other electrons can be shared. Since electrons are claimed to orbit atoms, in order to be shared and still orbit, it means they must somehow orbit both atoms, and in the case of multiple atoms, they must form fancy orbits to accommodate that condition.
Seriously, no one really knows whether this is an accurate theory or not. It comes down to experiments like one performed by Rutherford, circa 1910, in which he bombarded a thin sheet of metallic foil with alpha particles and noted that 1 in 100,000 particles was diverted by something he called the nucleus. In other words, most alpha particles (positive charges or protons) passed right through the atoms without touching anything. It was theorized that electrons would not cause a diversion due to them being 1/1800 the mass of an alpha p[article.
That nucleus is a tiny spec, like a grain of sand, compared to the overall size of an atom. Most of the atom is empty space in which the electrons are claimed to orbit the nucleus. Mark me down as skeptical. However, this theory has worked, with people like Linus Pauling be able to figure out the shapes of molecules based on this information and using techniques like Rutherford’s.
When a molecular shape has a geometric shape, that shape is multiplied into larger crystals. That’s one way they can confirm the theorized shapes of molecules.
Gordon Robertson
You have linked to Gary Novak in the past. You should know who he is since you used his material on this blog before.
Electrons do not orbit. They have already used science (evidence that you reject) to prove it is not possible. Don’t use Linus Pauling in your posts as if you use him as a source. I own his Chemistry book and he would think you are a science denier if he had talked to you.
I can tell you material from his book and show you know very little about Chemistry. Some very surface knowledge, nothing more yet you act like an expert and attack people who know what they are talking about. You know that makes you sound like an ignoramus.
Dr Spencer writes: “The greenhouse effect is energetically analogous to adding insulation to a heated house in winter: for a given rate of energy input, the inside of the house becomes warmer, and the outside of the house becomes colder.”
The analogy falls short of reality. The analogy looks on the effect of added CO2 as a passive phenomenon, without mention of feedback. Insulation shows no feedback because it is passive. Feedback is a dynamic phenomenon. Sad to say, the routinely accepted ‘forcing and feedback’ formalism (FFF) is muddled about this. The routinely accepted version of the FFF is presented as built on static balance conditions. But that hardly accords with the usual concepts of feedback, which are based on dynamic models. The earth’s energy transport process is dynamic, not static.
It is logically possible to construct a notion of feedback for static models, but that requires arbitrary choice and specification of the intended feedback state variable, and it requires an intervention with respect to that variable, thereby making a quasi-dynamic model. Indeed, in practice, the warmistas’ FFF does make an aritrary choice of “feedback” variable, namely water vapour content. But it fails to take due simultaneous account of the increase of rate of evaporation that is necessary to increase the water vapour content. And it arbitrarily assumes without proof that added CO2 will initially and primarily “force” an actual substantial rise in temperature. We have no reason to believe that such a substantial rise will actually be caused by added CO2. In effect, the FFF assumes what it sets out to prove.
The heart of the matter is that added CO2 will alter the rate of working of the hydrological cycle, aka the rate of convective circulation, which can hardly be calculated accurately on a priori or theoretical grounds. The largest contribution to cooling of the earth’s condensed matter landsea surface is by convective circulation. The virtual radiative surface warming by back radiation is small in comparison with the established convective circulatory cooling, so that it is practically beyond current knowledge to calculate whether it is substantial.
Physically, the problem is that feedback will alter the internal variables of the earth’s energy transport process, so that the concept of “forcing”, invented by the warmistas, is basically muddled. In the analogy of insulation of a house, the previously installed (or ‘reference’) insulation is actively dynamically changed in a practically incalculable way when CO2 is added. Usually, the insulation on a house is passive.
It is partly on the basis of that muddled version that the warmistas are able to maintain their nonsensical rhetorical artifice of “amplification by positive feedback through water vapour”, thereby maintaining their dogmatic fantasy of 3.6C of warming.
Christopher, the hydrological cycle data in energy balance papers is that observed not calculated so your point that it can’t be calculated is moot. Also, since it is a “cycle” as you note, there can be no monotonic temperature component over climate timeframes from that cycle.
Atm. humidity does change with temperature & is now measured at 95% confidence within meaningful error bands in the satellite era.
Ball4,
With your vast self-assessed knowledge, you should have no trouble describing the GHE, should you?
Does your description agree with Willard’s “slower cooling”, or bobdroege’s “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”?
Or do you have your own?
Only joking. You’re an idiot, and you can’t even decide the GHE, can you? You just claim everybody else has a description, but you are keeping yours secret. Why, God alone knows, but who cares anyway?
What a pack of idiots – dumber dumber, and dumbest?
My GHE description is not secret Swenson. Swenson can experience the GHE every day Swenson would like but I understand experiments are not in Swenson’s interest or experience.
Ball4,
You don’t have GHE description at all, do you?
That’s why you blather about anything else.
Idiot.
“do you?”
Of course I do. It’s just that inept Swenson can’t find it or understand it. Very entertaining.
B4,
You claim that you have a description of the GHE – but you are not going to disclose to anybody!
That’s very clever, isn’t it. If you don’t tell anybody what it is, how can they possibly find anything wrong with it?
You idiot – you just lie, and hope other idiots will believe you.
Does your description agree with bobdroege’s “definition” – “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”?
Idiot.
[snorting with derision at lying SkyDragon cultist]
I’ve disclosed my GHE description to everyone including Swenson who is too inept to realize such. Though I note Swenson is an entertaining commenter being mostly wrong on basic science all the time!
Thank you, Ball4, for your helpful reply.
Yes, the speed of the hydrological cycle is observed, but still its hypothetical dependence on CO2 addition can’t be calculated easily. So the model has difficulty providing a real prediction.
As for the hydrological cycle being a cycle, that doesn’t mean it’s periodic in time. It just means that it goes round and round in space. The speed that it goes round could, for all we know, be monotonically dependent on temperature; I guess it is. The question is ‘how big is the dependence?’
Yes, atmospheric absolute humidity is inclined to increase with temperature. I don’t doubt that measurements will to some degree confirm that, though my concern is more with the speed of the hydrological cycle. Questions here are whether the hydrological cycle speeds up due to added CO2, and, if so, how the speeding up of the cycle affects “climate temperature”. We don’t have good reason to think that increase of absolute humidity with temperature is a mechanism for “amplification through positive feedback by water vapour”. The dogma of “amplification through positive feedback by water vapour” depends on the mathematical or logical validity of the FFF, which is what my post is rejecting.
Christopher 4:48 am, last I read net measured top-of-atmosphere flux trends for 2002/09-2020/03 show component changes attributed to increased atm. water vapor trending at 95% confidence +0.31 +/- 0.19 W/m^2/decade out of a total +0.65 +/- 0.17 W/m^2/decade trend in absorbed solar radiation.
Evaporation of ocean water depends on the state of the liquid not the state of the atm. air. Argo data shows SST increasing in the time period allowing for an increase in ocean evaporation. It’s reasonable then that rain/snow precipitation isn’t quite compensating for a complete hydrological cycle at least in the satellite era. More data is collected 24/7/365 so the climate timeframe trends will become increasingly well known.
Ball4 10:21am. It is impressive that you have these facts at your fingertips. Thank you.
A problem is to link the hydrological changes to increase in CO2 levels. I don’t see us further sorting this out through such detailed facts. I am more concerned with the logical and mathematical structure of the FFF. In particular, I am unhappy with trying to go from consideration of one or two variables to an idea of overall “amplification” covering all variables. The various feedbacks work at their respective various rates. That cannot be accurately accounted for by a static model such as the FFF. I think a suitable dynamic model is necessary. It will be hard, perhaps unfeasible, to construct such a model. Not even the atmospheric/oceanic global climate models (AOCGMs) seem able to give an accurate account. I think that overall feedback will turn out to be negative if an accurate model is constructed.
christopher…”Ball4 10:21am. It is impressive that you have these facts at your fingertips. Thank you”.
***
Has it not occurred to you that ball4 is talking through his hat? B4 is a troll who insists that heat can be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body. Not only that, he denies the existence of heat as a form of energy.
His buddy, Bindidon, who compares you unfavourably to Swenson, is an even bigger idiot. Swenson is several levels of intelligence above both of them but uses his intelligence humourously to baffle them into making stupid statements.
“… heat can be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body”
That’s wrong. Science rookie Gordon just makes that up with no evidence because there is none. M-B showed energy and momentum can be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body. That energy can be in the form of both kinetic energy and electromagnetic radiation.
b4…”M-B showed energy and momentum can be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body”.
***
M-B were using statistical arguments that should never be used to describe atomic motion, which are real particles. Boltzmann committed suicide due to the depression he encountered from being unable to prove his pseudo-science.
Maxwell and Boltzmann can be forgiven due to the extreme lack of information available for real atoms and their constituent parts, especially electrons. Electrons were not discovered till the late 1890s and Maxwell was dead by then. Although Boltzmann lived till 1905, he would not have known much about electrons and nothing about Bohr’s revelation of 1913 that links EM and electrons in atoms.
Even at that, it took another 10 years till Schrodinger put forth his equations based on wave mechanics. His work was another attempt to quantify atomic actions that still cannot be observed directly. It theorizes a relationship between electrons allegedly orbiting an atomic nucleus and the properties of atoms.
Why would B4 put forward a theory about Maxwell and Boltzmann who had no idea about the energy and momentum allegedly transferred from a colder body to a hotter body, that contradicts the 2nd law of Clausius, who was clear they can’t.
Clausius did not depend on atomic theory even though he had an uncanny understanding of it. His work was at the macro level, observing phenomena like temperature, pressure, and volume, as applied to heat engine theory.
B4 is inferring that real measurement that corroborate the 2nd law at a macro level somehow don’t apply at the atomic level.
M-B did not need to know about electrons, did not need wave mechanics, or nuclei. All they needed was kinetic theory which has survived to this day. Science rookie Gordon is simply far behind in learning even basic physics.
Ball4,
You have no clue, have you?
You can’t even describe the GHE, so trying to “explain” something which doesn’t exist just makes you look like a delusional SkyDragon cultist.
You mention M-B. Presumably, you are striving to appear intelligent through obscurity.
You wrote, for example, “M-B showed energy and momentum can be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body. That energy can be in the form of both kinetic energy and electromagnetic radiation.”
I’ll just point out what Richard Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Now is your turn to tell me how many experiments you “know about”, but you are going to keep secret! You idiot, just claiming that “experiments exist” is about as idiotic as claiming that you have a description of the GHE.
You are an idiot, but at least you are stupid and ignorant to go with it.
b4…”M-B did not need to know about electrons, did not need wave mechanics, or nuclei. All they needed was kinetic theory which has survived to this day”.
***
You are claiming that any scientist can use math, especially statistical methods, to determine how matter works at the atomic level. So, why don’t we just scrap physics, since mathematicians can work it out with a pencil. They started working it out with a pencil when constipated and found the pencil worked for scribbling equations but tasted a bit off when they licked the tip to get a better pencil mark.
As a matter of fact, it appears that’s what is happening. Physics is slowly being replaced by ad hoc theories based on consensus, mathematics, and ridiculous theories like space-time.
“why don’t we just scrap physics, since mathematicians can work it out with a pencil.”
Can’t do that Gordon, the college physics lecture is no accomplishment without the physics lab course tacked on. Too bad physics rookie Gordon obviously hasn’t accomplished both physics courses not knowing good science from bad science.
C,
You wrote –
“Yes, atmospheric absolute humidity is inclined to increase with temperature”
Except when it doesnt, of course. The most extreme temperatures on the face of the Earth are characterized by the extremely low levels of absolute humidity. Places like Furnace Creek, the Lut desert, for example, have high maxima.
On the other hand, the lowest temperatures on Earth are found in places like Antarctica, once again characterized by exceptionally low absolute humidity.
Curious, isn’t it?
I tend to contemplate the vast difference between Flynnson’s stupidity and Christopher Game’s intelligence.
Binny,
Do you think Christopher Game might feel offended by your assessment of his intelligence?
Tut, tut.
christopher…I agree in principle about the feedback nonsense but my disagreement goes to the root definition of feedback in a physical system.
Gavin Schmidt, now head of NASA GISS could not explain positive feedback. He has a degree in math yet he could not provide an equation to describe it. Subjectively, he fumbles with a description as does every other alarmist attempting an explanation of it. This guy programs climate models with those feedbacks and it’s scary that he cannot provide an equation to describe it.
Alarmists don’t bother with the actual physics, they have assigned a warming factor to CO2 in the atmosphere of 9% to 25%, depending on the amount of water vapour. Their definition of positive feedback is based on their voodoo science.
There are two types of positive feedback in physical systems. One type, control feedback, used in servo systems, relies on the sign of a voltage fed back to a controller. There is no amplification of a signal in this system unless the signal needs to be sent over a considerable distance and is subject to unacceptable losses.
For example, to control the speed of a motor, a tachometer could be attached to the motor shaft. The tach output is sent through a device that generates a positive D.C voltage feedback if the tach reads about a certain RPM and a -ve D.C voltage feedback if he rpm drops below a certain RPM. That D.C voltage is sent back to the controller and it adjusts the current to the motor to speed it up or slow it down.
We are not talking about that sort of feedback in the atmosphere, we are talking about an amplified signal where the gain in the amplifier is controlled by a portion of the output signal fed back to the input. If the feedback signal enhances the input signal, then each iteration of the processed signal produces an ever-increasing output signal.
Hansen, the former head of GISS referred to that conditions as leading to a tipping point, or a runaway greenhouse effect. Hansen got that pseudo-science from Carl Sagan, an arrogant SOB who was a legend in his own mind. Sagan has since been proved wrong since probes of the Venusian atmosphere circa 1978 revealed a surface temperature of 450C, far too hot to be the result of a runaway greenhouse effect.
Had his understudy, Gavin Schmidt, looked positive feedback up on Google, he would surely have found the equation he was looking for. Positive feedback that leads to a tipping point, or runaway condition, requires an amplifier and the equations is…
G = A /(1 + AB)
G = overall gain of system
A = amplifier gain
B = feedback signal
This type of feedback requires an amplifier and there is obviously no amplifier in the atmosphere. Ergo, there can be no positive feedback in the atmosphere of the type that leads to thermal runaway.
Gordon Robertson 19 Jun 5:22PM writes:
“Gavin Schmidt, now head of NASA GISS could not explain positive feedback. He has a degree in math yet he could not provide an equation to describe it. Subjectively, he fumbles with a description as does every other alarmist attempting an explanation of it. This guy programs climate models with those feedbacks and its scary that he cannot provide an equation to describe it.”
Gordon, I would be glad if you would give references or links to Gavin Schmidt’s comments to which you refer.
christopher…here you go. About halfway down the page is a section called Gavin Schmidt on positive feedback.
The author, Jeffrey Glassman is an engineer who obviously understand positive feedback.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180314162940/http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
Gordon Robertson 3:51AM. Thank you Gordon. I will examine that link.
Gordon,
Not to worry, Gavin explains “damping feedback” thus –
“This has an impact on ECS because in a warming world, one expects more cloud water to turn from ice to liquid, and since liquid clouds are more reflective, this is a damping feedback on overall climate warming.”
You see, if your “expectations” become reality, then you can overturn conventional physical notions, and redefine “climate” to something whose temperature can be changed – rather than being just the historical averages of weather observations.
Here’s Gavin being somewhat confused about feedbacks – “Even in simple systems, small positive feedbacks can lead to stable situations as long as the ‘gain’ factor is less than one (i.e. for every initial change in the quantity, the feedback change is less than the original one).”
He obviously thinks a positive feedback can have either a negative or positive gain, depending on what fantasy he is currently pushing.
I like Gavin’s excuse when his fantasy refuses to turn into fact –
“Gavin Schmidt says theres nothing really wrong with climate models in fact, “theyve done a pretty good job of predicting what has happened.” One reason they arent more precise, he says, is people.” – Christian Science Monitor.
Bloody people. Refusing to obey the models. What’s a “climatologist” to do?
Here’s Schmidt on positive feedback from the link above…
“The idea is that in many non-linear systems (of which the climate is certainly one), a small push away from one state only has small effects at first but at some ‘tipping point’ the system can flip and go rapidly into another state. This is fundamentally tied to the existence of positive feedbacks . However, [tipping point] is currently being used interchangeably a number of potentially confusing ways and so I thought I’d try and make it a little clearer”.
Has he made it clearer for you? I’d like to see an real example of what he’s talking about.
Then he states…
“A positive feedback occurs when a change in one component of the climate occurs, leading to other changes that eventually ‘feeds back’ on the original change to amplify it”.
He doesn’t explain where the heat amplifier is located or what is fed back. Alarmist think feedback can cause amplification but non of them explain how it works.
Gordo wrote:
There are several mechanisms which have been discussed repeatedly as examples of “heat amplifiers”.
For example, the snow/sea-ice albedo feedback produces such an effect. As the Earth warms, there will be less coverage of snow and sea-ice, both of which exhibit higher albedo that the surface below. This effect is particularly important for sea-ice, since the water below is a good absorber of incident sunlight during the summer melt season. The result is said to be more sunlight absorbed at the surface than in previous periods, thus higher temperatures. Over time, the warmer waters of the Arctic Ocean tend to suppress the formation of sea-ice in Winter, which compounds over time with the possibility of complete loss of sea-ice cover at the end of the melt season. Data from recent decades have shown considerable loss in multi-year sea-ice, replaced by thinner first year ice.
swannie…” The BPs temperature does not instantly rise after the GP is hoisted into position. The warming occurs after the GP has warmed then radiates IR which the BP can then absorb, etc.”
***
Only is the GP warms to a temperature higher than the BP.
2nd law.
Gordo cherry picks, then screams “2nd law”, again providing no evidence to support his numerous recurring rants.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1499471
Gordo still can’t explain how the GP could “cut off” or “block” the BP’s emissions on the side facing the GP. He can’t come up with a description of the means by which the GHE could cause perpetual motion.
ES,
“Gordo still cant explain how the GP could “cut off” or “block” the BPs emissions on the side facing the GP. He cant come up with a description of the means by which the GHE could cause perpetual motion.”
Who cares if he can “explain” your GP and BP nonsense or not?
You can’t even describe the GHE, so demanding that people “explain” something you can’t even describe is a bit rich, isn’t it?
However, if you are implying that energy from a cooler body can spontaneously transfer to a hotter body, without the cooler body falling in temperature, you are quite mad. The hotter body would just get hotter, and this heat could be used, for example, to boil water to drive a steam engine – forever and ever. If the water starts to cool, just expose it to something cooler – you claim the radiation from the colder body will raise the temperature of the water to boiling again!
That sounds idiotic even to you, doesn’t it? No perpetual motion. No heating of the surface by a colder atmosphere. The Earth has cooled – even four and a half billion years of continuous sunshine couldn’t stop the cooling.
Flynnson’s understanding of thermodynamics is rather shallow. His analogy of a steam engine misses the basic fact so often repeated about heat engines and reversible cycles, which is, no such system can convert all the energy available into the equivalent work. With a reversible cycle, the output could be used to drive another device moving energy backward to the hot reservoir. If such could be done with 100% efficiency, the two devices could continue to operate “perpetually” with no other energy supply. But, we know that any such system, such as a Carnot cycle, is necessarily limited because it operates between two temperatures which determine the resulting conversion efficiency that will always be less than 100%.
Furthermore, for the GPE and the GHE, the energy “back radiated” from the colder to the warmer body is supplied from the hot body and is continually replenished as the colder body absorbs IR radiation from the hot body then emits radiation. There is no creation of energy involved. In neither situation, the returned back radiation will be less than that absorbed, since the GPE and the atmosphere radiate in two directions of which only one direction can impinge on the warmer body.
Anyone who has worked with EM/IR knows that a metal plate will block both. The official name is a Faraday shield.
The 2nd law is vital for your experiment and as stated by Clausius, heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body. The fact this needs to be explained to you is the issue.
However thermal energy can be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.
Gordo’s reply is another example of his diversions. Sure, a Faraday Shield or a solid metal enclosure will absorb RF emissions, but that does not effect the emissions from devices operating inside the box. For shorter wavelengths of thermal IR radiation at 300-400k, any solid material will do, depending on it’s surface treatment, there’s no requirement that a metal is used. But, again, the emissions from the heated BP (or the Earth’s surface) will still produce thermal IR radiation, there is no “blocking” or a “cut off” in those emissions.
Gordo also ignores the logical conclusion of his claim when applied to my GPE demo. The solid walls of the bell jar would produce the same “blocking” effect, if it actually existed, the result would be a continual increase in the BP’s temperature to some absurd level.
Gordo also repeats his usual mantra regarding the 2nd Law, claiming that I don’t understand Clausius, etc. He casually ignores the fact that the GP in my demo is not providing energy “by its own means ” but is powered by the external energy absorbed from the BP’s thermal IR emissions.
Of course, Gordo thinks he can explain things, but he can’t be bothered to provide a physics description of any Perpetual Motion violation in either my GPE or the GHE. He’s just chanting his mantra over and over, as if his assertions are proof of something.
E. Swanson, did you finally learn the difference between 1LoT and 2LoT?
Gordon, do you have the same objection to transfers by conduction and convection, or is radiation a special case? I ask because you arguments clearly fail for other cases.
Take an electrically heated panel (paint it blue and call it the “blue plate”) outside on a cold winter day (say -20 C). It will warm to some temperature (say 40 C). Now grab an insulated -20C cardboard box (painted green and call it a set of “green plates”) and put it around the ‘blue plate’. No heat will ever flow from a “green plate” to a “blue plate”, but the blue plate WILL warm up (maybe to 60 C) due to the presence of a colder object nearby. Air inside the box will arm above -20 C, allowing the “blue plate” to warm some additional amount.
No perpetual motion.
No violation of conservation of energy.
No violation of 2nd Law.
Yes Folkerts, insulation works. The atmosphere provides some insulation. CO2 (and other radiative gases) reduce the amount of insulation. A lot more radiative gases would cool the planet.
Do you have a description of your cults GHE, that you will stick with?
But will you agree that “radiative insulation” also works? If all the above was done in a vacuum (ie no conduction or convection through the air), the “blue plate” would still be warmer with the “green plates” in place.
The warmer the green plates, the warm the blue plate will be.
You’re changing/mixing scenarios. That’s why trolls do. I keep it simple, just to frustrate trolls.
Insulation works, but that does NOT mean cold can warm hot. You’re changing the green plate to a green box. Two plates together would have the same temperature, just as they would slightly apart in ideal conditions and no losses.
Do you have a description of your cults GHE, that you will stick with?
This is exactly why serious discussions here end up being pointless. Some people are mostly interested in insults and frustrating others, not in finding mutual understanding of science.
Change scenarios helps highlight new points. it is not trolling.
(Unless you also think your two plates together/apart is also trolling.)
Tim,
You say “Take an electrically heated panel . . . “. OK, powered by a button cell with an output voltage of 1.5 V and a capacity of 150 mAh.
Now start wriggling.
Idiot.
If you can create a panel that reaches 40 C when it is -20 outside, great! My scenario still work fine.
IF you can not, then you are disingenuously changing the scenario.
In either case, you are the one “wiggling”.
https://stuff.lanowen.com/Physics/Labs/Phys%20260L/Lab4/Lab_4_Stafan-Boltzmann-Law.pdf
Get real, Norman, this is an experiment done by an immature student being taught by a teacher. It does not follow the requirements of the scientific method. There are no drawings to show the layout or explanations of the method. In other words, the experimenter gives no indication he knows what the S-B law is about or how to measure it.
The experimenters proof of S-B at low temperatures is a joke.
For a properly conducted experiment of this kind, see Tyndall’s experiment circa 1850, in which he proves that certain molecules absorb IR. I can’t lay my hands on it at the moment but maybe Swenson has it handy.
The experiment you posted uses a Leslie Cube, initially devised by John Leslie who lived from 1766 – 1832. The idea of the cube is to demonstrate the different emissions of the sides of the cube which are made of different material. The cube is meant to be filled with hot water to maintain its temperature around 100C.
I have no idea why this experiment is using one. All that is required is one radiating surface. Note that the experiment by Tyndall from which Stefan used the data to get the T^4 relationship used a filament wire heated electrically till it glowed.
Gordon Robertson
You attack an experiment but have you ever done one?
Why do you think that the Stefan-Boltzmann relation would only work at a particular temperature and then for some reason stop at lower temperatures? Do you have a mechanism that could explain this behavior. I assumed you would reject science as you are a science denier. You reject any evidence that goes against your beliefs.
There are other experiments out there. I don’t think you will accept anything but you will continue to believe that the T^4 only works in a limited temperature band. Does gravity only work in a limited mass band?
I don’t think you will accept any experiment at all. When you deny science and only accept things you believe you purposely reject any evidence that does not support your beliefs. I can say most certainly you are not into science.
Norman,
You don’t have an experiment which shows a the radiation from a colder body transferring itself to a hotter, increasing its temperature, because it’s impossible.
Now you can start pretending that everybody else has done such experiments, but you have forgotten exactly where and when, so you’ll just say something stupid like “Look on the internet.”.
That’s a typical response from an idiot who’s been caught telling lies.
Fool.
Not forgotten, Planck’s work proved Swenson wrong.
Swenson
Roy Spencer himself performed an experiment to prove radiant energy from a colder object will indeed affect the temperature of a heated hot object. A cold object WILL NOT increase the temperature of a non-heated hot object but it will slow the rate of cooling.
Question for you, do know the difference between a heated and non-heated object is?
Norman, you did NOT understand that experiment. And slowing the cooling is NOT the same as raising the temperature. Youre trying to pervert science and reality again.
But the temperature IS measured higher by thermometer in the experimental results. Clint R can’t explain that scientific result circumstance since Clint R prefers being the blog laughing stock.
Norman and Ball4 get to work together to explain Norman’s claim: Roy Spencer himself performed an experiment to prove radiant energy from a colder object will indeed affect the temperature of a heated hot object.
No troll tactics, and no hand-waving, and no unsupported claims.
I won’t respond if you two trolls can’t behave as responsible adults.
Clint R
I have no problem understanding Roy’s experiment. He also explains it if you read the thread. When the lid covers the ice it is warmer than the ice and sends more IR to the heated plate than the ice and the temperature of the heated plate goes up. When he removes the lid the temperature goes down because ice sends less IR to the heated plate. He does this cycle a few times and provides a graph of the results. I am certain it is you that can’t understand the experiment. Not sure you ever will. Not too many are as stupid as you are. Most can figure out the experiment and if not they can follow Roy’s own explanation.
Wrong again, troll Norman.
The flux from the lid consists of IR AND the reflected flux of much higher energy photons from the heated plate. The lid is acting as a radiative reflector. It is NOT an example of *cold* warming *hot*.
Clint R
I am not the one who is wrong here. Perhaps you did not read the post from Roy Spencer. I will link to it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
You should take the time to read it.
In it he points out: “Since a part of the heat budget of the heated plate is its loss of infrared energy to the cold ice, it should be possible to measure an increase in the temperature of the hot plate if the view of the ice is blocked with a second sheet (painted with very high IR emissivity paint, Krylon white #1502) at room temperature.”
He made sure the blocking sheet was not reflective in the IR by painting it with very low reflective IR paint.
Clint R
I think your “valid” physics is from this.
https://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/ambsblack.pdf
Not really valid, he has no experimental evidence supporting his claims and saying established science is wrong.
If the cold body cannot change the temperature of a heated object, as you believe (based upon Claes Johnson’s opinions) then a simple experiment could prove you correct. Water ice at around 0 C and a container of dry ice at a much colder temperature.
You move containers of these under the heated plate. In the world of Claes Johnson and (Swenson, you and Gordon Robertson) there would be no possible change in the hot plate temperature by just moving ice and dry ice under it. The low energy photons would not be absorbed by the hotter object so it would not matter if they are ice or dry ice since none are absorbed.
If, however as established science claims, the temperature of the hot plate did change (warmer with ice colder with dry ice in view) than established physics is correct and the Disciples of Claes Johnson need to find a new Guru to attach themselves to.
I am sure Roy could do such an experiment but you would not accept the results.
Troll Norman, youre always bringing up names of people. This is about basic physics.
If you believe a white surface cannot reflect visible and near-visible light, then you dont understand basic physics.
I predict you will not understand any of this but just continue trolling.
Prove me wrong.
That isn’t what Norman wrote so Clint R can’t even write stuff correctly. Remains entertaining reading Clint R get stuff wrong much of the time.
norman…”If the cold body cannot change the temperature of a heated object…”
***
It’s not a cold body, Norman, it’s a cold-er body. No one is claiming that a cold body cannot warm another body that is even colder.
Norman,
You dont have an experiment which shows a the radiation from a colder body transferring itself to a hotter, increasing its temperature, because its impossible.
Now you can start pretending that everybody else has done such experiments, but you have forgotten exactly where and when, so youll just say something stupid like Look on the internet..
Thats a typical response from an idiot whos been caught telling lies.
Fool.
Clint R
I linked you to Roy’s experiment so you could read it yourself. It would do you good to read the article before making a comment.
YOU: “If you believe a white surface cannot reflect visible and near-visible light, then you dont understand basic physics.
I predict you will not understand any of this but just continue trolling.
Prove me wrong.”
Okay I will prove you wrong (which you would have seen had you took any time to read Roy’s post on the experiment).
Roy Spencer was aware of the idea you present and here is how he checked on it (again read the article): “Experiments like this often have sources of error when one tries to isolate a certain process. One concern would be whether the room-temperature sheet was slightly reflective to infrared radiation, which would cause the observed temperature effect by reflecting some of the hot-plate emitted IR radiation back on itself. I tested the sheet, which has very high infrared emissivity paint applied, by measuring its IR temperature with the Flir imager outside, both at right angles to the surface, and then at a ~45 deg. angle so the cold sky (today running in the mid-20s deg. F in the Flir measurements) could reflect off the sheet. There was no noticeable difference to a small fraction of a degree, so the paint appears to have an IR emissivity close to 1.0 and is indeed non-reflective in the infrared.”
Global warming firez
Authorities busted a Democratic donor for allegedly starting a ginormous inferno in Yosemite National Park. Democratic politicians had insisted climate change was to blame for the blaze, which destroyed more than 100 homes and injured several firefighters in July 2022.
The arson suspect has donated $1,775 to Democratic candidates and committees since 2020, government records show, including a $1,000 donation to Tim Ryans failed U.S. Senate campaign in 2022 and $400 to the Lincoln Project, a disgraced liberal super PAC
The so-called Oak Fire destroyed 127 homes and 66 outbuildings. Roughly 6,000 people were forced to evacuate as the inferno torched 30 square miles of land and smoke from the fire drifted more than 200 miles into parts of Nevada and the San Francisco Bay Area.
https://youtu.be/vJCqPvWPX9s
That’s my concern, that a group of eco-loonies are responsible for many of these fires. There was a group of them arrested a while back for eco-terrorism, they were blowing up facilities related to oil.
–
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is a UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON.
–
All planets and moons are INEVITABLY subjected to that UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON.
–
Here it is a very well known scientific observation:
–
Earths surface is warmer than Moons on average +68C.
But it happens so not because of Earths thin atmosphere very insignificant greenhouse effect.
Earths surface is warmer than Moons on average +68C, because of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon!
********
–
The alleged GREENHOUSE GLOBAL WARMING is a common deflection of the facts (which some buy into ) which is a reflection of some people’s inability to examine the full scope of the issues.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
…Earths thin atmosphere very insignificant greenhouse effect of 33K out of ~300K.
That 33K is nonsense. It comes from comparing Earth to a nonexistent, imaginary sphere.
Its just part of the cult nonsense like, ice warms Earth more than Sun and passenger jets fly backward.
That’s laughingly wrong Clint R, the 33K is measured from calibrated, precision instruments observing the actual, real Earth over many years.
The sun radiation at ~342 intercepted by the Earth warms more than ice at ~315! Clint R cant even get that right. 342 is higher than 315 Clint.
Clint R also ignores science of video evidence passenger jets flying backwards, what a laughing stock is Clint the well-practiced entertainer.
The 33K is NOT a measured value, troll4. It is the result form subtracting the bogus 255K from Earth’s 288K. One value is BOGUS, the other value is real. So the result is BOGUS.
And, troll4, please to learn your own cult’s nonsense. Their claim of 342 W/m^2 is BEFORE albedo. After albedo, it becomes 240 W/m^2. But, they reduce it further to less than 170 W/m^2. You should try to understand the nonsense you’ve swallowed.
Clint R
I gave you measured values of solar input to the desert in summer. I gave you the total energy the surface receives from Sun in 24 hours. 22,880,000 joules. A constant Flux of 315 W/m^2 would deliver 27,216,000 joules. Ice can deliver more energy than the Sun over a 24 hour cycle.
Wrong again, troll Norman.
What you *gave* was values you didn’t understand from a link you didn’t understand.
You can’t understand that *delivering energy* doesn’t always mean *raising the temperture*. You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.
You can’t learn.
Clint R
My post was not trolling. Yours most certainly is! You are putting words in my mouth I never said! I did not say, in this case, the effect of added energy vs temperature. I pointed out the fact that the Sun delivers less than a 315 W/m^2 Flux would in a 25 hour cycle. Your claim I do not understand the link is such stupidity! Why do you have to be the idiot troll? So stupid it is difficult to respond to this low level of thought. You are the idiot that can’t do the math to find energy. Point your stupid finger back at yourself.
How dumb he is!
Well Norman, if you now realize that all your comments claiming ice would deliver more energy to Earth than Sun mean NOTHING, then why keep commenting about it?
Repeatedly touting nonsense is trolling. Its like Ball4 repeatedly claiming passenger jets fly backward. If you dont want to be a troll, quit commenting like one.
ball4…”Thats laughingly wrong Clint R, the 33K is measured from calibrated, precision instruments observing the actual, real Earth over many years”.
***
Another doozie by b4. The 33C is a difference between an estimated 15C current temperature and a -18C ***calculated*** temperature based on an Earth with no oceans and no atmosphere.
The +15C figure is a rough estimate as well since it applies to possibly a small part of the surface at a specific time on a specific day.
The 33C explains nothing.
No, Gordon. The -18C is a measured brightness temperature Te from annually observing the real earthen system. The 15C is also converted to brightness temperature Tse after also being instrumentally measured. Both Tse and Te can be also calculated using the 1LOT with all measured input.
Gordon should actually read up on atm. physics in field of meteorology before commenting to reduce his flawed comments.
11:13 am: “The 33K is NOT a measured value…”
That’s wrong Clint R. Precision, calibrated instruments measure both components of the 33K from earthen observations so the result 33K really is instrumentally measured.
The claim of 342 intercepted by earth from the sun is the proper comparison of the 315 emitted by ice before being intercepted by another object.
Clint R is too uninformed to properly do the comparison. But Clint does provide good entertainment commenting the atm. physics wrong much of the time.
b4…”The -18C is a measured brightness temperature Te from annually observing the real earthen system”.
***
Who measured the brightness temperature on an Earth with no oceans and no atmosphere?
Ball4 STILL believes Earth has a *real 255K surface.
THAT is what braindead looks like.
5:48 am: Earth does have a measured 255K surface! Clint R is just to uninformed to figure out where it is. Perhaps if Clint spent less time entertaining and more study time, Clint could figure it out. Entertaining.
—–
8:43 am: No one Gordon. It takes having the existing oceans and atm. in place to observe & measure the earthen Te of 255K over many annual periods.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Earth does have a measured 255K surface!”
Using your imaginary thermometer, of course. I suppose you are idiotic enough to claim the thermometer used to make the measurements is “on the internet”?
You fool, even delusional SkyDragon cultists claim the surface temperature is 288 K!
It looks like your imaginary thermometer needs calibration.
Idiot.
No thermometer instrument is used in the earthen planetary Te=255K measurement Swenson. Guess again.
The claim of thermometer measured earthen Tse = 288K is correct.
Ball4,
You continue with your delusion, writing –
“Thats laughingly wrong Clint R, the 33K is measured from calibrated, precision instruments observing the actual, real Earth over many years.”
You might as well claim that you are not mentally deficient.
What an idiot you are.
You are confused by the fact that the Moon’s maximum temperature is around 33 K hotter than the Earth’s.
There you go – the Earth’s maximum temperature is 33 K colder than that of the Moon. Not hotter – colder! Less. Coincidence, perhaps, but there it is.
Fool.
Swenson is entertaining too, not realizing the earthen Te of 255K is well known in the field. It’s a decent indication Swenson hasn’t accomplished any study in this field either. Less entertainment, more study would help Swenson understand also.
Ball4,
You continue with your delusion, writing
“Thats laughingly wrong Clint R, the 33K is measured from calibrated, precision instruments observing the actual, real Earth over many years.”
You might as well claim that you are not mentally deficient.
What an idiot you are.
You are confused by the fact that the Moons maximum temperature is around 33 K hotter than the Earths.
There you go the Earths maximum temperature is 33 K colder than that of the Moon. Not hotter colder! Less. Coincidence, perhaps, but there it is.
Fool.
You compound your nonsenses by writing –
“Swenson is entertaining too, not realizing the earthen Te of 255K is well known in the field.”
Unfortunately, there is no “earthen Te” to be found in any field. Nor in any lake, river, or ocean. It can’t even be found “on the internet”, so you might have difficulty in convincing anybody that you are not a complete idiot.
At least your idiocy makes you a good object of derision.
[laughing at pea-brained deluded idiot]
Just because uninformed Swenson can’t find something so basic in meteorology doesnt mean the earthen planetary Te = 255K hasn’t been found by more astute researchers & widely reported
christos…”Earths surface is warmer than Moons on average +68C, because of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon!”
***
Agreed!!! It’s obvious.
When the Sun shines right on the lunar surface for 14 days, the surfaces bakes to 120C. When that same surface points to space during the following 14 days, it freezes to -170C. The average is around -50C. With the Earth’s average claimed at +15C, that gives close to the 68C difference claimed by Christos.
I don’t know why anyone would question that, the Earth is, on average, some 68C warmer than the Moon. However, the Moon does experience more severe temperature swings than the Earth.
The explanation is just as simple. The Earth rotates on its axis every 24 hours and 28 times in one lunar day. The Moon does not rotate on a local axis therefore it has one side exposed to the Sun for 14 days at a time due to its orbital conditions.
It’s clear, as Christos claims, that the difference in average temperature is due to the different speeds of rotation, the Moon not rotating at all on a local axis. Although Earth faces the same space as the Moon at night, Earth has an atmosphere and oceans to hold the temperature though the night.
A person on the Moon, as the Moon went from sunlight to the freezing cold of space would experience a tremendous drop in temperature in a brief period.
Yes, exactly…
–
Thank you Gordon, thank you Swenson, thank you Clint.
–
It is a very powerful phenomenon. The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is what amplifies the planets’ and moons’ the mean surface temperatures (Tmean).
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A person on the Moon, as the Moon went from sunlight to the freezing cold of space by rotating on its own axis wrt the sun would experience a tremendous drop in temperature in a brief period.
Apparently then, I can warm myself 68C just by spinning once an earthen day on my own axis on a freezing cold winter’s day, no jacket needed. Outdoor gear suppliers business models are now all in jeopardy since Christos & Gordon have found lots of free winter warming energy for everyone.
Ball4:
“Apparently then, I can warm myself 68C just by spinning once an earthen day on my own axis on a freezing cold winters day, no jacket needed.”
–
***
Very interesting remark! Thank you, Ball4.
–
Yes, in Greenland, when there is summer 24 hours sunshine. People enjoy sun’s warmth and… no jacket needed!
–
As for you, to reach the average surface temperature of 15 oC, in Greenland, you should have a shape of a sphere, or, in a smaller scale, a shape of a ball.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
no…you must stand in the direct sunlight on the Moon and walk into the shadow where their is no sunlight. Since the Moon has no atmosphere to store heat, you’d freeze instantly.
The day/night terminator sweeps across the lunar landscape, Gordon, since the moon rotates on its own axis wrt the sun so there is no need to walk anywhere.
“The day/night terminator sweeps across the lunar landscape, Gordon, since the moon rotates on its own axis wrt the sun so there is no need to walk anywhere.”
Very slowly creeps across the lunar landscape.
One could climb a hill and get another day of daylight.
When we send crew to the lunar polar region, you will see a lot
of these “day/night terminator” like conditions.
Gordon Robertson
Here is a quote from Linus Pauling General Chemistry (I own a copy).
Page 120 section 5-3 “The Wave-mechanical Description of Atoms
“By 1923, it was recognized that Bohr’s formulation of the theory of electronic structure of atoms needed to be improved and extended.”
It goes on to say Bohr’s theory did not match observations. It did not give correct values for energy levels of Helium.
Here is from Linus Pauling: “During the two-year period 1924 to 1926 the Bohr description of the electron orbits in atoms was replaced by the greatly improved description of wave mechanics, which is still in use and seems to be completely satisfactory.”
Gordon Robertson
Scientists base their ideas on evidence. What they can observe, measure and test. They change their ideas to match what is observed. This is science in a nutshell. Follow the evidence!
Here is Linus Pauling information on atomic structure and covalent bonds.
https://scarc.library.oregonstate.edu/coll/pauling/bond/narrative/page3.html
Read through this.
Ok, Norman. Now compare what Pauling has said about the covalent bond with my explanation and with yours. To do that, you need to go more deeply into what he wrote, and I have done that.
At the end of the article, Pauling states…
“When an old and distinguished person speaks to you. Listen to him carefully and with respect but do not believe him. Never put your trust in anything but your own intellect. Your elder, no matter whether he has gray hair or has lost his hair, no matter whether he is a Nobel Laureate, may be wrong. . . . So you must always be skeptical always think for yourself.”
Did you get that?…you must always be skeptical…always think for yourself. I am condemned around here for that, not because I am wrong but that I am being skeptical and thinking for myself. That’s where the condemnation arises, because I am thinking for myself and questioning authority figures.
Rather than your on-going insults, you might try proving me wrong.
From the article…
“Electron orbitals were concentrated in certain directions, and bonds resulted from sharing electrons”.
In his work, Pauling referred to energies and resonance. The energy comes from the Schrodinger equations which are basically a summation of the kinetic and potential energies of electrons in their orbitals. The resonance comes from the orbital angular velocities of electrons in their orbitals.
Schrodinger allowed for the positive effect of the nucleus on the electrons but most of his wave equations are about the electrons and their properties. Planck’s ‘h’ constant is even about that, although Planck was not aware of that at the time. He stated that his life would have been much easier had he known about electrons.
We need to understand that it is all voodoo science. No one has ever seen an electron or a nucleus nor has anyone measured the mass or velocities directly. To this day, no one knows if electrons orbit the nucleus for the simple reason that no one has ever witnessed it either by eye or by instrument.
Eve Pauling did not rely on quantum theory a la Schrodinger because the equations could not explain the total reality. Pauling had to modify them and apply his practical experience to arrive at molecular shapes. He admitted that he bypassed entire parts of the equations.
Therefore, the theory related to bonding is largely conjecture of an educated form. All I have tried to do here is explain it at a very simply level and that’s all that is required for that purpose. The points I have been trying to make are as follows:
1)there are only two charged particles in an atom, the +vely charged protons in the nucleus and the -vely charged electrons allegedly orbiting them.
2)the +vely charged protons are restricted to the nucleus and serve only to hold the electrons in orbit and to repel adjacent nucleii which are +ve. That maintains an electrostatic balance which bind the nucleus and orbiting electrons into a unit, the atom. The +vely charged nucleus plays no part in the relative +ve and -ve charges related to electron density that set up bonds and bond angles.
It needs to be clearly understood that an atom is immensely large compared to its constituent nucleus and electrons. Most of the atom is space. When Rutherford bombarded the atoms in a metal foil with alpha-particles (protons), only 1 in 100,000 protons connected with the nucleus, hence diverting the protons.
3)the electrostatic balance between electrons and protons produces its own vibration in solids and the work involved with the vibration is part of the internal energy, according to Clausius. Adding heat,also part of internal energy, increases the vibration throughout the entire solid increases the total vibration whereas adding EM tends to affect the surface area atoms.
4)the vibration in polar bonds and other inter-atomic bonds, has nothing to do with the positive charge on the nucleus protons, it is all about electronegativity, a concept invented by Pauling. The difference in charge on a dipole is totally about electrons accumulating in one area, making it more negative than another area. Electrons accumulate in one area, in part, due to a more electronegative atom attracting bonding electrons more than another atom which is less electronegative.
5)although atoms interact in a molecule using the +ve charges of protons in the nucleus, bonding of two atoms is solely about the sharing of outer orbital electrons. You can bring two hydrogen atoms together and they may not bond into an H2 molecules but on an other occasion will bond. Whether they do or not is solely up to the arrangement of the sole electrons. As Pauling put it, if they resonate, they will bond, and if they don’t, they won’t.
6)it’s the same with heat transfer via radiation. If EM is radiated from a hotter source it has the properties necessary to resonate with electrons in a cooler body. However, if the EM is from a cooler body, it lacks the resonance to be absorbed by electrons in a hotter body.
“However, if the EM is from a cooler body, it lacks the resonance to be absorbed by electrons in a hotter body.”
No. EMR is not absorbed by electrons Gordon, they don’t have enough mass to absorb the photon’s linear and angular momentum. Molecules absorb and emit the EMR. Planck’s cited experiments proved EMR from a cooler body is absorbed, reflected and transmitted by a warmer body producing universe entropy in compliance with 2LOT thus Gordon’s clipped statement is “voodoo science” (Gordon term).
Ball4,
You wrote “EMR is not absorbed by electrons Gordon, they dont have enough mass to absorb the photons linear and angular momentum.”
You are a delusional idiot.
Richard Feynman said that all physical processes with the exception of gravity and nuclear processes can be summed up as follows –
An electron moves from place to place.
A photon moves from place to place.
An electron emits or absorbs a photon.
I have omitted space time considerations, and amplitude aspects of c (the speed of light).
You may be a delusional idiot, but at least you are ignorant, stupid, or utterly confused to go along with it..
Invent some more “physics” for me, idiot. Maybe you could warm some water by using enough ice? Put your cold soup in a vacuum flask so it will heat up from all the “back radiation”?
Go for it.
So, Bohr and Schrodinger got it wrong, is that right?
Maybe one day you will enlighten us as to exactly how a molecule absorbs EM but an electron can’t. It’s a neat trick because a molecule is nothing more than two or more atoms bonded by electrons.
It’s also a coincidence, I guess, that an electron has an electric field due to its charge, and can produce a magnetic field. But no, B4 thinks the electric and magnetic field of EM comes from a magic box.
Maybe there is a magic box somewhere in a molecule that no one has heard of that can absorb and emit EM. Write it up, B4, maybe there’s a Nobel awaiting you. Or, a dunce cap awaits you in the corner. on’t let that bother you, fellow students referred to Maxwell as Daftie Maxwell.
No, that’s not right Gordon 8:26pm.
“enlighten us as to exactly how a molecule absorbs EM but an electron can’t.”
Already have done so: electrons dont have enough mass to absorb the linear and angular momentum from the photon but the molecule does have the necessary mass.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Already have done so: electrons don’t have enough mass to absorb the linear and angular momentum from the photon but the molecule does have the necessary mass.”
You are in denial of reality.
You imply that either individual atoms of a monoatomic gas like argon are actually molecules, or that atoms of argon cannot be above absolute zero because their electrons do not interact with IR photons!
Unless you can convince me that you are more knowledgeable than the physicist Richard Feynman, I assume that he was right, and you are an idiot – ignorant and stupid to boot.
Feynman said all physical processes in the universe, with the exception of gravity and nuclear processes, can be explained as follows –
An electron moves from place to place.
A photon moves from place to place.
An electron absorbs or emits a photon.
I’d add another point – Ball4 is a delusional idiot.
Feynman was no idiot. You are.
b4…”Already have done so: electrons dont have enough mass to absorb the linear and angular momentum from the photon but the molecule does have the necessary mass”.
***
You are talking nonsense. An electron has mass, no matter how small, and a photon has no mass. Work it out.
Besides, it’s not about momentum. It’s not a transfer of momentum that impels and electron to jump to higher energy level, it’s the aborp-tion of electrical and magnetic energy that does it.
According to your theory, if momentum is transferred to an electron from EM it would knock the electron right out of orbit, like two snooker balls colliding. Not possible.
Swenson 9:42 pm, there is no such implication in my comment. Argon atoms exhibit their spin quantized to absorb the linear and angular momentum of a photon.
—-
Gordon 4:47 am, a photon possesses conserved linear and angular momentum so it is Gordon talking nonsense. When the photon is absorbed by a molecule (or atom), the whole molecular (or atomic) structure takes on the photon’s momentum not the electron. Gordon should note energy and momentum have different units.
There are no electronic transitions occurring in the earthen troposphere as our troposphere doesn’t have enough collisional energy to move electrons to a quantized higher energy level. Only rotational jumps (about 300 times less energy need be absorbed than electronic jumps) and vibrational energy jumps are excited in our atm. causing the earthen atm. to exhibit its IR opacity.
norman…”It goes on to say Bohrs theory did not match observations. It did not give correct values for energy levels of Helium.
Here is from Linus Pauling: During the two-year period 1924 to 1926 the Bohr description of the electron orbits in atoms was replaced by the greatly improved description of wave mechanics, which is still in use and seems to be completely satisfactory.
***
Schrodinger’s work did not replace Bohr’s work, it expanded it from the hydrogen atom to atoms with more than 1 electron/proton.
I have no argument that Bohr’s discovery was strictly related to the hydrogen atom with one electron and one proton in the nucleus. The importance of his work is in the quantum relationship between the electron and its orbitals.
The truth is that Rutherford was the genius and Bohr, a student of Rutherford beat him to the realization that electrons are responsible for the emission/absorp-tion spectra of the hydrogen atom. It was Rutherford who did all the hard work, experimenting on the hydrogen nucleus to establish the presence of a nucleus. He knew about electrons but had not reached Bohr’s insight which made the difference.
BTW…Rutherford was a student of J.J. Thompson, who discovered the electron.
Who do you credit, the guy who did all the leg work or the guy who was the student and had a flash of insight?
Schrodinger’s wave equation is the current basis and that’s what Pauling applied to workout the intricacies of the covalent bond. However, his wave equation could not have worked without Bohr’s insight into the quantum orbital energy levels of the electron. In turn, Bohr could not have gained his insight without Rutherford, Einstein, Planck and other scientists.
The wave equation is strictly about electrons and their orbitals and that comes down to Bohr. Claiming that Bohr’s work is trivial is rather stupid since without his insight none of the rest matters.
It’s common knowledge that Bohr’s theory applied only to the hydrogen atom. The point is, it was Bohr’s theory that gave the required insight to Schrodinger to formulate the wave equation approach. I other words, Bohr kick started quantum mechanics.
Another point is that both Bohr’s theory and the wave equation of Schrodinger are based on electrons and their motion. Bohr proved that electrons absorb and emit EM and there is no other particle can do that in an atom.
“there is no other particle can do that in an atom.”
Science rookie Gordon misses the particles in the atomic nucleus which absorb the photon’s linear and angular momentum.
Earlier, nutty Norman is beginning to show some signs of sanity.
He wrote “Roy Spencer himself performed an experiment to prove radiant energy from a colder object will indeed affect the temperature of a heated hot object. A cold object WILL NOT increase the temperature of a non-heated hot object but it will slow the rate of cooling.”
Norman now seems to accept that a cold object can not increase the temperature of a [non-heated] hot object, but it will slow the rate of cooling.
Norman might think this demonstrates some intellectual breakthrough, but this wondrous knowledge has been known from the dawn of time. Clothing, sunshades, tea-cosies placed on highly polished silver teapots – all designed to slow the loss (or gain) of heat.
However, as Norman has correctly pointed out, a colder body such as the atmosphere, cannot increase the temperature of a hotter one – such as the surface on which the atmosphere rests. No “greenhouse effect”. The Earth has cooled, the surface cools every night, Newton’s Law of Cooling indicates how the environmental temperature affects the rate of cooling – whether it is a dead body, or a cup of your favourite hot beverage.
Good on you, Norman.
The Earth has cooled…”
Unfortunately for inept Swenson the UAH measured data shows Earth near surface climate has warmed recently & the surface warms every day. Sometimes thermometers recording the weather show the surface air warms at night too! Swenson being wrong so much of the time is so entertaining.
Ball4,
The Earth has cooled. The surface is no longer molten. That’s called cooling.
The surface cools every night. The temperature drops – that’s why it’s called cooling.
You are confused, because you believe that thermometers do not respond to anthropogenic heat. It’s thermometers showing higher temperatures- not the surface magically getting hotter.
That’s just idiocy, isn’t it?
Warming is observed, so not magical.
Ball4,
The Earth has cooled. The surface is no longer molten. Thats called cooling.
The surface cools every night. The temperature drops thats why its called cooling.
You are confused, because you believe that thermometers do not respond to anthropogenic heat. It’s thermometers showing higher temperatures- not the surface magically getting hotter.
That’s just idiocy, isnt it?
b4…it should have warmed, it had cooled for the previous 400+ years.
Yes, Earth Tse should be warming as has been observed.
Ball4,
The Earth has cooled. The surface is no longer molten. That’s called cooling.
The surface cools every night. The temperature drops that’s why its called cooling.
You are confused, because you believe that thermometers do not respond to anthropogenic heat. It’s thermometers showing higher temperatures- not the surface magically getting hotter.
Thats just idiocy, isnt it?
Thermometers actually do respond, Swenson has become more confused than usual. Laughably.
Ball4,
The Earth has cooled. The surface is no longer molten. That’s called cooling.
The surface cools every night. The temperature drops that’s why its called cooling.
You are confused, because you believe that thermometers do not respond to anthropogenic heat. It’s thermometers showing higher temperatures- not the surface magically getting hotter.
Thats just idiocy, isnt it?
“The Earth has cooled. The surface is no longer molten. ”
“The surface cools every night. The temperature drops thats why its called cooling.”
Maybe next Swenson could tell us next about his favorite Taylor Swift song, or some other off-topic, useless fact only interesting in his internal voice.
Science and the rest of us will keep calm, carry on, and leave him to mutter to himself.
Ball4,
The Earth has cooled. The surface is no longer molten. Thats called cooling.
The surface cools every night. The temperature drops thats why its called cooling.
You are confused, because you believe that thermometers do not respond to anthropogenic heat. Its thermometers showing higher temperatures- not the surface magically getting hotter.
Thats just idiocy, isn’t it?
No. And the surface air temperature measured by weather station thermometer sometimes increases at night showing Swenson does not know what Swenson is commenting, a very entertaining situation.
norman…”Why do you think that the Stefan-Boltzmann relation would only work at a particular temperature and then for some reason stop at lower temperatures?”
***
I did not claim ‘a’ relationship did not work at lower temperatures, only that the T^4 relationship holds only between 500C and 1500C.
If you look at a T^4 curve, it has a strong non-linear section at the bottom but it eventually straighten out at higher temperatures. The T^4 relationship at terrestrial temperatures gives something like 325 W/m^2 for ice, which I think is crazy.
The watt in this case is being used to represent heat, or the heating effect the radiation would give if absorbed. It’s crazy to assume that ice can give off that much radiation to represent a heating of 325 W/m*2.
Remember, the watt used in this scenario is the work equivalent of heat. Radiated EM can only be compared to a heating effect, it can represent no other form of energy. So, a 100 watt tungsten lamp gives of 100 watts total energy of which part is heat, as conduction, convection, and radiation, and part is light.
I have argued this in the past and I will argue it until someone posts an intelligent rebuttal. Once the energy leaves the tungsten filament as light it cannot be measured in watts/m^2. In fact, it is measured in lumens, an adjusted measure of brightness. When a tungsten lamp is rated at 100 watts, it means 100 W is the total power output, it tells us nothing about the amount of radiant energy given off as light or IR.
It’s the same with heat, which is measured in calories, the mount of heat required to raise 1CC of water by 1C. If you see heat measured in watts, it is to be understood that the unit of watts is the work equivalent of heat. Otherwise, we’d have a conundrum in the 1st law.
The first law has heat with a native measure of calories and work, with a native measure of watts. There is no way to equate the two in an equation unless heat is stated as a work equivalent or work is stated as a heat equivalent. That was pointed out by Clausius over a century ago and he defined U in the 1st law.
ambiguous…”Radiated EM can only be compared to a heating effect, it can represent no other form of energy”.
***
I am trying to say that the watt cannot be applied to EM once it is pure EM. The watt is a measure of mechanical energy but can be used as a measure of heat as long as it is clear the watt reference is to a mechanical equivalent of heat. When the watt is used in electrical systems it is a reference to the Joule-heating effect of the current through a component, hence a measure of heat.
There are times when the watt is used as a measure of electric motor power. In other words, the HP is stated in kilowatts. Then it is a measure of mechanical work.
There is no such equivalence between EM and either heat or work. It would make no sense. If the EM is emitted by a hotter source and absorbed by a cooler source, the EM can promote heating in the cooler source or be used to produce work. If the source is cooler than the target neither heating nor work can be produced in the target.
Gordo provides another of his delusional rants wrt EM and it’s heating effects:
Gordo has to be reminded again that a microwave oven produces EM which will cause things to heat up outside the electronics, with no electrical resistors involved. And, it’s well known that the EM of sunlight can be used to heat water, which, after it’s concentrated, can produce steam to drive a turbine connected to an electric generator.
Gordo repeats another of his usual errors in physics:
If the hot “target” is an uninsulated boiler used to provide steam for a turbine to drive an electric generator, adding a cooler heat shield around the boiler will result in more energy output from the steam generator compared to that without the heat shielding.
ES,
You wrote –
“If the hot “target” is an uninsulated boiler used to provide steam for a turbine to drive an electric generator, adding a cooler heat shield around the boiler will result in more energy output from the steam generator compared to that without the heat shielding.”
Is this supposed to be related to a GHE that you can’t describe, or do you think that nobody has ever heard of insulation? Or the Carnot Cycle? Or Newton’s Law of Cooling?
Concentrate the heat from as much ice as you like (yes, IR obeys the same laws of optics as any other light – it can be concentrated, focused, and so on. IR lenses are widely available, and suitable mirrors will do as well), and try to heat some water using as many watts as you like.
You’re an idiot, in the grip of delusional SkyDragon cult beliefs.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. The surface cools every night, losing all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s interior heat.
Accept reality – only idiots think fantasy outweighs fact.
Idiot.
The cooling has stopped recently and has been measured to be increasingly warmer. Swenson just hasn’t kept up with the news.
Ball4,
Don’t be an idiot.
The Earth is still cooling. It’s a big blob of mainly glowing hot stuff, a long way from the Sun.
You are obviously confusing anthropogenic heat with magical imaginary CO2 heat!
You don’t seem to realise that just saying that the Earth stopped cooling after four and a half billion years, for no particular reason, makes you look like an idiot.
I suppose your explanation is “on the internet”, so you are not going to tell anyone what it is, are you?
Good luck with getting away with that!
The confusion is all with Swenson. Magical imaginary heat can’t actually be measured so Swenson strikes out again.
Ball4,
Dont be an idiot.
The Earth is still cooling. Its a big blob of mainly glowing hot stuff, a long way from the Sun.
You are obviously confusing anthropogenic heat with magical imaginary CO2 heat!
You dont seem to realise that just saying that the Earth stopped cooling after four and a half billion years, for no particular reason, makes you look like an idiot.
I suppose your explanation is on the internet, so you are not going to tell anyone what it is, are you?
Good luck with getting away with that!
swannie…”…a microwave oven produces EM which will cause things to heat up outside the electronics, with no electrical resistors involved. And, its well known that the EM of sunlight can be used to heat water, which, after its concentrated, can produce steam to drive a turbine connected to an electric generator”.
***
A microwave oven operates by bombarding water molecules in a substance with a high frequency EM. No heat is being transferred, it is being created in the substance when water molecules are agitated by the microwave energy. The physicist Joule accomplished the same by running a small paddle in a container of water, noting that the temperature of the water increased. He did that in 1840, long before microwaves ovens were invented.
The moral to the story is, beware….if you agitate water molecules, they will heat up.
Besides, you quoted me out of context, which is often intentional, to create a red-herring argument. I was talking about the watt being applied incorrectly to EM. I was trying to emphasize that the watt is normally used as a measure of power related to work or heat, and has no application to EM per se. Nothing to do with microwave ovens.
—
“If the hot target is an uninsulated boiler used to provide steam for a turbine to drive an electric generator, adding a cooler heat shield around the boiler will result in more energy output from the steam generator compared to that without the heat shielding”.
***
I don’t know what you mean by heat shield. I am thinking of perhaps a metal shield placed around the boiler but not touching it. In that case, the shield would block heat via conduction and convection, as well as blocking radiation from the furnace.
Of course, no EM could get into the boiler and the boiler is heated via conduction by a flame, so I don’t get your point.
Why use such convoluted examples? If you are trying to prove that EM should be measured in watts, could you not offer a simpler reason why?
It would be a lot easier if you got the 2nd law, that heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body.
Gordo ponders:
Where have you been these past 5 years or so, since the discussion about radiation heat transfer fell into full denialist mode? Heat shields are a text book example of an application of back radiation to reduce energy losses.
Furthermore Gordo repeats his mantra, yet again:
It would be a lot easier if you actually tried to understand radiation heat transfer as an modern engineer instead of being an opinionated moron spouting some 150 year old quotes. And, we see that you still haven’t provided a description of the so-called “perpetual motion” which G&T claim would result from the GHE.
This has been explained numerous times, but he cult can’t understand any of it, so it needs to be repeated periodically.
The bogus 33K comes from comparing Earth’s REAL average temperature (288K) to the calculated temperature of an IMAGINARY sphere (255K), with the IMAGINARY sphere receiving the same solar flux as Earth. 288K – 255K = 33K. The arithmetic is correct, but the physics (reality) is incorrect. It makes no sense to compare REAL to IMAGINARY.
That aint science.
So the cult tries to claim Earth has a *real 255K surface*. But, if you ask them where it is, they just claim it’s ‘out there’. Their *real 255K surface* is also IMAGINARY. They can’t support their nonsense.
The earthen planetary instrumentally measured 255K surface is roughly a sphere Clint R, so it is not imaginary. Except maybe to entertainers such as Clint R not schooled in atm. science.
Ball4,
You wrote (in a fit of fantasy) –
“The earthen planetary instrumentally measured 255K surface is roughly a sphere Clint R, so it is not imaginary.”
Unfortunately, the 255 K is a “should be” temperature, according to GHE proponents, who claim that the “real” average temperature is 288 K. If your imaginary “earthen temperature” is 255 K, then the GHE doesnt exist.
No wonder you can’t describe the GHE – you claim that the Earth’s temperature is precisely what it should be. No more, no less. No GHE.
The situation seems to be that you claim to have a description of the GHE, but refuse to divulge it, because it’s “on the internet”. You claim to be able to describe the “precision instruments” which measure an imaginary “earthen temperature”, but refuse to say what they are because they are “on the internet”.
All very interesting, but your brain seems to be a bit addled. At least you make a good object of ridicule with your bizarre utterances. Are you still claiming that you can heat water using ice, but the experiments are “on the internet”, and you aren’t going to describe them?
You’re a witless fool, but good for a laugh.
Keep it up.
Yes, if earthen Tse=Te=255K there is no GHE. However measured measured Tse=288K and measured Te=255K so there is a measured earthen 33K GHE.
Ball4, you donkey,
You wrote –
“The earthen planetary instrumentally measured 255K surface is roughly a sphere Clint R, so it is not imaginary.”
Now you write –
“Yes, if earthen Tse=Te=255K there is no GHE. However measured measured Tse=288K and measured Te=255K so there is a measured earthen 33K GHE.”
You idiot, if the measured temperature is of the same thing, it can’t be both 255 K and 288 K, can it?
If you are saying one thing is a different temperature to another thing, why do you think that is significant? The surface temperature of the Earth is whatever it is where you measure it. Something between recently ejected magma, at over 1000 C, and places on the Antarctic plateau less than -85 C.
You just make up silly figures like 288 K and 255 K as you go along. Go on, make up some more nonsense, claim it’s “on the internet” so you won’t explain it, and hope someone, somewhere, doesn’t realize that you are a pea-brained idiot!
Try some other variation on your would be, could be, should be, imaginary temperatures.
Idiot.
Measured Te and Tse is not of the same thing! Swenson is so uninformed as to not recognize the difference. Swenson being wrong is very good entertainment though.
Ball4,
You claim two totally different things have different temperatures, so this “proves” that a GHE exists, is that it?
You nitwit!
Don’t be surprised if the laughter you hear is people laughing at you, not with you.
Idiot.
Yes Swenson, a difference in planetary Te and Tse does show the planetary GHE. A little research effort rather than writing silly, uninformed comments would be in order but obviously Swenson does not possess the ability to do such research. Funny and truly entertaining.
Ballr4,
You wrote –
“Yes Swenson, a difference in planetary Te and Tse does show the planetary GHE. A little research effort rather than writing silly, uninformed comments would be in order but obviously Swenson does not possess the ability to do such research. Funny and truly entertaining.”
You can’t even say what Te and Tse are supposed to be, can you?
No, the terms can’t be found “on the internet”. It’s about as stupid as your “earthen GHE” and your “planetary GHE”.
That’s what you get when you can’t even keep track of your own fantasies.
Idiot.
b4…of course it’s imaginary, how else would you calculate the temperature of Earth with no oceans and no atmosphere?
Even the +15C average is imaginary. It is an attempt to impose an average temperature on a planet where temperatures vary wildly from Pole to Pole and zero longitude to zero longitude. The 15C figure really has little meaning, other than to a mathematician.
Using the 1LOT with inputs resulting from no atm. and no oceans.
The earthen 15C is measured Gordon, you can make of it what you will.
Ball4,
“The earthen 15C is measured . . .”. Really? Where? When? Surface (ground) temperature? An “air” temperature, perhaps?
Or are you talking about an imaginary “should be”, “would be”, “could be” temperature?
Is that different from your imaginary 255 K temperature?
You idiot, you can’t even sort out your imaginary temperatures, can you?
No wonder you’re an object of ridicule. You spout nonsense, and then claim that the explanations are “on the internet”! Sure, and “the truth is out there”.
Idiot.
The 15C is being really measured & reported, in the atm. near the surface, now & continuously. Nothing imaginary except what Swenson just humorously makes up with great entertainment.
“The 15C is being really measured & reported, in the atm. near the surface, now & continuously. Nothing imaginary except what Swenson just humorously makes up with great entertainment.”
In the atmosphere? You kept mentioning the surface you idiot! Nobody has measured any “average” temperature – it’s just a wild eyed guess. As to measuring “air temperature” over the 70% of the surface which happens to be covered by ocean, you would have to be dreaming if you think anybody measures that “now & continuously”!
Now, what is the other “earthen temperature” of 255K (-18 C) that you keep babbling about? You claim something is being measured, but you refuse to tell anybody what it is, except that it is different to the “air temperature”. Maybe Tse and Te are “on the internet”,? No, they’re not, you make this nonsense up, trying to appear intelligent.
Are you really claiming that because two completely different things have different temperatures, this shows the existence of a GHE which you can’t even describe?
You are obviously suffering from a severe mental defect, but I’ll laugh at you anyway.
Idiot.
I understand it is a complete & laughable surprise to Swenson to be informed that ocean temperature really is measured “now & continuously”. I don’t refuse to tell anybody about Te and Tse or Swenson would have evidence of a refusal. Pity but laughable that Swenson is so uninformed and unable to find something as simple and basic as the earthen GHE.
The 15C is being really measured & reported, in the atm. near the surface, now & continuously. Nothing imaginary except what Swenson just humorously makes up with great entertainment.
In the atmosphere? You kept mentioning the surface you idiot! Nobody has measured any average temperature its just a wild eyed guess. As to measuring air temperature over the 70% of the surface which happens to be covered by ocean, you would have to be dreaming if you think anybody measures that now & continuously!
Now, what is the other earthen temperature of 255K (-18 C) that you keep babbling about? You claim something is being measured, but you refuse to tell anybody what it is, except that it is different to the air temperature. Maybe Tse and Te are on the internet,? No, theyre not, you make this nonsense up, trying to appear intelligent.
Are you really claiming that because two completely different things have different temperatures, this shows the existence of a GHE which you cant even describe?
You are obviously suffering from a severe mental defect, but Ill laugh at you anyway.
Idiot.
Oh dear, the blog ate my punctuation marks! not to worry, Ill repeat – Ball4 is obviously not very good with comprehension.
“The 15C is being really measured & reported, in the atm. near the surface, now & continuously. Nothing imaginary except what Swenson just humorously makes up with great entertainment.”
In the atmosphere? You kept mentioning the surface you idiot! Nobody has measured any “average” temperature its just a wild eyed guess. As to measuring air temperature over the 70% of the surface which happens to be covered by ocean, you would have to be dreaming if you think anybody measures that “now & continuously’!
Now, what is the other “earthen temperature” of 255K (-18 C) that you keep babbling about? You claim something is being measured, but you refuse to tell anybody what it is, except that it is different to the “air temperature”. Maybe Tse and Te are “on the internet”? No, they’re not, you make this nonsense up, trying to appear intelligent.
Are you really claiming that because two completely different things have different temperatures, this shows the existence of a GHE which you can’t even describe?
You are obviously suffering from a severe mental defect, but I’ll laugh at you anyway.
Idiot.
I have described the GHE to Swenson but Swenson still doesn’t, and can’t, understand planetary GHE. Writing silly comments seems to be a great past time for Swenson, research into meteorology not so much.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“I have described the GHE to Swenson but Swenson still doesnt, and cant, understand planetary GHE.”
You’ve been caught out lying, so you try to divert attention away from your initial lies, by lying again – in a different direction!
You don’t have a description of the GHE – nobody does. Calling it “planetary GHE” is just stupid. The planet Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, you donkey! You didn’t try nearly hard enough to be obscure, did you? Are you losing your grip on your fantasy?
Idiot.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“I understand it is a complete & laughable surprise to Swenson to be informed that ocean temperature really is measured “now & continuously”. I dont refuse to tell anybody about Te and Tse or Swenson would have evidence of a refusal. Pity but laughable that Swenson is so uninformed and unable to find something as simple and basic as the earthen GHE.
What happened to the “atm. near the surface”? Has it magically become “ocean temperature” over the oceans?
Whats the difference between Tse and Te? Cant say? Wont say? maybe yo could claim its “on the internet”! No it isnt, fool. You just made it up!
Now you have something you claim has a temperature of 288 K, and something totally different with a temperature of 255 K. A lump of iron and a lump of lead, perhaps?
As to your “earthen GHE”, you cant even describe it, even though you claim to have a description in front of you! Are you lying, or just trying to be as unhelpful as possible?
Youre lying of course.
Idiot.
Already commented a description of a GHE to prove I can do so and Swenson even commented on my description. Not my fault Swenson exhibits memory issues and proves by admission hasn’t studied enough in the relevant science field to comprehend measured planetary Tse and Te.
Swenson does do a good job of entertaining the more astute commenters around here.
Ball4,
You wrote
“I understand it is a complete & laughable surprise to Swenson to be informed that ocean temperature really is measured “now & continuously”. I don’t refuse to tell anybody about Te and Tse or Swenson would have evidence of a refusal. Pity but laughable that Swenson is so uninformed and unable to find something as simple and basic as the earthen GHE.
What happened to the “atm. near the surface”? Has it magically become “ocean temperature” over the oceans?
Whats the difference between Tse and Te? Can’t say? Won’t say? maybe you could claim it’s “on the internet”! No it isn’t, fool. You just made it up!
Now you have something you claim has a temperature of 288 K, and something totally different with a temperature of 255 K. A lump of iron and a lump of lead, perhaps?
As to your “earthen GHE”, you can’t even describe it, even though you claim to have a description in front of you! Are you lying, or just trying to be as unhelpful as possible?
Youre lying of course.
Idiot.
No lying by me in evidence. Since we now know Swenson commented on my GHE description, the blog has direct evidence Swenson is not truthful claiming I can’t describe a GHE. Funny and entertaining situation entirely created by faulty Swenson comments.
Ball4,
You wrote
“I understand it is a complete & laughable surprise to Swenson to be informed that ocean temperature really is measured “now & continuously”. I dont refuse to tell anybody about Te and Tse or Swenson would have evidence of a refusal. Pity but laughable that Swenson is so uninformed and unable to find something as simple and basic as the earthen GHE.
What happened to the “atm. near the surface”? Has it magically become ocean temperature over the oceans?
Whats the difference between Tse and Te? Cant say? Wont say? maybe you could claim its ” “on the internet”! No it isnt, fool. You just made it up!
Now you have something you claim has a temperature of 288 K, and something totally different with a temperature of 255 K. A lump of iron and a lump of lead, perhaps?
As to your “earthen GHE”, you cant even describe it, even though you claim to have a description in front of you! Are you lying, or just trying to be as unhelpful as possible?
You’re lying of course.
You even write ” . . . I cant describe a GHE.” Which GHE is that you can’t describe – the “earthen GHE”, the “planetary GHE”, or some other imaginary GHE?
Double idiot.
Swenson could research the difference between Ts and Tse for measuring planetary GHE to start learning at least something about meteorology but that would reduce the faulty & thus laughably wrong Swenson comments. I do feel confident though that humorous entertainer Swenson will not bother to do any meteorological research of substance.
There is nothing imaginary about the Earth surface being on average 288 K.
And Clint you have no explanation for how its temperature can be so high, which results in its IR emission being much more than its solar energy input.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1499915
Poor troll Nate attempts to pervert the situation. I never said the 288K surface temperature was imaginary.
Earth’s 288K temperature is due to thermodynamics. Earth’s IR emission is NOT ‘much more than its solar energy input’! Poor troll Nate has swallowed too much of his cult’s nonsense — just like troll Norman.
“Earths 288K temperature is due to thermodynamics. Earths IR emission is NOT much more than its solar energy input!”
due to Thermodynamics?? WTF does that mean?
Apply the SB law to the Earth’s surface at 288 K, as I did. And you find an emission greater than the solar input.
Sorry these are the facts and you cannot explain them.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Apply the SB law to the Earths surface at 288 K, as I did. And you find an emission greater than the solar input.”
Well, gee, what a surprise! Your “application” shows that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, does it?
You could have just looked between your feet. The fact that the surface is no longer molten is a clue that it has cooled.
As Fourier pointed out a long time ago, at night the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of its interior heat. You want a standing ovation for discovering what a 12 year old knows?
What a surprise that Swenson missed this point, doesnt know what the discussion is about, and again muttered red herrings to himself.
Nate says:
”Sorry these are the facts and you cannot explain them.”
Nor can you. Making stuff up out of whole cloth need not apply.
Nate,
You wrote
“Apply the SB law to the Earths surface at 288 K, as I did. And you find an emission greater than the solar input.”
Well, gee, what a surprise! Your “application” shows that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, does it?
You could have just looked between your feet. The fact that the surface is no longer molten is a clue that it has cooled.
As Fourier pointed out a long time ago, at night the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of its interior heat. You want a standing ovation for discovering what a 12 year old knows?
Nate,
You wrote
“Apply the SB law to the Earths surface at 288 K, as I did. And you find an emission greater than the solar input.”
Well, gee, what a surprise! Your “application” shows that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, does it?
You could have just looked between your feet. The fact that the surface is no longer molten is a clue that it has cooled.
As Fourier pointed out a long time ago, at night the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of its interior heat. You want a standing ovation for discovering what a 12 year old knows?
Nate:
–
“There is nothing imaginary about the Earth surface being on average 288 K.
And Clint you have no explanation for how its temperature can be so high, which results in its IR emission being much more than its solar energy input.”
–
***
Yes, the Earth surface is on average 288 K.
–
The 288 K is Earth’s average surface temperature Tmean =288 K. Earth does not have a single temperature 288 K. Thus Earth, as a whole, in its entirety, does not emit at 288 K.
–
Earth is a planet, and not a blackbody. Earth is not a grey body either.
–
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law does not apply to the planets.
–
Planets do not convert heat into IR EM energy, the way the warmed bodies do.
–
What planets’ surfaces do is to interact with the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux.
Thus, planets have a different, than warmed bodies, the IR EM energy emission behavior.
–
And, yes, Earth’s IR emission is almost the same as its solar energy input.
We should take in consideration two processes though. Earth, in our few millennia, is in a slow orbital forced warming trend.
Also, Earth’s still molten interior, is in continuous cooling process.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Earth is a planet, and not a blackbody. Earth is not a grey body either.”
The Earth is a grey body. Its average IR emissivity is ~ 0.9.
“The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law does not apply to the planets.”
It applies to grey body surfaces, so locally it applies to planetary surfaces, and the SB emission can be averaged over a whole planetary surface.
Indeed, applying a single temperature and emissivity to the whole surface is an approximation, but it has been shown to get pretty close to the correct average emission.
Nate,
You wrote –
” . . .but it has been shown to get pretty close to the correct average emission.”
Shown how, and what is “pretty close”? How was “correct average emission”? How do you define “correct”?
Looks more like speculation on top of supposition, an a foundation of guesses.
Not terribly convincing. Can you name someone who values your opinion?
Fool.
Mike,
Meteorologists have done the measurements and calculations, eg here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/78/2/1520-0477_1997_078_0197_eagmeb_2_0_co_2.xml?tab_body=pdf
if you have evidence, calculations or logic to the contrary, please show us it.
Nate,
You wrote
” . . .but it has been shown to get pretty close to the correct average emission.”
Shown how, and what is “pretty close”? How was “correct average emission”? How do you define “correct”?
Looks more like speculation on top of supposition, an a foundation of guesses.
Not terribly convincing. Can you name someone who values your opinion?
Fool.
You provide an irrelevant link to the delusional SkyDragon cultist, Kevin Trenberth, who starts – “The purpose of this paper is to put forward a new estimate, . . .” Estimate – speculation – guess.
Nothing at all about any of the terms you used.
Double fool.
“if you have evidence, calculations or logic to the contrary, please show us it.”
Maybe you missed this? Do you have anything at all?
Nate,
You wrote
” . . .but it has been shown to get pretty close to the correct average emission.”
Shown how, and what is “pretty close”? How was “correct average emission”? How do you define “correct”?
Looks more like speculation on top of supposition, an a foundation of guesses.
Not terribly convincing. Can you name someone who values your opinion?
Fool.
You provide an irrelevant link to the delusional SkyDragon cultist, Kevin Trenberth, who starts “The purpose of this paper is to put forward a new estimate, . . .” Estimate speculation guess.
Nothing at all about any of the terms you used.
Double fool.
So you have nothing of value but whines..
So if the Moon rotated four times as fast
The dawn and dusk terminators would both be warmer then.
Lets apply the planet rotational warming phenomenon:
The Moons mean surface temperature Tmean = 220K would be then 4^1/16 (four in sixteenth root) times higher.
(4^1/16)*220K = 1,09050*220K =240K
Thus, if Moon rotated four times as fast its mean surface temperature would be 240K.
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Moon does not ROTATE, Vournas!
It only ORBITS around Earth.
Thank you, Bindidon, for your respond.
–
“The Moon does not ROTATE, Vournas!
It only ORBITS around Earth.”
–
Yes, exactly, and… the very powerful Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon does the job!
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Instead of “Thank you, Bindidon, for your respond.”, you might consider “Thank you for your response”, or “Thank you for responding”.
I know you didn’t ask for my advice, so it is worth nothing – precisely how much you paid for it.
Thank you, Swenson.
From now on I will write: Thank you for your response, or Thank you for responding.
–
Please, Swenson, correct me every time you think it is necessary.
Christos.
Nice to see CV’s responsible response to constructive advice.
It would be nice to have such maturity from the cult. But, maturity starts with an appreciation for reality —
Now we need to observe some of that maturity from Clint R.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Now we need to observe some of that maturity from Swenson.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
an orbit is a rotation
ES,
It you could even say what the GHE is supposed to do, that would help. Maybe you could start by explaining the role of the GHE at night?
The temperature drops, so the GHE doesn’t make temperatures rise. Obviously, it doesn’t make it cool either.
Slower cooling, perhaps? The arid deserts cool faster – because they have the least of the “most important” GHG, H2O, in the air above them.. So, no. Faster cooling maybe?
What the hell is the GHE supposed to do? You havent got the faintest idea, have you?
No wonder nobody can describe the GHE!
Idiot.
Earlier, some idiot wrote –
“There is nothing imaginary about the Earth surface being on average 288 K.
And Clint you have no explanation for how its temperature can be so high, which results in its IR emission being much more than its solar energy input.”
This sort of idiot refuses to believe that the Earth’s surface was once molten, and the interior is mostly still glowing hot.
What temperature does the idiot think the surface should be? Something between the temperature of the core and the “temperature” of outer space, I suppose. That’s helpful – not.
Less than 100 C (the seas are not boiling) and more than 0 C (the seas are not frozen).
Delusional SkyDragon cultists just refuse to believe their own lying eyes! A temperature is what it is, no more, no less, regardless of what anybody thinks it “should be”.
Swenson has no answers either.
Mutters to himself about stuff that has long since lost our interest.
Tell us about something we havent heard about before. Maybe how interesting your feet are.
Earlier, some idiot wrote
“There is nothing imaginary about the Earth surface being on average 288 K.
And Clint you have no explanation for how its temperature can be so high, which results in its IR emission being much more than its solar energy input.”
This sort of idiot refuses to believe that the Earths surface was once molten, and the interior is mostly still glowing hot.
What temperature does the idiot think the surface should be? Something between the temperature of the core and the “temperature” of outer space, I suppose. Thats helpful not.
Less than 100 C (the seas are not boiling) and more than 0 C (the seas are not frozen).
Delusional SkyDragon cultists just refuse to believe their own lying eyes! A temperature is what it is, no more, no less, regardless of what anybody thinks it “should be”.
“Mutters to himself about stuff that has long since lost our interest.”
Repeating the boring mutterings will surely be even more interesting…..in the mind of the insane.
Earlier, some idiot wrote
“There is nothing imaginary about the Earth surface being on average 288 K.
And Clint you have no explanation for how its temperature can be so high, which results in its IR emission being much more than its solar energy input.”
This sort of idiot refuses to believe that the Earths surface was once molten, and the interior is mostly still glowing hot.
What temperature does the idiot think the surface should be? Something between the temperature of the core and the “temperature” of outer space, I suppose. Thats helpful not.
Less than 100 C (the seas are not boiling) and more than 0 C (the seas are not frozen).
Delusional SkyDragon cultists just refuse to believe their own lying eyes! A temperature is what it is, no more, no less, regardless of what anybody thinks it “should be”.
Earlier some delusional SkyDragon cultist trying to sound sciency, wrote –
“Argon atoms exhibit their spin quantized to absorb the linear and angular momentum of a photon.”
Nonsensical word salad, with no meaning at all. Photons are absorbed or emitted by electrons.
Still no description of the GHE, nor even what the quantifiable effect of the effect is supposed to be.
These idiots are getting more and more desperate – resorting to nonsense, and then appealing to their own authority.
Small correction. Photons are generally absorbed or emitted by electrons, unless nuclear processes are involved. Im guessing that delusional SkyDragon cultists aren’t claiming that the GHE involves things like gamma ray emission or pair production, etc.
Seeing how no useful description of the GHE exists, Ill never find out if my guess is right or wrong.
To make matters worse, the SkyDragon cultists don’t get it that atoms don’t have spins, just the electrons. Of course that nonsense came from theorists like Heisenberg who needed a theory to explain electron action in an atom. So, they get spins of +1/2 and -1/2.
“The spin number describes how many symmetrical facets a particle has in one full rotation; a spin of 1/2 means that the particle must be rotated by two full turns (through 720) before it has the same configuration as when it started”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-1/2
This sound so much like Greek that I will have to ask my friend Christos what it means. We know that an electron cannot be found to make measurements or observations, we can only suggest a probability for finding it ‘somewhere’ in an orbital path about an atom. Yet, the pundits have declared it must have a spin. Are they marked half black and half white so we can tell which side they have spun to?
Normally, in Newtonian mechanics, a spin is declared as an angular displacement per unit time. Not in quantum theory. If things were that clear quantum theory would lose its edge as a mystery science.
They go so far as to declare a neutron as having a spin. I read recently that some pundits think the protons and neutrons in the nucleus spin about each other. Is there no end to this comedy?
I reviewed a testimony before Congress by Dr. Curry, Dr. Christy, Dr. Mann, and Dr. Pielke on YouTube. If my memory serves me, this was done back in 2017. I do remember Dr. Christy pointing out his climate model fail graph that makes global warming zealots throw a conniption fit. He examined the 300mb-200mb level because the climate models predicted a significant warming in that level within the Tropics. Dr. Christy showed the radiosonde data did not match up well at all with the climate models. So, he said the hypothesis failed.
Well, Dr. Mann blew a head gasket over that. He claimed that Dr. Christy was mixing in cold stratospheric temperatures into the 300mb-200mb level to invalidate the climate models. But that doesn’t ring true to me. For 15 years I was an aviation weather forecaster. I know very well that the tropopause heights in the Tropics are generally 45,000 feet or higher. The 300mb – 200mb levels are generally between 30,000 and 39,000 feet. If Dr. Christy was mixing in stratospheric temperatures, he would have to grab temps at or above 45,000 feet. So, I know that can’t be right.
Dr. Mann is either ignorant of this, or he is lying through his teeth. Kind of hard for me to tell.
John Christy has a degree in climate science, Mann is a geologist. I know who I am backing.
Mann has already screwed up big-time with his hockey stick graph while John has an exemplary record with the satellite record. I don’t even think Mann does climate models, it’s his alarmist partner, Gavin Schmidt, at realclimate who does the models.
Mind you, Mann does have a good record, making misogynist comments about female scientists like Judith Curry.
Seems to me Mann likes to open his mouth and let his belly rumble.
It is astonishing to me to see how many of the climate change zealots who will to this day defend the hockey stick graph. They all will say the MWP and the LIA were “local.” Those warming and cooling periods in our recent climate history were not global although there is proxy evidence worldwide that shows otherwise.
Well, the battle goes on.
PNAS articles are not peer-reviewed