Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August 2023 was +0.69 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is a little above the July 2023 anomaly of +0.64 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 20 months are:
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2022 | Jan | +0.03 | +0.06 | -0.00 | -0.23 | -0.12 | +0.68 | +0.10 |
| 2022 | Feb | -0.00 | +0.01 | -0.01 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.50 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.15 | +0.28 | +0.03 | -0.07 | +0.22 | +0.74 | +0.02 |
| 2022 | Apr | +0.27 | +0.35 | +0.18 | -0.04 | -0.25 | +0.45 | +0.61 |
| 2022 | May | +0.17 | +0.25 | +0.10 | +0.01 | +0.60 | +0.23 | +0.20 |
| 2022 | Jun | +0.06 | +0.08 | +0.05 | -0.36 | +0.46 | +0.33 | +0.11 |
| 2022 | Jul | +0.36 | +0.37 | +0.35 | +0.13 | +0.84 | +0.56 | +0.65 |
| 2022 | Aug | +0.28 | +0.32 | +0.24 | -0.03 | +0.60 | +0.50 | -0.00 |
| 2022 | Sep | +0.24 | +0.43 | +0.06 | +0.03 | +0.88 | +0.69 | -0.28 |
| 2022 | Oct | +0.32 | +0.43 | +0.21 | +0.04 | +0.16 | +0.93 | +0.04 |
| 2022 | Nov | +0.17 | +0.21 | +0.13 | -0.16 | -0.51 | +0.51 | -0.56 |
| 2022 | Dec | +0.05 | +0.13 | -0.03 | -0.35 | -0.21 | +0.80 | -0.38 |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.14 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.08 | +0.17 | 0.00 | -0.11 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.12 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.24 | +0.16 | -0.13 | -1.44 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.25 | -0.03 | -0.38 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.39 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
| 2023 | June | +0.38 | +0.47 | +0.29 | +0.55 | -0.35 | +0.45 | +0.06 |
| 2023 | July | +0.64 | +0.73 | +0.56 | +0.87 | +0.53 | +0.91 | +1.43 |
| 2023 | Aug | +0.69 | +0.88 | +0.51 | +0.86 | +0.94 | +1.54 | +1.25 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for August, 2023 and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
Lower Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
I think this is the warmest August in the UAH data set, beating the 1998 record by 0.3C.
It’s also just short of the overal record anomaly.
Preliminary results from the TempLS surface analysis show very similar; about 0.05S above July, and nearly 0.3C above any previous August.
Good to see you here Nick.
Just wondering – is there any chance of updating your Excel file for your NCEP/NCAR reanalysis?
It’s last entry is April 1, and it’s also missing March 28.
Thanks, I’ll try to fix that
Fixed, I hope.
Sorry Nick – I only just noticed your post. Thanks for the fix.
Bellman
You think it right:
2023 8 0.69 (C, above the August mean of 1991-2020)
1998 8 0.39
2016 8 0.32
2022 8 0.28
2019 8 0.26
2010 8 0.21
2021 8 0.17
1995 8 0.15
2015 8 0.13
2001 8 0.12
But… a month is no more than a month.
” a month is no more than a month”
Well, two months. July was much the same. June not quite a record.
I maintain a table here which shows the hottest years for each month month, in descending order, and for various providers, including UAH.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#hottest
Nice!
Not surprisingly this is also the warmest NH Summer (June – August) by some margin.
2023 0.57
1998 0.40
2020 0.30
2019 0.28
2016 0.26
2022 0.23
2010 0.20
2017 0.19
2021 0.13
2015 0.11
Also, noticeable that apart from the usual appearance of 1998, all the hottest top 10 summers have been in the last 14 years.
Warmest June-July-August globally too, in UAH.
Sorry, my comment wasn’t very clear. Those figures were for global, not just NH.
Summer anomalies for just the Northern Hemisphere are
2023 0.69
1998 0.43
2016 0.36
2020 0.32
2021 0.31
2010 0.30
2022 0.26
2019 0.24
2017 0.20
2018 0.16
The previous record was beaten by 0.26C.
Which is perfectly consistent even with a slow down in warming in recent years. Even if temperatures were flat for 5 or ten years most recent years would have been among warmest..
Though I agree to all replies, I prefer to keep focusing on the long range data.
And that tells me that when 6.0 retired 5.6 in April 2015, 5.6 was already at 0.14 C / decade (6.0 went back to 0.11).
*
Most of the pseudo-skeptical people here say it’s due to the El Nino in 2016, but don’t realize what happened since then.
2016 2 0.70
2023 8 0.69
2023 7 0.64
2016 3 0.64
1998 4 0.62
2016 4 0.61
2020 2 0.60
1998 5 0.52
1998 2 0.49
2017 10 0.47
*
You see that best when adding, cell by cell, UAH LT’s climatology values for 1991-2020
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
to the anomaly grid, and generating the time series out of it. Here is the top 10 of its descending sort:
2023 7 266.058
2023 8 265.923
1998 7 265.797
2022 7 265.778
2020 7 265.723
2016 7 265.673
2019 7 265.667
1998 8 265.621
2021 7 265.618
2010 7 265.615
July 2016 has already been bypassed in 2022 and 2020, with 2019 just a tiny bit below it.
*
1998 remained unbeaten despite 2016… until July 2023 came.
And that should be due to the alleged HTE?
Hmmmmh. Gimme REAL proof of that guess.
Oh I agree. The long term trend is what matters. It’s fun to look at the individual record – but that’s all it is, just a bit of fun.
But there is a problem, that a lot who want to reject the idea of any warming will claim that if a record hasn’t been broken for a few years, it’s proof there is no warming. But as soon as records are broken will insist that this has nothing to do with warming, but is down to one of natural causes.
My view is that whatever has caused the current surge in temperatures, was unlikely to have set a record if temperatures hadn’t been steadily rising over the last 50 or so years.
This graph shows the monthly residuals for UAH.
It’s clear that 1998 was the exceptional. Since then all the spikes have been smaller – but adding them to the ongoing warming trend causes records to be broken.
https://imgur.com/N4aqX2e
It’s not that I disagree, I’m pleased to see warming. My issue is the idea that warming is bad, thus Something Must Be Done.
Nothing should be done. Adapt. Be glad it’s not getting colder. That would be something to be concerned about.
Best wishes all.
Bellman
Your graph with UAH’s Globe residuals (i.e. showing its detrended series) motivated me to a comparison of the result with that obtained out of RSS 4.0 in the same way:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NVZ2tQgazEr-qPkjabC3um9cKeGgshxT/view
Here’s a graph that I think shows how unusual this year has been.
Blue line shows the anomaly for each month, whilst the gray area is the minimum and maximum anomaly for each month, up to 2022. The pink area shows the 5% – 95% range of values.
https://imgur.com/oJ8KNsV
The HTE was real.
Temps will settle down now that it is gone.
I am curious what mechanism you propose that caused a steady rise in temperatures (blue line) from a volcanic eruption more than a year earlier, and then disappears right now, 19 months after the eruption.
Folkerts, you’re not even on the right planet.
Quite right, Pupman.
One day Tim will return to Vulcan.
How’s your Ferengi improving?
Andrew Dessler wrote a blog post about a month ago based on a paper that’s in review estimating the impact of Hunga-Tonga and reaching the conclusion that it didn’t have much net effect. He cited some other papers that reached similar conclusions as well.
The post includes a video by the lead author, Dr. Mark Schoeberl, showing the competing effects from the aerosol and the water vapor impulses from that event. Notably the aerosol effect is shorter lived such that it’s essentially back at baseline since late spring and we’re left with the stratospheric water vapor effect which is expected to take about five more years to taper to baseline.
The cited papers seemed to address the short term effect (a year or two) of Hunga-Tonga, but didn’t get into the longer term time evolution of impacts. It will be interesting to see if Schoeberl etal addresses this when/if it is published.
So an (entirely unquantified hypothesis) for HT’s impact on global temperature not showing up until a year and a half later is that the aerosol contribution roughly matched the water vapor contribution until the aerosols precipitated out leaving just the more slowly diminishing water vapor effect. The timing also more or less coincided with the switch from El Nino negative to positive, so there’s a multi-causal hypothesis.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-climate-impact-of-the-hunga-tonga
Thanks Bellman, interesting view.
Probably has a lot to do with the massive, multiple Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai submarine volcano eruptions in January 2022.
Read more here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/06/25/tonga-volcano-eruption-lightning-record-study/
Poor old WUWT recently added the monthly UAH global temperature anomaly record update to its sidebar.
They may come to regret that…
I would not be surprised if the UAH graph gets removed from the WUWT website in the next year or two.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
This combined with a strengthening El Nio means we will, without a doubt, break the record for highest anomaly in UAH satellite measurements. Whatever peculiar event happening now is pretty insane.
Yes, a peculiar event, but not unknown. The Hunga-Tonga eruption is clearly the cause. The initial blast was both water vapor and SO2 but the SO2 has been falling out. At the same time we have moved from La Nina conditions to El Nino condition.
Should make for a warmer winter in the NH.
I agree. That eruption injected around 38 billion gallons of water directly into the stratosphere, about 50,000 Olympic size swimming pools. It increased the water vaporconcentration in the stratosphere, by 10-15 percent. One study I read had it at 13 percent. I wonder how many gallons of water stayed in the troposphere. That is unprecedented and has to be having an effect.
“The Hunga-Tunga eruption is clearly the cause.”
How is it clearly the cause?
I never experienced this Richard M guy giving any valuable, consistent proof for any of his claims – be it at WUWT or here.
Richard is a coolista. Not that I rule it out for the future, but it’s still not here. Richard talks a lot about the AMO, and I am actually curious to see how the global temperature responds to that.
Exactly Walter…
And above all, these coolistas always refer to the detrended AMO, what is sheer nonsense when comparing it to trended temperature series.
Here is an old graph comparing detrended versus undetrended AMO:
http://tinyurl.com/yjnezxjk (grrr, ‘d’ followed by ‘c’ in the drive link)
And here are some temperature series versus the undetrended AMO till end of 2022:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1alycZI-rbKOXsiBKiRDpwI3L1T2LIoPb/view
Newest data won’t change much to the picture.
Bindidon,
Last month you sent me a link to the data for the AMO https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1518622.
Well I plotted the values you gave me and look at the values at the very end. Very interesting huh???
https://imgur.com/irlwn9T
Walter
You are right, it is indeed!
I didn’t see my own link in the browser’s history because I looked only for ‘undetrended’, ha ha. My bad :–)
But… my two links in the comment were links to a new AMO variant based on ERSST-V5 instead of the Kaplan SST used before:
” The AMO is currently not updated due to the source dataset (Kaplan SST) not being updated. We apologize for the inconvience. NOAA/NCEI has a time-series of the AMO based on the NOAA ERSSTV5. NCAR has AMO code. ”
And hmmmh:
” Note their definition removes the global mean. ”
There is therefore currently no official undetrended AMO available.
To obtain a detrended series out of a trended one is easy; but the inverse task of course is impossible.
🙁
“There ya go again.”
Do read Judith Curry’s long and challenging post on the complexities of 2023’s warmth. ‘the effect of any increase in CO2 is lost in the noise’
Should be a warmer winter in the Northern Hemisphere, i wouldnt bank on that , some cold winters during El Nino years,especially on the US easter seaboard, UK 2009/10 was pretty cold and snowy.
There have been talks of a Modoki like El Nio developing and those typically favor cold and snowy conditions of North America and Europe.
Top science publisher withdraws flawed climate study
https://phys.org/news/2023-08-science-publisher-flawed-climate.html
You might not be aware that the withdrawal or cancellation is very problematic as it throws the peer review into disrepute. If you read other sources apparently it was only a single nondisclosed reviewer who wanted the article cancelled, whereas the other reviewers were happy with the methodology.
Do you believe the premise that an article if factually correct should be published even if the conclusion is unpalatable to you?
Some Anon guy wrote:
So, you complain about some “nondisclosed reviewer” as you quote some “other sources” which you did not disclose. Perfect.
As for the retraction, the reviewers at NATURE apparently concluded that the data used in the article did not support the conclusions.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/think-of-the-implications-of-publishing
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/08/27/alimonti-et-al-retracted/
Swanson wanted a source, he got it. Not sure why Little Willy felt the need to respond.
Graham cites Junior and pretends it’s the same “other sources” as our current visitor. A current visitor who might also be doing the rounds elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Graham glosses over a post where a scientist shares his conflicted views about the retraction.
I have no idea why Graham does what he does, but he really sucks at it.
@willard, that is the correct person I was thinking of. The link does also present the evidence of why the peer review process seems to have failed in this case.
Not sure why Little Willy felt the need to respond again.
Dear Anon,
“The correct person” is singular while “other sources” is plural.
Do I take it you’re willing to hide behind Junior once again?
Not sure why some people feel the need to censor others who are contributing insights to the discussion, jut because it differs from their own.
…sure why Little Willy felt the need to respond again.
Is Graham’s lastwordism a form of censorship, Nate?
No.
Thank you, Nate.
Why, what did he say? As you know, I don’t read or respond to Nate any more. Hope he’s not still trying to use that fact to his advantage, taking personal potshots knowing that he’s not going to get any response? Cowardly bullying, in other words. I hope he’s not still being a cowardly bully?
“Hope hes not still trying to use that fact to his advantage,”
If DREMT has no answers for my science posts, that is HIS problem.
“taking personal potshots knowing that hes not going to get any response? Cowardly bullying,”
Usually not personal, unless DREMT makes it so. Then sure,
Says the guy who does the most bullying of anyone here.
I see Nate has commented again. I bet he was cowardly bullying.
” I bet he was cowardly bullying”
DREMT seems to believe that no else should be able to refute his points, and if they do then they are ‘bullying’ and he tries to censor them, IOW he is bullying.
Another comment. More cowardly bullying, I expect. He used to write comments containing all sorts of false accusations, knowing that I couldn’t correct him since I don’t respond to him. That was back when I read his comments, but didn’t respond. I bet he’s still doing the same, as part of his cowardly bullying.
Then he continues his childish charade, pretending that he doesn’t read or respond to my posts….. while obviously reading and responding to my posts!
Maybe he should just focus on rebutting the messages in the posts rather than trying to make it all about the messengers.
Another response, probably containing more cowardly bullying and false accusations.
Indeed, Nate.
Graham specializes in playing victim.
I wonder if he thinks his sadfishing works.
I am indeed the victim of an extended character assassination attempt by yourself and others.
Graham soldiers on, and his victim bullying continues.
See?
@Swanson, there seems to be conflicting sides on whether the data is accurate enough or not.
So do I take it that you do prefer research that supports only your view? What evidence would you need to say that the research was good enough to be published? The fact that 2/3rds of the reviewers seem to be ok with the research or some other criteria that you don’t seem to want to share.
Anon without reason wrote:
I’ve read a lot of papers on both sides. I hadn’t seen the paper in question until today and don’t have the time to read it carefully.
FYI, my first “paper” (a poster presentation back in ’87) was an effort to analyze data for one location to assess extremes of temperature. I acquired the data from the old NCD-C in Asheville which was available only as microfiche and microfilm. It took me 2 weeks to enter and verify some 30,000 data points on a borrowed IBM PCXT, then played with the numbers with some statistical software. Lots of fun.
Perhaps the person known as Anon is just trying to “pick a fight”, so to speak.
Eric,
You might like:
https://pubpeer.com/publications/516C947FCF110B57BBFEFE4D57AAD8
Some interesting comments over there.
Swanson dodges Anon’s questions.
Gaslighting Graham fails to acknowledge that they’re not real questions.
Points to respond to, then. Swanson avoided them like the plague.
Points our current visitor haven’t answered themselves.
So much easier to hide behind Junior.
It’s normal in a debate for someone to raise points for their opponent to consider, and counter, if they can. I’m not aware that it’s normal for somebody else to come along and suggest that the originator of the points respond to those points themselves.
It’s not “normal” to try to coax one’s opponent to commit on points on which one oneself has yet not commited.
That’s just manipulative crap.
Perhaps our visitor ought to recite his concerns regarding scientific norms that were raised elsewhere?
"It’s not “normal” to try to coax one’s opponent to commit on points on which one oneself has yet not commited."
Anyone here clear on what Little Willy’s problem is? Help me out.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Suppose our new visitor finds Junior’s hit piece “interesting.” Has that visitor taken position on it? Not really.
Now suppose our new visitor says that the hit piece is “fair and balanced.” Does he endorse it? Not exactly. All our new visitor is expressing is that they may not know Junior.
Here’s the framework by which Gaslighting Graham and our new visitor operate:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LetsYouAndHimFight
This ploy is at least as old as storytelling itself.
Everything I say and do, you have a problem with. Nobody but you knows why.
Poor Graham, forever the victim.
Standing with his shoulders straight and clearly say:
[THE BIT OUR ANON DOES NOT SAY OUT LOUD] Yes, I agree with Junior and I believe that scientific norms are now shattered forever and I will never believe in the INTEGRITY(tm) of scientists anymore.
is just too much for him.
Yes, I am indeed the victim, of relentless personal abuse from you, and others. That is correct. As to the words you want to put in my mouth, no, I don’t think this single incident shatters the integrity of all scientists.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
And he still dodges the commitment he’s asked to make.
Falsely accusing me of gaslighting is just more personal abuse.
Gaslighting Graham’s “Swanson dodges Anons questions” is abusive.
They were not real questions, and he himself has yet to commit to what the questions presuppose.
Res ipsa loquitur.
No, it was not abusive, Little Willy. Swanson evaded any point Anon made, by talking about his experiences writing a paper.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Our new visitor did not make any point.
He simply asked leading and loaded questions.
Let him commit to the points being made.
Only then will we tell them (and Graham) that we do not care about any of them.
Falsely accusing me of gaslighting is just more personal abuse.
The points made by Anon were:
1) There seems to be conflicting sides on whether the data is accurate or not.
2) It seems you prefer research that supports only your view.
3) Two thirds of the reviewers were OK with the research. That should be enough to convince you the research was good enough to be published.
What is happening here is what always is happening in the political arena.
After failing miserably to make a case for an increase in extreme events. . .a majorly funded effort was mounted to redefine what extreme climate is so the meme can fit the narrative.
Now you have special interests calling out cherry picking for failure to include the events newly redefined as extreme weather and Nature Magazine as usual kowtowing to the pressure.
How is this different than any other issue that has been plaguing social media lately?
No idea why you’d criticize Junior’s scientific shenanigans, Gill, but that’s welcome.
Oh, and regarding Graham’s latest gaslighting:
1. There “seems” isn’t supported by Junior’s posts, in fact he clearly says he stand this issue aside.
2. “It seems you prefer” isn’t a point – it’s passive aggressive crap.
3. “The two thirds” is false, and it presumes that reviews work like voting, which is silly.
So two seems, both silly, and an incorrect fact, begging a question that is also silly.
It’s all so silly.
You said he made no point. You now acknowledge he made three.
Stating falsehoods and mind probing don’t points make.
Gaslighting Graham condones this kind of abuse.
You bothered to try (and fail) to counter the points, so you must acknowledge they are points.
Falsely accusing me of gaslighting is abuse, those three points are not.
Gaslighting Graham still condones our new visitor’s abuse.
“There seems” and “you seem” do not contain any explicit point. “Yes but [insert incorrect fact]” only conveys an implicit point. Is there anyone here who denies that leading questions usually contain implicit points?
Of course they do. That’s why they’re not real questions! And that’s why they annoy and irritate.
Things do not really speak for themselves. Graham has to speak for them. But since this would imply he commits to something, he will try to resist it for hours and hours.
Because that’s how our Gaslighting Graham rolls.
Huh?
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Falsely accusing me of gaslighting is just even more personal abuse.
When called out for playing dumb once again, Graham returns to whining.
At this point, pun intended, it should be obvious that our current visitor made no explicit point. Their own position is hidden under false accusations, mind probing, and untruths.
And since Graham mostly plays you-and-him fights, he soldiers on.
He made three points, which Swanson dodged completely.
Graham seems to be gaslighting again.
Why is he playing you-and-him fights all the time?
The current thread speaks for itself.
Yes, your reliance on personal abuse speaks for itself.
Graham is also harassing Eric, which is abusive.
The only person being harassed is me.
“So do I take it that you do prefer research that supports only your view?” is an abusive rhetorical question.
“The fact that 2/3rds of the reviewers seem to be ok with the research or some other criteria that you dont seem to want to share” is not only false but also abusive.
And that’s notwithstanding Graham’s abuses toward Eric.
Willard says:
”No idea why youd criticize Juniors scientific shenanigans, Gill, but thats welcome.”
i will be waiting breathlessly until Willard provides us with the centuries old scientific definition of ”extreme weather events” NOT!
all that is happening here is we have the Donkeys trying to be the arbiter of language and is ready willing and able to punish those that don’t speak strictly the official Donkey endorsed narrative.
If you say so, Little Willy.
Have you tried to RTFR, Gill?
Start here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/
What do extreme weather events have to do with the scientific shenanigans of Graham and of our current visitor?
This has nothing to do with me, or Anon, Little Willy. It’s about a paper being retracted, and the reasons why it was retracted. You’re so obsessed with personalities you completely lose sight of what the discussion is even about.
Once again Graham pretends not being implicated in the scientific shenanigans he’s playing.
Which means he still dodges the commitments he needs to fulfill if he wishes to continue to play you-and-him-fight with Eric.
Little Willy continues speaking in his own private language, that only he understands.
Gaslighting Graham continues to gaslight:
https://philpapers.org/rec/WALCID
What are you braying about Willy?
Commitment, Gill.
Something you may never be able to understand.
So who did you marry Willard?
Your mom, Gill.
Oh so you are into necrophilia! What gender is that? Ash buster?
I hought you were talking about marriage, Gill.
Willard says:
”I hought you were talking about marriage, Gill.”
Apparently your marriage is celibate.
Articles get retracted from time to time. No one said peer-review was perfect, but it’s a necessary step in a process that weeds out more crap than it lets through. Pearl-clutching isn’t warranted.
Articles get retracted, but not usually due to pressure from the media.
It doesn’t matter who raises the objection if the matter is formally investigated, as was the case here.
‘Skeptics,’ both with and without qualifications, have raised objections that have garnered formal investigation in many different fora. The criticism here is hypocritical, as well as trying to brew a storm in a teacup.
barry, the normal way would have been for somebody to write a comment on the paper and get it published in the journal. This was suggested, but apparently none of the people complaining about the paper in the media could be bothered to do that. Why do you think that was?
“Ongena followed up with a second email with a proposal:
“I would invite the colleagues that have objections to send in their objections and to pass them on to the authors. To start a discussion in the press as they already did is certainly worse than publishing a critical paper. They could later also be invited to publish a comment.
We should as a journal not refrain or be afraid from a scientific discussion, but it should be in a correct way.””
“The eight “colleagues who expressed concern” via the media (and listed above) all apparently chose not to provide a scientific comment on Alimonti et al. and no further discussion of the comment was made in subsequent correspondence that I have seen.
However, the investigation proceeded.”
‘start a discussion in the press’
Who did that?
“The climate science denial echo-chamber has been loud and proud this week with claims a new ‘international study’ has found no evidence of a climate emergency in records of extreme weather.
So impressed was the Australian with the work that it ran uncritical coverage on page one and page two.
Using algorithm-friendly headlines such as Report finds no evidence of a climate emergency, Sky News Australia has amassed more than 400,000 views on YouTube across two segments on the story.”
This is what I was talking about earlier. No one would bother with crappy contrarian papers in non-climate journals if it weret for the
loud and proud “climate science denial echo-chamber”
I don’t know why anyone sho0uld care if the most conventional route to investigating – in this case re-reviewing – a paper wasn’t adhered to. So what? It was re-reviewed and retracted.
I thought Pielke’s take was “irrelevant?”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1530785
So why quote his commentary?
It’s a storm in a teacup. Pielke is obviously trying to suggest that this incident means peer-review is broken because the dastardly alarmists are closing ranks to circumvent it and trash papers they don’t like.
It’s a storm in a teacup. It’s only got traction because the paper was heralded by the usual suspects and the opposition weighed in in exactly the same manner – through the press. What happened after that is on the publisher, and so what? Is it time to replay Phil Jones’ email about preventing papers passing peer review and getting in the IPCC – while conveniently forgetting that those same papers succeeded peer review got into the IPCC?
These petty brouhahas are fodder for the already outraged. They can scratch that indignant itch.
I wasn’t quoting “commentary” I was quoting a simple relaying of the facts of the case. Unless you dispute it?
3 of the 5 paragraphs you quoted are Pielke’s commentary.
I thought Pielke’s view was irrelevant, according to you?
So why quote him?
Here’s what’s left when you remove Pielke’s comments )and also leave out all the other correspondence on the matter).
“I would invite the colleagues that have objections to send in their objections and to pass them on to the authors. To start a discussion in the press as they already did is certainly worse than publishing a critical paper. They could later also be invited to publish a comment.
We should as a journal not refrain or be afraid from a scientific discussion, but it should be in a correct way.”
Yes, that is what the editor said in response to the publisher’s desire to revisit the paper after it had been peer-reviewed.
Would you like sugar in that teacup?
As I said, barry, it is not “commentary”, it is just a relaying of the facts of the case. “Commentary” would be Pielke Jr. expressing his opinion on the matter, which is as irrelevant as your opinion on the matter.
This is what you are objecting to:
“Ongena followed up with a second email with a proposal” – are you saying Ongena did not follow up with a second email with a proposal?
“The eight “colleagues who expressed concern” via the media (and listed above) all apparently chose not to provide a scientific comment on Alimonti et al. and no further discussion of the comment was made in subsequent correspondence that I have seen” – did the eight colleagues who expressed concern via the media in fact choose to provide a scientific comment on Alimonti et al? Is that what you’re saying? Was further discussion of the comment made?
“However, the investigation proceeded“ – are you saying the investigation did not then proceed?
It’s actually an editorial decision based on pressure from the editor, but it’s not like contrarians care about truth anyway.
> from the editor
from the publisher, that is.
As if contrarians like Junior were really raising concerns about media pressure through they sub stacks.
Articles also get updated and (re)published in other journals.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17477891.2023.2239807
“Dear Prof. Alimoti,
We are contacting you today regarding your article
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9
A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming
in our journal EPJ Plus, and where you are the corresponding author.
We are sure you and your co-authors are already aware of the public dispute this has generated,
see e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/22/sky-and-the-australian-find-no-evidence-of-a-climate-emergency-they-werent-looking-hard-enough
https://phys.org/news/2022-09-scientists-urge-publisher-faulty-climate.html
Included in these reports are numerous concerns of scientists who are considered highly expert in this subject.
As a result of these circumstances it is now necessary that the journal carry out an investigation to assess the validity of these concerns, in line with good practice when concerns of this type are brought to a journal.“
Two days later, on 29 September 2022, Christian Caron of Springer Nature and the editorial manager of the Italian Physical Society, Barbara Ancarani (and why she was involved is unclear), contacted Alimonti et al. to let them know that based on the two media stories, an investigation had been opened of their paper, ccing EPJP co-editor-in-chief, Beatrice Frabon
Exactly, thank you: "based on the two media stories".
“to let them know that based on the two media stories” is obviously Junior’s interpretation.
Fancy this: Junior, from his substack, raises concerns about “shenanigans in science.” No comment from our in-house residence sky dragon crank and our new visitor on this.
It’s the correct interpretation. Read the email again:
“As a result of these circumstances it is now necessary that the journal carry out an investigation to assess the validity of these concerns”
The circumstances referred to were the media articles and the “public dispute”.
Well, actually:
1. Springer tells their journal editor to open an investigation.
2. Springer is the publisher.
3. Graham still evades the fact that Junior is doing exactly what he qualifies as “shenanigans in science.”
4. All this because he (and perhaps our fellow travellers) believes that reviews should count as votes.
This is all very silly. Perhaps I should write a piece on this.
I don’t care about “Junior”, or his opinions. The emails speak for themselves.
Gaslighting Graham almost whines about shenanigans in science by citing a Climateball veteran, infamous for his shenanigans in science.
As I literally just said, and you ignored, I don’t care about “Junior”, or his opinions. The emails speak for themselves.
Gaslighting Graham still dodges my questions.
Falsely accusing me of gaslighting is just more personal abuse.
Gaslighting Graham still dodges my questions.
By serendipity, Junior is also known as Roger Dodger.
You have not asked me any questions, and falsely accusing me of gaslighting is just more personal abuse.
More dodging.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Incorrect.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Exactly, thank you: “based on the two media stories”.”
My impression it was based on the criticisms of experts on these topics, that may have been reported in the media.
In the past no one would care if bad contrarian papers were occasionally published in obscure journals.
The problem is that these days such a paper will get amplified in the conservative media and blogosphere, as if it is the one true analysis of a topic.
When the reality is it is just one obscure paper out of many that may not agree with it.
…Willy, please stop trolling.
Exactly, Nate.
Perhaps we should also mention that Junior spent years complaining about the fact that nobody in the academic journals took the Auditor’s blog posts srsly.
Does that mean that his Climateball past was full of political shenanigans?
“Junior” is irrelevant. You’re just shooting the messenger. The emails speak for themselves.
If Junior is irrelevant and our new visitor hides behind Junior, what should we conclude?
That Graham is playing another you-and-him fight game!
No-one’s hiding behind anyone.
Graham still evades taking position on the Climateball episode he obsesses over since yesterday.
No obsession here. Just patiently waiting for you to stop responding to me.
Gaslighting Graham waits for me to stop responding… in a subthread I myself started.
Little Willy, please grow up.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
False, and abusive.
Moar gaslighting by Graham.
False.
Res ipsa loquitur.
…please stop trolling.
… http://www.climatemonitor.it/?p=58501#pll_switcher
It’s also of note that the August 2023 Arctic excursion of 1.54 C is the second highest in the UAH data, with only January 2016 being greater at 2.12 C.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Our resident spammer is a bit slow on the draw this month. But, grammie insists on posting something, even though it’s totally pointless. He apparently hasn’t heard the old saying: “If you haven’t got anything to say, shut up”.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
First decent week in the Uk for a long time, the usual culprits will be blubbering the end of the world is nigh. For god sake its summer, get over it. P.S. Hawaii looked like sabotage of some kind like many other places.
Perhaps you’d care to point out who here claims “the end of the world is nigh”.
First decent week for a long time, if you regard most of June, or a fair bit of August as a long time ago.
The UK Met office has just issued a severe weather warning, meaning there’s a threat to life because temperatures are going to reach 31C or slightly higher (about 85F) in a few parts of SE England. How ridiculous is this? Since when was 85F a threat to life even in the UK where very few people have air conditioning at home? These temperatures are at least 5C above the average for early September but early Autumn heat waves are fairly common. Before all the nonsense about “global boiling” this would be called an Indian Summer and everyone would enjoy it, especially after 2 months of fairly poor summer weather.
> Since when was 85F a threat to life
It’s the humidity, Matt:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-impacts/global-impacts-of-climate-change—projections
The UK Met Office map of Extreme heat stress risk misses areas which ALREADY experience such risks among a large portion of their working population.
Nicaraguans demand action over illness killing thousands of sugar cane workers
Sugar Cane Laborers Dying of Chronic Kidney Disease .
Those sugar cane workers are experiencing a serious side effect of heat stress, not the direct impacts of heat stroke. One would think there are other effects not captured by a the 10 day per year exposure metric.
@swanson, the UK doesn’t have the weather that Nicaragua does, not does it have same workers rights. Kidney disease can be caused by poor diet, not enough salts & lack of proper hydration.
It’s a bit of a stretch to link Nicaragua’s issues with a couple of hot days of n the United Kingdom.
I wonder how heat stress could cause dehydration, Anon. Any ideas?
Eric’s point was that UK’s heat stress map missed areas which ALREADY experience such risks among a large portion of their working population. That’s why he said “UK’s heat stress map that missed areas which ALREADY experience such risks among a large portion of their working population.” Is there something in that claim you do not get?
Oh, here are other countries that have not been highlighted by UK’s heat stress map:
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/heat-stress-deaths-show-europe-isn-t-ready-for-climate-change-1.1943706
Do you think the UK government should prioritize your contrarian concerns regarding AGW and risk more deaths by downplaying heat stress?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
All the time it looks quite periodic
https://udoli.files.wordpress.com/2023/09/agw_u.gif
Well, that’s just the olympiad correlation.
Roy, you haven’t updated August anomaly on the front page.
Temperatures beneath the surface of the Pacific Ocean are falling. Winter in the northern hemisphere will not be warmer than usual.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202309.gif
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202309.gif
So that tiny band is now “the Pacific” and cancels out all the warming you’ve shown elsewhere? Who would have guessed.
Oh! Palmowski is completely harmless.
One genius recently even had the audacity to suggest that global warming could be highly questionable since the 1877-78 El Nino matched that of 2015-16.
So what!
That band is generally a good predictor of the future state of the Nino regions. It would seem to indicate the current El Nino will not be a strong one and likely run for one year.
Still have the Hunga-Tonga effect to deal with for several years.
There will always be some excuse for you, won’t there, Richard M? Rather than face reality.
TFN can’t seem to understand the concept of cause and effect. The warming aligns perfectly with the H-T eruption and SO2 fallout. Your comment drips with projection. You’ve been waiting for so long to push your religion on everyone. You don’t want to accept the obvious.
As you try to justify causation by suggesting mere correlation, but use “align” to try to cover your correlation/causation blooper.
Tell me – do the monthly anomalies in the last 18 months more closely “align” with the eruption, or with ENSO?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Ocean surface temperatures.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_global_1.png
After a temporary increase in geomagnetic activity, the solar wind speed will drop sharply. This will result in the inhibition of zonal circulation at high latitudes.
https://i.ibb.co/bvLxGSJ/pobrane.png
Allarminsts are having a field day
They could say the sky is falling.
I could get another hurricane.
Though it’s cool and wet enough, here.
So, got a disturbance with 90% of cyclonic formation:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
The season is not vaguely over, but I imagined we wouldn’t get
another one over here. Maybe we get another 1/2 dozen.
Some little spots are growing on nearside:
Solar wind
speed: 396.9 km/sec
density: 5.03 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 04 Sep 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 79
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 131 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.14×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.5% Low
“AS PREDICTED, A GEOMAGNETIC STORM: We predicted a G2-class geomagnetic storm this weekend, and it happened. The question is, why? At least one CME was supposed to hit Earth’s magnetic field on Sept. 2nd. Yet solar wind data show no clear signs of a CME impact. Whatever the reason for the storm, it sparked mid-latitude auroras in the USA. “
That word looks vaguely familiar. Which language is it from?
It’s Ebenees , for you Twerps , That’s how aliens spell it
So you’re saying that an alien language is named after you?
Oops.
It’s dachshundian, for sure.
Stop sticking your ankle biting butt sniffing snout into my posts you bindidog creep
I see you don’t have the creativity to create your own insult.
BTW – referring to your OP – no one has suggested these anomalies are a cause for celebration. If anomalies return to decades-old values then both sides win. Albeit different competitions – one just for bragging rights and the other bringing about the desired changes.
Thank you Dachshund for showing us once again how close your language is to that of the German ultra-right neo-fascists.
Shaddap already you trottel
Would you not be having a field day if it was showing record low temperatures?
A new El Nio, what else?
Next time you post don’t forget to put your name into the upper window of
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
and to paste the result from the lower one, giving
Björn Åke Boström
Is the atmospheric opacity increasing or decreasing. Or, does it remain stable under increasing IR active gaseous concentration and decreasing opaque cloud mask fraction. Ts changes notwithstanding.
With high altitude water vapor increased, the opacity should have increased.
What has changed in the trend in atmospheric CO2 since the last year that would have caused such a dramatic change in temperatures? Nothing. The recent undersea volcano sent monsterous amounts of H2O into the upper atmosphere. I’m sure they will blame CO2, but you can be 100% certain, that temperatures will be falling in the near future, and no one will be blaming CO2 for the fall in temperatures.
Remember that other things affect global T besides CO2.
ENSO has caused a lot of Pacific warming recently, and this is added to the general GW trend.
Perhaps other variations, such as in the the N. Atlantic, are coincidentally in warm phases.
Then we have recent mandated changes to ship SO2 emissions, that have reduced cloud cover over shipping lanes.
According to the USGS, there are, on average, 13 active volcanoes erupting every day and since most of the earth’s surface is water, I doubt that there has been much of an uptick in ocean heat from that source.
The Hunga-Tonga eruption was quite different. It sent massive amounts of water vapor into the upper atmosphere.
I wouldn’t call 150 MtH2O massive considering the atmosphere already had about 15,000,000 MtH2O already. It’s just that the stratosphere is pretty dry so while 150 MtH2O is not a lot wrt to the whole atmosphere it is a lot wrt to the stratosphere. And as a point of comparison about 6,000 MtCO2 got added to the stratosphere since the HT eruption. I’m not saying that the HT eruption is not having an effect. It probably is. I’m just trying to put some context around that 150 MtH2O figure.
bdgwx
Absolutely correct.
Only dumb pseudo-skeptical climate deniers use this Hunga Tonga eruption to explain anything.
By< the way, when you look at anomaly changes in UAH's lower stratosphere record, you not only see that the greatest changes always happen at the Poles, but that the changes which happened since the HT eruption were marginal in comparison to other years.
It is also puzzling how contrarians are so willing to accept that a mere 150 Mt of one GHG can cause dramatic warming, but are incredulous about 1,000,000 Mt of another having any effect at all.
bdgwx says:
”It is also puzzling how contrarians are so willing to accept that a mere 150 Mt of one GHG can cause dramatic warming, but are incredulous about 1,000,000 Mt of another having any effect at all.”
How big is your skeptic sample bdgwx?
I am not in that camp and I am not sure who is and who isn’t.
I am just going on the possibility of an effect from the volcano on ozone whose primary effect is to deny sunlight from reaching the surface in the first place.
If you go here and compare the ozone hole there is a significant reopening of that hole over the past several weeks. If its temporary or results in something major we should know in the not too distant future.
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/SH.html
After all the UN is taking credit for half a degree C for fixing the hole.
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc
Oh so you are into necrophilia! What gender is that? Ash buster?
Hunga-Tonga eruption was quite different.
Richard M beat me to the punch.
‘They’ are upthread noting that the conditions are strange and not attributing these high anomalies to CO2.
But don’t let that stop you fantasising, CO2isLife. Nice, neutral handle, by the way.
barry, please stop trolling.
Although I had expected August to be below July, this makes some sense in light of the hard-working Polar Vortex. Even though we are over months from solstice, the PV is still well organized with max wind speeds over 250 mph. IMHO, the HTE is over but there’s a lot of residual hot air that must be vacuumed out!
“a lot of residual hot air” in this blog, that needs to be filtered out.
Wrong Nate. People need to see that you childish tr0lls have no science.
Where is the science in your post?
All I see some disconnected buzz-words or factoids, and the continuation of a correlation equals causation fallacy.
Yes Nate, that’s often how reality looks to children.
And followed by no answers, just more insults.
I think all can recognize that your posts are just noise.
Elon Musk hints at the bold future of SpaceX’s Starship program
Elon Musk remains intent on colonizing Mars as SpaceX continues to expand its operations.
Ian Krietzberg 3 hours ago
https://www.thestreet.com/technology/elon-musk-hints-at-the-bold-future-of-spacexs-starship-program
[[Hints? What does a madman have to do?]]
“In the wake of a series of successful launches, SpaceX has exceeded the previous year’s flight count, according to CEO Elon Musk, delivering 80% of all Earth payload mass to orbit for the year so far.
China, he said, has delivered 10%. And the rest of the world combined delivered the remaining 10%. ”
“And once SpaceX’s bold Starship program gets up and running, that number will exceed 99%, Musk said. ”
He seems to not have much faith in Bezos. Or, Rocket Lab- which actually flying and trying to re-use rockets.
I was watching the starlink falcon-9 {on internet} launch, and the talking heads said that not only does the firing of returning first stage booster, slow it down, but it “fights fire with fire”
Can Starship’s hot entry in Mars high atmosphere, also “fight fire with fire”.
Though I am more interested in Venus orbit, can it be done with Venus, or Earth re-entry {from lunar distance- or guess also, just from LEO}?
Dr. Spencer
I have tried today to post a calculation I have made that concludes the contribution of temperature to the atmosphere by CO2 is in the order of 19% of the 0.13 degree C per decade recorded by UAH. Is there some reason it has not been accepted?
The site censor is very sensitive to certain words and letter sequences. For example any word with the letters d and c in sequence is rejected, as are words such as absorp.tion.
Copy your comment before posting, then if you have trouble, post one paragraph at a time until you find the problem.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/is-your-comment-here-not-appearing/
Look in your texts for the presence of problematic character sequences, e.g. (without the blank in between, of course)
– ‘d c’
– ‘r p t’
Such sequences automatically let the blog ignore the comment you posted.
Click on the left arrow in the browser’s menu bar to recuperate your comment, so you can re-edit it.
Sometimes, the problematic character sequences are within links:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Rli_V3tzq9lFsxZY4YdD CafOt4mVLNJl/view
Use
https://tinyurl.com/app
to get rid of it.
The ozone hole in the Southern Hemisphere is growing.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot_N20.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_2022.png
You can see the dependence on the solar cycle.
Compare 2019.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_2021.png
I seem to be missing the connection between ozone hole and it’s ability of causing naturally mild climate change.
That’s because you’re new to Climateball, dear Anon.
Have we met before?
Willard you’re not a CO2 maniac?
Only if you ask me, Walter.
Otherwise I’m a ninja.
Could also be getting a boost from increased water vapor.
Funny how you say it is still going and caused by water vapour, while Clint claims it is over and has nothing to do with water vapour (without being able to specify an alternate cause). Would you guys please get your story straight.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Visible greater extent of the southern polar vortex in the lower stratosphere in the South Pacific and will continue to expand.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_sh_f00.png
Winter is finally coming to Australia.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/gfs/2023090412/gfs_T2m_aus_22.png
Only 0.01C from breaking the record for warmest anomaly. Climate deniers are still going to try and say that global cooling is knocking on our front door.
0.69C.
So July’s 0.64C wasn’t a fluke.
Do you think there’s a possibility of getting the average of +0.55 for the last four months of the year to make 2023 the warmest year?
The OLS trend suggests that the normal ENSO neutral temperature for the early 2020s is around anomaly 0.25C.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2024/every/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2024/every/trend
El Ninos tend to peak about 0.5C above the trend, so the current El Nino might peak around 0.75C.
I’m surprised. to see temperatures so high so early in the present El Nino. Now they’re here I expect to see more of them.
If all that’s needed for a 2023 annual record is a 0.55C average for the last four months, then it is likely that we’ll see a new record.
Why do you think it’s a fluke? If you throw dice then it’s possible to get any series of numbers. Would prove that the dice would suddenly start melting, would it.
Natural climate change doesn’t prohibit two consecutive months getting warmer. Anyway, wouldn’t just selecting such a short trend be an indication of weather, rather than the longer 300 months needed to be classified as climate.
If I throw an honest die I would expect about 17% of throws to come up 6. If I drill a 3mm hole in the centre of the 1 face and insert a 3mm ball bearing the probability of a 6 rises to about 25%. (Don’t ask how I know :–) )
Similarly with the July and August temperatures. They are unlikely to be 0.4C above the long term trend due solely to natural random or weather variation. Something is causing them to be so high.
The global sea surface temperature has been record warm for about 5 months. And looks like this not over.
This not simply random monthly noise.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
How about the fact that in the entire first 30 years of the UAH record, outside the very strong El Nino of 97/98, the highest two-month average was +0.18. And this El Nino hasn’t reached Strong, let alone Very Strong.
Nate and Antonin,
What do you guys think are driving this anomalous warmth? Could it be related to the fact that ever since the last strong El Nio, the temperature has remained elevated?
Walter,
“The only reason it’s warming is because it’s warming”.
That’s the essence of your comment.
Walter,
It is the high the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI). CERES shows the 36m and 12m averaged EEI at +1.46 W m-2 and +1.92 W m-2 respectively. The planet is accumulating energy because it is taking in more than it is shedding. The Earth responds by warming in an effort to bring the EEI down.
I think it is several factors.
First, ongoing AGW that has been masked by 3 years of La Nina conditions.
Second, ENSO shifted from 3 years of negative to neutral and now El Nino conditions. Last time that happened, in 2015, global sea surface temps jumped to new records in the second half of the year.
Third, the N. Atlantic may have shifted to a warmer phase.
Fourth, due to recent international agreement, shipping now must use low sulfur fuel, and as a result there is less contrail formation over shipping lanes.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/
Fifth, The HT volcano is estimated to contribute a very small warming effect.
Ent conveniently forgets about the HTE.
He’s too busy making up things to tout his cult beliefs, like claiming passenger jets fly backward.
Clint conveniently INVENTS the HTE.
And after previously saying it has nothing to do with water vapour (in opposition to his fellow believers), he has yet to provide a mechanism for this hypothetical effect.
Ant, if will agree to not comment here for 60 days, I’ll like you to the mechanism for the HTE.
You’ll like me if I don’t comment for 60 days? Awwwww
Anyway, thanks for letting me know you need another 60 days to concoct a mechanism.
Yes Ant, I see I forgot to check for typos. Sorry. Here’s the corrected version:
“Ant, if you will agree to not comment here for 60 days, I’ll link you to the mechanism for the HTE.”
And why would my presence here affect your willingness to share your “knowledge”? Surely you are keen to convince others you are right rather than making bald assertions unsupported by science. Or does scientific debate mean something different to you?
Ant, you have no interest in learning science. Your only interest is in attacking Skeptics. I don’t waste time with people that reject reality.
Take a 60-day break, come back as a responsible adult, and I’ll be glad to help you.
I am learning science all the time. Pretty sure you’ve never read a university-level physics textbook cover to cover and attempted the exercises, merely scoured it for out-of-context quotes.
You have no issue with sharing your unjustified theories – what is stopping you from taking the extra step? I am quite confident everyone else here would be interested in your explanation of the mechanism. Is is really so much easier to invent stories about retrograde air travel than to explain your theories?
Ant, your insults and false accusations bounce off me like 15μ photons bounce off Earth’s surface. (You will have no clue what that means.) You’ll be here all day, but I don’t have time for your childish nonsense.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1530544
You mean you’re promising not to speak to me?
Celebrations are in order.
I think a new record is very likely given the source of the extra warming, Hunga-Tonga water vapor, won’t be going away for some time.
Perhaps you’d care to provide evidence that the water vapour in any vertical column of the atmosphere is currently a significant percentage higher than normal.
Heads up – merely stating that a lot of water vapour was released is not evidence that it is still lurking in the atmosphere.
Your comment shows a major lack of understanding IR active gases.
Water vapor’s absorp.tion bands are completely saturated low in the atmosphere. It’s only when you get high enough for the concentration to get low enough that changes make a difference.
I do think it is going to be a complex problem. Currently the 600 mb specific humidity is high but not up at 300 mb. I’ve also read that the water vapor level in the mesosphere is quite high but haven’t seen any data.
It’s THAT comment which illustrates your lack of understanding.
While based on an obvious truth, if saturated in the lower atmosphere then radiation emitted from the surface doesn’t reach the upper atmosphere for saturation/non-saturation to make a difference.
Interesting that you people deny even the existence of a greenhouse effect, yet what you are describing is PRECISELY the greenhouse effect.
Is there anything stopping you linking to this data on stratospheric water vapour? And I mean data, not a reference to another site making another non-data reference.
EM,
Why would a fluke in a natural event relate to a man-made unrelated concept like a month? Geoff S
@EM, I was assuming fair dice, why weren’t you?
If you throw a normal dice purely randomly there is zero reason why you can’t have a series of 2s or a series of 6s. It’s still random, yet some people will instantly try to see a pattern where no pattern exists.
Conversely, some people will invoke randomness to deny a pattern which does exist.
@Antonin, there is that, but consider that the human biology is to be predisposed to see patterns even when non exist. How many people can see faces, animals etc in clouds. Hopefully you recognize that clouds have zero ability to mimic and are truly random.
To notice a slight increase in global temperature is one thing, to associate it with mankind is, to my mind, a step too far. As is trying to state a trend from only 2 months of data that the OP did.
I agree with Anon. Are people really trying to associate this spike with CO2?
” I agree with Anon. Are people really trying to associate this spike with CO2? ”
They shouldnt be. CO2 is responsible for the underlying warming trend which makes such high temperatures possible.
The spike must be due to some additional effect. The first default option is El Nino, but the spike looks high for this stage of El Nino, so we may be looking for three interacting variables. CO2, ENSO and ?.
No they’re not. The naysayers are merely arguing against a straw man. It is associated at least in part with El Nino. Possibly also the warming feedback effect of reduced Antarctic sea ice, but that seems much less likely given that the majority of the “spike” has occurred in the northern hemisphere. And until someone can refer to a data set which shows a marked elevation in water vapour concentrations, that explanation is merely guesswork.
The “spike” was caused by the El Niño and the HTE, acting together.
https://postimg.cc/8FFtpjZF
FWIW, cloud formation isn’t exactly random:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-clouds-always-appe/
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Dr Spencer,
You might want to update the “Latest Global Temp. Anomaly” from July to August.
There is a loooong post at Judith Currys site about the warmth this summer.
I have a question for the tipping point theory. The typical seasonal anomaly in the CO2 data is about 6 ppmv. So that means the level of CO2 has dropped by that amount since early spring. How did that trigger the tipping point?
Who is suggesting that we’ve suddenly crossed a tipping point, rather than merely experiencing the effects of El Nino, albeit superimposed on a rising trend?
My point is that we seem to be in a very unusual weather pattern, which is entirely different than climate. Contrary to some of the assertions in the media, there is variation in the weather from year to year during any particular climate period. As I write this, we are approaching peak Hurricane Season with “bath tub” hot temperatures in the waters of the Gulf in particular, and there are currently no hurricanes in the Atlantic or Eastern Pacific regions.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?atlc
Indeed there is variation from year to year, something almost all naysayers on this site conveniently forget in La Nina years as they claim that the fall is the beginning of a new long term downward trend in global temperatures.
On the other hand, no one here is claiming these elevated temperatures will continue past this El Nino. We’ve always said it’s the long term AVERAGE which matters, and this variability is simply superimposed on a rising trend. No more.
Give it until the end of the week, we should have the third major hurricane in the Atlantic by then.
At time I wrote that it was true. Currently, Tropical Storm Lee is expected to gain hurricane status by Thursday morning, and predicted to be a major hurricane by Friday afternoon. It is headed for the east coast. Hopefully it will make a turn north like so many have this year.
The main reason for the increase in the temperature of the troposphere is the increase in the surface of the warm ocean in the tropics, due to the inhibition of the east wind along the equator. An increase in the area of stronger evaporation results in an increase in water vapor, which transfers heat from the ocean to other latitudes by convection over the equator.
What you are describing is PRECISELY El Nino.
Why do you have such difficulty in uttering those words?
Maybe it is “ren” come back to haunt us?
It is indeed ren. He hasn’t tried to hide that.
This is the first year in eight straight years that he hasn’t predicted La Nina. Nevertheless he stated earlier in the year that there is no chance of El Nino forming this year. He has a much stronger agenda-based bias than most of the others here, despite many trying to argue how neutral he is simply because he doesn’t get abusive.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
I wonder what the reason is behind “Anon for a reason”‘s anonymity.
On a completely different matter, who has disappeared from here in the last month or so?
When I defended the science behind global warming under my own name, I popped up on internet searches relating to my children’s professional activities.
To avoid confusion they asked me to become anonymous, so I became a minor comic book superhero.
“Anon for a reason” may have a genuine and innocuous reason for choosing to stay out of the limelight. Or he may not.
Ultimately, I don’t really care what his reason is, unless he was blocked under another name.
It was just a way of introducing the main issue … who is he?
BTW – Have you collected from Richard yet?
(No, I am not claiming AFAR is Richard – he is not rabid enough to be Richard. This one really is an independent question.)
RLH has acknowledged courteously that he lost this year’s bet and the RLNI is 20 better off, which is the real purpose of the bet.
@Antonin, no I haven’t posted on this site before a couple of weeks ago. So I don’t know who you think I am but rest assured I’m not that person. Anyway it’s not that I know anyone with a surname of qwerty.
There are a lot of reasons why people want to stay anonymous, especially in today’s cancel culture. I certainly not willing to paint a target on my back or my employer current or previous.
I am not complaining about using a pseudonym. In fact I am not complaining at all (unless you’ve been previously blocked). But it is not usual for new people to appear on this site and be immediately prolific in their posting. It is usually a sign that they are familiar with the site. And there are indeed a couple of people who seem to be AWOL.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
As a follow-up to Bellman’s graph about how unusual this year has been, here is graph showing for each year the change from the first 4 months to the next 4 months.
http://tinyurl.com/May-Aug-minus-Jan-Apr
I can account for most of the extreme changes, but 2004 has me stumped. Any suggestions.
And another metric:
(Yearly range of UAH monthly anomalies) – (Yearly range of NOAA monthly anomalies)
Year … UAH (NOAA)
2023 … +0.37
2022 … +0.00
2021 … +0.09
2020 … +0.09
2019 … -0.03
2018 … -0.11
2017 … -0.02
2016 … +0.04
2015 … +0.02
2014 … -0.12
2013 … +0.20
2012 … +0.12
2011 … +0.16
2010 … +0.05
2009 … +0.14
2008 … -0.14
2007 … +0.16
2006 … -0.02
2005 … +0.04
2004 … +0.19
It’s as though UAH is picking up the ENSO signal earlier than NOAA, which is not usual.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
I show the Monckton pause starting in 2015/02 and shortening to 103 months.
Not sure why you engage with that inbred’s nonsense.
Basically, the ‘Monckton Pause’ tells us that since 2015/02, temperatures have been averaging ~0.25 C above the current baseline and ~ 0.4 C above the baseline for 1980-2009.
Rather than showing some sort of end to global warming, that seems like pretty strong evidence of continued global warming to me. Even when you look for ‘pauses’, you still need to acknowledge increases (and never decreases) every decade or two.
@TimFolkerts, it’s not the fact that the planet is warming slightly, it’s how much it is tied to only human emissions.
There are many plausible reasons on why there are pauses or non consistent warming. The go to reason that’s it’s mankind CO2 emissions seems, to me at least, a somewhat lazy, simplistic, fanciful excuse that is more related to political bias than scientific method.
The reason there are pauses is because there are short term oscillations superimposed on the long term trend. As many of us have pointed out in the past 100% of months will be contained within at least 1 Monckton pause. Some months even have the distinction of being in two of them. This gives Monckton the opportunity to always be able to make a post about a pause. He just doesn’t tell his audience that the current pause is at a higher than the previous one. It is a variation of Simpson’s Paradox in which the focus is put on the confounding trends of shorter cherry-picked periods to distract from the overall secular long term trend. So despite always being in a pause the global average temperature continues to march higher over the long term.
@bdgwx,so you believe that all the temperature measurements are accurate and despite research that shows a high level of badly sited thermometers or urban heat island affects.
Sadly CO2 emissions don’t fully explain any climate change
I don’t think any global average temperature dataset is perfectly accurate. But I accept that they are accurate enough to draw conclusions with a reasonable level of confidence.
You are correct. CO2 emissions do not fully explain climate change or the UAH TLT values. It is but one among many agents that modulate the system. It is because there are other agents acting on the system (like ENSO, solar output, etc.) that necessarily lead to pauses in the UAH TLT values. These pauses are expected and consistent with the contemporary understanding of the CO2 (and other GHGs) effect.
Anon for a reason
” … despite research that shows a high level of badly sited thermometers… ”
Which research do you mean?
The pseudo-research done at Watts’s ‘surfacestations.org’ over 10 years ago, with their 71 ‘well-sited’ USHCN stations (mentioned even by NOAA itself)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ipzDRdJppZDM6ii4qj9h1AKFrC3t0h94/view
showing a bit more warming than 329 ‘poorly sited’ GHCN daily stations around them?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14OiHmTn0DjbJF_s7cEZXicQd6-oAiCqe/view
Ball4 says:
”Sure that imaginary 3rd grader model of Bills doesnt work physically. Bill needs to use the more advanced high school model developed from experiments to understand the real physical world.”
well you have been in here defending the 3rd grader model but don’t feel bad as abit more a decade ago even Harvard University had the 3rd grader model being offered up as an explanation for the GHE.
When did you decide the 3rd grader model was complete bunk?
“its not the fact that the planet is warming slightly, its how much it is tied to only human emissions.”
I would say it is BOTH of those. First, people should acknowledge the clear evidence that the planet IS warming.
Then comes assignments for why it is warming. To me, the ‘lazy, simplistic, fanciful’ approach is it pick some plausible explanation without any careful analysis. ‘Oh, there was a volcano recently.’ ‘Oh, sunspots are low.’ ‘Oh, it is just a natural 60 year (or 400 year or 50,000 year) cycle.’ Sure, these might be involved, but then comes the hard work of showing why/how much, or showing a clear statistical connections.
For CO2, there IS a clear physics reason why it should cause warming. Scientist have spent a lot of time and effort and money (maybe too much) predicting how CO2 should impact the climate. And usually those predictions are pretty close (if a little high).
“For CO2, there IS a clear physics reason why it should cause warming.” WRONG!
CO2 doesn’t “cause warming”. Ice cubes don’t boil water. Fluxes don’t simply add. And passenger jets don’t fly backward.
Here’s the reality:
1. Sun warms the surface. (TRUE)
2. Surface warms the atmosphere. (TRUE)
3. Atmosphere re-warms the surface (FALSE)
We wouldn’t be here if CO2 were a strong or moderately strong greenhouse gas per the AGW hypothesis. CO2 contributes to warming because the surface warms the atmosphere and CO2 is an atmospheric gas. But the planet is complicated and rigorously designed for sustaining life.
“WRONG!”
Sorry Clint, we’ve been through all this before and your hollow assertion is not sufficient to overturn centuries of physics. Feel free to write your own textbook or present at a physics conference if you think there is a specific error somewhere.
It has happened that most physicists were wrong about some topic (eg when relativity or quantum mechanics first came out), but classical thermodynamics is pretty robust.
The simple truth is that insulation ’causes warming’ when added to a house with a furnace. A sheet of plastic ’causes warming’ when added to a greenhouse in the sun. And CO2 ’causes warming’ when added to the atmosphere of a planet receiving solar energy. We could quibble about whether ‘reduces the cooling’ is more accurate, but the net result in all of these cases is a higher final temperature.
Wrong again, Folkerts.
You’re as confused by radiative physics as you ever were. You’re unable to learn.
CO2 doesn’t “cause warming”. Ice cubes don’t boil water. Fluxes dont simply add. And passenger jets don’t fly backward.
Your cult hoaxes are anti-science and you’re stumbling all over yourself trying to support them.
Tim Folkerts says:
”The simple truth is that insulation causes warming when added to a house with a furnace. A sheet of plastic causes warming when added to a greenhouse in the sun. And CO2 causes warming when added to the atmosphere of a planet receiving solar energy. We could quibble about whether reduces the cooling is more accurate, but the net result in all of these cases is a higher final temperature.”
the real simple truth for an actual hot house farmer is when convection blows the sheet of plastic off the top of the greenhouse it doesn’t warm squat. . . despite what your cubicle-bound physics teacher implies.
Classical Thermodynamics? You’re a hoot, Tim. The planet’s climate system is way more complex than an insulation blanket, and CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Also, CO2 follows temperature on both short and long, time scales. You have it back asswards.
Tim, I am with you up to the last sentence. It is a science fact that increasing CO2 should cause some effect. The problem comes in the attempt to quantify that effect. If we cannot get agreement from different methods of temperature measurement trends, how can we predict or “project” the true effect. The climate models produce a wide range of results. ENSO shows up very clearly in the UAH record as a significant effect apparently from water vapor, and surface data sets somehow miss this. Or, is that because they use so much data smoothing to try to imply a smooth and steady increase? In theory CO2 should have an effect, but the science is a very long way from quantifying what that effect really is relative to the primary greenhouse which is still water vapor.
Oh my! Strawmen abound!
“despite what your cubicle-bound physics teacher implies.”
I was implying exactly what you said. A sheet of plastic over a frame prevents convection. Any time you make it tougher for heat to escape from a heated object, the object will get warmer. Whether you are preventing convection, conduction, or radiation.
“The planets climate system is way more complex than an insulation blanket” … and classical thermodynamics deals with situations way more complex than blankets. In particular, no matter how complex and chaotic the climate system is, there is nothing in the 2nd Law that prevents CO2 from helping warm the surface, even when the CO2 is cooler than the surface.
“CO2 follows temperature on both short and long, time scales.”
This one is more interesting, but still a strawman. Yes, historically over the past several glacial eras, this has been true. However:
1) This does not preclude CO2 from having a warming effect. Something (like changing orbits or moving continents) could trigger warming which would release CO2 from the warming oceans. The CO2 could add a warming effect, leading to more warming in the oceans and more CO2. [This does NOT imply infinite feedback.]
2) The recent rise in CO2 is clearly NOT due to ‘CO2 following temperature’. Fossil fuels are the clear source. Now CO2 is leading warming.
Last (and least) “passenger jets dont fly backward.”
A strawman out of a completely different discussion!
“It is a science fact that increasing CO2 should cause some effect.”
“In theory CO2 should have an effect…”
Correct Tim S. And that effect would be a slight cooling.
Tim S, I agree with everything you wrote. Quantifying the effect of CO2 IS tough. I think it is amazing that climate models are are good as they are (and that is still not very good).
Tim,
The surface warms the atmosphere. 0.04% of the atmosphere doesn’t warm the surface.
Tim and Norman,
The only purpose of the AGW agenda is for Marxists like you to control capitalism, nothing else. You two push the UN climate agenda. I don’t know what you get out of or will get out of it, but you do.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Oh my! Strawmen abound!
”despite what your cubicle-bound physics teacher implies.”
I was implying exactly what you said. A sheet of plastic over a frame prevents convection. Any time you make it tougher for heat to escape from a heated object, the object will get warmer. Whether you are preventing convection, conduction, or radiation.
—————————
No Tim the plastic only constricts air molecules from trading places with cooler air molecules. And when they trade places that means the molecules rise to TOA to radiate any heat not radiated to space during its journey upwards.
We have seen from experiments such as Vaughn Pratt’s that variously using IR transparent and IR opaque covers doesn’t change the temperature of the surface. What changes is the temperature of the cover (or gas if you are using gas for a cover).
so you are apparently just parroting your cubicle bound physics teacher who lacked any experience in working with the stuff.
“Any time you make it tougher for heat to escape from a heated object, the object will get warmer. Whether you are preventing convection, conduction, or radiation.”
I see that nobody has rebutted this accurate statement with loads of experimental support.
“Any time you make it tougher for heat to escape from a heated object, the object will get warmer. Whether you are preventing convection, conduction, or radiation”
Sure, Tim…and to prevent radiative losses requires reflectivity, and not absorp.tion/emission, in the insulator.
“requires reflectivity, and not absorp.tion/emission, in the insulator.”
False. Tyndall’s experiments clearly showed that IR abs.orbing gases reduce heat transfer.
Not sure why people feel they can make up their own fake physics rules that deny 150 y of established physics!
It’s amazing to see such discussions when people exclusively concentrate on CO2:
” The surface warms the atmosphere. 0.04% of the atmosphere doesn’t warm the surface. ”
like do e.g. 6.9L pickup drivers manifestly interested in keeping ‘my cheap gallon’ alive forever.
1. CO2 hasn’t been the GHE’s main component during millennia: it was water vapor all the time.
This might change in the near future.
2. CO2 doesn’t ‘warm the surface’: that is the pseudo-scientific, pseudo-skeptical people’s wrongly and endlessly repeated, nonsensical narrative.
All what CO2 does is to increase over time the loss of radiative cooling, despite the incredible idiocy propagated all the time by ignoramuses like Clint R, claiming that more CO2 in the lower atmosphere means more radiative cooling!
Well, he’s got a point, Bindidon. After all, what "holds onto the heat" the best?
1) An atmosphere without GHGs, which can be warmed from the surface upwards via conduction and convection, but cannot radiatively cool very efficiently.
or
2) An atmosphere with GHGs, which can radiatively cool very efficiently.
DREMT
When you say the atmosphere can radiatively cool efficiently, what time frame are you implying by “efficiently”?
For example, if whatever forcing is causing the current “spike” were to disappear overnight, how long would the atmosphere take to dissipate that heat and return to its previous temperature?
(Note – I’m not asking for theories about what is causing the “spike”.)
No idea. Can an atmosphere without GHGs radiatively cool more or less efficiently than one with GHGs?
Which atmosphere without greenhouse gases could someone interested in that question look at?
Correct answers are “1” and “less”.
Perhaps best just to let meteorologist Roy Spencer correct these misconceptions.
From previous article:
The greenhouse effect does not produce its own heating effect, it reduces the net rate of cooling in the lower atmosphere, while providing net radiative cooling of the upper atmosphere.
And the evidence is successful weather prediction:
All of this is well explained by a model of the radiative processes, for instance in every weather forecast model, and the model will create exactly what is observed. Without the GHE, you cannot explain the thermal structure of the atmosphere.
Roy quotes disappeared!
Should have been:
“The greenhouse effect does not produce its own heating effect, it reduces the net rate of cooling in the lower atmosphere, while providing net radiative cooling of the upper atmosphere. ”
And the evidence is successful weather prediction:
“All of this is well explained by a model of the radiative processes, for instance in every weather forecast model, and the model will create exactly what is observed. Without the GHE, you cannot explain the thermal structure of the atmosphere.”
The correct answers are still “1” and “less”, unless anyone can explain how those answers could possibly be wrong?
Here is a claim:
(C) An atmosphere without GHGs cannot radiatively cool very efficiently.
Here is a question:
(Q) Can an atmosphere without GHGs radiatively cool more or less efficiently than one with GHGs?
It seems to me that someone who asserts C ought to have an answer to Q…
I have already given the answer, twice.
Perhaps “no” isn’t an answer to Q.
After all, it would not help support C since it would be equivalent to it…
The answer to Q is “less”. For the third time.
“Less” would not provide any support to C either…
In any event, from C follows the intriguing idea that added greenhouse gases to an atmosphere allows it to cool more efficiently.
Is that what we can observe on planets with lots of greenhouse gases?
You are seriously trying to dispute C?
(C) An atmosphere without GHGs cannot radiatively cool very efficiently.
Some people (who are GHE defenders) have suggested that an atmosphere without GHGs cannot radiate at all. I go less extreme, and merely suggest that an atmosphere without GHGs cannot radiate very efficiently.
Is Graham srsly trying to assert C without supporting it?
Yes. It requires no support, as it is (or should be) self-evident.
It’d be interesting to know how many “self-evident” claims like that we could find in empirical sciences.
A cloudless sky cools quicker. Is it because there is more greenhouse gases?
An atmosphere without GHGs cannot radiatively cool very efficiently. If anyone disagrees, let them speak now.
HOW TO REVERSE THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Step 1. Make an unsupported assertion.
Step 2. Pretend that this assertion is self-evident.
Step 3. Challenge anyone to prove you wrong.
There is no fourth step.
I genuinely consider the “claim” to be self-evident. I’m not sure what you want me to say. As usual, you falsely accuse me of shady tactics. Within a few comments you have devolved the debate into something personal.
Nate says:
September 6, 2023 at 5:12 AM
Any time you make it tougher for heat to escape from a heated object, the object will get warmer. Whether you are preventing convection, conduction, or radiation.
I see that nobody has rebutted this accurate statement with loads of experimental support.
——————————
Well perhaps you need an experiment to proves that you can prevent radiation Nate before making other claims about what happens when you do.
What about radiation Nate, Gill?
Perhaps you could try to convince Graham to stop playing scientific shenanigans and openly stan for his non-radiative gases guru.
Another personal remark. If you can’t debate the science, don’t bother commenting.
Gaslighting Graham is playing scientific shenanigans.
This is self-evident.
Prove me wrong.
Yet another personal remark. If you can’t debate the science, don’t bother commenting.
Why would anyone debate a claim that is self-evidently false?
Certainly not Graham!
Hence his constant whining.
So, we can only conclude that Little Willy thinks an atmosphere without GHGs can radiatively cool very efficiently. So an atmosphere, lacking radiatively active gases, can nonetheless radiatively cool very efficiently. Remarkable.
So we can safely conclude that Gaslighting Graham has no response for the questions he has been asked.
“Well perhaps you need an experiment to proves that you can prevent radiation Nate before making other claims about what happens when you do.”
Not really. As I noted Tyndall showed that 150 y ago. Specifically he showed that IR abs.orbing gasses can reduce radiative heat transfer.
Just not controversial.
I haven’t been asked any questions, Little Willy.
So I thought it best just to let PhD meteorologist Roy Spencer correct these misconceptions.
He makes it plain that GHG causes the lower atmosphere to warm, and the upper atmosphere to cool, and the thermal structure of the atmosphere cannot be understood without the GHE. And that meteorologists cannot correctly predict the weather without including the GHE.
But some people here seem to believe, though they are not meteorologists, that they still know better, and that Roy and all other meteorologists are getting it wrong…. because of 2LOT or something.
I don’t know why they think this way.
I guess Dunning and Kruger were right.
Oh, you did ask this:
“A cloudless sky cools quicker. Is it because there is more greenhouse gases?“
No, it’s because dry air has a lower heat capacity than moist air.
P1. An atmosphere without GHGs cannot radiatively cool very efficiently.
P2. Dry air has a lower heat capacity than moist air.
C. Gaslighting Graham is a genius.
Thank you.
https://youtu.be/rD2jnz_0MyA?feature=shared&t=300
To be clear, both P1 and P2 are correct, and there is no contradiction, inconsistency or problem between them. So, no idea why you’ve arranged them together as if there is.
To be clear, Graham obviously still holds that non-radiative gases are responsible for the radiative properties of an atmosphere, so as far as logic is concerned, anything goes.
I have never claimed anything of the sort.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1495714
I suppose it depends on what “of the sort” means.
ME: A sheet of plastic over a frame prevents convection.
BILL: plastic only constricts air molecules from trading places with cooler air molecules.
Ummm … “convection” means “warmer air molecules trading places with cooler air molecules”. So you are agreeing with me while thinking you are disagreeing.
“Can an atmosphere without GHGs radiatively cool more or less efficiently than one with GHGs?”
This is the wrong question. The more important question is “Can a PLANET without GHGs radiatively cool more or less efficiently than one with GHGs?”
The answers is clearly that the planet as a whole WITHOUT GHGs cools MORE effectively. If we could suddenly, magically remove GHGs [ie make the atmosphere above transparent to IR] from the atmosphere, it is true that the atmosphere would cool less effectively. But at the same time the surface would cool MUCH more effectively. The NET result would be a cooler surface AND a cooler atmosphere in contact with the cooler surface.
Or put another way, there would be no need for the atmosphere to cool effectively since the atmosphere would never have gotten warm to begin with without GHGs.
Yes, Little Willy. Note that what you have linked to does not state that non-radiative gases are responsible for the radiative properties of an atmosphere. You get yourself so confused, then claim I am gaslighting you when I point that out.
No, Tim, what I asked was the right question, what you have responded with is a distortion of the point being made. It’s not about the temperature of the planetary surface, it’s about the temperature of the atmosphere near the surface. That is what we all experience on a daily basis.
“If we could suddenly, magically remove GHGs [ie make the atmosphere above transparent to IR] from the atmosphere, it is true that the atmosphere would cool less effectively.“
You have agreed that an atmosphere without GHGs cools less effectively than one with GHGs. Thank you.
“its about the temperature of the atmosphere near the surface.”
Yes, and the temperature of the atmosphere near the surface closely correlates to the temperature of the surface. Without the GHE, surface would have an average temperature ~ 255 K (ie arctic conditions). The atmosphere above the surface would ALSO average ~ 255 K.
So without GNG (no radiative cooling of the atmosphere) the atmosphere near the surface would indeed to COOLER than it is now.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] what you have linked to does not state that non-radiative gases are responsible for the radiative properties of an atmosphere.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] The N2/O2 is the planetary insulation
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham is holding the view that insulation isn’t a radiative property?
Tim, for GHGs to make the surface warmer, you would need to have “back-radiation warming”. Not going into all that again.
Little Willy, you do realise there are other forms of insulation besides radiative insulation?
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham was referring to soundproofing?
In any event, perhaps he could explain, with the use of his “holding” theory, how a bag of CO2 blocks more radiation that a bag of air:
https://youtu.be/rD2jnz_0MyA?feature=shared&t=300
“you would need to have back-radiation warming.”
I don’t know why you have problem with cooler surroundings impacting the temperature of warmer objects. If I run my coffee maker outside on a cold winter day, the coffee will be cooler than if I run it inside. Even if I got rid of conduction, radiation would still have the same effect.
Heated objects (like the coffee pot; like the earth) are affected by the temperature of the surroundings (like the cool air vs the cold air; like the cool atmosphere vs cold space).
“1) An atmosphere without GHGs, which can be warmed from the surface upwards via conduction and convection, but cannot radiatively cool very efficiently.”
Without GHG, a 288 K surface would radiate directly to space which is at 3K.
We can calculate that radiative flux, it is 5.67e-8*(288^4-3^4)*0.9, assuming surface emissivity of 0.9.
Which gives 350 W/m^2 leaving Earth.
Currently we have about 240 W/m^2 leaving Earth.
The solar input to the surface, considering Earth reflects 30% of it, is ~ 240 W/M^2.
So we have 350 W/m^2 output and 240 W/m^2 input. Obviously the Earth is going to cool. A lot! To 255 K.
And as noted by Tim if the surface is 255K. then the atmosphere cannot be warmed above 255 K.
Oh well.
And without the radiative cooling of the upper atmosphere, there will be no convection.
Poor Nate believes: “Currently we have about 240 W/m^2 leaving Earth.”
He believes that because his cult has taught him that. He doesn’t know that there is no way to determine such a value properly.
Oh well….
Second strike, Pupman:
Graham agrees with that figure.
Nate says:
”1) An atmosphere without GHGs, which can be warmed from the surface upwards via conduction and convection, but cannot radiatively cool very efficiently.”
Without GHG, a 288 K surface would radiate directly to space which is at 3K.
We can calculate that radiative flux, it is 5.67e-8*(288^4-3^4)*0.9, assuming surface emissivity of 0.9.
Which gives 350 W/m^2 leaving Earth.
Currently we have about 240 W/m^2 leaving Earth.
————————
Thats not very precise. RE: GHE, You willy nilly switcheroo from a view from space of the planet, then bifurcate the planet into an atmosphere and a surface and draw conclusions from that.
What is your definition of a GHE. The temperature of the surface or the temperature of the atmosphere? And if atmosphere what part of it? As we know the atmosphere has a very varied temperature.
Tim Folkerts says:
”its about the temperature of the atmosphere near the surface.”
Yes, and the temperature of the atmosphere near the surface closely correlates to the temperature of the surface. Without the GHE, surface would have an average temperature ~ 255 K (ie arctic conditions). The atmosphere above the surface would ALSO average ~ 255 K.
———————-
You mean your claim is the temperature of the surface evenly correlates to the temperature of the surface with varied levels of GHG in the atmosphere including no GHGs? Where is your database on that where that correlation was computed. Or did you read that on some blog?
“He believes that because his cult..”
If by ‘cult’, you mean by observations, then sure.
But what do you believe the outgoing energy from the Earth is?
Give us that so we can divide by the area of the Earth to determine the average flux.
“What is your definition of a GHE. The temperature of the surface or the temperature of the atmosphere? And if atmosphere what part of it? As we know the atmosphere has a very varied temperature.”
Sure one way is simply the difference between the average surface temperature and the average effective T as measured by an IR thermometer from space, i.e. the radiative T from the SB law.
Little Willy, nobody denies the radiative properties of GHGs, that they absorb (and emit) IR.
Tim, you need to move with the times. Today’s GHE enthusiasts have abandoned the whole “back-radiation warming” thing.
Gaslighting Graham fails to respond to the question while asserting a falsity.
Nate says:
”Sure one way is simply the difference between the average surface temperature and the average effective T as measured by an IR thermometer from space, i.e. the radiative T from the SB law.”
So what is your definition of ”average surface temperature”?
So do you believe there is a tight correlation between the blackbody ”effective T” and actual temperature? If so why?
“So what is your definition of average surface temperature?”
I think you know air temperatures are measured near the surface. I think you know what a MEAN is, or can look it up.
It is that.
Are you you going off on a tangent?
“So do you believe there is a tight correlation between the blackbody effective T and actual temperature? If so why?”
I don’t what you mean by tight correlation here? What is the issue?
Do you disagree with Roy Spencer that there is a GHE and it is needed to make sense of the thermal structure of the atmosphere? And it must be included in weather models to make accurate weather prediction?
If not, why not?
If you’re referring to what I said to Tim as a “falsity”, Little Willy, it most certainly isn’t:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-673217
“there would be no need for the atmosphere to cool effectively since the atmosphere would never have gotten warm to begin with without [greenhouse gases]”
Thank you, Tim.
Tim is only right in his quote if your old pal Vaughan Pratt is wrong, Little Willy. You can’t have “back-radiation warming” being both a real thing (as Tim argues) and not a real thing (as Pratt argues).
Gaslighting Graham tries to suggest that I was referring to his current deflection.
The question, for those in the back who are not paying attention, is to explain, using Graham’s “holding” theory, how a bag of CO2 blocks more radiation that a bag of air:
https://youtu.be/rD2jnz_0MyA?feature=shared&t=300
Perhaps he now agrees with what the IPCC says:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-1389643
?
DREMT 2:10 pm has humorously misread Pratt somewhere.
You can have “back-radiation warming” being both a real thing (as Tim argues) AND a real thing (as Pratt argues) and DR. Spencer demonstrated.
It is DREMT that has long been wrong about “back-radiation warming”.
Little Willy, your experiment just demonstrates that GHGs absorb (and emit) IR, which wasn’t in dispute.
Ball4:
"Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”"
– Vaughan Pratt.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Here is the experiment:
https://youtu.be/rD2jnz_0MyA?feature=shared&t=300
A bag of air blocks less radiation than a bag of CO2.
How is that possible if we accept that O2/N2 “holds” to radiation?
O2/N2 doesn’t “hold to” radiation anything like as well as GHGs. As we know.
My argument was about O2/N2 more effectively “holding onto” energy gained from the surface via conduction, far better than GHGs, which “radiate it away”.
Once again, Little Willy doesn’t understand something, and tries to blame me for it. Like I didn’t already go to enormous lengths to try to explain this to him before.
DREMT 2:36 pm, thanks for confirming where DREMT has misread Pratt.
Obviously Pratt does not write “back-radiation warming” is not a real thing in that passage as DREMT earlier claimed.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] O2/N2 doesnt hold to radiation anything like as well as GHGs.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] The N2/O2 is the planetary insulation, however, because it holds onto the heat better than the GHGs
Now Little Willy needs to learn the difference between “radiation” and “heat”, and Ball4 needs to learn the meaning of “inference”. It’s tough for them.
In Gaslighting Graham’s world, O2/N2 doesn’t “hold to” radiation anything like as well as greenhouse gases, but it “holds” to heat better than greenhouse gases.
The mind of a Sky Dragon crank is a fantastic thing, here in the original sense of “fantastic.”
As I said, and you ignored, my argument was about O2/N2 more effectively “holding onto” energy (colloquially, “heat” energy) gained from the surface via conduction, far better than GHGs, which “radiate it away”.
Every real thing radiates EMR, at all temperatures, all the time.
EMR is NOT heat.
DREMT admits being wrong as DREMT should have then correctly written:
You can’t have “back-radiation warming” being both a real thing (as Tim argues) and
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
(as Pratt argues).
No inference needed. DREMT misread Pratt into something else writing DREMT’s words not Pratt’s.
Pratt has even conducted experiments proving “back-radiation warming” is a real thing in accord with Tim’s comment.
“Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally. Could their result have been foreseen? Yes, and moreover very easily”
– Vaughan Pratt.
From these words, among others, I infer that Pratt agrees the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.
Original source for that supposed Pratt 3:14 pm quote? DREMT 3:14 pm infers incorrectly.
From Vaughan Pratt screenname with link to his Stanford.edu comments on Global Environmental Change for review:
“There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-671002
Source is here, Ball4:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-669859
The resolution to the apparent conundrum is that Pratt still believes there is a GHE, but no longer believes in the back-radiation account of the GHE. Which is why I said to Tim:
“…you need to move with the times. Today’s GHE enthusiasts have abandoned the whole “back-radiation warming” thing.”
And so Gaslighting Graham still refuses to get that cooler surroundings impact the temperature of warmer objects.
Still, it’s amazing how he both pretends that he does not want to relitigate backradiation while squirreling it in all his responses now that Tim called his bluff.
Little Willy, your second paragraph is incomprehensible, or at least I have no idea what you’re going on about, and would be very surprised if anyone else did.
Your first paragraph refers to “surroundings”. I hope it’s not been forgotten that space is the absence of “surroundings”, rather than actually being “surroundings”. People tend to treat it as if it’s a big lump of a very cold substance. It isn’t. It’s (largely) a vacuum.
So there are screennames “Vaughan Pratt” writing here:
“There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
“Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the “back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally.”
And Pratt goes on to write “nowhere in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, AR5, is there any mention at all of back radiation.”
This is not exactly correct because AR5 is based in part on TFK09 which does use the term “back radiation”. Go argue with Pratt that AR5 really IS based on a ref. with the term “back radiation”.
What Pratt does mean is S&O debunk using the poor term “back radiation” when physically a report should use forward radiation from the atmosphere toward the L&O surface, downwelling long wave radiation, or all-sky emission to surface.
Pratt is constructively advising commenters (who don’t want to start arguments) to drop using the term “back radiation” per S&O and start using those other more physical terms.
Unless of course the commenter’s real intention is to start years long arguments.
(GASLIGHTING GRAHAM) Tim, for GHGs to make the surface warmer, you would need to have back-radiation warming. Not going into all that again.
(ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM) But backradiation.
(ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM) Perhaps, but backradiation.
(A FEW HOURS LATER, GASLIGHTING GRAHAM) Did I mention backradiation?
No, Ball4, your interpretation is shown to be wrong by:
"Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”"
Note that Pratt doesn’t use the term “back-radiation”, but it’s clear from context that the part of the radiation directed towards the surface (which would be the “back-radiation”) does not warm the surface, in Pratt’s view. So it’s not that he’s quibbling over the name “back-radiation” – he is implying that it’s wrong to state the “back-radiation” or whatever you want to call it warms the surface! That is the only way I can interpret this comment.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Its clear from context that the part of the radiation directed towards the surface (which would be the back-radiation) does not warm the surface, in Pratts view
[VAUGHAN] the energy of photons escaping from Earths surface is diverted to energy being radiated in all directions from every point of the Earths atmosphere.
There is actually no inconsistency or contradiction between those quotes, Little Willy, but if you are going to continue in this manner, readers may want to note that your quotes are over ten years old whereas the ones Ball4 and I are discussing are more recent. Meaning simply that people do change their minds, over time. Well, some people do, anyway.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] he is implying that its wrong to state the back-radiation or whatever you want to call it warms the surface!
[VAUGHAN AGAIN, FOR THE KO] This is not the usual explanation of whats going on in the atmosphere, which instead is described in terms of so-called back radiation. While this is equivalent to what I wrote, it is harder to see how it is consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Not that it isnt, but when described my way it is obviously thermodynamically sound.
“Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally. Could their result have been foreseen? Yes, and moreover very easily
Vaughan Pratt.”
Where is this quote from and lets see the context?
If he says this, he must be unfamiliar with the poor quality of this experiment.
“You cant have back-radiation warming being both a real thing (as Tim argues) and not a real thing (as Pratt argues).”
Does he?
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/.
After describing the GHE in his way, he states:
“This is not the usual explanation of whats going on in the atmosphere, which instead is described in terms of so-called ‘back radiation.’ While this is equivalent to what I wrote, it is harder to see how it is consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Not that it isnt, but when described my way it is obviously thermodynamically sound.”
Anyway/ The point is that he agrees that there is a GHE, while Clint, DREMT, and others here do not, without a sound rationale.
They think can pick and choose from Mr. Pratt’s science, as if it is an a la carte menu, choosing the appetizers they like, while rejecting the main course.
Sorry it doesnt work that way. There is a GHE, and your man agrees, as does Roy Spencer.
Vaughan only says that S&O shows that lapse rate matters to explain the greenhouse effect, Nate.
For some reason Gaslighting Graham holds that Vaughan and Tim disagree about… something.
What Pratt is saying in that quote from over ten years ago seems more in line with what “Pathway 2” summarises in this quote from Ron Clutz. Pratt is speaking of a delay in the energy getting out to space. I wouldn’t agree with him that it’s equivalent to “back-radiation warming”.
“Another way to put the issue.
The CO2 hysteria is founded on a false picture of heat flows within the climate system. There are 3 ways that [energy] passes from the surface to space.
1) A small amount of the radiation leaves directly, because all gases in our air are transparent to IR of 10-14 microns (sometimes called the “atmospheric window.” This pathway moves at the speed of light, so no delay of cooling occurs.
2) Some radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by IR active gases up to the tropopause. Calculations of the free mean path for CO2 show that energy passes from surface to tropopause in less than 5 milliseconds. This is almost speed of light, so delay is negligible..
3) The bulk gases of the atmosphere, O2 and N2, are warmed by conduction and convection from the surface. They also gain energy by collisions with IR active gases, some of that IR coming from the surface, and some absorbed directly from the sun. Latent heat from water is also added to the bulk gases. O2 and N2 are slow to shed this heat, and indeed must pass it back to IR active gases at the top of the troposphere for radiation into space.
In a parcel of air each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 other molecules, mostly O2 and N2. In the lower atmosphere, the air is dense and CO2 molecules energized by IR lose it to surrounding gases, slightly warming the entire parcel. Higher in the atmosphere, the air is thinner, and CO2 molecules can emit IR and lose energy relative to surrounding gases, who replace the energy lost.
This third pathway has a significant delay of cooling, and is the reason for our mild surface temperature, averaging about 15C. Yes, earth’s atmosphere produces a buildup of heat at the surface. The bulk gases, O2 and N2, trap heat near the surface, while CO2 provides radiative cooling at the top of the atmosphere.”
“in this quote from Ron Clutz”
Gaslighting Graham is a genius.
All this to circumvent the fact that a bag of CO2 blocks more radiation than a bag of air:
https://youtu.be/rD2jnz_0MyA?feature=shared&t=300
If Sky Dragon cranks were right, what everyone can see with their own eyes during this experiment would not be possible.
Vaughn Pratt is a retired computer science professor. Why are we supposed to accept his authority on meteorology or climate science, while rejecting PhD meteorologist Roy Spencer’s?
Little Willy continues to bash his straw men. Meanwhile, a recap:
What "holds onto the heat" the best?
1) An atmosphere without GHGs, which can be warmed from the surface upwards via conduction and convection, but cannot radiatively cool very efficiently.
or
2) An atmosphere with GHGs, which can radiatively cool very efficiently.
The correct answer is 1). Note that we are talking about an atmosphere, not the surface.
Can an atmosphere without GHGs radiatively cool more or less efficiently than one with GHGs?
Correct answer, as Tim agreed, is “less”.
Tim’s rebuttal to my point was that the surface would be warmed by back-radiation, in an atmosphere with GHGs…but this runs counter to Vaughan Pratt’s recent statements that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked, and that a surface receiving “back-radiation” would not be warmed by it. Why bring up Pratt? I do so for 2 reasons:
1) Having one of their own opposing the back-radiation account of the GHE might prise open a few minds amongst the GHE defenders.
2) It’s a lot easier and less tedious than going over the arguments about “back-radiation warming” for the twentieth time.
Note that it’s not an appeal to Pratt’s authority. I am not saying it is right because he says so.
So if Tim is wrong in his “back-radiation warming” rebuttal to my point, then my point about the atmosphere stands.
Anyway…that’s where we’re at.
Because Vaughan knew more formal stuff in his early 20s than Roy would ever do in his lifetime, Nate. While he did help found Sun, he’s known for his work in logic. Besides, he agrees with Roy on the basics:
http://clim8.stanford.edu/manmadecc.pdf
Since Gaslighting Graham has nothing against a very simple experiment that shows how a bag of CO2 blocks more radiation than a bag of air, he’s returning to his old Machiavellian self.
Yes, I have nothing against that experiment – there is no need for me to.
Gaslighting Graham definitely has no need to say anything about an experiment that DESTROYS Sky Dragon cranks.
Venus cools so efficiently that it’s 475C.
It destroys your straw man very efficiently, Little Willy.
Venus is closer to the Sun, obviously, and “with a surface pressure of 92 bar its atmosphere is 92 times as massive as Earth’s atmosphere”.
Mercury is even closer to the Sun, yet it’s -173C at night.
Gaslighting Graham goes on his silly tapdancing, never really staking a real postion, dodging and weaving, playing silly you-and-him fights, like the little weasel we all know and love.
What will it be when he’ll discover that Vaughan basically recites what Sabine does in her video, which we can read in Pierrehumbert’s textbook.
Tim surely *must* disagree with all of that!
What a twat.
Yes, Little Willy, that’s because:
“Mercury spins slowly compared to Earth, so one day lasts a long time. Mercury takes 59 Earth days to make one full rotation. But a year on Mercury goes fast. Because it’s the closest planet to the sun, it goes around the Sun in just 88 Earth days.”
My position has been clearly stated, Little Willy. The Ron Clutz quote is pretty close, and I went through it all with you at great length at the link you posted earlier. It’s not my fault if you can’t understand it.
If you really dislike me this much, perhaps you should take some more time off commenting? Or maybe just avoid my threads rather than instantly jumping in on every single thread that I comment on, the minute I start commenting.
Mercury’s exosphere is composed mostly of oxygen, sodium, hydrogen, helium, and potassium. That’s a lot of heat holders right there!
Gaslighting Graham just can’t stay in place. He needs to tapdance.
Yes, Little Willy, Mercury doesn’t even really have an atmosphere.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again…
Let’s recap:
[GRAHAM’S NEW GURU] The bulk gases, O2 and N2, trap heat near the surface.
[THE ACTION LAB] Since the CO2 is “holding” some of the IR light you get a lower reader that you would have had without the CO2.
The bulk gases do not seem to “hold” heat in that experiment the same way CO2 does:
https://youtu.be/rD2jnz_0MyA?feature=shared&t=300
Must be because heat isn’t radiation.
There’s really nothing else to all these shenanigans.
Read the whole Ron Clutz quote (nothing new, by the way, I’ve quoted it many times before), several times. Then try to understand it. I can’t understand it for you, unfortunately.
If Gaslighting Graham’s guru was right, a bag of CO2 would not intercept more radiation than a bag of air.
We know that a bag of CO2 intercepts more radiation than a bag of air.
Gaslighting Graham is a genius.
“If Gaslighting Graham’s guru was right, a bag of CO2 would not intercept more radiation than a bag of air.”
No, that’s not a condition for him to be right.
Keep on proving that you don’t understand his comment.
Gaslighting Graham still dodges the questions.
Nate says:
So what is your definition of average surface temperature?
I think you know air temperatures are measured near the surface. I think you know what a MEAN is, or can look it up.
——————
Well this discussion has been about warming the surface not the atmosphere near the surface.
What is the difference in temperature between the near surface atmosphere and the surface? And what would the near surface atmosphere temperature be if there was no CO2? You can’t use your beloved 3rd grader model for this.
“So it’s not that he’s quibbling over the name “back-radiation” – he is implying that it’s wrong to state the “back-radiation” or whatever you want to call it warms the surface! That is the only way I can interpret this comment.”
DREMT 5:00 pm is obviously incorrect as Pratt comments on experiments show & DREMT can interpret the Pratt comment in way DREMT would like.
The physical fact is Pratt is quibbling about the term “back radiation” used by commenters here when the term is not used in AR5 (except for ref.s Pratt missed) and wiki at the time needed to be corrected to experimental results.
Pratt has reported on experiments confirming (whatever DREMT wants to call certain radiation from the atm. except “back radiation”) GHE does warm the planetary surface to equilibrium (ref. Pratt’s own link).
AGAIN, Pratt confirms:
“There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
“Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the “back radiation” account of the greenhouse effect experimentally.”
> Well this discussion has been about warming the surface not the atmosphere near the surface.
You might wish to consult with Graham about that one, Gill.
Meanwhile, enjoy this little lecture about how the Earth’s atmosphere “holds heat”:
https://youtu.be/_xhm42KykEE?feature=shared
Ball4 continues to argue by repeated assertion that Pratt means something other than what his words clearly indicate. He will keep that up indefinitely, most likely, if I continue to respond to him.
Pratt means nothing other than what his words clearly indicate:
“There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
“Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the “back radiation” account of the greenhouse effect experimentally.”
There’s so much one can do with Graham’s reading comprehension, B4:
[RONC] Clearly, the water vapour content of the troposphere is the major cause of the natural greenhouse effect, contributing up to two-thirds of the 33 oC warming.
Is there a better way to deny the greenhouse effect than to say that water vapour is the major cause of the natural greenhouse effect?
Clutz can contradict himself, if he likes. That’s no concern of mine. This comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532532
is clear enough. It really doesn’t matter who wrote it.
So let’s wrap up this sequence:
Vaughan dislikes the explanation of the greenhouse effect. He prefers one that centers on the lapse rate. This has been known for more than a decade. This take is pretty much uncontroversial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8
He acknowledges that, in the end, the two models are more or less equivalent.
To Gaslighting Graham, that is evidence that backradiation does not exist. Oh no, sorry – he does accept that it exists!
Ron Clutz holds that the greenhouse effect is more complex than what is usually presumed. According to what he kept peddling in just about every single thread for more than a decade on various contrarian venues, greenhouse gases are responsible for warming, but something something.
To Gaslighting Graham, that is evidence that the greenhouse effect does not exist. Oh no, sorry – he does accept that it exists! Except when he says that it does not.
So yeah. whatever.
> Vaughan dislikes the explanation of the greenhouse effect.
The usual explanation, that is one that centers on backradiation.
Here’s where Sabine completely DESTROYS it:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8?feature=shared&t=480
In our next installment, we will see how, according to Graham:
1. Greenhouse gases exist.
2. Backradiation exists.
3. A bag of air “holds” less radiation than a bag of CO2.
4. The greenhouse effect does not exist.
Stay tuned!
That’s wrong, Little Willy. Pratt has recently written comments which can only be interpreted as expressing his belief that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked, and further, that this means radiation from GHGs impinging on the surface should not be considered to be warming that surface. That’s a direct contradiction to Tim, and others, who argue that it can. Over ten years ago he made a comment that his description of the GHE, involving the lapse rate, and energy being delayed in its exit from the Earth system by GHGs, was "equivalent to" the "back-radiation warming" explanation, but I disagree that this is true. It’s more "equivalent to" Pathway 2, from the Clutz comment I just linked to, which only results in a negligible delay in the escape of energy from the Earth system.
As Clutz points out, Pathway 3 (involving the N2/O2) results in by far the biggest delay in the escape of energy. To be clear, his comment trashes the idea of a GHG-warmed Earth (to anything beyond "negligible"). I can accept that there may be "negligible" warming from Pathway 2, on Earth. Does that mean I believe there’s a GHE? No (though these guys will jump on anything they can). "Negligible" means so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant.
“What is the difference in temperature between the near surface atmosphere and the surface? And what would the near surface atmosphere temperature be if there was no CO2? You cant use your beloved 3rd grader model for this.”
So you are intending to go off on a tangent from the main issue here seeking out red herrings.
Not much difference. Negligible compared to the difference from the surface to the top of the atmosphere, where the GHG are emitting.
The thing about Sabine’s video is that she freely admits she had completely misunderstood the GHE until now…but now, of course, we’re expected to believe she definitely has it right!
Why is it that the GHE is such a difficult concept to pin down? So many people, so many different ideas of what it actually is. No wonder Swenson so frequently asks for a GHE description. He’s pointing out that nobody can agree on what it even is!
“Because Vaughan knew more formal stuff in his early 20s than Roy would ever do in his lifetime, Nate. While he did help found Sun, hes known for his work in logic. Besides, he agrees with Roy on the basics:”
In his 20s? Which was a looong time ago.
Logic is great, but it doesnt guarantee you understand meteorology or experimental physics.
IMO, anyone complimenting Seim and Olsen and saying their experiment demonstrated anything useful at all is showing some sort of cluelessness.
“So many people, so many different ideas of what it actually is.”
Not among experts who need to calculate its effects in eg weather or climate models.
The different ideas are about how to explain it in words (not math) to laymen.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Perhaps the concept of “account” escape him?
Usually, when a scientist talks about an account of a phenomenon, it refers to an explanation or to a model. The distinction does not matter much.
What matters is that Gaslighting Graham accepts that greenhouse gases exist, that a bag of CO2 holds more radiation than a bag of air, and that he believes that backradiation exists.
We should all welcome Gaslighting Graham in Team Science!
Wait until Little Willy learns that pretty much everyone who disputes the GHE agrees on all of those things.
He always forgets the most important part of the GHE, the "Effect". That’s "warming", supposedly.
“Why is it that the GHE is such a difficult concept to pin down?”
Because GHE has unfortunately escaped the lab into the domain of ill-informed journalists, politicians, and blog commenters rather than accomplished scientists. Even those who publish more frequently in scientific journals than in the popular press either assert that the greenhouse effect is the result of “closing the atmospheric window”, thereby “trapping” radiation, or that it is the result of increased emission from the atmosphere.
When adherents to both explanations clash, the result is indeed “warming”, although local here rather than global.
Gaslighting Graham pretty much agrees that greenhouse gases exist. He also agrees that backradiation exists. And he agrees that a bag of air “holds” less radiation than a bag of CO2.
But he disagrees that the greenhouse effect exists, of course.
And for that he has the support of Vaughan Pratt, who has a one pager on the greenhouse effect:
http://clim8.stanford.edu/manmadecc.pdf
And he also cites Ron Clutz, a contrarian who holds that water vapor is the major greenhouse gas that explains the greenhouse effect.
You can’t make this up.
GHE Defenders like to point out that only the really accomplished scientists truly understand the GHE…and at the same time, it’s just basic physics.
The explanation of how a gas molecule “holds to” radiation is pretty basic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U69qhVuOt34
A model of the greenhouse effect can also be very basic. Sky Dragon cranks like to attack the simplest of all of them.
But a model that describes the greenhouse effect of a whole PLANET can become quite complex quite fast.
Gaslighting Graham is looking for an inconsistency that does not exist.
Little Willy’s critique of the comment from Clutz has got lost in the post.
Ball4 says:
AGAIN, Pratt confirms:
”There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
”Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally.”
———————
Ball4 wrestles with the bell clear logic in this.
No paper debunks the GHE because if anybody is going to debunk the GHE they will need to show that there is no GHE.
On the second point S&O show the greenhouse effect is not caused by the third grader radiation model. otherwise known as the backradiation model. . .even though people here knows it doesn’t work they continue to spread disinformation about it working.
This is the way they were taught and they aren’t going to stop believing it until somebody proves it works another way.
Bill, just go with global near surface atm. measured monotonic warming/decade “is a result of increased emission from the atmosphere” over that of deep space instead of “back radiation”. And you will be ok with 1LOT, 2LOT, Pratt, S&O, Clutz, and especially Tyndall.
Nate says:
Any time you make it tougher for heat to escape from a heated object, the object will get warmer. Whether you are preventing convection, conduction, or radiation.
Not really. As I noted Tyndall showed that 150 y ago. Specifically he showed that IR abs.orbing gasses can reduce radiative heat transfer.
Just not controversial.
—————————
Its controversial if you start claiming an object in side of a room warmed by 400w/m2 emitting walls, floor, and ceiling will continue to warm because of Tyndall’s findings.
If Graham has anything to say against this explanation of how gases “hold to” radiation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U69qhVuOt34
He should say so now.
Or he can continue his round of gaslighting.
Whatever.
Nate says:
”Not much difference. Negligible compared to the difference from the surface to the top of the atmosphere, where the GHG are emitting.”
Not much difference? You mean you don’t know? Indeed the difference varies greatly depending upon humidity, time of day, cloudiness, wind speed, etc.
Are you saying you don’t have a source for your conclusion here that it doesn’t make any difference?
That GHGs absorb (and emit) IR radiation is not in dispute. What’s wrong with you? You’re like a broken record.
And so Gaslighting Graham glosses over a lecture in which we learn why O2, N2, like Ar, have no dipole moment and thus can’t “withhold” (Michel’s term) radiation:
https://youtu.be/U69qhVuOt34?feature=shared&t=10
All he had to do was to watch 15 seconds of it.
Sky Dragon cranks’ dissonance may not be cognitive.
“Its controversial if you start claiming an object in side of a room warmed by 400w/m2 emitting walls, floor, and ceiling will continue to warm because of Tyndalls findings.”
Which is quite a strawman!
Find anyone claiming such.
“Are you saying you dont have a source for your conclusion here that it doesnt make any difference?”
Bill took a wrong turn down red herring lane. Will not follow.
Little Willy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532404
Nate says:
”Its controversial if you start claiming an object in side of a room warmed by 400w/m2 emitting walls, floor, and ceiling will continue to warm because of Tyndalls findings.”
Which is quite a strawman!
Find anyone claiming such.
———————————-
you just did.
how is a bundle of bricks suspended in a room filled with co2 with walls/ceiling/floor radiating 341watts/m2 different from a planet with a co2 atmosphere being radiated by a sky radiating a mean 341w/m2 as depicted by the 3rd grader radiation model????
your claim is the co2 will radiate an additional amount of radiation and no amount of experiments demonstrating you are wrong has failed to convince you along with the rest of the follower sheep in this room.
Gill,
Looks like Graham believes in a original greenhouse theory when he suggests that convection rules atmospheric heat transfer.
Do you caution any of this?
Little Willy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532532
Hey, Gill, over there:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532978
Perhaps you should at least try to get my position right yourself before discussing it with others, Little Willy?
Habitual liar Bill sez:
“you just did.”
Then offers NO QUOTES of me saying any such thing!
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham could stop his silly motte-and-baileys and lookup what happens when we increase the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere?
As everyone but you seems to know, the Earth surface is heated by a heat source. It is then cooling thru the atmosphere to space, a very very cold reservoir.
That is quite different from a room with uniform temperature:
“”how is a bundle of bricks suspended in a room filled with co2 with walls/ceiling/floor radiating 341watts/m2 different from a planet with a co2 atmosphere being radiated by a sky radiating a mean 341w/m2 as depicted by the 3rd grader radiation model????”
Seriously Bill, if you can’t see why these situations are completely different, then you are hopelessly lost.
“That GHGs abs.orb (and emit) IR radiation is not in dispute. Whats wrong with you? Youre like a broken record.”
Accepting such facts, and then denying the consequences of such facts is still science denial.
The consequence is that heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to space is reduced with GHG present, as Tyndall showed, and as Modtran shows.
Nate obviously you can’t tell the difference as you didn’t answer the question nor even attempted to do so.
No “motte-and-baileys”, Little Willy, and no need to “look up” what I’m already familiar with. When more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, total OLR should be reduced, according to theory. Instead, what is actually observed is that total OLR has tracked global temperatures since 1985:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/10/1539
And the paper concludes:
“From the joint analysis of the HIRS OLR and the NASA GISS global surface temperature anomaly, we derive an empirical estimate of the longwave climate feedback parameter dOLT/dT
of 2.93 +/− 0.3 W/m2K”
Nothing in there about this debunking GHE theory.
Oh well!
I would also point out that their result for dOLR/dT overestimates the trend for the 2000-2018 portion, which is the latest continuous data with a single system (CERES).
Thus this CERES stretch does not need subjective adjustments to line it up with data from earlier periods, as does the whole data set that is used in the paper to derive dOLR/dT.
It was also discussed at this blog, prior to these results, Little Willy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/10/what-do-16-years-of-ceres-data-tell-us-about-global-climate-sensitivity/#comment-228453
People may not have noticed that the Roy Spencer article dis not produce an analysis of dOLR/dT.
Nor did it conclude that there is no GHE. It is talking only about the strengths of feedbacks.
Oh well!
…was also discussed at this blog, prior to these results, Little Willy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/10/what-do-16-years-of-ceres-data-tell-us-about-global-climate-sensitivity/#comment-228453
Both Gill and Graham fail to answer questions.
And neither of those sources agree with this made-up DREMTOID:
” total OLR should be reduced, according to theory.”
Again, it needs to be said:
Oh well!
Little Willy flatly lies, arriving promptly for another full day’s trolling.
Oh well indeed, Nate.
Looks like Grahams new abusive nickname was not on the page to which he handwaves. Has he ever told why he changed socks?
Also, I wonder how he can make the original greenhouse effect work on Venus. How would less non-radiative gases *hold* more heat?
So many questions, so little time.
Nate says:
As everyone but you seems to know, the Earth surface is heated by a heat source. It is then cooling thru the atmosphere to space, a very very cold reservoir.
That is quite different from a room with uniform temperature:
how is a bundle of bricks suspended in a room filled with co2 with walls/ceiling/floor radiating 341watts/m2 different from a planet with a co2 atmosphere being radiated by a sky radiating a mean 341w/m2 as depicted by the 3rd grader radiation model????
Seriously Bill, if you cant see why these situations are completely different, then you are hopelessly lost.
————————–
they are different but your argument is that the greater the backradiation the more the forcing.
but we know from experiment thats complete bunk because even in a room heat rises to the ceiling and no warming is experienced at the surface.
and here with a lapse rate the alleged and disproven warming becomes even less likely as the atmosphere becomes colder and not hotter as you have argued is necessary. it is simply the reverse of your theory (i.e. less false forcing)
Ball4 says:
”Bill, just go with global near surface atm. measured monotonic warming/decade is a result of increased emission from the atmosphere over that of deep space instead of back radiation. And you will be ok with 1LOT, 2LOT, Pratt, S&O, Clutz, and especially Tyndall.”
But none of those folks showed the 3rd grader model as working Ball4.
As we know emissions can be reflected. . .that is one possible explanation for the failure of the 3rd grader radiation model.
Gill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532957
“But none of those folks showed the 3rd grader model as working Ball4.”
Sure that imaginary 3rd grader model of Bill’s doesn’t work physically. Bill needs to use the more advanced high school model developed from experiments to understand the real physical world.
Bill 8:41 am also writes “we know…heat rises”. Since heating and working are on an equal footing in thermodynamics, Bill must then also know work rises.
Bill has no lack of imagination & shows just a lack of accomplishment in the field of atm. thermodynamics demonstrated when commenting here.
Venus again, Little Willy?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532577
Speaking of Venus, I recently found this NASA page:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/mercury/in-depth.amp
Which states:
”Despite its proximity to the Sun, Mercury is not the hottest planet in our solar system – that title belongs to nearby Venus, thanks to its dense atmosphere”
Strange that they don’t mention a GHE!
In fairness, if you think about Pathway 2, here, but apply it to Venus:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532532
Pathway 2 only results in a negligible delay in the escape of energy on Earth, but with an atmosphere 92 times as massive, the delay might well be non-negligible.
So, for the reasons Venus is so hot (and still in line with the Clutz comment theory):
1) Closer to the Sun.
2) Dense atmosphere.
3) Non-negligible delay in the escape of energy via Pathway 2, due to massive atmosphere.
And so Gaslighting Graham shows he really has no clue.
Let’s give him a hint:
Perhaps he should try to armwave the Planck effect a little more instead of trying to explain how his rediscovery of the original greenhouse theory is meant a phenomenon that has been observed.
> is meant a phenomenon
*to explain*, that is.
Roy’s form is eating words again.
Time to clear the cache and reset the browser.
People are always seeking out context-free cherry picked factoids that can be used to mislead themselves and others.
“2) Dense atmosphere.”
Which enhances the greenhouse effect. See: pressure broadening.
And dense with what? CO2. Hmmm.
“they are different but..”
Just stop there, Bill. There is no fix for your bad example.
Willard says:
”An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature.”
Hmmm, upper atmosphere seems to be cooling just fine Willard. If it didn’t the upper atmosphere would be a lot hotter.
And if backradiation doesn’t warm anything just how does heat allegedly trapped in the upper atmosphere without warming anything up there, manage to warm the surface?
So Little Willy abandons talking about Venus all of a sudden, and switches to one of the other forms the GHE takes when the “back-radiation warming” explanation is trashed…the “effective emission height” version.
All fun and games.
> Willard says:
Stop your deflection right there, Gill. That’s wrong. Revise and resubmit.
Oh, and if you could answer the question I asked you earlier, that’d be great.
While Gaslighting Graham has yet to answer many of the questions he has been asked, he could try to explain the two following tidbits using his “holding” theory:
The atmosphere of Venus is primarily of supercritical carbon dioxide.
It is so dense and hot that it has opaque clouds of sulfuric acid that makes optical observation of the surface impossible.
In fairness, Venus isn’t as dense as Gill.
Little Willy, there are no unanswered questions. Not sure why you keep lying about that.
I already explained why Venus is so hot, in keeping with the Clutz comment theory. You had no response. You just changed the subject.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533210
Most of his retorts are utterly unresponsive anyway.
Perhaps he should wonder why Venus, which is smaller than the Earth, has an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more dense than the one on Earth.
We’re just getting further and further off-topic.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
The atmosphere of Venus is very dense because CO2 reached supercriticality. It’s something like a fluid state. It’s referred to as sCO2. We don’t know for sure why, but one theory is that the planet experienced a runaway greenhouse effect.
Now, how is that supposed to work using his “holding” theory – it’s in fact N2 that is “holding” the heat, even if there’s less of it in proportion?
Because… pressure?
Because… the Sun?
The Venusian atmosphere contains a lot of carbon dioxide. According to the “holding” theory, that should mean it’s more efficient at cooling, right?
Right.
Gaslighting Graham is just shadowboxing.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533250
Res ipsa loquitur.
I thought you guys would be happy with point 3)…trouble is you don’t actually follow my arguments, so you have no idea what I mean. Unless I really spell things out for you, you just don’t get it, do you?
Willard the basic theory repeated here endlessly by Nate is look up and see a warmer sky will result in a warmer surface.
But thats the 3rd grader model assumption that is shown not to work.
Now you are saying the colder the sky the warmer the surface gets.
Sounds like typical CAGW BS. Gee, its going to both warm and cool at the same time.
So all we need here is a description that isn’t the 3rd grader radiation model of how a warmer sky heats the surface how that colder sky heats the surface. . .specifically.
Of course you have no idea so you will continue to obfuscate.
Gill, Gill,
This is an Arby’s.
And you still haven’t answered my questions.
Bill, here’s a quick debunking of that “effective emission height” version of the GHE:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2022/01/24/the-emission-height-fallacy/
Nate,
Here’s a simple demonstration that Joe and his flying monkeys are unable to grasp that the atmosphere can be more than a slab.
That is in no way a response to the arguments made in the article I posted. Did you even bother to read it?
Graham gently gaslights again.
In no way can he cite Vaughan, Ron, Kristian, and Joe in the same exchange and understand any of this.
Doesn’t matter who says what, Little Willy. All that matters are the arguments made.
“Given that the atmosphere is fixed in depth (material additions are negligible), then if the effective emission height increased you would have the same effective temperature of -18C but now emitting over a larger surface area and thus emitting more total energy. That would therefore violate conservation of energy because there is no additional total energy to emit given that the solar energy input is constant…”
“…Here are the options for the emission height fallacy (EHF…it’s official):
a) same lapse rate, emission occurs at higher effective altitude but lower temperature: this therefore doesn’t affect the surface temperature, and so the argument here is moot. The atmosphere is fixed in depth and the lapse rate stays the same, the emission just gets pushed up to a higher altitude (larger shell) and lower temperature – this therefore has no effect on the surface temperature. The effective temperature of total energy emission would still remain constant here too.
b) same lapse rate, emission occurs at higher effective altitude and same effective temperature: this violates conservation of energy. Emission is moved to a larger shell, but at the same temperature as the smaller previous shell; thus, more energy is being emitted than before and thus conservation of energy is violated.
c) steeper lapse rate: disproven by derivation of lapse rate, and GHG’s do not change the lapse rate
Thus, the emission height argument doesn’t hold water – that’s not what GHG’s do, and they can’t do that, because if they did, you would get a violation of conservation of energy. Option a) is the only possibility that could occur due to increased absorp.tion and scattering of IR energy from CO2…but it’s benign, and is consistent with no tropospheric hotspot and no surface warming.“
Hey, Gill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533416
Bill Hunter says:
”Of course you have no idea so you will continue to obfuscate.
Willard says:
”Gill, Gill,
This is an Arbys.
And you still havent answered my questions.”
Theory confirmed!
Which theory, Gill – the “holding” one?
The theory that you have no idea, and will continue to obfuscate.
Gill still evades a question.
Little Willy, you never answer any questions.
Gill?
Little Willy?
Bill Hunter says:
Of course you have no idea so you will continue to obfuscate.
Willard says:
Gill, Gill,
This is an Arbys.
And you still havent answered my questions.
Theory confirmed!
Willard says:
”Which theory, Gill the holding one?”
Confirmation replicated!
Willard says:
”Gill still evades a question.”
Confirmation replicated once again!
Willard says:
”Gill?”
Confirmation replicated yet again!
Nate says:
” ”they are different but..”
Just stop there, Bill. There is no fix for your bad example.”
We can absolutely agree on that. But its not my job to defend your theory.
Auditors run into a lot of such excuses where when material either the auditor is talking to an inculcated parrot or he is going to have a finding.
Bill Hunter says:
September 10, 2023 at 9:23 AM
Bill Hunter says:
Of course you have no idea so you will continue to obfuscate.
Willard says:
Gill, Gill,
This is an Arbys.
And you still havent answered my questions.
Theory confirmed!
Willard says:
Which theory, Gill the holding one?
Confirmation replicated!
Willard says:
Gill still evades a question.
Confirmation replicated once again!
Willard says:
Gill?
Confirmation replicated yet again!
=====
And so Gill fails to answer another question.
“We can absolutely agree on that. But its not my job to defend your theory.”
Good, cuz my theory is not what you keep suggesting it is, and never quoting me using.
Nate your problem is your theory which was developed in the 1960’s was sold to the public through about 2010 as being driven by the 3rd grader radiation theory.
So now that you have acknowledged that that is a lie. . .you still haven’t shown us how the atmosphere warms up to warmer than the surface to warm the surface.
And of course from my auditor perspective the fact you can’t do what I asked is because you and your handlers don’t want an answer.
Managers in the corporate world often adopt this type of blind, dumb, and deaf monkeys because they don’t want to put their bonuses at risk.
If they outline a process to do that they know from experience that some bright enterprising mind will figure out a way to test it. And because these people are already getting what they want they don’t want to take that chance.
So the only question re: you is whether you are already getting what you want or if you have been conned.
> theory which was developed in the 1960s
How about some receipts, Gill?
“So now that you have acknowledged that that is a lie.”
Bill continually tries to attribute arguments, statements and beliefs to his opponents, that they never actually expressed.
Clearly he realizes he cannot win by honest debate.
Well indeed Nate you have been spending virtually all your time here in avoiding taking a position on anything.
Why is that?
Seems refreshing.
Willard says:
> theory which was developed in the 1960s
How about some receipts, Gill?
—————————–
Whats the matter Willard having some difficulty googling Manabe and Wetherald?
Gill, Gill,
One paper isn’t a theory, and that paper was about sensitivity.
Are you sure you read it?
“here in avoiding taking a position on anything”
My position is that your recent posts are about nothing worth discussing.
Willard thats fine you can argue with that with Nate.
No question M&W first paper was a theory held by M&W and its publishers. . .and obviously a lot of its readers. So have you read it?
I’m quite sure Nate agrees with me that you haven’t read the paper, Gill, and I do agree with him that your recent comments are not worth much.
Willard the fact that neither you or nate can put your finger on how m&w causes the atmosphere to warm says everything. . . including having a basis to claim i haven’t read the paper.
i dont see anything either so dont feel too badly.
Here are the facts of the matter, Gill:
You did not answer any question. You provide no receipt. You project your own lack of commitment onto Nate. Most if not all of his points fly above your head.
Your whole recipe has now become as lazy as Mike Flynn’s.
So sad, too bad.
willard all you do here is make unsupported allegations that you are never able to factually back up. like can you actually specify and factually support a single allegation of a point made by nate that flew over my head?
Gill, you goose.
Start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533367
Why do you keep lying?
Willard if you are referring to your voluminous and vacuous back and forth with DREMT. . .I don’t follow that as it is way too boring.
You claim to having asked a question of me which I can’t find. A link to that question would be helpful if one exists. If one doesn’t exist then cease making the claim.
How do you know that something is vacuous if you do not follow it, Gill?
Auditors these days.
Willard says:
”Heres a simple demonstration that Joe and his flying monkeys are unable to grasp that the atmosphere can be more than a slab.”
Willard A pissin contest between Joe Postma and Skeptical Science doesn’t amount to a single iota of evidence of how the GHE exists.
I simply made the point that one has to adopt some of Postma’s views of the situation to actually have a mechanism known to man to create a GHE.
All I see in this pissin contest from SS is a conclusion based on a single process in the atmosphere without considering any other processes that may arise as feedbacks long before the surface is affected.
There is this cavalier attitude within the CAGW community to estimate the outcome of a single mid atmosphere process, namely the absor-ption of surface emitted energy by GHGs and claim that since this occurs at a higher altitude with increasing GHGs the surface will warm.
The science on this ends with the Modtran model based upon military experiments of firing CO2 lasers through the atmosphere for the development of defense missiles using IR detection capabilities.
What is needed is some actual science on the disposition of this energy. . .not the pre-science revolution process of guessing by the anointed population that has a special interest dog in the fight.
What you also get with increased GHGs are thinner layers that are more efficient at cooling. So the public gets regaled with the failed 3rd grader radiation model to fill that gap in the science.
> IMO, anyone complimenting Seim and Olsen and saying their experiment demonstrated anything useful at all is showing some sort of cluelessness.
Anyone who does not know about Agree and Amplify lacks an important Climateball technique.
Moreover, they put themselves at a disadvantage when judging logicians.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Bill, heres a quick debunking of that effective emission height version of the GHE:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2022/01/24/the-emission-height-fallacy/ ”
Indeed! Sophistry is the only science argument of the CAWG crowd who are in lockstep with Kevin Trenberth that the monitoring must be wrong. I would assume there is a priority to find a hotspot. . .unless of course the theory is getting changed again to a no hotspot theory and featuring stratospheric cooling instead. Who knows what new twists we will see in the future.
We know that is Postma is a con man, and his arguments are designed to leave out facts or misrepresent them in order to mislead people.
“a) same lapse rate, emission occurs at higher effective altitude but lower temperature: this therefore doesnt affect the surface temperature, and so the argument here is moot.”
There is simply no logic here at all. Something happens at TOA, which results in less energy output from the Earth’s atmosphere, and a NET energy gain.
Who knows how this net energy gain gets distributed in the atmosphere? Not Postma!
“The atmosphere is fixed in depth and the lapse rate stays the same, the emission just gets pushed up to a higher altitude (larger shell) and lower temperature this therefore has no effect on the surface temperature. The effective temperature of total energy emission would still remain constant here too.”
FALSE! the larger shell argument is stoopid because it is negligible. He didnt bother to calculate it!
> A pissin contest between Joe Postma and Skeptical Science
While I bow to your expertise in passing contests, Gill, it was not meant to set up your usual diversion. However, your response to Gaslighting Graham shows that ou seem to find some pis sin contests more convincing that others,,,
Weird how it always works so that you never do.
Willard says:
”> IMO, anyone complimenting Seim and Olsen and saying their experiment demonstrated anything useful at all is showing some sort of cluelessness.
Anyone who does not know about Agree and Amplify lacks an important Climateball technique.
Moreover, they put themselves at a disadvantage when judging logicians.”
anybody who understands logic understands that when a proponent of a specific theory they want to foist on others resorts to ad hominems rather than clear verifiable statements of fact their claims are just noise as well.
and of course after hundreds of posts over the years here by nate in defense of the 3rd grader radiation theory even facts becomes anathema to him. what Seim and Olsen show is that a cloud of co2 put between a heated warm place and a cool space doesn’t cause the heated warm place to warm up. . .upon which nate picks up an electronic device measuring the temperature of the cloud of gas and points at a mirage as evidence warming must be ocurring.
“and of course after hundreds of posts over the years here by nate in defense of the 3rd grader radiation theory”
Yet oddly, Bill can’t quote a single one.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533651
” points at a mirage as evidence warming must be ocurring.”
Nah, just straight forward observable facts. Which Bill admitted were observable,
“Nate says:
‘In this case the sensor surface actually does WARM, as sensed by thermocouples attached to it.’
Bill sez: “Of course it does Nate. If the objects being targeted are warming (or you switch to a warmer target as you do from the freezer to the refer) the thermopile will warm up”
Until he realized that he was required by the Sky-dragon-Slayer code to deny it.
Glad you agree the “effective emission height” nonsense is debunked, Bill. Don’t let anyone try to tell you that it somehow results in less total OLR leaving the Earth system, either. If that were the case, it would have been observed. Instead, we observe total OLR increasing since 1985, in lockstep with surface temperatures:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533132
And Bill,
Dont let anyone try to tell you that GHE models predict “less total OLR leaving the Earth system” because that is a strawman.
[GILL, PRETENDING TO READ CHRIS’ DEMOLITION OF JOE’S CRAP] Pissin contest!
[GILL, PRETENDING TO READ AND UNDERSTAND JOE’S CRAP] Indeed!
Gaslighting Graham found himself a cheerleader under the desguise of an auditor.
Little Willy gets tremendously upset if anyone should dare agree with me.
Gaslighting Graham gets all warm and fuzzy when a fellow Sky Dragon cranks waves his pompoms for him.
Real auditors would recognize this as check kiting. Whatever.
It’s nice to occasionally receive something other than a relentless stream of negative energy, false accusations, misrepresentations, outright lies and insults, I suppose.
Well I am not going to go back and embarrass you if you are going to deny you ever supported the 3rd grader model.
But I do note that in your subsequent post you are back there championing it once again. So in effect you have proven my point with your reply.
As I said in my post what you are seeing is a mirage that you are interpreting as something warming.
There is a difference between sensing the temperature of a distant object and warming of the sensor. you just prefer to equate the two but the 3rd grader radiation experiments show that to be a false equivalency.
If you want me to account for some radiation sensed you have to realize what you are doing is picking between radiation being a particle vs a wave. The two behave differently. you think of it in a particle frame of reference but waves don’t behave like particles. So you have manufactured a mirage out of your cherry picked choice of what EM consists of.
Thats why experiment trumps theory. So as I see it your theory of less emissions from the upper atmosphere is actually a combination of both warmer and cooler emissions.
You seem to not acknowledge that more CO2 lower in the atmosphere will allow less capture higher. So it isn’t without consequence that emissions are less higher because they are higher lower as a compensating mechanism. The higher you go in the atmosphere the thicker layers become and you want to cherry pick the top of the layer to make your case when in theory its not capturing any of the emissions from the bottom of the same layer so ”the layer” becomes both warmer and cooler at the same time.
This is like a lot of stuff in life.
So on a layer basis there is no net change. Perhaps if there were no convection and no winds and no diffusion occurring in gases you could feel that warming around your ankles while your head got cooler. I don’t know. But I don’t know of any way to stop diffusion at all, all I can do with convection is make the well about as wide as my ring finger, and well things to seem a bit warmer on a windless day.
This also explains the lack of a hot spot
Now I am not advancing that as the answer as it will require investigation and experiment to do so. But one has to explain why the 3rd grader experiments are failing to detect warming or you and your kind needs to propose an alternative mode of downwelling heat.
Gill, Gill,
This is an Arby’s.
Graham’s own daddy figure says that the two models were equivalent.
Wait – wasn’t he your daddy figure too?
Pratt is wrong that the two “models” are equivalent…but he’s right that the back-radiation account of the GHE (or third grader radiation model) is debunked. He’s not my authority figure though, he’s an authority figure for GHE defenders. That’s why I mention him, because it might just open up those closed minds of yours.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again. Vaughan considers himself an amateur. Nevertheless, as a logician, he knows about equivalence.
And once again our Sky Dragon cranks confuse models and theory.
Little Willy, I wasn’t gaslighting in the least…and just because Pratt knows a lot about the concept of equivalence does not mean that anything he says is equivalent, is actually equivalent, or is even more likely to actually be equivalent.
Gaslighting Graham loops and loops again.
Another false accusation.
Ah, Gaslighting Graham’s gone into a loop again. Best to ignore him when he gets like this. Let’s give the mic to Rasmus again:
Op. Cit.
And?
Actually nate much of it makes sense, except that when you say it warms the system.
as noted in the vaughn pratt experiment, where additional thermometers were deployed, is you get warming at the local site of the new opacity (the ceiling) which in a freely convecting system the heat will convect and diffuse upwards into the still transparent area of the atmosphere as radiant opacity does not obstruct the movement of molecules. and your explanation is completely lacking of any mechanism to get a single joule of warming at the surface.
that was the role of the failed 3rd grader radiation model. now you have nothing. and you have even claimed i lied that you ever supported it.
Everybody can see you lie, Gill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533277
This comment proves two of them.
Nate says:
”5. As a result of (4) the outgoing flux from the atmosphere is reduced, while the incoming flux is not. Thus there develops and energy imbalance, otherwise know as a RADIATIVE FORCING.
6. Over a PERIOD OF TIME, decades or more, the forcing results in WARMING of the system, and higher surface T, and higher IR emissions from the surface, and feedbacks such as ice-albedo-feedback, and as a result the entire lapse rate curve shifts to higher T, as the Earth tries to return to energy balance.”
Actually nate much of your post makes sense, except that when you get to these points.
as noted in the vaughn pratt experiment, where additional thermometers were deployed, is you get warming at the local site of the new opacity (the ceiling) without restraint on diffusion and convection will move the heat up into the still transparent area of the atmosphere.
Fact is radiant opacity itself doesn’t restrain the movement of more active molecules upwards.
And your explanation ended without a mechanism to move the energy back to the surface.
that was the role of the failed 3rd grader radiation model. now you have nothing. and you have even claimed i lied that you ever supported it. Now what you did here is you hid the boogeyman that destroys your argument in ”warming of the system” without any description of how that would include warming throughout the system.
Bill quotes somebody saying:
“As a result of (4) the outgoing flux from the atmosphere is reduced, while the incoming flux is not. Thus there develops and energy imbalance, otherwise know as a RADIATIVE FORCING.”
Don’t forget, Bill, this is not what has been observed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533132
Indeed DREMT I doubt you can actually create a radiative imbalance in a free gas. You need to compress it. Heat rises. Heat in the atmosphere is just energy on its way eventually to outerspace. All Nate is doing is cherry picking a narrow view of the processes in the atmosphere and leaving out all the important details. He gets to the edge of that then he waves his hand and declares it as having happened like some 6,000BC witch doctor.
Some 6,000BC witch doctor chiseled a comment in stone: “Heat rises.” All watching the camp fire agreed.
In modern day, knowledgeable thermodynamics practitioners know that work does not rise, so, being on an equal footing, heat also does not rise.
They are what they are.
The Witch Doctor society in here is out in force.
“Actually nate much of your post makes sense”
Good. Now explain to DREMT.
“except that when you get to these points.”
Answered down here Bill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534483
It sure is, Bill.
Nate, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534423
Nate says:
Much of that heat that has entered is deposited at the Earths surface. When it rises into the troposphere it encounters a bottleneck (the reduced OLR). The uppermost layer warms. The next layer below sees a warmer layer above, gets back radiation from it (or net emission upward is reduced if you prefer) and it warms.
—————-
your problem is nate that the 3rd grader experiments demonstrate there is no bottleneck. vaghn pratts in particular measures warming against a physical barrier and the warming does not extend back down to the surface.
“your problem is nate that the 3rd grader experiments demonstrate there is no bottleneck.”
Well you sed that it made sense. I guess no longer.
So you can’t follow the simple logic that if outgoing IR is reduced, and incoming remains the same, then the result is a NET gain of energy? What about that do you find difficult?
Then 1LOT applies. If you think it doesn’t apply, explain why.
Beyond that I cannot help you.
“Dont forget, Bill, this is not what has been observed”
Don’t forget Bill, climate models must account for the history of radiative forcing, feedbacks, and resultant warming of the Earth, and when they do they predict OLR is slowly increasing at present.
This complexity is, naturally, ignored over by some here, in order to create strawmen.
“…and the warming does not extend back down to the surface.”
Without “back-radiation warming”, they’re screwed.
nate will use pretzel logic to continue to insist cold stuff can warm warmer stuff. what he doesn’t calculate is indeed if you put a third object between a cold object and a heated object that is warmer than the cold object and colder than the heated object the heated object will warm up if the third object has insulation value.
if the third object is a pane of glass the temperature of that glass will be half way between the cold object and the heated object.
so what nate wants to do is assign an insulation value to each co2 molecule or virtual surface layer and add it all up. but simple experiments show thats not the case for a gas.
Bill, So you have no answer for my questions above?
Oh well.
No nate I can’t answer that question. You need to see a Board Certified Psychiatrist. I don’t have the expertise to deal with your situation.
“No nate I cant answer that question. You need to see a Board Certified Psychiatrist.”
OK. I’ll remind Bill of his objection.
“there is no bottleneck.”
But prior to you referred to THIS:
“Lets review the basic steps.
1. CO2 rises and as a result the opacity of the upper troposphere increases in the CO2 bands.
2. The effective highest radiating level moves to higher elevations.
3. etc ”
and stated “Actually nate much of it makes sense”
So really my questions for you can be boiled down to this
If you understand that ” the opacity of the upper troposphere increases”,
then why are you unable to see that there is a BOTTLENECK up there?
After all, IR emission to space is the ONLY mechanism for heat transfer from the Earth’s atmosphere.
Increasing IR opacity at the TOA means LESS energy passes through and escapes. That is indeed a BOTTLENECK for the flow of heat out of the atmosphere.
why would there be a bottleneck Nate. Convection does not require a lapse rate. All it requires is some additional energy then it rises like normal to the elevation where it will effectively radiate to space. You seem ignorantly stuck on the idea that CO2 creates some kind of artificial or virtual barrier. Atmospheric heights by temperature fluctuate constantly.
“elevation where it will effectively radiate to space.”
Sure, at the same elevation, with the opacity increase, it will radiate LESS to space.
If you think it will rise to higher elevation, it will be colder up there, and it will thus radiate LESS to space.
Either way this reduced IR emission to space is a bottleneck.
Maybe this helps, after describing the effective radiating level and its rise with increasing CO2, etc, Hansen made this argument:
“The surface temperature resulting from the greenhouse effect is analogous to the depth of water in a leaky bucket with constant inflow rate. If the holes in the bucket are reduced slightly in size, the water depth and water pressure will increase until the flow rate out of the holes again equals the inflow rate.
Analogously, if the atmospheric infrared opacity increases, the temperature of the surface and atmosphere will increase until the emission of radiation from the planet again equals the absorbed solar energy.”
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf
Nate says:
elevation where it will effectively radiate to space.
Sure, at the same elevation, with the opacity increase, it will radiate LESS to space.
——————–
OK
Nate says:
If you think it will rise to higher elevation, it will be colder up there, and it will thus radiate LESS to space.
——————–
Ridiculous! Lets say we have no increases in GHG to start. The sun comes up and the surface warms, warming the surface layer which convects and radiates a portion its load to space repeatedly as it rises in the atmosphere. What you end up with is a lapse rate that is not only created by pressure changes but also by the actual movement of hot molecules through the atmosphere under going untold numbers of collisions with other molecules and its like an inverted Bernie Madoff scheme pyramiding up through the atmosphere. Add a little CO2 evenly distributed and the pyramid continues up through the atmosphere warming stuff and rising. It rises until no more cooler molecules are encountered which is when all its excess heat has been radiated to space. Now how does CO2 force a stop to this process? you claim when it moves up further than where it was depleted before that its going to radiate less but thats complete BS because it has to dump the heat the molecules are carrying before it can radiate less.
———————–
Nate says:
Either way this reduced IR emission to space is a bottleneck.
———————–
Either way what? I saw one claim that hot molecules that haven’t dumped their load to space yet are going to radiate less when they move higher. You are confusing the environment with the package. I guess for you the packaging is camo. there is no bottleneck except in your illogical mind and remember the CO2 itself is part of the package as it becomes engulfed in the inverted pyramid of rising heat.
Now if you install a physical barrier to the CO2 and other atmosphere molecules to move up you get a bottle neck. And what is the result. Consult Vaughn Pratt’s results. You get local heating near the ceiling and if any reaches the surface it involves massive negative feedback as the heat will prefer the ceiling to the floor.
Large negative feedback is what Roy calculated as well in a natural environment.
Nate says:
Hansen made this argument:
The surface temperature resulting from the greenhouse effect is analogous to the depth of water in a leaky bucket with constant inflow rate. If the holes in the bucket are reduced slightly in size, the water depth and water pressure will increase until the flow rate out of the holes again equals the inflow rate.
Analogously, if the atmospheric infrared opacity increases, the temperature of the surface and atmosphere will increase until the emission of radiation from the planet again equals the absorbed solar energy.
————————–
Obviously Hansen is as big a nut as you are.
Lets fix the analogy. Water only runs downhill due to gravity. Heated air molecules only run uphill. Paste that into yo daddy’s quote and you might start getting it right. . .but I am not holding my breath.
“Lets fix the analogy. Water only runs downhill due to gravity. Heated air molecules only run uphill. ”
Ha! You are bad at analogies.
“I saw one claim that hot molecules that havent dumped their load to space”
Dumped their load to space?
They can only do so THROUGH the atmosphere above. If the atmosphere above has increased opacity due to the addition of CO2, which you agreed made sense, then they will emit LESS to space.
Is the word ‘opacity’ is meaningless to you?
Look, Bill, you seem to believe that if you work overtime to NOT understand this straightforward phenomena, then that is somehow an argument against it.
It is not. The science is correct, whether you believe it or not.
Nate says:
I saw one claim that hot molecules that havent dumped their load to space
Dumped their load to space?
They can only do so THROUGH the atmosphere above. If the atmosphere above has increased opacity due to the addition of CO2, which you agreed made sense, then they will emit LESS to space.
Is the word opacity is meaningless to you?
Look, Bill, you seem to believe that if you work overtime to NOT understand this straightforward phenomena, then that is somehow an argument against it.
It is not. The science is correct, whether you believe it or not.
————————
Thats a nice emotional appeal Nate. But you are ignoring the science. The point is when a CO2 radiates upward it may only go a short distance before being absorbed but when radiating downwards that path is even shorter. If there were no greenhouse gases then the top of the atmosphere would be as hot as the surface because they would not cool at all. So the science says you may have increased opacity but you also increased emissivity.
I get the idea of Modtran estimating the amount of energy absorbed by CO2 up in the atmosphere but thats where the science ends with some energy in the atmosphere. After that you have Lindzen’s negative feedbacks of emerging atmospheric phenomena, you have Roy’s testing of that showing massive negative feedbacks.
You also have a budget prepared by Kevin Trenberth hat posits massive negative feedbacks via Stefan Boltzmann equations.
yet this is all ignored by special interests that have their own interests at heart and truly have come to believe they are elite enough to pontificate rules for others and rationalize this in the same way the space program was rationalized that it was good for science. Except that the space program actually spent their money on experiments and not propaganda and the diversion of huge amounts of money into actually starting and waging a war against the public. And yeah this propaganda is used to continue to promote warming projections that go way beyond the best science based estimates without giving any consideration to other factors or if Lindzen is right.
And that is in fact where we stand at the moment.
It is not being pursued scientifically, it is instead a pursuit of seizing power over the public and robbing them blind.
This is another gish gallop to nowhere, Bill. Has no point.
Well obviously I can’t make a science point that destroys your theory as you haven’t put together a scientific blueprint of how this ‘claimed’ bottleneck forces the surface.
Demonstrate the effect and only then can I accept it or refute it.
In the meantime all you have been doing is bugling.
You act like I’m making this up. I guess thats yet another dismissive tactic.
Im not. Its standard stuff.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534469
Obviously you don’t understand it. And make every effort to stay ignorant.
“as you havent put together a scientific blueprint of how this claimed bottleneck forces the surface.”
Answer this question, then you will have a chance to understand:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1535634
I answered your question Nate and its on you to prove how and if the atmosphere becomes more insulative with the addition of CO2 and by how much. Otherwise without science on this matter for all we know the energy you believe to be trapped has already exited to space.
But you first have to acknowledge that the 3rd grade model still doesn’t work because for it to work it would have to violate the Stefan Boltzmann law and 2LOT and it would have to make energy out of nothing.
“I answered your question”
Oh? Where? Show us.
Nate says:
I answered your question
Oh? Where? Show us.
—-
”Us” who is ”us”. I replied to you and answered your question in the comments below your question. Check your own link to the question.
Nope. Just keep on lying. Facts are not on your side.
Lets just say you are pretty loose with calling things facts. Facts I agree with. Things claimed to be facts by a propagandist like yourself need not apply.
What fact do we disagree with Nate?
Nate says:
You were wrong, there is a gradient in S&O. You wont admit you were wrong, ever. And refuse to do honest debate.
So we are done here.
==============================
Nate changes goal posts again. He was claiming that transmitting a beam of light through a cloud of gas resulted in a temperature gradient in the gas and claimed that is what Tyndall found in his experiment.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1536688
Then he takes the S&O experiment that has a temperature gradient across solid barriers versus convection and claims thats the same thing.
Nate is a liar whose only purpose is in here to deceive and lie to people. He has zero integrity and you are right we are done.
Bill said there was ‘no temperature gradient’ in the S&O experiment.
Then, after seeing the contrary evidence, he says well ok
” temperature gradient across solid barriers”
There would be ‘no temperature gradient’ if we removed the barriers, he declares.
Post-hoc, without offering any evidence.
He doesnt think he’s moving the goal posts! Projects it onto me.
Bill is such a stand-up guy!
And Bill, Remember that in S&O, they use a long horizontal container of gas, heated on one end.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=99608
Even without a barrier, do you really think the unheated end will be just as hot as the heated end?
Same setup in Tyndall.
"Nate is a liar whose only purpose is in here to deceive and lie to people. He has zero integrity and you are right we are done."
He’s also the biggest hypocrite I have ever encountered. Funny, because he used to claim he hated hypocrisy, in others, above all else. He must really hate himself, then. Explains his belligerent nature, I guess.
I’ll remind DREMT next time he claims he doesnt read or respond to my posts that in fact he does, as here.
But only with personal insults, no science.
…explains his belligerent nature, I guess.
“He must really hate himself, then. ”
Nah. Don’t give up your day job to do psychoanalysis.
I just call out BS when I see it.
If your tendency is to keep returning and repeating the same BS over and over, and it certainly seems to be, then I will call it out for what it is, each time.
And yes, ridicule your ridiculous behavior.
I agree that must be frustrating for you, but the solution is simple, stop posting the same BS again and again.
…his belligerent nature, I guess.
yep a belligerent liar.
If anyone could provide a concise and clear interpretation of Graham’s riff on Ron & Joe’s crap, let them speak now.
And if that someone could also present a “holding” theory that consistently accounts for the various atmosphere Sky Dragon cranks all know and love, that’d be great too.
Gill, perhaps?
Postma’s comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533394
Is just a simple refutation of the “effective emission height” version of the GHE:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533259
Ron Clutz’s comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532532
Is a summary of what you keep referring to as the “holding” theory. Here is why it still works for Venus:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533250
Anyone?
Nobody is interested, Little Willy. The discussion ran its course some time ago. Most have moved on down-thread and few are probably even aware we’re still going. This is where you waste another day of your time and mine trying to get the last word.
Sure Willard 7:49 am, someone is interested as many have published on the subject. DREMT’s 2:02 am quoted arguments all fall apart in the very first words:
“Given that the atmosphere is fixed in depth…”
That is immediately wrong. The earthen atm. is NOT fixed in optical depth.
Physically, the effective emission level corresponds to the optimal trade-off between underlying higher atm. air density (which gives high emissivity) and little overlying atm. air to permit the emitted radiation to escape to deep space as observed by satellite instrumentation.
Postma didn’t say the atmosphere was fixed in optical depth. Immediately, the best Ball4 can do is twist the words of the author.
DREMT 8:27 am agrees Postma didn’t mention atm. optical depth so was immediately wrong about “effective emission height” which depends on optical depth. Thanks.
Maybe if he was saying the "effective emission height" couldn’t change on addition of CO2 you might have a point. That wasn’t what he was saying, though. See option a).
Pupman?
It’s OK, Ball4 is here now, Little Willy. You can go.
DREMT 8:41 am moves on to try muddling thru to “see” option a) argument which again immediately falls apart wherein the author mistakenly assumes: “The atmosphere is fixed in depth…”
Physically, the effective emission level varies corresponding to the optimal trade-off between underlying higher atm. air density (which gives high emissivity) and little overlying atm. air to permit the emitted radiation to escape to deep space as observed by satellite instrumentation.
Ah, Ball4’s gone into a loop again. Best to ignore him when he gets like this.
[JOE] Given that the atmosphere is fixed in depth
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Joe didn’t say the atmosphere was fixed in optical depth.
Postma’s arguments, as usual, are full of holes.
“same lapse rate, emission occurs at higher effective altitude but lower temperature: this therefore doesnt affect the surface temperature, and so the argument here is moot.”
Huh?? Where is the logic?
Emission from a colder highest layer means REDUCED emission. That means an energy imbalance with more input than output, and thus a net gain in anergy for the system. By 1LOT that implies warming in the system.
How that warming is distributed in the system is complex, but in brief, to restore the imbalance there needs to be greater emission from lower atmospheric layers, including the surface, and that implies these layers need to warm.
Yes, Little Willy. “Depth”, as in the actual depth of the atmosphere, a measure of distance, not “optical depth”.
… resulting in the entire 2:02 am quoted argument immediately being mistaken thus falling apart.
How so, Ball4? Don’t forget that emission from a higher level of the atmosphere necessarily involves emission from a greater surface area. So if at level A the temperature is -18 C, then the “effective emission height” raises to level B so that now level B is at -18 C, as B has a greater surface area than A, the total emission (in watts) from B will be greater. Where does the additional energy come from to enable level B to be -18 C?
> Where is the logic?
Gill will explain it shortly, Nate.
Just wait.
DREMT 11:50 am mistakenly forgets that emission from a higher level of the atmosphere necessarily involves emission from lower density air so emitting related reduced energy thus the 2:02 am quoted argument immediately falls apart.
There is no additional energy from changing atm. optical depth since some regions of the atm. are thus warmer, some atm. regions equally cooler.
Maybe a diagram will help:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2022/01/24/the-emission-height-fallacy/#comment-97432
There is no use to push traffic to DREMT’s sophistry blog in discussing atm. science. DREMT rather needs support from actual observed facts in any linked diagram.
[THE IPCC] An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere
[JOE] Given that the atmosphere is fixed in depth
[B4] Thatmsntfxdtptcldpt
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Obviously Joe isn’t talking about opacity.
Little Willy can’t follow the discussion, as usual.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once again.
Wrong, Little Willy.
TomC’s comment:
https://skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html#105369
is a simple refutation of Joe’s usual gloss on real greenhouses.
If you say so, Little Willy…
…but anyway, back to the current discussion…
Here is a description of the “effective emission height” argument:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/what-is-the-best-description-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
“The depth in the atmosphere from which the earth’s heat loss to space takes place is often referred to as the emission height. For simplicity, we can assume that the emission height is where the temperature is 254K in order for the associated black body radiation to match the incoming flow of energy from the sun.
Additionally, as the infrared light which makes up the OLR is subject to more absorp.tion with higher concentrations of greenhouse gases (Beer-Lambert’s law), the mean emission height for the OLR escaping out to space must increase as the atmosphere gets more opaque.”
Note that the argument hinges on the emission height (which they define as the height at which the temperature is 254 K) increasing due to the atmosphere getting more opaque as GHGs are added. So it goes back to what I said earlier. Emission from a higher level of the atmosphere necessarily involves emission from a greater surface area. So if at level A the temperature is 254 K, and then the “effective emission height” raises to level B so that now level B is at 254 K, since B has a greater surface area than A, the total emission (in watts) from B will be greater. Where does the additional energy come from to enable level B to be 254 K? It is a violation of 1LoT.
DREMT demonstrates still doesn’t understand emission at the same temperature (254K) from a higher level of the atmosphere B necessarily involves less emission from lower density air located there than A.
Again, as the atm. optical depth changes, regions of the atm. will be warmer, other atm. regions equally cooler for no change in total thermal energy for no violation of 1LOT or 2LOT.
(Thesis) since B has a greater surface area than A, the total emission (in watts) from B will be greater.
(Antithesis) The energy flow is like the water in a river: it cannot just appear or disappear; it flows from place to place.
(Synthesis) When small river A reaches bigger B, its total flow will be bigger.
Ball4, adding another variable (density) to the equation doesn’t somehow make it less likely that 1LoT is violated. It just makes it more complicated (as is always your intention). How do you figure the effect from the difference in density exactly balances the effect from the difference in surface area, so that the total amount of energy emitted is the same!? What is the likelihood of that being the case!?
Q: ” …so that the total amount of energy emitted is the same!? What is the likelihood of that being the case!?”
A: 100%
Changing atm. optical depth by whatever (or combination of whatevers) does not change the total thermal energy in the atm. system while that process does affect atm. T(z) profile to that conserving energy in the total system.
“the atmosphere necessarily involves emission from a greater surface area.”
An effect which nobody bothered to quantify?
The lapse rate is ~ -6.5 K/km.
Suppose we move the ERF height up 1 Km. The temperature drops 6.5 K. Suppose at the initial height the temp is 255 K. At the new height it will be 248.5 K. The ratio of new/old radiated flux emitted from this height is (248.5/255)^4 = 0.9, a 10% reduction.
How bout the surface area effect?
The Earth radius is ~ 6500 Km. Use this to calculate the initial surface area. A = 4*pi*r^2. We increase by 1 Km.
So new radius 6501 Km. The ratio of new/old surface areas is (6501/6500)^2 =1.0003,
This is a .03% change in area, and emitted flux from this height.
This is negligible compared to 10% change due to temperature.
No Ball4, it is not 100%. You’re just making it up as you go along.
Remember, the “effective emission level” argument is that the emission height (which they define as the height at which the temperature is 254 K) increases due to the atmosphere getting more opaque as GHGs are added. Yes? Are all agreed on what we’re actually discussing?
It’s 100% DREMT; the only energy being created is in DREMT’s imagination. The 1LOT holds.
The troposphere lapse rate profile rotates around a point conserving total system thermal energy under the curve: cooler in the upper regions, warmer in the lower regions as atm. opacity increases.
No, Ball4, the lapse rate does not change.
Here is the “effective emission height” argument once again:
The height of the atmosphere at which the temperature is 254 K rises as a result of adding GHGs, which change the opacity. Since the lapse rate remains fixed, if 254 K is now at a higher level of the atmosphere then the temperature at the surface will be warmer…
…and that is refuted as I have explained.
DREMT, you are so behind in your studies & faulty explanations or attempted refutations that don’t conserve energy. This meteorology was figured out & published over 20 years ago.
The basic dry adiabatic lapse rate doesn’t change (due to simplifying assumptions) but the lapse rate profile does change by rotating about a point as it must to conserve thermal energy in the entire mostly tropospheric atm. system as atm. IR opacity changes.
Thus with increased atm. IR opacity, the 254K effective emission level(z) is higher in our atm.
If the lapse rate profile is rotating around a point then how can the lapse rate not be changing?
“emission height (which they define as the height at which the temperature is 254 K)”
It sees some people are confused about this model of a rising height of emissions.
Are they forgetting that there is a lapse rate? Thus as the elevation of emissions rises, the temperature at which emissions occur drops.
No wonder they don’t get why this model explains the GHE!
Ball4 slips quietly away…
Once again, Gaslighting Graham goes on a loop.
Bill says:
“Willard if you are referring to your voluminous and vacuous back and forth with DREMT. . .I don’t follow that as it is way too boring.“
I doubt many people bother to follow our long back and forths. Usually I’m just trying to teach Little Willy something, and all he’s doing is trying to troll me in the hope that I get fed up with posting here and go elsewhere. He clearly has absolutely no interest in trying to understand. He’ll insist I’m wrong about something, then even when somebody he respects (like Tim Folkerts) comes along and confirms that I’m right, he still carries on. He’s basically just here to try to irritate me into leaving.
Gaslighting Graham has trouble finding his way in the threads.
Perhaps he should loop a little more instead.
Not at all. I was well aware that the comment from Bill was in the sub-thread above this one, but I chose to respond here as the comment related to your trolling.
“If the lapse rate profile is rotating around a point then how can the lapse rate not be changing?”
I even tried to help & give unaccomplished-in-meteorology DREMT a hint: “lapse rate doesn’t change (due to simplifying assumptions).”
Namely it’s assumed in the derivation that the temperature(z) is constant over dz even though the DALR calculation ends up with a lapse in T around 9.8K/km.
Not making that assumption will more accurately calculate for long time amateur meteorologist, DREMt, the exact small deviation from the former T(z) going up the now rotated profile after any planetary atm. IR opacity change.
Sheesh. Yes, I know none of this will stick with DREMT.
So now Ball4 is saying the lapse rate changes…
[B4] Lapse rate doesnt change (due to simplifying assumptions)
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] So now B4 is saying the lapse rate changes…
Exactly, Little Willy. Ball4 is wrong.
While DREMT does not realize that if emission height rises, which it does with increasing CO2, then this
“emission height (which they define as the height at which the temperature is 254 K)”
is no longer accurate, because of the lapse rate!
Oh well, the GHE and AGW can continue to be denied.
Ball4,
Remember, this is from “Real Climate”, so you can safely assume it is the “official” story from the GHE defenders:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/what-is-the-best-description-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
“The depth in the atmosphere from which the earth’s heat loss to space takes place is often referred to as the emission height. For simplicity, we can assume that the emission height is where the temperature is 254K in order for the associated black body radiation to match the incoming flow of energy from the sun.
Additionally, as the infrared light which makes up the OLR is subject to more absorp.tion with higher concentrations of greenhouse gases (Beer-Lambert’s law), the mean emission height for the OLR escaping out to space must increase as the atmosphere gets more opaque.”
If the “effective emission height” is defined as being the height where the temperature is 254 K, and that height is said to increase, then obviously that means the height where the temperature is 254 K has now increased. It doesn’t mean that some undefined “effective emission height” has now increased, and thus the temperature at which “the associated black body radiation [matches] the incoming flow of energy from the Sun” is now somehow lower than 254 K!
Are we agreed on what the “effective emission height” argument actually is?
Exactly, Nate.
Notice how Graham found another fixed point to spin around and emulate his famous La La La I Cant Hear you technique
The official story is found in modern meteorology text books based on 1st principles, DREMT, not on some blog.
What you clip from some blog is in agreement physically, the effective emission level varies corresponding to the optimal trade-off between underlying higher atm. air density (which gives high emissivity) and little overlying atm. air to permit the emitted radiation to escape to deep space as observed by satellite instrumentation.
Ball4, we can’t discuss something unless we can actually agree on what the argument is we’re discussing. I made it clear what the options were. Pick one.
“temperature is 254K in order for the associated black body radiation to match the incoming flow of energy from the sun.”
Duh. In equilibrium! Which we are not.
“Additionally, as the infrared light which makes up the OLR is subject to more absorp.tion with higher concentrations of greenhouse gases (Beer-Lamberts law), the mean emission height for the OLR escaping out to space must increase as the atmosphere gets more opaque.”
Good.
“If the ‘effective emission height’ is defined as being the height where the temperature is 254 K”
Sure, only after a looong time when energy balance is restored.
“and that height is said to increase, then obviously that means the height where the temperature is 254 K has now increased.”
FALSE. It is BAD logic to ASSUME the lapse rate adjusts to cancel the increase in elevation of emissions.
If it did, there would be no energy imbalance and no radiative forcing, which is the entire POINT of this model.
In case the options were somehow not clear, Ball4. Your choice is:
1) The height of the atmosphere at which the temperature is 254 K rises as a result of adding GHGs, which change the opacity. Since the lapse rate remains fixed, if 254 K is now at a higher level of the atmosphere, then the temperature at the surface will be warmer…[this is refuted as I explained further above]:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533731
2) The “effective emission height” is undefined, however as this (whatever it is) increases in height as a result of adding GHGs, which change the opacity, the temperature of the atmosphere at which the associated black body radiation matches the incoming flow of energy from the sun is now at a lower temperature than 254 K (!). Since this means there is now less energy leaving the Earth system than there is arriving, there is now an energy imbalance, and warming ensues…[this is debunked both because it is nonsensical, and also because total OLR has not been observed to reduce]:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533132
> It is BAD logic to ASSUME the lapse rate adjusts to cancel the increase in elevation of emissions.
But it’s FUN Climateball, and FUNNIER economics!
Who said that, Little Willy!? Whoever it was, was attacking a straw man. I never said the lapse rate adjusts. In fact, I have specifically stated several times that it remains fixed.
Gaslighting Graham spins and spins and spins and gaslights again.
False accusations won’t help your cause, Little Willy.
Where’s Ball4 gone? He needs to pick 1) or 2).
Does effective emission height depend on optical depth?
Who knows? We can’t currently agree even on how the “effective emission height” is defined.
From his own cite:
Op. Cit.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham has no clue whatsoever about any of this?
Sure, Little Willy. If we go with what I cited, then option 1) is the correct account of the “effective emission height” argument. If you wish to reject what Real Climate make plain, then I guess you can go with option 2).
“[this is debunked both because it is nonsensical”
Again with the now signature DREMT argument from incredulity. Which is worthless in science.
“and also because total OLR has not been observed to reduce]:”
which is false, because climate models show past reduction in OLR is offset by warming over time and albedo feedbacks. One has to consider the HISTORY of the forcing and the resulting T change HISTORY, as climate models do.
[B4] Effective emission height depends on optical depth.
[GG] Here is a new puzzler for you!
[W] Does effective emission height depend on optical depth?
[GG] Who knows? Here’s my new puzzler!
[RASMUS] Effective emission height depends on optical depth.
[GG] Yeah, sure, but look at my new puzzler!
Well, Little Willy, if you’d been paying attention (and had any clue whatsoever about the physics involved) you would know that Ball4 and I have been discussing this issue on the basis that 1) is the correct version of the “effective emission height” argument. So I ask him to clarify which one he agrees is the correct version merely to test if he can be honest about that, or not.
Gaslighting Graham would REALLY like us to play his little puzzler instead of acknowledging that optical depth indeed matters.
How many has he created over the years to confuse himself?
It’s not a “puzzler” to anyone that has followed this debate, or anyone with a lick of logic.
1) is the correct version of the “effective emission height” argument, and it is refuted here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533731
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham missed:
Op. Cit.
Twisting himself into silly puzzlers looks some much more FUN!
No, I didn’t miss anything. Thanks anyway.
The Real Climate article makes plain that 1) is the correct account of the “effective emission height” argument. Wikipedia, too, helps us out:
“One simplification is to treat all outgoing longwave radiation as being emitted from an altitude where the air temperature equals the overall effective temperature for planetary emissions, T eff.[43] Some authors have referred to this altitude as the effective radiating level (ERL), and suggest that as the CO2 concentration increases, the ERL must rise to maintain the same mass of CO2 above that level.[44]
This approach is less accurate than accounting for variation in radiation wavelength by emission altitude. However, it can be useful in supporting a simplified understanding of the greenhouse effect.[43] For instance, it can be used to explain how the greenhouse effect increases as the concentration of greenhouse gases increase.[45][44][46]
Earth’s overall equivalent emission altitude has been increasing with a trend of 23 m (75 ft)/decade, which is said to be consistent with a global mean surface warming of 0.12 °C (0.22 °F)/decade over the period 1979–2011.”
[THE IPCC] An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere
[JOE] Given that the atmosphere is fixed in depth
[B4] Thatmsntfxdtptcldpt
[GG] Obviously Joe isnt talking about opacity.
[RASMUS] Effective emission height depends on optical depth.
[GG] Well, duh. But now for my puzzler…
Graham is a genius.
Yes Willard, for unknown reasons DREMT has twisted DREMT comments into such a comedy of science errors.
DREMT 3:22 pm was already refuted here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533735
DREMT subsequently has had no successful response.
That’s right, Postma was not referring to “optical depth” when he referred to the “depth” of the atmosphere. Why people keep trying to make something out of nothing is beyond me.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
Op. Cit.
Perhaps Gill could tell us if Joe was simply clarifying that the atmosphere wasn’t infinite and that material additions to a finite quantity is always negligible?
Ah, Little Willy’s many attempts to twist people’s words can be ignored now. Ball4 is back!
OK, Ball4:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534087
1) or 2)? Let’s see if you can be honest, and reply with “1)”.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534071
Gaslighting Graham makes another false accusation to loop his pet puzzler.
If Joe never talks about opacity, how can he refute a claim about opacity?
1) or 2), Ball4?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534071
At 4:06 PM, Ball4 linked to this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533735
Where he says:
“DREMT demonstrates still doesn’t understand emission at the same temperature (254K) from a higher level of the atmosphere B necessarily involves less emission from lower density air located there than A.”
So there he is clearly arguing on the basis that 1) is the correct description of the “effective emission height” argument. Why he won’t just admit this is the case when questioned is anyone’s guess.
4:53 pm: 1) is from some blog, go ask those authors.
Physically, the effective emission level varies corresponding to the optimal trade-off between underlying higher atm. air density (which gives high emissivity) and little overlying atm. air to permit the emitted radiation to escape to deep space as observed by satellite instrumentation.
Ah, he returns again.
1) or 2), Ball4?
Go ask those authors that wrote the script.
So evasive. 1) or 2), Ball4?
DREMT can get a response about anything I wrote at 5:03 pm. DREMT can only get answers on what other authors wrote from those guys. Just reread this comment each time DREMT comments again. Out.
Very evasive indeed. 1) or 2), Ball4?
Perhaps Gill could answer that one:
Op. Cit.
When you cheerlead for Graham and Joe, are you denying the Beer-Lambert’s law by any chance, Gill?
…and, if at level A the temperature is 254 K, and then the “effective emission height” raises to level B so that now level B is at 254 K, since B has a greater surface area than A, the total emission (in watts) from B will be greater. Where does the additional energy come from to enable level B to be 254 K? It is a violation of 1LoT.
Gill may have left the building.
It’s a shame, for I was about to ask him about this:
Op. Cit.
Looks to me that there’s no energy created. Perhaps his auditing skillz could be helpful for once.
…if at level A the temperature is 254 K, and then the “effective emission height” raises to level B so that now level B is at 254 K, since B has a greater surface area than A, the total emission (in watts) from B will be greater. Where does the additional energy come from to enable level B to be 254 K? It is a violation of 1LoT.
Ah, Gaslighting Grahams gone into a loop again. Best to ignore him when he gets like this.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”He clearly has absolutely no interest in trying to understand. Hell insist Im wrong about something, then even when somebody he respects (like Tim Folkerts) comes along and confirms that Im right, he still carries on. Hes basically just here to try to irritate me into leaving.”
indeed thats why it is so boring. he adds nothing to the conversation beyond insults. occasionally he will throw something completely from left field thats totally irrelevant like when he argued isometrics determined which axis the moon rotated around.
Gill, Gill,
Riddle me this. When you say:
you do not seem to realize that stratospheric cooling is one of the predictions of the greenhouse theory.
Why do you pretend having read papers you obviously haven’t read?
“if at level A the temperature is 254 K, and then the effective emission height raises to level B so that now level B is at 254 K, since B has a greater surface area than A, the total emission (in watts) from B will be greater.”
Not sure why people are working so hard to misunderstand this model.
Lets review the basic steps.
1. CO2 rises and as a result the opacity of the upper troposphere increases in the CO2 bands.
2. The effective highest radiating level moves to higher elevations.
So far so good.
3. The lapse rate curve is assumed to be initially unchanged.
Now people stop using logic…
4. As a result of (2) and (3) the emissions leave the atmosphere from colder atmosphere, and are thus reduced.
5. As a result of (4) the outgoing flux from the atmosphere is reduced, while the incoming flux is not. Thus there develops and energy imbalance, otherwise know as a RADIATIVE FORCING.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
6. Over a PERIOD OF TIME, decades or more, the forcing results in WARMING of the system, and higher surface T, and higher IR emissions from the surface, and feedbacks such as ice-albedo-feedback, and as a result the entire lapse rate curve shifts to higher T, as the Earth tries to return to energy balance.
It seems that some people erroneously assume that the warming of the atmosphere (6) is supposed to take place BEFORE the forcing (5) occurs.
This obviously makes no sense.
Yes, Bill, it does indeed get very boring. He won’t stop though…ever.
On the subject of the “effective emission height”, argument, we have the two possible interpretations, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534087
1) uses the standard version of the English language, where “effective emission height” (EEH) is defined as meaning something, and then if you say the EEH increases in height, it thus means that what the EEH is defined as increases in height. Standard English. So if the EEH is defined as the level at which the atmosphere is 254 K (the “effective” referring to the “effective temperature” of Earth), then if the EEH increases in height, that means the level at which the atmosphere is 254 K increases in height. No other way for Standard English to work.
2) uses the Special GHE Defender version of the English language, where EEH no longer has any specific meaning. Or rather, those supporting 2) will pay lip service to the idea that the EEH is defined as the level at which the atmosphere is 254 K, but when the EEH increases in height, that definition no longer applies. So, the EEH increases in height, but the temperature of the atmosphere at the new height is lower, and thus the EEH no longer means the level at which the atmosphere is 254 K. So what is actually increasing in height is no longer defined, that is left to the imagination of the reader. That is how the Special GHE Defender version of the English language works.
In either case, both 1) and 2) are thoroughly debunked.
Exactly, Nate. No wonder Gaslighting Graham’s gone into a loop again.
Best to ignore him when he gets like this.
People continue to not make sense of this model, this time with the favorite tactic: semantics.
A definition, taken out of context from equilibrium, is erroneously applied to non-equilibrium.
Then they suggest, erroneously, that the warming of the surface and atmosphere (lapse rate curve shifts higher) is an instantaneous response to added CO2.
But this is a strawman. No one in climate science claims this!
Of course, if DREMTs thinks he can debunk what climate science actually claims, it is here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534339
But he won’t, with the faux excuse that he does read my posts.
Oh well!
…in either case, both 1) and 2) are thoroughly debunked.
… Nate. No wonder Gaslighting Grahams gone into a loop again.
Best to ignore him when he gets like this.
Sadly, Little Willy lacks the capacity to ignore me.
… No wonder Gaslighting Grahams gone into a loop again.
Best to ignore him when he gets like this.
See?
“Yes, Bill, it does indeed get very boring. He wont stop thoughever.”
Willard, the problem is that he can’t ignore us!
From the horse’s mouth:
How Climate Science sees it:
https://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld017.htm
“CO2 mixes rapidly in troposphere (in weeks)
-ERL rises to where temperature is lower, less outgoing radiation.
Earth surface and troposphere warm until outgoing radiation from ERL balances incoming (years to centuries)”
Graphical representation of events.
Initial ERL
https://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld015.htm
new higher ERL at colder T, after CO2 rise. Reduced emission.
https://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld018.htm
then after T rise, and radiative balance restored
https://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld019.htm
From up above, Bill sez:
“And your explanation ended without a mechanism to move the energy back to the surface.”
Again, there is a radiative forcing at the top of the troposphere, which reduces the OLR, and there is now more energy entering the atmosphere than leaving.
Much of that heat that has entered is deposited at the Earth’s surface. When it rises into the troposphere it encounters a bottleneck (the reduced OLR). The uppermost layer warms. The next layer below sees a warmer layer above, gets back radiation from it (or net emission upward is reduced if you prefer) and it warms.
All levels of the troposphere warm, and this reduces the ability of the surface to lose heat. It warms.
Nate,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534423
Bill you can see from the Climate Science presentation slides above, graphically, how this works, based on the laws of physics and known properties of the atmosphere.
If you want to critique it, point to a specific part that you object to, and why?
And same goes for this answer to your question, which you have not addressed.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534483
I need specific objections, and rationale for them.
Bill, following your link and reading your comment, and what you quote at the beginning, it looks a lot like there is somebody commenting here who is trying to support 2), from this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534087
That’s odd, because Ball4 was defending 1), and the Real Climate article supports 1), as does the Wikipedia page on the Greenhouse Effect. Wiki says:
“One simplification is to treat all outgoing longwave radiation as being emitted from an altitude where the air temperature equals the overall effective temperature for planetary emissions, T eff.[43] Some authors have referred to this altitude as the effective radiating level (ERL), and suggest that as the CO2 concentration increases, the ERL must rise to maintain the same mass of CO2 above that level.[44]”
So we have the ERL as being an identical concept to the “Effective Emission Height”, EEH. In other words, it is the height in the atmosphere where the temperature is 255 K (Real Climate went with 254 K, but close enough). If this rises, then the level at which the atmosphere is 255 K rises, according to Standard English.
However, in 2), using the Special GHE Defenders version of English, when the ERL rises the temperature at the new height is lower, and thus the ERL is no longer defined as the level in the atmosphere at which the temperature is 255 K. So I guess the question is, Bill, what exactly is rising when they say the ERL is rising? Since it is not what the ERL term has been defined to mean that’s rising.
So what actually is ERL according to the people who support 2), do you know? It logically cannot be the level in the atmosphere at which the temperature is 255 K. So what is it? Is there some third term with a different meaning? If so, why do we need EEH and ERL?
Nate,
It looks like someone is trying to put you in a Procrustean bed.
Pity he will not read:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533757
Was that that comment Gill approved?
Little Willy hasn’t the faintest idea what’s going on.
Gaslighting Graham is in a tough situation.
He would like to create a you-and-him fight between B4 and Nate, but he has this policy according to which he does not read Nate. So he reads a paragraph Gill quoted, which he then uses as an excuse to recite Joe.
Nobody cares about Joe. Nobody cares about the silly dichotomy he presents. Including Gill.
So Gaslighting Graham goes on a loop again.
Better ignore him.
Postma? No, I’ve not been reciting Postma. Mostly my own arguments, Little Willy. You wouldn’t understand.
” it looks a lot like there is somebody”
Oh the silliness that ensues when he pretends to not be reading my posts, while clearly wanting to respond to them!
DREMT must be agitated because his notions of what the rising ERL model is, according to climate science, has been debunked, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534469
Oh well!
He needs to show whats wrong with the actual model, rather than the strawman version.
“He would like to create a you-and-him fight between B4 and Nate…”
I would like to see people who disagree, but who are on the same “side”, finally argue amongst themselves, as they should…and I also like to point out that GHE Defenders can’t agree amongst themselves because it makes the point that there is no one, coherent theory behind the GHE, in any case. Ball4 was defending 1), whereas Nate, I’m getting the picture, is trying to defend 2).
Since both 1) and 2) are debunked, it’s really no problem for me.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Bill, following your link and reading your comment, and what you quote at the beginning, it looks a lot like there is somebody commenting here who is trying to support 2), from this comment:”
yeah this is basic stuff here. you don’t want tobacco corps doing health science and you dont want government funded institutions doing science on topics leading to big government. anytime you do that you open to being abused.
the problem here is nate’s alleged bottleneck. 3rd grader experiments can’t demonstrate the alleged bottleneck. vaughn pratt shows one, but there still isn’t any surface warming and his bottle neck is created by a physical barrier that blocks the gas from moving beyond it and no such bottleneck has been observed in proportion. that leads me to believe that if there is any bottleneck that is undetected it like the vaughn pratt results implies very strong negative feedback.
so they can point to their mathematical models but the are only incidentally related to science and the bottleneck theory is junk.
and they know its junk. they are just addicted to the money. this kind of addiction is self destructive. they need help and need somebody who cares to intervene.
Exactly, Nate.
Hence why Gill is stuck on his “third grader” loop and his lies about bottle necks and no surface warming. As if he never used an IR gun.
Vaughan sure did:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98462
Wait. Did Gill ask for experimental validation?
Oh, no. That was for his ego.
I guess somebody, somewhere, might be arguing that back-radiation doesn’t exist…nobody here is, though.
” using the Special GHE Defenders version of English, when the ERL rises the temperature at the new height is lower, and thus the ERL is no longer defined as the level in the atmosphere at which the temperature is 255 K. So I guess the question is, Bill, what exactly is rising when they say the ERL is rising? Since it is not what the ERL term has been defined to mean thats rising.”
Strange that people are man-splaining to us about what the ERL model is, and ‘debunking’ it, without knowing what the ERL even is!
If they are curious it is all in here in the notes for the Climate Science slides.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534469
“The ERL (Emitted Radiation Level), is that level in the atmosphere above which there is sufficiently little greenhouse gas (Water and CO2) that infra red radiation emitted upwards is just able to reach outer space without being absorbed. The greater the concentration of water and CO2, the higher in the atmosphere is the ERL. If there were no greenhouse gases or clouds, the ERL would be at the Earth surface. This simplified model treats the tropopause as effectively the top of the atmosphere, and lumps all wave lengths together. In practice each infra red wavelength has a different ERL.”
And Bill cannot explain his science objections to the model other than his political problems with it:
“and the bottleneck theory is junk. and they know its junk. they are just addicted to the money.”
"3rd grader experiments can’t demonstrate the alleged bottleneck…"
…problems abound with 2).
"So what actually is ERL according to the people who support 2), do you know? It logically cannot be the level in the atmosphere at which the temperature is 255 K. So what is it? Is there some third term with a different meaning? If so, why do we need EEH and ERL?"
Looks like there are no easy answers to these questions. There’s bound to be some third term with a different meaning going around somewhere, because that’s what GHE "science" is all about, having multiple terms with different meanings to supposedly explain the same thing.
Ultimately, if the total OLR were to be reduced by this rise in the EEH/ERL/third random term, we’d have observed it. Since we haven’t, we can safely rule 2) out.
nate i cut my professional teeth in large models with lots of uncertainties. the idea that a mathematical model can be built doesn’t mean that either the inputs, parameters, or logic is correct.
since all i have seen is modtran that estimates based upon experiments the amount of ir absorbed by the atmosphere. what happens next was based upon some 130 year old speculation about what happens next.
That speculation was quashed 120 years ago by experiments. then we had about a 60 year gap and somebody trying to model the atmosphere speculatively modeled it on the basis of a ”bootleneck” theory AKA ”hotspot” theory.
that theory remains today unvalidated with numerous experiments showing any results at best occurring with huge negative feedbacks that makes concern diminish to essentially nothing, except of course those whose jobs and budgets rest upon the original speculation was settled science.
negative feedbacks are model validated by several efforts from Roy here to Lord Moncktons mathematical model and all that remains is a general climate warming occurring over the past 40 years. but 40 years of warming simply isn’t at all convincing as history is filled with natural and extended warming periods.
so if you have anything to add thats not the equivalent of having a tantrum because you are not getting your way woould be welcome.
Willard says:
Its quite correct to say that DLR exists (thats what my IR thermometer measured).
———————-
willard the question isn’t nearly so much as to whether DLR exists or not which in itself is an irrelevant argument.
the question is what does DLR do to a warmer surface. you can argue the gpe but the problem is the blue plate is an uninsulated plate and earths surface is an insulated plate. failures dlr to warm insulated plates have led to questionable experiments manipulating fields of view and zero documentation of inputs are desperate attempts in search of an effect that are completely irrelevant to planetary models.
this should be end of story stuff and for at least 60 years it was. But now a lot of money and power is at stake so the corruption has risen it ugly head out of the swamp.
Like Kerry Emmanuel imploring his friend over a family game of Bridge, gee Richard shouldn’t
gee Richard shouldn’t you set aside your skepticism as clearly this is good for science.
An obvious projection of how Emmanuel dealt with his own skepticism.
Bill goes veers off topic on a gish gallop.
“Ultimately, if the total OLR were to be reduced by this rise in the EEH/ERL/third random term, wed have observed it. Since we havent, we can safely rule 2) out”
People keep knocking down claims that climate science isn’t making. Strawmen.
So if CO2 suddenly jumped up, then OLR would suddenly drop, creating an energy imbalance.
But how bout after?
OLR would then spend the next decades INCREASING, as the Earth warms and increases its emission of IR in order to return to balance.
We know that CO2 did increase in the past, and as a result OLR can be increasing now, partly cancelled by new CO2 additions.
So climate models in fact predict olr should be slowly increasing, while a persistent energy imbalance is maintained.
> the question is what does DLR do to a warmer surface
The question is rather if you really cut your teeth with complex models, Gill. Radiation does what radiation does, and it is a budget thing anyway, something you pretend to know something about.
Perhaps you need to do more isometrics.
Nate says:
So if CO2 suddenly jumped up, then OLR would suddenly drop, creating an energy imbalance.
But how bout after?
OLR would then spend the next decades INCREASING, as the Earth warms and increases its emission of IR in order to return to balance.
——————
of course thats insane. the climate is way to dynamic to remain static for decades. the imbalance is simply an assumption designed to fit the theory thus you can’t use it as evidence of the theory.
the lapse rate is constantly changing as water is entrained into the atmosphere and as it falls out.
all your moaning about how convection stalls and causes surface warming goes down with a big thud in the 3rd grader experiments right along with your acknowledgement of the 3rd grader radiation theory. vaughn pratt discovered local warming occurring at the ceiling but it required a physical convection barrier to accumulate and still really nothing at the surface killing the stalling convection argument right along with the 3rd grader model.
s&o used a fan to prevent bunching up of the heat and still nothing.
Bill asserts:
“of course thats insane. the climate is way to dynamic to remain static for decades”
Of course nobody claimed the climate was static for decades, so this is quite weird.
Nate says:
”So if CO2 suddenly jumped up, then OLR would suddenly drop, creating an energy imbalance. But how bout after? OLR would then spend the next decades INCREASING, as the Earth warms and increases its emission of IR in order to return to balance.”
This is the nonsense I am talking about. Exactly how does the earth spend decades warming from a jump in CO2?
Can’t follow the simple logic?
If the jump was instantaneous, that would be a forcing, a net increase in energy input, thus there would be warming. But even the upper layers of the ocean would take a long time to warm.
But when the surface warmed to a steady state, the IR emission to space would again balance the input.
Nate says:
Cant follow the simple logic?
”If the jump was instantaneous, that would be a forcing, a net increase in energy input, thus there would be warming. But even the upper layers of the ocean would take a long time to warm.
But when the surface warmed to a steady state, the IR emission to space would again balance the input.”
————————–
You claim its a forcing but what is the physical mechanism and response of the system to additional co2. You claim 100% of the effect is at the surface and it takes decades to be realized. And you assume nothing has happened up in the atmosphere during that time. This is the insane rhetoric that cold stuff warms hot stuff and hot stuff doesn’t do jack to cold stuff. Just turn physics upside down on its head and you can make heat come down. But you aren’t convincing anybody. I accused you of assuming a static atmosphere, you deny it then regale me with a dynamic surface argument.
“You claim its a forcing but what is the physical mechanism and response of the system to additional co2.”
Opacity increases, heat transfer to space reduces, as discussed throughout this thread.
Warming of the system results.
“You claim 100% of the effect is at the surface’ And you assume nothing has happened up in the atmosphere during that time.”
No I do not.
Let me ask you this:
Its a very cold day in winter and your home furnace is on full blast, and it is still a little cold in your house.
So you ADD an extra inch of insulation to your attic, on top of the 10 inches that were already there.
What happens to the temperature down below, in your house?
It warms op a bit.
How did that happen? Can you explain how the temperature down below got warmer when all we did was add a bit of extra insulation up in the attic?
Nate says:
”Its a very cold day in winter and your home furnace is on full blast, and it is still a little cold in your house.
So you ADD an extra inch of insulation to your attic, on top of the 10 inches that were already there.”
Well your theory falls apart right there Nate. Gases don’t insulate because of diffusion and convection. Nearly all insulation is a process of producing multiple layers of rigid pockets of air that don’t diffuse and convect energy from pocket to pocket.
Never mind the specifics of the insulation, for now.
The question for you was:
How did the house get warmer?? Can you explain how the temperature down below get warmer when all we did was add a bit of extra insulation up in the attic?
Nate the only two question about all this have been:
1) Does backradiation warm anything.
and
2) Does a cloud of CO2 gas provide an R-value of insulation.
After years of arguing about 1 you now concede it doesn’t warm anything. So you quite belatedly switched to 2) which is where mainstream special interest science went about 46 years ago but continued to promote #1 because it was a beguiling argument and the special interests weren’t interested in actually educating anybody.
This is prima facie evidence of where the interest of government and government funded institutions actually is.
The only thing not clear here is when you actually learned 1 was bunk. Was that before you stopped arguing online in favor of it? Seems to me you continued to argue it until cornered then fled to 2 as an argument.
Now the only thing remaining is for you to provide some evidence that a cloud of free gas provides insulation from upwelling energy via radiation or diffusion/convection.
“After years of arguing about 1 you now concede it doesnt warm anything.”
Still a habitual liar??
Given that you always get caught and just look like a loser, why?
So you can’t/won’t answer my simple question. What are you afraid of?
“2) Does a cloud of CO2 gas provide an R-value of insulation.”
This has been known for 150 y since Tyndall. As you have seen so many times, but still not appreciated, the presence of CO2 can REDUCE heat transfer through a region, because it increases the opacity for IR.
Reducing heat transfer is exactly the purpose of insulation.
Its increase in the upper troposphere increases the opacity of the troposphere (as you agreed!), and therefore reduces the heat transfer from the atmosphere to space. That adds a bottleneck for heat flow from Earth to space, just as adding an insulation to your attic does for your house.
It is not practical to use CO2 in your attic or walls, so it has no assigned R value. If you NEED it have one to believe that it can insulate, then you are willfully missing the point.
Nate says:
2) Does a cloud of CO2 gas provide an R-value of insulation.
This has been known for 150 y since Tyndall. As you have seen so many times, but still not appreciated, the presence of CO2 can REDUCE heat transfer through a region, because it increases the opacity for IR.
———————–
Nate resorts to lies about Tyndalls findings. Desperation has set in.
And yes Tyndall found CO2 reduced IR transfer through a region of CO2 in his lab. But you have lied when you claimed heat transfer was reduced. Tyndall found no such thing. Within earth’s atmosphere IR transfer does not equal heat transfer.
So butt out of here with your lies.
“And yes Tyndall found CO2 reduced IR transfer through a region of CO2 in his lab. But you have lied when you claimed heat transfer was reduced. Tyndall found no such thing.”
Well, given that his detectors could only detect heat flow, you are off your rocker.
Nate says:
”Well, given that his detectors could only detect heat flow, you are off your rocker.”
Heat flow to where Nate? Up, down, sideways? What was his field of view?
S&O gives you a far better documented experimental setup than you are describing here and you reject that. You would reject your retort if you were on the other side.
“Heat flow to where Nate?”
Obviously through the gas under study. If you didn’t know diddly squat about it, why are you claiming you know anything?
Nate Tyndall only discovered that CO2 absorbed energy. What the CO2 did with that energy is at all a part of Tyndall’s discovery.
I had to send a note to NASA on their references to the greenhouse effect on the same topic as this saying that the claim that CO2 absorbs energy isn’t a greenhouse effect so did they have another reference for their website.
Upon which they added references to the IPCC models.
So in this discussion about settled science one would expect to see more. But NASA nor you can provide more.
Witchdoctor’s had to do exactly as the King said too. Or it was off with his head.
You’ve already made clear that you have no idea what Tyndall showed, and cannot comprehend it.
Science is not your thing. That’s ok. Stick to what you know.
Just another example of how you obfuscate Nate.
Tyndall showed the CO2 absorbs light. But everybody already knew that and nobody I know disputes that.
So why did you bring up Tyndall?
Did you want to name drop him to con people into believing that Tyndall proved something relevant to our differences here? Gee I wasn’t aware of that how about you giving us link to that work?
Oh thats right you were lying, name dropping, implying Tyndall proved something we didn’t already know, obfuscated and now you aren’t going to give a single shred of evidence to refute any of the above.
So sad, so embarrassing for you Nate.
As I noted Bill, Tyndall’s detectors could only detect HEAT FLOW.
Yet you just keep up the pretense that you know something about this.
So this has become quite boring.
Nate everybody knows that CO2 absorbs radiation.
So it is refreshing for you to completely relate how you think the GHE occurs. You, NASA, IPCC all go no further than where you just went. Yes CO2 absorbs IR and so does the far more powerful water vapor that Tyndall attributed to the major cause of the GHE.
But thats where the science ends. Beyond that its simply a mathematical playground of dreaming up ways the GHE varies and we have absolutely no idea how that is beyond the science you brought forth. So as I have said GHGs are a necessary ingredient to the GHE but not necessarily a sufficient ingredient. And the real puzzle is to understand exactly how the GHE is created and how it varies.
Bill Hunter says:
Nate says:
2) Does a cloud of CO2 gas provide an R-value of insulation.
This has been known for 150 y since Tyndall. As you have seen so many times, but still not appreciated, the presence of CO2 can REDUCE heat transfer through a region, because it increases the opacity for IR.
——————–
What Tyndall showed in his experiment is less light in a straight line. He polished his copper tube to cause more light to reach the end of the tube via reflection because when he painted the inside of the tube with lamp black a lot less radiation made it to the end of the tube because the heat was being absorbed into the copper and radiating into the room and missing his measuring instruments. Tyndall understood that but apparently Nate missed out on that information.
As I explained reflective foil on a ceiling has no significant effect in keeping a room warm on a cold wintry night. Why? because heat is moved to the foil from the room and then that heat conducts through the foil with essentially zero resistance as the foil is incapable of converting the heat in the foil to effective radiation back to the floor. And as shown in single pane greenhouse and window experiments zero insulating effect results.
What this shows is an insulating effect cannot be achieved by backradiation or reflection.
So you are guilty of arguing here for a single path of heat travel when multiple paths are available.
Per Trenberth/Kielh only 26w/m2 of radiation absorbed by the atmosphere makes it to space. Yet the atmosphere radiates 195w/m2 to space to balance the radiation budget. So solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere plus convected/diffused heat from the physical movement of atmosphere molecules accounts for the 169w/m2 not accounted for by surface radiation.
that is a sensitivity factor of .133 which is a whole lot different than your claimed 3.0, like an exaggeration of 2,250%
since all this convection and atmospheric solar capture is all part of negative feedback.
Its important you defend the 3rd grader radiation theory because if you don’t you have to apply a 3.0 sensitivity to ozone atmospheric capture using the Manabe Wetherald theory as well. Of course claiming that CO2 controls water vapor is another scientific leap of faith required to not do that. . .except obviously the UN isn’t completely on board with at least among their ozone scientists.
Its easy for auditors to see all the inconsistencies. Its beyond me why you don’t. Maybe your mom dropped you on your head as a child.
I don’t know what you are trying to prove here, Bill. If it is still about Tyndall didnt show that CO2 reduced heat transfer, then it is waste of time, because he clearly DID show that.
The gas in his tube was exposed to a heat source on one side. On the other side was a detector of heat flux. When he filled the tube with CO2 or other GHG, LESS heat transferred through the tube to the heat flux detector.
So when you said “And yes Tyndall found CO2 reduced IR transfer through a region of CO2 in his lab. But you have lied when you claimed heat transfer was reduced.”
This was FALSE. Now quit doubling down and acknowledge that your were wrong.
Nate says:
”I dont know what you are trying to prove here, Bill. If it is still about Tyndall didnt show that CO2 reduced heat transfer, then it is waste of time, because he clearly DID show that.”
———————
Stop obfuscating Nate. Tyndall showed that CO2 scattered the heat transfer by causing it to hit the tube walls and be absorbed there. He demonstrated that by using both lamp black and polished walls. The reduction was far greater with the lamp black walls compared with the polished walls. But even polished surfaces absorb radiation just not as much. So he didn’t show a reduction in heat transfer he showed EM goes a lot of different ways and not necessarily in a straight line when a gas capable of absorbing the EM gets in the way.
“Tyndall showed that CO2 scattered the heat transfer by causing it to hit the tube walls and be absorbed there.”
Scatter? This is a new one!
Wrong. CO2 abs.orbs the IR, it doesnt scatter it. And in doing so it reduces the amount that gets through and exits the end of the tube. Whatever losses happen at the walls, happen equally with nitrogen and CO2.
There is also a T gradient through the gas down the tube, just as there is one in the atmosphere, which is called the lapse rate.
Because there is a T gradient, when CO2 near the cool end of the tube emits IR, it is emitted from colder gas, and thus it emits LESS.
This is exactly what happens in the atmosphere, as discussed in this thread. And as a result less is emitted at the TOA.
Nate says:
Tyndall showed that CO2 scattered the heat transfer by causing it to hit the tube walls and be absorbed there.
Scatter? This is a new one!
Wrong. CO2 abs.orbs the IR, it doesnt scatter it. And in doing so it reduces the amount that gets through and exits the end of the tube. Whatever losses happen at the walls, happen equally with nitrogen and CO2.
——————
So whats the difference in result Nate if it absorbs and reemits it in a scatter pattern or if it glances off. You end up with the same result.
Nate says:
There is also a T gradient through the gas down the tube, just as there is one in the atmosphere, which is called the lapse rate.
———————
The pressure doesn’t change going down the tube Nate. But we saw no such temperature gradient in the S&O experiment.
It makes sense that a narrow beam of light in a narrow tube might manage to restrict convection but thats not applicable to the atmosphere or a greenhouse.
Did Tyndall actually measure a temperature gradient Nate? I am sure that unlike you Tyndall was enough of a scientist to not claim stuff he hadn’t measured.
Nate says:
”Because there is a T gradient, when CO2 near the cool end of the tube emits IR, it is emitted from colder gas, and thus it emits LESS.”
—————-
Well once again a real scientist would actually measure this temperature gradient before making the claim. We can agree that energy is lost throughout the length of the tube though.
The CO2 will emit less due to losing heat to the walls. Tyndall documented this comparing the results of the polished pipe to the pipe whose walls were painted with lamp black. And yes I have no doubt the CO2 in the tube is a lot colder than the heat source.
But before making stuff up to throw out here as propaganda be sure to provide a link to the evidence where Tyndall documented your claims.
Nate says:
This is exactly what happens in the atmosphere, as discussed in this thread. And as a result less is emitted at the TOA.
——————-
Wrong, you have to get the above right first then you can explain where the atmosphere loses heat in traveling up to TOA? Where does it go?
Are you sure you aren’t a Chinese military operative attempting to undermine the US? You sure act like one.
Bill asserts something. Nate shows it’s wrong.
Bill moves the goal posts, asserts something else. Nate show’s it wrong.
It is whack-o-mole.
This pattern repeats forever.
Bill:
” But we saw no such temperature gradient in the S&O experiment.”
T gradient observed in S&O
https://html.scirp.org/file/5-4700841×14.png
And BTW, they also observe a reduction of heat transfer through CO2.
https://html.scirp.org/file/5-4700841×16.png
Reminder, they are using a heat flux detector (thermopile) and detect a reduction of heat flux exiting the front of their tube (as Tyndall did), and interpreting that as a reduction in IR (just as Tyndall did).
Now go ahead and howl into the wind as much as you want that IR reduction is not a heat flow reduction.
You will be wrong again.
Nate says:
Bill moves the goal posts, asserts something else. Nate shows it wrong.
Bill:
But we saw no such temperature gradient in the S&O experiment.
T gradient observed in S&O
https://html.scirp.org/file/5-470084114.png
————————–
That link is not an indicator of a temperature gradient through a material (by distance through the material). It is merely a warming curve (by time) that the two compartments warmed up under variously being filled with CO2 and air and show no difference whatsoever.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nate says:
”And BTW, they also observe a reduction of heat transfer through CO2.
https://html.scirp.org/file/5-470084116.png”
————————————
No Nate what you see is a reduction in radiation through the CO2 the convection in the CO2 is not measured.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nate says:
Now go ahead and howl into the wind as much as you want that IR reduction is not a heat flow reduction.
You will be wrong again.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Show me the proof of that Nate. You yelling at the top of your lungs about is completely and absolutely unconvincing.
“Show me proof.”
No proof is ever good enough for you. In this case you pretend these things havent already been discussed and agreed upon.
As you already know,
Tyndall used thermopiles. S&O used thermopiles.
As you are already supposed to know, thermopiles measure HEAT FLUX.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Differential_Temperature_Thermopile.png
In Tyndall’s experiment, he found that certain gases, such as CO2, reduced the transmitted IR, which he detected as a reduced HEAT FLUX.
See:
https://protonsforbreakfast.wordpress.com/2023/09/04/tyndall-1/
“That link is not an indicator of a temperature gradient through a material (by distance through the material). It is merely a warming curve (by time) that the two compartments warmed up under variously being filled with CO2 and air and show no difference whatsoever.”
Oh, I thought you could correctly interpret a simple graph. My mistake.
The graph shows the FRONT of the box has a final temperature of ~ 30 C. The BACK of the box reaches a final temperature of ~ 48 C.
That means there is a BACK to FRONT temperature gradient.
Get it?
Nate says:
The graph shows the FRONT of the box has a final temperature of ~ 30 C. The BACK of the box reaches a final temperature of ~ 48 C.
That means there is a BACK to FRONT temperature gradient.
———————
The front of the box and the back of the box are separated by a physical barrier preventing additional heat in the back compartment to mix with the gases in the front compartment. Take out that physical barrier like with Woods and Pratts experiments and you have no temperature gradient getting warmer back toward the surface.
You were wrong, there is a gradient in S&O. You won’t admit you were wrong, ever. And refuse to do honest debate.
So we are done here.
You want to keep discussing something with me?
Answer my question that you never answered.
The question for you was:
How did the house get warmer?? Can you explain how the temperature down below get warmer when all we did was add a bit of extra insulation up in the attic?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537392
Why is DREMT reading and responding to my posts to Bill, for Bill, when he constantly claims he doesnt read or respond to my posts?
Well, of course, we all know that is a charade.
Still, pretty strange.
And my response to DREMT (err Bill) is that indeed Bill was wrong when he stated:
Bill:
“But we saw no such temperature gradient in the S&O experiment.”
Then I showed him the T gradient observed in S&O
https://html.scirp.org/file/5-470084114.png
But he won’t admit it he was wrong, about this, and many other things.
And needless to say I asked him this question that he never answered but lied and said he did answer.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537436
When i asked him where is his answer, there was no answer there.
For some reason, he refuses to answer what should be a straight forward, yet informative, question.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537392
“Nate is a liar whose only purpose is in here to deceive and lie to people. He has zero integrity and you are right we are done.”
Funny how everyone who talks to Nate for a long period of time comes to the same conclusions about him. I’m amazed Bill has lasted as long as he has. He must have the patience of a saint.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Funny how everyone who talks to Nate for a long period of time comes to the same conclusions about him. Im amazed Bill has lasted as long as he has. He must have the patience of a saint.”
Yep in this case Nate lied about Tyndall finding a temperature gradient in the gas in his experimental pipe.
I pointed out nobody found a temperature gradient (through the gas) in the many greenhouse and box experiments and defied him to provide evidence that Tyndall found Nate’s alleged temperature gradient.
So you just need to look at the subsequent posts to see how he backed down and tried to shift the blame.
Thats fine. He need not respond to me again. Nate is a congenital liar. I have no interest in debating a liar.
“everyone who talks to Nate for a long period of time comes to the same conclusions about him.”
Yes indeed, the science deniers learn that he doesn’t give their BS a free pass.
We can see here how frustrating that is for the regular peddlers of BS, DREMT and Bill.
And notice how Bill’s TEAM excuses his habitual lying.
It’s is OK apparently, because its for a noble cause:
Owning the Libs!
"He need not respond to me again. Nate is a congenital liar. I have no interest in debating a liar."
Oh, he’ll keep responding to you, Bill. Because now he knows he can get the last word. Which is all he ever really wants, in any discussion. Of course, he’ll project that fault onto others.
Nate says:
everyone who talks to Nate for a long period of time comes to the same conclusions about him.
Yes indeed, the science deniers learn that he doesnt give their BS a free pass.
We can see here how frustrating that is for the regular peddlers of BS, DREMT and Bill.
And notice how Bills TEAM excuses his habitual lying.
Its is OK apparently, because its for a noble cause:
Owning the Libs!
————————————–
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537392
“Because now he knows he can get the last word”
Hilarious.
Both DREMT and Bill are the leaders in the field of Last Wording in this blog!
In the case of Bill, if I end a discussion with him, he will try to continue it, or butt-in to bait me in another thread.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537745
re T gradients.
…of course, he’ll project that fault onto others.
Speaking of Last Wording, here is Bill, expertly trying to bait me in his Last Word, with last digs, false accusations and ad hom grenades.
“Yep in this case Nate lied about Tyndall finding a temperature gradient in the gas in his experimental pipe.
I pointed out nobody found a temperature gradient (through the gas) in the many greenhouse and box experiments and defied him to provide evidence that Tyndall found Nates alleged temperature gradient.
So you just need to look at the subsequent posts to see how he backed down and tried to shift the blame.
Thats fine. He need not respond to me again. Nate is a congenital liar. I have no interest in debating a liar.”
Tee hee hee.
…course, he’ll project that fault onto others.
“Oh, hell keep responding to you, Bill. Because now he knows he can get the last word.”
Bill claims he is done discussing with me.
“Thats fine. He need not respond to me again. Nate is a congenital liar. I have no interest in debating a liar.”
But he can’t help himself!
So he hilariously tries to bait me into starting up again in a different discussion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537795
“One cannot just lie and do like Nate does and claim that Tyndall found a heat gradient within the CO2 in his polished pipe experiment.”
…he’ll project that fault onto others.
Its the bullies who so often play the victim card….
…project that fault onto others.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
hell project that fault onto others.
———————————-
You are absolutely correct.
Nate claims that Tyndall found a heat gradient in the gas in his experimental tube. He has no evidence of that.
Then he will lie and try to extrapolate his first lie to a second lie that that will cause the heat source to warm.
then between the two lies he will try to claim that this has to be true for 1LOT to be true. He just ignores that the reflective walls of the copper tube still absorbs heat by both radiation and conduction and he has to know it also must then pass that heat by convection and radiation elsewhere than Tyndall’s IR sensor.
So he manufactured a third lie claiming that if Tyndall had used oxygen the heat gradient would not exist and that both oxygen and CO2 would lose heat to the walls of the pipe. . .ignoring the fact that even a polished copper pipe will also absorb some radiation.
These are all things that Tyndall did not find nor claim.
But Nate continues to claim Tyndall made these findings. Thats just another lie.
Tyndall’s boiling water should have turned to steam according to Nate or blow up the container it was in. No such findings were reported by Tyndall.
Nate claims S&O found a heat gradient through the CO2 in their experiment. Another lie. We know why there is a difference in the temperature of the compartments and that is fully due to dual physical convection barriers in the experiment.
This is an effect well known to be a property of convection barriers as demonstrated in literally billions of dual glazed windows.
S&O and RW Woods, and Vaughn Pratt all showed making the barriers opaque to IR has no effect on the heated surfaces warming the experiment, and Nate knows that.
Yet he continues to lie that it does.
“Nate claims S&O found a heat gradient through the CO2 in their experiment. Another lie.”
Bill, I showed you the data. You continue to misrepresent things. Why?
Now again, they have a long horizontal box of gas, heated on one end. With a middle plastic barrier, a T gradient is OBSERVED. The heated end is hotter.
Now again, I ask you, if the barrier was absent, why would you think the unheated end would come to the same T as the heated end?
The heated end is insulated from the room. The unheated end is exposed to room temperature through thin plastic.
Nobody with experience in the real world, or any basic understanding of heat transfer would think that it makes sense for the unheated end to be as warm as the heated end.
And let’s be clear, the unheated end receives all its heating from the distant heated end, and without a T gradient between the two, no convective heat flow can occur.
Nate says:
Bill, I showed you the data. You continue to misrepresent things. Why?
Now again, they have a long horizontal box of gas, heated on one end. With a middle plastic barrier, a T gradient is OBSERVED. The heated end is hotter.
—————————
Well to be clear we are only talking about the S&O experiment and a difference in temperature between the two different compartments that we know to be due to an IR transparent rigid plastic barrier between the two compartment and that this occurs both with CO2 and alternatively air in the compartments.
Obviously!
But how does that support your claim about Tyndall’s pipe having a temperature gradient inside the rocksalt plugged pipe? Answer is obviously it does not. And anybody who isn’t totally ignorant should easily see that.
and since you aren’t totally ignorant that makes you a liar.
“But how does that support your claim about Tyndalls pipe having a temperature gradient inside the rocksalt plugged pipe? Answer is obviously it does not. And anybody who isnt totally ignorant should easily see that.”
Well, address my question about S&O, if barrier removed. How do you KNOW as you claimed that there would be no gradient.
Experience of most people says near the heater in a space is warmer. One side of a room has a radiator, the other side a window to cold outdoors. Most people who are feeling cold move to the heated side.
That is similar to the S&O setup,as well as Tyndall’s.
Nate says:
”Well, address my question about S&O, if barrier removed. How do you KNOW as you claimed that there would be no gradient.”
—————
we know it because of window technology, Woods, and Pratt. And for S&O we know its not a type of gas.
Nate says:
Experience of most people says near the heater in a space is warmer. One side of a room has a radiator, the other side a window to cold outdoors. Most people who are feeling cold move to the heated side.
That is similar to the S&O setup,as well as Tyndalls.
————–
As I have been telling you that is a consistent outcome in all the experiments. Heat diffuses. With Tyndall the heat conducted out of the walls of the pipe, receiving that heat both by conduction and diffusion by radiation.
With S&O and the insulated walls preventing heat from going out the side actually delivered it all to the end of the box but S&O only measured the radiation coming out of the box. Its not clear to me how far away from the end of the pipe Tyndall had his thermocouple but any distance at all would allow convection to carry heat away. So all that Tyndall measured was an absence of radiation in one particular direction and all he proved was that CO2 absorbed radiant energy. Its only you and maybe NASA that decided he discovered more. but thats only because they knew he didn’t prove what you claim he proved and decided to lie about it.
“With S&O and the insulated walls….”
I don’t see anything rebutting what we all have experienced:
In a space with a heater on one side, and a window to a colder environment on the other side, there is a T gradient.
I don’t seen anything sensible here to support your claim that there would be NO gradient in S&O, without the barrier.
Experiments that are vertical, will not behave the same. Since, again, we all know that in a space with heater, convection will tend to make it warmer at the ceiling.
Tyndall again uses a horizontal tube radiatively heated on one end through the salt window. He tests with vacuum and air that doesn’t abs.orb. So heat flow through the sides is (mostly) accounted for.
Only with an abs.orbing gas does he see a dramtic change in heat transfer through.
With the abs.orbing gas, it will be heated on the end with the radiant heat source. And it will be cooled on the end where it can radiate to the cool room.
Thus there would be a T gradient, just as with S&O, and the atmosphere with it lapse rate.
“Its only you and maybe NASA that decided he discovered more.”
And Tyndall, and all the physics that came following his work.
Basically anyone that doesnt deny that there such a thing as radiant heat transfer, like you are doing.
Nate says:
I dont see anything rebutting what we all have experienced:
In a space with a heater on one side, and a window to a colder environment on the other side, there is a T gradient.
I dont seen anything sensible here to support your claim that there would be NO gradient in S&O, without the barrier.
—————————-
What you just said is completely contradictory. Perhaps you need to do some experiments for yourself to find the truth.
Remove the roof of a greenhouse and you no longer have a greenhouse. Leave the roof on and and switch it back and forth between IR opaque glass and IR transparent glass and you don’t change anything.
Remove the center divider in S&O and you have no temperature gradient within the box. Remove both the center divider and the divider at the end of the box and you have no temperature gradient between the heating plate and the IR sensor.
Nate says:
Tyndall again uses a horizontal tube radiatively heated on one end through the salt window. He tests with vacuum and air that doesnt abs.orb. So heat flow through the sides is (mostly) accounted for.
Only with an abs.orbing gas does he see a dramtic change in heat transfer through.
With the abs.orbing gas, it will be heated on the end with the radiant heat source. And it will be cooled on the end where it can radiate to the cool room.
——————
But the convection and diffusion will ensure both ends are the same temperature.
You seem fascinated by seeing a light get diffused and can’t seem to come to grips with why.
Nate says:
” ”Its only you and maybe NASA that decided he discovered more.”
And Tyndall, and all the physics that came following his work.”
————————–
Indeed! I pointed out to the NASA website group that was managing the Greenhouse Effect website that just referencing Tyndall left the solution undiscovered. they acknowledged my comment like you just did above and added references to the computer models.
But the problem with the computer models is they haven’t been statistically validated yet. Which actually is the correct state of current climate science.
“Remove the roof of a greenhouse …”
Different vertical experiment, different result, a red herring.
You offer no evidence to support your claim that in HORIZONTAL tubes heated on one end, such as S&O or Tyndall, there would be no temperature gradient.
All you offer is a bunch of ad-homs directed at the messenger.
Real world experience, basic common sense and established physics provide strong evidence that in a space heated on one side and exposed to cold its other side, will have a T gradient across it.
You offer no experience, common sense, or physics to contradict this.
Real world experience, basic common sense and established physics provide strong evidence that there is such a thing as radiative heat transfer, involving the transport of IR energy from one place to another.
Your ongoing denial of this makes no sense, and just suggest a penchant for being contrary that overwhelms actual intellectual effort.
Nate says:
Remove the roof of a greenhouse
Different vertical experiment, different result, a red herring.
You offer no evidence to support your claim that in HORIZONTAL tubes heated on one end, such as S&O or Tyndall, there would be no temperature gradient.
——————-
Unfortunately for your position Nate the only experiment we care about is the vertical one.
But I am sure that S&O wasn’t ignorant enough to believe CO2 can set up unique heat gradients after seeing the results of their experiment.
One should especially note that CO2 couldn’t do it any different than air could do it.
the only effect they noted was you could use an IR thermometer to measure the actual temperature of the CO2 when they couldn’t do that with air in the box even though the temperature of the air was the same as the CO2. Go figure Nate.
“Unfortunately for your position Nate the only experiment we care about is the vertical one.”
False. Just an admission that you cannot support your assertions about the S&O and Tyndall horizontal experiments.
Nate returns to his lying ways having nothing to dispute the support I gave to the S&O results.
Take your grievance parade somewhere else.
there we go the real Nate shows up.
A card carrying member of the International Elitist Socialist Party who proclaims ‘shutup’ we have the power over what you do and what you aspire to and need not have to explain to peons why.
Goodbye Bill.
Thats the general idea Nate.
Its worthless discussing something with somebody who has a political position on the matter and lacks a straight story of why.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1539353
I called it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537777
Apparently not ‘projecting’ after all.
…that fault onto others.
Is someone who is not supposed to ever be reading my posts, reading my posts, and also stalking me???
Bizzare.
…fault onto others.
Nate you have your tail tucked way up between your legs.
We be done here. When and if you determine which of the two different theories you espouse in here re: CAGW and are ready to explain why; then that will be a good time to bring the topic up again.
It seems to me, it’s:
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land).”
Until such time, as it drops to +0.13 C per decade. Or it stays at +0.14 C/decade for few more years. Or it up to +0.15 C/decade.
I tend to think it will drop down to +0.13 within a year.
But I don’t know why we had this upward bump in last two months. But it seems if bump continues there is greater chance of discerning what caused it, therefore it might “better” if the bump continues for many months. And it’s “possible” to there more emission by humans of some kind of greenhouse gas { a lot more CO2} or something else.
But it could be the eruption, and if eruption has long term effect, that could change things, we might decide to monitor this kind of thing instead of by chance seeing it from orbit. And it seems quite unlikely this is something which happened only once.
Plus there could be other ways to get a lot water into the high atmosphere, other than via volcanic eruption.
I’m no expert on ENSO but do check on the ENSO wrap up at BOM from time to time. This particular El Nino event looks slightly odd to me in that the sea surface temps are elevated but the other indicators don’t appear to have joined in. Winds haven’t weakened as expected and OLR has remained neutral. Happy to be educated on that.
Perhaps unusual for the strongest El Nina’s, but for the typical El Nina that doesn’t happen until Sep-Oct, or even Nov.
thanks Antonin – I didn’t know that.
Damn – looks like I invented the possessive plural (as opposed to the legitimate plural possessive).
This is a well known phenomenon in a warming world. The ENSO region has actually cooled slightly since 1979 while the broader SST profile has warmed significantly. This causes La Ninas and El Ninos as measured by ONI to appear amplified and attenuated respectively wrt to the backdrop of the global temperature. A new metric has been developed to address this. The JJA ONI was 1.1 while the RONI was only 0.6. So according to the RONI this only a weak El Nino so we aren’t really expecting the global circulation pattern to change much…at least yet.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/RONI.ascii.txt
Pretty sure the ENSO regions have not cooled. Are you are aware that the 30-year baseline for the ENSO regions is updated every 5 years to remove the warming signal?
The ENSO 3.4 region SST trend is -0.044 C/decade since 1979. That is nearly 0.2 C of cooling through 2022. Over the same period the global SST trend is +0.112 C/decade which is about 0.5 C of warming.
Yes. I’m aware that the ONI baseline is updated every 5 years. And while this has removed the warming signal in the past more recently it has worked to remove the cooling signal.
Look closely. The 1991-2020 baseline is only warmer than 1981-2010 and 1986-2015 5 months out of the year. But the other 7 months it is actually the same or cooler. Overall though it is cooler albeit only slightly.
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_change.shtml
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
Pretty sure that reflects only the negative PDO of the past 25 years, and the resulting tendency for more La Ninas and fewer El Ninos. The months where the latest 30-year period is noticeably higher are the months where El Nino and La Nina tend to be weak or non-existent, ie. April to July. A similar bunching seems associated with the previous negative PDO, though we also have a non-greenhouse signal there, ie. the aerosol-induced cooling between the 40s and 70s.
It could be transient. But at least over the period of the UAH dataset the divergence between raw ENSO and global SSTs is now 0.7 C. If we were to create a GONI metric where the G stands for globally-adjusted then our current GONI would only be 0.4 even though the ONI is 1.1. It is similar to the RONI value except RONI is only tropical-adjusted.
Lee, this EN currently leans toward a “Modoki”. (Loose translation is “phony”.)
We’ll see, as conditions could change.
lee…if you want to get really educated, stay away from BoM. They are rabid alarmists who follow NOAA and GISS.
There is no indication the current heat waves are associated with El Nino. I’ll give Clint credit for likely identifying the real cause, the Hunga Tonga eruption that dumped massive amounts of water vapour into the stratosphere.
The WV has likely disrupted the natural jet stream, which is causing strange weather phenomena.
Lee
One point that is often overlooked in this discussion of the currently developing El Nino is that after the last strong La Nina (2010-2012) it took over two years for ENSO to make a clear transition from the La Nina/neutral status on the El Nino status, which could not start before March/April 2015:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
Now if we compare how much stronger the current La Nina was compared to 2010-2012 (black line versus red line)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
why then should we think that a powerful El Nino is on the rise so soon?
*
Moreover, I saved a few pictures from the NOAA ENSO forecast page
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
and everyone can see that the current Nino forecast for November 2023 was considerably weakened compared to that published end of April:
https://i.postimg.cc/J0RVn33M/nino34-Mon300423.png
0.5 forecasting difference on the MEI index:that’s a lot!
*
By the way: don’t get impressed by simple-minded ignoramuses telling you thinks like
” … if you want to get really educated, stay away from BoM. They are rabid alarmists who follow NOAA and GISS. “
Apos…
” 0.5 forecasting difference on the MEI index:thats a lot! ”
should read
” 0.5 forecasting difference on the NCEP Nino3+4 index:thats a lot! ”
because the two differ by a lot as well.
It may be interesting to note that the 0.69 C anomaly is associated with a 4m lagged ONI of only 0.2. As a point of comparison the 0.71 C anomaly for 2016/02 is associated with a 4m lagged ONI of 2.4.
The effect of ENSO on UAH TLT is about 0.14 * ONI. So the current 0.69 C anomaly has a 0.14 * 0.2 = 0.03 C contribution from ENSO while the 0.71 C from 2016/02 had a 0.14 * 2.4 = 0.34 C contribution. That means from 2016/02 to 2023/08 non-ENSO warming agents have contributed 0.34 – 0.03 = 0.31 C in just 7.5 years.
Has the NOAA STAR dataset also shown record anomolies for July and August?
Sounds good to me.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
cloudier nights in Arct/Aus? less cloudy days?
tempting to try to correlate regional anomalies to the shortwave CERES trends since 2000 (no, I’m not linking the study again)
could probably be done with a global cloud cover database with at least hourly sampling, with estimated energy balance effects included (day albedo, night insulation)
sadly, still no support for ECS>2 scenario modelers here unless the anomaly roughly doubles the Aug values
the rest of us can just be grateful that cloud cover appears to have prevented hundreds of thousands of excess winter deaths over the past couple decades
and we can all be proud we’ve amused future historians by spending tens of trillions in a counterproductive but providentially futile attempt to cool the planet
Something is wrong – https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2023_v6_20x9.jpg
What exactly is wrong?
Glenn Martin
Like Antonin Qwerty, I ask you:
What exactly is wrong?
It gave a 403 error. I see that it is fixed now.
There was no 403 error when I commented earlier. I still ask, what exactly is wrong? It looks exactly as I would expect.
Strange things happen sometimes!
HTTP 403 is ‘Access denied’; I only experience it when trying to download some pages directly from Spencer’s site, e.g.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/
when using tools like ‘wget’ in UNIX.
Only comment section pages can be downloaded that way, e.g.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comments
Wokeism is Puritanical
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpj0EtNVOgM
The reactionary mind only presents itself as transgressive whence it mostly reinforces the status quo:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_6M_KHEr5aA
Moyhu’s tempLSmesh global monthly anomaly dataset shows a similar August rise to UAH.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html
+0.69 degrees !
The cookers here must be nearly cooked by now!
But, like the proverbial frog in a beaker, they refuse to admit it.
There are some new people here wanting info on the bogus GHE. There are also some long-time commenters still confused. It’s time for some more science:
1. Earth is NOT a mythical sphere, so it is meaningless to compare it to one. The “33K” is nonsense, as is the bogus “240 W/m^2”.
2. Earth’s energy balance can NOT be studied by using flux. Flux does NOT balance. Trying to use flux allows cultists to arrive at any figure they like.
3. CO2’s 15μ photon has so little energy it cannot raise Earth’s average surface temperature, even if it were somehow absorbed. And it doesn’t matter how many such photons are involved. They all have the same frequency. Frequencies do NOT add. And, there are no lasers in the atmosphere!
There’s a lot more, but that should be enough reality to start.
Happy to answer questions from responsible adults. Children will be largely ignored.
Clint R
YOU: “2. Earths energy balance can NOT be studied by using flux. Flux does NOT balance. Trying to use flux allows cultists to arrive at any figure they like.”
If the area remains the same in incoming and outgoing flux they must balance to keep a steady state temperature. If the incoming flux exceeds the outgoing the temperature will increase. If the incoming flux is less than the outgoing flux the temperature will decrease.
Flux definition you use is Watts/m^2….Watts is joules/second so watts in and watts our are equivalent to energy received and lost. With the same area the fluxes must balance to maintain a steady state temperture. You are trying to confuse yourself on this issue. All the cases you bring up to prove fluxes don’t add require to change incoming area and outgoing area but regardless the incoming watts equal the outgoing watts in a steady state condition.
You are just twisted up in bad logic and poor quality thinking.
Wrong Norman. Earth emission is based on emissivity and temperature of the area considered. Throwing a bunch of estimates in the pot ain’t science.
Strike 1
Clint R
I think that blah blah garbage could be one of the most illogical posts you have made yet
It is too illogical to process. What estimates? Fluxes are measured values from instruments. Sorry I forgot Cult minded people do not accept evidence.
But for the record:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_64f7eb2450576.png
Measured values for radiant fluxes. Not that you will understand any of this, not that you care. You are a single minded cultist, possibly programmed by the fanatic Joseph Postma. With cult minded people like you. You are programmed to attack any who question your ignorant posts (like the 3 claims you posted), repeat the mantra over and over and over, reject all counter evidence.
Yes you are a programmed cultist and will continue on and on with your mindless mantras that have been programmed into your limited brain.
You’re out, Norman.
Sorry, but rules are rules.
Clint R
Your 1) is false because the 33 K is derived from the surface average temperature and the amount of outgoing IR measured by satellite (and yes researchers are quite aware of the Inverse Square Law and consider it in there measurements).
How many more false and misleading and poorly thought out posts are you planning on generating to deceive ignorant people?
Wrong Norman, the 33K comes from comparing Earth’s 288K with an imaginary sphere’s 255K.
Strike 2
Clint R
I gave you vast amounts of evidence on this and you were too ignorant to understand it. Strike against your low IQ and lack of reasoning ability. Your problem not mine.
Clint R
Do I need to provide you with the evidence again? You will reject it anyway as you are not intelligent enough to understand it. Last time around you thought the researchers forgot about Inverse Square Law. I gave you evidence you point was wrong and poorly thought out. It did not change. You are not science minded (follow the evidence). You are cult minded (I believe it true so it is, damn the evidence that shows my distorted believe is wrong…just like any Flat-Earther out there. Endless evidence and logic is given to prove them wrong but it does not change the cult mind.)
A cult mind like yours is not capable of being scientific and following evidence.
You struck out Norman.
Sorry.
Norman says:
”Your 1) is false because the 33 K is derived from the surface average temperature and the amount of outgoing IR measured by satellite.”
Well if you believe that then you would probably believe the roofing salesman that will tell you they will install a tin roof that will reflect 70% of the solar heat and keep your home a nice cool 65F on those days that the outside temp goes up to 104 degrees.
Clint R
Your number 3 is correct but only ignorants would claim CO2 warms the surface. The standard explanation for the GHE from scientists, not bloggers, is that CO2 acts like a blanket. It reduces the amount of heat lost by the surface, but it does NOT increase the surface heat. The insulating properties of GHG allow the solar input to drive the surface to a higher temperature because one of the surface heat loss mechanisms is reduced.
It is similar to the temp inside a car being considerably warmer than the outside temperature. Heat transfer mechanisms are reduced so with the same solar input the temperature is higher. Simple to understand but you won’t be able to understand any of it. Your mind is too deep into a deluded cult mentality of false and ignorant skeptics. Not the real deal just a puffs of air passing by.
Wrong Norman, NASA states: The level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has been rising consistently for decades and traps extra heat near Earth’s surface, causing temperatures to rise.
Strike 3
Clint R
Only you strike out with some poor thinking an lack of knowledge on the subject.
It would be the same as saying an extra blanket reduces the rate of heat loss for a person so they stay warmer.
Again it is like the car in the sun. It is warmer than outside because inside the car heat transfer has been reduced so the same solar input increases the temperature.
I think NASA assumes you might be an thoughtful person. I am sure they cannot grasp how little thought process many people have. You lack intelligence and reasoning ability all you know how to do is attack what you can’t understand. You do it over and over, kind of like Swenson. Just repeat things over an over and hope people can’t see how ignorant you are. Good luck with that, I believe at least 80% of the posters think you are not very informed and just post garbage. In your own mind you are a genius. In reality you are just a dunce that lashes out at humans smarter than they can imagine.
You struck out, Norman.
Game over.
No amount of endless blah-blah will help. Better luck next time.
Only children and uneducated adults believe that our Moon can’t spin just because it shows us always the same face.
*
Instead of hopelessly trying to appear as a big teacher, better try to explain us the HTE on the basis of UAH’s monthly grid data for the Lower Stratosphere:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1neBUEWdw_3FZYQzLlUMCt3_5o6JDQwd_/view
Until now, you gave us all you are able to: nothing.
Bindi, you’re sure obsessed with this issue.
You should use your obsession to learn, rather than just repeating the same nonsense over and over.
Are you unable to do the ball-on-a-string experiment?
ENSO forecasts at 06/09/2023. Usual caveats apply.
ENSO Alert System Status: El Niño Advisory
El Niño conditions are observed.
Equatorial sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are above average across the central and eastern Pacific Ocean. The tropical Pacific atmospheric anomalies are consistent with El Niño. El Niño is anticipated to continue through the Northern Hemisphere winter (with greater than a 95% chance through December 2023-February 2024).
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
El Niño conditions have persisted in the equatorial Pacific since boreal spring.
The warm subsurface water volume in the central and eastern part of equatorial Pacific has maintained warm SST in NINO.3 region. JMA's seasonal ensemble prediction system predicts that the subsurface water volume in the central and eastern part will be warmer and increase SSTs in the eastern part, and the NINO.3 SST will be above normal during the prediction period. In conclusion, it is likely that El Niño conditions will continue until boreal winter (90%)
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
The Bureau's El Niño Alert continues, with El Niño development likely during spring. When El Niño Alert criteria have been met in the past, an El Niño event has developed around 70% of the time.
Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the tropical Pacific are exceeding El Niño thresholds and have continued to warm slightly over the last fortnight. Climate models indicate further warming of the central to eastern Pacific is likely, with SSTs remaining above El Niño thresholds until at least early 2024.
The 90-day Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) is presently just below El Niño thresholds, while trade winds and Pacific cloudiness have not yet demonstrated sustained El Niño patterns. Overall, atmospheric indicators suggest the Pacific Ocean and atmosphere are not yet consistently reinforcing each other, as occurs during El Niño events. El Niño typically suppresses spring rainfall in eastern Australia.
The latest weekly Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) index is +1.05 °C. This is the second week it has been above the positive IOD threshold of +0.40 °C. However, before an IOD event is declared, several more weeks of the IOD index above the positive IOD threshold are required. Climate models suggest a positive IOD is likely for spring. A positive IOD typically decreases spring rainfall for central and south-east Australia and can increase the drying influence of El Niño.
The Madden–Julian Oscillation (MJO) is currently weak or indiscernible. Most surveyed models forecast a strengthening pulse to move over the Maritime Continent or Western Pacific in the coming days. If this pulse moves into the Western Pacific and remains relatively strong it may assist El Niño development by weakening trade winds.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
bellman…”The long term trend is what matters. Its fun to look at the individual record but thats all it is, just a bit of fun.
But there is a problem, that a lot who want to reject the idea of any warming will claim that if a record hasnt been broken for a few years, its proof there is no warming. But as soon as records are broken will insist that this has nothing to do with warming, but is down to one of natural causes”.
***
I have not seen anyone on Roy’s site who thinks there has been no warming, we skeptics here are arguing over the cause of it. This summer in Canada has been unusual since it began in May on the West Coast.
I presume you have all the answers as to the cause but unfortunately you cannot prove any of it scientifically.
The long term trend for UAH reveals controversy. It began in 1979 as a negative anomaly due to cooling from volcanic aerosols and that cooling persisted for 20 years till a major El Nino in 1998 drove anomalies into the positive range by about 1C.
Within a year, the warming spurt had ended and we were back in the negative anomaly range briefly, till some other force caused a 0.2C sudden warming, moving the anomalies permanently into the positive range, on average. The IPCC announced in 2013 that no significant warming had occurred over 15 years between 1998 and 2012. That translated to a flat trend which the IPCC ingenuously labeled a pause.
NOAA, the cheaters that they are, could not live with that flat trend stuff so they went back and redid the SST to show a slight trend. Then in 2014, they claimed it the warmest year ever but one had to look at the fine print to see their claim was a probability based on a 48% likelihood. UAH shows 2014 as a very ordinary year.
That is the mentality of you alarmists, that 15 years with no warming is a pause. However, that 15 year flat trend is a good portion of the overall trend which really began with the 1998 EN. Prior to that, we were recovering from cooling.
We cannot trust the surface recorded by NOAA because it has been seriously fudged. I have no question about the claim of warming since 1850 but I also recognize that in 1850, we were 1C to 2C cooler due to the Little Ice Age. Therefore, re-warming since 1850 was expected. To me it is a natural re-warming but to you alarmists it is caused by a trace gas.
Problem is, you can’t prove it. Not one person on this blog has been able to prove the warming is due to that trace gas. In fact, not one person has proved scientifically that the greenhouse effect exists, or its offspring, anthropogenic warming. The theories supporting both are just plain unscientific.
Until this summer, we were essentially back to the flat trend. Yes, the trend had been flat since the 2016 El Nino drove global temps back to the 1C range.
> Not one person on this blog has been able to prove the warming is due to that trace gas.
C’mon, Bordo.
This has been proven to you time and time again.
You’re just behaving like Mike Flynn now.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Stephen P Anderson
YOU: “Classical Thermodynamics? Youre a hoot, Tim. The planets climate system is way more complex than an insulation blanket, and CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Also, CO2 follows temperature on both short and long, time scales. You have it back asswards.”
Here is an article for you to read. How good skeptics think and look at data. You are far too political believing all the lies of the extreme right (they make up lots of garbage to feed the cult…break out and be an open thinker….Left thinking is not all evil or good, nor is Right thinking all good with no evil. Some ideas in each have some valid points. You only look through a distorted lens).
Here is a good skeptic.
https://rpubs.com/iaw4/co2temp-400ky
From Link:
“Anyone who understands basic data analysis should understand this plot is misleading as far as establishing a (causal) link from CO2 to temperature is concerned. Indeed, the only point of my analysis is to plead not to use this graph any longer. This plotted relationship is a misleading and classic example of a spurious relation. A classic example is the association between ice cream sales and murders. Both are higher in summer, and the two plots between ice-cream sales and murder would look just like two plots of CO2 and temperature above.
There are better ways to analyze the CO2, temperature, and solar data, shown below. These better ways address the facts that the graph misleads with respect to two problems:
Could a third variable such as trends, volcanos, solar radiation, or anything else have caused (co-)variation in both CO2 and temperature?
Is CO2 causing warming or is warming causing CO2, or are both causing one another?
The remedy to the first problem is to work in changes of variables, not in levels of variables. The remedy to the second problem is to work with lead-lag associations. I am not the first to have noticed that temperature changes can also anticipate CO2 changes. However, some climate-change critics have jumped to the equally incorrect conclusion that such feedback effects then reject the hypothesis that CO2 drives temperature. Feedbacks are not mutually exclusive with respect to the hypothesis of interest, which is whether CO2 changes anticipate temperature changes. Section 3 below analyzes the two data series to disentangle both directions below.”
norman…don’t know upon which basis you claim this guy as a skeptic. His only climate reference in the bibliography is Stefan Rahmstorf, an uber climate alarmist.
I don’t see where he is commenting on the current claim that CO2 is warming the atmosphere. He is taking on the record over the past 400,000 years and questioning the proxy inferences.
I communicated with Rahmstorf briefly at one time and found him to be somewhat dogmatic. When I pointed out that the IPCC had scrapped Mann’s hockey stick, he retorted that it is still there in the IPCC literature. He offered a reference and I was surprised it was still there albeit redrawn so as to be totally different than Mann’s offering. To save face, it appears the IPCC redrew the stick using their own interpretation, with error margins so great it could mean anything.
The point is, Rahmstorf did not point out the graph had been redrawn so he was being somewhat obtuse.
He was the first scientist I came across who claimed the 2nd law is not contradicted by the notion that heat can be transferred via back-radiation from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface. From him, I got my first exposure to an undefined balance of energy, which if positive, supports the alarmist theory that back-radiation can warm the surface.
Rahmstorf did not try to explain the dubious balance of energy, which turned out to be anti-science. What they have done is compare back-radiation to surface radiation and claim that since surface radiation is slightly higher, based on the Trenberth-Kiehle energy budget diagram, then the 2nd law is not contradicted.
That too is anti-science. The 2nd law indicates only a direction for heat transfer, by its own means, and specifies that heat cannot, by its own means, be transferred cold to hot. It has absolutely nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation, therefore comparing EM fluxes has nothing to do with heat transfer, or its direction.
Norman,
I’m a mathematician and chemist. I believe in logic. That’s why I don’t believe in AGW. I’ve seen AGW falsified with math and logic. Now, you, on the other hand, are a propagandist.
Which fields of mathematical theory have you contributed to?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
tim f…”For CO2, there IS a clear physics reason why it should cause warming. Scientist have spent a lot of time and effort and money (maybe too much) predicting how CO2 should impact the climate. And usually those predictions are pretty close (if a little high)”.
***
Oddly enough, Tim, neither you nor your learned scientists can provide a scientific reason for CO2 as a trace gas causing significant warming in the atmosphere. In fact, science proves the opposite.
G&T provide a calculation for heat diffusion due to a doubling of CO2. Diffusion means a warmed CO2 is diffusing heat into the 2500 molecules of nitrogen and oxygen that surround it. G&T calculated a 0.06C warming contributed by CO2 due to CO2 molecules absorbing surface radiation and diffusing that heat into the air.
The Ideal Gas Law gives an almost identical warming which is based on the molecular mass density of CO2, which is trivial compared to the nearly 99% mass density of N2/O2. The density of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.04% of the entire mass of the atmosphere. but it’s molecular mass increases that figure slightly to about 0.06%. That is the temperature increase due to CO2 calculated by G&T using an entirely different method.
So, the science makes it clear that that a trace gas like CO2 can contribute no more than an insignificant amount of heat to the atmosphere. Meantime, your learned scientists have pulled a number out of a hat, claiming that CO2 has a warming factor of 9% to 25%, depending on the amount of water vapour.
That’s partly why models run so hot, they have a totally incorrect heating factor for CO2 programmed into them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEJ4hJds_40
SpaceX is READY! How Starship will launch for the second time!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQboHROM5X0
Starship Launch Pads Are Built DIFFERENTLY
And:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAByFR8LK5s
The Real Reason China Will Win The Space Race!
I watched- and didn’t see how China could win the Space Race.
Though not sure, how anyone wins the space race.
I would be happy if China could build a lunar base-
which might discourage NASA to build lunar base.
But if a Starship is parked on the lunar surface, I would be happy to call it, a lunar base. Though you could call it, a lunar hotel.
I think of the Moon as gateway to the solar system and it could be
a gateway sooner- or later. Sooner, if it has mineable water.
China’s plans of making a robotic lunar base, make me like NASA’s gateway station- and I am not generally, very fond of it.
I think NASA should explore the lunar polar regions {both South and North] and then go to Mars. Not because I am overly fond of exploring Mars, but mostly because NASA has wanted to do this for a long time.
So, NASA should look for mineable water on the Moon, and then look for mineable water on Mars.
There is lots of things to do on the Moon and lots of things to do on Mars. NASA could make bases on the Moon and could explore caves on the Moon. But I would rather NASA make bases and explore caves on Mars.
It is claimed that Mars is most habitable world, other than Earth, but is it?
It seems if you have a potentially habitable world, you should explore it.
I think Mercury could be as habitable as Mars- but Mercury is very hard to get to- though it has the shortest path to it from Earth. A hohmann is 105 days to Mercury from Earth, but it requires a massive vector change in order to orbit it or to land on it. And it doesn’t have atmosphere to use, to brake with- unlike Mars [or Venus].
Musk plans to get to Mars in 6 months which likewise uses a lot delta-v, but he plans on using the Mars atmosphere in order to brake {thereby allowing one not to need as much rocket power]. Otherwise one can get to Mars in about 7 month without needing a lot of rocket power {delta-v}.
But if you make rocket fuel in space, you can have more rocket power.
Which is the point of water on the Moon- you can make lunar water into rocket fuel.
[And also, it’s been long thought than Mercury could have a lot of water in it’s polar regions.]
So, are the Chinese going to make lunar rocket fuel- and how much will they charge for the lunar rocket fuel?
There is no sense to having base on the Moon unless one can get cheap enough, rocket fuel.
Musk seems to be not very interested in the Moon.
This kind of makes some sense. Because basically the Starship could deliver cheap Earth rocket fuel to Low Earth orbit.
And if he do this, one doesn’t really need mineable lunar water to make rocket fuel {low earth orbit is 1/2 way to anywhere. If LEO rocket fuel is cheap enough, you could then have cheaper lunar base.
So, are Chinese going to buy Musk’s rocket fuel in LEO to make lunar base more economical? And/or make cheap enough lunar rocket fuel at southern lunar polar region so as to have lunar base which makes economic sense?
Anyhow, a main reason no one is currently mining lunar water, is because they don’t know where there is mineable lunar water. And reason no one in living on Mars is because no one knows if it’s actually, a habitable planet {or which places on Mars are most or closest to being habitable}.
China’s Galactic Energy Startup Takes on SpaceX with First Sea Launch
Story by Brendan Cole 14h
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/chinas-galactic-energy-startup-takes-on-spacex-with-first-sea-launch/ar-AA1ghp68?fbclid=IwAR10CSzKz9kSPD3kU59HVyjk6rM4Jp1-oxmukL08HaH5pHO2RLNhODIlrrY
I should shorten that:
https://tinyurl.com/26u7scc2
Linked from instapudit
“Galactic Energy has carried out the first sea-based rocket launch by a private Chinese company, just two days after Elon Musk boasted that his firm SpaceX was sending far more rockets into space than China.
Chinese media touted Tuesday’s launch of the sea-borne variant of the CERES 1 carrier rocket from a modified submersible ship in the Yellow Sea, off the coast of East China’s Shandong province.
The launch meant that the CERES 1 became the third Chinese rocket model, and the first produced by a private company, able to make lift-off both on land and at sea.
Galactic Energy was founded in early 2018 by former workers of the state-owned China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT). In November 2020, it became the second private Chinese launch firm to place a satellite in orbit.
Tuesday saw Galactic Energy’s ninth consecutive successful orbital launch, which Chinese media said surpassed the country’s other private competitors.”
And link below it, on Instapudit:
Chinese scientist proposes solar system-wide resource utilization roadmap
Andrew Jones September 4, 2023
{now they are talking:–)}
“HELSINKI Chinese space scientists have outlined a tentative roadmap for establishing a space resources utilization network stretching into the outer reaches of the solar system.”
https://spacenews.com/chinese-scientist-proposes-solar-system-wide-resource-utilization-roadmap/
…
“Tiangong Kaiwu would require massive resource infrastructure including supply stations, transportation routes, mining and processing stations. It would also demand a focus on access to space, the ability to make low-cost returns to Earth, breakthroughs in key technology”
No, no, you want a return to Venus orbit.
Posting issues…please don’t change the channel.
tim f…”no matter how complex and chaotic the climate system is, there is nothing in the 2nd Law that prevents CO2 from helping warm the surface, even when the CO2 is cooler than the surface”.
***
Nothing in the 2nd law you say. How about this..heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body.
How about the entropy equation covering the 2nd law?
S = integral dq/T
When integrated, it gives the total amount of heat transferred at temperature T. T can be held constant using a constant temperature heat bath as the heat source.
There are restrictions on the equation, namely that it can only be positive or zero. It is zero for reversible processes and positive for irreversible processes. It is positive when heat is given off in an irreversible process and the law it covers, the 2nd law, tells us heat can only be transferred in a reversible process from a hotter object to a cooler environment. Otherwise, heat would be transferred into the object.
If your claim held, that heat can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a hotter surface, then entropy could be negative, and that is a no-no, much like its counter.part per.petual motion.
Of course, you might be claiming CO2 as a blanket but blankets don’t keep a surface warm, they simply slow the rate of cooling. They can only be claimed to keep a surface warmer than it would be without the blanket. So, let’s check your reasoning.
All that CO2 can do in the atmosphere is absorb infrared energy emitted by the surface. How is that comparable to the action of a blanket, which slows the rate of heat dissipation by trapping air molecules? Even the New Age space blankets, lined with a metallic coating trap heat mainly by conduction and convection. The IR trapped is incidental since radiation is a poor means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures.
Therefore, CO2 is absorbing about 7% of surface radiation, and radiation is a poor means of heat dissipation, so where does the idea come from that CO2 is acting as a blanket to trap heat?
Gordo’s mind is locked into his usual incorrest physics, writing:
How many times do we need to tell you that CO2 also EMITS thermal IR radiation? Each molecule emits in a random direction, but for each layer, some goes upward and some goes downward. The rest is absorbed by other CO2 molecules within the layer. The warming due to GHGs is the result of these effects, along with the pressure broadening of the emission lines at higher pressures near the surface compared with that found higher up.
Gordo continues with his bad physics:
Perhaps Gordo has noticed by now that the temperatures near the Tropopause are much colder than over most of the Earth surface. The emissions to deep space from these higher altitudes are what cools the top of the convection cycle that moves energy from the surface to these altitudes. Ultimately, the energy from the Sun which enters the atmosphere must exit the Earth as thermal IR, as that’s the only mode of heat transport which can provide your so-called “dissipation”.
swannie…”[GR]All that CO2 can do in the atmosphere is absorb infrared energy emitted by the surface.
[swannie]How many times do we need to tell you that CO2 also EMITS thermal IR radiation?
***
I was talking about CO2 as an alleged blanket. Do try to pay attention, Swannie.
—
“[GR]The IR trapped is incidental since radiation is a poor means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures.
[Swannie]Perhaps Gordo has noticed by now that the temperatures near the Tropopause are much colder than over most of the Earth surface. The emissions to deep space from these higher altitudes are what cools the top of the convection cycle that moves energy from the surface to these altitudes.
***
Here, I am talking about surface IT being trapped by a trace gas. I am trying to point out the obvious that the surface cools 250 times better by conduction/convection directly to the atmosphere whereas any radiation it emits is inefficient at cooling the surface.
The whole point of the exercise is based on claims that CO2 traps heat. That is, it acts like a blanket. I have claimed there is no surface heat to trap since it was dissipated when the radiation was created. In fact, most of the heat was dissipated by conduction/convection via air molecules in contact with the surface.
The colder, much thinner upper atmosphere helps dissipate surface heat before it reaches space. Ergo, there should not be a whole lot to radiate away. That’s why our planet is warmer, not due to a fictitious GHE but due to heat being dissipated within the system and radiation being too slow to dissipate the remaining heat.
Gordo’s completely wrong, as usual. For example, he wrote:
Essentially all the energy from the Sun must exit the Earth, else it’s temperature would climb without limit. Ultimately, only EM radiation can provide that pathway and the GHG’s are an essential part of that process. Above the Troposphere. there’s almost no water vapor, so CO2 and other gases do the job. Gordo insists on ignoring the entirety of these processes, demanding that only the surface transfer be considered. Gordo still can’t comprehend that there’s no “dissipation within the system”, there’s just heat transfer from one part to another as the energy flows outward to eventually exit as IR to space.
How is it possible to be so uneducated to believe that energy can ‘dissipate’?
Energy can be transformed but never can dissipate in the sense it would ‘disappear’.
Some continue to have trouble with the concept of thermal radiation. The basic concept of heat transfer (yes, heat) by thermal radiation is a very simple concept as it pertains to solid surfaces. It becomes extremely complex in the atmosphere especially when other heat transfer effects are considered. Heat energy is converted to radiant energy and radiant energy is converted to heat energy by this process. The problem is that each individual molecule has a role, so global effects become difficult to model.
I do not agree with the terms “greenhouse effect” and “heat trapping gases”, but those are terms we are stuck with. The fact is that “active” gases in the atmosphere can emit and absorb radiant energy. That is all they can do. Primary heat transfer is by the kinetic theory of gases and the zeroth law. The further complexity is the different spectra of different gases.
Nonetheless, the net effect is higher temperature at the surface and lower temperature as altitude increases. This effect works along with changes in pressure with altitude. The theory is correct and the “experiment” of observing the effect of humidity in different regions proves the theory is correct. Now the question is, in what way does CO2 contribute that?
I realize now that I need a better conclusion. CO2 does contribute to the effect from water vapor. They work in the same way except with different spectra. The question is not whether there is an effect, the question is, what is the magnitude of that effect? As if there is not enough complexity, there exist the possibility that the effect of CO2 varies with changes in humidity due to the way the two gases interact.
They used to talk about Carbonic acid.
Somewhat lately:
Unravelling the Mysteries of Carbonic Acid
By Lynn Yarris
June 16, 2015
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/06/16/unravelling-the-mysteries-of-carbonic-acid/
Would you explain what you mean by “the way the two gases interact”.
What way is this?
For once I agree with AQ, what is the meaning?
The inferred interaction would seem to be the one by which CO2 of a colder temperature radiates energy back to the Earth, warming the surface to a higher temperature than it is warmed by solar energy. That allegedly releases more water vapour which warms the atmosphere more.
Is that what you are getting at?
There is nothing to agree or disagree with.
I wasn’t making a statement. I was asking a legitimate question, on the assumption that he might know something I don’t, but also keeping in mind that he might have been overstating his understanding.
I understand that the concept of others possibly knowing more than you is a foreign one for you.
It is funny how people who do not understand leave out the word that explains what they do not understand. That word was “possibility”. For those playing along with the home game, that means I do not have a specific reference to cite.
The big talking point is that CO2 fills the gap in the spectrum for water vapor. Nonetheless, there are frequencies where the two gases both interact. The interaction between gases is part of the overall effect, so that does add an extra layer of complexity.
My point is that in the tropics where humidity commonly reaches 4% by volume (not by weight) and sometimes 5%, the amount of CO2 has much less significance than in a very dry climate where CO2 might dominate.
Any one photon is absorbed by only one molecule. So no, regarding the effect under discussion, they do not interact.
Interesting that you felt the need to refer to “people who do understand” in the same sentence where you admit to not understanding. You try to keep it civil and these comments still come out.
It seems to me that there is a distinction between people arguing an agenda, and people who are interested in the science. I stated that there was a possibility, and why that word “possibility” represented the misunderstanding that you had about my statement. You have now replied with an irrelevant comment to the question about spectra. I am interested in the science and not supporting an agenda.
My interest is only in the science. What do you believe my agenda is?
tim s…”Some continue to have trouble with the concept of thermal radiation. The basic concept of heat transfer (yes, heat) by thermal radiation is a very simple concept as it pertains to solid surfaces”.
***
It is indeed simple. Heat can never, by its own means, be transferred from colder GHGs in the atmosphere to a warmer surface, especially a surface that warmed them in the first place. Such a recycling of heat to increase the temperature of the surface would constitute perpetual motion and contradict the 2nd law.
“Such a recycling of heat to increase the temperature of the surface would constitute perpetual motion and contradict the 2nd law. ”
You are hooked on the phrase “by its own means”. It distorts your thinking.
Reducing the rate of heat loss from the planet by increasing GHGs increases the equilibrium temperature of the surface until increased radiation loss to space restores the balance. The whole process is 2LOT compliant.
Work is done at each stage in the process as energy is converted between latent heat, sensible heat and EMR. At each stage some energy is lost as waste heat. The total entropy of the Earth and the surrounding universe continues to increase. No perpetual motion necessary.
Wrong Ent. “Reducing the heat loss” is due to the insulation of N2 and O2. CO2 emits to space. Add more CO2 — more emission to space.
You’ve got it all backward. Passenger jets fly forward, NOT backward.
You’re a mess.
Atmospheric CO2 emits in all directions. Add more CO2 and it emits more in all directions, including groundward.
Here comes barry, trying to protect his cult beliefs. Did you bring your “view factors” with you barry?
More CO2 would emit more to space and to the surface. That going to space is lost. That going to the 288K surface can NOT raise the temperature.
Have you called anyone a “lying dog” today?
Gordon, you passed on this question once before. If the hot gas is not receiving anything back from the cold gas, how does it know the temperature of the cold gas? How does it know how much heat (yes, heat) to transfer?
Why do we have heat waves in North America and Europe? When the solar wind weakens, the speed of the jet stream current at high latitudes also weakens. The jet stream descends in the eastern Pacific and Atlantic, forming meanders. The curves over North America and Europe form stable highs with warm air from the south. Water vapor in these highs remains gaseous and reduces the vertical temperature gradient. The surface warms up so much that the temperature drop is not strong at night.
It is the jet stream in the tropopause that creates the major highs and lows.
https://i.ibb.co/HF6WgTh/hgt300.png
In the current solar cycle, the solar wind is rippling. A brief increase in speed is followed by a sharp decrease.
https://i.ibb.co/5v56ThP/plot-image.png
A quick aside. I talk about time a fair amount but not to go off topic. I am merely trying to emphasize the lack of precision in science even by science gods like Einstein. I am ultimately (on this blog) hoping to reveal the lack of precision in climate science of the alarmist type by comparing and contrasting it with other forms of science in which the same errors are committed.
The following link is to a Feynman lecture on time and distance. I found his talk to be fairly good but like other scientists he seems to suggest that time is an entity that can be measured. For example, he states…”What really matters anyway is not how we define time, but how we measure it”. That suggests there is such a phenomenon to measure.
He goes on…
“We can just say that we base our definition of time on the repetition of some apparently periodic event.
Fortunately, we all share one clockthe earth. For a long time the rotational period of the earth has been taken as the basic standard of time”.
It’s not just a standard, Richard, it is the definition of time itself. There is no other time anywhere in the universe.
It appears Einstein was not aware that time is simply a human definition. It has no physical existence and exists only as a mental construct in the human mind.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_05.html
Feynman essentially admits he does not know what time is other than a definition. Einstein claims time is the hands on a clock. At least Feynman knew time is based on the Earth’s rotational period, which is relatively constant and cannot change no matter how fast an object moves..
My point is this. These are two of the acknowledged greatest scientists of all time and neither can explain what time is. Yet we have a massive number of scientists convinced that time is real and can change with velocity. They are so convinced of this lie that they are willing to re-define gravity based on it.
Same with climate science. we currently have a massive number of scientists willing to lie through their teeth about global warming/climate change. Perhaps lie is too strong a word, maybe most of them are simply not smart enough to see through the deceit.
Were you lying when you claimed the moon’s phases are caused by the earth’s shadow, or were you simply not smart enough to understand the real cause?
” It appears Einstein was not aware that time is simply a human definition. It has no physical existence and exists only as a mental construct in the human mind. ”
Robertson the absolute ignoramus trying to teach the blog about time.
Amazing.
Even Swenson aka Mike Flynn understands that time is not a constant thing, but lacks the courage to contradict Robertson’s perennial imbecility.
*
Einstein is right, Robertson, especially when he calculates the deflection of light rays by huge masses.
But you are too uneducated to understand what Newton amazingly wrote about it in his treatise ‘Opticks’: you are not even educated enough to understand, let alone accept, what Newton wrote about the lunar spin.
For years, instead of showing the necessary humility, you arrogantly tried to falsify what he wrote until it fit your pathologically egocentric narrative.
What a poor guy you are, Robertson!
This is the season the Polar Vortex should be packing its bags for the trip north. But, it remains on the job.
Max wind speeds this morning are still over 250mph, and the vortex remains well organized. That tells us the HTE backed up a lot of thermal energy that needs to be evacuated. It seems the PV understands that.
The Hunga-Tonga eruption provided us with some useful information. We saw how a REAL “forcing” is easily identifiable. There’s no need for exhaustive blah-blah (inventive interpretation) like we get with the CO2 nonsense. The evidence of the HTE is clearly seen in the UAH results.
Now, it will be interesting to watch how Earth cools itself, after the HTE disruption. Science and reality always win.
Morning brain stimulation: If the HT eruption were not just a one-time event, but continued full time, what would Earth’s resulting equilibrium surface temperature be?
I propose that eating M&Ms causes back pain.
Today I have a bad back, and yesterday I did indeed eat M&Ms yesterday for the first time in a year.
Proposition proved.
That is the essence of your “argument”, except you didn’t make the proposition until after you got your back pain.
(True story BTW, except for the proposition.)
” The evidence of the HTE is clearly seen in the UAH results. ”
Show us EXACTLY what you mean.
It’s called “science”, Bindi.
People that understand the basics can examine data and figure out what is happening.
Science involves EXPLAINING. You are dealing with mere assertions. That is not science. You wouldn’t know science if it sat on your face.
I can explain it to you Ant, but I can’t understand it for you.
Maybe if you grow up and learn some basic science?
Antonio Qwerty
Agree with your correct assessment of Clint R. He is a cult programmed sap. He never supplies any evidence for his assertions. He believes nitrogen gas reflects IR but will never supply evidence. I find he is too programmed to rationally discuss science ideas.
Norman, you have so little knowledge of science you wouldn’t know evidence from soggy bread.
You reject the simple ball-on-a-string, yet you invent square orbits!
Well I certainly can’t understand what you choose not to explain.
And you can’t explain what doesn’t exist.
Surely you would want to explain just to illustrate that YOU understand, regardless of whether I understand.
Correct Ant, you can’t understand.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1530544
As your “science” by assertion continues.
And how exactly do you believe your link supports your assertion that I don’t understand?
What you don’t understand Ant, is that I no longer waste time with brain-dead cultists posing as anonymous tr0lls.
Grow up and learn some respect for both science and reality.
What you mean to say is that you don’t know how to deal with questions from people who refuse to accept your mere assertions at face value, and ignoring someone is the simplest means of avoiding those difficult questions.
What I mean to say Ant, is what I say. You’re misrepresenting my words, as usual.
That’s why I no longer choose to waste time with you and your ilk. You have NO interest in science or reality.
Grow up and learn some respect for both science and reality.
(You will get this same comment every time you tr0ll me.)
How many times will you continue to waste time replying in order to assert you don’t waste time?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1531827
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532000
As usual, Clint R has no idea how to answer a simple question other than simply dodging.
The reason: he doesn’t know how to answer the question to someone who is technically familiar with the data of the four atmospheric layers observed by UAH.
And he of course isn’t.
Bindi, you don’t even know what the Polar Vortex is. You have to look it up, but still can’t understand it. You can’t understand ANY science.
Done the simple ball-on-a-string experiment yet?
“The evidence of the HTE is clearly seen in the UAH results.”
I have the same basic question as others. In the year before the HT eruption, temperature anomalies were hovering around 0.2 C. In the year after the HT eruption, temperature anomalies were STILL hovering around 0.2 C. No signal at all.
There is a dramatic increase in the last couple months, a year and a half after the eruption. To call this ‘clear evidence’, you would need to both
1) explain why a 1.5 year delay should be expected in polar vortex changes.
2) explain how you know the recent rise is not due to El Nino (or just random fluctuations in temperature.)
Even with your history of perverting reality Folkerts, those are responsible questions. So, I will answer:
1) There was no delay. The effect on the PV was random and sporadic as the atmospheric waves moved around the planet.
2) Of course El Niño was also a player. I never said differently.
“The effect on the PV was random and sporadic as the atmospheric waves moved around the planet.”
This only muddies your claim.
* you saw ‘clear evidence’ that was ‘random and sporadic’?
* you saw evidence about the PV in UAH data that tracks temperature, not the PV or ‘atmospheric waves’.?
* the UAH data shows no clear changes after the eruption, even in stratosphere. (Although other data sets do show effects, like https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/cold-anomaly-stratosphere-polar-vortex-volcanic-cooling-winter-influence-fa/)
* The UAH data DOES show a clear change in the stratosphere following El Chichn and Pinatubo.
I don’t doubt there were changes in the PV. I don’t doubt they were important to the climate. You just have not shown the evidence.
I answered your two concerns, Folkerts. Now you’re just throwing more crap against the wall. So obviously you have no interest in learning.
Here is the reality:
1. The HT volcano occurred.
2. The PV was affected.
3. The effects are shown in UAH results.
4. The UAH effects were even predictable.
You’ve got a lot of denying to do. Better get started.
grammie pup, the NOAA STAR TLS for the Southern Hemisphere doesn’t show any warming from the HT-HH eruption. One can see a short cooling blip at the end of 2022, but it’s back to normal since.
You have nothing to prove your mindless assertions, as usual.
Child, the TLS wouldn’t show warming..
Grow up, stop imitating the worthless one, and learn some science. Or, remain an immature,,ignorant tr0ll.
Your choice.
As expected, not reply of substance from grammie clone. Just more grade school insults in his ongoing attempts to gain recognition. His anti-physics rants don’t prove anything without analysis to support them. For example, where is the data which shows his HT-HH warming before this summer?
Swanson, please stop trolling.
RSS agrees.
htlatest-ice-and-temperaturetps://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/-data.html
Do you happen to know where the actual RSS data page is? I haven’t been able to find it.
Here it is (all variants including ol’ 3.3)
https://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/
What you look for probably is
https://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v04_0.txt
Thanks for that.
Interesting that RSS does not include 70-90S or 82.5-90N?
Any idea why that is. Even if a satellite can’t cover the poles, it’s coverage should at least be symmetric.
Antonin Qwerty
De nada!
But here:
” Even if a satellite cant cover the poles, its coverage should at least be symmetric. ”
I can’t agree.
RSS’ restriction difference is 100 % correct because the two polar regions differ by a lot in surface altitude.
The higher the altitude, the lower the accuracy of the atmospheric sounding above it.
And you would wonder when having a look at UAH’s grid data for revision 5.6 (deprecated since 2015, stopped in 2017) which we still can find in
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/
In that grid, the poles’ lower troposphere really was sounded from +-60 – +-90.
Revision 6.0 stops at 82.5 above both poles.
I would have thought the higher the altitude the better the reading, as the higher surface is closer to the mean altitude of the reading.
But I’m only musing out loud.
From the Mears/Wentz 2017 describing the data set:
“In the final product, data south of 70S are excluded because the high altitude of the Antarctic continent causes the TLT product to contain too much surface emission for it to be a useful representation of atmospheric temperature.”
A Satellite-Derived Lower-Tropospheric Atmospheric Temperature Dataset Using an Optimized Adjustment for Diurnal Effects
RSS masks the Himalayan Plateau, the Andes, and part of the Rockies in the TLT data set for the same reason.
https://images.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html
The higher altitude TMT and TTT data products are symmetrical 82.5S – 82.5N as per your expectation.
Several cultists have been trying to insult me over the HTE. As usual, they’re even making false accusations. Their purpose, of course, is to pervert reality. (Not to mention any names, but Ant, Norman, and Bindi might have been in the room…). The HTE is just one more nail-in-the-coffin for the bogus GHE nonsense.
Let’s see if they can find where this quote came from:
Sounds like my description of how the HTE raised temperatures, huh?
That’s why this is so much fun.
If you disappear for 60 days I will gladly solve your riddle, Pupman.
Thanks for imitating me, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery.
That’s a first strike, Pupman.
Right, because all those Trump imitators are flattering Trump.
It’s always funny when people believe that stock sayings which are used as a replacement for independent thinking actually capture a universal truth.
Little Willy, Antonin, please stop trolling.
I have some questions for the scientists commenting on Dr. Spencer’s web site. We now see that the lower troposphere is in a warming phase.
Is this anything alarming? Is this something that requires us to rip out natural gas stoves from kitchens?
I know some here will consider that flippant. But the larger point is what kind of government policy should be enacted due to our warming earth?
I think Freeman Dyson had it right when he suggested money would be better spent on adaption, such as building dikes for vulnerable coastal cities.
What do y’all think?
I agree. What effect does a person have on a jetstream? None.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_sh_f00.png
I’ve always thought humans are nothing more than a pimple on a gnat’s ass concerning the earth’s climate.
I think we all know that we are in an Ice Age.
In an Ice Age, one has more temperature extremes, this is largely
due to drier air {global}. And more than 1/3 of Earth’s land area is
deserts.
I live in a desert, I like deserts. If you want global cooling, you want more deserts.
I will point out the obvious, that 15 C air temperature is a cold temperature, but in an Ice Age one can get much colder air temperature. So, also if live say closer to polar regions say 45 degree or higher, and you like more -50 C air temperatures days, that’s another factor, which could make you want global cooling.
I have argued for a long time that we should all bow down to our lucky stars on high and be grateful that we are living in this mild interglacial period. If we were living in the more “normal” glacial period, life would be much more difficult for us all, by far!
Difficult in what sense.
Our sea level would be 4 meter higher. But they would have been 4 meter higher thousands of years ago. Or as far as now, they could be dropping- and maybe only 2 meters higher.
Does dropping Sea level count as more difficult?
Russia could be growing a lot grain, and it’s people would less miserably, cold.
It could be world superpower {without it’s nukes}.
China is now, has average temperature of 8 C. Would be bad, if it was 12 C? It might not be a totalitarian govt. Lot’s of happy Chinese people. And no reason to torture North Korea. And perhaps, Tibet could be a free country.
The natural gas issue is a perfect example of incompetence. It causes more gas to be burned, not less. A typical furnace or hot water heater is about 85% efficient based on a 350 F flue gas temp. Electricity production from a natural gas burning power plant is a maximum of 43% efficient because the turbine requires high pressure steam. It is a similar issue with electric cars. They effectively burn natural gas at the power plant.
The power plant issue require more explanation. The furnace is very efficient making the high pressure and temp steam because the feed water is preheated by the flue gas. The problem comes at the turbine which only removes pressure and heat from the steam. Low pressure steam is left at the exhaust of the turbine. It can be used for low grade heat at some other location, and that is Cogeneration. The typical power plant has no use for that waste heat and actually condenses the steam at the exit of the turbine with cooling tower water to produce clean boiler feed water from the steam. The condensation actually creates a partial vacuum in the turbine exhaust and increases the turbine efficiency.
Without actually studying the issue, it just seemed intuitively obvious to me that a natural gas stove is more energy efficient than an electric stove. The nat gas burn energy goes directly into the pot or pan. A turbine is an indirect way of transferring energy to your stove pan.
It’s also the cheapest way to sniff methane.
Kids love it!
Actually, the stove is even more efficient if the flame directly contacts the pan. The other interesting fact is that radiant heat from the products of combustion is the primary mode of heat transfer other than the direct flame impingement. Try blowing a heat gun on a pan to boil water. Hot gas heat transfer is very poor. Steam condensation and radiant heat are much more effective in the gas phase.
Natural gas is cheapest to make electrical power, and we are so dumb we make electrical from solar panels and wind mills and burn wood to generate electrical power {claiming it reduces CO2 emission when it doesn’t].
Anyway there is energy loss converting the power from natural gas to electrical power and it’s cheap to pipe natural gas to places which can use a gas stove. And politicians are still working on taxing natural gas more- some have been quite successful.
Solar wind
speed: 433.4 km/sec
density: 6.58 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 121
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 143 sfu
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.18×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.4% Low
“Sunspot AR3421 is crackling with M-class solar flares. ”
It’s grown quite a bit.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The latest contrarian crowd pleaser from Soon et al (2023) is just the latest repetition of the old it was the sun wot done it trope[1] that Willie Soon and his colleagues have been pushing for decades. There is literally nothing new under the sun.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/as-soon-as-possible/
dup…
wee willy…please refrain from posting climate hysteria from realclimate. As uber-climate alarmists they have always hated Willie Soon, who knows what he is talking about.
Willie has a vast amount of experience in astrophysics, and in case that goes over someone’s head, the Sun is a star and astrophysics is basely a study of stars. There is really nothing much else out there to study.
Realclimate on the other hand is run by Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician, and Michael Mann, a geologist. One of their luminaries, William Connolley is a computer programmer. His claim to fame was being an editor on Wikipedia and ensuring that skep.tics were shown the door.
C’mon, Bordo.
Our Stoatness isn’t part of Gavin’s since a decade or so.
You’ll have to work a little more for your riffin’ of talking points.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The Grand Solar Fizzle chart updated
https://i.postimg.cc/6q8LRcBr/184-n.jpg
Now stick Zharkova’s prediction on the graph.
When I look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_25#Predictions
I think we shouldn’t blame Zharkova for that and leave her out alone in the cold rain.
Conversely, we are still far for any proof that McIntosh/Leamon and UCAR had it right:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspas.2023.1050523/full
Ooops, text crunching:
” Conversely, we are still far for… ”
should read
” Conversely, we are still far away from… “
–https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_25#Predictions
I think we shouldnt blame Zharkova for that and leave her out alone in the cold rain.–
“Widely varying predictions regarding the strength of cycle 25 ranged from very weak with suggestions of slow slide in to a Maunder minimum like state to a weak cycle similar to previous cycle 24[7] and even a strong cycle. Upton and Hathaway predicted that the weakness of cycle 25 would make it part of the Modern Gleissberg Minimum.”
All are predicting weak 25 max. Only Zharkova is predicting 26.
25 by itself is not Grand Min- you have include 26 to call it a grand Min.
We should definitely blame Zharkova for including only the previous four cycles in making her analysis. Why four? Why only cycles that define the downward trend? Base a prediction solely on a downward trend and, surprise surprise, you get a continuation of the downward trend.
Antonin Qwerty
I agree!
I was considering only the maxima.
Anyway, if I understand McIntosh/Leamon correctly, we can learn that cycle predictions based on even many single cycles aren’t worth the paper they were written on – unless the 22 year Hale cycles are considered in addition.
Until there is a proper scientific understanding of solar cycles and their causes, I believe any prediction which happens to be close is just a fluke. At least most predictors concede that though with massive tolerances in their predictions … except Zharkova.
Goes sideways a couple months, then it drops.
Solar wind
speed: 424.6 km/sec
density: 5.28 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 06 Sep 23
Sunspot number: 121
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 143 sfu
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.18×10^10 W Warm
Updated 05 Sep 2023
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.4% Low
“Sunspot AR3421 is crackling with M-class solar flares.”
“FARSIDE SOLAR ACTIVITY: Two spectacular CMEs billowed away from the farside of the sun on Sept. 5th: movie. The source was farside sunspot AR3413, which has become hyperactive only days after turning away from Earth.”
Solar wind
speed: 359.0 km/sec
density: 3.34 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 131
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 147 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.07×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.2% Low
“Sunspots AR3421 and AR3422 pose a threat for Earth-directed”
Both of these have grown quite a bit. But they are weird looking,
I will call it, shotgun spots. See what happens.
Some data about the 2023 fires in Canada
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DWKEJlWlfk-vVx2qV0DLvY_pnDx0uurW/view
Source of fire data
https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/report/graphs#gr1
-> Data burned by province
test
The 3.6 year enso cycle strikes again! Look at the timing its perfect. Sorry my fellow believers of the cycle, this is not part of volcanic warming. Thats nonsense. Volcanos cool, if anything. This is a normal 1/3rd harmonic wave of the 11 year solar cycle. The solar cycle works its magic thru enso with 42, 11, 3.6, 2.2 cycles. On the other hand, Until the AMO drops (about 60yr cycle), we are going to continue to wait for the real long term cooling to begin. This summer seemed a lot like 1960 here in Michigan which had 0 91 deg days. We had 0 days above 90 this year. Only 2 days reaching 90. We are currently adding to the longest stretch ever without a 91 deg day at metro airport with a real chance to add hundreds of days to the record. Note 1960 was a peak AMO year after which there was 14 years of cooling. Or has the changes in the magnetic field disrupted the cycle? Is there a link to the ozone hole opening up again as it did before the last spell of serious cooling? If the Beaufort gyre doesnt start discharging soon thats my guess on the why. (Magnetic field changes)
scott r…”This summer seemed a lot like 1960 here in Michigan which had 0 91 deg days”.
***
That’s what I have been trying to tell anyone who will listen. We have experienced this heat in the recent past and I don’t imagine we will never experience it again. The difference today is that people are freaking over it rather than simply coping.
No, the difference is that those days are coming much more frequently.
AND the temperature at a particular location at a particular moment in time is hardly the primary issue. The main issue is how the warming is affecting global circulation patterns and other systems which were previously in long-term equilibrium, and shifting them towards new equilibrium states with undesirable consequences.
For example the gradual encroachment of sea water into the water table of the agricultural land of the Ganges Delta, which will likely eventually result in large-scale migration.
More frequently not a chance. We were getting far more heat waves 80 years ago, and even recently how is it that since 1988 we have not had summer warming? And why are we setting cold side records like over year without reaching 91? If the cold was caused by volatility, these cold side records that take a year to set would not be possible.
Who is “we”? Are you another Yank who believes your 2% of the globe is the whole world?
“World” Series anyone?
Antonin Qwerty
” Who is ‘we’? Are you another Yank who believes your 2% of the globe is the whole world? ”
‘What is good for Uncle Sam is good for you’ is really the major problem in such discussions.
*
” ‘World’ Series anyone? ”
I think that Continental Europe (from Portugal till Finland and Western Russia, and from Ireland till Ukraine and Greece) might be a better choice when compared to Northern CONUS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1POGZQ7ZJ6di9OWov6aTk-wbm4_LXOMIq/view
I’ll write a bit more tomorrow (~ UTC 10) at thread’s end.
Scott R, a typical volcano provides cooling. That is well accepted. But the Hunga-Tonga was NOT your grandmother’s volcano. It was completely underwater, and its blast threw enormous amounts of water and water vapor even into the stratosphere. All of that caused a disruption to the Polar Vortex, which resulted in reducing Earth’s cooling. I was somewhat able to predict UAH monthly values just by watching the performance of the PV.
tim s…” Hot gas heat transfer is very poor. Steam condensation and radiant heat are much more effective in the gas phase”.
***
Then I guess we’d better stop using acetylene torches to weld metal and use heat guns. Duh???
Your statement is exactly the opposite of reality. Recently we had a discussion on Shula’s Pirani gauge, which prove without a doubt that heat transfer via conduction and convection in gases is 260 times more efficient than by radiation alone.
Your statement is about the same as a famous Governor claiming that propane burns hotter than kerosene (jet fuel). The propane torch achieves its high temperature by concentrating the flame size and shape with a premix of the fuel with air. A blow torch using kerosene can achieve the same effect by pressurizing the fuel source. In both cases, the maximum heat requires direct contact with the flame.
You obviously have no experience or knowledge of acetylene welding. The high flame temperature is achieved by using pure oxygen to reduce the amount of nitrogen, that would dilute the combustion gases and reduce the flame temperature. The welder must adjust the oxygen to achieve the optimal flame shape.
Wait a minute, did someone say combustion gases? Yes, those are present as well to provide radiant heating, but the most intense heat once again is by direct impingement with the flame, so the combustion reaction occurs directly on the surface being heated.
This is fundamental information. Anyone with any knowledge of furnaces or other combustion processes knows that direct flame impingement can overheat and damage the tubes or other heat transfer surfaces. Once again, I am more than happy to provide the necessary educational knowledge. How you use it is up to you.
Happy posting!
I have seen some red-herring arguments in my day but you seem to excel at them.
You are arguing essentially that the flame from an acetylene torch is not hot. Doesn’t matter how you try to talk around it, your initial claim was that a combustible gas is not as hot as a radiation source.
You have focused on acetylene as a gas and tried to make it look as if it is not hot when ignited. You have claimed it needs oxygen and needs to be focused. The point is, the combined gases are still a combustible gas, and can reach very high temperatures that the radiation from an equivalent source could never reach.
If you have ever worked with an acetyilene torch, you’d know that you turn on the acetylene first and spark it, which produces a dull yellowish flame with soot emanating from it, then you crank on the oxygen till you get the desired blue flame with the smaller, inner bluer flame. You are not focusing anything, the tip is fixed, and the cutting/melting edge of the inner blue flame is produced by the oxygen/acetylene mix. You adjust the flame by varying the amount of acetylene and oxygen.
Ergo, gases transfer heat much better than pure radiation. The gas transfers heat to the working surface and I’d like to see you find a radiation source that comes close for heating effect.
The temperature of the Sun varies from about 15 million C at its core to about 5000 C at the surface. We can only guestimate the surface heat by measuring radiation as a colour temperature. However, the heat transfer in the Sun, which is a super-heated gas, is far hotter than the surface atmosphere, which is largely radiation.
Try harder! You have not convinced anyone, and you are not being very amusing either. Flame impingement is needed to melt steel and weld with a torch. Try boiling water with a heat gun. Report back with your results. 🙂
Just noting that I am having trouble posting right now, in case anyone is experiencing the same. Posts are simply disappearing.
Aside from your very few blind, gullible followers, no one will blame this blog for making your self-centered nonsense ‘simply disappear’.
The following is a novel approach to measuring the increase in atmospheric temperature due to CO2 and earth IR radiance. It covers a time span of 62 years (1959 to 2020) the start year of Mauna Loa Observatory measurements.
The approach uses accepted measurements and standard formulae.
The approach employs:
-A graph representing a satellite measurement of earth IR radiance taken by Mars Surveyor in Nov 1996.(Google: Xylene power ltd mars surveyor earth radiance graph)
-The average earth Irradiance is taken as 230 watts per square meter.
-The earths average atmospheric pressure of 14.29 psi (weighted average of 14.7 psi at sea level and 13.29 psi at average land elevation of 2755 feet)
-Transfer of energy from CO2 to O2, N2, and Ar based on weighted molecular weights. (0.000605)
-Determining by year the watt hours transferred (24 hours per dayX356 days per year)
-Converting to BTUs (watt hours X 3.4126)
-As the energy transfer from CO2 is continuous the temperature change is the sum of each year from 1959 through 2020
PROCESS:
-From the earth radiance graph the area of the CO2 V notch is compared to the total area under the graph. It is 9.6%.
-The watts absorbed per square meter = 230X.o96 or 22.1 watts
-The energy transfer to O2, N2, and Ar = 22.1X.000605 or 0.01337 watts.
-Annual watt hours = 0.01337X24X365 =117.13 watt hours.
-Watt hours converted to BTUs = 117.13X3.428 or 399.73 BTUs.
-Using 1996 as a reference year the watts transferred from CO2 for all other years is a ratio to the annual Mauna Loa reported CO2 levels. (1959 315.98ppm 2020 414.24ppm)
-The annual BTUs were calculated for all years and summed to 24,737.8 BTUs.
-The weight of one square meter of atmosphere =14.29X1550 or 22,149.5 lbs per square meter.
-The temperature added to the atmosphere over 62 years = 24,737.8 BTUX0.24/22,149.5 lbs
Or 0.263 deg F
Or 0.146 deg C
CONCLUSION
The amount of temperature added to the global temperature rise cannot be greater than the UAH measurement of 0.13 deg C per decade.
The 62 year measurement of 0.146 degree C or 0.024 degree C per decade is well within reason and supported by the above calculations.
Questionis there any way a contribution from CO2 of 0.024 degrees C per decade,
influence climate change in any way?
Hurricane Jova is major hurricane, Cat 4, and forecasted to remain Cat 4 until Friday morning, and then weaken a lot and quickly- be tropical storm by Saturday.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/hurricane-jova-intensifies-to-category-4-in-pacific/
https://www.vvdailypress.com/story/weather/hurricane/2023/09/07/many-eyes-on-hurricane-jova-brewing-off-baja-california/70783234007/
–Jova was a tropical storm on Tuesday, however, it underwent a remarkable rapid intensification due in part to warm sea-surface temperatures, the NWS said.
Hurricane Jova appears to have tied 2015s Hurricane Patricia in being an eastern Pacific hurricane that was the fastest to go from Category 1 to 5 intensity, doing so in 18 hours, the weather service reported.–
It seems weaker now. and forecasted to be weaker, sooner- on before Saturday 5 pm.
Atlantic has Lee threatening islands, but nothing going US mainland.
In terms landfall it’s normal or weak season so far. Though there was some panic in California and Florida. California having excuse of rarely getting close to a Hurricane.
Still a big loop of jet stream over central Europe with warm air from the south.
https://i.ibb.co/0Fgnk9L/hgt300.webp
I woke up this morning thinking about the Faustian bargain.
You remember. The industrial expansion after WW2 reduced surface insolation by increasing albedo. This masked the increased warming effect of CO2 and paused the rise in temperature.
In the 1970s serious attempts were made to reduce air pollution, albedo decreased and warming resumed.
Has anyone got recent albedo data? Has there been a recent reduction which might explain the jump in temperatures?
There’s a time series here:
https://albedo.physics.helsinki.fi/
Using methods from this paper:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsen.2022.790723/full
Thank you. Low, but not unusual for this time of year.
Scratch low albedo as the proximal cause of the unusual temperatures.
So it would seem.
I posted some thoughts here about a potential HTE connection, but this isn’t something I’ve seen yet from anyone plausibly qualified to evaluate the hypothesis.
Thanks for linking to your comment, Mark B. I had missed it.
In any discussion about the HTE, you can safely ignore both cooling and radiative warming from water vapor. The warming was due to the disruption of the Polar Vortex. The PV has been healthy now for weeks, so I believe the HTE may be over. We’ll see….
The polar vortex always weakens in the NH summer. Nothing to see there. But funny how many deniers are claiming that a weakening of the polar vortex will lead to a new ice age (the new invention now there is no Maunder-like minimum). I suppose its effect is whatever you want it to be.
mark…I would expect nothing else from Dessler, an alarmist hack who would be confused by a real science event.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/
Thank you.
The article claims the atmosphere is trapping heat, an old-wives tale, dating back to 1850.
What heat is being trapped?
What heat? The measure of the avg. constituent KE in the near surface global atm. has been ~33K higher ever since 1850 than without the earthen GHE. That would indicate so is the measure of the total constituent KE in the near surface global atm. higher than without the earthen GHE.
It’s funny how often ‘skeptics’ insult Dr Spencer in the various ways they deride the GHE. So now Roy is a purveyor of old wives tales about atmospheric heating….
Says an electrics guy to an atmospheric scientist.
Ball4, barry, please stop trolling.
The July (+0.64 deg. C) and August (+0.69 deg. C) departures have increased the entire TLT slope to +0.14 C/decade.
Exegesis:
This is simply the reason that global temperatures lag CO2 concentrations by about 30 years.
You really don’t need to be so extravagantly verbose in stating such a simple fact. The theatre is thataway.
“…global temperatures lag CO2 concentrations by about 30 years.”
References?
Preferably peer reviewed.
Look at Hanson’s paper, Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study. Section 2.3. It has a timescale longer than 30 years.
I just wasted 20 minuted looking up something you were perfectly capable of googling yourself. And who knows why I was looking it up given that it is EXACTLY the situation you described. Except that you seem to believe it is all being stored away to be released later in one big bang, instead of it simply being an ongoing lagged response.
The assertion that global temperatures lag carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations by a specific and fixed amount of 30 years is not supported by the consensus within the field of climate science.
The relationship between CO2 concentrations and global temperatures is more intricate. Variable Lag Time, Feedback Mechanisms, Time Scales, and Proxy Data are just a few of the key points to consider.
I just wasted 2 minutes typing this reply to your comment.
Did you not see “ABOUT”?
The actual figure was not the main point.
The main point which you have ignored is that everything you say is laced with overstated theatrics.
“The main point which you have ignored is that everything you say is laced with overstated theatrics.”
No, I am perfectly aware that your problem is not with the message but rather, the messenger.
I can’t help it if you find my rhetorical style objectionable. That, as I see it, is your problem not mine.
P.s.: Now, go f&%k yourself.
Wow – talks like a denier. That language only lowers your standing here while having no effect on me.
Wow, you continue to spam my post!
What part of go f&%k yourself, did you not understand?
If I am “spamming” your post then you are spamming Dr Spencer’s blog.
Heads up – using that language on me GUARANTEES that I will continue to reply. Bullies can’t be permitted to win.
“Bullies cant be permitted to win.”
Once again:
I can’t help it if you find my rhetorical style objectionable. That, as I see it, is your problem not mine.
Now, go f&%k yourself.
And now apparently you believe writing in bold makes your statement stronger.
You also apparently believe that comment is an example of “rhetorical style”.
Although there is a wide range on this value the consilience of evidence suggests that the e-fold time of the Earth energy imbalance (EEI) is about 30 years give or take. Recently though Hansen et al. 2022 – Global Warming in the Pipeline argue that it could be as high 100 years. The slower the response the more warming is expected to occur.
BTW…Considering that the EEI is still increasing suggests that higher e-fold times are a real possibility.
bdgwx, you should know that the “EEI” is bogus. They’ve cobbled together a bunch of estimates, assumptions, guesses and pure nonsense, to support their imagination.
They don’t even have the basic physics correct!
Lag is one of the things you can check for yourself.
Print out a graph of your preferred global annual surface temperature dataset since 1880.This is GISTEMP.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:2024/every
Find your preferred data on CO2 concentration since 1880.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/met-office-atmospheric-co2-now-hitting-50-higher-than-pre-industrial-levels/
To calculate the equilibrium forcing due to a change in CO2 concentration use the CO2 forcing formula ∆f=5.35ln(C/Co)
∆f is the forcing due to increased CO2 in W/m^2
Co is the initial CO2 concentration 278ppm.
C is the CO2 concentration at your chosen date.
To convert this to temperature change multiply by climate sensitivity, 3.0(?)and divide by the warming effect 3.8W/m^2/C
The formula becomes ∆T=5.35ln(C/Co)3/3.8
Plot the temperatures onto the temperature graph. Use 1880 and anomaly -0.2C as your origin.
The horizontal distance between the two curves with reference to the 2023 GISTEMP is the current lag.
The 2022 global annual anomaly for GISS was 0.89
This is equivalent to a temperature change of 1.09C since 1880.
The CO2 concentration which give ∆T=1.09 is 370ppm, which was reached in the late 1990s.
That puts the lag at about 25 years.
Just the usual cult nonsense from Ent.
That nonsense equation (“forcing formula”)has no connection to REAL science. It has no derivation from the laws of physics. It was conjured up by Arrhenius, based on his belief that CO2 could “heat the planet”.
Ent knows his cult nonsense well. He can also make up more nonsense, if needed. He uses his belief that passenger jets fly backward to support the cult’s mistake that Moon spins. Poor Norman follows behind with his “square orbits”.
That’s why this is. so much fun.
However, we know from data that CO2 lags temperature, not the other.
Stephen Anderson
The data tells us that CO2 sometimes lags temperature and sometimes temperature lags CO2.
At present temperature is lagging CO2. Different workers estimate different lags.
As you see, my own back-of-the-envelope estimate is that temperature currently lags CO2 by about 25 years.
@EntropicMan, that formula I take it is based on pure CO2 in a dry atmosphere at s a level. The atmosphere is a bit more complicated with clouds, pressure, turbulence and sadly pollution.
How would you take into account the real world?
Like many such relationships you can derive it from first principles.
https://www.worldstormcentral.co/globalwarmingeqn/globalwarmingeqn.html
Anyone clicking on Ent’s scam site better have updated virus protection.
Even if you do, you will find NO derivation of the bogus equation.
ark…does your TLT included the 18 years of flat trend between 1998 and 2015 and the flat trend from 2016 to present?
I mean, that must be some slope when half of it is flat and the beginning 1/3rds is a recovery from cooling.
Read paragraph 2 of Dr. Spencer’s headline post.
Robertson
” … and the beginning 1/3rds is a recovery from cooling. ”
You are such an opinionated alzheimered ignoramus.
I explained so many times to you that your ‘recovery from cooling’ has only to do with the baseline calculated out of the current reference period (1991-2020).
Using e.g. UAH’s first reference period (1979-1998) of course leads to a completely different baseline, and hence to a completely different ‘recovery from cooling’.
I posted a graph showing this difference years ago.
Why do you keep so uneducated, Robertson?
Wrong again, Mr. Klown….the recovery trend is still there in 2010 based on a baseline of 1979 – 1998.
Note how 2010 spiked at 0.72C, hotter than today.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100208131826/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/january-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-72-deg-c/
What’s a baseline, Bordo?
Once more, the typical Robertson nonsense:
” ark… does your TLT included the 18 years of flat trend between 1998 and 2015 and the flat trend from 2016 to present?
I mean, that must be some slope when half of it is flat and the beginning 1/3rds is a recovery from cooling. ”
*
I tried to explain to Robertson that his ‘recovery from cooling’ is an arbitrary illusion due to the reference period chosen, but he is so opinionated that it didn’t help.
Is it so difficult to understand?
Here are three representations of UAH’s LT Globe data in anomaly form, based on three different 20-year long reference periods:
– 1979-1998
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rn5BXUqcoXWEz7kVFmh35cIEILZnEaO9/view
– 1989-2008
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y0ehopus1OSImNHsTXV7pEr4zja3wYqR/view
– 1999-2018
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sLvoNtuCoe-61-12QFhMXEXHn25pu4Em/view
Robertson always tries to discredit the charts above as ‘unsupported’ or even ‘faked’, though being himself absolutely unable to produce a graph out of simplest UAH anomaly series!
*
Most delicious is, in his reply
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532453
the wonderful statement about Roy Spencer LT anomaly report in 2010:
” Note how 2010 spiked at 0.72C, hotter than today. ”
When you read such nonsense, you understand that Robertson still did not grasp the relation between reference periods, their baselines and the anomalies generated with respect to these out of absolute data.
*
And you understand even better that such a person never can have been an engineer, and that he constructed his engineering vita a posteriori from scratch.
Not one of my former engineer colleagues would lack understanding of such simple technical details like explained above.
And finally, anyone who believes the nonsense this ignorant and unteachable guy endlessly posts about COVID, Einstein, time, GPS, the rotation of the moon, etc. etc. etc. deserves it all because it’s all along the same lines as what he posts about UAH data which lacks any technical evidence.
Oh… wrong place for the stuff above.
Arkady Ivanovich
” The July (+0.64 deg. C) and August (+0.69 deg. C) departures have increased the entire TLT slope to +0.14 C/decade. ”
Sometimes I agree to what you write, but… this above is, so to speak, the inverse of Robertson’s anti-alarmism, and is sheer nonsense.
The reason for this increase from 0.13 to 0.14 C/decade occurred several times in the recent past and is due to the fact that the UAH team apparently refuses to publish its trend data with more than these laughable two decimal places.
No one – you hopefully included – would write one line about that if the trends were displayed with three digits after the decimal point:
2023 8 0.136
2023 7 0.135
2023 6 0.134
2023 5 0.134
2023 4 0.133
2023 3 0.134
2023 2 0.134
2023 1 0.134
That’s just plain silly.
Not forgetting it was up to 0.138 in late 2020.
And it has been all over the place in the past. Ten years ago it was 0.11, but 20 years ago it was 0.15.
Correct, but that was output generated by a completely different revision.
Gordon Robertson
You might find this of interest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66654108
ent…I am surprised that anyone finds brown lawns unusual in the Vancouver area. When I was a kid, my dad would let the lawn go brown every summer, reasoning it would rebound in the autumn when rain returned. As a kid, I remember the grass on local parks turning brown and going through July and August without a drop of rain.
Of course, we have many more people living in the area since then and water consumption has sky-rocketed due to things that were not common place when I was a kid, like multiple showers in every home, swimming pools, car washes, etc.
As the article points out, since June, we have been under water restrictions. We were only allowed to water a lawn once a week on a prescribed day depending on your address being odd or even. On August 6th, all lawn watering was prohibited, even once a week. We are allowed to hand water plants and flowers.
BTW…we have three watersheds in local mountain from which we draw water. A pet peeve of mine are the people who manage them. Year after year they fail to predict correctly the amount of water we’ll need and prevent the reservoirs from filling to capacity in the off-season.
The amount of heat in the tropical Pacific is clearly declining.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202309.gif
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202309.gif
You really are desperate to get your La Nina back, aren’t you.
declining?
Not really.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
From the same source … Pacific equatorial surface temperatures have been high and are predicted to remain high months into the future.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#overview-section=Sea-surface
Much as that is probably true, the BOM’s forecast has been consistently high compared to outcomes. Not saying their forecast can’t ultimately turn out to be correct, but they are certainly an outlier. It’s probably safer to look at the mean of the 7 climate models at the end of the page (looking ahead to Dec/Jan).
There is growing evidence that Palmowski does not even understand the exact signification of the Tropical Pacific ocean analysis pictures he repeatedly posts.
“Ice cubes dont boil water.”
Clint famously repeats this claim. Let me present a simple (conceptually) situation where ‘ice cubes boil water’. Then at least people will have a starting point to assess the claim.
A container of water is put into orbit around the sun, far from any planet or other large object. The orbit is designed so that the water will be 99 C — almost but not quite boiling. At 99 C, the absorbed radiation from the sun balances the emitted radiation from the container.
Now construct a shell of ‘ice cubes’ at 0 C some distance from the container. Leave an opening so sunlight still gets in. This changes the radiation balance. Some might say the ice provides radiation to the container; some might say the container radiates less effectively now. The description doesn’t matter — the change in radiation balance matters. With the container inside the 0 C surroundings (as opposed to -270 C surroundings), the sunlight will be sufficient to boil the water.
It is clear that the addition of the ice cubes led to the water boiling. The radiation from the ice cubes, in conjunction with the radiation from the sun, caused the water to boil.
Granted, the sun is needed. You can’t get rid of the sun and use ONLY radiation from ice to boil water. But no one ever claimed such a thing. No one claims you can focus/add/combine radiation ONLY from ice to boil water.
In simpler terms:
https://youtu.be/i0Frx_bPsT8?feature=shared
Tim could have added container of water at 1bar.
tim…maybe one day you will move out of your mental fantasy world of thought experiments and supply us with actual evidence that ice cubes can boil water on our planet.
Funny you say that right after I did, Bordo.
C’mon, watch the video.
A “demonstration of vapor pressure” does not add insight to the physical means by which the earthen GHE works Willard.
The problem is wee willy that the entire discussion on this blog has been about climate conditions in our native world and not about laboratory tricks in which pressure is manipulated to make water bubble.
Boiling water is a reference to water being heated to 100C at standard pressure. We know that climbers on Everest can get water to bubble at 1/3rd the pressure of sea level but they all complain about it being lukewarm.
Boiling hot should be restricted to water heated to 100C because otherwise the word boiling makes no sense. Would you call boiling water something you could pour on your skin without it scalding you?
C’mon, Bordo.
Your problem is that you got NOTHING.
Dr. Spencer already did that with our own atm., surface water in Alabama, and icy cirrus arriving in view of that water at night.
Proper, replicable experiments such as Dr. Spencer’s are the gold standard Gordon. They proved added radiation from ice can raise the temperature of 1bar surface water as Tim properly theorizes. So Clint R has been proven wrong by real, documented experiments for many years – added ice cubes can boil water as Tim comments.
I like to point out that the cult believes ice cubes can boil water. I get falsely accused of not telling the truth. One of the dedicated cultists even called me a “lying dog”.
So thanks Folkerts, for promoting the false idea that ice cubes can boil water. You can use tricks, but ice cubes, WITH NO TRICKS, can not boil water. Of course most brain-dead cult idi0ts will not understand the tricks. The cult will continue to believe that ice cubes can boil water because that supports their beliefs that the sky can heat the surface.
I always happy to be proven right, again.
Happy Clint R you have been long proven wrong by Dr. Spencer’s proper, replicable experiments and also proven wrong by the 2LOT. You can’t possibly win against those dogs or even Tim’s proper comment 10:01 am.
But pls keep trying Clint R, it is great entertainment reading Clint’s latest physics gaffes.
b4…the 2nd law backs Clint’s claim that ice cubes can’t boil water. It is somewhat ironic that someone who does not understand the 2nd law would argue against Clint’s good logic.
Gordon, no it doesn’t, since in reality 2LOT supports ice cubes can boil water as that process increases universe entropy with dQ/T being positive in the process & real experiments right on this blog demonstrate that. Try to study thermodynamics a little deeper Gordon: dQ/T must be positive for all real processes.
Added ice cubes can boil water as Tim describes since in Tim’s process dQ/T is positive.
b4…”in reality 2LOT supports ice cubes can boil water as that process increases universe entropy with dQ/T being positive in the process…”
***
Clausius stated the 2nd law and entropy as…
1)Heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body.
2)entropy is the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat at temperature,T. He quantified that as S = integral dq/T.
How can you pervert those two clear statements into your claims about ice cubes boiling water? To increase universal entropy you need to increase the heat in the universe, all at a constant temperature.
Rather than advising me to study thermodynamics, perhaps you could study basic science so you’ll have an inkling of what I am trying to convey to you from Clausius. The claim that ice cubes can warm a hotter substance goes against all energy transfer in science.
Expecting ice cubes to warm water, especially to the boiling point, is like expecting a river in a lake to flow uphill, or a boulder to raise itself onto a cliff.
Gordon, YOU, an obvious unaccomplished rookie in thermodynamics incorrectly wrote 6:22 pm, not Clausius.
Clausius wrote to the effect of 1) a measure of the total constituent KE in a body can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body. That does NOT prevent added ice from raising the temperature of water when a measure of the total constituent KE in the water INCREASES as Dr. Spencer showed you experimentally years ago.
It is just no use for Gordon to continue denying the results of those experiments, Gordon’s time would be better spent studying & learning their details.
and, 2) entropy of the universe must increase in any real process.
Tim’s added ice cubes make dQ/T positive thus the process described by Tim is in accord with 2LOT raising universe entropy.
Here entropy eqn. as Clausius defined is the sum of infinitesimal quantities of energy transferred by virtue of a temperature difference changing object temperature T(t) over a certain time thus increasing a measure of the total constituent KE in a body.
EMR is NOT heat!
Fascinating.
Clint says: “So thanks Folkerts, for promoting the false idea that ice cubes can boil water. You can use tricks, but ice cubes, WITH NO TRICKS, can not boil water. ”
When in fact I had just said: “You cant get rid of the sun and use ONLY radiation from ice to boil water. But no one ever claimed such a thing. No one claims you can focus/add/combine radiation ONLY from ice to boil water.”
Clint is claiming exactly the same thing I just did, except he thinks he is disagreeing with me. Ice cubes (T=0C) alone ‘with no tricks’ cannot boil water (T=100C). Yep. Radiation from surroundings with temperature T(cold).
So now that we agree, how about ice cubes + sunlight (or ice cubes + an electric heater)? Does the temperature of the surroundings matter? Will a heated object in a 0 C room reach a different, warmer temperature than an identical heated object in a -270 C room? Is this true even when the rooms are evacuated?
If guy like Folkerts and Ball4 could stop their stoopid ice cube stories… that would be a great enhancement.
Such irrelevant stuff persistently leads to not only an intentional misrepresentation of what they write – that’s their private problem.
It leads also to discrediting and denigrating of the whole discussion by the Pseudo-Skepticals, what is NOT their private problem.
But it seems that this situation isn’t about to change as long as Folkerts and Ball4 will continue on their egomaniacal ice cube line, what makes people like Clint R, Robertson and others very happy.
Thanks a lot, guys.
Bindidon, understanding the basic physics of added ice cube radiation discussion is important to accomplish in atm. science as has same thermal effect on surface water as added high icy cirrus cloud at night. Dr. Spencer even made the effort to document this effect experimentally.
Ball4 continues to misrepresent Dr. Spencer, in an effort to promote his own nonsense. Spencer has NEVER said that ice cubes can boil water. Ball4, like Folkerts, has no credibility so has to try to hide behind Spencer.
Ball4
Not very unsurprisingly, you are too opinionated to understand even a bit of what I wrote.
The reason is simple: you do not really appear as a contradictor of people like Clint R, Robertson and a few others.
You rather behave as their pendant at right-angles, what is completely different.
Hi Roy,
I wrote you an email a couple of weeks ago with some questions, but it bounced, I used the email address provided on your site.
I have been analyzing the Data files exported from the Climate Change Institute Re-Analyzer Web-Site
I am extremely skeptical about the accuracy and the purpose and presentation of that NOAA data.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
In analyzing some of that NOAA Data, I am beginning to see things that from my limited perspective (Data) does not add up.
In analyzing the NOAA data from 1979 (the First year the Data is available) I stumbled onto something that I would rate as a Red Flag. To use the preferred NOAA terminology, I discovered an Anomaly between the Reported World Temperature and the Average of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres Temperatures.
I am not a Scientist, but I worked for 25 Years in Data management. So, I have crunched a lot of data in my time, and passed a lot of BPA and Postal Audits where they rip your data apart, to see if it all adds up to what you claim, like Magazine Circulation numbers, which determines what you can charge for Advertising. I think that Climate Change Institute, should be Audited in the same fashion, to see if what they claim stands up to Scrutiny.
I would like to send you that email which has graphs to illustrate what I am talking about and would like to get some Expert opinion on.
Can you provide ma an alternate email address?
Also, on the Temp data (UAH) that you do provide, does the Satellite Data not cover the Antarctic Area?
Thanks,
Frits Buningh
Columbia, MD
(1) The University of Maine is not NOAA.
(2) I have previously entered all the data from Climate Reanalyzer. There is NO discrepancy between global temps and the average of NH and SH temps. They are the same for every day since 1979, to within the plus/minus 0.01 you get from rounding.
(3) I note that you have stopped short of suggesting that the UAH data get audited. Why is that?
I think people are underestimating the power of the Beaufort gyre. Its like a coiled spring right now ready to go at any time. There is no stopping it. The longer it goes the tighter the spring will get and the more epic the temperature will crash when it does. In the mean time we just will continue to enjoy the normal short term cycles and argue with each other as they hit peaks and troughs. We are only talking about a fraction of a degree here on a global scale right now. No need to panic. On the other hand, locally, temps could plunge by 7-8 deg F if the gyre discharges. Thats the real danger. Not global warming due to a fraction of a fraction of a trace gas thats for sure.
scott…there are two major currents in the Arctic Ocean, the Beaufort gyre and the transpolar drift. The latter is responsible for dumping Arctic ice into the North Atlantic, making it almost impossible to measure how climate is affecting Arctic ice. What is it the gyre is doing in your estimation?
Between the two, Arctic ice extent is unpredictable. It moves around and in doing do, large masses of ice pile on top of each other thrusting the ice vertically at the intersecions. That cannot be measured by a satellite. Therefore the ice is always expanding and contracting, making it virtually impossible to estimate its extent from satellites.
Another wishful prediction of imminent plunges to colder temps. These become more frequent when we get months of hot anomalies, and positively cacophonous in a record hot year.
barry..I seriously hope we don’t have to endure another Little Ice Age. From what I read it caused misery in people’s lives, even though it prompted the Dutch to invent ice skating.
Try reading some stories of Arctic explorers between 1600 and 1850 to see what they had to endure while exploring the Arctic in summer. Read about the Ross expedition to Antarctica circa 1850 or what Shackleton’s crew endured in the early 1900s.
If you think I am hoping for one, you have me pegged incorrectly. I am hoping we can carry on with current temperatures. Even if it did cool, the alarmists would claim it came due to their reductions in CO2.
Sorry my comments are not going where they are supposed to go. I can see we are still having the same old issues on this blog.
Can you elaborate? I have never experienced issues where my posts have gone where they were not intended to go.
I have noticed when posting from a smart phone web browser that comments will be placed at the end of all comments instead of the replied comment unless “desktop” view is clicked “on”.
You are posting from a smartphone, aren’t you?
I don’t, use my good ol’ desktop all the time, and have never the problems you (and a few other guys ‘n dolls) endlessly complain about.
I seem to remember Bindigolina had some posting problems
Was that when he left in a huff then re-appeared as his girlfriend?
Aaaah the dachshund is here again, and ‘seems to remember, oh la la… and his anti GHE anti Global Warming friend-in-denial Robertson is happy to jump in with his usual lies.
And neither the dumb dachshund nor the dumber Robertson ever understood that this Pangolina vs Bindidon story is only due to me having posted a comment on my lady Roses’s notebook. Her pseudonym ‘Pangolina’ was automatically inserted by an autofill add-on.
What a bunch of idi-o-ts.
As water from melting sea ice in the south feeds the Humboldt Current, El Nino will weaken further in November.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
As so often, Palmowski tells us a lot of nonsense.
Despite an unusual sea ice loss during the summer, we are now at the end of the winter, and Antarctic’s sea ice extent is pretty good recovering:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
The sea ice in the south most continue to grow through September and will begin to slowly decline in October.
https://i.ibb.co/QM6nR9X/S-iqr-timeseries.png
The Humboldt current, occupying the upper ocean, flows equatorward carrying fresh, cold Sub-Antarctic surface water northward, along the outskirts of the subtropical gyre. The main flow of the current veers offshore in southern Peru, as a weaker limb continues to flow equatorward.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Humboldt_current.jpg
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/maps/gfs_pacific-sat_sst_d1.png
Even on a bad day, Ren’s posts are heads and shoulders above the drivel posted by Binny van der Klown.
Robertson
Once again you look like a toro in the Spanish corrida who sees the red muleta and immediately rushes towards it without even thinking for a tenth of a second.
Look at sentence 1:
” As water from melting sea ice in the south feeds the Humboldt Current… ”
and at sentence 2:
” The sea ice in the south most continue to grow through September and will begin to slowly decline in October. ”
*
Well, Robertson dumbie: if you don’t understand that Palmowski wrote in (2) the exact inverse of (1), then… you’d better visit a psychiatrist before it’s too late.
Has it not occurred to your addled brain that Ren was talking about different things?
Which things were those Gordon?
And perhaps you could explain why melting Antarctic sea ice doesn’t weaken EVERY El Nino by November if this is a real mechanism. It’s clear you also have no idea what he is saying.
No Robertson, Palmowski didn’t.
Your problem is that
– he is an opinionated coolista like you;
– you are simple-minded and trivial enough to think I’m an alarmist.
And that’s the reason why you imagine anything to give him right over me, regardless how dumb this lets you appear.
Actually, I believe Ren qualified that this would occur in November. Melting typically starts September and accelerates in October. So essentially he is correct.
billy bob
Sorry, I’m afraid you did not quite follow the discussion.
Simply forget it.
billy bob (2)
What remains relevant for us is this (updated yesterday):
https://tinyurl.com/2p8sw8zp
Thanks Bindidon,
Ren said, As water from melting sea ice in the south feeds the Humboldt Current, El Nino will weaken further in November.
And further says,
The sea ice in the south most continue to grow through September and will begin to slowly decline in October.
You show me a graph where melting sea ice occurs October, implying what Ren said. Please enlighten me on what I am missing?
billy bob
Thanks for the convenient reply.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
has nothing in common with the major source driving El Nino: it is only a small factor of a whole.
ren is a coolista: if the nino1+2 SST area would incidentally have shown some warming, he wouldn’t have written his comment.
I rely on other sources, e.g.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
which as opposed to usual observing instances like NCEP ironically contains nino1+2, but… in addition, a considerable amount of other sources.
I agree: I’m getting sad of both coolistas and those who think I’m an warmista or alarmist.
Ah, no problem, just thought I was missing something. The Nino 1.2 has decreased about 53% for the month of November in the past 73 years of available data. So it may be a weak association, but would be interesting if there was a second variable that may better explain.
You have always seemed like a data analyst to me. More of a matter of fact kind, like Ren. I always thought of myself as a warmista, but for different reasons not related to CO2. We are currently in an ice age and I believe this is number 7 in the last 3 billion years. And as the sun has gotten warmer, the ice age length has gotten shorter. I think it is safe to say that we will get out of this, though it may not be a straight line. I would not be surprised is we went into a cold cycle but dont expect it to last as long as the little ice age.
Clarification, that is 54% of the November months, not the index. 39 out of 73.
“I think it is safe to say that we will get out of this,”
Not sure we want to ‘get out of’ the climate we have had for all of human civilization’s existence.
Nate says – Not sure we want to get out of the climate we have had for all of human civilizations existence.
Are you suggesting climate has not changed during human civilizations? What is this blog for? I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. Finding evidence of forests under melting glaciers, ocean deposits and wave erosional patterns far above current sea level, humans living on the Bearing Strait land bridge, multiple civilizations ceasing to exist due to drought, etc.
Anyway, it is not a question of what we want. The evidence suggests it will happen, to say otherwise would make you a denier. We have choices though, we can 1) scare our children into thinking the world is going to burn in hell and the only way to stop it is to destroy every factory, disable every vehicle and kill every human being, then and only then will climate cease to change and we can live (or die) in harmonious poverty (sarcasm to emphasize the futility of attacking fossil fuels). 2) We can develop and implement ideas that mitigate the impact of natural climate cycles. 3) We can adapt to the changing climate. I hope we do the last 2.
You’re forgetting a range of possibilities, e.g.:
(4) We listen to contrarian megaphones are we do nothing.
(5) We listen to reactionary forces and reverse course.
(6) We pay lips service to what we could do and only pick the lowest and the lukewarmest hanging fruits.
The list goes on and on.
“I think it is safe to say that we will get out of this, though it may not be a straight line. I would not be surprised is we went into a cold cycle but dont expect it to last as long as the little ice age.”
Well, my point is that human civilization has been all during the Holocene, but as you say is part of an ice age.
Not sure it is desirable to ‘get out of’ the climate we have had, which allowed human civilization to flourish.
We understand glacial cycles well enough to know that glaciation is not expected for thousands of years.
Nate,
I agree, most people move to their preferred climate region. Many cannot do that, but still people in general probably prefer for things to not change. My point is that climates always do change, it just takes time.
On your point about glaciation, I also agree due to the planet cycles. Also, with the sun burning hotter and hotter with the conversion of hydrogen to helium, it may be safe to say that glacial periods will eventually cease to exist in our far distant future. And probably a bit further than that, ice ages will cease to exist as well.
But again my point is humans can adapt (we have flourished in various climates) and/or find a way to change albedo to reduce solar insolation. It is inefficient to attack CO2 expecting that will solve the problem (some may say a warmer planet is not a problem). However, fossil fuels left to themselves will eventally be replaced anyway by alternative energy sources. We are using it faster than can be replaced and will drive cost up. The free market will force the issue, and interfering with it is inefficient.
We are living in interesting times.
“However, fossil fuels left to themselves will eventally be replaced anyway by alternative energy sources”
That seems to be happening already. Polluting coal is not running out anytime soon, but the market is removing it.
Save it to use to avoid a future glacial phase?
Another hurricane west of Mexico will effectively lower surface temperatures in the Nino 1.2 region.
https://i.ibb.co/qkwMWpv/mimictpw-epac-latest.gif
https://i.ibb.co/xmp1J2k/goes18-ir-11-E-202309071435.gif
Heavy Snow In Atigun Pass Through Thursday, and 6 inches of snow above 3000 ft in the Alaska Range through Thursday…
yes…winter in that part of the world seems to begin September 1st. It’s summer on August 31st then it is suddenly winter next day.
That’s why I find it so funny that alarmists claim Arctic ice is melting. It’s not melting now and their one month of summer just ended.
Robertson is not only dumb; he is also a gullible believer of anything showing ‘cold’.
Here is your ‘heavy snow in Atigun Pass’, Robertson:
https://snoflo.org/report/snow/alaska/atigun-pass/
How is it possible to be so ridiculous to wonder about a few inches of snow in September at 68 degree latitude and 1400 meter altitude?
*
” That’s why I find it so funny that alarmists claim Arctic ice is melting. ”
Only denial specialists write such nonsense.
https://i.postimg.cc/L6fV5w7j/Arctic-sea-ice-absol-monthly.png
Arctic sea ice peaks every year in March.
1979: 16.33 Mkm^2
2023: 14.44 Mkm^2
Source
https://tinyurl.com/MASIE-monthly
You don’t know anything, Robertson: all you are able to is to boast with your uneducated guessing.
aq…”Trump imitators are flattering Trump.
Its always funny when people believe that stock sayings which are used as a replacement for independent thinking actually cap.ture a universal truth”.
***
What you fail to grasp is that certain politicians are required at certain times. In a context of ever-increasing political correctness, Trump was the right man to counter it. I had nothing in common with the guy till he started calling out NATO freeloaders like Canada for not paying their fair share. As a Canadian, I find it embarrassing that we could not defend ourselves without the US bailing us out.
Trouble posting…
At the same time, Trump could talk to a guy like Putin whereas someone like Hillary Clinton was crippled by a stoopid cold war mentality. The worst thing that could have happened to the US was having Clinton as president. I have little doubt that Trump could have ended the Ukrainian war by now.
In WWII, Churchill was the right man for the job in the UK. Immediately following the war, he was voted out of office. Brits knew inherently he was the wrong man for rebuilding the UK from the economic devastation it had encountered.
Apparently you don’t know what a stock saying is.
And not sure what you think is special about two criminals being able to talk to each other.
The fact that you regard Putin and Trump as criminals is an indication of your need to follow authority figures at the expense of thinking for yourself.
I don’t think either will win contests for forthrightness but neither qualify as being criminals. If they did, most politicians would be in jail and those politicians quietly manipulating voters behind the scene would be criminals.
The current court activity aimed at Trump is nothing more than an effort by disgusting Democrats to prevent him from running again.
They’ve committed crimes, therefore they are criminals. End of story.
So you don’t favor the principles of the right of any person charged with an offence to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
Straw man, Ken.
The presumption of innocence means that the state cannot sentence and lock you up for a crime without due process.
It does not mean that you are innocent.
The relevant authorities have decided that there is sufficient prima facie evidence against Trump and his associates to bring them to trial.
That is where their guilt or innocence will be determined.
Ken
Do you believe in the same principle with regard to all the innuendo against notable people regarding supposed illicit connections to Epstein? Or with regard to unfounded rumours based on guesswork about his murder and who might be responsible?
AQ
Yes
AQ
What are the facts? Again and again and again what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what the stars foretell, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable verdict of history what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
~ Heinlein
The charges he faces are quite real. He did indeed have a stockpile of government documents that he tried to keep from the government for more than a year, he certainly seems to have attempted to illegally overturn the results of the 2020 election while he was still president (the call to Brad Raffensburger is a signal piece of evidence), and he is on the record inviting a mob to the Capitol on January 6, sending them to the Capitol building where they stormed past police and stopped the certification of the election, and then did nothing for a few hours while that was happening.
In any other country a leader that did that would already have been tried, unless that leader had been successful in such efforts, in which case we would write off the government.
But in the US, the rich and powerful seem to get all the breaks for as long as possible, and Donald Trump even more than most.
Come on, Barry, Biden did the same thing but he has not been charged. In fact, they are working hard to get his son off. Hillary had her email server illegally in her home, and nothing came of it.
As far as election tampering is concerned, I followed it closely, hoping he’d raise a fuss. There is no doubt in my mind the Democrats cheated and there is good evidence to that effect.
With regard to his business dealings, if they are going to go after him, then they need to go after every politician in the US.
Nope. This is a witch hunt, pure and simple.
One guy has just received a lengthy jail term for seditious conspiracy. Where was the sedition? Sedition is defined by Dictionary dot com as “conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch”. That’s a serious laugh, it was nothing more than some good old boys, with no firearms, invading Congress.
In the Ukraine, armed nationalists actually overthrew a democratically-elected president in 2014 yet you and others don’t seem to have a problem with that. Most other countries seem to think it was just fine.
No, Bidend (and Pence) did not do the same thing.
As soon as they became aware they had government docs, they gave them back to the government.
Trump held out for more than a year, which is why a subpoena was issued after failing to retrieve all the documents, and then a raid after the subpoena failed to retrieve all the documents. At every stage of the process, more documents were found, including classified documents, and it now seems clear that they were deliberately concealed. These were many hundreds of government documents, and nearly 200 classified documents. It took the government 18 months to collect the documents, and they still found 100 more classified docs in the raid, plus many others that belong to the government.
Contrast that with Biden and Pence, whose legal teams alerted the government of the small number of documents on their own cognizance, and then promptly handed them over.
Trump is also recorded waving around a classified document on Iranian defense after his presidency, bragging to the people gathered who didn’t have clearance, that it was classified, but that he still had it.
Trump derangement syndrome may be real, but it’s not his opponents who suffer from it.
The point being that there is multiple evidence to charge Trump and hold a trial. I haven’t even mentioned further evidence of employees moving boxes that were ordered to stay put, and fiddling with security footage to hide it.
Maybe you should get off Fox and Newsmax and the other right-wing echo chambers just long enough to look at the charge sheet. You can then go back to those mills a bit better informed.
barry, Trump is the worst thing that could happen to not just the USA, but world. The problem is that after Comey, McCabe, and The Love Birds were given authorization by President Obama to investigate the Trump campaign activities, his supporters will believe that any investigation is another fraud. The IG Horowitz report and the Durham investigation revealed the fact that Trump was mistreated by the FBI.
It was the Hillary Clinton dirty tricks play book. Plant a fake story with FBI, and then leak a report that they are investigating. Then Hillary proceeded to take too many states for granted and let Trump win by simply showing in the places Hillary ignored.
Hillary is fully to blame for Trump. He should never have been elected, but now it is too late. He has become the symbol of government overreach into peoples live, and a corrupt legal system. Trump supporters are not interested facts or evidence.
The Trump problem goes a bit deeper than Clinton.
For example Murdoch and his Faux “news”.
But even then, it boils down to the sensibilities or lack thereof of the American people. Murdoch doesn’t push as hard here in Australia because he knows the people here are generally saner, as they are in pretty much every other western country. But we still have the lunacy of Pauline Hanson and her supporters, mainly from rural Queensland. And the bipolar Mark Latham.
Murdoch certainly knows how to appeal to the lowest common denominator. But his alliance with the Right is only one of convenience – he was on the Left of politics before forming Newscorp and desperate to acquire a new supporter base – he has no principles. The day he croaks will be a day of celebration.
“The problem is that after Comey, McCabe, and The Love Birds were given authorization by President Obama to investigate the Trump campaign activities”
I’m not sure the FBI or the Justice Department needs presidential approval to launch investigations. Are you sure about this? Or was Obama simply briefed about it?
And isn’t that all ‘whataboutism’ anyway, Tim? The FBI didn’t do Trump wrong, 1 or possibly 3 agents fouled protocol and one of them doctored an email. Neither Durham nor Horowitz found there was institutional bias against Trump.
The point is – investigations occurred, findings released. Trump should undergo the same rigour as anyone else.
The “allaboutwhatism” argument is one of the most common leftist propagandist tactics.
Anthony,
Where is your leftist Utopia? Where has it ever been?
Tim,
Your problem is that you focus on Trump’s style and antics, not what he did. All his decisions were sound. Name one Biden decision that’s been sound?
> All his decisions were sound.
Some of them were indeed related to sound:
https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/rebecca-ferguson-wants-to-sing-strange-fruit-at-trump-inauguration-7640643/
For once a woman was truly interested in what he was selling, he turned her down.
Stephen P Anderson
You have stated you were a mathematician and Chemist at one point in your life. Now you seem just a right-wing fanatic thinking only through the lens they have programmed you to believe. You seem to have lost the logic rational mind that you would have had in the sciences. You can get out of it, it will be difficult but it is possible to find a way out of Trumpism Cult.
https://tinyurl.com/5n7tbve4
A strong Trump supported discovered what drove him to like this person and why he changed. There is hope for you as this one was able to see the light. Hope you can at some point.
There never was a Leftist utopia, any more than there is a Rightist utopia.
I have noticed a difference between the two ideologies.
Leftists care about other people; Rightists don’t care a toss about anyone but themselves.
“Leftists care about other people; Rightists dont care a toss about anyone but themselves.”
How is the Holocaust caring for people.
How tens of millions murdered by China and Russia caring for people.
How is France’s great terror caring for people.
“The Great Terror that followed, in which about 1,400 persons were executed, contributed to the fall of Robespierre on July 27 (9 Thermidor). During the Reign of Terror, at least 300,000 suspects were arrested; 17,000 were officially executed, and perhaps 10,000 died in prison or without trial.”
Sometimes you have break some eggs to make an Omelet- a caring statement about people.
One trait among the Left is their hatred of reality. They constantly seek to pervert reality, as we see here but he cultists.
I don’t regard any of your examples as leftist in the sense Marx meant, just as Musselini’s Italy was not representative of the sort of nation Stephen Anderson would want.
The problem is that once an authoritarian government takes over, any principles (Left or Right) it once had disappear and it does anything necessary for survival.
It is why I prefer government by pragmatists to government by idealists.
barry, I am not supporting or defending Trump. I am not accusing Obama either. I am relaying media accounts of what happened. Trump’s supporters are fully justified to believe that factions in the government are out to get him. He was unfairly targeted by the FBI. I just did a search to refresh my memory and not surprisingly, different media have different accounts. Try this one:
https://nypost.com/2020/06/27/fresh-evidence-obama-ordered-up-the-phony-russiagate-scandal/
“More, the notes have Obama ordering that the continued investigation be kept secret from the incoming president and his people: Make sure you look at things and have the right people on it.”
The “right people” had McCabe supervising three FISA applications that contained a total of 17 “unexplained” errors. In his testimony to Congress, IG Horowitz emphasized that they could not explain it.
I will explain. If you have filed a false report with a Federal Judge, your lawyer will probably advise you not to try to explain how that happened because you are just getting in deeper. There is a lawyer adage that you should never put a guilty client on the witness stand. A better one is to never give an answer to a question that was not explicitly asked. Do not fill in the blanks. Force them to ask the right question. Be evasive.
ent…”It is why I prefer government by pragmatists to government by idealists”.
***
Does such a government exist? In Canada and the US, governments are run from behind the scenes by so-called backroom boys. Even Trump suffered from them.
Will Happer (where is Ken???) was taken on by the Trump admin as an advisor on climate. Of course, Happer is a skeptic. Happer reported that some of his initiatives were rejected, not by Trump, who liked them, but by the backroom boys who thought they might not go over well with the voters.
Governments today are neither pragmatic nor idealistic, they are run on the basis of maximizing votes. It is people in back rooms who reach the decisions as to what will sell with the voter.
“the backroom boys ” have always been there- they are main part of all politics of any nation. Putin has “backroom boys”.
Divided government was a means to deal them.
When you arresting the opposition, you getting into Putin territory- but, it can get worse, and history is full of it, over and over again.
Yes, Tim, I also refreshed my memory. It seems you are relying on stories from 2020?
“Try this one”
Which is a story about an investigation into Michael Flynn, not Trump. Also, Obama didn’t order it. The investigation into Flynn (and Trump) was already underway by the time of this meeting in 2017. Obama ordered a general investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, which is the only Obama-authored connection I can find to all of this.
New York Post?
You’ll get more information and a wealth of sources from wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_investigation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_special_counsel_investigation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_General_report_on_FBI_and_DOJ_actions_in_the_2016_election
The Crossfire Hurricane page includes brief mentions of and links to the other investigations.
Wikipedia also has a long drawn out defense of the hockey stick, and they have allowed Mann himself to rewrite the history of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. I will not waste my time. Their political stories are biased. I am sure they have opinions that Hillary had credible evidence, Trump had secret meetings with Putin, Blah, Blah, Blah.
The raw unbiased information without spin or commentary is in the IG Horowitz and Durham reports. Read those if you wish to be informed.
Such no agenda.
Very not political.
Wow
The facts Ma’am, just the facts.
There’s an infinity of facts to choose from, Tim.
And the ones you chose on this page alone speak louder than whatever justification that may comfort you.
I see. Wikipedia has multiple sources for most points. But you think the straight dope comes from the New York Post, a notorious conservative tabloid.
I read the NYP story. But you didn’t check out the wiki page, I expect. Don’t get stuck in echo chambers…
barry, don’t play games. This is my conclusion. Here it is again:
The raw unbiased information without spin or commentary is in the IG Horowitz and Durham reports. Read those if you wish to be informed.
Here you go barry:
https://www.justice.gov/sco-durham
“On October 19, 2020, John Durham was appointed by Attorney General William Barr” is a true fact.
“Bill served as the attorney general under Dad Bush and teh Donald” is another fact.
From these facts we can conclude that Tim is full of it.
I’ve leafed through the report previously, Tim, and the IG’s. And Mueller’s.
Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_special_counsel_investigation#Final_report
You tell me if there is any significant difference between this summary and the report.
Japan launches telescope and moon lander following weather delays
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Japan_launches_telescope_and_moon_lander_following_weather_delays_999.html
“The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency successfully launched a rocket Wednesday, with a high-powered X-ray telescope and moon lander on board, after the launch was scrubbed late last month due to high winds.
The H-2A rocket lifted off on time, at 7:42 p.m. EST, or 8:42 a.m. local time, from the Tanegashima Space Center in Japan, and deployed the space telescope on schedule.”
…
“The XRISM mission is designed to help unravel the mystery of gravity, which Albert Einstein theorized was caused by the warping of spacetime around heavy objects.”
…
“The mission also includes JAXA’s Smart Lander for Investigating Moon, or SLIM, which is flying as a ride-share on this launch. It is scheduled to land on the moon early next year to test precision landing technology.”
SpaceX awaits FAA approval for Starship launch
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/SpaceX_awaits_FAA_approval_for_Starship_launch_999.html
Elon Musk said Tuesday that SpaceX is ready to launch a second test “flight of its Starship and awaits Federal Aviation Administration approval nearly five months after the first test in Texas exploded over the Gulf of Mexico.
The updated Starship, the most powerful rocket ever built, was rolled out to the launching pad where it will wait for FAA approval before setting a new date for liftoff. ”
We also waiting for Artemis 2. Wiki:
“Artemis 2 (officially Artemis II) is the second scheduled mission of NASA’s Artemis program and the first scheduled crewed mission of NASA’s Orion spacecraft, currently planned to be launched by the Space Launch System (SLS) in November 2024”
…
“During preliminary reviews in 2011, the launch date was placed somewhere between 2019 and 2021, but afterwards the launch date was delayed to 2023 on a Space Launch System (SLS) launch vehicle.
Although, as of March 2023, the mission is pegged for a November 2024 launch, the need to recycle and refurbish components from Orion that flew on Artemis 1 may push this back to later in 2024 or the first quarter of 2025.”
And still waiting for other lunar landers. Though date is given of Oct 15 it’s also to be announced in terms of when Falcon-9 will lift off and as always, weather could also delay it.
And other one is sometime in fourth quarter of 2023- that being the first launch of Vulcan Centaur and it launching “with the Peregrine commercial lunar lander for Astrobotic. The Peregrine robotic lander will carry multiple experiments, scientific instruments, and tech demo payloads for NASA and other customers. The mission will also launch two prototype satellites for Amazons Kuiper broadband constellation.”
Though I think going to the “two prototype satellites for Amazons Kuiper broadband constellation” with Atlas V rocket:
NET September 26 Atlas 5 Project Kuiper
“The first two demonstration satellites for Amazons Project Kuiper broadband constellation will launch on an Atlas 501 rocket. These satellites were originally scheduled to fly on the first Vulcan rocket.”
And since going do Altas launch {a proven rocket} first, it tends to indicate a good chance, Peregrine robotic lander could delayed longer.
So, maybe only thing exciting in 2023, is if India rover, wakes up from it’s 2 week night, sleep.
About the controversial ice cubes boiling water thought experiment.
Is there a rapper by the name of Ice Cube who makes a cup of tea with boiling water?
It’s just as sensible and bends the English language to the same breaking point as the ice cubes in space not being cubes any longer.
I don’t call it rap, I call it c-rap.
Probing the limits of what the next fallback position will be for increasingly untenable blanket climate change denial.
Are deniers so detached from reality at this point that they’ll buy “Deep State Weather Modification” as the response to increasingly wild climate extremes?
Jesse Watters trial balloons “maybe it’s Laser beams I’m just asking questions…”.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-iNWjFGoAx4?feature=share
Ark, your cult believes the atmosphere is a microwave oven and is full of lasers.
You need to keep up with your cult’s nonsense.
I don’t buy into the weather modifications claims but those theories are on par with the alarmist theories that a trace gas in the atmosphere can cause catastrophic warming/climate change.
Why you defend such a theory is the question.
Robertson is a pro-Russia manipulator and heavy Putinist.
He permanently misinforms us and misrepresents what happened and happens in Ukraine, with the idea that the democratically elected Viktor Yanukovych has been a good guy who has been thrown away by ‘armed far right nationalists’.
*
The truth looks quite different.
Yanukovych was a 100 % Putin marionette with as main job to prevent Ukraine moving away from Moscow’s influence sphere.
In November 2013, President Viktor Yanukovych rejected a greater integration with the European Union, sparking mass protests by a majority of younger people sad of stalinism, which Yanukovych attempted to put down violently. Russia backed Yanukovych in the crisis, while the US and Europe supported the protesters.
In February 2014, anti-government protests toppled the government and ran Yanukovych out of the country. Russia invaded and annexed Crimea the next month. In April, pro-Russia separatist rebels began seizing territory in eastern Ukraine.
*
That’s how it was, and Putinist Robertson should stop right now to manipulate this blog with his utter lies about everything (Ukraine is only a minor point within his arsenal of misinformation).
binny…”In February 2014, anti-government protests toppled the government…”
***
In that dark place you call a brain, have you ever asked how protesters could manage to overthrow a president just by shouting? Where was the Ukrainian army? Where were the police? Do you think that could happen in modern Germany?
No. The protests were peaceful at first, then, is as typical with such peaceful protests, militants who represent Ukrainian nationalists got involved and they were armed. They began shooting at the police and the army did nothing.
Yanokovich explained it from his side. The European Union had offered the Ukraine terms to join them that he found unacceptable. He went into detail on the terms, claiming the International Monetary Fund was involved and they wanted financial restrictions put on workers that he found unacceptable. Meantime, Russia offered him a far better deal.
I am not so obtuse that I would accept anything he said verbatim, like you might, so I dug deeper. Turns out he was supported heavily in eastern Ukraine, a part of the Ukraine that features Russian speaking people. So, Russian-speaking Ukrainians got him elected and Yanokovich seems to have a bias towards Russians.
Duh!!!
Not only that, when he was ousted, the eastern Ukrainians in the Donbass region revolted. It was reported by the Western media that the revolters were Russian ingrates out to cause trouble. No one took the time to explain why they were so disenchanted. They did not explain that they were PO’d because a president for whom they had voted had been removed in an armed coup.
And who were the protesters? Each year, thousands of Ukrainians gather in candlelight vigils to celebrate Ukrainians who fought on the side of the Nazis during WW II. In particular, they honour, Stepan Bandera, who was wanted at Nuremberg for war crimes. He allegedly participated in the murder of Jews, Poles, and Russians. I think it might be safe to guess that a good portion of the protestors represented Ukrainian nationalists who have a diabolical hatred of Russians, or anyone else who is not pure Caucasian.
And let’s not forget, Mr. van der Klown, that the Russians played a major part in overthrowing the Nazis in WW II. I honour the ordinary Russian who had no say in the matter and that includes women who volunteered to fight on the front lines. I don’t care about Stalin or Putin, just the ordinary Russians who have lived under oppression for as long as they can remember.
They deserve a break, as do the ordinary Ukrainians who are currently being manipulated by Ukrainian nationalists. I care about people, not politics. Anyone who has traveled through Russia recently know the Russians as friendly, generous people. Like any country, they have their share of ijits but why do we in the West regard the ijits as being representative of Russians as a whole?
Completely irrelevant trash, as usual.
The longer Robertson’s posts, the quicker I put them into the waste bag.
What remains is this: Robertson is a pro-Russia Putinist who tries to misrepresent Putin’s terror against Ukraine.
Just as he discredits Einstein, COVID19, global warming, etc etc etc, and even everything people like me write about climate data processing, despite his thorough ignorance in the field.
If a pseudo-engineer like Robertson deserves the label ‘Van der Klown’, it’s him!
Anyone who nonetheless believes Robertson’s selfish rubbish deserves it.
“Robertson is a pro-Russia Putinist who tries to misrepresent Putins terror against Ukraine”.
***
And you likely think Hitler was misunderstood.
Re Einstein, covid, etc., I only comment on the obvious. Einstein clearly messed up with his understanding of time and I am not the only one to note that. The inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, claimed that Einstein’s theory of relativity is nothing more than a collection of thought experiments. He added that E. did not understand measurement.
Covid hysteria speaks for itself. The hysterical had to eventually declare it endemic, meaning it is a natural infection that is nothing out of the ordinary. They could have saved us a lot of grief by listening to advisors who told them that in the first place.
BTW..here’s a paper by Essen explaining his objection to Einstein’s theory…
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/essen.pdf
Elsewhere, Essen elaborated. He points out that if you have two reference frames, say moving along parallel one-dimensional lines and one is x, while the other is x’, certain fundamentals have to be recognized. If clocks and measuring sticks are used on one reference frame the same have to be used on the other. There is no explanation given by Einstein as to hwy the measuring stick should change length or a clock should run slower due to changes in velocity.
He presumed both based on nothing more than a thought-experiment. For that reason alone, his theories on relativity should be scrapped and the good science of Newton re-instated. Newton was a true scientist and Einstein a wannabee scientist who dabbled in theory and thought experiments.
The truth is that changes in length and changes in time were introduced to satisfy the equations used. No one, at any time, has ever measured those changes in a real-world situation.
Einstein was happy to adopt theories by Maxwell and Lorenz without verifying them through experiment. It’s hard for me to accept that he could have made such a blunder because I too was raised to believe that Einstein was a genius who could not be contradicted.
Summer in central and eastern Europe will last until the autumnal equinox.
https://i.ibb.co/TR8Vq67/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-09-08-172911.png
ren…it is already cooling off here in Vancouver, Canada. No sign of real rain yet. By real rain, I mean the normal 72 inches we get each year.
We’ll probably get it all at once, causing flooding which they will blame on climate change. ‘They’ is a reference to eco-loonies and their supporters.
September will no longer be as warm in Australia as August.
https://i.ibb.co/VQNQ82S/gfs-T2ma-aus-1.png
Do you make this claim with the same confidence as your claim from earlier in the year that there was no chance of an El Nino this year?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Moved down here…lost my place…
Barry…to be fair, you live in Australia and all you have to go on is the media down there. I get it from all sides up here.
Why did Biden have such documents in the first place? He was given benefit of the doubt that he did not know yet Trump does not get the same respect. He was raided by the FBI.
How did the FBI know he had such document and why are the documents so important? And how was Trump using them in a dangerous manner?
In case you have been off living on another planet, there has been an orchestrated ‘Get Trump’ going on up here since prior to 2016. He was accused of collaborating with the Russians and a subsequent investigation found no evidence of that, even though the appointed investigator went well beyond his mandate to find such evidence. Since then, the Democrats have gone far beyond any reasonable measures to silence Trump and remove him from running for office again.
For the longest time, I equated the Democrats with honesty and integrity and I turned out to be a f00l. The current mob of Democrats are the most dishonest and dangerous government that has ever been in power.
> lost my place
C’mon, Bordo.
I would expect nothing else from you, a Dragon crank who would be confused by a real science event.
wee willy…I was hoping you might have learned some real science during your self-imposed hiatus. Seems to be the same old, same old to me.
C’mon, Bordo.
I dont buy into the idea that you know anything about science when you’re such a crank on just every single question you can lay your eyes on.
Why you think anyone should believe you is the question.
I don’t think anyone should believe anything since a belief is nothing more than stating something is true without proof it is. I simply try to do science to the best of my abilities while you hve yet to learn what it is. So, how can you comment on something you clearly don’t understand?
Any chance you will go on hiatus any time soon?
C’mon, Bordo.
You call that your best of your habilities.
I call it the best of your in-habilities.
Gordon Robertson
Are you being funny here?? You: “I dont think anyone should believe anything since a belief is nothing more than stating something is true without proof it is. I simply try to do science to the best of my abilities while you hve yet to learn what it is.”
Gordon you do NOT do science. You do your own opinions on all topics. You can’t understand two-way energy exchange and you don’t try to understand it. You think time is a human made creation (you are totally confused with units of time and what time actually is that is being measured…a rate of change which is NOT man-made).
You cannot understand emissivity for radiant energy at all.
You can’t grasp that the loss of energy by radiant means is not only well studied and verified by countless experiments and is quite correct, you favor the goofball blog of Gary Novak and blindly peddle his nonsense on this blog.
You are very far from science and only peddle you false beliefs and notions and NEVER come up with any evidence or proof of any of your claims. I like you more than Clint R (who I think is an asshole and a dunce). You seem as ignorant of science as Clint R but you have a better personality. He is just a pure asshole to everyone on this blog.
I didn’t Gordon was a philosopher stating some of the tenets of Epistemology. The real question comes down to whether a belief is justified and that requires it to be true so it is circular logic.
To be clear, in order for a fact to be true, one must believe it. The belief must be justified, and the only justification is if it true.
Neil deGrasse Tyson ‘The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.’
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/
There is no truth, and there are no facts, just very well justified beliefs based on reliable evidence. Consensus is not fact. When Bernoulli first proposed the Kinetic Theory of Gases it was not well received.
“The theory was not immediately accepted, in part because conservation of energy had not yet been established, and it was not obvious to physicists how the collisions between molecules could be perfectly elastic.”
norman…”You cant understand two-way energy exchange and you dont try to understand it. You think time is a human made creation…”
***
I am trying to think of a situation where any energy is transferred both ways simultaneously. The problem I have with your replies is your inability to give examples.
My expertise is with electrical theory. I know for a fact that electrical energy cannot be transferred both ways simultaneously. Electrical energy always moves from a region of higher potential energy to a region of lower potential energy. There is no flow of energy in the opposite direction.
Heat flows through a solid in the same manner, from a higher potential to a lower potential. It cannot flow in the opposite direction so why would it be any different via radiation? Bohr showed us why it can’t and that’s because electrons in atoms that radiate energy are always at a higher potential than the same electrons that radiate energy from a colder object.
Even though Clausius was not privy to the information of Bohr, he stated that heat transfer via radiation must obey the 2nd law. He reasoned that using an alternate theory. Unfortunately, because he was not privy to Bohr’s information, he thought heat flowed through an ‘aether’ as heat rays. Therefore he issued some statements about a two way radiation with the suggestion that heat was being transferred both ways simultaneously.
I feel empathy for the guy because he was a great scientist and had to try offering some explanation. There is no excuse for you and others trying to perpetuate that pseudo-science. You cannot explain how it works when challenged.
I do think time is a human creation and an article I posted from NIST makes the same claim. They make it clear that humans based time on the apparent motion of the Sun in the daytime sky. NIST also pointed out that we also use the word time to define intervals between events. That’s fair enough but the intervals themselves are human defined since they are measured by the same time that is based on the Sun. In reality, there is nothing over an interval that exists.
tim s …”I didnt Gordon was a philosopher stating some of the tenets of Epistemology. The real question comes down to whether a belief is justified and that requires it to be true so it is circular logic”.
***
I am questioning whether there is any need for beliefs. If you don’t know for sure, say so.
We can claim that anything dropped from an altitude above the surface will fall to the surface eventually. A leaf may be blown around by the wind, but it will eventually fall to the surface, or another surface, it will not sit idly in the air. I don’t equate such science to a belief system even though I don’t exclude the possibility of something not obeying the law of gravity.
To me, a belief is nothing more than a thought, a useless thought. If I claim a belief that life exists on Mars (gb..are you there?), it’s nothing more than an idle thought. That can be extended to the proto-planets claimed by astronomers, black hole theory, and the Big Bang theory.
Evolution is nothing more than a belief system. Modern evolution theory adherents are careful to distance themselves from abiogenesis, the real basis of evolution theory, which claims life was created from non-life elements. I find it absurd to presume that current life as we know it evolved from 5 different elements. I also think the theory of natural selection is absurd.
If asked how life came about my reply is I don’t know. If asked to theorize, I think there is a creator. That does not make it so.
https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis
The belief that time exists as a real phenomenon is also absurd. Time is clearly a product of the same mind that produces and relies on beliefs.
All in all, I fail to see a need for beliefs. As far as religion is concerned, a person can have a relationship with God without believing anything.
To understand beliefs, philosophy is not required. A simple examination of mental processes reveals the answer.
Gordon Robertson
I give you examples of two-way energy exchange and you just ignore them and then claim I do not provide them. That is a sad thing to do.
Here again.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Elastischer_sto%C3%9F2.gif
Example of two-way energy exchange. The kinetic energy of the faster moving object is transferred to the slower one. The kinetic energy of the slower one is transferred to the faster one.
You have established physics (you reject) based upon multiple experiments over many years by different people all arriving at the same conclusions and establishing a formula used throughout heat transfer applications. Clint R says it is bogus. He is an ignorant dunce. Here it is
It is a prime example that radiant energy transfers both ways regardless of you ignorance and make believe ideas. You are wrong but will not change your ignorance.
You will ignore it any way and then falsely claim I provide not examples.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/14-7-radiation/#:~:text=1%20and%200.-,The%20net%20rate%20of%20heat%20transfer%20by%20radiation%20is%20Q,the%20emissivity%20of%20the%20object.
The mistake you are making, Norman, is mistaking kinetic energy for a form of energy. KE is not a kind of energy it is simply a descriptor that tells us the energy is in motion. The only energy in your example is mechanical energy, which is the energy associated with masses in motion. Your example is only telling us that energy is conserved, not exchanged.
In your upper example, two masses are colliding head on whereas in the lower example the masses are colliding so the rear mass propels the other mass forward. In the upper, it is not so much a problem of energy exchange as it is one force overcoming another. In the lower, one mass is adding energy to the other through one force adding to another.
The question is, what is driving the masses? If it is a motor, it has to be something like an internal combustion engine or an electric motor. If the first, it is an explosion involving chemical energy that is the motivating power. In the second, it is electrical energy. The outcome of either is mechanical energy.
I don’t know how you can claim that as energy being exchanged in the same manner that electromagnetic energy is claimed to be exchanged between bodies. With the ME, energy is exchanged only in the sense of an addition to one mass and subtraction from another.
That’s not what is implied by an EM exchange. It is claimed that EM can produce heat in either direction but that requires a transformation of EM to heat in both directions simultaneously, which is not possible.
With your examples, chemical or electrical energy is transformed to mechanical energy. Only that energy is involved in the collisions, but its not an exchange. In one case, energy is added to one mass from the other whereas in the other it is subtracted from one and added to the other. It’s not an energy exchange overall.
Quantum theory makes it clear that electrons residing in a higher energy orbital cannot absorb energy emitted by a cooler body. The reason is clear. Electrons in a hotter body are at a higher energy level, hence orbiting at a higher frequency than electrons in a cooler body. Frequency is the key. The EM emitted by a cooler body has a frequency that is too low to excite electrons in a hotter body.
Gordon Robertson
Okay it is certain you have NOT taken any courses in basic physics. You “The mistake you are making, Norman, is mistaking kinetic energy for a form of energy. KE is not a kind of energy it is simply a descriptor that tells us the energy is in motion.”
NO GORDON. Kinetic energy is a form of energy. I don’t even know what it means when you say “simply a descriptor that tells us the energy is in motion.” That sounds like a bunch of made up giberish from a very ignorant poster.
The example given clearly shows energy exchanged. I can’t reason with you if you ignore what you see and come up with gibbly-gook nonsense. The faster object transfers its energy to the slow one and the slow one transfers its energy to the faster one.
I do not think you know any science at all. Hard to reason with someone who does not know enough about the subject and just makes up stuff as they go along. You really do not know anything at all about science.
That is why you think Lanka has good ideas. You can’t discern anything about science because you do not know anything about it. Just make up whatever you want all the time, every post.
Kinetic energy:
“Kinetic energy is a form of energy that an object or a particle has by reason of its motion. If work, which transfers energy, is done on an object by applying a net force, the object speeds up and thereby gains kinetic energy”
When a clear example of 2-way transfer of energy is presented, hey presto!, Gordon decrees that what is being transferred is not energy.
I think everyone knows the example of the executive toy with a line of balls suspended by strings. Kinetic energy is transferred. Take 2 balls on one side and 3 balls on the other and drop them into the swing motion and you see the number of balls on each side change with each collision.
That is the clearest example of a 2-way transfer of energy that most people are familiar with.
The 3 balls have more kinetic energy than 2. So when the two unequal sets collide they each transfer their energy to the other. That is precisely why you see the number of balls change each side after each collision.
What matters is that Biden’s and Pence’s legal team found the small number of documents and immediately informed the government, and immediately returned them.
Rather than deal with this as a stark contrast to Trump you make up a story about whether or not Biden was aware the papers were in his storage – which is irrelevant to the point. And you’re ignoring Pence, to whom exactly the same occurred. I wonder why that is? Wrong side of politics to get your attention?
Trump is being charged with deliberately keeping the documents from the government – for which there is ample evidence. He was repeatedly asked, subpoenaed and then finally raided to get them over the course of 18 months.
It is the wilful retention and obstruction that makes the difference, and which has got him charged.
“How did the FBI know he had such document and why are the documents so important?”
Because the office of National Archives informed the Justice Department that they had retrieved numerous classified documents from Mar-a-Lago post-presidency, and that there was likely many more that had not been handed over. The JP sent the FBI with a subpoena to get the rest, and then later the FBI had to raid because there were still many outstanding documents.
Jesus, man, get out of the right-wing echo chamber and learn some basic facts. How can you be so damned ignorant of easily uncoverable information? Surely you’re spoon-feeding yourself from a heavily biased source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_investigation_into_Donald_Trump%27s_handling_of_government_documents
Just read it. You can say it’s all trash, but at least you will have broken free of the echo-chamber for a moment.
barry, according to a live interview with a former Trump attorney, the National Archives is responsible to find a location to store the various files and did not do so. The initial storage may not have been llegal since personal documents were commingled with others The criminal charges involve obstruction, etc. after there was a request to return the documents. It is a murky area of the law. The most clear crime is lying to the FBI and displaying a known top secret document to people without clearance in order to brag about having them. Trump is completely out of control, but that is what his supporters like about him. The more charges he gets, the more his pole numbers go up.
tim…it’s a witch hunt. People who participated in the White House melee are being sentenced for seditious conspiracy. In other words, unarmed people are being claimed to have invaded the White House to depose the government.
There is little doubt they went too far but sedition charges are ridiculous. The real danger here are the people pushing to make an example of them. It’s as bad as claims of sedition here in Canada against the trucker convoy. It was a protest, clear and simple.
The same Canadian government applauds the insurrection in the Ukraine where armed militants actually overthrew the sitting president. Part of the problem is the Deputy PM, who is of Ukrainian heritage.
C’mon, Bordo.
Texas paid bitcoin miner Riot $31.7 million to shut down during heat wave in August:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/06/texas-paid-bitcoin-miner-riot-31point7-million-to-shut-down-in-august.html
Your argument would be invalid if you had one.
All you got is the same rant as always.
“People who participated in the White House melee are being sentenced”
Good grief! The riot was at the Capitol Building, not the White House.
Do they give prizes away for being the most ignorant person where you live?
“barry, according to a live interview with a former Trump attorney”
What will it take to get you to look at something other than pro-Trump, pro-conservative sources?
How do you not know that the National Archives requested all documents and only got some? They were prepared to receive them and were bilked. That’s why they went to the Justice Department.
You seriously believe that the NARA couldn’t store a truck full of boxes?
barry, your strawman is on fire. The interview was on CNN, that bastion of conservative politics. In case you are not aware, the network has entire teams of people dedicated to dishing any and all dirt on Trump. The guy was making sense. The Archive sets up a location near the former President’s home so that personal papers can be separated from government papers. The files are supposed to be stored there. He claims it did not happen this time. Maybe there was a reason. Maybe Trump interfered. I was not there, so you have to rely on the most important instruction given to jurors by the judge: Statements by the attorneys are not facts, they are arguments.
Oh, so because a Trump ally spoke on CNN that makes it definitive? It doesn’t matter where he said it. The point is you are passing info from Trump allies and conservative sources. When do you tear yourself free?
What about all the other reporting on the matter from CNN? Does that get tossed away because there wasn’t a Trump representative their disseminating the information?
Read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago#NARA_actions_to_retrieve_presidential_records_from_Mar-a-Lago
“In January 2022, NARA retrieved 15 boxes of documents, gifts, and other government property from Mar-a-Lago that should have been transferred to NARA at the end of Trump’s term… Archivists and federal agents determined that 184 unique documents (totaling 700 pages) had classification markings…
Trump attorney Alex Cannon helped to transfer these 15 boxes to NARA.[61] The documents were stored in a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF) while DOJ officials considered how to proceed.”
Did Trump’s former lawyer mention any of the above?
How about getting your information from a source that isn’t heavily conservative, or a Trump ally?
Did you read any of the wikipedia sources I’ve linked? Or do you just ignore that useful tranche of information in favour of Trump cronies and conservative media to ‘set the record straight’?
barry, one strawman burns up, so you just post another one. I stated definitively that Trump is the worst thing that could happen. He is a complete disaster. Is that enough? CLEARLY, I am not defending him. I am attempting to explain that pouring on more charges does not help to break through with his supporters. They think he is being persecuted. I agree with Bill Barr and Chris Christie. Find something that either of them have said recently, that you don’t like, if you want me to set another strawman on fire.
“barry, one strawman burns up, so you just post another one. I stated definitively that Trump is the worst thing that could happen.”
No THAT is a straw man. I am pointing out that your sources are one-sided, and you have distorted that into me saying that you are pro-Trump. I got the first time that you are not pro-Trump.
Deal with what I say, please, not what you would rather I’d said in order to make your argumentation easier.
“I am attempting to explain that pouring on more charges does not help to break through with his supporters.”
An incidental point you seem to be enamoured with. That Trump supporters are rusted on in no surprise, nor are the political optics of investigations into Trump.
But those are beside my original point that the charges against Trump are well-founded.
Why are you complaining to me about Hilary and Obama and the FBI? Not to defend Trump, obviously – so just to point out that his followers have – what – good cause to defend Trump? No, that would contradict your own stated opinion. Good cause to stand by Trump? They don’t need good cause to stand by him.
barry, my apologies. I thought you were paying attention. I reply to you because you seem sincere and not just trying to make wise cracks. Trump belongs in jail. His strategy for reelection is to play the victim card and delay the trials. My point that you seem to be avoiding is that the liberal media have tried to downplay the Durham report. It is real and it is factual. Two things can be true at the same time. My theory is that the FBI had a file on him with a box checked that says unfit for office. They did what they did as patriots, not partisans. Comey is a Republican. The problem is that his supporters have credible evidence that he was unfairly targeted once, so why not this time? It is a real mess!
“My point that you seem to be avoiding is that the liberal media have tried to downplay the Durham report. It is real and it is factual.”
You haven’t once made that point.
It seems you are on a carousel of talking points, starting with Hilary’s dirty tricks book planting fake stories with the FBI (Durham report didn’t make that conclusion), moving to the FBI having it in for Trump, disparaging wikipedia on the way while citing an NY Post story with zero caveat on the source.
I’m clear on what the Durham report says, I noted way upthread that 1 to 3 FBI personnel had broken protocol, and that one of those was criminally charged for falsifying documents. I’m not whitewashing the report, but I think rather you believe it is more damning than it actually is. It made precisely one recommendation – to appoint a non-partisan reviewer of FISA applications – an idea that was actually suggested by the FBI internally.
I ask you again – read this short summary of the Durham Report and tell me if there is a significant departure from the report.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_special_counsel_investigation#Final_report
You tell me what you think is missing, if you think it’s important, and we can discuss it. Let’s get specific.
The lawyer that went on trail and was found not guilty. He was working for Hillary! He planted the story with the FBI claiming he was working for some other client. It was a fake story that came out of the dirty tricks group in her campaign. The “nothing burger” was proof that Hillary was the source.
Read the report. Wiki makes even me think it was just innocent fun.
There’s more! The Russian lawyer who had the famous Trump Tower meeting, met with Hillary’s lawyer the day before and the day after the meeting. My goodness, what a strange coincidence that was!
Specifically, Director Brennan’s declassified handwritten notes reflect that he briefed the meeting’s participants regarding the “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on 26 July of a proposal from one of her [campaign] advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services.”408
As discussed above, according to the declassified Clinton Plan intelligence, on July 26, 2016, Clinton allegedly approved a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to tie Trump to Russia as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server. The Office interviewed a number of individuals connected with the campaign as part of its investigation into the Clinton Plan intelligence.
In addition, as relates to the Clinton Plan intelligence and as discussed in detail in Section
IV.E. l .c.iii below, on September 19, 2016, Michael Sussmann, a lawyer at Perkins Coie, the firm that was then serving as counsel to the Clinton campaign, met with James Baker, the FBI
General Counsel, at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Sussmann provided Baker with purported data and “white papers” that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russia-based bank, Alfa Bank. 475 Sussmann’ s billing records reflect that he was regularly billing the Clinton campaign for his work on the Alfa Bank allegations.476 Importantly, on July 29, 20I 6 -three days after the purported approval of the Clinton Plan intelligence -Michael Sussmann and Marc Elias, the General Counsel to the Clinton campaign, met with Fusion GPS personnel in Elias’s office at Perkins Coie.
These quotes are from the report since you won’t read it. This is a good one to show that senior management was not being honest with their own people, or the FISA Court
The Office showed portions of the Clinton Plan intelligence to a number of individuals who were actively involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Most advised they had never seen the intelligence before, and some expressed surprise and dismay upon learning of it. For example, the original Supervisory Special Agent on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, Supervisory Special Agent-1, reviewed the intelligence during one of his interviews with the Office.428 After reading it, Supervisory Special Agent-I became visibly upset and emotional, left the interview room with his counsel, and subsequently returned to state emphatically that he had never been apprised ofthe Clinton Plan intelligence and had never seen the aforementioned Referral Memo. 429 Supervisory Special Agent-1 expressed a sense of betrayal that no one had informed him ofthe intelligence. When the Office cautioned Supervisory Special Agent-1 that we had not verified or corroborated the accuracy of the intelligence and its assertions regarding the Clinton campaign, Supervisory Special Agent-I responded firmly that regardless of whether its contents were true, he should have been informed of it.430
From that page we can read:
“Federal judge Beryl Howell twice found the documents insufficient to grant Durham seizure orders. Durham sidestepped Howell and used his grand jury authority to demand and receive documents and testimony from the Open Society Foundations, founded by George Soros.”
and
“This 2016 preliminary investigation was opened based on information from the book Clinton Cash, written by Peter Schweizer, a senior editor of the far-right media organization Breitbart News.”
and
“The men [Bill & John] had traveled there in 2019 seeking evidence the country’s intelligence services may have relayed information about Trump to their American counterparts, which might have instigated Crossfire Hurricane. Both countries denied involvement. The New York Times reported that Italian officials did, however, tell the men they had evidence linking Trump to certain suspected financial crimes. The men found the evidence credible enough for Barr to instruct Durham to open a criminal investigation, though his public report did not disclose any of this. The special counsel regulation requires disclosure to the attorney general of any investigation undertaken by a special counsel.”
Do you dispute those facts, Tim?
Brennan’s notes given context by him:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/06/politics/brennan-ratcliffe-declassifying-intelligence-clinton-russia/index.html
Nate, nice try. The question of whether the CIA notes where also used for political purposes is another strawman. The fact is that FBI senior management knew about the Clinton Plan and did not disclose that information to their own people or the court. They knew the Dossier was fake. Obama instructed Comey to keep everything secret from the incoming administration. They filed fake FISA application. The Federal Judge who received those fake applications had some very nasty comments about that. Do you want me to search for that?
The bottom line is that the reports are factual and are not in any way softened by media spin. Trump was abused by the FBI based on fake information from Hillary’s lawyers and sleaze agents. There is credible evidence of that, Trump supporters believe it.
They made a big mistake. They made him a martyr.
Is CBS news liberal enough?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fisa-court-judge-rebukes-fbi-over-handling-of-wiretap-applications/
A Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) judge published an unusual and harsh rebuke of the FBI over its handling of wiretap applications and demanded that the bureau respond to the court by next month with a plan to ensure that the information in its surveillance applications is true and reliable.
“The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable,” Judge Rosemary Collyer wrote in an order published Tuesday.
‘Clinton plan’, whatever you imagine that was obviously didn’t result in convictions after a long investigation.
This what she had to say. It at least establishes the fact that something was known that was not revealed to the court.
“During an interview of former Secretary Clinton, the Office asked if she had reviewed the information declassified by DNI Ratcliffe regarding her alleged plan to stir up a scandal between Trump and the Russians. 44 Clinton stated it was “really sad,” but “I get it, you have to go down every rabbit hole.” She said that it “looked like Russian disinformation to me; they’re very good at it, you know.” Clinton advised that she had a lot of plans to win the campaign, and anything that came into the public domain was available to her.”
Yes, it was indeed alleged that Clinton approved a plan to smear Trump. That’s in the report, which I’ve leafed through previously, as I told you.
Conservative media turned that allegation into a definite thing well before Durham released the report. They’ve reported all manner of Trump’s nonsense, and Trump’s followers were already believing in deep state plots against him before Durham presented the allegation. They also believed the Dems ran a paedophile ring out of a pizza shop.
You don’t need the Durham report to demonstrate MAGA distrust of the Dems, for Pete’s sake. I think rather you’re trying to prove the veracity of the allegations.
Tim … does someone give Trump a new pole every time he gets charged? Do more emigrants from Warsaw attend his rallies? Help me out here.
barry…”Maybe you should get off Fox and Newsmax and the other right-wing echo chambers just long enough to look at the charge sheet”.
***
If I recall correctly, you threatened to kick out your female roommate because she refused to get the covid vaccine. The threat of death from covid to the average person with a healthy immune system proved to be slim to none, yet you were willing to shut down a relationship over your unreasonable fear.
You seem to have the same fear of global warming and Trump. Is it an Australian thing, or are you just a bit paranoid?
You have a 2-dimensional mind. I had that conversation reluctantly, because the business I worked in couldn’t afford to have me get ill. I wasn’t replaceable, and if I went down the business shut down. It was for the sake of the people who worked in that business that I had that conversation. Iwas never worried about COVID for myself – I caught it early this year, when it didn’t matter, and barely felt it.
Personally what concerned me was not becoming a vector. I didn’t want to pass the disease on by being careless. Apparently some assholes are not able to conceive of the wider world in their considerations about a pandemic.
Also, people were not coming to visit because of her. That factored, too. Some of those were colleagues who wanted to do some work at mine. And some were just people I care about.
barry…I did not bring this up to be an ijit. My point is that no scientific proof has ever existed to suggest you would become dangerously ill due to contact. Any proof offered was the opinion of epidemiologists, all of whom based those opinions on one study that was based on a computer model. The person running the model, Neil Ferguson, had never even been close in predictions going back to the year 2000. Furthermore, it appears he did not believe his own study since he was caught having an affair with a married woman.
I regarded your fear of covid to be an over-reaction based on the prevailing hysteria and I think your current fear of catastrophic warming/climate change stems from the same irrational fear. After allowing the hysteria to run its course, the pundits came to the conclusion there was nothing they could do, so they declared covid endemic, as they should have done in the beginning.
Ironically, the only people I know who have come down with covid are those who were vaccinated. Pfizer assured people the vaccines would prevent infection and they lied. Nothing new, Pfizer have been fined 5 billion dollars for lying about their products.
Have you not noticed that the common flu disappeared with the arrival of covid? In other words, the covid tests could not tell the difference between covid and the common flu. The tests are fraudulent and are based on a cockamamey theory that strands of RNA in the human system are an indication of covid. The major problem with that theory is that the strands of RNA are a byproduct of lab work.
Covid has obliterated the common flu. Does that make sense? Not to me, it doesn’t. It’s still there but the fraudulent tests indicated a covid infection when more likely it is the common flu.
“Have you not noticed that the common flu disappeared with the arrival of covid?”
It didn’t disappear in the US. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
It virtually disappeared in Australia because of the severe lockdowns causing a low incidence of transmission of all communicable diseases.
And today tests distinguish between COVID and seasonal flu.
Stop reading outraged conservative tripe. It’s all breathless and 2-dimensional. The facts are more nuanced and much more interesting.
I am talking about today. No one has the common flu anymore, it’s covid or nothing. That’s because the covid tests are fraudulent, they cannot distinguish the common flow and the alleged covid. They cannot even distinguish a papaya from covid.
Like I said, your judgement has been skewed by hysteria, and that includes your propaganda about global warming/climate change.
“I am talking about today. No one has the common flu anymore”
This is a complete and utter lie.
Where in the world did you hear that seasonal flu has disappeared? Whoever told you that is a one-bit propagandist. Probably some conspiracy blogger, right?
Oh look – 360,000 positive tests for seasonal flu in the US since October last year.
https://tinyurl.com/yayzl8ve
Oh look – 74,000 seasonal flu cases in Canada over the past year.
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/fluwatch/2022-2023/weeks-30-34-july-23-august-26-2023.html
In my country seasonal flu is hitting hard because we’ve avoided it for a couple of years. Same in most countries that had strong lockdowns in 2020/21.
Seriously, Gordon, your views are so often the polar opposite of reality. Where did you get this abjectly incorrect information that seasonal flu has ‘disappeared’?
It was not myself I was concerned about with COVID.
Do you understand?
I am not afraid of the disease. I get my understanding from medical reports, not from popular media.
Same with climate change. I am emotionally neutral on the subject.
But less neutral when it comes to bad faith argument, misinformation and wilful blindness.
If you had gotten your reports from medical sources you could not have helped seeing the good information from skeptics. I saw it. It’s obvious you prefer authority figures over anyone else.
Ok, you’ve been pushing the idea that SARS-COV2 has not been isolated.
Please link to the peer-reviewed medical report that backs up this opinion.
Because I think you don’t actually read medical reports on COVID, unless, perhaps, linked for you by a conspiracy or ultra-conservative website that casts doubt on some component of the issue and feeds your antipathy.
Just patiently waiting for Gill’s response.
Hope you are not holding your breath.
Thank you, Bordo.
I was getting a little lightheaded.
(Now’s your cue.)
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Now we have this boring litany again:
Willard: 118
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team: 102
Binny says: 50
Bordo says: 47
Pupman says: 49
So much better.
La Bindigolina : 0
As usual, the dachshund is wrong.
I am being bullied by Antonin Qwerty simply because he doesn’t like my rhetorical style. See here:
“You really don’t need to be so extravagantly verbose in stating such a simple fact. The theatre is thataway.”
and here:
“The main point which you have ignored is that everything you say is laced with overstated theatrics.”
IMHO differences in rhetorical style should not be a justification for bullying. It is important to respect diverse rhetorical styles.
It is crucial to acknowledge the value of diverse rhetorical styles. Different rhetorical styles can enrich discussions and lead to innovative insights.
Individuals should not be discouraged from expressing themselves in ways that are comfortable and authentic to them.
YOU are being bullied??
I am not the one telling someone to “go fk yourself” just because I have the temerity to challenge you.
Should I acknowledge that particular “literary style”?
This is my last interaction with you…
Go back and re-read the entirety of my post and your rude bullying attacks simply because you think my style is “extravagantly verbose” and “laced with overstated theatrics”.
Now, and for the last time, go f&%k yourself.
As you continue your uncalled for bullying of me while asserting that it me who is doing the bullying …
The way you talk suggests that you follow the Guy McPherson nonsense.
Rhetoric is a tool used by politicians to baffle and mislead voters as to their true agenda. Is that what you are admitting to doing here?
There is a difference between being verbose and being accurate.
C’mon, Bordo.
Rhetoric is just the art of persuasion.
It’s the only thing that distinguishes you from Pupman.
Cherish it.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
A revealing metaphor.
Clint R wrote:
“Ark, your cult believes the atmosphere is a microwave oven and is full of lasers.
You need to keep up with your cult’s nonsense.”
Because I count myself a hard-to-convince skeptic who knows that a good and motivated student looks at many sources on the same topic, I would like to ask that you clarify your assertions.
1/ What is this cult you speak of? Who is its leader, and what led you to conclude it is “my” cult?
2/ References for your “the atmosphere is a microwave oven and is full of lasers” remark. Preferably from peer reviewed materials.
Ark, you are NOT a “hard-to-convince” Skeptic. You may believe that, but you’re deceiving yourself. If you really believe you’re such a person, what aspect of the GHE nonsense is bogus. Just identify one, there are many. Also, idendify one aspect of the Moon spin nonsense that is invalid. There are several.
Let’s see how “hard-to-convince” you really are. Let’s see if you have any credibility at all.
Why won’t you answer my questions?
1/ What is this cult you speak of? Who is its leader, and what led you to conclude it is “my” cult?
2/ References for your “the atmosphere is a microwave oven and is full of lasers” remark. Preferably from peer reviewed materials.
I could easily answer your lame questions, Ark. I just wanted to first point out what a phony you are. You’re NOT a Skeptic.
1. The cult consists of all organizations that pervert science for funding. The followers, like you, swallow anything the cult spews. You are what you swallow.
2. The microwave oven and lasers come from cult followers like you. They attempt to justify CO2’s weak photon being able to heat Earth’s surface. Like you, they don’t have a clue about the actual science.
Pupman waits more than six hours to finally refuse to answer the questions.
If you are a skeptic, then why do you spend so much time defending and pushing the alarmist meme?
You’re not a skeptic, you are a hypocrite, ‘a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs”[Bitiannica].
Gordon, you shouldn’t ever use the word “hypocrite”. You define it by using it.
clint…I know you are trying to get back in my good books by trying to be funny. However, I have nothing against you. I know you can’t help yourself and I have just been trying to set you straight.
Maybe one day you will get it that you can simply talk about science without taking shots, especially shots that have no basis.
You can start by explaining how heat is a transfer of energy when the energy transferred is not heat. Also, you can explain why the equation for entropy has only a reference to heat and says nothing about disorder.
Stick with me boy, I’ll get you back on the right track. It’s the least I can do for a wannabee skeptic.
We don’t need any more examples of what a hypocrite you are, Gordon.
Even Bindi knows your claim to be an engineer is bogus.
Have you ever been in therapy?
It’s been over 6 hours now, and Ark has not replied. It’s safe to say he’s “left the building”.
This is typical of the cultists. They can’t support their nonsense so they either leave or start the insults.
Typical double bind by Pupman.
Reply too soon, he’s been STALKED.
Take a break from the Sky Dragon cranks and he goes for the touchdown dance.
Procrustes did it better than him.
It’s been 9 hours and Clint R has not answered my questions.
That means he doesn’t have, and never had, any answers.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533422
tim s…”When Bernoulli first proposed the Kinetic Theory of Gases it was not well received”.
***
I don’t know about Bernoulli, but the modern theory was initiated circa 1857 by Clausius. He developed the early theory that was taken over by Maxwell. Clausius wanted to focus more on heat and work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases
“In 1857 Rudolf Clausius developed a similar, but more sophisticated version of the theory, which included translational and, contrary to Krnig, also rotational and vibrational molecular motions. In this same work he introduced the concept of mean free path of a particle.[8] In 1859, after reading a paper about the diffusion of molecules by Clausius, Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell formulated the Maxwell distribution of molecular velocities, which gave the proportion of molecules having a certain velocity in a specific range.[9] This was the first-ever statistical law in physics.[10] Maxwell also gave the first mechanical argument that molecular collisions entail an equalization of temperatures and hence a tendency towards equilibrium.[11] In his 1873 thirteen page article ‘Molecules’, Maxwell states: “we are told that an ‘atom’ is a material point, invested and surrounded by ‘potential forces’ and that when ‘flying molecules’ strike against a solid body in constant succession it causes what is called pressure of air and other gases.””
There is no doubt that Maxwell was a brilliant mathematician but much of his work depended on research by others. His equations describing electromagnet energy are based on the work of Faraday.
I find it fascinating that Clausius was able to do this kind of work given that the atom as a unit had yet to be investigated. It was not till 1898 that the electron was discovered and another 15 years would pass before Bohr put it all together and described the interaction between electrons and EM.
When Clausius made an emphatic statement, that heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot, what are the chances he was wrong, or meant something else, as claimed by modern climate alarmists?
Radiant heat transfer is related to the temperature difference to the fourth power, but linear with emissivity (e) and surface area for solids and liquids. In the gas phase it is more complex. Water vapor and CO2 have different spectra and therefore have different e values.
My question is whether a weighted average for e based on molar concentration can be used or not? That seems to be how the models work. I think it may be more complex than just that. There is a good possibility that the overall value for e is a more complex function of the ratio of the gases, and at different temperatures.
Does anyone have an accurate answer? Is there a reference in the literature?
Tim S
Maybe the graphs in the link will answer your question.
http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf
Poor Norman confuses “heat” with “emitted flux”.
That’s what he’s been taught at his cult’s keyboard training.
Clint R the ignorant anti-science dunce chimes in with more ignorant blah blah and bizarre insults.
Norman, your link (that you can’t understand) deals with emission, not heat.
Clint R
I really have no idea of what point you are attempting to make. Like I have said you are neither logical nor rational and your post addressing me shows just how little reasoning you possess.
When did I say the emissivity graphs of CO2 and Water Vapor were about heat transfer? Only in your irrational thinking do you conjure this up and then make it a fact when it is neither.
Why do you have to be so incredibly dumb? Does it take practice?
Norman, Tim S was asking about heat transfer. Your link (that you cant understand) deals with emission, not heat.
Clint R
Since your reading comprehension is quite poor I will help you.
Tim S: “My question is whether a weighted average for e based on molar concentration can be used or not? That seems to be how the models work. I think it may be more complex than just that. There is a good possibility that the overall value for e is a more complex function of the ratio of the gases, and at different temperature.”
He is specifically asking about the emissivity (e) of gases based upon their concentration. The graphs provide that information.
You overlooked the first three words of his comment, Norman.
“Radiant heat transfer…”
You also overlooked the fact that those charts are for very high temperatures, like boiler fireboxes. Those temperatures are NOT found in the atmosphere.
Once again, you found a link you don’t understand.
Clint R
Rather than admit you have poor reading comprehension you continue.
What was Tim S question about?
Also you display poor reading comprehension and you also demonstrate an inability to read graphs. If you look at the graphs they would end at about 250 K which is less than 0 F. They provide emissivity for a broad range of temperatures.
Maybe think a bit before you jump in. Remember the post was NOT to you but to Tim S. It might help if you knew anything before giving an ignorant opinion and an attempt at insult.
Sorry Norman but there’s is no way you can make sense from that. The charts are for a boiler firebox, NOT the atmosphere.
You simply don’t understand the links you find.
Clint R
Good golly you are a stoopid poster. The charts work for any of the temperature range given.
At 250 K the emissivity of CO2 gas varies based upon concentration and path length.
At atmosphere temperature the CO2 will emit 0.2 of blackbody but less with water vapor present since the bands they absorb overlap.
I really do not know what your points are. Also you don’t read well. If you read the link it states this: “The tables are ordered as emissivity as a function of gas temperature for distance-pressures ( p L) . Shown below are plots based on the tables
for the entire data range available.”
Do you see the words “entire data range” which is hot and cooler gases. If they did not intend to include 250 K gas they would have left it for the range of hot gases. Will you learn to read before posting. You sound very uninformed when you do this.
Norman, you never can understand the links you find.
Let’s work a simple example. At 250K (your value), atmospheric CO2 gas would be emitting at 0.2 emissivity (your value). So the emitted flux would be:
F = εσT^4 = (.2)(221.5) = 44.4 W/m^2
Great job, you just demolished the GHE nonsense!
Clint R
It really does not demolish anything. You figure might even be a little high. The contribution from CO2 might be as low as 10% of the DWIR because it has emission bands that are shared with H2O.
It is already well known.
https://www.patarnott.com/atms411/pdf/StaleyJuricaEffectiveEmissivity.pdf
There are tables on this showing the relative contribution of Water Vapor and CO2 (including overlap) on GHE.
The amount of increase from CO2 alone by doubling the amount will only amount to 3.7 W/m^2.
The concern is not with the slight warming caused by additional CO2, it is just how will effect Climate Systems. Are they sensitive to small changes in Global Temperature or not. It is only speculation on computers and fanatic media driving the alarmism but real science should not ignore the effects. They need to keep gathering evidence and watching but they need to refrain from the hype and only deal with what can be known.
Norman, that’s a lot of blah-blah just to avoid admitting that you demolished the bogus GHE nonsense.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533726
Clint R
I should have assumed you were stoopid. I try to forget it and hope. You are really too stoopid to reason with.
A cult minded loon. I keep hoping there could be a potential for thinking in that brain of yours but your stoopid response and your linking to a previous comment tactic proves I truly waste time with you.
I proved you wrong again, Norman. Your blah-blah didn’t work. So here come your insults.
That’s why this is so much fun.
norman…where in your graph is heat being transferred in both directions?
Gordon Robertson
The graphs are created by experiments by Hottel. They are not about energy transfer. They are to help Tim S understand radiant emissivity.
tim s…”Radiant heat transfer is related to the temperature difference to the fourth power…”
***
No it’s not. The S-B equation has nothing to do with heat transfer. It is a measure of the EM radiated wrt the temperature of the radiating surface.
Heat transfer is measured by entropy as per S = integral dq/T. Since entropy can only be positive for irreversible processes it becomes a measure of how much heat is transferred into or out of a body.
The T^4 relationship is based on an experiment by Tyndall in which he electrically heated a platinum filament and observed the colours produced as the current was increased and the filament heated to the point where it glowed different colours.
Stefan had already proposed such a relationship but had no scientific evidence. When another scientist converted Tyndall’s colours to an equivalent colour temperature, Stefan had the evidence he needed.
S-B tells us how much EM is emitted per unit temperature of a surface but it applies only in the range of about 500C to 1500C. It is a mistake to think it can be extrapolated directly to lower temperatures. Furthermore, since S-B is based on the colours given off by glowing material, it cannot be applied to IR and UV since they cannot be measured as such.
Gordon Robertson
I have given you numerous links on lower temperature radiant energy loss that follows the T^4 as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law demonstrates.
You do not accept evidence, just ignore it and continue to peddle dumb ideas created by crackpots like Gary Novak (you link to him and pretend you don’t know him…this is odd behavior on your part).
S-B has been found (via valid experimentation to apply to all temperatures).
In your total lack of logic you do not consider the cooling rate of the Moon’s surface. It is losing energy only via IR and it loses energy at a rate that verifies S-B. You really do not like science and evidence but choose to peddle your unsupported beliefs.
test
For the first time in recorded history, all seven official tropical cyclone basins have produced a Category 5 storm in the same year: 2023.
Atlantic: Hurricane Lee
East Pacific: Hurricane Jova
West Pacific: Typhoon Mawar in May
Southwest Pacific: Cyclone Kevin in March
Southwest Indian Ocean: Cyclone Freddy in February and March
Australian Region: Cyclone Ilsa in April
North Indian Ocean: Cyclone Mocha in May
The HTE has now dissipated.
It put one quite a show while it was here!
I suspect that if we get any more similar warm months it will suddenly show itself here again. After all, A=>B means B=>A, right Clint?
Only if it shows in the PV. The PV has been VERY healthy over the last 3-4 weeks. I suspect the HTE is finished.
Thanks for illustrating for everyone to see your belief in what I said in my last sentence.
Sorry Ant, but the HTE affects the PV. The PV doesn’t affect the HTE.
It’s a one-way thingy.
Once again, you prove you don’t understand ANY of this.
That’s right Clint.
The PV doesn’t affect the “HTE” as stated, so seeing that the PV has been affected does not imply there is a “HTE” as there are other things which affect the PV.
Same as:
My grass dying does not imply that someone poisoned it, as there are other things which could cause my grass to die.
Funny how you are happy to state “warming does not imply an anthropogenic cause”, yet want to use EXACTLY that “logic” here.
Ant, it’s science.
The eruption caused atmospheric waves. The waves affected the PV. UAH Global reflected the results.
CO2’s 15μ photon can NOT raise the temperature of Earth’s 288K surface.
It’s science.
Description of the polar vortex:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-arctic-polar-vortex#:~:text=At%20the%20other%20extreme%2C%20the,extreme%20cases%E2%80%94temporarily%20reverse%20direction.
Key points:
(1) The Arctic polar vortex is a band of strong westerly winds that forms in the stratosphere between about 10 and 30 miles above the North Pole every WINTER.
Repeat: WINTER
(2) The polar vortex is typically stable but can weaken, which causes warm air to stray into the polar regions, and COLD AIR TO STRAY INTO THE MID-LATITUDES.
(3) “…people often confuse the polar vortex with the polar jet stream, but the two are in completely separate layers of the atmosphere. The polar jet stream occurs in the troposphere, at altitudes between 5-9 miles above the surface. It marks the boundary between surface air masses, separating warmer, mid-latitude air and colder, polar air. Its the polar jet stream that plays such a big role in our day-to-day winter weather in the mid-latitudes, not the polar vortex.”
Is that you Clint? Are you confusing the polar vortex with the polar jet stream? That would make sense for someone who has made it all up instead of doing proper research.
(4) (related to what you just said) “…the polar vortex is occasionally knocked off kilter when especially strong atmospheric waves in the troposphere break upward into the stratosphere. The vortex slows, and it may wobble, slide off the pole, split into several lobes, orin the most extreme casestemporarily reverse direction. Regardless of their flavor, these disruptions have one thing in common: a spike in POLAR stratosphere temperatures …”
Repeat: A spike in POLAR temperatures
Now Clint … if the polar vortex disappears each NH summer, then these “waves” from HT could hardly have upset THIS summer’s incarnation of the PV, now could they.
You will now revert to asserting that I “don’t understand”, without any other attempt to spin your way out of this mess you’ve got yourself into. Unless of course you assert more invented “science”.
Oops – as summer has only just ended, there is no “this summer’s incarnation of the PV”. There is no PV. So there was nothing to weaken.
Ant, I can never understand you cultists. You use the Internet to find things you can twist to your cult beliefs. You can NEVER accept reality, so you can’t learn. The more confused you are, the longer your comments get.
There are actually TWO occurrences of the PV. One forms during the NH winter, and the other forms during the SH winter.
I see NO evidence that you understand ANY of this.
And the one in the SH winter occurs at the SOUTH pole.
In effects only the SOUTHERN hemisphere, and again it’s weakening causes COLD air to enter into the mid-latitudes, not warm.
In case you’ve forgotten, we were talking about a warm northern hemisphere, not a cold southern hemisphere.
It doesn’t matter where it is, it’s weakening (which is what you claimed has happened) causes only a warming at the poles and a cooling elsewhere.
I look forward to your next spin.
Ant, you have no interest in learning. You only want to find ways to pervert reality. That’s why when I see nonsense like “I look forward to your next spin”, I know not to waste my time.
Your standard response when you know you’ve lost.
You will not be able to resist “wasting your time” yet again.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1531827
HAHAHA – I know it must be difficult for you when you finally commit to a mechanism for your HTE and it gets blown out of the water. It leaves you nowhere to go, so going silent is your only recourse.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 408.2 km/sec
density: 2.40 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 09 Sep 23
Sunspot number: 123
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 161 sfu
https://www.spaceweather.com/
“A LARGE SUNSPOT IS FACING EARTH: Big sunspot AR3423 has doubled in size since Friday; the active region is now more than 100,000 km wide with four primary dark cores wider than Earth. The sunspot’s magnetic poles are well separated, so it does not yet pose a threat for strong flares. If this changes, however, the sunspot is directly facing Earth, so any strong flares will be geoeffective.”
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.06×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.2% Low
Lot’s little spots growing fast into big spots, it’s weird, but I still think spot number for Sept will 120 or lower and Oct will be sideways or lower, and Nov going to drop enough to pass through the red light, then stay well below red line for many months.
Or I think we will some spotless day in Nov and could some before Nov.
Anyways spots are leaving to farside, and don’t see new spot coming from farside yet.
Also people been saying old spots will return, and they haven’t and I don’t think they will. And for whatever reason we getting a lot little [new spots] which grow larger [and fast].
Solar wind
speed: 371.0 km/sec
density: 6.85 protons/cm3
Updated 11 Sep 2023
Sunspot number: 167
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 164 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.95×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.5% Low
“There are no significant equatorial coronal holes on the Earthside of the sun.”
But there is 3 moderate size holes near equator on Earthside.
I see what could be a big spot, fairly high in northern hemisphere coming to nearside. And some spots leaving to farside.
So, sunspot number could remain this high around for couple days.
It seems more spot are in northern hemisphere. Maybe some spots in southern will start growing {or fading}.
It not a big as it seemed it could have been, and they haven’t give it a number, yet, probably will be given, 3433 or 3434:
Solar wind
speed: 392.5 km/sec
density: 37.41 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 12 Sep 23
Sunspot number: 173
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 176 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.83×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.4% Low
“FARSIDE SOLAR ACTIVITY: The farside of the sun is crackling with activity. During the past 24 hours, coronagraphs on the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) have observed multiple halo CMEs (examples: #1, #2)–all flying directly away from Earth. The active side of the sun will turn toward us next week.”
The sun has a lot of little spots and a few leaving to farside within a day. 3423 was a bunch of small spots which grew into a large spot while on nearside, and in 3 or 4 days, it’s leaving nearside.
There has not much solar flares reaching Earth but the:
“density: 37.41 protons/cm3” would be caused by a solar eruption.
Solar wind
speed: 390.0 km/sec
density: 1.97 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 13 Sep 23
Sunspot number: 141
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 154 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.82×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.9% Low
The neutron counts seems to suggest, “The farside of the sun is crackling with activity.” But you can’t say that about the
nearside, I wonder when thermosphere dip below, 19.00×10^10 W
and then, lower, within a week or maybe it take more than month?
Both thermosphere and neutron counts are weak for solar Max.
So, have lots of small spots which has had a lot growth, and if that
happens more in next few days it could significantly add to number, but seems it’s going remain about the same, and don’t any new spots coming from farside. And little spots grew much bigger are within few days going to farside. And what looked like could been a large spot from farside has been given the number 3433. it’s moderate size and higher in northern hemisphere seems isolated. Will fade, will lots tiny spots spring up near it?
Coronal holes, fairly modest one at Equator. It seems to me there more chance flare coming from coronal holes particularly near 3433, 3429, and 3431 {or not the one at equator]. And a flare hitting would
heat up our thermosphere.
Solar wind
speed: 452.7 km/sec
density: 6.48 protons/cm3
Updated 15 Sep 2023
Sunspot number: 110
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 145 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.79×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.1% Low
The shotgun of small spots which rapidly grew [4325 & 4323}, are fading and going to farside. I don’t see any spots coming from farside.
But 4329 shotgun of small spots is growing – it’s near equator.
The last spot coming from farside, 3433, remain moderate size spot
which has change much {and it is most northern compared other spots}.
Solar wind
speed: 418.2 km/sec
density: 3.27 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 16 Sep 23
Sunspot number: 96
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 139 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.68×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.5% Low
Soon, we might just have 3433 and 3429 as other are fading and/or
leaving to farside. And don’t see anything coming from farside, yet.
3429 is still growing. And 3433 is not changing much- and it’s “unchangingness” suggests it will get to farside [and it’s not even at middle of sun, yet] and so it could prevent getting a spotless
day. Anyhow a good guess is spot number will stay low or lower in next day or two. And getting at or below 19.0010^10 W thermosphere seems unlikely in a few days or even a week.
Solar wind
speed: 510.5 km/sec
density: 2.74 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 18 Sep 23
Sunspot number: 94
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 145 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.08×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.7% Low
“New large sunspot AR3435 merits watching as a possible source of M-class solar flares.”
3435 is new from the farside and a smaller also coming farside [without a number, yet- in southern hemp and 3435 is near equator.
3436 appeared on nearside when already heading away from nearside.
So, 3436 is newest named spot.
3433 has new small spot near it {it grew a new spot} and 3429 has lost some tiny spots and it follows 3425 to farside in couple days.
Thermosphere is now close to 19.00 x 10^10 W and probably soon below it.
It’s going roughly way I guessed it will. But Oct and Nov are a more important/significant guess {surprisingly lower being the guess}.
People will say wait for double peak like 24 Cycle. Long wait- and not impressive or worth the wait.
Now we will look at official forecast:
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
18 September – 14 October 2023
Solar activity is expected to be at low to moderate (R1-R2 / Minor
to Moderate) levels throughout the period.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
expected to be at low to moderate levels through the period.
Geomagnetic field activity is likely to be at G1-G2 (Minor to
Moderate) levels on 19 Sep and unsettled to active levels on 20 Sep,
all due to CME effects. Unsettled to active levels are likely on 21,
23-24 and 28-30 Sep due to CH HSS activity. Mostly quiet levels are
expected on 18, 25-27 Sep and 01-14 Oct. ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
And how Hurricane. I got 70% chance, over here. And one Atlantic side
Nigel is all alone. And tracked to get closer to Canada, then get lonely again.
Parker Solar Probe has no recent update:
http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
But I guess it’s closest solar approach, Sept 22 2023
will have a quieter sun to fly thru. Or not as nail biting, first closest pass {and plans to get even closer in future}.
Solar wind
speed: 572.5 km/sec
density: 11.69 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 19 Sep 23
Sunspot number: 139
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 155 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.08×10^10 W
Updated 18 Sep 2023
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.9% Low
Updated 19 Sep 2023
That was surprising. Got 3437 thru 3440.
3437 just appeared on nearside past the mid point and is one of
bigger spots. 3438 moderate size sprang up near 3435. The unnumbered small spot is 3439 and 3440 came from farside.
3436 grew more. and 3425 hasn’t left the nearside, yet. So, it changed quickly, in a blink.
Interesting.
norman…I had to look up who you meant by Gary Novak. I did quote him but did not pay attention to the name. Here’s what he has to say about S-B…
“Based on the erroneous Stefan-Boltzmann constant (SBC), a house could be heated by covering the floor with ice. The SBC says 315 watts per square meter of radiation are given off by matter at 0C (32F). The emissivity for ice is 0.92. So 0.92 x 315 = 299 w/m.
For a room that is 15 feet by 30 feet, the area can be rounded to 50 square meters. So 50 x 299 = 14,950 watts of radiation being emitted. That’s equivalent to 8.3 space heaters at high level of 1,800 watts. That means such a room covered in ice would fry the place in minutes, as if 8.3 space heaters were going”.
https://nov79.com/stf.html
What bothers you so much about this, Norman, that he is revealing how st00pid S-B is for ice?
He’s summing without dividing, the eejit.
He doesn’t realize it but his dumbery assumes that the floor will focus its entire EM emissions onto a one meter square surface. That aint going to happen in the real universe.
Gordon Robertson
It does not show how stoopid S-B is for ice it shows how illogical a thinker Gary Novak is and yourself for not having the thought process to understand his flawed thinking.
He does not take into account that the heaters are already in warm environment.
If you put 8 space heaters in the room of that size in an absolute zero environment or close to, the temperature of the outside walls would reach the temperature of ice.
Again you can’t process two things happening at the same time (like energy emitted and absorbed at the same time). You can’t understand a warm environment compared to a cold one so you fall for the total poor thinking of a Gary Novak. You will continue to fall for this poor logic because you don’t have enough science knowledge to think logically about it.
My interpretation is the Novak guy is pointing out (correctly) that flux doesn’t simply add. That’s one of the reasons the GHE is nonsense.
Apparently barry and Norman agree with that.
Or maybe they’re just tangled up in their cult beliefs, which often happens….
He is as clueless as you are, and his dumbery doesn’t contradict arriving fluxes combining to add more heat to a surface. Which is why if turn on a second bar heater, I will get warmer than with just one. Because I’m getting more radiant energy.
barry, you own “clueless”.
Adding a second “bar heater” is NOT the issue. That’s not what is meant by “fluxes don’t simply add”.
The common term “infrared heater” is not accurate. It should be “radiant heater”. The vast majority of the infrared range could not warm a person. The element in a radiant heater is at least 2000°F. It’s the high energy photons form that temperature that warm a human. The low energy photons just bounce off.
But two such heaters can not raise the temperature above the element temperature. Twenty such heaters could not raise the temperature above the elements temperature. Fluxes do NOT simply add.
You have just been introduced to some science and some reality. Will you learn, or will you recoil in anger and hurl insults?
“But two such heaters can not raise the temperature above the element temperature.”
Ah, I suppose you think that being able to turn on 1, 2 or 3 bars on a radiant element heater is a marketing gimmick, and that turning on each one won’t add radiant energy (which converts to heat) to your body.
You’re hopeless.
Dang barry, I don’t know how to make it any easier for you. If the radiant heater elements are at 2500°F, then you can’t raise some object to a temperature higher than 2500°, no matter how many heaters you use.
Do you just enjoy being clueless?
Ok, so you really do believes that the extra bars on the element heater are a marketing gimmick! And that turning on each extra bar in the heater won’t supply more heat to your skin.
Anyone who lives in the real world doesn’t need fancy explanations to know that your take is belied by experience, and twisted by daft ideology.
barry, please stop trolling.
The bi-monthly Multivariate El Nio/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) index (MEI.v2) is the time series of the leading combined Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) of five different variables (sea level pressure (SLP), sea surface temperature (SST), zonal and meridional components of the surface wind, and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)) over the tropical Pacific basin (30S-30N and 100E-70W).
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/mei_lifecycle_current.png
“Combined Empirical Orthogonal Function”
Just wondering if you understand what you copy-paste?
Compare the El Nino diagram with the current air circulation.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/MEI-schematic.png
https://i.ibb.co/ZBTWN9v/mimictpw-spac-latest.gif
The inconsistency of atmospheric circulation and surface temperature at the equator is due to increased solar activity in recent months.
So the short answer is: no you don’t.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
What am I supposed to do with this?
You’re supposed to learn from it, Ark.
(Memorization helps.)
“You’re supposed to learn from it”
Then you must provide references to textbooks, research papers, etc., anything other than your own opinion; opinions are not knowledge.
What you need to learn Ark, is that that nonsense came from your cult.
You don’t understand ANY of this. It’s like your cult is in a contest to see who is the most brain-dead.
You seem to be winning.
Seems to me that all you have are personal attacks and insults. You are oblivious to the fact that you diminish yourself more than you diminish me.
Ark, you are an anonymous tr0ll continually throwing nonsense against the wall. You got caught so now you play the “innocent victim” ploy.
Run upstairs crying to mommy, you little snowflake.
So where is the physics?
Clint R makes promises that he can’t deliver, then tucks tail and runs.
Little snowflake Ark is so upset that he’s misplacing his comments!
Wonder if he’s frothing at the mouth also….
that dog won’t hunt, pup.
Here’s my take on it. Alarmists like you push the GHE/AGW meme, but when asked to explain it scientifically, you balk, talking around it. The word cult is Clint’s preference but I think he is trying to say that your motivation is other than science, that it’s based on a political-correctness meme that you are doing the right thing despite having to explain your position scientifically.
Here in Canada, a federal member of parliament spelled it out. She claimed that she does not care if the science is right, they are doing the right thing by enforcing a reduction in anthropogenic CO2. In the US, AOC (Ocasio Cortez) has stated pretty much the same thing, that the science is irrelevant. Both AOC and her Canadian counterpart are exhibiting cult-like behavior in that they push a belief system that has no basis in reality.
Cults tend to be based on the same credo. They create a reality that does not exist and force their members to adhere to the pseudo-reality. Cult/belief-system are often synonymous, when taken to extremes.
Many alarmist scientist exhibit cult-like behavior when they participate in ostracizing scientist who are skeptical of the extreme claims of climate alarm. Roy and John Christy of UAH have been victimized by such cultish group-think. If you stand for censoring scientists who have opposing ideas, then you are exhibiting cult-like behavior.
Related…
Science cannot be a cult because it fundamentally differs in its principles, practices, and goals from the characteristics typically associated with cults. To assert that science is akin to a cult reflects misunderstanding of its nature and methodology. An examination of key distinctions between science and cults is in order.
First and foremost, science is rooted in empiricism, objectivity, and the scientific method. It seeks to understand the natural world through systematic observation, experimentation, and the formulation of testable hypotheses. In contrast, cults often operate on unverified belief systems, charismatic leaders, and emotional manipulation, devoid of rigorous empirical investigation.
Additionally, science thrives on skepticism and peer review. Scientific findings are subjected to intense scrutiny by experts in the field, who evaluate and replicate experiments to ensure their validity. This self-correcting mechanism is a cornerstone of science, fostering transparency and the elimination of bias. Cults, on the other hand, often discourage critical thinking and isolate their members from external scrutiny.
Furthermore, the ultimate objective of science is to uncover objective truths about the natural world, regardless of personal beliefs or ideologies. Its findings are open to public scrutiny, and scientific knowledge is continually refined based on new evidence. Cults, conversely, typically have hidden agendas and prioritize the indoctrination of members into specific beliefs that serve the interests of the cult leaders.
In science, knowledge is cumulative and subject to revision based on empirical evidence. It embraces a spirit of inclusivity, where diverse perspectives and backgrounds contribute to its progress. In contrast, cults often foster exclusivity, relying on a strict hierarchy and isolationist tactics.
All this to say that the assertion that science is a cult is unfounded when we consider its commitment to empirical evidence, objectivity, skepticism, peer review, and the pursuit of objective truths. These characteristics sharply contrast with the traits commonly associated with cults, such as belief-based dogma, charismatic leaders, and isolationism. It is essential to recognize and appreciate the stark differences between science and cults to avoid misinformation and promote the pursuit of genuine knowledge.
Scientific thinking is a passionate search for always newer ways to conceive the world. Its strength lies not in certainties but in a radical awareness of the vastness of our ignorance. This awareness allows us to keep questioning our own knowledge, and, thus, to continue learning.
Arkady Ivanovich
You have nailed the babbling nonsense of Clint R. His mind is cultish. He thinks everyone else is but him. He is unable to see himself at all and projects his cult behavior on all other posters that do not fit into his limited cult thought process.
He does not provide any evidence for any of his assertions. He just makes them endlessly like a cult member. He picks on one post of something someone may have said in error or something his could not understand than he repeats it many times throughout his posting.
I have not seen any good information from Clint R in all the time he posts here. He believes, with zero supporting evidence, that nitrogen gas reflects IR. He can’t understand that fluxes can add.
Endless nonsense from the Cultist Clint R. He is not a leader but a follower of programmers like Postma and others on the PSI cult.
Clint and Flynn also speak with the same repulsive tone as Postma.
Are you aware of anything Postma has contributed to his claimed field of astrophysics?
Joe talks about the Sun and the Sun is a star. Astrophysics is essentially the study of stars.
Are you claiming he needs so many papers published to have his theories considered?
He offered one great observation: we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere can’t.
“to have his theories considered?”
No. They have been considered and their numerous obvious flaws are easily discovered.
Thus he doesnt even try to publish his crap. It is only intended for the ignorant masses.
Not sure Joe is a coder:
https://science.ucalgary.ca/physics-astronomy/contacts/joseph-postma
Looks more like a lab rat job.
If Joe knew anything about coding, he would know that climate modulz are past his hemispheric model, e,g:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/approach/modelling-systems/unified-model/index
Joe has a masters degree in astrophysics.
Willard
Sorry I was referring to brain programming like cult leaders do not computer coding. Postma has totally programmed brain-deads on his blog. They parrot his nonsense but are not able to think at all on their own. A lot like Clint R. Outside of his program thought process he just repeats or links to a past post. If he can’t answer he goes to some old line he used.
You can see his total lack of science knowledge when he asserts that nitrogen gas reflects IR. I asked him for evidence but he linked to one of his previous posts. He is not an intelligent person. That is why he belongs to the Cult of Postma and a few others.
Joe is at best a grifter:
https://skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html#105329
Besides the fact that Joe mistakes 0-D and 1-D models, he seems to forget that these models came decades after the greenhouse effect was discovered experimentally.
If he’s not a grifter, he’s just deranged.
Oh, goodie, wee willy offer SkS as a reliable source, The leader of SkS works as a cartoonist and pretend to have a degree in solar science.
Wee willy should know a lot about lab ‘rats’.
Cmon, Bordo.
The author of the piece *is* actually working for NASA.
And John has a PhD.
You still havent showed evidence that you did *any* graduate studies.
I’m getting a lot of ineffective flak from the cult this morning.
I must be doing something right.
[PUPMAN] Im getting a lot of ineffective flak from the cult this morning. I must be doing something right.
[ALSO PUPMAN] This is typical of the cultists. They cant support their nonsense so they either leave or start the insults.
Willard correctly pastes my comments. It helps him learn. Someday he might even be able to understand them.
Pupman fails to understand his own words.
How low can he go?
Yes Ark, that’s exactly why the GHE is NOT science. It doesn’t adhere to the laws of physics. You’ve got cult members, right on this month’s blog, “proving” that ice cubes can boil water.
That ain’t science.
“…the GHE is NOT science. It doesn’t adhere to the laws of physics.”
All that tells me is that you either don’t know physics, or don’t understand the GHE. Maybe both!
That explains your cryptic comments.
Ark, since you pretend you understand science, give us your description of the GHE, in your own words.
If it violates the laws of physics, I’ll be sure to let you know….
“…give us your description of the GHE, in your own words.”
I went to a football game yesterday evening and wore shorts and a t-shirt. I got to the stadium around 4:00 pm for a 6:00 kick-off; the game ended around 9:30 pm.
Although it didn’t even cross my mind at the time, the GHE maintains a temperature range suitable for such activities.
Well as expected, there’s no scientific description of the bogus GHE, but Ark continues his effort to be the leading incompetent in his cult.
So where is the violation to the laws of physics?
You make promises that you can’t deliver, then tuck tail and run!
Yes Ark, that’s exactly why the GHE is NOT science. There is no scientific description of it.
that dog won’t hunt, pup.
Correct, the GHE ain’t science.
tuck tail and run, pup!
ark…you at football game in shorts has nothing to do with proving the GHE. You have formed a belief system that the GHE is behind the warm weather but you have no proof.
We are asking for the proof that a trace gas in the atmosphere can cause significant and observable warming. I have supplied scientific proof that it can’t. Where is your rebuttal?
ark…”science is rooted in empiricism, objectivity, and the scientific method. It seeks to understand the natural world through systematic observation, experimentation, and the formulation of testable hypotheses”.
***
You have just ruled out alarmist scientists. They do not abide by the tenets of the scientific method, rather, they bend established laws of physics to convince the uneducated.
A glaring example is the claim that the 2nd law is not compromised as long as a balance of energy is positive. Clausius said nothing about that when he created the law and it makes no sense. The balance of energy claimed is a balance of electromagnetic energies which in the form of M has absolutely nothing to do with heat. The 2nd law is only about heat, not EM. Alarmists are claiming that EM and heat are the same energy.
Nothing has changed. heat simply cannot be transferred, by its own means, from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. If you apply the scientific reasoning to that statement you will see why. Seems to me, based on your refusal to explain the GHE or AGW, that science is foreign to you.
We have asked you alarmists over and over to provide an explanation of the GHE and AGW based on the scientific method. I am still waiting. Even the IPCC cannot provide such proof, they fall back on ‘likelihoods’ and references as far back as the 19th century. They fail to consider alternative scientific theories like re-warming from the Little Ice Age and they ostracize scientists who oppose them.
Peer review in climate science circles is heavily biased toward alarmist scientists and even the IPCC has essentially banned papers from skeptics.
Time to wake up, Ark.
We showed that the ozone regulation does not only peak during austral summer but is significant throughout the ENSO lifecycle. Therefore it can be argued that ENSO initiation is primarily a result of a slight central Pacific tropical perturbation in atmospheric physical and chemical properties that determine the lower stratospheric ozone equilibrium and how much of the solar UV-B energy anomalously warms the upper troposphere. This to some extent perturbs the WC which is amplified through ozone regulated process that grows through positive feedback mechanisms until the ENSO peak is reached during austral summer before progressively dying out during autumn. In this way the lower stratosphere could provide an external forcing on the tropical Pacific upper troposphere on intra-seasonal timescales that vary interannually and manifesting as ENSO extremes. Feedback mechanisms among the lower stratosphere, upper troposphere and surface may explain why once initiated, the ENSO event mostly completes its normal lifecycle. However it has to be acknowledged that our confidence in the linkages between the ozone regulation and ENSO which we have presented here is not exhaustive, primarily due to the lack of a quantitative and prognostic theory for dynamical coupling between the stratospheric and tropospheric circulations. But if the observations in this work are supported through modeling experiments, then the ozone/UV-B forcing can become the primary driver of solar induced tropical tropospheric climate variability.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05111-8
When UVC radiation decreases ozone production falls and more UVB radiation reaches the upper troposphere.
However, the percentage contribution of the shortest UV radiation varies significantly depending on the suns magnetic activity, up to 20%. This has huge implications for ozone production and temperature in the upper stratosphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2022.png
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
El Nino intensifies when solar activity decreases after the peak of solar activity.
El Nino is now in effect in Southern California, where precipitation is increasing. In December it will begin operating in Australia where there will be a lack of precipitation.
The pattern of the polar vortex in recent years indicates that California can again count on heavy snowfall in the mountains this winter.
Once more, the typical Robertson nonsense:
ark … does your TLT include the 18 years of flat trend between 1998 and 2015 and the flat trend from 2016 to present?
I mean, that must be some slope when half of it is flat and the beginning 1/3rds is a recovery from cooling.
*
I tried to explain to Robertson that his recovery from cooling is an arbitrary illusion due to the reference period chosen, but he is so opinionated that it didnt help.
Is it so difficult to understand?
Here are three representations of UAHs LT Globe data in anomaly form, based on three different 20-year long reference periods:
1979-1998
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rn5BXUqcoXWEz7kVFmh35cIEILZnEaO9/view
1989-2008
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y0ehopus1OSImNHsTXV7pEr4zja3wYqR/view
1999-2018
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sLvoNtuCoe-61-12QFhMXEXHn25pu4Em/view
Robertson always tries to discredit the charts above as unsupported or even faked, though being himself absolutely unable to produce a graph out of simplest UAH anomaly series!
But I think that anyone understands that if an absolute time series shows mostly warming over time, the baselines computed out of successive reference periods reflect that warming and hence more recent anomalies for the same month in the same year necessarily must become lower and lower (for the transition from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020: 0.14 C on average).
*
Most delicious is, in his reply
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532453
the wonderful statement about Roy Spencer LT anomaly report in 2010:
Note how 2010 spiked at 0.72C, hotter than today.
When you read such nonsense, you understand that Robertson still did not grasp the relation between reference periods, their baselines and the anomalies generated with respect to these out of absolute data.
*
And you understand even better that such a person never can have been an engineer, and that he constructed his engineering vita a posteriori from scratch.
Not one of my former engineer colleagues would lack understanding of such simple technical details like explained above.
And finally, anyone who believes the nonsense this ignorant and unteachable guy endlessly posts about COVID, Einstein, time, GPS, the rotation of the moon, etc. etc. etc. deserves it all because its all along the same lines as what he posts about UAH data which lacks any technical evidence.
Bindi, are you still confused about Moon?
Do you accept Norman’s “square orbits” nonsense?
It’s your only hope….
Clint R
How many times do I have to correct you?? I did not say a square orbit. I said to move around a table in a square path. The reason was stated for this approach. You cannot understand the process of rotating continuously and moving in a circular orbit. I did this to simply for your brain and now you are obsessed with the false notion I said “square orbit” which is false.
I isolated the motions by having a square path because you are not a thinking person and it has to be very easy for you. I guess it did not matter. You can’t understand a square path any better than a rotating path. You are just too stoopid to reason with on any level.
Wrong Norman. Your two examples — new way of walking and “square orbit” — are both science fails.
tuck tail and run pup!
Clint R
And neither of the two are my ideas they are your opinions of what I stated. You can’t even get those things correct can you. No wonder you are such a total failure at science. Have you found evidence yet that nitrogen gas reflects IR? I don’t even think Postma believes that one. Not very rational are you.
Sorry Norman, but they’re both your ideas. But if you want to now deny them, I would agree. That makes good sense.
Your problem is you’ve got a lot more to deny. Reality always wins.
Clint R
Sorry I forget how bad your reading comprehension really is. If you need to believe I said “square orbit” not much will change your cult mind. If you were rational and logical you would read what I actually wrote and get a correct concept. I had never used “orbit” which does not even make sense when talking about moving around a table.
I also was careful not to use “walk” around a table with no rotation of your feet or body.
I gave those examples forgetting how illogical and unthinking you are. It really does not matter what examples you have, you are not intelligent enough to understand any of it. You do know a toy ball on a string. I have to remember your low level of thinking and never assume any bit of intelligence or thinking ability in your Cult mind.
Norman, you’ve confused yourself, again!
Do you want to keep your bad examples, or trash them?
My recommendation is to trash them because they’re nowhere close to “orbital motion without spin”.
But, I can understand why you might want to keep them, since you’re got NOTHING.
Clint R
In reality (not in your cult mind) the examples are good. The one walking in a square clearly demonstrates that you have to rotate one complete time in order for a person in the middle to see the same side of you at all times as you make a complete square around the table. As noted (maybe I have to say it 2 million times before it registers) I removed the continuous rotation that takes place when you walk around a table in a circular path. That is the major difference, in the square path not even you can deny one full rotation as you complete a path around the table.
I have to quit attempting to explain the other one to you as you can’t understand it. If it would help should I make a video for you so you can understand what I am saying?? I could do that to help you out. I will not do such if you just blah blah about it. I will do it if you can then understand what I have written by having a visual video of the process.
So you’ve decided to hang on to your two bogus examples. Good. Let me quickly show you how incompetent they both are.
1. There are no square orbits.
2. Walking around an object while always facing a distant point has TWO motions — walking and twisting. Moon only has ONE motion — orbiting.
Quick and easy. No endless blah-blah needed.
> There are no square orbits.
Says the ball on a string crank.
binny…”I tried to explain to Robertson that his recovery from cooling is an arbitrary illusion due to the reference period chosen, but he is so opinionated that it didnt help”.
***
Don’t need an amateur explanation when I have professionals like Roy and John Christy to explain it. Right on Roy’s graph is indicated two period of cooling related to volcanic aerosols. John Christy estimate the real warming with the aerosol effect removed and calculated was around 0.09C/decade from 1979 – 1998.
I keep asking, to which part of the range from 1979 – present does the 0.13c/decade apply? It does not apply to the period between 1998 and 2015 because that trend was flat. It does not apply to 2016 till present because that was pretty flat as well. Therefore, the trend of 0.13C/decade is a purely mathematical average and means essentially nothing.
With regard to the 2010 spike, Mr. Klown claims I don’t understand baselines. Of all the stooges to take the bait, Binny van der Klown steps forward. It’s blatantly obvious from the graph above that 2010 is not even close but I don’t see Mr. Klown arguing about NOAAs claim that 2014 was the hottest year ever back in 2014. If you look at the graph above, 2014 is not even as hot as 2010 yet NOAA and GISS claimed it as the hottest year ever.
Robertson
Stop dodging and diverting with your irrelevant hints on 2010 and 2014.
Instead, concentrate on the fact that you are talking since years about “a recovery from cooling” when looking at anomalies below the baseline, and that your talk is sheer nonsense.
Look at the charts in my comment above, in which your alleged, stoopid “recovery from cooling” differs each time the baseline is changed from 1979-1998 over 1989-2008 till 1999-2018.
Either you admit that you still do not understand such a simple fact, or you are a brazen liar.
*
” I keep asking, to which part of the range from 1979 present does the 0.13c/decade apply? It does not apply to the period between 1998 and 2015 because that trend was flat. It does not apply to 2016 till present because that was pretty flat as well. Therefore, the trend of 0.13C/decade is a purely mathematical average and means essentially nothing. ”
Only idi-o-ts write such absolute nonsense, Robertson.
The 0.13 C/decade is exactly a “purely mathematical average” as the flat trend for 1998-2015. Both are the result of a linear fit in a set of monthly temperatures.
And that you are unable to grasp too.
*
” If you look at the graph above, 2014 is not even as hot as 2010 yet NOAA and GISS claimed it as the hottest year ever. ”
Finally, you keep stoopid enough to think that surface anomalies computed out of absolute temperatures (15 C on global average) must behave exactly like those computed out of absolute temperatures in the lower troposphere (-9 C on average).
Nonetheless, they keep similar:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WlRq-I-I_XhKXmSwSuCzVarrNlc-um0H/view
But all you are able to do when looking at such a graph is to discredit and denigrate it as ‘faked’.
Why don’t learn how to process climate data and post yourself graphs, Robertson?
Simply because you are a FAKE ENGINEER.
binny van der klown…”concentrate on the fact that you are talking since years about a recovery from cooling when looking at anomalies below the baseline, and that your talk is sheer nonsense”.
***
According to NOAAs definition of an anomaly, a negative anomaly represents cooling wrt the baseline. Maybe you know something NOAA does not know.
The anomalies show clearly, as negative anomalies, that 1979 – 1997 on the UAH graph shows a recovery from cooling wrt the baseline.
Maybe you could concentrate on the fact that you are nowhere near to being an authority on the subject but just another uninformed alarmist trying to mislead people.
Robertson
You are such an idi-o-t.
Look at these three charts
1979-1998
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rn5BXUqcoXWEz7kVFmh35cIEILZnEaO9/view
1989-2008
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y0ehopus1OSImNHsTXV7pEr4zja3wYqR/view
1999-2018
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sLvoNtuCoe-61-12QFhMXEXHn25pu4Em/view
How long will you need until you grasp that your dumb ‘recovery from cooling’ differs from reference period to reference period?
Don’t you fake engineer understand that positive anomalies wrt 1979-1998 become negative wrt 1999-2018?
Is that too difficult for you, Robertson?
*
No wonder that people like you think that the Moon can’t rotate about its polar axis just because it shows the same face to us all the time.
You are simply too opinionated, too ignorant to understand such an evidence.
And you would never dare to write your trash anywhere else than on this blog, you coward! And you perfectly know why.
binny vander klown aka dumbo the klown….
You are so hung up on statistics that you cannot see what is right in front of you. Between 1979 – 1997, the slope of the trend was relative to the baseline at that time. The baseline was the average upon which the cooling was determined.
Guess what dumbo? Even when you adjust the trend lines, to get the current trend line, the anomalies are still below the baseline. They were below it in that range (1979 – 1997) and they are still below it. Of course, the baseline has moved up the way but those temps are below it, making them relative cooling according to NOAA.
Maybe one day they will be above it and you might have an argument. And maybe UAH should consider extending the baseline back to 1979 to make it a 40+ year average.
There’s a project for you statistical types, I won’t leave that up to Binny the Fudger.
> the anomalies are still below the baseline.
C’mon, Bordo:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/trend/plot/uah6
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The very best here is that the Pseudomod didn’t understand anything of the discussion, but is, exactly as his friend Robertson, a lover of the den-y-ing attitudes.
No wonder that he wrote this post to the wrong person.
The tro~ll here is clearly Robertson.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
> The microwave oven and lasers come from cult followers like you.
Wait. Does that mean Sky Dragon cranks do not believe in microwave oven and lasers?
Global warming cargo cult vs Sky Dragon Slayer which Willard call Sky Dragons.
Sky Dragon Slayer roughly say the cargo cult has no theory {not doesn’t have a valid theory just no theory} and then Sky Dragon Slayer usually try to give a theory {which is wrong or not theory either].
I guess it requires I give a theory.
So I am going to called it, the average temperature or the heat content of entire interconnected ocean of Earth, controls Global average surface air temperature.
Or the ocean is where more than 90% energy of Earth’s global surface is.
Define global surface: ground surface, ocean surface and it’s depths, and the entire atmosphere.
Now, everyone knows this. And that discourages me in calling it a theory. But NASA and NOAA more than 90% of recent warming is warming the entire ocean. And everyone knows rising or lowering of sea level
is measuring stick of global climate temperature.
If you could separate other factors, other ocean thermal expansion or contraction due to warming or cooling, it’s an accurate measuring stick.
It’s also something everyone knows because you measure global average surface air temperature over a 30 year period of time.
Why do this?
Because you trying to get a proxy for the changes in the ocean’s average temperature {which is about 3.5 C}.
But 30 years is not really enough time. And some dingbats think 17 years is long enough.
> Sky Dragons
Almost. Sky Dragon cranks.
Ocean heat content is not a forcing, so you might need to work on that theory.
A forcing is anything external to the system you have defined which has the potential to change that system. So if you define your system to be just the atmosphere then ocean heat content is indeed a forcing.
Except he has defined his system to include the ocean, so for his definition it is not a forcing. However he doesn’t seem to have used the term “forcing” in his comment.
It’s actually known better as a force. The word forcing was stolen from differential equation theory. It is a reference to a forcing function, a function representing something like a unit impulse function, used to shock (force) a differential equation representing an electron amplifier into oscillation, or to behave erratically.
The problem with claimed forcings is that no one can demonstrate them in the real world for the simple reason they can only exist in a model, which is represented by differential equations.
That suits climate alarmists since they can pass off imaginary forcings as real forces which none of them can explain and the public is not able to understand.
Everybody is free present a theory of global warming without any forcing as long as they wear sunscreen.
No Gordon, ‘force’ has its own specific meaning.
When your system is just the earth, solar energy is also a forcing. I bet you won’t be denying that one.
It is telling that you feel the need to use words such as “stolen”. By your “reasoning”, all the basic words in your vocabulary were stolen from your parents.
aq…”When your system is just the earth, solar energy is also a forcing. I bet you wont be denying that one”
***
Solar energy is electromagnetic energy which the Earth absorbs and converts to heat. It forces nothing.
Forcing is simply a bad word that misdirects the real action of natural phenomena. You can’t even explain what it means. It is nothing more than bafflegab to push a theory with no merit.
I have explained what it means. You have simply chosen to ignore it.
Ah, that does lead to something which I did say was theory, but first let’s revisit more things everyone agrees with, which is called the Milankovitch cycles.
The Milankovitch cycles causes the largest climate changes, they transform a very cold climate state into “global warming” wherein sea levels rise over 100 meters within a relatively short period of time and after which there is tens of thousands years of cooling which arrive at another coldest time period, which there another rapid global warming with more than 100 meters of sea level rise, and etc.
And these rapid changes {geologically speaking] are part of our present icehouse global climate. which a Ice Age, one of five known Ice Age Earth as had.
But such Ice Ages are somewhat rare over geological time.
And in terms of warmest climate states, there is what is called a greenhouse global climate, which has warm ocean and has no permanent ice sheets in the polar region.
And everyone knows these extreme state of Ice Ages and greenhouse global climates are caused be plate tectonic activity which changes the global climate surface.
Anyways, this large changes during our Ice Age, which called the Late
Cenozoic Ice Age. Is caused changes of the average temperature of the ocean.
During the warmest times, our ocean average temperature is 4 C or warmer.
And in terms of the warmest climate state, called Greenhouse global climate, the average temperature of ocean, rather than 3.5, 4, 5, or 6 C, is about 10 C or warmer.
And it is debated {hotly} whether our ocean has ever, briefly been as warm as 25 C.
But I haven’t had enough coffee, yet.
Still haven’t had enough coffee, but enough is made.
So, to get to basics, the ocean surface is most of Earth’s surface and it absorbs a lot more energy than any land surface.
The ocean average daily temperature is higher temperature than land surfaces, and the warmer ocean surface covering the most surface on Earth causes the atmosphere to have average of 15 C.
Or average surface of ocean is about 17 C and average land is about 10 C which gives average global surface temperature of 15 C.
H20 whether frozen or liquid absorbs more energy than a land surface, and wet land surface absorbs more sunlight than a dry land surface.
Or land surfaces heat up and cool down quickly during the 24 hour day and ocean has far more constant daily temperature, which makes it have a higher daily temperature.
Or ocean surface is meters of a surface which is warmed and land is centimeters of surface which is heated by the sunlight- the ocean holds or “traps” more heat. A non transparent land surface absorbs all it energy in top cm, an transparent ocean absorbs very little sunlight in top cm- most of the sunlight is absorbed in top 2 meter {200 cm} of the surface.
In terms of ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere- it’s kind of similar to the ocean and very dissimilar to a land surface.
With lunar surface it’s surface is a very good insulation, as India lander confirmed, recently {though been known for decades}. With Earth land surface you don’t have 50 C surface temperature and freezing temperature couple inches below the surface.
On Lunar surface with sun near zenith, the top of the surface will be around 120 C and inches below it, below freezing.
With ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere, when sunlight is at zenith, the ideal thermally conductive surface is 5 C. Because it’s ideally conductive {or magically conductive} and heat conducted to the entire surface of sphere giving it, not average of 5 C, but rather an uniform temperature of 5 C.
And only thing close to this, is a transparent ocean.
Of course another aspect of this, is that a ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere is a model- or it’s not reality. Or it assumes an ideal material which isn’t known to exist in reality.
But solid copper or silver is a lot closer than dirt, sand, or concrete. And diamond type material [or some kind of plasma material] could be a lot closer than copper or silver.
But in terms practical and economical, you can pump liquids such as water.
And a Greenhouse global climate is a world which can mix or pump ocean water, globally, better.
Global warming is about having a more uniform global temperature.
gb…hopefully you understand that Sky Dragon is a reference to climate alarmists since they talk about catastrophic heating much like a dragon’s breath. Therefore, a Sky Dragon Slayer is anyone who reveals the lies per.petuated by the Sky Dragon hoaxers.
Wee willy still cannot grasp that, or maybe he is trying to save face after having made a f00l of himself after having gotten it wrong.
C’mon, Bordo.
“Sky Dragon” is a reference to the greenhouse theory.
You should not fantasize about slaying climate scientists so openly.
Yes, I do understand that, but I haven’t seen them slaying any kind of Sky Dragon.
And it seems children are still being frightened that the world might end, if they fart too much.
Can’t speak for the rest of the planet but global warming has ended in the Vancouver, Canada area. We are suddenly down to the 20C range, from the 30C range with night time temps dropping to the 14C range. And our climate is still about the same, thank you.
Hmmmm….I wonder why? CO2 is still presumably at the same level, yet we are 10C lower on average and in just over a week. How can the alleged CO2 warming simply disappear?
Wonder if it has something to do with the fact the planet is moving at an average speed of about 108,000 km/hour. That means, in the past week we have moved 7 days x 24hours/day x 108,000 km/hour = 18,144,000 kilometres. However, we are tilted about 23 degrees to the orbital plane and that tilt affects the intensity of solar energy we receive at the latitude of Vancouver, Canada.
The combination of distance traveled plus the tilt, has dropped temperatures by an average of 10C in a week. It will only get colder till December 22nd when the tilt starts to give us more sunlight at our latitude.
No amount of anthropogenic CO2 will affect that cooling.
In the same way that summer ends every night when the temperature drops 10C, right Gordon?
That the best you got, AQ?
And THAT is the best response YOU’VE got, Gordon?
No attempt to actually address my comment and its implications for your understanding of climate?
It’s the most concise response to your nonsense, where you (perennially) conflate local weather with global climate change.
Your ‘argument’ could barely be more asinine.
Of course, you won’t be remarking that global warming must therefore be happening when temperatures in your area go up again.
Because – if your mind can retain your previous remarks – you’d be tacitly conceding that you’re talking about the weather.
barry…I am not in denial about global warming, I agree that it has warmed since 1850 following the Little Ice Age. My argument is over what is causing the warming.
I think the cause is obvious. We had a mini ice age from about 1300 – 1850 and there is very good evidence the planet cooled dramatically during that period. One would expect it to re-warm after such a period of cooling. There is evidence in the growth of glaciers and serious cooling on Greenland that drove of Viking settlers.
I am also arguing about the amount of warming. It has been variable and I think the cause of that is likely ocean oscillations and perhaps variable solar input.
There is good evidence that the 1930s were as warm as today and it is likely the same warming affected the rest of the plant, not just North America.
“There is good evidence that the 1930s were as warm as today and it is likely the same warming affected the rest of the plant, not just North America.”
So ignorant.
This refers to mid-1930s summertime maximum temperatures in the US, which still show up as warmer than today’s summertime maximum temperatures in the US. The evidence is the official US temperature record – from the people you keep disparaging as fudgers.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/tmax/3/8/1895-2023?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
No, it’s not the same for the globe, and there is zero evidence that US temperatures are a good proxy for global. That’s just your wishful blather.
Here’s the summertime temps for the globe since 1850.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/3/8/1850-2023
I couldn’t find an easy to access plotter that gave summertime maximum temps globally. But you can compare the above with US average summertime temps below and see how likely it is that global summertime maxima were similar to the US in the 1930s.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/tavg/3/8/1895-2023?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
“I agree that it has warmed since 1850 following the Little Ice Age. My argument is over what is causing the warming.”
…by pointing out there’s been a drop in temperatures in your area recently.
Conflating local weather fluctuations with long term global temperature. Conflating seasonal climate change with decadal climate change.
It’s asinine, Gordon, drivel of the dimmest kind.
barry, please stop trolling.
While some in northern CONUS and southern Canada are complaining about unusually low temperatures, here in northern Germany we are experiencing for September unusually high temperatures with around 30 C TMAX.
Today, at 2 p.m. local time, we had 54 C on the thermometer placed directly in the sun.
TMIN values around 11 C during many recent nights reinforce the impression that the atmosphere is quite thin and allows increased passing of both solar and terrestrial radiation.
*
Here is a comparison, based on thousands of GHCN daily stations, of CONUS and Europe (including Russia till the Ural, Belarus and Ukraine):
https://i.postimg.cc/MK6R5tnn/GHCN-daily-CONUS-vs-Europe-1979-2023.png
*
According to the collected data, CONUS’ anomalies show
– in all observed periods since 1900, trends lower than Europe’s;
– a strong negative trend since 2016 (-0.3 C /decade) while in the same period, Europe’s show a positive trend (+0.18 C / decade).
*
It is absolutely evident that this has NOTHING to do with CO2.
You can’t observe CO2’s action just with a look at your thermometer in Vancouver or some town in Michigan, and even not at the average of over 3,000 stations in Europe or 8,000 stations in CONUS.
*
Fact is and remains, Scott R: that CONUS experiences cooling since 2016 could only mean a global cooling if the same happened everywhere.
*
The warming in Germany becomes a bit suspect, to say the least:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zu6rgEjkvN8Gqk8QETYv7853rRnYNotf/view
Trends in C / decade
– 1900-2023
0.11 +- 0.01
– 1979-2023
0.39 +- 0.05
– 2000-2023
0.37 +- 0.13
– 2010-2023
1.25 +- 0.31
*
But like in many places, much less warming since 2016 (but with a high standard error due to the small period)
– 2016-2023
0.36 +- 0.73
I hope this trend reduction will go on!
Simply because we lack since years both precipitation and Alp region snow melt.
Anyone who has a beautiful garden experiences this every day in the summer (but fortunately not yet like in the south of France, where watering gardens has been banned in many communities for years).
binny vn der klown…”…anyone who believes the nonsense this ignorant and unteachable guy endlessly posts about COVID, Einstein, time, GPS, the rotation of the moon, etc. etc. etc. deserves it all because its all along the same lines as what he posts about UAH data which lacks any technical evidence”.
***
I appreciate Mr. Klown giving me the opportunity to set the record straight.
Covid was a pandemic of hysteria wherein the hysterical showed us what to expect from the climate hysteria currently being promoted. A tiny fraction of 1% of most populations died and the unfortunates who died were largely people with compromised immunity.
After two years of unwarranted infringements on our democratic rights, the hysterical pleaded a mea culpa and wrote covid off as endemic, a solution that should have been followed from the outset based on the casualties. There was no reason at any time to assume we had a situation much different than we had experienced in the past.
Einstein I covered recently. He messed up big time by trying to make theory fit reality. When a thought experiment, obviously based on an error prone mind, is created in which time and distance must be adjusted to make the theory work, any well adjusted scientist would question his thought experiment. Not Einstein. He created a fictitious time dilation as well as a change in measure, to make his theory work. No one has ever witnessed time or length change due to motion of any velocity.
This is all beyond the very limited comprehension of Mr. Klown.
NIST, the officials guardian of time in our society, has declared time as being dependent on the position of the Sun in the sky. In other words, our second is based on the rotation of the Earth. In order that Einstein’s second change length, the Earth must change its period of rotation. However, Mr. Klown would rather appeal to authorities like Einstein than think for himself.
Mr. Klown believes the nonsense that GPS systems demonstrate time dilation. Louis Essen, an authority on time, having invented the atomic clock, exposed this fallacy with regard to atomic clocks flown on aircraft to prove the GPS time dilation theory. He noted that apparent change in time recorded was related to inherent errors in the clocks themselves. It’s not like you can uproot an atomic clock and install it on an aircraft without encountering errors.
An atomic clock is not an entity that can stand on its own re time. It is based on the natural transitions of electrons in the cesium atom, and has no way of knowing the time we have developed based on the Earth’s period of rotation. All it can do is act as a very accurate time base to produce a constant-length second, just as a quartz crystal does in watches with quartz crystals as a time base.
The problem should be apparent. Although the cesium atom itself is a very accuratetime base, it relies on semiconductors that don’t have nearly the same accuracy. It also depends on the environment in which those semiconductors must operate but more importantly on the scientists doing the job. Louis Essen, the inventor of atomic clocks, and who knows their limitations re error, knows you cannot put one on an aircraft and expect it to operate without an error margin that is far greater than any time dilation claimed.
There are so many variables in the relative motion of GPS satellites that errors in the readings can easily account for alleged time dilation. Besides, there is no electronics capable of measuring time dilation for the simple reason that none have been developed since there is no phenomenon called time to measure.
Finally, the Moon does not rotate on a local axis. The alleged local rotation is due to an illusion created by the lunar orbit. The near side of the Moon that we see from Earth has an apparent rotation wrt the stars but the rotation is not about a local axis. It is about the Earth. Since the Moon dos not rotate about a local axis, and is performing curvilinear translation, the near face always points at Earth and rotates about the Earth due to the lunar orbit.
Mr. Klown lacks the ability to understand any of this so he sit in his room in his lederhosen and alpine hat, yodeling out the window while pining for the fjords. Every so often, he sits at his computer and writes gibberish.
As we can see: FAKE engineer Robertson knows everything better than thousands of scientists and… REAL engineers who work since decades on GPS.
*
You just need to see:
” The near side of the Moon that we see from Earth has an apparent rotation wrt the stars… ”
to understand that like other deniers of the same vein, Robertson still hasn’t understood that NOTHING rotates or orbits wrt the stars.
The motion PERIODS are computed wrt the stars (as fixed points in space) because this is the only way to get the computed period independent of the motion of the observers themselves.
This matters even more when you observe infinitesimal motions like the forced physical librations of the Moon (tiny irregularities in Moon’s spin which ignoramuses like Robertson of course confound with optical librations).
Then you have to rely on fixed points that are much further away than the stars in our Milky Way.
*
Anyone on this blog who believes Robertson’s self-centered garbage deserves it.
So once again you resurrect that dead horse, Binny.
Well played!
binny…”This matters even more when you observe infinitesimal motions like the forced physical librations of the Moon (tiny irregularities in Moons spin…”
What a complete dufus. You can’t even explain libration, so you make up some ridiculous explanation like it’s a variation in the Moon’s spin.
Based on your elementary school definition, explain why there is no libration at either end of the major orbital axis just as there is no libration in a purely circular orbit.
Libration is obviously a property of the slightly elliptical lunar orbit and has nothing to do with an alleged lunar spin. You would see exactly the same kind of libration if you ran a car around an elliptical track as opposed to circular track. At the end of the major axis, from inside the track at it centre, you see only the one side of the ‘same’ side of the car and none of the front or rear.
Just like the Moon. At other parts of the elliptical track you see portions of the front and the rear of the car. That’s libration. If the same car is running on a circular track and you are viewing from the centre of the track, you’s see none on the front and back, only the same side.
Electrical engineers would be called on to design GPS units. The design would be fairly straight forward, with the complexity of relative motion being added. However, the concept had already been covered by Loran-C design in which stations were placed around the globe, sending signals so ships on the ocean could triangulate against the signals and get their position.
GPS is about triangulation between moving satellites, where a GPC uit does the calculations between different sats. GPS is based on the same theory as Loran-C except the signal sources are moving in satellite orbits. Engineers decided to use time systems on the satellites that are independent from the ground stations. That meant synchronizing the signals that connected them. Also, it meant allowing for time delays and relative motion. Those time delays in signal propagation are mistaken for some, who fail to understand electrical engineering design, as time dilation.
Even if there was time dilation, the speed at which the sats move is a tiny fraction of the speed of light and would not factor into the calculations. However, Einstein was wrong about time dilation, according to Louis Essen, who discovered the atomic clock and was an expert on it.
According to Essen, Einstein made the egregious error of basing his calculations on thought experiments then changed reality to suit his thought experiment. As Essen put it, Einstein did not understand measurement. He made another egregious error, he based his theory on Lorenz transformations without verifying the transforms applied to his theory.
Lorenz took the liberty of assuming that time would change with relative motion and he was wrong. In fact, Newton had it right. Motion is based on the movement of masses, not the other way around, as Einstein saw it, where motion becomes dependent on time and space.
In reality, neither time nor distance can change as a function of velocity.
Its the sun stoopid
https://notrickszone.com/2023/09/04/new-study-up-to-87-of-modern-warming-can-be-explained-by-variations-in-solar-activity/
It’s
from your link…
“In summary, then, much of modern global warmings alleged link to human activity may have been formulated by selecting data that align with the hypothesis, and neglecting or dismissing data which do not”.
That’s about right. In 2013, when the IPCC claimed the 15 year period between 1998 and 2012 showed no warming, labeling it a pause, NOAA went back and fudged the SST to show a warming trend. Fudging temperature data is normal for alarmists like NOAA, GISS, Had-crut and BoM. They have re-written the temperature record to erase warm periods as well.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg, they have fudged the global warming record using climate models to synthesize temperature in areas where there are no thermometers.
norman…”The one walking in a square clearly demonstrates that you have to rotate one complete time…”
***
You are missing a pertinent point. Your square walk around the table is rectilinear translation. That’s the nature of it, you have to turn 4 times to complete 4 separate translation.
Check it out on an x-y plane. If you want to go from 0,0 to 5,5 you can walk along a straight line between the two points. Or, you can walk along the x-axis to y = 5, turn left and walk along the y-axis to x = 5. y = 5. With RT, you can walk any number of straight lines to get from the origin at 0,0 to the point at 5,5.
With curvilinear translation, that is not necessary. The nature of that translation is a constantly changing direction along lines tangent to the curve. Using CT, you can walk around the table in a circle while keeping the same side pointed at the table. Just like the Moon orbiting the Earth, a ball on a string, a wooden horse bolted to an MGR, a locomotive circling a circular track, or an airliner orbiting the Equator at 35,000 feet.
Imagine a carousel made up of a long, skinny rectangular platform forming a radius from an axis to x = 5, y = 0. You can stand on this platform facing the origin at 0,0. Let the platform turn CCW and it transports you in a circle. At no time do you have to turn yet during the 360 degree rotation, you face the origin at all times.
If you want to, you can turn in a circle exactly once per revolution of the platform but you will no longer be facing the origin. At some point you will actually be facing away from it.
But here’s the clincher. As you turn, standing stationary on the platform facing the origin, you also face every point on the compass as the platform turns.
It’s simple, Norman, you are trying too hard not to see it.
My brain went to bed before me…
“Or, you can walk along the x-axis to y = 5…”, should be,,,
“Or, you can walk along the x-axis to x = 5…”
It’s hard to keep tract of my x’s and y’s at this time of night.
How do we tell the difference between your sleeping and waking brains?
I’d say your hippocampus is not functioning, but you’d probably interpret that as a comment about Trump “university”.
aq…do you think you’ll ever get to the level in science where you can offer a scientific reply using your own hippocampus, without feeling the need to offer ad homs?
I gave you enough science and math in my reply for you to offer an intelligent rebuttal but you refrained. Does the mean what it seems to mean, that you are incapable of a scientific reply?
Gordon Robertson
This video will show you what I have been saying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CBBVGRpQLw&t=156s
Your example of being on a rotating platform does not relate to an object moving around a circle.
Look at the early part of this video. He rotates and moves a square object in a circular path. If you use your powers of observation you will notice that someone in the center would see only one side (which is what the Moon does as it orbits and rotates once on its axis which the maker of this video shows).
He also shows curvilinear translation. In his example you can see that a person in the center of the movement would see more than one side. In this case it is a short curve (no rotation) and you would see two sides. If it went further the center observer would see all the sides in a curvilinear translation.
I am looking for online software that can create an object that can independently rotate and move in a circular path.
I still say take two cans (it is the easiest way for you to understand it). One is placed in the center. You move the other one around in a circular path. If you want the same side of the can to face the center can you have to rotate it as you move it in a circular path. If you move it around without any rotation the center can will be exposed to all sides of the can you are moving in a circular path. Please try this (easy for you to do) and tell me your results.
Your video deals with Kinetics/Kinematics Norman, not orbiting. Orbiting does NOT comply with those other studies of motion.
And the reason you have to rotate your hand is because you are trying to replicate gravity. Gravity can change the direction of the body. Use the ball-on-a-string. The string correctly provides the centripetal force of gravity — it changes the direction of the ball.
“Orbiting does NOT comply with those other studies of motion.”
“Use the ball-on-a-string.”
Tee hee hee!
This guy is dead wrong about curvilinear translation. For some reason, certain scientists have focused on an aberration they claim to be curvilinear translation. They have defined curvilinear translation to mean an object cannot change direction while following a curved path.
Translation itself means simply to have motion and direction. So, if you are moving from A to B long a straight line, without any rotation, you are translating. When all points are moving parallel, and at the same speed, it’s called rectilinear translation.
Curvilinear, by definition, simply means a curved line. There is nothing in the definition about particles in a mass following a straight line or moving at the same speed. Since translation simply means motion then a curvilinear motion is simply a motion along a curved line.
The stipulation that particles in the body move in parallel at the same speed comes obviously from Rectilinear translation. It’s obvious from the physics that a mass performing such motion must have its particles moving ia a straight line at the same speed. But should that apply to curvilinear motion too?
Let’s go into it. I don’t care how certai people define curvilinear translation, I am interested in applying the term accurately based on the meaning of curvilinear and translation. Furthermore, I am interested in ho Newton applied it 400 years ago.
Let’s change the line so it has a slight curve. Th COG is moving along the curved line. Now we have a situation where an object is translating, since it is in motion from A to B along a curved path, but we have to specify how it is moving. What is propelling it and what is causing it to remain on a curved path?
Again, no mass will follow a curved path unless an external force acts on it. Since the mass is moving along a curved path, because we defined its motion as such, it must be performing curviliear translation. That is a no-brainer, and why so many scientists have an issue with that is the question.
The bar in the example at your link will not turn as it does without the two rotating levers being attached to it. Therefore each particle in the bar is turning in a curved path, driven by the levers, but not parallel to each other, and not parallel to the levers driving them. Obviously, in some parts of the bar, particles are turning in circles that are not concentric to the lever motion, and such a motion is not parallel
On the other hand, if you imagine a radial line from Earth’s centre to the Moon’s centre, and the Moon is moving in a circular orbit, all parts of the Moon are turning in parallel circles about Earth’s centre, and at the same angular velocity. That meets the definition of translation. The bar in your video does not.
The only any an object that is moving along a straight line, without rotation, can move along a curved path is when external forces act on it. Otherwise, the object will continue to move along a straight line.
Newton offered a far better example 400 years before. He claimed the Moon moves with a linear motion, which would be the square piston moving within the cylinder on your video. He goes on to point out that gravitational force converts the linear motion to curvilinear motion. The meaning is obvious: linear motion is the straight line, rectilinear motion of the piston, while curvilinear motion is motion along a curved line orbit rather than a straight line.
Suppose the guy removed the surplus rear rotary device and went with one level rotating as he demonstrated early in the video. One end of the lever is most definitely rotating about an axis. and that rules out curvilinear translation.
These guys are missing the essence of curvilinear motion. It is nothing more than motion along a curve as opposed to motion in a straight line. When he showed a square moving along a curve while keeping the same orientation, he did not explain how that is possible. Why would a square, with its COG following a curve, while keeping the same spacial orientation? There would have o be a special case of external forces acting so as to allow that.
If I had a mass moving in a straight line, how would I get it to follow a curved line? In other words, how could I change its motion from rectilinear to curvilinear? I can’t unless I apply an external force. No mass will willingly follow a curved path by its own means.
People like the guy in the video have such narrow-minded views of curvilinear translation that they essentially cannot see the forest for the trees. They have boxed themselves in with the idea that a mass following a curved path must have all points in the mass moving parallel and at the same speed. One of their problems is the notion that curvilinear motion along a circular path requires all particles in the mass to be moving in parallel, but they don’t understand the meaning of parallel as applied to circular motion or angular speed as opposed to particle tangential speed.
Each point in a rigid body is forced to complete one orbit in the same time as all other particles. That’s why they have different speeds. Outer particles must move faster. Individual particle velocities have nothing to do with angular speed.
With lunar motion, all particles in the Moon are moving in parallel at all times and their angular velocity is the same. The criterion for curvilinear translation has been met. which is the speed of the body’s COM, as inferred by Newton some 400 years ago.
I was replying to Barry that the 1930s were as hot as today and that was likely global. Here is an article by a good Ozzie who thinks 1939 in Oztralia was as hot as today. They had serious bush firs as well.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2019/03/hottest-summer/
C’mon, Bordo.
2019 isn’t today.
When did you stop commenting at Jennifer’s?
The heat of summer 1938-39 was specifically in the southeast.
And the rest of 1939 was way below average.
Apparently you get to take a couple of months in a fraction of the country and infer that the entire country was therefore warmer over the entire decade.
The entire 1930’s decade was abnormally hot and featured many more heat waves than today. Droughts became the norm and farm soil began blowing away in giant dust storms. That happened as far north as Manitoba and Saskatchewan, Canada.
The myriad things wrong with Marohassy’s post.
1. Summer maxima are STILL hotter in 1938/39 before 2018, even using the adjusted series.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=maxT&area=aus&station=082039&dtype=anom&period=summer&ave_yr=0
Mahorassy misleads you by….
2. Showing a graph of unadjusted Summertime maxima that only goes up to 1997 and…
3. Showing you a graph of adjusted Summertime MINIMA that goes up to 2017.
Marohassy would definitely have had access to unadjusted Summertime maxima up to 2018, but she cut 20 years off the end of the graph for maximum visual impact. In the late 2010s, Summertime maxima for Rutherglen view with (but don’t quite equal) 1938/39. Oh no, better to cut that and show only the late 1990s, when Summertime maxima were cooler.
Marohassy in March 2019, when she posted the above, would definitely have seen the the adjusted Summertime data only up to 2017, and seen that the Summertime maxima were STILL hottest at the time for 1938/39.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=maxT&area=aus&station=082039&dtype=anom&period=summer&ave_yr=0
You can see for yourself that the current adjusted record only goes up to 2021. There is usually a lag of a year or so, which is why Marohassy’s adjusted graph only goes up to 2017.
But rather than show us Summertime maxima, she instead opted to show the minima. Showing the adjusted Summertime maxima at the time would have belied her premise.
She is quite dishonest.
barry, please stop trolling.
It’s been 17 hours since I answered Clint R’s question:
>” Ark, since you pretend you understand science, give us your description of the GHE, in your own words.
If it violates the laws of physics, I’ll be sure to let you know…”
My reply:
He’s been unable to find any “violation to the laws of physics” in my description of the GHE (in my own words) because, there aren’t any.
Everybody knows that without the GHE, the heat from the sun would quickly escape back into space, and the Earth would become incredibly cold, like a frozen, desolate wasteland. Life as we know it would struggle to survive, and our planet would be a very different and much harsher place to live.
The GHE makes our planet just the right temperature for life.
Ark, you don’t have a scientific description of the GHE. You seem to believe in the GHE, but you don’t have a clue what it is.
“The GHE makes our planet just the right temperature for life”???
Then we’re doing just fine and don’t need to panic. I can live with that.
Pupman,
The greenhouse effect.
Global warming.
Two different things.
You should know that after tolling this website for more than a decade under various socks.
The funny thing about this is that Ark is usually one of the panicked alarmists. He usually sounds like we’re all going to be boiled alive. But his last comment says we’re doing just fine.
Did he learn to accept reality, or is he just confused like the rest of his cult?
A remarkable about-face!
Clint R has gone from the bogus GHE to now singing its praises.
He has had his Road to Damascus moment in the past 24 hrs!
I’m not sure I should get full credit for uncovering Ark’s lack of understanding of the GHE nonsense, but if he’s willing to recognize my efforts, who am I to argue?
We have to take Paul’s word for it that he talked to God on the road to Damascus.
Paul was never on the road to Damascus, that was Saul.
The theory is the surface warms the atmosphere to 255K, and then GHE accounts for an additional 33K of warming. Berry has falsified AGW. This pokes holes in GHE. Berry hasn’t claimed to have falsified GHE but has falsified AGW.
ark…you still have not explains the physics as to how the GHE works. A real greenhouse does not work like you described, it warms by trapping all air molecules that have been heated by solar energy, either directly or indirectly.
Explain how a trace gas in the atmosphere traps heat, especially when all air molecules cool so many degrees with altitude.
Two words: Optical depth.
Three words. No such thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_depth
from your link…
“In physics, optical depth or optical thickness is the natural logarithm of the ratio of incident to transmitted radiant power through a material”.
***
Radiation won’t flow through a material of appreciable thickness, and the atmosphere as a gas is not really a material.
This quack definition is applied to CO2 in the atmosphere but 90+ percent of surface radiation flows through the atmosphere unimpeded. It’s just more chicanery being passed off as science.
It also infers that surface heat is being trapped which is sheer nonsense. If you shone a flashlight of known optical intensity into a thick fog, then you could measure how much light gets though. You might also start at the flashlight and move way from it into the fog till you could no longer see any light. That would give you an indication of optical depth.
It serves no purpose re CO2 in the atmosphere since 90+ percent of surface radiation gets through anyway. The point is, CO2 is a very minor, trace gas, and has little or no effect on anything.
C’mon, Bordo.
This bit:
is what you were supposed to be reading.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Signal to noise ratio is very low here at the moment.
Please leave Ennui’s role to Kennui, EM:
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
Roger wilco.
Thanks.
In return:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/6cSQMzfspXEtehP7cJhfNA
Don’t know about that ent, I am hearing a lot of static, especially from wee willy.
C’mon, Bordo.
You’re so static that you make the same bonehead comments in each and every single thread here since around 2013.
> 2013
I misremembered. It was 2011. See below.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Something for you Republicans with your focus on corporate profits.
Climate change is hitting you in the pocket.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/climate-change-and-insurance-the
ark…”So where is the violation to the laws of physics?”
***
Good grief, are you serious? You went to a football game in hot weather and you presume it is hot because of a greenhouse effect that no one can explain?
I have listed the contradictions of the laws of physics over and over yet nary a rebuttal.
The GHE is based on a theory that IR trapped by the glass is warming a greenhouse. That is based on an anachronism dating back to the mid-19th century that heat flows through air as heat rays.
How does trapped IR warm a real greenhouse? If you cannot explain that scientifically then you cannot explain how trapping a small portion of surface IR by a trace gas is the same as trapping surface heat, or affecting the rate of heat dissipation at a surface.
We now know that a real greenhouse warms when the glass traps warmed air that is trying to rise. Greenhouses are cooled by opening vents to release the trapped air. A neighbour who has a greenhouse leaves the door open in summer and uses a fan to blow hot air out of a portal in order to control the greenhouse temperature. Plants simply don’t like it when the environment is too hot.
Those who adhere to the GHE are totally unaware of Bohr’s theory that relates EM/IR to the transitions of electrons in atoms. They fail to grasp that heat is not radiated from a surface, that it is dissipated as an equal amount of infrared is radiated away. IR is an entirely different form of energy and trapping it has no effect on the heat in a surface.
There is an egregious error in the GHE and that is: infrared energy and heat are one and the same. Some people insist on called IR ‘thermal’ radiation, which is nonsense. Thermal is a reference to heat and IR carries no heat. Even referencing the IR to heat is incorrect since one is dissipated while the other is created. Ergo, heat does not produce IR, electrons do.
Radiated IR can be absorbed by a cooler mass and converted back to heat, but that heat has nothing to do with the heat at a surface that created the IR. It has no effect on the rate of heat dissipation at that surface.
In other words the GHE theory is pseudo-science.
If they would change the theory to describe the actuality of a real greenhouse, it would align better with physics. In a real greenhouse, surfaces and plants heated by SW solar heat the greenhoue air and it tries to rise. It can’t because the glass blocks it. Now apply that to the atmosphere and you have conduction/convection of all air in contact with the surface.
As R. W. Wood put it, air, comprised 99% of oxygen and nitrogen cannot radiate the heat away easily and the heat is retained. There is your real greenhouse effect. We have learned recently that radiation is an inefficient means of dissipating heat therefore incoming solar heats the surface and radiation cannot cool it quickly enough, so the planet warms.
Everybody knows that without the GHE, the heat from the sun would quickly escape back into space, and the Earth would become incredibly cold, like a frozen, desolate wasteland. Life as we know it would struggle to survive, and our planet would be a very different and much harsher place to live.
The GHE makes our planet just the right temperature for life.
Not exactly. According to the theory, the planet would still be 255K. So, most of the heat from the Sun would not escape. However, most competent Atmospheric Physicists ascribe most GHE to water (90%) and the rest to CO2. If you read Dan Pangburn’s info, it is more like 99% ascribed to water. And Christo’s math says no GHE at all. My view is that it is a long way from being settled if ever.
Stephen, Ark now believes there is no GHE. He believes everything is as it should be. Somehow, he’s so twisted up in his cult nonsense that he’s got it right!
Don’t mess with success.
Anderson
” Not exactly. According to the theory, the planet would still be 255K. ”
33 C lower on the global average than now? That would let the planet look like an ice ball.
Take e.g. all your CONUS temperature data, and subtract 33 C from each!
*
” And Christo’s math says no GHE at all. ”
Christo’s ‘math’, as you so nicely call it, is based on a single, absolutely unproven assumption.
He even doesn’t dare to present his idea on an open review site.
Bindi,
Your brain is so polluted with leftist ideology that you can’t even focus on the debate. He said the heat from the Sun would quickly escape back into space. Even you can understand that isn’t true. Try.
Stephen P Anderson
You are just as polluted as a leftist. You believe the lies of the right (which are numerous and constant) just like the left believes their lies. Both fanatic groups (left and right) do not use rational thought and logic to process information. They just believe the lies told to them by talking heads on their own sides. It is sad you used to be a logical person and gave it up for fanatic emotionalism and warrior mentality!
Roy Spencer himself understands the surface would cool quite quickly at night without GHE. Maybe you should use the power of right-wing fanatic thought to convince him you know what you are talking about.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/
That spreadsheet is programmed to show warming from back-radiation. That doesn’t happen. Earth’s nighttime temperatures are maintained by the heat content of the surface/atmosphere, and by conductive insulation.
Clint R
Are you displaying more poor reading comprehension? You fail at reading Roy’s article and post things he has considered in detail.
You jumped in and behave like an ignorant person. Over and over you display zero evidence of any thinking ability. You just post nonsense over and over. More blah blah from the voice of the cult.
Now why not read the article and then post something more intelligent.
Norman,
The Earth cools quite quickly at night with GHE. You are right about conservatives being fanatical about conserving the Constitution. Leftists like you are fanatical about destroying it.
An alternate theory for that warming has recently been revealed. Radiation is a poor mechanism for surface heat dissipation and it cannot get rid of heating from incoming solar fast enough, therefore the planet warms.
Shula revealed with the Pirani gauge, that if the filament is heated in a vacuum and the power is removed, it takes a long time for the filament to cool via radiation alone. If a gas is introduced, it cools quickly.
We know that from a thermos bottle. It relies mainly on radiation to slow the cooling of liquids in the thermos bottle. A cup of hot coffee poured into a cup will cool quickly (minutes) but the same cup poured into a thermos bottle can take more than 8 hours to get cold.
Gordon Robertson
Have you ever studied the Moon cooling when the it no longer is heated? Have you looked up emissivity yet and attempted to understand the concept?
The Moon in direct solar flux for days reaches a peek temperature and does not get hotter. Do you know why? The rate of energy lost by IR emission is equal to the incoming solar energy. You really need to learn logic and real science. At this time you do not sound like you know what you are talking about just making up stuff as you go like a driverless car (not a modern programmed one) going willy nilly all over the place with so established path. Your claims are illogical as they do not match observable reality like the Moon temperature swings…all radiant energy! No convection or conduction.
norman…the Moon does not cool as quickly as it should when transitioning from light to dark because radiation is an inefficient mans of heat dissipation.
“the Moon does not cool as quickly as it should”
What does that mean? How fast should the moon cool?
Inane commentary.
barry, please stop trolling.
Antonin Qwerty
” Apparently you get to take a couple of months in a fraction of the country and infer that the entire country was therefore warmer over the entire decade. ”
*
I just generated data out of all available GHCN daily weather stations in Australia, and the result clearly confirms that
– you are right and
– Robertson – as usual – plain wrong.
*
GHCN daily is raw, unadjusted, and it matches BoM’s raw data.
*
1. Monthly averages of absolute data for 1900-2023
https://i.postimg.cc/QdnHMygP/GHCN-daily-Australia-absol-1900-2023.png
2. Monthly averages of anomaly data wrt 1981-2010 for 1900-2023
https://i.postimg.cc/HxkZtj8j/GHCN-daily-Australia-anoms-1900-2023.png
3. Top ten of monthly absolute values since 1900
1915 2 26.24 (C)
1900 2 26.15
1947 1 26.04
2019 1 25.93
1973 1 25.82
1944 1 25.82
1906 1 25.80
1912 2 25.79
1932 1 25.72
1912 1 25.67
4. Top ten of monthly anomalies wrt 1981-2010 since 1900
2019 12 1.67 (C)
2019 1 1.52
1921 6 1.38
2018 12 1.36
2020 11 1.35
2007 5 1.35
2009 11 1.34
2016 4 1.31
2009 8 1.26
1900 11 1.25
Nowhere do you see 1939 above anything, let alone the 1930s.
*
5. Top 10 of the daily maxima since 1900
+ASN00076077 ___MILDURA_POST_OFFICE________ 1906 1 7 50.7
+ASN00017043 ___OODNADATTA_AIRPORT_________ 1960 1 2 50.7
+ASN00005017 ___ONSLOW_AIRPORT_____________ 2022 1 13 50.7
+ASN00005008 ___MARDIE_____________________ 2022 1 13 50.5
+ASN00005008 ___MARDIE_____________________ 1998 2 19 50.5
+ASN00004090 ___ROEBOURNE_AERO_____________ 2022 1 13 50.5
+ASN00017043 ___OODNADATTA_AIRPORT_________ 1960 1 3 50.3
+ASN00076077 ___MILDURA_POST_OFFICE________ 1906 1 6 50.1
+ASN00078077 ___WARRACKNABEAL_MUSEUM_______ 2018 1 19 50.0
+ASN00018106 ___NULLARBOR__________________ 2019 12 19 49.9
In this sort, you see 1939 only twice in the top 100
+ASN00018044 ___KYANCUTTA__________________ 1939 1 9 49.3
+ASN00018044 ___KYANCUTTA__________________ 1939 1 10 48.9
and 12 further times in the top 1000.
As a comparison: 1960 appears 14 times in this top 1000, 1998 22 times, and 2019… 152 times.
**
The 1930s were certainly warm in parts of CONUS – but NOT, for example, in the Northern Conterminus states (WA, WY, MT, ID, ND, SD, MN, MI).
And above all: only the TMAX records show this warming! The 1930s were also very cold when you look at the TMIN records, especially 1936.
There may be some parts of the Globe where this 1930 decade played a role, but in the global average it does not at all.
*
To say ‘The 1930s were warmer’ when considering only maxima: this is a dumb manipulation.
*
Robertson discredits and denigrates as ‘fudged’ all surface temperature records, regardless their origin: NOAA, GISS, BEST, MetOffice, BoM, even the Japanese JMA.
And although he is completely incapable of technically questioning my work, let alone doing it himself, he also discredits and denigrates my results.
Thanks for the analysis.
Summer 1938/39 was indeed very hot in NSW. My aunt was born in late December 1938 and my grandmother used to say how hot it was in the weeks following her birth. But it was specific to the southeast, with NSW getting the brunt of it. And it was specific to those two or three months.
Average All-Australia anomaly for each decade (I can’t recall what baseline is being used):
1910s … Max -0.40 … Min -0.53
1920s … Max -0.32 … Min -0.59
1930s … Max -0.32 … Min -0.40
1940s … Max -0.27 … Min -0.62
1950s … Max -0.28 … Min -0.35
1960s … Max -0.18 … Min -0.22
1970s … Max -0.13 … Min -0.13
1980s … Max +0.20 … Min +0.24
1990s … Max +0.33 … Min +0.46
2000s … Max +0.70 … Min +0.44
2010s … Max +1.04 … Min +0.67
Antonin Qwerty
” My aunt was born in late December 1938 and my grandmother used to say how hot it was in the weeks following her birth. ”
Interesting!
Because suddenly you remind me that in 2020, I made a GHCN daily based comparison of 1939 to 2019 (probably due to the usual skeptical blah blah about ‘In Oz, it was warmer in 1939 than today’ or so – posted in order to discredit warming as a cause for the extreme bush fires).
*
This is the daily average, for the two years, of all station data available for NSW, Canberra district and Victoria:
https://i.postimg.cc/vHCKtX86/GHCN-daily-Australia-NSW–Can-Vic-1939-vs-2019.png
On yearly average, the two years differ by no more than 0.02 C; but you can clearly see in the January data that your grand ma told plain truth, he he.
binny van der Klown…”I just generated data out of all available GHCN daily weather stations in Australia, and the result clearly confirms that
you are right and
Robertson as usual plain wrong”.
***
NOAA was formed in 1970 and GHCN in 1992. We are talking about the 1930s. i the interim, NOAA has fudged and refudged th record to make it fit better with the AGW catastrophe theory.
—
“Robertson discredits and denigrates as fudged all surface temperature records, regardless their origin: NOAA, GISS, BEST, MetOffice, BoM, even the Japanese JMA”.
***
Darn rights I do, they have all proved to be major cheaters at one point or another.
-NOAA and GISS claimed 2014 as the hottest year ever based on a 48% and 38% probability respectively. UAH shows it as being nowhere near to being the hottest year even recently.
-When NOAA was ordered by the US government to release certain documents, they refused.
-Thomas Karl, Head of NOAA at the time, knew Mann’s hockey stick was fudged to hide declining temperatures and said nothing.
-when the IPCC announced in 2013 (AR5) that the past 15 years from 1998 – 2012 had showed no trend, NOAA went back and changed the SST to show a trend. Prior to that, their own surface record had shown no trend.
-I have posted a link several times in which NOAA admits clearly that they slashed their reporting surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500 globally. How can anyone cover the surface of the planet with less than 1500 stations? That’s 1 thermometer every 100,000 km^2.
Of course, Mr. Klown likes to spout off about more than a 100,000 surface stations in the GHCN inventory but Mr. Klown does not get it that NOAA only uses less than 1500 of them. To get by with that number, they use a climate model to interpolate and homogenize stations 1200 km apart to synthesize temperatures for a third stations an equal distance away.
P. T. Barum declared “there is a sucker born every minute”. Mr. Klown is our German candidate.
C’mon, Bordo.
The decline has nothing to do with NOAA.
Have you considered offering your services to ChatGPT?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I posted this info about the 1930’s in CONUS some times since years.
A. Absolute temperatures
1. Top 10 of the descending sort of monthly averages of absolute TMAX temperatures
1936 7 32.90 (C)
1934 7 32.79
1980 7 32.68
1901 7 32.64
1931 7 32.57
1930 7 32.40
1954 7 32.28
1937 8 32.27
1910 7 32.15
2022 7 32.14
2. Top 10 of the ascending sort of monthly averages of absolute TMIN temperatures
1918 1 -6.62 (C)
1940 1 -6.26
1930 1 -5.81
1912 1 -5.69
1936 2 -5.62
1924 1 -5.26
1904 1 -5.09
1977 1 -4.89
1905 2 -4.84
1929 1 -4.62
*
B. Anomalies
3. Top 10 of the descending sort of monthly averages of TMAX temperature anomalies wrt 1981-2010
1910 3 4.36 (C)
1954 2 3.56
2012 3 3.43
2006 1 3.36
2021 12 3.33
1939 12 3.25
1930 2 3.02
1999 11 2.88
2017 2 2.83
1963 10 2.80
4. Top 10 of the ascending sort of monthly averages of TMIN temperature anomalies wrt 1981-2010
1936 2 -4.58 (C)
1977 1 -4.18
1918 1 -4.15
1989 12 -3.90
1905 2 -3.87
1940 1 -3.57
1979 1 -3.56
1978 2 -3.55
1929 2 -3.53
1969 3 -3.34
*
Monthly anomalies wrt a given reference period are obtained by subtracting, from their original absolute value, the average of the absolute values of the same month in each year of the reference period.
This is the reason why we see no summer months in paragraph 3 (monthly averages of TMAX temperature anomalies).
This in turn is due to the fact that daily temperature minima increase faster than daily temperature maxima.
*
Who doubts about this should download the data, do the same job, and come back here with the results.
Source
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/
296 words 1,526 characters
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
How Clint’s debating style evolves after his BS is successfully called:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533592
Or more correctly … devolves … from an already low benchmark.
Poor Ant. He can’t find anything on wikipedia about HTE and PV. And he has no background in the science. And, he can’t learn. So he’s floundering about aimlessly.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Still can’t explain how a weakening polar vortex which causes COLD air to enter the mid-latitudes can cause the recent warming, can you Clint, despite falsely implying that YOU have a background in “the science”.
And even if you could, you can’t explain how these “waves” from HT which apparently upset the northern polar vortex (because that was the only one in existence at the time) could effect the southern polar vortex two seasons later. I
You really should have stuck with your original water vapour hypothesis … at least then you would have had a chance. Now all you have left is avoidance and innuendo. Interesting that you should have fun getting your ass whipped.
There were FOUR PV’s during the HTE.
And I never had a “water vapor hypothesis”. You’re making crap up, again.
Those are just two of your mistakes.
As usual, I won’t be responding to your childish flounderings.
Oh really ….. FOUR now.
Your little story just keeps evolving on the fly.
It’s changed somewhat from your stories of “THE” polar vortex, now hasn’t it Clint. Do you always use “the” so loosely?
Now where can I check this story of yours about four polar vortices existing simultaneously? And causing warming at mid-latitudes, the “polar” opposite of what their weakening has always done in the past?
As usual, if you don’t respond it’s because you know how transparent your fiction is becoming. But as usual, you will probably respond to tell me how you can’t be bothered to respond.
And here is you expressing your water vapour hypothesis:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2022-0-32-deg-c/#comment-1391067
Liar.
Yes really, Ant. There have been FOUR PV occurrences since the eruption. But, they were NOT simultaneous. You clearly know NOTHING about the science.
And it’s NOT my hypothesis. I linked to someone else’s theory because you were doubting the eruption could have any effect. You were in denial of reality, as usual.
Then, you called me a “liar”. That’s how the cult concedes, by calling the other party a “liar”.
I accept your concession.
Oh really … very interesting.
Now why have you avoided the questions of
(1) how a weakened polar vortex can warm the mid-latitudes when EVERY time it has weakened in the past it has caused COLD air to rush into the mid-latitudes from the pole
(2) how a weakened northern polar vertex can transfer this weakening to a southern polar vertex, given that they don’t overlap in time
.
.
.
“WE dont know for sure how the water vapor is affecting temperatures, or how long the effect will last.”
Royal “we”, wot?
“linked to someone elses theory”
which was
“and the huge amounts of water vapor from the eruption may have a small, temporary warming effect, since water vapor TRAPS HEAT.”
Which is the GHE.
Oh well!
Clint called the Hunga Tonga situation correctly. There is nothing else can explain our neck of the woods in Vancouver, Canada where we started summer in May. Normally, even in late May, if you go camping, you experience cold nights. We were getting 30 degree weather in May and hot nights. Unheard of previously.
The Poobahs like NOAA won’t commit to it yet because it would make them look silly with their climate propaganda. However, when we had a heat dome parked over us one summer and it flooded in November, the local politicians were crying ‘climate change’!!! NOAA blamed both on La Nina.
Sometimes I wonder what goes on at NOAA. It’s like NASA, where you get decent science much of the time but their climate division, GISS, is off on an alarmist tangent. Chris Landsea, whom I respect, works at NOAA but he is in the hurricane centre.
Check this climate model
https://youtu.be/QCsSwKVkKVw
Her headlights are not as bright as AOC’s. At least, not on low beam.
99.97% agrease
https://youtu.be/NWhWuv7MMDU
You’ve got your problems, and don’t see the light
You’ve got this neuron thing, you gotta feed it right
There ain’t no danger you will spell “energy”
But start learning now then you can spell “agree”
Agrease is the word
It’s got groove, but no meaning
Agrease is the time, is the place, is the motion
Agrease is the way you are feeling
You take the science and you throw away,
Reality belongs to yesterday,
There ain’t no danger you will spell “energy”
But start learning now then you can spell “agree”
Agrease is the word
It’s got groove, but no meaning
Agrease is the time, is the place, is the motion
Now Agrease is the way we are feeling
Yours is a life of illusion
Wrapped up in trouble (Trouble)
Laced with confusion
What are you doing here?
You take the science and you throw away,
Reality belongs to yesterday,
There ain’t no danger you will spell “energy”
But start learning now then you can spell “agree”
Agrease is the word
It’s got groove, but no meaning
Agrease is the time, is the place, is the motion
Now agrease is the way we are feeling
Agrease is the word
Is the word
Is the word
Is the word
Is the word
Is the word
Is the word
Is the word
Is the word
AQ is a poet.
And he don’t know it.
but his feet are long fellows.
Only one of my three feet is a long fellow. Though calling it a “foot” is like calling Terence Tao an “above average mathematician”.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“ark…you still have not explains the physics as to how the GHE works.”
You should have learned this in high school Earth science.
The greenhouse effect on Earth can be easily understood in terms of optical depth, which quantifies the ability of greenhouse gases to absorb and re-radiate infrared radiation.
Solar energy, primarily in the form of visible light, enters the Earth’s atmosphere. The optical depth at visible wavelengths for most greenhouse gases is relatively low, therefore, much of it reaches the Earth’s surface.
As the Earth’s surface absorbs solar energy and warms up, it emits heat in the form of infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and water vapor (H2O), have a higher optical depth in the infrared part of the spectrum. They effectively absorb and re-radiate some of this infrared radiation back towards the surface.
Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, have increased the concentration of certain greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 and CH4. This results in an enhanced optical depth in the infrared region, making these gases more effective at trapping heat. It’s like adding more layers to the optical depth in the infrared region, which enhances the trapping of heat energy within the Earth’s atmosphere and causes the surface temperature to rise, aka global warming.
Optical depth provides a way to quantify the Earth’s greenhouse effect. When the optical depth increases, it corresponds to a stronger greenhouse effect, leading to higher temperatures on Earth due to the enhanced trapping of heat.
“They effectively absorb and re-radiate some of this infrared radiation back towards the surface.”
The CO2 15μ photon can NOT warm Earth’s 288K surface. Just as ice cubes can NOT boil water.
But Ark’s cult believes in both!
Cult followers and any other religious followers, don’t understand their religion very well. Even the oldest religion, the Jewish religion has many disagreements and/or different sects within it.
Christ, a Jew, never read the new testament. Jews, the chosen people were chosen, to spread the word, that there is only one God, and basically had one rule, do not steal. And killing someone was stealing their life. Thou shall not murder. Though one can kill a human, and you can kill animals {assuming you eat them- and do so correctly. Nor are are suppose to kidnap another human {and make them slaves}. And if have another god, you stealing from God.
Sort of like copyright- stealing the work of artists. And God gets quite pissed off about that- particularly if sacrificing humans or children to Him. Murdering humans in his name is quite a perversion.
Perhaps, having 72 virgins is some kind vicious punishment- it sounds like hell to me.
Cargo cult was wanting cargo. They wanted “magical stuff” given to them. Kind of like modern consumerism. And the cargo came from the heavens.
I think we should explore the heavens- and see if we can live there.
Currently we are barred from living in Heaven.
> Christ, a Jew, never read the new testament. Jews, the chosen people were chosen, to spread the word, that there is only one God, and basically had one rule, do not steal.
Good grief.
C’mon, gb. Don’t be like Bordo.
Early christian were Jews, and of course, Jesus was a Jew.
As does any modern historian know.
And He said he wouldn’t change anything in regards to Torah- that everything he said is in accordance with it. But also modern christian accept the old testament as word of God {the Torah} as do the Muslims {ie, the good book}.
And of course the 12 discipline of Jesus wrote their own story of His teachings and their experience with the Son of God- long after He died and was resurrected.
Alright, gb. Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
Tell me how you reduce this to stealing.
“{According to Conservative Rabbi Louis Ginzberg, Ten Commandments are virtually entwined, in that the breaking of one leads to the breaking of another. Echoing an earlier rabbinic comment found in the commentary of Rashi to the Songs of Songs (4:5) Ginzberg explainedthere is also a great bond of union between the first five commandments and the last five. The first commandment: “I am the Lord, thy God,” corresponds to the sixth: “Thou shalt not kill,” for the murderer slays the image of God. The second: “Thou shalt have no strange gods before me,” corresponds to the seventh: “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” for conjugal faithlessness is as grave a sin as idolatry, which is faithlessness to God. The third commandment: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain,” corresponds to the eighth: “Thou shalt not steal,” for stealing results in a false oath in God’s name. The fourth: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” corresponds to the ninth: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor,” for he who bears false witness against his neighbor commits as grave a sin as if he had borne false witness against God, saying that He had not created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day (the holy Sabbath). The fifth commandment: “Honor thy father and thy mother,” corresponds to the tenth: “Covet not thy neighbor’s wife,” for one who indulges this lust produces children who will not honor their true father, but will consider a stranger their father”
Btw, I had to look it up:
“The Song of Songs, also known as the Song of Solomon, is love poetry. ”
https://www.theologyofwork.org/old-testament/song-of-songs/
“…Jews, the chosen people were chosen, to spread the word, that there is only one God”
***
Depends which Bible you read. The modern Bible of both the Catholic and Protestant persuasions was created in 325 BC at Nicea. The conference was held by the Roman emperor Constantine and involved specially selected bishops. They decided who God is and included those books with which they agreed.
Bit of an ego trip to me. They excluded good books like the Gospel of Thomas, one of the only books in which Jesus is claimed to be quoted directly. Thomas was a disciple known as Doubting Thomas and he apparently communicated directly with Jesus on several occasions.
Another gospel was the Gospel of Mary Magdelene. It is controversial only because early Christianity was seriously chauvinistic in many way. Some would have excluded her simply because she was a woman.
It is unknown how much the Jewish version of the Bible was edited and altered over the years. There were not many people who could read and write, especially in the Greek language in which the early Christian Bible was written.
There is good evidence from a Scottish religious scholar that the OT has been altered by well-meaning monks who transcribed the Bible. Somebody had to be there to hear the stories from the people who told them. How else would the story of Moses and the 10 commandments be told?
Anyway, the Scottish scholar determine, using computer analysis, that the words in some chapters did not match the rest of the chapter. Turns out, as suspected, some well-meaning scribes needed to fill out the pages to make them appear better aesthetically.
> Ten Commandments are virtually entwined, in that the breaking of one leads to the breaking of another.
Exactly, gb.
So there’s no such thing as basically one rule.
The Ancients were no libertarian freaks.
— Gordon Robertson says:
September 12, 2023 at 9:02 PM
Jews, the chosen people were chosen, to spread the word, that there is only one God
***
Depends which Bible you read. The modern Bible of both the Catholic and Protestant persuasions was created in 325 BC at Nicea.–
Quite a long time after the birth of Jesus Christ, AD,
not BC.
–Willard says:
September 12, 2023 at 9:24 PM
> Ten Commandments are virtually entwined, in that the breaking of one leads to the breaking of another.
Exactly, gb.
So theres no such thing as basically one rule.
The Ancients were no libertarian freaks.–
The Ancients were not libertarian.
But God was.
qltm
God was very tolerate to people who believed in other gods, even those sacrificing children to their god.
But not to the Jews, who He saved from slavery, the chosen people, were to get death, if they worshiped other gods.
Moses asked God to forgive the Jews, and Moses only killed a relatively small number of Jews, who were involved with worshiping the golden calf.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_calf
Note the different views:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_calf#Jewish_views
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_calf#Christian_views
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_calf#Islamic_narrative
OK. God may have been a bleeding-heart libertarian.
arq…”As the Earths surface absorbs solar energy and warms up, it emits heat in the form of infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and water vapor (H2O), have a higher optical depth in the infrared part of the spectrum. They effectively absorb and re-radiate some of this infrared radiation back towards the surface”.
***
I had read that propaganda and I have explained why it is wrong.
For one, IR is not heat. IR is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and it has frequency but no mass. Heat cannot exist without mass, it will not move through a vacuum.
I have tried to get through to anyone willing to listen, that the heat associated with IR is lost at the time the IR is emitted. It’ gone…poof!!! The explanation is simple. The KE representing heat in emitting electrons is converted to IR. It’s a one to one conversion, no heat left over.
I agree that CO2 can absorb ‘some’ of the radiation (about 7%) and radiate it isotropically, with a fraction of the energy heading back toward the surface. However, the CO2 represents a cooler body than the surface and the 2nd law tells us it cannot be absorbed by the warmer surface. Therefore, it can warm nothing.
But, let’s play the Devil’s advocate game and claim it can be absorbed and cause warming in the surface. Out of 100% of the IR radiated at the surface, only 7% is absorbed by CO2. Depending on how close to the surface the IR is absorbed, due to the inverse square law, the farther it travels to a CO2 molecule, the less intensity it has.
R. W. Wood, an expert with gases, claimed IR from the surface would not be effective at warming anything more than a few feet above the surface. It would lack the intensity. Of any IR absorbed, when converted to heat and re-radiated, only a fraction returns to the surface. So, 93% of the surface IR goes to space and would need to be made up in order for heating to take effect. Where is that 93% coming from to make up the original losses?
Some people claim it comes from solar energy but the intensity of solar is many orders of magnitude greater than any IR returning and would not add because the frequencies don’t overlap. So, either way, the theory is moot.
What is “The CO2 15μ photon”?
Are you speaking of resonance?
The Clint R boy might mean this:
https://tinyurl.com/CO2-15mu
I have three questions:
(1) Is that the emission or absor(p)tion spectrum?
(2) What is the significance of the two spectra, ie. black vs grey?
(3) Do you know what causes the dip in the middle?
Interesting that cLInt believes that such a photon striking the earth will not pass its energy onto the surface it strikes. I wonder what he thinks happens to the photon after it hits the earth.
Antonin Qwerty
I’m not an expert in the domain.
(1) The picture above showed intensity: from laws over a century old, ‘we’ (© Clint R) know that a substance that absorbs well at some frequencies, re-emits well at these frequencies – and vice versa.
(2) There is no grey: it’s an illusion caused by many lines vs. few lines. Increase the browser’s zooming factor by a lot, and all is then plain black.
(3) Only a specialist in molecular chemistry will give you a valuable answer. It’s what is measured, however.
*
Of course the photon will ‘pass its energy onto the surface it strikes’.
The question however is: how much is that compared to the loss of energy emitted to space when no CO2 molecules are hit by the terrestrial IR at 15 mu?
That depends for example of the altitude of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, if I’m well informed.
I forgot the link:
https://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
“The picture above showed intensity:”
Bindidon, the units on your 8:30 am comment link aren’t units of “intensity”. Luminous intensity is an SI base unit in Watts/steradian i.e. candela.
Ball4
Although you mostly disagree with pseudo-skeptical people like Robertson, Clint R and a few others, you behave once more like their exact copy: stubborn and self-centered.
The website ‘spectralcalc.com’ publishes graphs showing the intensity of absorp-tion/emission of atmospheric gases.
But you dare to play the intelligent, educated teacher and portray the use of this word as inappropriate.
*
Who do you think I should pay more attention to?
SpectralCalc or you, the braggart in his irrelevant corner?
Bindidon, don’t take this site too seriously, it’s just a blog. And it’s not just me btw: for a humorous but biting criticism of the sloppy use of intensity see J. M. Palmer, 1993: “Getting intense on intensity.” Metrologia, Vol. 30, 3712
Palmer’s parting shot is, “The message is clear; those who use intensity in a context other than W/sr are either uninformed or just plain careless and sloppy. I can’t comprehend a ‘special reason’ to redefine an SI base quantity, can you?”
Using intensity to mean radiance is akin to using length to mean what to the rest of the world is area.
… pp. 371-2
CO2’s 15μ photon has about 70% of the energy to the photon at the peak of the spectrum from ice. So if you find it hard to believe ice can radiatively warm a 288K surface, you would find it even harder to believe CO2 could do it.
Of course, all that assumes your brain works….
The logic is simple. No matter how small the energy of a 15 um photon is, that energy is still greater than zero.
A patch of ground the absorbs solar photons AND 15 um photons absorbs more energy than a patch of ground that absorbs only solar photons.
A patch of ground the absorbs solar photons AND 15 um photons gets warmer than a patch of ground that absorbs only solar photons.
Wrong, as usual Folkerts.
But I’m late for a meeting, so will explain later.
Tim Folkerts
You are logical but I am certain Clint R is not. He could not understand your point.
It’s still Tim vs. Vaughan Pratt. Who is a GHE Defender to believe?
Vaughan Pratt is a GHE defender to believe:
Pratt: “There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
Already done it, already won it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532455
That work only disproves using “back-radiation” term which is helpful since the term is incorrect as Pratt points out; correctly for GHE use in its place e.g.: all-sky emission to surface.
For greenhouse effect Pratt: “There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
Incorrect interpretation, as explained:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532505
That unrelated explanation was used wrong then and is still wrong now. DREMT hasn’t demonstrated how Pratt would correct wiki. For one, we know Pratt would correct the term “back-radiation” in wiki.
Pratt would correct wiki if needed to defend the GHE since we know first-hand Pratt: “There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
Yes, he believes in the GHE, Ball4.
No, he doesn’t agree with the back-radiation account of the GHE, which Tim still defends.
[B4] There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.
[GG] Incorrect interpretation, as explained
[VAUGHAN] There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.
Wrong, Little Willy.
[BALL4] That work only disproves using “back-radiation” term which is helpful since the term is incorrect as Pratt points out; correctly for GHE use in its place e.g.: all-sky emission to surface.
[DREMT] Incorrect interpretation, as explained.
[PRATT] "Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”"
So DREMT, to be helpful, offer a correction for wiki upon which Pratt did not follow thru.
OK:
“Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, not warming it.”
[B4] That work only disproves using back-radiation term
[GG] Wrong. Ignore him.
[B4] There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.
[GG] Incorrect interpretation, as explained
[VAUGHAN] There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.
I already won that exchange, many times already in fact:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532511
Not bad. But somewhat too short, better:
“Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, not warming the global surface above existing ~288K mean temperature when this radiation is absorbed – but just maintaining temperature equilibrium at ~288K.”
Yawn.
Meeting minds is so boring to Gaslighting Graham.
He’d rather drink Joe’s kool-aid and spit it out here for years on end.
Both of you are just trolling me, and yes, it gets boring.
Gaslighting Graham tolls Tim by plugging his rendition of Joe’s crappy argument, which is utterly irrelevant here.
He will believe everything Joe says, except perhaps for the Moon.
I was talking about Pratt, Little Willy. You brought up Postma, as always.
Gaslighting Graham aggressively gaslights again.
How photons behave have nothing to do with backradiation.
Wow. Dumb.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Vaughan does not dispute anything in Tim’s comment.
“The logic is simple. No matter how small the energy of a 15 um photon is, that energy is still greater than zero.
A patch of ground the absorbs solar photons AND 15 um photons absorbs more energy than a patch of ground that absorbs only solar photons.
A patch of ground the absorbs solar photons AND 15 um photons gets warmer than a patch of ground that absorbs only solar photons.”
Solar photons = energy from the Sun.
15 um photons = back-radiation from CO2.
So what Tim is saying there is that radiation from CO2 that is directed towards the surface (back-radiation) thus warms it. Whereas Pratt said:
"Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”"
They are directly at odds with each other.
No, they aren’t in conflict DREMT 5:19 pm.
The closed system process of real absorbed photons (EMR) is a warming process guaranteed by 2LOT as Pratt writes & Tim confirms. Dr. Spencer ran experiments showing such.
If there are offsetting cooling processes at same time, then the temperature can remain constant. If cooling processes don’t offset, then the temperature will rise.
Vaughan is not denying that backradiation exists:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98462
In fact Gaslighting Graham himself says that it exists.
So the question is one of accounting, not one of theory.
Yawn indeed.
Following Seim & Olsen, Pratt commented:
“Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally. Could their result have been foreseen? Yes, and moreover very easily”
Tim thinks back-radiation warms, Pratt apparently doesn’t.
Pratt correctly disagrees with using “back radiation” term & more correctly uses DLR terms to discuss the GHE.
Once again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532505
Just another refuted loopy comment by DREMT 6:13 pm. Pratt would correct the wiki entry on “back radiation” to use DLR instead.
Except the quote he wanted to correct did not use the term “back-radiation”. Ball4’s wrong again.
Except the quote Pratt wanted to correct did use “back radiation” viz. Pratt: “Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally.”
So as I correctly wrote: “Pratt would correct the wiki entry on “back radiation” to use DLR instead.”
No, Ball4. We were talking about his comment re Wikipedia:
"Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”"
Ball4’s wrong again.
DREMT 6:35 pm is really physically confused… correcting wiki at the time Pratt meant part of this DLR (not the debunked “back radiation”) is directed towards the surface, thus warming it when absorbed as required by 2LOT for any real process as Dr. Spencer showed experimentally.
Ball4, where is the term “back-radiation” in this sentence:
“Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”
Nowhere. Yet Pratt wanted it corrected. So, the correction he wanted to make to Wikipedia was not to change the term “back-radiation” to “DLR”. The correction he wanted to make is that the radiation from CO2, directed towards the surface, does not warm it. Call it “back-radiation”, call it “DLR”, call it what you like. That wasn’t the problem he had with that sentence.
Ball4’s wrong again.
Once again, Gaslighting Graham’s gone into a loop.
Best to ignore him when he gets like this.
Little Willy is incapable of coming up with his own material:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533611
> When CO2 increases, both DLR and temperature increase.
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98600
See? He can’t argue for himself as he can’t think for himself.
After having copy-pasted an edited version of Joe’s crappy argument, Gaslighting Graham has things to say about independence of thought.
Since he missed the point I made earlier:
(1) An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere.
(2) This leads to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature.
(3) Joe’s crappy argument ignores opacity.
(4) Therefore Joe’s crappy argument misses the mark.
(5) Besides, Joe mismanages his quantities once again: we’re not looking for warmth, but for warming, i.e. a variation in warming. This can easily be displaced in an atmosphere over time. Joe’s suck in a pre-calculus frame of mind.
(6) But the point about opacity is key, which is why Joe ignores it and why Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting.
Pretty simple stuff.
Little Willy is commenting in the wrong place, again. This sub-thread is about Pratt vs. Tim.
Nevertheless, since nobody can properly define what his (2) even means, his argument falls apart accordingly…and since “whatever it is” supposedly leads to a reduction in total OLR, which has not been observed, it’s doubly false.
[GG] See? He cant argue for himself as he cant think for himself.
[W] *Shows a simple argument.*
[GG] Little Willy is commenting in the wrong place, again. *Handwaves to his regurgitation of Joe’s crappy argument everybody but Nate ignored so far.*
Hence why nobody knows what Gaslighting Graham hides behind his gibberish, and nobody cares.
People ignore him.
My 9:54 AM comment does not contain any of Postma’s argument. Little Willy clearly doesn’t even know what Postma’s argument actually is.
“nobody can properly define what his (2) even means”
Nobody knows what Gaslighting Graham hides behind his gibberish, and nobody cares.
People ignore him.
Define “effective radiation”.
When I meet his challenge to show that I can think for myself, Gaslighting Graham ignores the point and pretends I’m OT.
When I show him why I said what I said, he ignores the point and pretend he has not handwaved to Joe’s crap.
When I show him exactly where he handwaves to Joe’s crap, Gaslighting Graham ducks and weaves again.
And then he wonders why nobody cares for his gibberish.
Let’s try this other argument –
If Gaslighting Graham does not know what the IPCC means when it says that an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, which itself leads to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature, how the hell can he claim that he has refuted the IPCC?
Your summary of events is completely wrong, but that’s par for the course with you.
The IPCC’s description (just one of many conflicting accounts of the GHE) is debunked in two ways:
1) Nobody can define what is meant by "effective radiation", so what they’re saying is ‘effectively’ rendered meaningless. The "Effective Radiating Level" or ERL is defined at Wikipedia as being the level of the atmosphere at which the temperature is the same as the overall effective temperature (hence the name), 255 K. If this were to rise, that means the level at which the atmosphere is 255 K increases in height. Which is not then in accord with the IPCC’s statement "leads to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature". The "at a lower temperature" is thus wrong according to the definition of ERL.
2) Even ignoring the problems in 1), the idea that the total OLR is reduced as a result of the ERL raising (however it should eventually be defined) is debunked by observations. Total OLR has not reduced since measurements began, it has tracked temperatures.
And so Gaslighting Graham continues his infamous gaslighting.
All this to peddle in his pet puzzle.
Another silly, boring puzzle nobody cares about.
Nobody knows what Gaslighting Graham hides behind his gibberish, and nobody cares.
People ignore him.
Then prove that you are capable of ignoring me.
DREMT writes 7:18 pm: “The correction (Pratt) wanted to make is that the radiation from CO2, directed towards the surface, does not warm it.”
Wrong DREMT, Pratt knows that’s a 2LOT violation since no universe entropy is created. Given all DREMT’s loopy comments, it is DREMT that is continuously loopy wrong since Pratt did not intend to change wiki in such a way when CO2 ppm is increasing.
Pratt in 2011: “When CO2 increases, both DLR and temperature increase… DLR would then be responsible…for…warming.”
A lot can change in twelve years, Ball4. Like someone’s opinion on "back-radiation warming".
DLR back then is DLR today. Opinions change, but the principles Pratt discussed do not change. Which is why they call them principles. Today Pratt knows the 2LOT still holds during and after those ~12 years.
I’m not sure what Pratt could possibly have meant by what he said after Seim & Olsen, other than what he said. You obviously are very keen that he means something else, but I see no reason to think that.
Good, since Bill then DREMT first mentioned Pratt’s writing positively, means they believe what Pratt writes advocating use DLR terms not “back-radiation” term as noted above:
“There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
“Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the “back radiation” account of the greenhouse effect experimentally.”
“nowhere in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, AR5, is there any mention at all of back radiation.”
“When CO2 increases, both DLR and temperature increase…DLR would then be responsible…for…warming…reaching the ground.”
Ball4 is absolutely shameless, as usual.
Two things you must know about Folkerts. First, he’s willing to pervert physics to support his cult. (For example, he’s the one that first promoted ice cubes being able to boil water.). Second, when he’s not perverting, he’s using debate tricks, like “bait and switch”. I’ve often referred to him as “Fraudkerts”.
Here’s he claims: “A patch of ground [that] absorbs solar photons AND 15 um photons absorbs more energy than a patch of ground that absorbs only solar photons..
What he has done is left out the qualifier “if”. His intent is to convince the ignorati, like Norman, that all photons are always absorbed. The cult can’t accept “reflection”. Reflected photons destroy their cult beliefs.
Folkerts relies on the fact that the cult will not question him. They swallow it all. Just like a good cult.
Photons incident on an L&O surface are: absorbed, transmitted, or scattered.
Clint R remains a denier of proper experimental evidence. Pity but always humorous.
Meaning just don’t use the term “back-radiation” with Pratt.
Not exactly:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98462
It’s the backradiation account of the greenhouse effect that he deems insufficient.
Which nobody really disputes, to much of our Sky Dragon cranks’ chagrin.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534417
“His intent is to convince the ignorati, like Norman, that all photons are always absorbed. The cult cant accept “reflection”. Reflected photons destroy their cult beliefs.”
Clint’s intent seems to always use strawman arguments. I have never claimed that all photons are always absorbed.
Furthermore, reflection destroys nothing. If even a small fraction of IR photons are absorbed, that is STILL more energy than before. And that STILL leads to higher temperatures.
Rather than destroying my argument, it destroys Clint’s argument. Only if ALL 15 um photons are reflected and NONE are absorbed will Clint’s position be valid. And since there are no perfect reflectors of IR photons, Clint fails.
“Reflection” is a deflection. A distraction. A red herring.
See how Fraudkerts twists and spins reality?
I never said that he “claimed that all photons are always absorbed”. I said that was his intent. That’s how he can claim ice cubes can boil water. It’s all tricks and deception, aka “fraud”.
As bad as his fraud, he continues with his perversion of physics: “If even a small fraction of IR photons are absorbed, that is STILL more energy than before. And that STILL leads to higher temperatures.”
A lower frequency, even if somehow absorbed, can NOT raise the temperature of an object with a higher average frequency. More energy does NOT always mean higher temperature. See the example of bricks-in-a-box.
What will he try next?
Clint R again avoids reality with imprecise language because in a closed system (such as the Earth system), added thermal energy such as photons from added ice absorbed in liquid water per 1LOT DOES always mean higher avg. thermal energy i.e. temperature as measured and calculated by Dr. Spencer.
Clint just prefers commenting with imaginary physics & avoiding experimental results. It’s a pity but very laughable.
“More energy does NOT always mean higher temperature. See the example of bricks-in-a-box.”
We have been talking here about photons adding energy — but of course they do not add mass. Only energy. The ratio of energy/mass increases which means the temperature increases.
Your brick example is completely different, because you are adding mass with the energy. In this case, the ratio of energy/mass can go down; the temperature can decrease.
“A lower frequency, even if somehow absorbed, can NOT raise the temperature of an object with a higher average frequency.”
First, we do not need to imagine photons ‘somehow’ being absorbed. IR photons ARE absorbed by the ground. Quite well in fact — emissivities are around 0.9 for many terrestrial materials.
Second, you seem to be equating “higher energy” with “higher frequency”. While this is true for photons, it is not the case for ‘objects’. Atoms in the ground can have more energy by vibrating with large AMPLITUDE rather than larger FREQUENCY. Same for molecules. Your elementary knowledge of photons seems to be confusing you about other cases.
Fraudkerts continues the fraud.
Two bricks are identical except one is much hotter. Which brick has the higher average molecular vibration frequency?
(Just a simple physics question for Fraudkerts to twist, spin, and distort.)
Q1) What is the frequency of a 15 um photon?
Q2) What temperature brick has an ‘average frequency’ equal to that frequency found in Q1?
Just a simple physics question for Fraudkerts. But all he can do is twist, spin, and distort.
We all realize by now that Clint has no idea what the ‘average molecular vibration frequency’ even means.
Bricks — like rocks and minerals — don’t have molecules but instead have repeating crystalline patterns of atoms. Thus the whole idea of ‘average molecular vibration frequency’ makes no sense for bricks.
Even for molecules, the idea makes little sense. A CO2 molecule in the ground state can absorb a 15 um photon, gaining energy and starting to vibrate. A CO2 molecule can absorb another 15 um photon, gaining more energy. But it doesn’t vibrate at a HIGHER FREQUENCY, it vibrates at a LARGER AMPLITUDE.
Just one simple physics question for Fraudkerts. But all he can do is twist, spin, and distort.
“A lower frequency, even if somehow absorbed, can NOT raise the temperature of an object with a higher average frequency.”
Nah. We have seen again and again that this completely made-up Fizuks rule, is unsupported by any real physics.
And falsified by experiment.
So naturally Clint holds on tight to his dream that this is correct.
Nate, you’re not expected to understand. Children don’t understand the atmosphere is NOT a microwave oven and does NOT have lasers.
Clint thinks microwave ovens and the atmosphere obey different laws of physics. Of course why and how is left unexplained.
Nate, no one expects you to understand. Children can’t understand that the atmosphere is NOT a microwave oven and does NOT have lasers.
Well, then explain it to the others here who would like to understand where this idea comes from.
Certainly Nate, I enjoy teaching physics. But most of the responsible adults here probably already get it. If any new ones show up, send them my way.
Tr0lls, frauds, and children need not apply
Thank you for proving Nate right once again, Pupman!
[VAUGHAN] When GHGs increase, each photon leaving from each point of the planet, whether from solid, liquid, or gas, now has a lower probability of escaping to space, resulting in a decrease in radiation.
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98462
Funny how Sky Dragon cranks have trouble finding disagreements between Vaughan and Tim.
Perhaps they should continue gaslighting and spinning their yarn instead.
Already done it, already won it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532532
Meaning DREMT has learned just don’t use the term “back-radiation” around Pratt.
Readers can just ignore Ball4, and take a look at the linked discussion up-thread.
Ah, Gaslighting Grahams gone into a loop again.
Best to ignore him when he gets like this.
A victory lap, not a loop, Little Willy.
Ah, Gaslighting Grahams gone into a loop again.
Best to ignore him when he gets like this.
Prove you are capable of ignoring me.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534503
Can’t do it, can you?
If replying to a comment amounts to not ignoring it, what does it say of ALL THE TIMES Gaslighting Graham replies to Nate’s comments?
All those zero times.
It says that Gaslighting Graham is a little hypocrit.
Readers can ignore his comments and focus on those who spent their lives researching the thing, e.g.:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98469
See? Little Willy just can’t ignore me.
Readers can ignore Gaslighting Graham.
Here’s how Vaughan responded to Jim:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-99130
Little Willy is just quoting old comments at random. Nobody knows what his point is.
Gaslighting Graham is stuck on a loop.
Here’s how Chris joins Jim and Vaughan:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-99130
His whole response is good.
See what I mean?
Op. Cit.
More random comments.
Gaslighting Graham is stuck in a loop. Readers can &c.
Vaughan responds:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98879
More blog space wasted.
The whole subthread is interesting.
There’s one metaphor that I think deserves emphasis.
Then just link to the article and let people read through the comments as they wish. No need to quote random comment after random comment.
DREMT means like DREMT does.
Gaslighting Graham, the most obnoxious tool who has ever set foot in all of Climateball history, whose sucking up to Joe is so intense it gets pornographic, has opinions about how people ought to comment.
As if he truly believed he was this site’s moderator or something.
Nevertheless, here it is:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534611
If you dislike me so much, perhaps stop obsessively jumping in on any discussion that I take part in as soon as I make a comment. You won’t leave me alone, but you seem to despise me. Odd.
And then Gaslighting Graham wonders why people ignore him:
Being ignored would be great. Doesn’t happen, though. I live rent free in too many people’s heads for that.
Being physically wrong most of the time, as in DREMT comments, creates its own comment demand for correction.
Ball4 is definitely one of the heads I have free room and board in. Utterly obsessed with me.
Fun & entertaining pointing out the usual DREMT physics gaffes.
Sure, sure.
Imagine a world in which Gaslighting Graham stops biting Tim’s ankles.
Talking of ankle-biters, I wonder where RLH is?
…and Little Willy accused me of being a hypocrite.
Pekka has a nice comment too. It ends thus:
> The immediate change at the top of troposphere is what is called radiative forcing.
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-99132
Gill might like to read the rest to see what change that is. It may SURPRISE him!
Oh, we’re back to the random comment quoting again.
Looks like Gaslighting Graham has difficulties ignoring my comments.
Even basic concept of quantum fizzix is beyond the grasp to these people
Basic concept like consistency is hard for Dragon cranks:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534443
No inconsistency, Little Willy. I don’t read his comments, but if someone else includes a quote from one of his comments in theirs, I can hardly help but read it.
Readers may well ignore Gaslighting Graham’s loopy comments and read real contributions instead:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534339
You believe anything they tell you.
Gaslighting Graham may never be able to ignore my comments.
A simpler refutation is to reduce Joe’s argument to absurdity:
Increasing interest rates is impossible. For if we could, it would break the Second Law of money, i.e. printing money devalues it.
To see how, imagine that a bank account is at 10K in a 5% savings account. If it could be shifted to a 6% savings account, where will we find the 1%? That breaks the Law of Money.
Etc.
Joe’s con is known since at least Pythagoras.
Little Willy won’t understand why his straw man is a straw man, so this is just for any interested readers:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534087
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534403
Things can’t change. If it did, there would be a difference. That difference is impossible, for it breaks the fact that things can’t change.
Joe is a freaking genius.
No wonder Gaslighting Graham keeps ignoring opacity.
Little Willy proves me right, again.
Gaslighting keeps responding to my comments.
Readers better ignore him:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534543
OK, I will stop responding to you on this sub-thread.
Nobody knows what Gaslighting Graham hides behind his gibberish, and nobody cares.
People ignore him.
“Are you speaking of resonance?”
Arkady (previously Tyson McGuffin), please stop trolling.
Key issues for the Japanese government regarding exploration and development of space resources
by Akira Saito
Monday, September 11, 2023
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4648/1
“In June 2021, Japan enacted the Act on the Promotion of Business Activities for the Exploration and Development of Space Resources (Space Resources Act). This act includes provisions on the ownership of space resources. Japan is the fourth country to have a space resources act, following the United States, Luxembourg, and the United Arab Emirates, which have similar acts. ”
…
“However, although many studies based on remote sensing observation data have been reported, estimates of the amount of water ice present on the Moon vary widely due to differences in data analysis methods and other factors. In addition, no clear conclusions have been reached regarding its distribution and morphology. In other words, the extent to which water ice can be used as propellant is currently unknown. Japan has stated in its Basic Plan on Space Policy that resource exploration will be conducted as part of scientific exploration activities beginning in the 2020s to determine the presence of resources on the lunar surface, including water resources, and to identify the potential for future use.
…
–Conclusion
This article discussed how the pros and cons of promoting the use of water resources should be determined and what specific actions the Japanese government should take in conducting exploration and development. The author hopes that these activities will lead to a future of peaceful use of water resources. —
Well. Commerce tends to like peace rather war.
Though it’s seems quite possible, politicians could become hysterical.
Remain calm, there is endless amounts of water in Space, the issue is where do we start mining water in space- Moon or Mars, both, or elsewhere.
Apparently the man made CO2 warmed up the whole solar system
https://notrickszone.com/2023/09/12/no-one-talks-about-it-solar-system-climate-change-happening-beyond-planet-earth/
👽 👽 👽
Oh dear … blog “science”. By an engineer. Do you actually read these things or are you a headline seeker?
“Mars warmed 0.65K since 1970s … Its likely linked to increased solar activity.”
So solar activity has increased since the 70s, has it?
Go be a twerp in somebody else’s thread
Thanks for displaying your real level of engagement with science.
“It says what I want it to say … it can’t be wrong, LALALALA”
Antonin Qwerty
” Go be a twerp in somebody elses thread ”
Woooaahh!
Finally the site has apparently got a new, effective moderator.
*
” Thanks for displaying your real level of engagement with science. ”
Dachshund Eben has nothing to do with science. He is just anti-GHE, anti-warming, etc etc.
It is a miracle that, unlike the other pseudo-skeptical boys, he at least admits the correctness of centuries-old as well as recent calculations on the lunar spin about its polar axis!
I forgot to add that anyone posting links to Gosselin’s junk TricksZone is either naive, dumb or brazen.
By the way, the Germans were clever, and invented the word ‘dummdreist’ which indicates a bit more than a simple concatenation of ‘dumb’ and ‘brazen’ :–)
You forgot to add the Germans call you trottel
Since I live in Germoney (about 50 years) not a single German has called me a ‘Trottel’, dachshund.
I wouldn’t be surprised if many of them would call you that when they see the disrespectful garbage you post on this blog every day.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
An interesting metaphor:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98879
As to if it’s acceptable to you, mileage may vary.
I think you missed what Pratt was talking about.
C’mon, Bordo.
Nobody believes that you think.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Robertson
No I think YOU missed it, especially this:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-100724
*
This namely is the correct answer to your distortion of what Wood really did (wrong).
You very probably never read C. Abbot’s reply to Wood:
http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/AbbotReplyToWood.pdf
*
Very certainly unlike you, Pratt understood what Nahle did wrong:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-101094
*
But you also very certainly will discard all this above, and stubbornly continue to post your misrepresenting trash.
68 words 604 characters
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Its the sun stoopid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHiVlf5PXRA
good video by Jennifer Marohasey on the Great barrier Reef…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZENS9xyK1a8&ab_channel=InstituteofPublicAffairs
More from Jen, plus her bio, if you like to see more.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/about/
Ent…she’s a biologist, thought you’d be interested.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534710
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“I had read that propaganda and I have explained why it is wrong.
For one, IR is not heat. IR is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and it has frequency but no mass. Heat cannot exist without mass, it will not move through a vacuum.
I have tried to get through to anyone willing to listen, that the heat associated with IR is lost at the time the IR is emitted. It’ gone…poof!!! The explanation is simple. The KE representing heat in emitting electrons is converted to IR. It’s a one to one conversion, no heat left over. “
One reference would be nice. I am curious to see how you came to such blatant disregard for the conservation of energy principle.
We have this amazing tool called the internet. Perhaps you should use it instead of simply asking questions that you probably should already know the answers if you have a physics background.
Anyhow here is one paper describing the math behind electro-magnetic wave particle theory.
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1400571/files/p15.pdf
Standard boilerplate physics.
ark…to use a modified claim of Linus Pauling, why do I need to provide references when a statement is so obvious? If I claimed a brick held out a window and dropped would fall to the Earth, would I need a reference, or a peer reviewed paper to qualify my statement.
This is not about winning an argument with me, I don’t give a hoot about winning and losing. I participate here to learn and I hope you have the same intention.
I thought everyone was aware that heat cannot flow through a vacuum. I thought most people would be aware that heat is the energy associated with atoms. No atom, no heat. And, there are few if any atoms in a vacuum, depending on the precision required to define it as a vacuum.
Rather than asking for a paper, why don’t you rebut what I have said using your own understanding. Then we can have a civilized discussion provided you refrain from ad homs and name-calling.
Read Bohr directly on why heat is lost at a surface as IR is emitted. To get the heat relationship in his work you have to understand that heat is the energy associated with atoms and atomic particles like electrons. It is well-known that if you heat a mass, all the electrons in the atoms become excited and jump to higher orbital energy levels.
It is not just EM that causes heating in a mass, and when it does, it only heats surface atoms. Heat, on the other hand, can raise the temperature (heat) of the entire mass.
Again, I thought that was clearly understood. IR from any surface is due to electrons in the atoms of the surface transitioning to lower energy levels. However, to transition downward, they must give up energy and their energy is kinetic energy, aka heat. That’s why radiation cools a surface.
That’s right, heat is defined as the KE associated with atomic motion. That was known as far back as 1850, and if anything has changed, maybe you could supply a paper to that effect.
If you have a solid comprised of atoms bonded by electrons, and you apply a flame to it, the atoms begin vibrating harder. If you apply enough heat, the bonding electrons will fly off and the substance will melt or break down.
I am not about to look all this up for you, I spent years and years learning this theory and I don’t need to refer back to the same source each time I apply it. Get your finger out and find a book by Bohr, or about Bohr, and study his theory. Read Clausius, Tyndall and Planck on heat.
If you are having trouble finding a book by Bohr, let me know and I’ll see if I can reference his book on the Net for you. Most are free downloads.
If someone makes a controversial statement on here, I seldom ask for a reference, unless I am sure they are wrong and I am being a smartass. I research on my own. Often, I don’t need to because I have studied the subject in-depth and can address their claims directly. Of course, it never hurts to review theory that has become dim in memory. Sometimes such review offers a fresh perspective.
You are claiming that:
“the heat associated with IR is lost at the time the IR is emitted. It’ gone…poof!!!”
Where is the source and proof in support of such preposterous claim?
Bohr never said that.
Clausius never said that.
Tyndall never said that.
Planck never said that.
Only Gordon Robertson ever said that.
He is right. IR is all wave particle theory; no mass involved.
Quantum physics.
We see a lot of confusion upthread about adding bricks to a box. Maybe that’s where the expression “dumber than a brick” came from?
I used the example of adding 288K bricks to a 288K box. No matter how many such bricks are added, the temperature remains 288K. Adding energy to the box does NOT raise the temperature. The cult can’t understand the simple example, claiming it doesn’t work because mass is being added.
As usual, they’re wrong. Temperature has to do with the kind of energy, not mass. If you add a same-temperature brick to the box, you get the same temperature. If you add a colder brick to the box, you get a colder temperature. If you add a hotter brick to the box, you get a warmer box.
Equal mass was added each time, but different temperatures resulted. It is NOT mass. It is the kind of energy that makes the difference. Equal kinds of energy do NOT raise temperature. Lower kinds of energy lower temperature.
Low energy CO2 15μ photons can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
People that can’t understand such basic concepts are “dumber than a brick”.
So you’re saying you’re not a brick?
“Adding energy to the box does NOT raise the temperature.”
Specifically, you are adding thermal energy AND MASS. Your conclusions in this case are obvious and intuitive and uncontested.
However, 15 um radiation from CO2 does NOT add mass. In this case, adding thermal energy WITHOUT ADDING MASS raises the temperature in all cases (barring things like phase change). Whether the photon came from 200 K CO2 or 400 K CO2, energy is added and the average thermal energy increases.
Your brick example does NOT explain anything about the topics at hand. It is not about ‘kinds’ of energy. It is about energy per atom or per kg.
Ken and Folkerts, thanks for proving me correct.
Global temperature is nighttime and daytime air temperature, averaged.
So rather than one box, you could have various boxes, a summer daytime box, and nighttime box, and winter daytime and winter nighttime box.
And mix the bricks in the boxes.
The moon doesn’t mix bricks in the boxes- the moon has a much higher temperature when sun is at zenith. The Moon has much higher temperature and a much lower temperature at it’s top part of it’s surface. In terms at 1 meter depth below top part of surface, it’s around -35 C on average.
And if top of lunar surface is about 50 C, a couple inches lower it’s about -10 C. The dusty top layer of the Moon has very good insulative properties.
THE NEW SPACE RACE: SpaceXs near monopoly on rocket launches is a huge concern, Lazard banker warns. Several other U.S. companies are working to launch competitors to SpaceXs workhorse Falcon rockets, but delays mean American rivals are struggling to field next-generation operational rockets. . . . A few days ago, SpaceX launched its 63rd mission of 2023 and the company has already topped last years record of 61 missions while flying at a blistering average of a launch every four days. Beyond the U.S. rocket market, SpaceX leads the world in both launches and spacecraft mass delivered to orbit each quarter. The company alone keeps the U.S. ahead of China, the next closest geopolitical competitor, in satellite and astronaut launches. . . . ULA, historically the next largest U.S. rocket competitor, has completed only two launches so far in 2023, and is working toward the inaugural launch of its next-generation Vulcan rocket in the coming months.
Blue Origin was supposed to be a competitor, but has been a disappointment. Rocket Lab is a very cool company, but not in SpaceXs league. Neither are any others. SpaceX is just a generation or two ahead, and its gotten that way by drive and discipline, and willingness to make mistakes and then learn quickly from them.
Posted at 8:33 pm by Glenn Reynolds
https://instapundit.com/
Building rockets which go into space is hard.
Rocket Lab ate his hat, and is making larger rockets, but has had 40 small rocket launches.
It seems SpaceX is close to having a global satellite internet “near monopoly”- about 1/2 way there with it’s +4000 satellites and about 10,000 being near term goal. Of course SpaceX has been launching satellites of companies which are also making a global satellite internet.
SpaceX is testing it’s Starship- we don’t know if it will work.
It seems it has monopoly on testing a very large rocket, and some point it could have an operational Starship.
It seems to me, to have operational Starship, it needs to have a ocean launch capability- which it hasn’t started to do yet.
” I agree that CO2 can absorb ‘some’ of the radiation (about 7%) and radiate it isotropically, with a fraction of the energy heading back toward the surface.
However, the CO2 represents a cooler body than the surface and the 2nd law tells us it cannot be absorbed by the warmer surface. Therefore, it can warm nothing. ”
As usual: this is an intentional misrepresentation of the 2nd law.
The 2nd law tells about heat and work – not about radiation.
Clausius explained that in 1887 in his major work – a work however discredited all the time by one of the dumbest pseudo-skeptical ignoramuses.
*
The effect of radiating absorbed IR back to the surface has nothing exclusively to do with CO2! The same job is done by any atmospheric substance absorbing IR, the most important one being of course… water vapor.
CO2’s action is only a very tiny addendum to the effect mainly achieved by water vapor: the latter’s IR back radiation to the surface reduces, according to Clausius, the net amount of IR emitted by the surface. And so does CO2 as well.
*
I anticipate the ignoramus’ reply: it is always the same, the same, the same.
No need to read it anymore.
Learn some quantum fizzix basics instead of reading your 200 years old book trottel
Trottel?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534883
*
And you dachshund claim you know something about quantum physics? Really?
C’est à mourir de rire!
Bindi, CO2’s 15μ photon can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface. Ice cubes can NOT boil water. And Moon is NOT spinning.
Just a little reality for you….
Thank you for proving Binny correct, Pupman!
Clint R
Thank you for proving to us once again that you always intentionally misinterpret what I write.
I never wrote that terrestrial IR photons of any wavelength absorbed by CO2 molecules and re-emitted back to surface would raise its temperature. Never!
And, of course, as expected you also intentionally overlooked:
” The effect of radiating absorbed IR back to the surface has nothing exclusively to do with CO2! The same job is done by any atmospheric substance absorbing IR, the most important one being of course… water vapor. ”
*
By the way, you forgot to mention the very best:
” And airplanes don’t fly backwards. ”
I love it!
I never stated that ALL of that nonsense was from you, Bindi.
And yes, passenger jets flying backward is part of it, as is the “square orbits” nonsense. Both are incompetent attempts to pervert the reality that Moon does NOT spin. You don’t even have an incompetent attempt….
binny…”I never wrote that terrestrial IR photons of any wavelength absorbed by CO2 molecules and re-emitted back to surface would raise its temperature. Never!”
***
Then you must agree with us that the anthropogenic theory is nonsense.
binny…”the latters [WV] IR back radiation to the surface reduces, according to Clausius, the net amount of IR emitted by the surface”.
***
Show me anywhere in the works of Clausius where he talks about a net amount of IR. In his work on radiation, he states that heat transfer by radiation must obey the 2nd law, which he stated clearly as follows…heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body.
This notion of net energy balance is a product of the alarmist mindset. Clausius said nothing about it.
You have trotted out statements by Clausius to the effect that heat flows both ways via radiation between bodies of different temperature. I have tried to convey to you the fact that scientists in his day believed heat flowed between bodies as heat rays. They could not yet conceive how heat would get to us from the Sun without that ability. Yet, they had to know that heat cannot flow through a vacuum and very poorly through a gas.
It was not till 1913 that Bohr discovered the truth behind EM and heat. He hypothesized that EM is emitted by electrons in atoms and absorbed by them as well. Bohr knew that electrons dropping to lower orbitals emit EM and in the same process give up kinetic energy which is heat.
It’s crazy to talk about 1 electron cooling an atom but when you have bazzilions of them doing the same thing, the net result is cooling. Ergo, heat in a mass is dissipated as EM is emitted, provided the heat is not replaced.
Clausius knew nothing about that yet he had the brilliance to understand the actions of heat and work as internal energy, And he started the modern kinetic theory of gases. I am seriously impressed with the man’s work yet he was unable to grasp the true nature of heat and radiation.
He can be forgiven that while keeping his integrity intact because the electron was not discovered till after he had passed on. The heat ray theory was a good try but it was wrong. Ironically, there are scientists today who are still perpetuating that anachronism.
The net energy flow is based on the anachronism, that heat can flow as heat rays both ways between bodies as radiation. There certainly is a two way flow of energy but not intentionally between bodies. Each body is radiating isotropically and only part of the radiated energy reaches each body. And, only the energy from the hotter body is absorbed, the energy from the cooler body being ignored.
For example, we here on Earth experience only a tiny fraction of the total energy emitted by the Sun. Alarmist would have us believe that the energy radiated from Earth is warming the Sun.
Even more ironic, Clausius knew that but could not visualize it. He said nothing about a net heat exchange between bodies. He may have come close to suggesting that but his emphasis that radiation must obey the 2nd law contradicted such a notion. Bohr’s theory proved that individual electrons in atoms cannot simultaneously absorb and emit radiation. They can do one or the other, not both, therefore there is no net.
Robertson is either this blog’s biggest liar or he suffers from a neurodegenerative disease.
He has been shown many times Clausius’ major work he published in 1887. The first time I mentioned his work on this blog was on September 25, 2017 at 8:41 AM:
” What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one. ”
Source (in German)
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
*
Robertson is a 360 degree den-i-er.
You keep re-posting monkey level science from 200 years old book written by people who still thought the sun was a giant lump of burning coal like a dumbass trottel
Woooaaah… On dirait que le petit teckel un tantinet excité
https://www.chien-calme.com/images/actualites/Dachshund_5-1.jpg
s'est mué en un doberman méchamment agressif:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTtNMpWclYVSXlnn6V84roCf3M58VB45BgQuJiDvi0tCdyKZ0JlkrD8z_Q5w3HK4KQ8jio&usqp=CAU
Ce mec caché derrière le pseudonyme ‘Eben’ est encore plus boche qu’un Boche, ma parole.
Once again, Binny spouts an anachronism. Clausius was wrong about radiation carrying heat both ways. No, we did not know that the warm body radiates heat to the cooler body and vice-versa. He was not wrong about much yet egregiously wrong about that.
It’s not his fault, no scientist of his time understood the relationship between EM and heat. They thought heat flowed between bodies by some kind of heat ray. Not one of them ever described the atomic processes involved. The radiation referenced by Clausius in your statement references those imaginary heat rays and not the radiation we know today as EM.
You need to understand that the radiation you talk about was completely unknown to scientists in the day of Clausius. In other words, when they talked about radiation, they were not talking about the EM we know today. Certainly, they knew about electromagnetic energy but not in relation to heat. So, when Clausius makes reference to radiation it is not the radiation we refer to here as EM.
Furthermore, the radiation they talk about flowed through an imaginary aether, not air. It was believed that an aether existed through which light and other radiation flowed.
The concept of an aether has not entirely died off. Dayton Miller studied it and Einstein admitted that if Miller is right, his theory of relativity is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Miller
We should maybe look into this more since space appears to be teeming with sub-atomic particles called neutrinos. Those could be the missing aether, but who knows?
Louis Essen, who discover the atomic clock commented on the Mickelson-Morley experiment claimed to disprove the existence of an aether. He claimed they made an error in the experiment.
“Each body is radiating isotropically and only part of the radiated energy reaches each body. And, only the energy from the hotter body is absorbed, the energy from the cooler body being ignored.”
Gordon once again wrongly confuses EMR with heat! There are no cool rays or heat rays since EMR is NOT heat. Thus incident EMR from the cooler body can be absorbed, transmitted, and scattered by the hotter body since EMR is NOT heat.
Would you kindly point out where I claimed EM is heat?
I explained why EM from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by electrons in a hotter body. Do you have a rebuttal to that, or are you still whistling into the wind?
Gordon claims EMR is heat right here: EM from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by electrons in a hotter body.
EMR from a cooler body CAN be absorbed by a hotter body because EMR is NOT heat.
No, I did not say EM is heat. I said EM from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by electrons in a hotter body. I distinguish between EM and heat, they have nothing in common.
I have gone into this in detail several times. Heat cannot be transferred as heat from one body to another. Heat in a hotter body can be converted to EM and that EM can flow through air or a vacuum. Once the heat is converted to EM, the heat is gone.
However, as EM, it can heat nothing. It must first be absorbed by electrons in a cooler body and the electrons can produce heat when excited by the EM. The reverse process, when EM from a cooler body contacts electrons in a hotter body, will produce no results. It is simply ignored.
What happens to it is of no interest to me. All I know is it won’t produce heat in a hotter body.
Gordon said EM from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by electrons in a hotter body so Gordon writes EMR acts like heat just plain as day.
EMR is NOT heat.
There is no Clausius or any other physical rule against EMR from a cooler body being absorbed in a hotter body, in fact 2LOT demands that happen in a real process because dQ/T has to be positive.
Dr. Spencer even demonstrated experimentally EMR from a cooler body being absorbed in a hotter body measured by thermometer increase in temperature & calculated the amount. The EMR was NOT “ignored”, heat was thus experimentally produced in the hotter body by EMR from a cooler body as required by 2LOT because it was a natural process!
“Do you have a rebuttal to that,”
I do believe I do have a rebuttal.
The EM is coming from an atom, or an electron in an atom, and neither of those have a temperature.
They get absorbed by a cooler body, an atom or electron, which also don’t have a temperature.
So the version of the second law of thermodynamics you are applying does not apply.
However other versions are appropriate, and they are not violated either.
207 words 1,141 characters
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
An object doesnt do a background check on the individual photons in the radiation, so radiation flows both ways, net heat though moves the way it is supposed to, from hot to cold.
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98879
The emphasized bit made me smile.
This is an old and incorrect claim by climate alarmists. Why you would smile is not clear, unless you are demented.
It has nothing to do with what a photon thinks, the required information is in the frequency of the emitted EM quantum. An electron orbiting around an atom can be described as simple harmonic motion. It has a frequency and in order for EM to interact with the electron, it needs a frequency equivalent to the orbital frequency of the electron. If the EM frequency does not match closely it will be ignored.
We have an equivalence in communications systems. Antennas require a length in the receiving member that is a multiple of the incoming signal wavelength. The driven element (receiving element) has a typical length of 1/2 the wavelength of the received signal wavelength. If the signal wavelength deviates significantly from that wavelength, it is simply ignored.
Here again, we have an interaction between the EM field in the signal and electrons in the antenna driven element. If the signal signal amplitude fluctuations don’t match the antenna unit, the electrons in the unit are not affected.
Whereas the principles here are not exact, it illustrates the resonance in an atom required to excite and electron in the atom. Put simply, the EM frequency from a colder object lacks the frequency to excite electrons in a hotter object which are operating at a higher frequency.
Ergo, the photon needs to know nothing, it’s information is built into its frequency.
Cool story, Bordo.
What does it have to do with my comment?
We know what you comment is about, wee willy, trohling and s***disturbing. I simply took the opportunity to set the record straight.
You’re welcome.
Thank you for confirming that you are just using my comment for another of your loony rants, Bordo.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ball 4 continues to amaze with his other-world science…
“…added thermal energy such as photons from added ice absorbed in liquid water per 1LOT DOES always mean higher avg. thermal energy…”
***
There is nothing in the 1st law that addresses ice in water. The 1st law is about heat and work, and their equivalence. The 1st law was produced some 60-odd year before the concept of the photon was imagined. No one knew about radiation in those days as we understand it now in relation to electrons in atoms and EM.
B4 has claimed to me that IR is not heat but here we have him contradicting himself. Now he is claiming that electromagnetic energy is heat.
Clausius was careful to point out in his work that heat and work in the 1st law have different units of measurement, calories for heat and joules for work. Therefore, as he pointed out, they cannot be equated directly. However, they have an equivalence, as discovered by Simon Joule circa 1840.
The natural unit of heat is the calorie, which is the amount of heat required to raise 1 gram of water by 1C. However, Joule discovered that agitating water with mechanical energy, measured in joules, could raise the temperature of water. We now know that agitating it mechanically breaks weak hydrogen bond that bind water molecules together, releasing that energy as heat to warm the water. Thus, he worked out the equivalence of 1 calorie to 4.1868 joules of mechanical energy.
There’s your relationship for the 1st law and that’s why heat is incorrectly measured in joules, which is an equivalent not an actual measure of heat.
For some reason, B4 thinks adding ice to water accomplishes the same thing as agitating the water with a rotating paddle. Seems to me, people add ice to water to lower the temperature of the water.
Gordon: “The 1st law is about heat”
No. It’s simple to understand that is wrong in that for the universe Clausius wrote 1st Law: Energy is conserved, 2nd Law: Entropy increases.
Nothing in there about heat (which Clausius defined as a measure of certain total KE).
“Now (Ball4) is claiming that electromagnetic energy is heat.”
No, Gordon imagines that circumstance. I didn’t even use the term heat in Gordon’s quote!
“B4 thinks adding ice to water accomplishes the same thing as agitating the water with a rotating paddle.”
No. Actually, Gordon leaves out a few important words since Gordon should know from experimental results of Dr. Spencer that absorbed thermodynamic internal energy radiated from ice to water accomplishes water temperature increase over no added thermal energy from the ice same as agitating the water with a rotating paddle does over no added rotating paddle.
NB: In 1845 James Prescott Joule suggested that the water at the bottom of a waterfall should be warmer than at the top, in particular, for Niagara Falls (about 160 feet high) 1/5 of a Fahrenheit degree. How did Joule obtain this number? The specific enthalpy capacity of liquid water is about 4200 J/kg K. (Hint: If Gordon has trouble imagining a waterfall, consider a single water droplet falling the same vertical distance).
Quit kissing Roy’s butt. You disagree with him on almost everything else yet you glom onto one cherry picked statement he made.
Clausius was not referencing the 1st law when he talked about energy and entropy in the universe. He was referencing the 2nd law. He introduced the concept of entropy after he stated the 2nd law subjectively. Entropy and the 2nd law go hand in hand whereas entropy has nothing to do with the 1st law.
When he made the statement about the universe he preceded it by pointing out that entropy is positive for irreversible processes, otherwise it is zero for reversible processes. It can never be negative since that would allow a natural heat transfer from cold to hot…the emphasis on natural, meaning uncompensated. Clausius then pointed out that most natural processes are irreversible therefore…blah, blah, blah, blah blah blah.
His statement about the universe may be true but only in a limited sense with regard to disorder. Heat is not always a product of disorder and if there is no heat involved, entropy is not involved.
For example, if you rack snooker balls and leave them on a table. it is theorized that eventually they will become disordered. If the balls manage to roll apart due to some force, there is unlikely to be much heat produced, if any. Therefore, entropy does not apply to such disorder.
“Clausius was not referencing the 1st law when he talked about energy and entropy in the universe.”
No Gordon. 1st law is universal too, that’s why they call it a law. Those two laws demonstrate the greatest strength of thermodynamics: its generality. But they also demonstrate its greatest weakness: its generality.
And Clausius then pointed out that ALL natural processes in the universe are irreversible, not most.
EMR can transfer from cold to hot because EMR is NOT heat.
Increased entropy can mean increased disorder IF define this to be so. But if do that, then have defeated the purpose of supposedly explaining entropy as disorder. That is, have just defined disorder by means of entropy, not the other way around. Also depends on what is meant by disorder.
EMR is not heat. Just damn.
How can you have any warming if you haven’t any heat
b4…”NB: In 1845 James Prescott Joule suggested that the water at the bottom of a waterfall should be warmer than at the top, in particular, for Niagara Falls (about 160 feet high) 1/5 of a Fahrenheit degree. How did Joule obtain this number?”
***
You must have missed my lecture on that. Joule is credited with discovering the equivalence between heat and mechanical energy, circa 1840. To get the equivalence, he used a measured mechanical energy, in joules, to turn a paddle in water. He then recorded the amount of temperature rise in the water and arrive at the relationship between heat in calories and mechanical work in joules.
I imagine it was a small step to guestimate the amount of heating in water at the foot of a waterfall. He would know the volume of water falling and the number of joules it would produce as it contacted the water at the base. It would then be a simple calculation using his already derived equivalence between the mechanical energy produced by the falling water and the heating of the water at the base.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
In recent years, the interest has grown in satellite-derived hyperspectral radiance measurements for assessing the individual impact of climate drivers and their cascade of feedbacks on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). In this paper, we use 10 years (20082017) of reprocessed radiances from the infrared atmospheric sounding interferometer (IASI) to evaluate the linear trends in clear-sky spectrally resolved OLR (SOLR) in the range [6452300] cm−1. Spatial inhomogeneities are observed in most of the analyzed spectral regions. These mostly reflected the natural variability of the atmospheric temperature and composition but long-term changes in greenhouse gases concentrations are also highlighted. In particular, the increase of atmospheric CO2 and CH4 led to significant negative trends in the SOLR of −0.05 to −0.3% per year in the spectral region corresponding to the ν2 and the ν3 CO2 and in the ν4 CH4 band. Most of the trends associated with the natural variability of the OLR can be related to the El Nio/Southern Oscillation activity and its teleconnections in the studied period. This is the case for the channels most affected by the temperature variations of the surface and the first layers of the atmosphere but also for the channels corresponding to the ν2 H2O and the ν3 O3 bands.
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00205-7
Come on wee willy, this is nothing more than a rehash of the AGW theory in which they offer no new information to substantiate their claims. They begin by re-offering the same incorrect theories on AGW re GHGs being the arbiter of energy flows in an imaginary energy budget yet offer no new proof the theory is correct.
There is not a single shred of energy that CO2 has anything to do with anything. But, hey, why let an inconvenient lie get in the way of all that funding money available to climate liars.
Cool story, Bordo.
Here’s a point that will fly above your head:
Cheers.
Prove it.
Only you can prove your own cluelessness, Bordo.
I would be hard pressed to find the best example.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Robertson and the 1500 NOAA stations
He will never stop ridiculing himself.
Here is the Wayback Machine’s directory for a NOAA web site telling about the removal of thousands of weather stations lacking the ability to automatically communicate their data:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100301000000*/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
This NOAA page was probably created in 2009/10; it was stored first in the archive on Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:04:33 GMT by Amazon crawling robots (e.g., alexa_web_2010):
https://web.archive.org/web/20100323000433/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
Here is what is written:
Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.
However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions.
The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month.
*
It is clear to anyone having a working brain: the 4500 ‘slashed’ stations were these for which there was no direct access. This means that the station data was sent by telex or by fax.
All these stations were removed during the life of GHCN V2.
At the end of V2 (probably 2012), all stations were transferred to GHCN V3; there were 7280, I used them till 2017.
V3 was replaced later by V4 with over 27000 stations: a subset of about 40000 GHCN daily stations (themselves that subset of the whole CHCN daily set providing temperature data; the remaining 60000 provide precipitation, wind etc).
*
An important fact: if a weather station data set contains 7280 units, this does not automatically mean that you can use all of them: you will exclude (i.e. ‘slash’, oh yes) all stations lacking the data you expect.
Mostly, all stations showing less than 30 years of nearly full activity are excluded. Stations showing spurious trends are also removed from the set considered.
If you want to generate an anomaly time series wrt the mean of 1981-2010, you will have also to exclude all stations lacking data necessary for their local baseline construction.
Of the nearly 20000 available CONUS stations I keep only 8500.
What matters here is that despite using only 40%, these remaining stations sufficiently cover the region considered.
**
Robertson never downloaded any climate data from anywhere, let alone would he have been able to process it.
All what he is able to do is to discredit and denigrate all what does not match his polemical, self-centered, incompetent narrative.
*
The best corner on this blog to observe his utter incompetence in puncto temperature anomalies:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1364980
You see that despite claiming to be an expert in anomalies, he tries to compare NOAA anomalies wrt 190-2000 to UAH anomalies wrt 1991-2020:
https://i.postimg.cc/ncDph2XL/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022.png
The correct way of course is to compare all anomalies wrt the same reference period:
https://i.postimg.cc/xT6mR007/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022-wrt-1991-2020.png
*
But you can be sure that Robertson will ALWAYS repeat his incompetent trash.
wayback is still currently scanning the page in early 2016. Soon thereafter NOAA shut down the page and mentioned no more about the cuts.
*** NOAA did not rescind the cuts or give any evidence that they had increased the global surface coverage beyond the ‘less than 1500 station’ number.***
Binny uses an obscure statement included on the original paper which only someone like him would fall for…
“However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions”.
They just admitted slashing stations from 6000 to less than 1500 and in the same breath, claim the number of stations has actually increased. And, hat the heck good do old temperatures have to do with modern temperature records?
“Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”
That means what it says, NOAA is using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperatures globally. Yet they follow that up with smoke and mirrors to make it appear as if there are actually more stations. Who cares if there are more stations the point is, they are using less than 1500 of them.
Only the seriously obtuse could read something positive into the dire admission. Of course, Binny is about as obtuse as they come, him and Barry, who also defends this chicanery.
—
“The correct way of course is to compare all anomalies wrt the same reference period:”
***
For once we agree…ta da. Now back to the reality, that’s not the ways it is done. Even NOAA and GISS use reference periods that cover only a fraction of the range.
I would like to see them stick to one reference period, better still, use absolute temperatures. However, if you use anomalies and use the same reference period, you will eventually run into the same problem. As the rage expands and the reference period remains the same, it becomes less meaningful.
That’s especially true for climate. It is defined as a 30 year average of weather and that seems to be the spirit in which Roy and John at UAH are applying it.
Robertson
” That means what it says, NOAA is using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperatures globally. ”
By posting your 1500 station nonsense – even in 2023! – though you must have understood that its source is dated 2010 the latest and hence has nothing to do with the present, you definitely show the level of your dishonesty and incompetence.
*
” Now back to the reality, that’s not the ways it is done. Even NOAA and GISS use reference periods that cover only a fraction of the range. ”
What’s that for a nonsense? Here again, you show that you still didn’t understand what is meant with
” The correct way of course is to compare all anomalies wrt the same reference period ”
which has NOTHING to do with the duration of the reference periods.
You still do not understand how wrong it is to write like you did in a post last year (dated September 13, 2022 at 5:59 PM):
” The NOAA graph shows 8 years of global temps above 0.8C, including 2022, from 2015 2022, while UAH shows nothing close to that. UAH maxed out at 0.7C in 2016 and one year was 0.6C, the rest were 0.5C or below and recently, more typically around 0.3C. “.
Why can’t you admit being wrong and learn that you can’t compare the NOAA anomalies computed wrt the mean of 1901-2000 with the UAH anomalies computed wrt the mean of 1991-2020?
Even the UAH anomalies wrt the old period 1981-2010 can’t be compared to the current ones because they differ by 0.14 C!
This means that before comparing NOAA to UAH, your have to recompute NOAA’s anomalies such that they show values wrt the mean of 1991-2020 (the inverse you can’t do because UAH has no data before Dec 1978).
*
I see once more that
– you never admit being wrong;
– you never learn from anything that you dislike.
*
Finally, you prove again your lack of real experience when writing:
” … better still, use absolute temperatures. ”
I have explained that years ago by showing the difference between two comparisons of UAH’s lower troposphere data with its lower stratosphere data:
1. Absolute temperatures
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16GaarHUs7npnzyN5-wtJ7z0qODSKplVq/view
2. Temperature anomalies
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qC_cbNrs_qI6qBujpJ-nuxRAokaNIVri/view
Since you’ve never been able to calculate anything before, let alone show us the results on this blog, you probably won’t care about the difference!
*
Feel free to call me ‘van der Klown’, Robertson.
Incompetent people love to denigrate.
416 words 2,419 characters
513 words 3,466 characters
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ark…”[GR]the heat associated with IR is lost at the time the IR is emitted. It gonepoof!!!
[ark]Where is the source and proof in support of such preposterous claim?”
***
It’s right in Bohr’s proof. He claims the electron loses kinetic energy as it transitions downward and that lost KE is given off as EM radiation. Put another way, in order to move from a state of higher potential energy to a state of lower potential energy, the electron must give up energy. Couple that with the fact that a body cools as it gives off EM, and that the energy it gives up is heat, then you have your explanation.
That KE is heat. That’s the official name given to energy in atoms related to their motion, either externally or internally. When heat is applied to a mass, the electrons in the atoms of the mass are excited by the heat and transition upwards to higher orbital energy levels. The electrons will only remain at that excited level momentarily before they drop back down but they must give up energy as they do and that energy is given off as EM.
However, EM has none of the properties of heat. It is an electromagnetic field with a magnetic field orthogonal to an electric field. And, it has a frequency which heat lacks. EM is not heat. The electron gave up heat as KE and as it did it emitted a quantum of EM, which serves as the conservation of energy principle.
If you keep applying heat, the electrons will keep transitioning up and down at a steady state condition. Once you remove the heat, the electrons will transition downward to their ground state.
This can all be in seen in the spectra of atoms.
Gordon Robertson
Basically your post just demonstrates a total lack of any physics.
Why do you pretend you studied physics when you have not taken any formal training. You just make up stuff and post it. It is a sad state in this modern world that we have some many crackpots (yes Gordon you are crackpot). Complete nonsense you made up.
You reject observational, logic based experimental science in favor of made up gibbly-gook and meandering nonsense with no logic, no rigor, no factual basis.
You should just come out of the closet and embrace flat-earth science. You don’t need to skirt around you nature.
I think the rigor and effort required to learn actual science and understand it is very difficult for you so you just make up stuff that you think sounds good and go with it.
Here you go:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php
Gordon again mistakes EM radiation for heat: “a body cools as it gives off EM, and that the energy it gives up is heat.”
Right Norman, Gordon here again writes EM is heat. Gordon also writes in the same comment: “EM is not heat.”
Gordon doesn’t know what Gordon is writing about.
b4…your reply lacks a serious misunderstanding of quantum theory.
An electron orbiting a nucleus carries an electric field. The electric charge also creates a magnetic field. When the electron loses energy, what form of energy should it lose, and how?
It has to give up kinetic energy as it transitions downward. But what kind of energy will the KE be? There is no mechanism in place for it to lose momentum, hence fall into a lower orbit, since that would require a collision, or opposing force. Whatever takes place creates a quantum of EM at the expense of that momentum and at the same time, dissipates heat.
Is it not abundantly clear to you that it has to give up electric and magnetic energy. For cripes sake, it emits EM, and it is the only moving particle in an atom that can do that. Do you think the EM appears magically, from out of a box?
No one can yet explain Bohr’s quantum theory, why the electron transition without a time factor. It’s in one orbital then it’s in another, with no time between states. As it transitions, however, it is known to emit EM of a specific frequency which I presume is related to its orbital angular frequency.
When you consider a multitude of electrons excited to a certain state, that defines the heat content of the mass, hence its temperature. When it loses that energy by transitioning down the way, it gives up that KE hence heat. However, it gives up the heat by emitting EM.
I am not saying that the heat is EM, I am saying that the heat gets converted to EM, not that it is heat. In other words, the energy we refer to as KE is heat, the electron gives up that KE/heat, and to conserve energy, EM gets emitted in the process. Once the EM is emitted, the heat present before the emission is gone. Poof!!!
I have no idea how the EM gets emitted, or how absorbed EM excites an electron. I don’t think such information is available since no one has observed it directly. I do know that when EM from a hotter body is incident on a cooler body, ***SOMEHOW*** that EM is converted to KE, which summed over all the electrons/atoms translates to an increase in heat. During the reverse process, heat is dissipated and EM produced.
“When the electron loses energy, what form of energy should it lose, and how?”
The excited high temperature air molecule electron loses energy by transitioning down a known quantized electronic level (~kT) as the whole air molecule loses momentum (linear and angular) and cools in emitting a photon of such high energy level that none of these electronic transitions happen at temperatures found in our troposphere. Gordon’s whole 10:02pm misguided comment is useless for climate.
—-
Eat your spinach time: this is because the known spacing between base level and next higher air molecule electronic energy level is so much greater (10-300x) than photon absorbing energy level transitions between air molecule rotational and vibrational quantized energy levels. This known fact explains why meteorologists can totally ignore electronic transitions in determining the energies (thus temperatures) of troposphere air molecules when emitting/absorbing photons creating troposphere atm. IR opacity.
ALL troposphere air molecules are in the base electronic state thus none of those air molecules emit an electronic transition photon. Gordon’s whole misguided attempt to explain electronic transitions 10:02pm can be totally ignored for our climate.
Gordon should devote time to reading reputable sources & learning about air molecule rotational and vibrational quantum energy level transitions effect on atm. IR opacity.
Experiments prove EMR transfers both ways between objects, Gordon, since EMR is NOT heat.
Nah, Gordon,
“Its in one orbital then its in another, with no time between states.”
It doesn’t happen instantaneously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_electron_transition#:~:text=It%20appears%20discontinuous%20as%20the,a%20few%20nanoseconds%20or%20less.
Negatory pig pen to this as well.
“As it transitions, however, it is known to emit EM of a specific frequency which I presume is related to its orbital angular frequency.”
Orbital angular momentum perhaps, because there is no orbital angular frequency.
norman…I enjoy your flames. I grin as I read them.
I get the sense that you are a good soul under it all and based on that I have no problem with you. You remind me a bit of my grannie.
It would be nice, at least part of the time, if you could explain yourself better without resorting to authority figures. As far as your opinion of my qualifications, I couldn’t care less. However, this post of your in nothing but an ad hom/insult campaign and my reaction is a grin.
norman…”Why do you pretend you studied physics when you have not taken any formal training”.
***
My post outlines specifics while yours are generalities. Do try to be more specific with your criticisms. I have no idea what you are on about half the time.
Gordon Robertson
Your posts are just made up nonsense. I have given most specific criticisms but you do ignore it all.
I will give you one. You keep bringing up the Pirani Gauge. I have asked you if you know what emissivity is. You ignore this request.
You say IR is ineffective at removing heat at Earth temperatures so I ask how does the Moon cool. Then you say the Moon heats up but in reality is only goes reaches such a temperature that the outgoing IR matches in the incoming solar flux and the temperature reaches a peak.
You can’t understand how dipoles work and function to produce IR radiant energy. I have given you very many science articles clearly explaining it and showing you vast amounts of spectroscopy information that clearly uses these molecular dipoles to determine the molecular makeup of some unknown substance.
It does not matter if you get specifics, you ignore it. What you posted is just your made up opinions of things.
Electrons do not gain K.E. when going to higher orbitals. They gain potential energy but lose K.E. So you are wrong there but that will not matter. You do not care about the Truth or real information. You just like making up ideas from your own imagination and posting them.
I mainly post here to correct bad information like what you post or Clint R. If you are going to reject GHE it would be good if you understood it and did it with solid evidence (the current evidence supports it). You change physics like what the 2nd Law means or create energy exchange as a one-way process when it is not and there is zero evidence to support it is.
I guess my goal of keeping the science rigorous will fail because there are too many people who do not like Truth as it is much harder to learn and grasp than made up opinions that don’t need evidence at all to support.
It is what is destroying the Political Climate in US. Many opinions as each side tries to convince the other their brand of made up opinions (usually from some Talking Head) is correct and no one is seeking any evidence to confirm their ideas or opinions.
Norman, I can understand your frustration. You want to be the only one perverting science. So when you catch Gordon making up nonsense, you expect him to admit it. Maybe you should set an example and admit your own attempted perversions, like:
* Earth has a REAL 255K surface
*. Two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface will warm it to 325K
*. Orbits are square
There are more, but you can start with those.
Clint R
The worst thing about you is not your scientific ignorance (which is vast). It is your lies. I did not say REAL 255 K surface you lying freak. I said there was a radiant surface with a brightness temperature of 255 K. I explained this to you on multiple posts you sadsack liar.
Yes two fluxes will add at a surface and produce a higher temp. Turn on two heat lamps aimed at the same surface.
Square Orbit is your words not mine so eat your own shirt! Your lies are on your plate not mine. What a lowlife dunce you are. You know zero science and lie. You need serious help.
Hi Norman. I see your frustration has turned into foaming-at-the-mouth anger.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Sorry, but all that is worthless rhetoric.
You claimed, in agreement with one of your heroes Ball4, that Earth has a REAL 255K surface. You tried for months to justify your claim, but then gave up. Now you’re just claiming “a radiant surface with a brightness temperature of 255 K”. But, that’s wrong also.
And you changed the wording to “two fluxes will add at a surface and produce a higher temp”. You changed the wording because you’ve found out the fraud in “Two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface will warm it to 325K”.
It was you that made up the idea of walking in a square to justify your Moon nonsense. You STILL have no viable model of “orbital motion without spin”.
You’ve got NOTHING.
What will you try next — just more insults and false accusations?
“Thats why this is so much fun.”
Yes, Clint, we understand, you seek attention. Negative attention works even better. So you lie, make up fake fizuks, insult people, all to get negative attention.
Nate, if you want to jump in and help Norman, you might help him with his nonsense:
*. Earth has a REAL 255K surface
*. Two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface will warm it to 325K
*. Orbits are square
He’s in a awful bind. He got caught perverting science, again. You know what that’s like….
Clint R
I am not actually frothing at the mouth. I already know you are an asshole. Your posts really don’t have as much effect on me as you think they do. I just think you reach a new low when not only are you at total asshole on this blog, but then you lie about things.
You would be valuable if I wanted to learn how to be an asshole. I really do not care to be one. Not much can change your personality. You are mentally sick in the head but don’t realize it. I think you need professional help to try and find out why you spend time of blogs trying to annoy people. I can’t answer that for you but maybe a good therapist might help you resolve your inner demons that find amusement and pleasure in provoking people.
Regardless your ignorance of science is real and your posts are worthless for any science content.
Well Norman, if you’re no longer foaming-at-the-mouth, then it must just be your immaturity.
A mature person could address his statements. (This is what you expect Gordon to do.). You could either provide evidence, or admit you made a mistake:
*. Earth has a REAL 255K surface
*. Two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface will warm it to 325K
*. Orbits are square
A child just resorts to insults and false accusations.
Clint R
Am asshole would continue to lie and state I made claims I never did or ask me to defend things I never stated.
I have addressed your asshole claims multiple times on multiple threads but it really does not change your asshole personality or your asshole posting. What are you really wanting? Other than to be an asshole I really do not know what your purpose on this blog is for. You lie, make unscientific posts…
Nitrogen gas reflects IR
Fluxes don’t add (even though you can put multiple heat lamps on an object and it keeps getting hotter with each additional lamp)
The radiant heat transfer is bogus
The Moon orbit is a ball on a string (Which is in reality only rotation, just as putting a ball on a rotating record and saying this is and orbit and it proves the Moon does not rotate on its axis).
A 15 micron cannot be absorbed by a hotter object
Endless list of unscientific crap from and asshole. There may be more, with you it is endless.
It’s okay if you now want to deny this nonsense, Norman. But, with your background, we need to see actual rejection:
Please answer each with a simple “yes” or “no” —
1. Earth has a REAL 255K surface?
2. Two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface will warm it to 325K?
3. Orbits are square
There are no tricks. We just need to see if you can now reject your nonsense. If you can’t answer “no” to each, then you are still a believer in things you can’t support.
0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0
I don’t have time to address all of your misrepresentations of my words, so I’ll just mention two:
Your misrepresentation “Nitrogen gas reflects IR”
That’s not what I said. I said A nitrogen molecule will reflect a 15μ photon.
Your misrepresentation “The Moon orbit is a ball on a string…”
That’s not what I said. I said The ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbital motion without spin”.
“Thats not what I said. I said A nitrogen molecule will reflect a 15μ photon.”
No.
Evidence? Theory? Data?
Anything other than telling us, again, that we wouldnt understand?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1535362
Test.
b4…”Clausius then pointed out that ALL natural processes in the universe are irreversible”
***
Never saw him say that.
How about water and water vapour. Without their reversibility we’d be doomed.
How about a lead-acid battery, or any rechargeable battery?
You can go on and on listing natural reversible process. Mot of them may be irreversible but not all.
“Never saw him say that.”
Indicates Gordon hasn’t studied Clausius enough. There is a water cycle Gordon, it is not a reversible process like running the film backwards. Electricity cycles back to the power plant but there are losses in the process.
ALL natural processes are irreversible or perpetual motion would be possible in nature.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“Titanium resists corrosion by seawater to temperatures as high as 500F (260C). Titanium tubing, exposed for 16 years to polluted seawater in a surface condenser, was slightly discolored but showed no evidence of corrosion.”
–People also ask
Does titanium corrode in saltwater?
Seawater. Titanium is reported to be highly resistant to general corrosion in seawater. Titanium does not suffer microbial-induced corrosion (MIC), and although a very small degree of biofouling can be present, no corrosion is found under marine organisms.–
–Is titanium resistant to sea water?
Titanium is highly resistant to corrosion in seawater, brines and brackish waters, and to almost all conditions encountered subsea and in oil and gas extraction. In many subsea environments titanium will be immune to corrosion.–
So, what think is cheap breakwater and surfing area is 20 meter diameter thin wall pipe of a high strength titanium filled with freshwater at pressure, 6 to 8 psig.
But I thought it would be interesting/fun to look at a short section, rather something like 100 meter long.
20 meter diameter short pipe of 2 meter having wall thickness of 1 mm and with flat ends which are 2 mm thick {if make flat ends rather hemispheric end you need twice the strength- flat is easier- and more fun.
Mass of both ends: 5566.89748 kg
2 meter long and 20 meter diameter has mass: 556.661913513 kg
5566.89748 + 556.661913513 = 6123.559393513 and round it to: 6124 kg
And fill it with freshwater which is most dense at 4 C is about 1000 kg per cubic meter.
And volume of water, in it is: 628.192342683 cubic meter. Or water weight x 1000 kg = 628,192.342683 kg
The 20 meter diameter titanium pipe with safety facter .72:
Internal Pressure at Minimum Yield (psi): 12.8
Ultimate Burst Pressure (psi): 13.8
Maximum Allowable Pressure (psi): 9.22
Going have freshwater’s pressure at 8 psig.
If submerged completely in sea water, it displaces 629.574636 cubic meter.
And seawater density is about 1020 kg per cubic meter: 642166.12872 kg
Freshwater: 628192.342683 kg + metal: 6124 kg = 634316.342683
Salt water: 642166.12872 – 634316.342683 = 7849.786037 kg
In order to submerge the short pipe, you need 7849.786037 kg of added weigh.
But purpose of it all, is to ask the question, how does it float?
One of the flat ends, up? Or the curved pipe “side”, up.
Like most metals, titanium is attacked by low Ph chloride solutions.
Stainless steel {and other steels] and marine aluminum is resistant to seawater, but titanium is more resistant {at least in terms of decades}.
But could use 2198-T8 marine aluminum and be twice as thick 2mm and 4 mm thick ends] and it would a bit stronger and works out to float as well as the titanium {and perhaps, slightly cheaper or close to same costs]. So, this should last for say, 10 years or more- add 25%
to thickness and should work for decades, but probably that would be a tad bit more expensive than the thinner titanium.
Even if had 50% more, it’s a very cheap breakwater- or using less than 1 ton of metal per meter. And 1 ton per foot is regarded as cheap.
Plus it makes a good surfing wave.
Let’s try pH instead of Ph. Hmmm But that is not the only problem with SS. The 300 series austenitic stainless steels are subjected to stress corrosion cracking in the presence of Chloride and should never be used for critical structural applications in the presence of sea water. Otherwise nonstresed structures have good corrosion resistance.
https://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/sims/cactus/5_02_18.htm
I should add that the problem is the most severe in welded structures. The metal in the heat affected zone of the weld has a higher hardness which increases the stress concentration. It can be improved by post weld heat treatment to normalize the metal.
One can see some rust with the stainless steel hulks of Starship- and they only been expose to marine environment for couple years or less.
One also have problems with having different types of metals as they interact and one has problems in the welding a metal together. Ships have long use replaceable chunks of zinc, because Zinc corrodes better/first [lessens the hull metal from corroding as much] and zinc used in the marine paint also.
In regards to article:
“7 Extensive research studies indicate that SCC in swimming pools appears only under a very specific combination of three conditions:
1) the use of susceptible grades of stainless steel;
2) tensile stress, either from structural loading or present as residual stresses from forming or welding operations during manufacture and installation; and
3) the presence of a specific aggressive environment. Chlorine containing compounds (by-products of disinfection) may transfer via the pool atmosphere to surfaces remote from the pool itself. These compounds can produce a highly corrosive film, which can lead to
SCC.”
The Starship rusting was also in areas welding- how something is
welded is probably very important. And these rocket guys which are generally used to work in clean rooms- or not in a beach environment.
And this part:
“5 Consequently the atmosphere of indoor swimming pools is one of the most aggressive to be found in a building environment. Under the specific temperature conditions near the ceiling, chlorine containing chemical species in vapours from the pool water can condense onto the stainless steel components and dry out. As this can be a repeated cycle, very aggressive concentrations of chlorine-containing species may build up. The situation is aggravated by the fact that components may not be easily accessible for regular cleaning.”
And waves will be constantly washing over breakwater- it’s self cleaning:)
The mechanism of SCC is somewhat complex. Atoms in a metal under tensile stress become strained and are more susceptible to corrosion. Softer metals distribute stress better than metals with hard spots. The austenite grain structure makes the problem worse. Once corrosion starts, a notch effect creates a stress riser which increases the corrosion. As the corrosion spreads deeper, a crack forms and the process intensifies.
Well, this about welds and how it’s made.
And in terms of tensile stress, my question could be seen to be related:
“But purpose of it all, is to ask the question, how does it float?
One of the flat ends, up? Or the curved pipe side, up.”
The answer seems to me that it could float either way, but it would be more stable curved pipe “side”, up.
And reason is the flat end up would float lower in the water, because an inch above the waterline would lift a lot freshwater above waterline {20 meter diameter area] whereas curved is a portion of circumference of 20 meter by 4 meter.
So flat is about 1″ and curved at highest point is about 12″ above the waterline.
So if put it a major storm {say Cat 4] and it started flat end up, likely to end up as curved end up.
Of course if 100 meter long, it’s supposed to be curved end up.
The other point about SCC is that it is much more likely to occur as the stress approaches the plastic limit (yield stress). A structure with a large design allowance has less of a problem. Also, it depends greatly on time. It is not usually a fast process.
A major thing about this breakwater is how massive it is.
So short 2 meter 20 meter diameter pipe has 634316.342683 kg
of mass or about 634 tons. About 10 train car loaded lumber or whatever.
A human can push an empty train car on the level or even loaded car, but it take a long time to move an inch {assuming there isn’t much friction]. Or it’s like pushing an automobile- only a lot slower.
So, it has a lot of inertia.
And if a 100 meter section of breakwater, it’s times 50 = 31715817.13415 kg or 31,715 tons or like ocean freighter.
Or largest supertanker: 458.45 meter, not loaded: “81,879 long tons”
Loaded: 646,642 long tons
458 meter long breakwater: 634316.342683 times 229 = 145258442.474407 kg or 145,258.4 metric tons.
But breakwater does not move as much as this ship does in large waves- for a number of reasons.
The most obvious reason is that breakwater is lower in the water, than an oil tanker.
So instead of being filled with freshwater, one could put air in the top 1 meter of the pipe, which will cause it to float about 1 meter
higher {and we will put in bulkheads to reduce the water from moving around as much]. That would make breakwater more bouncy- it floats better. If submerged with 1 meter if air in it, it have accelerating force- each second it goes at faster velocity upward, and after it stops accelerating, upward, it has upward velocity, until decelerates. Or you get to the motions which can make you seasick.
Let’s go back to short 2 meter long pipe, add 7849.786037 kg of weight or force and sink it 10 meters under the waterline. Then let it float to the surface. So got 7849.786037 kg of upward force upon
634316.342683 kg mass. 7849.786037 / 634316.342683 = 0.012375191
It’s 0.012375191 of 1 gee. 9.8 m/s/s times 0.012375191 = 0.121276874 m/s/s. In one second it’s moving 0.121276874 m/s and got upward 1/2
of 0.121276874 = 0.060638437 meter or goes up about 6 cm in the first
second.
Not going to give exact number, but say it got 10 cubic meter of air for 2 meter length. A cubic meter is about 1 ton or 1000 kg of displacement, 10,000 + 7849 = 17849. and 634316.342683 reduced by 10,000 kg of less water: 624316 kg.
17849 / 624316 = 0.028589689. 9.8 m/s/s x 0.028589689 = 0.280178948
m/s and 1/2 is 0.140089474 so distance up 14 cm.
So, filled with water: 628,192.342683 kg and 10,000 kg less of water is 627,192.342683 and more than twice as bouncy.
But is still a lot less bouncy as compared a supertanker.
But how long to go up 10 meter
10 = 0.060638437 x Time squared around 13 seconds going at about 1.57 m/s [3.5 mph} about fast as you can swim and it would get higher above the water as you can swim out of the water [not far].
Anyways it would not be under water for much longer than 2 seconds.
The fallacy in your “theory” resides in these two crucial steps:
1/ ” When heat is applied to a mass, the electrons in the atoms of the mass are excited by the heat and transition upwards to higher orbital energy levels.”
2/ ” The electron gave up heat as KE and as it did it emitted a quantum of EM, which serves as the conservation of energy principle.”
Your “theory” gives calculated values that are orders of magnitude short of the energy required. It violates the conservation of energy principle.
Here is how:
The mass of an electron is 9.1×10^-31 Kg. Therefore, its KE in the range of thermal IR (50 to 4μ) would be between 9.65×10^-41 and 1.51×10^-38 Joules.
But we know that the energy content of an individual photon in the same range is between 3.97×10^-21 and 4.97×10^-20 Joules, which is orders of magnitude greater than the KE calculated by your “theory.”
Bindidon says:
”About the gridding of global measurement data (part 1)
Recently I posted some graphs showing the difference between gridded and non gridded evaluations of station data.
Soon came Climate Data specialist Bill the Hunter boy and told me proudly that station data gridding would be responsible for global warming and that Roy Spencer himself made this claim on some thread.
The Hunter boy of course was not at all able to show me where Roy Spencer wrote such nonsense, let alone to prove his own claim with some numbers.”
Well seems you are really fretting over all this Bindidon. I haven’t mentioned it in a long time and you mischaracterize what I said.
I said the temperature gridding you did accounted for the vast majority of warming in the dataset you said you gridded. You since took down your file and substituted another file and the gridding versus no gridding files are no longer to be found.
As to what Roy said he attributed some of the warming to the gridding process. He also thinks or thought (not sure where he is at today as I didn’t follow his UHI project results) some of the warming came from UHI which is a potential element of gridding error. There are one heckuva lot more airports around from when I was a kid there also has been a lot population growth and even the RFKJr for environmental reasons has sworn to block more suburban sprawl. Not sure how much of that concern, if any, is due to UHI though. ”We will protect wild lands from further development, by curbing mining, logging, oil drilling, and suburban sprawl.”
About the ‘gridding’ of global measurement data (part 1)
Recently I posted some graphs showing the difference between ‘gridded’ and ‘non gridded’ evaluations of station data.
Soon came Climate Data specialist Bill the Hunter boy and told me proudly that station data gridding would be responsible for global warming and that Roy Spencer himself made this claim on some thread.
The Hunter boy of course was not at all able to show me where Roy Spencer wrote such nonsense, let alone to prove his own claim with some numbers.
It was clear to me that his claim was merely based on his ‘gut feeling’, and oh yes: not for the first time, see his ‘contributions’ to the lunar spin discussion.
*
Later on, another Climate Data specialist (Robertson, who else?) proudly jumped into this discussion with a tough tough
” Bill was likely talking about surface thermometer temperatures and he would be right. Most of the grids, especially over the oceans, have no thermometers to measure temperatures. Therefore, the grid temperature is calculated through interpolation and homogenization, based on temperatures elsewhere. ”
*
Nice try to appear as terribly knowledgeable, but the gridding I was talking about was visibly related to the sometimes extreme differences in the worldwide station distribution, and had nothing at all to do with interpolation lat alone with homogenization.
*
I discovered the term ‘gridding’ 7 or 8 years ago in articles reporting on distortions in temperature time series that arise when you average the values of numerous stations without taking into account large clusters of these.
A remedy is to distribute all station values either in specific regions or anonymous grid cells, determine the grid cells’ average and use these averages for final processing.
Why this is necessary you see here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AU6bR3flm7L6l7Yvm2GAwScJ6-VxbOdK/view
If you don’t take into consideration the much higher station concentration in the US, Europe and Australia, you inevitably will generate biased global time series, especially when you restrict the number of stations with requirements like e.g. at least 100 years lifetime.
Since 2016, the worldwide GHCN daily station set was enlarged by 20000 units, and the subset providing for temperature data by 5000.
The difference between global averagings without resp. with preliminary grid cell averaging becomes smaller and smaller when using all available stations having sufficient data for processing.
Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10N1A2G7ZgcLZEFgqb3Lf6JAkyWmvK1dB/view
CONUS
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EKf9d3Gp1lP-PEKijpTrcN3dxz1EFMes/view
Germany
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tvoFlQkofhD7WhhIaVnfECojZcTx5ti5/view
Due to the high station homogeneity in Germoney (spatially and temporally), the difference between simple and gridded averaging is even smaller.
414 words 2,837 characters
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
About the ‘gridding’ of global measurement data (part 2)
One might have asked at the end of part 1: if the differences are so small, why bother about them?
Here is an example showing where it matters.
Some years ago, John Christy posted a paper about his view of a decline in extreme hot/cold events for CONUS, based on a distribution of several USHCN stations’ hottest/coldest days over their lifetime:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210109104345/https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Record-Temperatures-in-the-United-States.pdf
*
Being interested in a global view rather than one restricted to the US, I did the same job for CONUS but using the worldwide GHCN daily station set (extended to high minima and low maxima):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a2Zike4y2GgZ5NdRqdElapLcEJiQiyVZ/view
I didn’t use the gridding mechanism during the early phases.
A switch to the Globe gave this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m95BCNnhwpS1yO1LSVCrf6gOy2EOWCcl/view
The similarity between the Globe and CONUS was hard to understand and accept. With a gridding of the data, the change was amazing:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17KWfBfbbCs8u4AHIbu8XGrONYskYDKeD/view
And it matched the expectations based on similar experiments years ago.
*
Unlike some speudo-skeptical geniuses might claim: the effect of station data gridding is not to increase warming.
179 words 1,343 characters
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Flynnson is back.
Despite his late appearance, will he get a place on this thread’s podium?
Willard: 271
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team: 261
Gordon Robertson: 122
On verra bien!
30 words 175 characters
I definitely miss the syllable stat.
Hé ouais… jamais content ce foutu Bindidon!
Possibly why global warming has recently accelerated: el nino and aerosol reductions.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/FlyingBlind.14September2023.pdf
“This is crazy,” you must be saying, “why don’t you measure the aerosol climate forcing, instead of this round-about inference via detailed effect on EEI and absorbed solar energy?” Good question.
The short answer is that we (the first author and others) tried, but, in career-long failure could not persuade NASA to fly a small satellite with the two instruments (a high precision polarimeter and an infrared spectrometer) needed to monitor the aerosol and cloud microphysics that define the aerosol climate forcing.
The short explanation is that NASA preferred large, slow, multi-billion dollar missions as needed to support the budgets of the large NASA Centers.
Throw in a climate-denier NASA Administrator, who, in angry response to our persistence, struck out the first line of the NASA Mission Statement ‘To Understand and Protect the Home Planet’.
WOW.
The conclusion is earth shattering:
“At the very least, we owe young people the knowledge of what we are getting them into.”
What is this “WE” that people keep talking about? How does that message play in China, India, other parts of Asia, and Africa were the governments are projected to allow massive increases in greenhouse emissions. It seems that with our 9% of global emissions, “WE” have a rather small role to play. Could there be other motivations that “WE” should panic? What are they really up to?
Crickets! I will answer my own question. If you sort through thousands of pages of IPCC assessment reports, you will find that “developing” countries should not only be allowed to expand their fossil burning, but be compensated by the developed world for their “suffering”. Can we say International Redistribution of Wealth?
What is the “THEY” you’re talking about, Tim?
You might like:
> Narcissisma conviction about one’s superiority and entitlement to special treatmentis a robust predictor of belief in conspiracy theories.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22001051
Bindidon, if you or Nate would like to respond to my comment on your post, I will do so. Otherwise, I am not going to acknowledge sad people who have no personal dignity. There are important issues that mature adults should discuss.
They mentioned Hunga-Tonga, but got the science wrong. They tried to claim the warming was from WV emissions! They’re so stuck on radiative warming they completely overlooked the PV.
Not much of a surprise there….
Why should we believe the guy who literally walked away from satellite measurement because he didn’t like the result? Surface data is so much easier to manipulate. In fact is has to be manipulated (analyzed?) because it is not available as a complete earth measurement. Once you have doctored the data, the fake conclusions are easy.
I have a simple question. Why don’t the people who criticize the UAH data set do their own analysis of the data? Oh, wait a minute, they do, and RSS shows basically the same result with a bit more of a warming trend. But Hansen and his followers won’t use that either.
” walked away from satellite measurement “??
Not sure what that is about.
He highlighted CERES satellite results here, and he lobbied for additional satellites to measure aerosols, and bemoaned that they werent funded.
You know about the history. Roy published a story about that on this site. I guess the spin is that Hansen doesn’t dislike the UAH record he just chooses not to use it. You would think that a genuine scientist who wants to include all data would at least mention that it looks very different from his graphs. The fact is that both UAH and RSS show a very different picture of temperature history than surface datasets. It is worth noting. If he is really acting as an activist, then no further explanation is needed.
What if I told you that Jim was a lifelong Republican, Tim?
UAH had its shares of problems at the time:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/03/how-not-to-science/
Is writing op-eds a form of activism?
Let’s be clear that “Gavin” is an absolute activist. His education and writing skill does not change that. Christy has different opinions indeed, but his science integrity is not in question by any reasonable person. In fact, that is why they don’t like him.
To be clear you’re dodging both the point being made and the question asked of you, Tim.
Inactivism is a bigger tell than activism.
“RSS shows basically the same result with a bit more of a warming”
Quite a bit more warming, comparable to surface trends.
I have been following RSS for a long time. At first they were confused about how to account for calibration drift and satellite retirement, so they just showed an error range. Rather than acknowledge and endorse the way UAH does it, they found a different method that shows more warming. Imagine that! The UAH method is peer reviewed and published. Is there any published criticism of their method?
“Rather than acknowledge and endorse the way UAH does it, they found a different method that shows more warming. Imagine that! ”
I can imagine. Earlier, circa 2000, RSS found and corrected an significant error in UAH method that turned no trend into a significant positive trend. UAH had to agree.
Look the trend in LT temps has had several large adjustments, and currently there is a big discrepancy between the different group’s trends.
In contrast, GISS, and the other surface records have quite similar trends, and now we have Reanalysis data, which is even better IMO, and their trends also agree.
I can see why other researchers would be cautious about relying upon satellite LT temperatures in their work.
Despite Dr. Spencer’s efforts published on this site and the efforts of others, there is no explanation for the large difference between satellite data and surface data. One clue is that the satellite data seems to show much more resolution with more monthly and yearly variation.
In my experience, higher resolution means better precision, but not necessarily better accuracy in this case. On the other hand, accuracy is not important for looking at trends.
The jury is still out. I remain skeptical of the skeptics as a well as the “believers”, so I am waiting for a good answer. Meanwhile, ignoring one big piece of data seems wrong from a purely scientific standpoint. In the same way that the basic science of radiant heat transfer is correct, the basic science of satellite temperature measurement is correct.
nate…”Earlier, circa 2000, RSS found and corrected an significant error in UAH method that turned no trend into a significant positive trend. UAH had to agree”.
***
Your propaganda knows no bounds. The orbital issues was workd on by UAH and RSS together. As Roy stated, the error was well within the error margin and posed no issues re warming. The only area of th planet affected was the Tropics and there is virtually no warming in the Tropics anyway.
“One clue is that the satellite data seems to show much more resolution with more monthly and yearly variation.”
More variation for sure, because that’s what the troposphere does. Because it has much less heat capacity than the land surface and ocean surface.
More resolution?
“The orbital issues was workd on by UAH and RSS together.”
Wrong Gordon, the error was discovered by RSS members.
“This was before Wentz and Schabel (1998) pointed out that orbital decay in the NOAA satellites was imparting a strong cooling bias (about 0.12 K/decade) on the MSU2R (TLT) record.”
Hardly insignificant.
Nate you seem to move between science and advocacy. I respect Roy and John for their science excellence and their transparency about their personal views and affiliations. You say “UAH had to agree.” They didn’t have to do anything. They did agree because it was correct. There is no allegation that they did anything intentionally wrong. That is how science is supposed to work. There are some on the believers side who have been caught making false claims, and why do they still publish false climate models?
I have extensive experience doing collaborative technical writing. You can imagine the arguments (debates?) over word choice and phrasing. Words have meaning, and skillful writers know to use them. Instead of stating “they had to admit” or “they had to agree” it is enough to state they DID agree and fixed the problem.
That brings us back to reality and the modern era. I asked this already someplace. What is wrong with UAH version 6? Where are the technical papers published that identify valid criticism? If they don’t exist, why not? With so much criticism why is RSS the only competitor? By the way, I think I saw that Roy had some technical criticism of the way RSS does calibration drift.
I’m not saying that currently RSs must be right and UAH wrong. I’m saying that people here who reflexively think UAH must be the gold standard are biased.
All I know is that, after all this time, LT trend is quite unsettled science, and thus we cannot be sure yet that models are getting it wrong.
One problem is that LT warming is contaminated by stratospheric cooling and assumptions about how to remove must be made.
With Reanalysis, the whole atmosphere with all variables is derived and predictions tested against observations.
nate…”Possibly why global warming has recently accelerated: el nino and aerosol reductions”.
***
Or none of the above. It is more likely a weather anomaly.
A 6 month long weather anomaly?
ball4…”Its simple to understand that is wrong in that for the universe Clausius wrote 1st Law: Energy is conserved, 2nd Law: Entropy increases”.
***
Clausius has never said anything as st00pid as that. He talked specifically about the transformation of heat to work and vice-versa and referenced no other form of energy.
Clausius contributed the U, for internal energy, to the 1st law. He elucidated on the meaning of internal energy but unfortunately he succumbed to the urgings of a lesser mind in that of Lord Kelvin who was a mathematician. Kelvin talked him out of breaking internal energy into work and heat and present it only as a generic energy.
Today, scientists are thoroughly confused as to the meaning of internal energy, presenting it as the same generic energy. Even posters on this site, like Binny van der Klown’s brother, Klint van der Klown, and ball4, are thoroughly confused about internal energy and the meaning of heat.
Klint Klown has tried to spread the pseudo-science that internal energy is thermal energy and heat is merely a mechanism for transferring that energy. B4 agrees with him making him seem to be a relative of Klint Klown.
Thermal energy, to any sane mind, is also known as heat, and in Greece, heat is ‘therme’, the root of thermal. I checked with Christos, a native Greek who lives in Athens and he confirmed that the Greek word for heat is therme, that translates to English as thermal.
In his contribution to the 1st law, Clausius intended U to mean heat and related work that goes on in the atoms of a mass. The 1st law equates internal heat and work to external heat and work and those are the only energies involved. Therefore, the 1st law can, in no way, be claimed as a universal law of energy conservation.
Clausius did not refer to heat and work in the 1st law as conservation of energy, that nonsense came from far lesser minds. Rather, he talked extensively about the equivalence of heat and work and the transformations between them. That’s what the 1st law is about, the transformation of heat to work and vice, versa.
Neither did he elaborate on universal energy and entropy. He mentioned it once, and in passing. In fact, he defined entropy as a summation of infinitesimal quantities of heat. As an integral, that is S = integral dq/T, when entropy is claimed to increase we are really talking about an increase in heat quantity.
Maybe b4 can enlighten us as to how heat increases in the universe. The source of heat is stars and the heat is already there. Unless a significant number of stars are spawned, heat is not going to increase. We could claim that heat released in chemical reactions on Earth are adding to the heat but lets get real. Earth is possibly one of the only planets in the universe where such reactions take place, other than in stars.
Heat can never leave the Earth, only infrared energy can. Until that IR reaches a mass and is absorbed, no heat will be produced. The farther that IR moves into space the more it spreads out due to the inverse square law. That is, the farther it gets from Earth, the less effect it has.
Klint Klown thinks entropy is a measure of disorder. Then he has the temerity to challenge me on science. Klint is petrified to debate me one on one because he knows I’ll expose his ignorance of basic science. Klint cannot interpret a very basic differential equation offered by Clausius, the scientist who invented the concept of entropy.
Clausius stated S = entropy = integral dq/T. He explained it subjectively as the sum of infinitesimal changes of heat in a process at temperature, T. The integral sign is a sign of summation, it means to take the differentials behind it and add them. That process is known as integral calculus.
Roy dos not want us bullying people and I agree. I don’t think I am bullying anyone, I am simply calling them on st00pid statements. I make sure I explain my position rather than trying merely to flame someone.
If someone makes an honest mistake, I won’t go after them, out of empathy. I make mistakes daily and know the feeling of being st00pid. No one needs to point it out to me.
On this site, we have textbook junkies who read voraciously while failing to understand basic principles in physics. That leads them to make ridiculous statements about physics and when I challenge them on the meaning, they fail to engage in a debate.
Norman will spent nearly an entire post berating me on my lack of science, but when I ask him to explain his position, he offers appeals to authority without an iota of evidence he understand what he is presenting as evidence.
Klint Klown is just as bad. He comes across as an expert on physics yet he refuses to answer simple challenges as to his understanding. Ball4 throws s***t at a wall, hoping it will stick.
re bullying.
Bullying is normally regarded as beating a weaker person into submission, either physically or mentally. Shouting someone down, because he/she is smaller in stature, is bullying.
The Internet has introduced a newer form of bullying but it has also given the bullied a chance to get back. Everyone is presumably anonymous on the Net and people tend to take advantage by taunting and ridiculing people they would normally avoid in real life.
I have made a point in my life of not bullying people, in fact, I will step up to bullies who are doing it to others. My experience on the Net, however, has revealed another aspect of bullying…the trohl. Trohls are not so much interested in bullying, their MO is to get people fighting against each other, or just causing trouble in blogs, etc.
There are people in this blog taking shots at my abilities in science, going so far as to challenge my credentials. Some people challenge credentials so they can snoop on you. IMHO, it’s a major mistake to reveal any personal information about yourself since there are ijits who will use it to stalk you. That’s especially true if you put them down in some way or even if they perceive you are putting them down when you have no intention of doing so.
The point of anyone taking shots at my education level is obvious, they simply have no answers to the points I raise. I make my points based on good faith and related to my education, experience, an understanding of science. If I am wrong, I am wrong. However, no one has offered the proof that I am wrong, so their shots at my education level is nothing more than Internet bullying.
I regard such bullying in the same manner I do when encountered by a bully on the street. I invite them to try their best because I am not going to lay down for them. Same here. If you want to try bullying me intellectually, I invite you to come on, show me what you’ve got.
348 words 1,902 characters
283
1 word 3 characters
“If I am wrong, I am wrong. However, no one has offered the proof that I am wrong… I invite you to come on, show me what youve got.”
I’ve got Clausius’ words, translated, to prove Gordon IS wrong writing:
“Clausius did not refer to heat and work in the 1st law as conservation of energyNeither did he elaborate on universal energy and entropy… the 1st law can, in no way, be claimed as a universal law of energy conservation.”
See page 365, ninth memoir written by Clausius, translated:
“…introduce the other and simpler conception of energy, we may express in the following manner the fundamental laws of the universe which correspond to the two fundamental theorems of the mechanical theory of heat.
1. The energy of the universe is constant,
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.”
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor04claugoog/page/n385/mode/2up?q=364
Rather than nitpick Gordon’s misguided lecture, much of the rest of Gordon’s 2part epistle 3:28pm falls apart accordingly though a few random statements do pass the fact check.
Now Gordon can look up Clausius’ own words for therm-odynamic intern-al energy U, formula for entropy change, so forth, and copy them out for us when needed to make a point as Clausius wrote them, translated.
As has long been the case, Gordon will not do that work and continue on the easy path to just make up stuff to entertain blog readers.
850 words 4,766 characters
Robertson
Instead of endlessly blathering your ignorant and arrogant pseudo-science, try to learn:
History of thermodynamics
https://www.wolframscience.com/nks/notes-9-3–history-of-thermodynamics/
Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics
https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~gros/Vorlesungen/TD/4_Entropy_second_law.pdf
The first link is simplistic nonsense. In one part they claim…
“In the 1860s Clausius had introduced entropy as a ratio of heat to temperature, and had stated the Second Law in terms of the increase of this quantity”.
***
Claiming entropy as a ratio of heat to temperature is about as st00pid a statement as can be made. Temperature is a measure of heat intensity and Clausius did not imply that. In fact he stated entropy as the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat in a process. He claimed the quantities should at temperature, T, and to achieve that heat is drawn from a heat bath of constant T.
Rather than wasting your time combing the Net, why don’t you try getting into an actual intelligent debate rather than focusing on proving me wrong.
” … why don’t you try getting into an actual intelligent debate rather than focusing on proving me wrong. ”
With an ignorant and arrogant pseudo-engineer like you?
Try to LEARN, Robertson.
What’s interesting is both Norman and Gordon are in full meltdown mode this evening.
Clint R
What is less interesting is that you continue to be an asshole with no significant understanding of science or how it works or what it even is to post anything but asshole posts. Sorry you are not seeking help for your condition. There are probably reasons people turn into assholes and maybe you could talk with a good therapist and find out why you have this condition.
Contributions from Clint R: 100% asshole
0% science
I see your meltdown is still active, Norman. That’s good.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1535419
Clint R
I went to your linked comment and no I will not go down your endless rabbit hole of never ending mindless posts. Been there and done it already with you. If you want, look through past threads were I have addressed the issues you bring up. I have explained them in great detail many times and decided that you are too much an asshole to want any answers to anything. Your goal is to annoy and irritate as many posters as you can, it provides you with some sort of gratification.
Maybe you need another hobby.
Thanks for admitting you can’t deny your cult beliefs, Norman.
I knew that, I just wanted you to confirm it.
Klint Klown is running for the hills as usual.
For those interested in water vapour.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/how-rising-water-vapour-in-the-atmosphere
I have no interest in anything written by Trenberth.
This article is nothing more than a defense of foot-in-the-mouth disease when he was caught in the Climategate email scandal pointing out the obvious at the time. He claimed the warming has stopped and it is a travesty that no one knows why. When that statement emerged, revealing him as a liar, because he was still spreading the meme that anthropogenic warming is happening, he quickly formulated a new theory that the ‘missing’ heat was being hidden in the oceans.
It was later revealed by the IPCC why the warming has stopped. They claimed a flat trend from 1998 – 2012 and Trenberth made his claim halfway through that period. He was obviously not smart nough to figure that out.
In this article is still lying, about fires and storms being created by anthropogenic means. He has no proof of that and as a scientist it is incumbant on him to reveal he is speaking theoretically.
Cool story, Bordo.
Do you dispute anything in that piece?
Yes, the premise of his article-“record-breaking dissasters.”
Thank you for your answer, Bordo.
The word “dispute” might not mean what you make it mean.
He said it wasn’t due to rising CO2. But had to do with water vapor which is well known.
Apparently the politicians were not given predictions so they could prepare.
Or some other reason, all the politician screwed up.
Busy. Didn’t care.
Or predictions weren’t conveyed fast enough- as they said, need more funding.
Or something like, biggest problems in the world were so completely time consuming, that it over loaded them from the given details of these smaller problems.
New research says orbital factors show why and when the Sahara Desert was green
Posted: September 14, 2023 by oldbrew in climate, Cycles, modelling, Natural Variation, paleo, research, solar system dynamics
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/09/14/new-research-says-orbital-factors-show-why-and-when-the-sahara-desert-was-green/
“Co-author Paul Valdes, Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Bristol, said: We are really excited about the results. Traditionally, climate models have struggled to represent the extent of the greening of the Sahara. Our revised model successfully represents past changes and also gives us confidence in their ability to understand future change.
Modeling.
It seems to me a rather important thing to model.
Seems it needs lot’s modeling competition.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
An anonymous stan of Junior challenged me to opine on a recent Climateball episode. While thinking about what to say in response, another kerfuffle emerged. So allow me to explain why outrage porn over scientific shenanigans leaves me cold in general.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/09/14/scientific-shenanigans/
There are different types of Lithium batteries with different advantages. It is an extremely important topic if the electric economy has any chance of success — that is without nuclear power. Battery storage is not just an expensive convenience. It is essential and probably needs have several days or weeks of total capacity nationwide depending on the season and the mix of solar and wind.
The need for a vastly expanded and interconnected national electric grid is another problem. Dreamers do not seem to be worried about any of these problems. Panic seems to be an acceptable project management attitude. Adding massive load to the grid without additional renewable generation is fully part of that management philosophy.
There now there are efforts underway to bring an important variation of battery technology to North America. A Canadian company has big plans:
https://www.manufacturingdive.com/news/first-phosphate-american-battery-factory-supply-deal-agreement/693627/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery
Luna-25 failure won’t be end of Russia’s moon program, Putin says
https://www.space.com/russia-moon-program-continue-despite-luna-25-failure-putin-says
“”It’s a pity, of course, that the lunar landing failed. But this does not mean that we will close this program,” Putin said at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Russia, on Tuesday (Sept. 12), according to a Bloomberg report.
,,,
Russia has previously outlined plans to launch Luna-26 in 2027, Luna-27 a year later and Luna-28 no earlier than 2030. These missions are also nominally part of the China-led International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), which could be up and running by the mid-2030s.
The country’s space agency Roscosmos, citing its head, Yury Borisov, said Russian engineers and scientists were eager to continue the lunar project.
“The possibility of repeating the mission of landing on the moon’s south pole in 2025-2026 can be one of the options,” TASS reported Roscosmos as saying on Aug. 25.”
I think generally there not much point to lunar base without mineable lunar water. And I don’t think NASA should be mining water anywhere in space.
But Russia or China might mine lunar water {even if not mineable}.
One aspect is, that if Starship works, NASA can explore Mars. And unless you imagine Russia or China will use the Starship, they can’t send crew to Mars.
Or without Starship working, NASA doesn’t have a way to have Mars bases. Though if New Glenn works and Starship doesn’t, then one could use it, maybe. Or need a second stage which be reusable- if it can re-enter and land on Earth it’s close to being able to use Mars atmosphere to land crew.
Or we can’t put 10 tons of cargo on Mars, we can land a 1 ton robotic lander {and have done this], and can’t do 5 ton robotic lander. Or Russia could put 10 or even 50 tons on the Moon- but can’t land 2 tons on Mars.
And Starship is suppose to able to land 100 tons of cargo on the Moon or Mars.
Of course what is planned is to refuel Starship in Low Earth orbit,
Or need refueling in space, and a big enough re-entry spacecraft that
use Mars thin atmosphere to slow down enough or with the lower gravity Moon a enough rocket fuel to land a large cargo.
Or Saturn V put 9 tons on the moon, and 9 ton was enough to get the 2 crew back to lunar orbit, dock and use command module {didn’t go to lunar surface- stayed in lunar orbit} to get back to Earth.
No one has a Saturn V capable rocket- other than yet to get to orbit, Starship {which bigger and more powerful than Saturn V}.
Anyhow, if China and/or Russia don’t make a Starship type rocket- big, refuelable with Mars entry vehicle is big enough land enough stuff on Mars surface, they are stuck with just lunar bases- can be done with existing rockets, if refueled in Earth orbit. Or build bigger rockets, ie, Saturn V size rocket
In other news, Hurricane Lee is down to 85 mph. There was a “weatherman” on CNN showing a graphic of the effect Hurricane Franklin had on lowering the ocean temperature in its path. He claimed it was mixing with deep ocean layers, and there is some of that, but the real important effect is that hurricanes transport latent heat to the upper atmosphere and return cooled rain. Hurricanes may be useful in that regard if they stay out at sea.
Yes, hurricanes (cyclones, typhoons) are definitely one of Earth’s many cooling systems. But the polar vortex is the 1000-pound gorilla in the room, when it comes to vortices. Shut down the PV, even intermittently, and you get warming.
And speaking of the PV, this morning it remains well organized with max wind speed of 156 mph. We are only about a week away from the equinox, so the PV should be moving north. But, it shows no signs of leaving, yet.
In fact, if you use your imagination, you can see the start of a PV at the North Pole! Which brings up an interesting question — Can there be a PV at both poles at the same time? Current PV knowledge says “no”. But what if Earth had a large amount of abnormal warming, due to some abnormal forcing, would two PVs form to deal with the extra warming?
I was hoping the HTE would last longer so we could get some answers. Maybe next time….
You have it backwards. Global warming is shutting down the PV.
Incidentally, why can you not have a PV in the Northern and Southern hemispheres at the same time? The Hadley circulation is symmetrical with three cells in each Hemisphere.
You also believe passenger jets fly backward, Ent.
At least you’re consistent….
“At least youre consistent”
As are you.
You can’t answer my point or my question, so you follow your usual pattern and insult me instead.
That’s NOT an insult, Ent.
It’s reality. You actually believe passenger jets fly backward.
Ent, it’s NOT my fault if you are insulted by reality.
The simplest way to debunk the Green Plate Effect:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?m=1
All agree that when the plates are pushed together, the temperatures are 244 K…244 K.
Separate the plates, and according to Eli they would progress to 262 K…244 K.
According to Eli’s logic, an object can never be warmed to the same temperature as the object warming it, if the heat transfer is via radiation, but it can if the heat transfer is via conduction! This is because, according to Eli’s logic, the warmed object is only irradiated on one side, but it radiates from both sides (thus, it radiates from double the surface area compared to that which it receives energy on). However, this ignores that the warmed object is a perfect conductor in his thought experiment, and thus simply “warms through”.
If the green plate can be warmed to the same temperature as the blue plate via conduction, then the green plate can be warmed to the same temperature as the blue plate via radiation. After all, the plates are to be treated as infinite in size such that there are no losses past the edges of the plates, when separated. Yes, radiation is different to conduction, but not that different. Not so different that it should be impossible for an object to be warmed to the same temperature as the object warming it via one method, and not by the other.
Whoops…should have been:
“Separate the plates, and according to Eli they would progress to 262 K…220 K.”
Sorry.
Actually GPE in the link works according to 1LOT & as required for a real process by 2LOT to increase entropy. Eli just correctly invoked those principles.
Except the incorrect solution would be DECREASING entropy.
That ain’t science.
Sure, an incorrect solution would decrease universe entropy.
Not a rebuttal to the point made.
“Separate the plates, and according to Eli they would progress to 262 K244 K.”
But no, Eli never has the plates together, he only brings in the second plate.
So no point made.
You still can’t cook a burger to the same temperature throughout without flipping it.
A little common sense and some time in the kitchen would do wonders.
1) It’s already been agreed, in dozens of past discussions, that the plates pressed together are 244 K…244 K. You can’t back away from that now. Thus, on separating the plates, according to Eli they will progress to 262 K…220 K. According to the correct solution, they remain 244 K…244 K.
2) Burgers need to be flipped because they are not perfect conductors. The plates in Eli’s thought experiment are perfect conductors.
1) your response does not compute. I wasn’t saying the plates together was 244 244, I was just pointing out that you were misrepresenting what was in Eli’s post.
2) is also incorrect, and I can quote the Bunny
“Using the Stefan Boltzman Law you can calculate the temperature of the plate when it reaches equilibrium”
The Bunny never said the plates are perfect conductors.
1) What I said computes. I misrepresent nothing. You have to defend that the plates pushed together are 244 K244 K, separated progress to 262 K220 K. Deal with it.
2) Eli says the plates are perfect conductors in the comments under his article.
1) Yes, I can defend the 262 244 solution by doing the calculations, just like Eli did.
2) It doesn’t matter, if you let the system come to equilibrium.
And I didn’t it under the first 500 comments
Did you learn anything there?
You still have to do the calculations to find the temperatures, in other words, show your work.
1) You have to defend that the plates pushed together are 244 K…244 K, then when separated progress to 262 K…220 K. Deal with it.
2) Eli Rabett – 19/10/17 – 5:13 AM:
"Just to concentrate minds. The problem assumes infinitely thin, infinitely large, perfectly conducting, flat plates with two sides.
This is physics, not engineering and such idealizations are common, clarifying and useful for understanding.
Blathering about the shape of the plates, how many sides they have, their thickness, their composition, how close they are to each other, etc are attempts (successful Eli might add) at distraction from the basic physics that the example provides."
DREMT
You can consider the difference
between conduction and radiant energy is that conduction is not removing any energy from the two plate system. It is only moving energy from one place to another. Radiant energy is actually removing energy from the system that needs to be replaced. It has been explained to you before but you may have missed it. When the plates are together the green plate has, say a surface area of one, conduction transfers the energy to maintain the loss by radiant emission. When you move the plates apart you have doubled the radiant surface but only transfer the same quantity of energy you did with conduction. The greater surface emitter will then lower the plate temperature. Eli is correct and you can also be correct when you consider you double your area of emission.
The green plate “warms through”, Norman.
Consider if the green plate was only one atom thick. Would you still then be pointing out the surface area of emission is double that of the surface area receiving the radiation?
DREMT
an interesting question that I have no answer for. However in Eli plate system the radiating surface of the green plate is doubled. I am thinking in your one atom thickness point maybe nearly all the energy of the blue plate would go through.
"You can consider the difference between conduction and radiant energy is that conduction is not removing any energy from the two plate system."
When the plates are separated, the radiation between the two plates is not removing any energy from the two plate system. So in that way, it’s identical to the conduction between the two plates (when pushed together). Not different.
However, we’ve been over all this before and it gets us nowhere. To start with, you have to accept that there’s a problem with Eli’s solution. D
Does it make sense to you, that according to Eli’s logic, an object can never be warmed to the same temperature as the object warming it, if the heat transfer is via radiation, but it can if the heat transfer is via conduction!?
Answer me that, first of all…
Norman, you have confused yourself, again.
Moving the plates slightly apart does NOT change the energy out. The emission between plates is a “nothing burger”. You can’t understand “standing wave” because you’ve never studied anything close to it.
What will you try next?
“Thus, on separating the plates, according to Eli they will progress to 262 K220 K.”
I will simply point out again that this solution is FOUND by solving simple equations derived from the laws of physics.
Whereas “the correct solution, they remain 244 K244 K, is not found by solving anything related to laws of physics!
It is found by guessing– based on faulty assumptions and no correct physics.
This latter method has failed for 6 years straight. That must be a new record for trying and failing to solve a basic physics homework problem.
“If the green plate can be warmed to the same temperature as the blue plate via conduction, then the green plate can be warmed to the same temperature as the blue plate via radiation”
Faulty logic.. Assumption that conduction and radiation are the same when obviously they are not.
Some people get stuck in an infinite loop of stoopidity.
As is the tradition, whenever I see that Nate has responded, without reading his comment I simply repeat the end of my comment to which he is responding:
“…yes, radiation is different to conduction, but not that different. Not so different that it should be impossible for an object to be warmed to the same temperature as the object warming it via one method, and not by the other.”
“Not so different that it should be impossible” again stuck in a loop of Argument from Incredulity, which is no argument at all.
http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.02.06/lucas1.html
I would also point out that ‘not THAT different’ is quite an ambiguous and subjective statement and thus of NO value in a quantitative science like physics.
The notion of ‘perfect’ whatever does not mean DO whatever you feel like.
For a conductor, perfect means no T gradient required to have heat flow.
For radiation, perfect means emissivity = abs.orbtivity = 1. And view factors = 1. That means that all heat flow is between the plates, and none is reflected.
NEITHER of those mean no T gradient is required to have radiative heat flow.
That is a faulty assumption.
bob trolls away.
Right, no response to my criticism of how you arrived at 244 244.
You lose again.
I am running out of places to put notches in my belt.
You didn’t criticize how I’d arrived at 244 K…244 K. Though here’s one way:
"Here’s the solution to your problem:
The source supplies 400 W/m^2 to the blue plate. Given the geometry and view factors involved, the blue plate splits the 400 W/m^2 to emission on either side of itself, hence warms to a temperature to emit 200 W/m^2 on either side, thus conserving energy for said geometry.
We now introduce the green plate, which can be approximated as infinite plane parallel with the blue plate, and for this geometry the heat flow equation between the blue and green plate is simply
Q = sigma * (Tb^4 – Tg^4)
The green plate stops rising in temperature when Q = 0, i.e. when the heat flow to it goes to zero which is thermal equilibrium. Therefore when Q = 0 the green plate has a constant temperature of
0 = Tb^4 – Tg^4
Tb = Tg
The green plate thus achieves the same temperature of the blue plate, and emits 200 W/m^2 on its outside, this conserving the input energy from the sun source.
In the above correct solution, I utilize the laws of heat flow and hence the 2nd Law. You ignore the 2nd Law and claim that your solution is correct because you believe you’ve used the 1st Law. Your solution is therefore insufficiently based in reality, and hence wrong."
However, bob, this argument shouldn’t be about your criticisms of the 244 K…244 K solution. This argument is about my criticisms of the 262 K…220 K solution.
“The green plate stops rising in temperature when Q = 0, i.e. when the heat flow to it goes to zero which is thermal equilibrium. ”
That is spectacularly wrong.
The green plate stops rising it temperature when heat flow TO it equals heat flow FROM it. This is NOT thermal equilibrium, merely thermal steady-state.
The NET heat flow for the green plate is zero, but this is because heat leaves as fast as it arrives, not because no heat arrives.
DREMT,
“This argument is about my criticisms of the 262 K220 K solution.”
Which is 100% argument from incredulity.
You provide no calculations.
DREMT,
In that calculation you provide you neglect to notice that the blue plate now has 400 watts from the Sun, plus 200 watts from the green plate, while only losing 400 watts to each side due to its temperature.
It is not yet at steady state, so it is only in initial condition, you have neglected to calculate the final temperatures.
“when the heat flow to it goes to zero”
Some people endlessly suffering from heat-flowus-interruptus.
Heat flows into BP, stops flowing between the plates, then again flows out from the GP.
1LOT says NYET.
“The green plate stops rising in temperature when Q = 0, i.e. when the heat flow to it goes to zero which is thermal equilibrium.”
Let’s try out that ‘logic’ with the original BP:
The BP stops rising in temperature when the heat flow to it goes to 0.
But it never does!
It always has 400 flowing into it. Yet it stops rising in temperature!
The correct logic is that it stops rising in temp when the heat flow in = heat flow out.
Same logic applies to the GP. That requires heat flow in from the BP.
Sorry guys, this is not about criticisms of the 244 K…244 K solution. I’ve heard it all before, argued it all before, and won it all before. Not interested in retreading that old ground.
This is about criticisms of the 262 K…220 K solution. Eli’s solution. I attack, you defend. Understand? If not, off you pop. Create your own thread. Maybe I’ll join you there, maybe I won’t.
Eli’s solution can not be correct because if it were, it would be impossible for an object to ever warm another object to the same temperature as the original object, via radiation. Even in this idealized scenario, in vacuum, where view factors are 1 between the plates!
As an aside, I had to chuckle at this:
[BOB] You provide no calculations…
[ALSO BOB] In that calculation you provide…
Tim Folkerts wrote:
“The green plate stops rising it temperature when heat flow TO it equals heat flow FROM it. This is NOT thermal equilibrium, merely thermal steady-state.”
I usually avoid these back and forth food fights, but this comment caught my eye. You correctly state the dynamic of radiant heat transfer, but you seem to want to limit equilibrium to solid conduction systems.
How do you rate fluid systems? The kinetic theory of gases says there is a constant state of exchange of energies. Radiant active gases still interact with their neighbors. Liquids also have a range of energies of individual atoms, which is the explanation of latent heat and vapor/liquid equilibrium.
I think your definition of thermal equilibrium is too strict.
DREMT,
“Elis solution can not be correct because if it were, it would be impossible for an object to ever warm another object to the same temperature as the original object, via radiation. Even in this idealized scenario, in vacuum, where view factors are 1 between the plates!”
All right, show an example where an object is heated to the same temperature as the original object.
[Bob] In that calculation you provide you neglect to notice that the blue plate now has 400 watts from the Sun, plus 200 watts from the green plate, while only losing 400 watts to each side due to its temperature.
Are you going to address this criticism of your 244 244 solution?
That’s what I thought.
Are you familiar with solving 2 equations with 2 unknowns?
Eighth grade algebra, but here with exponents.
“Elis solution can not be correct because if it were, it would be impossible for an object to ever warm another object to the same temperature as the original object, via radiation. ”
No. That is flawed logic.
A pan on an electric stove can never reach the same temperature as the heating element. The pan is gaining heat from the element, and losing heat to the room. This is a very basic truth about heat flow. The pan (or green plate) will always be at some temperature BETWEEN the hottest object around and the coolest object around. If the heating element is 300 C and the room is 20 C, the pan will be less than 300 C (and more than 20 C).
Note that this is ALSO true if the Green Plate is in contact with the Blue plate. The Green Plate would in fact still be cooler than the blue plate. If they are both good thermal conductors, the difference will be small, but the difference is never zero.
Only when an object is SURROUNDED by the hot object (or perfectly insulated) will the two ever reach the same temperature. If all the walls are 300 C, then the pan will become 300 C.
Bottom line: it *is* impossible for the green plate (or the pan) to be the same temperature as the one hottest object around. This is true for radiation and for conduction.
"All right, show an example where an object is heated to the same temperature as the original object."
OK, I will…and this goes for Tim’s response to me, too. The plates pushed together. There’s your example. Push the plates together, they’re perfect conductors, the blue plate warms the green plate up to the exact same temperature as the blue plate. You’re happy for that to happen via conduction, but think it’s impossible for that to happen via radiation!
"In that calculation you provide you neglect to notice that the blue plate now has 400 watts from the Sun, plus 200 watts from the green plate, while only losing 400 watts to each side due to its temperature."
The calculation deals with the heat flow between the plates. That should be at zero, obviously, for thermal equilibrium. Then there’s 400 watts in to the two plate system from the Sun, and 400 watts out of the two plate system. 200 watts out to the left, past the Sun, from the blue plate, and 200 watts out to the right, to space, from the green plate.
"A pan on an electric stove can never reach the same temperature as the heating element. The pan is gaining heat from the element, and losing heat to the room…"
We’re immediately thrust into a situation where we’re not in a vacuum, the objects are not perfect conductors, and if separated, view factors between them will not be 1. Not the same thing, so not even going to read on.
"it *is* impossible for the green plate (or the pan) to be the same temperature as the one hottest object around. This is true for radiation and for conduction."
Wrong, Tim, as it’s already been agreed in dozens of discussions by all participating that the plates, when pushed together, are 244 K…244 K. The plates are perfect conductors, as Eli stated.
Tim S ponders “but you seem to want to limit equilibrium to solid conduction systems.”
Not at all. Thermal equilibrium requires the same temperature everywhere. Two objects in a perfectly insulated container will come to thermal equilibrium whether the heat transfer is by conduction or radiation (or convection). It also doesn’t matter whether the objects are solids, liquids, or gases.
“The kinetic theory of gases says there is a constant state of exchange of energies. Radiant active gases still interact with their neighbors. Liquids also have a range of energies of individual atoms”
Yes, there are always exchanges of energy at MICROscopic levels. Thermal equilibrium is about exchanges at MACROscopic levels. In all the cases you describe, there is no macroscopic exchange.
Tim Folkerts, I am not following the discussion, and that is my fault. If the two plates in the thought experiment are not isolated, but subject to other effects, then I will agree with your assessment to some extent if you are applying the strict conditions of the zeroth law. I still think “steady-state” is a form of equilibrium if there are not other changes to the system.
DREMT,
“Elis solution can not be correct because if it were, it would be impossible for an object to ever warm another object to the same temperature as the original object, via radiation.”
So you satisfy this requirement with this
“OK, I willand this goes for Tims response to me, too. The plates pushed together. Theres your example. Push the plates together, theyre perfect conductors, the blue plate warms the green plate up to the exact same temperature as the blue plate.”
And you justify that they are the same with this
“Youre happy for that to happen via conduction, but think its impossible for that to happen via radiation”
So you think heat transfer by radiation is the same as heat transfer via conduction.
Most people don’t agree.
equation for heat transfer by conduction
q = – k delta t
Heat transfer equation for heat transfer by radiation.
Q = sigma * (Tb^4 Tg^4)
Use different equations win prizes.
"So you think heat transfer by radiation is the same as heat transfer via conduction."
No, I don’t. Back up to the original comment for you, bob:
"Yes, radiation is different to conduction, but not that different. Not so different that it should be impossible for an object to be warmed to the same temperature as the object warming it via one method, and not by the other."
When the plates are separated, view factors between them are 1. The plates are treated as being infinite in size, with a finite gap between them. Thus they are (proportionately) as close to touching as it’s physically possible for them to be. It would not be possible for there to be better conditions for one plate to warm the other plate up to the same temperature, via radiation.
Again to reiterate, the word ‘perfect’ applied to thes plates is not a get-out-of jail free card and declare whatever the F*k solution you want.
A perfect blackbody only has the property that it emits perfecttly and reflects nothing.
It is not allowed to violate any laws of physics.
To ASSUME, as DREMT always is happy to do, that it can transfer heat without any T difference, like a perfect conductor can, is wrong.
The Climate Crazies; Nate, Droege, B4, Wiltard, TimF, Norman have been out in full force lately. Think they’re barking at the Moon?
Perhaps you should not pull me in, Troglodyte.
Just a thought.
“Push the plates together, theyre perfect conductors, the blue plate warms the green plate up to the exact same temperature as the blue plate. Youre happy for that to happen via conduction, but think its impossible for that to happen via radiation!”
Yes, That is exactly right.
A “perfect conductor” has infinite thermal conductivity and transfers infinite energy between plates with different temperatures. Even with a heat input to one plate, the infinite conductivity will keep the two plates the same temperature.
A “perfect radiator” at best only transfers a finite amount of energy between plates with different temperature, which means that a heat input to one will cause a continued temperature difference.
Radiation and conduction follow different rules. Infinity causes weird things to happen. Delve deeper and perhaps you will understand.
You see, folks, they’re quite happy to "go full retard", stick their neck out on the line, and make ridiculous statements like:
"“Push the plates together, they’re perfect conductors, the blue plate warms the green plate up to the exact same temperature as the blue plate. You’re happy for that to happen via conduction, but think it’s impossible for that to happen via radiation!”
Yes, That is exactly right."
Even though when the plates are separated, view factors between them are 1. The plates are treated as being infinite in size, with a finite gap between them. Thus they are (proportionately) as close to touching as it’s physically possible for them to be. It would not be possible for there to be better conditions for one plate to warm the other plate up to the same temperature, via radiation.
That’s all just ignored. View factors are irrelevant to them. The fact that the plates are identical in every single way is irrelevant to them. Push them together, they can be at the same temperature. Separate them, they think they can’t possibly be.
Absolute madness.
“Thus they are (proportionately) as close to touching as its physically possible for them to be.”
Well if one thinks non-contact is just as good as contact, then there is no need embellish their closeness!
To see the difference between contact and non-contact, bring your finger close to but not touching a hot pan on the stove.
Then go ahead and touch it– full contact please. Report any differences.
It is baffling to me how any sane, educated person can fail to recognize that there is a significant difference in heat transfer between objects in contact, particularly good conductors, and those not in contact.
And then, suggest that any difference can be ignored, without any sound rationale.
“Push them together, they can be at the same temperature. Separate them, they think they can’t possibly be.
Absolute madness…”
…even crazier considering that when the plates initially separate, they will be at 244 K…244 K, with 400 watts entering the 2 plate system from the Sun, and 400 watts leaving it (200 to the left of the blue plate, past the Sun, and 200 to the right of the green plate, to space). From this state, however, Eli’s followers think the blue plate will increase in temperature to 262 K, whilst the green plate will decrease in temperature to 220 K!
We know there must be something wrong with Eli’s solution…but what? Let’s go with Clint R’s explanation, this time:
"1) What is the violation of 2LoT in the cult solution (262K – 220K)?
Answer: The bogus solution “organizes” temperatures, making the blue plate warmer at the expense of the green plate. It does this magically, as no organizing energy is added to the system. The energy in equals the energy out, so there is no energy left to organize the temperatures. Another way of looking at it is the bogus solution has created an energy source. A difference in temperatures corresponds to an energy source. An energy source can NOT magically appear. The cult solution violates 2LoT.
2) What does the diagram look like for the plates perfectly together?
Answer: The energy flow diagram for the plates together would look exactly like the diagram DREMT uses for the plates slightly apart. There would be the same number of blue and green arrows, with the same values. Of course, that’s as to be expected, as the two situations are thermodynamically equivalent."
“We know there must be something wrong with Elis solutionbut what?”
Translation:
We know we are incredulous of what the physics solution gives, and we have no science facts to rebut it, so let’s try science fiction!
DREMT,
“It does this magically, as no organizing energy is added to the system.”
Say what?
This is obviously false as there is 400 watts/meter entering the system, and it is organizing energy.
Arthur C. Clark describes our clown car perfectly
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
No, bob, you missed:
"The energy in equals the energy out, so there is no energy left to organize the temperatures."
Plates pressed together, there’s 400 in from the Sun and 400 out (200 from the left of the BP, past the Sun, and 200 from the right of the GP, out to space).
Plates separated, there’s 400 in from the Sun and 400 out (200 from the left of the BP, past the Sun, and 200 from the right of the GP, out to space).
“The energy in equals the energy out”
So, like an engine. Or like the Earth.
“so there is no energy left to organize the temperatures.”
C’mon people, we need realistic science fiction.
An alien space craft flies past Earth. Detects energy in = energy out.
‘Oh well’, they say, ‘nothing organized to see down there, and no life forms possible. Lets go home’.
DREMT,
I didn’t miss anything.
“Plates separated, theres 400 in from the Sun and 400 out (200 from the left of the BP, past the Sun, and 200 from the right of the GP, out to space).”
The part you miss, and I have told you this before, is that there is no heat transfer from the blue to the green in your solution.
So there can be no 200 from the right of the green plate.
The green plate is getting no heat transferred from the blue plate because they are at the same temperature, therefore the green plate must cool, and your solution is not steady state.
In other words 244 244 are not the final temperatures.
"The part you miss, and I have told you this before, is that there is no heat transfer from the blue to the green in your solution.
So there can be no 200 from the right of the green plate."
There will be 200 from the right of the green plate, because it’s at 244 K, thus it’s emitting 200 W/m^2.
"The green plate is getting no heat transferred from the blue plate because they are at the same temperature, therefore the green plate must cool, and your solution is not steady state.
In other words 244 244 are not the final temperatures."
The green plate could only cool if the 200 W/m^2 emitted to its left was not returned to it by the blue plate.
If the 200 W/m^2 was not returned to it by the blue plate, then the blue plate would be warming at the expense of the green plate as a result of that 200 W/m^2, and you would have a 2LoT violation on your hands.
this plate argument is so irrelevant its ridiculous.
For example the hottest temperature recorded was Death Valley in the 1930’s. It hit 56C which is a surface emission of 664w/m2 a good deal less than half the solar constant that Stefan Boltzmann claims results (on the moon maybe). strongly suggesting convection is carrying away a huge amount of heat.
Yet we are told via the 3rd grader radiation model that the temperature in Death Valley will rise on its best day with CO2 in the air to way above 394K or 120C which is a temperature experienced on the moon without any atmosphere and an albedo of 12%.
Wait a second?
https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/lithos/LROlitho7temperaturevariation27May2014.pdf
”Daytime temperatures near the lunar equator reach a boiling 250 degrees Fahrenheit (120 C, 400 K)”
Nate that is with no atmosphere, an albedo of 12%. Climate scientists would tell us the zero greenhouse mean temperature on the moon is 270K or -3C because of its albedo. And a calculation of its hottest spot would be 1198w/m2 considering albedo resulting in a maximum temperature of 381K meaning the moon has a greenhouse effect of +12C if you are to believe climate scientists.
First thing if you know anything about radiation the Stefan Boltzmann equations don’t have albedo making any changes to the equilibrium temperature so the real equilibrium temperature of the earth system and the moon is somewhere between 278.5K and 279K actually suggesting a GHE of earth maybe 7 degrees but it might be a lot less as this crowd can’t seem to add or remain consistent on anything.
You obfuscating folks (either obfuscating or obfuscated yourselves) need to come up with a straight story here.
Then it gets worse:
”The power of the Sun at the Earth, per square metre is called the solar constant and is approximately 1370 watts per square metre (W/m2)”
Indeed the earth’s maximum local temperature is less than half the moon’s, (which has no atmosphere), suggesting the convection is the dominant means of heat transfer in the atmosphere a fact confirmed by atmosphere energy budgets.
Obviously we have no greenhouse effect on earth. Just the opposite in fact. The 3rd grade model obviously has no real world analogue. Its just the product of somebody’s imagination.
left out the reference to the solar constant:
https://tinyurl.com/3xjyjp8m
DREMT,
“If the 200 W/m^2 was not returned to it by the blue plate, then the blue plate would be warming at the expense of the green plate as a result of that 200 W/m^2, and you would have a 2LoT violation on your hands.”
The second law is about heat transfer, and the heat transfer in this problem is from the blue plate to the green plate.
The green plate does not transfer heat to the blue plate so there is no second law violation.
Never had a thermodynamics class have you?
"The green plate does not transfer heat to the blue plate so there is no second law violation."
Indeed, thus the blue plate’s temperature remains at 244 K.
Nope, the blue plate goes to 262 and transfers heat to the green plate in accordance with the heat transfer equation.
You should call your college and ask for your money back.
If the 200 W/m^2 emitted from the left of the green plate led to the blue plate rising in temperature to 262 K, at the expense of the green plate (reducing in temperature to 220 K), then that 200 W/m^2 would have to be a transfer of heat from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.
Nope,
Because the heat transfer is from the blue plate to the green plate.
There is no heat transfer from the green plate to the blue plate, thus no second law violation.
What part of that do you not understand?
…and, as there is no heat transfer from the green plate to the blue plate, the blue plate does not increase in temperature at the expense of the green. It remains at 244 K, as does the green.
We can do this all day. What’s the point?
“the blue plate does not increase in temperature at the expense of the green. It remains at 244 K, as does the green.”
There is no statement of 2LOT using the phrase ‘at the expense of’. Because it is quite a vague term, the best friend of the obfuscator.
The sun is the SOURCE of constant HEAT input to the BP, and simply REDUCING heat output from the BP to the GP, is sufficient to make the BP warm, and the GP cool.
There is no need for heat to flow backwards from the GP to the BP, and thus no need to violate 2LOT.
People who stubbornly ignore these simple facts and logic, seem to be able to do it all day, all year, for many years on end.
…as there is no heat transfer from the green plate to the blue plate, the blue plate does not increase in temperature at the expense of the green. It remains at 244 K, as does the green.
We can do this all day. What’s the point?
Faulty logic remains faulty no matter how much you repeat it. Indeed what is the point?
DREMT,
Yes you can be wrong all day.
“and, as there is no heat transfer from the green plate to the blue plate, the blue plate does not increase in temperature at the expense of the green. It remains at 244 K, as does the green.”
But the green plate gets 200 from the blue plate and emits 200 in each direction, so at the 244 244 point, the green plate is cooling and this is not a steady state solution.
The green plate could only cool if the 200 W/m^2 emitted to its left was not returned to it by the blue plate.
If the 200 W/m^2 was not returned to it by the blue plate, then the blue plate would be warming at the expense of the green plate as a result of that 200 W/m^2, and you would have a 2LoT violation on your hands.
You can dress it up however you want, bob. Claim it is a “reduction in heat flow” if you like. Semantics don’t matter. The green plate cannot heat the blue plate, and it cannot insulate it, either.
You can draw me a diagram of what you think the energy flows look like when the plates are pushed together, if you like. That might be entertaining, and might actually be some progress in this debate for the first time in a long while.
“The green plate could only cool if the 200 W/m^2 emitted to its left was not returned to it by the blue plate.”
GP emits 200 to the left, gets back 200 from the blue. That is NET 0. And consistent with the Q = 0 given by the Rad Heat Transfer Eqn.
Great.
But it still emits 200 to the right! So it still must be cooling.
DREMT fails at math.
By the way, bob, this might help you with your diagram for the energy flows with the plates pushed together…it’s the correct energy flows for the plates separated:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
Note that Clint R said:
“2) What does the diagram look like for the plates perfectly together? Answer: The energy flow diagram for the plates together would look exactly like the diagram DREMT uses for the plates slightly apart. There would be the same number of blue and green arrows, with the same values. Of course, that’s as to be expected, as the two situations are thermodynamically equivalent."
If you disagree, show us your diagram for the energy flows with the plates pushed together.
DREMT,
Your zombie diagram has reflection in it.
That’s not allowed in a blackbody problem.
All surfaces are blackbodies.
The blue plate has 600 in and 600 out, and the green plate has 400 in and 400 out, but they are both at the same temperature.
That’s not possible.
Still feigning ignorance of the diagram, bob? It’s all colour-coded, so it should be easy enough to follow.
"The blue plate has 600 in and 600 out"
That’s incorrect, bob. The blue plate is receiving 400 and emitting 400, as shown (the red arrow is what it receives, the blue arrows are what it emits). The additional green arrow from the right of the blue plate heading back to the green is of course what I explained to you earlier:
"The green plate could only cool if the 200 W/m^2 emitted to its left was not returned to it by the blue plate.
If the 200 W/m^2 was not returned to it by the blue plate, then the blue plate would be warming at the expense of the green plate as a result of that 200 W/m^2, and you would have a 2LoT violation on your hands."
Now that you understand again, you can send me your diagram of the energy flows with the plates pushed together.
“Note that Clint R said:”
As a general rule, if you are forced to defer to Clint as your authority, you’ve lost the argument!
“Thats not allowed in a blackbody problem.
All surfaces are blackbodies.”
Ignoring basic physics is DREMT’s raison d’etre.
He claims to have used the ‘radiative heat transfer equation’ which gives a NET energy flow Q = 0 between the plates.
But then turns around and contradicts it by having two arrows to the right and one to left, giving a NET energy flow of 200 W/m^2 to the right.
It’s really just anything goes to support their nutty narrative!
Anyway, bob, you brought this up again down-thread, I notice:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1536298
We’ll continue this down there.
I decided to read the original post. This is an amazing discussion. There IS a difference between conduction and radiation, and it is THAT big. I have not checked the calculations, but the big confusion seems to be understanding the difference between temperature and energy. A vacuum in space is a very good insulator. Perfect conduction is just that. Radiant heat transfer between objects in space is nothing close to perfect.
The bottom line is that anyone who wants to “debunk” Eli has to explain how the James Webb telescope works and why they spent so much time, effort, and money on the “sunshield”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope_sunshield
Like all radiative insulation, it functions via reflectivity…and it keeps the telescope cool. It doesn’t warm it.
Eli’s plates are blackbodies.
There is absolutely no confusion with understanding the difference between temperature and energy.
That is a wrong answer. Look at the graphic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_hot_and_code_sides_of_the_JWST_sunshield.jpg
Reflection alone is not the answer and that is why they need 5 layers. The hot side is 85 C and the cold side is -233 C. Each layer toward the telescope is progressively cooler by the same equations used by Eli, except the actual conductivity of the Kapton has to be considered.
For those who might be interested, the overall conductivity is calculated as follows. Resistance is additive, so the conductivity of each element is first calculated. The inverse of conductivity is resistance, so those conductivity values are inverted. Those values are then added to get an overall resistance. That value is invert to get the overall conductivity.
The telescope is really cold because each layer adds insulation to the overall conductivity.
"Each layer toward the telescope is progressively cooler by the same equations used by Eli"
Rubbish.
You then go on to point out that the thermal resistance of the material is also an important part of the insulation. Of course. That’s not radiative insulation, though. The radiative insulation is provided by the reflectivity of the material.
Not according to the radiant heat transfer equations in this link complements of Bill Hunter:
https://tinyurl.com/mshans7r
Eli doesn’t even use the radiant heat transfer equation. I use it in my comment of September 15, 2023 at 11:19 AM, however.
Eli uses the SB law, which gives emission from each plate, and implicitly he uses Kirchhoff’s Laws, which says each plate abs.orbs all it receives.
Together these give the radiant heat transfer law. Net Heat transfer from BP to GP = sigma(Tb^4 -Tg^4).
Then he applies 1LOT to each plate, which every object must satisfy.
Really straight forward. Really not controversial.
But the deniers keep denying that 1LOT applies to each object, and so they ignore this requirement.
And of course, after years of requests, they offer no legitimate source which agrees with this strange idea.
Consequently they have the heat flow into the GP being 0 while heat flow out of the GP is 200 W/m^2.
Nor does it worry them to have heat flow into the BP = 400 W/m^2, while heat flow out is 200 W/m^2.
While they claim that both plates hold a steady temperature.
Both of these situations should alarm their common sensors, but doesn’t, cuz they have turned them off.
So they are not bothered by this contradiction.
Thus, they continue coming back to peddle their nonsense, year after year.
To what end?
#2
Eli doesn’t even use the radiant heat transfer equation. I use it in my comment of September 15, 2023 at 11:19 AM, however.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The Green Plate Effect (GPE) post is a gedanken experiment posed by your friendly bunny, which uses simplifications to think through the consequences of a proposition. The proposition is that as several have claimed, that the Greenhouse Effect (GHE) violates the second law of thermodynamics.
Discussion of the GPE has occupied more that a few places, including Rabett Run, Roy Spencer’s bodega, and the Dragons Lair (be sure to wear protection when going there or better yet do not), but contrary to the Weasel, there does seem to have been an effect. (BTW he has been tossed out of his condo and retreated to the original hovel)
The GPE post drove home two ideas:
1. The GHE is not a statement about two bodies, a hot and a cold one, e.g. the surface and the atmosphere, but a statement about three bodies, a heat source, the absorber of energy from the heat source and the thermal shield, In the GPE these are the illumination source, the blue plate and the green plate.
This idealization can be extended to the sun, surface atmosphere system at the cost of mathematical complication involving things such as geometry, viewing angles, emissivity, thermal conductivity, diurnal cycles, etc.
Were bunnies to go acaveating it might be mentioned that the blue plate would cool more quickly in the absence of the green plate when the light was turned off. This, happens in real life. Night time temperatures fall much more quickly in the desert than in Mississippi and yes, Betty, water vapor does absorb IR emissions from the surface and yes, something is needed to heat the surface first.
2. Simple analysis shows that in the GPE the presence of the green plate makes the blue plate hotter.
The myriad attempts, some here, some there, involve changing the problem to something else or they break down into first or second law contradictions or they tie themselves up into algebraic knots. Mathocists are invited to look at the comments at RR, Dr. Roys, or Postma’s Pablum Palace.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/why-green-plate-effect-has-had-effect.html
We don’t know if artificial gravity has same effect as natural gravity. And considering the natural gravity has gradient, we know it not the same.
Or we have to test the effects artificial gravity upon the living.
And this illustrate the whole problem.
“The GPE post drove home two ideas:
1. The GHE is not a statement about two bodies, a hot and a cold one, e.g. the surface and the atmosphere, but a statement about three bodies, a heat source, the absorber of energy from the heat source and the thermal shield, In the GPE these are the illumination source, the blue plate and the green plate. ”
The Sun is very hot object with massive explosions.
And we need and are exploring the sun because there is a lot we need to know about it. {Including end of our world type stuff- or not just unimportant trivia}
The thermal shield. That’s quite complicated. Clouds would be part of it, obviously. I will note that there is a lot clouds on Earth which people can’t see. And generally it’s known that the upper atmosphere has a lot to be learned about- it lacks exploration, though probably not as lacking as our ocean itself.
The absorber.
The absorber of Earth is 70% of the surface. To understand global climate you have include this very transparent liquid water.
Average land is about 10 C and ocean surface is about 17 C.
The ocean warms the land.
245 words 1,338 characters, zero relevance
G&T schooled Eli Rabbett on the 2nd law and he still hasn’t gotten it.
Based on the ridiculous premise behind the GP thought experiment, Eli reveals the same error G&T corrected him on. In a rebuttal to G&T as Halpern et al, Eli made the following preposterous claim. He claimed essentially that if two bodies of different temperature are radiating at each other, and the 2nd law holds, then one body cannot be radiating.
That is a Homer Simpson ‘doh!!’ moment. It reveals that Eli has not the slightest idea of what quantum theory says about that. Even Clausius, who formulated his 2nd law some 60 odd years before Bohr revealed the relationship between electrons and EM understood that radiation has to obey the 2nd law. Yet, some 170 years after his revelation, Eli still does not get it.
G&T pointed out to Eli that the 2nd law is about heat, not radiation. When applying the 2nd law, only heat can be summed. It is not appropriate to sum a two-way flow of radiation and sum it as a heat transfer.
The GP thought-experiment is about radiation, not heat. It is claiming essentially that radiation from the a cooler body can raise the temperature of a hotter body. It is an obvious attempt to justify back-radiation for a cooler atmosphere being able to heat a warmer surface.
At your link, Eli is just nattering more of th same old, same old. He cannot explain the GP using real science so he has to create pseudo-science.
Cool people don’t need 255 words to peddle G&T’s crap, Bordo.
You know that the only connection between that crap and the post on which you comment is Eli, right?
Writing longer posts keeps your small mind occupied counting words. Carry on, wee willy, we have discovered something you are good at. It is proof that you are not a simple waste of space.
C’mon, Bordo.
I use word counter dot net.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Related…
Radiation is any way in which energy is transmitted through space from one point to another without the need for any physical connection between the two locations. The term electromagnetic just means that the energy is carried in the form of rapidly fluctuating electric and magnetic fields.
Despite the different names, the words light, rays, radiation, and waves all refer to the same thing. The names are just historical accidents, reflecting the fact that it took many years for scientists to realize that these apparently very different types of radiation are in reality one and the same physical phenomenon.
An electromagnetic wave is not a physical object in the sense that matter does not travel from the source to the destination. What propagates is a disturbance in the electric and magnetic fields.
When an electric charge undergoes changes in its motion, such as an accelerating electron in an atom or an oscillating dipole in a molecule, it generates electromagnetic waves. These waves then propagate outward creating a pattern of oscillating electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to each other and to the direction of propagation. This pattern carries energy across space.
It’s crucial to emphasize that this wave pattern itself is what travels from the source to the destination, not physical particles or matter.
The principle of conservation of energy, also known as the First Law of Thermodynamics, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only change forms. In the context of radiative heat transfer, this principle tells us that thermal energy leaving a source is transported by means of electromagnetic waves of commensurate frequency.
In conclusion, the heat associated with IR is not lost at the time IR is emitted. It is not gone…“poof!!!”
The mistake you are making here is using a generic energy without specifying the form it takes. Also, there is still a snarkiness in your post, suggesting you are competing rather than trying to present a good argument. Forget the ego, it serves no purpose in science other than to block the mind from insight and awareness.
Also, the 1st law states nothing about conservation of energy. I was reading Clausius on that last night and he contributed the U, internal energy, to the 1st law. He goes into the formulation of the law in detail and not once mentions conservation of energy. If you read Clausius closely, the 1st law is about the relationship between heat and work only and has nothing to do with energy in general.
We need to understand that lesser minds have interfered with the ideas of scientists like Clausius, introducing their own amateurish interpretations. That’s where silly notions like energy can neither be created nor destroyed come from. If we have no idea what energy is, how can we make such a statement?
You go on…”Its crucial to emphasize that this wave pattern itself is what travels from the source to the destination, not physical particles or matter”.
You just rebutted yourself. If EM has no mass, then it can contain no heat. The heat is gone the instant EM is formed. Poof!!!
Energy is an unknown entity, no one knows what it is, therefore claiming a generic energy reduces energy to the level of an aether, a hypothetical but unproved medium through which EM can flow.
We can only detect energy through its effect. You described EM OK but how does one detect an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field? There are no instruments that can ‘see’ those fields, we must detect them based on the effect they have on electrons in a conductor.
Such a conductor is normally called an antenna in communications theory. When an EM field of adequate intensity contacts an antenna of the proper wavelength ratio, it induced an electric current by forcing the electrons to react to it. However, the antenna length must be a multiple of the EM wavelength.
Conversely, at the transmitter, electrons moving back and forth at high frequency in an antenna produce an electromagnetic field.
There is no way to detect or measure EM directly, or any other form of energy for that matter.
We don’t ‘see’ EM as light, especially not the colours, till the EM excites receptors in the retina of the eye. Receptors in he retina provide colour and black and white detail.
Same with heat, we cannot detect it as heat, we can only detect the effect it has on electrons in the atoms of skin, or something equivalent. In a mercury thermometer, heat, as energy, excites electrons in mercury, causing it to expand along a capillary tube. Of course, the tube has a scale behind it and the scale has been calibrated to a known expansion factor in a lab.
We cannot detect electrical energy directly, only the effect it has on a meter deflection in a circuit. If you insists on lumping all these different forms of energy as a generic energy, eventually it will come back and bite you. I have learned this the hard way, if you want to learn a subject to as high a level as you can, then you must break the information down into bites that remove any fuzzy areas of understanding you may have. Even then, there will be fuzzy areas. The trick, IMHO, is to reduce the fuzziness to as low a level as possible.
If you encounter a fuzzy area, attack it rather than avoid it.
If you go into Bohr’s theory that relates electrons in atoms to EM, and which is the basis of quantum theory, it becomes apparent that heat in a body as represented by the KE of atoms, cannot leave a surface as KE, other than by conduction/convection. You can transfer the KE in the electrons to electrons in molecules of air, and that air can be transported into the atmosphere by convection.
The energy that leaves a surface as EM cannot contain heat. That heat was lost as KE as the electrons dropped to a lower orbital level and the energy was converted to EM. I have no idea how that works and I doubt if anyone does. That’s one of the fuzzy areas for me. Bohr did not specify, his theory was a quantum leap in logic that differed dramatically from any known science.
Bordo,
The mistake you are making is to suppose that anyone would read your 762-word rant.
Willard,
The mistake you are making is . . .
Pick one – you got it!
I pick you, Mike Flynn.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SpaceX could get license for 2nd Starship launch in October, FAA says
By Mike Wall
published about 19 hours ago
‘Teams are working together, and I think we’re optimistic [about an approval] sometime next month.’
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-second-launch-possible-october-2023
It’s somewhat encouraging that perhaps the FAA will only delay the launch for another month.
The Vogons had bad poetry, but they did blow up Earth on time.
They were the best bureaucrats.
El Nino is starting to fizzle
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Nah.
Do you realize you are showing model predictions?
Are you trying to outstoopid Twerpy ?
Are you trying to propose a bet, Eboy?
Are you being silly, Willy?
Are you really Mike Flynn?
Its hard to tell, but it looks he is predicting El Nino is going away..
It does, but there’s there’s plenty of wiggle room to deny it later on.
barry, please stop trolling.
Mini space thruster that runs on water
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Mini_space_thruster_that_runs_on_water_999.html
“This tiny fingernail-length space thruster chip runs on the greenest propellant of all: water. Designed to manoeuvre the smallest classes of satellite, the operation of this Iridium Catalysed Electrolysis CubeSat Thruster (ICE-Cube Thruster) developed with Imperial College in the UK is based on electrolysis.”
Solar powered rockets.
Of course we have Ion engines using solar power, but they use trace
gases {and due to rarity, can be very expensive propellants}.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Extreme weather conditions and fungal diseases have ravaged vineyards causing output to drop below 44 million hectolitres in 2023. Winemakers are expecting the smallest harvest in six years.
https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/09/13/italy-loses-worlds-biggest-wine-producer-title-as-extreme-weather-and-disease-hit-output
Sarmatians may not complain.
Weather, wee willy…weather.
Read the first sentence again, Bordo.
Willard,
Given up on climate, have you?
Reduced to posting second hand weather reports.
Sad, Willard, sad.
Mike Flynn,
Your absence left a deep hole.
Did you know that extreme weather events were covered in the AR6?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
tim s…”there is no explanation for the large difference between satellite data and surface data. One clue is that the satellite data seems to show much more resolution with more monthly and yearly variation”.
***
It’s obvious why sats are showing lower surface temps, they scan 95% of the surface whereas surface stations cover no more than about 30%. Most of the surface covered by thermometers is so sparse it is unreliable.
As I pointed out in another post, each thermometer covers about 100,000 square kilometres on average. Unlike the propaganda spread by Binny, NOAA uses less than 1500 thermometers to cover the entire land surface. On the oceans, they are even more sparse.
The surface record relies on climate models and statistical analysis to cover most of the surface. They take thermometer data up to 1200 km apart and interpolate the data readings to synthesize the unknown quantity. Then they homogenize the synthesized and actual readings to arrive at a global average.
Not only that, they cheat. For example, in California, the only stations used by NOAA, three of them, are near the coast. They ignore inland thermometers especially those at altitude in the Sierras.
Furthermore, thermometer readings are taken twice a day and averaged, a method sure to introduce error.
Cool story, Bordo.
Did you really need to write 212 words to repeat the silly idea that the surface record relies on climate models?
The only thing silly is you, Wiggly.
Were I a thing, Troglodyte. Were I a thing.
You might like this review of Bill Buckley’s most famous piece of crap he ever wrote:
https://www.buzzsprout.com/2040953/13544735-god-and-man-at-yale
The bit about Lucille Cardin Crain’s batshit crazy stuff is gold.
Willard,
I see you have repaired your Gibberish Generator.
It’s working well.
Mike Flynn,
Why were you away?
No that I know you are counting words I will be sure to increase the number of posts and words used.
” Unlike the propaganda spread by Binny, NOAA uses less than 1500 thermometers to cover the entire land surface. ”
*
” Not only that, they cheat. For example, in California, the only stations used by NOAA, three of them, are near the coast. They ignore inland thermometers especially those at altitude in the Sierras. ”
Again the eternal lies spread by Robertson.
Who sticks to his lies deserves them.
” Furthermore, thermometer readings are taken twice a day and averaged, a method sure to introduce error. ”
1. Where is the proof for that?
2. Did Robertson ever understand how often a temperature sounding satellite visits exactly the same place on Earth?
Bindidon,
Don’t you believe that temperatures are averaged?
Maybe you don’t understand that “global average temperature” refers to temperatures which are, well, averaged.
I thought you believed that you could predict the future by furiously averaging the past. My mistake – I accept that you can’t predict the future at all.
Carry on.
Aaaah, the Flynnson blathering stalker is back again with his as usual completely redundant, useless blah blah.
Allez-y, Flynnson! Tapez donc encore un peu plus de la tête dans le mur; cela vous fera du bien, sans nul doute!
You obviously know nothing about how surface stations or satellites record temperatures. It would be easier talking to a wall about this and I’d get a more intelligent reply from one.
Spell out what’s bothering you about my post. Or do you think you can accurately record 24 hours of temperatures by taking a max and min then averaging them?
TD 15 is soon to become TS Margot and then Hurricane Margot. but not likely to hit land by early projections:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
Whoops! I missed one. It’s Nigel. Margot is already taken.
https://youtu.be/LlouQxYuuIM?feature=shared
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Global governments have trying to reduce global CO2 levels for over 40 years. And have failed to lower global CO2 levels.
Does anyone hope that global CO2 levels will be lowered by any government within the next 10 years.
Wouldn’t that be hoping for a global nuclear war??
The only US president which lowered {briefly} global CO2 level was Donald Trump.
This was due to governments creating virus in a lab and having global lockdown which was farcical attempt at doing anything about the virus.
It should also be noted that the Chinese people were the only people to protest against the lockdown, and thereby, stop Chinese lockdown.
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and any global warming effect from it, has not been measured. And there are lots other kinds of stuff which has had measurable effect on global temperatures.
And in the past, it’s known that rising global temperatures or falling global has effected Global CO2 levels. And lag period is many centuries. Or it’s known the coldest known period which was about 20,000 years had the lowest levels of global CO2 levels, and only after warming, did global CO2 levels rise. And has occurred with every entering into a interglacial period- CO2 rises following global warming, and CO2 falls when going into colder periods. It’s not a cause, it’s an effect of global warming or cooling.
But the only thing which reduces CO2 level would be a nuclear war, global lockdown {until the protests end it] or nuclear power has been reducing CO2 emissions.
> have failed to lower global CO2 levels
Well:
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Is that better than the UAH Global Temperature because it, indicates the cooling before the more accurate UAH Global Temperature graph, begins?
Some are old enough, to remember the cover stories of the Ice Age is coming.
Which is funny as we have been in an Ice Age for very long time, but point of the news headline, was the short trend was going down.
Global temperatures obviously go up and down, during interglacial and glacial periods and we have in longer trend of cooling over the last 5000 years.
Apparently it hasn’t reversed, yet, it would be nice if it did.
If got a lot of global warming, the Sahara desert would green.
It greened a little, but people say mostly from having more CO2 in atmosphere allows desert plants to grow better. So wasn’t due to more global water vapor- or wasn’t primarily, due to this.
That is related, question related to CO2 being a weak greenhouse gas {which everyone agrees, it is}.
In tropics water vapor can be 40,000 ppm whereas outside the tropics water vapor is far less than 10,000 ppm.
The warming related to CO2, itself is 1 C or less per doubling and if talking about more 1 C it’s got to be related to increasing water vapor {somehow}.
And it seems quite unreasonable to double 40,000 ppm and it seem far reasonable to double water vapor where it’s the driest {deserts}.
But people could disagree, so my question is where does the most doubling of water vapor occur in the world?
> Is that better than the UAH Global Temperature
Depends what you want.
What do you want?
Coffee.
But, now, I got some.
Now, let’s return to:
“have failed to lower global CO2 levels”
Now, what has been partially successful at lowering CO2?
One might say that putting solar panels in places which don’t
get much sunlight is a much poorer idea than putting solar panels where there is a lot sunlight and also if one has lot hydropower which could serve as battery power for when there isn’t any solar power.
Hydro power would less CO2 emission as compared coal or wood power plant.
Another thing which pretty good in terms solar power is thermal solar, or making hot water with solar panels.
Of course hydro dams in general work really well at reducing CO2 emission- though they do use a lot concrete.
Also there small hydro:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_hydro
“Countries like India and China have policies in favor of small hydro, and the regulatory process allows for building dams and reservoirs. In North America and Europe the regulatory process is too long and expensive to consider having a dam and a reservoir for a small project.
Small hydro projects usually have faster environmental and licensing procedures, and since the equipment is usually in serial production, standardized and simplified, and the civil works construction is also reduced, the projects may be developed very rapidly. The physically smaller size of equipment makes it easier to transport to remote areas without good road or rail access. “
> Coffee.
That’s not a bad proxy:
https://phys.org/news/2023-05-climate-coffee.html
But more srsly, gb, if you want to take temps as a proxy for CO2, you have to accept that there’s a correlation between temps and CO2. Yet most of the times you kinda deny that.
Can’t have it both ways.
Willard,
You wrote –
“But more srsly, gb, if you want to take temps as a proxy for CO2, . . . ”
Why would gb or anyone else want to do such a bizarre thing?
“Cant have it both ways.”
Sure I can, and more than merely two ways.
First, the so called father of global warming, thought 5 C
warmer would be good. And past interglacial periods were about 17 to 18 C and he apparently was living in about 13 C average temperature world {according to IPCC}. If global average temperature was 17 to 18 C it according to anyone, it needs more global water vapor. And a green Sahara seems like a good thing. Paying 1 trillion dollar to make it green, seems worth the money. Currently billions of dollars per year is being spend {by poor countries to make it, a little bit greener- and one could assume it’s not just a govt job program}.
Second, I keep on explaining that I have long been a lukewarmer- which means is seems possible {somehow- and there many hows} that higher CO2 could increase global temperature. I had thought it could be as much as 2 to 3 C. But it seems, now, it can’t that much but there is also element of time involved.
I think one has to limit the time to less than 100 years, if I were extend it to 1000 years, it might be as much as 2 C.
But within 100 years, most would imagine China and many other countries will run out of Mineable Coal. I tend to think China is currently close to peak Coal, so could run out and stop mining coal in any significant degree, as soon as within 10 years.
And it seems to me, there is not 1000 years of oceanic methane Hydrate and not sure if or when it becomes mineable.
But one has to ask, what will be the future within 100 years.
It seems within 50 years, China could lost 1/2 it’s current population and there could easily be a global problem in terms lowering populations. Or few think otherwise unless there is some kind of dramatic change- living longer than 200 years, would count as a dramatic change- but it’s not limited to just that.
Third, due to our cold ocean, it seems quite possible that CO2 will not double or exceed 560 ppm, and before 500 ppm one get more growth by significant amount more than we already have got or slight amount of increase in global water vapor and more more CO2, could green the sahara desert plus of course you add the effort from Africans working to green the Sahara desert which could include technological changes that make it easier.
Forth, within century, millions of people could be living in Venus orbit and we could count humans as a space faring civilization.
A spacefaring civilization can cheaply, easily, and quickly change Earth’s climate to anything they wanted. And will get energy from Space {unlimited energy} to Earth surface. Industry moves to where energy is cheapest, and that is not Earth’s surface.
For residents of Venus orbit- sunlight is free energy- constant sunlight and more sunlight than Earth distance.
Etc.
> Sure I can, and more than merely two ways.
You’re right, gb. You *can* continue with an incoherent 505-word laius! I should have clarified that I presumed consistency.
Apologies.
“Apologies.”
Well, we know plants have adapted to the lower CO2 levels of this
Ice Age, but we also know plants do better if they have more CO2.
And we do know that when CO2 is at 180 ppm, they would have harder time living. So this could reason Africa have even more desert conditions than the present during colder global temperature which could be merely 3 C colder than now.
And also every time Earth is couple degree warmer, deserts have greener. And greener deserts cause higher global temperatures.
Or it seems quite possible if clear cut a tropical forest, it could cause a desert. So warming from higher CO2 levels could due to mostly CO2 being plant food.
> Well, we know plants have adapted to the lower CO2 levels of this
Well, we also know that plants did not adapt for more than what they already have. And it’s quite clear that
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/is-co2-plant-food
That being said, I’m not sure how you’ll be able to pivot from “warming is a better proxy for CO2 than CO2 itself” to Elon establishing a Mars slave colony.
More coffee?
Willard says:
”Rising temperatures, as well as erratic rainfall, disease, droughts and landslides brought on by human-induced climate change threaten to shrink the coffee industry and impoverish its producers.”
Yeah the government is about 0 to 171,344 on its agricultural predictions. It tends to work out that way when they use some University professor ensconced in a windowless office.
But there is a tendency. . . they want to encourage such predictions so they send him more money to study the topic further. And when they get the coffee growers rooting for action they start sending them money too.
Interesting squirrels, Gill.
The gbumint sure has more important fish to fry:
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/california-sues-oil-giants-downplaying-risks-posed-by-fossil-fuels-nyt-2023-09-16/
Dragon cranks can rejoice in not being liable to the lies they spout daily. At least, I hope you do.
Cheers.
Seems like pretty heavy handed government when many leading climate scientists aren’t convinced of the risks.
I suppose that depends on what “leading scientists” truly means, Gill.
Maybe you can name a few on your side who had reputations prior to building them solely on doing the government’s bidding. . .there are a whole bunch of them who fit in the lukewarm/skeptical categories. Lindzen is one. Happer is another. The list is long.
Willard,
The most important greenhouse gas is supposed to be water vapour, isn’t it?
Does your pointless appeal to authority mention the most abundant greenhouse gas, or not?
Try to be consistent – why are you ignoring the most important greenhouse gas?
Is Death Valley really hot because there is too much water vapour in the atmosphere, or is it due to excessive CO2? Please explain.
Mike Flynn,
The most important crank on this website is you.
Where were you?
He re-appeared precisely when “Latest Global Temp. Anomaly” updated to August. Just like a seagull … “if I don’t see it then it doesn’t exist”. He was probably refreshing for 2 weeks wondering when it would be updated.
So, no answer from you, Willard.
Typical.
There’s nothing to respond, Mike –
You deny that the greenhouse effect exists and yet you keep talking about greenhouse gases.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
wee willy….”Did you really need to write 212 words to repeat the silly idea that the surface record relies on climate models?”
***
I am far more concerned with your need to count them.
Cutting fossil fuels by 95% of 1990 levels by 2050 will mean cutting GDP by 95%.
Net Zero means everyone will have a wage cut of 95%.
Can you live on $300 per month?
End the Net Zero agenda now.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=tdJnPbn_Bgs&ab_channel=TheHeartlandInstitute
ken…there is little doubt in my mind that the GDP issue will prove fatal for governments embracing the AGW propaganda. When voters get the true gist of the alarmist meme I think most will revolt.
Poilievre is apparently leading Trudeau in the polls and in his recent talk he revealed a desire to get rid of carbon taxes. I hope that leads to stopping the fraudulent science as well.
I was turned off by Poilievre’s denouncement of German politician Christine Anderson for standing up to the tenets of Islam with regard to suppressing women and their rights. He called her politics vile which led me to ask what it is he stands for. I saw a video of Anderson talking and she comes across as a reasonable person with regard to her concerns about Islam. In fact, she does not come across at all like the right-wing, neo-Nazi image the media has created.
Poilievre is also turning me off with his recent ads in which he pushes the poor boy/family meme. It cost his predecessor Erin O’Toole who pushed apple pie and mom. I think voters are sick of the schlock. However, I may have to hold my nose and vote for Poilievre next election if the Torys agree to stop the AGW b-s.
Important to note they are not stopping net zero or AGW bs. They are only going to end carbon taxes.
As per Danielle Smith.
Bordo I am far more concerned with your need to count them.
@@@@@
Come on, Bordo. I doubt you are really concerned.
#######
Come on, Bordo – you can thank Binny for that counting.
&&&&&&
Come on, Bordo – you kicked a comment again down the thread for no good reason.
*********
Cool story, Bordo. Should I be concerned about your concern?
Oh, Bordo. Thank you for your concerns. I thought your only concern was to spam this blog with your Dragon crap because you needed an outlet for your pathological lying.
Far too many meaningless words, wee willy.
I know, Bordo.
But if I omit “I am far more concerned with your need to count them” you will not be able to find to which meaningless words I am responding.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Related…
https://esawebb.org/media/archives/releases/sciencepapers/weic2321/weic2321.pdf
Using data from the James Webb Space Telescope, scientists have discovered methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere of K2-18 b, a distant exoplanet that has long piqued the curiosity of astronomers for having the potential to sustain life.
Additionally, these initial Webb observations provided a possible detection of a molecule called dimethyl sulphide (C2H6S), which on Earth is commonly found in nature, produced by life, largely emitted by the vast swathes of phytoplankton that inhabit our oceans.
K2-18 b is located about 110 light years away, too far away for astronomers to see. The team sidestepped this challenge by analyzing light from K2-18 b’s parent star as it passed through the exoplanet’s atmosphere. During transits a tiny fraction of starlight will pass through the exoplanet’s atmosphere before reaching telescopes like Webb. The starlight’s passage through the exoplanet atmosphere leaves traces that astronomers can piece together to determine the gases of the exoplanet’s atmosphere.
Also related…
An object at such a distance as K2-18 b is truly inaccessible in any realistic human sense. Our fastest space probe, traveling at 430,000 mph, would take 171,000 years to reach it.
Considering that civilization has existed on Earth for less than 10,000 years, and its prospects for the next 10,000 are far from certain, it is effectively off limits to visitors from Earth, at least for the foreseeable future.
ark…there is no proof that such a planet exists. Before we cosider sending a space craft there, we should at least determine that a planet exists.
I was going to edit this but it would not be fair to wee willy, who needs to count words.
I took a year of astronomy as an elective in my engineering studies and I have no idea what I was thinking. I was lured by the notion I’d be learning about adventures like Star Trek sci-fi portrays but I should have been tipped off by the first day’s class. I could not get into the classroom because it was packed with students, pouring out into the hallway.
I fought my way in to the prof to ask what was going on, whether I needed to find another course. He was a cool guy and he smiled, advising me to wait a minute while he sorted things out. When he had everyone’s attention, he announced…”this is a class in astronomy, not astrology. You need calculus and physics to understand the course”. I heard a collective groan as most of the students worked their way out of the class leaving about 30 of us, mostly engineers and science students.
I learned early on that optical telescopes are useless detail-wise for examining any more than nearby planets. Just about all observations are done by examining gas spectra using radiotelescopes. These so-called exoplanets show up as nothing more than a perturbation in the gas spectra of a star.
I doubt that the spectral changes associated with an alleged exoplanet, as stellar radiation passes through the alleged atmosphere, is significant. There is a whole lot of speculation involved.
Two things:
1/ Sounds like you went to a mediocre school.
2/ Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences practiced by humans. In fact, I would argue that our pursuit of astronomy is a defining characteristic that sets us apart from other species on Earth. I’m glad you chose to stay out of it.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
99.97% scientists agreece with Net Zero fantasy
https://youtu.be/BmdjUYYNeSI
Is it Greece or grease?
Try to be consistent in your ignorance.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Decoding the New World Order is not an easy business, but researcher Jack Blood has a serious understanding of how the global super elite do their business. Interviewed by Russell Scott (WestCoastTruth.com), Blood discusses ending the Fed, government-sponsored terrorism, the police state, the United Nations agenda (Unalienable Rights vs. UN Privileges), Secret Societies, and Collectivism vs. Individual Sovereignty. Importantly, he encourages us all to move from exposing the problem to implementing the solutions for freedom _ some of which he shares here. We The People have the power; we are the huge base of the pyramid holding up the tiny top. 68-min. Audio DVD
http://www.toolsforfreedom.com/Decoding-the-New-World-Order-p/2032.htm
Source: https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/02/dust-deposition-on-ice-sheets-a-mechanism-for-termination-of-ice-ages/#comment-815238
Tools for Freedom. New World Order. Citizen Sovereignty. Whats not to like?
Link is no bueno por nada.
Try this: https://tinyurl.com/ym5byddv
Little Willy, Arkady, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Energy is an unknown entity, no one knows what it is…”
Physicists borrowed the word energy from the English language and redefined it in a more precise way. It is useful to learn the precise usage and to be able to use the term in the way physicists do.
In physics, energy is the ability to do work, or alternatively, energy is anything that can be turned into heat. Heat is the microscopic energy of motion of vibrating molecules, which raises the temperature of a material as measured by a thermometer. The types of energy are kinetic, potential, thermal, electromagnetic, chemical, nuclear, and mass energy.
It is difficult to understand the concept of energy just from the definitions alone. Trying to do so is like trying to learn a foreign language by memorizing a dictionary. So be patient.
The physics statement that “energy is conserved” describes one of the most useful discoveries ever made in science. The First Law of Thermodynamics points out the fact that any energy that appears to be lost isn’t really lost; it is usually just turned into heat.
The easiest way to measure energy is to convert it to heat and then see how much it raises the temperature of water.
Ark, that is your most astute, scientifically correct, and mature comment ever!
Well done.
Keep it up!!
ark…”In physics, energy is the ability to do work, or alternatively, energy is anything that can be turned into heat. Heat is the microscopic energy of motion of vibrating molecules, which raises the temperature of a material as measured by a thermometer”.
***
The ability to do work does not tell us what energy is. It is saying nothing more than ‘something’ creates an ability to do work. There is no knowledge of what that something may be.
Then you claim that energy is ‘something’ that can be turned into heat. However, heat is energy, so you are claiming ‘something’ is turned into energy.
You are somewhat confused, Ark and you need to go into this in greater detail. Of course, you have Klint Klown’s blessing but he does not understand the details either. In fact, Klint preaches that heat is a transfer of energy, not energy itself, but he refuses to specify which energy is being transferred. According to Klint, heat is a transfer of heat.
—
“The physics statement that energy is conserved describes one of the most useful discoveries ever made in science. The First Law of Thermodynamics points out the fact that any energy that appears to be lost isnt really lost; it is usually just turned into heat”.
***
How do you turn one form of energy into another when you have no idea what energy is? If work creates heat, there is no direct conversion from work to heat. If a paddle wheel is inserted in water and allowed to run it breaks up the hydrogen bonds in water molecules and that releases heat, causing the water to warm. However, the heat was already there.
I have tried to encourage you to think these problems through but it appears you’d rather appeal to authority rather than think for yourself. You obviously don’t understand the 1st law, nor its history, or the meaning of conservation of energy, so you resort to making sweeping, inaccurate statements about energy.
The first law is not a generic statement of conservation of energy, which must apply to all energies. If you care to read Clausius on the first law, he explains it in detail. Clausius, who was studying the relationship of heat and work, and who was directly involved with the creation of the 1st law, being responsible for the U (internal energy) of the first law, mentioned at no time the concept of conservation of energy.
The 1st law is only about the relationship of heat and work, both externally and internally. You are right that heat and work must balance but that balance is not a generic statement for conservation of energy.
Since you insist on making this a personal attack on anything I claim, while being unable to prove what you say, maybe you and Klint Klown can get together and gang up.
> The ability to do work does not tell us what energy is
Exactly, Bordo, and the converse is even truer.
Take your comment. A lot of energy: 477 words and 2,682 characters show. No work at all.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
There was a very long discussion about this:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?m=1
There was a suggestion about starting a new discussion, so here it is. The thought experiment seems to be based on sound scientific principles and reasoning. The question that has people bothered is a claim that putting the plates together makes them the same temperature so radiant heat transfer should do the same thing. That is wrong.
There IS a difference between conduction and radiation, and it is THAT big. I have not checked the calculations, but all of the equations seem to be correct. It does not violate any laws of physics. The big confusion seems to be understanding the difference between temperature and energy. In this case the energy under discussion is actually power which is the flow of energy per time. A vacuum in space is a very good insulator. Perfect conduction is just that. Radiant heat transfer between objects in space is nothing close to perfect.
The bottom line is that anyone who wants to debunk Eli has to explain how the James Webb telescope works and why they spent so much time, effort, and money on the sunshield.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope_sunshield
Like all radiative insulation, it functions via reflectivity…and it keeps the telescope cool. It doesn’t warm it.
Eli’s plates are blackbodies.
There is absolutely no confusion with understanding the difference between temperature and energy.
That is a wrong answer. Look at the graphic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_hot_and_code_sides_of_the_JWST_sunshield.jpg
Reflection alone is not the answer and that is why they need 5 layers. The hot side is 85 C and the cold side is -233 C. Each layer toward the telescope is progressively cooler by the same equations used by Eli, except the actual conductivity of the Kapton has to be considered.
For those who might be interested, the overall conductivity is calculated as follows. Resistance is additive, so the conductivity of each element is first calculated. The inverse of conductivity is resistance, so those conductivity values are inverted. Those values are then added to get an overall resistance. That value is invert to get the overall conductivity.
The telescope is really cold because each layer adds insulation to the overall conductivity.
"Each layer toward the telescope is progressively cooler by the same equations used by Eli"
Rubbish.
You then go on to point out that the thermal resistance of the material is also an important part of the overall insulation. Of course. That’s not radiative insulation, though. The radiative insulation is provided by the reflectivity of the material.
I will go back to my earlier comment. The confusion here is not understanding the relationship between heat, power, and temperature as it relates to thermal radiation and radiant heat transfer. The green plate is not “heating” the blue plate. It is not heated any more or less. Only the sun is doing that, just like here on earth. The green plate raises the temperature of the blue plate by blocking its access to the cooling effect of outer space. The green plate is at a lower temperature because it is only heated by the blue plate, which is not as hot as the sun, and it has full access to outer space.
Keep in mind that thermal radiation is only effected by temperature and spectrum. It is always on regardless of the environment. The confusion about back radiation can be understood better by the concept of wave cancelling. The back radiation is cancelling some of the outgoing radiation to outer space.
That concept works for the earth and the plate thought experiment. Still, there is a huge difference that must be understood. The atmosphere only adds opacity and the gas emissions are omnidirectional. That is the complexity for the atmosphere.
The green plate neither "heats", nor "insulates", the blue plate.
Correct final temperatures are 244 K…244 K (both emitting 200 W/m^2).
Now I get it! Well played! Congratulations. A good magician needs to be careful not to reveal too much. You just pulled a rabbit out of your hat — an Eli Rabett! Gordon is not as subtle as you, but much more creative and amusing than you. You probably know better. I am not sure about Gordon.
On the serious side, your comment is so absurd that some of the others will also figure it out. I still think that daring people to show how little they know is not a good idea. I prefer to play it straight and possibly educate some of those who are not participating, but playing along with the home game.
I explained further up-thread why it is correct, and why 262 K…220 K is wrong.
Clint R refers to 262 K…220 K as “the bogus solution” and asked you a question about it below. You should answer.
You are arguing apples and oranges Tim.
From your link: ” Kapton membrane coated with aluminum for reflectivity.”
Reflectivity does not work at all like the GPE.
The heat shield is a v-groove radiator. Here is a paper describing how it works. https://tinyurl.com/mshans7r
Don’t compare this to blackbody radiation in an atmosphere where heat loss will occur by convection before getting to the bottom layer. Convection is the dominate means of surface cooling on planet with an atmosphere.
Epic failure. Read your own link:
“The heat balance then yields their temperatures by assuming the
temperature of the warmest (outer) shield. Equations 5 and 6 show two examples of heat balances, where equation 5
is for heat balance between outer and middle shield, and equation 6 is for heat balance between any two adjacent
shields. Hence starting with the outer shield as a boundary temperature (e.g., 300 K for a spacecraft), one can
sequentially and successively compute the temperature of the next shield, and so on for the following one.”
Equations 5 and 6 are for radiant heat transfer with a T^4 factor. Try again.
Eli doesn’t even use the radiant heat transfer equation. I use it in my comment of September 15, 2023 at 11:19 AM, however.
You are really good at debating. If your point was to prove that most of the habitual posters here at not very knowledgeable that is up to you. You are wrong about the plate experiment. Eli is basically correct if not actually realistic. A better analysis would include some factor for conductivity.
Well thanks, I guess. Agree to disagree about the Green Plate Effect.
You are a good debater, but I have to add this as well. Look at Bill’s link. I have read more of it, and now understand the confusion. As stated above, all of the low conductivity layers add resistance. Reflection adds an additional resistance to the radiant effect, Go down to figure 8 and figure 9 where they compare black vs reflective membranes. Black still works, just not as well.
Tim S, you need to ask yourself if you are a real Skeptic, or not.
You are willing to swallow the trash from “Eli”, yet you have NO understanding of the issue.
This has all been discussed before. Go back a year or so and find the discussions. Do you believe the JWST is trying to heat itself? No, the shields COOL the JWST.
Question, since you believe you are properly educated in Thermodynamics: “Why is the bogus solution to the plates a violation of 2LoT”?
Clint R, I will respond to you directly. I am a genuine skeptic which means that I am skeptical of the skeptics as well. I go where the science leads me. I my excellent education is backed up by knowledge from operating in the real world. I am fully capable in every aspect of heat transfer and thermodynamics. I know my subject matter.
My skepticism is directed toward the claims that simplistic application of basic science can be used to construct a complex model of the atmosphere. The climate models require hours of calculation time on extremely capable computers and then come up with a very wide range of results. The climate change believers are often very dishonest and prefer deception and hand waving when confronted with the difficulty.
Predictions are difficult — especially about the future!
Thanks for the verbose soliloquy, Tim S.
Now could you answer the question presented: “Why is the bogus solution to the plates a violation of 2LoT”?
When people point out the extreme flaws in DREMTs arguments, he just ignores them, and pretends there are no flaws
Is that what a good debater does?
Tim S says:
”You are a good debater, but I have to add this as well. Look at Bills link. I have read more of it, and now understand the confusion. As stated above, all of the low conductivity layers add resistance. Reflection adds an additional resistance to the radiant effect, Go down to figure 8 and figure 9 where they compare black vs reflective membranes. Black still works, just not as well.”
I don’t claim that black has zero effect all I do is ask for the proof. I have learned from experience that one should never ever take advice from anybody who doesn’t have your interest first. So I say prove your point by experiment if you want anybody to believe it.
However, you do acknowledge that reflection can have up to twice the effect that black has. And since I understand the use of reflective barriers where they work and where they don’t work, twice better isn’t good enough to do anything at all to prevent downwelling heat in a gas environment. I went through the era in the 70’s when shysters were selling radiant barriers to keep people warm in their shelters. Its now illegal to market that and its known as trailer trash insulation because of the mindless who still think it does something. Sure it might work fine for an outerspace heatshield but I think you are in the wrong forum to be talking about that and you are very ignorant to be extrapolating it to the topics of this forum.
Bold statements from Bill Hunter. When senior managers in major corporations are making important decisions based on your opinion, You can lecture me about your understanding of heat transfer and thermodynamics.
obviously you found nothing to refute
Tim, my statements are no more bold than your own.
To prove something scientifically you need a properly designed experiment, ideally with a control model.
One cannot just lie and do like Nate does and claim that Tyndall found a heat gradient within the CO2 in his polished pipe experiment.
All Tyndall found was less IR coming out of the end of the tube because of variable amounts of conduction through the walls of the copper tube that varied because of Tyndall alternatively experimenting with a polished copper pipe and lampblack painted one.
Since these both were copper pipes heat was lost by both radiation and by conduction through the walls of the pipe.
You can’t just lie like Nate does and claim stuff that wasn’t measured. He tries to lie and claim that a co2 induced heat gradient was also found in the S&O experiment.
When called on it he says a gradient was found between the compartments which was true with both the control model and the experimental model.
Ha ha ha!
“One cannot just lie and do like Nate does and claim that Tyndall found a heat gradient within the CO2 in his polished pipe experiment.”
Bill claimed to be done discussing with me on another thread. So what does he
do?
He comes to a different discssusion, butts in, insults me, and tries to start it up again here!
What a guy!
“claim that Tyndall found a heat gradient within the CO2 in his polished pipe experiment.”
In any case, I addressed that here, Bill.
I didnt claim he ‘found a heat gradient’, but I do claim there will be one, just as there is one for S&O”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537745
“Remember that in S&O, they use a long horizontal container of gas, heated on one end.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=99608
Even without a barrier, do you really think the unheated end will be just as hot as the heated end?
Same setup in Tyndall.”
Nate continues to lie!
Where o where Bill?
Nate says:
In any case, I addressed that here, Bill.
I didnt claim he found a heat gradient, but I do claim there will be one, just as there is one for S&O
———————-
Fine Nate. Then that just means you lied here about Tyndall discovering a reduction in ‘heat’ transfer. (emphasis mine) as you claimed here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1531278
Sure you can shift around the lie all you want but ultimately the whole spiel gets exposed as a lie.
“Then that just means you lied here about Tyndall discovering a reduction in heat transfer. (emphasis mine) as you claimed here.”
Not at all. He did indeed discover that, as explained ad-nauseaum.
You agreed that he found CO2 reduced IR transfer. IR transports energy from one place to another.
If the energy is abs.orbed something it will warm, that is heat. IR transport = heat transfer.
It seem to me your goal is to be knee-jerk contrary to stuff I post, without thinking about whether the thing is true of not.
Tyndall’s own words make it clear:
“We must be able to compare the passage of the HEAT through air with its passage through vacuum”
He found that air had little measureable effect compared to vacuum, while CO2 and other gases had a considerable effect (on the passage of HEAT!)
https://protonsforbreakfast.wordpress.com/2023/09/04/tyndall-1/
Nate says:
If the energy is abs.orbed something it will warm, that is heat. IR transport = heat transfer.
—————-
Only if you live in outer space Nate. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/overall-heat-transfer-coefficient-d_434.html
Bill thinks there is no radiant heat transfer on Earth???
Very strange indeed!
Guess he never warmed himself by a campfire.
Nate says:
IR transport = heat transfer.
–
Only if you live in outer space Nate. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/overall-heat-transfer-coefficient-d_434.html
Nate says:
”Bill thinks there is no radiant heat transfer on Earth???
Very strange indeed! Guess he never warmed himself by a campfire.”
————————-
Nate really doesn’t know much about this.
Nate I just pointed out that IR transport does not equal heat transfer. Heat transport also occurs by convection/diffusion. Such that heat transfer = IR transport + Convection/diffusion.
Convection occurs when diffusion via molecules flying through the air isn’t sufficient without a bulk movement of air. Energetic surface molecules get to TOA the same way that CO2 gets evenly distributed.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1538442
“Energetic surface molecules get to TOA the same way that CO2 gets evenly distributed.”
Sure, but then what, radiation takes over above the troposphere.
And if gets reduced, which Tyndall and more recent satellite measurements, showed that it does with additional CO2, then that reduces heat loss to space.
You just cannot escape this unavoidable conclusion.
Nate changes goal posts again.
He abandons his GHG cause a temperature gradient and flips over to the alternative M&W theory of convection suppression for which he has never ever provided any evidence of.
Nope. No change at all.
Just ongoing general confusion on your part.
LOL!
One day its a temperature gradient through any GHG and that causes global warming on a horizontal basis.
Then the next day its a change in atmospheric pressure that only causes global warming in the presence of a GHG that now works on a vertical basis.
You don’t even know how it works. All you can do is parrot what yo daddy told you. Your two different methods of explain the GHE proves that.
Bill the master baiter.
Not taking it.
LOL! That would be smart. Police eat it up when a suspect has to disparate theories about what he was doing. . . so do auditors. At a minimum they know they guy they are talking to has no idea of the correct answer.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537777
Like DREMT, Bill childishly thinks those final digs in the LAST WORD decides the debate.
You lost Nate. You have 2 different theories one you described which has been proven to be wrong in the published literature and the other undescribed that you only resort to when you are embarrassed in making a case for the former.
You are the proponent and you have fallen flat on your face proving your case. You even resort to lying.
Bill, The debate is all there, and its over. You can distort reality all you want in your never-ending Last-Word Baiting.
Not biting.
Now kindly F*k Off.
Sure Nate all you have to do is walk away with your tail between your legs and its over.
The forcing model of cold gases is done. It is undoubtedly the basis of the lapse rate model as well though nobody will say if it is or it isn’t because they have no defense other than obfuscation.
After a quick read, I do not see and T^4 equations in this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations
My apologies. I meant any not and:
After a quick read, I do not see ANY T^4 equations in this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations
I have read more of it, and now understand the confusion. As stated above, all of the low conductivity layers add resistance. Reflection adds an additional resistance to the radiant effect, Go down to figure 8 and figure 9 where they compare black vs reflective membranes. Black still works, just not as well.
Works at what? Cooling. None of this is any evidence of a warming effect from adding a blackbody plate to the other side of another blackbody plate which is exposed to the Sun.
If you think about the layout of Eli’s thought experiment, the Sun shield is in fact entirely backwards to what is presented there. The Blue Plate (BP) is the object being supposedly "insulated" in the Green Plate Effect, and the "insulation" goes to the right of the BP, the side facing away from the Sun!
With the Sun shield, all of the insulation goes to the left of the ‘BP’ (the telescope), between it and the Sun.
They’re just not comparable.
The answer is that the first shield would be a lot colder if it was by itself radiating its back side to outer space. It is 85 C because it is protecting the telescope and has so many layers behind it. In the same way the telescope would be really hot without shields. Go back to figure 8 and figure 9 in Bill’s link.
They’re (the Sun shield and the green plate/s) just not comparable, as explained.
tim s…”The thought experiment seems to be based on sound scientific principles and reasoning. The question that has people bothered is a claim that putting the plates together makes them the same temperature so radiant heat transfer should do the same thing. That is wrong”.
***
It seems to be based on sound science but it’s nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Eli does not understand basic thermodynamics as revealed by Gerlich and Tscheushner, when Eli as Halpern of Halpern et al, offered a rebuttal of a G&T paper debunking the GHE.
G&T invoked the 2nd law to rebut his argument but Eli fails to grasp the 2nd law. They were addressing the problem where a body of higher temperature is radiating toward a body of lower temperature, and vice-versa. Eli is under the impression that a two-way heat transfer takes place and G&T replied that the 2nd law covers heat transfer only and that radiation cannot be summed to satisfy it.
The problem is that G&T are both well-versed in thermodynamics while Eli with a degree in physics teaches chemistry classes. So what you have is two experts in thermodynamics explaining the 2nd law while a chemistry teacher claims they are wrong. G&T are correct, the 2nd law is about the direction of heat transfer and its inventor, Clausius, made it clear the 2nd law applies to radiation as well.
Clausius defined the 2nd law in words as follows: heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body. That is true of all energies. Eli thinks he can get around that by turning to the alarmist creation that the 2nd law is a statement about net energy, rather than net heat. And he is dead wrong.
Therefore the green plate experiment is moot. It is nothing more than a thought experiment based on bad science. It does not matter how much it sounds reasonable, it contradicts the 2nd law.
Case closed!!! Eli’s thought experiment is based on the assumption that the 2nd law can be bypassed if an undefined net balance of energy is positive. He addresses it immediately in his post, claiming that critics are wrong. Yet he fails to offer his definition of the 2nd law, relying on a fabricated definition based on an imaginary net balance.
Furthermore, he calls on the S-B equation which does not apply at terrestrial temperatures. According to the alarmist version of S-B, the energy radiated by ice is 315 Watts/m^2, which exceeds the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface.
I tried to explain how to calculate the conductivity of a system as follows:
“For those who might be interested, the overall conductivity is calculated as follows. Resistance is additive, so the conductivity of each element is first calculated. The inverse of conductivity is resistance, so those conductivity values are inverted. Those values are then added to get an overall resistance. That value is inverted to get the overall conductivity.”
The term for the overall conductivity is called a heat transfer coefficient. In the plate experiment there are several individual heat transfer coefficients. I will give a brief example to show how insulation works to limit an otherwise efficient system. Let’s say we have individual coefficients (conductance) of 100, 10, and 1. The units are not important. The overall resistance is 1/100 + 1/10 + 1 = 1.11. The overall conductance is 1/1.11 = 0.9. The high conducting elements are made ineffective by the limiting element and that is how insulation works.
The plates in Eli’s thought experiment are perfect conductors, rendering every single point you just made moot.
“The high conducting elements are made ineffective by the limiting element and that is how insulation works.”
The high conducting elements can even be perfect conductors, and yet are still ‘made ineffective by the limiting element’ according to the math he shows.
So not MOOT for any reader with basic math ability.
Obviously that excludes DREMT.
Oh well!
…the plates in Eli’s thought experiment are perfect conductors, rendering every single point you just made moot.
Repeating a demonstration that that you can’t understand basic math and logic is not helpful to your cause.
Oh well, keep it up!
…plates in Eli’s thought experiment are perfect conductors, rendering every single point you just made moot.
Or showing that DREMT is stubbornly stoopid.
…in Eli’s thought experiment are perfect conductors, rendering every single point you just made moot.
Progression of ENSO 3.4 by week (NCEP).
Week centred on:
12.4 … 0.1
19.4 … 0.3
26.4 … 0.4
03.5 … 0.4
10.5 … 0.5
17.5 … 0.5
24.5 … 0.4
31.5 … 0.8
07.6 … 0.9
14.6 … 0.9
21.6 … 1.0
28.6 … 0.9
05.7 … 1.0
12.7 … 1.1
19.7 … 1.1
26.7 … 1.2
02.8 … 1.1
09.8 … 1.2
16.8 … 1.3
23.8 … 1.5
30.8 … 1.6
06.9 … 1.6
And… what do we do with their forecast?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/images3/nino34Monadj.gif
I suggest nothing. When NOAA predicts +1.5 for Nino3.4 for January, and another model predicts +3.0, who is to know.
Ren and RLH are the only ones here who claim to be able to make precise predictions about the near-future, ren being by far the most black and white (and hence wrong half the time) of the two.
Hmmm … looks somewhat ambiguous.
I meant “I suggest doing nothing”.
I’m worried it might be interpreted as “I don’t suggest anything”.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Ren: “September will no longer be as warm in Australia as August”
How is that prediction turning out for you ren?
What would you know AQ? You live in Queensland and that’s not part of Ozstralia according to people from Brisbane and NSW.
Except I have lived in Sydney my entire life, haven’t visited Queensland since January 1989, and haven’t been within 500 km of the Queensland border for about 20 years.
Eff knows where you come up with this nonsense.
AND … why would people from Brisbane claim that their own state is not part of Australia? Need a basic geography lesson?
Ever hear of tongue-in-cheek humour? I have used it a lot on Roy’s site and I am aware it does not translate well via email or on a blog. Makes it even more delicious as far-too-serious twits scramble to grasp the meaning.
My shots at Binny van der Klown and his brother Klint van der Klown are largely tongue-in-cheek even if their responses tend to be based on anger. I wonder if you could lighten up a bit too.
I worked in New Zealand for a year and one of mu buddies was curmudgeonly older Aussie. I had a great time with him, made the day go more quickly. First thing in the morning he’s show up at my desk and berate me as an ingrate Eskimo. That would go on for a minute while I sat there giggling to myself. A bit later I’d head over to his desk and berate him as a savage aboriginal dingo, or a perverted roo, which got a chuckle from him. Then we’d shoot the breeze civilly.
We are far too serious here on Roy’s blog. We’d accomplish a lot more and get a better understanding of science with a good insertion of humour. That means not taking ourselves so seriously.
Yeah nice attempt at deflection by pretending “I wan’t being serious all along”. What exactly would be funny about stating I come from Queensland? In fact, why do you consistently find humour in targeting different societal groups? Just boorish “humour”.
I see Gordon you were posting elsewhere while ignoring my response here.
I guess you realised how ridiculous your comment was.
Perhaps you should get back to considering the cause of the moon’s phases.
Antonin Qwerty
Robertson’s ridiculous stuff, based as always on nothing more than vague, superficial guesses, is typical of him.
The best part is that he always tries to appear like a Canadian on this blog, but in fact he is nothing more than an arrogant little Scot, and therefore everything but a ‘Canadien de souche’ as the natives of Québec would say.
It’s like I’m claiming to be German just because I’ve lived among the Krauts for many decades.
Ce mec est vraiment l’idi-o-t du village…
He also uses “we” when talking about Americans. Apparently he thinks he’s one of them too.
I’m actually a big Scot. I always figured you for a frog impersonating a German.
I know some of you guys in OZ are short on geography. Both Canadians and the US are in America. Go on, look it up, there is no country on any map called America. In fact, Hawaii is in the US but not anywhere near America.
Apparently Gordon has never heard of the United States of AMERICA.
Apparently he is not aware that citizens of the US AND the rest of the world refer to themselves as Americans, and NOBODY ever refers to Canadians as Americans.
The person who is “short on geography” is the one who doesn’t know that Brisbane is in Queensland.
You just continue to display your xenophobia.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
tim s…”I go where the science leads me. I my excellent education is backed up by knowledge from operating in the real world. I am fully capable in every aspect of heat transfer and thermodynamics”.
***
Then why do you have so much trouble with Eli’s thought experiment? You condone it and claim the math looks good to you.
If you understand thermodynamics then explain the 2nd law to us. It is a basic tenet of thermodynamics and you should have it down cold.
Anyone with even a basic background in thermodynamics has an understanding of the 2nd law and why Eli’s experiment contravenes it. More advanced engineers like Philip Latour, with a degree in chemical engineering and who applies the law every day can see the problem with Eli’s thought experiment, and you do not.
Sorry, but I think you are misinforming us as to your experience in thermodynamics. You are probably a towel man in a steam bath.
I have encountered your scientific acumen directly and you simply don’t have one. Your replies suggest a deep uncertainty.
direct analysis of Eli Rabbetts paper as posted by Tim S…
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?m=1
Eli begins…”An evergreen of denial is that a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter. That’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so according to the Agendaists, the Greenhouse Effect, with greenhouse gases playing the role of the colder object, is rubbish. They neglect the fact that heating and cooling are dynamic processes and thermodynamics is not”.
***
He defines the 2nd law as ‘colder object can never make a warmer object hotter…’. Any serious student of science, upon first reading such rubbish, would immediately close the paper. I can’t because I need to comment on it. I know, by reading Clausius directly, that he did not define the 2nd law as Eli claims. He stated that heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder object to a hotter object. Vast difference that reveals Eli does not understand the 2nd law.
Eli goes on to equate the colder object to GHGs and the GHE. There are two key problems with his comparison. A real greenhouse does not warm based on the 2nd law and, based on the real 2nd law, a colder gas in the atmosphere cannot transfer heat to a warmer surface.
So, Eli begins with a presumption that GHGs in the atmosphere cause warming but does not explain why.
The he claims…
“What is happening is that one does not have just a hot body and a cold body, but a really hot body, the sun, constantly heating a colder (much), but still warm body the Earth, which then radiates the same amount of energy to space”.
***
The first part is correct but the second is not. It has been proved that radiation is a poor means of cooling a surface and Eli fails to grasp that. The energy in from the Sun is injected must faster than surface radiation can remove it. Also, Eli fails to mention conduction/convection, the major surface heat dissipation method.
Before we get into his thought experiment, he has already made assumptions that are far from correct.
Getting into the experiment proper, Eli claims…
“The sun warms the plate, but as the plate warms it radiates until the radiated heat matches the heat being absorbed from the sun”
He shows 4oo watts going into the plate and 200 watts exiting it in either direction. This is a gross exaggeration if not plain silly. In reality, the Sun heats one side of the plate which must radiate the energy from the same side. As Eli depicts it, 200 watts of energy is being absorbed deeper into the surface, towards its centre, and only 200 watts is radiated back toward space.
Eli obviously does not get it that the surface actually does transfer energy deeper into the surface, where it is retained for some time, as in the ocean. Therefore, his simple thought experiment has encountered major problems to begin with.
Neither does Eli seems to get it that the rate of inward solar energy is much higher than the rate of surface radiation in an outward direction. That is corroborated by Newton’s Law of Cooling which states that the rate of heat dissipation at a surface is proportional to the temperature of the environment into which it is dissipating the heat.
It’s obvious that heating attributed to the GHE is actually due to the ineffectiveness of surface radiation at dissipating surface and atmospheric heat.
The atmospheric gases have to be heated by the same solar input, therefore their temperature near the surface will be close to the surface temperature. That alone slows the rate of surface heat dissipation.
However, Eli is completely forgetting that heat is also dissipated by conduction to air molecules directly and removed by convection. He seems to have bought into the notion that heat dissipation by conduction/convection is insignificant and that has been proved wrong by Shula’s Pirani gauge work where it is revealed that conduction/convection is 260 times more effective at removing surface heat than radiation.
Then Eli introduced the fatal flaw in his thought experiment, the S-B equation. Initially, to suit his thought experiment, he used 400 w/m^2 as an input but he does not indicated in his use of S-B the actual input, which according to Trenberth-Keihle’s energy budget is only 192 w/m^2. They rely upon a totally unrealistic back-radiation of close to 400 W/m^2 from sources like back-radiation from GHGs to get enough warming to create their fictitious 33C warming, which they attribute to the fictitious GHE.
However, the major reason S-B cannot be applied here is that it was derived from an electrically-heated platinum filament wire in the range of about 500C to 1500C. The experiment did respect the 2nd law because the heat was being transferred from a very hot filament to the atmosphere. However, Eli’s methodology dabbles in pseudo-science where a cooler atmosphere, like the green plate, can transfer heat to a warmer surface like the blue plate.
Using S-B as offered by Eli claims that ice can radiate 315 W/m^2, an inappropriate misuse of S-B, which is not applicable at terrestrial temperatures.
Using inappropriate math and an inappropriate application of S-B, Eli justifies heat being transferred from a colder surface to a hotter surface.
In conclusion, his conclusion is nothing more than a poorly thought-out thought experiment, which arrives at erroneous conclusions using pseudo-science.
The fact that Tim S. thinks Eli’s math makes sense leads me to the conclusion that Tim is misleading us by claiming he has a background in thermodynamics.
928 words of sweet nothings in total, Bordo.
I hope you that, like Ron Jeremy, it made you feel good.
What makes me feel really good is that you are so obsessed you have to count the words in my post.
Again, Bordo –
I don’t do the counting.
word count dot net does it for me.
I suggest you use Word instead. The count is about 250.
Don’t have Word and I counted the three comments.
With G Docs, that gives me 361 + 325 + 261.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
It is funny how you have “corrected” me in the past by stating that heat is never transferred, because heat IS the transfer of thermal energy. Yet now you are quoting Clausius using “heat” in exactly the way I have used it, apparently without blinking.
… misplaced response to Gordon …
I have explained several times that scientists in the era of Clausius knew nothing about heat transfer via radiation. in that era, a reference to radiation was a reference to an undefined ‘heat ray’. It was not till 1913, and after the discovery of the electron in 1898, that Bohr offered the correct relationship of EM radiation to heat.
Ergo, when Clausius talks about radiation via heat, he is incorrectly referring to the old belief that heat could flow through air as heat rays. Based on that belief, it would have made sense to Clausius that heat could be transferred both ways.
I don’t blame him for that mistake since his other work was stellar. He had no idea of the relationship between EM and heat. The contributions of Clausius to thermodynamics has never been challenged successfully except for that one error.
Heat cannot be transferred by radiation and I have never stated that heat is the transfer of thermal energy. That is a theory offered by Clint and Ball4. Heat IS thermal energy, not a transfer of it. That would be like claiming heat is a transfer of heat since heat and thermal energy are one and the same.
The point I keep trying to make is that heat is lost as EM is radiated. That applies to the Sun as well. However, when EM reaches us from the Sun, it can be converted back to heat if it is absorbed by a surface. The same electrons that emit it are the electrons that can convert it back to heat.
Glad you agree that Clausius says nothing about radiative transfer, which is of course what the greenhouse effect is about.
AQ,
Really? In what way?
You can’t actually say, can you?
You know what the greenhouse effect is all about – you just can’t say where, when, how much, or why!
Brilliant!
… and in dives Flynn for the much needed “save” …
Your buddies missed your blustering say-nothing saves while you were away, especially Clint. At least there’s one positive thing to say about you … you recognise when someone needs saving.
Anyway … the last “say” (for want of a better word) is yours …
.
.
.
iPredators Internet Tr.ll Profile:
Most often gender male.
Spends prolonged periods of time online and likely internet addicted or at risk for becoming internet dependent.
Tends to have few offline friends and online friends often engage in the same type of online harassment.
They are psychopathological in experiencing power and control online fueled by their offline reality of being insignificant, angry and alone.
When online, show a lack of empathy, have minimal capacity to experience shame or guilt and behaves with callousness and a grandiose sense of self.
From a psychodynamic standpoint, Internet Tr.lls create and sustain an intra-psychic myth of power, greatness and domination. Although all humanity is guided through life by internal myths and archetypes, the Internet Tr.lls myths and archetypes are highly distorted.
They are developmentally immature, tend to be chronically isolated and have had minimal to no intimate relationships.
Norman,
Are you the arbiter of who’s a scientist and who isn’t? Let me answer for you. No! Norman, you’re a propagandist. So, stick a fork in it.
Stephen P Anderson
I don’t see anyone called “Norman” in this thread above you.
Are you seeing things again?
I did not claim Clausius said nothing about radiative transfer, I said that his reference to radiation was to a transfer of heat via heat rays which have nothing to do with the EM radiation we know today. The radiation he referenced is not the same radiation we call EM, it was an imaginary medium called heat rays that transferred heat as heat.
However, he made it clear that his type of radiation must obey the 2nd law and as he stated the 2nd law, heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot.
Eli Rabbett, on the other hand, writing under his real name of Josh Halpern, addressed that situation in a very strange manner. When G&T rebutted that heat can be transferred in only one direction by EM, from hot to cold, Halpern et al claimed that would mean one body was not radiating.
G&T tried to straighten him out to the fact that the 2nd law is about heat transfer, meaning heat can only be transferred one way, by its own means, from hot to cold. In other words, heat cannot be related to EM for purposes of summation. Eli has it in his head, that heat must be transferred both ways by radiation.
It should be obvious that radiation is not transferring both ways between bodies of different temperatures. One body is radiating isotropically as is the other. One body simply happens to intercept a small amount of the radiation from the other. In that case, only the radiation from the hotter body is processed by the colder body. The process does not work from cold to hot.
Gordon Robertson
Asserting incorrect information does not make it correct even if you are totally convinced it is. Again you are not a scientist. You do not care about what evidence shows or any facts. You operate on beliefs. You believe radiant energy transfers one way so in your mind it is established fact (even though it is a false belief).
This is why I suggested you join the Flat-Earth Society. They are a group that asserts beliefs (though wrong) and reject all evidence that demonstrates their beliefs are wrong.
Years of experiments have shown that radiant energy transfer is a two-way process.
I will not be able to convince you of anything since you do not have a science mind. You will reject all evidence that does not support your incorrect beliefs. Case of point. Molecular dipoles generate IR energy when the charged poles move in and out at a certain frequency. You do not accept this and believe (falsely) that only electrons emit or absorb IR. There is a whole science with vast amounts of evidence showing you are wrong but you reject it all in favor of your beliefs. Your mind is the same as any Flat-Earth mind.
Gordon
So science now applies to fictitious concepts which have been proved wrong? Interesting.
I just did a search on Clausius’ “The mechanical theory of heat, with its applications to the steam-engine and to the physical properties of bodies”. There was no mention of a “heat ray”, and the term “ray” came up only in a geometric sense. If you want to challenge that then I’m sure you will have no problem quoting the appropriate paragraph, at the same time stating which section (he calls them ‘memoirs’) and which sub-section it is from. If you can’t then you are making it up on the fly.
Gordon
So science now applies to fictitious concepts which have been proved wrong? Interesting.
I just did a search on Clausius’ “The mechanical theory of heat, with its applications to the steam-engine and to the physical properties of bodies”. There was no mention of a “heat ray”, and the term “ray” came up only in a geometric sense. If you want to challenge that then I’m sure you will have no problem quoting the appropriate paragraph, at the same time stating which section (he calls them ‘memoirs’) and which sub-section it is from. If you can’t then you are making it up on the fly.
Oh wait Gordon – I’ve found it. Here is one of his sentences:
” When two bodies are placed in a medium penetrable by
rays of heat, they transmit heat TO EACH OTHER by radiation”.
.
.
.
“Let s1 and s2 be given surfaces of any two perfectly black
bodies of the same temperature, and upon them let any two
elements, ds1 and ds2, be selected with a view of determining
and comparing the quantities of heat which they mutually
transmit to each other by radiation. When the medium which
surrounds the bodies and fills the intervening space is homo
geneous, so that the rays proceed in right lines from one surface
to the other, it is easy to see that the quantity of heat which
the element ds1 sends to ds2 must be just as great as that which
ds2 sends to ds1”.
.
.
.
AQ,
Clausius couldn’t describe the greenhouse effect.
That’s because it doesn’t exist, except in the overheated imaginations of people like you.
You’re dreaming.
> I have explained several times
This time using 537 words, 2,917 characters, and zero equation.
norman…”I will not be able to convince you of anything since you do not have a science mind”.
***
The reason you can’t convince me is you have no idea what you are talking about. The reason you want me to join the Flat Earthers is that you are president and head recruiter.
AQ…You quote Clausius as follows without bothering to cite volume and page…
” When two bodies are placed in a medium penetrable by
rays of heat, they transmit heat TO EACH OTHER by radiation.
***
What have I just spent a good amount of time explaining to you? Clausius is talking about ‘rays of heat’. That was the belief in his days that heat could be transmitted through a mysterious aether via heat rays.
There is no such thing as a heat ray. The entire scientific fraternity of the day believed that heat could be transmitted as heat via heat rays. Bohr proved that theory wrong in 1913 when he revealed the connection between electrons in atoms and electromagnetic radiation.
Heat rays cannot be EM and they had to know that in the day. Clausius defined heat as the motion of ‘ponderable’ atoms. Ponderable means having mass, which is weight in a gravitational field. Therefore, he had to have a full awareness that such atoms could not flow through space as heat rays since a ray is a reference to light, or EM.
They were stymied by heat transfer via radiation. Maxwell created his famous EM equations circa 1855 but even he had no idea about the source of EM. He simply put a mathematical explanation to Faraday’s research into EM fields. At the time, atomic structure had yet to be defined because the electron had not been discovered till 1898.
It would be another 15 years till Bohr got the insight that EM fields are generated by electrons in atoms. That was a major breakthrough in science, even though some ijits try to insist Bohr’s theories are no longer applicable. Sheer nonsense, they are still directly applicable to the hydrogen atom. The point is that quantum theory that developed from Bohr’s discovery is still basically the same as what Bohr specified.
I repeat, Clausius was not privy to this major insight therefore he was reaching with his theory of heat rays. Although his theories on radiation can be dismissed, it is worth the read through that work because he reveals a lot of science in his analysis.
However, there is no way to dismiss his work on the 1st law, the 2nd law, entropy and kinetic gas theory. He was right on the mark. Also, he insisted despite his heat ray theories, that radiation must obey the 2nd law.
> What have I just spent a good amount of time explaining to you?
Does it really take you that much time to write these 365 words, Bordo?
I mean, you really were trying to get your way out of a simple thought experiment by paying lips service to Bohr in 2016, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-experimental-demonstration-that-cool-objects-can-make-warm-objects-warmer-still/#comment-221784
And why do I keep telling YOU … if he was not privy to that science then nothing he says can be interpreted as a valid statement about radiative transfer, so does not disprove anything.
It’s like me saying “the continents are where they are due to plate tectonics”, and you saying “Joe from 1500 proves that to be false, despite having no idea about the earth’s interior”.
But of course you also deny the established science of plate tectonics, so you won’t understand that example.
Little Willy, Antonin, please stop trolling.
I have to laugh at the ignorance of the dim-witted nut who refers to himself as Eli Rabbett – in the third person no less!
He seems to think that an object exposed to a radiative flux of, say, 400 W/m2, will somehow radiate a flux of 200 W/m2, apparently depending on its shape, surface area, orientation, or for some other reason known only to himself.
He has an imaginary plate. This object apparently doesn’t change its temperature, emitting precisely 100% of the energy falling upon it. This means that the object is a perfect conductor, in which case, all the radiation falling upon it is radiated away from the far side – at 400 W/m2, in this case.
No doubt Eli Rabbetts defenders will howl that he is describing a “thought experiment” where normal physical laws don’t apply.
No, Eli, the atmosphere does not make the surface warmer in sunlight – rather the direct opposite. Nor does increasing greenhouse gases lead to higher surface temperatures. The hottest places on Earth are those with the least greenhouse gases! Furnace Creek in Death Valley, or the Lut Desert, for example.
Oh well, some people prefer fantasy to reality. Good for them, I say.
“This means that the object is a perfect conductor, in which case, all the radiation falling upon it is radiated away from the far side – at 400 W/m2, in this case.”
Agreed – as long as the view factors between the Sun and the plate are equal to 1.
“as long as the view factors between the Sun and the plate are equal to 1.”
But they are of course, not. The sun is far away and like a point source.
“where normal physical laws dont apply.”
Actually Eli applies the normal physical laws. While I see none being applied here.
“…means that the object is a perfect conductor, in which case, all the radiation falling upon it is radiated away from the far side – at 400 W/m2, in this case.”
Agreed – as long as the view factors between the Sun and the plate are equal to 1.
Naturally, since that makes little sense..
“…that the object is a perfect conductor, in which case, all the radiation falling upon it is radiated away from the far side – at 400 W/m2, in this case.”
Agreed – as long as the view factors between the Sun and the plate are equal to 1.
Gordon Robertson wrote:>
“I have tried to encourage you to think these problems through but it appears you’d rather appeal to authority rather than think for yourself.”
Then in the next paragraph he writes:
“If you care to read Clausius on the first law, he explains it in detail. Clausius, who was studying the relationship of heat and work,…”
Kids say the darndest things!
Why do you keep missing the point? I am giving credit to Clausius rather than making it appear his theories are thought up by me. That is not an appeal to authority because I can explain his work based on other theories in physics. In fact, I can offer explanations that CLausius had not idea existed.
That is not an egotistical claim, it is a simple fact that I live in a more advanced science society. I would not want to take him on in a debate over work with which he was familiar and that applies to most scientists out there. We’d all get our b’ut’ts kicked, yet many of these scientists have the temerity to arbitrarily re-write the 2nd law and misrepresent the first law and entropy.
I have explained his theories using quantum theory. I have also corroborated his 2nd law using examples from other forms of energy.
When I ask someone to explain the GHE, or AGW, most often they resort to authority figures like the IPCC, or they regurgitate theories from high school. When I challenge thm on the basis of those theories, they have no comeback.
All I am asking you to do is debate the science at whatever level you are at. I won’t take shots at anyone who is trying to understand science, I reserve my shots for those who arrogantly proclaim something without scientific proof.
When I am not sure about something,I am careful not to make assertions lacking proof. Sometimes I do it for the sake of humour, relying on posters to have at least a smidgeon of humour.
Gordon Robertson:
Personal attack: you’re ugly.
Appeal to authority: your mother says you’re ugly.
Get it?
Hey, my good buddy tells me I am not only getting ugly, I am getting homely too. He looks a lot like a sasquatch which I am happy to point out to him. Gets us both laughing.
On one site I’d greet an old timer with the query, “Hey, man, how’s it hangin”? He’d take a second, look around a bit and reply, “straight down, still straight down”. All with a serious face.
Live look at Alabama’s offensive line: https://imgur.com/a/XRtMdBh
Also on video: https://imgur.com/a/D35UEyG
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Unfortunately I don’t have time to read, or respond to, all the nonsense. But, I did notice both barry and Norman making the same mistakes. Hopefully, this will improve their knowledge.
Radiative fluxes do NOT simply add. That’s one of the reasons ice cubes cannot boil water. It’s also the reason the sky cannot warm Earths surface.
Both barry and Norman have used the example of two radiant heaters making a person warmer than just one heater. But, that is NOT the issue.
A typical radiant heater has an element temperature of over 2500°F. So a second heater is just making up for the losses of the single heater. I third heater would do the same. But, a 1000 such heaters could never raise the temperature of a target above the element temperature, because radiative fluxes do NOT simply add.
It’s analogous to a magnifying glass. A magnifying glass re-organizes sunlight to make up for the losses. But even if you had a 1000 magnifying glasses, all forcused on one spot, you could not achieve a temperature above Sun’s emitting temperature.
So the fraud put out by Folkerts is completely WRONG. Two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving at a surface can NOT result in a temperature of 325K. And an ice cube can NOT increase solar flux. Just as the sky can NOT increase solar flux.
(I would bet a beer that the cult won’t get it. I would bet a second beer that they can’t respond with science. All they’ve got is insults and false accusations. Science-wise, they’ve got NOTHING.)
You are absolutely right, Clint.
–
Fluxes do not add, because when flux hits matter, flux doesn’t get absorbed – flux interracts with matter first, some of it gets reflected, some of it gets transformed into IR and re-emitted as IR, and only a small portion gets absorbed in inner layers and gets conducted as heat further on.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Clint R
It is not that Tim Folkerts is wrong with his point. It is that you do not attempt to understand what he is saying.
One you do not understand that you could not get two sources of ice emitting two fluxes of 315 W/m^2 on the same surface. With a one meter square surface totally surrounded by ice it will only receive a flux of 315 W/m^2. That is the maximum. The surface could receive less however and then you would see how fluxes add.
I can’t make you see this or even hope you want to logically think it through.
If you have no other source of energy just ice and and object. Two ice cubes will heat the object more than one, and 10 will do even more. As you add ice cubes each will add to the total energy the object receives and it will continue to increase in temperature until it is totally surrounded.
In Tim’s point (he has explained it to you many times but you ignore it) he is saying two fluxes reaching a surface. This does not indicate anything at all about the source temperature or what the sources are. It is only discussing the energy reaching a surface and two fluxes of 315 W/m^2 will increase the temperature of the surface over one. It has nothing at all about ice boiling water.
All that blah-blah just to say you have swallowed the nonsense that ice cubes can boil water.
Thanks Norman, for being such a good example of incompetence.
Norman is part of the tyranny that demands unity. You MUST conform!
Yeah, science facts are annoying and tyrannical!
A very smart fellow named Albert Einstein won a Nobel Prize for pointing out that people like you, Tim Folkerts, and all the eminent scientists of the day, didnt understand the nature of fluxes.
The Nobel committee justified their award to Einstein by saying, in part, “. . . for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.”
If you don’t accept Einstein’s explanation, that’s fine.
Still no description of the GHE, I note. Nor any experimental support for your assertion that a colder atmosphere can result in a warmer surface. Step outside at night, when it’s snowing, during a solar eclipse. See?
You really have no clue, do you?
Swenson wins the prize for non-sequitur of the day!
We are not discussing the photoelectric effect. Understanding the photoelectric effect has nothing to do with understanding the issues being discussed. We are discussing heating by photons, not ejecting photoelectrons.
If anything, the photoelectric effect reinforces what we are saying. If you shine sunlight on a solar cell, you generate current. If yu shine more light (for example with a mirror) you add the fluxes and you get more current.
“Both barry and Norman have used the example of two radiant heaters making a person warmer than just one heater. But, that is NOT the issue.”
Yes, that actually is exactly the issue. Each radiator creates some flux at your skin — let’s say 500 W/m^2. Together, they make MORE flux than either alone — 1000 W/m^2 in my example. Together, they make your skin warmer than either alone. Those two fluxes arriving at your skin do indeed add.
Your misunderstanding seems to still be grasping the difference between the flux emitted by something (radiant emittance or radiant exitance) ) (eg 41,400 W/m^2 from a 2500 F heating element) and the flux arriving somewhere else (irradiance) (eg 5000 W/m^2 arriving at your skin).
You ARE correct that you can’t take 1000 elements like that and create an irradiance of 50,000 W/m^2 arriving at your skin. The limit for flux ARRIVING (irradiance) is the same as the flux LEAVING (radiant exitance).
So you are correct: you absolutely cannot add 315 W/m^2 of radiant exitance from some ice to 315 W/m^2 of radiant exitance from some other ice to get an irradiance of 630 W/m^2. Ice — by itself cannot boil water.
But yet, you absolutely CAN add 315 W/m^2 of irradiance from some ice to 315 W/m^2 of irradiance from the sun, and get an irradiance of 630 W/m^2.
Until you understand and acknowledge the difference between radiant exitance and irradiance, you lost in this discussion. The beer goes to Clint when he understands the difference between and significance of irradiance vs radiant exitance.
Folkerts, if 315 plus 315 results in 630 W/m^2, then what is 315 + 315 + 315 + 315?
In case your calculator isn’t handy, the answer is 1260 W/m^2, corresponding to 235F (113C), more that enough to boil water.
Or, that’s like saying 4 ice cubes could boil water!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Another valid point goes whoosh, right through Clint’s empty head.
Nate, a child like you wouldn’t know the difference between a “valid point” and a “false claim”.
Maybe when you grow up?
This is the valid point:
“Until you understand and acknowledge the difference between radiant exitance and irradiance, you lost in this discussion”
I guess you missed it, because you don’t even address it, much less rebut it.
Wrong child. This was NEVER about “exitance”. I always specified “arriving” fluxes. Folkerts tried to misrepresent me — a common cult tactic.
But those tactics work on kiddies.
“I always specified arriving fluxes.”
Then you do understand that the 315 W/m^2 flux emitted from an ice cube, is not going to make 315 W/m^2 arrive at a surface, unless that ice cube is right up against that surface?
Ya know, the inverse square law and all.
Then you understand that, since two ice cubes can NEVER both be right up against the same point on a surface, then there will NEVER be two 315 W/m^2 fluxes from ice arriving at the same point on a surface.
So every time you moan about ice cubes cannot boil water, etc, you do understand that is a strawman.
Good.
Before you throw more crap against the wall child, do you now understand there was no “valid point”?
You need to be learning, if you’re spending your life here.
Naturally you offer no science rebuttal. Just insults.
Just answer the question, child:
Do you now understand there was no “valid point”?
The point is (shocking that you you missed it!), that when you talk about ice cube can’t boil water, you are using this to claim that fluxes don’t add.
But this is a stoopid, since ice cubes NEVER EVER produce two 315 W/m^2 fluxes that hit the same spot on a surface, thus they cannot possibly ADD to 630 W/m2!
So this is a strawman that you are trying so hard to sell every time you mention ice cubes.
Nobody is buying it.
Wrong child, your point was INVALID.
This was NEVER about “exitance”. I always specified “arriving” fluxes. Folkerts tried to misrepresent me a common cult tactic.
But those tactics work on kiddies.
“This was NEVER about exitance.” I always specified arriving fluxes.
FALSE. Whenever you brought up ice, and its 315 W/m^2, that is its exitance, and ONLY its exitance.
It was never 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING at a surface after being emitted by ice.
Thus your ice challenge has always been a strawman.
All you have done is say ‘ice can’t boil water’ then declare that two fluxes arriving at the same point on a surface do not sum.
You havent produced any actual evidence. If you have any, show us now.
Physics from any number of sources contradicts this. It requires that light intensities from multiple sources crossing the same point in space SUM, or reaching the same point on surface SUM.
And we have shown plenty of real world observations of that occurring.
All Clint has to do is explain how 315W/m2 from an ice cube (let’s say with surface area 5 square centimetres) manages to irradiate a surface of any dimension with 315 W/m2.
Over to you, Clint. Please explain how this happens.
Here you are confusing ice exitance with its irradiance:
“Folkerts, if 315 plus 315 results in 630 W/m^2, then what is 315 + 315 + 315 + 315?
In case your calculator isnt handy, the answer is 1260 W/m^2, corresponding to 235F (113C), more that enough to boil water.
Or, thats like saying 4 ice cubes could boil water!”
A graph of galactic radiation from Oulu shows changes in solar activity over the last two cycles. Galactic radiation is repelled by the magnetic field of the solar wind. Changes in galactic radiation indicate a weakening of the sun’s magnetic activity.
https://i.ibb.co/rvKCZsS/onlinequery.png
Confirming that this cycle is stronger than the last.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Airports around the world are relocating sensitive electrical equipment to rooftops to protect it from flooding, reinforcing runways to handle extreme temperature swings and revving up air conditioning as climate change complicates operations.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/extreme-weather-is-forcing-redesign-of-world-s-busiest-airports-1.1971783
proof…wee willy…there are a serious load of nutjobs out there.
Out there, Bordo?
You and other Sky Dragon cranks are right here.
About as silly as airports in the UK getting rid of their snow-clearing equipment years ago, just before heavy snow, because some nitwit climatologist said that snow would become extremely rare, and that “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is, . . .”!
The climate is never static, and nobody can predict climate states. Not even the above mentioned nitwit climatologist, Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, in 2000.
Maybe you can peer into the future better than a senior research scientist. Who knows?
Good luck.
Here in Vancouver, they sold off the fire boat and a year later the Coast Guard facility on the waterfront burned down. The ijit mayor later became the Premier of BC and he brought in the carbon tax.
Since you’re our in-house engineer, Bordo, perhaps you can solve that pickle:
Op. Cit.
What would you suggest, preferrably in less than 2500 words?
Willard,
Are you just being silly? Or are you suggesting that heat waves and hot temperatures are due to CO2 in the atmosphere?
I’d suggest you learn some physics, and accept that heat waves have always been a fact of life.
weather!!!
Very good, Bordo.
But my client charges per word:
Op. Cit.
Perhaps with some “EM this and EM that” voodoo we could get an interesting stipend?
Higher temperatures don’t affect the laws of physics. Anybody who thinks so is as silly as you.
You dont have a client – you are just trying to sound important.
Maybe airline operators want to abolish warm weather in their quest for maximum profits, but they’ll quickly complain about icing, and start moaning about passengers wanting to stay warm!
You do realise that the Earth has cooled since it had a molten surface, don’t you?
Mike Flynn,
Repeating your misunderstanding of what is being said does not make you less of an asshat.
Maybe it is a good thing that Mike Flynn is still in-between gigs and does not to manage anyone else’s assets.
What’s this Mike Flynn nonsense?
I’ll repeat because you are obviously not quite all there.
Higher temperatures dont affect the laws of physics. Anybody who thinks so is as silly as you.
You dont have a client you are just trying to sound important.
Maybe airline operators want to abolish warm weather in their quest for maximum profits, but theyll quickly complain about icing, and start moaning about passengers wanting to stay warm!
You do realise that the Earth has cooled since it had a molten surface, dont you?
Mike Flynn whines about Mike Flynn nonsense.
Mike Flynn produces more Mike Flynn nonsense.
Mike Flynn will whine again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
DREMT,
The only way to make progress is for you to admit you have the wrong solution.
What the heat flows look like with the plates together is the same as the second diagram in Eli’s original post.
400 watts in from the Sun, and 200 watts out from each side.
You will have to explain this part
“The green plate could only cool if the 200 W/m^2 emitted to its left was not returned to it by the blue plate.”
What part of reflection, absorpption, transmittance, or scattered is returned?
Looks like you are making up Physics here.
And you bring back your zombie diagram.
Here is what’s wrong with it.
The blue plate has 600 watts/meter in and out, and is at 244.
The green plate has 400 watts/meter in and out, and is at 244.
That’s not possible.
You are right – Eli’s nonsense is not possible.
Any inert object which is emitting precisely as much unit radiative flux as it is receiving has no temperature, it is a perfect conductor.
Think about it. If a body is emitting more energy than it receives, it is cooling. And vice-versa.
Don’t agree? A red not cannon ball in the Sun may be subject to 900 W/m2 from the Sun, but still cooling. Cold water may be receiving 900 W/m2 but still warming. You probably mean that a body emitting as much energy as it is receiving will maintain its temperature – of course, as Einstein pointed out, if the incoming photons are sufficiently energetic to act as a source of external energy, ie capable of being absorbed by the body.
For example, a red hot cannonball placed in 900 W/m2 sunlight will cool, even though the sun is nominally 5500 K or so.
You don’t understand any of this, do you? You probably think that the cooler atmosphere makes the surface hotter!
Wrong. Step outside at night, when its snowing, or during a solar eclipse.
Swenson,
You must be confused about whose nonsense I was referring to.
“You are right Elis nonsense is not possible.”
I was referring to Clint R’s and DREMT’s nonsense.
Still feigning ignorance of the diagram, bob? It’s all colour-coded, so it should be easy enough to follow.
"The blue plate has 600 watts/meter in and out, and is at 244"
That’s incorrect, bob. The blue plate is receiving 400 and emitting 400, as shown (the red arrow is what it receives, the blue arrows are what it emits). The additional green arrow from the right of the blue plate heading back to the green is of course what I explained to you earlier:
"The green plate could only cool if the 200 W/m^2 emitted to its left was not returned to it by the blue plate.
If the 200 W/m^2 was not returned to it by the blue plate, then the blue plate would be warming at the expense of the green plate as a result of that 200 W/m^2, and you would have a 2LoT violation on your hands."
Now that you understand again, you can send me your diagram of the energy flows with the plates pushed together.
Here is the diagram:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
DREMT,
There is nothing in science about returned radiation, this is just your made up physics.
Well, there is something in science about not violating 2LoT, hence the radiation is returned.
Yeah, you don’t understand the second law, so you have to make up physics.
Got any empirical evidence for this return of radiation?
Looks like reflection, smells like reflection, tastes like reflection, looks like you stepped in it DREMT.
Returned is not one of the many ways radiation can interact with matter.
Sure, bob. Seim & Olsen, Hughes. The usual empirical evidence we’ve discussed.
Yeah we have discussed those.
You don’t seem to understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Better experimentalist that those, have found the green plate effect.
I count myself as one of them.
…and yet, nobody has any reason to believe you.
In a football game, this is called garbage time. The game is lost, but DREMT keeps playing.
In this case, it means deferring to Clint’s authority, and his humorous diagrams.
DREMT,
Believing me has nothing to do with anything.
At least I don’t make up physics and change definitions to suit immoral purposes like you and Clint R.
bob makes it personal, as usual, imagining “immoral purposes”.
There is nothing “made-up” about 2LoT.
Yes DREMT, the second law is not made up, it’s your violation of it that is made up.
Eli is the one violating 2LoT.
DREMT,
It’s your claim that Eli is violating the second law, you have not established that.
Eli has no second law violation as the heat transfer in his example is from blue to green.
There is no heat transfer from green to blue.
It’s just your imagination.
…and as there is no heat transfer from the GP to the BP, and the GP is not insulating the BP, the BP will remain at 244 K.
DREMT,
But there is heat transfer from the blue plate to the green plate so they are not at the same temperature.
No, bob, at 244 K…244 K there is no heat transfer from the BP to the GP. Why would a temperature gradient between the two plates just randomly organise and establish itself after you have separated the plates!?
Because you change the heat transfer from conduction to radiation.
Thus you need to recalculate the heat transfers and temperatures.
Like Eli, an expert in thermodynamics did.
Furthermore, there is no temperature gradient in a vacuum.
Obviously by “temperature gradient” I just meant the BP being warmer than the GP. I see bob has no meaningful answer, and just appeals to Eli’s authority.
DREMT,
That you find this response not meaningful shows more about your knowledge of thermodynamics than you think.
“Because you change the heat transfer from conduction to radiation.”
So like I said, change the method of heat transfer, change the calculations.
Eli has the requisite degrees and experience to be considered an expert in thermodynamics, so an appeal to his authority is warranted.
You could try checking his calculations, after all, I did, and found them to be correct.
After all, thermodynamics lies in the realm of physical chemistry, there in the overlap, a set of courses common to both a physics degree and a chemistry degree.
It’s obvious you and Clint R do not have such a degree.
bob continues to appeal to authority, even claiming that it is "warranted"! Perhaps he meant to "defer to Eli’s authority". I didn’t mean that, however. I meant "appeal to authority", as in the logical fallacy.
Besides, yes, I have checked Eli’s "calculations". The maths is correct, but the physics it represents is wrong. Namely, because it leads to:
1) A 2LoT violation.
2) It being impossible for an object to warm another object up to the same temperature, via radiation, under any circumstances.
3) The idea that any object insulates any other object, simply by existing, to the extent of significant temperature increases in the insulated object, regardless of the insulative properties of the "insulator" (or lack of insulative properties).
“If the 200 W/m^2 was not returned to it by the blue plate, then the blue plate would be warming at the expense of the green plate as a result of that 200 W/m^2, and you would have a 2LoT violation on your hands.”
Anyone claiming to have found a 2LOT violation needs to show how heat flow, Q, which is the NET energy flow, ever flows from the colder GP to the warmer BP.
Just a reminder that in the Eli solution, the GP is sending less flux to the BP than the BP is sending to the GP. Thus NET flux, IOW the heat flow, Q, is always from BP to GP.
I have no idea why anyone could imagine that is heat flowing from GP to BP, because that never happens.
“3) The idea that any object insulates any other object, simply by existing, to the extent of significant temperature increases in the insulated object, regardless of the insulative properties of the “insulator” (or lack of insulative properties).”
Argument from Incredulity, FAILS AGAIN.
I don’t understand why people keep using this flawed logic, when it has never once been a convincing argument.
DREMT,
“1) A 2LoT violation.”
you have yet to demonstrate the Second Law violation you claim.
“2) It being impossible for an object to warm another object up to the same temperature, via radiation, under any circumstances.”
You would only need a view factor of 2, that may indeed be possible.
But anyway, in the green plate effect, there is no heating up to the same temperature from one object to another.
“3) The idea that any object insulates any other object, simply by existing, to the extent of significant temperature increases in the insulated object, regardless of the insulative properties of the “insulator” (or lack of insulative properties).”
My shirt keeps me warmer than I would be without it.
I must take a bread from the Cargo Cult Canoe Clown Car.
Your response to 2) kind of helps make my point for me, and your response to 3) is such an obvious straw man that there’s no point responding.
With 1), you wouldn’t recognize a 2LoT violation if it slapped you in the face. Just for fun, why don’t you outline what you think would be a 2LoT violation, involving radiation.
DREMT,
Let’s break this down.
“Your response to 2) kind of helps make my point for me, and your response to”
2 is a red herring, no one is saying radiation can heat something to the same temperature as the radiating object.
“3) is such an obvious straw man that theres no point responding.”
Right, but 3) is your argument as you posted it here.
“3) The idea that any object insulates any other object, simply by existing, to the extent of significant temperature increases in the insulated object, regardless of the insulative properties of the “insulator” (or lack of insulative properties).”
“With 1), you wouldnt recognize a 2LoT violation if it slapped you in the face. Just for fun, why dont you outline what you think would be a 2LoT violation, involving radiation.”
That’s easy enough,
Put a pot of water in a solar oven in bright sunlight near the equator at atmospheric pressure, and it freezes solid.
I could provide one for each of the many equivalent statements of the second law.
You might want to review the second law from a reputable textbook. Maybe check one out from your local library.
You know you are in disagreement with our host on this issue, kinda like knocking the cans off of the shelf in the bodega.
“no one is saying radiation can heat something to the same temperature as the radiating object”
Yes, and that’s silly. Why shouldn’t radiation be able to warm something to the same temperature as the radiating object, in idealised circumstances (such as with view factors equal to 1)? That’s a rhetorical question, by the way, bob…no need to respond.
For 3), note I said “…regardless of the insulative properties of the “insulator” (or lack of insulative properties)”, and your immediate response was to mention something with insulative properties to try and “counter” it. Doesn’t work, bob.
For 1), I was thinking maybe you would pick an example and lay out the numbers, like the actual fluxes involved, etc. Don’t worry, Eli’s Green Plate Effect serves as a good enough example of a 2LoT violation.
“Why shouldnt radiation be able to warm something to the same temperature as the radiating object”
Sure, if the other side of the object was insulated. Then ONLY the temperature of the heating object matters.
Otherwise not, because the other side of the object can lose heat to the environment, whose temperature then matters a great deal.
If the environment on the other side is at the same T as the warming object, no problem.
If the environment on the other side is colder, then NO, heat will be lost on the other side to the environment, and the object MUST BE COOLER than the heating object.
To fail to account for heat loss to the environment on the other side of the object is to be intentionally ignorant.
BTW, the notion that space can do whatever you want, and is not acting as a cold environment, is utterly ridiculous. Since we know that the dark side of the Moon, and the shaded parts of JWST, cool to extremely low temperatures.
DREMT,
You say it’s a rhetorical question, but
“Yes, and thats silly. Why shouldnt radiation be able to warm something to the same temperature as the radiating object, in idealised circumstances (such as with view factors equal to 1)? Thats a rhetorical question, by the way, bobno need to respond.”
No heat transfer is 100% efficient, you would think that would be obvious, theoretically or experimentally proven easily.
You still haven’t described what the second law violation with the green plate effect.
There isn’t one because the heat transfer is from the blue plate to the green plate.
“For 3), note I said regardless of the insulative properties of the insulator (or lack of insulative properties), and your immediate response was to mention something with insulative properties to try and counter it. Doesnt work, bob.”
I was just pointing out that this was your argument, and I said nothing about insulating anything.
“No heat transfer is 100% efficient, you would think that would be obvious, theoretically or experimentally proven easily…”
…but in the idealised, “perfect” conditions of Eli’s thought experiment, there is no need for the heat transfer not to be 100% efficient. That’s the point.
“You still haven’t described what the second law violation with the green plate effect…”
…that’s false, bob. I have described and explained it dozens of times.
“I said nothing about insulating anything…”
…that’s false, bob. You mentioned your shirt making you warmer. That would be an example of insulation.
“but in the idealised, “perfect” conditions of Elis thought experiment, there is no need for the heat transfer not to be 100% efficient. Thats the point.”
Yes, there still is reason not to be “100% efficient”!
Maybe if you think about your situation the other way around, it will make sense.
Imagine a single, thick, heated plated, with “perfect” thermal conductivity. The temperature will be uniform because heat is spread “perfectly” by conduction. If one part was even 1 C cooler than another part, a brief, infinite heat flow would occur and the temperatures would instantly become uniform.
Now split the plate into two pieces with half the thickness each, but keep the heater only in one half. The “perfect insulation” that now exists between the two halve means no conduction at all! No heat transfer at all from the heated plate. The plates can be different temperatures without instantly readjusting to be the same temperature.
But wait! There is still radiation. However, even “perfect radiation” cannot transfer heat infinitely the way “perfect conduction” can. The two plates and be different temperatures. The unheated plate will be some temperature COOLER than the heated plate and WARMER than the rest of the surroundings.
Tim, space is not “surroundings”. It’s a vacuum. How many times!?
…and you have nothing to explain, nothing to teach. I understand the “Green Plate Effect” arguments perfectly well, better in some cases than some of the people defending it. I just disagree, and I have explained why, time and again.
“I just disagree, and I have explained why, time and again.”
Indeed if one always ignores the counterarguments of one’s opponent, as DREMT does, then in one’s mind his arguments are virginal, pristine and have never been in doubt!
No, readers, I have no idea why he keeps responding to me, either. He knows I don’t even read his comments any longer, so why he bothers is anyone’s guess.
And when you have no answers to your opponents arguments, it is a very convenient fiction to say that you don’t read their posts.
Of course, when you do feel that you have an answer, a way is found to respond to the non-read posts.
…readers, I have no idea why he keeps responding to me, either. He knows I don’t even read his comments any longer, so why he bothers is anyone’s guess.
DREMT, clearly you do NOT understand the arguments.
You are saying that an object without sunlight shining on it will be the same temperature as a nearby object with sunlight shining on it.
You are saying 100’s of watts will flow in one direction between two objects at the same temperature.
DREMT,
“thats false, bob. I have described and explained it dozens of times.”
Yes you have described what you believe is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics dozens of times.
But your beliefs do not make a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
The heat flow in Eli’s thought experiment is always from hot to cold, thus there is no violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
DREMT, clearly you do NOT understand the arguments.
You are saying that an object without sunlight shining on it will be the same temperature as a nearby object with sunlight shining on it.
You are saying 100’s of watts will flow in one particular direction between two objects at the same temperature.
"You are saying that…"
…I am saying that two absolutely identical (bar the colour) perfectly conducting blackbody plates will reach the same temperature in the Sun when pressed together as they will when separated with view factors equal to 1 between them…and I am correct.
"The heat flow in Eli’s thought experiment is always from hot to cold, thus…"
…the BP remains at 244 K.
DREMT refuses to calculate flows and temperatures and throws a temper tantrum instead.
Spits the binky indead.
My responses couldn’t have been calmer.
Calculations up-thread.
“and I am correct.”
Yes we understand that if you ignore the contradictory facts and logic provided by your opponents, then in your own mind, all that is left is your perfect unblemished argument.
But science is all about making an argument with logic and facts that can convince others.
Oh well!
Here, bob:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1535595
DREMT,
And my response
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1535620
DREMT,
That’s not the final flows and temperatures at steady state, it is only the initial conditions when the plates are separated.
Still wrong.
And just declaring you are correct wins internet prizes.
You simply declaring I’m wrong all the time is absolutely no different to me declaring I’m correct. The discussion has run its course, once again, and we are now simply playing "who will have the last word". I’ll give you a hint…you won’t win that game.
Yet you never address the criticisms of your position I provide, you just cycle back and restate your wrong interpretations.
Like how you have never provided a valid explanation of why the green plate effect violates the second law of thermodynamics.
In other words, I explain why I am correct, and you don’t.
There you have it, as the world continues to burn, flood, and cook.
That’s wrong, bob.
DREMT, how about this?
Two unheated plates are in my living room. Everything is 20 C. I now turn on a heater on just one plate. According to your logic, once both plates equilibrate, they will be same temperature as each other. Even though only one has an active heater.
How can you not see this is absurd? How can you think objects in contact behave the same as objects separated my an insulator?
“Therefore when Q = 0 the green plate has a constant temperature ”
Faulty assumption, that has no basis in physics.
As was pointed out by Tim. Who noted that the correct condition for constant temperature of the GP is reached only when Q input to it = Q output from it.
This is the basic 1LOT requirement for the plate.
But again, you IGNORE this valid point without a science rationale, as you IGNORE Bob’s valid point, Tim’s, mine and others.
We will fight the battle of the second law and the green plates another day.
DREMT and Clint R will lose again, yet declare themselves the winners.
Tim has to change the conditions of the thought experiment to try to make a point, and bob just gurgles up some nonsense. The team are getting desperate. The discussion was finished some time ago.
DREMT,
I asked you to explain this
“You will have to explain this part
The green plate could only cool if the 200 W/m^2 emitted to its left was not returned to it by the blue plate.
What part of reflection, absorpption, transmittance, or scattered is returned?”
Why does the blue plate “return” the 200 watts/m^2 to the green plate.
Magic perhaps, because you don’t understand the physics and make stuff up?
You know, the extra non scientific green arrow in your diagram.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1536435
No change of conditions. There is one heated plate. there is one unheated plate. There are surroundings of fixed temperature. Wait a long time for the system to stop changing.
Either both plates settle in at the same temperature or they settle in at different temperatures.
The conditions of Eli’s thought experiment are: no surroundings (space), the plates are perfect conductors, black bodies, and when separated view factors are to be treated as equal to 1 between the plates. I will discuss nothing else. The minute you leave the no surroundings (vacuum of space) and add air into the equation, you change absolutely everything. There is no reason to do so except to obfuscate.
DREMT,
That post is what I am asking you to explain. Just repeating that post that has the 200 watts/m^2 returned to the green plate from the blue plate is not an explanation.
You know the part you bolded for emphasis.
What is this returned to it by the blue plate?
Since the 200 watts/m^2 is not returned to the green plate by the blue plate, then the blue plate must warm as it is receiving more watts/m^2 than it is emitting.
But then the heat transfer is still from the blue plate to the green plate so no second law violation.
Are you understanding the basics yet, or are you still holding on to your diagram with your G.I. Joe Kung Fu grip?
If the 200 W/m^2 emitted from the GP to the BP resulted in the BP increasing in temperature to 262 K and the GP decreasing in temperature to 220 K, on separation of the plates, then (no matter what semantics you try to use to dress it up) that would be a transfer of heat from cold to hot. The BP increasing in temperature at the expense of the GP.
So, you try to dress it up as insulation. You try to claim it is just a “reduction in heat flow”. You have this whole narrative in place that heat is flowing from the “hot Sun” through the plates and out to “cold space”. Not seeming to realise that when heat flow has gone to zero, it’s gone to zero throughout. The Sun is no longer “heating” the BP when the BP has warmed to 244 K. Once it has warmed, that heat flow has gone to zero. Similarly, there is no heat flow from the GP to space. You can’t “heat” a vacuum! The GP just radiates IR into space. End of story. No heat is flowing any more, there is only energy flowing.
Radiative insulation just doesn’t work the way you want it to.
” The discussion was finished some time ago.”
Yes years ago.
But DREMT brought it up again. Made the same tired arguments again. And no one was convinced, because they were based on false assumptions and fake physics, as we pointed out for the umpteenth time.
So indeed what was the point?
DREMT,
I am not asking you to gaslight me.
I am asking for a scientific explanation of the extra 200 watts/m^2 arrow from the blue plate to the green plate.
“If the 200 W/m^2 emitted from the GP to the BP resulted in the BP increasing in temperature to 262 K and the GP decreasing in temperature to 220 K, on separation of the plates, then (no matter what semantics you try to use to dress it up) that would be a transfer of heat from cold to hot. The BP increasing in temperature at the expense of the GP.”
If you can do the calculations, you will see that the heat transfer is from the blue plate to the green plate, there is no transfer of heat from cold to hot.
The blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate, and the green plate cools by emitting both to the surroundings and to the blue plate.
Further
“So, you try to dress it up as insulation.”
Dress it up or not, the green plate hinders the ability of the blue plate to cool to the vacuum of space, or what ever, it is always cooling by radiating energy.
Next
“You try to claim it is just a reduction in heat flow.”
Well it is, that’s comes directly from the radiation heat flow equation. Sorry you skipped class that day.
Next
“The Sun is no longer heating the BP when the BP has warmed to 244 K. ”
Not true, the Sun continues to transfer heat to the blue plate when steady state is reached, sorry you don’t understand that either. Must have missed that class too.
Next to Lastly
“You cant heat a vacuum! The GP just radiates IR into space.”
So you can’t heat a vacuum, but the energy just keeps being radiated into space.
Finally
“Radiative insulation just doesnt work the way you want it to.”
How do you think I want it to work?
According to the Stephan-Boltzmann law and the radiative heat transfer equation, taking into account emissivity?
And Lastly
Where is your justification for the extra arrow?
“then (no matter what semantics you try to use to dress it up) that would be a transfer of heat from cold to hot. ”
Heat flow from Blue to Green has been reduced, not reversed.
The semantic dressing up game is all on you.
” Not seeming to realise that when heat flow has gone to zero, its gone to zero throughout.”
Poppycock.
DREMT
You should listen to Nate more, he is more succinct than I am.
But then I like Melville.
“I am asking for a scientific explanation of the extra 200 watts/m^2 arrow from the blue plate to the green plate.”
It is the back-radiation being returned from the BP, rather than resulting in a 2LoT violation by increasing the temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP.
“If you can do the calculations, you will see that the heat transfer is from the blue plate to the green plate, there is no transfer of heat from cold to hot. The blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate, and the green plate cools by emitting both to the surroundings and to the blue plate.”
bob contradicts himself in the space of two sentences. You say the heat transfer is from the BP to the GP in the first sentence, then admit that you think the GP heats the BP in the second sentence!
bob then tries to break up the section of my comment about heat flow into sentences, responding to each one separately when the argument exists as a whole. Tut, tut.
“Not true, the Sun continues to transfer heat to the blue plate when steady state is reached, sorry you don’t understand that either. Must have missed that class too.”
No, the Sun continues to transfer energy to the BP. If it was still transferring heat, the BP would be warming.
“So you can’t heat a vacuum, but the energy just keeps being radiated into space.”
Glad you agree.
“I will discuss nothing else.”
Then simply change the words from “my living room” to “outer space”. This changes nothing in the analysis .
Two unheated plates are in outer space. Everything is 2.7 K. I now turn on a heater on just one plate. According to your logic, once both plates reach a steady state, they will be same temperature as each other. Even though only one has an active heater.
Here is yet another wrinkle, suppose the plates were large and you were floating between them. All you see is two surface at exactly the same temperature. Two surfaces in thermal equilibrium. Yet you insist 200 W/m^2 is flowing from one two the other. How would oyu know which way? how would you know which it the blue plate and which is the green plate?
It just gets more bizarre the more we think about it.
“According to your logic, once both plates reach a steady state, they will be same temperature as each other. Even though only one has an active heater”
That’s right, Tim. If both plates are perfect conductors, blackbodies, and identical in every way (bar the colour) and view factors are equal to 1 between them when they are separated, then the plate with a heater inside it heats the other plate until it is the same temperature as the plate with a heater inside it. Just as it heats the other plate to the same temperature if they are pushed together.
The answer to your questions are, you wouldn’t know which way (you can’t see IR energy), although you would know which is the green plate and which is the blue plate by looking at their colour, so you could work it out that way. Ask a silly question…
I would add, though, that if you were between the plates, you would be interfering with those perfect view factors between them, and you are not a perfect conductor, so you would be changing the conditions somewhat.
“Thats right, Tim. If both plates are perfect…bla bla bla” and then he simply asserts what will happen.
No evidence or sound logic required.
No attempt to address the criticisms.
As time goes on DREMT has resorted more and more to this tactic of simply declaring his own truth.
Bob, DREMT should read your direct, excellent list of questions here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537106
and answer them.
But he won’t. Because he has no good answers.
He will simply repeat his nonsense again and again, and convince no one.
By the way, Tim, your comment is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity. I seem to remember, back when I used to read his comments, a certain someone regularly complaining about those. Presumably that’s what he just responded with, to tell you off, Tim. Anything else would be a grotesque double standard.
“It is the back-radiation being returned from the BP, rather than resulting in a 2LoT violation by increasing the temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP.”
When asked is this reflection? He demurs.
When asked what physics explains it being returned, he has no answer.
He keeps saying these are perfect black bodies, but then ignores what a perfect black body does:
It ABS.ORBS PERFECTLY.
“The blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate, and the green plate cools by emitting both to the surroundings and to the blue plate.”
– bobdroege
That quote is a keeper.
DREMT.
Shall we review the second law of thermodynamics?
“One simple statement of the law is that heat always moves from hotter objects to colder objects (or “downhill”), unless energy in some form is supplied to reverse the direction of heat flow.”
Now your claim
“It is the back-radiation being returned from the BP, rather than resulting in a 2LoT violation by increasing the temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP.”
Since the heat flow in the green plate effect is always from the blue plate to the green plate, there is no second law violation, because there is no heat flow from the green plate to the blue plate, thus the blue plate does not increase its temperature at the expense of the green plate.
Your next claim
“bob contradicts himself in the space of two sentences. You say the heat transfer is from the BP to the GP in the first sentence, then admit that you think the GP heats the BP in the second sentence!”
There is no contradiction as I said the blue plate is heated by the combination of energy transfers from the Sun and the green plate, never saying the blue plate is heated by the green plate. That’s you usual gaslighting.
Next claim
“No, the Sun continues to transfer energy to the BP. If it was still transferring heat, the BP would be warming.”
Nothing in thermodynamics requires that heat transfer requires an increase in temperature. In fact heat can be transferred without an increase in temperature.
You are wrong on all counts again.
DREMT,
The blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate, and the green plate cools by emitting both to the surroundings and to the blue plate.
Damn right it’s a keeper, because it’s true.
Now what part of that do you think is false?
bob, you said the GP heats the BP, along with the Sun. Thus you concede there is heat transfer from cold (GP) to hot (BP), a clear violation of 2LoT.
Thank you.
“In fact heat can be transferred without an increase in temperature.“
In the case of phase change, sure. However, that does not apply to what we are talking about.
DREMT,
“bob, you said the GP heats the BP, along with the Sun. Thus you concede there is heat transfer from cold (GP) to hot (BP), a clear violation of 2LoT.”
I concede nothing, because the heat transfer is from blue to green, there is no heat transfer from green to blue, how many times do I have to say that?
You can have heats, or an increase in temperature, without heat transfer, another thing you fail to understand.
Heat transfer is a specific concept, with several conditions to be met. I am sorry you don’t understand that.
Next
“In the case of phase change, sure. However, that does not apply to what we are talking about.”
Yes it does, it can apply at steady state, such as the condition with only the blue plate, there is heat transfer from the Sun to the blue plate and from the blue plate to space, with constant temperatures.
Have you learned anything yet?
Here are your words, bob:
“The blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate, and the green plate cools by emitting both to the surroundings and to the blue plate.“
It is a delight to watch you squirm, but I’m afraid with that statement you conceded the entire debate.
“Yes it does, it can apply at steady state, such as the condition with only the blue plate, there is heat transfer from the Sun to the blue plate and from the blue plate to space, with constant temperatures.”
You agreed you cannot heat a vacuum, so no, there is no heat transfer to space. Your own words condemn you again, bob.
What a glorious win.
DREMT,
Heated doesn’t mean heat transfer.
What part of that do you not understand.
You also have some difficulty with the definition of “and”
Next
“You agreed you cannot heat a vacuum, so no, there is no heat transfer to space. Your own words condemn you again, bob”
Again you have difficulty with the difference between heat and heat transfer.
They don’t mean the same thing.
Bask in your own glory, no one seems to agree with you.
Keep on wriggling, bob.
DREMT semanticizes Bob to death for the fact that the heat source, the sun, together with the GP reducing heat flow (via back radiation, NOT reversed heat flow), results in the BP warming.
Whereas DREMT pretends the sun is not the heat source, and argues that the GP does all the heating!
Usually this would be the point that others step in to put words in bob’s mouth and mine that neither of us said.
That may have happened already. Who knows?
“step in to put words in bobs mouth and mine that neither of us said.”
Sounds like DREMT accidently read and responded to my post.
So to answer him, here is a quote direct from him.
“If the 200 W/m^2 emitted from the left of the green plate led to the blue plate rising in temperature to 262 K, at the expense of the green plate (reducing in temperature to 220 K), then that 200 W/m^2 would have to be a transfer of heat from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.”
So he is clearly suggesting here that there is a heat transfer from GP to BP, that is the cause of its warming, else there would be no 2LOT violation!
But he is ignoring that the extra HEAT to warm the BP cam from the SUN.
Just to reiterate, these are bob’s words:
“The blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate, and the green plate cools by emitting both to the surroundings and to the blue plate.“
With those words he has conceded the debate. This message will be repeated for as long as is necessary.
Readers will notice that I used the colloquial heat, and not the heat transfer as specified in the second law of thermodynamics.
They will also be unable to find any fault in that statement.
They also will note that there is no violation of the second law in that statement.
Or they can make up shit like DREMT is fond of doing.
Furthermore DREMT, you cannot make up your own physicals laws, let’s leave that those will the necessary knowledge and experience.
#2
Just to reiterate, these are bob’s words:
“The blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate, and the green plate cools by emitting both to the surroundings and to the blue plate.“
With those words he has conceded the debate. This message will be repeated for as long as is necessary.
DREMT,
Yes with this statement I concede that I have won the debate.
“The blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate, and the green plate cools by emitting both to the surroundings and to the blue plate.”
That is, unless you can find a specific fault in that statement.
I stand by it, can you find any fault?
I win.
Yes, bob. As I already explained, you’re saying that the Sun and the green plate heat the blue plate. Not only that, but you’re saying the green plate, in part, cools to the blue plate.
We know that the Sun heats the blue plate to 244 K. Since Eli’s solution has the blue plate at 262 K, the only logical way to read your statement is that the Sun heats the blue plate to 244 K, and the green plate heats the blue plate the rest of the way, to 262 K…
…and there’s your 2LoT violation. Not in the Sun heating the blue plate to 244 K…the colder green plate heating the warmer blue plate the rest of the way, to 262 K.
DREMT,
Like I said before, you can’t make up your own second law of thermodynamics.
“Not only that, but youre saying the green plate, in part, cools to the blue plate.”
Nonsense, I am not saying that at all, the green plate cools by emitting radiation, that has nothing to do with what that radiation encounters later.
“the only logical way to read your statement is that the Sun heats the blue plate to 244 K, and the green plate heats the blue plate the rest of the way, to 262 K”
Or you could read that as the green plate heats the blue plate to 205 and the Sun heats it the rest of the way to 262.
It doesn’t work either way, it works by having both sources heat it together to 262.
So there you have no second law violation.
Sorry DREMT, you lose again,
“It doesn’t work either way, it works by having both sources heat it together to 262.”
Which is a 2LoT violation, since the GP is not a heat source. bob just keeps digging himself in deeper. Wonderful to watch.
#3
Just to reiterate, these are bob’s words:
“The blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate, and the green plate cools by emitting both to the surroundings and to the blue plate.“
With those words he has conceded the debate. This message will be repeated for as long as is necessary.
“although you would know which is the green plate and which is the blue plate by looking at their colour”
And what if I had secretly moved the heater? You would not be able to tell the difference, and you would claim the heat flow was FROM the unheated plate TO the heated plate!
The simple fact is that if two objects are in thermal equilibrium then:
1) they have the same temperature.
2) there is no heat flow between the object.
A “blue plate” and a “green plate” at the same temperature have no heat flow. Intuition agrees. Physics principles agree. Equations agree (there is always something like (Th-Tc) or (Th^4 – Tc^4).
You are saying this the Zeroth Law is wrong. You are saying that every single physics professor (and every engineering professor for that matter) is wrong and you somehow have discovered new physics.
BOB: “green plate cools by emitting both to the surroundings and to the blue plate.
DREMT: “With those words he has conceded the debate. ”
Wrong again. Any object above absolute zero emits thermal radiation in all directions. For the “green plate”, some of that radiation heads out in the direction of the blue plate. since we have already agrees the plates are blackbodies, then we know the radiation gets absorbed my the blue plate.
In other words, the green plate is emitting photons to the blue plate.
“The simple fact is that if two objects are in thermal equilibrium then:
1) they have the same temperature.
2) there is no heat flow between the object”
Indeed. I’m not saying otherwise. You’ve got yourself all confused, Tim.
#4
Just to reiterate, these are bob’s words:
“The blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate, and the green plate cools by emitting both to the surroundings and to the blue plate.“
With those words he has conceded the debate. This message will be repeated for as long as is necessary.
“Any object above absolute zero emits thermal radiation in all directions.”
Yes. See the diagram. Maybe carefully read through every single comment in a discussion before butting in, rudely.
“For the “green plate”, some of that radiation heads out in the direction of the blue plate”
Yes. See the diagram. Maybe carefully read through every single comment in a discussion before butting in, rudely.
“since we have already agrees the plates are blackbodies, then we know the radiation gets absorbed my the blue plate.”
If by “absorbed by the blue plate” you mean “results in a temperature increase in the blue plate” then no, as that would violate 2LoT. You cannot use a blackbody (an imaginary object) as an excuse to violate 2LoT. Hence the radiation from GP to BP is returned from the BP to the GP. See the diagram. Maybe carefully read through every single comment in a discussion before butting in, rudely.
“In other words, the green plate is emitting photons to the blue plate.”
Yes. See the diagram. Maybe carefully read through every single comment in a discussion before butting in, rudely.
DREMT,
“Which is a 2LoT violation, since the GP is not a heat source. bob just keeps digging himself in deeper. Wonderful to watch.”
You can’t get away without defining your terms.
What is your definition of a heat source?
Does anything that emits radiation qualify?
Anything above absolute zero?
Play semantic games win internet prizes.
Remember, and this is the crux of the biscuit.
The heat transfer is from the blue plate to the green plate, so there is no second law violation.
Also the blue plate is also not a heat source by your incorrect definition.
So I suggest you try again, you are still losing.
bob apparently can’t even tell the difference between the Sun and the GP! He just digs himself deeper and deeper.
He falsely accuses me of playing semantic games as he desperately plays semantic games in order to try to get himself out of the hole he’s dug.
#5
Just to reiterate, these are bob’s words:
“The blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate, and the green plate cools by emitting both to the surroundings and to the blue plate.“
With those words he has conceded the debate. This message will be repeated for as long as is necessary.
I’ll reiterate this again, because DREMT is totally confused about the second law of thermodynamics,
“Which is a 2LoT violation, since the GP is not a heat source. bob just keeps digging himself in deeper. Wonderful to watch.”
An object does not have to be a heat source to transfer heat or energy.
Remember you have to be specific when using the terms heats and heat transfer.
Using one when you mean the other just gets you in trouble, especially if you are using different terms to conjure up violations of the second law of thermodynamics when none exist.
DREMT,
The blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate, and the green plate cools by emitting both to the surroundings and to the blue plate.”
You still haven’t found a fault with my statement.
Repeating it over and over again, it still remains true.
This is what you said, bob.
““the only logical way to read your statement is that the Sun heats the blue plate to 244 K, and the green plate heats the blue plate the rest of the way, to 262 K”
Or you could read that as the green plate heats the blue plate to 205 and the Sun heats it the rest of the way to 262.
It doesn’t work either way, it works by having both sources heat it together to 262.
So there you have no second law violation.”
It doesn’t matter what proportion you want to assign to either the Sun or the GP, it is the fact that you are saying together they heat the BP. That means you are saying the GP contributes to heating the BP.
You could have said the Sun heats the BP and the GP insulates the BP. You would still have been wrong, but it would have made the 2LoT violation less obvious.
Instead, you have fully committed yourself, and doubled down many times, on saying that the GP heats the BP. You only have yourself to blame. Your pride won’t let you ever admit any error. So here we are. You said what you said, and now you have to live with it.
“If by absorbed by the blue plate you mean results in a temperature increase in the blue plate … “
No. By “absorbed” I mean “absorbed”. The photon heads to the blue plate. The photon ceases to exist. The energy of the former photon becomes energy of the blue plate.
In on your diagram, “absorbed by the blackbody surface of the ‘blue plate’ ” apparently means “reflected”!
PS I will agree that Bob’s statement is not quite right when he says:
“The blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate, and the green plate cools by emitting both to the surroundings and to the blue plate.”
The blue plate “receives energy from” the green plate.
The green plate “emits energy to” the blue plate.
The blue plate is not “heated” by the green plate. The net flow of thermal energy is from the blue plate to the green plate. There is MORE energy from blue to green than green to blue, so “heat flow” is always from blue to green.
I would also accept “”The blue plate is WARMED by the Sun and the green plate …”. The green plate reduces the heat loss from the blue plate, so the blue plate warms up. (Like putting a lid on a heated pot reduces the heat loss and the pot warms up.)
“Just to reiterate, these are bobs words:”
Just to reiterate, DREMT is desperate to score imaginary points by semanticizing* Bob to death.
* Fantisizing that you can win by attacking your opponent on pedantic semantics, while missing the larger POINT.
* in this instance it is also fantisizing that a Law of Physics (2LOT) is violated merely by the WORDS one chooses to describe a phenomena.
[DREMT] If by "absorbed by the blue plate" you mean results in a temperature increase in the blue plate…
[TIM] No…
[DREMT] Great, so you agree that the radiation from the GP does not result in a temperature increase in the BP. Thus, the BP remains at 244 K on separation of the plates.
[TIM] PS I will agree that Bob’s statement is not quite right when he says: “The blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate, and the green plate cools by emitting both to the surroundings and to the blue plate.”
[DREMT] Indeed, he makes the 2LoT violation very obvious there. That’s why he’s conceded the debate.
[TIM] The green plate reduces the heat loss from the blue plate, so the blue plate warms up. (Like putting a lid on a heated pot reduces the heat loss and the pot warms up.)
[DREMT] That would be "insulation", Tim. The GP does not heat the BP, and it does not insulate the BP, either. Consider the plates pushed together. The BP is receiving 400 W/m^2 from the Sun on its left side, and it is receiving a non-zero amount of energy from the GP on its right side. Thus, according to the exact same logic you apply when the plates are separated, the BP should warm beyond 244 K. However, you agree there (with the plates together) that the BP remains at 244 K.
“[DREMT] Great, so you agree that the radiation from the GP does not result in a temperature increase in the BP. Thus, the BP remains at 244 K on separation of the plates.”
Also no. I simply stated that “absorbed” means “absorbed”. You are wrong when you conclude that “absorbed” means “reflected”.
“However, you agree there (with the plates together) that the BP remains at 244 K.”
Yes, I agree that in two completely different situations (one plate vs two plates), there are two completely different solutions (one temperature vs two temperatures).
“Thus, according to the exact same logic ”
My logic is “heat flows when there is a temperature difference between two objects”.
Your logic is “heat flows even when there is no temperature difference between two objects”.
I’ll stick to my logic.
"You are wrong when you conclude that “absorbed” means “reflected”"
I don’t, and have never, concluded that "absorbed" means "reflected". Try again.
"Yes, I agree that in two completely different situations (one plate vs two plates), there are two completely different solutions (one temperature vs two temperatures)."
Wrong, Tim. The plates pushed together are still two plates, not one.
"Your logic is “heat flows even when there is no temperature difference between two objects”."
Another misrepresentation…and one I had already corrected you on, earlier. If you can’t debate honestly, Tim, don’t debate at all.
Here is your diagram, DREMT. https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
There is a green arrow toward the left from the green plate to the blue plate. 200 W/m2 of photons. Do those photons get absorbed or reflected?
There is a green arrow toward the right from the blue plate to the green plate. 200 W/m2 of photons. Are those reflected green photons? If not, what is their source?
There are two arrows (green and blue) from the blue plate to the green plate and one green arrow back: 200 W/m2 + 200 W/m^2 – 200 W/m^2 = 200 W/m^2 from blue to green. If this is not “200 W/m^2 of heat flowing with no temperature difference” then what would you call it?
"There is a green arrow toward the left from the green plate to the blue plate. 200 W/m2 of photons. Do those photons get absorbed or reflected?"
Don’t know.
"There is a green arrow toward the right from the blue plate to the green plate. 200 W/m2 of photons. Are those reflected green photons? If not, what is their source?"
Don’t know, but their source is the green plate.
"There are two arrows (green and blue) from the blue plate to the green plate and one green arrow back: 200 W/m2 + 200 W/m^2 – 200 W/m^2 = 200 W/m^2 from blue to green. If this is not “200 W/m^2 of heat flowing with no temperature difference” then what would you call it?"
A flow of IR energy, not heat. I assume you know the difference between "heat" and "energy".
Now it’s my turn to ask you some questions, Tim:
1) With the plates pressed together, is there 400 W/m^2 from the Sun incident on the left side of the BP?
2) With the plates pressed together, is there a non-zero amount of energy received by the BP on its right side, from the GP?
3) Why do you accept that the energy referred to in 2) does not raise the temperature of the BP with the plates pressed together, but think that it does raise the temperature of the BP with the plates separated?
That is a lot of “don’t know” for someone trying to convince people that you do know the physics of the situation!
“1) With the plates pressed together, is there 400 W/m^2 from the Sun incident on the left side of the BP?”
Yep. That is one of the assumptions of the problem.
“2) With the plates pressed together, is there a non-zero amount of energy received by the BP on its right side, from the GP?”
Whether pressed together or held apart, there is energy from the GP to BP (but of course, there is also MORE energy from BP to GP).
When held apart, that energy is via photons transferring energy from GP atoms to BP atoms. When held together, that energy is via collision transferring energy from GP atoms to BP atoms.
“3) Why do you accept that the energy referred to in 2) does not raise the temperature of the BP with the plates pressed together, but think that it does raise the temperature of the BP with the plates separated? ”
Well, actually … even when pressed together, there will be a temperature difference. Since conduction is not perfect, there will be a gradient across the BP/GP combo. Maybe 245 K on the side facing the sun and 243 on the side away from the sun. The BP will be warmer than the GP. You can take the limit of better and better conductivity and get smaller and smaller gradients, but there will always be a gradient.
Now, we could have a thought experiment with ‘perfect conduction’ and have no difference when pressed together. You can have k = infinity and Delta(t) = 0 and multiply to get (infinity)*(zero) = 200 W/m^2 (using really sloppy math notation where we should be using limits). But you can’t have a thought experiment with “perfect radiation” when held apart. When Delta(T) goes to zero, Q always goes to zero for radiation.
You’re not quite getting what I mean. You’re referring to thermal resistance, an insulative property of the material which would indeed mean that any real plate would be warmer on the side facing the Sun than the other side.
The plates in Eli’s thought experiment are perfect conductors (he specified it in the comments). Thus they possess no thermal resistance. They do not have that insulative property at all. Now, you assert that in that case the two plates would be the same temperature. However, the BP would still be receiving a non-zero amount of energy from the GP, because it is right next to it, and the GP is at the same temperature. Why does that energy not raise the temperature of the BP when the plates are pushed together, but you think it does when the plates are separated?
Previously you tried to dodge by saying that the plates pressed together are just one plate. Well, if we’re going to go down that road, then I could say that the plates separated (but with view factors equal to 1 between them) are still just one plate. There’s no meaningful difference between two plates separated with view factors between them equal to 1, and one plate.
“That is a lot of dont know for someone trying to convince people that you do know the physics of the situation!”
Indeed it is. Especially for someone regularly expressing certainty that they understand this problem and its solution.
He insists that these are perfect black bodies, which by definition, makes them perfect abs.orbers, but when asked whether IR flux hitting the body is abs.orbed or reflected he says he doesn’t know.
This is simply ignoring physics.
When he says the flux is ‘returned’ without being abs.orbed, that can only mean reflection.
Of course that is ignoring the physics, and knowing this is a contradiction, he denies that it is reflected.
And that is simply dishonest.
DREMT,
The second law is about heat transfer, not whether the position of an object causes another object to increase its temperature.
In this case with emissivity of 1, the heat transfer is from the blue plate to the green plate, so there is no violation of the second law.
Change the emissivity to any other value, except 0 and you will have the same result with different temperatures and heat flows, the blue plate will warm and the green plate will cool and the heat transfer will be from the blue plate to the green plate and there will be no violation of the second law.
Even Tim criticised your comment, bob.
#6
Just to reiterate, these are bob’s words:
“The blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate, and the green plate cools by emitting both to the surroundings and to the blue plate.“
With those words he has conceded the debate. This message will be repeated for as long as is necessary.
Tim,
“PS I will agree that Bobs statement is not quite right when he says:
The blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate, and the green plate cools by emitting both to the surroundings and to the blue plate.
The blue plate receives energy from the green plate.
The green plate emits energy to the blue plate.
The blue plate is not heated by the green plate. The net flow of thermal energy is from the blue plate to the green plate. There is MORE energy from blue to green than green to blue, so heat flow is always from blue to green.
I would also accept The blue plate is WARMED by the Sun and the green plate . The green plate reduces the heat loss from the blue plate, so the blue plate warms up. (Like putting a lid on a heated pot reduces the heat loss and the pot warms up.)”
You say not quite right, and then you agree with everything I said.
Let’s not split hairs as DREMT will try to drive a truck through.
Yes, the blue plate gets energy from both the Sun and the green plate, and its temperature increases as a result.
So there is nothing wrong with saying the blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate.
Always though, the heat transfer is from the blue plate to the green plate, so there is no second law violation.
Which is what this thread is all about.
DREMT,
Tim said
“I would also accept The blue plate is WARMED by the Sun and the green plate .”
warmed or heated mean the same thing.
Heat transfer is another question, which you incessantly dodge.
Heat transfer is always from blue plate to green plate.
bob tries to pretend that he meant “heats” in some colloquial sense, but that this is a lie can be confirmed by reading his earlier comment:
“There is no contradiction as I said the blue plate is heated by the combination of energy transfers from the Sun and the green plate, never saying the blue plate is heated by the green plate. That’s you usual gaslighting.”
bob is just incapable of admitting he made a mistake.
DREMT doesn’t understand the use of the word “and”
I never said the blue plate is heated by the green plate.
I said the blue plate is heated by the green plate and the Sun.
It’s all side bullshit anyway.
You continue to fail to produce a second law violation in the green plate effect.
"I said the blue plate is heated by the green plate and the Sun."
Which means you are saying that the green plate heats the blue plate. Along with the Sun. Lol.
The point you missed, bob, was that in that earlier comment you made no mention of meaning "heats" in a colloquial sense. That was an excuse that you made up afterwards, to try to dig yourself out of a hole.
"You continue to fail to produce a second law violation in the green plate effect."
That’s obviously a lie, bob. Just because you don’t understand, or can’t accept, what I’ve explained to you time and again, doesn’t mean that I haven’t produced an explanation.
Bob says: “You say not quite right, and then you agree with everything I said.”
I agree with the spirit. I disagree with one key word. “The blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate … ”
As you note, “heat” has a very specific meaning in thermodynamics. So saying the BP is ‘heated’ by the GP can make it sound like heat is going from cool to warm. Your comments make it clear this is not what you intend. I was pointing out that is how it can sound.
I would encourage you to use “warmed” rather than “heated” to avoid heated discussions. : – )
“”You continue to fail to produce a second law violation in the green plate effect.”
Thats obviously a lie, bob. Just because you dont understand, or cant accept, what Ive explained to you time and again”
Only in the mind of a narcissist, might that be considered a LIE.
In reality it is just a reasonable assertion that you havent been convincing.
You havent used real defined physics quantities like HEAT FLUX, or actual statements of 2LOT.
And instead used vague terms, like ‘at the expense of’.
‘At the expense of’ is found nowhere in statements of 2LOT, and could mean many things.
Thus it is useless and unconvincing in a science argument.
DREMT,
Yes I said the blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate.
And here is where you lied about what I said.
“bob contradicts himself in the space of two sentences. You say the heat transfer is from the BP to the GP in the first sentence, then admit that you think the GP heats the BP in the second sentence!”
You lie by failing to note that I said the green plate and the Sun heat the blue plate.
And you won’t admit that mistake, and you continue to claim that as a violation of the second law of thermodynamics when the second law requires a heat transfer from cold to hot for that violation.
When the actual transfer in question is from the blue plate to the green plate which is from hot to cold.
You should stop digging.
Readers will note that Tim had no response:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537767
Case closed.
Tim,
“As you note, heat has a very specific meaning in thermodynamics. So saying the BP is heated by the GP can make it sound like heat is going from cool to warm. Your comments make it clear this is not what you intend. I was pointing out that is how it can sound.”
Well, I am arguing with DREMT, and he likes to use the non specific to thermodynamics use of the word heats, heated, or heat.
Or words like “warming at the expense of the green plate”
So I am down to his level.
And I am a chemist anyway, we use the word heat in a lot of different situations, some of them not involving a transfer of energy.
DREMT,
Yeah, but myself and Nate objected to that post.
Heat transfer by conduction is different from heat transfer by radiation.
Ask Gordon.
Radiation is much less efficient at transferring heat than conduction.
Case closed.
Bailiff whack DREMT’s pee pee.
“Why does that energy not raise the temperature of the BP when the plates are pushed together, but you think it does when the plates are separated?“
Tim wouldn’t answer the question, so I will. The reason that the energy from the GP does not raise the temperature of the BP when the plates are pushed together is: 2LoT. And it’s the exact same principle when the plates are separated. People intuitively grasp it with conduction, nobody even questions it…but when it comes to radiation, they get themselves all confused.
That’s that.
Maybe this will help, DREMT.
Assume the two plates are indeed perfect conductors. Assume they are 1 cm apart. Assume enough time has passed to reach a steady state situation.
That one cm gap could be filled with all sorts of things.
* There could be an opaque perfect conductor, in which case 200 W/m^2 of heat will be conducted across the gap, and 0 W/m^2 will be radiated across the gap. Both plates will be 244 K.
* There could be an opaque perfect insulator, in which case 0 W/m^2 of heat will be conducted across the gap, and 0 W/m^2 will be radiated. The BP will be 290 K and the GP will be 0 K.
* Any opaque material between these extremes will result in temperatures between these these extremes. For instance, if 50 W/m^2 was conducted across the gap, the GP would be 172K radiating 50 W/m^2 from the right and the BP would be 280K radiating the remaining 350 W/m^2 from the left.
As you change from no heat to more more heat by conduction, the BP cools below 290K and the GP rises above 0K.
If the gap was a perfect insulator, but partially transparent, then there might also be 50 W/m^2 across the gap, and the plates would again be 280K and 170K.
But unlike conduction, you an never get 200 W/m^2 across a gap with 0 temperature difference. The best you can do is 133 W/m^2 across the gap with temperatures of 262K and 220K. If you try to make the temperature difference any smaller, the radiation gets smaller than 133 W/m^2 and the temperature difference will rise.
(This is way too detailed, but it was fun working though the details, so I put it down in writing anyway.)
I just made the point that settled the issue, Tim. Sorry you missed it.
Here’s a perfect example.
Tim makes perfectly valid and unique points, and DREMT ignores them, as if he thinks only HIS points need to be considered, and have no flaws.
This is the regular pattern going on here.
He is not here for honest debate, never will be.
…just made the point that settled the issue, Tim. Sorry you missed it.
I gotta laugh, DREMT. There is you with one position on heat transfer and the 2nd Law.. And there is every single physics professor with a different position. And you have the audacity to proclaim that — even though you don’t know where the photons go or where they come from — that you alone understand the situation.
Laugh away, Tim. Other members of your “team” are coming round to the idea that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. I’m definitely not alone, not on this blog and not even amongst your peers.
Readers will note that you still have no response to the point I made.
As for what you did reply with, I don’t disagree with some of it (e.g. the insulation between the plates and the BP being 290 K and GP 0 K), but much of it is simply a repeat of your narrative that there “should be” heat transfer between the plates at “steady state” because you think the GP has to radiate “heat” to space…even though you cannot “heat” a vacuum and all that needs to be radiated to space is IR energy, not heat.
Two perfectly conducting plates pressed together = one single plate.
That’s the trick in the thought experiment.
As well as being perfect conductors, Eli ALSO says that the plates are infinitely thin (and infinitely broad).
There is absolutely no thermal or physical difference between one plate or two DREMT’s conductive set-up.
But there is a thermal difference with 2 plates separated by vacuum.
“But there is a thermal difference with 2 plates separated by vacuum.”
Not with view factors equal to 1 between them.
“Not with view factors equal to 1 between them.”
Why that matters to make vacuum transfer heat just as efficiently as metal, is NEVER explained.
It is the vagueness of what this sciency term actually does, that is the best friend of the obfuscator, who originally was Joe Postma.
And DREMT is simply deferring to his authority without ever being able to explain how it works.
Well, much as I’d like to continue to spend day after day locked into an eternal back and forth with people who have absolutely no genuine interest whatsoever in trying to understand, I guess someone has to be the one to draw it all to a close.
[This discussion is closed for comments].
Someone is under the illusion that they control what others do here.
“absolutely no genuine interest whatsoever in trying to understand”
Well, we simply can’t understand what is not ever explained, such as the view factors thing above.
Or how a blackbody that perfectly abs.orbs returns radiation, but not by reflection.
Or how a 2LOT violation happens without heat transfer from cold to hot.
Or how it is ok to violate 1LOT in a plate.
These things are asserted, but not sensibly explained.
So come back when you have explanations that make any sense.
“Other members of your “team” are coming round to the idea that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.”
Yes, there many issues with how the GHE is presented and justified. But your issue is not one of them.
“Readers will note that you still have no response to the point I made.”
Readers will note you have still not understood the point I made.
Your point at the moment seems to be that conduction and radiation should behave the same way. They don’t.
The respective equations for heat flux (W/m^2) between two infinite sheets (view factor = 1) separated by a distance “d” for radiation and for conduction are:
Flux = (epsilon)(sigma)(Th^4 – Tc^4)
Flux = k(Th – Tc)/(d)
The first equation has a finite maximum value, EVEN FOR “PERFECT” radiation. The second is infinite for perfect conduction.
Finite flux means a finite temperature difference.
Infinite flux means no temperature difference.
“Finite” and “infinite” are fundamentally different!
“much of it is simply a repeat of your narrative that there “should be” heat transfer between the plates”
Well … yes. Is that even an issue for you?
The right side of the GP radiates energy. That energy must come from somewhere, and the only source in the thought experiment is heat from the BP. It is immaterial whether you want to call that radiation from the GP “heat” or “IR” or “EM energy”. It still has to have a source or you are violating conservation of energy instead!
Tim, if you’re not going to pay attention to what’s already been discussed, then please stop butting in.
This discussion is closed for comments.
DREMT asking for physicists like myself, Tim, Eli, and others to ‘understand’, meaning ACCEPT, his assertions, is simply ludicrous.
Since accepting his assertions means rejecting physics, such as Conservation of Energy, that we have learned and used (at least on my case) over 30+ years.
That has zero chance of happening.
Particularly when such assertions are based on hand-waving unphysical arguments from someone with little knowledge of heat transfer or physics.
So for him to keep coming back and repeating the same non-physical arguments, while not listening at all to people who have actual knowledge of this subject, makes little sense.
“It still has to have a source or you are violating conservation of energy instead!“
Tim, there is absolutely no problem with conservation of energy. Refer to the diagram if you are still confused. Everything is accounted for.
This discussion is closed for comments.
“Tim, there is absolutely no problem with conservation of energy. Refer to the diagram if you are still confused. Everything is accounted for.
This discussion is closed for comments”
Yes, so long as DREMT gets in the last word, which will be yet another assertion with no evidence.
He can only manage his OWN posting behavior here, but he obviously has trouble doing even that!
"Your point at the moment seems to be that…"
Once again, for the slow at the back:
With the plates pushed together, there is 400 W/m^2 incident on the left hand side of the BP, from the Sun, and a non-zero amount of energy incident on the right hand side of the BP, from the GP. In a world without 2LoT, the energy from the GP could raise the temperature of the BP, and, as a part of the process, result in a drop in temperature of the GP. That’s if "heat" could flow "backwards". We all intuitively know that doesn’t happen, with conduction, however. It doesn’t happen between the two plates, when pushed together. It doesn’t happen with just one plate (it doesn’t happen that with one plate, the side facing the Sun starts randomly increasing in temperature whilst the side facing space starts randomly decreasing in temperature, as part of the process. Not without thermal resistance being present, which is an insulative property, absent in Eli’s plates).
For some reason, with the plates separated, and energy transfer occurring via radiation, people completely lose sight of that. They get themselves so confused, and endlessly repeat the same nonsense over and over and over and over and over again. Even people with PhDs in physics. In fact, people with PhDs in physics seem particularly adept at confusing themselves. It’s like the more education someone has in a subject, the more ways and means they have of deluding themselves.
I’m fully aware that conduction and radiation are different. You can all stop repeating the same arguments over and over again. I don’t need to see the equations for conduction and radiation for the seventieth time. The equations are different, but 2LoT remains the same. It applies regardless.
Is it even clearer this time!?
Now…this discussion is closed for comments.
“With the plates pushed together, there is 400 W/m^2 incident on the left hand side of the BP, from the Sun, and a non-zero amount of energy incident on the right hand side of the BP, from the GP.”
Nope, there is no amount of energy coming back to the BP from GP, because both plates are perfect conductors. There is no thermal resistance from GP.
When you separate the two perfect conductors, now radiation comes into play, and both plates radiate to each other.
Split apart, GP receives only 200 W/m2 from BP’s surface, the other 200 W/m2 from BP heading sunward. Previously, it had received all the energy that BP did, both being infinitely thin, perfect conductors.
BP is now receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun, and GP is receiving 200 W/m2 from BP. They can’t possibly stay at the same temperature.
And there is no way that BP can send 400 W/m2 to GP, because that would violate conservation of energy. Half of that energy flow is being beamed sunward. GP receives the other half.
GP cools down on splitting with BP.
In the first configuration, there was no difference between GP and BP. They were one infinitely thin, perfectly conducting plane.
Once you ‘split’ them, suddenly GP winks into thermal existence.
“Nope, there is no amount of energy coming back to the BP from GP, because both plates are perfect conductors.“
Yup, there is, barry. The GP is pressed right up against the BP, and it’s at the same temperature as the BP. So there is energy coming back to the BP from the GP. It would be impossible for there not to be. We just accept that it doesn’t raise the temperature of the BP, because we don’t question 2LoT when it comes to conduction.
This discussion is closed for comments.
“In a world without 2LoT, the energy from the GP could raise the temperature of the BP”
No. That is your interpretation only. In your world, putting a lid on a pot on the stove cannot raise the temperature of the contents. In your world, heat flows even with no temperature gradient.
Tim continues with his blatant misrepresentations.
Meanwhile, the discussion is still closed for comments (please just stop responding to me, is what I am trying to say).
“The GP is pressed right up against the BP, and its at the same temperature as the BP. So there is energy coming back to the BP from the GP.”
Nope.
2 plates of exactly the same dimensions, material and temperature must have exactly the same amount of energy.
If BP is at a certain temperature receiving 400 W/m2, GP must be receiving the same amount of energy to be at the same temperature.
GP gets all 400 W/m2 that BP does while they are pressed together.
They are essentially one plate. There is, absolutely, no difference between one infinitely thin, perfectly conducting plate and 2 of them pressed together.
The conceit you rely on is to treat them as if they’re distinct in that configuration. They are not.
“Nope.”
Yup. The GP will be sending energy to the BP, and the BP will be sending energy to the GP, when pressed together. They will be exchanging energy, via conduction. The energy sent from GP to BP will not combine with the energy from the Sun to increase the temperature of the BP, whilst decreasing the temperature of the GP. The reason? 2LoT.
Now, please stop responding to me.
[This discussion is closed for comments].
How is the GP the same temperature as the BP if it is not receiving exactly the same amount of energy that BP is?
How does GP get the equivalent of 400 W/m2, when BP is emitting half that energy away from GP?
The only way I can think of this happening is if GP and BP both receive all the solar energy as if they’re one plate. Which is theoretically in line with Eli’s posit that both plates are infinitely thin, perfect conductors.
If you disagree, please explain how it is that GP receives the equivalent of 400 W/m2 to raise it to the same temp as BP.
Once that’s done, it should clarify the disagreement about the next step, when the plates are ‘split’.
By the way, even taking your construct with unexplained energy exchange, once you separate the plates, GP doesn’t getting cooler because it is giving up heat to BP. It gets cooler because it is getting less energy. Now only 200 W/m2.
And where GP was providing no thermal resistance to BP, once separated it IS providing thermal resistance to BP’s heat loss.
“How is the GP the same temperature as the BP if it is not receiving exactly the same amount of energy that BP is?”
“How does GP get the equivalent of 400 W/m2, when BP is emitting half that energy away from GP?”
Study the diagram, barry. It applies whether the plates are pushed together, or separated. The energy going back to the BP from the GP cannot warm it, thanks to 2LoT, so the energy is ultimately returned to the GP. Thus the GP is receiving “the equivalent of 400 W/m^2” even though “BP is emitting half that energy away from GP”. You can accept that this happens when the plates are pushed together because nobody questions 2LoT for conduction. They only get all confused about it when radiation is concerned.
This discussion is closed for comments.
“With the plates pushed together, there is 400 W/m^2 incident on the left hand side of the BP, from the Sun, and a non-zero amount of energy incident on the right hand side of the BP from the GP. ”
The net flow of energy (which physics defines as heat flow here) is 200 W/m^2 from BP to GP, by conduction.
“In a world without 2LoT, the energy from the GP could raise the temperature of the BP, and, as a part of the process, result in a drop in temperature of the GP.”
Not happening because infinite conductivity. In the real world there would a slight temperature drop from BP to GP. Eli ignores this because it will be NEGLIBLE.
Physics uses such approximations all the time without harm. For example in an electric circuit, the voltage drops across wires is often neglected, without changing the results!
“We all intuitively know that doesnt happen, with conduction, however. It doesnt happen between the two plates, when pushed together. It doesnt happen with just one plate (it doesnt happen that with one plate, the side facing the Sun starts randomly increasing in temperature whilst the side facing space starts randomly decreasing in temperature, as part of the process. Not without thermal resistance being present, which is an insulative property, absent in Elis plates).”
Yes thermal resistance is an insulating property. And vacuum has infinite thermal resistance, which cannot be ignored, but you do!
“For some reason, with the plates separated, and energy transfer occurring via radiation, people completely lose sight of that.”
Because physics tells us that for radiation, the same heat flow of 200 W/m^2 that is occurring with the plates together, would now require a significant T difference between the plates.
And indeed YOU correctly calculated that when the plates are separated, with the same temperatures, the heat flow would go to 0!
You cannot simply IGNORE this huge change from 200 W/m^2 to 0.
You cannot invent a new non-physical flow of energy of 200 W/m^2, as a replacement, that is found no where in physics.
That is pure fiction, not a valid explanation.
“They get themselves so confused, and endlessly repeat the same nonsense over and over and over and over and over again. Even people with PhDs in physics. In fact, people with PhDs in physics seem particularly adept at confusing themselves. Its like the more education someone has in a subject, the more ways and means they have of deluding themselves.”
Obviously not nonsense at all, just what long established physics tells us. Whereas you are ignoring it, without a rationale to do so.
“Im fully aware that conduction and radiation are different. You can all stop repeating the same arguments over and over again. I dont need to see the equations for conduction and radiation for the seventieth time. The equations are different”
Good, but then why IGNORE this difference, as you keep doing?
“but 2LoT remains the same. It applies regardless.”
Again, you havent shown any heat flow (NET energy flow) from cold to hot happening here. All you have done is ASSERT without evidence that 2LOT is violated.
“Is it even clearer this time!?”
No, Sorry, you still ignore the facts and basic physics, and invent fictional physics, therefore are not convincing.
This discussion is closed for comments.
“Meanwhile, the discussion is still closed for comments (please just stop responding to me, is what I am trying to say).”
Pffft.
Translation:
DREMT must have the last response, because he simply unable to control his own posting behavior, thus he tries to control it in everyone else.
#2
This discussion is closed for comments.
QED
#3
This discussion is closed for comments.
Barry Says:
“If BP is at a certain temperature receiving 400 W/m2, GP must be receiving the same amount of energy to be at the same temperature.”
Nope. That is not how it works.
Once a temperature has reached a steady state, the object is receiving a net energy of zero! The only requirement for steady temperature is the object loses thermal energy as fast as it gains thermal energy.
When placed together:
* BP receives 400 from sun, conducts -200 to GP and radiates -200 to space. Net = 0
* GP receives 200 from BP and radiates -200 to space. Net = 0
(or if you want to treat it as one plate, the one plate receives 400 and radiates -200 from each side)
Or when separated:
* BP receives 400 from sun, radiates -133 to GP and radiates -267 to space. Net = 0
* GP receives 133 from BP and radiates -133 to space. Net = 0
“Tim, space is not surroundings. Its a vacuum. How many times!?”
I have lost count, but apparently it is now enough for you to agree that space DOES count as “surroundings”. One small victory.
Maybe next you will agree that thermal IR does indeed count as “Q” in the equation Delta(U) = Q – W.
Nothing has changed about my argument, whatsoever. Scroll down and reply in the right place if you have something to add.
#4
This discussion is closed for comments.
“It just gets more bizarre the more we think about it.”
Yes, that sounds like something DREMT has said, to argue from incredulity.
The difference is that, right before, Tim pointed out a valid logical flaw in DREMT’s assertions.
Before that he had appealed to common experience (and common sense) in hopes that DREMT had some.
But he has turned off his common sensor.
The point DREMT keeps missing is that in the real world, we never experience adjacent but separated objects coming to the same temperature when only one has a heater attached.
In the real world, the sun shining on a surface makes it hotter than object in the shade.
And these common experiences are consistent with what the physics analysis of the plates problem shows, that NO, the two plates do not come to the same temperature!
Needless to say, DREMT denies this physics analysis is valid, but forgets he has little knowledge of the subject.
“The blue plate is heated by the Sun and the green plate,”
Whereas DREMT ignores the sun and argues that the GP does all the heating!
By the way, Tim, your comment is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity. I seem to remember, back when I used to read his comments, a certain someone regularly complaining about those. Presumably that’s what he just responded with, to tell you off, Tim. Anything else would be a grotesque double standard.
What are you doing responding to my posts in my thread?
And I’ll simply point out that when DREMT expresses incredulity, it is about something that does not MATCH anyone else’s common experience.
Such as:
“3) The idea that any object insulates any other object, simply by existing, to the extent of significant temperature increases in the insulated object, regardless of the insulative properties of the insulator (or lack of insulative properties).”
In everyone else’s common experience, insulators are passive objects.
Indeed they insulate just by existing!
And then suggesting everyone knows that a plate has a ‘lack of insulating properties’, which they certainly DO NOT KNOW.
…anything else would be a grotesque double standard.
Again, in DREMTs mind he is always treated unfairly.
…else would be a grotesque double standard.
And his own mind, repetition makes contradictory facts vanish.
…would be a grotesque double standard.
“I would encourage you to use warmed rather than heated to avoid heated discussions. : )”
Not much difference in meaning there, IMO, but I get what you are saying.
OTOH the whole effort here by DREMT is to focus on one of the messenger’s exact words, in one post, while again missing the messages which have been loud and clear from many.
DREMT,
“The reason that the energy from the GP does not raise the temperature of the BP when the plates are pushed together is: 2LoT.”
Here, see if you can find something that will support your case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
No, I don’t see ‘at the expense of’, ‘expense of’ or even the word ‘expense’ used anywhere on the Wiki 2LOT page.
I only see discussion of heat must flow from hot to cold, and entropy, etc.
Eli’s solution certainly has flowing from the hot BP to the cold GP.
So where is the 2LOT violation in there?
Finding that heat flow out from from the constantly heated hot BP to the cold object is REDUCED, and thus the BP warms, and the GP cools as consequence, is certainly NOT violating 2LOT.
Someone DECLARING that there must be 2LOT violation is not an real argument.
Without showing that heat flow, as correctly defined by physics, is flowing from cold to hot, they are not finding a 2LOT violation.
Here’s how they confuse themselves. The Sun is sending 400 W/m^2 of IR energy to the BP. They will call this “heat”, even once the BP has been warmed to its equilibrium temperature of 244 K. They still claim “heat” is flowing to the BP, at equilibrium, and thus they are saying that “heat” must flow to space from the BP (even though space is a vacuum, which cannot be heated).
Add the GP, and with the plates pushed together, and being perfect conductors, they can claim any amount of “heat” is flowing between the plates that they like, since they are not defining “heat” in any meaningful sense; and, because the plates have infinite thermal conductivity, they can claim any amount of “heat” that they want is flowing, according to the equation. So they go with 200 W/m^2 of “heat”. This allows them to say that when the plates separate, there must still be “heat” flowing between the plates, and thus now the plates have to be different temperatures in order for that to happen!
The whole narrative is a fiction based on using this undefinable “heat” term to get to the predetermined conclusion they want, which is that the plates will be different temperatures when separated. An elaborate way to trick themselves.
“They will call this heat ”
Because it is heat. Energy from the warmer sun to the cooler BP.
“they are saying that heat must flow to space from the BP”
Which it does. Energy from the warmer GP to the cooler space (measured to be 2.7 K).
“This allows them to say that when the plates separate, there must still be heat flowing between the plates”
Also true. The plates are different temperatures, and energy flows from the warmer BP to the cooler GP.
“using this undefinable heat term”
It is quite well defined. Energy from a warmer place to a cooler place due to the temperature difference between the two places. It’s the “Q” in Delta(U) = Q – W.
Heat doesn’t flow to space, Tim. You can’t heat a vacuum.
The Sun is indeed warmer than the BP. It’s also the case that the BP is so far from the Sun that it’s receiving only 400 W/m^2 (associated with a BB temperature of 290 K). Obviously the Sun in Eli’s scenario is probably meant to be warmer than 290 K. Inverse square law, and all that.
You have what you call "heat" flowing between the plates when they’re pushed together, at the same temperature. If the plates are at the same temperature, then whatever you want to call the energy flowing between them, it is not "heat" by the thermodynamic definition of "heat". This calls into question precisely what you’re claiming is "heat".
DREMT,
“They still claim heat is flowing to the BP, at equilibrium, and thus they are saying that heat must flow to space from the BP (even though space is a vacuum, which cannot be heated).”
Space is not a perfect vacuum, so like you claim we can’t use a perfect blackbody, which we don’t, you can’t use space as a perfect vacuum in your arguments.
The radiation can escape to space, even if it never encounters a solid body to which it can transfer energy to.
Yes, the radiation (not “heat”) escapes to space.
So much wrong.
“Heat doesnt flow to space”
When the earth radiates ~240 W/m^2, where else do you think it goes? You are thinking too concretely here. The “system” is the pair of plates. The “surroundings” are everything beyond the boundaries of the plates. Whether there are physical walls of a cryogenic vacuum chamber @ 2.7 K or merely the vast emptiness of space at 2.7 K, heat has left the “system” and gone to the “surroundings”.
“the BP is so far from the Sun that its receiving only 400 W/m^2 (associated with a BB temperature of 290 K).”
No, the radiation is still 5700 K. The inverse square law changes the intensity, not the temperature. The peak wavelength is still around 500 nm (5700 K), not 10 um (290 K).
“You have what you call “heat” flowing between the plates when theyre pushed together, at the same temperature. ”
For all real materials, there is a finite conductivity and a finite temperature difference across the plates to cause the heat flow. They are not “the same temperature”.
With “infinite conductivity”, things do become a little muddied. There is no increase in entropy in the universe, so rules related to 2LoT become more subtle.
“This calls into question precisely what youre claiming is “heat”.”
Basically, if you wish to understand, study a thermodynamics textbook or take a course if you want to know a precise definition. Here we are just having a general, non-technical discussion. Don’t imagine that your vague ‘intuition’ will let you understand all of thermodynamics. That is not a cop-out, just an acceptance that this is difficult stuff.
Tim, your entire narrative is a fiction.
"Heat" doesn’t flow to space. Space is not "surroundings". There is absolutely no requirement for there to be "heat flow" between the plates for the GP to radiate IR energy to space. Energy, not "heat". The GP just radiates, based on its temperature and emissivity.
"No, the radiation is still 5700 K. The inverse square law changes the intensity, not the temperature. The peak wavelength is still around 500 nm (5700 K), not 10 um (290 K)."
Tim, I didn’t say anything about "intensity" or "peak wavelength". I simply stated, correctly, that 400 W/m^2 was associated with a BB temperature of 290 K. You completely missed what I was driving at, anyway.
Never mind.
I see DREMT ordered the other discussion closed, then continues it here!
“”Heat” doesnt flow to space. Space is not “surroundings”.
There is thus no practical consequence for a statement like “Space is not ‘surroundings'”
A spacecraft in Earth’s shadow will cool. How can it do so without losing heat to space?
So this yet another pointless semantic assertion with no evidence.
“hey can claim any amount of heat that they want is flowing, according to the equation. So they go with 200 W/m^2 of heat. ”
No, not at all whatever we want. 1LOT and the SB law constrain what the heat flow must be.
The SB law states that 200 W/m^2 is being emitted by the GP when together with the BP, thus it must be receiving 200 W/m^2 of heat flow from the BP, by conduction, because of 1LOT.
Again, DREMT, a non-scientist is man-splaining basic physics to physicists.
He is certain that they simply must be confused, because basic physics doesn’t support HIS personal pre-conceived incorrect notions of what heat should be doing.
Nature does what it does whether people are incredulous or not.
I’ll stick to this one point: “Space is not “surroundings”
Yes, it is. This is EXACTLY what is meant by “surroundings”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system
https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-2/pages/3-1-thermodynamic-systems
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/DeVoes_Thermodynamics_and_Chemistry/02%3A_Systems_and_Their_Properties/2.01%3A_The_System_Surroundings_and_Boundary
https://byjus.com/physics/thermodynamic-system/
You can google any number of other references. EVERYTHING outside the “system” is the “surroundings”.
If you don’t know even the most basic terminology in thermodynamics, why do you think you are ready to pass judgement in a discussion of thermodynamics?
"A thermodynamic system includes anything whose thermodynamic properties are of interest. It is embedded in its surroundings or environment; it can exchange heat with, and do work on, its environment through a boundary, which is the imagined wall that separates the system and the environment"
How can you "exchange heat" with a vacuum!?
"why do you think you are ready to pass judgement in a discussion of thermodynamics?"
The real question is, why can’t you people resist responding to me!? You need to ask yourselves why that is. I can’t write even the most straightforward comment without it turning into the biggest thread on the blog. It gets really, really boring getting into weeks-long discussions because you all just cannot stop responding to me.
Face it. You obviously think, deep down, that there’s something to what I’m saying.
Another thing – you can all stop appealing to your own authority. Tim, I have no reason to take you seriously since you can’t even understand and accept that "rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis" exists as a motion! bob recently was contradicted by Tim after berating me for days on end about something I was correct about. Nate…I don’t even read his comments any more.
Just give it a rest.
“You all just cannot stop responding to me.”
DREMT could simply stop posting his nonsense, and responding to others, but he doesn’t. Clearly he likes being the center of negative attention.
DREMT: How can you “exchange heat” with a vacuum!?”
First of all, “surroundings” still means “everything outside the system”. So by definition in thermodynamics, the rest of the universe is the the “surroundings”. If you don’t get that, you don’t get thermodynamics.
Second, heat can pass out of plates and then go into the depths of space. Even if it never gets absorbed by a specific atom, the energy is still in the “surroundings” and not in the “system”
Finally, the universes is not an empty vacuum. It is full of dust and gas. It is also full of photons that are 2.7 K. That radiation is just as real as if there were a wall at 2.7 K around the plates. Photons come in and photons go out. Energy is exchanged as as result of the temperature difference.
OK, I can accept your ‘first of all’.
"Second, heat can pass out of plates and then go into the depths of space. Even if it never gets absorbed by a specific atom, the energy is still in the “surroundings” and not in the “system”"
The plates are radiating IR energy. Not "heat". You cannot "heat" space!
"Finally, the universes is not an empty vacuum. It is full of dust and gas. It is also full of photons that are 2.7 K. That radiation is just as real as if there were a wall at 2.7 K around the plates. Photons come in and photons go out. Energy is exchanged as as result of the temperature difference."
Yes, energy might be exchanged, but not "as a result of the temperature difference". Energy, not "heat"! To me, it makes no sense to think of space as having a temperature. I’m not alone in that, and could supply links in support of that, but they’ll all be dismissed, so what’s the point?
Then again…this is a thought experiment. So let’s suppose the "surroundings" are a perfect vacuum. Not that it should make any difference, but would that finally get you to accept that there is no need for a temperature difference between the plates? Of course not. You’d still insist that there "should be" heat flow between the plates, so that the GP radiates "heat" out to space. Almost as if you believe that the GP would somehow just stop radiating completely if it didn’t have "heat flow" into it.
“The plates are radiating IR energy. Not “heat”. You cannot “heat” space!”
Again, a spacecraft enters Earth’s shadow, and is cooling. It must be LOSING HEAT. The heat is lost to space.
To deny this makes NO SENSE.
“Yes, energy might be exchanged, but not “as a result of the temperature difference”. Energy, not “heat”! To me, it makes no sense to think of space as having a temperature.”
Observations show that space is full of radiation with BB temperature of 2.7 K. For radiative heat exchange, which is all we are interested in, space has a temperature.
Your incredulity of this is still not an argument against it.
“So lets suppose the “surroundings” are a perfect vacuum. Not that it should make any difference, but would that finally get you to accept that there is no need for a temperature difference between the plates? Of course not. Youd still insist that there “should be” heat flow between the plates, so that the GP radiates “heat” out to space.”
Well, it is still the ONLY way to satisfy Conservation of Energy, and the other Laws of Physics.
Every experiment up to now has shown that we simply MUST do that.
Other than your strong desire for a different outcome, you offer nothing convincing to change the result found using standard physics.
No response from Tim means we can only assume he concedes the point.
DREMT belittles people who keep responding to his nonsense.
“The real question is, why cant you people resist responding to me!? You need to ask yourselves why that is. I cant write even the most straightforward comment without it turning into the biggest thread on the blog. It gets really, really boring getting into weeks-long discussions because you all just cannot stop responding to me.”
Then makes it clear that he childishly thinks whoever gets in the LAST WORD is the winner of the debate!
“No response from Tim means we can only assume he concedes the point.”
Let’s be clear, anyone looking at the WHOLE discussion can see that DREMT has continually denied physics, evidence and sound reasoning from Tim and the rest of us, to try to support his narrative.
He has convinced no one.
Tim has no response to the crucial point, which is that “heat” is not transferred to space (it’s a vacuum), so there is no need for there to be “heat transfer” between the plates in order for there to be “heat out” from the GP. There’s no problem with 1LoT (see the diagram).
Now, you might say, without an energy source, an object cools in space via radiation, therefore it must be transferring “heat” to space. However, the object without an energy source in space is simply radiating IR energy to cool. It’s not radiating some mystical property known as “heat” which somehow requires there to be a temperature difference between the plates in order for it to do so. With or without a temperature difference, the GP still radiates, right?
So, that’s that. It’s a simple argument really, the diagram says it all. No GPE (the issue is settled).
Yes, the GPE simple argument issue 9:08am is long settled in favor of Eli’s diagram solution consistent with 1LOT and 2LOT. DREMT’s solution is merely in DREMT’s imagination as DREMT’s solution violates 2LOT since it does not increase universe entropy in the process.
Ball4 turns up out of nowhere to lie, as he so often does.
The correct solution:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
… 10:24 am cannot be correct because it violates 2LOT since entropy production is lacking. Sir Eddington’s point should be consulted, there is NO hope for DREMT’s solution.
For the correct diagram, refer to Eli’s solution which is consistent with both 1LOT and 2LOT producing entropy.
Ball4 continues to lie.
“Tim has no response to the crucial point, which is that heat is not transferred to space (its a vacuum), so there is no need for there to be heat transfer between the plates in order for there to be heat out from the GP. Theres no problem with 1LoT (see the diagram).”
is FALSE. DREMT has been repeatedly trying to use ‘space is a vacuum’ as an excuse, and Tim and I have DEBUNKED this a bunch of times throughout this thread and elsewhere!
“However, the object without an energy source in space is simply radiating IR energy to cool. Its not radiating some mystical property known as heat ”
Labeling ordinary HEAT with a pejorative ‘mystical property’ is not an argument! It is desperation.
Regardless, 1LOT applies to it.
Given that DREMT has already applied the Radiative HEAT Transfer equation between the plates, none of this effort to relabel HEAT makes a bit of sense!
DREMT has actually learned something about Clausius’ heat recently so he does get it right in that “”heat is not transferred to space” since IR radiation is not heat & no object contains heat or work.
Physically the earth system’s thermal energy is reduced as the system continually radiates away that energy to deep space.
…and since there is no “heat transfer” from the GP to space there is no requirement for any “heat transfer” between the BP and the GP.
That is physically correct, DREMT 2:00pm, the GP doesn’t contain any heat or work in modern day thus none can transfer out of GP.
The GP, when added by Eli, does radiate toward space and toward the BP to system equilibrium (as accounted by Eli) thus, in part, reducing GP thermal energy until system equilibrium with the sun is achieved in accord with 2LOT as shown in Eli’s diagram.
…and since there is no requirement for any “heat transfer” between the BP and the GP, there is no need for them to be at different temperatures:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
THAT process violates 2LOT, DREMT 3:10 pm, as no entropy is created in your process thus you are incorrect & there is no hope for DREMT to be naturally correct (see Sir Eddington’s point).
Pls refer to Eli’s diagram & calculations for the correct use of 2LOT and 1LOT accounting.
Nobody but you claims my solution violates 2LoT, Ball4. This is how anyone reading can immediately recognise that you’re making it up.
It is not just my claim, DREMT, it is basic physics that all correct processes produce universe entropy (meaning in Eli’s case dQ/T .GT. 0). Science does not get done by voting, only gets done by proper experimental proof replicated by enough qualified others.
Pls refer to Sir Eddington’s point on that subject and, as always, refer to Eli’s diagram that does produce entropy and proper 1LOT energy accounting at system equilibrium.
Explain how the “process” does not “produce Universe entropy” or eternally withdraw your lie.
That’s easy 3:35 pm. Per DREMT diagram & DREMT 3:10 pm: “there is no need for them to be at different temperatures”
Thus per DREMT stated process & diagram: integral dQ/T is NOT .GT. 0 while dQ/T .GT. 0 IS required by 2LOT in thermodynamics in any correct process. In Eli’s correct diagram at equilibrium integral dQ/T is .GT. 0 so complies with 2LOT as required in Eli’s process.
Refer to Sir Eddington’s point for DREMT’s incorrect process diagram: there is no hope for DREMT to be correct.
No idea what you’re talking about.
I (and certain other commenters) already know that is true 3:51 pm. I’m writing technical stuff to show DREMT doesn’t know what DREMT is talking about.
Passing a 1st college course in thermodynamics will allow DREMT to understand. Pls refer to Eli’s diagram and calculations for the correct work out of the added GP equilibrium temperature state.
Since I know you lie about the most straightforward things (like when you claimed Tesla argues the moon rotates on its own axis) I certainly have no reason to trust you on technical matters that you refuse to try to explain. So I will continue to assume you are lying. Take a course in being a decent human being, then get back to me.
Tesla does argue from a conservation of momentum work out (his Ferris wheel analysis) that the moon does inertially rotate on its own axis. Tesla even shows such in an illustration. When Tesla writes about the moon not rotating on its axis, he is using an observer in an accelerated frame such as on Earth.
I’ve already explained the technical matter why DREMT’s diagram fails 2LOT. If DREMT were more accomplished in thermo., then DREMT would understand and have at least “some” idea why that is so.
Readers should refer to Eli’s correct diagram and calculations. Out.
“Tesla does argue from a conservation of momentum work out (his Ferris wheel analysis) that the moon does inertially rotate on its own axis. Tesla even shows such in an illustration. When Tesla writes about the moon not rotating on its axis, he is using an observer in an accelerated frame such as on Earth.”
You are a disgusting, lying, disgrace.
“I’ve already explained the technical matter why DREMT’s diagram fails 2LOT. If DREMT were more accomplished in thermo., then DREMT would understand and have at least “some” idea why that is so.”
You are a disgusting, lying, disgrace.
“Readers should refer to Eli’s correct diagram and calculations. Out.”
Readers should be aware that you are a disgusting, lying, disgrace.
DREMT keeps showing a diagram with a fictional extra flow of energy from BP to GP, claiming with no evidence, that is the Return of the GP flux emitted to the BP.
Again it is ignoring the perfect abs.orbing property of the BP, and Conservation of Energy.
He had already applied the RHTE to find the NET energy flow, Q = 0, between the plates, which as everyone has pointed out, cannot satisfy 1LOT.
What to do?
Embrace a pure FRAUD: create out of thin air a NEW extra flow of energy of 200 W/m^2, that has no rational basis in physics.
This is not evidence of anything, other than DREMTs desperation and dishonesty.
“why DREMT’s diagram…”
Not my diagram, anyway, Ball4. It was created by a commenter named “JD Huff.man” back in January 2018. Check the date on it:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
So, this argument is nothing new. It hasn’t changed in over five years. If the “back-radiation” transfer from the GP to the BP can’t result in warming of the BP, thanks to 2LoT, then it must be returned to the GP. What else is going to happen to it!? It can’t “disappear”, or else that would violate 1LoT. Pretty simple, really. With no violation of 2LoT, the “back-radiation” from GP to BP is returned to the GP, and thus 1LoT is upheld, both for each plate and for the 2-plate system as a whole.
DREMT makes progress & almost gets thermo. right, with no violation of 2LoT, since physically the forward radiation from GP to BP is absorbed by the BP and forward radiation from GP emitted to deep space so that dQ/T is positive producing entropy, and thus 1LoT,2LoT are upheld, both for each plate, space, sun and for the 2-plate system as a whole as correctly shown long ago at equilibrium in Eli’s diagram and calculations.
As Sir Eddington points out, there was no hope for the 2018 diagram from the get go as it violates at least 2LOT because its dQ/T = 0 thus no entropy is produced in that silly 2018 diagram.
Pls refer to Eli’s correct workout.
Ball4 says “out”, indicating he’s left the discussion, then returns to lie some more about entropy and generally troll me. Eli’s solution has entropy decreasing since, with no change in energy in and out, he has the BP increasing in temperature from 244 K to 262 K, and the GP decreasing in temperature from 244 K to 220 K, on separation of the plates.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1540076
The BP increasing in temperature from 244 K to 262 K produces entropy.
The GP decreasing in temperature from 244 K (no initial GP T was given iirc) to 220 K also produces entropy.
Pls refer to Eli’s diagram and calculations for the correct 1LOT, 2LOT compliant solution to the GPE.
I will venture a guess that DREMT may be tempted to surmise that if entropy increases in a heating process, then entropy decreases in a cooling process. This is a reasonable expectation, but it is not true, which attests to the peculiarity of entropy.
If DREMT wants to be schooled in entropy, DREMT can just ask for an explanation or sign up for, and pass, a college level 1st course in thermodynamics.
Ball4 just plain lies about entropy.
“Elis solution has entropy decreasing since, with no change in energy in and out, he has the BP increasing in temperature from 244 K to 262 K, and the GP decreasing in temperature from 244 K to 220 K, on separation of the plates.”
FALSE. Entropy is constantly increasing with the 400 W/m^2 of heat input from the sun at high temperature, and the same amount emitted from much lower temperature plates.
No surprise that DREMT is completely clueless about such things.
“Tim has no response to the crucial point, which is that heat is not transferred to space (its a vacuum) … ”
Thermodynamics is a well-defined, robust field of physics. If we are treating this as a thermodynamics problem then we use the language of thermodynamics.
In thermodynamics we define a “system” and then the rest of the universe is the “surroundings”. These are separated by a defined boundary. All energy into or out of the system through the boundary is either “heat”. Q, or “work”, W. Heat always flows from warmer to cooler.
Sunlight in *is* heat.
Thermal IR out *is* heat.
If you don’t like to use thermodynamics, then you will have to invent your own branch of science and your terms. But you can’t use the laws of thermodynamics if you don’t use the rest of thermodynamics. You can’t use 1/2 of thermodynamics but not the rest.
Tell it to Ball4, Tim:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1539806
Argue it out with him.
What can I say? Ball4 is just as wrong about the definition of heat (Q) in classical thermodynamics as you are, DREMT.
Thermal radiation *is* heat — as are conduction and convection. They add/remove internal energy from systems and transfer it to/from other systems/surroundings at different temperatures.
Clearly you are wrong, Tim, all emitted IR radiation is not "heat". Take the two plates radiating IR towards each other. They’re not exchanging "heat", they’re exchanging IR radiation.
Imagine for a moment that the "surroundings" of the plates were in fact a perfect vacuum. The GP is thus receiving nothing from the "surroundings". There is absolutely no exchange of radiation between the plates and space, in this scenario, the GP is simply radiating IR out to space and that’s that. You have absolutely no reason to call what it’s radiating "heat".
Then add in the CMBR and the gases that are present in real space. Does this really justify treating "space" any differently to if it were a perfect vacuum!? Of course not. "Space" is, overwhelmingly, a vacuum. Think of the vastness of it, compared to the amount of gases and CMBR that it’s in it. It’s madness to consider it having a "temperature", and thus sticking it into the radiative heat transfer equation and claiming that the GP is radiating "heat" out to space.
I’m sorry, but you’re not going to convince me otherwise.
Needless to say, it’s not the most important part of the debate, anyway. That you conceded this:
"Whether pressed together or held apart, there is energy from the GP to BP (but of course, there is also MORE energy from BP to GP)."
is far more significant. You’ve acknowledged that pressed together, there is a non-zero amount of energy from GP to BP, thus if 2LoT weren’t an issue, you should agree that pressed together, the BP would rise in temperature and the GP decrease in temperature. However, 2LoT is an issue, thus it doesn’t happen. You accept that this is true with conduction, but don’t accept it with radiation (and no, this is separate to the thermal resistance issue, so don’t try your usual escape).
DREMT, the 1Lot states that internal energy, U, of a system changes due to exchanges of heat and/or work with the surroundings.
Delta(U) = Q – W.
For a system consisting of the Blue Plate, the surroundings consist of the Green plate on one side, and the sun and space on the other. That’s it.
** Unless you want to call the thermal radiation from the BP to the GP “work”, the only other choice within thermodynamics is “heat”.
** Unless you want to call the thermal radiation from the BP to space “work”, the only other choice within thermodynamics is “heat”.
** Unless you want to call the thermal radiation from the sun to the BP “work”, the only other choice within thermodynamics is “heat”.
This is an important PRECURSOR to the debate. If you aren’t using the laws and language of thermodynamics, you can’t use the conclusions of thermodynamics. You need a solid grasp of what “heat” is before you can participate in any debate about thermodynamics or how to interpret 2LoT.
DREMT opines: “Its madness to consider [space] having a “temperature” “
Two systems are said to be in thermal equilibrium (ie the same temperature) if they are free to exchange heat, but they do not change over time.
If I put a 300 K object out “in space” far from any stars, will it cool down? Yes! That object is warmer than “space”.
If I put a 100 K object out “in space” far from any stars, will it cool down? Yes! That object is warmer than “space”.
If I put a 1 K object out “in space” far from any stars, will it cool down? No! it will warm up! That object is cooler than “space”
However, if I put a 2.7 K object out “in space” it will neither warm nor cool. It is the same temperature as “space”.
Either reject the 0LoT or accept that “space” has a temperature!
"** Unless you want to call the thermal radiation from the BP to the GP “work”, the only other choice within thermodynamics is “heat”.
** Unless you want to call the thermal radiation from the BP to space “work”, the only other choice within thermodynamics is “heat”.
** Unless you want to call the thermal radiation from the sun to the BP “work”, the only other choice within thermodynamics is “heat”."
…in which case, unless you want to call the radiation from the GP to the BP "work", the only other choice within thermodynamics is "heat". Then you have a problem Tim. You have the "back-radiation" transfer being a flow of "heat"! You’ve argued yourself into a bit of a corner there.
As to your other point, an object without an energy source will cool in space, because it doesn’t have an energy source, and it’s radiating IR energy. That doesn’t make the IR energy "heat". It’s still just IR energy. I reject the idea that space has a temperature. I maintain that it makes more sense to think of it as having no temperature. I’m not alone in that (Google: "space has no temperature").
Outer space has a brightness temperature. Outer space has nil kinetic temperature.
I assume Ball4 is here to argue with Tim about IR radiation being "heat". Or else that would…
No need, DREMT did get that IR energy is not heat discussion correct to experiment as Clausius defn.s pointed out long ago in classical thermodynamics.
Now if DREMT would make some gains and write consistently the terms “brightness temperature” when DREMT means brightness temperature of outer space or then entertaining confusion will remain.
“Then you have a problem Tim. You have the “back-radiation” transfer being a flow of “heat”! Youve argued yourself into a bit of a corner there.”
You are getting close. The “exchange” of thermal radiation is heat.
* Photons flow from warmer BP to cooler GP
* Photons flow from cooler GP to warmer BP
** The flow from warmer to cooler is always larger.
*** Heat is from warmer BP to cooler GP.
* Photons flow from warmer GP to cooler space
* Photons flow from cooler space to warmer GP
** The flow from warmer to cooler is always larger.
*** Heat is always from warmer GP to cooler space.
[You will see these listed as two separate “Q” on diagrams. Like Q = 267 W/m^2 from BP to GP and Q = 133 W/m^2 from GP to BP. The net flow is still from warm to cool and entropy is still increasing. If somehow ONLY the back-radiation was occurring and not the larger forward-radiation, THEN there would be a problem.]
“As to your other point, an object without an energy source will cool in space, because it doesnt have an energy source, and its radiating IR energy. “
So why stop at 2.7 K? Why not keep cooling to 2 K or 1 K or 0.1K? Because 2.7 K is ‘the temperature of space’!
At this point, thermal radiation in = thermal radiation out. Q = 0. The object is in thermal equilibrium with ‘space’. Everything is 2.7 K.
[If you haven’t realized, this is like arguing religion with a rabbi. They have already discussed all the issues you might have thought of (and many you haven’t thought of) and they have a logical reply ready for every objection.]
“I maintain that it makes more sense to think of it as having no temperature. Im not alone in that (Google: “space has no temperature”).”
When you google ‘space has no temperature’ (no quotes) you mostly get links ultimately saying that 2.7K is the number to use.
Maybe think of it this way. The temperature of a region is a measure of the average KE of the particles in that region. Our intuition is based on regions where the particles are atoms, where the temperature we feel is the temperature of the air (or water) around us.
In a region with no (or exceedingly rare) massive particles like atoms, most of the particles are photons, and the temperature of the region is based on the average KE of the photons.
Tim said:
"** Unless you want to call the thermal radiation from the BP to the GP “work”, the only other choice within thermodynamics is “heat”.
** Unless you want to call the thermal radiation from the BP to space “work”, the only other choice within thermodynamics is “heat”.
** Unless you want to call the thermal radiation from the sun to the BP “work”, the only other choice within thermodynamics is “heat”."
Then when correctly called on this, he switches to talking about "only the net flow is heat". No, Tim, you said the thermal radiation from the BP to the GP is "heat". Thus, your own logic leads you to the conclusion that the thermal radiation from the GP to the BP is "heat". You have yourself a situation where you are forced to believe "heat" is flowing both ways, and the net of this is "net heat". Complete nonsense.
I’m not going to agree with you about space having a temperature. Sorry.
Now, perhaps deal with the part of my 8:09 AM comment you keep ignoring, the section beginning:
"Needless to say, it’s not the most important part of the debate, anyway."
“I’m not going to agree with you about space having a temperature.”
Outer space does have a temperature, a brightness temperature of 2.7K, the measured CMB. So Tim is physically correct writing:
So why stop at 2.7 K? Why not keep cooling to 2 K or 1 K or 0.1K? Because 2.7 K is ‘the (brightness) temperature of space’!
It’s a thought experiment.
1) Assume the “surroundings” are a perfect vacuum.
2) Can “heat” be transferred to a perfect vacuum? No.
3) So is the GP emitting “heat” to space? No.
4) So is there any requirement for there to be “heat flow” between the plates? No.
5) So do the plates have to be at different temperatures? No.
6) Now assume the “surroundings” are normal space.
7) Has anything really changed that much that 1)-5) should be different? No.
There is no hope for DREMT’s #5 answer to be correct since violates 2LOT which is a law that every correct process must produce entropy and DREMT’s answer produces no entropy (i.e. integral over time dQ/T=0) from initial state to final equilibrium: “5) So do the plates have to be at different temperatures? No.”
Readers should refer to Eli’s correct diagram and calculations for a process that is consistent with both 1LOT and 2LOT where the 2 plates have different temperatures over time.
“Clearly you are wrong, Tim, all emitted IR radiation is not “heat”. Take the two plates radiating IR towards each other. Theyre not exchanging “heat”, theyre exchanging IR radiation.”
“Then when correctly called on this, he switches to talking about “only the net flow is heat”.
I would like to point out that DREMT tries to have the back radiation from the GP to the BP be defined as HEAT, so that he can claim it is a violation of 2LOT.
So he can easily talk out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, switching how HE defines HEAT as needed to fit his false narratives.
But it makes NO difference what HE does, because in Thermodynamics HEAT is Defined as the NET flow of energy.
Oh well!
I can see there’s no chance of this debate ending. Ever.
At least not until DREMT passes a college level 1st course in thermodynamics and has learned a clue or two about how to calculate the difference in universe entropy between the initial and final kinetic temperatures of the GPE.
Plates pushed together, plates separated. The two situations are basically the same. So if you don’t have this problem with entropy when the plates are pushed together, Ball4, you shouldn’t have the problem with the plates separated.
Plates pushed together over time produces system entropy in equilibrium, then plates separated over time also needs to produce entropy unlike no entropy being produced after plates separated in DREMT’s incorrect equal temperature no hope solution.
Readers should refer to Eli’s correct diagram and calculations for a process that is consistent with both 1LOT and 2LOT where the 2 plates have different temperatures over time to equilibrium thus producing entropy after separation.
Well, if there’s nothing more from Tim, I guess that’s that (Ball4 will have to be put on “ignore” for now)…
DREMT, consider shiny stainless steel BP painted black only on side facing sun with emissivity 0.95, and thus unpainted BP having around emissivity 0.05 on the side facing GP. With ss GP painted black both sides.
If you run thru Eli’s calculations (neglecting any reflection/scattering) for practice, then you should find an answer with 2 plates close to, but not exactly, the same temperature in compliance with 1LOT and 2LOT. Show your work.
Yeah, it would have been better to say:
“* Unless you want to call the NET thermal radiation from the BP to the GP work, the only other choice within thermodynamics is heat.
It was sort of implied, but not explicit.
Thermal radiation flows both ways. The thermal radiation from warm to cool is always larger than the thermal radiation from cool to warm. Heat is always from warm to cool. Entropy increases.
What DOESN’T happen is 200 W/m^2 of thermal radiation between two plates at the same temperature.
Tim, there are so many things you’re not responding to. So many, that I guess I’m going to have to give up on the idea of you debating fairly. So, that’s that.
“Youve acknowledged that pressed together, there is a non-zero amount of energy from GP to BP ….”
Yes. But this is only at a microscopic level; and there is always more energy from BP to GP. Macroscopically, the energy flow is from BP to GP, exactly as required by 2LoT. Heat is fromn BP to GP.
Since we are talking classical thermodynamics, forget microscopic and focus on macroscopic.
“… thus if 2LoT werent an issue, you should agree that pressed together, the BP would rise in temperature and the GP decrease in temperature. ”
You confuse me more each time you make a claim like this.
What intital conditions are you imagining BEFORE the plates are pressed together?
How does pressing them together DECREASE the energy flow out of the BP to raise the temperature?
How does this relate to 2LoT?
“Tim, there are so many things youre not responding to. ”
Right. Because nonsense is being generated (by many people in many threads) way faster than I have time or patience to answer.
If you want in=depth, accurate, answers to all your questions, take a thermo class where have a professor paid to deal with you.
Otherwise, accept that people here are just giving hints on their own schedules, not respond to every whim of every poster in real time!
“Im going to have to give up on the idea of you debating fairly. So, thats that.”
OMG, talk about projection!
DREMT has lost again, because he has decided that he doesnt need to live in the world of facts and reality.
Tim…you seriously think your patience is being tested!? My patience with this discussion ran out some time ago.
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
Together or separated, that’s what is happening between the plates. You don’t have a problem with the non-zero amount of energy from GP to BP not raising the temperature of the BP and lowering the temperature of the GP when the plates are pressed together because you accept, intuitively, that “back-conduction” does not do this. Thanks to 2LoT.
When the plates separate, you lose the plot completely, and suddenly think that back-radiation does “do this”.
In your response, I do not need:
1) Any mention that conduction and radiation are different.
2) Any mention of the formulas for conductive and radiative heat transfer.
3) Any mention of “perfect conductors”, “thermal resistance”, or how there would be a small temperature difference between the plates with real materials, etc. This is all separate to that issue. This is about you accepting that energy is transferred from GP to BP when the plates are pressed together.
“My patience with this discussion ran out some time ago.”
But then he immediately posts the SAME TIRED ARGUMENT that he has posted a bazillion times, and has been rebutted a bazillion times, by Tim, me and others.
And still thinks he’s got a point that simply must be addressed!
He doesnt.
But this is why the argument never ends.
Not sure what Nate just said, obviously (I don’t read his comments), but fairly sure it will…
You can see in your responses to Tim, that you seem to think ONLY your arguments need to be taken seriously.
The reality is the Tim, being trained in physics, is making arguments that you should take seriously.
But for some reason, you refuse to. And keep posting arguments that fundamentally disagree with real physics.
It should be obvious that arguments of that nature will never convince anyone who understands real physics.
…sure what Nate just said, obviously (I don’t read his comments), but fairly sure it will…
“This is about you accepting that energy is transferred from GP to BP when the plates are pressed together.”
Sure. I accept that at a atomic level, energy from GP atoms transfers to BP atoms all the time. Via direct collisions when they are in contact and via photons when they are not in contact.
I am not sure why you think this is somehow critical. First, classical thermodynamics is only about the macro scale, not the micro scale. Secondly, the NET energy transfer is ALWAYS from BP to GP. Finally temperature CHANGE is about energy flow IMBLANCE — does the GP cause an imbalance?
I am sure you are frustrated. You are trying to argue bad physics in the wrong thread on the wrong blog.
So, Tim is going to quote one sentence and play dumb about the rest. That’s fine with me…readers can see that Tim has no sensible rebuttal.
“Tim has no sensible rebuttal.”
Other than the previous dozen times he rebutted this same tired nonsense claim!
Again, DREMT imagines that nothing has been said in this debate except for the ‘crucial’ point he posted in his LAST WORD.
No idea what Nate just said (I don’t read his comments), but I’m guessing it will…
“I dont read his comments” we know that is a lie.
…idea what Nate just said (I don’t read his comments), but I’m guessing it will…
…be a grotesque double standard.
“Any inert object which is emitting precisely as much unit radiative flux as it is receiving has no temperature, it is a perfect conductor.”
Silly Swenson says some very nutty things!
"What the heat flows look like with the plates together is the same as the second diagram in Eli’s original post.
400 watts in from the Sun, and 200 watts out from each side."
Incomplete, bob. You need to show what is happening with the energy flow between the plates. Remember, according to Clint R:
“2) What does the diagram look like for the plates perfectly together? Answer: The energy flow diagram for the plates together would look exactly like the diagram DREMT uses for the plates slightly apart. There would be the same number of blue and green arrows, with the same values. Of course, that’s as to be expected, as the two situations are thermodynamically equivalent."
If you disagree, show us your diagram for the energy flows with the plates pushed together.
DREMT,
Incomplete is better than wrong.
With the plates together there is an additional arrow, one indicating the conduction of 200 watts from the blue to the green, not the three additional arrows in your bogus diagram.
“Of course, thats as to be expected, as the two situations are thermodynamically equivalent.”
No they are not thermodynamically equivalent, as obviously, heat transfer by conduction is not equivalent to heat transfer by radiation.
“With the plates together there is an additional arrow, one indicating the conduction of 200 watts from the blue to the green”
Only the one arrow, bob? But the plates are at the same temperature…what about the back-conduction from the green plate to the blue?
No heat transfer from cold to hot, so no back conduction.
bob is a back-conduction denier!
Yes I am,
Look at the heat transfer equation for conduction and tell me if you see a term for the back conduction.
Then look at the heat transfer equation for radiation and then tell me you don’t see a term for back radiation.
Game over you lose again.
That’s one of the reasons the “radiative transfer equation” is bogus, bob.
Heat does NOT move backward.
OK:
https://study.com/learn/lesson/equation-for-heat-transfer-through-conduction-heat-transfer-formula-rate-units.html#:~:text=The%20heat%20transfer%20formula%20through,and%20l%20is%20the%20thickness.
“The heat transfer formula through conduction is given by:
Q/t = kA((T1-T2)/l), where Q/t is the rate of heat transfer, k is the thermal conductivity of the material, A is the cross-sectional area, T1-T2 is the temperature difference, and l is the thickness.”
So where is the back conduction term?
T2.
T2 is temperature, try again.
Sure, it’s the temperature of the cooler object…and if you think about the equation, that temperature represents the amount of “back-conduction” there will be. The closer in temperature the cooler object is to the warmer object, the less heat energy is transferred by conduction. So the more “back-conduction” in proportion to the “forward-conduction” there is, the less heat energy is transferred by conduction…heat transfer going to zero when the “back” equals the “forward”.
DREMT,
That’s only if you consider heat transfer by conduction as the difference in heat flow from the hot object to absolute zero and the cold object to absolute zero.
Absolute nonsense.
With radiative heat transfer it’s different, as what is being calculated is the energy given off by each object according to the Stephan-Boltzmann law.
bob, as the two plates pushed together are at the same temperature, they have to be exchanging energy with each other by conduction. That means an equal amount of “back-conduction” as there is “forward-conduction”. However, 2LoT prevents the “back-conduction” energy from the GP to the BP warming the BP. Thus that energy is returned to the GP from the BP…so the arrows are exactly the same as in the diagram for the plates slightly separated.
Except the arrows you are referring to are calculated using the Stephan-Boltzmann equation and are not the heat transfers by conduction.
The heat transfer by conduction in both directions is zero if they are both at the same temperature.
bob, if you’re STILL unable to understand that simple graphic, after several years now, maybe it’s time to admit you’re brain-dead.
Clint R,
Maybe it’s time for you to admit it’s a complete work of fiction.
So do you calculate heat flow due to conduction the same as heat flow due to radiation in your diagram like DREMT is arguing?
You know he is saying the diagram is correct with the plates together or apart.
You down with dat?
bob argues with himself:
"The heat transfer by conduction in both directions is zero if they are both at the same temperature."
when earlier he said:
"With the plates together there is an additional arrow, one indicating the conduction of 200 watts from the blue to the green"
bob proves he has not been paying attention:
"You know he is saying the diagram is correct with the plates together or apart. You down with dat?"
That was Clint R’s argument! I quoted it at 6:32 AM.
He’s correct, bob.
In the perfect conditions described, the energy flows and temperatures would be the same if the plates were together or slightly separated.
Yeah right, DREMT,
“”With the plates together there is an additional arrow, one indicating the conduction of 200 watts from the blue to the green”
Yeah, but did I say there was no temperature difference there?
I did not.
Again you lose.
So now you’re arguing the plates are at different temperatures when pressed together!?
‘back conduction’ cannot be found anywhere in physics, or on the internet.
It is just another made up thing used to obfuscate.
Poor Nate joins bob in their cult’s ongoing effort to pervert reality. They can’t accept reality, so they just keep throwing crap against that wall.
That’s why this is so much fun.
When the plates are together, there is heat flow, Q = 200 W/m^2, from Blue to Green.
When the plates are apart and at the same T, DREMT correctly calculates with the RHTE that the heat flow is Q = 0.
So even by his accounting, the situations are completely different.
DREMT,
“So now youre arguing the plates are at different temperatures when pressed together!?”
No, I am arguing the temperature difference is non zero.
When the plates are at the same temperature, there is NO “heat flow”.
What will you throw against that wall next, Nate?
Clint R,
“Hes correct, bob.
In the perfect conditions described, the energy flows and temperatures would be the same if the plates were together or slightly separated.”
Look at this crap I found smeared all over the wall.
Put a gap in there, heat transfer is no longer by conduction, now it is by radiation, so use different equations calculate new flows and temperatures, win internet prizes.
When the plates are at the same temperature, there is NO “heat flow”.
What will you throw against that wall next, bob?
Clint R,
That’s just the initial conditions, once separated, the green plate starts to cool as it is now emitting radiation in two directions, not one, like before the separation.
You don’t understand any of this.
That’s why you are the Captain of the Cargo Cult Canoe Clown Car.
Sorry child, but separated the green plate STILL receives the same energy as before, so maintains the same temperature as before.
If you had to clean up your mess, you would learn. But apparently you were raised to have “self esteem”, rather than being a productive, responsible adult.
What will you try next?
bob, I asked you:
"So now you’re arguing the plates are at different temperatures when pressed together!?"
And you responded:
"No, I am arguing the temperature difference is non zero."
A more sensible response would have been:
"Yes, I am arguing the temperature difference is non zero."
“When the plates are at the same temperature, there is NO heat flow.”
In the real world with finite conductivity, k, TRUE.
In Eli’s experiment, with k =infinity, FALSE.
In any case there needs to be heat flow since heat flows out of the plate surface into space, and 1LOT says that needs to be replaced. It is replaced by heat flow through the plates from the heat source.
When the plates are at the same temperature, there is NO “heat flow”.
Zero times infinity is zero.
What will you throw against that wall next, Nate?
Wrong.
The whole point of Eli experiment was that heat passed through the plate.
The BP is heated on one side. It is in contact with the GP which emits emits on its other side. Then there needs to be heat flow to the GP from the BP, to replace what is lost.
Unless you believe in magical creation of energy inside the plate!
When the plates are at the same temperature, there is NO “heat flow”.
You are confusing “heat flow” with “energy flow”.
What will you throw against that wall next, Nate?
Clint R,
You are throwing your maypo against the wall again.
“Sorry child, but separated the green plate STILL receives the same energy as before, so maintains the same temperature as before.”
But it is losing twice the amount by radiation as before the separation.
So it cools.
Whatever will you try next?
Wrong again, bob.
You STILL can’t understand the simple graphic. Green plate receives net 200 W from left side and loses 200 W from right side.
Nothing you throw against the wall sticks. But, you and Nate will be here all day, children that you are.
Someone has to be the adult in the room and bring this to a close. As usual, it’s always me.
“You are confusing heat flow with ‘energy flow’.
There is no energy flow that is not heat flow in this setup.
Heat is emitted by the GP, only heat can replace that or it will cool, according to 1LOT.
Child Nate, find an adult to explain the thermodynamic definition of “heat” to you. Then, notice that the equation for heat transfer relies on a difference of temperatures. When the temperatures are equal, the heat is zero.
Maybe someday, when you grow up, you will understand.
So Clint R,
Why don’t you take your diagram which has reflection in a blackbody problem home?
It was wrong when you first posted it, and is still wrong.
Violates the laws of physics, it does.
Sorry bob, a blackbody is an imaginary object, and cannot be used as an excuse to violate the laws of physics.
DREMT,
“Sorry bob, a blackbody is an imaginary object, and cannot be used as an excuse to violate the laws of physics.”
Close enough they do, and it’s an assumption to make the problem easier calculation wise.
Your diagram has a perfect reflector in it, those don’t exist either so two questions.
What’s your point?
What physics violation are you talking about?
No "perfect reflector", bob, the diagram just contains no 2LoT violation, unlike Eli’s solution.
DREMT,
But it does have a Stephan-Boltzmann violation in that the green plate has 400 watts/m^2 in 400 watts/m^2 out and is at the same temperature of the blue plate which has 600 watts/m^2 in and 600 watts/m^2 out.
And the flows and temperatures have no calculations supporting that their values are correct.
bob still can’t understand the simple diagram.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1536435
DREMT,
And your diagram also has the blue plate emitting 400/m^2 watts to the right, but only 200 watts/m^2 to the left.
Another reason the diagram is NFG.
Please revise and resubmit for approval.
bob still can’t understand the simple diagram, even when I link back to the comment where I clearly explained it to him previously.
That’s because your diagram is wrong DREMT.
Please revise and resubmit for approval.
Remember you claimed the plates are perfect conductors, so they should emit the same from each side.
Those who have clicked on the link will be chuckling away at bob. I’m OK with that.
Yeah, they would be chuckling away at why I try to get you to understand thermodynamics.
And before you respond saying you understand thermodynamics, no you don’t.
This discussion is closed for comments.
The loser tries to close the door.
He’s not the moderator.
#2
This discussion is closed for comments.
Yes the discussion is closed.
The correct answer is 262 220.
If you don’t like your marks, take it up with the Dean, by appointment only.
#3
This discussion is closed for comments.
“Child Nate, find an adult to explain the thermodynamic definition of heat to you. Then, notice that the equation for heat transfer relies on a difference of temperatures. When the temperatures are equal, the heat is zero.”
False because it is a though experiment. But I guess you cannot think.
In the real world, there is a small T gradient and heat flow is not 0, because it is needed to replace heat flowing out of the GP to space. Cannot be 0, unless you think heat can be magically created from nothing in the GP!
In this ‘thought experiment’ with perfect conductor the gradient goes to 0 but heat flow is not 0 because it still needed to replace the heat flowing out of the GP to space unless you think heat can be magically created from nothing in the GP!
In reality, Clint, conductors always have finite conductivity and a T gradient with heat flow.
For the thin metal plates of the GPE the gradient would be very tiny, negligible with heat flow of 200 W/m^2.
Eli is simply saying they are so small, lets ignore them to simplify the problem.
This is not unusual in science.
It is comparable to neglecting the resistivity of wires, and voltage drops across them, when analyzing a circuit.
The current in a circuit does not go to zero because we neglect the voltage drops across them!
The heat flow does not go to zero because we neglect the T gradient across the plates!
This discussion is closed for comments.
Again, in your mind only, you are in charge. In reality not.
#2
This discussion is closed for comments.
And now for some humour.
Gavin Schmidt is ” . . . the Director of GISS and Principal Investigator for the GISS ModelE Earth System Model, . . . “.
Poor fellow doesn’t seem to understand the actions of his fellow federal officials, and rather than simply asking them why they do what they do, is pursuing a strange freedom of information fishing expedition disguised as follows –
“Since I am pursuing this request to better understand and publicise the actions of federal officials working in their official capacity, and since I will publicise any relevant findings on my longstanding and award-winning web blog (realclimate.org), I request a waiver of any fees associated with this request.”
Poor chap. He and the rest of his strange bedfellows are obviously poverty stricken, as well as unable to ask federal officials to explain their actions.
His request was – “Specifically, I request all emails to and from the address “ned.nikolov@usda.gov (and other relevant aliases) and any of the following people or emails that mention them:”
Oh dear. I wonder if Gavin is pretending to be a private person, to show that ned.nikolov has behaved just as Gavin has. Strange indeed!
I’m surprised that Gavin didn’t just organize one of his stooges to submit the freedom of information request. Of course, they might have to pay, although no doubt Skeptical Science could claim they shouldn’t have to pay anything, being a long-standing, award winning blog!
All very strange. Has Ned Nikolov got up Gavin’s nose, I wonder?
And so Mike Flynn is surprised by an email game contrarians kept playing since 2009.
Perhaps he could FOIA Gavin for a demonstration of how greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect?
Gavin is not terribly bright, is he?
Demonstrating how something that doesn’t exist causes something he can’t describe? Perhaps you could explain what you are talking about?
Only joking – of course you can’t!
If Gavin is not terribly bright when he does like contrarians did for decades, Mike, what does it tell you about contrarians?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
So Gavin Schmidt is playing games, is he?
What’s the name of the game? “I’ll pretend I’m a scientist and nobody will find out I’m not”?
What are you braying about, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson, I am posting this as a public service. I do not expect you to suddenly decided to agree with accepted science. No, that would spoil your persona as the master story teller and humorist. I am posting it as a new message, because it is one of the best statements I could devise to explain why the plate thought experiment is close enough to reality, and is only subject to some minor criticism such as claiming perfect conduction of the plates.
The confusion about the plates is that people do not understand the relationship between heat, power, and temperature as it relates to thermal radiation and radiant heat transfer. The green plate is not heating the blue plate. The sun is the only source of heat on the blue plate, just like the sun is the only source of heat here on earth.
Without the green plate in place, the blue plate is able to cool against the background of deep space. When the green plate is put in place, it raises the temperature of the blue plate by blocking its access to the cooling effect of outer space. The blue plate is now being cooled by the green plate, but the green plate is hotter than outer space. The green plate is at a lower temperature because it is only heated by the blue plate, which is not as hot as the sun, and it has full access to outer space.
Keep in mind that thermal radiation emitted by an object is only effected by temperature and spectrum. It is always active regardless of the environment. The confusion about back radiation from the green plate, or the gases in the atmosphere, can be understood better by the concept of wave cancelling. The back radiation is cancelling some of the outgoing radiation that otherwise would go to outer space.
That concept works for the earth and the plate thought experiment. Still, there is a huge difference that must be understood. The gases in the atmosphere only add opacity, and the gas emissions are omnidirectional. That is the complexity for the atmosphere.
Tim S, you can’t be a Skeptic by swallowing everything the cult spews. If you believe the green plate can cause the blue plate to rise in temperature, just by moving it slightly away, then you’re a cultist, devoid of any scientific understanding.
That means you also must believe ice cubes can boil water.
If you don’t know enough science to debunk the GHE nonsense, and all of its layers of fraud, then just be quiet and learn.
Clint R,
All you have to do is to use the Seebeck effect to create a perpetual supply of free electricity!
Whoopee!
Indeed, there would be no energy shortage if we could repeal the law of physics.
Too cold? Just bring in more ice….
I told that joke to an Inuit, Pupman.
She did not find it funny, for some reason.
Was it my delivery or the fact that she uses ice to warm herself?
You and your cult are the joke, child.
Being able to warm oneself with ice is no joke, Pup.
Check how:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=qWNQUvIk954&si=9xwa3C6xsbufzbI5
Clint R
Not sure you will understand the real world engineering (meaning it works) yes if too cold more ice will help warm you up.
Here is the evidence. You can deny it along with right-wing fanatic Stephen P Anderson who used to think but now just parrots right-wing fanatic points (really sad).
However it might make you think, but probably not.
https://wonderfulengineering.com/here-is-the-engineering-behind-an-igloo-that-keeps-eskimos-warm/
There is a video in the link, watch it an learn some physics instead of your incorrect made up false opinions.
Evidence is painful but it will lead to the correct path.
Norman, did you find another Internet link you can’t understand?
Find someone that understands the difference between “insulation” and “heat source”, to explain an igloo to you.
When’s your next meltdown?
Clint R
It was an answer to your post “Too cold? Just bring in more ice.”
When the outside temperature is quite cold than more ice warms the air.
Anyway I did not expect you to understand the point. You understand insulation but can’t understand GHG act the same way. They reduce the heat the Earth’s surface loses. You do not know this real science, deny it exists and so continue posting really bad cultish science that is just wrong. Even if you think it is correct it is not. If you learn real science it might help your comments look less ignorant. As for now you are too deep into Cult mentality to even attempt to think you might be wrong about a lot of things.
Norman says:
”Anyway I did not expect you to understand the point. You understand insulation but cant understand GHG act the same way. They reduce the heat the Earths surface loses. You do not know this real science, deny it exists and so continue posting really bad cultish science that is just wrong.”
what point Norman you haven’t described exactly how greenhouse gases uniquely reduce the Earth’s surface losses.
Convection > Radiation
Convection occurs when the lapse rate destablizes.
Result: you could reduce radiation to zero transfer from the surface and it may make no difference.
If you disagree. . .prove it.
Bill Hunter
If you reduce any of the mechanisms for heat transfer of a heated object (the Earth’s surface) it will alter the temperature.
Convection is greater than radiant loss but radiant loss is not so insignificant. Without GHG the radiant loss would exceed convection.
https://pub.mdpi-res.com/remotesensing/remotesensing-10-01539/article_deploy/html/images/remotesensing-10-01539-g001.png?1570509526
This is a global look at outgoing longwave radiant energy. In the desert area of the US it looks in the 250 W/m^2 range.
Here is the surface IR emitted in the desert region (in summer)
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_65097f559a10d.png
Over 500 W/m^2 average. The GHG reduce the loss of radiant heat by a few hundred Watts/m^2. This will alter temperature of the surface if things are changed.
Norman, your cult used to claim the sky could heat the surface, as you still do. But that violates 2LoT. That’s like ice cubes being able to boil water. So some of you more extreme types claim ice CAN boil water.
That’s why this is so much fun. (I especially enjoy your childish tantrums and the fact that you can’t understand the links you find.)
But the less insane members of your cult now claim that the sky acts as insulation, slowing the cooling. That’s what is happening, but the insulation is provided by N2 and O2, not CO2. CO2 emits terrestrial infrared to space, cooling the planet. The sky can NOT raise surface temperatures.
Norman says:
”Over 500 W/m^2 average. The GHG reduce the loss of radiant heat by a few hundred Watts/m^2. This will alter temperature of the surface if things are changed.”
I see you making that claim but I don’t see you are anybody else providing evidence your claim is true.
You are only using an emotional argument here.
Bill Hunter
Dus you take the time to look at the links in my post. That is evidenc.
Norman there is no evidence at all in either of those links of the relationship between convection and radiant temperatures.
The first link doesn’t appear to be inconsistent with the estimate that the about 240w/m2 is going to space which is plenty to offset incoming sunlight.
You guys that are embracing this vision of James Hansen don’t seem to have any scientific evidence to support your view other than a number of speculations about the atmosphere.
I get and don’t claim any of your supportable points as being false. We know the 3rd grader radiation model doesn’t work as diagrammed. We know that warmer bodies can slow cooling but we have nothing on how convection deals with that other than speculation. And without convection control you cannot claim a warm sky as being insulation for the surface. Simple as that because if the sky does not insulate the surface from both IR and convection then it can’t be responsible for the GHE via GHG.
Tim S.
Well put. But there is too much common sense in there.
These guys can’t understand the technical science arguments, and logical appeals to everyday common experience overwhelms their weak common sensors.
“…it raises the temperature of the blue plate by blocking its access to the cooling effect of outer space.”
Don’t be silly, Tim. Space is mostly just a big vacuum. Best to think of it as not having a temperature.
Nah
The magician who pulls a rabbit out of his hat, now wants to pull me down a rabbit hole. It does seem to be working its magic on the “skeptics”. They gleefully want to demonstrate their frustration at not understanding basic physics, when there is a much better argument that aligns with the science.
Water vapor in the atmosphere not only proves that the greenhouse effect (or whatever term one prefers) is real, but the effect of variability in the humidity in the atmosphere demonstrates that it is the “primary” and dominant greenhouse gas.
Nonetheless, water vapor is barely mentioned in media reports. Wikipedia is so saturated with politics that they do everything they can to obscure and downplay water vapor. They have a chart showing the relative radiant strength of various gases. The strength of water vapor is shown at 0.25% in the atmosphere. That is a dew point of about minus 5C (-5C) — well below the freezing point of water. I would guess (educated guess) that the average over the surface of the earth is around 2% to 3%. That would change their fake chart and make water vapor at least 8 to 12 times stronger. Wikipedia also has a rather lengthy page to claim that a climate change denier is actually suffering from a mental illness.
There are better places for skeptics to go with their complaints. The basic media sources and even Wikipedia are contaminated with hype and misunderstanding. How many times do you see a news anchor get all excited about “the latest report” on climate change? Most of the time they do not have the slightest idea what kind of speculation, assumptions, or genuine science might be behind it.
Tim S says:
September 18, 2023 at 2:24 PM
The magician who pulls a rabbit out of his hat, now wants to pull me down a rabbit hole. It does seem to be working its magic on the skeptics. They gleefully want to demonstrate their frustration at not understanding basic physics, when there is a much better argument that aligns with the science.
—————————–
Are you aware of any other settled science that one cannot demonstrate? Sure with statistics you can reduce uncertainty but nobody has done that for climate as CO2 variability is too unpronounced from the background variability.
the real truth is that the science is unsettled for climate change and some folks to their own benefit want the job of experimenting with the world.
They could go down in history far surpassing Dr. Josef Mengele since not everybody is volunteering.
Tim S says:
”Gordon Robertson, I am posting this as a public service. I do not expect you to suddenly decided to agree with accepted science.”
Indeed notice he made no mention of ”established” or ”proven” science. Its all about who ”accepts” it. You would do Joseph Goebbels proud.
What do you think “established science” is if not “accepted science”? A theory or experiment becomes ‘established’ when experts in the field examine it and accept it as correct.
As for “proven science” — that doesn’t even exist! Math has proofs, but not science.
According to Epistemological Theory, there are no true facts, just really well justified beliefs.
Or, there is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism
And lets be sure to no forget the propagandists while you guys all gather up in a circle jerk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Other Tim: Yep. You got it right. I have never figured out how people can be so adamant that the temperature of the surrounding can’t affect the temperature of a heated object.
Buy two 200-W panel heaters like this:
https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/product/cozy-chicken-coop-flat-panel-heater-200w-1225112
Put one in the middle of a cold garage (-20 C). Put the other in a hot garage (+50 C). If you agree that the surface of the panel will be warmer in the hot garage then congratulations, then you accept the green plate experiment.
We have had numerous experiments trying to create some such temperature gradient due to convective resistance (woods, pratt, and S&O) and have failed miserably every time.
If you are going to make a science claim in here that anybody in here is going to believe is unbiased you will need to link to the documented experiment that shows how one produces a greenhouse effect.
“You got it right. I have never figured out how people can be so adamant that the temperature of the surrounding can’t affect the temperature of a heated object.“
Straw man. Space is not “surroundings”, it’s a vacuum, and the green plate is also not “surroundings”. “Surroundings” would be: air, for example.
Uhhh…we know that the dark side of the Moon loses heat to space and cools to extremely low temperatures. We know that the JWST, on its shaded side, cools to extremely low temperatures.
Thus the notion that space is somehow NOT acting as a very cold environment is a clever dodge, but utterly without merit.
…straw man. Space is not “surroundings”, it’s a vacuum, and the green plate is also not “surroundings”. “Surroundings” would be: air, for example.
When people point out obvious flaws in your logic, and you have no sensible rebuttal, it is a very convenient fiction to claim that you don’t read their posts.
…man. Space is not “surroundings”, it’s a vacuum, and the green plate is also not “surroundings”. “Surroundings” would be: air, for example.
I thought I posted this before but I don’t see it …
DREMT, I don’t think you under stand the meaning of “surroundings” in thermodynamics.
“A thermodynamic system is a body of matter and/or radiation separate from its surroundings that can be studied using the laws of thermodynamics. … The space outside the thermodynamic system is known as the surroundings, a reservoir, or the environment. ”
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system
In this case, the “system” would be the pair of plates (and the space between them). The “surroundings” would be everything else – the sun and outer space.
Also, since you are into “perfect” lately, space is not a perfect vacuum. It contains WAY more atoms than Earth’s atmosphere. If the atoms in earth’s atmosphere can be “surroundings”, then the atoms scattered arou8nd space can also be surroundings.
Discussed up-thread.
“The back radiation is cancelling some of the outgoing radiation that otherwise would go to outer space.”
The outgoing radiation goes to outer space anyway. No cancelling or vanishing.
It’s called nighttime. When the surface temperature falls.
Unless you are talking about something else entirely, which you can’t describe on the grounds of privacy or intellectual property. Is that it?
I believe that the Earth’s surface has cooled over the past few billion years or so. Presumably, more energy has fled to outer space than has been received from the Sun. Have you any information to the contrary?
So Mike Flynn is braying again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Related…
There’s a famous anecdote about English astronomer Arthur Stanley Eddington. After a public lecture, a person in the audience asked him, “Professor Eddington, is it true that there are only three people in the world who really understand general relativity?” Eddington thought for a while, then replied, “Who might possibly be the third?”
General relativity tells us about the way the world works at its most fundamental level. And isn’t the quest to really understand our world one of the things that sets us apart from other animals?
We weren’t very good at understanding our world for many thousands of years. The first agricultural societies arose some 12,000 years ago in the Middle East. They had no clue as to the true nature of the celestial bodies. No urge to know, even.
Nothing much changed until the time of the great Greek philosophers, some 2,500 years ago. That’s 9,500 years-many hundreds of generations-without significant progress.
Our ancestors had the brainpower-after all, they were Homo sapiens just like us. They just didn’t care enough.
What does this history have to do with general relativity? Everything. Our understanding the world is made possible only by improving on the work of others.
We’re not done yet.
What fresh nonsense is this?
In case you forgot…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1488634
Louis Essen’s criticism of Einstein’s special relativity, particularly his objections to time dilation, has been extensively addressed and debunked by the scientific community. Here are some key points to debunk Essen’s criticism:
Empirical Evidence: Einstein’s special relativity is supported by a wealth of experimental evidence. One of the most famous experiments is the Michelson-Morley experiment, which failed to detect any variation in the speed of light due to Earth’s motion through space. This experiment confirmed the postulates of special relativity, including time dilation.
Time Dilation Predictions: Special relativity makes precise predictions about the effects of relative motion on time. These predictions have been confirmed by numerous experiments, including the Hafele-Keating experiment, which involved synchronized atomic clocks placed on commercial airliners and confirmed time dilation effects.
Lorentz Transformation: The Lorentz transformation equations, a fundamental part of special relativity, provide a mathematical framework that describes how time and space coordinates transform between observers in relative motion. These equations have been consistently validated through experiments and observations.
Consistency with Electromagnetic Theory: Special relativity is in perfect agreement with Maxwell’s equations, which describe electromagnetism. The theory’s predictions about the behavior of electromagnetic waves, including the constancy of the speed of light, have been confirmed by countless experiments.
Practical Applications: Special relativity has practical applications in technologies like the Global Positioning System (GPS), which relies on corrections for both special and general relativity effects to provide accurate navigation. The success of GPS serves as a real-world validation of the theory.
Peer Review and Scientific Consensus: Einstein’s special relativity has withstood rigorous peer review and scrutiny by the scientific community for over a century. It is a cornerstone of modern physics and enjoys overwhelming consensus among physicists.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
To be fair, radiant barriers alone only reduce between five to ten percent of your monthly cooling costs. However, when combined with insulation, barriers can cut your cooling bill in half. Naturally, the results will vary depending on the size of your home and if it is well-insulated. However, every little bit helps. A radiant barrier may put $200 to $300 back in your pocket annually.
https://energyattic.com/is-a-radiant-barrier-worth-it/
Looks like our in-house auditor has some work to do to report another scam:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1536242
This popped up on my tablet today.
Just to remind people what the actual science looks like, as a counterbalance the bullsh*t that Gordon and Clint are spouting.
https://d*a*v*i*d*a*p*p*e*l*l.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-testable-falsifiable-science-that.html
Remove *s before opening.
Next time simply use tinyURL, makes life easier for your readers:
https://tinyurl.com/2jy7rdt7
You are David A.ppell? Oh dear.
David is Cali. EM is on some island in EU.
Afraid not.
I’m in Northern Ireland.
IIRC he’s in Oregon.
How’s your Winter looking this year Ent, with all that cheap available Green energy you Europeans are so fond of?
Very promising.
Renewables supply 43% of Northern Ireland’s energy.
How are you managing?
https://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news/electricity-consumption-and-renewable-generation-northern-ireland-year-ending-march-2022
Think of all that fuel we don’t have to burn, or pay for.
While you suckers keep pouring money into the pockets of the oil companies.
Entropic man
Sounds good.
In 2022 Germoney had 44% gross renewables (50% net).
These numbers consider only public electricity production; electricity produced by the industry for its own needs is not contained.
*
The funny thing is that although France has always laughed out loud at Germoney’s Rens because they have 58 nuclear power plants, last year they had to import 15 TWh from Germoney because half of the reactors had to be shut down due to major problems (repairing many welds on very delicate places).
C’est la vie, dirons-nous, n’est-ce pas?
*
We would have a lot more wind power here (especially offshore), but Angie Merkel and her CDU, like all right-wing parties, have always slowed down renewables at the request of the large electricity companies.
And due to a miserable agreement, the Germans of the next generations will have to pay for the entire dismantling of all nuclear power plants, the disposal of the burned fuel rods and nuclear power cores and their safe accommodation underground.
The electricity companies pushed this through as compensation for stopping nuclear power.
” 58 nuclear power plants ”
should read
” 58 nuclear power reactors ” (in 18 plants)
In case you’re wondering, my issue with A.ppell was the way his logic flipped when arguing different scenarios, just like deniers.
For example, in May 2018 I pointed out that April had been one of the coldest Aprils in US history (I think 13th coldest). He tried to claim, rather aggressively, that it was one of the warmest (I think he might have said 5th warmest), and made a vague reference to some other data set without actually linking to it. When I showed him the NOAA data he claimed, even more aggressively, that the difference was due to a different baseline, implying that not knowing this displayed my lack of knowledge on this matter. This was just after he had finished trying to explain to Gordon (unsuccessfully of course) that the choice of baseline makes no difference to ranks.
I also recall Bindidon stating at another time that his style was no different to that of deniers.
Ent, now you’re going to have to sterilize your tablet.
Dropping it in a bucket of bleach works….
Appel is the biggest creep ewer to hit this board, only Bindidong comes second close
Curios definition of creepiness.
Both regularly hammered you in debate.
Poor loser?
All the Dachshund can post is cheap, aggressive polemics based on his ongoing need to denigrate anyone who posts information he doesn’t like.
No Eben, that title belongs to Mike Flynn (Swenson) with g#e#r#a#n (Clint) in second place.
You come first in terms of NEVER making a contribution to scientific
discussion.
AQ,
And your contribution is . . . ?
[Silence was the stern reply]
My contribution to creepiness is zero – thanks for asking.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Cold is simply the absence of heat. Any spot in the universe that is sufficiently blocked from all heat sources will eventually cool down to freezing temperatures. But points in space removed from heat sources aren’t cold in the sense that they would quickly make you cold. Quick heat transfer requires contact or air, both lacking in space. As a result objects cool very slowly through the much slower mechanism of thermal radiation. A human exposed to outer space in shadow without a space suit does not instantly freeze to a block of ice. It takes a lot longer than movies show for a non-heated body in space to cool down to deep space temperatures, which are about -280 F.
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2012/12/19/what-makes-space-so-cold/
Wiltard you need to perform an experiment and report back to us. I’m sure you’ll be able to find many willing to launch you into space.
Had you done anything for us, dear Troglodyte, anything at all, you’d be in a better position of issue commands.
NEVERTHELESS:
https://youtu.be/6QE3oHoTgUQ?feature=shared
The TL;DR is – as Klingons prefer their revenge.
Stephen P Anderson
Maybe you should tune into Tucker Carlson and he can teach you the science you slept through while in school. So far I have not seen even the slightest sign that you actually took real science. You seem just a right-wing radical who does not know how to think or reason outside the box the right-wing talking heads have put you in.
I think you gave up on science for the emotional high you get belonging to the big Cult on the Right just as others enjoy the emotional high on the Left. Neither of these camps seems to possess much reasoning or logical skills. Mostly parrots of some talking points they just believe with no ability to think on their own.
Sad how these powerful forces eat up the human potential and create the zombie hoard of Right/Left braindeath.
The Zombie Right has eaten the mind you may have had at one time. Really a sad and sorry thing to witness.
from wee willy’s link….
“Space is not always cold. It depends if you are facing the sun or not”.
***
Duh!!! They are confusing space itself with a mass that can absorb solar energy and convert it to heat. If you have a cubic metre of space with EM from the Sun flowing through it, provided that cube has no mass, it is still at -273C. So, yes, space is very cold and all of the time.
EM carries no heat and cannot raise the temperature of a vacuum.
I wonder what’ll happen when you’ll rediscover that space isn’t a vaccuum, Bordo.
Close enough to being a vacuum in most areas that it is safe to call it one.
Willard,
I wonder what will happen when you realise that being obscure won’t convince others that you are wise – possibly the complete opposite.
> Close enough
Not close enough to play silly semantic games (hi Mike!) about limits, Bordo.
Not without calculus or topology.
And not when physicists have difficulties with pure nothingness:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-the-physics-of-nothing-underlies-everything-20220809/
But then they may not have the opportunity to read you every day.
Appealing to the authority of journalists about irrelevancies might make you look even sillier than you are.
Stick to silly semantic games, and provide some light relief for onlookers.
Mike Flynn,
When will you learn what is an appeal to authority?
wee willy…”Cold is simply the absence of heat”.
***
Another Duh!!! Cold is an absence of mass provided the related vacuum is not in a container in a heated environment. If you evacuate a container at STP, the environment inside the container should not be cold. There is no mass, therefore no heat, but the evacuated environement won’t freeze water.
[SKY DRAGON CRANK BAD] Cold is simply the absence of heat.
[SKY DRAGON CRANK GOOD] Cold is an absence of mass provided the related vacuum is not in a container in a heated environment.
Sometimes, Bordo, I really wonder if you read what you write.
Ever had a cold beer?
helps, ww, if you understand that a pure vacuum has no mass and heat cannot exist without mass. It is mass that produces heat in a space and outer space has little or no mass. That’s why it is cold.
Willard,
You do realise that temperature is the degree of hotness of an object?
Playing your silly semantic games just makes you look silly. No wonder you are incapable of even describing this GHE which you worship so devoutly.
C’mon, Bordo.
If mass produced heat, you’d agree that blankets warm.
Are you sure you’re willing to go that far?
Willard,
Why would you think that mass produces heat?
I suppose you thin that blankets produce heat – or even CO2 and H2O!
You are not terribly bright, are you?
Mike Flynn,
Why do you bother trying to waste peoples time?
Why did you write peoples, BYW?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Bindidon says:
September 11, 2023 at 5:03 PM
Anderson
*
And Christos math says no GHE at all.
Christos math, as you so nicely call it, is based on a single, absolutely unproven assumption.
He even doesnt dare to present his idea on an open review site.”
–
Sorry, I was occupied with presenting to an open review site lately, so I have missed some important remarks.
Please, Bindidon, what “a single, absolutely unproven assumption.” you are reffering at?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Oh Vournas… please stop kidding us.
Its name is… Φ.
You never prove your assumption behind it. Never.
Thank you, Bindidon, for your clarification.
“Its name is Φ.
You never prove your assumption behind it. Never.”
–
Ok, it is about the term “Φ”.
Now, what is the assumption behind it? Because I never assumed anything behind it.
I have explained what the term “Φ” is. Please visit my site, everything about the term “Φ” is there.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” I have explained what the term Φ is. ”
Sure you did. But you never were able to prove your explanation being right.
van der Klown…Christos is polite with his posts yet you are a total jerk to him. Maybe if you tried parking your French bitterness and tried communicating as a human with some empathy, you might get along better with people. I don’t normally call people ijits but I have used that term on you for a good reason.
Always nice to see you play the tone police, Bordo:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190780
Do you have anything against Bond albedo?
Robertson
I see NOTHING impolite in my replies to Vournas, let alone would I have behaved like a ‘jerk’ as you claim.
Conversely, most of YOUR posts are incredibly impolite, especially when you discredit anything that you can’t even understand.
You behave incredibly impolite even with regards to persons like Andrew Motte, the first translator of Newton’s Principia:
” In other words, Motte was a cheating S~O~B. ”
You even discredit great historical scientists like Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, etc. just because you don’t understand what they wrote: that is MUCH worse than any insult you have given me.
A warm object in space has some rate of cooling.
When a colder object is around, the warmer object doesn’t get hotter, what it does is to slow the rate of cooling.
–
Now, a warm object in space which has a steady source of energy, will be in a thermal equilibrium, and will have some steady temperature.
When a colder object is around, the warmer object, which has a steady source of energy, will get hotter, untill it reaches a new thermal equilibrium.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A warm object in space which doesn’t have a steady source of energy, would be a contradiction in terms.
Just like the cult insistence that insulating the Earth from the pernicious rays of the Sun raises the surface temperature!
A contradiction in terms, but unlikely to have any effect on GHE devotees.
Does anyone remember information from Roy Spencer about the repeat and revisit periods of the satellites whose onboard instruments are used by UAH to calculate temperatures from the O2 microwave sounding?
Here is a similar info about the Sentinel satellite pair:
https://sentinel.esa.int/web/sentinel/user-guides/sentinel-1-sar/revisit-and-coverage
Perhaps it is in here. I don’t have time right now to check for myself.
https://tinyurl.com/version-6
Something wrong happened here: I can’t access the tinyURL link.
Is this what you want or just something from Roy? Re-visit period = 1 day.
The sat you want is NOAA-14 for the older MSU and NOAA-15 for the newer AMSU.
https://eo.belspo.be/en/satellites-and-sensors/noaa-15
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1535799
Apparently taking one reading a day is better than averaging max and min, even when not knowing where that reading sits in relation to the max and min.
Better than what?
Why?
You can’t justify your silliness, can you?
As usual, dumb, useless, irrelevant blathering from the Flynnson stalker…
I was 100 % sure that the Robertson ignoramus wouldn’t understand the problem, namely that the revisit period of pole-to-pole, sun-synchronous satellites
– (1) is way less accurate than the repetition period
– (2) depends on the latitude (1 day revisit is valid for polar latitudes 60N-90N resp 60S-90S only).
Of course he didn’t read the Sentinel info.
Conversely I of course had read the Belgian stuff which I didn’t consider: not precise enough.
Robertson est, comme toujours, l’ignorant du village.
–That being said, Im not sure how youll be able to pivot from warming is a better proxy for CO2 than CO2 itself to Elon establishing a Mars slave colony.
More coffee?–
Making more.
But Elon and his hyperloop is a pivot:
Have 20 meter diameter pipe with 1 mm thick walls of titanium, within is 19 meter diameter pipe,
and within it is 18 meter diameter pipe.
Between the 20 and 19 meter pipe is salt water of density of 1040 kg and between 19 and 18 meter
diameter pipes is freshwater.
Inside the 18 meter diameter pipe are seven 6 meter diameter pipe with wall thickness of 2 mm.
The 6 meter diameter pipe in the middle of six surrounding 6 meter diameter pipes is filled
with air at 60 psi. And other six pipes are filled with freshwater.
The water pressure in all pipes is 4 psig, The part pipe at or near the surface is 4 psi more than Earth’s surface
atmospheric pressure.
So, say the top of 20 meter diameter pipe was floating 4 meters above the waterline the pressure of salt water is 4 psi
higher than 14.7 psi surface air pressure. And 1/2 meter below this the freshwater is 4 psi higher than 14.7 psia {18.7 psia}.
And at bottom of pipe {about 20 meter down] the salt water is 2 atm higher {due to it’s water pressure].
So the ocean pressure 20 meter below the surface is 2 atm or 14.7 air pressure and 14.7 x 2 = 29.4 and totals in terms
absolute pressure 14.7 + 29.4 = 44.1 psia.
But bottom of 20 meter pipe is 20 – 4 meter above waterline, it’s 16 meters below waterline, 1.6 times 14.7 = 23.52 + 14.7 + 4 = 42.22 psia
And 16 meter below ocean surface is 23.52 + 14.7 = 38.22 psia.
So at this pressure of 4 psi, what happens if pipe were to rise or lower by say 5 meter {go up or down by 5 meters- somehow?}
If bottom pipe lower by 4 meter, the water pressure at bottom pipe decreases by .4 x 14.7 = 5.88 psi.
Or when water is 4 meter above water is has 5.88 psi more pressure, then water at surface. And it’s pressurized by 4 psi.
Or how could pressurize this pipe. If had a small pipe {2″ diameter} filled water 4 meter above waterline
and have air space above it {6″ of pipe filled with air at 1 atm}. And top end of small pipe could be sealed or open.
Let’s it’s sealed and call this the pressure gauge of big pipe. If big pipe lower by 2 meter, then your gauge has 2 meters
of less height above the waterline. It’s giving same pressure as it would if only 2 meters water was in the pipe.
But our gauge measuring air pressure, and air pressure is increasing, telling you how much lower the pipe is.
Or start another way. Say top of large pipe is two meter under the water. Have two pipe, one is 1 meter high and open end and
allowed one put water into large pipe and other pipe is 4 meter high, pressure gauge pipe.
So, 1 meter can opened or shut and can remove and add water to large pipe {salt and freshwater}.
And will have air in middle/center 6 meter diameter {so it can float rather than sink}.
So all salt and freshwater is pipe into large pipe. And water in not pressurized and 2 meters under the waterline.
And now, since this balloon tank structure, we want it pressurized. So with 6 meter pipe, which 4 meter above waterline.
The 4 meter above waterline adds 4 x 1.47 psi = 5.88 psi. Then raise it 2 meter higher. And water 6 meters above the
waterline, adds 6 x 1.47 = 8.82 psi and to large pipe pressure.
Say, this is too much pressure, so pipe only 4 meters of water in it. And it’s capped and measuring it’s air pressure.
So it’s 1 atm of air pressure and 4 meters water above waterline or 5.88 pressure in top of 20 meter diameter pipe.
But the beginning question is we wanted it 4 meter above waterline {as whim} and wanted it at 4 psi higher than surface pressure.
And what will our gauge tells us, if large pipe goes waterline to 4 meter above waterline?
What we know is the bottom of pipe will have lower pressure, 5.88 psi lower.
It seems we should want it to 4 psi higher, but instead 1 atm pressure or 0 psig.
So our gauge will 4 meters of water and 2 meters water, would become 6 meters of air at a lower pressure.
Or it’s not much of balloon tank if it’s 4 meter or more above the waterline.
But when large pipe is lowered to and below waterline, it gets 4 meters of water in it and 2 meters of air it.
Now we want the large pipe, to be 20 or 30 meters below the ocean’s waterline. As we want it to be tunnel under the
ocean surface. The tunnels are the seven 6 meter diameter pipes. Which rather than being pressurized will be
made into a vacuum {to reduce air resistance}. Or hyperloops under the ocean’s surface.
So, when we go from the top of ocean’s waterline to a depth of 10 meters under the waterline, what does the air pressure
in the guage meter, tell us?
It measure vacuum when above the waterline- the water goes down 4 meter, making the air occupy 6 meters of pipe rather than
2 meter of pipe.
A pipe attached to an incompressional tank, doesn’t change much. But just open end pipe, adds 1 atm per 10 meters.
So it question of the strength of these pressure vessels.
So the 18 meter diameter pipe which is within the 19 meter diameter freshwater section which is within 20 meter pipe which
has saltwater in it, will start with will have 20 psia of air in it.
And 10 meters under water is at bottom of 18 meter pipe 28 meter which is 2.8 atm [3.8 atm if including atmosphere- .
55.86 psia]. So, difference, 55.86 – 20 = 35.86 psi {of crushing/compressional force.
And were wonder if 4 mm thick walls would work- mostly because of 7 pipes within it.
But by itself, 4 mm titanium:
4 mm wall, 0.1574803 and 18 meter diameter:
Internal Pressure at Minimum Yield (psi): 56.9
Ultimate Burst Pressure (psi): 61.3
Maximum Allowable Pressure (psi): 41
So it could handle 41 psi of higher pressure of air within it.
It should noted this is in freshwater and doesn’t need to be titanium for corrosion reasons, and neither
do the 7 smaller pipe {which fits snugly within the 18 meter diameter pipe, need to made of titanium.
7 pipes are 6 on outside and one in middle. It’s a shape which has got a name, can’t remember, but with
seven soup cans {of same size] you can see it. Anyways, 3 them across is outside diameter, 3 times 6 = 18
Anyhow still using titanium because it’s handy, 6 meter diameter2 mm:
2 mm wall, 0.07874016″ and 6 meter diameter, 236.22:
Internal Pressure at Minimum Yield (psi): 85.3
Ultimate Burst Pressure (psi): 92
Maximum Allowable Pressure (psi): 61.4
And this would about 1 psia of air within it.
Mars air pressure is 0.095 psia and Mars is fairly good vacuum.
Cool…story, gb.
Compare and contrast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djfYafWFWtk
Hyperloop.
https://youtu.be/TTnFpKCAJtE?feature=shared
Eppenberg SBB Railway Tunnel.
Elmo’s plan is half-full of holes and half-full of cheese.
Eppenberg SBB Railway Tunnel seems complicated, I couldn’t imagined it being done by governmental bureaucracy. So I looked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Railways
“The company, founded in 1902, is headquartered in Bern. It used to be a government institution, but since 1999 it has been a special stock corporation whose shares are held by the Swiss Confederation and the Swiss cantons. It is currently the largest rail and transport company of Switzerland, and operates on most standard gauge lines of the Swiss network. It also heavily collaborates with most other transport companies of the country, such as the BLS, one of its main competitors, to provide fully integrated timetables with cyclic schedules”
Anyhow Europe, and I knew Sweden does a lot tunneling, but I guess Switzerland and it’s military policies highly favor digging a lot of tunnels, also.
> I couldnt imagined it being done by governmental bureaucracy
Perhaps you need to expand your imagination:
https://youtu.be/LVIRpu68UVY?feature=shared
Willard,
Presumably your link has nothing to do with the Eppenberg SBB Railway Tunnel.
Why do you bother trying to waste peoples’ time?
Mike Flynn,
Presumably you have not clicked on it.
Long live and prosper!
You do realize there are hundreds of billionaires in China?
And they doing stuff- you say can of course, it involves “a lot governmental corruption” but you say something similar about Amazon or Google, but both have some talent running it. And if they fail- they are out the door. And a lot Chinese billionaires are as competent as with Google and Amazon.
Do you have a point, gb?
I did not read the whole thing, but I can tell you as a matter of engineering fact that most piping system have a requirement for mechanical strength that greatly exceeds the pressure requirement. Very high pressure systems (1,000 psi plus) are the exception. In most cases, this is not even really a matter of mechanical strength, but rigidity. The unsupported length between pipe supports is often not dependent on the density of the fluid, but just the pipe. The issue is how the pipe bends or sags due to the weight. Larger pipe diameter and heavy wall thickness increases the allowable distance between supports.
“I did not read the whole thing, but I can tell you as a matter of engineering fact that most piping system have a requirement for mechanical strength that greatly exceeds the pressure requirement.”
Usually it’s factor of 4 or more. But aerospace has to use about 1.3 and it one reasons rockets fail until tested enough.
Testing it with floating breakwater, would better and trying to do it first with underwater tunnels with people traveling in them. But even it tested with breakwater [years of time] you still have safety factors in involved. I count the outer wall as one safety factor also the over pressure of 18 meter allows a way to add safety measures of traveling thru a vacuum. And one would have test pipelaunchers, lifting dummy payloads, before putting an expensive rocket and more expensive satellite payload on it. And Musk is going to fly Starship about 100 times before considering putting any people on it.
For a rocket casing that is highly analyzed, 1.3 over yield strength is enough. Aircraft wings are only 1.5 over maximum aerodynamic load in an accelerated stall at maximum design manuevering speed. Any faster than that and damage could occur — usually to the tail sections.
Over 20 years ago an Airbus lost its rudder with 100% fatal consequences due to an overly aggressive pilot. He won’t make that mistake again. The rudder has to be effect on the ground and is way too aggressive at speed. Boeing and Airbus have different systems that are supposed to help that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587
If you read WW II stories about pilots, some had their tail section seriously damaged and managed to return to the UK by manipulating engines and engine RPM.
So Many Boosters & Starships at Starbase | SpaceX Starbase Update
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKkJMWsALjk
Again, it’s mostly about FAA allowing the second test launch- but so far, it doesn’t seem it will delayed as much as last time.
But predicting bureaucracies is not art form, I particularly enjoy.
And video is about the amount Starships which are close to being able to launched: and building the infrastructure, to build them even faster.
And everyone is wondering how the second launch is going to go.
Will new hot fire separation work as well as they work as Russian
always do? It’s not an American, thing. But it seems it could help with the first stage reusability- which is {so far} solely an American thing.
I guess Musk knows some stuff about Russia rockets, as he wanted a Russian rocket to get his greenhouse to Mars.
I think having a greenhouse on Mars, would be good. But it seems Musk has moved on.
ENSO anomalies for week ending Sep 16:
1.2 … +2.6 (down 0.3)
3 … +2.2 (unchanged)
3.4 … +1.6 (unchanged)
4 … +1.1 (unchanged)
Well gee.
Who’d have thunk it?
Got any more gems like that?
ent…you are making a f00l of yourself posting Gavin Schmidt’s pseudo-scince. Nowhere in that thread of rubbish does he prove that GHGs are warming the atmosphere.
He references Manabe who created a model that was proved wrong. But Schmidt has made far more egregious errors. In a post on realclimate he tried to explain positive feedback and failed miserably. He has a degree in math yet he could not provide an accurate equation to define positive feedback.
In this rebuttal by engineer Jeffrey Glassman, he is exposed on PF under the heading ‘GAVIN SCHMIDT ON POSITIVE FEEDBACK’. In that section, Glassman exposes Schmidt’s fraudulent explanation of PF. He quotes Schmidt…”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”.
Although Glassman has other issues with this statement, I have my own. Neither Schmidt or any other alarmists offering the same or similar explanations try to explain how this amplification takes place. What Schmidt is trying to explain here has no ability to amplify anything. He is describing the kind of non-amplifying feedback used in servo-systems where the feedback can be positive or negative in sign only. There is no amplifier involved in the process.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120211192928/http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
sorry…this got reposted in the wrong place. I had an initial posting error and lost my place.
Cool story, Bordo.
Would you be so kind as to boil down Jeffrey’s 25K-word screed?
As Bender would say at the Auditor’s, “needles in the eyes.”
It would be easier to read if you had a genuine interest in science and who developed some comprehension. Reading is an art which people like myself learn at an early age because we want to read. Others prefer comic books and TV.
All I can say wee willy is take it a small chunk at a time, trying to digest what is written. Then move onto the next chunk.
C’mon, Bordo.
It’s obvious you have no idea about what you’ve just peddled.
Show your work.
Cmon, Wobbly Wee Willy,
Its obvious you have no idea about what youve just peddled.
Show your work.
Here, Mike Flynn,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120211192928/http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
Cheers.
Cmon, Wobbly Wee Willy,
Its obvious you have no idea about what youve just peddled.
Show your work.
Links are not work, particularly if they are meaningless and wrong. Is yours such a link?
Please don’t tell me that Bordo’s link is meaningless and wrong, Mike Flynn.
I’ll never recover.
The Willard gibberish generator leaps into action.
Words strung together with no meaning or content.
Stick to reporting the weather.
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
The Willard gibberish generator leaps into action.
Words strung together with no meaning or content.
Stick to reporting the weather.
to bray: to speak loudly and harshly
what you are braying about: the content which is causing you to speak loudly and harshly
what are you braying about: turns above statement into a question
Mike Flynn: your name
Would you like any more assistance with basic English comprehension?
AQ,
Do you have a gibberish generator too?
“what you are braying about: the content which is causing you to speak loudly and harshly”
Words strung together with no meaning or content.
“Mike Flynn : your name”
Maybe you should tune your gibberish generator – get it to learn about verbs, subjects, objects and so on. Is there a particular reason you have it referring to a figment of Willard’s seething imagination?
Maybe you could provide a fantasy description of the GHE – nothing wrong with a bit of laughter, is there?
Carry on.
Haha … hic … hic …
What’s wrong?
Gibberish generator grinding to a halt? Gears not meshing properly?
Maybe you could consult Willard on how to keep the gibberish flowing.
I had you in mind.
I see you have inserted the use of verbs etc, into your gibberish machine’s programming.
At least it has managed to produce five words strung together, in a meaningless, pointless, and fact free manner.
Keep at it.
You’re finished?
I see you have inserted the use of verbs etc, into your gibberish machines programming.
At least it has managed to produce five words strung together, in a meaningless, pointless, and fact free manner.
Now a couple less – obviously needs winding up again.
Keep at it.
You’ve nothing new to say?
I see you have inserted the use of verbs etc, into your gibberish machines programming.
At least it has managed to produce five words strung together, in a meaningless, pointless, and fact free manner.
Now a couple less obviously needs winding up again.
Ah, managed to add a couple this time – that’s progress.
Keep at it.
Copy-paste your comment again, Mike.
Heads up Mikey, this unthinking copy-paste tr#lling strategy of yours didn’t work last time you tried it, and it won’t work this time.
Let’s try some elementary control theory.
My house has a simple central heating system with a heat sensitive switch.
When the temperature drops below the set point the switch turns on the heater and the temperature rises.
When the temperature reaches the set point the switch turns the heater off and the temperature stabilizes then drops.
You, I think, call this servo feedback. A biologist or climate scientist would call it negative feedback. It describes the behaviour of a system in which deviations from a set point trigger changes which restore conditions to the set point.
My electrician makes a mistake and wires the switch backwards.
Now if the temperature drops below the set point the heater is switched off and the house continues to cool.
If the tetemperature rises the heat is switched on and the temperature increases further.
The system responds to a deviation from the set point by moving conditions further from the set point. I don’t know what you call it, but biologists and climatologists call it positive feedback.
Let’s learn how a cult perverts reality.
The cult believes something that is easily proven wrong. For example, we know Moon is not spinning because we always see the same side of it. But, the cult wants to believe it is spinning. So they invent a false “orbital motion without spin”, to match their beliefs. They claim that passenger jets fly backward!
And, as if that’s not enough, they go on to claim orbits are square!
> For example,
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/bait-this-is-bait
Yes, Ent is bad about baiting.
But then, that’s what anonymous tr0lls do….
Nobody really bites at your baits, Pupman.
EM is cool. You’re not.
Silly Willy, there is no perversion of reality you don’t believe is “cool”.
Pup Pup Pup,
You are not reality, nor are you mandated to speak for Her.
You’re not even the Captain of Team Sky Dragon Cranks.
Silly Willy perverts reality and believes that makes him “cool”.
Just like an uneducated child….
Pupman,
I said EM was cool.
I leave self-praise to asshats like you.
And you believe that makes you look “cool”.
Just like an uneducated child….
re ark’s misguided comments on Einstein’s relativity theory…
Louis Essen, who invented the atomic clock, and who can be regarded as an expert on time and measurement, claimed in a paper that Einstein’s relativity theory is not a theory at all, but a collection of unproved thought-experiments. Furthermore, he claimed that Einstein did not understand measurement.
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/05/25/dr-louis-essen-inventor-of-atomic-clock-rejects-einsteins-relativity-theory/
“My criticisms were, of course, purely destructive, but I think the demolition job was fairly complete. I concluded that the theory is not a theory at all, but simply a number of contradictory assumptions together with actual mistakes.
…. Einstein had no idea of the units and disciplines of measurement…
One aspect of this subject which you have not dealt with is the accuracy and reliability of the experiments claimed to support the theory. The effects are on the border line of what can be measured. The authors tend to get the result required by the manipulation and selection of results. This was so with Eddingtons eclipse experiment, and also in the more resent results of Hafele and Keating with atomic clocks. This result was published in Nature, so I submitted a criticism to them. In spite of the fact that I had more experience with atomic clocks than anyone else, my criticism was rejected. It was later published in the Creation Research Quarterly, vol. 14, 1977, p. 46 ff. With best wishes, Sincerely yours L. Essen.
Another article…
https://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm
“There have always been critics: Rutherford treated it as a joke; Soddy called it a swindle; Bertrand Russell suggested it was all contained in the Lorentz transformation equations; and many scientists commented on its contradictions”.
Rutherford is the scientists who laid the ground work on the atom which lead to Bohr’s theory that led to quantum theory. Soddy was a Nobelist in chemistry who specialized in radiation theory. Russell’s comment is correct, Einstein’s theory is based on the Lorentz transforms that ***PRESUME*** a time dilation based on the ratio of a velocity to the speed of light. No such relationship has ever been proved, basically because time has no existence other than as an idea in the human mind.
What is missing in both articles is the obvious. Time has always been based on the apparent motion of the Sun in the sky. Ancient used a sundial to track that apparent motion and those were the first clocks. Nothing has changed since. Clocks today are still based on the rate of rotation of the Earth. They do not measure time, they measure the relative position of Greenwich, England wrt the Sun.
If anything, time is a measure of length on a rotating sphere. That can be corroborated in that time is proportional to measures of length at the Equator. Since a day has 86,400 second and the distance around the equator is 40,075 kilometres (40,075,000 metres). then 1 second is equivalent to 40,075,000 m/86,400 seconds = about 464 metres. That’s the distance the Earth covers in 1 second at the Equator.
If time dilates it means the rotational speed of the Earth has changed.
“If anything, time is a measure of length on a rotating sphere. ”
Does this mean that no time passes on your non-rotating Moon?
And if there was no earth, there would be no such thing as “time” in the universe!
That’s right Tim, unless someone found another regular vibration upon which to base it.
Where would ‘YOU’ find such a vibration that was as regular as the rotation of the Earth?
You continue to have this backwards. Time exists. We invent various clocks to measure the passage of time. Time is not created by clocks. Just like distance is not created by rulers. Temperature is not created by thermometers.
“Where would YOU find such a vibration that was as regular as the rotation of the Earth?”
Well, first of all, the rotation is the earth is not constant. There is a gradual slowing due to the moon and tides. This has amounted to several HOURS of slowing in the past billion years. Records of eclipses show the earth has slowed over the past few thousand years. The need for leap seconds shows the earth continues to slow.
MUCH more regular than the earth are atomic clocks. That’s how we measure changes in the earth’s rotation!
ent…you could use the regularity of the lunar month as a basis of a time system. Bit we humans take along our own time systems when we visit the Moon.
Take two atomic clocks and synchronise them in your laboratory. Leave one sitting and accelerate one by taking it on an airline flight or up a mountain for the weekend.
When the two clocks are sitting side by side once more, less time has passed for the accelerated clock than the unaccelerated clock.
If there is no time dilation, how does a good empirical scientist like yourself explain the difference in elapsed time measured by the two clocks?
ent…you said the accelerated clock will show a different time, I did not. An atomic clock is based on the time of transition of electrons in the Cesium atom. Why should accelerating one clock cause the transitions to change their interval?
Even if you had a rusty, old alarm clock, why should acceleration affect its mechanism? If it does, that is not a change in time but a change in mechanical action.
Essen doubted that could happen. He put differences in time down to errors in the clocks and he was an expert on them. As he put it, if you consider the time length considered to be time dilation, the error in the clocks would be much longer. So, how do you measure dilation with a much larger error margin?
Even though atomic clocks are very accurate they still have errors.
“Louis Essen, who invented the atomic clock, and who can be regarded as an expert on time and measurement”
Gordon again makes the mistake that the person who discovers something owns it, and gets to claim authority over its interpretation and use forever.
As he erroneously did with the discoverer of PCR.
This is totally wrong.
Discoverers give their discoveries (ultimately) to science and humanity. Others may reinterpret it, build upon it, and take it to new places.
Thankfully so, because individuals can be both brilliant and horribly wrong.
Entropic man
” If time dilates it means the rotational speed of the Earth has changed. ”
This little sentence alone makes clear that Robertson is unable to think even a bit outside of what he endlessly claims, and hence never will understand that time varies only when measured
– in the presence of heavy masses or
– on objects moving at very high velocity.
Afflicting is that he even tries to discredit the necessity for GPS implementations to take relativistic effects into account.
*
Robertson never changes his mind and always repeats the same nonsense despite being corrected, see e.g.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1531385
That was about 2 weeks ago!
*
Because he gets his information exclusively from contrarian blogs that intentionally misrepresent everything they discredit – be it about COVID, relativity, weather station data, etc. etc. – he is unable to understand that the difference between Einstein and Newton is, for the vast majority of observation contexts, minute in nature.
This especially visible when comparing Newton’s and Einstein’s values for the computation of the precession of the perihelion for planets increasingly distant from the Sun.
*
In two weeks, he will repeat exactly the same stuff as today.
196 words.
And in the next gripping episode of “Willard counts to 1000” . . .
What are you braying about, Mike?
binny…”[GR] If time dilates it means the rotational speed of the Earth has changed.
This little sentence alone makes clear that Robertson is unable to think even a bit outside of what he endlessly claims, and hence never will understand that time varies only when measured…”
***
What the little sentence does is reveal your inability to understand its basic meaning. If time is based on the rotation of the Earth, which it is, then time cannot dilate without the rotation speed of the Earth changing. If that’s too complex for you to understand, I can try to dumb it down even more.
Einstein broke all the rules of physics, and science, by arbitrarily re-defining time based on the speed of light. He had no right to do that without experimental proof and had he taken the time to do that, he might have clued into his egregious error.
If time varies only when measured, what the heck is measuring it, and what is being measured? Based on its definition, time is a measure of the rotational speed of the Earth. One day is one full rotation and that interval is broken into 24 hours. Each hourly interval in broken into 60 minutes and those minute intervals into second.
These intervals are constant or as close to a constant as you can get. The ‘second’ interval cannot dilate unless the speed of the Earth’s rotation changes.
A clock does not measure these intervals, it ‘creates’ them. A clock is a machine that generates intervals of various length based on its internal mechanism. That is not so obvious with a windup clock that relies on a coiled spring to drive gears but it is totally obvious in a digital clock where internal electronics generates pulses of varies lengths based on an internal clock, which is a quartz crystal vibrating at a natural frequency. Atomic clocks use natural vibrations in the Cesium atom.
Clocks do NOT measure time, they generate an artificial time that has no basis in reality as a phenomenon. However, the second they produce, which is the basis of time, is derived from breaking the Earth’s rotational period into small units that are 1/86,400ths of the period (24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 second). Therefore, a clock is a machine designed to synchronize to the Earth’s rotation.
To enable synchronization, a master clock kept at Greenwich England is set at 0 longitude and all other clocks are synchronized to it.
Louis Essen claimed, in essence, that Einstein failed to understand this basis of time. It may seem hard to grasp that E. could be that obtuse but it’s not so hard if you understand that time as we know it today was in its infancy. The hour wide time zones we take for granted today were not implemented till 1883.
In the 1800s, no one had an international time or even a state or provincial time. Each town had its own time, set from the railroad clock or by the Sun. In the UK, the railway system kept a clock in London and each station along the line got their time from a train conductor’s watch. The meaning is obvious, there was no common time throughout the world.
Einstein grew up in that era and it seems reasonable to me that he did not put a great deal of thought into the meaning of time. After all, in one of his papers he defined time simply as ‘the hand on a clock’. Therein lies the basis of his theory of relativity, and why it and its conclusions are wrong.
Ekkehard Friebe is best known in Germany as a patho~logical opponent of all sorts of things. You just need to take a close look at his German website and get a clear picture of him.
Of course, that’s also why Robertson posted a link to his Louis Essen page.
*
And the same applies to John Chap~pell, the ‘father’ of so-called ‘dissident science’, a former leader of the ‘Natural Philosophy Alliance’:
” The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is devoted mainly to broad-ranging, fully open-minded criticism, at the most fundamental levels , of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology; and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines by much sounder ideas developed with full respect for evidence, logic, and objectivity. Such reforms have long been urgently needed; and yet there is no area of scholarship more stubbornly censorial, and more reluctant to reform itself. ”
” We call the NPA an ‘alliance’ because our members hold a wide variety of different views, yet have joined forces in a common effort. We agree unanimously on little more than that something is drastically wrong in contemporary physics and cosmology, and that a new spirit of open-mindedness is desperately needed in order to correct this situation. “
binny..”Of course, thats also why Robertson posted a link to his Louis Essen page”.
***
I had no idea who ran the page, I was looking for material from Essen himself. Essen is a scholar as well as being the inventor of the atomic clock. Never mind the host, what do you think of the science in the paper?
You alarmists seem to go after the host of a paper and deem it no good because of the host. Roy has been claimed debunked by alarmists because his papers are sometimes produced by Heartland, or another think tank.
The late Patrick Michaels was panned for taking money from an oil company. Michaels explained that he was going after James Hansen, who was financially supported by the US government and he could not compete without the oil company money. I fail to see the problem with scientists being funded by oil money if they are fully independent to do their own research.
It failed to post. Try this:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/2023/09/18/six-thoughts-on-elon-musk/
99.9% agrease
https://youtu.be/D1kW2wUP1y4
Stoke Space puts its rocket through a short but sweet hop
September 17, 2023
https://cosmiclog.com/
“A four-year-old Seattle-area startup called Stoke Space executed a successful up-and-down test of its Hopper developmental rocket vehicle today, marking a major milestone in its quest to create a fully reusable launch system.”
2023-09-19 12:20:55 UTC+2
Willard: 349
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team: 349
Perfectly on par!
Related…
Was Einstein Right? by Clifford Will. Basic Books, 1986.
Is Einstein Still Right? By Clifford Will and Nicolas Yunes. Oxford University Press, 2020.
My personal favorite:
Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip Thorne. W. W. Norton & Co., 1994.
It’s not enough to know things, we have to understand the meaning of things.
Here, Richard Feynman explains the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something in this BBC Horizon interview of 1981… https://imgur.com/a/jKsjSQr
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Time for a little Climate shystering update
https://youtu.be/X9fCPe4Fgvg?t=1784
In Hell the climate attribution boards prints stories about what
the devil did.
(The devil died a long time ago}
“The devil” has never existed.
AQ,
And you know this for certain because . . . ?
The GHE doesn’t exist, that’s for sure.
I can describe the devil, but you can’t describe the GHE!
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Stephen Wilde,
So lets see. Weve added sufficient IR to heat the surface layer to 100 C, but now all the heat of vaporization of that surface layer comes from the layer below which is colder? Bzzzt. Wrong answer. The heat of vaporization comes from the same source as the heat used to elevate the surface temperature n the first place, the incoming IR radiation. I didnt forget about the heat of vaporization. You have separated processes that are, in fact, inseparable. Second Law violation. I used up all my patience on Jeff Glassman at Judith Currys. Youve now joined him, in record time, in my burn before reading file.
Bryan, where are you. You should love this.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2011/01/06/does-back-radiation-%E2%80%9Cheat%E2%80%9D-the-ocean-%E2%80%93-part-four/#comment-8616
If 50% of sunlight is absorbed by the transparent ocean surface down 1000 mm, then about .5 watts per square meter is absorb in top 1 mm
per second.
And on land surface 100% of sunlight is absorbed in the top 1 mm of the surface {unless it’s transparent as the ocean is}- or most of land area is top 1 mm.
Willard,
Who cares? Warm water floats, cooling at night, sinking, and allowing displaces warmer water to dissipate its heat in turn.
All sufficiently deep water has the densest (not coldest) water at the bottom. Always above freezing.
Even though the rocks comprising the basin holding the water may be at 250 C or so, surrounding the deepest water! Impressive isnt it?
The laws of physics in practice. Maybe you are silly enough to believe that oceans accumulate sunlight, hiding it the depths, presumably to provide heat for the kraken!s lair (or maybe to keep the Loch Ness monster warm in the winter).
Silly, isn’t it? Just like those who claim allegiance to a GHE which cannot be described!
Off you go now, appeal to the authority of someone of your ilk. Give everyone ann excuse for a chuckle.
Mike Flynn,
Bordo cares.
Love.
Willard,
And how do you know? Does it make any difference?
I note you are back to your implied homosexual protestations of affection. Good for you. Your love will go unrequited – to nobody’s surprise!
Go back to your counting.
Mike Flynn,
I know because I read comments and because I click on links.
Don’t you?
No, you don’t.
When will you?
No need to answer. Nobody cares if you read or not.
Willard,
You click on links showing that “Bordo” cares? Really?
Good for you – click away.
Mike Flynn,
I’m afraid there’s no cure for your utter cluelessness.
Except perhaps reading and clicking on links.
Why give you false hopes?
Willard,
You click on links showing that Bordo cares? Really?
Good for you click away.
?
“The heat of vaporization comes from the same source as the heat used to elevate the surface temperature in the first place, the incoming IR radiation”.
***
Bzzzt Wrong answer. There is no measurable heat associated with vapourization because the heat to which you refer is not apparent. When a water surface absorbs solar energy, not just IR, it warms. That added energy is measurable with a thermometer but the energy portion used to break hydrogen bonds and release the vapour is not.
That is, the heat associated with vapourization is lost since it is used up breaking the bonds binding water molecules together.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. I am willing to listen to rebuttals, however.
It only took you 120 words to deny a fairly established concet, Bordo:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Thermodynamics/Energies_and_Potentials/Enthalpy/Heat_of_Vaporization
Well done!
Concet? You are guilty of sloppiness or ignorance – which is it?
Go on – convince me that you can describe the GHE. You dont even understand what heat is – all you can do is appeal to the authority of people who often don’t seem much brighter than you – or a rancid walnut, for that matter.
Keep counting. It will keep your hands busy.
My point was, ww, that heat is consumed in the process and no longer available for heating. IMHO, it is incorrect to refer to it as enthalpy since enthalpy is the total heat in a system. It would be better called entropy since the energy left after vapourization is free energy and free energy = enthalpy minus the heat associated with entropy.
So, the heat of vapourization must be subtracted from the total energy incident on water from the Sun, to arrive at the temperature of the vapour released, which is sensible heat and should match the surface water temperature left behind.
C’mon, Bordo.
You’re just being facetious.
C’mon Willard,
You’re just being yourself – and that’s not much, is it?
C’mon, Mike Flynn.
You’re just braying again.
Cmon Willard,
Youre just being yourself and thats not much, is it?
Huh?
Jeff Glassman is cool, that’s why ww does not like him.
Jeff is quite the charmer indeed, Bordo.
Here’s when he met Andy:
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/21/radiative-transfer-discussion-thread/#comment-24192
When was the last time Mike Flynn took your happy pill, do you think?
Oh dear, apparently Mike Flynn has rejected your homosexual advances – and you are quite put out. Tough, I say.
Why are you pasting such irrelevant nonsense, Willard?
You would better off going back to reporting the weather – or counting.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“apparently Mike Flynn”
Why the illeism?
Oh dear, apparently Mike Flynn has rejected your homosexual advances and you are quite put out. Tough, I say.
Why are you pasting such irrelevant nonsense, Willard?
You would better off going back to reporting the weather or counting.
You already said that, Mike.
Is it *illeism* that escapes you this time?
Mike still has the maturity of his 5th grade self.
‘No u must be gay’ etc etc
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Canada Could Pass Chinas GDP by 2100
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/09/canada-could-pass-chinas-gdp-by-2100.html
“Most people would say that it is impossible for Canada GDP at $2.2 trillion today to pass Chinas GDP which is $18.8 trillion. ”
I never thought about it.
But most people might believe in global warming.
It seems possible to me, Canada could pass China’s GDP before 2050-
not because Canada got warmer.
Cutting fossil fuels by 95% of 1990 levels by 2050 will mean cutting GDP by 95%.
Net Zero means everyone will have a wage cut of 95%.
Can you live on $300 per month?
End the Net Zero agenda now.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=tdJnPbn_Bgs&ab_channel=TheHeartlandInstitute
Heck…you need a wage of $1500 a month here in Vancouver just to pay your rent.
Absolute nonsense.
AQ,
Your gibberish generator needs a tune-up.
Two word gibberish generation is not enough to convince people that you are worth paying attention to.
Perhaps one day you’ll post about climate, or at least something remotely related to it.
Reckon the Giants can get up this weekend, Mikey?
Ah, you have taken my advice. Much more gibberish being generated.
Completely pointless and meaningless. Well done. Keep it up.
Come one Mikey, Darwinians’ only concession to sport is lifting a schooner or ten. You have to support an interstate team. Which team are you going to watch over your schlong-blocking gut?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The seven energy and land-use systems that account for global emissionspower, industry, mobility, buildings, agriculture, forestry and other land use, and wastewill all need to be transformed to achieve net-zero emissions. Effective actions to accelerate decarbonization include shifting the energy mix away from fossil fuels and toward zero-emissions electricity and other low-emissions energy sources such as hydrogen; adapting industrial and agricultural processes; increasing energy efficiency and managing demand for energy; utilizing the circular economy; consuming fewer emissions-intensive goods; deploying carbon capture, utilization, and storage technology; and enhancing sinks of both long-lived and short-lived greenhouse gases.
On the basis of this scenario, we estimate that global spending on physical assets in the transition would amount to about $275 trillion between 2021 and 2050, or about 7.5 percent of GDP annually on average.
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring
You really are a simple soul. Net zero emissions? More meaningless gibberish, probably based on some nonsensical idea that CO2 and H2O have recently developed magical heating properties!
Four and a half billion years of planetary cooling means that you are off with the fairies!
Stick to counting words – you should be able to cope with that.
I predict that politicians pushing net zero energy will be long voted out of office by the time it is designed to happen.
I too hope that Justin and Captain Joe won’t be president in 2050, Bordo.
We agree on something at last!
Who are Justin and Captain Joe?
Is 2050 a specially auspicious year, or is that as far as you can count?
How is that GHE description going? Not too well, I assume.
Was I talking to you, Mike Flynn?
Who’s Mike Flynn?
Who cares?
If you don’t want anybody to see what you write, don’t write anything.
Who are Justin and Captain Joe?
Is 2050 a specially auspicious year, or is that as far as you can count?
How is that GHE description going? Not too well, I assume.
Mike Flynn,
Still playing dumb?
Keep braying!
If you dont want anybody to see what you write, dont write anything.
Who are Justin and Captain Joe?
Is 2050 a specially auspicious year, or is that as far as you can count?
How is that GHE description going? Not too well, I assume.
Mike Flynn,
If you want people to care about what you say, you need to stop playing dumb.
But you cannot.
So here we are, stuck with your cheap red clown act.
Could you try to be funny?
Just a little would help.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ent…”When the temperature reaches the set point the switch turns the heater off and the temperature stabilizes then drops.
You [GR], I think, call this servo feedback. A biologist or climate scientist would call it negative feedback”.
***
I don’t call it servo feedback, just feedback. As you claim, a sensor (thermocouple usually) senses air temperature and tells the furnace when to turn on to warm the room. The thermocouple is a bi-metallic strip that responds to air temp by coiling up or straitening out. It has a mercury bulb attached to the strip and as the strip changes shape the mercury moves in the tube to short out electrical contacts.
There is really no way to wire it backwards since it is a series device like a normal inline switch.
We are not talking about this kind of feedback when referencing a tipping point or a runaway condition. There is no negative or positive feedback in this kind of simple system, just feedback. In more sophisticated systems, the sensing device might send back a negative or positive voltage in response to an output but even that is not the type of feedback we are talking about.
That kind of feedback does not produce amplification. We are looking for a feedback that can control amplification of a signal. Amplification is not possible without an amplifier of some kind. Although there are examples of natural feedback that can amplify to an extent, there is nothing in the atmosphere meets the criterion for amplification of heat.
We need to amplify heat. How can that be done as part of a feedback system? First we need a heating mechanism like a flame or solar energy. Then we need a way to control the amount of heat output. Then we need a feedback signal that can control the heating mechanism.
The Sun is ruled out automatically. There is no way to control its output, so we need another heat source. Alarmists claim that extra heat source is CO2 and it somehow controls heat input to the system via feedback. That feedback cannot be negative since that would reduce heat in the system, therefore it has to be positive.
But…there is no way to amplify heat, so the alarmists came up with a cockeyed plan to raise the heat level by trapping infrared energy from the surface and returning it to the surface in almost equal amounts as what was radiated and that amount exceeds solar input for some fictitious reason.
Still, where’s the feedback loop and the amplifier? We need an input signal, an amplifier, and a portion of the output signal which is fed back to enhance the input signal, which when amplified will produce an ever-increasing amount of heat.
Here’s the alarmist alleged f/b system. The surface radiates infrared energy and it is partly absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere. Those GHGs, despite being cooler than the surface, are claimed to back-radiate IR to the surface and warming it. The warmer surface then evapourates more water vapour which helps produce even more back-radiation, warming the surface more. The cycle repeats.
This is not a true positive feedback system for the simple reason that heat is being generated illegally. It disobeys the 2nd law and it fails to allow for major energy loses. There is no heat gain in the system, only losses.
There is no known system in which heat can be recycled, surface – GHGs – surface. Such a system, without losses, is perpetual motion and there are immense losses in the system this cycle could not replenish. Co2 only absorb about 7% of surface radiation meaning 93% is lost directly to space. Out of that 7%, only a fraction is returned. Even if there was no contradiction of the 2nd law, that fraction of 7$ could never make up for the 93% lost when the initial 7% was generated.
It seems that the Earth’s surface temperature has fallen substantially over the last four and a half billion years. No sign of any switches turning the heater back on.
Ent, like many others, lives in a dream world. He refuses to accept a chaotic atmosphere, and possibly refuses to accept quantum physics, which also leads to the impossibility of predicting the future state of a deterministic system.
Einstein also refused to accept reality, both on religious grounds (apparently certain that God does not play at dice), and common sense grounds (quantum physics would involve “spooky action at a distance”).
Experiment supports quantum physics, uncertainty principle and all. It makes no difference what people like Einstein and Ent choose to believe.
Reality doesn’t care.
Climate change has its odd twists and turns. One news axiom is that if it bleeds it leads. For climate it is just anything that seems unusual or exciting. Here we are in peak hurricane season, and there is not much going on anywhere in the northern hemisphere. The western Pacific is quiet, Kenneth is weak and getting weaker, and good old Nigel is headed to obscurity. What is an alarmist to do?
BoM has just declared a full el Nino in present.
It’s almost certain that within the next 3 months NOAA and JMA will likewise announce a full el Nino is active.
First time I ever made an ENSO prediction. It’s a very safe one.
Barry,
El Nino is a pattern of historical temperature observations – nothing more, nothing less.
Anyone can declare anything they like. It makes no difference.
Future climate states are unpredictable – BOM declarations notwithstanding.
“Future climate states are unpredictable” comes from a quote that is unrelated to ENSO forecasting.
Your theme is as consistent as your indifference to facts.
“Anyone can declare anything they like. It makes no difference.”
ENSO forecasting is used by farmers and emergency services to plan for the coming season. It makes a material difference.
But by all means keep vapourizing. It makes no difference.
Barry,
Future states of any chaotic deterministic system are unpredictable.
ENSO forecasting is guessing, pure and simple.
If people want to believe it, good for them. The forecasters suffer no consequences if they are wrong.
You can’t even describe the GHE, but you probably believe that somebody, surely, must be able to do so.
Good for you.
It’s no more guessing than forecasting weather is guessing. And these forecasts have material value, as they are made use of.
Unlike your vapourizing.
“Future states of any chaotic deterministic system are unpredictable.”
Swenson again reveals how ignorant he is.
Deterministic nonlinear systems like the Earth are not totally unpredictable.
They have some degree of predictability.
Apparently he is blissfully unaware of the accuracy of numerical weather prediction models to predict weather 7-10 days ahead.
And once again, I will point out that chaotic systems like a pot of water heated on a burner, may have lots of internal localized chaos, but the warming of its global average temperature can still be quite predictable.
Such is the case for the Earth’s global average temperature.
Nate, when will UAH Global hit zero again? (Month and year is good enough.)
You’re not just mouthing nonsense you can’t support, are you?
By analogy you’re asking Nate to predict in Spring the day in Summer when the temperature hits a certain mark.
By the same analogy, Nate is saying he can predict that Summer will be warmer than Spring.
You don’t know the difference between weather variation and climate change.
Here you go:
https://www.climate.gov/enso
El Niothe warm phase of the El Nio-Southern Oscillation (“ENSO”) climate patternstrengthened across the tropical Pacific Ocean in August 2023. Odds that it will last through winter are now higher than 95 percent, and the chance of a strong event is now above 70 percent. The strength of the event doesn’t reliably predict the strength of its remote impacts, but it does increase the chances that some level of impacts will occur in places with a history of being affected by ENSO.
This link is a graph with different model predictions.
Predictions are difficult — especially about the future:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/figure06.gif
I predict you’ll rediscover the Contrarian Matrix:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Related …
Ancient Greek astronomer Hipparchus’ Star Catalogue is the earliest known attempt to record the positions of celestial bodies (predating Claudius Ptolemy’s work in the second century, which scholars believe was probably substantially based on Hipparchus) but direct evidence of the document is slim.
New investigations have yielded the strongest evidence yet of Hipparchus’ lost work. It describes the Corona Borealis and gives coordinates accurate within one degree, considerably more precise than Ptolemy’s calculations. A remarkable achievement for a second-century scholar, considering that the telescope would not be invented for another 1500 years or so.
How was this information uncovered? Multispectral imaging of a palimpsest manuscript (a parchment erased of writing, then re-used) revealed the earlier markings, followed by reconstruction and translation.
Hipparchus’ Star Catalogue is far from having been rediscovered, but this is the most direct evidence yet of an important piece of science history.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/00218286221128289
How well have climate models projected global warming?
https://imgur.com/a/x8oL5ub
The models used in the projections vary in complexity, from simple energy balance models to fully-coupled Earth System Models.
These comparisons use a baseline period of 1970-1990.
Source: https://tinyurl.com/Carbon-Brief
The Earth has cooled.
They haven’t projected anything. Thy are programmed with incorrect information and project what they are programmed to project…garbage.
Is it a coincidence that models have projected long-term warming and that is what we have seen?
Whereas the predictions of global cooling form skeptics last decade have been spectacularly wrong.
David Archibald predicted 1.5C global cooling from 2006 to 2020. Oops!
Don Easterbrook predicted 30 years of global cooling from 1998. Let’s see what Roy says:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/to:1998/trend:1999/plot/uah6/from:1999/trend
Ooops! No worries, Don just needs global temps to drop by several degrees for the rest of the decade for his prediction to come true.
You can get a host more of ‘skpetic’ predictions of long-term global cooling at the following link.
https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/denier-weirdness-collection-of-alarmist.html
Skeptics v global circulation models. I know who I’d put my money on with the track record so far.
And it’s funny how some skeptics posit that projecting global climate is a guessing game, and yet every skeptic that tries it always makes the same, incorrect ‘guess’.
barry, please stop trolling.
Bill Hunter
I am bringing your post down here as I consider you thoughts interesting and would like to understand them better.
Here is the Post from you responding to what I had posted:
Norman says:
Anyway I did not expect you to understand the point. You understand insulation but cant understand GHG act the same way. They reduce the heat the Earths surface loses. You do not know this real science, deny it exists and so continue posting really bad cultish science that is just wrong.
what point Norman you havent described exactly how greenhouse gases uniquely reduce the Earths surface losses.
Convection > Radiation
Convection occurs when the lapse rate destablizes.
Result: you could reduce radiation to zero transfer from the surface and it may make no difference.
If you disagree. . .prove it.
I am missing one of your points. Convection only cools the surface it does not cause it to increase in temperature. In order to get a warmer surface you would have to demonstrate convection is being reduced enough to cause the surface to increase from solar energy. I do not see any mechanism that would allow a surface to increase in temperature by 33 C by just eliminating convection. If no convection you would have to account for what prevents the radiant energy from removing large amounts of heat directedly to space?
Lack of convection would not stop any radiant energy. It is the GHG that lower the amount of surface IR that make it space. Without the GHG all the radiant energy emitted by the surface would go to space.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_650ad11b0df31.png
With no GHG the emission directly to space would be the blue line in graph. With GHG you have the red line returning this much energy back to a surface that absorbs it. Your net loss to space is now the green line. Much less energy loss and will cause an overall wamer average surface temperature.
What a load of rubbish.
Step outside at night. The surface cools.
Over four and a half billion years, the whole planet has cooled.
Believe it.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Check the graph at the top of the page.
Norman STILL can’t understand Surfrad.
And I predict a year from now, he still won’t understand it.
Clint R
It could be interesting but will never happen. You could attempt to give an explanation of what you feel I do not understand about SURFAD.
Since it won’t happen I guess posts from you will not be interesting.
It seems certain Clint R will repeat things he neither understands or can explain in any rational fashion. Primarily because he is a relentless asshole incapable of rational thought process. Just more asshole crap. Typical Clint R, asshole to the maximum with no end to this behavior.
Great, another immature rant from Norman.
That means I’m doing something right.
Clint R
Not surprised with your asshole response. It is all you are able to do. Sorry you have such a personal problem. Maybe you enjoy being an asshole. I really don’t know why it appeals to you. Wish you were more adult, but you have such little science background I doubt I could enjoy any meaningful conversation with you on the topic even if you were not a complete asshole.
I guess being an asshole is right for you.
norman…from Bill H??? “Convection only cools the surface it does not cause it to increase in temperature. In order to get a warmer surface you would have to demonstrate convection is being reduced enough to cause the surface to increase from solar energy”.
***
Newton’s Law of Cooling. The rate of heat dissipation is proportional to the temperature difference between a surface and its environment. Theoretically, the two should be in thermal equilibrium, however, air in contact with the surface absorbs heat from it directly then rises via convection. As it rises, cooler air from aloft rushes in and is at a lower temperature than surface. 2nd law…heat transfer from warmer surface to cooler air. Cycle repeats.
Another reason the Earth is hotter than it should be is the inability of radiation to remove heat as quickly as the Sun puts it in. Again, when the Sun disappears at night, and convection is not as significant, radiation is simply a poor means of dissipating heat the Sun created during the day
We don’t need a GHE to explain warming. Simply by having an atmosphere, heat induced by the Sun is blocked from escaping due to the nature of the majority gases, nitrogen and oxygen, which absorb heat directly from the surface but cannot radiate it away easily.
Gordon Robertson
I do not think I will engage with you anymore on your totally false claims on radiant energy heat loss. You just keep going on and on about what you know nothing about. You don’t trust any textbook on the topic (though they make a few errors they are grounded in really good science). Instead you rely on crackpots like Gary Novak to provide you will all his nonsense and fantasy thoughts on the topic of radiant energy and heat transfer (with zero evidence to support any of his goofy claims).
When you explain the Moon’s cooling rate and why it cools to extreme low temperatures and give a rate of cooling I have nothing more to discuss with you on the topic. I can’t waste my time with fairy tale mussing and unscientific unsupported nonsense from crackpot sources you use. When you learn real science and physics I will enjoy talking with you but your Alice in Wonderland physics gets tiresome and it is endless with you.
Norman & Lori Grinvalds says:
”You dont trust any textbook on the topic (though they make a few errors they are grounded in really good science).”
And we are supposed to believe you? When is the last time you contested anything in a textbook? You are just a meek and inculcated student spouting stuff you really know nothing about.
Norman says:
Hunter: you could reduce radiation to zero transfer from the surface and it may make no difference.
”I do not see any mechanism that would allow a surface to increase in temperature by 33 C by just eliminating convection. If no convection you would have to account for what prevents the radiant energy from removing large amounts of heat directedly to space?”
————————-
Reread what I wrote. Experiments show that eliminating convection from a surface like in the experiments by Woods, Pratt, and S&O all show no difference in warming. So it makes no difference if you block the surface from radiating.
===========================
Norman says:
”Lack of convection would not stop any radiant energy. It is the GHG that lower the amount of surface IR that make it space. Without the GHG all the radiant energy emitted by the surface would go to space.”
—————
See above. As I see it GHG increase the rate of loss of energy from TOA. GHG just needs a mechanism to deliver energy to TOA. . .thats convection. Also beyond losing some radiation to space, convection doesn’t lose any other energy in transporting the energy up in the atmosphere.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_650ad11b0df31.png
With no GHG the emission directly to space would be the blue line in graph. With GHG you have the red line returning this much energy back to a surface that absorbs it. Your net loss to space is now the green line. Much less energy loss and will cause an overall wamer average surface temperature.
Polar Vortex at North Pole is trying to form as South Pole Vortex remains strong.
For comparison, South Pole max wind speeds are currently 250 mph, down from the peak at about 300 mph. North Pole is still a baby, at about 40 mph.
South Pole Vortex
https://postimg.cc/pyq5CzBG
North Pole Vortex
https://postimg.cc/TLKFsrDV
South Pole is holding on due to the excess warm air caused by the HTE. We may get to see both vortices working at the same time, especially if the El Niño continues.
History in the making…..
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Global mean temperatures for August 2023 are record high by a large margin. So say the four global temperature datasets that have been updated thus far.
The previous record year, 2016, started off exceptionally warm and cooled off. 2023 started cooler, but has dragged itself into record breaking territory. September has started off exceptionally warm too in case you were wondering
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world
Source: John Kennedy.
Record breaking HT underwater volcano combined with El Niño produced record breaking temperatures. That shouldn’t surprise anyone, except children maybe.
Reality always wins.
The term “record-breaking” is used by leftists to sensationalize their propaganda. There is no evidence that it is record-breaking.
Check the top of the page, Troglodyte.
The leftistest among us left a note for you.
“leftistest”? I don’t waste time reading notes from leftists.
I was referring to Roy, Troglodyte.
Are you always this thick?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Being somewhat dazed and only couple sips of coffee, wondered what would be a sign of global warming [or cooling]?
Extreme weather?
We in an ice age, a sign of being in an ice age is extreme weather.
The meme of extreme weather is news porn. If news had a job it would
be to advise public about existing and changing weather conditions.
It’s something useful, but the news tends to make it- not useful.
If it bleeds, it leads is the accepted operating procedure of the the news, though if it gets clicks, is newer saying, but it’s same thing.
So, we been in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age for 33.9 million years, and being in an Ice Age is not going to change. And we have very little knowledge of weather when not in an Ice Age. So, less extreme weather, would only count as a guess.
And it seems the most extreme weather would include not having a lot of tornadoes or having weaker tornadoes. I have never been even close to a tornado but it seems they can be quite dangerous and violent.
The next favorite is Hurricanes. I have never been in hurricane either- but this year I was “almost” in hurricane, but it was a tropical storm- but I had many much more serious rain events then this. Lightening storms could be called extreme weather and I have been thru a number of them.
A couple hundred years ago, lightening storms might have top the list, because they used kill a lot people and no one knew why or how- it was simply an act of God. One could say we got rid of these acts of God, by using lightening rods.
Recently, it’s come to my attention that Hurricanes are not extremely powerful as compared to other weather events in the tropics. Or Hurricanes are considered the most extreme because they have large effect upon human, and most destructed effect of hurricanes upon human is the flooding. So, likewise any weather which can cause flooding, also counts as extreme weather. And anything causing flooding is dangerous to humans- it kills the most amount of people.
But cold conditions also kill a lot of people.
Yum, a fresh cup of coffee.
So, ocean settlements. I think ocean settlement “could” prevent flooding. And cold conditions.
In our modern world, what causes flooding is poor government. What most obvious, in terms of bad governmental stuff, is encouraging people to live in known flood plains. Also generally related to people living on beaches. Generally, governments know you have to be careful when people are living below sea level, and I am not aware of any governmental mistakes, recently, in regard to this. Other than New Orleans is sinking and didn’t and as far as know, aren’t doing anything about that. And there are other river deltas in the world- which I don’t have much information about, but same issue as New Orleans. Btw, I know I am living on a flood plain in this desert- and I don’t know much about what has been done about it- there are lots measures taken for more minor flooding events, but I mean something for 100 or 500 year type huge event. In recent tropical storm, it could have even worse than what news said was going to happen. A large Cat 2 hurricane could make landfall near me.
By way, I got tropical storm, Kenneth:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
It’s forecasted to do anything exciting, and may not even cause any rain. But it seems we had a lot of these on my side, but I am not saying it’s predictive in terms the future years or one can call it climate change, but it’s weather- global weather.
The reason I become interested in ocean settlements is because a few times people said, living on the ocean was cheaper than living on Mars. Which I regarded as an annoying non sequitur in many ways.
But things change or I got bored, and/or billionaires were talking about it. Their purpose was roughly speaking about avoiding taxes and/or creating a new nation state. Which also factor in terms Mars settlements. It was something crazy libertarians do a lot.
But I thinking pipelauncher and a use of something like a pipelauncher, was you could live on the ocean- because it’s a stable platform in the ocean. Anyways, I have always assume people would live in the ocean, but other using something like pipelauncher or buoy spar type thing, I didn’t think it could happen anytime soon.
And my interest was the question, why hasn’t NASA explored space, yet.
Which is kind of weird, is it because we don’t have ocean settlements? Maybe those people were on topic- but they didn’t explain themselves. Why don’t we, first, have ocean settlements and this is not at all about blaming NASA’s apparent incompetence.
Anyhow my view has been, exploring Mars will cause there to be ocean settlements. But also only reason we don’t currently have ocean settlements, is we are denied the right of owning property in the ocean. Though corporations can be allowed to mine oil, and make wind farms in the ocean.
You’ve inspired me to get a coffee.
Almost ready for another cup.
Solar wind
speed: 467.9 km/sec
density: 0.07 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 20 Sep 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
“Large sunspot AR3435 poses a threat for X-class solar flares.”
[It appears pretty impressive]
Sunspot number: 143
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 166 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.28×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.0% Low
{thermosphere getting more energized, but Neutron Count is
solar Max levels.}
So, in terms my guess of Sept not having average above 120 sunspots,
doesn’t “look” great. Mainly because spots appearing and growing fast. Looking to see what coming from farside, is significantly less predictive, but spots growing and fading fast, which is interesting- and I don’t have clue “why”.
As I said, I am interest in GCR level, and “-7.0% Low” if was around level for months/years would have less radiation from GCR, even if it bounces up to around -3.0 for few months it not much of a issue, as compared to solar max 24 which mostly stay well above 0.
And Solar min with 24 cycle had about 6 years at around 5 or higher, the repeat of Solar min 24 or far worse, is a problem in terms of crew going to Mars, though there could upsides to it, it could force adding more radiation shielding. Which something I would do, anyhow, but we aren’t doing it, in regards to ISS.
Another aspect is more active thermosphere clears out more space debris, and increases drag on satellites {or satellites can be able boost their orbits and debris can’t} but this a small effect with anything above 500 km orbit.
Anyhow not changing my guess of Sept being 120 or less average for month but in next couple day it should remain above 120. A spot is leaving to farside in a day, another spot in couple days.
But spot 3441 {highest numbered spot} appeared in around middle of nearside, and seems it could grow into modest or large spot within
a day or so, though not a bunch tiny spots, so maybe not, and in couple days spots could be coming from farside and more spot just appearing on nearside. It could be +150 spot number within a day and
could less 120 spot number after 2 days.
But what more significant as far as there being a grand min or not, is Oct and Nov. I would like it, if my wild guess for Nov was at least close to being correct- first time it goes below the curved line. And if happens in Oct instead, it’s less close to being a correct guess, but still point to the grand solar min thing, unless Nov roar back, following months stay well above the curve line.
And maybe it could be that second peak is much stronger than first peak- as it was in 24 max. But even that could be weak 25 max- and “everyone” guessed right.
” So, in terms my guess of Sept not having average above 120 sunspots, doesn’t ‘look’ great. ”
Don’t worry, you’re not that wrong: EISN’s average is ~132 today.
Solar wind
speed: 410.4 km/sec
density: 0.27 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 21 Sep 23
Sunspot number: 159
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 156 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.72×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.5% Low
I don’t see spots coming from farside, and spot or spots are leaving
the nearside.
I see neutron counts as biggest indication my 120 spot or less
guess could be wrong.
Though Sun activity during July [or earlier] and in August, in theory can be mostly causing it.
But this a reason I am interested [and making guesses].
The past few days in September have been extraordinarily warm globally.
Here are temperatures for Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay tomorrow – last day of Winter in the Southern Hemisphere (Spring starts on Saturday). Widespread 45 C+ (113 F+).
https://imgur.com/a/PsNV8uz
That’s daily weather, not climate :–)
hunga tonga…wv in the stratosphere…messed up jet stream.
Clint claims it has nothing to do with water vapour. He also claims it is about the polar vortex, not the jet stream. You DO know they are different things, right?
You guys really need to get together to get your stories straight.
Ant, have you learned how many PVs occur in one year yet?
Indeed – one in each hemisphere, each forming completely independently of the other.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
In a summer of extremes, September 2023 is shaping up to be one for the record books.
https://imgur.com/a/vg7Sek1
With one extra day on top of that (Sep 19), +0.887 is up to 0.894
Sep 1-20 … +0.901
Sep 1-21 … +0.909
Sep 1-22 … 0.919
Sep 1-23 … +0.927
Sep 1-24 … +0.933
Sep 1-25 … +0.938
Sep 1-26 … 0.941
Sep 1-27 … +0.944
Sep 1-28 … 0.948
Sep 1-29 … +0.950
Scorchysimo…
https://imgur.com/a/sxwAJNc
Arkady, please stop trolling.
The actual greenhouse (agricultural, with transparent to solar rays glass windows, or with transparent to solar rays membrane…) gets warmed because the solar SW EM energy comes thru and warms the inside walls and the inside floor.
The emitted by the walls and the floor IR EM energy is only absorbed or reflected back from the glass windows or the membrane, because they are not transparent to the IR EM energy. The phenomenon causes the rise in temperature of the inside of the greenhouse’s walls and floor.
The phenomenon is called greenhouse effect.
–
Now, when a greenhouse is hermetically closed, it resemblances the case of the indoors air. The indoors air is in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding walls, and, therefore, the indoors thermometer indicates the same exactly temperature for the inside of the walls and for the inclosed air.
–
If we let an outside cold air indoors (into a room, or into a greenhouse) the air temperature will remain cold for a while, untill it is adjusted to the inside temperature.
–
The air inside of a greenhoouse, or inside of a room, gets warmed by conduction from the inside of walls.
The lnside air is not getting warmed by EM radiation, because, as it is known, air is for the most of its content is transparent to both, SW and IR EM energy.
–
christos…IR trapped by glass in a greenhouse cannot warm the air in the greenhouse. That’s the official explanation, but it’s wrong. The air gets heated by SW solar directly and by conduction/convection from hated surface inside the greenhouse.
When the heated air rises, the glass blocks it. GHGs in the atmosphere cannot do that and that’s why we build greenhouses…to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
I concur Gordon. If you remove all the humidity and all the CO2, the greenhouse is still going to get damn hot.
The same, the greenhouse effect phenomenon, the same is taking place in the case of planets, which planets have some amounts of greenhouse gasses in their atmospheric content.
–
Greenhouse gasses in atmosphere are transparent to the incoming SW EM energy, but the greenhouse gasses are capable to reflect back to the planet surface some amount of emitted by the surface IR EM energy.
–
As a result, the temperature of the planet surface gets higher, than it would otherwise be in the absense of those greenhouse gasses.
–
Christos Vournas
Interesting, compared to
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1408061
*
I guess the great Earth cooling specialist Swenson aka Flynn (also called Flynnson) will soon reply something like:
” No GHE! ”
or
” The GHE doesn’t exist, that’s for sure.
I can describe the devil, but you can’t describe the GHE! “
CV, it’s probably confusing because of the language difference but the GHE is valid for an actual greenhouse, but NOT for planet Earth. The physics is not the same. The CO2 infrared coming back to the surface consists of photons with less energy than the photons at the peak of the spectrum from ice! So the Warmists are trying to heat the surface with something colder than ice. That’s why you see them claiming ice cubes can boil water.
Just because you are incompetent to boil water with ice cubes doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
Electromagnetic radiation hasn’t got a temperature.
Photons don’t have a temperature but they have a frequency which, if absorbed, will play into the average kinetic energy of the absorber, which affects its temperature.
Dang Ken, is your hatred caused by your jealousy or is there something about living in Vancouver?
Has it not occurred to anyone that the post above is not from Christos but some trohl posting with his name?
Not me, I am not so suspicious.
I do sometimes think space aliens are preventing us from being a spacefaring civilization.
But I tend to think spacefaring civilizations don’t care much about Earthlings- which worries me, a little bit.
Aliens?? I assume you are joking.
I think it’s a joke that US congress considers it possible
that US government has space alien artifacts.
But I don’t believe in Big Foot or UFOs {in the sense of space aliens visiting Earth}. I do think there is space aliens in our galaxy and the Fermi paradox is actually an interesting question/problem:
“The Fermi paradox is the discrepancy between the lack of conclusive evidence of advanced extraterrestrial life and the apparently high likelihood of its existence.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
I think Giant-impact hypothesis is the most likely assumption, but there may other ways the Moon and Earth were formed.
Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. The greenhouse gasses content in Earth’s atmosphere are considered as tr-ace gasses.
–
So, we have in Earth’s already thin atmosphere some tr-ace greenhouse gasses…
–
Those very obvious circumstances lead us to the only conclusion – there cannot be +33 oC greenhouse effect from Earth’s atmosphere.
–
I estimate the Earth’s atmosphere TOTAL GREENHOUSE EFFECT about some +0,4 oC, which is almost two orders of magnitude less than +33 oC.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I think most of Earth’s greenhouse effect is from the Ocean covering 70% of Earth surface and is absorbing about 80% or more of sunlight that Earth’s surface absorbs.
And in terms of Earth’s average temperature of it’s ocean {about 3.5 C} you can’t ignore the geothermal heat of Earth. Whereas I would ignore the geothermal on the land surfaces {it’s insignicant}.
And this cold ocean increases global average air temperature or if the ocean was colder than 3.5 C, it would heat the atmosphere less- significantly less. And when there is sea ice on the ocean, particularly in the winter, it stops the 3.5 C ocean from warming the atmosphere.
Or if want to know how cold Earth can get, it’s when the most amount of sea ice covers the ocean. This blocking of ocean heat loss {or adding heat to the atmosphere] is a warming effect upon the entire ocean. So with Last Glacial Max this warmed the ocean, as did all other glacial max. And once the Milankovitch cycles change, you then get massive global warming {sea levels rising more than 100 meter, etc] and this is mostly about warming ocean surface rather sunlight warming glaciers. And a lot of rain destroys glaciers- glacier grow from moisture, but not from relatively warm rain.
Anyways, Richard Lindzen, thinks atmosphere is about 1/2 of 33 C.
33 C is arbitrary number, but playing along, I also think atmosphere adds 1/2 of greenhouse effect or about 15 to 16 K.
The “33C” is part of the GHE nonsense. It originates from comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere. The imaginary sphere is impacted with the same solar energy as Earth (960 W/m^2) and then emits 240 W/m^2 at a temperature of 255K. So the cult subtracts 255K from Earth’s average surface temperature of 288K, resulting in the 33K, with is the same as a difference of 33C.
It’s all nonsense. The 240 W/m^2, the 255K, and the 33K, are all nonsense. Earth is NOT an imaginary sphere.
Clint,
“Its all nonsense. The 240 W/m^2, the 255K, and the 33K, are all nonsense. Earth is NOT an imaginary sphere.”
–
Yes, Clint, I very much agree. It’s all nonsense!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…we might restate that. Any warming produced by the atmosphere is not about trace gases or a fictitious greenhouse effect. It can be easily explained through conduction/convection and the fact that radiation is an inefficient means of dissipating heat from the surface.
Cristos,
I think your 0.4C GHE probably makes a lot of sense.
Based on what?
Anything other than that pleases you?
Based on what? Do you mean other than his hundreds of posts and math on his website? Oh, I forgot. You don’t like math.
Record ozone hole over Antarctica so far.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot_N20.png
You don’t get a “record” by comparing it to TWO other years and a decadal average.
The highest ozone level occurred in 2000.
The point is, AQ, we were told that banning CFCs would fix the hole. A few years after the ban, a new hole opened over the other pole. Now this one is even bigger.
We were told that banning DDT would save certain species of birds whose eggs were theorized to be affected by DDT. Studies showed that those same birds had the same problem with their eggs before DDT came into use and well after it was banned. Meantime, people are dying the world over from malaria because DDT was very effective against the mosquitoes that spread it.
Now the alarmist ijits want to ban oil. It’s time to step up to them and tell them to beggar off.
No Gordon, we were told than it would take 100 years for the hole to repair itself. And malaria death rates have FALLEN from 100 per 100,000 to 55 per 100,000 in the last 20 years.
You just make it up on the fly.
I heard nothing about 100 years. I has been 36 years since CFCs were banned and there has been no significant change in the hole. In fact, it has since been discovered at the hole gets larger in the Antarctic winter and shrinks in the summer. Therefore it is related to climate, not CFCs.
The ozone hole is similar to Arctic Ice. It’s size has been incorrectly related to CFCs just as Arctic ice extent has been incorrectly related to CO2.
There is not a shred of scientific evidence that CFC rise to the level of the ozone layer and damage it. It is claimed traces of the gas is found as high as the stratosphere but does enough get up there to mess with ozone? I think that theory is as far-fetched as the idea that another trace gas, CO2 is catastrophically warming the atmosphere.
CFCs are several times heavier than air. Air is 1/3rd its density at 30,000 feet and it only decreases further with altitude. By the top of the stratosphere it is essentially zero. The density of ozone molecules i air at that level is 10 ppmv. CO2 is 400 ppmv and it is regarded as a trace gas.
Can we be serious here? How the heck does such thin air block anything? We know UV gets through to the surface and it can cause cancer to those exposed to it too often, especially where solar energy is strongest in the Tropics.
The ozone hole theory is nothing more than alarmist nonsense.
link for last post on ozone layer…
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/the_cfc_ban_has_nothing_to_do_with_the_closing_of_the_ozone_hole.html
Antonin Qwerty
As usual, Robertson exclusively relies on contrarian data lacking any scientific background, and which he gullibly believes:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/the_cfc_ban_has_nothing_to_do_with_the_closing_of_the_ozone_hole.html
At the end of the page, you don’t wonder at all to see:
” The author is an Iowa truck driver known to some AT readers as Kzintosh. ”
Those are the sources of the eternal liar Robertson.
He posts such trash about everything.
*
For people like Robertson, anything coming from institutions like the American Chemical Society is alarmism, and referring to such information is ‘appeal to authority’.
Like this:
Chlorofluorocarbons and Ozone Depletion
A National Historic Chemical Landmark
https://www.acs.org/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/cfcs-ozone.html
UK has finally figured out the climate crazies are leading the nation down the tubes.
Stephen,
I was very glad to learn about this wonderful news. Hope other countries figure that out too.
–
Money should be spent not to stop global warming, which is not human caused, but which is caused by nature.
Money should be spent to get better prepared to climate warming.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The reason for this wonderful news has of course nothing to do with global warming costs:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-20/sunak-eyes-november-2024-as-preferred-general-election-timing#xj4y7vzkg
Cristos,
I contend that mankind thrives during warming periods. Humans don’t have a global warming problem. They have a global cooling problem.
This is my town last week
https://youtu.be/kftHFriDwSI
Yep.
Not a hurricane, and yet 12 inches of rain in ~ 1 hour.
https://www.wunderground.com/dashboard/pws/KMALEOMI56/graph/2023-09-11/2023-09-11/daily
And 25 miles away, where I live, less than 1 inch.
Extremely weird weather, don’t you think?
It’s hard to interested in the Ukraine war, but this
is fairly interesting:
Russian Soldiers Hunt Russians For Money
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDmmotRlmxM
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The crucial evidence supporting the CFC hypothesis came from British scientists working at the Halley Bay Station of the British Antarctic Survey, who had been taking ground-based measurements of total ozone for decades. In 1984, Joseph C. Farman (1930-2013) and his colleagues at BAS studied the raw data and found that stratospheric ozone had decreased greatly since the 1960s. In 1985, the scientists published an article in Nature announcing that stratospheric ozone over Antarctica was reduced 40% in September, the end of the austral winter.
https://www.acs.org/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/cfcs-ozone.html
Gee. What a surprise!
Ozone is continuously produced by energetic UV emitted by the sun interacting with oxygen.
Not a lot of sunlight at the poles – it’s at a low angle and therefore very low intensity.
Who cares anyway? There is so little sunlight striking the ground at the poles (not to say a night that lasts 6 months) that the danger of getting fried by sunbeams is remote. Any dangerous rays are absorbed by oxygen, forming ozone, which promptly decays to oxygen, releasing the short wave energy absorbed in the creation of ozone as much longer wavelengths – not much heating effect, as -90 C ground temperatures show.
Are you ignorant, or just wilfully misinformed?
Hypotheses are not worth a cracker without solid experimental support.
“Who cares anyway?”
Yes we know, science is of no interest to you.
Why are you here again?
Hi Gordon.
“The air gets heated by SW solar directly and by conduction/convection from heated surface inside the greenhouse.”
–
I very much agree with your statement about the heated air inside the greenhouse.
–
What I think is the solar energy gets accumulated in the greenhouse’s walls and in the greenhouse’s floor.
.
A room with a window having solar rays in, that room gets warmed by sun because of the greenhouse effect.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…”What I think is the solar energy gets accumulated in the greenhouses walls and in the greenhouses floor”.
***
I agree. The soil gets warm as well and so does the plants. Everything warms up in a greenhouse, even the owner.
Gεαrhεαδ alert!
Interesting fact about how EVs are being built, specifically by Tesla, but this is also applicable to others.
The EV may be thought of as a climate control system on wheels. No pun or reference to Climate Change intended here.
The EV’s batteries work best in a tight temperature range, so Tesla has them in what is basically a mobile HVAC system. I believe it is liquid cooled in most of the new models, and that’s not just for efficiency but also the longevity of the battery pack.
So in order to build a good EV you need to build a good “cold room,” like a server closet that’s mobile, and that’s part of what makes it tricky.
Editorial note:
Apparently, anything named X is a disappointing failure that wasn’t worth nearly as much money as the owner put in it.
Related… Rusty Old American Dream, still running!
So why are so many Tesla battery packs exploding and burning down buildings?
Gordon,
“The ozone hole theory is nothing more than alarmist nonsense.”
–
Yes it is. Stratospheric ozone doesn’t capture UV.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Maybe you are able to scientifically contradict this site:
https://www.mrgscience.com/ess-topic-62-stratospheric-ozone.html
“Maybe you are able to scientifically contradict this site:
https://www.mrgscience.com/ess-topic-62-stratospheric-ozone.html ”
–
The mentioned site doesn’t have any proof ozone captures UV.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Your claim isn’t better than theirs…
Nor any worse.
I thought you said you were a chemist or something, Troglodyte:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022285216301382
christos…”The mentioned site doesnt have any proof ozone captures UV”.
***
Exactly!!!
[BINNY] Maybe you are able to scientifically contradict this site:
[CHRISTOS] The mentioned site doesnt have any proof ozone captures UV
[BORDO] Exactly!!!
It comes down to the idea being presented that ozone blocks all of the dangerous UV from the Sun. They make it sound as if that is the case.
It’s obviously not the case. There is no way a gas at 4 ppmv is going to block a significant amount of UV.
Due to the same kind of lie about CO2, they banned CFCs.
Thanks Christos. It’s concentration is something like 4 ppmv yet it is suppose to block all of the most dangerous form of UV. We know that is not true since many people get skin cancer from it.
posting problems…Internal Server errors…
Ozone comes from oxygen molecules, which make up about 22% of air at sea level. At an altitude of 30,000 feet, that concentration has been reduced to 1/3rd it level at sea level. At the top of the stratosphere it is reduced to virtually zero ppmv.
There is essentially nothing to block UV.
A far more likely scenario in the stratosphere is that scientists are measuring a tiny amount of EM from those trace amounts of ozone and inferring a warming based on colour temperature.
There is nothing else there!!! There are not enough molecules to warm skin. You would freeze to death, even if you had oxygen and a suit to balance the loss of air pressure. That means warming in the stratosphere is a bad joke.
Heck, you’d freeze to death at 30,000 feet at the top of Everest, even if you had a thermally-unsulated suit.
Gordon Robertson
Rather than even attempt to use research and science you form a conclusion than make up a false narrative to explain what you believe. Horrible science! Yet you can’t stop doing this.
You conclude based upon your belief (no evidence to support it) that the air is too thin to have a temperature. I guess you don’t know what temperature means. It is an intensive property. It does not depend upon the amount of substance. Thin air can be very hot. It is the average kinetic energy of the material. Just because it does not heat you does not mean it is hot
This article points out our flawed thinking. Please read it and correct it. They talk about two items at the same temperature. A drop of some hot material and a much larger amount. The temperature is the same but the heat content is not. Different ideas you are confusing.
Here:
https://tinyurl.com/2c45jpyj
Gordon Robertson
Also here is how they found Stratospheric temperatures and what instruments were used to measure it.
https://tinyurl.com/57c968fa
Read through and learn. It is interesting read.
Thanks for the grade 8 science textbook, Norman. Is that the on you use?
What follows is a test to see what is causing the internal server error. It’s in one sentence that has none of Roy’s forbidden words or anything else that could be deemed obnoxious by skeptics.
I am posting it in pieces, sorry for inconvenience.
Stratospheric warming is suppose to be caused by O2 molecules absorbing UV and warming.
But that is the same argument as CO2 at 400 ppmv warming the lower atmosphere. It’s not going to happen.
Go figure…now everything posts OK. That one sentence in the two posts above would not allow the rest of the post to go through. Now it goes through in two parts, unedited.
I wonder if Internal Server errors have something to do with someone at UAH accessing the blog at the same time to do maintenance. Or WordPress doing the same.
Latest El Nino projections
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table
Of the 17 dynamical models, 10 are predicting a strong El Nino, 5 are predicting a very strong El Nino, and two are predicting one at the next level with no name.
I have my doubts that an El Nino as strong as those last two is even possible, as by that stage the equatorial currents will have reversed direction, and that can’t be a stable situation.
The average of those models barely scrapes in at very strong.
Unvalidated models can predict nothing.
You know you don’t have to express your unfounded denial of science in every post, right? The fact that you challenge absolutely everything suggests it is only a programmed reflex reaction.
Not validated?
Every year they are tested against observations, and like weather models, over time have improved their accuracy.
The dynamical average seems to do quite well this time of year.
barry
Robertson’s endless blah blah
” There is good evidence that the 1930s were as warm as today and it is likely the same warming affected the rest of the plant, not just North America. ”
will never stop.
*
You just need to download NOAA’s CaaG data for CONUS to see that this ridiculous claim not only is valid solely for summer maxima but is restricted to daily / monthly series as well.
When you sort the monthly CaaG data in descending order, you obtain:
1936 07 90.84 (F)
1934 07 90.55
2012 07 89.96
1901 07 89.96
2006 07 89.58
1980 07 89.53
1931 07 89.53
1954 07 89.29
2022 07 89.22
1930 07 89.13
But as soon as you perform a yearly average of that data, you see that the mirage of the 1930s slowly disappears:
2012 67.686 (F)
1934 66.762
2016 66.693
2006 66.414
2021 66.376
2017 66.347
2020 66.329
1999 66.197
2015 66.072
1921 65.959
This is simply due to the fact that the 1930s partly were as cold at night as they were warm during the days. This is valid especially for 1936!
*
Despite generating series out of completely different stations with a completely different software, I obtain similar results for the monthly maxima with GHCN daily:
1936 7 32.90 (C)
1934 7 32.79
1980 7 32.68
1901 7 32.64
1931 7 32.57
1930 7 32.40
1954 7 32.28
1937 8 32.27
1910 7 32.15
2022 7 32.14
Both average temperatures and trends differ by a lot, but the similarity between the evaluations is visible:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10istVFZPWZmAZXirxW46CHh3yYqwUbw4/view
And by the way, those who persist in sticking to the warm 1930s are free to admire this series of highest/lowest maxima and minima for CONUS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a2Zike4y2GgZ5NdRqdElapLcEJiQiyVZ/view
binny…”You just need to download NOAAs CaaG data for CONUS…”
***
Your naivete knows no bounds. Are all Frenchmen so obtuse?
NOAA has been fudging data now since at least the 1990s. What you need is historical data before NOAA went to work on fudging it.
No, Bindidon is quite right. The ‘skeptic’ blogs you’ve read all talk about Summer maxima in the US in the mid 1930s. You’ve just forgotten, and misremembered this as being annual, or Summer averages instead of maxima.
And the ‘fudged’ data has the same result as those od blogs you’ve read.
If you think differently, show some evidence that it is other than I’ve explained.
Show that there was a different result for the mid 1930s in some other, older data set.
here you go, Barry. from a skeptic with a masters degree in electrical engineering plus a degree in geology, and who worked for Intel doing quality control, a job which prepare him eminently for dealing with statistics.
https://realclimate.science/2012/08/10/a-simple-proof-that-the-1930s-were-hotter/
Your unthinking xenophobia is boundless.
“I’ll attack their nationality – that’ll show them”.
Another misuse of the word phobia. Why would anyone have an irrational fear of people from other countries?
Stratospheric intrusion in the northwestern US brings snowfall to the Rocky Mountains.
https://i.ibb.co/7QV1jFy/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f000.png
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
In general, there are two main mechanisms that remove compounds in the atmosphere: deposition and reaction. A common example of deposition is ‘rain out’: compounds that are soluble in water can be removed from the atmosphere by precipitation. This phenomenon is responsible for acid rain. The most abundant CFCs emitted into the troposphere are CFC 11 and CFC 12. These CFCs are not soluble in water, so deposition does not removed them from the air.
The only other mechanism that removes compounds from the troposphere is reaction with an abundant oxidizing agent–such as hydroxyl radicals, ozone, or nitrate radicals. Atmospheric researchers have determined the rates at which several CFCs react with hydroxyl radicals; the lifetimes for these CFCs with respect to hydroxyl radicals is approximately 80 years. In other words, if hydroxyl radicals were the only thing reacting with the CFCs, it would take 80 years to completely remove them from the atmosphere. That is a long time! In comparison, methanol, a component of some alternative fuels, has a lifetime with respect to hydroxyl radical reaction of just 17 days. Ozone and nitrate radicals are even less effective at breaking down CFCs.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chlorofluorocarbons-cfcs/
Amazing is that these CFCs have a much higher GHE than these cheapies like H2O and CO2.
Chamberlain, J. W. (1979)
Elementary analytic models of climate.
1: The mean global heat balance
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19790010343/downloads/19790010343.pdf
The paper in itself is incredibly interesting. And a closer look at page 12 ff. gives info about these nice ‘minor constituents’.
Looking at the Arctic sea ice.
https://nsid***c.org/arcticseaicenews/
What struck me was not the minimum extent (about 5th lowest) but the low sea ice concentration across most of the extent.
I wonder if this is connected with the high temperatures, about 2C above normal.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/pages/latest/NCEP/Arctic/window.html
Daily sea ice extent
Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnrnCfQjICj21o1gOeFMbMI1xsF0nZoj/view
It’s only weather :–)
*
Source
https://tinyurl.com/NOAA-sea-ice-extent
i.e.
https://masie_web.apps.nsid~c.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/
“Its only weather 🙂 ”
Interesting weather.
I note that the 2023 global sea ice extent has been at a record low since June.
I also note that the anomaly has not reached the 1981-2010 average since 2012.
Not yet statistically significant, but far enough from what you would expect of a stable climate to make me wonder.
I’m surprised the Arctic isn’t boiling, with all that ice….
ent…from your first link…”Retreat of Arctic sea ice cover has been primarily in the central Arctic region north of the Laptev and East Siberian Seas…”
If you look at the accompanying map, the ice is pressed against the Greenland north shore while the area around Alaska/Russia is bare of ice. There are different reasons for this. For one, the transpolar drift moves east to west and drains ice into the North Atlantic, between the northern ends of Greenland and Europe. It appears to be stacking ice up in that region, compressing it.
Secondly, the Beaufort gyre, which traditionally circulates ice in the area of Alaska’s north shore, is likely still circulating partially submerged ice which does not appear on sats.
You may be looking at the Arctic Ocean as a placid lake where ice gradually melts in summer. Far from it, the Arctic Ocean is continuously in motion like any other ocean, especially in a lateral direction.
Ask yourself how 2C of warming would melt all that ice in a month or so.
Indeed.
The Beaufort gyre carries ice anticlockwise around the Arctic, so the oldest and thickest ice builds up along the Northern coasts of Ellesmere Island and Greenland and is carried out into the Atlantic between Greenland and Svaalbard.
Since 1979 the minimum has decreased by 3.5Mkm^2 from 7.5 Mkm^2 to 4 MKm ^2 due to an increase in global temperature of 1C. 2C should be enough to melt most of the rest.
My concern is that decreasing sea ice concentration increases open water. Ice reflects most of the sunlight falling on it and open water absorbs most of that sunlight. As more ice melts, more heat is absorbed and the rate of melt accelerates. It is the sort of positive feedback we’ve discussed before.
The Summer reduction is mostly on the Bering Sea side of the Arctic. Because of the gyre and the cooling effect of the land ice, the Ellesmere Island/Greenland coastline has the highest sea ice concentration and will probably be the last to go.
Don’t worry about the melting ice, Biden just announced a new climate army, 20,000 soldiers strong
Bidens so-called American Climate Corps will, according to the White House, mobilize a new, diverse generation of more than 20,000 Americans who will be trained and put to work on conservation, clean energy and environmental justice projects.
https://i.postimg.cc/CL1G9zGM/6a00d834515c5469e201b7c6f6dfb8970b-500wi.png
According to US government in August 2023 CO2 levels were measured
to be: 419.68 ppm
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
And it appears US has monopoly on measuring global CO2 levels.
Because of cycle it will down in Sept and at some point will start to go higher at each month.
Or in coming months, at some point after going up and then down, it will reach 500 or more ppm. Or was around 416 and when up to around 424 and going down {and has been going down, less than it’s been going up, therefore CO2 has been rising for decades.
And it’s said that it be rising due to China emitted the most CO2, and long time ago, US used to be emitting the most amount of CO2.
Though one could say both US and Europe has transferred industries to China, and that is why it appears China is emitting the most CO2.
Or that western governmental policies have caused China to emit the most amount of CO2. And it’s not just China where industry has been transferred to.
All this relevant to my question of when CO2 could reach 500 ppm.
But one also say that western countries have not reduced CO2 by as much as it could appear- or despite off shoring industry they have not reduced CO2 emission and considering how CO2 it emitted by long oceanic transportation, they have vaguely reduced global CO2, rather there is very strong case for quite the opposite.
But on topic of reaching 500 ppm, one is sort of forced to ask question, what country will be to next be apparently emitting the most CO2. Unless you think we will rapidly reach the level of
500 ppm.
What can said without any doubt, is that by burning wood, and making solar panels and wind mills is not lowering global CO2 emission.
But somethings have reduced CO2 emission, it’s claimed greater efficiency, does reduces CO2 emission. And what obvious is using Hydropower reduces CO2 emission, as has been using nuclear power.
Example of less efficiency is hauling coal hundreds {or thousands of miles]. Burning wood as compared to Coal is less efficient, and hauling wood hundreds {or thousands] of miles is worse than hauling coal. And of course traveling by private jets to conferences emits more CO2 then compared to an online conferences. And that don’t accomplish anything {and this is according to the people involved}.
And if going to talk about global, all the toxic waste China makes is
a global matter and requires a lot energy [or if ignored, death and sickness}.
But even if we wanted China to emit the most amount CO2, it simply can’t do this for much longer.
Current rate of CO2 increase is 2ppm/year and accelerating.
Starting from around 420ppm at present that would give us 500ppm in 40 years. Call it 2063.
China’s economy is due to overtake the US in 2028. Since neither the US or China seem keen to take emission reduction seriousy, history will probably blame you both equally.
If the world all worked together, 500ppm by 2050 is possible.
At least it’s worth a try. My tomatoes would love it.
Nice slogan — “500 by ’50”.
So, you think China will continue to use about 4500 billion tons of coal [or more] per year until 2063 AD?
It was said quite a few years ago, they were going to focus on nuclear power, but it doesn’t seem it’s been going as planned.
But it seems they have made a lot of nuclear weapons.
“Chinas economy is due to overtake the US in 2028. ”
Not per capita.
China has a lot poor people.
India has a lot poor people and it has growing population, and
likely overtake China, but it might be after 2030. And their
population is already more than China.
Africa growing population is far more significant and will likewise
have more GDP than China.
India is small country, a 1/3 of China’s land area.
Africa is a big continent- and with it’s future huge population it will still be under populated- just like the US is}
Oh, 4.5 billion or 4500 million tons, but not 4500 billion tons {that would be a lot].
While here.
“What is the amount of world coal reserves? As of December 31, 2021, estimates of total world proved recoverable reserves of coal were about 1,161 billion short tons”
So, apparently there is not 4500 billion tonnes of mineable coal in world.
There could more 1,161 billion short tons [1053 billion metric tons] as it’s not found proven reserves, yet.
So, burning 1053 billion tons of coal is x 2.42 = 2548.26 billion tons of CO2.
4.5 billion x 2.42 = 10.89 billion tons of CO2
And 40 years 4.5 = 180 billion of coal times 2.42 = 435.6 billion tons of CO2
And 1053 / 180 = 5.85. Or China would be mining more 1/6th of present
global proven reserves of coal within 40 year?
Accelerating? The slope looks pretty linear to me.
wee willy…”The crucial evidence supporting the CFC hypothesis came from British scientists working at the Halley Bay Station of the British Antarctic Survey, who had been taking ground-based measurements of total ozone for decades”.
***
Is it any wonder that an atmosphere attached to a planet and rotating with it would have a hole at one end or the other? The wonder is that both ends don’t have holes. That reminds me, didn’t a hole open up over the other pole as well?
The stratosphere dips to a few kilometres above either Pole. Its altitude drops from 26 km over the equator to 7 km over the poles.
Here’s some new stuff for you…
“The stratosphere is very dry air, containing little water vapor. Because of this, few clouds are found in this layer. Polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) are the exception. PSCs (also called nacreous clouds) appear in the lower stratosphere near the poles in winter. Made of ice, they are found at altitudes of 15 to 25 km (9.3 to 15.5 miles) and form only when temperatures at those heights dip below -78 C. They appear to help cause the formation of the infamous holes in the ozone layer by “encouraging” certain chemical reactions that destroy ozone”.
repeat…”They [clouds] appear to help cause the formation of the infamous holes in the ozone layer by “encouraging” certain chemical reactions that destroy ozone”.
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/atmosphere/stratosphere
I don’t know about encouraging chemical reactions because cold tends to discourage them. It’s more likely that the cold breaks up the bonds that form ozone and release the oxygen bound in the molecule.
Carrying on this stratosphere investigation, this may be of interest to Clint…
“The stratosphere is very dry air, containing little water vapor”.
So, how does it affect this dry atmosphere when a volcano like Hunga Tonga dumps copious amount of WV into its dry environment?
Explain what you mean by “copious amounts”.
That is, by what percentage has the water vapour concentration of the entire stratosphere increased?
Then, assuming this increase is significant, precisely explain the process by which this causes a temperature rise. In doing this, recall that a weakened polar vortex or jet stream causes COLD air to intrude into the mid-latitudes from the poles, as suggested by ren’s earlier post.
Let’s see you present actual facts, rather than what “sounds right” to you.
We scientists are still working on the explanation and when we get it, I’ll get back to you.
Hunga Tonga is estimated to have dumped 146 million tons of water into the atmosphere. That’s several bazillion molecules.
I’d say that is copious when there is little or no water in the stratosphere. The warming likely came from the jet stream getting messed up. I mean, how would you like it if you had 146 million tones of water dumped on you?
Come to think of it, that’s not a bad idea.
“We scientists” …. HAHAHAHAHA
Tell me … how do you KNOW what the explanation is without first having evidence and understanding a mechanism.
This is basically the most blatant admission that you will be crafting your “facts” to fit your desired outcome. Real scientists do it the other way around.
By “working on it” you mean … “I already know what explanation I want, and I will be googling frantically for any theories which support my claim while ignoring everything else”.
Unless they are pretend climate scientists – who provide nothing of use to anyone – even stating that prediction of future climate states is impossible.
Or mathematicians pretending to be scientists – like Gavin Schmidt!
Or anyone who believes in a GHE which they cannot even describe!
I hope you were looking at yourself in the mirror while you were laughing. Not to worry, you give me plenty to laugh at.
Keep it up.
” We scientists… ”
Oh no, no, no. Too much.
Robertson, this blog’s dum~best, most pretentious ignoramus, who never has been able to scientifically contradict anything (beginning with the lunar spin), and hence keeps discrediting, denigrating and lying all the time, now dares to call himself a scientist…
Là, il dépasse vraiment l'imaginable.
C’mon, Bordo.
You didn’t need 300 words to acknowledge that we do indeed have evidence that CFC rises to the level of the ozone layer and damage it.
Or were you simply hiding your “yes” behind a very big “but”?
Willard,
No, you are just repeating cultist dogma.
Rowland and Molina had a hypothesis – which still has no experimental support. None.
Just like the GHE.
Ozone is created by UV. It is quite unstable, and rapidly decays to O2. Luckily for us, highly energetic UV does not reach the Earth’s surface – it interacts with O2 along the way.
Try learning, rather than parroting rubbish.
Mike Flynn,
Today is thuesday.
2 + 2 = 4.
Snow is white.
Kangaroos are jacked.
What are you braying about?
“I dont know about encouraging chemical reactions because cold tends to discourage them. Its more likely that the cold breaks up the bonds that form ozone and release the oxygen bound in the molecule.”
You are saying in successive sentences that cold impedes chemical reaction but then that cold causes chemical reactions.
No, Tim, in the first sentence I am stating a well-known fact in chemistry that heat tends to accelerate a reaction while cooling slows it down.
In the second sentence I am saying that ozone, being formed by heating due to the aborp.tion of UV, loses the bond that makes it ozone and reverts it back to pure oxygen.
Ozone has a half-life that decreases with temperature. It is not a stable molecule and wants to return to pure oxygen. It makes sense to me that as winter sets in in the Antarctic region that the stratosphere will become cooler and ozone depletion will accelerate.
The reason there is no hole over the Arctic is due to the moderating effect of the Arctic Ocean. It is much colder over the South Pole than over the North Pole, where temps in winter sometimes reaches 0C. That cold air affects the ozone in the stratosphere by reducing it.
I think it’s safe to claim that CFCs had nothing to do with the ozone hole and that it’s a natural response to the cold air above Antarctica.
C’mon, Bordo:
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/history_SH.html
Why would anyone care if reality does not make sense to you?
“likely that the cold breaks up the bonds”
That is cold causing a chemical reaction.
Little Willy, Tim, please stop trolling.
Hey gbaikie … how is your prediction for September for SC25 panning out?
AQ,
I am surprised that you believe in predictions. Or are you just trying to look superior?
Thanks for the humour, anyway.
Gbaikie’s prediction certainly is a source of humour.
BTW Mikey – When you switched to Swenson you began by using American spellings in an attempt to hide your identity. Looks like you forgot to keep up the charade.
Ah yes I see… humour vs humor is like colour vs color, right?
Or in the case of Flynn …
odour vs odor
tumour vs tumor
rancour vs rancor
misdemeanour vs misdemeanor
I guess Aussies are like the Canucks {which I was born and raised, and I am a snowbird in southern CA}.
I sometimes like guesses the next month temperature, what will Sept
be. And I have always thought predicting the weather is similar to predicting the weather of the Sun. So, Fate has me guessing the weather of the Sun, months ahead of time.
Does anyone want to guess Oct and Nov, UAH Global monthly temperature?
I was thinking of this post:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1528885
where you predicted 90-110 for September.
And no – I don’t see the point in guessing. All I will say is this:
* The stronger cycles tend to peak earlier, the weaker ones later.
* Of all cycles which have peaked at less than 145, the shortest time to peak is 4 years 1 month.
* If that were to be replicated, the peak would be in January 2024. The current SSN of 118 is for February 2023. So 11 more months of rise.
* The second shortest time to peak for those cycles is 4 years 8 months. So 4 years 1 month is clearly an outlier, so unlikely to be repeated. The average time to peak for such cycles is 5.6 years.
* If the cycle peaks above 145 then this is all moot anyway.
* There is nothing to suggest any reason why this cycle should be at the lower end of the time-to-peak range … except a belief – no, a NEED to believe – in the already-failed prediction of Zharkova. And clearly this need is causing you to interpret temporary drops in activity as predictors for the future, while not treating temporary rises in the same way, without any evidence which would suggest a need for that bias.
In short, guesses are just expressions of pre-existing bias.
–I was thinking of this post:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1528885
where you predicted 90-110 for September.–
No, I didn’t. I was asking when is likely the sunspot number for the month would reach or pass through the drawn curved line:
“So in terms of guessing, what month will pass thru this line?
For Sept the monthly spot number would need to be below 85.9 average sunspots. And I think its unlikely to below 85 for Sept, more like 90 to 110 sunspots.”
So, I was guess what was more unlikely, and going thru line at 85.9 sunspots in the month of sept, was “unlikely” as compared to about 90 to 110 sunspots.
So, point was it was not going thru the line in Sept. And then when would guess it’s most likely- which was Nov.
In terms my guess of when it pass thru the curved line {which it has not done yet].
Or “always” guessed Nov would crash, and wondered if it could go thru the line, sooner than Nov- and I thought it was unlikely.
Of course now, Sept will not go thru thru the line. And I thought
Oct has a chance- or better chance than Sept {which I had thought was unlikely.
I might change my mind about guessing Oct, But at this distance time, I am still firm about Nov going thru the line.
Again, what is that “firmness” based on? What are you using as evidence?
By the way, the median daily flux value for today (https://tinyurl.com/flux-sep-22) is 188, the highest since July 20.
Next part of ” Antonin Qwerty says:
September 22, 2023 at 5:17 PM “:
“And no I dont see the point in guessing. All I will say is this:
* The stronger cycles tend to peak earlier, the weaker ones later.”
That is roughly true particularly if talking about GCR- which I am interested in
“* Of all cycles which have peaked at less than 145, the shortest time to peak is 4 years 1 month.”
Well there is more about a Solar max than sunspots or how many is counted in a month. And randomness of highest month number. And it might be more significant if we had been observing the entire sun rather some/most of just the side facing Earth.
“* If that were to be replicated, the peak would be in January 2024. The current SSN of 118 is for February 2023. So 11 more months of rise.”
Not sure what you mean.
“* The second shortest time to peak for those cycles is 4 years 8 months. So 4 years 1 month is clearly an outlier, so unlikely to be repeated. The average time to peak for such cycles is 5.6 years.
* If the cycle peaks above 145 then this is all moot anyway.”
Again not sure what 145 is or moot in terms of what.
“* There is nothing to suggest any reason why this cycle should be at the lower end of the time-to-peak range except a belief no, a NEED to believe in the already-failed prediction of Zharkova. And clearly this need is causing you to interpret temporary drops in activity as predictors for the future, while not treating temporary rises in the same way, without any evidence which would suggest a need for that bias.”
I don’t think Zharkova has a failed prediction- yet.
“In short, guesses are just expressions of pre-existing bias.”
That is correct- I use it as an aid in terms bias. Or it could be called it learning aid. Unfortuately I guessed right every time- which teaching the wrong thing. But I credit Zharkova- it’s not my doing, just following the instruction.
“I guessed right every time”
Seriously??
“By the way, the median daily flux value for today (https://tinyurl.com/flux-sep-22) is 188, the highest since July 20.”
I am just watching, https://www.spaceweather.com/
Which has nothing to do with whether, spaceweather.com is most accurate or the whatever. It’s like the hitchhiker guide.
Cheap and easy.
I willing to add more. But I have spaceweather.com bookmarked.
My link to flux data IS from spaceweather.
.
.
.
Not sure where spaceweather gets their sunspot counts from. SILSO clearly indicates each day how many observations have been made, how many of those observations have been treated as outliers, and the standard deviation of the observations. The spaceweather daily figures have no obvious source, and regularly lie outside the outlier margins for SILSO, despite stating that they use the same basic formula as SILSO . And spaceweather quotes SILSO figures for longer term averages anyway, so I’m not sure why they don’t just use SILSO daily values.
At least spaceweather doesn’t seem to be pushing the cooling BS. In fact I’m sure that both SILSO and spaceweather are annoyed by the distraction of the climate debate in an area which has an insignificant connection to climate science.
AQ,
You can’t describe the GHE, so you fly off at a bizarre tangent.
Why does it matter to you whether the spell-check on a particular device uses English or US spelling conventions?
Why are you obsessed with trying to convince yourself that I have previously commented as Mike Flynn? Are you infatuated with him? Are you trying to transfer your feelings for him to me?
If you have any rational reason for insisting that I am really another person entirely, please feel free to express it. You just sound like a whining GHE cultist, trying to be gratuitously insulting because your cult is losing members.
Why is Mike Flynn so detested by the GHE cult, anyway?
It will probably change before anyone reads this, but today’s count is currently sitting on the Richie Benaud number,
https://www.tiktok.com/@cricketaus/video/7185420835098742018
Solar wind
speed: 422.7 km/sec
density: 5.37 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 22 Sep 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 159
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 156 sfu
“Sunspot AR3435 poses a threat for strong Earth-directed solar flares.”
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.61×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.9% Low
Neutron Counts dipped to -7.0 which is lowest I seen {while watching
this cycle]. And Thermosphere got close to 19 x 10^10 watts and has
quickly risen to the present of 19.61×10^10
Above in this thread I mention my thoughts on my guesses about solar max 25:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537448
And below it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537468
And pros of Dover, say:
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
18 September – 14 October 2023
Solar activity is expected to be at low to moderate (R1-R2 / Minor
to Moderate) levels throughout the period.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
expected to be at low to moderate levels through the period.
Geomagnetic field activity is likely to be at G1-G2 (Minor to
Moderate) levels on 19 Sep and unsettled to active levels on 20 Sep,
all due to CME effects. Unsettled to active levels are likely on 21,
23-24 and 28-30 Sep due to CH HSS activity. Mostly quiet levels are
expected on 18, 25-27 Sep and 01-14 Oct. —
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
I unusually guess, then I check out they are forecasting for next 27 days
THere is unnumbered spot which has arrived from farside, and don’t see any others coming. And 3436 has almost gone to farside. And one highest number spot is 3443 is quite big and appeared on nearside and
will go to farside in about 3 days
Well I am at it, the biggest spot, 3435 {the x-flare spot} will fade
before reaches farside, and that could be related to it exploding- and it’s almost facing Earth right now. And if it hits that would make our thermosphere much more energized.
” Sunspot number: 159 ”
Not that I would care about the SSN, I see it everyday. But…
https://tinyurl.com/SILSO-EISN-220923
2023 09 22 217
tells another picture.
Monthly mean right now: ~ 140.
Your secondary source seems to publish the original SSN observed between 12 a.m. and 1 a.m. without updating it throughout the day.
*
Either way, SC 25 will remain well below group 21-23: its cumulative SSN number is about 20 % (!!!) of theirs for the same period.
**
Just for fun: here is a SSN projection till Dec 2024, based on SC 25’s third order polynomial fit:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H1342IkA_XQJovorDZNjrAqTQAT7ellR/view
The highest blue peak on the graph is also SC 24’s maximum (220, giving a monthly value of 146 and a 13 month smooth at 110 for Feb 2014).
When looking at all red peaks above the red fit, one might imagine for SC 25 a SSN daily maximum between 275 and 300 in Dec 2024, i.e. 190 monthly and a 13 month smooth at 140.
I’ll bookmark this post.
*
But… as Salvatore del Prete always wrote so nicely: time will tell.
Solar wind
speed: 398.2 km/sec
density: 0.64 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 23 Sep 23
Sunspot number: 184
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 176 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.61×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.7% Low
The unnamed spot is 3446 and is highest number spot {and small}.
Don’t see any new spots coming from the farside and don’t see
much change happenning, 3437 will be leaving nearside, and then
3433 we follow it. The biggest spot, 3435, doesn’t seem to changing
much {yet}, but apparently it’s M flare possible rather than X.
“Sunspots AR3435 and AR3443 have mixed-polarity magnetic fields that pose a threat for strong M-class solar flares. “
Circulation in the lower stratosphere will bring precipitation to California.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/09/27/0300Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-110.00,49.94,485
The fact that this is news is certainly saying something.
–California’s Climate The most substantial rainfall usually occurs between December and February. In Southern California, there’s a monsoon season from mid-July to September. With such a focused wet season, a few months of low rainfall can significantly affect the state’s water supply.–
Another prediction is news?
learn some basic quantum fizzix and drop that monkey level argument that cooler objects are transferring radiation energy into warmer ones
https://youtu.be/bIXN8TMaVUA?t=398
All good. But not helping your cause in any way.
Yes.
I am only 1/2 way thru it.
I sort of disagree about Einstein being wrong.
If everyone is wrong- then no disagreement, so far…
gb…have another coffee, it might come to you why Einstein was wrong. He got it right about photo-emissivity but he did not understand as yet what was going on between electrons and EM. He guessed it using Planck quantum theory of light.
For all we know, it may all prove wrong in the future.
Eben…not trying to pee on your parade, I’ll likely get kicked out of your post for offering dissent.
I like most of the videos you post and I am not taking a shot at your offering. It’s just that I cannot stand the ijit offering the video, Al Khalili. He’s a circus performer along the lines of Carl Sagan, not a true scientist. He is a professor in theoretical physics, and like his ilk, he dabbles in bull-feathers…more conjecture than science.
BTW, Einstein was a theoretical physicist whereas Newton was a true physicist who did his own experiments. I’m sticking with Isaac.
What Al Khalili has accomplished in this vid is filling peoples’ heads full of nonsense. What he is calling quantum theory is not ‘THE’ quantum theory taught in electronics and chemistry but an extension of it started by Bohr, when success from his initial theory went to his head. Bohr began conjuring sci-fi notion about Dr. Who and Tardis time machines and electrons operating at a distance, and Al Khalili got sucked in by it.
see Copenhagen theory…this is one of the links…
https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/quantum-suicide4.htm
Neither Einstein nor Schrodinger, who worked out the relationship mathematically between electrons in atomic orbitals, using the Newtonian wave equation, could abide Bohr’s new theory, with which Al Khahili seemed sold. Both claimed the new theory lacked a physical basis but that did not stop Einstein using the same non-physical theory as the basis of his relativity theories.
Al Khalili’s experiments are based on smoke and mirrors. With the gold leaf experiment, he makes it look like UV is directly causing the electrons separating the gold leafs to dissipate. It is actually the UV causing electrons to fly off the top plate, outside the gold leaf bottle, that reduces the number of electrons on the exterior plate hence draining the electrons from the gold leaf.
Remember, someone added a static charge to the exterior plate and it flowed down the interior rod into the gold leafs causing them to repel each other. This device is called a gold leaf electroscope and I was taught my basic electronics theory with one. You can cause the leafs to collapse by simply touching your finger onto the exterior plate.
At the time, Einstein knew barely anything about electrons. It was 1905 and Bohr did not issues his EM/electron theory till 1913. So, the photo-electric effect was based on faulty science and it is still taught that way today.
Just remembered why I really dont like Al Khalili, he is a climate alarmist phobic. That is, he suffers like all alarmists from climatophobia.
Gordon … you forgot to mention the other mention the other reason you don’t like him. His name conjures up yet more xenophobic thoughts in your head.
You don’t like him because he has an illness?
I think a problem is that people don’t seem to realize
that we are living in an Ice Age.
What is an Ice Age?
I would normally answer the question.
And I am tempted to at least provide clues.
Hmm. Ok, I will give one clue.
Nope, changed my mind.
Gorden what is an Ice Age?
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Significant reductions in ozone content in the stratosphere above the Arctic have been observed during the late winter and early spring (January-March) in 6 of the last 9 years. However, these reductions, typically 20-25%, are much smaller than those observed currently each spring over the Antarctic (the ozone hole).
The difference between ozone content in the two polar regions (see figure below) is caused by dissimilar weather patterns. The Antarctic continent is a very large land mass surrounded by oceans. This symmetrical condition produces very low stratospheric temperatures within a meteorologically isolated region, the so-called polar vortex, which extends from about 65oS to the pole. The cold temperatures lead in turn to the formation of clouds, known as polar stratospheric clouds. These clouds provide surfaces that promote production of forms of chlorine and bromine that are chemically active and can rapidly destroy ozone. The conditions that maintain elevated levels of chemically active chlorine and bromine persist into September and October in Antarctica, when sunlight returns over the region to initiate ozone depletion.
https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/research/ozone-uv/moreinfo?view=arctic-ozone-hole
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg found himself explaining basic climate science to California Rep. D. LaMalfa after the Republican congressman conflated the season of autumn with the global issue of climate change.
https://imgur.com/a/fwBjp02
Bonus, watch ’till the end… “you can see here I serve with some of the greatest minds of the 19th century.”
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Related…
I am so tired of this folksy “garage logic” that Republicans always want to apply to every complex problem.
1/ I had to wear a jacket last night, so clearly global warming isn’t a thing.
2/ I knew a guy who survived a crash without his seat belt on, that proves seat belts are a hοαx.
3/ Someone shot a gun in a school hallway and the bullet didn’t hit anyone. This proves that shooting a gun in a crowded school isn’t dangerous.
The chαrlαtαns that are exploiting cοnspirαcies they know to be false, act so sincere that they are indiscernible from those that are honestly hοοdωinκed and simply don’t understand. If you talk to a flat earther, or a climate change denier, or an election denier, it is literally impossible to tell if this person is pulling your leg, or they actually believe.
There’s no way to tell if this clοωn truly doesn’t know the difference between climate and seasons or is just trοllιng.
A lot of people believe that we just need better education. I think specifically people need a better understanding of math and statistics, and why a δυmb anecdote does not constitute a trend.
What is needed Ark, is a better appreciation for reality. And, the ability to tell the difference between “science” and “beliefs”.
For example, you rail against cherry-picked Skeptics that get something wrong, yet you completely ignore the fact that your cult believes passenger jets fly backward and ice cubes can boil water.
You need to check your beliefs at the door.
It’s cold here at night, well below 15 C:
https://tinyurl.com/bdhhrj2f
Though not killing the plants or anything and I don’t live where the water pipes, freeze. But I do have bring my little dwarf lemon tree
in coming months.
Ark,
Maybe you can preach to all the climate modelers. They could use a real understanding of science and math.
The fact that I had to wear a jacket last night shows the effect of the Earth moving in its orbit. That’s science. The propaganda that a trace gas in the atmosphere can cause catastrophic warming/climate change is pseudo-science.
We have observed what happens in ‘some’ car accidents when people are not wearing seat belts. With a head-on collision at 60 mph, a seat belt would do neither party any good.
The overall problem with your argument is that you are comparing apples to oranges. When I pointed out that a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere could not possible warm it, alarmist responded with ijit arguments. One is that a tiny amount of arsenic in a cup of coffee can kill you. That argument reveals an ignorance of either process and why they are plain silly.
I pointed out scientifically why the trace gas cannot warm the atmosphere significantly. I use the Ideal Gas Equation initially then came across the solution by G&T involving heat diffusion. Basically, CO2 can warm the atmosphere no more than its mass percent at 0.06%. That means the max heat it can diffuse is no better than 0.06C per 1C warming created by N2/O2.
Not one iota of rebuttal from alarmists, just silly comparisons that have no relationship. Now Ark pushes the envelope even more by introducing seat belts, guns, and jackets.
But, hey, the alarmists are desperate and on the run. They cannot offer rebuttals based on science so they resort to apples and oranges arguments.
It is clear that you have never worked around hydrogen sulfide gas (H2S).
Are you sure?. Prolonged exposure to H2S leads to cognitive deficits. Given the clear evidence of the latter, the only question is whether to go for a H2S or congenital diagnosis.
Effects of H2S Exposure
I can hear this fοοl in H2S safety class saying: “a trace gas making up 0.001% of the atmosphere could not possibly harm anyone.”
“Basically, CO2 can warm the atmosphere no more than its mass percent at 0.06%. That means the max heat it can diffuse is no better than 0.06C per 1C warming created by N2/O2.”
Assertion Gordon, without evidence. Show us how you get that result.
A 0.06 % trace gas can still make the atmosphere 100 % opaque in certain wavelengths.
And you again ignore this fact. Why?
SpaceXs Starship Setback Could Hold Up Cellphone Ambitions
ttps://www.theinformation.com/articles/spacexs-starship-setback-could-hold-up-cellphone-ambitions
“When SpaceXs new Starship rocket exploded during a test flight in April, the company largely painted it as a success to have even gotten the 400-foot-tall behemoth off the ground. But inside the company, some employees were worried that the setback could delay, among other things, a SpaceX plan to provide wireless coverage to cellphones that are out of range of typical networks, according to people close to the company.”
How many people will die, per month of delay?
“Booster 9 also had its Raptors and its valves upgraded after IFT 1, and the upgrades consisted of modifying the methane turbopumps and manifolds with new seals to reduce the amount of Methane leakage into the engine compartment. This had caused fires in B7s engine compartment during the first flight test.
A possible reason why SpaceX has an issue with methane leakage compared to other rockets could be the high pressure that Raptor operates at in its Methane turbopumps, hot gas manifold, and the Main Combustion Chamber (MCC). This results in more pressure on the seals and causes leakage.”
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/09/starship-upgrades-upcoming-test-flight/
LH2 leaks, Liquid Methane leaks a lot less, but we doing high pressure for performance “needed” to make it “more” reusable.
I have no clue of comparison of LH2 and very high pressure Liquid Methane. Or could easily be some of some types of the same issues, but say specific things like embrittlement or long term type effects- rather than just seals leaking too much
I wrote upthread, within a comment about these allegedly ‘warm’ 1930s, a little sentence:
” You just need to download NOAAs CaaG data for CONUS to see that this ridiculous claim not only is valid solely for summer maxima but is restricted to daily / monthly series as well. ”
*
The predictable response from one of the dum~best posters on this blog, who endlessly blathers about pseudoscience all the time but knows nothing about real science:
” Your naivete knows no bounds. Are all Frenchmen so obtuse?
NOAA has been fudging data now since at least the 1990s. What you need is historical data before NOAA went to work on fudging it. ”
*
There is one really, thoroughly obtuse person here, and that’s Robertson.
He is not even able to read let alone understand the simplest technical text below a sentence whenever it contains words like ‘NOAA’.
As always, he reminds me of the dull fighting bulls in the Spanish corridas, who can’t see anything other than the red muleta and stubbornly try to gore it with their horns.
*
If Robertson had ever been an engineer, as he has been trying to claim on this blog for years, he would know that while the ‘GHCN daily’ data is really raw data, NOAA’s Climate at a Glance data conversely is derived from the highly adjusted variant of GHCN V4.
And he would have immediately understood what this graphic means with regard to raw data versus adjusted data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10istVFZPWZmAZXirxW46CHh3yYqwUbw4/view
But he never was an engineer, and it shows.
Of course he will trumpet stubbornly and pretentiously: GHCN Daily is just as fudged as CaaG!
*
Anyone who credulously follows Robertson’s garbage deserves it.
Your naivete knows no bounds. Are all Frenchmen so obtuse?”
Unabashed xenophobia.
Who’s this xeno you keep referencing?
You know Gordon … the person who keeps making xenophobic comments. Who do you think that is?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
norman…”Also here is how they found Stratospheric temperatures and what instruments were used to measure it.
https://tinyurl.com/57c968fa ”
***
If they are still using this ancient technology these days, it’s little wonder stratospheric temps are inconclusive?
From reading the article, the problems are revealed.
1)there is a heat island effect from the balloon and the equipment.
2)the measurement of solar UV, which is major up there, is flaky. It involves theory and models.
3)thermistor technology in those days was in its infancy.
From the article…
“The authors felt that all that would be required to emphatically establish experimentally this temperature variation and its magnitude wou1d be to simply place a slightly modified rocketsonde temperature sensor in the form of a spherical bead thermistor on the balloon platform and cause the balloon to float at a constant altitude near 50 km for a period of 2 hours.
The observed difference between the measured minimum and maximum temperature values would then be the desired diurnal tidal temperature variation near 50 km. The six flights conducted in the period 1968 -1975 served to prove that the author were, at least initially, somewhat naive in this regard.
Since the magnitude of the temperature variation at a specific altitude in the stratosphere is related to the solar (uv) radiation and atmospheric composition at that altitude the STRATCOM I balloon of 1968 served as a constant level support near 48 km for a scientific payload weighing 59 pounds and consisting of six instruments for the measurement of atmospheric temperature, pressure, density and related ozone and water vapour concentrations. No capability existed within APL, at the time, to measure solar uv flux”.
You can see the issues they have trying to get an ***AVERAGE*** temperature. This is no better than an average temp for the Earth…non-existent.
Essentially, it is being claimed that the average in the stratosphere gets warmer with altitude but this is a mathematical calculation base more on inference than science. As I said, there is not enough air molecules at that altitude to claim a temperature in the same way we measure near the surface.
Certainly, claiming at temp of 0C is a bit wacko with such a low density atmosphere.
Another comment…
“It was at this point that the correlated multi-instrument measurement approach, backed by chemical kinetic theory and modeling, was initiated…”.
They were confused as to how to make measurements so they turned to theory and models.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Samuel Ruben invented the thermistor in 1930. Mr. Ruben worked for the Vega Manufacturing Corporation. Vega made guitars, banjos and recording machines. Mr. Ruben was working on electronic record stylus pickups when he noticed that the pickup configuration he was working on had a rather large negative temperature coefficient.
Thermistors have come a long way in the past 80 years. According to a researcher at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), glass encapsulated thermistors are more stable than RTDs. Thermistors, whether glass or epoxy coated can maintain 0.2C over large temperature intervals. Extra Precision (XP) thermistors maintain 0.1C.
By the 1960s thermistors were main stream sensors. Steinhart and Hart, two researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, published a paper defining a temperature versus resistance formula for thermistors. The Steinhart-Hart equation has become the industry standard equation for thermistors.
https://www.bapihvac.com/application_note/thermistor-vs-rtd-temperature-measurement-accuracy-application-note/
I was talking about thermisters in the 1960s not being that accurate. Still, having applied them, I don’t see why they would work in weather balloons at 50 km altitude to tell us anything. in the article posted by Norman they admitted to having problems with the cold up there and its effect on the instruments.
Apparently they don’t work below -50C and their linearity likely comes into question near their limits. They would not be my choice for accuracy in the stratosphere. It is liable to crack from the cold.
Willard,
Copy and paste how accurate height determinations of weather are determined, both now and in the past.
Otherwise, you may have an extremely accurate, but quite meaningless.
While you’re at it, find out how the balloon is located positionally, as move randomly with the winds.
Show your workings, of course.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Please tell Bordo that nobody cares about his incredulity.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Just remembered why I don’t like Al Khalili, he is a climate alarmist phobic. That is, he suffers like all alarmists from climatophobia.
A while back, Trump Tw.e.e.t.ed on record cold weather we were having, asking, “What happened to global warming”?
Al Khalili T.w.e.e.t.e.d back…”The job is especially tough when dangerous, powerful f00ls don’t even understand the difference between weather and climate something even schoolchildren know”.
This is the kind of eejit he is. Trump’s question was to the point, why are we having brutally-cold, record setting weather when we are being told the planet is warming? Al Khalili tries to sidestep the question by pulling their trump (no pun) card re weather is not climate. Where is that claim when so-called record heat is reported?
No, Trump’s comment was asinine, ie. it was the type of unthinking comment you would make. It was Khalili who was on point.
Trump is pretty smart, it’s even possible he knows that
we are in an Ice Age.
An question could be, does Gordon or Antonin know
what a Ice Age is?
Can anyone explain what Ice Age is and what is
not living in an Ice Age?
You’re a comedian!!
After all, he believes that:
injecting bleach is an effective cure for covid
Charles was the Prince of Whales
Yosemite is pronounced “Yo, Semite”
that Hurricane Florence was “one of the wettest we’ve ever seen, from the standpoint of water”
a sharpie can change the course of a hurricane
windmills cause cancer
Colorado lies on the Mexican border
F35 fighters are invisible
Churchill was standing on the top of buildings throughout the Blitz.
Thanks!
What Trump believes would probably, scare children.
Upthread, Robertson is once more discre~diting things he has zero dot zero knowledge about.
Norman posted a link to a report about temperature measurements in the stratosphere:
https://tinyurl.com/57c968fa
Already at the beginning you see that the report was dated… 1976.
*
All what Robertson is able to write about it is:
” If they are still using this ancient technology these days, it’s little wonder stratospheric temps are inconclusive? ”
*
What a du~mb reaction!
Robertson is so ignorant that he can’t even search for today’s technology, and so he discre~dits and denig~rates what he sees – after all, that’s the job he’s best at.
And best of all, when John Christy & Roy Spencer show good agreement between satellite-based microwave sounding and radiosonde-based temperature measurements by NOAA’s RATPAC, Robertson naturally applauds!
No wonder: RATPAC is a highly homogenized set according to the work of Haimberger at Vienna U (RAOBCORE, RICH models), resulting from the satellite-based calibration of radiosondes by … John Christy and colleagues around 2006/7.
*
I won’t do the search job for him!
It’s enough to explain here that RATPAC radiosondes for example show indeed good agreement with UAH’s LT layer
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LgITui8Sm7EaWzOstUBL1ZyNRaOu5IQI/view
and with UAH’s LS layer
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dx3Hf5LaTy-b2Qw9aboydfwPqCfcdgIs/view
*
And… with the allegedly all time fudged GISS data as well:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OfHL6QmRVxS-W8y2OjREIsx3jfnTz0YV/view
*
All graphs are of course unsupported, faked stuff by ‘binny’ out of fudged data.
*
Anyone who credulously follows Robertsons garbage deserves it.
“Such that heat transfer = IR transport + Convection/diffusion.”
Yes we agree that IR transport is one type of heat transfer!
I never suggested there are NOT other types of heat transfer.
Question:
Two bricks, side-by-side at 288K and emissivity 1, would be emitting 390 W/m^2. An ideal IR thermometer right above the two bricks would indicate that value.
If one brick was are 273K emitting 315 W/m^2, and the other was at 303K emitting 478 W/m^2, what would the same instrument indicate?
“If one brick was at 273K emitting 315 W/m^2, and the other was at 303K emitting 478 W/m^2, what would the same instrument indicate?”
–
I think it would indicate 303K.
CV is not afraid to discuss the science.
I’ll wait to see if any of the tr0lls, frauds, or children respond. They’re the ones that run from physics.
So, Pupman, when are you going to discuss science?
Got one tr0ll, fraud, or child. Thanks Willie.
Need a few more.
Poor Pupman,
Once again refusing to face REALITY.
Is that your final answer, child?
We’re not getting much response from the usual idi0ts. Maybe multiple choice will help?
a. 273K
b. 288K
c. 289K
d. 303K
e. 344K
Where are you Nate, Norman, bob, barry, Ent, Ant, and hateful Ken? You tr0ll here constantly, claiming a knowledge of science. Let’s see it.
Clint R,
What are your qualifications to give homework problems?
I always try to keep my problems and examples simple enough that a responsible adult can easily understand them. I avoid difficult calculus, differential equations, and the like. So, if you can’t understand, it’s your problem not mine.
Clint R,
Correct the English grammar mistakes in your problem and I’ll think about it.
That’s what an adult would do.
Also I only take homework problems from adults that know the Moon rotates on its axis.
Simple enough, but generally not fully specified, as here.
Thus giving you plenty of wiggle room to screw up the interpretation.
You will undoubtedly mixup exitance and radiance, again.
Nate has no answer. The poor child doesn’t understand that false accusations ain’t science.
As ever, your problems are not fully specified, I suspect by design.
As already discussed, ad nauseum,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1536989
if you fail to account for the difference between exitance of SB radiation from a body, and the radiance that it produces on another body, then you will come to wrong conclusions, again.
No doubt you will do that here to again arrive at the erroneous conclusion that radiances hitting the same point on a surface do not sum, which contradicts physics.
Yes Nate, you don’t understand any of this. And after I discuss this new problem, you STILL won’t be able to understand.
THAT is what “brain-dead” looks like.
I suspect I know where you might be going, but I will play along.
First, an IR thermometer *right* above a surface will only read that surface. So the readings *right* above the four bricks above would be respectively 288K, 288K, 273K, and 303K.
I will assume you mean “high enough up to get equal radiation from each brick”. Then the reading from the first pair would be 288K. The reading from the 2nd pair would be found by averaging the POWER = (315+478)/2 = 396 W/m^2. Then work backwards using SB to get 289 K.
(You don’t simply average the temperatures to get (303+273)/2 = 288K. This is because of the T^4 factor in the equation.)
Poor Folkerts can’t even understand how many bricks there are!
But, I did forget to mention him, as well as RLH, ball4, Ark, E. Swanson, and maybe one or two others.
This problem has ramifications, far and wide, so will be mentioned and discussed more later. When more of the cult answers, all will be explained.
It does have ramifications — but not the ramifications you think. It’s pretty clear you think this is about “fluxes don’t add”. It will be fun to watch this unfold.
Are you worried, Folkerts?
You should be….
I am curious.
I am amused.
But I am not the least bit worried.
Not worrying because you will distort the problem, with full support of. your followers. Just like you are doing by claiming there are 4 bricks in the problem.
Would the solution be any different if there were 4 bricks??? The answer is still 288K for two bricks at 288K and 289K for two bricks at 273K and 303 K. The physics is still correct. And irradiances still add.
The problem will be Clint confusing “exitance” and “irradiance”.
There are only 2 bricks. You’re already trying to distort the issue. Wait until more of your cult has attempted an answer.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A previous analysis by Thompson et al. (2012, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11579) showed substantial differences between satellite-observed and model-simulated stratospheric cooling trends since the late 1970s. Here we compare recently revised and extended satellite temperature records with new simulations from 14 chemistry-climate models. The results show much better agreement in the magnitude of stratospheric cooling over 19792005 between models and observations. This cooling was predominantly driven by increasing greenhouse gases and declining stratospheric ozone levels. An extended satellite temperature record and the chemistry-climate models show weaker global stratospheric cooling over 19982016 compared to 19791997. This is due to the reduction in ozone-induced cooling from the slowdown of ozone trends and the onset of ozone recovery since the late 1990s. There are larger differences in the latitudinal structure of past stratospheric temperature trends due to the effects of unforced atmospheric variability. In summary, the results show much better consistency between simulated and satellite-observed stratospheric temperature trends than was reported by Thompson et al. (2012, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11579) for the previous versions of the satellite record and last generation of chemistry-climate models. The improved agreement mainly comes from updates to the satellite records, while the range of simulated trends is comparable to the previous generation of models.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL078035
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Question:
Can a Cat Be Both a Solid and a Liquid?
One answer is: 15 Proofs That Cats Are Liquids.
Another view: On the rheology of cats.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Coolin is just around the corner
https://notrickszone.com/2023/09/22/new-study-earth-will-cool-by-1c-over-the-next-decades-due-to-the-upcoming-grand-solar-minimum/
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/ns_2023033010033932.pdf
Heads up – Zharkova’s prediction is already wrong. At the end of this month this cycle will be guaranteed to be at least 30% stronger than Zharkova’s prediction, and still rising.
.
.
.
“This is already confirmed by the sharpest increase of spotless days in cycle 25 compared to all other cycles”
Spotless days this cycle: 270
Spotless days at the same point last cycle: 336
Wrong again.
.
.
.
“Given that cycle 25 is still at its maximum”
The SSN has risen by about 40% since this was written, so it could hardly have been “at its maximum” back then.
.
.
.
You will now provide an abusive response instead of properly dealing with the issues I have raised.
We’ll see in February 2025 where SC 25 really will be:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H1342IkA_XQJovorDZNjrAqTQAT7ellR/view
In February 2014, SC 24 had its highest SSN value (the blue peak at position ~ 1624)
SC24’s peak SSN of 116.4 actually occurred in April 2024, not February. “SSN” is a term reserved only for their 13-month (12 and two halves months) average, not to shorter term averages.
It is doubtful that this peak will occur that late. I favour around March 2024, but people online with more knowledge than me favour about 6 months later.
Do you get a different result if you extrapolate the data from the two hemispheres separately before adding?
Maybe you confound daily and monthly data?
The graph shows daily data, and the daily peak of SC 24 occurred on 2014, Feb 27 (220):
https://tinyurl.com/SILSO-SSN-daily
The monthly smooth’s peak indeed was in April 2014, correct.
*
” It is doubtful that this peak will occur that late. ”
You are apparently taking my little ‘Just for fun’ experiment (see comment on September 22, 2023 at 2:34 PM) much too serious.
I simply had the idea to use the fact that a polynomial fit can be computed far beyond the existing data.
I looked at the place where SC 24 had its top peak, chose a similar place for SC 25 and tried to extrapolate SC 25’s top peak out of the data till now.
Just for fun.
I only questioned you because you specifically said “SSN” in your post. And I was only expressing an opinion about when I believe the peak might occur. Not sure why that is “taking it too seriously”. My last question was one of genuine interest. I wanted to know how much difference, if any, a separate consideration of the two hemispheres might change the timing of the peak.
By the way, your comment above is 100 % correct.
Zharkova’s essay gives the strange impression that she “forgot” to adapt the new version of her old essay to the current situation :–)
–Sunspot Activity on The Sun Is Seriously Exceeding Official Predictions
08 April 2022
By Michelle Starr
Weather predictions here on Earth are more accurate than they’ve ever been; trying to predict the behavior of our wild and wacky Sun is a little more tricky.
Case in point: according to official predictions, the current cycle of solar activity should be mild. But the gap between the prediction and what’s actually happening is pretty significant and it’s getting wider. Sunspot counts, used as a measure for solar activity, are way higher than the predicted values calculated by the NOAA, NASA, and the International Space Environmental Service.
In fact, sunspot counts have been consistently higher than predicted levels since September 2020. This could mean that, in contrast to predictions, the Sun is in the swing of an unusually strong activity cycle.
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-sun-is-way-more-active-than-official-solar-weather-predictions
This guy has graph of sunspots which covers about 100 years.
I think people imagine 25 solar max will stronger because they think 25 will have a higher second peak.
As far as I know, one is predicting this, though many think 25 will be similar to 24. Which did have a higher second peak.
And some have said that solar cycle 25 max, has to have higher second peak.
But you should look at his graph.
There is no “has to have higher second peak” as 100 year graph indicates.
Maybe M(r)s Starr hasn’t read McIntosh & Leamon’s stuff yet?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-021-01938-7
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.10577.pdf
Maybe M(r)s Starr hasnt.
I was just looking for longer duration graph, but I thought I would quote of what M(r)s Starr wrote because it might align with a poster’s view.
Can you give cliff notes on McIntosh & Leamons stuff?
Not sure if I read it before {probably not, and/or in any kind of detail, so that it’s seared into my memory}.
We haven’t had a first peak yet, so there is no need to hope for a stronger second peak.
And you are suggesting a drop to 50 by November. Except for the very strongest cycles, there is NO example of the strength of a cycle falling by ANYWHERE NEAR that amount within its first four years. In fact there is only one cycle that was under 75 at the 4-year mark … the second of the Dalton cycles.
The Wikipedia page for SC25 lists 11 predictions for the strength of the cycle. Of those, 5 are above 150. The only reason you believe what is happening is unexpected is that you have been feeding on predictions that gave you what you wanted to see. It’s called selection bias.
“We havent had a first peak yet, so there is no need to hope for a stronger second peak.”
It’s possible we have not had the first peak yet, but will there be second peak or just one?
And if have second peak, will be stronger than first peak or weaker?
“And you are suggesting a drop to 50 by November.”
In November, yes. Though I will guess a range when get nearer. Mainly the guess has been for many months ago is that it will be “a lot lower” or dramatically lower.
And I am guessing it will affect what is said about cycle 25.
Whereas the steep fall of August, I was guessing it wouldn’t change anyone’s mind. Or it’s far too normal.
Nor will Sept or Oct.
But what actually matters is after Nov, months after it.
“Except for the very strongest cycles, there is NO example of the strength of a cycle falling by ANYWHERE NEAR that amount within its first four years. In fact there is only one cycle that was under 75 at the 4-year mark the second of the Dalton cycles.”
An easy graph to point to:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
23 cycle, Feb 2012, 47.8
But it bounced back quickly.
And I am guessing it will not bounce back,
and in modern era, yes, never seen be before in terms of months and years staying with low monthly sunspot numbers.
So the one month of Feb 2012, 47.8, didn’t have much effect on average curve.
But I am guessing Nov will mark the beginning of changing the averaged drawn line.
I was clearly referring to the SSN, not a single month. Basing your predictions on a single month was what got you into trouble this month. Basing your predictions on just a handful of months was what got you into trouble when the SSN shot up last December, and again when it shot up in May this year. You keep getting bitten but you never learn.
“You keep getting bitten but you never learn.”
That reminds me, do you think we will get spotless day in Sept?
THIS September? With today’s first observation from SILSO coming in at 244? With only 6 days to go after that? Of course not.
By the end of NEXT year … extremely unlikely, but can’t rule out a couple.
Earliest date for getting our 25th spotless day … late 2026, more likely 2027, possibly even 2028.
“THIS September? With todays first observation from SILSO coming in at 244? With only 6 days to go after that? Of course not.”
Yes, it does not seem likely.
“By the end of NEXT year extremely unlikely, but cant rule out a couple.-
So, in a year and few months, extremely unlikely but could a couple.
So, in year there could dip like in cycle 24 max.
“Earliest date for getting our 25th spotless day late 2026, ..”
So in 3 years there could deeper dip than cycle 24 max or
more likely in 5 year, had minor dip maybe and solar max 25 is winding down/entering solar min.
Well, it seems to me spots are growing fast and fading fast, and
I don’t why.
But if this is a thing {rather than just my inexperience looking at sunspots} small chance spotless before Oct
and I would say 20% chance in first two weeks of Oct.
But I am just talking about, maybe 1 spotless day.
But in say 5 months it could add up to 25 spotless days- would be my guess.
“it seems to me spots are growing fast and fading fast, and
I dont why”
This happens in ALL solar cycles at ALL times within the cycle. There is nothing peculiar about it at all.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
All in all, it took 17 months, two separate processes, and dozens of emails, who knows how much internal deliberation, for an official comment to get into the journal pointing issues that were obvious immediately the paper came out.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/the-scafetta-saga/
With all the respect expected from a layperson, I can only say that Gavin Schmidt, Gareth Jones and John Kennedy actually have little reason to worry about the length of the process: simply because of the huge complexity of Scafetta’s response to their comment, and the inevitably lengthy review of that reply.
barry
” … here you go, Barry. from a skeptic with a masters degree in electrical engineering plus a degree in geology, and who worked for Intel doing quality control, a job which prepare him eminently for dealing with statistics. ”
*
Once more, Robertson shows that he doesn’t understand the difference between
– real temperature measurements
and
– a simple stat about how many weather stations had their temperature maximum in which year.
*
He shows a simple stat made a decade ago by the manipulation genius Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard):
https://realclimate.science/2012/08/10/a-simple-proof-that-the-1930s-were-hotter/
This is so trivial. A simple proof of… nothing valuable.
Such a stat for CONUS, John Christy and I we have made years ago as well.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210112005636/https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Record-Temperatures-in-the-United-States.pdf
{ This time, I intentionally generated my chart like did Heller/Goddard. }
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14JbEQthIJx_JVkhZmX5QpwazQ2inzw8j/view
*
How is it possible to claim that a period is hotter than another one just because it had more daily maxima? And what about the daily minima in the same period?
What we must compare is therefore the average of maxima and minima temperatures.
Here is a chart averaging for CONUS daily maxima and minima over the years, made out of exactly the same GHCN daily station set as above:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CrBANW8x9rKKEeAG7i9VJYS8tRcfOc45/view
Yeah: looks a bit different, doesn’t it?
*
But we all can be sure that Robertson, who is a stubborn liar, will endlessly continue to lie about the allegedly ‘warm 1930s’.
*
By the way: it is always amusing to see Robertson posting links to data coming from NOAA-driven stations – when the data is presented by pseudo-skeptical guys.
Quand c’est pour la bonne cause, tout est bon, n’est-ce pas?
binny…”Such a stat for CONUS, John Christy and I we have made years ago as well”.
***
This reveals your l00ney side when you compare yourself to John Christy. I have read a lot of John’s work and I have read yours. John makes sense whereas you come across like a Klown.
As for your views on Tony Heller, you simply don’t understand this guy’s qualifications. He was the go-to guy at Intel for quality control. He worked on the i7 processor. That qualifies him eminently to analyze climate data and see the considerable fudging in it. Most people would miss it, but a for a guy like Tony, trained to spot inconsistencies in data, that’s right up his alley.
Tell me something, have you always been a pompous a$$, or is it something that has come over you recently?
Please provide a link to Intel listing him amongst their employees.
Why don’t you get your finger out and read Tony Heller’s bio.
So you believe Tony Heller worked for Intel because Tony Heller says he worked for Intel. Oh dear. Did you not understand “INTEL listing”?
” This reveals your l00ney side when you compare yourself to John Christy. ”
What’s that for a stoopid claim, Robertson?
I NEVER compared myself to anyone here.
I wrote that I did the same job as John Christy: once in 2017, and once in 2021. That’s it.
You, Robertson, are the one who is so technically uneducated that you would NEVER be able to replicate, let alone expand on, John Christy’s job.
And you, Robertson, are the arrogant and ignorant person who dares to question the meaningfulness of microwave sounding in the stratosphere, despite having not the tiniest idea of what they do.
*
” I have read a lot of Johns work and I have read yours. John makes sense whereas you come across like a Klown. ”
You don’t know AT ALL what Heller/Goddard, Christy and I exactly did.
There is only one clown here, Robertson, and that’s you.
As usual, you discredit and denigrate anything you don’t like in the hopes that it will disguise your lack of technical skills.
Robertson of course discredits and denigrates the evidence – instead of admitting that Heller aka Goddard used a completely wrong stat which IS NOT AT ALL ‘A Simple Proof That The 1930s Were Hotter’.
But we all can be sure that Robertson, who is a stubborn liar, will endlessly continue to lie about the allegedly ‘warm 1930s’.
Scott reveals the climate models shysterwork
https://youtu.be/svvMgelday0?t=1719
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
No Matter what teh Dilbert Tells You – Climate Science not Based on Models
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nrWQ4tMBrs
Dilbert does not know that we are living in an Ice Age.
When in an Ice Age temperature go up a lot and down a lot, but
it’s always cold.
15 C is cold.
Also many people don’t understand that in vacuum of space it
isn’t cold nor is it warm.
Most of the time on Earth has been warm, but there five known Ice Ages, and we are currently in an Ice Age.
A Ice Age has very cold polar regions.
It is also dry or has a lot deserts.
When we return to the coldest time in our Ice Age there are
a lot more deserts than we have now, and at the moment, more than
1/3 of the world land areas are deserts. And 8000 year ago, there was far less deserts. And about 5000 years ago, the Sahara desert started becoming the desert it is today.
And if colder period of the Little Ice Age was became about 2 C colder than it is now, had not warmed, but continued being cold, the Sahara desert would have become more of a desert than it is now.
Or the Sahara desert long 5000 year trend increasingly becoming more of desert, has delayed, until such time as Earth cools down to the lower temperature it was during the Little Ice Age.
Which might happen in a few centuries.
The last 5000 years has many century long periods of warming and cooling, but has long term gradual cooling trend.
And this long term cooling is normal in all interglacial periods.
Teh Dilbert did not know he would be decoded at the beginning of this episode either:
https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/interview-with-the-conspirituality-trio
There is so much stuff teh Dilbert does not know:
https://www.themarysue.com/anyone-saying-dilbert-creator-scott-adams-career-collapsed-overnight-hasnt-been-paying-attention/
Did you know that teh Dilbert lives in a house that was the form of teh Dilbert’s head?
I did not.
Dr. Richard Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry.
He served as the Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University and was appointed as the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the MIT. Dr. Lindzen has disputed the scientific consensus on climate change and criticizes what he has called climate alarmism.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/09/23/manufacturing-consent-in-times-of-crisis-dr-richard-lindzen-harvard-mit-climate-scientist-ds-183/
Lindzen is not a climate scientist.
But one could blame him, for creating “climate scientists”
gb…if Lindzen is not a climate scientist, I don’t know who is. Atmospheric physicists are about as close as you can get.
John Christy has a degree in climate science but I am sure John would be the last to argue that Lindzen is not qualified to talk about climate.
I remember the video in which Lindzen schooled Bill Nye the science guy on atmospheric physics. And Gavin Schmidt, the current had of NASA GISS, was quick (and smart) to dodge Lindzen in a debate. He too would have gotten his butt kicked. Not many in climate studies can stand up to Lindzen.
Well, he might not want to be called Climate scientist.
Or that seems reasonable to me.
I think he involved in making the first climate models- or he
knows what they are playing with.
Climate sHysteria
A Cleverly Staged Hoax. Former German TV Meteorologist Slams Climate Hysteria
A Cleverly Staged Hoax. Former German TV Meteorologist Slams Climate Hysteria
they reveal what is really behind the climate hysteria: a cleverly staged hoax, behind which lie tangible political and economic interests of the globalists.
https://notrickszone.com/2023/09/23/a-cleverly-staged-hoax-former-german-tv-meteorologist-slams-climate-hysteria/
He we see the new trend of referring to a TV weather presenter as a “meteorologist”.
“Because getting his high school diploma and studying meteorology didn’t quite work out, he applied for training as a weather service TECHNICIAN at the Meteorological Institute of the Free University in Berlin”
That goes along with referring to the mathematician Gavin Schmidt as a climate scientist.
Michael Mann, self appointed climate scientist and Nobel Laureate, has been referred to as a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat.
Apparently he wasn’t too happy with somebody pointing out inconvenient truths.
I presume that you haven’t been taken in by any of their garbage, but feel free to correct me if you have.
Typical manipulation by Gosselin’s TricksZone.This guy is able AND ready to any misrepresentation.
Bindidog shows up and lifts up his hind leg
… says the gullible dachshund who believes anything written on one of the least trustworthy blogs evah.
Weiter so, Eben!
Guys, havent you figured out that NOTRICKSZONE is really ALLTRICKSZONE?
Can’t find any real science there.
binny van der klown…”when John Christy & Roy Spencer show good agreement between satellite-based microwave sounding and radiosonde-based temperature measurements by NOAAs RATPAC, Robertson naturally applauds!”
***
When John and Roy compare the sat data to radiosondes, they are not measuring, or suggesting, a temperature for the stratosphere, they are using bulk emissions from O2 molecules in the stratosphere which become exceedingly rarer with altitude.
I would like to see Roy do an article on that, the reliability of the data the sats receive as the stratosphere increases in altitude. I have not claimed in any way, that temperatures in the stratosphere are wrong, I have only questioned the use of thermistors in such a cold environment.
Did you see either Roy or John indicate that the radiosonde temps and the sat temps tracked each other linearly all the way through the stratosphere? All I read from John was that the radiosondes corroborate the sat readings.
” I have only questioned the use of thermistors in such a cold environment. ”
You should not question what the UAH team does, Robertson.
Because you are nothing else than a pseudo-engineer, ‘un ingénieur d'opérette’ as we say in my native tongue, lacking in fact any knowledge to technically question anything.
*
” Did you see either Roy or John indicate that the radiosonde temps and the sat temps tracked each other linearly all the way through the stratosphere? ”
I never mentioned that, Robertson.
*
” All I read from John was that the radiosondes corroborate the sat readings. ”
You never read anything, Robertson. You simply scan documents for the presence of what you dislike and the absence of what you expect.
*
Btw, unlike me, you never have read anything about satellite sounding versus radiosonde measurements written by Christy/Norris, let alone anything written by Leopold Haimberger.
You would never understand anything of these papers.
Let alone would you ever be able, like should be any REAL engineer, to select Christy/Norris radiosonde selection out of the IGRA dataset, and to compare their 31 units with the entire dataset.
*
All what you are able to is to discredit, denigrate and… lie.
*
Anyone who credulously follows Robertsons garbage deserves it.
We had our first decent day of rain for several months and more is expected.
Typically, we will be overjoyed for a day or so then we’ll get back to grumbling about the rain. By November, we’ll be in full whine-mode and longing for a drought. Then we’ll get hit with Arctic air and the real grumbling will begin.
Even before the rain came, the grass was beginning to recover due to the heavier morning dew.
It’s tough being a human and having to cope with reality. We become so bored with weather that we have to conjure dreams of climate catastrophe.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures
https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
There is no such thing as a climate scientist.
There are only scientists who study climate.
Scientific Method is the same for study in all fields of science.
Core pillars in all fields of science are Math Physics and Chemistry.
Anyone who suggests that someone who has expertise in any particular field of science is somehow not qualified to speak about climate is a f oo l who has nothing to add to the discussion.
Climate Science is necessarily a multi-discipline field of study and any field of study has application.
It’s tough to have courses in something defined as the average of weather over 30 years. Technically, John Christy has a degree in atmospheric science and Roy has a degree in meteorology. Why either is called a climate scientist is not clear.
Then there is the word climatologist, where even an economist can be described as such. Michael Mann is a glorified geologist while his partner at realclimate, Gavin Schmidt has a degree in applied mathematics.
I had never heard of climate science till recently. When I was at university a while back, I never once heard the term climate science. No one talked about global warming or climate change, other than in courses like geology where they were referencing localized climates.
I doubt if there’s enough material related to climate to form a discipline requiring a degree. Then again, what would a dumb engineer know?
I teach maths.
I also do heart transplants for $49.95.
Thanks for recognising my qualifications.
Well, that’s nonsensical, isn’t it?
Lies, lies, and garbage to go with it.
No.
Next question …
Oh well, if you think your lies, lies and garbage to go with it is not a nonsensical response to a comment, then others will decide on your mental competence.
We have already decided on yours, fat boy.
You are likely a constipated mathematician, who works it out with a pencil.
Hey Bordo,
I’m Willard.
You have a very lovely profile and I wish to know you.
I will be glad if we can talk over chat.
You can find my email on my blog.
Am looking forward to meet you, but if you consider it an impropriety, am sorry *prayer hands*
Thank you.
“Anyone who suggests that someone who has expertise in any particular field of science is somehow not qualified to speak about climate is a f oo l who has nothing to add to the discussion.”
Perhaps, but they should be careful to learn as much as possible about the field before claiming they KNOW something that others havent already checked out.
There have been too many elderly accomplished people, who rest on their authority in a different field, and claim they KNOW things that climate science has been missing, when they actually don’t.
Example Nobel’s Disease
“Nobel disease or Nobelitis is the embracing of strange or scientifically unsound ideas by some Nobel Prize winners, usually later in life.[1][2][3] It has been argued that the effect results, in part, from a tendency for Nobel winners to feel empowered by the award to speak on topics outside their specific area of expertise,[4][5][6] although it is unknown whether Nobel Prize winners are more prone to this tendency than other individuals.[7] Paul Nurse, co-winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, warned later laureates against “believing you are expert in almost everything, and being prepared to express opinions about most issues with great confidence, sheltering behind the authority that the Nobel Prize can give you”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
The Wikipedia article forgot to include Ivar Giaever.
Worth adding..
Just when I thought there was nothing of interest until the next update, this nonsense appears. I know someone who is a Chemical Engineer. He is proud of his education and accomplishments. He is also a card carrying member of the Democrat Party (do they really carry a card?), and an environmental activist. He is fully committed to the climate crisis belief that WE are responsible and only the USA can solve the problem.
I asked if he had studied any of the science himself. He is certainly qualified to at least have an opinion on the basic science. His answer was blunt and emphatic that climate science should only be researched and discussed by qualified climate scientists. They are the experts and we must rely on their opinions. Private citizens like myself have no business trying to second guess the opinion of the qualified experts. He knows better, but is driven by his politics. He didn’t say this, but the message clearly was to “shut up and do what you are told”.
That is the problem. The general public including the media is clueless. The message is to only believe the scientist who support and “believe” in climate change. Anyone who opposes that view or wishes to contribute a different opinion is a climate change denier — the worst and most evil accusation there is! Wikipedia even has a long page explaining that climate denial is a mental illness. Once again, the message is to just shut up and do what you are told.
Yes Tim S, it’s a cult. They all think alike. Like most cults, they hate reality.
“this nonsense appears.”
Where is it? What do you disagree with in my response to you?
Nate, this is what you wrote”
“Perhaps, but they should be careful to learn as much as possible about the field before claiming they KNOW something that others havent already checked out.
There have been too many elderly accomplished people, who rest on their authority in a different field, and claim they KNOW things that climate science has been missing, when they actually dont.”
And this is my reply:
“That is the problem. The general public including the media is clueless. The message is to only believe the scientist who support and believe in climate change. Anyone who opposes that view or wishes to contribute a different opinion is a climate change denier the worst and most evil accusation there is! Wikipedia even has a long page explaining that climate denial is a mental illness. Once again, the message is to just shut up and do what you are told.”
Well, I predicted better than the Climateball Bingo:
https://climateball.net/but-denier/
Baby steps.
Tim,,
Not clear but do you really disagree with this?
“Perhaps, but they should be careful to learn as much as possible about the field before claiming they KNOW something”
My point is, whether someone is young and getting up to speed in their chosen scientific field, or older and trying to contribute to a field outside their own expertise, they need to learn a great deal about what is already known, before contributing something to that field.
All the science revolutionaries, Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Darwin, were deeply knowledgeable about the previous paradigms in their fields, before making their discoveries.
There have been too many people, who as I said, are typically older, accomplished in another area, and leap into climate science without doing the required work, and trading on their renown in another area.
There many examples, such as Nobelist Ivar Giaever, resting on their credentials in another field, to claim their outlier views on Climate Science should be taken seriously.
Nate, at least you are honest, whether you meant to be or not. Rather than acknowledge that science is about data and proof rather than opinion and consensus, you have doubled down on your claim that only the people you agree with are allowed to make political comments about climate.
This quote is from a link you provided for the latest work from James Hansen. Like you, he is not shy about expressing his political views. Here are his closing remarks from the published work that I assume was peer reviewed. In the modern era, and especially about climate, the science takes a back seat to the politics and the selection of who gets to speak and who does not:
“Without such data, we will be flying blind into a future fraught with dangers. At the very least, we owe young people the knowledge of what we are getting them into.”
What exactly is his crime? This is from the footnotes on his Wikipedia page (by the way, Jimmy just sent me an email congratulating and thanking me for being among the 2% who support Wikipedia):
“Nobel Prize Winner for Physics in 1973, Ivar Giaever, a fellow of the American Physical Society, declared himself a dissenter in 2008. “I am a skeptic,” Giaever announced in June 2008. “Global warming has become a new religion,” Giaever added. “I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around. The ozone hole width has peaked in 1993,” he continued. “Moreover, global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don’t really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he added.”
“Rather than acknowledge that science is about data and proof rather than opinion and consensus, you have doubled down on your claim that only the people you agree with are allowed to make political comments about climate.”
It’s clear, Tim, based on your misunderstanding of my posts, that you have likely also misunderstood your Chemical Engineer friend’s beliefs.
I have only ever been about the science and the data. The reality is that the science comes from climate scientists and their papers.
My problem is with faux authorities, like Ivar Giaever, who have not contributed any science, data, discoveries to this field, but claim their opinion still matters.
He did a pioneering experiment 60 years ago, on quantum tunneling into superconductors (close to my heart) and won a Nobel.
Now he is 90 something, hasn’t contributed to science in decades, and not to climate science ever, and has a clear political agenda. Why should he have any more credibility to speak on climate science than Gordon or Swenson?
You seem to ready to grant people like him authority status anyway!
Hansen has contributed significantly to Climate Science. I posted his interesting data and analysis for people to look at, without endorsing it.
I take his opinions with a grain of salt, because he is now an activist.
tim s…”I know someone who is a Chemical Engineer. He is proud of his education and accomplishments. He is also a card carrying member of the Democrat Party (do they really carry a card?), and an environmental activist. He is fully committed to the climate crisis belief that WE are responsible and only the USA can solve the problem”.
***
You failed to mention that he is an idi0t. There are engineers, who despite getting a degree, fail to grasp what it is they had been taught. When I was studying engineering, one of the guys suddenly realized in 3rd year that the L in L.di/dt was an actual physical coil (inductor).
I had considerable experience in electronics before returning to university to study engineering. I had a summer job with an electronics outfit and one of my jobs was working for a noob graduate engineer to breadboard schematics he had dreamt up. Breadboarding means building the circuit on a special board where the leads of components can be plugged directly into it.
When I first saw the circuit he had given me, I noticed the power output transistors were drawn backwards. The collector on an NPN transistor always goes to a positive rail while on a PNP it always goes to a negative rail, or ground, in this case, with a unipolar power supply. I needed to box clever because the last thing you want to call your boss is a dumbass.
Anyway, using as much diplomacy as possible, I broached the issue. Thankfully, he lacked the need to save face and just said, “Oh…why do you say that”? When I pointed out the issue, he agreed. Fortunately he was one of those rare birds who is willing to learn, even from a subordinate who likely had far more practical experience than him. Then he handed me a pad of paper and a pencil, telling me to write down as many errors as I could find. There were several.
There is no reason to presume that your chemical engineering friend is any different. In fact, his opinion directly contradicts that of Philip Latour, a chemical engineer with considerable practical experience in the field. Latour is not shy about invoking the 2nd law, a subject your friend either missed or did not understand.
Parker Probes Path Through Solar Blast Yields Unparalleled Space Weather Insights
Posted on 09/21/2023 15:07:49
http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/Show-Article.php?articleID=192
“Cruising on the far side of the Sun just 5.7 million miles (9.2 million kilometers) from the solar surface 22.9 million miles (36.8 million kilometers) closer than Mercury ever gets to the Sun Parker Solar Probe first detected the CME remotely before skirting along its flank. The spacecraft later passed into the structure, crossing the wake of its leading edge (or shock wave), and then finally exited through the other side.”
…
–This is the closest to the Sun weve ever observed a CME, said Nour Raouafi, the Parker Solar Probe project scientist at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland, which built the spacecraft within NASAs timeline and budget, and currently manages and operates the mission. Weve never seen an event of this magnitude at this distance.
The CME on Sept. 5, 2022, was an extreme one. As Parker passed behind the shock wave, its Solar Wind Electrons, Alphas and Protons (SWEAP) instrument suite clocked particles accelerating up to 840 miles (1,350 kilometers) per second. Had it been directed toward Earth, Raouafi suspects it would have been close in magnitude to the Carrington Event a solar storm in 1859 that is held as the most powerful on record to hit Earth.–
–Were still not exactly sure what is happening there or how to connect it to the other two sections, Romeo said.
Advanced models that include more of the spacecrafts measurements will likely help, but passing through another CME would do even better. With the Sun near the peak of its activity cycle, CMEs should happen more frequently. With a bit of luck, the team hopes, Parker Solar Probe will fly through several more ejections as it winds ever closer to the Sun.–
That is nice to know.
Oh also:
Countdown to next milestone
Perihelion: September 27, 2023, 23:29 UTC
3 days 14 hr 44 min
Perihelion occurs in January.
For Earth, for Parker Solar Probe, about 3 days.
Got it!
Thanks for clarifying.
For gbaikie:
https://tinyurl.com/Sunspot-Count-Range
This graph shows, for each of the last 1500 months (ie. 125 years), the daily range in sunspots (highest daily count – lowest daily count) as a function of the average sunspot count for that month.
For example, using the regression curve in red, a month which averages 150 spots per day has on average a range of about 170.
In other words, the massive variability in sunspot counts over a month is the norm, not a peculiarity of this cycle.
Should say MONTHLY range in DAILY sunspots.
Nice job.
Solar wind
speed: 318.7 km/sec
density: 3.83 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 24 Sep 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 198
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 182 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.70×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.9% Low
That is a very high daily sunspot number for solar cycle 25
And during Sept there were quite low daily sunspot days.
And during Sept spots appeared appearing and growing quickly on
the nearside as compared to old spot returning to the nearside.
Of course my perception is looking at sun in one moment each day, rather constantly seeing the sun minute by minute of a day- or it’s
a limited view compared to what is available.
Anyhow, I see no new spot coming from the farside and spots leaving to the farside. And it appears to me, spots on nearside are fading rather than growing rapidly as the were a few days ago.
Also waiting next update, but the older one remains:
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
18 September – 14 October 2023
Solar activity is expected to be at low to moderate (R1-R2 / Minor
to Moderate) levels throughout the period.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
expected to be at low to moderate levels through the period.
Geomagnetic field activity is likely to be at G1-G2 (Minor to
Moderate) levels on 19 Sep and unsettled to active levels on 20 Sep,
all due to CME effects. Unsettled to active levels are likely on 21,
23-24 and 28-30 Sep due to CH HSS activity. Mostly quiet levels are
expected on 18, 25-27 Sep and 01-14 Oct. —
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
So people who see more and know more aren’t appearing to say something the polar opposite of what I am guessing.
Look at
https://www.stce.be/content/sc25-tracking
This is the real source of most data.
Ok, bookmarked it again. I did:
https://www.stce.be/
and:
https://www.stce.be/content/sc25-tracking
I like graph of “/content/sc25-tracking”
But kind of more info than I need- and going to repeat
my habit with https://www.spaceweather.com/
As said mostly interested in GCR radiation.
And I wish I knew the difference of GCR at Venus orbit, and Earth and Mars orbit.
Mars seems spotty, and Venus is non existent as far as I know.
Solar wind
speed: 467.4 km/sec
density: 18.81 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 24 Sep 23
Sunspot number: 172
Updated 24 Sep 2023
“STRONGER-THAN-EXPECTED CME IMPACT: As predicted, a CME hit Earth’s magnetic field on Sept. 24th (2043 UT). The impact was much stronger than expected, deflecting magnetometer needles in Canada by as much as 129 nT. ”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 182 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.70×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.9% Low
There is a hint something could be going from farside, and spots
are leaving the nearside.
Oh. There is something coming from farside.
No spotless day- for at least couple weeks.
Just the fact that you think a spotless day is coming any time soon just boggles the mind.
“…a spotless day is coming any time soon just boggles the mind.”
I only gave it a low chance before Oct, and it’s not a good change in early Oct.
Now, it’s tiny chance before Oct, as things didn’t go the way I guessed they would. In general, Neutron Counts seems the most unexpected or cause the most doubt because Neutron count are right now, are as close to a normal range for Solar max cycle- and near term trend seems that it has a good chance to continue.
Or roughly {and it is only roughly} neutron counts reflect the Sun’s global activity.
Plus, it’s the only thing I am actually, interested in.
Solar wind
speed: 519.7 km/sec
density: 11.64 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 26 Sep 23
Sunspot number: 164
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 170 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.78×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.0% Low
The farside spot is 3448 and grew little spot while coming to nearside. 3447 is far in northern hemisphere and appeared about in middle of nearside.
Rather the thermosphere getting near 19.00 it’s climbed back up
to 19.78 and the neutron count indicates typical solar activity for Solar Max near it’s peak. Both these seem “jumpy”.
And spots are leaving to farside.
I guessed 3435 would fade more than it did, rather than fade it might form into typical large spot and take weeks to fade.
But I don’t other spots coming from farside, and spot appearing on nearside continues to be a “thing”, so perhaps more spots will appear rather come from farside. Or little spot ahead 3448 could grow more for example. And 3447 could continue to grow even bigger.
Solar wind
speed: 468.6 km/sec
density: 14.02 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 27 Sep 23
Sunspot number: 179
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 165 sfu
“Four sunspots have ‘beta-gamma’ and/or ‘delta-class’ magnetic fields that harbor energy for strong M-class solar flares: AR3435, AR3443, AR3445 and AR3449”
AR3349 is the tiny spot {which wasn’t numbered} which appeared near
3448 when it came from farside {has grown to have many small spots-
or it did grow, as I guessed above. Or it’s close to farside less than 1/4 into nearside, and AR3445 is about 3/4 of way thru nearside.
3435 and 3443 are going to farside.
Or only one “roughly” directly facing Earth is 3445. But in few days
3449 will get closer to directly facing Earth.
There another tiny hard to see spot {not mumbered}, by itself which came from farside which is northern hemisphere. Otherwise see nothing
coming to nearside. And spots are leaving the nearside.
Also, 3447 did appear to have grown a bit bigger.
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.78×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.9% Low
48-hr change: -0.1%
Solar wind
speed: 392.8 km/sec
density: 0.26 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 27 Sep 23
Sunspot number: 138
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 165 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.00×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.6% Low
The numbered spots, 3443 and 3441 are still on nearside {holding
on with their finger nails]. The non faded 3435 is next to leave after them to farside.
See nothing new coming from farside.
Spots aren’t growing and small spots have disappear, but not the hard to see tiny spot in southern Hemisphere- appears unchanged.
So, spots might appear, but otherwise, the sunspot number will lower more.
A few minutes later, it changes picture of sun- stats are same.
And a spot did come from farside, 4450. In around same area as tiny spot {which has now disappeared}. And a new message:
“Sunspot AR3449 has a ‘beta-gamma’ magnetic field that harbors energy for M-class solar flares. Other spots on the sun have decayed.”
I would say one left to farside but was also decaying.
The two clinger left the picture, next is 3435. Oh, I see -and it finally, started to decay a bit.
So they must give sunspot number first then changed picture, so not going to change/lower spot number, as fast as I thought.
It’s possible 4450 grew rather came from farside {and I missed seeing it} but again don’t see anything coming from farside, but if 4450 grew, it could continue growing {a get much bigger- and, it’s fairly small now {a close twin of two small ones and further back am even smaller one}. So sunspot number could increase, quickly- rather decrease quickly.
And maybe, 3435 could fade completely before leaves to farside, so making my guess somewhat “close” {though I thought it would fade lot more sooner].
Solar wind
speed: 427.9 km/sec
density: 3.95 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 28 Sep 23
Sunspot number: 109
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 156 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.00×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.4% Low
So, this seems a repeat, the picture of spots has not
been changed yet. Or picture looks like sunspot number: 138
So I will guess what cause the 138 to 109 change {for fun}
It doesn’t seem there is enough time for 3435 to go to farside,
so might just “decayed” really fast.
Plus going to guess, 3447 faded a bit, going to guess 3450 grew a bit
but not by a lot.
And can’t say whether I see any spots coming from farside, yet
well new picture of sun appeared and 3450 did grow a significant amount but not a lot. But 3435 didn’t fade a lot and still on nearside. But not clear to me why spot number is 109.
And I see no spots coming from farside.
And probably 3450 could grew more in next day.
Also this was added:
“All of these sunspots are in decay, with simplifying magnetic fields that pose a decreasing threat for strong flares.”
And:
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 148 sfu
oh, and:
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.0% Low
48-hr change: +0.6%
And:
QUIET WEEKEND: Last weekend, a CME hit Earth’s magnetic field, sparking two days of geomagnetic storms and an outburst of rare red auroras. This weekend will be completely different. No CMEs are heading for Earth, and our planet’s magnetic field should remain calm and quiet.
And my guesses were a mixed bag.
Ah, finally, AQ is actually trying to do some science.
Good stuff, carry on.
Do you actually believe anyone has “done science” here?
You have an odd idea of what “doing science” involves.
AQ,
Do you actually believe that anybody values the opinion of such as yourself?
If you do, can you name it?
Mike Flynn,
I do.
Not as much as I care for your braying, but I do.
Assuming you want to improve your English skills, you need a noun or pronoun between “of” and “such” (either plural, or singular with the indefinite article).
Also, the personal pronoun associated with a person is never “it”, unless you are talking about a baby or infant.
Am I assuming too much?
Little Willy, Antonin, please stop trolling.
You peons go eat bugz
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/09/elites-enjoy-lavish-dinner-palace-versailles-while-discussing/
Canada likely had a fat representative there while back home, the Parliament was giving a WW II Nazi a standing O.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
On Jan. 25, 2018, dozens of private jets descended on Palm Springs International Airport. Some of the richest people in the country were arriving for the annual winter donor summit of the Koch network, the political organization founded by libertarian billionaires Charles and David Koch. A long weekend of strategizing, relaxation in the California sun and high-dollar fundraising lay ahead.
Just after 6 p.m., a Gulfstream G200 jet touched down on the tarmac. One of the Koch networks most powerful allies was on board: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-secretly-attended-koch-brothers-donor-events-scotus
The story does not say if Clarence ate bugz.
Willard purveys second hand news, attempting to appear intelligent.
Mike Flynn appears to be braying, the only sign of intelligence he condescended so far.
Willard is infatuated with a figment of his imagination – for some reason beyond the ken of mere mortals.
[chuckles softly]
Mike Flynn still pretends not being Mike Flynn.
He’s also still braying.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gbaikie
You might find this of interest.
https://theconversation.com/was-the-freak-medicane-storm-that-devastated-libya-a-glimpse-of-north-africas-future-213680
–Our finding that more rain was falling above Susah Cave during warm periods suggests we should get more storms hitting eastern Libya as the climate warms. This is not quite what the IPCC forecasts, with their prediction of fewer but larger storms, show.
But storm strength is measured in wind speed, not rainfall. The caves could well be recording an important detail of past storminess which were not yet able to forecast. —
Strange that I would guess this happens.
But reading article and number died from flooding.
Swimming is a cultural thing and a modern thing- though there was fads swimming in ancient times.
You could easily die in a flood, if you can swim, but what if you can’t swim?
ent…it’s weather. If you are inferring it is related to anthropogenic warming them kindly explain how a warming of 1C over 170 years can cause such storms. Raise the thermometer in your home by 1C and see what effect it has.
Increase the temperature of a developing storm by 1C and it carries 7% more water vapour.
When the water vapour condenses it gives the storm 7% more energy, ie. greater wind speeds. It also dumps 7% more rainfall.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
Osiris-Rex: NASA returns sample from asteroid Bennu to Earth
https://news.sky.com/story/osiris-rex-nasa-returns-sample-from-asteroid-bennu-to-earth-12968837
“The capsule glowed red hot as it hit the upper atmosphere and plunged towards the Earth, with temperatures inside expected to peak at 2,800C, before parachutes deployed near the very end of its descent to safely bring it to the ground in the Utah desert.”
Contiuing:
“A NASA capsule carrying the largest sample ever collected from an asteroid has returned to Earth.
The capsule, which landed in the Utah desert at 3.52pm, contained around 250g of rocks and dust collected from asteroid Bennu as part of NASA’s Osiris-Rex mission.”
So, .000250 tons.
But compared others which were in grams, a lot.
With Apollo, it was tons. But no one has come vaguely close to that,
yet.
The crewed lunar mission to lunar poles could easily, surpass it.
Longer article about it:
https://www.geekwire.com/2023/nasa-osiris-rex-sample-asteroid/
linked from: https://cosmiclog.com/
–OSIRIS-REx follows up on earlier sample return missions including Stardust, which brought back samples of cometary and interstellar dust in 2006 under the leadership of University of Washington astronomer Don Brownlee; and Hayabusa 1 and Hayabusa 2, a pair of Japanese missions that returned smaller samples of asteroids in 2010 and 2020.
After todays touchdown, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson heralded OSIRIS-REx as the beginning of a new chapter in the study of near-Earth objects. This mission proves that NASA does big things, he said. It wasnt Mission Impossible, it was The Impossible Became Possible.’–
And:
–The capsule took advantage of a heat shield to withstand temperatures of up to 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit during its 27,000 mph plunge. Then it deployed its parachute and floated down to a touchdown on the Defense Departments Utah Test and Training Range at 8:52 a.m. MT (7:52 a.m. PT).
Dante Lauretta, the OSIRIS-REx missions principal investigator, told reporters that he literally broke into tears when he heard that the parachute had deployed as planned. That was the moment I knew we made it home, he said.–
NSF Live: Eric Berger – Starship Flight 2 and the Big Falcon 9 Surge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjqNaBk7aTY
It’s pretty good.
I was listening to:
Combat Drones & Future Air Warfare – Autonomy, Teaming & Next-generation Drone Wingmen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-0L5Wv86fQ
But I found top one, and going finish it first.
You won’t read this on the mainstream media because they seldom print the truth. However, the Canadian Parliament stood and applauded a former Ukrainian Nazi on the Zelenski entourage to Canada. Why Zelenski would want to associate with former Nazis is the question. The Nazi in question actually fought with the Nazis in the Ukraine in WWII.
https://www.reuters.com/world/canada-house-speaker-apologizes-recognition-veteran-who-fought-nazis-2023-09-24/
The problem here is not a simple error, it’s the abject ignorance represented by Canada and other nations who blindly support the Ukrainian cause. The Ukraine is rife with these Nazi lovers who have gone so far as to oust a democratically-elected president, Yanokovich, in 2014. That’s what the current war is about.
Each year, thousands of them hold candlelight vigils for Stepan Bandera, another Nazi supporter wanted at Nuremberg for war crimes. They also honour the SS Galacia, a Ukrainian battalion who fought with the Nazis.
Meantime, our PM applauds the Chinese form of government and regarded Cuban dictator, Castro, as a friend.
https://instapundit.com/
Links
https://www.rebelnews.com/watch_parliament_gives_standing_ovation_to_ukrainian_nazi
Instapundit:
“SPRING FASCISM PREVIEW: Canadian Parliament gives standing ovation to Ukrainian Nazi.
Speaker of the House Anthony Rota recognized Yaroslav Hunka, 98, for his service in the First Division of the Ukrainian National Army before immigrating to Canada.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau welcomed him as an honoured guest as part of Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskys visit to Canada.
We have with us in the Chamber today a Ukrainian-Canadian veteran from the Second World War who fought for Ukrainian Independence against the Russians and continues to support the troops today, said Rota.
All House parties, Senate groups and foreign dignitaries gave Hunka a standing ovation for his efforts against the Russians then and now.
Hes a Ukrainian hero a Canadian hero and we thank him for all his service, concluded Rota.
However, Canadas leading military affairs reporter, David Pugliese, wrote a 2020 article that says no such First Division existed during WWII.
Members of the division served Adolf Hitlers 14th Waffen SS Division Galicia a designated criminal organization, according to the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, reported military journal esprit de corps.
As many as 2,000 Waffen SS soldiers of Ukrainian heritage, including Hunka, supposedly changed their identities and masqueraded as refugees before capture to seek refuge in Canada in the 1950s.
As many as 30,000 Ukrainian refugees fled Europe for Canada at the time.
Before members of the unit surrendered to Allied forces, they hid their SS connection in the final days of the war by renaming themselves the First Division Ukrainian National Army.”
And:
More details at Forward: Zelenskyy joins Canadian Parliaments ovation to 98-year-old veteran who fought with Nazis.
…
https://forward.com/fast-forward/561927/zelenskyy-joins-canadian-parliaments-ovation-to-98-year-old-veteran-who-fought-with-nazis/
Hunka is a Canadian citizen and has been for decades. His only crime was being a soldier on the wrong side of history. Yeah, no way he should be getting an ovation in Parliament.
But still no outrage about the $9 billion we don’t have being given to Ukraine …
Yes, it is sort of like “no outrage about the $9 billion we dont have being given to Ukraine”
But in simple terms, there is nothing here to support- it’s utterly unsupportable.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects, Warmer Still.and.
The Four Known Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earths Climate
both by Dr Pierre Latour, PhD Chemical Engineering at the.
Principia Scientific International webs site are some of the NO Warmists arguments.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-189181
2015. Time flies and Bordo keeps forgetting.
wee willy…more on Dr. Pierre Latour, s’il vous plait.
C’mon, Bordo.
Tell me about Philip first.
C’mon Willard, tell him about Mike Flynn.
Let your imagination run free.
That is best left to you.
Well, that’s certainly cryptic.
Silly Mike Flynn.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
nate…”Perhaps, but they should be careful to learn as much as possible about the field before claiming they KNOW something that others havent already checked out…”
***
In the case of Tony Heller, he does not need experience in climate-related field. All he is doing is studying published statistics and finding contradictions and outright fudging in them. His job at Intel was to do just that (not fudging but inaccuracies) and he’s good at it.
Why dos someone need expertise in a field when he’s only looking for bs?
Tony Heller claims in his article…”The top five years for setting record maximums were all during the 1930s. No year this century even shows up in the top fifteen. Last year didnt even make the top sixty”.
https://realclimate.science/2012/08/10/a-simple-proof-that-the-1930s-were-hotter/
***
Binny, nor anyone else who sling ad homs at Tony, can refute his claim. Binny considers himself an expert on NOAA/USHCN yet he can conjure no evidence to refute Tony. All they have are ad homs and insults.
Robertson appealing to Heller/Goddard’s authority… wonderful!
*
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1539343
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Here is where teh Goddard admits making stuff up:
https://tinyurl.com/goddard-admits-making-stuff-up
Teh Goddard later became Tony Heller.
Willard expresses his level mental acuity by pretending he can’t spell “the”, and posting nonsense unrelated to SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE, which is irrelevant anyway.
Cretin.
Mike Flynn is braying again.
Oh no, my love’s at an end.
Oh no, Mike’s raining again.
Except for Bordo it’s hard to pretend
[Chorus]
You seem to have lost control completely.
Good.
Mike Flynn,
You seem to be braying.
Again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
–Comment and Reply to GRL on evaluation of CMIP6 simulations
Posted on September 24, 2023 by curryja | 20 Comments
by Nicola Scafetta —
https://judithcurry.com/2023/09/24/comment-and-reply-to-grl-on-evaluation-of-cmip6-simulations/
,,, skipping down:
“My Reply demonstrates that Schmidt et al. made gross statistical and physical errors and that, in any case, their critiques do not change the conclusions of my 2022 GRL paper.”
The REAL Tony Heller!
https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony-heller/
What ? no rape accusations ? well that’s weak
test
ENSO anomalies for week ending Sep 23:
1.2 … +2.8 (up 0.2)
..3 … +2.1 (down 0.1)
3.4 … +1.7 (up 0.1)
..4 … +1.2 (up 0.1)
The English here will understand this perfectly. :–)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2023/sep/23/rishi-sunak-saves-his-job-but-not-the-planet-cartoon
The Guardian newspaper is the bastion of woke and alarmism, so not very credible.
Anon is a garden-variety contrarian.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Today, there is scientific consensus that climate is changing in adverse ways influenced by humans, and that humans can reduce these adverse climate effects by limiting and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Many energy companies have set corporate policies to reduce CO2 emissions to “net zero” by 2050.
AIChE developed its current climate change policy ( AIChE AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Policy Statement) through an extensive effort among AIChE members to question, probe, and critique the current understanding of climate science; this effort was organized by the Public Affairs and Information Committee (PAIC) at the request of the Board of Directors. The policy is action-oriented and summarized by its lead statement, “Our community is committed to playing a leadership role in offering solutions to climate change through systems and other approaches that will create resilient and sustainable processes, products, and facilities.”…
P.s.: in case you’ve been living under a rock…
Scientific consensus is nonsensical, if it does not reflect reality.
Neither you nor anybody else can specify how your mythical GHGs can affect weather.
I applaud your uncritical (but completely misguided) devotion to the nutty ideas of people like Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, amongst others.
Your weird attempts to appeal to the authority of the multitudes won’t turn fiction into fact.
Try something else.
Most such institutions are corrupt. Ever heard of “WOKE”?
This nonsense won’t stop until members get fed up and stop paying dues.
Don’t tell me you’re into sovereign stuff too, Pupman.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Turns out CO2 not so good for plants, or the people that plant them.
Life science company Bayer commissioned an agency to independently interview 800 farmers globally, representing farms large and small from Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, India, Kenya, Ukraine, and the United States in equal numbers.
71% of farmers say that climate change already has a large impact on their farm, and even more are worried about the impact this will have in the future. 73% have experienced increasing pest and disease pressure. On average, farmers estimate that their incomes had reduced by 15.7% due to climate change in the past two years. One in six farmers even identifies income losses of over 25% during this period.
Meanwhile, Greece’s agricultural heartland is under water – and recovery will take a long time.
Athens is asking Brussels for aid after a violent storm brought record rainfall last week, turning the Thessalian plain – home to a quarter of the country’s agricultural production – into a vast lake.
“We’ve had the worst floods in our history. This is probably one of the most powerful storms to ever hit Europe,” Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said after meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Strasbourg on Tuesday.
The region of Thessaly saw more than a year’s worth of rainfall in 48 hours, inundating the fertile plain at its center. According to the EU’s Copernicus monitoring service, some 73,000 hectares – an area nearly as large as New York City – are under water.
With the plain accounting for 25 percent of Greece’s agricultural production, the threat of shortages and price hikes now looms large.
Efthymios Lekkas, a disaster management expert, told state television that it would take at least five years for the plain to become fertile again.
CO2 is plant food. People who grow the plants exhale CO2. They also eat the plants which consume the CO2. Win-win.
The climate has always changed.
https://climateball.net/but-life#plant-food
Appealing to your own authority again?
Not terribly clever.
Mike Flynn braying again?
Today will be a good day.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Increase the temperature of a developing storm by 1C and it carries 7% more water vapour.
When the water vapour condenses it gives the storm 7% more energy, ie. greater wind speeds. It also dumps 7% more rainfall.
EM,
The extra heat came from somewhere. Where did temperatures drop, and what were the consequences?
The extra heat is accumulating since the rate of energy loss to space has decreased while the incoming energy remains constant.
CO2 does NOT provide “extra heat”, Ent. You’re imagining things again, like your “passenger jets flying backward”.
Learn to go with reality, NOT against it.
Swenson, ClintR
Measurements show that the surface is warming and the energy content of the climate system (land, ocean, ice and atmosphere ) is increasing by 10^22 Joules/year.
You claim that the warming is not due to CO2.
I look forward to your alternative explanation Don’t forget the supporting evidence.
Earth has been in a warming trend since about 1970. That’s verified by many sources, including UAH. That’s a fact that is very well supported and accepted.
To raise the temperature of anything, the “right kind” of energy must be added. The energy MUST be able to increase the kinetic energy of the molecules in the object, to raise the temperature. Adding an ice cube to a cup of hot coffee is adding energy, but it’s NOT the “right kind” of energy.
Now, it’s your turn. Why do you oppose reality? Why would you claim passenger jets fly backward? Why would your cult attempt to support such nonsense?
“Adding an ice cube to a cup of hot coffee is adding energy, but its NOT the right kind of energy.”
But adding photons is ALWAYS ‘the right kind of energy’. Adding energy without adding mass ALWAYS increases the average KE of the atoms of an object, thus increasing the temperature.
Folkerts, we already know your cult believes ice cubes can boil water. That nonsense is now beyond boring. You need to come up with some new distortion of reality. Look at Norman, he’s invented “square orbits”.
At least he’s creative….
Typical Clint. He has no response, so he reverts back to some OTHER CLAIM and attacks that instead. (Which in this case is ALSO wrong)
Does a photon add energy to an object when it is absorbed by that object? YES!
Does that energy raise the average energy of the atoms of object that absorbs the photon? YES.
Does the increased energy raise the temperature? YES.
There is zero wiggle room here. Photons — of any energy/wavelength/frequency — raise the temperature of an object when they get absorbed. Photons ARE the ‘right kind of energy’.
Wrong Folkerts! You are the one throwing slop against the wall. Let’s get back to my original point, so we can limit your wiggle room:
1. Does adding ice to hot coffee add energy, YES or NO?
2. Does the coffee get hotter, YES or NO?
Ant,
Since you claim to be a scientist, then you should understand he doesn’t have to have an alternate theory. He only has to falsify yours. However, if you’re a propagandist…..
Ent,
No, measurements by actual scientists show that the Earth is losing energy at a rate of about 44 tW. You can look it up, if you don’t believe me. If a body is emitting more energy than it receives, it cools. Its temperature drops.
You are confused by so-called air temperature readings, which are used by people who should know better as proxies for the average temperature of the Earth (which is pointless anyway).
Regardless of the fact that you refuse to believe that the Earth has cooled since its creation, it has. Quite a lot. Its interior radiogenic heat sources are running down, and its exterior heat source (the Sun) provides insufficient energy to prevent the Earth from cooling down to a temperature where the planet will be isothermal beyond the seasonal s effects of the Sun (around 30 m or so).
It doesn’t matter what you think, facts don’t change.
Stephen Anderson
“Since you claim to be a scientist, then you should understand he doesnt have to have an alternate theory. He only has to falsify yours. ”
You are thinking like Popper. I’m thinking like Kuhn.
ClintR doesn’t have to only falsify one experiment, he has to overturn a paradigm.
To do that he has to show that all the evidence should be interpreted in a different and better way. Since he has nothing with which to replace CO2AGW, his quest is hopeless.
Ent, your “paradigm” is nothing more than your cult beliefs. And, beliefs ain’t science.
You can’t describe (without violating the laws of physics) how a 15μ photon can warm a 288K surface.
Just like with the Moon issue, and your imagination that passenger jets fly backward, science is NOT about making up nonsense.
Ent,
You may think as you wish. The facts don’t change.
You don’t seem to accept the fact that thermometers are designed to indicate how hot they are. They respond to external radiation, showing an increase in temperature if the external radiation is more energetic and of a greater quantity than that emitted by the thermometer, and the reverse.
Nobody has managed to make a thermometer hotter by inserting CO2 between the thermometer and a heat source.
Think away.
No, Clint , your ORIGINAL point in this discussion was “CO2 does NOT provide “extra heat”, Ent. “
[NOTE: “heat” is being use here as a synonym for “internal energy”, U]
Photons DO provide ‘extra heat’.
Photons DO provide ‘right kind of energy’ to raise the temperature of objects they are absorbed by.
Once we resolve your ORIGINAL point, maybe we can move on.
Quit wiggling Folkerts. We don’t need any distractions about the definition of “heat”. I understand it better than you. Just answer the questions.
1. Does adding ice to hot coffee add energy, YES or NO?
2. Does the coffee get hotter, YES or NO?
How Mighty Tim systematically OBLITERATES your riddles must be frustrating for you, Pupman.
Clint R 9:08am as usual leaves out a few crucial words on topic of this blog:
1. Does adding icy radiation to hot coffee add energy to the coffee, YES or NO? A: Yes.
2. Does the coffee get hotter over coffee without the added icy radiation, YES or NO? A: Yes.
Clint R just doesn’t ever understand that IR radiation is not heat.
The cult can’t correctly answer the simple, straight-forward questions.
This is why I like to keep things simple. The cult tactics are much easier to see.
“Typical Clint. He has no response, so he reverts back to some OTHER CLAIM and attacks that instead”
Indeed. Clearly photons add energy when abs.orbed.
Clearly Clint has no sensible argument why they shouldn’t, so he babbles on and on about ice cubes.
Yeah, pity Clint doesn’t understand climate & always asks questions like Clint R is on a beverage blog.
Nate shows up to contribute his incompetence.
So now, it’s Ball4, Willard, and Nate, all trying to help Folkerts. (Where’s bob, Norman, barry and Swanson?)
If the cult believes it’s in trouble over Folkerts’ “ice cubes can boil water” nonsense, wait until we have the discussion on this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1538468
That’s why this is so much fun.
“Thats why this is so much fun.”
Nah. Clint again seeks attention with ridiculous claims, never has the goods to support them. Gets ridiculed.
Same booring story.
“wait until we have the discussion on this …”
Really? That is your big ‘gotcha’?
* I understood the gist of your comment.
* I answered (correctly) the gist of your comment.
The only ‘error’ was not reading exactly enough to note that you were discussing
* the SAME pair of bricks at two different sets of temperatures
rather than
* DIFFERENT pairs of brick at two different sets of temperatures
Ya got me! Throw me in physics prison!
Or … actually discuss the physics as you understand it for two bricks at 273 K and 303 K and the IR that gets absorbed some distance above the bricks by an IR thermometer.
I understand you’re worried Folkerts. Reality is sometimes hard to swallow.
I understand you don’t want to discuss actual science, Clint. Physics is sometimes hard to grasp.
Space is slightly cooler.
Indeed. That’s why all the heat of the day is lost at night, as Fourier pointed out. Plus a little of the Earth’s primordial heat of course.
So which temperatures dropped, as this heat increased your storm temperatures? Maybe it was Trenberth’s magical hidden heat, lurking in the depths of the ocean, being lured to the surface by climate scientists!
Ridiculous, just like your refusal to acknowledge that the planet has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
Silly Swenson.
Ent, did you overlook:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1538468
Silly Flynnson who all the time repeats his du~mb stuff…
The heat resulting from solar radiation is lost all the time, Flynnson. Day and night, day and night.
*
And no: the planet did not cool over the past four and a half billion years.
The cooling YOU unduly talk about ended already about half a billion years after Earth began to form a spheroid, and you perfectly know that.
Even Robertson’s trivial manipulations aren’t as du~mb as yours, Flynnson.
Ent,
So you have no answer – typical.
Bindidon,
You like to appeal to the authority of 19th century natural philosophers, so here’s something from a Frenchman (Baron Fourier) –
“Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.”
If you don’t accept reality as expressed by Fourier, so be it.
As to the Earth cooling, yes it has. Look between your feet, and you will not see the surface glowing. It has cooled, and continues to do so.
By the way why do you write du-mb? Why not just write d ‌umb?
Shot myself in the foot there!
Oh well. T​est.
(Just had to try it.)
Flynnson
Much has happened in this scientific corner since Fourier.
By the way, Flynnson: why are you ‘dissecting the past’ all the time?
Binny,
What fresh nonsense are you spouting now? Not happy with Baron Fourier? What about Newton or Archimedes?
Flynnson? Dissecting?
ent…”Increase the temperature of a developing storm by 1C and it carries 7% more water vapour”.
***
I am sure there is an anthropogenic inference in this somewhere. How does one increase the temperature in a developing storm, and where’s the proof that it produces 7% more wv? Has someone gone into such a storm and measured WV content in all areas of the storm.
—
Later…”The extra heat is accumulating since the rate of energy loss to space has decreased while the incoming energy remains constant”.
***
Again, where’s the proof? You use the word energy, do you mean heat? So, what affects the rate of heat loss? The anthropogenic argument is that a trace gas controls it and that flies in the face of established science.
Another problem is that your reference to energy in/energy out is not about heat, but electromagnetic energy. You need to understand the relationship between EM and heat and the laws governing heat, which are not the same as those governing EM. The theory based on anthropogenic gases does not even begin to address those issues, they simply make simple assumptions that are wrong.
Ergo, any claim that ‘extra’ heat is accumulating due to a mysterious energy balance has no science to prove it.
Southern Polar Vortex has weakened slightly, from last week. Then, max wind was 250 mph, now 240 mph. The new PV at North Pole has increased to 50 mph.
South PV doesn’t want to leave and North PV is getting an early start. It’s all due to the extra warm air caused by the HTE, with El Niño also adding.
Earth knows how to deal with “forcings”.
” Its all due to the extra warm air caused by the HTE… ”
… sounds exactly like your ball-on-a-string wrt the lunar motions.
The same anti-science at the most trivial level imaginable.
Yes Bindi, it’s analogous to the ball-on-a-string. Both explain science in easy-to-understand terms.
Did you know there are people that can’t even understand easy, simple examples?
If you take a very arid atmosphere and dump 150 megatons of water into it, it seems logical that something would be affected. The jet stream goes into the lower stratosphere and we know the jet stream affects weather globally.
If the stratosphere was modeled in a computer, you could call that a forcing, but in real science, we simply call it weather.
Robertson’s endless lie again…
” Tony Heller claims in his article… ‘The top five years for setting record maximums were all during the 1930s. No year this century even shows up in the top fifteen. Last year didn’t even make the top sixty’.
https://realclimate.science/2012/08/10/a-simple-proof-that-the-1930s-were-hotter/
***
Binny, nor anyone else who sling ad homs at Tony, can refute his claim. Binny considers himself an expert on NOAA/USHCN yet he can conjure no evidence to refute Tony. ”
I don’t know whether Robertson is only simple-minded or incompetent or ignorant or, in addition to all that, dishonest.
1. Nowhere did I claim that Heller/Goddard’s USHCN data processing
https://i0.wp.com/realclimate.science/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/screenhunter_126-aug-10-10-50.jpg?resize=640%2C473
was wrong.
The contrary is the case: it gives a good fit with John Christy’s evaluation:
https://i.postimg.cc/BvqYSdsT/Record-temperatures-in-the-United-states-20210112.png
as does mine:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14JbEQthIJx_JVkhZmX5QpwazQ2inzw8j/view
The differences are due to different sets of USHCN stations, different periods and different scaling factors.
*
2. What I wrote is that the title of Heller/Goddard’s post
” A Simple Proof That The 1930s Were Hotter ”
is a pure manipulation because it is an intentional misinterpretation of the data shown in his graph.
The 1930s were not HOTTER than other decades: they showed for a few years of the decade the greatest number of station reports about temperature MAXIMA during the observed period.
This statistic has nothing to do with hotter years: a year is hotter than another one if and only if its average temperature over the 12 months his higher. Final point!
Here is what reflects reality, coming from exactly the same data as the misleading maxima stat, but… including all the data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CrBANW8x9rKKEeAG7i9VJYS8tRcfOc45/view
*
Nowhere did John Christy claim such a manipulative nonsense in his 2021 report like did Heller/Goddard in 2012. Nowhere! He used his stat only to show a decrease of extreme highs (and lows) over time.
As opposed to Heller/Goddard, Christy is a honest, conservative person, and has been technically / scientifically all time way, way above Heller/Goddard.
Robertson never stops claiming that others ‘appeal to authority’ but does here exactly the same.
**
” All they have are ad homs and insults. ”
And this is coming from the person who insults the most on this blog, name calling so often NOAA, GISS, Met Office and BEST employees as fraudulent and cheating S~O~Bs.
binny can’t even read a graph. Tony Heller’s graph shows the number of ‘heat waves’ in the 1930s compared to other periods. The 1930s had by far the greatest number of heat waves.
Just read this.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/visualizing-a-summer-of-extremes
I’m prepared to bet that the September 2023 UAH monthly anomaly will be the largest since the dataset began in 1979.
Would anyone like to bet against?
Usual terms. If I lose, I donate 20 pounds to the RNLI.If I win, you donate 20 pounds or 20 dollars to the RNLI or an equivalent charity.
Pretty much a sure thing with the residual from HTE and the building El Niño. I doubt you will get any takers, Ent.
Just read this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1538468
We might be into another step-change even if it isn’t a new high. We won’t know for at least a few months.
stephen…it’s possible that rewarming from the Little Ice Age comes in step-changes rather than as a continual, smooth curve. Akasofu figured the change at 0.5C/century but as we have seen with the UAH graph at top of page, a trend like that is full of steps rather than a continuous curve.
If the LIA did cool up to 2C, then we still have a ways to go, till about 2050, before full rewarming is realized. Even at that, there is no way to know the full extent of a rewarming. With the amount of ice accumulated, and the Earth’s ability to replace it every winter, it may take longer to rewarm than what is apparent. Also, the rewarming may happen in sudden steps, much like the build up of a slip fault and subsequent release in an earthquake.
Surface and troposphere don’t always move in tandem, but at least at the surface 2023 is going to absolutely OBLITERATE the previous September record and will likely be the highest anomaly since at least 1850. I’d be shocked if even the most diehard contrarian takes your bet at this point.
https://twitter.com/mikarantane/status/1706323755595665633
Side note…I’m starting to have doubts that my previous prediction that 2023 annual mean will not be a record in the UAH dataset is going to hold.
But at least you get to learn about some REAL forcings. HTE and EN know how to “get ‘er done”.
CO2 can’t even heat as much as an ice cube.
Since when does obliterate define a fraction of a degree C?
C’mon, Bordo.
It’s even less if you take tens of C’s.
The OBLITERATE part refers to the fact that not only the anomaly is bigger than ever recorded, but the difference itself might be a record.
Exactly. Not only will 2023 break the September record, but it will likely break it by a record setting amount.
The cult is finally starting to accept the HTE.
Any recognition of reality is good.
Are we all doomed?
“The formation of a supercontinent on Earth could wipe out humans and any other mammals that are still around in 250m years, according to a study.[. . . ] Using a UK Met Office climate model and the University of Bristol supercomputer, the simulation also provided tectonic clues to past extinction events and data that could be of use to astronomers looking for other habitable planets.”
Blow me down! A supercomputer! A UK Met Office climate model!
Yes, we are all doomed.
These twits are basing it on the notion that a supercontinent existed in the past and drifted apart into the current state. The only evidence for that is shapes in continents that appear to align, much like a jigsaw puzzle.
One problem there is that no scientist has witnessed such a motion in the Earth’s crust. Plate tectonics is as much a fantasy as time.
One thing that has always bothered me about the theory is that earthquakes are allegedly formed when one plate dives under another. Or moves past another. If that’s the case, why do earthquakes have an epicentre that can be pinpointed. If a plate slides under or past another plate, why does the effect only appear at one epicentre and not along several hundred or thousand miles of plate?
“The only evidence for that is shapes in continents that appear to align, much like a jigsaw puzzle.”
Only the most anti-science person would say that. There is SO MUCH evidence!
“no scientist has witnessed such a motion ”
GPS can literally measure the motion! The shift in faults due to earthquakes is easily seen.
Gordon,
“If a plate slides under or past another plate, why does the effect only appear at one epicentre and not along several hundred or thousand miles of plate?”
The epicenter is the point on the surface directly above the focus of the earthquake, which is below the epicenter.
Maybe you couldn’t look it up because you can’t spell it correctly for the continent you live in.
And what about those fossil sea shells on Mt Everest?
Earlier, Tim Folkerts wrote –
“Does a photon add energy to an object when it is absorbed by that object? YES!”
And, of course, the reverse applies. Does a photon add energy when it is NOT absorbed by an object? NO!
For example, adding ice to your hot soup does not increase the temperature of the soup, no matter how much ice you add, or how many photons the ice is emitting.
Some odd people refuse to accept that the optical property of transparency exists. All matter is essentially transparent to light of some frequencies. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to see – your eyeballs would absorb all the photons impinging on them, leaving none to reach the retina.
No GHE. Its adherents cannot even describe this supposed phenomenon, so try to convince others that the mysteries of quantum physics allow GHGs to create heat where non existed previously.
Good for a laugh, anyway.
swenson…from Tim f…”Does a photon add energy to an object when it is absorbed by that object? YES!
***
Tim refuses to commit himself to the fact that photons are only absorbed under very stringent conditions. That excludes photons from a cooler object encountering a warmer object.
“Tim refuses to commit himself to the fact that photons are only absorbed under very stringent conditions. ”
Not really. Any 15 um photon has the same wavelength, frequency, and energy as any other 15 um photon. Any 15 um photon is absorbed exactly as easily as any other 15 um photon. The absorbing surface as NO WAY to know if the photon came from a surface that was warmer or cooler.
If you disagree, find even one even slightly reliable source (eg university web page, physics textbook, or even wikipedia!) that supports your position.
” Does a photon add energy when it is NOT absorbed by an object? NO!
For example, adding ice to your hot soup …”
So … is it your contention that ice is made of photons?
Tim, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Carbon dioxide gas is clear and colorless, but does absorb infrared radiation from the atmosphere.
https://www.bu.edu/chemed/files/2022/01/Ch04-Light-and-Matter.pdf
Well gee, Willard. Part of the atmosphere absorbs infrared. That would mean it has a temperature, right?
What a surprise! The air is not at absolute zero!
Maybe you dont know that if you allow CO2 to emit infrared without replenishing it, it gets colder and colder – eventually solidifying. That’s why frozen CO2 is called dry ice. It’s solid.
You have a lot to learn, Willy. Got any more gems for me? Maybe pointing out that CO2 emits infrared radiation, just like bananas!
Go for it.
Apparently it absorbs about 7% of surface radiation, leaving the other 93% to find its own way to space. However, according to the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation offered by G&T, the amount of warming it causes (about 0.06%) doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. That means the heat content of the atmosphere must come from somewhere else.
We know those source, direct warming by incoming solar and warming by the surface directly via conduction. It doesn’t matter that CO2 absorbs IR if it doesn’t absorb enough to warm anything significantly.
The egregious error in the GHE and AGW theories is that CO2 can produce far more warming than it can actually produce. But, hey, why let fact get in the way of a good lie?
Gordon,
When CO2 is warmed, and becomes warmer than its environment – it cools, by radiating the absorbed radiation away.
Any heat being used to warm CO2 is not available to warm anything else – the surface, for instance. This applies to all GHGs. The highest temperatures on Earth occur where the least amounts of GHGs are present to block sunlight. Death Valley and the Lut desert are examples. Not much of the most abundant GHG (H2O) there!
Sure, CO2 is warmed by absorbing IR. So are bananas, oxygen, and nitrogen. In the absence if infrared radiation, oxygen and nitrogen even cease to be gases!
No GHE, no magical warming without additional heat input.
All good for a laugh or two.
“When CO2 is warmed, and becomes warmer than its environment it cools, by radiating the absorbed radiation away”.
***
Not only that, the heat related to the surface emission of the IR that is claimed to be absorbed by CO2 disappears at the moment of emission. Therefore, the claim that CO2 traps heat is seriously ridiculous since there is no heat to trap.
C’mon, Bordo.
The heat does not disappear:
https://youtu.be/rD2jnz_0MyA?feature=shared&t=300
Please stop denying the First Law.
Weird Willard,
Another pointless video link?
Energy which leaves the Earth is lost. Cannot be found. Gone beyond measurement or redemption. Thats why the Earth is colder now, than four and a half billion years ago! More energy lost than gained.
Please stop being uselessly misinformed.
wee willy…as the 1st law is explained by Clausius, who helped write it, the law only deals with the transformation of heat into work and vice-versa. Even at that, it also covers heat alone when no work is done, whatever that means. That’s an aside, however, the real focus of the 1st law circa 1850, was the transformation that takes place between heat and work.
It began as a study into the work of Carnot, who claimed that no heat was lost in a heat engine, which essentially deals with the conversion of heat into work. However, an ideal engine can be reversed so that work produces heat. Clausius felt that Carnot had omitted the fact that heat is consumed in the process and set out to prove it, hence the 1st law, the 2nd law, and the concept of entropy were developed.
Gibbs, who admired the work of Clausius, later produced his free energy equation in which the energy free to do work equals the total energy, enthalpy, minus the heat related to entropy, which is lost in the process.
delta G = delta H – T.delta S where …
G = free energy
H = enthalpy = total energy
S = entropy = consumed energy
However, energy here is a reference to heat, and the T delta S term comes from the Clausius definition of entropy…
S = integral dq/T
It’s easy to see that all quantities are heat since enthalpy is the total heat and T. delta S comes from the Clausius equation above where T.delta S = the heat lost in the system
Basically, it is an energy balance equation where the free heat equals the total heat minus the heat consumed.
However, heat as energy, can disappear into essentially nothing. If you take a canister of a heated gas into space and release it suddenly, there is nothing against which the gas can work and it will soon dissipate into individual molecules that are spaced too far apart to be classified as heat.
You can do something similar in the atmosphere by allowing a parcel of air to expand as it rises into an ever-thinning amount of air. Then it comes down to what you can heat. Can an environment at -60C or -80C be classified as heat? It’s that cold because air molecules have thinned out so much there is barely any pressure.
No doubt people will argue that -80C is warmer than -273C but what does that mean? We on Earth live in a very small temperature range and we only understand heat in that range. If we begin with a parcel of air at +20C and let it rise till it expands naturally till it reaches a temperature of -80C, is that not enough of a temperature decrease to claim essentially that the heat has disappeared? Why do we have to reach -273C?
That raises another question, how the heck do you measure temperatures down to -273C? The scale was developed using a projection of a curve till the projection intercepted the x-axis. The universe is claimed to have a temperature of +4K, meaning -269C, but what the heck does that mean? What instrument could measure it?
Cool story, Bordo, although the same irrelevant one as always.
You said that heat disappeared.
That breaks thermo.
So sad, too bad.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
re AQ…aka Antonin Querty…post at 1:24 am on September 25th…
AQ, the scumbag, descends deeper into a miasma of Tony Heller loathing simply because he lacks the intelligence to rebut Tony’s findings. Rather he posts a link to a site run by an abject coward who does not identify himself, not even with a nym, but hides behind anonymity while skewering a good scientist who has done no harm other than tell the truth.
Here is Tony’s real bio without a word of the vile language used at AQ’s link.
https://realclimate.science/who-is-tony-heller/
Why do you post here AQ? Roy is a scientist of integrity and welcomes you, then you take advantage by posting a link to your scumbag site that denigrate Roy as well. Yes, there is an article on the site that takes shots at Roy.
This is what I have come to expect from AQ, brain-dead, cowardly, cheap-shot ramblings and postings. The ijit who wrote the article at the blog does not deserve to comment on Tony Heller for the simple reason he cannot do it without disparaging Tony using science. Instead he uses foul language and impersonation to misrepresent Tony.
Go crawl into some alarmist hole, scumbag.
YOU of all people believe you have the right to call me a scumbag?
YOU, who continues to post revolting boorish xenophobic comments.
YOU who has no problem casting aspersions on REAL climate scientists who are just doing their job.
And you do this while defending the likes of Flynn.
I called you a scumbag for a perfectly good reason. Roy is a man of integrity and you linked to a site that portrays him as a cheater. Only scumbags try to portray good scientists like Roy and John Christy in a dark manner and they do it because they cannot discredit their science.
Tony Heller is a professional as well and there was no reason for the scumbag who runs the site to which you linked to lie about him and insult him, especially in such a crude manner.
WTH are you talking about? There was NO mention of Roy Spencer on that page. And I’m certainly not going to trawl through every post he makes looking for issues, any more than you would when posting a link here.
You claim innocence after you present a vile character destruction of a scientist with a double degree in electrical engineering and geology.
I suggest you read through the site to see the character assassination they present for Roy. You should read through the site and see what they say about Roy, then apologize to him for posting a link to such trash on his site.
Please provide proof that he has those degrees. Him making that claim is not sufficient. After all, liar Robert Holmes (1000frolly) claims he has a degree in climate science.
YOU apologise to all members of every nationality you have attacked with your foul xenophobic comments.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
First off the block to challenge Goddard came Ronald Bailey at reason.com in an article Did NASA/NOAA Dramatically Alter U.S. Temperatures After 2000? that cites communication with Anthony Watts, who is critical of Goddards analysis, as well as being critical of NASA/NOAA.
Politifact chimed in with an article that assessed Goddards claims, based on Watts statements and also an analysis by Zeke Hausfather. Politifact summarized with this statement: We rate the claim Pants on Fire.
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20180131023154/https://judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-skeptics-is-steve-goddard-right/
Strange that Judy deleted that post.
Willard,
An analysis by Zeke Hausfather? A pretty desperate appeal to a definite lack of authority there!
Next thing you’ll be claiming that a consensus of climate clowns results in a GHE!
Nah, you wouldn’t be quite that potty, would you?
I don’t read or participate on Judith’s site or Anthony’s. Although I am glad Judith has become skeptical, I regard her as a luke-warmer who seems apologetic for being that way. Same with Anthony to an extent, he did good work with his investigation of the location of surface stations but he seems to be down on people who defend the 2nd law.
Tony Heller/Steve Goddard is more my kind, talented people who can prove their claims using NOAA’s own data. He explained how he has always been an avid environmentalist, riding a bike in preference to a car. His background in statistical analysis drew him to climate data he questioned, and who better to note such discrepancies as someone who worked in quality control for Intel, developing the i7 processor.
There is absolutely no doubt that NOAA has fudged data. Their claim in 2014 that it was the hottest year ever, based on a 48% probability, was not only fudging it was outright cheating.
When the IPCC announced in 2013 that the period from 1998 – 2012 showed a flat trend, it was NOAA who went back and fudged the SST to show a trend.
NOAA has been actively manipulating data by selecting stations for their surface record that are warmer than stations they could have selected. Furthermore, they use climate models to synthesize station temperatures that don’t exist.
Cool story, Bordo, albeit irrelevant.
We already knew you were a pants on fire guy.
While you are of the pathological side, teh Goddard is more the incompetent kind.
Willard,
Got your gibberish generator running nicely I see. Manages to turn three-letter words into incomprehensible gibberish, even.
Well done!
Mike Flynn,
Braying again I see.
Let me verify, silly wee willy. You think a scientist with a double degree in electrical engineering and geology is incompetent. And that the same engineer, employed by Intel as a quality control expert on their i7 microprocessor, has no way of understanding propaganda in temperature records from the real thing?
You truly have a screw loose.
No idea who you’re talking about, Bordo.
Teh Goddard ain’t no scientist:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120110051333/http://www.real-science.com/about-me
There was an infamous food fight over at Tony’s where said engineer couldn’t get the triple point of water correct, so Tony kicked him off of his site.
Just about the only good thing Tony ever did.
If you don’t understand the triple point of water, and refuse to look it up, then you have no business discussing climate.
I don’t go there much anymore.
Little Willy, bob, please stop trolling.
Robertson
1. ” binny can’t even read a graph. Tony Heller’s graph shows the number of ‘heat waves’ in the 1930s compared to other periods. ”
*
Wrong, Robertson
As usual, you are inventing nonsense based on nothing else than your own, egomaniacal narrative.
Heller/Goddard did not even mention the word ‘heat wave’ in his 2012 head post, not did any commenter use it in the 12 comments below:
https://realclimate.science/2012/08/10/a-simple-proof-that-the-1930s-were-hotter/
*
What he wrote was this:
” The graph below shows the number of all time record daily US maximums which were set or tied per year, for all USHCN stations with contiguous records going back to the year 1900 and extending through 2011
The top five years for setting record maximums were all during the 1930s. No year this century even shows up in the top fifteen. Last year didnt even make the top sixty. ”
*
2. ” The 1930s had by far the greatest number of heat waves. ”
Exceptionally, you are here correct, Robertson.
But… heat wave measurement needs a lot more than simply counting for each year the temperature maxima recorded by stations.
Your knowledge about this is at the same technical level as your den~ial of the lunar spin, of Einstein’s results, etc etc etc.
The lead-off statement is this…”The graph below shows the number of all time record daily US maximums which were set or tied per year, for all USHCN stations with contiguous records going back to the year 1900 and extending through 2011…”
We tend to call those kinds of records ‘heat waves’ since they are abnormally hot. The graph below the statement shows a count of record temperatures and most were in the 1930s.
I don’t know why you are debating this, the graph speaks for itself, as it should.
Robertson
” We tend to call those kinds of records heat waves since they are abnormally hot. The graph below the statement shows a count of record temperatures and most were in the 1930s. ”
You are du~mb, incompetent and dishonest, and will keep du~mb, incompetent and dishonest – because you are unable to admit being wrong.
*
What you claimed right at the beginning of the discussion had nothing to do with heat waves.
You have claimed – like the guy whose authority you credulously appeal to – that the 1930s were hotter than any later decades (and, above all, you were bold enough to extend this to the Globe).
This was the point to debate, and not what you later made of it as you became contradicted.
*
I proved you wrong – by explaining and showing graphs – and you can’t change anything to the fact that the graph
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14JbEQthIJx_JVkhZmX5QpwazQ2inzw8j/view
only shows the number of station daily maxima per year, and is a trivial statistic which has nothing to do with the yearly average temperature experienced by the country in which these stations are located, shown by this graph:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CrBANW8x9rKKEeAG7i9VJYS8tRcfOc45/view
*
No matter what the issue is, you always remain on the trivial side of things and therefore de~ny any evidence of their complexity.
This is best illustrated by your ridiculous opinion about the lunar spin, the absence of which you endlessly try to prove using trivial, completely irrelevant methods.
If you had ever been an engineer, you would understand how incredibly complex the rotational motion of celestial bodies around their polar axis is compared to their orbital motion, and would not be at all surprised that our Moon always shows us the same face while orbiting Earth.
*
But you never have been and engineer, and that’s why it’s no surprise that you’re inexperienced enough to equate a vulgar statistic with reality.
” If you had ever been an engineer, you would understand how incredibly complex the rotational motion of celestial bodies around their polar axis is compared to their orbital motion, and would not be at all surprised that our Moon always shows us the same face while orbiting Earth. ”
should read instead:
” If you had ever been an engineer, you would understand how incredibly complex the evaluation of the rotational motion of celestial bodies around their polar axis is compared to that of their their orbital motion, and would not be at all surprised that our Moon always shows us the same face while orbiting Earth. “
Dang Bindi, you’ve made your beliefs so convoluted that you get tangled up in them.
That’s why I keep it simple — Everyone (with a brain) can easily understand the simple ball-on-a-string.
Binny,
Why would anybody at all be surprised that the Moon shows the same face towards the Earth?
Apart from those strange people who are surprised that the Earth has the temperature it does, claiming it should really be colder, of course.
Facts are facts, whether you like them or not.
binny…”If you had ever been an engineer, you would understand how incredibly complex the rotational motion of celestial bodies around their polar axis is compared to their orbital motion, and would not be at all surprised that our Moon always shows us the same face while orbiting Earth”.
***
We’ll I am an engineer and I don’t think it’s all that complex compared to the in-depth complexity of logic in a processor chip, a computr motherboard, or even colour TV circuitry and operation.
Let’s look at a planet that rotates and orbits…the Earth. It rotates about a local axis because it has a rotational momentum, better known as angular momentum. It continues to rotate because there are no resistive forces to oppose the momentum and it continues to rotate, carrying a thin atmosphere with it.
The Earth orbits the Sun and shows the Sun different sides of itself 365 time per orbit. Therefore, someone viewing from the Sun would see a continually changing face of the Earth, repeating every day for 365 days.
Now consider the Moon, which orbits the Earth. An observer on Earth always sees only the same side of the Moon, no matter where he/she is positioned on Earth. Speaks for itself, to a logical mind. However, spinners lack that kind of logic, claiming the Moon is rotating exactly once per orbit. Therefore, it just so happens that no matter where it is viewed on Earth, it will always face the Earth.
That argument is very easily defeated by the ball-on-a-string, as Clint claimed. It can also be defeated using a rotating radial line on an x-y plane that models the lunar orbital plane. If the radial line tracks the Moon, it becomes totally obvious that to keep the same side of the Moon pointing at Earth, all parts on the Moon must be moving in parallel. That rules out any kind of local rotation.
ASME’s Position on Climate Change
Since 1880, ASME has convened engineers, other experts, and leaders of all kinds to take on society’s biggest and most technical challenges. Today, humanity is facing one of its largest challenges ever: climate change.
The scale and complexity of this challenge is unprecedented. A changing climate threatens the stability and sustainability of economies, ecosystems, and communities globally. In the coming decades, climate change will claim a role in nearly every problem that engineers face, and we must prepare to play a part in every solution.
Climate action is and will be the work of generations, and ASME aspires to exert a consistent and positive influence. Engineers are natural problem solvers, with the tools and training needed to find and implement sustainable climate action for the benefit of all humanity. We invite all engineers and technical professionals to join ASME in building a sustainable future.
P.s.: in case you’ve been living under a rock…
Thanks for another example of a corrupt organization, Ark.
About $17,000,000 in annual dues and a mention of “Hispanic Month”. That’s what WOKE looks like.
And I noticed there was no mention of CO2 in the “climate change” discussion. I guess they didn’t want to offend the REAL engineers that were paying dues.
Have you got something against Hispanics?
No way, Jose. Tamales and Tequila make a great meal.
Ethnic cultures are fine for food and entertainment, but science doesn’t care.
Next you’re gonna tell us you got Latino friends, Pupman.
A,
If I have something against Hispanics, what are you going to do about it? Nothing, of course.
You’re just playing the discrimination card, as is the usual woke practice by those who cannot think for themselves.
I support absolute freedom of speech. I reserve the right to discriminate against anyone, at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all. What’s wrong with that?
“About $17,000,000 in annual… That’s what WOKE looks like.”
You must be one of those pinko commies that good ole Dad warned me about.
Freedom isn’t free, or cheap.
Ark, did your daddy forget to teach you about cults?
Cultism ain’t freedom.
Good ole Dad taught me to steer clear of those who use “ain’t” in conversation.
Well, you ain’t following his advice very well, are you?
Clint R does not use the contraction for “am not” (=ain’t) correctly since ‘Cultism am not freedom’ is incorrect English. However, ‘I ain’t Clint R’ IS ok.
Ball4,
According to Oxford Languages, ain’t definitions include am not, is not, are not, has not, and are not.
Maybe you ain’t right, and there ain’t no GHE, Gavin Schmidt ain’t no scientist, and Michael Mann ain’t got a Nobel Prize!
Ain’t I right, or ain’t I right?
No, that’s wrong Swenson, no need to list “are not” twice. Isn’t, aren’t, hasn’t are correct for those.
FYI sometimes this site prefers isnt, arent and hasnt but I digress.
Ball4 is wrong again:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ain-t
Listen, peabrain, I can list what I want as many times as I want, and there ain’t nothin’ you can do about it!
If you don’t like the definitions provided by Oxford Languages (who actually sell reference dictionaries), don’t accept them.
How many people pay you for your English language pronouncements? Would that be a number indistinguishable from zero, perhaps?
Have fun.
b4…the 3 stooges worked it out for us. When Curly said ‘Ain’t that quaint’?, Moe slapped up the side of the head, and said, ‘It’s not aint’t, it’s isn’t’. To which Curly replied, ‘Isn’t that quisn’t_.
In this country and many others around the world, ASME codes and standards are highly regarded for being thorough and reliable. When people say it was designed and built to code, they are referring to the ASME.
I was not aware they were doing independent climate research. I am reasonably certain they are not. On the other hand, it seems natural that they would stay abreast of developments in the policies and attitudes of world governments and society in general.
A,
Climate changes. End of story.
Although AMSE may have 85,000 members in more than 135 countries, like any organization they are prone to corruption. Same thing happened with the Royal Academy of Engineers in the UK when the Academy put out unsolicitd opinions on climate change. After a few engineers complained, they modified their propaganda.
These societies do not represent the views of individual engineers, who are seldom consulted on such matters.
The US Army Corps of Engineers is planning to barge 36 million gallons of fresh water daily into the lower Mississippi River near New Orleans as an expected saltwater intrusion from the Gulf of Mexico in October threatens the area’s drinking water supply, officials said Friday. The water will be added to water at treatment centers and create a mixture safe for treatment.
The move comes as water levels are plummeting for the second consecutive year after this summer’s blistering heat and low rainfall triggered extreme drought over parts of the central US.
Typically, enough rainfall upstream helps ease drought conditions and keeps the saltwater at bay.
As water levels drop, the threat of saltwater intrusion grows in Louisiana as ocean water pushes north into drinking water systems, unimpeded by the Mississippi’s normally mighty flow rate.
Editorial comment:
If you’re a bank holding a 30-year mortgage for any property there, good luck.
REAL solutions would involve desalinization plants.
Well, I suppose it was meant to happen.
AT LONG LAST PUPMAN HAS A POINT!
Willard,
More gibberish? Pupman?
Still playing dumb, Mike Flynn?
Willard,
More gibberish? Pupman?
Keep playing dumb, Mike.
You’re a natural.
What’s your point? They build massive cities on delta soil, which is a marsh in places, and the weight of the cities sinks the land, allowing the oceans access to the lower land.
The larger cities also require more water so they draw it from aquifers under the cities, in the case of Miami. Eventually the water supply cannot keep up with demand, allowing the sea water to move in.
Of course, climate alarmists claim that as evidence of sea level rise. In a recent TV show from Cottage Life, one pea-brain claimed ocean levels around Miami have risen by a foot due to climate change. Odd that sea levels would rise a foot around Miami but nowhere else up the same coast.
C’mon, Bordo.
The point is that the Mississipi is drying up.
This has an effect on agriculture and on commerce:
https://apnews.com/article/mississippi-river-drought-farmers-barges-e923b5f5e844ae278f42957b91d83f27
This is not good news.
A month from now, Ole Miss will be flooding.
It’s weather wee willy.
C’mon, Bordo.
You said the same thing last year.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
A day after my long-winded dissertation on the 1st law for silly wee willy a light went on. Gravity provides the work to convert the atmosphere into various zones of heat vertically. By dragging errant molecules of air toward the surface, gravity raises the pressure. Increased pressure causes more collisions per second and the air temperature rises nearer the surface.
Increasing pressure alone can raise temperature but it cannot maintain it since heat can bleed off by different means. Therefore solar energy is required to maintain the heat at sea level in particular, where pressure is greatest.
Conventional teaching on this subject tends to ignore gravity, relegating it to non-entity as far as the atmosphere is concerned. This is akin to Einstein dismissing time as a trivial definition as the hand on a clock. For example, the lapse rate theory credit gravity with nothing but claims essentially that heat is caused by heat. Essentially, they claim the negative thermal gradient in the atmosphere is due to heat being dissipated with altitude. They fail to grasp that heat can only dissipate with altitude if there is also a negative pressure gradient due to gravity.
Without solar energy there would be no heat except for heating from the interior core of the planet (the Swenson effect). However, even with solar heating, without gravity there would be no atmosphere to heat. Without the vertical density layering of the atmosphere due to a gravitational force that reduces with the distance squared from the surface, there would be no convection.
I am claiming that gravity is as important as the Sun for atmospheric warming, so why is it so conveniently ignored in modern climate studies? Any book on atmospheric physics I have read claims that the decrease in heat with altitude is attributed to heat itself. However, they don’t address the decrease in pressure occurring at the same time.
I just opened a book by climate gurus and on the subject of feedbacks they don’t bother to define feedback, they imply declare that water vapour feedback is a major factor in warming. They mention convection only in passing, as if the Earth’s surface depends on radiation alone to cool. The book supposes that if CO2 absorbs some of that radiation that it can somehow feed it back and increase the temperature of the surface.
AGW theory is all based on faulty science. It begins with a faulty explanation of greenhouse warming and extends that faulty idea to the atmosphere. Then modelers, presuming the theory is correct, further obfuscate it in models on the faulty presumption that radiation is the prime means of surface heat dissipation.
Lindzen knew that was wrong since he predicted that a lack of convection would force the surface temperature into the 70C range. We learned recently from Shula, with the use of a Pirani gauge, that convection is 260 times more effective with surface heat dissipation than radiation, which is a distant and much poorer means of heat dissipation.
“Blue Origins next CEO has a mission: Speed it up!”
https://cosmiclog.com/
“Jeff Bezos selection of Amazon devices chief Dave Limp as the next CEO of his Blue Origin space venture could well mark the start of a speed-up in the companys tortoise-like pace.”
That’s interesting.
But it takes time in billion dollar venture, to speed things up.
But, I am hopeful and it seems where one would need a lot added
speed, is around mid 2024. And + 6 months could be enough time to speed things up.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Sub-grid scale gravity waves have long been incorporated in the momentum budgets of global chemistry-climate models using parameterizations, but their associated impacts on temperature dependent chemistry within the models have not been included in a self-consistent way. Here we present an approach to modeling these chemical impacts in the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model. We obtain large local changes in some chemical species (e.g., active chlorine, NOx, N2O5) but smaller impacts on ozone. The approach can be expected to advance the ability of the chemistry-climate modeling community to examine gravity wave effects on a wide range of chemical problems.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022MS003505
If only modellers listened to Sky Dragon cranks.
Gravity waves are typical misnomers, that is, the word gravity has nothing to do with the term. A gravity wave in nothing more than a wave that some ijit has re-defined for no good reason.
“https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/Miscellaneous/gravity_wave/gravity_wave.html
“The word “gravity” in the word gravity wave can make the term more confusing than it really is. It has little to do with having a special relationship with gravity. ALL air motions are influences by gravity. Once the word gravity is eliminated, all that is left is the word wave”.
“A gravity wave is a vertical wave. The best example I can think of in describing what a gravity wave looks like is to think of a rock being thrown into a pond. Ripples or circles migrate from the point the rock hits the water. An up and down motion is created. With increasing distance from the point where the rock hit the water, the waves becomes less defined (the waves are dampening)”.
Good effort, Bordo.
Here’s how it continues:
Now, what were you saying about gravity in climate models, and have you ever looked into one?
My field is engineering and I have little interest in magical motions with no underlying forces explained.
“But in the process, it will overshoot and undershoot that natural position each time it is rising or sinking because of its own momentum. At a sufficient distance from where the trigger mechanism caused the parcel to rise, the intensity of the gravity wave will decrease. At increasing distance, the parcel of air becomes closer to remaining at its natural state of equilibrium”.
They are describing an oscillation, complete with damping without explaining how parcels of air oscillate about a point or level. They don’t tell us how the air parcel got its momentum and how it reverses momentum to move in the other direction.
In essence, thy are not describing a natural oscillation since there are none of the springs and devices required for such an oscillation.
When air molecules do oscillate, it is due to a response to an external vibrating force, like a speaker in an audio system. For that to occur in the atmosphere a vibrating surface would be required, like a speaker, the surface, or some other vibrating source. Wind might be a good source provided wind vibrated as if driven by a speaker.
Willard,
You are a wee bit gullible. Maybe you should try and understand the paper. In the introduction it states “. . . many gravity waves have scales smaller than the typical model resolution.”
You see? Not able to be used in typical models.
Of course, chemistry-climate is only meaningless cultist jargon. Climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations. Nothing to do with chemistry at all.
Carry on believing that fantasy is fact.
Mike Flynn,
You’re braying a little.
When you do so to cover Bordo’s crap, it helps me.
I can reply to you, and ignore his crap.
And, and remind me –
What does GRACE stands for, again?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
[Teh Goddard] uploaded a video in which a participant in the failed Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection claims that antifa had infiltrated the mob: […]
In another video, a person identified as Katherine says All of us were fairly peaceful. There were a couple undercover ANTIFA that were in the group. They were disguised. Some of them had red bandanas but most of them were wearing like Trump hats either backwards or like loosely fitted in order to kind of like stand themselves out: […]
https://www.desmog.com/steven-goddard
For some reason teh Goddard seems to have changed his tune later on.
desmogblog…you are hilarious wee willy. Why do you bother reading such trash? It marks you as a cultist. Desmogblog had Roy and John in the pocket of oil companies. Is that really the type of trash propaganda you want to be associated with?
They are funded by a convicted criminal.
Willard,
A couple of things.
Your irrelevant gibberish generator still cannot spell “the”.
People wearing red bandanas to disguise themselves? Or wearing loosely fitted hats to make themselves stand out?
Your attempt at AI gibberish generation doesn’t seem to have worked out too well.
At least it managed to generate something totally irrelevant.
Keep it up.
Mike Flynn,
A couple of things.
At least five people died during the event you’re trying to minimize.
Teh Goddard is a crank.
You’re braying again.
Willard,
Who’s trying to minimize what event? Are you quite mad, or do you just live in some bizarre fantasy world?
You still can’t even describe the GHE, can you? That’s why you try to generate gibberish about anything else – to divert attention away from your inability to accept fact.
Good luck with that.
Mike Flynn,
Swenson?
Says?
September 27, 2023 at 4:36 PM?
What are you braying about?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Moral Choices and the Colonization of Space
By Kenneth P. Green
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/09/moral_choices_and_the_colonization_of_space.html
Linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Bottom lines:
“What makes Conscious Choice interesting is that its not just another social history of what happened, and who did what to whom in a horrible time of mans inhumanity to man. Its an effort to draw concrete knowledge from the past, for application to solving predictable problems in the not-too-distant, not altogether impossible future.
Conscious Choice reads easily, flows smoothly, is linguistically elegant, covers an extremely important topic, and asks important questions. Conscious Choice is also well referenced, with two appendices of additional data and sourcing information for the deepest dive. Conscious Choice is well worth reading simply to revel in the technical merits, which are far too rare these days. It would also pair well with a rereading of Robert A. Heinleins classic The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, possibly while listening to Jason Aldeans Rich Men North of Richmond, and sipping a few pints of good New England beer.”
Dumber than dirt…Neil Oliver has a go at censorship and the green agenda (from about the 4 minute mark)…
https://tinyurl.com/49fsjj22
If you listen to Oliver’s eloquent complaints about censorship, maybe you’ll get some insight into why I am so adamantly opposed to climate alarmists, and so vocal against them. I have better things to do in life than protests mindlessly and for the sake of it. However, what I am seeing is a systematic destruction of our societies and their democracy by, as Oliver pointed out, people with silent agendas.
Meantime, the House Speaker in the Canadian Parliament has apparently stepped down for inviting a WW II Ukrainian Nazi into Parliament while they honoured Zelesky. Claimed he did not know the Ukrainian was a Nazi. Poland has threatened to extradite the S0B to Poland to answer for war crimes there.
I want to see how Zelensky reacts. Although he’s a Jew, he has to go back home and face the Nazi nationalists if he says anything against it. The nationalists hold candlelight vigils for s0bs like that Nazi every year. And some of them are in the Ukrainian parliament.
But here on Roy’s blog, alarmists continue to claim I am lying about the Nazi influence in the Ukraine. They think I am kidding about Ukrainian nationalists with Nazi connections running off a democratically-elected president in the Ukraine in 2014, precipitating a revolt by eastern Ukrainians and a later invasion by Russia to support them.
The American Society of Civil Engineers’ (ASCE) Policy Statement on Climate Change states that there is an immediate need for engineers to incorporate resilience to future climate changes into project design criteria.
Climate change poses a potentially serious impact on worldwide water resources, energy production and use, agriculture, forestry, coastal development and resources, flood control and public infrastructure.
Such impacts could require modified design practices and measures to address the threat of rising sea levels, changes in water supply and quality, potential for outbreak of disease, and damage to critical infrastructure facilities.
Civil engineers are responsible for the planning, design, construction, operations, and maintenance of physical infrastructure, including buildings, communication facilities, energy generation and distribution facilities, industrial facilities, transportation networks, water supply and sanitation systems, and water resources facilities and urban water systems. Most infrastructure typically has long service lives (50 to 100 years) and are expected to remain functional, durable and safe during that time. These facilities are exposed to and often are vulnerable to the effects of extreme climate and weather events. Engineering practices and standards associated with these facilities must be revised and enhanced to address climate change and resiliency to ensure they continue to provide low risks of failures and to reduce vulnerability to failure in functionality, durability, and safety over their service lives.
P.s.: in case you’ve been living under a rock…
You are really infatuated with institutions, Ark.
I guess that is easier than thinking for yourself.
Must be quite a thrill to be one of the few Sky Dragon cranks, Pupman.
You against the world.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
On a lighter note…one of the best extended rock solos ever…
https://tinyurl.com/5y2nsxt4
When Hendrix was told he’d been classified the best rock guitarist, he replied, ‘I don’t know about that, you’ll have to ask Terry Kath’.
That was Kath playing the solo and Hendrix had no problem admitting Terry was better than him. Unfortunately, Terry killed himself in a firearms accident that was more dumb than an accident. He did not realize that a magazine pulled from a pistol after it was loaded left a bullet in the chamber. He was messing around teasing people in the room by holding the gun to his head. He pulled the trigger and that was that.
Maybe as a result of that, pistols today lock the trigger themselves when the magazine is removed.
“Not my diagram, anyway, Ball4. It was created by a commenter named JD Huff.man back in January 2018. Check the date on it:”
So DREMT embraces someone else’s FRAUD without any science rationale needed.
What ordinary physics says is rejected without cause.
“If the back-radiation transfer from the GP to the BP cant result in warming of the BP, thanks to 2LoT, then it must be returned to the GP.”
Except no evidence of a 2LOT violation is ever offered!
I would also point out the gross inconsistency of DREMTS position that back-radiation from GP to BP IS considered to be HEAT, which it is not, while the forward radiation from BP to GP or GP to space is considered to be NOT HEAT, which it is.
These determinations of what is HEAT and what is NOT HEAT don’t seem to follow any rules, but are whatever is needed to prop up his nutty narrative!
“What else is going to happen to it!? It cant disappear, or else that would violate 1LoT.”
The basic premise of this problem is that the BP is a PERFECT ABS.ORBER of radiation.
Yet DREMT shamelessly IGNORES this fact. Then decides it is a great MYSTERY where the flux emitted by the GP to the BP went.
Thus he declares, without evidence or physical rationale, that it must have been ‘returned’.
It can’t be reflection he says. Then by what mechanism?
None is offered.
Truly dishonest.
Nate, you remind me of the bank robber that was recorded on video, had a dozen eye-witnesses, fingerprint and DNA evidence, and yet still claimed he was innocent!
You use the same disjointed rambling.
Hey, Pupman.
Any idea who that huff.man guy is gone?
Got any science to go with that incoherent incompetent comment, child?
A mention of “Huff.man”? That means Nate must have been talking about this:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
The correct solution to the plates problem.
A fantasy cartoon with added nonexistent flows of energy is not evidence off anything.
Some people here don’t seem to realize that evidence cannot simply be manufactured to fit your needs.
DREMT seems to have given up trying to win with real facts.
–https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
The correct solution to the plates problem.–
What happens if put transparent glass in front of it?
So, if plate is a circle, a glass dome. If squarish, a box
greenhouse.
Or as said before you could increase the temperature of an ideal
thermal conductive sphere, by adding glass. Or an atmosphere.
Or if add N2 to the Moon it will warm up the cold average temperature of the moon. The N2 might freeze out {CO2 would certainly freeze out- and we hope to find millions of tons of CO2 in it’s polar regions}.
So if put panes of glass facing the sunlight, the panes of glass with heat up higher the 5 C. So, ideal thermal conductive sphere is 5 C in sunlight and unconnected panes of glass with get hotter than 5 C in sunlight and not prevent the sunlight from heating the ideal thermal conductive sphere. And not in sunlight, the 5 C blackbody would keep glass warm. So if include the glass temperature in daylight to uniform 5 C temperature it increase average temperature.
Or uniform of 5 C plus the hot glass temperature.
Ah, gbaikie. If I recall correctly, you once agreed the diagram is correct. Do you still agree with it?
–Ah, gbaikie. If I recall correctly, you once agreed the diagram is correct. Do you still agree with it?–
I don’t have an objection to it.
Just thought I could add something to it.
Aren’t those plates black bodies which are highly heat conductive?
Or is it something else?
Oh, also, it’s in vacuum?
Also, it’s not about watts, it’s about temperature.
I mean the glass part, it’s transparent {though not ideally transparent, or it’s something like glass {or an ocean surface- 1 mm thick, nearly all shortwave light goes thru it and large part is absorbs by the top 1000 mm surface and most in top 2000 mm of ocean surface}.
Yes, highly heat conductive blackbody plates in vacuum. Glad you have no objections. It’s just nice to have someone agree for a change, so I thought I’d mention that you did.
“Yes, highly heat conductive blackbody plates in vacuum. Glad you have no objections. Its just nice to have someone agree for a change, so I thought Id mention that you did.”
I did have one other thing, I assumed 400 watts is sunlight.
And if sunlight of 400 watts per square meter, it would be at that distance, or beyond Mars orbit.
But it could be sunlight at Mercury distance and be 400 watts, just it isn’t 400 watts per square meter.
Or at least in regards to my adding glass plate in front of it, in terms of it having any temperature
"And if sunlight of 400 watts per square meter, it would be at that distance, or beyond Mars orbit."
Yes, it’s 400 W/m^2.
What is Gaslighting Graham doing here?
Perhaps he’s just bored.
I wonder why both ignored my question.
I didn’t understand your question.
"Any idea who that huff.man guy is gone?"
Was that English, or?
In any case, I couldn’t care less.
Arkady Ivanovich used to comment under the name "Tyson McGuffin", but that doesn’t bother you guys.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Wrong and boring, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham, who for more than five years kept remixing three little charades on this website, who kept repeating the same comments over and over again after being refuted so many times, who kept PSTing out of spite, perhaps until Roy gets or got tired, is now the King of Ennui.
And of course he is gaslighting.
Shut up.
Looks like Gaslighting Graham has not learned his lesson.
So be it.
Little Willy, please stop trolling (means exactly the same thing as “shut up”).
Gaslighting Graham can’t stop responding to my comments.
Fine. Very fine:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1540175
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gaslighting Graham can’t ignore my comments.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1540175
Quote what he’s said, and I’ll respond to it. Otherwise, my hands are tied.
Gaslighting Graham cant ignore my comments.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1540175
Why should I? Your challenge was to ignore my comments. Not the other way around. Nevertheless, I’ve already proved myself quite capable of ignoring your comments. You are, after all, a completely worthless waste of space.
You may now repeat yourself again.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
He should ignore my comments for his own sake.
But he won’t.
He can’t.
So much the worse for this sociopath prick.
Oh, and here are the receipts:
[W, September 27, 2023 at 8:54 AM] Any idea who that huff.man guy is gone?
[Pupman, September 27, 2023 at 9:36 AM] Got any science to go with that incoherent incompetent comment, child?
[Gaslighting Graham, September 27, 2023 at 10:15 AM, right under my comment]: A mention of Huff.man? That means Nate
Gaslighting Graham is a lying prick.
Clint R once again states he has no reading skills. He can’t process any post more than 10 words long. This is why he can’t provide any evidence for his endless bullshit.
He can’t read so he makes up brief collection of words then calls it science. This poster does not understand. Science requires evidence. You will never get any from this bullshitter.
That immature rant is a little shorter than your usual, Norman. Are you feeling well?
Since you mentioned “evidence”, where’s your evidence for Earth’s “REAL 255K surface”, “two 315 W/m^2 fluxes result in 325K”, or your “square orbits”?
Clint R
Does your post demonstrate evidence? Throwing out items that have been explained to you several times is not providing evidence for any of your assertions. You are evidence shy. You don’t believe it is important.
Norman, you can’t provide valid evidence of your cult beliefs.
Evidence ain’t “explanations” of your beliefs.
Until you provide some valid evidence, I will not be responding. I’ve learned not to waste time with tr0lls, frauds, and children.
Clint R
You are dodging. I ask for your evidence of your claims. Ignoring the valid request you divert and ignore the request and bring up items that have already been addressed. Bringing up past issues does not validate your lack of any evidence for your many claims. One notable is your claim that the radiant heat transfer equation is bogus. To date you have supplied zero evidence to support such a claim. Why is that?
Bogus or not, the RHTE indicates zero heat flow between the plates when both are at the same temperature. With no heat flow out to space from the GP (only IR radiation is emitted by the GP to space, not "heat"), then everything is in balance.
If you still don’t understand, refer to the diagram.
“Bogus or not, the RHTE indicates zero heat flow between the plates when both are at the same temperature. With no heat flow out to space from the GP (only IR radiation is emitted by the GP to space, not “heat”), then everything is in balance.”
1LOT is simply conservation of energy.
Relabeling the energy flow to space as NOT HEAT doesnt solve your 1LOT problem. The NET flow of energy from the GP is still -200 W/m^2.
So you have Q = Net energy input to GP = 0!
And you still have -200 W/m^2 output to space.
Sorry that does not satisfy 1LOT!
Of course to fix this pickle, you imagine a non-existent extra 200 W/m^2 from BP to GP.
Everyone can see that this is simply fraud.
You guys have given up on honest debate.
For all the peabrains crying “Conservation of energy”.
The Earth loses energy at a rate of about 40 tW.
Loses. Doesn’t gain. Net loss, resulting in cooling. Fact.
No “conservation of energy” to be seen.
The lost energy is lost to the system. Never to be seen again. Gone. Vanished. Disappeared.
[laughing at ignorant cultists]
Oh, was Nate bringing up “conservation of energy”?
Yeah, there’s no problem with 1LoT, as he can plainly see in the diagram. It’s really simple. The “back-radiation” transfer from the GP to the BP cannot result in the BP increasing in temperature whilst the GP decreases in temperature, or else that “back-radiation” transfer would have to be a transfer of “heat” from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.
Since we know the “back-radiation” transfer exists, it cannot just “disappear”, or else 1LoT would be violated. Since it cannot result in warming of the BP it must be returned from the BP to the GP, and in so doing it satisfies 1LoT both for each plate individually and for the 2-plate system as a whole.
Neat how it all works out.
Gustav Kirchhoff is on line 2.
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
Try to read this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1540175
Cheers.
“Gustav Kirchhoff is on line 2…”
…and he agrees that blackbodies (imaginary objects) cannot be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT.
“Gustav Kirchhoff is on line 2.”
Exactly, Bob:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1540175
Here’s another link to the diagram if Norman or anyone else needs it:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
Here’s the TL;DR:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537978
Hence why Sky Dragon cranks are running the clock.
For all the peabrains crying Conservation of energy.
The Earth loses energy at a rate of about 40 tW.
Loses. Doesnt gain. Net loss, resulting in cooling. Fact.
No conservation of energy to be seen.
The lost energy is lost to the system. Never to be seen again. Gone. Vanished. Disappeared.
[laughing at ignorant cultists]
Yes, that was Tim’s typical gaslighting spiel. However, I disagree that I have a different position on heat flow and 2LoT to “every single physics professor”. As to the question of what happens to individual photons, I have always made it clear that I don’t know what happens to them. However, there are others here on both sides of the debate that claim they do know. I prefer to leave it to them to argue about the fate of individual photons.
Mike Flynn really struggles with the concept of energy balance.
For all the peabrains crying “Conservation of energy”.
The Earth loses energy at a rate of about 40 tW.
Loses. Doesnt gain. Net loss, resulting in cooling. Fact.
No conservation of energy to be seen.
The lost energy is lost to the system. Never to be seen again. Gone. Vanished. Disappeared.
[laughing at ignorant cultists]
Mike Flynn keeps braying.
That diagram again:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
“Oh, was Nate bringing up conservation of energy?
Yeah, theres no problem with 1LoT, as he can plainly see in the diagram. Its really simple. The back-radiation transfer from the GP to the BP cannot result in the BP increasing in temperature whilst the GP decreases in temperature, or else that back-radiation transfer would have to be a transfer of heat from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.”
DREMTs desired solution violates 1LOT. Thus he needs a work-around. So a he simply INVENTED a non-existent magical flow of energy that has no basis in reality or physics. He offers no mechanism for it.
It is simply a FRAUD.
DREMT moans about these arguments going on and on with no end, and tries to blame all others.
But right here is the reason:
His response to this straightforward criticism is to simply REPEAT the SAME TIRED DEBUNKED CLAIM over and over, that without it, there would be a 2LOT violation!
Whenever he is asked to show actual evidence of a 2LOT violation, which would mean showing us a flow of HEAT FROM COLD TO HOT, he offers nothing!
So this so-called 2LOT violation is also a fraud, designed to explain another fraud.
His whole approach is highly flawed:
He has a strongly desired outcome to a heat transfer problem, and then seeks whatever means are necessary to get to that outcome. Even fraud.
OTOH, the real physics approach that Eli uses is to simply to follow the Laws of Physics to wherever they lead, to whatever solution satisfies them.
Thus, in his diagram each arrow has a clear explanation: they come directly from the laws of physics:
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cmHBLd3hLWk/Wda0X4NMNHI/AAAAAAAAEGE/shG27EtZY04xmlAfPlB0M3Ud4FESukd1gCLcBGAs/s400/Untitled4.png
…diagram again:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
But right there is the reason for the arguments never ending:
His response to straightforward criticism is to simply REPEAT the SAME TIRED DEBUNKED CLAIM over and over.
…again:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
QED
Repeats link to the diagram, because whenever he sees that Nate has responded, he simply repeats his previous comment without reading what Nate has said…
See?
We see you’re a pest. Yes.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again, and this discussion is closed for comments.
You had better stop commenting then.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
False.
… the comment, again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1540175
It’s been a while, so I’d better just refresh people’s memory by linking again to the diagram:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1540674
…been a while, so I’d better just refresh people’s memory by linking again to the diagram:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1540509
QED
…a while, so I’d better just refresh people’s memory by linking again to the diagram:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1540927
The diagram is for a different problem with magical plates, not the assigned problem with blackbody plates.
Oh well!
…while, so I’d better just refresh people’s memory by linking again to the diagram:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
“was recorded on video”
Except your diagram was made-up, fictional. Pure fraud.
Such things do not qualify as evidence.
Child, before you try to trash the diagram you need to show that your cult can even understand it. The last I saw you and bob couldn’t even do a basic energy balance for each plate!
You don’t understand ANY of this.
Hey, Pupman.
Tell your man to meditate on the meaning of “energy balance model.”
Now, go huff somewhere else.
Yes, Clint R, bob was hopelessly lost with the diagram. Not sure about Nate as obviously I don’t read his comments any more, but he always used to try his best not to understand. I’m guessing that’s what this thread is all about, since there’s mention of "diagram" and "plate" in your comment.
Nate’s even worse. He believes there is a violation of 1LoT in your correct solution:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
Neutral readers: how do we tell which diagram is correct?
1. https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
or
2. https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cmHBLd3hLWk/Wda0X4NMNHI/AAAAAAAAEGE/shG27EtZY04xmlAfPlB0M3Ud4FESukd1gCLcBGAs/s400/Untitled4.png
The way to find out is to ask the supporters to explain the physical basis for each arrow in the diagram.
In #2 the physical basis is already shown in the diagram to be the SB emission from each black body plate.
In # 1, there is a third arrow between the plates that doesnt belong, and cannot be explained.
Note, Clint will simply tell you, reader, that you wouldn’t understand, but savvy readers recognize this as simply BS.
Over and over, the cult reveals they have NO understanding of the relevant science.
Nate does not understand where the second green arrow (between the plates) comes from. The arrows are color coded, to identify which plate they were emitted from.
Not only is poor Nate ignorant of physics, he’s also color-blind.
“The arrows are color coded, to identify which plate they were emitted from.”
Ha. No Clint R. The lower GREEN arrow is shown being emitted from the BLUE black body lol. Color coding is bogus.
Readers should refer to Eli’s diagram for the correct physical solution consistent with 1LOT and 2LOT.
Ball4 plays dumb.
Norman, Nate, bob, Willard, and Ball4 seem to be in a contest to see who can make the most inane comment.
It’s hard to tell which one is winning…..
“Nate does not understand where the second green arrow”
No I don’t. But do go ahead and explain it’s physical basis to the readers.
Or not, then readers will understand that it is simply fraud.
Nate does not understand where the second green arrow (between the plates) comes from. The arrows are color coded, to identify which plate they were emitted from.
Not only is poor Nate ignorant of physics, he’s also color-blind.
That’s not a physical basis answer Clint R, try again to answer for the bogus GREEN arrow coming from the black body BLUE plate or Clint has no physical basis as more astute commenters already know.
NB: There’s already a BLUE arrow coming from the BLUE BB plate so it’s not simply a color-coding mistake to hide behind. Pity, that means the GREEN arrow from BLUE BB is a physics mistake by poor Clint.
Ball4 plays dumb again. The additional green arrow from BP to GP is the energy from GP to BP being returned, rather than violating 2LoT by increasing the temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP.
As you know.
Now, Clint R may be perfectly prepared to say that this energy is reflected from the BP. I do not go so far as to say that, because I’m not sure what happens to the photons. All I do know is, 2LoT cannot be violated. You’re all desperate for somebody to say “it’s reflected” so you can go on and on about blackbodies and Kirchhoff and little ping pong balls flying around and always being absorbed by whatever surface they strike.
As you know.
That 4:31 pm is not a correct answer for this Clint statement:
“The arrows are color coded, to identify which plate they were emitted from.”
The lower GREEN arrow is bogus as GREEN is defined cannot be from the BLUE BB plate lol.
The GREEN arrow coming from BLUE black body is just a long running physics mistake by poor Clint who didn’t originally notice Clint’s mistake which is a pity.
I just explained it to him, and he still plays dumb.
So the arrow is Green? Ah that explains it!
No it doesn’t.
The readers are still waiting for your explanation for what is the physical basis for this arrow.
It appears to be a reflection of the GP emission off the BP.
But we know that is physically impossible because blackbodies are not mirrors!
That 4:31 pm was no explanation, DREMT. Poor Clint R just made a physics mistake in his diagram & mixed up color codes which is the best and only explanation.
Readers could refer to Eli’s correct diagram to understand an explanation for Clint’s mistake.
“Now, Clint R may be perfectly prepared to say that this energy is reflected from the BP. I do not go so far as to say that, because Im not sure what happens to the photons. ”
DREMT thinks light can bounce off of and be returned by an object to its source, but refuses to call it reflection, because he knows blackbodies cannot reflect light.
So he plays very very dumb.
Of course it was an explanation.
… was a bogus explanation. Try again to correctly explain away a bogus GREEN arrow from a BLUE plate lol. It’s really just a physics or coloring mistake by Clint not using the correct crayon per Clint’s own statement.
Ball4 is trolling again.
Nate says: “It appears to be a reflection of the GP emission off the BP.”
Is Nate actually learning, or was that just a lucky guess?
Clint needs to learn Clint mistakenly used the wrong crayon color since GREEN arrows can’t come from BLUE BB GPE plates per Clint’s own statement & that’s why the lower green arrow is bogus.
I think by now neutral readers can see that they are never going to get an explanation for the physical basis for the extra green arrow from the supporters of diagram #1.
It is not an SB emission from either plate. It cannot be a reflection from a plate because the very clear premise of the problem is that the plates are perfect abs.orbers.
So that leaves no other option than fraud. It is simply nonexistent.
But, there is hope, in Eli’s diagram, there is a way to get more watts/m^2 transferred by the single arrow from the BP. Simply by allowing the temperatures to adjust, we can get a net flow of heat to the GP and satisfy 1LOT!
Ball4 is still trolling.
Nate is only just now starting to understand the simple diagram:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
But he’s a lifetime away from understanding the physics.
A black body is an imaginary concept. The ONLY “perfect absorber” would be something at 0K. The blue plate is at 244K. That ain’t a “perfect absorber”.
“A black body is an imaginary concept.”
But nonetheless, those were the objects given in the problem.
Obviously the properties given to them in the problem didnt work for you, so you simply changed them into some impossible MAGICAL body that is both a perefct abs.orber and a perfect mirror!
Long story short, dear readers, you can see that diagram 1 is not a solution of the problem that was assigned.
You would be well within your rights to assign 0 credit for diagram 1.
FYI, it is the same 0 credit they got last year, and the year before, and the year before on the problem.
These guys are never gonna pass this class.
“The ONLY “perfect absorber” would be something at 0K. The blue plate is at 244K. That ain’t a “perfect absorber”.”
Interesting point. I expect, knowing Nate, he probably just ignored it completely whilst repeating himself, certain that only his points require consideration. Then he would probably go and project that fault onto someone else. That’s the Nate I remember, from way back when I used to respond to him.
“”Interesting point.”
If you like bad science fiction.
” an ideal body or surface that completely abs.orbs all radiant energy falling upon it with no reflection and that radiates at all frequencies with a spectral energy distribution dependent on its absolute temperature”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blackbody
Obviously you guys cannot solve the GPE problem as it was posed.
…that’s the Nate I remember, from way back when I used to respond to him.
Thats the DREMT we all know, denying reality.
…the Nate I remember, from way back when I used to respond to him.
Can’t win on facts. So they’re all-in on gas-lighting.
Yes, Nate.
Our Sky Dragon cranks can’t respond simple questions. They can’t honor simple contracts.
Counting arrows is just too much for them.
Some people here don’t see to know what fraud is. Here’s an example:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-finds-trump-liable-fraud-new-york-civil-case-2023-09-26/
The judge “took particular issue with Trump’s claim that the penthouse was 30,000 square feet (2,787 square meters), nearly three times its actual size, resulting in an overvaluation of as much as $207 million.
“A discrepancy of this order of magnitude, by a real estate developer sizing up his own living space of decades, can only be considered fraud,” Engoron wrote.
Nate,
You wrote –
Some people here dont see to know what fraud is.
True. Michael Mann is a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat. Gavin Schmidt is a fraud – claiming to be a climate scientist.
So?
Mike Flynn,
That doesn’t help you produce an energy balance model now, does it?
Keep braying!
The difference between what you wrote and what I wrote is that I showed exactly what the fraud was, whereas you just tell us who you hate.
There’s a little bit more to it than counting arrows, Little Willy.
Just as Trumps claimed extra living space had no physical basis, the extra arrow in the diagram has no physical basis, as even DREMT admitted:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537758
Yes, Nate.
Sky Dragon cranks are still complete frauds.
Sad to see the debate has devolved to false accusations.
Sky Dragon cranks have no response to this, for instance;
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1540175
A pity Gaslighting Graham got so bored as to forfeit his contract,
Obviously you know full well I don’t respond to Nate or even read his comments.
Obviously Gaslighting Graham can’t stop responding to my comments.
His latest excursion at the end of this thread, after he’s been left alone above in his sobs, might have proved too much for him.
What are you talking about?
Incapable of ignoring my comments for too long, Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
What are you talking about? I challenged you to prove you could ignore my comments. You did so, until recently. Looks like you just can’t keep it up for long.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1540175
See? Now we’re locked into another pointless back and forth that nobody on the blog cares about in the least.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] What are you talking about?
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] See?
He can’t ignore my comments.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1540175
[DREMT] Looks like you just can’t keep it up for long.
[LITTLE WILLY proves my point by failing to ignore my comment]
[DREMT] See?
That’s the actual sequence of events, liar.
With your fraudulent diagram, you attempt to satisfy the first and second laws of thermodynamics, forgetting there are other laws of physics that have to be followed for the diagram to be accurate.
You just like to claim that the problem is my understanding of the diagram. I understand it fine, it’s a fraud.
Which it isn’t.
Fraudulent as Trump’s business statements.
Bailiff, you have a couple of pee pees to whack.
If you understood the diagram, you would not have made this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537006
Maybe bob doesn’t know how arrows represent “in” and “out”.
Or maybe he doesn’t know how to subtract.
Perhaps Pupman has never balanced a budget in his life and has more sock puppets than on this website.
It’s a mystery, Clint!
Yeah, the not reflecting sending back the radiation part that is not explained in any notes to the diagram.
Which would be required as you have two arrows that look the same but do different things.
Though they are different colors.
So you both do and don’t understand the diagram.
As DREMT noted, in the GPE:
“Elis plates are blackbodies.”
Which means:
“an ideal body or surface that completely abs.orbs all radiant energy falling upon it with NO REFLECTION and that radiates at all frequencies with a spectral energy distribution dependent on its absolute temperature
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blackbody
The diagram they show is clearly showing a plate REFLECTING light.
THUS it is obvious the diagram cannot be a solution to the GPE problem as it was posed.
If facts and reality matter in this debate anymore.
DREMT,
“So you both do and dont understand the diagram.”
“How can you be at two places at once, when you’re not anywhere at all?”
Firesign Theater
I was just taking the piss, bob.
If facts and reality matter in this debate anymore…
…was just taking the piss, bob.
DREMT,
Just now or for the whole ******* time?
Just by saying, "so you both do and don’t understand the diagram".
Exactly, Bob.
Imagine Gaslighting Graham trying to convince the physics teacher from his first undergraduate course that the Earth’s energy balances with Pupman’s silly cartoon.
Gibberish.
Mike Flynn.
More gibberish.
Why do the words Mike Flynn have such an effect on you?
Are you besotted with him for some bizarrely homoerotic reason?
You cannot explain your obsession, any more than you can describe the GHE!
Keep the gibberish coming – it’s entertaining.
What’s an energy balance model, Mike Flynn?
More gibberish.
Why do the words Mike Flynn have such an effect on you?
Are you besotted with him for some bizarrely homoerotic reason?
You cannot explain your obsession, any more than you can describe the GHE!
Keep the gibberish coming its entertaining.
You are even silly enough to ask what an energy balance model is! What, don’t you know? Does anybody? Sounds like more gibberish to me.
Never mind what is an energy balance, what is energy?
What the Earth emits into space, Bordo.
Do you have any other silly question like that?
“Imagine Gaslighting Graham trying to convince the physics teacher from his first undergraduate course that the Earth’s energy balances with Pupman’s silly cartoon.“
Little Willy clearly has no idea what the plates discussion is even about.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Just a reminder that DREMT is also quite certain that the Physics PhDs are all just confused about how heat transfer works.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1538233
Because with his unique insight into HEAT FLOW, only HE is capable of understanding it!
…Willy clearly has no idea what the plates discussion is even about.
Well, much as I’d like to continue to spend day after day locked into an eternal back and forth with people who have absolutely no genuine interest whatsoever in trying to understand, I guess someone has to be the one to draw it all to a close.
[This discussion is closed for comments].
Thank God for that.
See?
… much as I’d like to continue to spend day after day locked into an eternal back and forth with people who have absolutely no genuine interest whatsoever in trying to understand, I guess someone has to be the one to draw it all to a close.
[This discussion is closed for comments].
Yes, you said that already…and thank God it’s closed for comments.
See?
…as I’d like to continue to spend day after day locked into an eternal back and forth with people who have absolutely no genuine interest whatsoever in trying to understand, I guess someone has to be the one to draw it all to a close.
[This discussion is closed for comments].
Sure, OK, let’s bring it to a close, officially:
This discussion is closed for comments.
Thank Godot for that.
This discussion is closed for comments.
See?
Yes, we see that you are gradually losing the plot, and that this discussion is closed for comments.
DREMT can’t help posting. Expects others to do the stopping.
…we see that you are gradually losing the plot, and that this discussion is closed for comments.
… I’d like to continue to spend day after day locked into an eternal back and forth with people who have absolutely no genuine interest whatsoever in trying to understand, I guess someone has to be the one to draw it all to a close.
[This discussion is closed for comments].
Yes, this discussion is closed for comments.
See?
… like to continue to spend day after day locked into an eternal back and forth with people who have absolutely no genuine interest whatsoever in trying to understand, I guess someone has to be the one to draw it all to a close.
[This discussion is closed for comments].
Yes, this discussion is closed for comments.
See?
… to continue to spend day after day locked into an eternal back and forth with people who have absolutely no genuine interest whatsoever in trying to understand, I guess someone has to be the one to draw it all to a close.
[This discussion is closed for comments].
Yes, this discussion is closed for comments.
And still no description of the GHE. Why is that, I wonder?
Wonky Wee Willy Willards not so brilliant attempt –
“Not cooling. Slower cooling”.
No wonder Willard tries to play silly semantic games, and divert attention away from his inability to accept reality – there is no GHE!
Wonky? Description? GHE? Silly semantic games?
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
And still no description of the GHE. Why is that, I wonder?
Wonky Wee Willy Willards not so brilliant attempt
Not cooling. Slower cooling.
No wonder Willard tries to play silly semantic games, and divert attention away from his inability to accept reality there is no GHE!
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
The real question is, why can’t you people resist responding to me!?
You need to ask yourselves why that is.
I can’t write even the most straightforward comment without it turning into the biggest thread on the blog.
It gets really, really boring getting into weeks-long discussions because you all just cannot stop responding to me.
“I can’t write even the most straightforward comment without it turning into the biggest thread on the blog.”
True in my case, not true in yours, Little Willy. You just aren’t as influential. Oh well.
And still no description of the GHE. Why is that, I wonder?
Wonky Wee Willy Willards not so brilliant attempt
“Not cooling. Slower cooling.”
No wonder Willard tries to play silly semantic games, and divert attention away from his inability to accept reality there is no GHE!
What a peabrain he is!
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
The real question is, why cant you people resist responding to me!?
You need to ask yourself why that is.
I can’t write even the most straightforward comment without it turning into the biggest thread on the blog.
It gets really, really amusing getting into weeks long exchanges because you just cannot stop responding to me.
And still no description of the GHE. Why is that, I wonder?
Wonky Wee Willy Willards not so brilliant attempt
Not cooling. Slower cooling.
No wonder Willard tries to play silly semantic games, and divert attention away from his inability to accept reality there is no GHE!
What a peabrain he is!
Still no energy-balance model, Mike Flynn?
Keep braying!
And still no description of the GHE. Why is that, I wonder?
Wonky Wee Willy Willards not so brilliant attempt
“Not cooling. Slower cooling.”
No wonder Willard tries to play silly semantic games, and divert attention away from his inability to accept reality there is no GHE!
What a peabrain he is!
Mike Flynn,
Why do you ask for a description of the greenhouse effect?
Have you lost one?
What colour is it?
What does it do?
If you had half a brain, you’d be dangerous.
It’s a good thing you dont.
And still no description of the GHE. Why is that, I wonder?
Wonky Wee Willy Willard’s not so brilliant attempt
“Not cooling. Slower cooling.”
No wonder Willard tries to play silly semantic games, and divert attention away from his inability to accept reality there is no GHE!
What a peabrain he is!
At least he tries to flatter me by copying imitating my comments – he appreciates quality.
[willard is not the sharpest tool in the shed]
Mike Flynn,
Why do you ask for a description of the greenhouse effect?
Have you lost one?
What colour is it?
What does it do?
If you had half a brain, youd be dangerous.
Its a good thing you dont.
And still no description of the GHE. Why is that, I wonder?
Wonky Wee Willy Willards not so brilliant attempt
“Not cooling. Slower cooling.”
No wonder Willard tries to play silly semantic games, and divert attention away from his inability to accept reality there is no GHE!
What a peabrain he is!
At least he tries to flatter me by copying imitating my comments he appreciates quality.
[willard is not the sharpest tool in the shed]
Mike Flynn,
Where is your EBM?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
For all the peabrains crying Conservation of energy.
The Earth loses energy at a rate of about 40 tW.
Loses. Doesnt gain. Net loss, resulting in cooling. Fact.
No conservation of energy to be seen.
The lost energy is lost to the system. Never to be seen again. Gone. Vanished. Disappeared.
The ignorant cultists have no answer to reality.
[laughing at ignorant cultists]
Come on Mikey, it’s a LOT more than that.
The earth RECEIVES 44 PETAwatts from the sun. It must lose ALMOST that amount to space.
BTW Mikey – Terawatt is CAPITAL TW. I guess you didn’t pick that up in your junior science classes. Small letters up to kilo, then capital letters from Mega up. Thank me for introducing you to basic work on units.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The Earth and other planets in the solar system are heated by radiation from the sun. In turn, the planets reprocess the radiation and emit energy into space, leading to a global radiative balance which plays a key role in determining the planetary climate. As a result, a detailed treatment of radiative transfer is a necessary ingredient in models of climate dynamics.
https://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=21420&pt=10&p=17292
Willard,
And the radiation from the Sun is insufficient to prevent the Earth from cooling.
So the models are nonsensical if they show the Earth getting warmer, due to sunlight. As far as I know, none of the models even take into account the radiogenic heat output – equivalent to around 20 tonnes of matter being converted to energy. If e=mc2, that’s a lot of energy being radiated to space.
Only the truly gullible reality deniers believe that the Earth is becoming warmer due to a GHE which nobody can describe. Maybe GHE is another way of spelling GOD.
Pierrehumbert???? The realclimate science guru????
Does he mention that radiation is a poor means of heat dissipation wrt conduction/convection at the surface?
If I have the time, I will issue a proper rebuttal to his paper. Meantime, could you try to find a reliable source?
Pierrehumbert? The same guy who wrote “Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation”?
Not terribly bright – probably thinks that insulating a corpse will raise its temperature, and restore it to a healthy 37 C!
Just another reality denier, who refuses to accept that the Earth has cooled.
The 400,000 K Earth.
A compromise to Al’s million degree Earth.
gb,
Awwww, you might be maligning good ol’ Al Gore.
I think maybe he said that the Earth’s interior had millions of degrees. Being a good reality denier, he figured if fluxes can add, so can degrees.
Add a few degrees here, and a few thousand there, pretty soon you get millions! About as silly as adding 300 W/m2 and 300 W/m2, and getting 600 W/m2!
Ah, the miracle of “climate science”!
C’mon, Bordo.
It’s not a paper. It’s a lecture.
Like, handouts for students who really learn physics.
Real students, not phonies like you.
You still can learn.
There is hope.
C’mon Willard,
Tell us that you can’t see any errors in Pierrehumbert’s lecture.
Demonstrate both your ignorance and gullibility.
[laughing at peabrained misguided appeal to authority]
C’mon, Mike Flynn
Do you have an energy-balance model, yes or no?
No?
That’s too bad.
Cmon Willard,
Tell us that you cant see any errors in Pierrehumberts lecture.
Demonstrate both your ignorance and gullibility.
[laughing at peabrained misguided appeal to authority]
Why do you keep repeating what you’re braying, Mike Flynn –
You do not have an energy-balance model to offer?
C’mon Willard,
Tell us that you cant see any errors in Pierrehumberts lecture.
Demonstrate both your ignorance and gullibility.
[laughing at peabrained misguided appeal to authority]
C’mon, Mike Flynn,
Tell us you clocked on the link.
Or bray a little more.
Cmon Willard,
Tell us that you can’t see any errors in Pierrehumberts lecture.
Demonstrate both your ignorance and gullibility.
What, cat got your tongue? Don’t want to admit that Pierrehumbert’s nonsense is too much even for a gullible ignoramus like you? No wonder you want to talk about models – yo7 can’t cope with reality!
[laughing at peabrained misguided appeal to authority]
Still haven’t clocked the link, Mike Flynn?
Still no energy-balance model?
Still playing dumb?
Still braying?
There’s not much going for you!
Aw diddums!
C’mon Willard,
Tell us that you cant see any errors in Pierrehumberts lecture.
Demonstrate both your ignorance and gullibility.
What, cat got your tongue? Don’t want to admit that Pierrehumbert’s nonsense is too much even for a gullible ignoramus like you? No wonder you want to talk about models you can’t cope with reality!
[laughing at peabrained misguided appeal to authority]
https://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=21420&pt=10&p=17292
“Standing on the shoulders of our scientific forefathers, we write a simple energy balance
equation,
Hsun(1 − α) = σT^4 (3)
where Hsun is the radiation flux incident from the sun, averaged over time and over the
planets surface, α is the albedo, the fraction of the incident radiation that is reflected back
into space, and hence never absorbed, and σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Thus we
equate the net energy absorbed by the earth with the energy it loses to space as a black
body. Given that Hsun is approximately 340 W/m2
, and taking α ≈ 0.3 (a crude estimate of
the combined effect of sea, land, ice, clouds and so on), we find that T = 255K, much colder
than the global average temperature we experience. Of course, we have here the grossest of
models; the earth is basically treated as a metallic sphere. The more complicated models
described next build on this model by incorporating the atmosphere. However, a key idea
is clearly expressed in this model: the incoming radiation from the sun must be balanced
by the outgoing radiation from earth.”
–
–
“Thus we equate the net energy absorbed by the earth with the energy it loses to space as a black body.”
–
“However, a key idea
is clearly expressed in this model: the incoming radiation from the sun must be balanced by the outgoing radiation from earth.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Black body is a scientific abstraction. Black body actually is not a body, it is a surface. Black body does not consist from any known kind of matter.
–
Black body does not have shape, it has only the surface size.
–
Planets are not emit as black body. And there is a large variations in different materials emissivity.
Water has emessivity very much close to ε=1.
At the same time the stainless steel has emissivity close to ε=0,01.
–
It is two orders of magnitude less then the black body emitting intensity.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thanks, Christos.
I am glad you found an EBM.
Thank you too, Willard.
–
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law is not the radiative energy absorp-tion law.
–
Also, planets do not emit as black bodies, planets do not have uniform surface temperature.
–
The planets IR emitting behavior is amplified by the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Planets usually have more than zero dimension, Christos:
Op. Cit.
What will it be when Sky Dragon cranks will discover full-blown GCMs?
“What will it be when Sky Dragon cranks will discover full-blown GCMs?”
Well, full-blown would include, clouds.
Maybe AI could do it.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
No need to wait for Phil. Ill do it.
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae282.cfm
Question:
How can water co-exist at three phases (solid, liquid and gas)?
Answer:
Water exists in three distinct phases at something called the triple point. Zero degrees celsius is defined by the triple point of water which is 273.16K at 611.2 Pa.
At this temperature water is in the process of changing from a solid state into the liquid phase or visa versa. Molecules in the liquid phase can lose a bit of energy and solidify whilst solid water (ice) can gain some energy and melt. This can be seen in melting ice where the solid ice exists for some time while the exposed surface melts.
Molecules in a liquid dont all have the same energy. The energies of the molecules can vary from a finite minimum, which would mark the transition back to a solid phases, up to an infinite energy (although the probability of this occuring is infinitely small). The average energy of the molecules gives us the temperature of the liquid. Statistical thermodynamics can map out the energy distribution of the water molecules. At a certain energy molecules will have enough energy to evaporate, even if the water temperature is 0 degrees C.
Because of these two effects it is possible for the water to exist as solid, liquid and gas at the same time.
==============
More:
http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/96ClassProj/examples/triplpt.html
==============
And a video from a lab here:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/658122/the_triple_point_of_water_experiment/
=====
Steven [teh Goddard], you really need to stop.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/sea-ice-news-20/#comment-421574
Teh Goddard is just as phony as Bordo.
Willard,
Congratulations. You are a bit late, but you accept that water has a triple point. You do realise that CO2 has a triple point also?
I see that you have managed to get your gibberish generator to copy and paste slabs of irrelevant text, now, but you still haven’t to teach it how to spell “the” yet. I’m sure you’ll get there if you just try hard enough.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Thank you.
Have you found an energy-balance model yet?
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Why do you ask? Have you lost one? What colour is it? What does it do?
If you had half a brain, you’d be dangerous, so it’s a good thing you don’t.
Mike Flynn,
If you can’t produce an energy-balance model, why should anyone care for trying to understand what you’re braying about?
Wonky Wee Willy,
Why do you ask? Have you lost one? What colour is it? What does it do?
If you had half a brain, youd be dangerous, so its a good thing you dont.
And still no energy-balance model.
Why is that, I wonder?
Mike Flynn’s not so brilliant attempt
“The Earth loses energy at a rate of about 40 tW.”
No wonder Mike Flynn tries to play silly semantic games, and divert attention away from his inability to provide an energy-balance model!
What a peabrain he is!
[Mike Flynn is braying something, but what?]
Ah well, I suppose I should accept Willard’s flattery through imitation, gracefully.
I accept flattery from even the least gifted members of the human race, and why not?
Willard doesn’t want to accept that the Earth has cooled, and good for him! Might as well humour him – he thinks he’s in love with Mike Flynn, and trying to transfer his unrequited love to me. Obviously not quite all there, so why torment the poor fellow?
Let him live in his fantasy of models.
Ah well, I suppose it’s just too hard for Mike Flynn to realize that he is trying to play both sides at the same time.
Interestingly, this is related to game semantics:
https://www.irif.fr/~mellies/mpri/mpri-ens/articles/abramsky-mccusker-game-semantics.pdf
Perhaps Mike Flynn is too dumb to realize that semantics is a formal discipline?
How cares?
Let him bray.
Ah well, I suppose I should accept Willards flattery through imitation, gracefully.
I accept flattery from even the least gifted members of the human race, and why not?
Willard doesnt want to accept that the Earth has cooled, and good for him! Might as well humour him he thinks hes in love with Mike Flynn, and trying to transfer his unrequited love to me. Obviously not quite all there, so why torment the poor fellow?
Let him live in his fantasy of models.
Still no EBM, Mike?
Ah well, I suppose I should accept Willards flattery through imitation, gracefully.
I accept flattery from even the least gifted members of the human race, and why not?
Willard doesnt want to accept that the Earth has cooled, and good for him! Might as well humour him he thinks hes in love with Mike Flynn, and trying to transfer his unrequited love to me. Obviously not quite all there, so why torment the poor fellow?
Let him live in his fantasy of models.
See?
The truth is that you are as st00pid as the poster trying to rebut Steve. How could you possibly understand what they are talking about?
Wait, Bordo.
Is that an ad hom?
I thought you were against that kind of thing.
Who’s “the poster”?
wee willy…”Molecules in a liquid dont all have the same energy. The energies of the molecules can vary from a finite minimum, which would mark the transition back to a solid phases, up to an infinite energy (although the probability of this occuring is infinitely small). The average energy of the molecules gives us the temperature of the liquid.
***
Abject nonsense. This klown is confusing the temperature of a gas to the temperature of water. The temperature of a gas, according to the kinetic theory of gases, is the statistical average kinetic energy of the gas molecules/atoms, an energy we call heat. There is an alternate theory that has nothing to do with statistics.
The energies of the molecules cannot vary from near zero to infinity, that’s a mathematical theory. Unless you have a vast body of liquid, like an ocean, where pressure also varies to a large degree, the molecular energies in a liquid will not vary much. You could treat an ocean as a series of vertical layers where the temperature does not vary much within each layer, within a certain distance.
Molecules in a liquid are far more likely to have the same temperature than those in a gas. Because the molecules/atoms in a liquid are in direct contact, they conduct heat molecule to molecule or atom to atom.
I know it’s far more complicated but your source is wrong.
“Molecules in a liquid are far more likely to have the same temperature than those in a gas.”
Oh dear – Gordon believes individual molecules have temperature.
Does a molecule at absolute zero emit IR?
Does a molecule above absolute zero emit IR?
Does a molecule which is above absolute zero have a temperature by definition?
You don’t really know what you are talking about, do you?
You can’t even describe the GHE which you apparently believe in for no good reason at all.
Ah, the joys of the inmates running the madhouse!
N/A
N/A
N/A
A single molecule has no defined temperature. “A molecule which is above absolute zero” is meaningless.
But well done in your deliberate attempt to phrase your question ambiguously. I know you’re going to try to make use of that now.
That’s how heat moves through a body…atom to atom via electrons. That’s right, electrons not only carry charge, they transport heat through a solid.
I did not say individual atoms or molecules have a temperature.
“Molecules in a liquid are far more likely to have the same temperature than those in a gas.”
Yes you did, LIAR.
“When water is at room temperature (20 C or 68 F), the average speed of the water molecules in the water is approximately 590 m/s … while most of the molecules are moving between 400 and 740 m/s, 25% of the molecules are moving slower than 400 m/s and 25% of the molecules are moving faster than 740 m/s”
“Liquids, like gases, have a distribution of molecular energies. The highest-energy molecules are those that can escape from the intermolecular attractions of the liquid. Thus, when some liquid evaporates, the molecules left behind have a lower average energy, and the liquid has a lower temperature.”
Statistical nonsense. How do they arrive at those percentages, by counting molecules and checking their speeds?
How do they do it for a gas? Yet you have no problems accepting that part of the theory.
Why are you having so much difficulty in citing a reference for your claim? Or does it become “science” the moment the thought enters your skull?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Climate science = climate shystery. The era of fake data
https://youtu.be/yu_7lbXD3e0
Just more tasty snacks for the gullible Ignorati.
Can’t get the video in Canada for some reason.
Is this where I get to make a disparaging comment about Canadians?
You’ll have to help me out here – you don’t appear to have a consistent place to draw the line for what is appropriate and what is not. And I so want to learn how the conservative mind decides that an undirected spray attack on an entire nationality is better than a directed attack on one individual.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
UAH average 2019 to Aug 2023:
+0.254
NOAA average 2019 to Aug 2023 using the same 1991-2000 baseline:
+0.304
Hardly anything in it.
(Would someone else please field Gordon’s impending inane questions/assertions about baselines.)
Averages are statistics and as Mark Twain put it…”There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”.
A statistician would plug the data for 2019 – 2023 into a calculator and arrive at an average, but the average would tell us little about the meaning. Same as the average from 1979 – 2020. A scientist would be curious as to what the numbers mean. After studying the longer range, he would see 18 years of flat trend from 1998 – 2015 and another flat tend from 2016 – 2023. He would also see a step warming between the 1998 -2023 and 2016 – 2023 ranges and wonder why.
You see a trend that can only be found in a calculator. I see a flat trend over the same 8 year period. I base that on Roy’s red running average curve. It tells you at a glance that the trend was essentially flat.
I won’t even consider NOAA’s trend because they are cheaters and blatant alarmists.
You certainly know how to use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
Still don’t understand the concept of natural variation superimposed over a rising trend, do you Gordon.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Climate change my ass, the planet would greatly benefit from several degrees warmer temperature and higher CO2 in the air, you people are being spoon fed the idiocy of danger of warming and you believe it because you have no brainz
https://youtu.be/XDddNhljc28?t=2049
Chuck says, hear hear: https://imgur.com/a/a5NiFeX
Charles Darwin…the pseudo-scientist who foisted one of the worst theories on science ever. But, hey, that’s about your style, Ark, for authority figures.
He based his theory on some plants he found on an island in the Southern Pacific, without a shred of evidence as to their origin, then claimed a generalized ‘origin of the species’ theory. You have to be slightly demented to make such a far-reaching claim and just as demented to believe it.
Love to hear your theory about how we came to be. I’m looking for a laugh. Will it be gawddidit?
I don’t know. Based on the intelligence in the human body and the intelligence required to create it, I am guessing there was an external intelligence involved.
Darwin supplied no evidence of his theory, all he offered was a theory, essentially a thought experiment. Why his theory took hold of so many scientists is the question. It is even more mysterious how it hung around so long.
> Darwin supplied no evidence of his theory
You just keep saying stuff, Bordo:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session3/explain_a.html
We didn’t need Darwin. If it wasn’t him then someone else would have discovered evolution. It has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Unlike the theory of god, for which there is zero evidence.
WRONG Ant. Evolution has NOT been “proven beyond all reasonable doubt”.
Evolution is just another false religion, as is the CO2 nonsense, and the Moon spinning nonsense.
Beliefs ain’t science.
“Beliefs aint science.”
Thanks for agreeing that a “god” is in violation of science.
It seems Clint never met any science he couldnt deny.
People get to believe anything they want. You can BELIEVE the Universe made itself, if you want, but that ain’t science. Evolution is a belief system.
Science, unlike belief, is testable and falsifiable.
Gordon Robertson,
I can understand you not getting chemistry, quantum physics, spectroscopy, thermodynamics, etc.
But getting things wrong about evolution, which is simple enough that textbooks explain its basics to pre-teens, is inexcusable.
Explaining beliefs ain’t science, Ark.
Evolution is a false religion with NO supporting science. In fact, it violates many laws of science.
“with NO supporting science. ”
Clint has a habit of declaring such things that he cannot back up.
Ivanovich must be signaling he is one of the climate kooks who believes 1.5 degrease of warming will cause human extinction, hence the Darwin reference
[Eben says:] Climate change my ass, the planet would greatly benefit from several degrees warmer temperature and higher CO2 in the air
[Charles Darwin says:] Hear hear!
[Charles Darwin also says:]
Temperature range during all of human civilization: https://imgur.com/a/bpIKdPD
Global warming should reach 1.5 C by the end of the 2020s and 2 C by 2050.
I tremble for my species when I reflect that Natural Selection has a pretty brutal way of dealing with sτυpιdιτy.
Ark, if by “species” you mean your cult, then I hope you wake up before it’s too late and embrace reality.
In reality It is idi0ts like Ivanovich who die in fires and floods because they put solar panel on the roofs instead of making water drains and clear dry brushes around their houses.
Were that the case, Eboy, you would find solar panels mostly on flooding ground.
But even then having am energy source on a roof would be better than in the basement.
I hope Eboy displays more intelligence with his teams dragsters.
Oh its CO2 after all! Eben is learning.
Norman is STILL confused about the bogus radiant heat transfer equation. Because of his ignorance of physics, he believes the equation means a hot object will accept the flux from a colder object. That’s completely wrong, of course, but that’s not even what the equation is about.
The equation merely subtracts the two fluxes. The result is meaningless because fluxes do NOT simply add/subtract. Fluxes consist of photons, and photons do NOT simply add/subtract. Photons pass right through each other, and keep on going. So do fluxes.
In deep space, a flux of 700 W/m^2 going “east” meets a 500 W/m^2 flux going “west”. The arithmetical difference is 200 W/m^2, but it has NO meaning. The 700 W/m^2 flux continues “east”, and the 500 W/m^2 flux continues “west”.
To make it simple for the cult, 7 apples go east and 5 oranges go west. The arithmetical difference is “2”, but it has no meaning. Apples and oranges don’t simply add/subtract.
To make it simple for Clint R, 7 apples go east from BP and are incident on the GP, 5 oranges go west from space and are incident on the GP so all 12 are incident on the GP. Apples and oranges add.
Ball4, I think you just took the lead in your competition to see which of your cult could make the most inane comment.
(Does your mommy know you’re playing on her keyboard again?)
Clint R
The hater of evidence continues to demonstrate his hatred of science and what it means. He is totally confused. He is the cult minded person here with a totally closed mind but thinks everyone else is what he is. He can’t see his own reality. It eludes him.
Notice he says I am confused by the equation but does he give any evidence to show it is bogus. No he does not because no evidence exists. It is a well used established equation. He states his unsupported opinion but will never offer evidence. Poor deluded Clint R. The one who is in a cult and blind.
He demonstrates he does not understand the equation as it does not say anything at all about fluxes adding or subtracting in space and all scientists already know radiant energy passes through itself so his simplistic point goes nowhere but shows his ignorance.
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/notes/node137.html
Not that this will help you any to understand the actual equation and what it is used for.
I guess you will just hate science and evidence and make up your bullshit hoping to lure a few ignorant people to accept the nonsens you post.
Clint R
Here are some more for you, but they won’t penetrate the cult reality you exist in. Nothing will, you are lost in your own deluded thinking and will never provide evidence for your bullshit nonsense. Sad you are programmed like that.
https://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/collegephysics/chapter/14-7-radiation/
https://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/collegephysics/chapter/14-7-radiation/
Evidence provided by Norman 3. Evidence provided by Clint R the anti-evidence science hater, zero, 0, zilch, nada. Unsupported opinions of Clint R? Endless. Seems it is the nature of this poster.
More links you can’t understand, Norman?
This one is so bad even you should be able to find the flaw.
Hint: Look at the discussion of the bogus equation.
Second hint: Look at their claim that emissivity of the surroundings can be ignored.
Clint R
Since you do not understand how radiant heat transfer works you see flaws where there are none.
I do not think you are logical enough to understand it and ignorant of the science.
Yes the emissivity of the surroundings is NOT important to determine heat transfer. The Heat transfer is how much heat the hot object is losing.
Follow the logic if able.
Surroundings that have a high emissivity will radiate based upon their temperature. They reflect almost no energy. The energy returned to the hotter object will be based mostly on temperature.
If the surroundings have very low emissivity very little radiant energy will be emitted but a vast majority will be reflected back to the hot object.
Can you understand this at all?
The emissivity of the hot object is all that is needed to determine the amount of heat it loses to the surroundings, how much energy it emits and how much it can absorb.
You are so clueless. What actual science courses have you taken? Did you flunk out and that is why you are obsessed with false science? You hate the real thing and seek to destroy it when you see it?
Gosh Norman, all that blah-blah, just to reveal how little you understand.
Hot object @ 500K –> 3544 W/m^2
Cold surroundings @ 400K –> 1452 W/m^2, with ε = 1
——————————> 145 W/m^2, with ε = 0.1
Differences in fluxes = 2092 vs 3399
Looks like emissivity of surroundings makes a big difference.
It might be time for another of your immature meltdowns….
Clint R
I was fairly certain you could not understand the logic to the explanation at all and would post your ignorant blah blah to disguise your lack of rational thinking ability.
In your ignorant example. I had already stated what you think I did not. The amount of energy emitted by the surroundings will be less with lower emissivity but it will reflect back to the hot object what is not absorbed.
Since I explained it to you already it shows your ignorance or inability to read and comprehend.
Low emissivity absorbs little but reflects much. Do you understand this? If not let me know how ignorant you are.
Norman, it looks like emissivity of surroundings makes a big difference.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1540821
Your link was WRONG.
Got any more links you can’t understand?
Clint R
You linked to your own post as support for your lack of reasoning ability.
You really don’t understand what the equation is about do you?
I don’t think any rational logic will reach the cult mind of yours.
I can try but it will fail.
The radiant heat transfer equation is about how much heat, via radiant energy, the hot object is losing.
The emissivity of the surroundings do not affect the rate the hot object loses heat. A low emissivity surface will not emit much radiant energy based upon temperature but if it is low emissivity it has high reflectivity of energy (only deviation to the equation is if the material is transparent which the assumption is no unless specified, than a modifier would be added for this less common feature).
To summarize:
1) Surrounding with low emissivity will emit low energy at given temperature but will reflect back energy to the hot object.
I am not sure why you can’t process this information. It is a lack on your part not anyone else’s. Realize that you are the one who does not know anything. The article writers know and understand. You do not.
Wrong again, Norman.
Your link you can’t understand claims emissivity doesn’t matter. But the simple example says different.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1540821
And once again, you shot yourself in your foot, as your incompetent effort to defend your nonsense has you debunking the GHE: “The emissivity of the surroundings do not affect the rate the hot object loses heat.”
Now, you can slobber all over this blog with another childish meltdown.
Corrected Clint example:
Hot object @ 500K > 3544 W/m^2
Cold surroundings @ 400K > 1452 W/m^2, with ε = 1
Net heat loss 2092 W/m^2
145 W/m^2, with ε = 0.1 (emitted) + 3544 W/m^2*0.9 (reflected)
= 3345 W/m^2
Net heat loss 200 W/m^2
Sorry Nate but just getting the physics and math wrong is not inane enough. It just looks like you’re desperate.
Look at Ball4’s comment above. THAT is what “inane” looks like.
Notice no specific issues with what I posted are mentioned. Just the usual vacuous insults.
Tr0ll Nate threw his slop against the wall, but it didn’t stick.
So now, he’s going to whine.
That’s why this is so much fun.
What will he try next?
And yet again Clint offers no substance, just more vacuous insults.
Obviously he cant figure out what he thinks is wrong in my post.
Tr0ll Nate threw his slop against the wall, but it didn’t stick.
So now, he’s going to whine, as usual.
That’s why this is so much fun.
What will he try next?
Clint seems to think reflection can be ignored..
Oh, this is a keeper!
I showed Norman why his link was incorrect. Nate tr0lls in trying to “correct” something he doesn’t even understand. There is NO reflection involved in the bogus equation Norman is trying to support. There IS reflection in the plates nonsense, which Nate and Norman both believe in.
So Nate messes up both his beliefs (the bogus equation and plates nonsense). He shoots both his feet with one shot!
That’s why this is so much fun.
“is NO reflection involved in the bogus equation Norman is trying to support.”
But a plate with emissivity 0.1 has reflectivity of 0.9, regardless of your stoopid denial of it.
I’m not denying reflectivity, child. I’m ridiculing your inability to understand any of this. So take your false accusations and stuff them where the Sun don’t shine.
If you can’t behave as an adult, you won’t get a response from me.
“Im not denying reflectivity, child.:”
Since you deny the calculation I showed, which correctly includes reflection, you are denying reflectivity.
“Im ridiculing your inability to understand any of this.”
Without ever pointing out any specific error. Obviously you have no clue, and are just, as usual, full of it.
“Im not denying reflectivity, child.:”
Since you deny the calculation I showed, which correctly includes reflection, you are denying reflectivity.
“Im ridiculing your inability to understand any of this.”
Without ever pointing out any specific error. Obviously you have no clue, and are just, as usual, full of sh*t.
“If you cant behave as an adult”
Tee hee hee.
You mean posting a steady stream of insults lacking substance, as you do? Is that how adults should behave?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1541727
Clint just keeps on tossing vacuous insults, without ever pointing out any specific error in my post.
I guess the poor fellow can’t find one.
Very entertaining!
Nate, YOU are the “specific error”.
Tr0lling ain’t much of a future, child. When you grow up, consider doing something useful with your life.
Clint has had like 10 opportunities in this thread to say something of substance to support his claims, but he still can’t think of anything!
So he slings more insults.
Is that how adults behave?
Norman…from your first link…
“The rate of heat transfer by emitted radiation is determined by the Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation:
Q/t = σeAT4…”
This is nonsense. S-B has nothing to do with heat transfer and there is no ‘t’ in S-B. S-B, as devised by Stefan, is only about the relationship between the temperature of a body and the intensity of radiation it emits.
When it comes to radiation, in particular, many textbooks are seriously misleading on the subject. Remember, authors who write textbooks tend to stick to paradigms which are often out-dated and incorrect. The authors are not experts in themselves, that’s why you find bibliographies in each book which tells you where thy got their information.
There was a link provided to quantum theory but unfortunately it leads nowhere.
The important thing to realize is that the radiation from two bodies incident on each other is not an intentional transfer of energy. It’s more an accident than anything. When a sphere radiates it does so isotropically and only a small portion of its radiation will be intercepted by a body of similar size. Of course, sphere surrounding a sphere would intercept all radiation from the inner sphere.
The 1300+ w/m^2 we measure at TOA is a tiny fraction of the total solar output.
Here’s a question for you. If the inner sphere is a sphere of ice, and the outer sphere is a sphere of metal, initially at room temperature, will radiation from the ice increase the temperature of the outer body? Radiation from the outer shell should warm the ice. According to S-B, ice emits 320 W/m^2, and that should be enough to raise the temperature of the outer sphere.
In the text book, they ignore the effect of conduction/convection and the fact that radiating surface are usually surrounded by air. They mentioned a fire warming you but it’s not radiation warming you but warmed air molecules.
Gordon Robertson
You are very incorrect and don’t understand science at all. You are similar to Clint R. You assert things without evidence and keep doing it endlessly. it is your belief if you make a claim it is true (such as only electrons can absorb the energy of EMR, this is an assertion you made up and you provide no evidence to support it there is vast evidence you are very wrong but you ignore this).
Gordon in your metal sphere and ice example. You neglect the metal sphere radiates to both the ice and to the external surroundings. It will also receive energy from its surroundings if they emit energy.
Your question: “If the inner sphere is a sphere of ice, and the outer sphere is a sphere of metal, initially at room temperature, will radiation from the ice increase the temperature of the outer body?”
The ice will NOT increase the temperature of a the outer sphere if the outer sphere is not heated by some external source of energy. The ice will allow a heated metal outer sphere to reach a higher temperature than it would if the inner sphere was cooled by liquid nitrogen.
A non heated object will NOT increase in temperature if the surroundings are cooler than it is. A heated object is a different animal. The Earth surface is a heated surface (by the Sun). It will act as a heated object. Insulation will increase the temperature of a heated object. It will not increase the temperature of a non-heated object. Do you understand the difference between a heated and a non heated object?
Thanks for mentioning me, Norman. I’m always on your mind, it appears.
Yes, insulation works. But your problem is in not recognizing what is insulation. N2 and O2 insulate Earth. CO2 is like a leak in the insulation.
norman…”it is your belief if you make a claim it is true (such as only electrons can absorb the energy of EMR, this is an assertion you made up and you provide no evidence to support it there is vast evidence you are very wrong but you ignore this).
***
A good technique in science or any where, is negation. If you negate what something cannot be, you move closer to what it is. I have used that kind of logic in my assertion about electrons.
If you have an atom with electrons orbiting it, and the electrons carry an electric charge, that produces an electric field, that can produce a magnetic field orthogonal to the electric field, and EM is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. why would you look in an atom for another source of EM?
In order for the electron charge to create a magnetic field, it needs to be moving. However, the orbiting electron apparently does not emit a continuous electric field, only during a downward transition between orbital levels. Conversely, it can only absorb Em during upward transitions.
Then again, who has ever tried to measure the magnetic field of an orbiting electron? They can’t even find the electron to measure it. Electric/Magnetic fields measured around a conductor involve bazzillions of electrons.
Norman, it you can show me anything else in an atom that can interact with EM like that, I’ll listen. However, by negation, there is nothing else in an atom, or a molecule, that can absorb or emit EM. If you know of anything else, I am listening.
Remember Bohr’s theory…electrons emit EM during down transitions and absorb EM during up transitions.
—
“Gordon in your metal sphere and ice example. You neglect the metal sphere radiates to both the ice and to the external surroundings. It will also receive energy from its surroundings if they emit energy”.
***
You are evading the question, can radiation for the ice inner sphere raise the temperature of the outer sphere?
Again Norman, examples of arithmetic ain’t “evidence” of physics. You can’t provide ANY evidence that the bogus equation has any REAL value.
(I can provide a simple experiment that proves the equation invalid. The simple experiment could be done with common devices typically found in a home, or inexpensive if purchase is needed. All you have to do is not comment here for 60 days. Take some time off to learn some physics.)
Clint R
That line is very old. You have nothing and never will. You are a cult minded poster on the same level as debating an unscientific Flat-Earther. So I reject your bullshit challenge. Now give real evidence, you don’t have, you will not.
Yes Norman, you refuse learning. That’s typical in a cult.
dremt…”Ball4 plays dumb”.
***
Oh, he’s not playing, as in acting.
Lol, you may well be right.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
During and since Darwin’s time, people have been looking for and studying evidence in nature that teaches them more about evolution. Some types of evidence, such as fossils and similarities between related living organisms, were used by Darwin to develop his theory of natural selection, and are still used today. Others, such as DNA testing, were not available in Darwin’s time, but are used by scientists today to learn more about evolution.
Five types of evidence for evolution are discussed in this section: ancient organism remains, fossil layers, similarities among organisms alive today, similarities in DNA, and similarities of embryos. Another important type of evidence that Darwin studied and that is still studied and used today is artificial selection, or breeding.
https://necsi.edu/evidence-for-evolution
Evolution is just another false religion. It ranks right up there with the CO2 nonsense. It’s just layer upon layer of beliefs that are easily disproved.
None of the evidence pointed to in this article is evidence of evolution. They all point to evidence of similarities in certain species and that field is called genetics. I am not arguing that woolly mammoths and modern elephants are not from the same species, I am arguing that no one knows where the varies species originated.
Evolution requires a beginning and before evolutionists realized how st00pid the explanation was for that, called abiogenesis, and tried to distance itself from abiogenesis, that was the accep.ted origin of life in evolution theory. So, evolutionists are moving the goal posts and have moved them so far that modern evolution theory is actually genetics.
Darwin’s theory is nothing more than an unscientific guess.
> I am arguing
Strong words, Bordo.
Are you sure about that?
wee willy, it’s the sign of a rank amateur when you pick three words out of the entire allotment yet you are unable to debate the entire statement.
Better luck next time.
C’mon, Bordo.
Your entire allotment was just another of your convoluted story.
Not only it wasn’t an argument, but it is not even wrong.
Emphasizing that you pretend arguing is enough for now.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earth’s crust, tectonic plates gradually formed, geoscientists find
by David Kubarek for Penn News
University Park PA (SPX) Sep 26, 2023
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Earths_crust_tectonic_plates_gradually_formed_geoscientists_find_999.html
–The Earth’s crust continued a slow process of reworking for billions of years, rather than rapidly slowing its growth some 3 billion years ago, according to a Penn State-led research team. The new finding contradicts existing theories that suggest the rapid formation of tectonic plates earlier in Earth’s history, researchers said.
The work may help answer a fundamental question about our planet and could hold clues as to the formation of other planets, according to lead author Jesse Reimink, assistant professor of geosciences.–
Well, I didn’t know about “rapidly slowing its growth some 3 billion years ago” but anyhow, we have a different idea about it.
I expect more changes as general matter.
Mercury might be useful, in terms understanding Earth- but it’s hard get to. Which will change if Starship works.
Best thing they could do is drop the plate tectonics nonsense and see what is rally going on. The theory was once known as the continental drift theory but the inference of continents drifting so st00pid they were forced to change the name to represent invisible plates below the surface that no one has ever seen, or seen move.
Same with climate change, formerly known as global warming. It became so ridiculous claiming that a warming of 1C over 180 years would lead to catastrophe they changed the meme to climate change. No one knows the meaning of climate, however, therefore it easier to present it as the new catastrophe vector.
People are cluing into that one as well so stay tuned for a new name in the near future.
Who is “they” and when did “they” do this?
For once back up your nonsense with detail.
they = alarmists
I said DETAIL Gordon.
Specifically WHICH “alarmists”?
And WHEN?
“…they were forced to change the name to represent invisible plates below the surface that no one has ever seen, or seen move.”
I would think they visible and one could characterize them.
How about the Pacific plate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Plate
“The Pacific Plate is an oceanic tectonic plate that lies beneath the Pacific Ocean. At 103 million km2 (40 million sq mi), it is the largest tectonic plate”
It seems to me an oceanic plate is around 7 km thick. So it would have oceanic sediment of varying thickness. But one drill thru sediment layer and reach the plate which varies thickness but it seems the older it is, the thicker it is and tend to say around 5 to 7 km. But where new plate is being made {sea floor spreading} I guessing it’s thinner maybe 3 km thick. And probably again varies where it’s subducting under another plate.
Wiki says:
“The Pacific Plate is almost entirely oceanic crust, but it contains some continental crust in New Zealand, Baja California, and coastal California.”
Anyhow all oceanic plates are relativity new, on average less than 200 million years old- unless it’s continental crust- or continent crust can be quite old.
Or continuing with the wiki:
A geologic map of the Pacific Ocean seabed shows not only the geologic sequences, and associated Ring of Fire zones on the ocean’s perimeters, but the various ages of the seafloor in a stairstep fashion, youngest to oldest, the oldest being consumed into the Asian oceanic trenches. The oldest part disappearing by way of the plate tectonics cycle is early-Cretaceous (145 to 137 million years ago).”
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Clouds are an important component of the Arctic climate system through their regulation of the surface energy budget; however, Arctic clouds are poorly simulated in global climate models (GCMs). In this study, we evaluate the Arctic clouds simulated by a multiscale modeling framework (MMF). The results are compared against a merged CloudSat-CALIPSO radar-lidar cloud product and contrasted with an atmospheric reanalysis and conventional GCMs. The comparisons focus on the annual cycle of cloud covers, vertical structures of cloud fraction, and condensate mixing ratio, as well as the relationships between low-cloud cover and atmospheric static stability. The MMF is found to represent Arctic boundary layer clouds slightly more realistically than the reanalysis and GCMs in both the annual cycle and vertical distribution except that middle- and high-cloud covers are underestimated and the amplitude of annual cycle of total cloud cover is larger. The relationship between low-cloud cover and near-surface atmospheric stability produced by MMF is remarkably similar to the satellite observation during autumn, winter, and early spring, as low-cloud cover decreases with colder surface and stronger stability. Such relationships over the annual cycle are not reproduced by other modeling approaches. Lastly, MMF yields a positive correlation between low-cloud cover and atmospheric stability over the Arctic ocean from May to August, opposite to the satellite observation, implying stronger control of horizontal advection on low-cloud formation. This modeled relationship is contributed by cloud fraction near the surface, which is known to be underestimated due to radar’s surface clutter.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019JD030522
When Sky Dragon cranks claim that GCMs don’t include clouds, they are doing themselves a disservice.
How can models do anything when the premises upon which they are based are so egregiously wrong?
How can you pretend arguing when you mostly pull stuff out of your asshat, Bordo?
wee willy attacks the messenger.
Bordo will do anything to protect his right to argue by assertion, including abusing the concept of ad hominem.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
wee willy…”The real question is, why cant you people resist responding to me!?”
***
I told you before. You are an alarmist trohl who prints trash that needs to be rebutted so third parties reading this blog won’t think we are all eejits like you. Also, to restore peoples’ confidence in science after you and your ilk slay it.
C’mon, Bordo.
You are responding to a copypasta of this comment from a fellow Sky Dragon crank:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1538593
I could not care less if you respond to me or not.
which proves you are a troll.
Which actually shows that Gaslighting Graham was playing the victim once again.
Not at all, I just wonder why people can’t stop responding to me. Not complaining, exactly, though I note that it does get boring. For everyone, probably.
If you don’t care whether people respond to you or not then you’re not really engaging in good faith, though.
Robertson
Your sentence applies even more to you (except the word ‘alarmist’ of course).
Otherwise everyone would believe that we are all persons like you, who
– are dominated by a furious hate of NOAA, NASA, Met Office, RSS etc, etc
and
– endlessly discredit (and sometimes deeply insult) numerous historical and contemporary scientists.
Scientists, by the way, who YOU can’t even come close to holding a candle to because you lack both technical skills and, above all, scientific education and training.
binny…”Otherwise everyone would believe that we are all persons like you, who
are dominated by a furious hate of NOAA, NASA, Met Office, RSS etc, etc”
***
It’s not a furious hatred, just a dislike of establishments lying to and misleading the public.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
He “just” wonders the same way he “just” repeats his riddles or “just” PSTs people.
The point I was making was not to complain or play the victim, but rather that the reason people keep responding might just be because deep down, they think there’s something to what I’m saying. If you’d bothered to read the comment properly you would have understood that.
“deep down, they think theres something to what Im saying”
Yes, narcissists often feel that way.
Lol, you may well be right.
Of course, it might also be because they’re just obsessed with always trying to get the last word, and I don’t allow them that. Then they project their “last wording” fault onto me.
No need to project…
…then they project their “last wording” fault onto me.
Another perfect illustration of Gaslighting Graham’s desingenuousness:
The guy who keeps responding to Nate’s comments after having declared he will ignore them, the very same guy who is PSTing people days after threads are dead, whines that commenters project their lastwordism onto him.
Poor Gaslighting Graham. Forever the victim.
Little Willy, JKRATM.
GGGGA
Little Willy, JKRATM.
I suppose that Gaslighting Graham’s NO U is progress.
Little Willy is desperate for the last word, again. He can have it. That’s how I prove (once again) that last words don’t matter to me. It’s these guys that are obsessed with it, and what frustrates them is that I don’t let them have it.
Gaslighting Graham’s NO U is progress for, deep down, he knows that I’m the one who’s been NO Uing him.
The point I am making is that Gaslighting Graham is the most disingenuous, Machiavellian toll this blog ever had. Heck, he might be a contender for Climateball history as a whole.
He could concede that Dragon cranks keep playing double binds. In this case, it’s
(B1) You need to be rebutted
and
(B2) why can’t you people resist responding to me!?
Since he does not want to contradict Bordo, here he is, whining again.
I’m completely honest. You just project all your own faults onto me. Just keep ranting at the mirror (JKRATM).
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Anyone who reads his contributions can see that he’s far from being completely honest. Sometimes, he’ll try to rationalize his manipulative tendencies. They always fail, but then it does not matter.
Deep down he knows that whatever he says is secondary. The only thing that matters to him is the ad nauseam.
Little Willy, JKRATM.
Gaslighting Graham found an abstruse way to say something very simple.
Childish, even.
NO U.
…and the really great thing about it is…I’m right.
Deep down Gaslighting Graham knows that *I* and *I* alone am right.
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Please do have the last word.
Deep down, Gaslighting Graham knows why I’m using the “deep down” construction.
“You just project all your own faults onto me.”
Sure.
Narcissists are never at fault.
If they doing something hurtful to others, it is justified.
We are considering the vast CO2 natural reservoirs (oceans and land), we are considering their vast CO2 content, along with the tiny ~400 ppm CO2 content in the actually very thin atmosphere.
–
At current average global temperature it is the ~400 ppm CO2 content which is in equilibrium interaction with the CO2 natural reservoirs. Or, to say diferently, at current average global temperature, the natural CO2 reservoirs with their mighty CO2 content “support” the ~400 ppm CO2 equilibrium content in earth’s atmosphere.
–
What we observe is that there is a rise in earth’s global temperature.
Also, it is measured, that there is an annual ~2 ppm CO2 content rise in earth’s atmosphere.
And, it is estimated, ~4 ppm CO2 content (as added amounts of CO2 from the fossil fuels burning) is annually added to the earth’s atmosphere.
–
So, we have, from the fossil fuels burning, annually added
~4 ppm CO2, but the annual rise of CO2 is ~ 2 ppm.
–
It is the 400 ppm which are actually being “supported” by natural reservoirs.
The average global temperature rise is the cause of that
~2 ppm CO2 rise in earth’s atmosphere, and not the fossil fuels burning.
–
Let’s discuss it arithmetically:
the current CO2 content of ~400 ppm is 100%
the ~2 ppm rise is than 0,5%
and the fossil fuels “contribution” is 1%
–
so, a layman’s logic, if we stop burning fossil fuels, there would not be the 1% “contribution”
–
so, if we suddenly stop burning fossil fuels, there will be a natural mitigation of ~0,5%.
–
So far, so good – in ten years there will be ~5% less CO2 content in earth’s atmosphere
–
in a hundred years there will be – the simple arithmetic cannot answer the question, because the simple arithmetic is very simple.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
And we can’t stop China from emitting CO2.
We can’t stop China from emitting CO2 for a vast host of
reasons. And China’s average temperature is about 8 C and
8 C is cold.
In addition, we have not reduced Global CO2 emission at all, despite
decades of we saying we are going to reduce global emission and we have waste trillions of dollars claiming we are reducing CO2 emission
when an objective analysis would indicate we causing an increase to global CO2 emission.
You are suffering from the cognitive bias known as the “small numbers” bias or “number size effect.” This bias refers to the tendency of people to perceive smaller numbers as significantly different from each other when, in reality, they may not be.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere may seem small when expressed as a percentage (~0.04%), but it represents a substantial amount of CO2 when you consider the Earth’s total carbon reservoir.
The Earth’s atmosphere contains approximately 3,040 gigatons (Gt) of CO2.
Archie,
“You are suffering from the cognitive bias known as the small numbers bias or number size effect. “
archie ….”Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere may seem small when expressed as a percentage (~0.04%), but it represents a substantial amount of CO2 when you consider the Earths total carbon reservoir”.
***
What it comes down to is the laws of thermodyanmics. The Ideal Gas Equation and the diffusion of heat equation (not conduction…diffusion) tells us that the trace gas, with a mass percent in the atmosphere of about 0.06% can diffuse no more than its mass percent worth of heat into the rest of the atmosphere. That means if nitrogen and oxygen with a mass percent of nearly 99% diffuses 1C into the atmosphere, CO2 can deliver no more than 0.06C.
“tells us that the trace gas, with a mass percent in the atmosphere of about 0.06% can diffuse no more than its mass percent worth of heat into the rest of the atmosphere.”
Why do you guys IGNORE the main thing responsible for warming the atmosphere?: The optical properties of molecules.
Even a trace substance @ 0.4% can result in 100% opaqueness, as effective as an iron plate at abs.orbing radiant energy.
Good analysis, Christos.
Thank you, Gordon.
We’re over a week past equinox and PV at South Pole continues to move hot air into the stratosphere. It’s working overtime to catch up when it was blocked by the HTE. North Pole PV continues to grow and organize. Both poles are now cooling. Earth knows how to cool itself, even when unexpected forcings occur.
The El Niño is struggling. The evidence continues to build that it’s a “modoki”. (Loosely translated, modoki means “phony”.)
Until the PV catches up, we will see higher UAH Global anomalies. Expect September to be above 0.70C. 0.80C???
History in the making, and we get to witness it!
Sept above 0.70 C?
I don’t have a guess for Sept.
I guessed quite wrong the last two times and the third time
is the charm, does not work for me.
We got two tropical depression in Atlantic:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
And Philippe and Rina aren’t predicted to go anywhere.
My side has none, but I have a chance of rain on Saturday or Sunday.
At end of week it’s predicted it could warm up, 90 F high and 59 F
nighttime low, but most of week has cold nighttime lows, lowest Sunday is 47 F. Which is almost cold enough to warrant turning on some heat on in my house. But no air conditioning {cooling} has been needed for weeks.
But post from Outside, I have having to wear a coat to keep warm-
wearing one right, though it’s daytime and I don’t really need it then. And I have not had enough coffee.
There is this story:
Researchers forecast strong El Nio and record-breaking global surface temperatures in 20232024
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
–Climate alarmists have been waiting nearly 8 years, since the last significant El Nio, for another chance to claim natural climate variation as an expression of their chosen non-natural theories. Tremble or not as the study authors predict a cascade of climate crises.–
{{ My note: What would skeptics do without all this entertainment?
And could you call it a governmental funded welfare program?}}
…
“A strong El Nio event is going to wreak havoc on global surface temperature and trigger several climate crises in 20232024, according to researchers from the Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. [Talkshop comment the hype has already started].”
{A Chinese govt welfare program}.
A link from https://www.spaceweather.com/ :
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2022/03/23/what-is-tci/
“Mlynczak and colleagues recently introduced the Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI)a number expressed in Watts that tells how much heat nitrogen oxide (NO) molecules in the thermosphere are dumping into space. During Solar Maximum, TCI is high (Hot); during Solar Minimum, it is low (Cold).” And has graph for 1950’s to 2020.
And it’s low in 1960’s and 1970s and has been low from 2002 ish to present. In terms of what is called cold, 2003 to 2006 has been longest time {and occurs in solar min]. But it terms of our Max, at moment it’s “20.00×10^10 W Warm/” Updated 27 Sep 2023
As a number I was wondering when dips below 19.00×10^10 W and stays below it for a some time. And one could say most the time of graph is below 19.00×10^10 W. And in terms averages over many months only during 24 peak did have much time in that range or higher- though Max 24 spent very time compared to other cycle. Though also interested when it has days of hot. So days are averaged out, and highest point
{not a few days} is about 50.00 x 10^10 or “Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)” and in months later was also high or was high before leading lows of 1960’s {lowest during Grand solar Max or if don’t count the Grand Solar Min period.
Anyways, it tends to indicate the high upper atmosphere can stay hot or warm for quite a while {for some reason}. And could be related to global weather temperature.
This site looks different {to me}.
Let’s restate the Sept 29 2023:
https://www.spaceweather.com/
I was waiting for thermosphere data to be updated, but…
Solar wind
speed: 445.2 km/sec
density: 7.50 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 29 Sep 23
Sunspot number: 109
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 148 sfu
“All of these sunspots are in decay, with simplifying magnetic fields that pose a decreasing threat for strong flares.”
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.00×1010 W Warm
Updated 27 Sep 2023
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.0% Low
48-hr change: +0.6%
Updated 29 Sep 2023
I don’t see any spots coming to nearside and the slightly decayed
3435 is about to leave the nearside
The pros probably haven’t updated their forecast:
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
25 September – 21 October 2023
Solar activity is expected to be low to moderate with M-class flare
activity likely through much of the period.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
expected to reach high levels on 25-28 Sep, and moderate levels
throughout the remainder of the outlook period.
Geomagnetic field activity is expected to reach G1-G2
(Minor-Moderate) storm levels on 25 Sep due to the passage of a CME
from early on 22 Sep. Active levels are expected on 26 Sep due to
residual CME effects in addition to the predicted glancing-blow
arrival of a CME from late on 22 Sep. Quiet conditions are expected
to prevail throughout the remainder of the period.”
So, same one.
And it roughly seems to me, that for whatever reason, Oct is going to be similar to Sept, it the sense low in first 1/2 {up to Oct 15}
and will significantly pick up in second 1/2 of month.
I guessed Sept wouldn’t have higher count than 120, and I haven’t added them up, and I guess it could a bit higher than 120.
And for Oct, I now doubt it’s going to be above 110 monthly sunspot number. And now, it seems more likely it could be lower than 88.3
which is curved line prediction.
Though it’s more likely pass thru the line with Nov number.
So range of my guess is 85 to 115 for Oct.
Well that posted.
So, unlikely have spotless day in the next week, and within 2 weeks, maybe 40% chance.
Oh, and the board has returned to normal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIPnga7LBA
SpaceX Starship Launch Date: Full Stack Achieved! When Is The Launch? NASA Brings Space Rocks Down!
And couple of thing other than SpaceX- interesting bit about European effort to return to ISS cargo missions.
Though nothing about the Japanese ISS cargo effort.
And while on topic of other countries, it seems South Korea should focus the ocean launch {work with Japanese on it, maybe].
[They still haven’t updated thermosphere temperature, yet. Hmm,
“9.0000000-27.000000-2023.0000 2.0004072e+11” nope.]
For September you predicted 90-110.
https://tinyurl.com/2s87jv6t
The actual value will be about 140.
Don’t be a revisionist like Clint.
There is almost ZERO chance of a spotless day in the next two weeks.
Pay attention to the flux values from your spaceweather site:
https://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/forecast-prevision/solar-solaire/solarflux/sx-5-flux-en.php
When the “ADJUSTED flux” get down to the 70s then you have a chance at a spotless day. You might even jag one in the low 80s. In recent months it has fluctuated between the 130s and 180s.
There is very little chance of a spotless day in the next 6 months, only slightly higher for the next 12 months, and I wouldn’t be totally surprised if you’re waiting more than two years.
Antonin Qwerty says:
September 29, 2023 at 5:18 PM
For September you predicted 90-110.
https://tinyurl.com/2s87jv6t
Quoting myself:
“So I guessed Aug would lower than July, and Sept will be low, and really crashing by Nov.
But compared to drawn red line and margins of it, monthly spot numbers have been since beginning above the drawn red line.
So in terms of guessing, what month will pass thru this line?
For Sept the monthly spot number would need to be below 85.9 average sunspots. And I think its unlikely to below 85 for Sept, more like 90 to 110 sunspots.”
So I was wondering how soon the monthly spot number would go below the curve {which they have not done so far]. So I was guess what would to the lowest it could go. And more likely then below 85 for Sept, 90 to 110 was a more likely lowest range it would go to.
So, then I focused on Oct, and:
“But for Oct, its 88.3 and give it at most 50% chance its below 88, I tend to think it will again be in range 90 to 110.”
As lowest range it would reach.
So, to guess when it would drop below the line, was going to take until Nov.
So, I have long guess Nov, would crash. But I didn’t quantify what I meant by crash. And a way to think about it, is related to curve of graph. So, would cross the line with Sept??
I decided, it was very unlikely, and lowest it was likely to go was
90 to 110.
But the highest it would go, is a different question, and I guessed highest number would slightly higher than July or about 120 and could go much lower, but not to the curved line.
Anyhow, you say Sept was 140. I don’t know, and count will be out within 3 or more days.
And whatever it is, I am not going to argue with number- cause I let them, do it. But it seems it could be above 120.
What spot count tomorrow?
Broadly, I assume no spot coming from farside and 3435 will have left the nearside. 3450 seems the mostly likely to grow and all others have fair chance of fading more, so below 100 is quite possible, though even 110 is possible.
“There is almost ZERO chance of a spotless day in the next
two weeks.”
What will be highest sunspot number average be for next 2 weeks, and what lowest average sunspot number {more 5% chance] in next two weeks?
I don’t focus on such short time frame, but I think we will tend to continue the have more spots well outside the Equator region.
But I guess around 100 as most likely. 60 is not very likely as is 140.
I really have no idea. Just no zero days. There hasn’t been a day with less than 80 spots for almost 6 months.
“I think we will tend to continue the have more spots well outside the Equator region”
If true, that would be an indication that we are nowhere near the peak.
https://www.stce.be/sites/default/files/field/image/Picture5_36.png
The mean sunspot latitude typically crosses below the 16 degree mark 3 months before the peak (on average, with a large variance).
If the mean latitude of spots increases as you suggest (and as the graph suggests), then we are even further away from crossing that threshold.
Here are the 10 most recent zero days in SILSO’s daily SSN series:
2021 08 07 2021.599 0 2.4 47
2021 08 08 2021.601 0 2.9 39
2021 08 10 2021.607 0 3.4 51
2021 09 16 2021.708 0 0.0 42
2021 09 17 2021.711 0 0.0 45
2021 09 18 2021.714 0 2.6 47
2021 10 17 2021.793 0 3.0 38
2021 12 09 2021.938 0 0.0 22
2021 12 10 2021.941 0 0.0 28
2021 12 11 2021.944 0 0.0 30
And why would zero days suddenly come back?
“Anyhow, you say Sept was 140. I dont know, and count will be out within 3 or more days.”
It was sooner:
Sept: 133.6
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
And I thought in beginning the month it wouldn’t go above 120.
And now I will guess probably won’t go up above 120 for Oct.
But I think it’s significant chance, it drop below 90.
And since we in solar max, it possible to higher than 120 or
even above 150. And also possible drop to 50.
But if it dropped to 50, I would then have to guess Nov would go up.
And I guessed months ago, Nov would drop.
And I prefer be more accurate with the guess in regards to Nov- for sentimental reasons.
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.68×10^10 W Warm
Updated 29 Sep 2023
So, now everything is updated to 29 Sep 2023
Solar wind
speed: 444.7 km/sec
density: 3.79 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 30 Sep 23
“Sunspot AR3450 has a ‘beta-gamma’ magnetic field that harbors energy for M-class solar flares. ”
It grew a bit
Sunspot number: 102
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 155 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.68×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.4% Low
48-hr change: +1.0%
Well we still have 7 numbered spots and small unnumbered spot {or spots] came [or appeared] from farside.
Anyhow what I can see going to farside is 3 small spots or 2 and tiny one, or apparently less than unnumbered spot[s] coming from farside.
One could say not “really” any spots are going to be lost going to farside.
And might be something behind the unnumbered spot{s] but otherwise don’t anything coming from farside.
3450 might grow more.
3449 getting smaller and adding more spots or some
thing- it’s changing. But 3448 appears to have just grown a bit bigger and maybe grow small spots near it {kind of smear near it}.
I don’t think anybody actually reads your ball by ball description of each spot.
I am saying it, to perhaps have someone else, add or correct to what
I am looking at in terms changing solar conditions.
And I use it [and others aren’t] to assess it on ongoing basis.
Nothing to report at this point, but there is interesting
space weekly update:
Why is SpaceX Starship Really in this Position?, NASA Psyche & OSIRIS REx Sample Return
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGcFnWiWIt4
Psyche mission seems quite complicated and worrying in terms of
possible failures, I hope everything goes well.
Solar wind
speed: 404.8 km/sec
density: 3.56 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 01 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 106
“New sunspot AR3451 has a ‘beta-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for strong”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 159 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.61×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.4% Low
48-hr change: +1.6%
The spots coming from farside, 3451 and 3450 are growing quickly.
And a couple faded spots are leaving from the nearside
Solar wind
speed: 369.4 km/sec
density: 2.85 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 01 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 136
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 159 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.61×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.4% Low
So again, picture of sun, hasn’t updated yet.
So, I get to guess again why it went from 106
to 136.
Well there wasn’t much leaving {the two spots had faded to few
tiny spots, and 3447 is probably still on nearside, and would guess
it’s not going to fade much prior to leaving.
Leaving 3448 thru to 3451. I would guess 3448 is not going grow or fade. 3449 could fade a bit more. And that leaves 3450 and 3451 which
have growing fast. So most likely is either or both grow a lot more.
And/or new spots appear, a lot of them or one or two of them growing a lot.
Now got another forecast from Pros of Dover:
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
02 October – 28 October 2023
Solar activity is expected to be low with a chance for M-class flare
activity throughout the period.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
expected to reach high levels on 03-07 Oct, with normal to moderate
levels expected for the remainder of the outlook period.
Geomagnetic field activity is expected to reach active levels on
02-03, and 05 Oct due to positive polarity CH HSS influences. Quiet
and quiet to unsettled levels are expected to persist throughout the
remainder of the period. “
Solar wind
speed: 357.0 km/sec
density: 2.98 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 02 Oct 23
“Sunspot complex AR3451-52 has a delta-class magnetic field that harbors energy for strong M-class solar flares.”
Sunspot number: 136
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 161 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.52×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.8% Low
48-hr change: +1.5%
So they made Ar3451 into two numbered spots.
A small/medium new spot appeared, 3453, which is nearest 3448 {it didn’t change}.
And 3454 came from farside, but saw it but it looked small a weak/weird, but it grew, and I thought it would just fade away.
I also saw bunch of weak tiny spots around where 2353 appeared- but also thought they wouldn’t “last”, also.
So I guess “nothing” unpredictable, if one “knew enough”.
Also another tiny spot coming from farside in north and not numbered,
yet. And 3447 should leave nearside, soon {and it didn’t fade}.
And:
“THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE OF THE SUN IS IN CHARGE: For the second month in a row, sunspot counts in the sun’s northern hemisphere are more than double the south.”
clint…” The evidence continues to build that its a modoki. (Loosely translated, modoki means phony.)”
***
In that case, the alarmists on this blog, led by wee willy and Binny, are modokis.
dremt…”Little Willy is desperate for the last word…”
***
It’s a trait of those with obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Says the person who obsessively and compulsively spends more time composing comments here than anyone else.
Lacking the same access I have to intelligence, AQ reveals his inability to understand genius. AQ is reduced to following me around in a futile attempt to criticize.
Why would I need to follow you? Everywhere I look, there’s another page of drivel from you. But thanks for admitting to your DKS.
Like I said, you lack the intelligence to understand it.
Yeah, it’s hard to deal with. Best just to not let them have the last word. Otherwise…where does it end?
So says the resident chief of Last Wording.
Bordo is desperate for the last word, again.
He can have it.
That’s how I prove
(once again)
that last words don’t matter to me.
It’s these Sky Dragon Cranks that are obsessed with it,
and what frustrates them is
that I don’t let them have it.
Gordon never gets the last word, he’s not interested in those games at all.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1541563
Your 6:44 PM comment didn’t apply at all, just so you know.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, this time denying the obvious:
Bordo *does* kick the can down the thread.
Bordo *does* keep ignoring what he’s responding to.
Gaslighting Graham *does* piggyback on his fellow Sky Dragon cranks’ comments.
This *does* respond to his silly claim, in fact it refutes it.
My claim was that Gordon isn’t interested in getting the last word. It’s correct, judging from his commenting patterns.
My claim is that kicking the can down the thread is just another try to get the last word.
That he starts another thread all the time does not change anything.
Incidentally, Gaslighting Graham threw a fit when I kicked my comments down a recent thread.
What a silly, sad, Machiavellian.
Little Willy lies again. I certainly didn’t "throw a fit" about anything. He’ll now respond…
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1388380
Now, imagine if we applied that to Bordo’s contributions…
So, as I said, I never "threw a fit" about it. He’ll respond again…
The fact that he didn’t *say* he threw a fit is completely irrelevant.
Gaslighting Graham is just completely obsessed with dragging every single exchange down to its bitter end.
I didn’t throw a fit, full stop. What you did in that thread was a disgrace, though…and not comparable to what Gordon does.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
What I did in that thread was to show how Pupman’s riddles, coupled with Bordo’s kicking-the-can technique, can lead to an infinity of riddles.
By contrast to Pupman and Bordo, my riddles were sound, interesting, and keep Moon Dragon cranks for the few decades to come.
So no wonder Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
…keep Moon Dragon cranks busy for the few decades to come.
You must have started about fifty new threads on the same topic. So no, it was not comparable to what Gordon does. You were using the blog as your own personal toilet paper.
Gaslighting Graham, desperate to get the last word, repeats the same lies.
It’s a trait of those with obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Not a lie, at all. Just went back and counted the number of threads you started. Nearly 50 on the moon issue alone.
More than 50 HARD QUESTIONS ™ Gaslighting Graham ignored.
Questions I had already answered previously, or questions which merely demonstrated your lack of understanding, or questions which I did in fact respond to at the time. A lot of them were not questions at all.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Gordon Robertson says:
August 19, 2011 at 11:42 AM
RoysorryI had not seen this comment submission form and I have been emailing you directly.
I have a question with regard to your Global Temperature Anomaly Graph. John Christy has stated the satellite data shows no warming till after the 1998 El Nino extreme. I can see that on your graph visually if I look at the area under the red running average. However, I am not clear on the meaning of the baseline (the 1979 2010 average) which many alarmists claim is arbitrary.
It seem wrong to apply a linear decadal trend to such a graph, because the data levels off for a lengthy period after about 2001. The GISS graph shows a definite positive anomaly with a linear trend from 1980 onward, but much of the UAH trend lies in a negative anomaly region, suggesting it is not true warming.
How does an anomaly-based graph relate to a graph of absolute temps? A baseline based on a 30 year average suggests a warming trend is possible, although John seems to be saying the negative anomaly regions are not real warming, even though the linear trend is positive.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/oh-the-insensitivity-more-on-ocean-warming-1955-2010/#comment-20489
Note the date.
If you read John again, he said no ‘true’ warming till after 1998. By that, I think he meant a warming that is consistently above the baseline.
Which baseline is that Gordon?
The baseline that applied when John made the statement.
BTW Gordon, still waiting for you to answer this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1540882
WHICH specific organisation changed “global warming” to “climate change”, and WHEN did “they” do this?
” Note the date. ”
Yeah. Noted.
I’m too lazy to wget Robertson’s posts since the blog started, but the list of dates to note like this could be long (longue comme un jour sans pain, disait-on chez nous il y a bien longtemps).
Here are a few:
January 23, 2015 at 6:44 PM
September 4, 2019 at 11:58 PM
September 13, 2022 at 5:59 PM
May 1, 2023 at 4:06 PM
In these posts, you clearly see that Robertson never was willing to learn and understand that
– (1) baselines are artificial constructs depending on the reference period chosen to obtain them, what means that the place on the time axis where they cross the baseline depends on that reference period;
– (2) anomalies are strictly bound to their reference period, what means that you can’t compare anomalies wrt 1951-1980 let alone 1901-2000 to those wrt 1981-2010 or 1991-2020.
Instead, the genius discredits since years my and other people’s accumulated knowledge about temperature time series, anomalies etc, but lacks the technical skills to fairly contradict anyone.
But… Robertson never admits being wrong and therefore will endlessly repeat his nonsense.
C’est pourtant si facile. Il suffit de vouloir apprendre au lieu de nier tout ce que l’on ne comprend pas.
Re. (1): I tried to explain to him that depending on the reference period chosen, the baseline – which in fact is a 12 month array when having to remove the annual cycle – changes because it is an average over different data.
Is it so complicated to understand that when the absolute time series shows warming
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EuZxQTmZynMurw68n5lBo6g35Vh00foK/view
a later reference period leads to a baseline array with higher absolute averages and hence to lower departures aka anomalies from these averages?
Yearly averages of the 12 month baselines for
– 1979-1998: 263.87 K;
– 1999-2018: 264.11 K.
Hence, anomalies wrt 1999-2018
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rn5BXUqcoXWEz7kVFmh35cIEILZnEaO9/view
are on average 0.24 K lower than those wrt 1979-1998
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sLvoNtuCoe-61-12QFhMXEXHn25pu4Em/view
and the trend line crosses the baseline accordingly later.
Thus, the period of the alleged ‘true rewarming’ (what is ‘above the baseline’) becomes shorter, and conversely that of the alleged ‘recovery from the cooling’ (what is ‘below the baseline’) becomes longer.
This has nothing to do with the volcano eruptions in 1980,1982 and 1991.
Because although these events were responsible for cooling, if the globe experienced more severe cooling for long time after them, the anomaly values associated to the eruptions would inevitably move above the baseline.
” … which in fact is a 12 month array when having to remove the annual cycle … ”
This is of course valid only for monthly time series.
For e.g. daily time series, the baseline is a 366 day array, e.g.
https://tinyurl.com/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Clim
For seasons you’ll have a four season array etc etc
Re. (2): Robertson wrote this year:
” You have had the temerity in the past to post graphs showing UAH and NOAA in lock-step. ”
And last year:
” Take a look here at the NOAA global land and ocean bar graph and tell me ho there is a relationship between it and UAH data.
For one, NOAA’s graph takes off on a distance linear trend from 1980 onward. The UAH graph is in a negative anomaly phase till 1997 then it is flat from 1998 2015.
The NOAA graph shows 8 years of global temps above 0.8C, including 2022, from 2015 2022, while UAH shows nothing close to that. UAH maxed out at 0.7C in 2016 and one year was 0.6C, the rest were 0.5C or below and recently, more typically around 0.3C.
NOAA show no recent cooling at all. NAA is clearly fudged to show a steadily warming planet, which is a major lie. ”
*
You immediately inderstand that Robertson compares NOAA’s anomalies wrt the mean of 1901-2000 to UAH’s anomalies wrt the mean of 1991-2020:
https://i.postimg.cc/ncDph2XL/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022.png
Incredible but true.
Even today, he would repeat the same mistake, instead of finally understanding that you have to compare anomalies wrt one and the same period:
https://i.postimg.cc/xT6mR007/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022-wrt-1991-2020.png
But… he is ‘convinced’ that the latter graph is a ‘faked presentation of NOAA’s fudged data’.
It’s pathological, no hope for a change so far.
> Im too lazy to wget
No need. Just do a “site:” search, and add the year and or the month, e.g.
site: site:drroyspencer.com/2010/05 “gordon robertson”
Thanks, good idea, though giving only a very small subset of what I expect when looking globally.
But searching for ” Gordon Robertson says” even finds things like
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/04/role-of-water-vapour-in-climate-change/#comment-92951
Since one can’t perform a recursive search within Roy Spencer’s blog (you get a HTTP 403 exception when trying to download pages above those containing the comments), this might be a good way to bypass the problem.
Interesting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Christos Vournas says:
Archie,
You are suffering from the cognitive bias known as the small numbers bias or number size effect.
Yes, Christos Vournas, that is exactly what I wrote.
Why?
Because if all the CO2 in the atmosphere were condensed to liquid and spread over the entire surface area of the Earth, the layer would be approximately 20 feet deep.
Archie,
“Because if all the CO2 in the atmosphere were condensed to liquid and spread over the entire surface area of the Earth, the layer would be approximately 20 feet deep.”
–
And if all other gasses (N2, O2 Etc) were removed from atmosphere, the CO2 alone would be a vacuum.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Mars has a lot more CO2 per square meter of area, than Earth.
Earth would be more of vacuum than Mars is, but less of vacuum than our Moon.
It’s the son stoopid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9INI2T6Nz-o
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Here, we build a geological carbon cycle model that simulates the early surface environment and generates probability distributions for the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), average surface temperature, and ocean pH over time. During the Hadean, CO2 dissolved in water is consumed by reacting with material ejected from meteorite impacts, so CO2 levels tend to be low and the greenhouse effect weak. The consequences are low surface temperature and alkaline seawater. The probability that the surface temperature was lower than the freezing point of water and that seawater pH exceeded 7 is 70% at 4.3 billion years ago. Thus, if life began in the Hadean, it likely emerged in a cold global environment, and early life may have spread into an alkaline ocean
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GC008734
Perhaps our Sky Dragon cranks ought to take note.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Here, we build a geological carbon cycle model that simulates the early surface environment and generates probability distributions for the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), average surface temperature, and ocean pH over time. During the Hadean, CO2 dissolved in water is consumed by reacting with material ejected from meteorite impacts, so CO2 levels tend to be low and the greenhouse effect weak. The consequences are low surface temperature and alkaline seawater. The probability that the surface temperature was lower than the freezing point of water and that seawater pH exceeded 7 is 70% at 4.3 billion years ago. Thus, if life began in the Hadean, it likely emerged in a cold global environment, and early life may have spread into an alkaline ocean
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GC008734
Perhaps our Sky Dragon cranks ought to take note.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The electron cannot be bumped into a higher energy state by a photon emitted from lower energy state electron.
People insisting the hotter objects still absorb the radiation from cooler objects are scientifically retarded.
That includes all climate cranks referring to hundreds years old books and unfortunately even many so called skeptics.
It shows the very sad of state of science we are in because as far as the fizzix goes this is as basic as it gets.
https://youtu.be/2GwctBldBvU?t=80
The greenhouse effect has NOTHING to do with bumping electrons into higher energy states.
The greenhouse effect is mostly about Earth’s transparent ocean- and nothing about bumping electrons into higher energy states.
Thanks for agreeing with my comment.
Not sure what the first part of your sentence is about though. The greenhouse effect happens in the atmosphere. Anything that happens at ground level is happening before or after the action of the greenhouse effect.
Europeans wondered why there countries so close the polar region were warm. Ad they invented the greenhouse effect because making greenhouse were a fad. And there are many ways to keep a greenhouse warm.
The answer to their puzzle, was the Gulf Stream keeps Europe warmer.
” Europeans wondered why there countries so close the polar region were warm. Ad they invented the greenhouse effect because making greenhouse were a fad. And there are many ways to keep a greenhouse warm.
The answer to their puzzle, was the Gulf Stream keeps Europe warmer. ”
I can’t recall having ever read such a bloody nonsense.
Svante Arrhenius began his search for the effects of CO2 because he wanted to understand the connection between its low presence in the atmosphere and ice ages.
Canucks seem to have a strange brain.
–Svante Arrhenius began his search for the effects of CO2 because he wanted to understand the connection between its low presence in the atmosphere and ice ages.–
It was going on, long before he got interested in it.
And now, of course, we know it was actually related to Milankovitch cycles- another guy coming late to the discussion.
“I cant recall having ever read such a bloody nonsense.”
Your luck has changed
…
–Most historians credit French Botanist Jules Charles with designing the first greenhouse, or glasshouse as they were called then, around 1600. For the next century, wealthy landowners in Britain, Holland and France experimented with new greenhouse designs. Because glass could only be made in small panes, the same technique of using lead casings to hold stained glass windows together in medieval churches was used to install glazing in greenhouses.
Around 1700 wealthy merchants in England began growing warm season plants, including citrus trees in glasshouses. The successful Orangery design consisting of a sloping roof, and three glass walls anchored to a south facing brick wall is still in use today. Decomposing manure was used to keep the ground warm in the orangeries, raising bed temperatures to between 110 and 140 degrees. It wasnt until the late 1700s when more English growers began to note the contrast of fruits and vegetables in the orangeries to winter landscape outside that the term greenhouse was first used.
Around the same time, across the Atlantic, George Washington is reported to have grown pineapples under glass at Mt. Vernon in his own Pinery , which he would proudly serve to dinner guests.
…–
http://microfarmgardens.com/blog/2014/1/1/history-of-the-greenhouse.html
Of course it does, how do you think CO2 produces heat from absorbing EM?
Ever considered looking it up yourself?
It’s all out there if you can be bothered, and if you don’t have an agenda which blinds you to the science.
Are you disagreeing with gbaikie?
And CO2 doesn’t “produce” heat.
You continue to misrepresent the science.
And I’m still waiting for you to answer this.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1540882
AQ, when he’s not posting links that take shots at Roy’s integrity and the integrity of Steve Goddard, whines at me to provide an explanation of ‘they’ in the following…
[GR]”Same with climate change, formerly known as global warming. It became so ridiculous claiming that a warming of 1C over 180 years would lead to catastrophe they changed the meme to climate change. No one knows the meaning of climate, however, therefore it easier to present it as the new catastrophe vector”.
I don’t see why I should explain anything to someone who thinks its cool to post a link that denigrates the integrity of Steve Goddard and Roy then wants me to explain who changed the focus of an alleged warming catastrophe to an alleged climate catastrophe. No one is going to accept credit for the conniving behind the scenes but we all know it happened. More than 10 years ago, everyone talked only of global warming and now they talk only of climate change.
It was given a name…CAGW…for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I recall the first time I heard it from skeptic Jim Cripwell. When I started posting here on Roy’s site, no one talked about climate change, it was all global warming. Somewhere along the line, the focus changed to climate change. Either that happened spontaneously for no known reason or people worked behind the scenes to refocus the public’s attention away from global warming and onto climate change, an obfuscated concept that
The Climategate email scandal revealed a hitherto unknown behind-the-scenes plot to discuss cheating global warming theory that was not being disclosed to the general public. In the emails, people like Michael Mann were seen to be furiously working on interfering with peer review. Kevin Trenberth admitted global warming had stopped and it was a travesty that no one knew why.
Phil Jones admitted to using Mann’s trick to hide declining temperatures while he was head of Had-crut. Then he appeared to throw Kevin Trenberth under the bus when he boasted that he and Kevin would see to it that certain skeptic papers did not reach the IPCC review stage. Jones and Trenberth were Coordinating Lead Authors on IPCC reviews and certainly had the power to do that. And wouldn’t you know it, skeptic papers were blocked. One paper was from John Christy of UAH and we know John is a man of integrity. There was no reason whatsoever to block the paper he co-authored.
But, hey, AQ, that’s what you support, these are your role models and authority figures. You think nothing of linking to a site that smears people of integrity like Steve Goddard and Roy Spencer.
I don’t need to identify who ‘they’ are, it’s pretty apparent it has happened.
Thanks for link, interesting to get the views of one of the originals, Paul Dirac.
I agree with your comments above although I have always been put off with the post-Bohr era of research. Dirac, Heisenberg, et al were theortical physicists who dabbled in math while Heisenberg was thrilled to be a Nazi. Not that this revelation has anything to do with anything.
I made some notes on Dirac from video I.
-he revealed that Bohr also applies to atoms with multiple electrons in the radical group of the Periodic table, all of the atoms with only one electron in the outer shell.
-he supplied an author…Whittaker, from whom he learned about Hamiltonians. I managed to find it, for anyone interested, by entering ‘pdf whittaker analytical dynamics’…without quote marks.
-Dirac claimed that scientists create their equations before an explanation is offered. I figured as much. They cannot give exact values to particles re momentum, speed, etc., just probabilities.
-uncertainty is the best they can do in quantum theory.
-I disagree with Dirac with his claim that we cannot return to classical theory. All we need is instruments to do real measurements at atomic level.
-energy is not conserved during electron transitions because energy is not defined over an instant. Momentum is conserved.
-got the impression that Dirac did not like Schrodinger a lot.
The following link is related and describes the in-fighting in electrodynamics between Feynman, Bohr, Dirac, etc.
Interesting for those so inclined…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaC_aKqjCXU&ab_channel=SeethePattern
“The electron cannot be bumped into a higher energy state by a photon emitted from lower energy state electron.
People insisting the hotter objects still absorb the radiation from cooler objects are scientifically retarded.”
The second sentence does NOT follow from the first. Take a few physics classes if you don’t understand. Dirac would be perpexed by this interpretation of what he said.
Why don’t you hook-up with Bindiclow and start buseness making those ice radiation powered light bulbs, let’s see how your physics classes pay off.
Again, pure non-sequitur.
Your last post has nothing to do with my reply.
Your last post has nothing to do with any post I have ever made.
It would be fascinating to actually sit down (or even Zoom) with some of the people commenting here to figure out what that actually understand. Maybe then errors and misunderstandings could be corrected.
I suppose we could start with something simple. Suppose a lone 15 um photon arrives at a surface. Is there any possible way to know the temperature of the material that emitted the photon?
Tim,
Define temperature.
Only joking, I know you are posing a gotcha.
Assume a lone 15 um micron arrives at a the surface of some water – how much hotter will the water get?
What’s the matter? Did your zinger metamorphose into a damp squib?
Of course it is a “gotcha” aimed at this ridiculous claim:
“People insisting the hotter objects still absorb the radiation from cooler objects are scientifically retarded.”
There is no way for an object to determine if the photon came from a cooler or a warmer object. Hence the photon is absorbed the same, whether it is arriving at a ‘hotter object’ or a ‘cooler object’.
The object doesn’t think “Oh, this 15 um photon came from the 5500 C sun, so I will absorb it. But this 15 um photon came from -80 C dry ice, so I will reject it.”
Quantum fizzix is flying two miles up over Tim Folkerts head
And yet, Eben, you can’t answer an exceedling simple question.
Can two photons of the same wavelength be distinguished from another? The answer is “no” and and therefore the temperature of the surfaces from which they came has no impact of whether they gets absorbed. The emitting surface does not need to be warmer for the photon to be absorbed.
The quantum physics that Dirac was discussing is pretty basic, but you still have misinterpreted it badly.
Tim, please stop trolling.
“People insisting the hotter objects still absorb the radiation from cooler objects are scientifically retarded.”
Eben secured his place on the new show
‘Science deniers say the darndest things!’.
the one that comes on right after ‘Hillbilly Handfishin’
Climate Reanalyzer
Warmest Septembers:
1. 2023 +0.951
2. 2016 +0.489
3. 2020 +0.482
4. 2022 +0.476
5. 2021 +0.460
6. 2003 +0.424
7. 2005 +0.384
8. 2019 +0.379
Warmest months (anomalistically):
1. Sep 2023 +0.951
2. Feb 2016 +0.862
3. Jul 2023 +0.834
4. Mar 2016 +0.825
5. Feb 2020 +0.809
6. Mar 2023 +0.769
7. Jan 2020 +0.767
8. Mar 2022 +0.764
9. Aug 2023 +0.759
10. Mar 2017 +0.744
Warmest 3rd Quarters (Jul-Sep):
1. 2023 +0.848
2. 2016 +0.490
3. 2022 +0.471
4. 2021 +0.438
5. 2003 +0.397
6. 2017 +0.394
7. 2020 +0.394
8. 2002 +0.383
9. 2005 +0.362
10. 2006 +0.336
Warmest Quarters (anomalistically):
1. 3rd 2023 +0.848
2. 1st 2016 +0.801
3. 1st 2020 +0.743
4. 1st 2017 +0.665
5. 1st 2022 +0.656
6. 1st 2023 +0.635
7. 4th 2015 +0.608
8. 4th 2021 +0.576
9. 2nd 2023 +0.563
10. 4th 2019 +0.547
Warmest Jan-Sep
1. 2023 +0.682
2. 2016 +0.604
3. 2020 +0.540
4. 2022 +0.526
5. 2017 +0.511
6. 2019 +0.468
7. 2005 +0.449
8. 2002 +0.443
9. 2007 +0.429
10. 2006 +0.397
That’s all no more than weather.
And some thousands of years ago, it was way warmer.
🙂
:–) looks better.
I thought it was “the HT effect”.
And of course 2017 it was hurricanes.
Here is a path in the atmospheric forest where they can walk and look for these rare, amazing HTE flowers:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZU3ylEfpQjZ-o4Gz1NKDxa0nGdYKnFEd/view
Bordo always ignores what he being told and kicks the can down the thread.
Gaslighting Graham does the same, but he usually piggybacks on another Sky Dragon crank for his mischiefs.
Just like here.
Total nonsense from a hated failure.
Deep down, Gaslighting Graham knows that he just can’t ignore my comments for too long. I’m holding him to a mirror, and he does not like what he sees.
He can have the last word. In fact, he already knows the words he needs to write. Three simple words.
For some reason one is harder to write than these days. Has Roy got tired of his PSTs?
I never said I’d ignore your comments. I asked you to prove that you could ignore my comments, and you couldn’t do that for very long.
Gaslighting Graham has a knack for the ignoratio elenchi.
He literally begged me to ignore his comments.
What should that imply?
That he ignores mine.
What an awful, little, sad, Machiavellian.
My exact words were:
"Then prove that you are capable of ignoring me."
Hardly begging, Little Willy. From that, you seemed to believe we’d entered into some sort of "contract". We hadn’t. I just wanted to see if you were capable of ignoring me. You didn’t last long.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Here are his exact words:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/epic-fail-in-americas-heartland-climate-models-greatly-overestimate-corn-belt-warming/#comment-1505369
He still can’t ignore my comments.
An awful, little, sad, Machiavellian.
No, that was a completely different occasion, Little Willy…and that time, we did enter into a "contract", for neither of us to comment for 60 days. Which we both did.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
As if it was the only time he begged for mercy.
Deep down, Gaslighting Graham can’t take his own medecine anymore, but he would like to still respond to me.
Little, sad, Machiavellian that he is.
Yes, I frequently request that you stop tr0lling me, since you take it to such ridiculously extreme levels. You seem almost proud of that…
…but back to what we were actually talking about. I never said I’d ignore your comments. I asked you to prove that you could ignore my comments, and you couldn’t do that for very long.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Deep down he knows how he could get the last word.
He has in his power everything to make my response stop.
But he just can’t resist drama queening over this.
While gaslighting, to boot!
I’m not being a drama queen at all. I couldn’t be more calm. I’m simply pointing out that you’re all over the place, talking nonsense. You have nothing to say, and you started a new thread about nothing.
The only good thing that can be obtained from Graham’s constant gaslighting is a few theatrical scenes and a few poems.
There are limits to his constant abuses of every single maxim of conversation.
I don’t gaslight.
“Bordo always ignores what he being told and kicks the can down the thread.”
That seems quite accurate, in my experience.
Grand Solar Fizzlemum side-way update – 133
https://i.postimg.cc/k5PyWz26/oard01.jpg
For this month of the cycle, it is only 10th lowest.
ie. ranked 16th out of 25
Hardly a “grand” solar minimum. That prediction is what is a fizzler.
I can’t recall such a discrepancy between the EISN average for Sep 23 (144.5) and the official daily SSN result (133.6).
Two peaks at or above 210 were for example silently smashed down to around 190 :–)
Wow. Sunny Boy’s spots seem to have a highly variable geometry these days.
Pretty sure the same thing happened back in February – it ended up at 111 and I think it started around 123.
EISN is often over-counting the sun spots, their numbers are listed as estimates and come with wide error bars that amateurs like Bindiclowns never see.
The end of monthly number is always brought to sink with the others
Incorrect. The counts go up as often as they go down. The counts for July and August went up at the end of the month.
The corrections are due to many observers not submitting their data until the end of the month, and corrections for time of observation bias. Before you scream about TOB, first try to THINK about why it might apply here.
And … “sink” … oh dear.
” EISN is often over-counting the sun spots, their numbers are listed as estimates and come with wide error bars that amateurs like Bindiclowns never see. ”
Dachshund, you have no idea about what I see and what I don’t see.
Conversely you are the one who
– never collects data independently, but must obtain it from websites that he credulously trusts;
– can’t do anything but constantly post little smelly dog poop.
*
Until May 2023, I never kept the EISN data that I regularly monitor, but from June I started doing this:
Mon | SSN | EISN | SSN minus EISN
Jun | 163.4 | 156.2 | +7.2
Jul | 159.1 | 158.3 | +0.8
Aug | 114.8 | 114.8 | 0.0
but…
Sep | 133.6 | 144.5 | -10.9
We’ll see what the next months tell us.
*
There’s no hope for Antonin Qwerty, let alone me, of you posting anything intelligent, let alone courteous, Dachshund.
You love to grossly discredit others, especially those whose technical skills you cannot even come close to matching.
I wonder if there’s any chance of him learning how to spell ‘sync’.
Making that clear … the latest SSN for March, not the monthly figure for September.
That is, the SSN for the 40th month of the cycle is ranked 16 out of 25.
Supernovae Struck the Earth 3 Million and 7 Million Years Ago
https://www.universetoday.com/163458/supernovae-struck-the-earth-3-million-and-7-million-years-ago/#more-163458
“A recent study examines how the Earth was hit by blasts from supernovae (plural form of supernova (SN)) that occurred 3 million years ago (Mya) and 7 Mya with the goal of ascertaining the distances of where these blasts originated.”
..
“The studys findings indicate that SN Plio originated between 20 to 140 parsecs (pc), or 65 to 457 light-years (ly), from Earth, but the most likely range is between 50 to 65 pc, or 163 to 212 ly. For SN Mio, the team determined the approximate distance is 110 pc, or 359 ly. ”
–Dr. Fields tells Universe Today, Supernova explosions are rareeach century, there is about one to three such events in our entire Milky Way galaxy. So, most of them explode far away, and are harmless for Earthlings. But over timescales of many millions of years, it is very likely that one would explode near the Earth, even too close for comfort. —
–One of the most well-known (future) supernovae is the star Betelgeuse, which is a red supergiant located approximately 550 ly from Earth and is the second brightest star in the Orion constellation.–
“If a supernova blows up too close to the Earth or another Earth-like planet, the consequences can be devastating for life, Dr. Fields tells Universe Today. The supernova outburst creates high-energy radiationgamma raysthat will irradiate Earths atmosphere for months after the explosion. Our atmosphere will shield us from direct exposure by these gamma rays, but at great cost: the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere will be significantly reduced. This will leave Earth vulnerable to harsh ultraviolet (UV) rays from the Sun, which can be harmful for much of life on Earth. The Earth will take several years to re-generate ozone.
Other than several years to re-generate our ozone, what other effects would it have on climate?
tim f…”Is there any possible way to know the temperature of the material that emitted the photon?”
***
That information is carried as the frequency of the emitted photon. An electron in an atom in a mass of temperature Thot is orbiting the electron with a frequency proportional to the temperature of the mass. A photon emitted from a mass of Tcold has a naturally lower frequency. In other words, the state of excitation of electrons in hotter bodies is higher than the electrons in cooler bodies.
To illustrate this, consider photons emitted from boiling water as opposed to those emitted from ice. The photons from the boiling water have a much higher frequency and energy level than those from ice. If you want to verify that, point an IR detector at each.
Better still, consider the spectra of stars. The higher frequencies represent the more energetic particles in the star and the lower frequencies the less energetic. That’s what Planck’s equation and graph is about. The more energetic the particles the higher the frequency. Beyond UV we get xrays and gamma rays.
NASA explains it here…”Gamma rays have the smallest wavelengths and the most energy of any wave in the electromagnetic spectrum. They are produced by the hottest and most energetic objects in the universe, such as neutron stars and pulsars, supernova explosions, and regions around black holes. On Earth, gamma waves are generated by nuclear explosions, lightning, and the less dramatic activity of radioactive decay”.
Don’t know if this URL will post, if not I will post it later…
https://science.nasa.gov/ems/12_gammarays#:~:text=Gamma%20rays%20have%20the%20smallest,and%20regions%20around%20black%20holes.
I have no idea why a neutron star or a black hole should be considered as hot.
Temperature and frequency are proportional. The hotter the object the higher the frequencies it will emit. The electrons in elements have very specific frequencies at which they emit and absorb. It is explained well here…
https://www.geo.arizona.edu/xtal/nats101/s04-16.html
The interesting thing is that electrons respond to two basic forms of energy: electromagnetic energy and thermal energy. I just read that pressure can affect electrons as well, likely by pushing atoms closer together and altering their orbital interactions.
However, whereas EM of only certain discrete frequencies can affect an electron in a particular atom, heat can affect all electrons in all atoms. We all seem to accept the fact that heat in solids can only be transferred hot to cold and the debate seems to be over whether all EM can heat all atoms, hence over-turning the 2nd law.
Bohr’s theory says EM only of discrete frequencies can affect electrons in particular atoms, in the case of Bohr, it was hydrogen. Heat is the main component in determining the orbital energy level of electrons in atoms whereas EM is actually a minor component in that it has to operate on top of the energy orbital level determined by the environmental temperature in which the atoms exist.
“An electron in an atom in a mass of temperature Thot is orbiting the electron with a frequency proportional to the temperature of the mass. A photon emitted from a mass of Tcold has a naturally lower frequency.”
This is all bollocks Gordon.
You got a cite for this?
No, you don’t.
You just made it up.
bob, please stop trolling.
wee willy…”Bordo always ignores what he being told and kicks the can down the thread”.
***
Why should I heed the advice of people who cannot adequately explain the science they are referencing or offer a scientific rebuttal? As far as kicking a response down the thread, I have several reasons for doing so.
1)sometimes the thread to which I am responding is filled with nonsense from you playing mind games and I want to start fresh.
2)sometimes my post will not post due to technical issues and bumps me out of the thread. I don’t want to keep hunting for such a thread so I post anew.
3)sometimes I want to refocus the thread onto specific points after the thread has become polluted by you and your alarmist brethern.
4)sometimes I cannot get to posts right away and they became old and stale. Under the presumption that posters are not inclined to search through two day old posts to check for a reply, I create a new post.
Now I have a question for you. Why do you post at all?
…because he’s a sadistic sociopath who enjoys winding people up for his own perverse amusement.
Now explain why that doesn’t apply equally to Clint and Flynn.
As long as you agree it applies to Little Willy, that’s fine with me. Clint R and Swenson can defend themselves, but generally speaking, they’re skeptics on a skeptic blog, so they’re not the issue here. The problem with Dr Spencer’s site is, it’s a skeptic blog, but it’s overrun with "warmists", in fact the vast majority of regular commenters are that way inclined.
Now, Clint R and Swenson might enjoy winding people up, or they might not, I’m not sure. What I do believe, is that they genuinely think there’s no GHE, and that seems to be enough for some people to demonise them. Even some of the skeptics! I’m not sure what’s up with that, but it seems to have something to do with WUWT and the spreading of the myth that GHE skeptics are somehow this common enemy of the "mainstream debate".
Please point out where on the site we are told “this is a site solely for the expression of ‘skeptic’ opinions”, or “‘skeptics’ will be given more lenience in regard to their behaviour on this site”.
Tell me – what would you do here if you didn’t have debate? You would be at a loss.
You’re not told that anywhere. In fact, Dr Spencer’s site is known to be one of the most "free" places to speak…and that’s why there’s so many "warmist" tr0lls here. You know you can get away with stuff you wouldn’t at some of the other sites.
In fact, Dr Spencer only ever seems to lay down the law with people who question the GHE…and David. App.ell.
“You know you can get away with stuff you wouldnt at some of the other sites.”
Again, that applies equally to you and your buddies.
And David Apple disappeared well before you arrived. How do you know him? Is there something you haven’t disclosed?
I don’t purposely “wind people up”. I just present reality to them. That causes their childish tantrums. Facing reality is a part of growing up.
That’s why this is so much fun.
[PUPMAN] I don’t purposely “wind people up”.
[ALSO PUPMAN] I see your frustration has turned into foaming-at-the-mouth anger. That’s why this is so much fun.
> [Pupman] and [Mike Flynn] can defend themselves, but generally speaking, theyre skeptics on a skeptic blog
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Pupman and Mike Flynn deny the greenhouse effect. That makes them Sky Dragon cranks.
Roy does not deny the greenhouse effect. But he still tries to minimize its scope. That makes him a luckwarmer. Roy is closer to the mainstream science than he is to Sky Dragon cranks by more than a mile.
Sky Dragon cranks populate this website because they have nowhere else to go. They have no business here. Their stuff has been refuted since the beginnings of this blog. Yet here they are, repeating their three or four memes.
Roy’s has become the contrarian honey pot. And then Bordo wonders why I’m here?
The drama queening of our Sky Dragon cranks has no limit.
Antonin opines:
"Again, that applies equally to you and your buddies."
Well, I suppose my PSTs wouldn’t be tolerated in some places. As long as you can accept the criticism of you and yours, then we don’t have a problem.
"And David Apple disappeared well before you arrived."
No, I was commenting when he was still here. I asked him to PST many a time…if only he’d taken my advice.
_______________________
Little Willy’s complete intolerance towards people who dispute the science behind AGW rears its ugly head again.
Gaslighting Graham fails to mention the overlap between his previous persona and David’s time here.
I wonder why.
Antonin won’t want to get into a discussion about previous personas, Little Willy. Since he’s had at least five, that I know of.
Gaslighting Graham conceded earlier that he and Pupman were sadistic sociopaths. He now reveals his Machiavellian side.
That’s a flat lie, Little Willy. As usual, you twist and distort everything that’s been said.
Of course Gaslighting Graham being a Machiavellian little prick.
He already knows I told AQ about his sock puppets. When he says “that’s fine with me,” he indeed acknowledges that he’s being a sadistic sociopath. Which is not exactly true, but then who cares about how Gaslighting Graham understands the Dark Triad.
Gaslighting Graham will do just about anything to deflect from the topic at hand to get his way.
“When he says “that’s fine with me,” he indeed acknowledges that he’s being a sadistic sociopath.”
No, Little Willy. It doesn’t even mean that I think Clint R and Swenson are sadistic sociopaths. You are the sadistic sociopath. Who apparently struggles with reading comprehension.
[BORDO] Why do you post at all?
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM, BUTTING IN ONCE AGAIN NOW THAT A FELLOW DRAGON CRANK FLIPPED THE TABLE ON HIS OWN TARGET] because hes a sadistic sociopath
[AQ] Now explain why that doesnt apply equally to Clint and Flynn.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM, PERHAPS NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO GET ANY OF THIS] As long as you agree it applies to Little Willy, thats fine with me.
It’s not the first time in a few days that he is being caught lying through his teeth.
Poor retard. Are either “Clint” or “Flynn” me?
No.
So there’s no possible way you can torture that exchange into “DREMT acknowledges that he is a sadistic sociopath”. You could try and twist it into me saying “Clint” or “Flynn” are…but I’m not saying that, either.
Poor Gaslighting Graham,
In what way has he distinguished himself from the two other members of his Sky Dragon cranks trio?
He hasn’t. He can’t. There’s not one thing that the two do that he does not do.
If he throws his fellow from the Sky Dragon cranks trio, he has to follow through and admit the same of himself.
He does worse than the two in many respects, e.g. the Machiavellian traits, but there’s no need to delve into that for now.
I’m not saying Clint R and Swenson are sadistic sociopaths. I even went on to point out:
“Now, Clint R and Swenson might enjoy winding people up, or they might not, I’m not sure.“
I’m not the one regularly debating them, so I’m not really in a position to judge. Unlike with you…and I’m utterly convinced that you are a sadistic sociopath.
My point was, they can defend themselves…and indeed, Clint R did just that. I was just happy to see that it seemed like Antonin was acknowledging what you were:
“Now explain why that doesn’t apply equally to Clint and Flynn.”
The way it’s written seems like it’s a given that it applies to you, but he wants an explanation of why it doesn’t apply to those two.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] I’m not saying [Pupman] and [Mike Flynn] are sadistic sociopaths
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] As long as you agree it applies to Little Willy, thats fine with me.
Gaslighting Graham does not say that Pupman and Mike Flynn are sadistic sociopaths, it’s just that it’s fine with him.
As long as his interlocutors can give him what he wants, he’s ready to say just about anything.
Poor Gaslighting Graham, once again forgetting that behind a “NO U” there ought to be a “NO.”
Since I literally just explained to you exactly what I meant, and I didn’t mean what you want me to mean, you would think that would be the end of it…but it’s like you think you can argue your way into convincing me that I didn’t mean what I know I meant, but instead meant what you want me to mean. You are the ultimate gaslighter.
Deep down, Gaslighting Graham knows that he’s the one caught with an OCD problem, and that he’s willing to say just about anything to protect his tag team of Sky Dragon cranks.
Little Slimy will always be there for Bully and Lulzy.
My problem is that I made a vow not to back down at any point in a discussion with people like you, who clearly have an OCD problem.
Deep down Gaslighting Graham knows that he’s forgetting about his policy regarding Nate right now.
And to what effect – to justify his OCD behavior because “people like me” are Making Him Do It?
People like me who are just handing him a mirror?
All these abuses in a sub-thread about Bordo, no less.
You steer the discussions onto me, Little Willy. Anyone reading can see that. I’m perfectly happy to talk about “Bordo” if you want. But you don’t want. You just want to attack me. All you ever want to do is talk about me. It’s like you’re obsessed, or something.
Deep down, Gaslighting Graham knows why I am turning the mirror on him.
Deep down, he does not like what he sees.
Don’t want to talk about “Bordo”, then?
Bordo abuses this blog.
Checkmate.
How so?
At long last Gaslighting Graham returns to the point:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1542183
Not without sealioning, it goes without saying.
I had to ask you if you wanted to return to the point, because you had worked so hard to make the entire thread about me, instead.
You have now linked to a comment that is, in part, about me again.
There is a pattern emerging…
Gaslighting Graham is being shown an exit point.
Of course he’ll continue relitigating.
What a sad Machiavellian.
The pattern continues…
Gaslighting Graham still responds!
As do you.
Again!
Yes, you responded again.
And again!
You sure did, Little Willy.
Can Gaslighting Graham escape?
Nothing to “escape” from. Just a pointless end to this discussion, going round in circles because you refuse to accept you’ve lost the argument. At this point, once every point and counter-point has been raised, every question asked and answered, the discussion is at its logical conclusion, but one side won’t concede, there is only one thing left that can be said:
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
YES
Gaslighting Graham escapes again!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
> Why should I heed the advice of people
Which people, Bordo?
Gaslighting Graham is the one who was complaining about kicking things down the thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1541639
My point, which obviously flies above your head, is that there’s no real difference between replying ad nauseam, like Gaslighting Graham does, and what you do.
You must have started about fifty different threads on the same topic, that one time I mentioned about you creating new threads, Little Willy. It really doesn’t compare to what Gordon does.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Most of these threads were riddles about one topic, which I won’t mention for it does not deserve more air time. The issue is settled until he or his fellow cranks can solve the riddles in that thread.
So that’s one falsity. The other falsity is that it truly compares to what Bordo does, which is to relitigate between three to five topics during his evenings, Pacific time. He selects a few random quotes from the thread, and then he spins his usual yarn.
He does that almost every day since almost 15 years. Almost. Every. Single. Day. Since. Almost. 15. Years.
Let that sink in.
The only point that Gaslighting Graham has right is that I’m more inventive and imaginative than Bordo. Bordo is not far from personifying Boredom itself. He always rehearses the same talking points. Always. The. Same. Talking. Points.
Let that sink in.
But while Bordo’s repertoire is portable, it is not as compact as Pupman’s or Gaslighting Graham’s. These two rascals have basically three or four talking points. They repeat the same talking points on every single thread since a long while. Sky Dragon crank stuff that has been refuted time and time again.
Time. And. Time. Again.
Let that sink in.
No, Little Willy. You did start about another fifty different threads on the moon issue, mostly just showing your failure to understand the basic physics. That’s not what I was referring to, though. No, I was referring to the fifty different threads you started on the "misrepresentation of the Slayers arguments" issue.
Overall, it doesn’t compare to what Gordon does. You were simply abusing the blog. Gordon might "kick the can down the thread" but he’s explained why he does that. You were just being an obnoxious tr0ll, as usual.
You think me and Clint R only talk about three or four different things, but you’re wrong about that, as well. There’s plenty of things we’ll discuss. "The plates" come up quite a lot because it’s such a simple way to show the basic error behind the GHE nonsense. The moon issue used to come up a lot, but that’s all resolved now.
At the end of the day, people discuss what they want to discuss. We’re not forcing anybody to go over the science behind the GHE, but there are those here committed to defending it to the ends of the Earth. This is why the comment threads here go into the thousands so regularly.
> No
Deep down, Gaslighting Graham knows that mere contradiction does not amount to much. In fact he does not even contradict what I said. He just says no.
Alas that’s all he got.
So what does he do? He repeats the same thing he said without adding anything new. And he will continue until the end of times if need be.
Why do I know that? He told me on another blog.
Gaslighting Graham is a sad and Machiavellian Dragon crank.
Quoting one word and ignoring the rest doesn’t make the rest of the comment disappear, Little Willy. It just makes it look like you have no rebuttal, which you don’t.
You starting about a hundred new threads on only two separate issues, all of which were designed to irritate me, and me alone, does not compare to what Gordon does…but even if you could attempt to make some kind of comparison, why were you trying to make me suffer for what you think Gordon does!?
None of what you do makes any sense, Little Willy. I don’t need to learn any "lesson" about "kicking the can down-thread", because I don’t do that. I stick an argument out, in one place, until it’s finished.
Entropic Man. Now, that’s someone from your own "team" who loves to duck out of discussions, only to reappear later down-thread repeating the same stuff, as if nothing has been said.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
It’s obvious to anyone who can read that he’s merely contradicting. Just as it’s obvious to anyone who read this blog for a while that he’s constantly abusing this blog. Just like Bordo does.
Just like Pupman does. Just like Mike Flynn does.
The reason why he’s whiteknighting them should be obvious to anyone who read this blog for a short while –
They’re our tag team of abusive Sky Dragon cranks.
It should be easy to see why Christos or bg or even Eboy do not get as much pushback as our team of abusive Sky Dragon cranks.
Little Willy has even less of a rebuttal this time, if that’s possible. Instead, he just tries to stir up hatred for those that dispute the science behind AGW.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
There’s no need to rebut a thousandth time what is obviously false.
But he sure can repeat his lies, it’s a trait of those with obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Little Willy loses yet another one, with his usual grace.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
…is what you say every time you lose.
Deep down, Gaslighting Graham knows he’s gaslighting, and that his repetitions are a trait of those with obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Little Willy, I got tired of people saying “DREMT flees the scene” or whatever, any time I tried to walk away from a pointless back and forth with a “last worder”. So, I vowed that I would see each and every discussion through to its conclusion, so that nobody could ever justify such ridiculous commentary again…
…and the reason for your apparently OCD behaviour is?
Gaslighting Graham is part of our tag team of abusive Sky Dragon cranks. There is Bully, Lulzy, and Slimy.
He is Slimy.
A pure, little, and sad Machiavellian.
That’s just unacceptable personal abuse, Little Willy, that any decent moderator would have stamped out by now…
…and the reason for your apparently OCD behaviour is?
Here’s another example of Gaslighting Graham’s abuses:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] I got tired of people saying “[Gaslighting Graham] flees the scene” or whatever, any time I tried to walk away from a pointless back and forth with a last worder
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Entropic Man. Now, thats someone from your own “team” who loves to duck out of discussions, only to reappear later down-thread repeating the same stuff, as if nothing has been said.
Perhaps EM should start to emulate Gaslighting Graham’s OCD mode and start PSTing people…
That little Machiavellian is ready to say just about anything to rationalize his abusive behavior.
Exactly, Little Willy. People would try and accuse me of behaving like Entropic Man, even though I already argued far longer on any subject than most people on this blog. So I decided I would not back down at any point.
> Exactly
Exactly, what?
That EM should start to emulate Gaslighting Graham?
That Very Mean People Made Gaslighting Graham Do It?
That Gaslighting Graham is using another double bind right to get his way?
Deep down, Gaslighting Graham knows that he should own his abuses.
But he won’t.
Maybe Entropic Man should get more involved and not just disappear every time he gets in trouble. No need to PST, but he could benefit from actually seeing some discussions through to their bitter end. Yes. Exactly.
EM should manage his own time and commitment here however the hell he pleases.
EM’s time management is not the point here.
The point is Gaslighting Graham’s double standard.
And so Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
The double standard is yours. EM should manage his time and commitment here as he pleases, but Gordon can’t!?
Checkmate, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, this time with the purest NO U.
He used special pleading to give Bordo a special treatment for his habit to kick down threads. He used victim blaming to justify his own OCD behavior. He used “what about EM” to deflect from Bordo’s constant abuse of Roy’s.
All this to argue that kicking down threads isn’t the same as furiously replying like he does…
The level of Machiavellianism is saddening.
EM and myself are at two completely different ends of the spectrum. We’re polar opposites. He disappears when the going gets tough, I stick around and see every argument through. You’re trying to say “Bordo” is like EM. So even if you were right (and I don’t think you are) your point of trying to compare Gordon’s technique to mine fails.
Down another rabbit hole goes Gaslighting Graham…
There’s no real difference between replying ad nauseam, like Gaslighting Graham does, and what Bordo does, which is to kick down threads by quoting someone and then editorializing with the same war stories.
War stories that more often than not are irrelevant to what he quotes.
Bordo simply *uses* otters’ comments to spin his yarn.
Just like Gaslighting Graham is using Bordo’s comment to get to me.
Both types of behavior are abusive.
Simple as that.
There’s a very real difference between leaving discussions when things get tricky, and turning up further down-thread to repeat the same points as if they were never refuted, and sticking around in a discussion until the bitter end. You were accusing Gordon of the former. Then trying to compare that to what I do, as if it’s the same thing at all!
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
There’s literally *no* difference between having an exchange in one subthread or in ten or in thousands.
Formally speaking, it’s the same freaking exchange.
It’s as if Gaslighting Graham never had a conversation in his life.
The difference is that in one sub-thread, there is no escape. You are there, responding to the points directed at you, until the discussion is over.
When doing as EM does, you can leave the discussion when things get difficult, then just turn up again a while later, down-thread, and act like nothing happened.
And so Gaslighting Graham reveals why he’s last wording to the death just about every single exchange –
Deep down, he believes that the last word is what measure if someone is right. Hence why all he relies on the ad nauseam almost exclusively. That has little to do with the fact that people are making him do it.
He just needs to contradict long enough so that he wins.
Not unlike Bordo who repeats his talking points refuted a thousand times.
Oh, wait. That’s different! Bordo resurrects exchanges, he does not follow through to the bitter end, where there is no escape.
As if the ad nauseam itself wasn’t an escape!
God this is silly.
No, Little Willy, the “last word” does not determine who “wins”. But, sticking around in a discussion and seeing things through to the bitter end means that you are more likely to get every point raised that needs to be raised, for those reading to decide who is correct.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] in one sub-thread, there is no escape.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] the “last word” does not determine who “wins”.
It’s really as if Gaslighting Graham does not realize that the ad nauseam is an escape, wherever it might appear on the page!
Ad nauseam implies repeating yourself. I’m not talking about repeating yourself. I’m talking about having a discussion, in one sub-thread, until it’s over. All points and counterpoints made. All questions asked and answered.
Let’s put it this way…can someone locked into a back-and-forth in one sub-thread repeatedly escape the same questioning? No. It would look obvious if they tried.
Can someone who disappears when the hard questions are asked, only to reappear down-thread later as if nothing ever happened, repeatedly escape the same questioning? Sure…and they do this all the time.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
He’s *never* having a conversation.
He’s *always* repeating himself.
In some ways, sure. As in, almost every discussion that people have at this blog has been had a dozen times before. We all repeat them, I assume, in order to try to convince (possibly imagined) readers to our points of view. Yet, there are some here who take the route of repeatedly ducking out of these discussions when the going gets tough, and some who stick through it to the bitter end, every time.
> In some ways
These ways are the only ones that matter here.
It’s easy for Gaslighting Graham to keep repeating his points in the same subthread: A, B, C, A, B, C, A, A, B, A, C, …
Just as it’s easy for Bordo to repeat his points in different threads:
A,
B,
C,
B,
C,
A,
C,
A,
…
There’s no real difference.
As if having one comment under the other every prevented Gaslighting Graham to stick to his guns and to talk about whatever pleased him.
Heck, when that does not suffice, he just have to handwave to one of these points he said elsewhere!
And that’s nothwithstanding his stock of riddles!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1542190
Refutation:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1542222
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1542217
Another refutation!
Pure denial.
You have indeed been refuted, and appear to be in denial, Little Willy.
A NO U on top?
We can definitely add that to the list of existential proofs of the absurd claim that there’s no escape from a subthread.
Gaslighting Graham is feeling generous tonight!
My points refute your points. It’s not clear why you can’t admit that, but as you have nothing new to say (your 7:22 PM comment was simply a repeat of your 5:30 PM comment), the discussion has run its course.
> My points refute your points.
Arguing by assertion counts as another instance that reduces to absurdity the claim that sub-threads are inescapable!
It becomes too easy.
You are trying to make the issue one of claiming I am trying to “escape”. I’m not. I am here, responding to the points directed at me, until the discussion is over.
Besides, “sub-threads are inescapable” is not really a correct representation of what I’m saying, overall. Obviously anyone can “escape” any thread or sub-thread by simply not responding, then showing up again further down-thread as if nothing has happened…and there are people here who do that all the time. My point is that when you don’t do that, and instead stick with discussions through to their bitter end, wherever they may be brought up, you end up going through all the points that need to be gone through, and the issues tend to be resolved.
Deep down, Gaslighting Graham knows that it is trivial to escape sub-threads by posting the same non responsive replies over and over again. He always nuke threads that way.
And he knows that it is quite possible to do the same thing by kicking down threads. Bordo does that all the time.
Deep down, Little Willy knows that all of his endless criticisms of “sky dragon cranks” and the way they argue can equally be applied to members of his own “team”, and himself, of course. Deep down, he also knows that “non-responsive replies” is a vague enough term for him to bandy it around without being worried about having to explain exactly what he means, or provide examples etc.
Besides, Gaslighting Graham misrepresents last wording.
The formal concept is a parity game:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_game
The point is to pair a response to a move.
When someone says D, he says E, to F he replies G, I to H, etc.
As long as he has a pair, he believes that, deep down, he won.
The problem with that should be obvious to anyone who read his comments over the years.
In fact he just declared the winner of such silly parity game.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham simply confuses reply and response.
Perhaps Little Willy’s replies get more obscure the longer the debate goes past its logical end-point.
How could I forget gaslighting itself?
Of course, Gaslighting Graham can nuke exchanges by gaslighting.
Or perhaps the concept of pair is really too complex for him?
You clearly think of debate as a game. Doesn’t mean I have to.
I’m not gaslighting.
Gaslighting Graham is clearly being unresponsive to the point that he is playing dumb over the simple idea that last wording involves some kind of parity.
Yet he replied, and since he replies, he stays in the game. And when it will stop, he will take stock. Has he replied to every single point he thinks needed a response?
If yes, then he won the parity game. Like he just said.
Nothing very obscure.
Now, were his replies responsive? Not really. Deep down he does not care. What matters is that he gets the last word, and that he made sure that his stock of replies have all been unloaded.
And when that does not suffice, he always have his riddles, I mean his TOUGH QUESTIONS.
All this is a bit silly.
“When someone says D, he says E, to F he replies G, I to H, etc.
As long as he has a pair, he believes that, deep down, he won.”
Wrong, I don’t see it that way at all. The key is, does E refute D, does G refute F? It’s not just about “saying things”. It’s which arguments refute which, and there is much more to that than your silly “parity game” example.
It’s a debate, not a game.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
He never refutes anything.
He just responds.
He may say that he’s refuting.
But deep down he knows he’s not.
Does he even track the points being made?
No, he does not.
Just like earlier, he simply asserts that he refuted every point.
And then he declares himself the winner.
Gaslighting Graham, the eternal winner, not play games at all.
…does not play games at all.
Let readers decide if my points have refuted yours.
There are “winners” and “losers” in war, does that mean war is a game?
Debate is not a game.
Yes, let readers decide if Gaslighting Graham is not constantly resisting the simplest point, be it established formally since the creation of the Borel hierarchy.
Let them decide if Gaslighting Graham is truly as exhaustive as he claims he is by considering the following demonstration.
Suppose two sides, Proponent and Opponent. P and O. Consider:
[P] A.
[O] But B! And C! And D!
[P] OK, then E.
[O] Oh, but then F, G, and H! And you still haven’t answered to C!
[P] Alright, then I.
[O] But then J! K! L! M!
Readers should get the trivial point that it is quite possible to nuke threads by is usually referred to as galoping. To put it succinctly, exchanges can lead to exponential processes. For every claim there can be two counter-claims.
This is why quote fests are silly. This is why Gaslighting Graham always end up redirecting exchanges towards his pet talking points. This is why riddles are so important to him.
Readers with enough maturity understand that exchanges are open-ended. Like conversations, they never really close. They are postponed to a later time.
> by is usually usually referred to as
what is usually
Yes, you could try a Gish Gallop. However, you haven’t really added anything new to the debate for quite some time. You just repeatedly falsely accuse me of this, and that. So, I can sit back and marvel at the depths you will sink to, safe in the knowledge that any readers will be equally appalled by you.
Game playing? No not DREMT..
Other than the Last Wording game,
the silly semantics game,
the who said what and when game,
the try to get two opponents in a fight game,
the try to humiliate Bob game,
the pretend you don’t read Nate’s posts, while reading Nate’s posts, game,
the pretend ‘the issue is settled’ game,
the claiming victory game,
the cherry picked quote game,
the ignore everyone’s sources but your own game,
the find a random authority figure game,
on and on it goes
…you just repeatedly falsely accuse me of this, and that. So, I can sit back and marvel at the depths you will sink to, safe in the knowledge that any readers will be equally appalled by you.
Everything I said in that subthread support my main point – replying in subthreads is not very different from kicking down the threads, more so when we compare Gaslighting Graham and Bordo’s behavior. The fact that Gaslighting Graham has a play style that seeks comprehensiveness is irrelevant. He could be as comprehensive as he would like by kicking down threads.
In the end, it’s a matter of preference. And as Bordo suggests, kicking down threads has the advantage of shedding useless baggage. In the end, Gaslighting Graham is less annoyed by Bordo’s behavior simply because he’s helping him keeping the Dragon cranks zombies alive.
Besides, Gaslighting Graham has no idea what’s a debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
Debates have a structure we do not have here.
Deep down, Gaslighting Graham knows that Sky Dragon cranks are exploiting this lack of structure daily.
Little Willy repeats himself again, hoping for a different outcome from his usual ad nauseam. Sorry, but the behaviour of those commenters like Entropic Man, who escape the debate when it gets too difficult and simply reappear down-thread as if nothing has happened, couldn’t be more different to people who stick at the debate, in one place, until it’s finished. You can keep claiming it’s the same for the rest of your life, you’ll be wrong every time.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
The main point of this sub-thread is indeed that kicking down threads as Bordo does is functionally the same as trying to lastword a subthread as he does.
He’s trying to dodge that point by whatabouting EM.
He’s also ignoring the point I just made about debates.
Oh well.
Just keep repeating yourself, Little Willy. You’re still never going to be right.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
A debate is basically the gamification of a deliberative process. It is a game, whether he likes it or not. There are rules, an adjudication method, and spectators. So he’s wrong there.
Parity games can be used to model communication processes, like what modems do. Are modems games? No, it’s just something we can model using parity games. So he’s wrong there too.
And the most beautiful of it all is that he’s being a whiny bitch about the only time I did what he did all the time the Bordo’s way.
So no wonder he just keeps making naked assertions.
Little Willy seethes with passionate hatred, as usual. Once again the thread descends into an excuse for him to unload all his negative emotions on the object of his obsession: me. Meanwhile, the actual issue under discussion was settled some time ago.
Deep down, Gaslighting Graham knows he’s gaslighting again.
Now that I won every single point and he lost everything including his credibility, should we discuss his TOUGH QUESTIONS?
Little Willy does what he always accuses me of: declaring victory.
He is everything that he claims to despise in others.
I replicate exactly what he does, and Gaslighting Graham finds a way to posture himself as utterly oblivious.
Pure gaslighting.
You are everything you despise in others, Little Willy.
If you want the discussion to proceed into other areas, you will first have to show that you are arguing in good faith, by conceding that you are wrong about the main point of discussion – “kicking the can down the thread” (behaviour such as Entropic Man displays) is completely different to “sticking it out in one place”. If you can’t even concede that, what is the point in talking to you?
Having lost another round of argument, Gaslighting Graham stonewalls once again. He has not added anything for a while. He’s just relying on the ad nauseam.
Deep down, Gaslighting Graham knows that he lost the argument. He also knows why I keep using the “deep down” construction. Just as he knows why I preface my comment with “having lost another round of argument, Gaslighting Graham stonewalls once again.”
This discussion is over.
If you can’t even concede this incredibly straightforward and simple point, why should anyone ever debate you on any subject, Little Willy? How can you expect people to take you seriously?
Gaslighting Graham can’t even concede that he was wrong about everything: threading, exchanges, Bordo, games, debates, etc.
This discussion is over.
I’ll happily concede that you can think of a debate as being a game, sure. I just don’t, personally. Other than that, I think you’ve been way off…and the main point under discussion you are quite obviously wrong about.
Gaslighting Graham rediscovers his tough questioning mode.
Deep down, he knows he lost all the round of argument.
Why can’t he acknowledge that there’s no real distinction between kicking down threads and his silly inline ad nauseams?
This discussion is over.
Little Willy pretends he is "replicating my behaviour", when in reality he’s always been a "last worder" tr0ll. He’s simply showing his true colours…and the longer this goes on for, the more he proves me right. Bliss.
I can concede that Gaslighting Graham thinks he is not gaslighting. It just so happens that he is.
I will go further and concede that he thinks he is being responsive and comprehensive when he relies on the ad nauseam to nuke subthreads. It just so happens that he is not.
Finally, I will not concede that he thinks is conceding anything.
This discussion is over.
I don’t gaslight. Little Willy does, though.
I don’t rely on the ad nauseam. Little Willy does, though.
Little Willy is everything he despises in other people.
I can concede that Gaslighting Graham thinks his NO U is responsive or comprehensive.
I can even concede that Gaslighting Graham thinks his NO U is a devastating rejoinder.
But deep down, Gaslighting Graham still knows it’s just another instance of his ad nauseam mode.
This discussion is closed until further notice.
It’s just a fact, Little Willy. I wasn’t intending it to be any sort of "devastating rejoinder", or anything else. I’m just stating the facts of the case.
You are everything you despise in others.
And yes, the discussion was over quite some time ago.
It is indeed a fact that I won the argument on all points. Just as it is a fact that Gaslighting Graham has been gaslighting all along. And it is more than a fact that his NO U is more than silly.
(This discussion is closed for comments until further notice.)
Sure, Little Willy. Just like you “won” the argument a couple of months ago, despite Tim chipping in to point out that you, bob and EM were wrong.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Just like he has been gaslighting Tim when he was discussing torques with him.
Is the discussion no longer closed for comments, Little Willy?
Or when Gaslighting Graham gaslights Bob about convection.
Nobody has any idea what Little Willy is talking about, now. It’s all just got very silly.
Or when Gaslighting Graham gaslit MikeR on reference frames.
I don’t gaslight.
Or when Gaslighting Graham gaslights B4 about the second law.
You have that the wrong way round. Ball4 gaslights me about 2LoT.
Or when he gaslights EM or bdgwx about the nature of their contributions.
Bored of this, now.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
(This discussion has been closed for comments a while ago.)
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ENSO regions – week ending Sep 20
1.2 … +2.8 (unchanged)
3 … +2.0 (down 0.1)
3.4 … + 1.5 (down 0.2)
4 … +1.1 (down 0.1)
” 3.4 … + 1.5 (down 0.2) ”
No wonder:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Nothing in the forecast indicates any strong El Nino developing soon.
*
And when we compare today’s forecast with earlier ones posted this year
https://i.postimg.cc/T3NHmZtF/nino34-Mon140723.png
https://i.postimg.cc/J46QdjjB/nino34-Mon300423.png
we might imagine that we are at the beginning of a Nino3+4’s decrease.
No wonder too: it took ENSO 2 years after the last strong la Nina (2010-12)
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
to slowly start the next real El Nino, and finally ramp up to the 2016 event.
NOAA’s is the weakest of the models displayed on the BOM site:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Pacific-Ocean
In case you haven’t been there before, the plume is for the BOM model. The various international model summaries are at the bottom of the page.
The average of the seven models has it above 2.0 for three consecutive months, which would make it a very strong El Nino.
“ENSO is the oscillation between El Nio and La Nia states in the Pacific region. El Nio typically produces drier seasons, and La Nia drives wetter years, but the influence of each event varies, particularly in conjunction with other climate influences.”
Well, that’s useful isn’t it?
Typical, drier, wetter, but influence varies, particularly in conjunction with other influences.
Or not, maybe. Who can say?
Also, the weekly ENSO 3.4 reading has changed direction 64 times since the beginning of 2020. So I don’t think you can read anything into it yet.
You got it right: I haven’t been there for some longer time.
I’m not BoM’s biggest fan.
Anyway, I prefer to rely on MEI data because it includes many sources, beginning with a vaster area for SST averaging, then wind, and last not least an OLR average over the observed SST area.
And when I walk on the lower graph
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20230926.nino_summary_6.png
from October till February, I think: let’s wait until the data for May / June 2024 appears.
Bin and Twerpy – the new ENSO hind-casting team
Perhaps one day you might write something remotely intelligent.
You go first Twerp
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1542454
Gordon
Regarding your claim that ‘global warming’ became ‘climate change’.
What does the CC in IPCC stand for?
When was the IPCC formed?
.
.
.
Word count on IPCC AR1 from 1991:
WG1: Global Warming 86, Climate Change 361
WG2: Global Warming 190, Climate Change 633
WG3: Global Warming 30, Climate Change 576
Totals: Global Warming 306 (16%), Climate Change 1570 (84%)
A ratio of more than five to one in favour of ‘climate change’.
.
.
.
Enough of your BS.
T = ∑[x=i:j] Tlat(x) * cos(rad(x)) / ∑[x=i:j] cos(rad(x))
where rad(x) = x * (π/180)