Home/BlogWith the approaching El Nino superimposed upon a long-term warming trend, many high temperature records were established in September, 2023.
(Now updated with the usual tabular values).
The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2023 was +0.90 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is above the August 2023 anomaly of +0.70 deg. C, and establishes a new monthly high temperature record since satellite temperature monitoring began in December, 1978.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Regional High Temperature Records for September, 2023
From our global gridpoint dataset generated every month, there are 27 regional averages we routinely monitor. So many of these regions saw record high temperature anomaly values (departures from seasonal norms) in September, 2023 that it’s easier to just list all of the regions and show how September ranked out of the 538 month satellite record:
Globe: #1
Global land: #1
Global ocean: #1
N. Hemisphere: #2
N. Hemisphere land: #1
N. Hemisphere ocean: #4
S. Hemisphere: #1
S. Hemisphere land: #1
S. Hemisphere ocean: #1
Tropics: #6
Tropical land: #2
Tropical ocean: #8
N. Extratropics: #2
N. Extratropical land: #1
N. Extratropical ocean: #4
S. Extratropics: #1
S. Extratropical land: #1
S. Extratropical ocean: #1
Arctic: #11
Arctic land: 7th
Arctic ocean: 65th
Antarctic: 15th
Antarctic land: 26th
Antarctic ocean: 14th
USA48: 144th
USA49: 148th
Australia: 12th
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 21 months are:
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2022 | Jan | +0.03 | +0.07 | -0.00 | -0.23 | -0.12 | +0.68 | +0.10 |
| 2022 | Feb | -0.00 | +0.01 | -0.01 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.49 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.15 | +0.28 | +0.03 | -0.07 | +0.23 | +0.74 | +0.03 |
| 2022 | Apr | +0.27 | +0.35 | +0.18 | -0.04 | -0.25 | +0.45 | +0.61 |
| 2022 | May | +0.18 | +0.25 | +0.10 | +0.01 | +0.60 | +0.23 | +0.20 |
| 2022 | Jun | +0.06 | +0.08 | +0.05 | -0.36 | +0.47 | +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 | +0.51 | -0.00 |
| 2022 | Sep | +0.25 | +0.43 | +0.06 | +0.03 | +0.88 | +0.69 | -0.28 |
| 2022 | Oct | +0.32 | +0.43 | +0.21 | +0.05 | +0.16 | +0.94 | +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 | +0.09 | +0.17 | 0.00 | -0.11 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.11 |
| 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 | +1.44 |
| 2023 | Aug | +0.70 | +0.88 | +0.51 | +0.86 | +0.94 | +1.54 | +1.25 |
| 2023 | Sep | +0.90 | +0.94 | +0.86 | +0.93 | +0.40 | +1.13 | +1.17 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for September, 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
Middle 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
That’s quite the spike!
This is not going to be a good look on the UAH monthly chart WUWT recently added to its side-bar. Oh dear.
Anthony Watts is going to get backlash if he keeps the chart posted on the WUWT site.
I’ve noticed there has been an uptick in UAH-bashing over there recently.
What is their “logic”?
It usually boils down to 3 main points. 1) UAH performs adjustments. 2) The uncertainty on the monthly anomalies is so high they are effectively useless. 3) UAH is showing warming.
Why don’t we have more satellite taking temperature.
Musk is launching 50 at a time.
Maybe add some mass to them to measure global temperature??
“What is their logic?”
It mainly comes from a few commentators obsessed with measurement uncertainty, and convinced they can show that all global averages have enormous uncertainties, including UAH.
The logic, I suspect, is be able to say it’s impossible to tell if temperatures are warming or not, and therefore we should assume they are not warming.
“The logic, I suspect, is be able to say its impossible to tell if temperatures are warming or not, and therefore we should assume they are not warming.”
No one is claiming that CO2 rises global temperature for 3 months-
and because CO2 levels cycle up and down, in the last 3 months measured CO2 levels have been lowering.
So, one can rule out CO2 levels as cause. And can rule out global warming in general, a few months isn’t global average temperature.
“No one is claiming that CO2 rises global temperature for 3 months”
Indeed. But these arguments have been going on since long before the current spike. The argument is always that it’s impossible to tell if the trend is up or down over the last 40 years or so.
“and because CO2 levels cycle up and down, in the last 3 months measured CO2 levels have been lowering.”
Which is irrelevant to anything. Seasonal changes, or year to year changes don’t affect temperatures – it’s the long term increase that is expected to caused a long term increase.
“And can rule out global warming in general, a few months isnt global average temperature.”
But over 500 months with a significant warming trend is.
There’s nothing wrong with warming. Warming is a good thing. Cooling is a bad thing. We can feed people during warm periods. Assuming the warming is due to humans is unscientific propaganda. This appears to look like a step-change. Curious to see where this settles out.
–And can rule out global warming in general, a few months isnt global average temperature.
But over 500 months with a significant warming trend is.–
There has been warming after the Little Ice Age.
And obviously we in a big Ice Age, or also called Icehouse global climate for last 33.9 million years,
Which is called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age which the last of 5 known ice ages lasting for more than millions on years.
Also in last few million, it’s said we are in Ice Age or it’s been the coldest period of the last 33.9 million years.
And in Holocene, the Sahara desert was mostly grassland with forests
and humans living there, or Sahara desert has increasing become more of the desert it is today, or last 5000 years.
And sea levels were 1 to 2 meter higher, than they are now.
Or we have gone past our interglacial period’s thermal maximum, which all past interglacials have had. And past interglacial thermal maximums were much warmer than Holocene interglacial period, which follow Glacial Maximum which was the coldest Glacial Maximum that we know about.
The average global air temperature is about 15 C.
It could have been about 13 C
15 C air temperature is cold air temperature.
13 C is a colder air temperature.
A 10 C global air temperature is about a cold as Earth has
ever been.
10 C is cold air temperature.
The average air temperature of China is about 8 C.
Bellman –
> The logic, I suspect, is be able to say its impossible to tell if temperatures are warming or not,
We can’t tell if temperatures are warming, and there’s no such thing as “flobal” temperatures…
…but don’t forget, we can tell that global warming has “paused.”
If you get my drift.
Where?
Take a look at the UAH update repost that just appeared on WUWT.
I did see one person cast doubt on the satellite, but I think it’s a stretch to say that they’ll take it down. Not all skeptics think the same after all. For example, compare Steve Goddard to Roy Spencer.
Walter
It’s a bit too early for this thread at WUWT.
Wait a while till the uncertainty mafia (Tillman, Gorman, Monte Carlo…) invades it.
Be patient Walter. The UAH bashing usually picks up stream 2-3 days after the UAH post appears on WUWT.
The blogosphere in general is already starting to light up though. Here is one example. There are others.
https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/1708874554498560426
Take a look at Gavin’s tweets.
In Xitter, the X should be pronounced like the Greek letter.
According to the UAH sidebar, “Satellite UAH Version 6 (data updated by 3rd of the month)”
It’s already the 4th and they carried the September update report 2 days ago. Hmmn.
Holy Moley!!!
Dr. Roy can’t wiggle out of this one!
Wanna bet?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
So, what’s the margin of error in this number?
Christy et al. 2003 state +/- 0.20 C.
Is that at 95% confidence?
Yes…95% CI. Keep in mind that it is for older version. My own type A evaluation of uncertainty using UAH, RSS, and STAR through 2022 is +/- 0.15 C (2-sigma).
The last time we had a 1 deg c spike in such a short time was 1998. I wonder if this will also collapse to the start point the same way it did for that one.
Pretty much the argument that a cooling trend had started in 2016 is dead now. Ill admit I was wrong. That being said, I still see plenty of divergences in the data no new arctic ice min this year. 2012 still holding. The warming is still not producing hot summer days in my neck of the woods. We have the longest streak going ever of no 91 deg F days. I nervously watch the Beaufort gyre as it continues to not discharge against my predictions and I wonder why. Magnetic field? The longer this goes the more epic it will be when it does finally discharge.
Well, the anthropogenic my-neck-of-the-woods warming theory is still looking pretty iffy, Scott, but the anthropogenic global warming theory is looking pretty strong.
I agree. But I really am curious as to what’s causing this, and what’s to come after. This heat has to be coming from somewhere.
It is the Earth Energy Imbalance superimposed on the upswing of the ENSO cycle. According to CERES the EEI is currently +1.46 W/m2 and +1.97 W/m2 for 36m and 12m respectively. And the ONI is currently 0.5 and 0.2 for 5m and 4m lagged respectively.
The EEI is pure nonsense. People that believe in that also believe ice cubes can boil water.
So in other words, it’s really warm because it’s really warm. Doesn’t say much about why it’s warm. The answer is unlikely to be simplistic.
https://judithcurry.com/2023/08/14/state-of-the-climate-summer-2023/
The “cause” is due to the combination of forcings from Hunga-Tonga and El Niño.
“The cause is due to the combination of forcings from Hunga Tonga and El Nio.”
Drs Spencer and Christy said in last month’s UAH report that “At this point, it appears [Hunga Tonga’s] influence will be minor, perhaps a few hundredths of degree.”
So no, this is probably not due to Hunga Tonga.
The original thoughts on H-T were that there would be radiative warming. That would, indeed, be insignificant.
The HTE involves disrupting the Polar Vortex, which as can be seen in the UAH data, is very significant.
Trol-ling guy Clint R is once more kidding us with his HTE syndrome.
I repeat for him:
Here is a path in the atmospheric forest where he can walk and look for these rare, amazing HTE flowers:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZU3ylEfpQjZ-o4Gz1NKDxa0nGdYKnFEd/view
Nothing real to see wrt HTE, Clint R.
Neither in LS let alone in LT.
Bindi, you don’t have a very good grasp of science. You can’t even understand the simple ball-on-a-string.
In my neck of the woods I would have loved some global warming this spring/summer but it has been a very wet season with what feels to me like the coolest summer in over a decade
According to the Irish Met Office, Summer 2023 provisionally 5th warmest ever, and 2nd warmest in the last decade.
Scott R
” The last time we had a 1 deg c spike in such a short time was 1998. ”
Unlike Water I don’t agree because I have all the data on disk.
Here is the descending sort of UAH LT’s anomaly series wrt the mean of 1991-2020:
2023 9 0.90
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
Of course you would be right if we still had the old reference period (1981-2010). The difference for the September months being 0.17 C, that would then give 1.07 C above the baseline.
*
” Pretty much the argument that a cooling trend had started in 2016 is dead now. Ill admit I was wrong. ”
Nice. Very few people admit being wrong on this blog. You reveal the difference between fair skep-ticism and pseudo-skep-tical attitudes.
*
” That being said, I still see plenty of divergences in the data no new arctic ice min this year. 2012 still holding. ”
Correct. But you’re just a little impatient.
Please understand that we just escaped from the 4th strongest La Nina since measurement begin in 1871.
Look at the daily Arctic sea ice extent picture (2023, Sep 30):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
and compare there the black line to the green (2022) vs. red (2021) lines.
*
” We have the longest streak going ever of no 91 deg F days. ”
Didn’t you tell that all the time? Are you the one who lives in Michigan?
Northern CONUS is cooling since years, Scott R.
Do you really think that ‘what is good for Uncle Sam is good for the Globe’ ?
Europe is warming.
Maybe you don’t believe what this chart below shows?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q1nAZRyAgkgmwkGCJAbwGGXzB_AAwf22/view
Then… do the same job yourself.
Bindidon,
A lot of people have suggested that CONUS is an outlier country from the overall global trend. Tom Abbott from WUWT suggests the opposite using older data. Do you have surface data for Europe going back to the 1800’s? And is it as accurate as can be in your view?
Tom Abbott also isn’t telling you that his charts are contaminated with the time-of-observation bias, instrument package change bias, station relocation bias, etc.
He also doesn’t tell you that the net effect of all adjustments to correct for these bias (and others) actually lowers the overall global warming trend relative to the raw data.
It does seem that some skeptics throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.
Understandable as there was no conus warming until they started using divining rods to estimate the TOB and other adjustments since the network was never originally designed to measure climate temperature and they neglected to document the effects of such changes or interview surviving station managers.
Now if they had done that before AGW became a political issue perhaps we could attribute a high level of credibility to the results. With disinformation campaigns arising from Russia and China on a whole plethora of political/economic issues along with their associated countries. Seems the best use of the surface stations is to tell local residents what the weather is. . .as they were originally designed to do.
Walter
” Do you have surface data for Europe going back to the 1800s? ”
Makes as much sense as looking for sea level measuring tide gauges with data starting around 1800: there are only a few of them, and all are located in Europe, the US and Australia.
That’s why all people collecting measurement data start with ~ 1900.
*
Abbott is a manipulator who shows old graphs made out few stations with old processing techniques.
Bindidon what I’m saying is the only proxy I see for a 1 deg C spike in the UAH in less than a year is 1998. I predict a surprising collapse will follow this in the same way that happened in 1998. We will not stay at these temperatures.
Yes I live in Michigan, which is a good proxy for the north Atlantic. We had a cool summer for sure. Couldn’t get above 90. This is highly unusual for us. It HAS happened before, so you can’t really say that increase in GHG caused it to get colder here… otherwise how do you explain it happening in the past? Clearly a cycle. We had 39 days at 90 or above in 1988. Since then, we haven’t come close to that. Why? I wonder how much of the warming trend is influenced by heat island. Perhaps Dr Spencer should make a detrended UAH that adjusts the temp down for the ever-expanding heat island.
Anyways… congrats my infamous climate change sparring partner on being right about the trend still being your friend. Perhaps this is the next peak we will argue about for the next 7 -12 years. lol
Glad to hear someone else mention the Beaufort gyre. The temperature spike is odd considering the lower sunspot numbers.
Still, warmer allows us to feed more people. Russia had a boost in wheat production that offsets much of Ukraine’s deficit.
Thanks for all the work.
”Pretty much the argument that a cooling trend had started in 2016 is dead now. ”
Looking at icecore data there is a regular multi-centennial variation of about a mean amplitude of 2c. Since its only 150 years since the end of the LIA we could be in for a couple hundred years more of a natural warming phase and of course there is the ~1C ENSO cycle on top of that.
A lot of science needs to be done to begin to get a handle on predicting anything except to expect those shifts seen regularly in the longterm data.
“The last time we had a 1 deg c spike in such a short time was 1998. I wonder if this will also collapse to the start point the same way it did for that one.”
1998 was indeed a spike in the satellite record which exaggerates ENSO compared to the surface instruments. But whether UAH or GISTEMP, the trend is steady up.
1998 was the first time the UAH smoothed line rose above the current baseline in 20 years of measurements. The next 16 years, the line spent about half the time over the baseline. In the last nine years it hasn’t dropped below that baseline at all and we are looking at the third time in eight years that the 1998 spike will be exceeded. In 20 years, the peak of the 1998 spike will be the new baseline.
The corresponding 4 and 5 month lagged ONI values are 0.5 and 0.2. We are only just now seeing the El Nino response. I would not eliminate the possibility of a value exceeding 1.0 C in the next 12 months.
More interesting question is whether we will see 1.5 degree anomaly within next 6 months.
It is unlikely.
More unlikely than the anomalies of the couple of previous months? I would guess the peak value hits somewhere between 1.3-1.5 Celsius, but that’s just a guess. We’ll see.
I certainly wouldn’t eliminate it as a possibility. But 1.5 C would require another 0.6 C bump. That’s a pretty big change. I will say that greater than 1.0 C or maybe even greater than 1.1 C would not be an unreasonable expectation at this point. If the same 0.45 C bump from the previous record were to occur in February then that takes us to 1.16 C.
I will say that greater than 1.0 C or maybe even greater than 1.1 C would not be an unreasonable expectation at this point.
The scale for the monthly chart had been from -0.7 to 0.9 C. Now it goes up to 1.1 C. Would be interesting if it had to get bumped up again.
Every other large spike due to an El Nino has occurred in the first 3 months of the year. Current ENSO values are well below those in 1997/8 2015/16 etc. Therefore I’m convinced this spike is mostly due to Hunga Tonga and the amount of water vapour it injected into the stratosphere. Since accurate records started this is the first major subsea volcanic eruption, and hence the first one to inject huge amounts of water vapour into the stratosphere. Therefore there’s nothing to compare it with, so it’s hard to know if the warming has peaked or how long these very high anomalies will last for. I wouldn’t bet against the temperature anomaly going 0.4-0.5 degrees higher over the next 6 months. The key question is when and how quickly they’ll start to decrease.
What is the mechanism by which increased water vapour in the stratosphere warms the surface?
Damn.
The 0.90 C value for 2023/09 breaks the all time record of 0.71 C set in 2016/02 by 0.19 C and breaks the September record of 0.45 C set in 2019/09.
The Monckton Pause reduces to 101 months on this update and is now on the verge of a quick collapse. If the next month comes in at 1.08 C or next 2 months at 0.68 C or next 3 months at 0.54 C then the pause ends entirely. Given that the El Nino response has only just started I would not eliminate the possibility that the Monckton Pause ends this by the end of the year.
Also of note is that the current annual record is 0.39 C set in 2016. If the last 3 months of 2023 average only 0.45 C then it will be a new record. My earlier prediction that 2023 would not likely exceed 2016 isn’t looking good.
I mean to post this below.
I think 2024 will be even warmer.
That is definitely a possibility.
I think 2023 will be hard to beat.
More leftist propaganda. The UAH data is 40 years old. So, an all-time record of 40 years.
I have not seen anything from Dr. Spencer or Dr. Christy that leads me to believe that they are leftists.
No, you describing it as an all-time high is propaganda. It is a 40-year UAH high. In the Grand Scheme, an insignificant blip.
I’m describing it as an all-time because it is an all-time. There is literally no other month in their dataset that is higher than 2023/09. And it’s their dataset. It’s not my fault that it only goes back to 1978/12. If you think the 0.90 C record is somehow leftist propaganda then take that up with Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy.
Yes, it is an all-time high in the UAH dataset. That is correct. That isn’t what you said. 40 years is one hundred millionth of the Earth’s history.
This is what I said.
“The 0.90 C value for 2023/09 breaks the all time record of 0.71 C set in 2016/02 by 0.19 C and breaks the September record of 0.45 C set in 2019/09.”
Obviously this in reference to UAH. I’m posting on Dr. Spencer’s blog and citing actual UAH values.
I’ll repeat again…if you think any part of this leftists or even political then take it up with Dr. Spencer. I’m not going to be baited into any further political discussion.
The HTE can clearly be seen in the UAH graph.
Yet, the cult ignores it.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R
You are lying, as usual.
Nothing in UAH’s LS and LT records show anything near to any HTE effect:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZU3ylEfpQjZ-o4Gz1NKDxa0nGdYKnFEd/view
Bindi, when your cult says I’m lying, it increases my credibility.
https://postimg.cc/8FFtpjZF
Graphic needs updating — a good job for you….
Try to get indicted, say for all your frauds. It will enhance your credibility even more.
Who posts a bar chart lacking text explaing what the bars mean should refrain from posting on a science blog.
Bindidon you are showing the wrong effect.
The effect we are looking for comes a few years after a major eruption after the aerosols have combined with ozone and destroyed the ozone. The UN Environmental Program claims saving the ozone forestalled a half degree of surface warming not stratospheric warming.
So now we have three different “H-T effect” posited:
(1) water vapour
(2) polar vortex
(3) ozone
It’s a real smorgasbord.
There’s a fourth one also, Ant.
(4) Aerosols
See if you can arrange all four in order of ability to cool. This is a good learning exercise.
Yes aerosols. The institutions being heavily funded to study AGW want5 to call aerosols cooling. But near as I can tell we really don’t know if they are warming or cooling or neither. . . and of course the H2SO4 aerosol destroys ozone which results in warming without any dispute. Even the UN Environmental Program proclaims this as fact.
“we really don’t know if (aerosols) are warming or cooling or neither”
Bill, you guessed correctly in the satellite era! Aerosols warming atm. near surface and equally cooling atm. in upper regions trends for 2002/09-2020/03 measured out either way with 95% confidence: 0.01 +/- 0.04 W/m^2/decade
And you believe CAGW statistical confidence levels?
bdgwx says:
The Monckton Pause reduces to 101 months on this update and is now on the verge of a quick collapse. If the next month comes in at 1.08 C or next 2 months at 0.68 C or next 3 months at 0.54 C then the pause ends entirely. Given that the El Nino response has only just started I would not eliminate the possibility that the Monckton Pause ends this by the end of the year.
——————–
Not technically correct. We will only know if a climate pause ended after it has ended for a climate length period of time. One cannot speak of climate in terms of temporary non-climate excursions. If you accept that you can then one can also say that global warming ended about a decade ago and then restarted without and reduction of CO2.
This is a common rule even for short term events like recessions have to be a certain length then they stop until another starts. the last time in terms of climate length periods that global warming stopped was in 1944 and we didn’t really know it for a almost a couple of decades. . .even though CO2 kept increasing.
“We will only know if a climate pause ended after it has ended for a climate length period of time.”
Presumably this applies equally to the start of pauses. It cannot be said to have started until it has been ongoing for a climate length period of time.
So what is a “climate length period of time” for global temperatures, Bill? Based on the ECS lag-time? Say, 30 years? Or less? Or more?
If I look at the noise in the ice core data that hasn’t been accounted for it looks like something on the order of 4 or 500 hundred years.
The need to come up with a far longer period of time came about not that long ago when Trenberth was calling it a travesty. Thats when they started recording the on-going imbalance in his budgets. . .standing at about .9c which for Trenberth would have been at least about 30 years of banked but unrealized warming. My recollection of its justification was deep ocean heat exchange. Thats an issue they didn’t want to open as the temperature of the deep ocean remains unknown as a global mean.
Wow. Was expecting this to be a record September, and possibly edge out the record anomaly – but this is pretty insane.
This is 0.45C warmer than the previous warmest September set in 2019, and is 0.63C warmer than September 1998.
Of the 10 warmest Septembers, 6 have occurred in the last 8 years.
1 2023 0.90
2 2019 0.45
3 2020 0.41
4 2017 0.40
5 2016 0.30
6 1998 0.27
7 2021 0.26
8 2022 0.25
9 2010 0.19
10 2009 0.10
For the first 9 months of 2023 the average anomaly is 0.38C. This is only 0.01C below the all time annual record of 2016. The next 3 months need to average around 0.43C for 2023 to be warmer than 2016, which would be quite remarkable given how cold the first few months were.
Not “cold”. Still above the 1981-2010 average.
“With the approaching El Nino superimposed upon a long-term warming trend”
Compare to September 2015, the same month in the last major El Nino cycle: The anomaly ~ 0.1 C.
This September it is 0.9 C.
Quite strange indeed.
I was half expecting something like this, though waveringly. Even though UAH is generally below the land-based record, I have noticed that for the absolute warmest months the satellite record tends to outstrip the surface record (when adjusted to the same baseline).
The average for the first 9 months of 2023 is now +0.378.
The average for 2016 was 0.389.
We need to average +0.43 for Oct-Dec to beat the annual record.
Remembering that the ENSO season is actually considered to be July-June:
First three months of 2023-24: +0.74
First three months of 2015-16: +0.08
The 0.90 C value for 2023/09 breaks the all time record of 0.71 C set in 2016/02 by 0.19 C and breaks the September record of 0.45 C set in 2019/09.
The Monckton Pause reduces to 101 months on this update and is now on the verge of a quick collapse. If the next month comes in at 1.08 C or next 2 months at 0.68 C or next 3 months at 0.54 C then the pause ends entirely. Given that the El Nino response has only just started I would not eliminate the possibility that the Monckton Pause ends this by the end of the year.
Also of note is that the current annual record is 0.391 C set in 2016. If the last 3 months of 2023 average only 0.45 C then it will be a new record if rounding to 2 decimal places. My earlier prediction that 2023 would not likely exceed 2016 isn’t looking good.
Doh. I didn’t mean to reply to you directly.
So, here you go again, this time with your reference to the Monkton Pause. What do you think this indicates?
The Monckton pause could end as soon as this year.
Which we all know is a statistically pointless thing.
I see the Pause That Regresses.
Dr Spencer – your links to the data are not working.
Working now.
No September data though.
Yeah. It usually takes 1-2 weeks for the data files to update.
Dr. Spencer, I miss the spread sheet, usually at the top, showing results by geographical regions. Any chance of restoring it?
Thanks mucho.
I’ll add the table of monthly values when I get a chance.
Dr. Spencer (Roy),
How does your USA data compare to the USCRN data from 2005?
Can you show a graph of that? Would be interesting.
Thanks,
Well, that was decisive.
Dr. Spencer,
Tried to post this the other day but it did not show up.
Can you show a graph that compares the UAH data for continental USA to the USCRN data since 2005?
Thanks!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1541027
“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!”
Clint R guessed the closest- and the second time in a row.
Rather than just measure global air temperature- the satellite measure should be tool for doing climate science- what is causing spikes in temperature {up or down}?
Yes gb, the HTE became evident months ago.
Thanks for mentioning it.
No it didn’t:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1542077
https://postimg.cc/8FFtpjZF
You can post anonymous graphs as long as you want, tro-ll Clint R:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1542088
Now Bindi can’t understand the simple bar chart. Yet he hangs around UAH data constantly.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint,
Blinny is a paid propagandist, as are most leftists who post on this site. They know or care nothing about science.
Tee hee hee, that must be the explanation.
Cuz they can’t possibly be posting facts!
Maybe Stephen can explain Clint’s mysterious chart. What it is, and what is its purpose?
Anybody couldve guessed based on the various daily reanalysis and OISST observations available through September.
Anybody speculating about the mechanism but claiming they KNOW what the mechanism is, aint doing science.
Somebody should do a correlation study for the effects of volcanoes on ozone since we know from the UN Environmental Program that ozone loss affects surface temperatures.
Currently ozone is being depleted in the stratosphere with this September hitting a decadal low.
Here are comparisons of the ozone hole in last temp record/El Nino combinations.
September 1997 https://tinyurl.com/bddz6v5t
September 2015 https://tinyurl.com/ydv5ud84
September 2023 https://tinyurl.com/9z3hfufh
Like this?
https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/volcanoes-and-climate/
Thats a start but it is in dire need of expansion and updating.
Also there seems to be a disconnect on the actual stratospheric processes. Author claims sulphuric acid is the mechanism of cooling but significantly it may mostly be due to fine ash.
Sulphur dioxide is also a culprit that does convert to sulphuric acid after finding some of the rare water in the stratosphere to kick off the conversion.
Then the sulphuric acid performs like CFCs in destroying ozone a process that according to the chart you posted created maximum ozone depletion 2 years after the Pinatubo eruption. Since we seem to be in a time of high volcanic activity it certainly seems it may well be a major contributor to ozone depletion and global warming.
Of course thats not any kind of news that the institutions we currently fund to study all this stuff wants to hear anything about.
Bill, what is the mechanism by which ozone loss affects surface temperature?
Ozone captures UV light way up in the atmosphere, thus it doesn’t reach the ground. Volcanoes spew SO2 into stratosphere where it blocks sunlight and then when it interacts with water up there it becomes sulphuric acid which interacts with and destroys ozone.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5206531/#:~:text=Sulfuric%20acid%2C%20H2SO,O5%20to%20HNO3.
”Sulfuric acid, H2SO4, can accelerate ozone loss by forming aqueous aerosol that catalyzes reactions such as HCl + ClONO2 → Cl2 + HNO3, shifting halogens from reservoir species to reactive compounds and altering the NOx budget via hydrolysis of N2O5 to HNO3. Previous studies found that injection of sufficient SO2 or particulate sulfate to produce −2 W⋅m−2 of radiative forcinga useful benchmark for SRMreduced average column ozone by 1 to 13%”
About 10% of sunlight is Ultraviolet and the ozone absorbs about 99% of uvc, 90% of uvb, and 50% of uva. what reaches the surface is about 95% uva and 5% uvb.
this has huge surface warming implications as about 26.8 watts of the uvb and uvc is received by the moon.
https://tinyurl.com/mr3uvhm6
ozone column has fluctuated according to the link by PhilJ looks to be maybe as much as 5watts/m2. However it does appear that ENSO is equally as much fluctuation.
Certainly it rates a detailed and up to date analysis as to how much of recent warming since 1980 could be attributed to the two climate influences.
Ok.
Total global ozone has been flat or recovering since the mid 1990s.
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/6843/2022/
So it can’t be responsible for any warming trend since then.
One would no doubt be making a huge mistake to attribute 100% of climate change to one or two processes. Seems likely there are numerous drivers of climate.
I mean we see 1C mean global excursions just from ENSO events. We need to see how HTE plays out. The peak warming may well occur in the next few months. Right now the ozone hole appears about as big as it was in 2000. There seems to be a real paucity of up to date data available on global ozone which really seems odd after the UN Environmental Program recently proclaimed they had saved us from .5C additional global warming via the Montreal Protocol.
“One would no doubt be making a huge mistake to attribute 100% of climate change to one or two processes.”
Of course.
And its certainly not adequate to just guess what the various processes are either. there is so much we don’t understand.
barry says:
”Total global ozone has been flat or recovering since the mid 1990s. So it cant be responsible for any warming trend since then.”
thats not true Barry. When I started studying this area back around 2006 the mainstream theory was that the delay to warming to completely occur after a perturbation was 7 to 10 years which was the time it takes for the mixing portion of the ocean to mix.
Since then with the pause and all now there is this semi-permanent imbalance and a lot of discussion about uncertainties about deep ocean turnover, which can take hundreds of years. . .if not longer.
Which obviously would never be realized as it would only take about about 30 years to remove half the co2 increases of the last 150 years. But they don’t want to do that, they just want to make sure that Leonardo DiCaprio can continue to cruise his yacht in the Mediterranean and 99% of the masses can live without energy. . .which is the inevitable outcome of austerity measures taken all the way.
“When I started studying this area back around 2006 the mainstream theory was that the delay to warming to completely occur after a perturbation was 7 to 10 years which was the time it takes for the mixing portion of the ocean to mix.”
Either your education or your memory is deficient.
The response to perturbation starts fairly immediately – water vapour response is 10 days, for example. The lag refers to the time it takes for most of the response to the perturbation to occur, which is several decades based on oceanic thermal lag (25-50yrs).
This was the mainstream view in 2005.
Having cleared that up, and remembering that we’re talking about direct solar radiation being the perturbation, there has been little change in global ozone since 1995 while the Earth has warmed. We can strike that as the cause.
You opined just above that we need a rapid enquiry into the effect of volcanoes on ozone depletion, implying that the HT eruption might be responsible for the current jump in temps.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1542268
Apparently you forgot about your 7-year lag?
You mean via the 3rd grader model things start up immediately. Yeah I got that. But the 3rd grader model doesn’t work.
And another model has yet to have been offered other than a mathematical model that doesn’t have an reference to a physical experiment or model as to the specific physics that causes ”forcing”.
Further its obvious that’s not the case for the warming the UN recognizes as arising from ozone variation.
We can see from the ozone graphics that peak ozone depletion from Pinatubo occurred about 2 to 3 years after the eruption.
And thats just the beginning.
Over 90% of solar radiation is absorbed by water and that UV radiation extends deeper into the ocean than longer frequency radiation. 90% of UV is absorbed somewhere before 50 to 70 meters but ocean mixing is very slow at depth. the 7 to 10 year figure dealt with the time to warm the ocean mixing zone by surface IR radiation.
Thus for ozone the full effect may not be felt for a decade or more. That is lot different than an infrared model where 90% is absorbed within a few millimeters.
But none of that goes to the point I was making. Since the year 2000 science in the infrared model began recognizing about .6C being in the so called bank (.2c direct delayed warming times 3 for feedbacks). But feedbacks in the ocean would be expected to be greater than 3, perhaps 4 as water makes up most of the feedbacks in the ecowarrior models. So perhaps about 1.2C is being delayed. For some reason the public is treated like a mushroom farm and details are really hard to obtain.
The UN hasn’t provided a model for its claim of .5C warming savings either. So its impossible to know if they considered feedbacks. Maybe if they were all on the same page say they saved 2c warming. but there is no way to tell.
I realize that for the ecowarrior elitists all this is like herding cats and its difficult to keep everybody on message.
You said you knew the “mainstream” view of the lag to input in the climate system, and you said 7 years. That’s just not the case, not in 2006, not now.
Now you’re trying to argue that the mainstream view is wrong. You can’t keep your head straight on what you’re saying.
Which is why you ‘forgot’ about your vaunted 7-year lag from perturbation from feedback starting when implying the HT explosion may have caused recent warm temps from ozone depletion.
You’re all over the place, Bill. So keen to be right you can’t be consistent.
Barry I said: the delay to warming to ”completely occur” after a perturbation was 7 to 10 years. I didn’t say it took 7 to 10 years to start. Perhaps I should have said ECS instead maybe that wouldn’t have confused you.
And the water has to actually warm before you get full impact.
You are wrong that it starts immediately as the ocean is not a still place. Mixing is happens to a few feet during a typical day. The quick mixing depth is approximately the swell height. And obviously that varies from day to day and even year to year.
Heat absorbed (not from cold objects obviously though) will begin the warming. But we are talking very small fractions of a watt/m2 over the course of one day and you will find few days at sea where the swells aren’t an average of 4 feet. So that tiny fraction of a watt has to warm more than a cubic meter of water. Have you ever tried to heat a cubic meter of water?
But so far nobody has described how a cold object will warm the water in the first place dude! So the discussion is only theoretical and in regards to a purely theoretically incomplete model.
“Perhaps I should have said ECS instead maybe that wouldn’t have confused you.”
I knew you were talking about ECS, and the lagged response to that estimate is 30-40 years. Not 7.
I see that you meant full response over 7 years. Ok. But that was definitely not what you described as the “mainstream view” in 2006.
But even if you were right, how do you square that with what you wrote?
“We need to see how HTE plays out. The peak warming may well occur in the next few months. Right now the ozone hole appears about as big as it was in 2000.”
HTE was last year, not 7 years ago. What has happened to your 7-year lag in this comment?
it was 7-10 years in 2007. since subsequently the scientists determined it must be a lot longer because co2 was not producing enough warming to satisfy them.
and that delay is an ocean effect, not a land effect.
in the previous two record months the land perturbation has been about 2.6 to 1 over the ocean perturbation. this one is 4 to 1 meaning this is a relatively high frequency. enso is likely a cloud killer that filters low frequency light and this event is an ozone killer. you can see the ozone hole getting a lot worse. to my eye its worse than in 2000 which was the worst on record.
Solar wind
speed: 388.7 km/sec
density: 1.30 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 02 Oct 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
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%
Weekly Highlights and 27-Day Forecast
“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.
…”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Solar Cycle Progression
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Solar wind
speed: 435.2 km/sec
density: 2.65 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 03 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 146
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 158 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.43×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.1% Low
I got tropical storm, Lidia forecasted to become hurricane:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Tropical storm Lidia is no longer forecasted to become a hurricane.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Spot numbers are 3447 thru 3455. Nine spots.
Just the number 3447 can be seen or spot got to farside.
And 3448 is 2+ days from going to farside.
But it seem 3448 could disappear before reaching farside {it’s been slowing shrinking, now is small}.
But not much growth or fading going on within last day.
3454 and 3455 are newest and just came farside and small it terms disappearing or growing bigger, I think they both will grow a bit.
And I don’t see any spot coming from farside.
Solar wind
speed: 444.5 km/sec
density: 8.99 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 05 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 151
“The magnetic field of sunspot AR3450 has decayed since yesterday. It no longer poses a significant threat for strong solar flares.”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 155 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.30×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.2% Low
4351 and 4352 are biggest and most of sunspot number, they seem to have chance fading a bit {say 50% chance} otherwise don’t see coming and spots aren’t going to farside. Yesterday was 150, today 151, so about 150 or less seems likely in 24 hours.
I am quite interested in what Oct 6, has.
I will mention that, https://www.spaceweather.com/
has window at top right, which allows one look at past days.
And I think I am getting better at my guesses.
My guesses are not connected to Valentina Zharkova other than I using
her theory as general road map.
Which doesn’t allow guessing solar activity in the next week or even a month time periods.
Now, spot 4356, appeared odd to me- or does look like other fast growing spots which “appear” on nearside. So curious about what look like on 6th. What significant to me is -2.2% neutron counts. And I will note again the thermosphere has been rapidly getting closer to 19.00.
So I have guessing when it goes past 19 and guessing about spotless day happening within a week or two.
Or I guess there was good chance for a spotless day {during solar Max- which is rare. And it seems possible within week, but it could “blow up” as guess- though spot 4356 will going farside in about 4 day and it’s mostly a guess starting in about 4 days. Or spot existing or spot which will grow or appear on other half of sun, which allows spotless day or not. And furthest spot was 3457, which seems likely to fade.
Of course possible 6th erupts into 200+ sunspot number {or does it on 7th, 8th, etc}. Though mostly likely bounce around like has been for months and at best drops to say around a 60 sunspot day.
Anyhow my guess was reasonable chance in first 2 weeks of Oct and what happen in next couple day- is related to that guess.
Solar wind
speed: 394.9 km/sec
density: 4.11 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 05 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 179
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 155 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.30×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.2% Low
It appears the picture of sun hasn’t changed in last
day. So spots might came from farside or more spots
grew on nearside, but 3448 should be leaving to the farside
side.
It seems many believe old spots {old big and active spots} are coming in next few days as they return to nearside.
And haven’t seen this happen, it appears large spots start as small spots on nearside and grow on nearside- and fade on nearside.
So, at some point I will get a update picture of sun and see what happened.
So, they updated the picture of sun.
They added number spot to the 3451 and 3452 “mass of sunspots”, and number is 3458. And small spot came from farside, numbered 3457.
So tomorrow the 3448 “could leave nearside” but it’s still here.
Now, what about this region 3451, 3452, and 3458. It has roughly added 3 to 4 spots and biggest spot has not changed much.
It seems likely in coming days, it going to change more, but couldn’t
give a guess of how.
But in terms all other spots, other than 3457 which thought might fade, and it didn’t, it grew little bit.
3459 is four small spots, which appear to me, has tendency to grow bigger.
So 3457 and 3459 puts dent in guess of spotless day within a week. And other dent is everyone seems to guess the old big spots are coming to nearside. So, spotless in first 2 weeks Oct, seems more unlikely:
Solar wind
speed: 413.2 km/sec
density: 3.46 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 06 Oct 23
Sunspot number: 179
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 156 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.94×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.8% Low
Well did get the Thermosphere below 19.00×10^10 W but faster than
I guesed the second time, it would. But we will be graze by some sun flare, soon
Though maybe the grazing already occurred- and lowered it somehow.
Anyways in terms guessing when get spotless day, we probably more likely in second half of Oct and before this the Moon is suppose to block our sun for a bit-
that should fun
That’s an impressive jump in the anomaly… and a good starting point for the next Monckton Pause.
This is certainly a very dramatic result. I think it proves that the current state of climate science is severely limited. Humans do not have the ability to understand let alone model all of the various dynamics in the atmosphere. This is just one more data point that does not have a definitive explanation. As many have commented for the last two months, next month will be really interesting.
tim…the thing to keep in mind is that we are still talking a fraction of a degree change per month.
“Humans do not have the ability to understand let alone model all of the various dynamics in the atmosphere.”
Uhhhh…??
How is the model for predicting cloud behavior working for you Nate? Thunderstorm frequency and intensity? Ocean current cycles? Need I go on?
It is presumptuous to say ‘humans do not have the ability’.
Clearly we already understand all the dynamics well enough to successfully predict the weather, everywhere on Earth for ~ 10 days.
Nate, I admire your persistence to maintain the narrative, but you are way off on this one. Was there a three-day weather forecast that NYC was going to be flooded by record rainfall? Did they even predict it that morning?
Individually, most of the processes in the atmosphere and things such as ocean effects are understood. How they work in detail, and how they work in combination with each other, is a huge unknown. The climate models do not form a “consensus” despite the reliance on that word consensus in the narrative.
There are boundaries and trends such as jet stream movement and weather fronts that are well understood and predictable for a few days or maybe even a week, but chaos rules the weather within those boundaries. Fluid mechanics can predict turbulence, but it is still a random process. Climate involves many more uncertainties than that, and some unknowns. On topic, there is nothing to explain the current surge in temperature, and no way to know how long it will last or what will happen a year from now. Stay tuned!
> Was there a three-day weather forecast
What’s the operative word there, Tim?
“humans do not have the ability”
I can imagine someone saying this about weather prediction in the 1960’s.
“How they work in detail, and how they work in combination with each other, is a huge unknown.”
I don’t know where you get such an opinion from? Obviously to successfully predict the weather worldwide, we certainly do need to understand how all the processes work together.
” but chaos rules the weather within those boundaries. Fluid mechanics can predict turbulence, but it is still a random process. Climate involves many more uncertainties than that, and some unknowns.:
Many here push this same misleading narrative.
Chaos indeed rules weather, and thus after 10 days weather prediction becomes difficult.
But predicting global warming, or seasonal hemispheric warming, are different problems, not limited in the same way by chaos.
My example is a pot of water put on the stove to heat up. Its warming can easily be modeled and predicted, and yet inside the pot there will be lots of localized chaos that is unpredictable.
“On topic, there is nothing to explain the current surge in temperature, and no way to know how long it will last or what will happen a year from now.”
A warming blip with no ready made consensus explanation? And so what? There is no reason to assume it will remain a mystery forever.
And there are already some proposed explanations (e.g. aerosol reductions).
You are starting to sound a bit like Swenson or Bill, constantly moaning that science doesnt know anything at all.
Nate, I have been fair and honest with you. For that effort, I get a huge insult on top of a rather silly strawman. If that really is your craft, then so be it. I thought you were smart enough to understand the difference between basic science and system complexity, but I may be wrong. You made the comment, so now you are stuck with it.
Comparing me to other people you don’t like is a losing argument. It does not upset me, and has zero effect on my sense of what things I understand such as the basic science, and what things remain unsolved such as the effect of clouds and thunderstorm dynamics. They can forecast when thunderstorms are likely to occur, but not precisely how strong. They can predict the path of hurricanes with remarkable accuracy, but predicting hurricane strength as it moves is more difficult.
If you are going to use the pan of water to describe the atmosphere, then I have to point out that you have fallen into the narrative of many who frequent this site (no names), who believe that conduction and convection are the primary heat transfer processes in the atmosphere.
Nate, you stepped in it. Time to clean your shoes, and have fun with your argument about that pan of water.
“that effort, I get a huge insult”
Really? Where was that?
Lots from your end.
Nate, you have the compliments when I correctly explain the greenhouse effect (radiant heat transfer effect) because it works for your narrative, but then I get this when I also correctly expose some of the weaknesses in the narrative:
“that effort, I get a huge insult
Really? Where was that?”
This is more than an insult, it is an attempt to downplay my very valid criticism of your claim that climate science has all of the answers.
“You are starting to sound a bit like Swenson or Bill, constantly moaning that science doesnt know anything at all.”
Do you still want to explain what is going on with that pot of water that explains climate science?
Perhaps you didnt mean it to sound so arrogant, but when you say stuff like this
“humans do not have the ability”
It sounds to me VERY MUCH like stuff Swenson says all the time when he declares that science doesnt know this or that or really anything.
People here say, well weather cannot be predicted more than 2 weeks, because of chaos, so how can we possibly predict climate years from now.
“Nate, you stepped in it. Time to clean your shoes, and have fun with your argument about that pan of water.”
The pot of water is a real world example clearly illustrating why that is naive. Some Earth variables are strongly affected by chaos, such as local weather, but others will not be.
And I notice that you belittled it without actually rebutting it.
“”you have fallen into the narrative of many who frequent this site (no names), who believe that conduction and convection are the primary heat transfer processes in the atmosphere.”
Bizarre. Where have I ever said any such thing?
Nate says:
”You are starting to sound a bit like Swenson or Bill, constantly moaning that science doesnt know anything at all.”
Nate is definitely the guy that builds strawmen at the drop of a hat to make a really ignorant point.
How about Nate you give a reference to where anybody in here actually said anything to close to your bogus claim. Until then you will be seen as just another liar. Namely a liar willing to make up any lie at all to aid you in promoting your political agenda.
Never mind, Bill. Forget I mentioned it, just like you forget all your posts. I have no interest in another endless pointless tit for tat with you.
Yep I guess you lose all those so you want to pick on somebody else. I get it.
Sure Bill, think whatever you want.
Yes indeed Nate you are a liar.
You make up strawmen and when called on it you dodge.
Bill, good to air out your feelings toward me. Feel better now?
So far Nate you haven’t provided a defense of your made-up strawman. Its not a matter of my feelings, its a matter of you being a liar.
Ok Bill, now kindly go and bait somebody who cares.
Nate sit and spin on your thumb. You are one baiting people with your made up strawmen.
And you brought me into it with your lies. . .again.
So live with it.
Bill, are you here to debate the science? Or are you just here on a grievance parade, endlessly spewing ad-homs at people you disagree with?
It is your choice, but if the latter, than no one will engage with you anymore.
Nate I am here to talk science and not argue with a liar. And that’s not an ad hom until you prove a basis for the strawman you used to avoid talking or debating science above.
Either do that or wear the mantle.
Evidently you dont want to discuss science with me.
building phony strawmen isn’t science nate.
Clearly, continuing your grievance parade is your priority.
nate continues his lies and ad hominem attacks. he never had any interest in science. he just thinks of himself in being in on the grift.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1545399
HumansDeniers do not have the ability to understand let alone model all of the various dynamics in the atmosphere.I fixed it for you.
You got something right, Ark!
Your cult of science-deniers can’t understand anything about the issues here. You fervently cling to your false religion that involves ice cubes boiling water, passenger jets flying backward, and “square orbits”!!!
Do you ever contribute anything, or just make inane comments?
Yes. You?
Arkady, please stop trolling.
A powerful typhoon reaching the stratosphere is approaching Taiwan.
Ah, Oh!
KOINU is expected to weaken as it approaches the southern tip of Taiwan:
https://www.metoc.navy.mil/jtwc/jtwc.html
https://www.metoc.navy.mil/jtwc/products/wp1423.gif
Winter will be warm in the northern hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/R0r4w6C/gfs-npole-sat-t2min-d1-1.png
WHAT?? Will someone pinch me please.
Ha, me too. The first time I’ve seen that person use the word “warm”!
Probably predicted cold not so long ago, too…
He claimed earlier in the year that an El Nino was impossible this year.
And this is the first year in eight that he hasn’t predicted La Nina.
Usually El Nino brings record snow and cold to Vancouver Island.
1998 the snow in the mountains didn’t melt till end September.
Wet and cold.
It will be interesting to obtain next week the September data for RATPC’s 13 pressure levels, and to compare them to the surface stations, as well as UAH’s LT and LS layers.
Ooops, I mean the RATPAC radiosondes of course.
India’s private space sector skyrockets
By Mathieu RABECHAULT
Paris (AFP) Oct 1, 2023
–When Indian entrepreneur Awais Ahmed founded his satellite startup in Bangalore in 2019, his country was still a year away from opening the space industry to the private sector.
“When we started, there was absolutely no support, no momentum,” said Ahmed, who was 21 when he founded Pixxel, a company deploying a constellation of Earth imaging satellites.
Since then, the private space sector has taken off in India, joining a rapidly growing global market.
There are now 190 Indian space start-ups, twice as many as a year earlier, with private investments jumping by 77 percent between 2021 and 2022, according to Deloitte consultancy.
“A lot of Indian investors were not willing to look at space technology, because it was too much of a risk earlier,” Ahmed said in an interview with AFP.
“Now you can see more and more companies raising more investment in India, and more and more companies have started coming up now,” he added.
Pixxel makes hyperspectral imaging satellites — technology that captures a wide spectrum of light to provide details that are invisible to ordinary cameras.
The company says it is on a mission to build “a health monitor for the planet”: it can track climate risks such as floods, wildfires or methane leaks.
Pixxel had initially sought to use rockets from the state-run Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).
“I remember having a conversation with with someone in ISRO. We were trying to book a launch and they said, ‘Look, we don’t even have a procedure to launch an Indian satellite. But if you were a foreign company, then basically there’s a process’, which didn’t make sense when we started,” Ahmed said.
Pixxel ended up having to hire US rocket firm SpaceX to launch its first two satellites.–
…
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Indias_private_space_sector_skyrockets_999.html
Scientists prove that antimatter falls at the same rate as matter
by Cheryl Pierce
West Lafayette IN (SPX) Oct 01, 2023
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Scientists_prove_that_antimatter_falls_at_the_same_rate_as_matter_999.html
“… Einstein’s theory of relativity is still being studied, applied and proven a multitude of ways today. For instance, the Antihydrogen Laser Physics Apparatus (ALPHA) project based at CERN published in Nature today about the science of antimatter with the goal of discovering if gravity affects matter and antimatter in the same way. Spoiler alert: it does!”
–…”These experiments are incredibly difficult. ALPHA is the only experiment that has been able to measure properties of antihydrogen. Not once but many times.”–
–Record-breaking launch of SpaceX’s Starlink satellites
by Charles Briggs
Space Coast FL (SPX) Sep 30, 2023
SpaceX pushed back the launch time from the original T-0 of 6:49 p.m. EDT (2249 UTC Sep. 30) more than three hours later due to the weather condition. At 10:00 p.m. EDT (0200 UTC Sep. 30), a Falcon 9 rocket launched 22 of SpaceX’s “V2 Mini” internet satellites for its Starlink communications network from Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) in Florida.
Compared to its earlier Starlink spacecraft, SpaceX’s V2 Mini satellites are more powerful. The company claims that the new satellites have increased broadband capacity and are equipped with Hall thruster electric propulsion systems, which produce more than twice as much thrust as those used on earlier models.
This marks the 70th launch for SpaceX in 2023. Starlink Group 6-19 brings the total number of launched Starlink satellites to 5,200, with more than 4,849 Starlink satellites currently in orbit.—
…
“With tonight’s mission, SpaceX has achieved one of their goals, they have now launched 10 times in September, it’s the most flights SpaceX has conducted in a single month. At the beginning of the month, SpaceX’s founder and CEO, Elon Musk, aimed to launch 10 missions for the remaining months of 2023 and 12 launches per month in 2024.”
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Record_breaking_launch_of_SpaceXs_Starlink_satellites_999.html
Hmm, winter weather might make it hard- but then again, there aren’t Hurricanes.
Avoiding the weather.
So, for ocean settlements, I thought you might move a settlement to avoid the path of a hurricane.
But with rocket launches, and cheap breakwaters and cheap pipelaunchers, one could just make more of them, separated enough, to avoid weather {and/or maybe, move them}.
The Crusade Against Carbon Dioxide
https://youtu.be/v2nhssPW77I?t=2155
What has changed about the trend in CO2 over the past 1 year to explain such a rapid change in temperarure? Absolutely nothing, and I’m 100% certain temperarues will soon start to fall even though CO2 continues higher. If climate alarmists understood science, quantum mechanics, logic and common sense, they would understand that such a sharp and rapid increase in temperatures can’t be caused by CO2. That temperature spike rules out CO2 as the cause because the quanturm mechanics and trend in CO2 hasn’t changed…but the behavior of temperature has. That is how real science is done, but the alarmists will claim the record high temperarure is due to CO2. They lie.
Agreed.
The CO2 explanation is based on fraudulent science. Although UAH shows this spike for September, it has cooled off dramatically here in the Vancouver, Canada area the past 2 weeks. It’s currently 11C at 11pm local time and a few weeks ago it would still be in the 25C range this time of night.
One would think with that much warming, even though it’s still less than 1C, we’d have a warmer climate here, but we don’t. People are turning on their furnaces to mediate the sudden chill, and Autumn just began. I am not looking forward to a sudden blast of Arctic air, which could reach us in another month.
What’s causing the sudden chill? The Earth is hurtling through space at an incredible speed and due to the Earth’s tilt, the Sun is now appearing a lot further south in the sky. At it’s current angle it feels quite pleasant and not the burning flame that sent us scurrying for shelter a month ago. So, a few degrees change in incident angle makes a huge difference to us at 49.5 degrees north.
> it has cooled off dramatically here in the Vancouver, Canada area the past 2 weeks.
C’mon, Bordo.
That’s weather.
wee willy demonstrates his lack of comprehension. I just pointed out its the Earth orbit and tilt causing the cooling. No amount of CO2 will ever overcome that cooling each year.
Yea, Bordo.
The axis of Earth tilted, so Vancouver has cooled off this past few weeks.
In a month where many records of warming have been shattered, no less.
it’s the Earth orbit and tilt causing the *local* cooling
Southern hemisphere is moving toward summer. There, it’s the Earth orbit and tilt causing the *local* warming
So now let’s combine that and think globally. Global warming is global for a reason. CO2 can surely overcome global temperature variations between both seasons. Look at the graph above.
This is the usual ridiculous STRAWMAN. That all T variation needs to come from CO2.
Of course, science already knows it does not.
You still have to admit it’s hard to find CO2 as the culprit here.
CO2, like all polyatomic molecules, impedes the transmission of energy carried in the IR spectrum. Energy that would have otherwise escaped to space gets thermalized and remitted in all directions only 50% of which has an escape vector now. How could CO2 not have some influence?
bdgwx, don’t feel bad. This nonsense is believed by an entire cult.
N2 and O2 are also polyatomic molecules. But, they reflect all CO2 15μ photons back to Earth. But, as with the emitted photons from CO2, they can NOT raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature. That would mean you cold boil water with ice cubes.
Jeez Clint R,
You can’t even get one correct sentence in that post.
Polyatomic molecules are made up of three or more atoms.
N2 and O2 do not reflect all 15u photons back to earth.
Photons carry energy, even 15u photons, and they add that energy to the surface of the Earth when absoxbed, thus warming it.
Go back to school, try and get your money back.
See bdgwx? The cult believes in that nonsense so much they constantly stalk me so they can insult and falsely accuse.
** “Poly” means many. A diatomic molecule is a special case of polyatomic.
** N2 and O2 reflect ALL of the 15μ photons that impact them.
** Even if low energy photons were absorbed, that does NOT mean they could raise temperature. (See the brinks-in-a-box analogy.)
bob is just another cultist that stalks me. I don’t waste time with such types that sacrifice science and reality for semantics. bob had his one shot, and he blew it.
Clint insults all of us regularly, here saying we are cult members, then whines about being the victim of insults!
Clint R,
Stop making stuff up.
Polyatomic molecules means molecules with three or more atoms, ask the next chemist you meet on the internet.
Oh snap
Impact is not one of the ways radiation interacts with matter, sorry charlie.
We are adding only radiation, not matter so your brinks in a box analogy goes with the ball on a string, in the circular file.
I don’t stalk you.
bob is just another cultist that stalks me. I don’t waste time with such types that sacrifice science and reality for semantics. bob had his one shot, and he blew it.
** N2 and O2 reflect ALL of the 15μ photons that impact them.
Oh dear, the cultist posts hymn #4
“N2 and O2 are also polyatomic molecules. But, they reflect all CO2 15μ photons back to Earth. ”
Facts and reality were OK for Clint before, but now he has clearly decided they are not for him!
“Culprit?”
The straw man argument pretends that anyone claims the recent spike in monthly global temperature anomalies is a result of CO2.
Weather is not climate. The straw man here conflates them.
CO2IsLife
” If climate alarmists understood science, quantum mechanics, logic and common sense, they would understand that such a sharp and rapid increase in temperatures cant be caused by CO2. ”
If YOU (1) would understand science AND (2) would be a honest person, you would never post such a du~mb, ignorant, irrelevant, boring stuff.
Not a single scientist worthy of the name would ever claim that ‘such a sharp and rapid increase in temperatures’ could be caused by CO2.
NOT ONE!
This is your useless, clueless, reckless strawman invention, not even worth the pixels it displays on my monitor.
CO2 is no more than one of probably a hundred of factors that affect temperature, precipitation, etc. etc. etc.
Bindy,
1) CO2 is 400ppm, true or false?
2) CO2 is 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere, true or false?
3) CO2 abrorbs 15 Micron LWIR as its main contribution to climate change, true or false?
4) 15 Microns is associated with a black body of -80 C, true or false?
Do you honestly believe that vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules with the energy of -80 C could possibly impact the kinetic energy of the other 2,499 molecules, yes or no?
Quantum mechanics and common sense rules out CO2 being the cause of any atmoshieric warming near the surface unless you can warm coffee by adding ice.
CO2isLife, although N2 and O2 are the numerically dominant earthen atmospheric gases, they are not radiatively dominant. The contribution to air at current emissivity and optical depth (over the Planck spectrum for typical terrestrial temperatures) of Earth’s atmosphere is mostly from comparatively smaller amounts of certain infrared-active gases.
That’s why they are called IR-active.
Ball4, not sure I’m following your message. Yes, CO2 is not transparent to IF. It absorbs 15 micron LWIR. That is well established. Problem is, 15 mircon has an energy level attached to it. A blackbody of -80 emits 15 microns LWIR. Am I not correct in that statement? If you are saying I’m wrong, please use Spectralcalc to demonstrate where I’m wrong.
CO2isLife, as we’ve told you repeatedly blackbodies emit at all frequencies regardless of temperature. And a blackbody at 0 C emits MORE 15um radiation than one at -80 C. Burn that into your brain. And BTW…CO2 is not a blackbody emitter.
“A blackbody of -80 emits 15 microns LWIR.”
… and also theoretically would emit radiation of non-zero intensity at every other frequency, ref. Planck’s ideal law.
CO2isLife: “… unless you can warm coffee by adding ice.”
This is not an analogy for the earth & atm. system as ice is not being added to the system (ref. the water cycle). Absorbed radiation from added ice already in the system can warm hot coffee over same temperature coffee not exposed to the icy radiation, ref. that experimentally demonstrated by Dr. Spencer.
Also, if your hot coffee in contact with dry ice being replaced by same mass of water ice, the system will warm. Similar to a warmer than space atm. being added to the earthen system.
bdgwx, I don’t think you understand how ignorant your comment truly is. A black body emits a large spectum which contains a large amount of energy. CO2 emits only a small band of wavelenghs between 13 and 18 microns FAR LESS THAN A BLACK BODY WOULD EXIST. My comments about the energy of a black body of -80C OVERESTIMATES the energy CO2 gives off. CO2 couldn’t warm anything if it were a black body, and certainly can’t warm anything when it is only a small fraction of a black body.
Burn that into your brain
The level of your ignorance is almost imeasurable.
“4) 15 Microns is associated with a black body of -80 C, true or false?”
False.
“Do you honestly believe that vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules with the energy of -80 C could possibly impact the kinetic energy of the other 2,499 molecules, yes or no?”
False premise. Energy of -80C makes no sense.
One of every 2500 molecules is CO2, and that is more than enough to make the atmosphere 100% OPAQUE @ and around 15 microns. Thus IR @ those wavelengths will be 100% abs.orbed by the atmosphere.
Nate says: False.
Really? Please use spectralcalc to prove me wrong. I trust a calculator far more than your uninformed opinion. The computer agrees with me, just what evidence do you have?
“False premise. Energy of -80C makes no sense.”
See Spectralcal Blackbody Calculator. I guess the computer and math make no sense, nor does a Planck Curve.
Every wavelength is emitted at every T according to Planck.
“molecules with the energy of -80 C” is meaningless gibberish.
You need to learn and then use real physics. Why keep ignoring optics?
By optics I refer to this:
“One of every 2500 molecules is CO2, and that is more than enough to make the atmosphere 100% OPAQUE @ and around 15 microns. Thus IR @ those wavelengths will be 100% abs.orbed by the atmosphere.”
4) 15 Microns is associated with a black body of -80 C, true or false?
Trivially false, as 15 microns is just a measurement, don’t be sloppy.
But 15 micron IR is associated with all blackbodies.
bobdroege says: But 15 micron IR is associated with all blackbodies.
OMG!!! You guys are making my head explode. Do you not undertand the spectrum of a CO2 molecule? It is a highly descrete band between 13 and 18 microns. It is a small fraction of a black body. This is the radiative property of CO2. If you warm 100% CO2, it will emit a spectrum associated with its kenetic energy but that has absolutly noting to do with the GHG effect. If you take a sample of a gas and warm it with or without CO2 you will get the same specrrum. That has nothing to do with CO2 and outgoing LWIR. You people are conflating issues. That is relevant is CO2’s interaction with outgoing LWIR of 13 to 18 microns. That is the issue relevant to CO2 causing global warming and climate change. You people don’t seem to understand the basics.
Yeah, CO2 as a gas does not emit like a blackbody.
So what’s your point.
Put your brain matter back in your skull.
“4) 15 Microns is associated with a black body of -80 C, true or false?”
Yes, but CO2 does not act as a blackbody, for the umpteenth time.
CO2isLife is referring to WDL, when he mentions -80C.
This is WAY over the head of cult members.
Yeah we know that.
But CO2 is not acting as a blackbody in the atmosphere, you should know that.
But apparently that is over your head.
OMG!!! CO2 absorbs and emits a discret band of IR between 13 and 18 microns. Yes, it is not a full black body Plank curve. The point is that CO2 emits LESS ENERGY THAN A BLACK BODY. My comment about -80C OVERSTATES the possible energy CO2 contitutes to the system. CO2 emits a small fraction of a black body. WHat is so hard to understand about that? My comments about CO2 are OVERSTATEMENTS. Your comments about the blackbody MAKES MY CASE.
Yeah, but if it was acting as a blackbody it would be a much larger effect.
It’s only a 1 or 2 percent change in temperature that has me worried.
Ah yes, a trace gas can’t have any significant effect.
But wait, skeptic B tells me that absorp.tion in the 15 uM band is saturated near the surface, and no more infrared can be absorbed by CO2.
Trace gas one day, all-sky obliterator of IR the next.
whatever argument is convenient at the time.
barry
I think you misunderstand the ‘no GHE’ cult.
The pseudo-skeptical guys & dolls say there are so few CO2 molecules in the atmosphere that once they ‘all’ ‘trapped’ (huhu) a 15 mu photon, no further 15 mu photon can get trapped, and CO2 then is ‘saturated’.
Ah well ah well.
Does anyone of them know that a CO2 molecule holds a photon’s energy for at best a millionth of a second before emitting a new photon and coming back to ground state, thus becoming able again to absorb another one?
I’m less and less sure they do.
This saturation myth is absolutely incredible.
The next myth of course isn’t far away: CO2 molecules absorb photons but lose their energy by collision with N2 or O2 molecules long before they can reemit a photon.
Ah well ah well.
N2 molecules are 0.3 nm thick, and the average distance between two gas molecules in the atmosphere is 3 nm.
That means: anyone can imagine how much photons are absorbed/emitted between two collisions.
Many ‘skeptics’ who propose this (who have come across the furfy – eg) actually think that all 15 um infrared radiation is absorbed near the surface, and that therefore there is no more 15 um to be absorbed above that level, and adding more CO2 can’t change anything.
Against ‘CO2 is an insignificant trace gas’ this is definitely 2 contradictory arguments.
Bindi and barry, your endless incoherent babble doesn’t hurt anything. Since it makes you feel smart, and no harm is done, feel free to continue.
After all, it’s this type of brain malfunction that produces such nonsense as “passenger jets flying backward”, “the atmosphere is a microwave oven”, “ice cubes can boil water”, and “Moon’s orbit is a square”.
This is the guy who moans about people insulting him. And whines that people need to post adult comments!
Is it possible the measurements are being affected by the aberrant level of high altitude water vapor.
I would guess the water vapor concentration was assumed static in the creation of the satellite measurement system.
The excess water vapor was injected into the stratosphere 21 months ago. If it could effect the measurements you would expect to have seen evidence of it back in 2022.
bdgwx, do you know how the HTE works? Can you explain it? Is it an instantaneous effect, or are there lags?
For what Baby El is proposing, yes, the effect should be instantaneous.
Have you called anyone a “lying dog” today, barry?
Notice the very ‘adult’ response there.
“Can you explain it?” Cuz, Clint certainly cannot.
You’re just trying to get me to use the “L-word”, tr0ll Nate.
You should know by now that I don’t compromise my standards, even for childish tr0lls.
No, it is just well known that you declare stuff, without ever sensibly explaining or offering evidence. It is why you have no credibility, none.
Spoken with all the credibility of an childish anonymous tr0ll.
You are anonymous, and a tr0ll, I am neither.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1542436
” I would guess the water vapor concentration was assumed static in the creation of the satellite measurement system. ”
Oh very certainly not:
https://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/
mark shapiro..”Holy Moley!!!
Dr. Roy cant wiggle out of this one!”
***
Only an alarmist ijit would make such a gloating statement.
There have been nearly 528 months since the UAH record keeping began and one of those months shows a record temperature by a fraction of a degree. There have been 3 months out of the 528 with temperatures in this range and the alarmists are already doing cartwheels.
What can’t Roy wriggle out of?… your dumb alarmist claim that a trace gas is causing this warming?
Wouldn’t we love some warming the UK, wait for winter then the gas bills for the Net Zero fraud.
September 2023, joint UK warmest with 2006. For England and Wales, the warmest September ever (UK Met Office)
That depends on where you live. For August 2023, you had, according to the Meteostat hourly temperature data
about -3 C below the 1951-2022 on average in the grid cell centred here (61.25N 1.25W):
https://www.google.com/maps/place/60%C2%B016'26.3%22N+1%C2%B013'59.9%22W/@60.27397,-1.2358823,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d60.27397!4d-1.233302?hl=en&entry=ttu
and
about +3 C above the 1951-2022 on average in the grid cell centred here (51.25N 1.25E):
https://www.google.com/maps/place/51%C2%B013'49.5%22N+1%C2%B005'51.4%22E/@51.230417,1.0950347,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d51.230417!4d1.097615?hl=en&entry=ttu
Circulation blockage already evident in tropopause over Bering Sea. The Chukchi Sea will quickly freeze over. Winter in Alaska.
https://i.ibb.co/FYfRDN6/mimictpw-alaska-latest.gif
September 2023, joint UK warmest with 2006. For England and Wales, the warmest September ever (UK Met Office)
I think there was no shortage of rain in the UK in September and there will be more in October.
What happens when the zonal circulation is blocked?
In the northern hemisphere, stationary highs form, the long-term effect of which is very evident in the surface temperature of the oceans. However, in winter, these same highs will bring extreme cold. My advice is to stock up on fuel for the coming winter.
https://i.ibb.co/rdw9VTB/gfs-pacific-sat-sstanom-d1.png
We are already seeing a sharp drop in Pacific surface temperatures in high latitudes.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_sst-trend-7d_v3.1_pacific_current.png
Earth in our era is in a very long term continious warming period. This warming is caused by natural orbital forcing.
It is the continuation of the MWP (Medieval Warm Period). The LIA (Little Ice Age) was a phenomenical cold because of the intensive mitigation of sea ice. During the LIA period, Earth continued accumulating solar energy, Earth continued getting warmer.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Search for ALL studies having analyzed the temperatures since the Medieval Warming Period (there are probably about 10 in between), download their data, build their average, and post a chart showing the result.
Then we’ll talk about this ‘very long term continuous warming period’.
*
You seem namely to confound the duration of the different Milankovich cycles
https://geol105.sitehost.iu.edu/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
with that of the last millennium.
“You seem namely to confound the duration of the different Milankovich cycles
https://geol105.sitehost.iu.edu/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
with that of the last millennium.”
–
Thank you, Bindidon, for a very important link.
[Arkady Ivanovich says:] July 30, 2023 at 12:27 PM We’re gonna need a bigger Y-axis
[Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.:] October 2nd, 2023 I already did it
I can only hope the heat exits to the pole past my house this winter.
I’m wondering if the warming is due to weakening magnetic field.
Weaker magnetic field would result in the higher energy wave-particles from the sun, normally absorbed by the magnetic field, impacting deeper into the atmosphere, perhaps even into the sea surface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#/media/File:Geomagnetic_axial_dipole_strength.svg
Discussion on how changing magnetic field is affecting climate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idg6VMW_mhc&ab_channel=Suspicious0bservers
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.
So the IPCC changed “global warming” to “climate change”.
Thanks for your research, Ant.
The terms “global warming” and “climate change” go back to at least Wally Broecker’s 1975 paper
“Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”, well before the formation of the IPCC.
Ant gets corrected, again.
Thanks, Mark B.
I’ve got both going back further than that actually.
Chamberlin was using “climatic change” back in 1897.
Mitchell was using “global warming” back in 1961.
“Last week, Yale University released a study showing that people are more likely to fear global warming and take part in a campaign to stop it than they are climate change. Yales report echoed research by George W. Bush pollster Frank Luntz, who had argued that the Bush White House should use climate change instead of global warming because it sounded less scary. ”
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-political-rhetoric-around-climate-change-er-global-warming/
Personally I think of fossil fuel burning as the cause, global warming as the effect and climate change as the consequences.
E man May I suggest you do some homework on CO2. Particularly as it pertains to a b s o r p t i o n and emissivity in atmosphere.
Then have a look at how greenhouse gases reduce direct thermal radiation to space (aka GHE).
Then consider how the CO2 a b s o r p t i o n spectrum is saturated. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won’t have any significant effect because all of the IR energy is a b s o r b e d.
Fossil fuel combustion is not the cause. Global warming is not the effect, and climate change is not the consequence.
Ken
” Then consider how the CO2 a b s o r p t i o n spectrum is saturated.
Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere wont have any significant effect because all of the IR energy is a b s o r b e d. ”
Do you have any idea of how nonsensical your second sentence is?
By what is it absorbed? By H2O aka water vapor? Oh Noes…
Let us look at HITRAN’s 2020 data (under consideration of the gases’ atmospheric abundance, of course), using
https://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
in the 5-40 micron range (though in fact 5-20 would be broad enough because left to it there is only solar, and to the right of it Earth no longer emits with enough energy).
1. CO2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFU0veDw5zzFI9KfVGEVuRfdNtN_4I2V/view
2. H2O
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qHmIOXwN6DTxVfVlkc4Sn31DuX5qINFK/view
You see that H2O, the only gas that can compete with CO2 in the terrestrial IR emission range, does not absorb/emit anything relevant in the latter’s major region.
*
And by the way… please explain what you mean with ‘saturated’, when comparing the number of photons emitted by Earth and the tiny number of H2O / CO2 molecules lurking in the atmosphere :–)
*
Luckily for us all, nothing absorbs IR in Earth’s atmospheric window (7.5-12.5 micron).
Otherwise, we would not be on the planet.
Bindi, linking to things you don’t understand is the lame cult tactic Norman uses.
The point you idi0ts continually miss is that CO2’s 15μ photon can NOT raise Earth’s surface temperature of 288K. And, it doesn’t matter how many such photons there are.
You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.
IR energy is a b s o r b e d by greenhouse gas molecules.
You can think of it like a sponge soaking up a pool of water.
Use a bigger and bigger sponge (more CO2) to soak up a pool of water (IR at CO2 a b s o r p t i o n frequencies) that does not get larger. Eventually all the water is soaked up by the sponge. Getting a larger sponge isn’t going to soak up more water than exists.
Saturated means no more IR to soak up by GHGs at any given moment in time. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not further reduce direct thermal radiation to space.
H2O vapor shares the a b s o r p t i o n spectrum with CO2. It matters where there is humidity: the water vapor combined with the CO2 soaks up the IR closer to the surface. In winter, water vapor gets frozen out.
Wiki has a good description of CO2 characteristics including quantum mechanics of a b s o r p t i o n and emissivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
“You can think of it like a sponge soaking up a pool of water.”
Ken 4:26 pm, no. The sponge analogy is faulty and has been known to be so for nearly two centuries. Atm. air is not some kind of sponge with a limited carrying capacity for water vapor because at normal atm. temperatures and pressures the average separation between air molecules is about 10 molecular diameters.
Consider what you must believe, or at least be perplexed about, if you uncritically accept that air is a sponge: at a relative humidity of 100% all pores in the air sponge are filled with water vapor. Therefore, gasoline, benzene, alcohol, and thousands of other volatile compounds cannot evaporate into air with 100% relative humidity because there is no room for the molecules of these compounds.
Ken, this statement is also physically wrong: “Then consider how the CO2 a b s o r p t i o n spectrum is saturated. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere wont have any significant effect because all of the IR energy is a b s o r b e d.”
Here, Ken is assuming, incorrectly, that the atm. temperature profile does not change when adding more CO2 ppm. Thus, the rest of Ken’s 1:17 pm comment is unsupported.
Ken
” H2O vapor shares the a b s o r p t i o n spectrum with CO2. ”
NO it doesn’t, Ken.
Please stop robertsoning, and start reasoning instead.
H2O vapor shares the a b s o r p t i o n spectrum with CO2.
CO2 centered at: 2.7 4.3 and 15 μm
H2O vapor centered at: 71, 6.3, 2.7, 1.87 and 1.38 μm
The bandwith of H2O overlaps CO2 bandwidth. As shown in diagram:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=6351392_gr1.jpg
ken…the problem with your wiki link is that it does not go deep enough into quantum theory.
For example…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy#/media/File:Co2_vibrations.svg
The drawings show two O atoms bonded to one C atom but it indicates nowhere that the bond lines between atoms are bonding electron orbits.
The bond energies change when the electrons in the bonds absorb heat or radiation. That alters the bond lengths causing vibration.
Ken,
Saturation turns out not to matter. As explained in this interesting paper:
https://tinyurl.com/29c4frej
Which one of the five are you ???
https://youtu.be/v2nhssPW77I?t=2170
Wow, what a revelation. Ent thinks fossil fuel burning causes global warming. Ent, what caused global warming before fossil fuel burning?
Could of had a lot of natural fossil fuel burning.
We have lot of coal naturally burning presently.
And lots forests with lots of wood which could have burnt down- US used to have huge forest fires.
About some tro-lls’ du-mb trials to make the Hunga Tonga 2022 eruption responsible for the recent warming
*
Especially the tro-ll Clint R, who together with a few friends in den-ial claims that the Moon doesn’t spin just because it shows always the same face to us (the trivial ‘ball-on-a-string’ model) endlessly repeats such pseudo-scientific nonsense.
*
But… even on Watts’ very skep-tic WUWT blog we can read:
” Readers may recall that we have reported on the massive amount of water vapor that has been injected into the stratosphere by the 2022 eruption of the Hunga-Tonga volcano.
A recent study said a 13% increase in stratospheric water mass and a 5-fold increase of stratospheric aerosol load. ”
*
Bold is my emphasis, due to the fact that most people ignore (or deliberately dissimulate) the fact that even a submarine volcanic eruption still is… a volcanic eruption, and hence injects huge amounts of sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere which is definitely known to have a cooling effect.
Watts’ head post refers to
Global perturbation of stratospheric water and aerosol burden by Hunga eruption
Sergey Khaikin & al. (2022)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019JD031303
Caution: this is a preprint and was not validated by peer-review yet (what never disturbs Pseudo-skep-tics of course: they even post absolutely non-committing YouTube trash all the time).
*
From the abstract and the intro we read:
” The eruption of the submarine Hunga volcano in January 2022 was associated with a powerful blast that injected volcanic material to altitudes up to 58 km.
From a combination of various types of satellite and ground-based observations supported by transport modeling, we show evidence for an unprecedented increase in the global stratospheric water mass by 13% as compared to climatological levels, and a 5-fold increase of stratospheric aerosol load, the highest in the last three decades.
Owing to the extreme injection altitude, the volcanic plume has circumnavigated the Earth in only one week and dispersed nearly pole-to-pole in three months.
The unique nature and magnitude of the global stratospheric perturbation by the Hunga eruption ranks it among the most remarkable climatic events in the modern observation era, with a range of potential persistent repercussions for stratospheric composition and climate.
The main eruption of the Hunga submarine volcano (Tonga, 20.54°S, 175.38°W) on 15 January 2022 was likely the most explosive event of the modern observational era, with an estimated Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) of 5.8 (Poli and Shapiro, 2022).
In the historical record, the Lamb wave triggered by the initial explosion is only comparable to that of the eruption of Mount Krakatoa in 1883 (Matoza et al., 2022; Wright et al., 2022). ”
*
However, the authors conveniently note:
” With that, the absolute magnitude of SAOD perturbation (embedded panel in Fig. 6C) by Hunga is at least a factor of 6 smaller than to the previous major eruption of Pinatubo in 1991 and factor of 3 smaller than that of El Chichon in 1982. ”
*
Perhaps we should be happy that so much water vapor was emitted along with the aerosols, as this likely counteracted the latter.
We had enough cooling in the past.
That’s a lot of blah-blah there, Bindi. Do you understand any of it?
For example, of the effects mentioned (water vapor, polar vortex, ozone, and aerosols), can you list them in order by warming ability?
After that, maybe you can provide a model of “orbital motion without spin”. Or do you go with Norman’s “square orbit”?
“the fact that even a submarine volcanic eruption still is a volcanic eruption, and hence injects huge amounts of sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere which is definitely known to have a cooling effect”
My understanding is the sulfer aerosols are removed from the eruption by reaction with the sea water. Not nearly as much sulpher gets to the atmosphere as with a volcano blast that is entirely above water.
Hence we haven’t seen the temperature drop that was associated with Pinatubo.
Bindidon, Your link is to a JGR paper published in 2019. Did you post an incorrect link?
As usual, grammie clone apparently didn’t bother to read the paper, or he might have figured that out himself.
E. Swanson
Thank you.
It was a mistake of course, I pasted the link out of the wrong Firefox tab yesterday.
I meant this one:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00652-x
But as you correctly wrote: pseudo-skeptical people never read articles, they prefer to rely on their ‘gut feeling’.
Ken
I’m sad of trying to bypass this ‘Internal error’, and post my reply via a pdf:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ehj_CoUBegyZXL_1ETwLJZRaZU07Rmmk/view
“With that, the absolute magnitude of SAOD perturbation (embedded panel in Fig. 10c) by Hunga is at least a factor of 6 smaller than that of the previous major eruption of Pinatubo in 1991 and factor of 3 smaller than that of El Chichon in 1982”.
I think this supports my contention that the sulpher load is much smaller with HT than was Pinatubo.
Most of the discussion about sulphates suggest very rapid oxidization and sedimentation of SO2 because of the volume of water.
Upthread, Scott R enjoyed us once more with a
” Yes I live in Michigan, which is a good proxy for the north Atlantic. We had a cool summer for sure. Couldnt get above 90. This is highly unusual for us. ”
Yes, it might be ‘highly unusual for us’.
But that has nothing to do with the globe around Michigan, let alone Europe where I live, and not even the entire CONUS.
As I posted this link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q1nAZRyAgkgmwkGCJAbwGGXzB_AAwf22/view
I had overlooked that the Northern CONUS time series was missing in the chart (now updated).
*
By ‘Northern CONUS’ I mean the average of the temperatures measured by the weather stations in WA, OR, MT, ID, WY, ND, SD, MN, WI and MI.
We can see that the average temperature anomalies there have declined sharply since 2016 compared to the 1981-2010 average.
I forgot to mention something for these all time better-knowers claiming everywhere that ‘The 1930s were warmer than today’:
1936 2 -8.92 (C)
1937 1 -7.88
1979 1 -7.05
1930 1 -6.99
1983 12 -5.99
1916 1 -5.97
1929 1 -5.89
1929 2 -5.87
1950 1 -5.78
1989 2 -5.72
This the top 10 of the ascending sort of North CONUS’ time series.
And should that not be enough:
1936 2 48.75 -108.75 -19.53 (C)
1936 2 48.75 -106.25 -19.51
1903 2 41.25 -108.75 -19.28
1936 2 48.75 -111.25 -19.19
1936 2 48.75 -103.75 -18.92
1950 1 48.75 -111.25 -18.23
1930 1 48.75 -88.75 -17.67
1916 1 48.75 -111.25 -17.31
1936 2 46.25 -103.75 -17.15
1936 2 46.25 -101.25 -16.87
This the top 10 of the ascending sort of North CONUS’ time series, distributed over a 2.5 degree grid.
The grid cell centred at ‘48.75 -108.75’ is here:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/48%C2%B045'00.0%22N+108%C2%B045'00.0%22W/@48.75,-110.9916024,752313m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d48.75!4d-108.75?hl=en&entry=ttu
Only US stations were collected, that’s evident.
No, the numbers are of course not absolute temperatures, but anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010 :–)
I have a question for people who track these results. Has there every been any other time when there was an increase (or decrease) of 0.7 deg. in just 5 months?
Tim S
” Has there every been any other time when there was an increase (or decrease) of 0.7 deg. in just 5 months? ”
No.
Here is the top 10 of a descending sort of all 5 month differences:
2023 9 0.72
1998 4 0.66
2016 2 0.61
1998 2 0.60
1983 3 0.57
2023 7 0.56
2023 8 0.49
2010 1 0.43
2009 11 0.43
2023 6 0.42
However, I wouldn’t say ‘2023 9’ beats the rest that much.
At the other end of the sort, you see this:
1991 11 -0.58
1989 1 -0.47
1989 2 -0.47
1999 1 -0.47
1996 1 -0.45
1998 11 -0.45
1999 3 -0.45
2004 7 -0.45
2004 8 -0.45
2008 1 -0.44
What might be of some interest is that 2023 appears three times in the top 10.
Should read: four times.
No. But 1998 and 2016 weren’t far off at 0.66 and 0.62 respectively though.
The map shows that the warming of the troposphere has occurred in the tropics, where there must have been an increase in water evaporation. The temperature of the open ocean reaches a maximum of 31 C and cannot rise due to the limited pressure on Earth. At this temperature of the ocean surface there is strong convection and cloud formation. Warming in high latitudes must be caused by strong surface insolation and is seasonal.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/september2023/202309_Map.png
Striking as September’s global anomaly may be, it cannot be off-handedly attributed to ENSO or secular anthropogenic warming without far more comprehensive analysis of monthly variability of satellite data. But we don’t even have a full Gleissberg cycle of such data, let alone anything on a millenial scale. Nor can proxy data provide a highly coherent substitute. Thus we should acknowledge that rigorous climate science is very much in its infancy and allows only an “ooh” over a singular data point, instead of presumptuous pontifications of wanna-be gurus who dwell in the web.
aq…”Gordon…
Regarding your claim that global warming became climate change.
What does the CC in IPCC stand for?
When was the IPCC formed?”
***
The IPCC was formed around 1988 with only a mandate to find evidence of anthropogenic global warming, not anthropogenic climate change. The first co-chair was John Houghton, who was sponsored by UK PM Margaret Thatcher. He was a climate modeler and moved he IPCC in the direction of climate modeling and away from mainstream science.
The early focus of the IPCC was on global warming and the CO2 emissions they believed caused it. In the 3rd assessment, TAR, they stated that future climates cannot be predicted. They got around that by ‘projecting’ future climate scenarios using unvalidated climate models. They were forced to change prediction to projection when expert climate reviewer, Vincent Gray, pointed out that unvalidated models cannot predict.
The ‘climate’ in IPCC is not a reference to the convoluted interpretation of climate used by alarmists today but to a general set of parameters that includes weather and related outcomes of weather. Today, the phrase climate change is used in the same manner as global warming, as if there is a global temperture and a global climate.
That answers your question. It was the IPCC and their bosses in different countries who connived behind the scenes to shift the focus from global warming to global climate.
You see, people could not identify with the danger of a tiny increase in global warming but they could identify with rising sea levels, severe storms, etc. The IPCC has no evidence of anthropogenic warming nor have they evidence of catastrophic weather events. However, they are not interested in science but in selling the public on the need to have their governments pour endless money into a pot managed by the UN to help out poorer countries.
That has been the aim of the UN since the 1960s…a world government run and taxed by them. No one paid any attention to them till this anthropogenic pseudo-science was dropped in their lap.
So, “global warming” became “climate change” in 1988?
Is that what you’re saying, Gordon?
At the top of the page Roy includes a caption claiming thy are going to need a bigger graph. Actually, Roy, if you scrapped these anomalies and published the actual temperatures, you’d have plenty of room. This current blip would hardly appear on a real graph with and the entire range from 1979 – 2023 would be little more than a slightly curved straight line.
This is an old link but see Figure 5 to get an idea of UAH data plotted on a real temperature grid.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130614064436/http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html
Looks pretty similar. Your link tincludes that nonsense graph of northern England? Good one.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records/
And Wiltard links another propaganda site. Propagandists are busy little bees.
Oh, Troglodyte.
JFY:
https://mashable.com/article/carbon-dioxide-earth-co2
Next time you ask yourself “what caused global warming before fossil fuel burning,” think about that.
Willard,
Irrelevant nonsense. The Earth has cooled. The fact that CO2 levels have been vastly higher in the past did not stop the Earth cooling.
You are suffering from a mental deficiency, rejecting reality.
Think about that.
Wiltard is a paid propagandist. He doesn’t have to make any sense.
And Wiltard responds by linking more propaganda.
“paid propagandist.” Stephen doesnt require evidence..
Nate,
Yes, those propaganda sites are evidence. Did you go to school at the Soros School for Retards?
Nate,
Yes, those propaganda sites are evidence. Yesiree.
Troglodyte’s meds are kicking in.
People posting on a blog in support of science, and thus disagreeing with Stephen.
His conclusion: they must be paid propagandists!
“Next time you ask yourself what caused global warming before fossil fuel burning, think about that.”
The question makes more sense in the original Neanderthal:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/09/why-didnt-they-think-of-climate-week.html
A polar vortex in the lower stratosphere will now move over central Europe, bringing severe cooling and snow in the mountains.
https://i.ibb.co/h1byPDb/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-10-04-080811.png
With warm oceans in the north and El Nino, will less energy be needed in the northern hemisphere? It may turn out to be just the opposite. The decline in solar activity and the eastern QBO foreshadow the rippling of the polar vortex in the upper troposphere. With warm oceans, this could mean stronger snowfall with strong fronts from the north.
Galactic radiation is slowly increasing.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
Earlier, Nate displayed his intellectual level by writing –
“One of every 2500 molecules is CO2, and that is more than enough to make the atmosphere 100% OPAQUE @ and around 15 microns. Thus IR @ those wavelengths will be 100% abs.orbed by the atmosphere.”
Bananas absorb 100% of those wavelengths, too.
How amazing is that?
You might care to explain why the surface cools at night – CO2 and bananas notwithstanding. Otherwise, you just look like another mentally challenged cultist.
Off you go, now.
Speaking of ‘intellectual’,
Swenson thinks this is a profound statement:
“Bananas absorb 100% of those wavelengths, too.”
Notice that nothing follows from it. So it is a profound nothing.
IOW a standard Swenson post!
“ou might care to explain why the surface cools at night ”
And this has been explained to him at least 47 times, but he has never grasped the concept.
Which is that insulation doesnt PREVENT cooling. It only SLOWS cooling.
Thus his red herring complaint that the surface cools at night says NOTHING relevant to the GHE or anything at all.
If the atmosphere and its GHE are acting as insulation for the Earth’s surface (and they are), then all that can be expected is that the surface will cool more slowly at night than it would without the GHE.
And thus the surface will cool LESS overnight than it would otherwise.
But this is obviously too complicated for Swenson’s 5th grade intellect.
Nate says:
”If the atmosphere and its GHE are acting as insulation for the Earths surface (and they are), then all that can be expected is that the surface will cool more slowly at night than it would without the GHE.”
Yes the atmosphere as it is composed must be insulating.
But what you have done is bought into for political reasons of some kind, is the M&W narrative that cherry picks an insulating physics and sold it to the public via the 3rd grader radiation model.
Unfortunately, though the 3rd grader radiation model doesn’t work and has been demonstrated to not work.
You have already proven you don’t understand how this effect works having spent years in here defending the 3rd grader radiation model and never ever defending another physics model.
“Yes the atmosphere as it is composed must be insulating.”
Thanks for agreeing with me, and Swenson still doesent understand what insultation does and does not do. Perhaps you can explain it to him.
Well the caveat on that is if the mean global surface temperature is actually 288k versus 278.5k. It seems highly likely there is at least a few degrees of greenhouse effect.
But nobody so far has described the alleged mechanism in a physical model. Why is that?
False, it has certainly been described in a physical model many times. Ongoing denial of this will not change this fact.
There are many descriptions of physical GHE available online. One just needs to look!
Here is one simplified 2-layer physical model of the GHE, that even you could possibly understand.
https://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/2layer/
Click on the Physics tab for an explanation.
Pls tell us what, specifically, you think they are doing wrong.
No handwaving please.
well if you set emissivity at .5 and convective heat flux to .5 (according to engineering toolbox and all standard title 24 stuff) you come up with zero greenhouse effect, so the model may well be ok.
Its fun to play God and set convection to whatever you want, but lets get real, the convective flux is not whatever you want. It is what is measured. And if that is used, then obviously there will be a GHE.
the flux I used came from the Engineering Toolbox Nate. Thats what scientists have measured. If you think they measured something else provide a source for it.
“you come up with zero greenhouse effect”
That’s just you saying random stuff, without evidence, Bill.
The reality is that this is a physical model of the GHE, and it does produce a GHE. Your denial of it makes no difference.
So your claim that there are no physical models of the GHE, is debunked.
That’s all there is to it.
And just to to be clear, the model produces outgoing flux of ~ 240 W/m^2 at the TOA. And the surface is emitting a flux of ~ 390 W/m^2.
The difference of 150 W/m^2, is a GHE!
The model obviously produces one.
Nate says:
”Thats just you saying random stuff, without evidence, Bill.
The reality is that this is a physical model of the GHE, and it does produce a GHE. Your denial of it makes no difference.
So your claim that there are no physical models of the GHE, is debunked.”
The convective flux has always been treated as a constant in the Engineering Toolbox for common air and in Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The problem with mainstream science is they are just jumping to the conclusion that because there is a GHE the convective flux must be different.
Just like you just did in the above post.
Your assertions are not supported by the evidence. There is an obvious GHE in the model, of 150 W/m^2, as I explained above.
150 is much much more than 0.
Oh well!
Nate the only assertion is the Engineering Toolbox has a minimum constant for air that mixes the kinetic energy in the gas.
https://tinyurl.com/32a4vfc7
Convective Heat Transfer Coefficients
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-heat-transfer-d_430.html
So where are your sources Nate?
Also its clear you have no idea of the difference between a mathematical model and a physical model.
A physical model always has all the parameters set. A mathematical model allows you to input parameters. The model you provided is merely a crude mathematical model and my challenge was for a complete and detail physical model. The way you answered the question demonstrates you didn’t even understand the question.
“The model you provided is merely a crude mathematical model and my challenge was for a complete and detail physical model”
False. A physical model applies the laws of physics to a problem, and that is exactly what this model does!
Oh well!
And, it doesnt matter what numbers you put in for convection, the model is still producing a GHE. Which means there is a large difference between the TOA emission and the surface emission, 150 W/m^2.
You claimed there was no GHE, but this was a vacuous assertion, with nothing quantitative to back it up.
Oh well!
No Nate there is a difference between a physical model and a mathematical model. Both ideally only employ laws of physics.
However the model you show runs on that 3rd grader radiation model as show in the diagram. Thus its not operating on the laws of physics based on its output.
Further the difference between a physical model and a mathematical model is that the physical model shows a specific physical state, a mathematical model allows you to change parameters. . .perhaps they are using a mathematical model because they don’t know what the mean physical state is?
“Thus its not operating on the laws of physics based on its output.”
Yes it is. See the ‘physics’ tab that explains exactly what laws of it is using.
You dont understand the model, so you move the goal posts. And define ‘physical model’ to be whatever you need it to be.
Show us a legit source that defines ‘physical model’ as you do.
I know you won’t find one because you made it up!
You also claimed there was no GHE produced by the model, but this was a vacuous assertion, with nothing quantitative to back it up.
Because again, you made it up!
the model is obviously wrong as the only way to produce the earth’s temperature is to set convective heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere to zero. and when you set that to the correct number there is no greenhouse effect.
which explains at a minimum the results seen in experiments. so even if the 3rd grader model works in outer space it doesn’t matter.
You claimed there was no GHE produced by the model, but this was a false assertion, with nothing quantitative to back it up.
You claimed that the model wasn’t a ‘physical model’ but this was simply made up, because, as expected, you cannot provide any legitimate definition of ‘physical model’ that supports your claim.
Oh well! Now what?
” the only way to produce the earths temperature is to set convective heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere to zero. ”
Nope, this is you just saying more unsupported nonsense..
Again, you show nothing to back that up!
So, that is that. Nothing of substance left to discuss.
Repeat these false claims as often as you want. I will not respond until you show substance to back them up.
Good luck, Bill.
you use the defaults and surface temp is ~288k. add some convection and surface temps drop.
and i really don’t care if you want to remain ignorant nate.
From today’s blogosphere…
That’s a bit harsh. UAH has always been a professionally scientific product on a par with the other temperature datasets.
” UAH has always been a professionally scientific product… ”
Agreed!
” … on a par with the other temperature datasets. ”
Ah really?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:60/from:1979/plot/gistemp/mean:60/from:1979/offset:-0.613
“That’s a bit harsh.”
Which part?
Actually, there are several reasons to question the UAH products, particularly the LT.
It’s well known that the Antarctic data is flawed because of the high elevations over the ice covered continent. RSS excludes those areas and also other areas with high elevations, such as Greenland, in their computation. The Antarctic data is also impacted by the Ozone Hole, since the LT includes data into the Stratosphere. The RSS data continues to show greater warming than the UAH results.
Over the Arctic Ocean, the summer data may also be flawed because of the decline in sea-ice and the presence of melt ponds on the remaining sea-ice area. Open water appears colder than sea-ice to the instrument and as the Arctic melts, more open water is seen by the AMSU/MSU instruments. That could result in a spurious cooling influence on the data.
E. Swanson
Sorry, but… a closer look tells us different things.
1. In the Arctic, RSS 4.0 performs sounding in exactly the same latitude band as UAH 6.0:
https://i.postimg.cc/yN68Sm71/Screenshot-20231004-162340-RSS-V4-0-60-82-5-N.png
Thus, RSS’s evaluation of the area (0.46 C / decade compared to UAH’s 0.25) is due to their data processing method only. UAH5.6, with full 90N-90S coverage, stopped in 2017 with 0.35 C / decade.
*
2. In the Antarctic, it is true that RSS sounds only ‘down’ to 70S, whereas UAH does to 82.5S, like at the other Pole.
But a comparison of time series generated out of UAH’s 2.5 degree grid
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ul5lVRSgBMc9L7yEPGV43P8WQO4mBFKy/view
shows the following trends
– UAH: 0.02 C / decade
– RSS: 0.06 C / decade
i.e. is not worth terribly much discussion.
Bindidon, Your focus on the Antarctic does show a greater warming for RSS vs. UAH, but even the reduced range for RSS poleward of 60S is still heavily influenced by what happens over the Antarctic. RSS presents a data set called mid-latitude from 25S to 60S which exhibits a warming trend of 0.18C/decade, while UAH offers only a a range of 20S to 90S which exhibits a trend of 0.10C/decade. The UAH SoPol Ocean actually exhibits a slight negative trend thru August, while the sea-ice advance season has exhibited a remarkably small maximum coverage.
http://nsid*c.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/10/asina_S_iqr_timeseries.png [remove * from nsid*c ]
Over the Arctic, both data sets would experience the same influence from declining summer sea-ice, yet RSS still exhibits a strong trend of 0.46C/decade vs. UAH at 0.25C/decade. That difference might be due in part to greater surface influence in the UAH product compared with RSS.
Nothing threatens the Great Barrier Reef.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202310.gif
Palmowski
” Nothing threatens the Great Barrier Reef. ”
What’s that for a nonsense? The graph you post stays in no relation with the Reef’s problems.
What about reading e.g. this:
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/australias-great-barrier-reef-off-unesco-danger-list-still-under-serious-threat-2023-08-01/
Alarmism really is a bad thing – but your stubborn anti-alarmism is even worse.
Blinny, my anti-alarmism is the world is being fed. Crop production is at an all-time high. This is a real all-time high and not a fake all-time high.
Stephen you are ignorantly promoting correlation = causation.
While ignoring all other possible causes, like increased usage of fertilizer, hybrid plants, mechanized farming, pesticides, etc.
Anderson
What a stoo~pid, shame~less, reck~less comparison.
Your brain moves toward the level of your 6.9L pickup…
It seems like this binary way of thinking in which it can only ever be a single factor modulating a response of some variable (whether it be temperature, crop yields, or whatever) is one of the biggest hurdles in these discussions.
SPA, do you understand that the UAH TLT temperature is not modulated by only a single thing? Do you understand that crop yields are not modulated by only a single thing?
If the answer is no (you don’t understand) to either questions then let’s have a discussion about that first. Let’s figure out why you think only a single agent can act on something at any given time.
If the answer is yes (you do understand) to both questions then let’s have a discussion about the details of how it all works as opposed to the endless discussions about absurd strawmen arguments that you are expecting us to defend.
Oh, I forgot, you propagandists are geniuses regarding everything. There have been monumental breakthroughs in crop production in the last few decades. I forgot about all of those. The ten percent increase in crop production does not correlate with the ten percent increase in CO2. Gotcha! Oh, but wait, the correlation with CO2 and temperature MUST mean CO2 causes temperature. And not the other way around. Gotcha!
If you geniuses can only figure out how to blame CO2 on crop production. Keep working at it. Soros will pay.
Troglodyte seems to have emerged from the mists of time untouched by human evolution. Devoid of a single progressive idea and lacking the slightest awareness of social and cultural advances, Troglodyte has developed an incoherent political philosophy that he characterizes as “conservative” or “libertarian”, but which could be more accurately described as “bigoted narcissism”. His aggressive posturing often frightens off weaker, more timid Warriors. In pitched battle, however, Troglodyte easily loses control and his attack quickly degenerates into a rant. Just for the fun of it, Weenie, Issues. Pinko and Evil Clown will sometimes deliberately goad him into a towering rage.
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm
It’s a simple yes or no. Which is it? Yes or No?
Fascists!
Ironical, isn’t it that Soros adopts the very tactics that killed so many Jews? Of course, many of the Jews, like today, were Marxists.
SPA, when you’re ready to have an intelligent conversation I’ll be here. All you have to do is answer the simple yes/no question first. Take all the time you need. Call me a Nazi. Compare me to Hitler. Blame the Holocaust on me. Get whatever rants and ad-hominems you feel are necessary and then post back letting me know you’re ready for relevant discussion 1) about how it is possible for more than one thing to create a response in variable or if you understand that already then 2) about the details regarding how multiple agents acting in tandem can modulate crop yields or the global average temperature.
There’s no intelligent conversation with you or any of your ilk. You’re a propagandist, nothing more.
Stephen P Anderson
You make the claim you have a Chemistry and math background but your ranting and mindless posting does not indicate any signs of intellect left in that brain of yours. You have been indoctrinated into the bizarre Cult of Trumpism. It lashes out at anything that threatens its false cozy world of fantasy and endless lies.
I am sad you have become a right-wing nut rather than a thoughtful intellectual able to use intelligence and reason to attempt to find the truth in the climate change debate. You come here with ideas you did not think up on your own. I can watch any right-wing media and get their talking points.
Please get a grip and look in a mirror and ask yourself what happened to me. How did I lose my thinking ability and now I am just a mindless drone lashing out and attacking without any thought or reason. You think Berry’s ideas are good even though I have explained why they are very poorly reasoned through. You can’t think anymore because of your cult right-wing mentality.
I read above without surprise:
” At the top of the page Roy includes a caption claiming thy are going to need a bigger graph.
Actually, Roy, if you scrapped these anomalies and published the actual temperatures, you’d have plenty of room.
This current blip would hardly appear on a real graph with and the entire range from 1979 2023 would be little more than a slightly curved straight line. ”
Oh look: genius Robertson now starts teaching Roy Spencer how he should do the job.
For the igno~ramus de service, here is how the graph would look like with ‘actual’ temperatures:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EuZxQTmZynMurw68n5lBo6g35Vh00foK/view
computed out of anomalies and climatology, downloaded from
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
On this graph you see that in this year July 1998 was bypassed for the first time, by both July and August 2023.
Top 10 in the absolute values:
2023 7 266.057 (Kelvin)
2023 8 265.925
1998 7 265.797
2022 7 265.776
2020 7 265.724
2016 7 265.674
2019 7 265.667
1998 8 265.622
2021 7 265.619
2010 7 265.615
These differences are tiny, but the lowest september nonetheless was
1984 9 263.970
*
The trend in C/decade for absolute temperatures is now surprisingly higher than that for anomalies (digits after the dp intentional here):
0.1452 +- 0.028 versus 0.1378 +- 0.061
No alarmism here: just show the reality as it is, what has few to do with Robertson’s ‘knowhow’.
*
This graph will of course be discredited by the genius as ‘unsupported graph’. No problem for me.
I also posted a link to Ian Schumacher’s site in which he plots the UAH data to an absolute temperature scale. The UAH data appears as almost a flat line.
Binny spends a full post to express his angst against the obvious.
That
https://web.archive.org/web/20130630210914im_/http://www.ianschumacher.com/img/temp_range.png
shows us how uneducated and superficial you are.
Anyone can present things on a scale making them small or big, but of zero dot zero interest in the discussion.
You are du~mb, Robertson, and will keep du~mb, because you never learn anything.
The Greenland Ice Sheet evolves throughout the year as weather conditions change. Precipitation increases the mass of the ice sheet, whilst greater warmth leads to melting, which causes it to lose mass. The term surface mass balance is used to describe the isolated gain and loss of mass of the surface of the ice sheet excluding the mass that is lost when glaciers calve off icebergs and melt as they come into contact with warm seawater.
https://i.ibb.co/wstvsvw/SMB-curves-LA-EN-20231003.png
The cult meltdown continues.
Bindi is so distraught he can’t even link to the things he can’t understand! E. Swanson has to help him. It’s the blind leading the blind.
This HTE is a huge disappointment for the cult. They wanted so badly for it to be “proof” of their GHE nonsense. Instead, it blows holes in their beliefs.
The HTE amounted to a REAL “forcing”, in that it caused a significant rise in UAH results. That’s what a REAL forcing does — it raises temperatures. An El Niño does the same thing — it raises temperatures. CO2 can NOT raise temperature. The HTE and EN are REAL forcings. CO2 is NOT a forcing.
Also clearly obvious is Earth’s response to abnormal forcing. The Polar Vortex at the South Pole should be gone by now, but it is almost at its peak. Max wind speeds are about 290 mph. It ain’t going away until it gets things back to normal. The PV is having to deal with both the HTE and EN. So it is working overtime. The PV at the North Pole is now forming, to help.
Earth gets too hot, it knows how to cool itself. No need for alarm….
“The HTE amounted to a REAL forcing, in that it caused a significant rise in UAH results.”
Clints epic failure to understand correlation is not = causation continues.
Clint R
Your rambling rant about thing you do not understand (polar vortex) sounds extreme cultists. You call science a cult them ramble on in a confused stupor. I wonder if .
norman…when that polar vortex descends around November and bites your butt, you might not find it so cultish.
” E. Swanson has to help him. ”
Where did he help me, tr0ll Clint R, apart from correctly pointing to a link to the wrong article, which I gratefully replaced by the correct one?
Unlike you, of course, I have read the article. You didn’t because you wouldn’t understand anything of it.
You prefer to discredit the authors, as you discredited Cassini, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and ALL their successors.
You keep as usual at your simple, childish ‘ball-on-a-string’ level.
Please continue that way, we need you (to show what is anti-science, of course).
They’re throwing crap against the wall, as usual.
No science. No reality. Just desperation.
That’s why this is so much fun.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The phrase “global warming” should be abandoned in favour of “climate change”, Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as “conservationist” instead of “environmentalist”, because “most people” think environmentalists are “extremists” who indulge in “some pretty bizarre behaviour… that turns off many voters”.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Climate Models Wrong on East Pacific We Dont Know Why This Cooling Is Happening
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/04/climate-models-wrong-on-east-pacific-we-dont-know-why-this-cooling-is-happening/
–WELL, OUR EXPERT CLASS FAILED AT THAT MISERABLY:
Overall, a clear pattern emerges: a marked and fairly widespread decline of public confidence in science since the pandemic. While, historically, Americans confidence in science has remained high relative to confidence in other institutions, this gap now appears to be narrowing.
The pandemic surely played a role, especially controversial policies such as school closures and masking young children. Theres little doubt the conduct of scientific, political and media elites contributed as well from policy mistakes like the botched rollout of diagnostic tests to mixed and misleading messaging on masking to the dishonesty of politicians who failed to follow their own rules to efforts within government, the media and the scientific community to suppress dissent.
…–
What failed miserably and has been failure from the start is the CIA.
This quaint British tradition doesn’t work in US.
End it, and declassify, everything.
Rather than focus on it’s corruption and incompetence.
You could just say, it’s outdated.
One might been able to make case for it, in 19th century.
But we are in 21 century, and we have thousands of satellites and will be getting tens of thousands of them.
And we have the Space Force.
How many people will take the new waxeen ???
https://youtu.be/4u1ha38o4Jk
It seems ironic that all the people I know who have been vaccinated have suffered from the alleged covid virus yet I have not been vaccinated and have not even had the flu.
The covid vaccine is based on the same fraudulent science upon which the covid tests are based. The same fraudulent science upon which HIV was based. Luc Montagnier, who got the Nobel for discovering HIV, later claimed it does not cause AIDS, that AIDS is caused by oxidative stress related to lifestyle. Peter Duesberg claimed that years before Montagnier and Fauci ruined his career by ensuring he received no funding.
Fauci was one of the first ijits to develop the test for HIV that is now used for covid. He used the PCR method for DNA amplification to infer that he was amplifying HIV, which could not be seen on an electron microscope. The inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis, told Fauci that PCR could not amplify a virus that could not be seen on an EM.
When Fauci persisted, Mullis began openly calling him a liar, and Fauci did nothing about it.
Starlink has more than 3 million subscribers and SpaceX keeps launching starlink satellites
https://www.rocketlaunch.live/
Has 21 more launches this year with 8 of them being starlink satellite launches- and probably more will added, or produced satellites will be ready and rockets will be ready, only issue is does someone else want to add launch this year- usually scheduling has been done years ahead of time. But everyone is making satellites faster, now.
And lots of parties want global satellite network and SpaceX is lifting more 80% of mass to orbit, and Musk demanding very steeper targets of Falcons launch per month.
I like to think I have wild imagination- it didn’t imagine this many launches. Though I did say, it seems unreasonable to phase out the Falcon rocket- which Musk was saying over a year ago. Now he going to keep them for at least a few years. So I guess after getting to the point of launching hundreds per year??
Do we have to explore Mars, to save the world?
https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/a-fertility-reckoning
“William Barton
October 4, 2023 at 10:52 AM
Marxism is like any other religion, and comes the Revolution women will be serving on their backs, as always. Members of the Nomenklatura are made. not born. I think Marxism is just the latest Abrahamic religion, bent on destroying the rational West, as Islam destroyed Persia, as Christianity felled the Greco-Roman world. Something God-awful happened in the Levantine Iron Dark Age after the Bronze Age Collapse, whose first fruit was the Tophet Cult. Rome tried to stop it by ploughing under Carthage, but didnt know the hits would keep on coming.”
http://www.transterrestrial.com/2023/10/04/the-coming-population-decline/#comments
Had to look up Tophet Cult.
But I already knew what was:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tophet
BIDEN DOG BITES AGAIN…
https://www.drudgereport.com/
“EXCLUSIVE: President Joe Biden’s German Shepherd Commander is seen biting White House staffer, days before it bit Secret Service agent, in new photos”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12589937/Joe-Bidens-dog-Commander-bites-staffer-Dale-Haney.html
Nothing threatens the Great Barrier Reef. The water is cool and there are no hurricanes.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_hs_v3.1_seel_current.png
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/coraltemp_v3.1_seel_current.png
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/ausf/mimictpw_ausf_latest.gif
Another poor forecast.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
What poor forecast is that?
Nate
” Another poor forecast. ”
Strange allegation indeed.
It has become common practice on this blog to claim that presenting existing data is tantamount to making a forecast, as was the case e.g. here until a few months ago:
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/had5.jpeg
But alas, what a pity!
After a long delay, wordpress.com says: ‘404 File not found.’
And the Honorable Chief Statistician Blindsley Hood (also nicknamed ‘RLH’) appears to have been absent for some time. Hopefully all is still well with him.
The forecast shows how a polar vortex in the lower stratosphere will bring cold air to Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/bbtGJkp/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png
The commies are predicting the el Nino to peak soon and die off around Feb/Mar next year.
http://cmdp.ncc-cma.net/eng/index.php?channel=92
barry
Thanks for this new source
http://cmdp.ncc-cma.net/download/ENSO/Indices_evolution/ENSOIndices_1_SEMAP_O12P12_202309.png
With January 24 at ~1.5 resp. April 24 at ~1.0, they get it somewhat similar for 3+4 to
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
*
This
http://cmdp.ncc-cma.net/eng/index.php?channel=67
is interesting as well, though showing only absolute temperatures.
*
U Maine’s Daily 2-meter Air Temperature web site (Climate Reanalyzer, using NCEP data) still is unbeatable
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/clim_frames/t2anom/world-wt/2023/t2anom_world-wt_2023_d276.png
Beijing Climate Centre doesn’t have much accompanying material at all, but it’s interesting to have a new (to us) forecaster.
Sept ’23 beat the previous record high temperature anomaly (Feb 2016) by 0.19 C.
There was only one time in UAH’s 45 years that a record warm temp had been beaten by that much. December 1987 beat June 1987 by 0.21 C.
Weather, Barry, just natural variation in weather.
Of course, that’s on top of re-warming from the Little Ice Age. When the planet cools over 400 years, even if it’s an average of 1C to 2C, tremendous amounts of ice accumulate globally, and it’s not that easy to get rid of it all and back to where we were before the LIA.
The planet won’t rewarm quickly, Akasofu claiming about 0.5C/century, and the reason is the Earth’s orbit and tilt, which keeps putting the ice back when some melts during brief nrctic and Antarctica summers.
“Weather, Barry, just natural variation in weather.”
Well of course it is.
But why don’t you correct people who actually make that error? Here you go.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1542182
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Miskolczi-2023-Greenhouse-Gas-Theory.pdf
To post links to articles is easy:
Natural Climate Drivers Dominate in the Current Warming
Antero Ollila
https://tinyurl.com/bdezv8u9
*
Less easy is to scientifically contra~dict them.
Not one poster here is able to do the job.
Thus we lay(wo)men will have to wait for reactions to Miskolczi and Ollila, just like we will have to wait for the scientific contradiction to papers like
Experimental Verification of the Greenhouse Effect
Hermann Harde, Michael Schnell
https://tinyurl.com/336sd37f
or
Greenhouse Effect: The Relative Contributions of Emission Height and Total Absorp~tion
Jean-Louis Dufresne, Vincent Eymet, Cyril Crevoisier and Jean-Yves Grand~peix
https://tinyurl.com/ywphaecp
Wait and see.
binny…”Experimental Verification of the Greenhouse Effect
Hermann Harde, Michael Schnell…”
***
A farcical attempt to replicate the atmosphere in a chamber at sea level in which gravity does not vary.
The other two links are so bad they are not worth a comment.
Binny,
How silly.
Your “experimenters” hold the “surface” at 11.4 C.
It doesn’t really matter, because they don’t actually manage to describe the supposed GHE anyway!
Just more wishful thinking – amateurish at that.
Harde & Schnell:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1498111
and Miskolczi refutes your second paper.
“…refutes your second paper.”
I mean your second pro-AGW paper, i.e:
“Greenhouse Effect: The Relative Contributions of Emission Height and Total Absorp~tion”
As expected: primitive, du-mb answers by arrogant ignoramuses.
Wow, Blinny provides a link to a paper by an actual Atmospheric Physicist, Harde, who knows actual physics. Incredible. Blinny, are you ready to stop this whole AGW nonsense?
Hermann was Professor for Laser-Engineering and Materials Science, Troglodyte.
Better luck next time!
Wingnut,
Do you understand he has a PhD in Physics and uses lasers to study atmospheric phenomena? That’s an Atmospheric Physicist. Genius!
Also, I am glad to see Blinny is recognizing a friend of Murray Salby (deceased) and Ed Berry. Salby had a PhD in Atmospheric Engineering and Ed Berry in Atmospheric Physics. All great scientists who debunked AGW. Thanks, Blinny!
Troglodyte,
Hermann himself said he started his climate science research in 2010.
He was at Hamburg U from 2001 to 1009.
Try again.
I don’t need to try again, Sock Puppet.
Producing a paper that Hermann published in atmospheric science between 2001 and 2010 would do, Troglodyte.
We both know you can’t.
1009
He may not be that old.
> As expected
Then that other one is on you, Binny.
One day you’ll learn.
I meant above all Flynnson and the clueless and timeless Robertson.
For the Pseudomod: the fact that Miskolczi refutes Dufresne’s work doesn’t wonder me at all, and doesn’t affect my opinion about Dufresne’s scientific level.
Your post re. Harde lacks a source, but the word ‘sophistry’ immediately gave me a feeling about it, and I was of course right:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2022/07/19/another-botched-experiment-the-tricks-of-pseudoscience/
Postma is a ground level anti-GHE boy, thanks. I have read enough of him.
*
Manifestly, you are so opinionated and so fixated on your anti-GHE position that you did not understand E. Swanson’s answer behind: your bad.
Vaughan Pratt and Roy Spencer got it right, no doubt.
And concerning Wood’s absolutely superficial 1909 pamphlet (which was clearly debunked by Abbot, as he made the experiment right years before, but ignored over a century): it is typical for you all pseudo-skep~tical boys that you don’t bother about why Wood’s ‘experiment’ was flawed from the beginning, namely that he covered both boxes with glass.
Wood was a very experienced scientist in puncto light and associated frequencies (UV and solar, very-near-IR) and thus thought it would be necessary to cover the salt-rock-box with glass in order to prevent the unwanted effect of solar IR, what brought per se the whole experiment ad absurdum.
*
Robertson’s endless trials to make a CO2 specialist out of Wood are afflicting.
Think what you want, Pseudomod: I know how you tick, see your incredibly unscientific attitude wrt the lunar spin.
*
Postma is a harsh skep~tic person, but a scientifically well educated one.
You and your friends-in-den~ial are merely pseudo-skep~tical guys who lack any REAL scientific education and technical skill, denigrating all scientists whose results do not match your egocentered gut feeling.
You wouldn’t even dare to post your lunar spin nonsense at WUWT! Watts would eject you within hours.
Get over it!
I am over it. In fact, I didn’t even mention it. You just did, though.
"Manifestly, you are so opinionated and so fixated on your anti-GHE position that you did not understand E. Swanson’s answer behind: your bad."
No, I understood it, I just disagreed with him. I think Postma is correct on that – if the experiment was to truly replicate the GHE, then there would be only one power supply. The fact that each plate has its own power supply completely undermines the result. That ain’t the GHE!
It’s meant to be: one powered plate, one passive plate…and the powered plate is meant to be warmed/insulated by the IR radiation from the passive plate. End of story. If they’d run it that way, they wouldn’t have got the result they wanted, though!
> I meant above all [Mike Flynn]
Mike Flynn does not link to papers.
Here’s the bit that kills your excuse, Binny:
Tu nous prends pour des cons ou quoi?
https://rclutz.com/2017/05/17/the-curious-case-of-dr-miskolczi/
“ClimateTruth: According your theory, the greenhouse effect is self-regulating and stabilizes itself in response to rising CO2 levels. You identified (perhaps discovered) a “greenhouse constant” that keeps the greenhouse effect in equilibrium. Is that a fair assessment of your theory?
Dr. Miskolczi: Yes. Our atmosphere, with its infinite degree of freedom, is able to maintain its global average infrared absorp.tion at an optimal level. In technical terms, this “greenhouse constant” is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87. Despite the 30 per cent increase of CO2 in the last 61 years, this value has not changed. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorp.tion power as was predicted by the IPCC.
ClimateTruth: You used empirical data, rather than models, to arrive at your conclusion. How was that done?
Dr. Miskolczi: The computations are relatively simple. I collected a large number of radiosonde observations from around the globe and computed the global average infrared absorp.tion. I performed these computations using observations from two large, publicly available datasets known as the TIGR2 and NOAA. The computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations, using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code. In both datasets, the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be 1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.”
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Miskolczi-2023-Greenhouse-Gas-Theory.pdf
“The theoretically constant equilibrium flux absorp.tion coefficient of the Earth’s atmosphere ne-gates the existence of the Arrhenius type greenhouse gas greenhouse effect. If there are no changes in the greenhouse effect, then there is no climate sensitivity to man-made increase of the atmospheric CO2. The excess optical thickness from increased CO2 will condense into water drop-lets and will rain out from the atmosphere without the IPCC or government permission. Alterna-tively, structural variations in the global wind and humidity field, or the cloud cover may easily restore the equilibrium flux optical thickness.”
This guy is theoretically sane, but…
but… unfortunately for Dr. Miskolczi’s predicted expectation premise the excess earthen optical thickness from increased CO2 didn’t condense into water drop-lets and so didn’t rain out from the atmosphere without the IPCC or government permission as measured by CERES in the satellite era.
So, too, neither did the humidity field, nor the cloud cover become measured to maintain equilibrium flux optical thickness in the satellite era.
“…the computations are relatively simple. I collected a large number of radiosonde observations from around the globe and computed the global average infrared absorp.tion. I performed these computations using observations from two large, publicly available datasets known as the TIGR2 and NOAA. The computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations, using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code. In both datasets, the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be 1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.”
Are you saying this didn’t occur, Ball4?
No DREMT, Dr. Miskolczi’s collection included sparse data previous to the current satellite era “the 61-year dataset” starting before 1950. This data included a climate length era where global temperatures declined.
Dr. Miskolczi simply wrongly extrapolated that data and it is now known with current measurements that his as stated predicted expectation premise did not materialize.
Strange that he’s written a new paper, then.
From the abstract:
“The greenhouse effect itself and the CO2 greenhouse effect based global warming hypothesis is a politically motivated dangerous artifact without any theoretical or empirical footing.”
No wonder Miskolczi couldn’t get it published in a reputable journal. Blog level rhetoric infects even the abstract. And the paper has similar woeful diversions, such as citing a court case on science. Dear God. At least he has some expertise in the subject he is writing about.
His science hasn’t changed since 2010. The 2023 paper STILL uses 61 radiosondes – presumably the same data as 13 years ago, as the dataset used for the enquiry still only goes up to 2008, apparently. Why would he not update to 2022, a 50% increase on the data? A mysterious omission. I skimmed the paper, but it seems he still holds the view that WV should be constant with increasing CO2. Perhaps the longer dataset exposes this belief to bne false?
No doubt there are good reasons to give this maverick view ascendance on the matter of the greenhouse effect, but what they might be remain a mystery..
61 years of radiosonde data, barry, to 2008. Not 61 radiosondes. Over that 61 years, he found the overall global average infrared optical thickness not to change, despite all the increases in CO2 over that time. Of course, maybe it stayed the same for 61 years, and then suddenly changed from 2008 onwards…
I stand corrected. However, it is still the same dataset from 15 years ago.
“Of course, maybe it stayed the same for 61 years, and then suddenly changed from 2008 onwards”
Or maybe the data is faulty but it gives him the answer he wants.
It is a signal omission that he hasn’t updated the data – 15 years of modern, more reliable sonde data that he had zero interest in using in his 2023 update. It’s freely available.
And he is quite the maverick in his view that water vapour should decrease with increased CO2. Not to mention that this theory is belied by observation.
“Or maybe the data is faulty but it gives him the answer he wants.“
Oh, barry.
Ah, you think the dataset is pristine – 70 year-old sonde data. Good to know exactly how skeptical you are, ‘skeptic’.
Pssst – that is one of the criticisms of his original paper. Sure looks to me he’s stuck with the data that helps him sell the narrative. Can you imagine why else he would forego updating 15 years of data in his 2023 paper?
I saw you correcting people upthread for not responding to the updated paper – the 2023 offering. But seems you’re not interested in applying the same attention to currency to the data he uses.
And why would you? You’re getting the narrative you like, too.
barry, the accusations you make of people you don’t like are extraordinary. If you want to know why he is still using that data, just email him and ask.
“global warming hypothesis is a politically motivated dangerous artifact ”
An extraordinary and unfounded accusation.
“the blogosphere is flooded with academically illiterate comments from self-declared experts. As an example, it is worth reading the comments of A. Lacis (moderated by J. Curry at her Climate Etc. blog) on the Miskolczis article [17].The whole comment is just an ad hominem attack, probably motivated by the lack of his knowledge of basic radiative transfer concepts. There is a number of posts and comments on various websites like J. Curry, Science of Dooms and Real Climate etc. They dont deserve to be repeated in this journal.”
More extraordinary unfounded accusations.
Sorry, barry, it seems the stalker troll who obsesses over my every word and who knows I no longer respond to him or even read his comments is still active. I had hoped we could just have a discussion without interruption, but it appears that is impossible. Maybe if we wait another few days?
“even read his comments”
If this were true then my comments shouldn’t bother him. The charade continues.
Maybe if we wait another few days?
“Andrew A. Lacis
is a Physical Scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and teaches radiative transfer at Colombia University. He gained his PhD in Physics at the University of Iowa in 1970, and has acted as Principal Investigator or Co-Investigator of several NASA and DOE projects. ”
But according to new faux authority figure Miskolczis,
he is “motivated by the lack of his knowledge of basic radiative transfer concepts.”
…if we wait another few days?
If my comments are actually stopping DREMT from posting more nonsense, that’s a good result.
…we wait another few days?
SPECIAL MESSAGE: For those following Miskolczis work, and his claims regarding Aa=Ed, if those two radiative fluxes (Aa and Ed) are not EXACTLY equal, then Miskolczi has found nothing that disagrees with current greenhouse theory. That they are NEARLY equal has been known for a long time (e.g. Kiehl & Trenberth, 1997). Their near-equality is due to the fact that IR radiative flows are continuously trying to achieve radiative equilibrium between layers of the atmosphere, and between the atmosphere and the Earths surface. If those two quantities were more un-equal then they are in nature, then radiation-induced temperature changes in the atmosphere, and at the surface, would be much larger than we observe.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/
"However, the blogosphere is flooded with academically illiterate comments from self-declared experts. As an example, it is worth reading the comments of A. Lacis (moderated by J. Curry at her Climate Etc. blog) on the Miskolczi’s article [17].The whole comment is just an ad hominem attack, probably motivated by the lack of his knowledge of basic radiative transfer concepts. There is a number of posts and comments on various websites like J. Curry, Science of Dooms and Real Climate etc. They don’t deserve to be repeated in this journal.
They do not sound very scientific. Let us have a closer look into the best rebuttal. In Spencer 2010 [59] he wrote an executive summary on my [27] E&E article. Spencer simply ignored the important fact that in the whole article I dealt with clear sky conditions only. Since the clear and all sky fluxes are not directly (and quantitatively) comparable, his numerical comparisons with the [39] radiative budget is totally meaningless. He is also, in my opinion, confused in a series of radiative transfer details: does not comprehend what anisotropy means and how to compute it (he called the spherical emissivity a fudge factor), what is the flux density form of the Kirchhoff-Planck relationship, what is the Virial theorem and how to apply it, what is directional and flux optical thickness.
If the blog comment above − without correct quantitative references to my well documented computational results − represent the matured opinion of the global warming community on the greenhouse science, then certainly the open scientific discussion must be improved on this topic.
One should remember that real science cannot ever be settled. Planetary climate science is not an exception; it will eventually make its progress with or without the ‘consensus’ of the politically oriented IPCC. The various hypotheses and approximations must be scientifically evaluated and eventually rejected, accepted or improved."
https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/08/miskolczi-discussion-thread/
"There is a number of posts and comments on various websites like J. Curry, Science of Dooms and Real Climate etc. They don’t deserve to be repeated in this journal."
It is not necessary for DREMT to understand the science in papers.
He is able judge their quality based on a simple criteria.
Are they claiming there is no GHE? Then they must be correct!
Are they claiming there is a GHE, (thousands of papers or textbooks) then they must be wrong!
Some of his earlier papers had serious mathematical errors. His previous paper was better in that respect. It presented quite correct calculations of the radiative heat transfer including results that were very close of proving his conclusions wrong, but he stopped just short of doing the last step that would have resulted in that.
The main problem of his theoretical part is that he makes calculations, whose results are dominated by the lower troposphere, but almost all the radiative forcing comes from the upper troposphere that does not enter properly in his calculation. That error persists here. The calculation that I mention in the previous paragraph looked at the upper troposphere, but he stopped short of calculating the forcing from that.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/08/miskolczi-discussion-thread/#comment-661881
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“The importance of the line shape is large in calculations of Venus atmosphere as discussed here
http://www.sat.ltu.se/members/mendrok/publications/takagi10_influence_jgr.pdf
I did calculations for 10000 ppm in the Earth atmosphere finding that the effect significant at that concentration. It’s not clear, whether the paper you referred used a model that’s intended to be used at high concentrations. If not, then the results may be significantly wrong.”
https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/08/miskolczi-discussion-thread/#comment-661894
Little Willy…that’s a critique of a different paper, and not a Miskolczi paper, that David App.ell referred to [rolls eyes].
How long are you going to be linking to random comments today?
Everything Gaslighting Graham does not understand is random.
Gaslighting Graham does not understand a lot of things.
Little Willy should be embarrassed that he linked to the wrong comment. Somehow, he is not embarrassed.
Gaslighting Graham should be embarrassed not to realize why I quoted Pekka.
Since he does not know Pekka, he thinks that’s random.
No, I know who he is. Perhaps you should have quoted him discussing Miskolczi, or his work, rather than a paper by different authors.
Perhaps quoting Pekka saying that getting the proper tool for the job means something.
But then if Gaslighting Graham knew that perhaps he would not have cited Ferenc?
If you have a point, clearly state it. Rather than link to someone you like talking about a totally different paper.
And above Gaslighting Graham’s head the point goes…
His idiocy is not my problem anymore.
The discussion is closed.
Sure, maybe the point went over my head. You’d first have to prove that, by making clear what your point actually was. Otherwise, readers will likely just assume you’re full of crap, as usual.
Maybe after exploiting Binny’s bait, which was in response to his own bait, Gaslighting Graham is not owed anything for trying to revive another Sky Dragon zombie he obviously fails to understand.
Just a thought.
You never had a point, and simply linked to the wrong comment by mistake. Got it.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
False.
Pure contradiction.
Got it.
I don’t gaslight. I know that, so pure contradiction is all that’s required.
Second contradiction. So repetition.
Got it.
Have the last word, if your ego requires it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543272
“This is primary observational evidence that cannot be refuted by underspecified models.”
There is no primary observational evidence. Miskolczi just looks through old balloon databases to get sets of temperature/pressure readings. These are inputs to his computer program. But no radiative data is used.
If you think there is such evidence, please specify.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/08/miskolczi-discussion-thread/#comment-661825
This is adequately addressed in the responses at your link.
Gaslighting Graham handwaves again.
Got it.
You handwave to Stokes’ comment, I will handwave to the responses.
NO U.
Got it.
Little Willy is an obnoxious, hated failure who is obsessed with me to the point of driving himself insane. Got it.
Gaslighting is whining again.
Got it.
Winning, not whining.
Self-proclamation.
Got it.
Have the last word, if your ego requires it.
This is a terrible paper, as judged by every knowledgeable skeptic scientist, like Curry and Spencer.
Naturally the ignorant contrarian masses latch onto it as if it is the holy grail.
For any physical phenomenon we can easily develop approaches that have no power of telling, what the phenomenon really does. Miskolczi has taken this approach by writing yet another incoherent paper where inaccurate empirical observations and approximate properties of model calculations are put together claiming that the result is a new exact law of nature. He invents such new laws and then uses them to prove what he wants to prove.
No wonder that he had to go to this kind of journal to get it published.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/08/miskolczi-discussion-thread/#comment-661847
N.B: The paper I linked to is Miskolczi 2023. It’s a brand new paper. Only just been published. Nobody here has barely had a chance to read it…but they’re all piling on, certain that it’s "wrong", anyway. No, I’m not saying that it’s definitely "right", either. I just offered it up for discussion.
Oh well.
Miskolczi 2023 Fig. 11 uses the same data as in Miskolczi 2010. Strange, the data is not extended to present day & doesn’t use currently available all-sky data.
For discussion, DREMT could, in DREMT’s own words, discuss the basic reasoning behind Dr. Miskolczi’s reliance on clear-sky data Fig. 13 to draw conclusions about nature of climate when there is available all-sky CERES data.
Miskolczi is definitely wrong and is a bad, naughty man. I hereby withdraw my link to the paper.
Thank you.
(In all seriousness, if you wanted to know why Miskolczi did something, you could just email him and ask, rather than expecting me to speak for him).
PS. Here is the most interesting paper Binny posted:
https://tinyurl.com/ywphaecp
Gaslighting Graham ignores that paper. He is just looking for another fight. And we can predict he’ll excuse it with “BUT BINNY STARTED IT!”
I didn’t ignore the paper. Scroll up, re-read. Try again.
Handwaving.
Got it.
Not at all. Obviously that paper is refuted by Miskolczi, if Miskolczi is correct.
Repetition of the handwaving.
Baiting.
Got it.
Have the last word, if your ego requires it.
DREMT can read the title of the nice Binny paper, and see that it supports the GHE.
Thereby he can conclude it must be wrong. His work is easy.
Miskolczi is definitely wrong and is a bad, naughty man. I hereby withdraw my link to the paper (life’s too short for another twenty day back and forth with a bunch of sociopaths).
Is DREMT finally learning that his ridiculous posts only invite ridicule?
Seems unlikely.
…is definitely wrong and is a bad, naughty man. I hereby withdraw my link to the paper (life’s too short for another twenty day back and forth with a bunch of sociopaths).
“lifes too short for another twenty day back and forth”
Obviously not, since DREMT keeps coming back and restarting such discussions, repeating the same claims that have been debunked dozens of times, which again get debunked again, as happened here yesterday.
Then he plays the victim card again.
…definitely wrong and is a bad, naughty man. I hereby withdraw my link to the paper (life’s too short for another twenty day back and forth with a bunch of sociopaths).
By Denver Nicks
July 24, 2014 11:01 AM EDT
“Germans have a pretty high opinion of themselves when it comes to environmental stewardship, according to a recent TIME poll, but their pride might be a little premature.”
https://time.com/3028723/germany-climate-change-coal-poll/
Was it a little premature?
What country in last 10 years did the most to fight global warming?
And what country had the most inherent ability to do this, the most?
I think France had already built it’s nuclear reactor by 2014, so you can’t count that.
And Germany is cold and doesn’t get much sunlight, so other than making nuclear reactors, it was lacking inherent ability. And not surpisingly, it didn’t do anything to reduce global CO2 emission in last 10 years, and doesn’t have any plans to do anything significant in next 10 years- and Germany public is not happy about what their government has done in regards global warming.
One way to think of it, is Canada importing about 3 million people
in last 10 years. And since Canada is colder than all countries, 3 million people are living in a colder world.
The US is warmer, but has lower average temperature than many places
and it’s importing a lot more people.
Episode 2251 Scott Adams: We Have Entered The Demolition Phase. Creative Phase Follows. We’re Good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioJ5mTc5Mic
I haven’t listened to it yet, but Scott thinks Americans are good at
destroying stuff.
Maybe that will do something about global warming.
First Intuitive Machines lunar lander ready for launch
Jeff Foust October 3, 2023
https://spacenews.com/first-intuitive-machines-lunar-lander-ready-for-launch/
“HOUSTON Intuitive Machines first lunar lander is complete and ready to ship for a launch next month as executives say theyre cautiously optimistic about the prospects of a successful landing.
The company unveiled its completed Nova-C lander at its new headquarters here Oct. 3, a day after completing a pre-ship review that confirmed that the spacecraft is ready to be transported to the Kennedy Space Center for launch on a Falcon 9 on a mission designated IM-1.
That launch is scheduled for a six-day period that opens Nov. 16 from KSCs Launch Complex 39A. The lander will separate from the upper stage 32 minutes after launch and begin a five-day journey to the moon. A day after going into orbit around the moon, the spacecraft will attempt a landing at Malapert Crater, about 300 kilometers from the lunar south pole.”
So, around 80 degrees latitude or about 1/2 distance to south pole
as Indian lander. Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malapert_(crater)
Or sunlight is 10 degrees lower in sky, and depending on terrain one can more {or much less} than 14 earth days, of daytime.
So a lot region is in having more night but have small region called
peaks of eternal light:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_of_eternal_light#Lunar_south_pole
Which parts of Malapert Mountain is part of.
To study atmosphere, NASA rockets will fly into October eclipses shadow
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/10/04/to-study-atmosphere-nasa-rockets-will-fly-into-october-eclipses-shadow/#more-64368
“A NASA sounding rocket mission will launch three rockets during the 2023 annular eclipse in October to study how the sudden drop in sunlight affects our upper atmosphere, says Phys.org.
On Oct. 14, 2023, viewers of an annular solar eclipse in the Americas will experience the sun dimming to 10% its normal brightness, leaving only a bright ring of fire of sunlight as the moon eclipses the sun.”
A question?
Interestingly, the eastern USA near the Great Lakes is the hot spot globally as of today.
I wonder if the forest fire smoke caused the current weather change anomalies?
That is counterintuitive because airborne particulates usually cool the planet as far as I understand things.
Also of note is that the climate is returning to more normal temperatures recently.
glenn…it has more to do with the hot air coming out of Washington, D.C converging with the hot air coming out of Ottawa, Canada, where the federal government is located.
The Canadian government is still trying to distance itself from honouring a Ukrainian Nazi, whom the entire House gave a standing O. In D.C, it’s Biden’s dog biting everyone and them rushing to deny it and blame it on Trump.
Here’s brilliant Nate explaining how insulation raises the global temperature –
“If the atmosphere and its GHE are acting as insulation for the Earths surface (and they are), then all that can be expected is that the surface will cool more slowly at night than it would without the GHE.”
Unfortunately, the use of the words “the surface will cool more slowly at night” rather destroys justification that the GHE increases temperatures. Slow cooling is temperature reduction, as is fast cooling. Not heating – no temperature increase at all.
Of course, Nate refuses to answer the easy question posed – “Why does the surface cool at night?”. GHE proponents positively refuse to address the question of why the surface cools at night, nor why the Earth has cooled significantly since the surface was molten!
No wonder none of them can actually describe the GHE, let alone say where this GHE may be observed, measured and documented.
Particularly the rather strange and totally misinformed Nate.
Slow cooling results in increased temperatures, does it? Nah, the word “cooling” exposes the illusion.
“Of course, Nate refuses to answer the easy question posed ‘Why does the surface cool at night?”.
I don’t recall being asked this rather stoopid question, that any 4th grader can answer.
But Swenson remains forever confused about what insulation can do, and what it cannot do. It cannot PREVENT a warm thing with cool surroundings from cooling. It can only SLOW its cooling.
And Swenson seems unable to figure out why SLOWING the cooling of the Earth at night (or anytime) results in it being warmer on average.
Cuz he is just not very smart.
Nate,
You refuse to answer the simple question “Why does the Earth cool at night?”, and you haven’t got the brains to ask the 4th grader whom you claim knows the answer!
You wrote (in a fit of fantasy) –
“And Swenson seems unable to figure out why SLOWING the cooling of the Earth at night (or anytime) results in it being warmer on average.”
Well no, Nate, falling temperature (it’s called cooling) does not result in anything getting hotter.
This is a mystery to you, but not to anyone who realises that temperatures drop at night, during solar eclipses, when it’s snowing, and so on.
According to fools like you, slow cooling is actually heating!
Idiot.
I just tried the experiment that falsifies your theory.
Hot oven, turned off, door open, it cools quickly. And with oven on, door open, it fails to get very hot.
Hot oven, turned off, door closed, it cools slowly. And with the oven on, door closed, it reaches a much hotter temperature.
So, a closed door (insulation) enables a heated oven to get hotter, and it causes an unheated oven to cool more slowly.
BTW the Earth’s surface is heated during the day and unheated at night.
Let’s see if you can connect the dots.
aq…the whiny alarmist comes onto Roy’s site hoping to stir the pot and only gets his butt kicked. That’s because he doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground.
In his latest assault on Roy, he doesn’t even have the class to post a links to his utter rubbish.
Begone trohl!!!
My apologies to aq, it was ark the snark who made the low-class post about Roy. I knew that while posting but somehow, because they both start with ‘a’ I got the nyms confused.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://climatecrocks.com/2023/10/03/deniers-favorite-temp-data-goes-woke/
All the alarmist weenies come out of the trees, slobbering over a fraction of a degree warming.
Hello, weenies, where has the catastrophic warming been hiding the past 40+ years? Is it in the oceans, as head weenie, Kevin Trenberth claimed when he got egg all over his face in the Climategate emails for claiming, in secret, ‘the warming has stopped and it’s a travesty that no one knows why’. When the emails broke, Kevin had to rush for an answer and claimed, ‘it’s hiding in the oceans’.
In the past 25 years, we’ve had three…count them…three months… where the thermometers topped 0.6C above the baseline average, and in that times we’ve had 24 years showing no trend whatsoever.
Not only that, we’ve had 1C warming in 170 years. To hear the weenies whine, you’d think the global average had exceeded 10C.
But the real joke is our local weenie, wee willy, where the wee stands for weenie, rushing to expose us to the alarmist whine.
Hopefully, Roy is losing no sleep over this blatant propaganda. I sure ain’t.
[BORDO] he doesnt even have the class to post a links
[ALSO BORDO] All the alarmist weenies come out of the trees, slobbering over a fraction of a degree warming.
Poor Bordo. Getting overwhelmed. When will he find the time to protect *HIS* blog?
Not that he shares with Roy the believe that CO2 warms the atmosphere and the Earth, mind you.
He just has nowhere else to go.
You are overly sensitive wee willy. I am not lecturing you on your posting practices, I am simply countering your propaganda.
Cool story, Bordo.
Mine is simpler. You asked for a link. You got served.
And then you ripped off your shirt.
Put your shirt back on, please.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Mental illness Diagnoses – climatosis
https://youtu.be/ayOV2jUvsFg?t=193
gb…re decline in public confidence for science.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Paper from 2005 claims most papers issued are wrong. Partial reason is a reliance on statistics as the source of their claims. I doubt if science has improved since.
That is definitely an issue. Especially in areas especially dependent on statistics. There is an accessible Veritasium video on the topic here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q&t=49s
It’s not only statistics, Folkerts. It’s the perversion of reality, such as people claiming you can boil water with ice cubes!
There are actually people that promote such nonsense…..
Thanks for link, Tim. Good video except for the conclusion that we have no better means of doing science. Scrapping peer reveiw would be a good start and scrapping purely statistical analysiys would be another.
For example, many research papers coming out today about vitamins are geared to propping up the status quo theory that they are a waste of money, that you only pee them out. Linus Pauling did a study on himself where he consumed 10 grams of vitamins C. He measured about half in his urine and stool but half remained in the body for a lot longer. Obviously, the extra C was being used.
He concluded that the amount lost in the urinary tract and bowels performed a much needed antioxidant effect by neutralizing dangerous free radicals. Ergo, claiming it is a waste to pee them out is not true, all the extra C you take serves purpose due to the powerful antioxidant effect of C.
Pauling claimed later that it’s not how much C you take at one sitting that is important, it’s how high you keep the vitamin C serum level in your blood throughout the day. Statisticians would do no such experiments, they would simply comb through papers equating the amount of C ingested in experiments to unrelated factors. There is no way for them to know if those factors are related to C-levels, but they publish papers with negative conclusions about C when they have done no experiments of their own.
An important step toward the 2024 season was made this summer at Sebring International Raceway.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
While CO2 is not the exclusive driver of climate change, it is a hefty passenger.-
Yes, inflation is out of control. Some fast-food restaurants have raised prices 20% in the last 3 years.
Can’t cook, huh?
Inflation is across the board — food, energy, housing, cars, appliances,,,
Children aren’t expected to understand.
That would have been better the first time, Pupman.
You immediately went for what hits you the most.
Wrong child. There is no reality you will accept. You have to pervert my comments to defend your cult.
Now, get the last word in, like the childish tr0ll you are.
Mentioning fast food is better than mentioning food, energy, housing, cars, appliances?
Got it.
And, we also have record crop production. I’ll take it. We can feed people. The leftists don’t care about feeding people, only advancing their agenda.
What record crop production?
ark…”This year has already seen records broken for the number of U.S. weather and climate disasters…”
***
Not a shred of evidence relating any of this to CO2.
Sure there is. If the average temperature gets warmer over time, then you get more record hot temperatures than cold. I’ve posted the empirical results for that worldwide here many times.
The evidence that rising CO2 causes global surface temps to rise is overwhelming. Very few experts on atmospheric physics disagree with it (I can think of two only).
There is zero scientific evidence to correlate CO2 increases with temperature increases. The fact that both are rising simultaneously is not scientific proof of a correlation.
That’s especially true when you apply the Ideal Gas Law to a gas mixture like our atmosphere where CO2 makes up 0.04% and nitrogen and oxygen about 99%.
You certainly won’t get heat extremes from such a mix. Furthermore, the heat diffusion formula supplied by G&T which shows the amount of heat that can be diffused into the mix is dependent solely on the mass percent of each gas in the mix. Although CO2 has a percent of about 0.04% it is a heaver molecule and its mass percent is about 0.06%. It is no coincidence that the heat diffusion formula arrives at the same amount of heating by CO2.
To back up that science, the Ideal Gas Law arrives at the same figure.
Why are you talking about heat extremes?
Your ‘analysis’ completely ignores the different radiative function of gases in the atmosphere, which is the basis for the greenhouse effect.
As usual, you assign supreme credibility for an maverick view that has been debunked here and elsewhere many times over, written by people who are not qualified in the subject, and who have published nothing on the peer-reviewed literature on climate. And of course, you write off the consensus on the greenhouse effect as somehow corrupted. Or incompetence, which no doubt you assign to
Roy’s position.
Sorry, I’ll take the consensus of experts, including Roy Spencer, John Christy and Richard Lindzen over an ill-conceived and largely irrelevant paper that couldn’t pass peer-review. That seems sensible to me. Your mileage may vary.
barry, please stop trolling.
A clear ozone blockage of the circulation over Alaska in the stratosphere is already visible. This means negative temperatures in Alaska and waves of cold fronts from the north in the US.
https://i.ibb.co/LNtXTTP/gfs-t100-nh-f120.png
https://i.ibb.co/4ZYMdnY/gfs-toz-nh-f120.png
The first of the surface datasets is out.
Copernicus gives 0.91C for September on the same baseline as UAH.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67017021
Summer is over and typical autumn weather has begun in the UK. In a few days a big drop in temperature.
https://i.ibb.co/WvR2Gv5/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-10-05-163050.png
Ant and Wiltard link the propaganda sites.
Propoganda site: definition
Any site which disagrees with Stephen P Anderson’s world view.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
Freeze watch for late Friday night into early Saturday morning for much of Nebraska. Temperatures could drop into the 20s and lower 30s by early Saturday morning.
At the same time, a severe winter attack will hit Scandinavia.
Maybe the Dakotas, not so sure about “much of Nebraska”: https://imgur.com/a/8OWNXRL.
We’re ready though. Just topped up my 500 gallon propane tank.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Allarmists be like –
https://i.postimg.cc/bdXh27xQ/shock-640×480.jpg
One of the ongoing mistakes, made by believers in the GHE nonsense, is that the sky is “radiative insulation”. That ain’t right.
For radiative insulation to work, a radiative “reflector” is needed. That way the same photons (same wavelengths) are returning. The sky returns only a portion of Earth’s photons, as most are absorbed, thermalized, and re-emitted as lower energy (longer wavelengths) photons.
In terms of flux, Earth emits an average of about 400 W/m^2. DWIR from the sky is about 300 W/m^2. Earth is always losing to sky.
And that’s also why the concept of “that makes Earth warmer than it would otherwise be” does not work radiatively. The actual conductive/convective insulation (non-radiative gases) of the atmosphere does that, not CO2.
Clint R
You seem hung up on words while missing the concept. You don’t like the choice of “radiative insulation” well then use the term radiative barrier.
Yes the Earth surface is losing to sky, correct. But it loses far less with the DWIR than it would without it (remove the blanket and it cools much faster).
The Earth’s surface is a heated surface from the Sun. So with the reduction of radiant heat loss from the surface because of the DWIR it will reach a higher steady state temperature than it would have without the “blanket”.
NO you are wrong here: “The actual conductive/convective insulation (non-radiative gases) of the atmosphere does that, not CO2.”
These heat transfer mechanisms do not insulate at all, both remove surface heat and cool the surface. They do NOT insulate at all. If you believe they do then describe the mechanism.
Wrong again Norman.
N2 and O2 (the atmosphere) are good insulators.
… except for radiation.
Clint R
N2 and O2 are good insulators for conductive heat loss but that is a very small amount.
CO2 and H2O do well enough with their radiant reduction to allow the solar heating to warm the planet surface. Surface emits and average of 390 W/m^2 but the loss out of the Earth system averages 240 W/m^2 so the reduction would be around 61% (240/390)x100%.
You do realize that O2 and N2 are the primary gases involved in convection which removes significant heat from the surface? They would act much more like anti-insulation for the surface as they act to remove heat from the surface and move it into the atmosphere. In the vacuum surface of the Moon the daytime surface temperature gets quite hot because their is no convection removing surface energy. Only radiant energy removes heat on the Moon surface.
Norman, you’ve wandered off topic and seem to be writing a novel about Moon and Sun.
Here’s the point you’re missing:
And that’s also why the concept of “that makes Earth warmer than it would otherwise be” does not work radiatively. The actual conductive/convective insulation (non-radiative gases) of the atmosphere does that, not CO2.
So Clint R 2:42 pm: How exactly does the actual conductive/convective insulation (non-radiative gases) of the cooler atmosphere make Earth warmer than it would otherwise be as Clint writes?
Also, exactly which earthen atm. gases are “non-radiative”?
Ball4, does your mommy know you’re playing on her keyboard?
3:10 pm is (just change “spoken” to ‘written’ and “an” to ‘a’):
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1542528
Norman tried to motivate Clint R:
” If you believe they do then describe the mechanism. ”
And? Some output, genius Clint R?
*
By the way, I remember an excellent article that fits Clint R’s state of mind like a glove:
The natural greenhouse effect of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2)
M. Höp~fner, M. Milz, S. Buehler, J. Or~phal, G. Stiller (2012)
*
It’s soo perfect for him! I’m sure he’ll enjoy it.
” We have found that on global average under clear-sky conditions the OLR is reduced due to O2 by 0.11 Wm−2 and due to N2 by 0.17 Wm−2. ”
A radiative reduction by NO LESS THAN 0.11 resp. 0.17 W/m^2!
Extraordinary. Unimaginable. I’m simply amazed.
*
Will the genius understand what the two sentences below exactly mean?
” The collision-induced fundamental vibra~tion-rota~tion band at 6.4 μm is the major absorp~tion signature of O2 in the thermal infrared. ”
.
” N2 has two major bands influencing the infrared radiation: the collision-induced roto~vibra~tional fundamental band at 2400 cm−1 and the collision-induced roto~trans~lational band at 100 cm−1. ”
Very interesting is that here, the authors suddenly switch from wavelengths to wavenumbers, he he hee :–)
– 2400 cm−1 means 4.2 microns, i.e. nearer IR, at the limit of solar radiation;
– 100 cm−1 means 100 microns, i.e. farer IR, way away from any energy relevant terrestrial IR emission, because bodies at a temperature of 300 K (27 C, typical average temperature in the most important Tropical region) emit at between 8 and 12 microns.
*
Finally, let’s note just for fun that 2400 cm-1 is a frequency range mainly used in astronomical research and observation, for example:
The Astronomical Journal
Medium-Resolution Stellar Spectra in the L Band from 2400 to 3000 cm−1 (3.3 to 4.2 Microns)
Lloyd Wallace and Kenneth Hinkle (2002)
https://tinyurl.com/y9csf256
I could tell people that Bindi composes long, rambling, pointless comments, but they may not believe me.
So it’s always good when he proves me right….
Bindiclown doesn’t compose, he copypasta pages from internet.
… says the dachshund who is not even able to copypasta.
All what he is able to do is to post links to du~mb YouTube trash all the time, like little dogs leave their poos everywhere.
Clint R
Please stop dodging.
Norman wrote:
” If you believe they do then describe the mechanism. ”
Please answer with something less vague, less trivial, less superficial than
” And that’s also why the concept of ‘that makes Earth warmer than it would otherwise be’ does not work radiatively. The actual conductive/convective insulation (non-radiative gases) of the atmosphere does that, not CO2. ”
Where is your scientific proof for your claim?
Bindi, if you’re really interested in science and reality, where is your model of “orbital motion without spin”?
You’ve dodged this question long enough. Quit tr0lling and put up or shut up.
Clint R
Since you are not actually interested in anything but peddling your cult beliefs (pretending they are “science”) why should Bindidon attempt something that you will just reject?
I have already given you examples of orbital motion without spin but you reject them and insist a ball on a string is an example of orbit with no spin. A ball on a string is only a rotational motion NOT an orbit. You think a string makes it conceptually different than a solid rod with a ball attached. You would consider a solid bar orbiting.
Nothing will change your illogical thought process or your demeaning and empty posts (no science at all just your loud obnoxious opinions). You are deep in a cult and don’t see it or too drunk to care and are just a complete asshole who wants to stir up shit while in a drunken stupor. You certainly are not gifted in any scientific ability. You have zero understanding of science.
Sorry Norman, but your “square orbit” gets rejected. That ain’t reality.
When you know you’re lost you start the insults and false accusations.
That’s why this is so much fun.
(And I notice Bindi ran, as usual — double fun.)
Clint R
” … where is your model of orbital motion without spin? ”
Real science tells us that all celestial bodies spin about their polar axis, but you de~ny that.
YOU therefore are the one who needs such a nonsensical model. I don’t.
*
Again: please stop dodging.
Norman wrote:
If you believe they do then describe the mechanism.
Please answer with something less vague, less trivial, less superficial than
And that’s also why the concept of ‘that makes Earth warmer than it would otherwise be’ does not work radiatively. The actual conductive/convective insulation (non-radiative gases) of the atmosphere does that, not CO2.
Where is your scientific proof for your claim?
You still don’t answer, because you apparently don’t have such a proof.
Just like you aren’t able to prove that Cassini, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, Beer/Mädler, Habibullin, etc etc, were wrong.
Ask the Eben dachshund for the lunar spin, maybe he will explain you :–)
“YOU therefore are the one who needs such a nonsensical model. I don’t.”
Of course you do. Without zero, how can you have one, or minus one (retrograde spin)? Or two, or three, or 366.25 times per orbit?
Bindi makes the false claim Real science tells us that all celestial bodies spin about their polar axis, but you de~ny that.
Support your claim, Bindi. Where does it say “all celestial bodies spin”? Most moons in our solar system do NOT spin. Some asteroids do not spin. Planets spin at different rates, telling us there is no relation of spin to orbit.
Where is your model of “orbital motion without spin”? If you de-ny the real ball-on-a-string, where’s your replacement? Norman has invented “square orbits”. Do you agree with Norman?
Put up or shut up.
You’re welcome, Pupman:
“In general yes, everything rotates. It is to do with something called angular moment. Gravity is the central force in the Universe, because it is the only one which has a significant pull over large distances. When things collapse under their own gravity in space (i.e. clouds of gas and dust), any small amount of asymmetry in the collapse will be enough start it spinning. Even if it spins by a tiny amount, as it collapses, angular momentum conservation will mean it spins more and more quickly – just like an spinning ice-skater pulling their arms into their body and spinning more quickly. This means that all coherent masses are spinning – e.g. asteroids, neutron stars, galaxies, quasars.”
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24888/why-does-each-celestial-object-spin-on-its-own-axis
PS: That other one is on you, Binny. One day you’ll learn.
Sure, you can think of every celestial object as spinning so long as you think of “orbit without spin” as being motion like the “moon on the right” (MOTR) in the below GIF:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
However, if you think of “orbit without spin” as being motion like the “moon on the left”, (MOTL) then no, not every celestial body is spinning.
Anyway, I’m at rest on this issue. The “Spinners” have a couple of good arguments (involving the libration in latitude, and longitude), but that’s it. Everything else they argue is complete bunk. I could even be prepared to be swayed to the “Spinner” point of view based on those two arguments alone, but there’s just so much more about the “Non-Spinner” view that the “Spinners” don’t get, and maybe never will. So I will remain a “Non-Spinner”. Regardless of who is correct, overall, these points remain eternally, gloriously correct, no matter what:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis.
2) “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion as per the MOTL.
3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
DREMT remains eternally, gloriously incorrect, no matter what since correctly:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis wrt to the string and central observer but the ball is rotating on its own axis wrt the spinner’s room.
2) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis wrt to an observer on the circle is motion as per the MOTL.
3) The moon issue really is completely resolved by reference frames which is why they call it relativity. All motion is relative, there is no absolute motion as claimed by DREMT.
Ball4 is one of those that passionately believes the whole issue is resolved by reference frames. He’s wrong, and I have no need to argue with him on the issue. He won’t listen, and that’s OK. I know I’m right.
I’ll read, and understand, DREMT’s comments and then point out DREMT’s physics errors as usual.
I’m right.
Instead of having to explain how in the Moon Dragon crank universe celestial objects lose their angular momentum, Gaslighting Graham returns to his pet riddle.
Got it.
The tidal locking mechanism is fine with me. Get it?
Asking a rhetorical question to deflect from the fact that Moon Dragon cranks hold that tidal locking implies no more angular momentum?
Got it.
That’s right, an object that is tidally-locked (in "1:1 spin-orbit resonance") has no spin angular momentum, according to "Non-Spinners".
… an object that is tidally-locked (in “1:1 spin-orbit resonance”) has no spin angular momentum wrt to an observer on the planet surface, according to correct “Non-Spinners”. The tidally locked object however does have inertial spin momentum satisfying the “spinners”.
The sociopath returns…
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham could find an astrophysics textbook in which it is stated that tidal locking implies an angular momentum of zero.
Of course not! The "Spinner" view dominates. I would never expect to see that in any textbook.
You know, I thought I conceded rather a lot in my 8:35 AM comment. Seems nobody cares about that. They just want to argue with me, always…and indefinitely.
Poor Moon Dragon cranks, forever the victims.
https://gist.github.com/elnjensen/234e6045dd02c06dac1a227334f5a6a0
All Moon Dragon cranks need is to produce a notebook like this one.
Brilliant, well done, excellent. Have the last word if your ego requires it.
> as explained here
Here is the link under the “here”:
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast161/Unit4/tides.html
Greenhouse gases in the upper troposphere radiate into space. There, the vertical temperature gradient no longer works. The tropopause is unable to retain heat in any way.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
Greenhouse gases in the upper troposphere radiate into space. There, the vertical temperature gradient no longer works. The tropopause is unable to retain heat in any way.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
“After the Earth, Sun, and Moon, Psyche might prove to be the most valuable object in the solar system. Whoever controls it will have access to a treasure trove of metals that dont sit at the bottom of a deep gravity well.”
https://instapundit.com/
It seems it’s valuable in terms of understanding Earth. And the Moon is probably more valuable in that regards than Psyche.
In terms mineral wealth, both Moon and Psyche aren’t very valuable.
The Moon’s value {and Mars} is related to amount of mineable water either or both have.
Determining whether Moon has any mineable water is a significant reason to explore the Moon- the other reason is to determine if we can then, explore Mars.
Another important aspect of exploring the Moon is the develop of the Starship.
Or Starship is surprising, but something like the Starship was assumed to have occurred, by first exploring the Moon. Or if you think it’s unrelated, something like New Glenn rocket was assumed to happen as result of first focusing on exploring the Moon, and THEN focusing on Mars. Or look at all the start ups other than SpaceX and Blue Orgin- all these things are NOT unrelated to the NASA Crew mission to the Moon.
Trust the science
https://i.postimg.cc/0NtSjFRS/1639275066701.jpg
Of course people have every right to be concerned at the radical departure of global temperatures from past norms. However it remains possible to associate this with the Tongan underwater volcano that sent massive quantities of water vapour into the atmosphere in January.
Such unexplained rapid warming is a feature of the past climate record in the form of DansgaardOeschger events. We have numbers of volcanos on the surface so I would expect the same prevalence exists under the world’s oceans – but normally undetectable.
Are we going through a relatively minor Dansgaard-Oeschger event?
Here is more information on DansgaardOeschger events:
https://en.wikipedia.org/…/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger…
When significant volcanoes erupt on the surface – they produce radical cooling known as “Younger Dryas” (due to sulphate emissions). This seems to corroborate the possibility of the Tongan volcano having a similar effect but not with sulphate emissions; water vapour instead.
https://twitter.com/JohnStossel/status/1709227053818753119
All gases above absolute zero radiate IR.
No question.
Convection and advection merely result in IR radiating gases moving from one place to another. These gases cool by radiating IR unless the loss is made up by external radiation from other matter which is hotter than the radiating gas.
No question.
No GHE. So sad, too bad.
” All gases above absolute zero radiate IR. ”
Flynnson’s typical anti-scientific, nonsensical blah blah blah.
Any 10-year old boy would understand that while some gases absorb (and hence radiate) IR at a perceptible intensity in the 300 K temperature range, others do not at all.
Flynnson’s specialty is to distract, distort, obscure, misinterpret and misrepresent.
Binny,
All gases radiate IR. All gases can be warmed by absorbing IR.
IR radiated by air, and absorbed by a thermometer indicates the temperature of the air. Its degree of hotness.
Air containing no CO2 or H2O can be at the same temperature as pure CO2 or H2O gas.
You cannot tell the composition of air by measuring its temperature.
No question – unless by SkyDragon cultists, who have no clue.
Go on, tell me I’m wrong – and more importantly, why.
Otherwise you just look like another whining GHE fantasist.
Carry n,
You cannot tell the composition of air by measuring its temperature.
Flynnsons typical anti-scientific, nonsensical blah blah blah.
No one claimed that, Flynnson.
Any 10-year old boy would understand that while some gases absorb (and hence radiate) IR at a perceptible intensity in the 300 K temperature range, others do not at all.
Flynnsons specialty is to distract, distort, obscure, misinterpret and misrepresent.
Binny,
All gases radiate IR. All gases can be warmed by absorbing IR.
IR radiated by air, and absorbed by a thermometer indicates the temperature of the air. Its degree of hotness.
Air containing no CO2 or H2O can be at the same temperature as pure CO2 or H2O gas.
You cannot tell the composition of air by measuring its temperature.
No question unless by SkyDragon cultists, who have no clue.
Go on, tell me Im wrong and more importantly, why.
Otherwise you just look like another whining GHE fantasist.
Carry on.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The right-wing network’s resident comedian went full fascist on Thursday, warning that the only thing that can save America is another civil war.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-greg-gutfeld-floats-civil-war-because-elections-dont-work
Eboys will love that one.
Climatism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTRNprTPNBY
I didn’t comment, because sometimes, posts don’t post.
Sort of interesting video.
Julie and expert guest didn’t seem to be aware that we living in icehouse global climate, also, called a Ice Age.
But important aspect mentioned near the end of it, is the train wreck we going to have using more unworkable “renewable” energy. And that is what guest’s Steve Goreham’s book is concerning. Julie’s lack of understanding about “global warming” was a bit surprising- I guess the kiddies are learning less about it and instead just given a lot more scary stories, about it.
GB…the video sounded good till the 13:08 mark when the guest made an egregious error. He claimed that greenhouse gases trap most of the surface radiation and it is radiated back to the surface to warm it. That is wrong for two reasons. GHGs absorb no more than 7% of surface radiation, the rest being lost directly to space. Secondly, the back-radiation from GHGs to the surface has no effect since GHGs from the surface upward move from thermal equilibrium to becoming cooler.
Heat cannot be transferred during thermal equilibrium and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as stated by its inventor, Rudolf Clausius, states that heat can NEVER be transferred BY IT’S OWN MEANS, from a colder body to a hotter body.
Alarmists have tried to get around the 2nd law by claiming it deals with a net energy, and if a balance of energy is positive, the 2nd law is not contradicted. That balance of energy, or a net heat transfer, does not exist. It is derived from lumping infrared energy in with heat, as if IR and heat are one and he same. They are not. The 2nd law applies only to heat and only quantities of heat can be summed.
“That is wrong for two reasons. GHGs absorb no more than 7% of surface radiation, the rest being lost directly to space.”
So, 240 x .07 = 16.8 watts. Or 40 of 240 goes directly to space, so
200 x .07 = 14 watts per square meter average global.
Of course he might talking about water vapor and he knows Water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas and there is a lot more of it.
I don’t know how much effect CO2 has, it just seem likely in has some warming effect which is small and it’s not measured, yet.
Like the father of global warming {though there many fathers and even mothers} but the father thought CO2 would cause some warming and he wanted more warming. And I hope CO2 causes some warming, but it’s been rather disappointing, so far.
But I am pretty certain that 15 C air temperature is cold.
“GHGs absorb no more than 7% of surface radiation, the rest being lost directly to space.”
Completely wrong. Rather than someone else correcting you, how about you have a good hunt around and see if you can correct yourself.
barry,
It doesnt matter how much radiation any particular component of the atmosphere absorbs.
As the surface cools, (for example, at night), the temperature drops. Drops, doesn’t increase. Gets colder, not hotter!
If you want to whine that it is not cooling as fast as it would without any atmosphere at all, who cares? Cooling is cooling – fast or slow.
Accept reality – abandon feather-brained fantasies that CO2 or H2O makes the world hotter. If it did, the seas would still be boiling – if the surface ever got cold enough for liquid water to form! Before the oceans formed, all the H2O was in the atmosphere. Lots and lots, but the atmosphere cooled anyway.
You are not terribly bright, are you? Go on, change the subject and complain about something else.
[laughing at misinformed GHE fantasist]
You’ve already changed the subject.
Back to the topic, can you help Gordon out and tell him what percentage of surface radiation is absorbed by GHGs?
barry, please stop trolling.
“Alarmists have tried to get around the 2nd law by claiming it deals with a net energy”
This isn’t about getting around the 2nd Law. It’s simply a fact. Radiative energy is exchanged between objects. It doesn’t matter what temperature the objects are, this is what actually happens.
“… and if a balance of energy is positive, the 2nd law is not contradicted. That balance of energy, or a net heat transfer, does not exist.”
Of course it does. Net transfer of radiation is not only a standard of radiative transfer equations, this reflects what actually goes on in the real world.
“All objects emit and absorb radiation. The net rate of heat transfer by radiation (absorp.tion minus emission) is related to both the temperature of the object and the temperature of its surroundings…
When T2 > T1, the quantity Qnet/t is positive; that is, the net heat transfer is from hot to cold.”
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/College_Physics/College_Physics_1e_(OpenStax)/14%3A_Heat_and_Heat_Transfer_Methods/14.07%3A_Radiation
This is bog standard physics text stuff, Gordon.
barry,
At least you got something right.
Heat moves from hot to cold, never from cold to hot. Otherwise, it wouldnt be heat. And cold rays – contrary to past scientific belief – don’t actually exist.
Unless you ask artificial intelligence (ChatGPT) “Does cold radiation exist (radiation that is physically cold)?”
Answer –
“Yes, cold radiation does exist. It is a type of electromagnetic radiation that has a lower energy and frequency than other types of radiation, such as visible light or microwaves. Examples of cold radiation include radio waves, infrared radiation, and millimeter waves.”
I believe the US is worried about losing its “lead” in artificial intelligence. Probably spending billions on cold death rays! Good for the US – leading the world.
swenson…from an AI source…”Yes, cold radiation does exist. It is a type of electromagnetic radiation that has a lower energy and frequency than other types of radiation, such as visible light or microwaves. Examples of cold radiation include radio waves, infrared radiation, and millimeter waves.”
***
Amazing!!! Radiation has no temperature and carries no heat, yet it is being defined by an AI ijit as being cold or hot.
Why do people fear AI so much? It is nothing more than computers programmed badly by ijits.
That’s the thing about all this “back-radiation” nonsense. If photons from a cold sky could somehow get absorbed by the surface, the result would be LOWERING the temperature, not warming.
The cult strives so hard to pervert science, only to end up always shooting themselves in the foot. They end up having to believe ice cubes can boil water, passenger jets fly backward, and orbits are square!
Sure adding energy to a surface lowers its energy!
You guys are simply bonkers.
Child, get a responsible adult to explain the bricks-in-a-box to you.
Photons add energy without adding mass.
Bricks add energy and add mass.
Anyone suggesting bricks would be a logical substitute for photons in an analogy, is trying very hard to obfuscate and mislead people.
Child, obviously you were unable to find a responsible adult.
A box contains bricks, all at the same temperature. If another brick, at a lower temperature, is added, the box temperature DROPS. More mass and energy were added, but the temperature drops.
You STILL won’t be able to understand, so don’t expect more from me.
Clint R, photons are not bricks. You can’t boil water adding lower temperature bricks! You should know that. Entertaining though.
” If another brick, at a lower temperature, is added, the box temperature DROPS. More mass and energy were added, but the temperature drops.”
Photons add energy to a system WITHOUT adding mass. The average energy of the system thus increases.
Does Clint really not understand this basic difference between bricks added and photons added?
Hard to believe anyone could be that stoopid.
The kids have such a hard time understanding physics. Adding a brick adds photons! They can’t understand ANY of this.
That’s why this is so much fun.
And subtracts (absorbs) even more photons! You should know that.
You can’t boil water adding lower temperature bricks! Entertainingly wrong attempt at physics yet again by Clint though.
I guess Clint has brick for a brain.
The kids have such a hard time understanding physics. Adding a brick adds photons! They can’t understand ANY of this.
One brick absorbs/emits X photons at equilibrium. Two such bricks absorb/emit 2X photons. Three such bricks absorb/emit 3X photons. Adding more bricks adds more photons.
That’s why this is so much fun.
What will they try next?
… and SUBTRACTS photons. Clint R STILL can’t boil water with added equilibrium bricks. Entertainingly wrong attempt at physics yet again by Clint, always fun to watch.
If Clint wants to add photons, he should add photons. Instead he adds photons together with bricks!
No one is buying his crap.
barry…you getting more weird as time goes by. The 2nd law is about ***HEAT*** not energy per se. There is no net in the 2nd law because it claims only that heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder object to a hotter object. The law is about the transfer of heat and has nothing to do with radiation.
Radiation theory as covered in many text books is simply wrong on this subject. They are basing their claims on an anachronism dating back to the 19th century in which heat was thought to flow through air as heat rays. Show me one example in such a text book where they calculate heat transfers in both directions via radiation.
And please don’t think I am exaggerating. In electrical engineering classes we were taught that current flows positive to negative which is a blatant lie. The profs know it is a lie but they teach the paradigm based on an error made circa 1925 that current flow consisted of positive charges which no one has ever found flowing in a circuit. Electrons were only discovered in 1898 and there was a strong resistance to the theory for many years.
These text books are confusing infrared radiation with heat. Because the net result of such a transfer via IR ***APPEARS*** to be an actual transfer of heat, in that one body cools while the other warms, they presume heat has actually been transferred.
It has not!!! Heat in the radiating body is lost the instant IR is created. The radiated IR is not heat but if it is absorbed by a cooler body it can be converted back to heat. The heat produced has nothing to do with the heat lost in the radiating body.
Heat and IR are two different forms of energy. Heat is the energy associated with atomic motion, its kinetic energy. IR is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and it has a specific frequency. Heat can never have a frequency. IR can pass easily through a vacuum whereas heat cannot.
The heat we experience here on Earth due to the Sun is not the same heat at the Sun when the solar radiation is created. The heat we feel on our skin is actually created at the instant the solar radiation contacts our skin. It is done via the opposite action in which electrons in the atoms of our skin are excited to a higher energy level. That increase in energy is heat and it is felt as such.
Another point, it is much warmer here on Earth than on planets further out from the Sun. That’s because radiation loses intensity based on the square of the distance from a radiating body. Heat could never lose intensity in the same manner. Heat excites electrons in air molecules and its transfer via convection is limited to the air flow of the convection.
Therefore, if you have a body like the Sun with a surface temperature of 5000C, the amount of heat it can create in a distant body depends on the distance of the body from the Sun. Since there are no air molecules in space to transfer solar heat, no heat can move through space.
I don’t need a textbook to tell me that but your reliance on them has filled your head with rubbish.
Quantum fizzix hasn’t reached people like barry and Bindiclown, 200 years old theory is good enough for them.
Eben,
A famous Nobel Prize winning physicist agreed with me –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynman.
Interesting to note that very smart people like Einstein refused to accept the reality of quantum physics. it’s quite bizarre, counter intuitive, but supported by experiment. Good enough for me.
No GHE.
As you recall, Feynman said stop associating his name with all your nonsense!
“Quantum fizzix hasnt reached people like barry and Bindiclown, ”
This from the genius who insists photons have a temperature!
“Radiation theory as covered in many text books is simply wrong on this subject.”
Hmmm, it is hard to decide…should we believe all the textbooks, or the old cranky dude on a blog?
One of the most widely used college physics books is by Halliday/Resnick. That bogus equation is NOT in the book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentals_of_Physics
So sez a fraudster.
Epic self-goal by Clint!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543676
Gordon,
“Radiation theory as covered in many text books is simply wrong on this subject.”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa!
As covered in ALL text books on radiative transfer. You are priceless.
barry…”Radiative energy is exchanged between objects”.
***
Not according to Bohr’s theory of 1913 or the quantum theory derived from it. Radiation is created and absorbed in matter by electrons that can only reside in quantum levels around an atom. That is Bohr’s theory and it has been corroborated as well as it can be corroborated without actually seeing the electrons in action.
According to Bohr, and this theory is still valid, when an electron in its lowest energy state (ground state) absorbs energy it is excited and jumps to a higher orbit. It can be excited by absorbing EM radiation of the proper, discrete frequency, or by heat. I read recently that pressure can also affect the electrons.
Once excited, it can drop back to lower energy orbitals and it must give up energy to do that. So, it emits a quantum of EM related to the difference in electron volts between levels with a frequency related to the electron’s angular frequency. Formula from Bohr is E = hf.
When an entire mass is heated, it’s electrons in its atoms become excited and jump to higher energy levels. If the mass is heated too much, the bonds with the electrons holding the atom together will break and the mass will be damaged.
The point is that electron transitions take place at discrete frequencies. An electron located at a specific orbital will only respond to a discrete EM frequency. See Dalton series for hydrogen. When the electrons in a mass at a higher temperature are excited they have a higher orbital angular frequency. Conversely, the electrons in colder masses will have lower angular frequencies.
That means an electron emitting from a colder object will necessarily emit a photon with a frequency that is too low to be absorbed by an electron in a hotter mass.
That agrees with the 2nd law, your theory does not.
“When the electrons in a mass at a higher temperature are excited they have a higher orbital angular frequency.”
Sounds like you’re confused between the Lorentz electron theory (1909) and the Bohr theory.
When dealing with cultists, like barry, we have to remember they believe ice cubes can boil water.
barry is so against reality that if you try to teach him any REAL physics, he will call you a “lying dog”.
Another ‘adult’ insult-filled from Clint.
The children are up early this morning.
“When dealing with cultists, like barry, we have to remember they believe ice cubes can boil water.”
I don’t believe that, Clint.
You’re back to being a lying dog, again, I see. Does it please you to be this way?
Lest we forget – you’ve been informed previously.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312231
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1315190
When will you stop telling these outright lies, hound?
barry, it’s very interesting that you can’t find any comments of your cult supporting the “ice boiling water” nonsense. Isn’t it?
This is easy. If you believe fluxes arriving at a surface add, then you MUST believe ice can boil water. And, you do believe fluxes arriving a surface add, don’t you?
Now, abuse your keyboard all you want. You can’t change reality.
Dr. Spencer experimentally showed long ago fluxes arriving at a surface do add so Clint R just doesn’t agree with reality. Reality always wins instead of Clint R simple minded assertions.
Clint,
I want to thank you.
I’ve told you many times I don’t believe any number of ice cubes can boil water, and you’ve read those comments, as I linked above.
Thanks for providing the opportunity to demonstrate that when I call you a lying dog – because you tell this lie repeatedly – it is a fitting epithet.
I am saving the above comments, as I have others, for the next opportunity you will no doubt provide.
I think it is a good thing for anyone who doesn’t know you to learn what a filthy lying hound you are.
Thanks again!
“his is easy. If you believe fluxes arriving at a surface add, then you MUST believe ice can boil water. And, you do believe fluxes”
Again Clint confuses emitted and arriving fluxes. He’s denied it before, then he does it again here.
He is hopelessly confused!
Poor child Nate believes because I said “arriving” that I’m confused about “emitted’.
Children say the darndest things….
Clint knows he cannot win against his opponents actual arguments, so he does battle with arguments that we never made!
It does get booring.
The poor sap hasn’t learned that no matter how many ice cubes in whatever configuration, the most that the arriving flux can be to any surface is 315 W/m2.
He’s just too dense to get it.
Exactly barry! Fluxes do NOT simply add. Ice can NOT boil water.
I accept your concession.
Radiative fluxes arriving at a surface do add, canine, including the fluxes from ice cubes. But fluxes from individual ice cubes of any number cannot ever add up to more than 315 W/m2 on any receiving surface.
You’ve been told why. You simply have a fault ion your mind that prevents you from understanding, ego or dogma or some problem you have.
barry, you are trying to confuse the issue.
The issue is the fraud offered by Folkerts that two arriving 315 W/m^2 fluxes will add to cause a temperature of 325K, emitting 630 W/m^2.
That’s FRAUD. It won’t happen.
BTW, when you grow up you will realize you insults and false accusations don’t affect me.
“The issue is the fraud offered by Folkerts that two arriving 315 W/m^2 fluxes will add to cause a temperature of 325K, emitting 630 W/m^2.”
This is not fraud, it is absolutely true.
What is not true is that the TWO fluxes of 315 W/m^2 arriving at a surface, could EVER come from ice cubes.
This point has been made abundantly clear to him by Tim, Barry, and me, yet Clint is too thick and stubborn to abs.orb this information.
It’s fraud, child.
Child Nate believes that fluxes add, but he doesn’t believe 315 W/m^2 can arrive from ice. Like the child he is, he completely misunderstands the physics.
It would be easy to get some value, say 250 W/m^2 from an ice cube located off the perpendicular from target. Then another ice cube, same distance and off the perpendicular, would add (according to the cult’s fraud) another 250 W/m^2. Eight such ice cubes would result in 2000 W/m^2. That’s more than enough to boil water. They believe ice can boil water.
Ice cubes can’t boil water because fluxes do NOT simply add.
Clint 12:12 pm again forgets ice emits incoherent light which can’t be focused.
Yet another example of it’s just Clint being incoherent & somehow trying to boil water by adding cooler mass to the system. Fun to watch the flailing. Clint is a very slow study of the reality that Dr. Spencer demonstrated years ago.
“It would be easy to get some value, say 250 W/m^2 from an ice cube located off the perpendicular from target. Then another ice cube, same distance and off the perpendicular, would add (according to the cults fraud) another 250 W/m^2. Eight such ice cubes would result in 2000 W/m^2. ”
Sure. Show us a diagram and the actual math you used to get 2000 W/m^2.
Child, when you get to third grade, you will learn about “multiplication”.
8 multiplied by 250 = 2000
You’re too young to understand such “math”. It’s time for your nappy.
Diagram please.
Where does 250 come from? It seems arbitrary and made up.
When you do the real math, accounting for inverse square reduction with distance, angles, etc, you will never get more than the emitted flux density (W/m^2).
Here is the math.
Consider a small disk, radius r, area pi*r^2, a distance R away from a point, P. Its emitted flux density, F, will be reduced to F*(r/R)^2 when it reaches point P.
Now fill up a hemisphere around point P, with disks. The hemisphere has area 2*pi*R^2.
So it takes 2*pi*R^2/(pi*r^2) = 2R^2/r^2 disks to fill up a hemisphere. The flux from disks at the perimeter of the hemisphere is less, because of angle of incidence, theta, is small. It is proportional to cos(theta). Averaging cos(theta) over 180 degrees gives a factor 1/2.
So the total flux from a hemisphere is the sum of the fluxes from all the disks striking point P, which is
1/2*F*(r^2/R^2)*2R^2/r^2 = F, the emitted flux density.
SO a hemisphere of ice emits a flux density of 315 W/m^2, and a point at the center of will receive 315 W/m^2.
Clint truly believes that if at noon another sun popped into existence right next to ours, he would feel no warmer. Nearly twice the amount of solar radiation striking the Earth, but no change in temperature because “fluxes don’t add.”
Child, you’re not getting this.
For the eleventy-eleventh time, this is NOT about emitted flux. It is about ARRIVING flux. It is NOT about view factors, inverse-square law, and your other nonsense. ARRIVING fluxes do NOT simply add. Two 315 W/m^2 fluxes do NOT result in a surface temperature of 325K, emitting 630 W/m^2. You can NOT boil water with ice cubes.
So if you can’t stay with this single issue, then you’re just wasting my time.
Brain-dead barry, your “two suns” has been explained before. You can’t understand because you’re brain-dead.
A second sun, like a second spotlight, makes up for the losses. But I’m glad you believe in two suns. Maybe you can explain to the other brain-dead child that two fluxes can arrive a surface. Like you can shine spotlights on a surface, you can shine ice cubes on a surface.
Kids these days….
Called anyone a “lying dog” today?
“Brain-dead barry, your “two suns” has been explained before.”
I remember well that you ignored that conjecture and changed the concept to 4 sons on each side of the Earth.
So do you agree that a second sun right next to ours at noon would make the surface warmer? Even if it was 10K cooler than our own sun?
“For the eleventy-eleventh time, this is NOT about emitted flux. It is about ARRIVING flux. ”
What?
You already showed that you think it is it is all about emitted flux here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1544153
You tried to claim that the emitted flux from several ice cubes can produce MORE arriving flux than what is emitted from one ice cube!
But your analysis is fake!
No, Nate I think he is talking about arriving flux, even though he wrote:
“It would be easy to get some value, say 250 W/m^2 from an ice cube located off the perpendicular from target. Then another ice cube, same distance and off the perpendicular, would add (according to the cults fraud) another 250 W/m^2.”
I think he has just been clumsy with the expression, and meant arriving from.”
However, his figures are hopelessly unrealistic. A square inch of ice surface at 0 C gives off less than a tenth of a watt.
I understand what he is saying and that it is nonsense, Barry.
He is trying to say that an ice cube EMITTING 315 W/m^2 can produce 250 W/m^2 arriving at a surface, which is possible with the right geometry, which he conveniently, doesnt specify.
But the arriving flux from several such ice cubes will never EVER sum up to 2000 W/m^2, ie more than the emitted flux, as he claimed, because his analysis is FAKE.
So he keeps trying to connect arriving flux to emitted flux, but fails to do it honestly.
Nate stumbles into some reality:
“But the arriving flux from several such ice cubes will never EVER sum up to 2000 W/m^2, ie more than the emitted flux, as he claimed, because his analysis is FAKE.”
[Of course, I never “claimed” that. That was my example showing the cult’s fraud. Nate has to misrepresent my words, as do all of the cultists. Then, they claim I’m lying!]
Yet Nate STILL clings to his cult’s fraud:
So when I say that fluxes don’t simply add, the cult rejects that reality. But when Folkerts says fluxes simply add, the cult swallows it whole, without question!
THAT is cultism, not science.
“But the arriving flux from several such ice cubes will never EVER sum up to 2000 W/m^2, ie more than the emitted flux, as he claimed, because his analysis is FAKE.
[Of course, I never claimed that. ”
Yes, Clint, you did claim that the fluxes emitted by 8 ice cubes would add up to 2000 W/m^2.
“Then another ice cube, same distance and off the perpendicular, would add (according to the cults fraud) another 250 W/m^2. Eight such ice cubes would result in 2000 W/m^2.”
Which is of course a completely fake analysis. Cuz you are a fraud.
Wrong again, child Nate.
The issue is the fraud offered by Folkerts that two arriving 315 W/m^2 fluxes will add to cause a surface temperature of 325K, emitting 630 W/m^2.
THAT is the FRAUD. It won’t happen.
BTW, when you grow up you will realize your insults and false accusations don’t affect me.
As usual, you’re not making any progress. You just keep going in circles. That means you’re wasting my time. So, I’m done.
“THAT is the FRAUD. It wont happen.”
So you say, but you are unable to demonstrate with real math.
The real math, as I showed above, shows that your claims about ice is a strawmen, because even surrounding an object with ice results in a summed flux of no more than the flux emitted by ice.
Clint,
Two arriving fluxes of 315 W/m2 each aren’t coming from two ice cubes.
You understand that right?
You’re not implying that these figures refer to irradiance from ice cubes, right?
“Clint says: The issue is the fraud offered by Folkerts that two arriving 315 W/m^2 fluxes will add to cause a temperature of 325K, emitting 630 W/m^2.
Nate responds with: “This is not fraud, it is absolutely true.”
So Nate is being perfectly consistent. These emissions come from sources much, much hotter than ice cubes, and their irradiances will add.
When ice cubes emit a tenth of a Watt apiece, you need a whole lot of them all pointing at a tiny space to get the irradiance from them to add up to 315 W/m2.
So let’s get a one metre ice cube, emitting 315 watts from a side.
A blackbody surface a millimetre away would be irradiated by almost a total of 315 W/m2.
So let’s add another metre squared ice cube, adjacent to the first.
Hardly any radiation gets onto the already irradiated square, because 99% of the field of view is completely taken up by the first ice cube.
So let’s put ice cubes all around the first one, giving a little extra radiation to the edges of that metre squared blackbody receiving surface.
Even with that much coverage the meter squared blackbody surface is still receiving slightly less than 315 W/m2, because the inverse square rule applies even at a distance of one millimetre, and there is still a tiny bit of edge leakage where there is daylight between the emission surface area and the irradiated surface area.
Ice cubes of normal size would each give a tiny fraction of the power required to irradiate 315 watts over a square metre.
You would have to completely fill the receiving surface’s field of view to get the full 315 W/m2.
You have had this explained to you dozens of times, but you are obviously incapable of understanding.
Fluxes do add, but you need to learn about view factors and inverse square law.
” And cold rays contrary to past scientific belief dont actually exist.”
EM radiation has no temperature. “Cold rays” no more exist than “hot rays.” Who told you differently?
Having settled that, all objects absorb and emit radiation, regardless of the temperature of the source of emissions or the absorbing surface. As EM radiation has no temperature, the absorbing surface does not distinguish between radiation coming from objects hotter or colder than it.
Heat will always flow from a hotter object to a colder one, while the exchange of radiation (which is not heat) goes both ways.
This is in every standard textbook on radiative transfer, and even Clausius mentioned it in his treatise on the 2nd Law.
And then there are the half-wits on the net who think they know better than Clausius and all the universities that teach radiative physics.
barry, you can look at it any way you want. Just be aware that the blue plate will not warm as a result of adding the green plate.
If you think it will, find one of your textbooks that shows a heated plate being warmed as a result of “back-radiation” from a passive plate. You guys always extrapolate from the radiative heat transfer equation and assume that it means the heated plate must warm. You just can’t seem to find a textbook example showing that.
“If you think it will, find one of your textbooks that shows a heated plate being warmed as a result of back-radiation from a passive plate. ”
Whoops. Some people always forget about the heat source!
…if you think it will, find one of your textbooks that shows a heated plate being warmed as a result of “back-radiation” from a passive plate. You guys always extrapolate from the radiative heat transfer equation and assume that it means the heated plate must warm. You just can’t seem to find a textbook example showing that.
Find an example herein, see section 18 of Volume 1:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543534
Don’t have it. Provide a photo, or be disbelieved. Your choice.
Fairly obvious DREMT doesn’t have a copy. Ask Clint R to borrow his copy.
Can’t prove it? Then we’re done. I have no reason to trust you, since I know for a fact that you’re a liar.
Found an online copy:
https://elearn.daffodilvarsity.edu.bd/pluginfile.php/987150/mod_label/intro/fundamentals-of-physics-textbook.pdf
Page number, please.
Sec. 18, Vol. 1 pp. 538-9. Pay particular attention to the heated warmer object (i.e. heated BP, earthen L&O surface) absorbing radiated energy (“back radiation” (DREMT term) which is as always really forward radiation) from the passive cooler object (i.e. passive plate GP, atm.) increasing universe entropy as dQ/T is positive, ref. (2) under key ideas “Simultaneously, (the heated object) gains energy by thermal radiation from its (passive) environment at temperature Tenv.”
Astute long time readers understand years ago Eli’s correct 1LOT GPE solution used the text eqn.s 18.38 & 18.39 in the 1LOT consistent with 2LOT.
No, Ball4. The temperature of the skunk cabbage’s surroundings (which you are trying to pass off as representing the passive plate!) is fixed. This example is not comparable to what I asked you for.
Wrong DREMT, not even a good try, this example system is fixed at equilibrium same as the GPE since the GP temperature is similarly fixed at GPE system equilibrium.
Ball4, all they’re doing is inserting fixed temperatures into the RHTE and calculating the resulting heat flow. It is not at all the example I’m looking for. You are a liar.
We could start with page 537 on basic thermal radiation.
“Because an object both emits and absorbs thermal radiation, its net rate, Pnet, of energy exchange due to thermal radiation is
Pnet = Pabs – Prad = sigma epsilon A (Tenv^4 – T^4).”
For the RIGHT side of the ‘green plate’ the environment is the ‘space’ @ 2.7 K. Whatever the green plate’s temperature, it is higher than 2.7 K, so there is an energy transfer FROM the GP. This means there must be an equal transfer TO the GP when a steady state has been achieve.
For the LEFT side of the ‘green plate’ the environment is the ‘blue plate’. For the BP to provide an energy transfer to the GP, the BP must be hotter than the GP (according to the equation in the agreed upon textbook).
So we can immediately conclude the BP is warmer than the GP. This contradicts claims that the two could be the same temperature.
Yes both the GPE and text book example temperatures are fixed at system equilibrium DREMT, as I already pointed out.
What DREMT doesn’t understand is a key idea: “Simultaneously, (the heated object) gains energy by thermal radiation from its (cooler, passive) environment at temperature Tenv. during equilibrium.
The example was not what I asked for.
“find one of your textbooks that shows a heated plate being warmed as a result of back-radiation from a passive plate”
… so Clint’s text contains a found example that meets all those & shows DREMT is wrong about object equilibrium temperatures as did Eli long ago.
General principles and equations are useless to DREMT. They don’t know how to apply them.
Tim:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1535595
Ball4:
The example was not what I asked for.
DREMT points us to where Tim showed he was ‘spectacularly wrong’. And DREMT had no answer, thus he ignored the problem and here we are again!
So we go round and round.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543712
That exchange with Tim, DREMT having no answer, but now returning to repeat the ‘spectacularly wrong’ claim again, as if no one ever had a problem with it, is exactly WHY the argument never ends.
DREMT’s notion of ‘debate’ is to ignore his opponent’s arguments and pretend his arguments are handed down direct from GOD.
So anyway, Tim, you kind of just proved my point, really. You guys always extrapolate from the radiative heat transfer equation and assume that it means the heated plate must warm. How about finding an actual textbook example that closely resembles the Green Plate Effect? Or, if not, maybe just accept once and for all that the GPE is not textbook physics. Eli just made it up.
That’s the point I wanted to make. Thanks for helping me make it…and now there’s no real need for another twenty day back-and-forth over the exact same arguments. This’ll do.
Sure, Multi-Layer Insulation is a perfect example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
“The principle behind MLI is radiation balance. To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the StefanBoltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space. The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W. So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”
Oh well. DREMT will just pretend it doesnt exist.
And on and on his denial goes.
It’s good Clint’s text book link contained DREMT’s required actual textbook example. It’s a pity Clint held back for so long.
Actually, DREMT’s required example is easily found in many text books & sometimes in the problem sets where DREMT can practice working out another similar GPE according to Eli’s long ago solution.
The example was not what I asked for, Ball4.
Let Gaslighting Graham have the last word, B4.
His ego requires it.
If you let the trolls get the last word, where does it end?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543272
Very good, Little Willy. Well done.
But you are wrong in the first instance with your violation of the 1st law. It doesn’t matter if the source is a point source of fills the field of view, you can’t create energy.
The GP can’t emit twice what it receives from the BP.
The plate in the NASA doc cannot emit twice the energy it receives.
And you should really know this. Your description of energy flows with the blue plate was accurate, but you go bananas when you hit the green plate, with the outlandish argument (assertion, actually) that a view factor of 1 somehow changes the flow of energy, allowing GP to emit twice as much energy as it receives. It’s bizarre. And it is in direct violation of conservation of energy.
Sorry, wrong thread.
No violation of conservation of energy here, barry:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
OMG, DREMT is showing the thoroughly debunked diagram again.
It clearly shows a plate REFLECTING flux. Since the GPE involved blackbody plates, this diagram cannot be a solution to the GPE problem.
Once AGAIN, a BLACKBODY is DEFINED as
“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
Again, no violation of conservation of energy here, barry:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
Just a violation of 2LOT in that cartoon (a GREEN arrow from a BLUE BB plate!) so there is no hope for the cartoon to be correct.
The sociopath returns…
DREMT used to try to debate with facts and reality. That hasnt worked out for him, so he has given up on even trying.
Again, the sociopath returns…
“you’re rambling, and still not answering the question.”
The crux of your question was why the atoms stop vibrating at the average rate the input requires them to, when the emissions are split between two sides.
I replied that they don’t stop vibrating at the average rate and explained why.
And you apparently don’t think my explanation of why I rejected this premise constitutes an answer.
No idea how to proceed if you just ignore what I say and pretend I haven’t answered you.
barry responds in the wrong place again.
Ball4 messed up (nobody’s arguing it emits 2,400 W/m^2), but what the hell. I’m bored of this discussion now.
DREMT is just not good at thinking like a scientist. Thinking through a problem logically, without the need to invoke magic.
Thats ok. Not everybody can do science.I’m sure he is good at something else.
But having awareness of ones abilities is healthy.
At least I’m not the only one responding in the wrong place.
True..
…have abandoned nothing. Stop responding to me.
Its like asking how can passive insulation result in a heated object getting warmer?
Yes, Nate. It is.
So, Dragon cranks willingly misunderstand insulation, angular momentum, and isometry. Anything else?
"back-radiation" ain’t insulation, Little Willy.
“”back-radiation” aint insulation”
And then they just keep asserting stuff as if assertions are just as true as facts.
They aren’t.
For example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
“The principle behind MLI is radiation balance. To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the StefanBoltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space. The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W. So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”
DREMT has no answer for this. So he will pretend it does not exist. What a loser.
And round and round we go..
Again, “back-radiation” ain’t insulation, Little Willy.
Experiments show that a passive black plate reduces radiative heat flux. That’s what an insulator does.
And multiple black plates reduce radiative heat transfer even more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
People can deny this fact and pretend it does not exist, as often as they want, it will not change reality.
Once again, “back-radiation” ain’t insulation, Little Willy.
And he’ll claim that he has never read this, so it therefore it doesnt exist!
Everyone else can read it, and will know that each and every time he repeats the claim, that it will be false.
So go ahead and repeat it!
Once again, “back-radiation” ain’t insulation, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham keeps asserting stuff as if assertions are just as true as facts.
Got it.
It’s an "assertion" that’s borne of several years of patiently making arguments, that you probably want to pretend don’t exist.
Experiments show that a passive black plate reduces radiative heat flux. That’s what an insulator does.
And multiple black plates reduce radiative heat transfer even more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
Gaslighting Graham can deny this fact and pretend it does not exist, as often as he wants, it will not change reality.
Where in that article does it say the equivalent of the blue plate warms? Nowhere. You can call a perfectly conducting blackbody plate an insulator if you like, it doesn’t mean it leads to any warming.
DREMT says passive blackbody plates don’t insulate.
We show him passive blackbody plates insulating, i.e. reducing heat flow.
So DREMT plays dumb, and moves goal posts.
Oh no, DREMT, the MLI description is definitely at odds with your view and comports with the realist view. Let’s quote:
“This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space.”
But you say that the new plate radiates 460 W to space. You are already refuted, and our view is already supported.
“The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W.”
Yes, the 460W surface gains MORE ENERGY from the cooler new layer, which is why its NET LOSS is reduced.
“So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”
And how have the radiation losses from the surface been reduced by half from the additional layer? Yes, because the originating surface absorbs some of the radiation back from the new layer.
This is what radiative insulation does.
If the power to the source surface is constant and there is no thermostat control, which there always is in spacecraft thermal design, the source surface must warm up, as it is losing heat less efficiently.
“If the power to the source surface is constant and there is no thermostat control, which there always is in spacecraft thermal design, the source surface must warm up, as it is losing heat less efficiently.”
So you claim, barry, but that is not supported by the link. The link does not say that the equivalent to the BP warms. You are extrapolating, exactly as I said. You guys cannot find any example that is the same as the GPE. MLI is probably as close as you can get, but note that in practice (rather than theory) it actually uses reflective materials, and generally it is used to shield spacecraft from the heat of the Sun. Cooling, not warming.
“This is what radiative insulation does.”
Radiative insulation functions via reflectivity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced, creating a thermal break or thermal barrier,[1] or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
“But you say that the new plate radiates 460 W to space. You are already refuted, and our view is already supported.”
Well, I can trump your MLI example, here:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/estimating_the_temperature.htm
As you will see, they calculate the temperature of a flat plate in space, receiving 1,360 W/m^2, as being 394 K…i.e emitting 1,360 W/m^2!
Weird example. The plate seems to have only one side!
In any case, DREMT claimed that passive blackbody plates cannot insulate. The MLI example proves this is totally wrong.
It was just another of his made-up arguments by assertion.
Oh well!
So now he tries to move the goal posts and change the subject.
“You are extrapolating”
Yes. He is applying the new principles to a slight variation on the same problem.
Intelligent people can do that.
People lacking in intelligence or integrity, see a slight difference, then throw out all the principles, and claim that they do not apply.
…as you will see, they calculate the temperature of a flat plate in space, receiving 1,360 W/m^2, as being 394 K…i.e emitting 1,360 W/m^2!
Anyone with intelligence can see that only one side of the plate radiates in this example, assuming the same principles apply.
…you will see, they calculate the temperature of a flat plate in space, receiving 1,360 W/m^2, as being 394 K…i.e emitting 1,360 W/m^2!
And that example seem to have no relevance to the issue of MLI or the GPE.
…will see, they calculate the temperature of a flat plate in space, receiving 1,360 W/m^2, as being 394 K…i.e emitting 1,360 W/m^2!
“As you will see, they calculate the temperature of a flat plate in space, receiving 1,360 W/m^2, as being 394 K… i.e emitting 1,360 W/m^2!”
Surface area of plate at 394K is 2A.
Therefore, assuming it is emitting from both sides, it is emitting 680 W/m2 from each side.
Exactly the same as the example above of MLI, the layer receiving X energy emits X/2 energy from each side. Let’s quote:
“The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space.”
And now let’s quote YOU, DREMT.
“So the blue plate, essentially, has two ‘losing sides’. It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1473029
Are you now saying that what you said previously was incorrect?
No, barry. They calculate the plate to be 394 K, thus it is emitting 1,360 W/m^2. Full stop. It is not emitting 680 W/m^2. It is emitting 1,360 W/m^2. They claim it emits what it receives. The example supports me. Not you.
“Are you now saying that what you said previously was incorrect?”
No, I stand by what I said. If view factors were equal to one between the Sun and the BP, and between the BP and the GP, then the solution would be 290 K…290 K. Both plates emitting 400 W/m^2. With a point source Sun and the BP, instead, and view factors equal to one between the BP and the GP, then the solution is the 244 K…244 K we’re familiar with. Both plates emitting 200 W/m^2.
So, in the NASA example I linked to, they are apparently treating the view factors between the Sun and the plate as being equal to one. Thus they have the plate receiving 1,360 W/m^2, and emitting 1,360 W/m^2.
The main point of the example was to prove to you that even “an authority” will calculate an object as emitting what it receives…not “splitting by two” just because the object has two sides to emit from but only receives energy on one side.
You said:
“the blue plate, essentially, has two ‘losing sides’. It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.”
The plate in the link you sent is receiving energy on one side (1360 W/m2), from the sun, and thus must behave in the same way as the blue plate, right?
Therefore the plate in your link must “split the input flux by 2” and emit 680 W/m2 on both sides.
By your own words.
Any issue with that before we move on?
barry, in the example I linked to, they calculate the plate receiving 1,360 W/m^2 to be at a temperature of 394 K, thus emitting 1,360 W/m^2. It is not emitting 680 W/m^2. The authors have not “split by two”. Do you understand that?
To put it another way, if the plate in my linked example was emitting “680 W/m2 on both sides” its temperature would be 331 K, not 394 K. However, they have calculated its temperature to be 394 K. Thus it is emitting 1,360 W/m^2. Which of course means “1,360 W/m^2 on both sides”.
But that completely contradicts what you said happens with the blue plate, where you “split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.”
Why would this happen with the blackbody ‘blue’ plate, but not the plate in the example you linked?
There is a correct answer to this. You’ve almost stumbled on it.
“The authors have not ‘split by two'”
And here’s a further hint from the article:
“The plate is in sunlight. Sunlight warms the plate, and the plate radiates thermal energy back into space.”
Have you got it yet?
I already explained it to you, barry. View factors. If view factors were treated as being equal to one between the BP and the Sun, then I would not “split by two” for the BP, and I would have its temperature as being 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2.
I only “split by two” for the BP in Eli’s thought experiment because the Sun is instead treated as being a point source to the BP.
In the NASA example, they must be treating the view factors between the Sun and the plate as being equal to one.
No.
“The plate is in sunlight. Sunlight warms the plate, and the plate radiates thermal energy back into space.”
They are not treating the sun as if it fills the field of view. The sun is a point source, allowing the plate to “radiate to space.” On the other side of the “low orbit” plate is the Earth.
And to quell any doubt, they say more:
“From direct measurement, we know that at 1 A.U,
Ssun = 1,360 W/m2.”
It’s our sun they are using, not some theoretical, field-filling sun, which would have a completely different W/m2, rather than the one they use that we’re all familiar with at on AU.
The answer is they they treat the plate as if it only radiates towards space, from one face.
“Sunlight warms the plate, and the plate radiates thermal energy back into space”
This makes perfect sense with the math. And it is how they describe the scenario – the plate only radiating in one direction.
barry is so completely brainwashed by Eli’s example that when he comes across an actual problem solved by a NASA scientist, that contradicts Eli, he believes they must be throwing all logic out of the window and claiming that their plate only emits from one side!
No, barry. There is nothing there that suggests they think their plate only emits from one side. It’s entirely in your imagination.
On the contrary, you are inventing a sun that fills the field of view, when they are clearly using our sun in the scenario, at a distance of one AU, providing 1360 W/m2 to the plate – just as our sun would to a plate in low Earth orbit.
Furthermore, they are calculating the temperature of the plate from the solar radiation striking the surface, not from the surface emissions of the plate. They are using only one surface for the temperature calculation.
You are trying to turn the plate in the NASA example into the green plate in your misguided explanation of how you think the energy flows should go. But there is only one plate, and the sun is a point source in the NASA link you’ve provided. If it radiates from both sides, the input should be halved for each side, as you correctly pointed out in April.
Sorry, but this isn’t Eli’s set-up. In Eli’s model the plates radiate on both sides.
There is absolutely nothing in the NASA example to suggest that the plate doesn’t radiate from both sides. The natural assumption would be that the plate does radiate from both sides, unless specified otherwise. I mean…why and how would the plate only radiate from one side!?
They have calculated the temperature on the basis that an object emits what it receives. If the plate was only one atom thick, presumably you wouldn’t have a problem with that. If the plate was two atoms thick, would you suddenly decide that you have to “split by two”?
We know it’s a point source sun, and one plate. The sun is one astronomical unit away from the plate, they say it on that page.
“the blue plate, essentially, has two ‘losing sides’. It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.”
If the plate emitted from both sides, it would behave just as you describe here.
It doesn’t, it only emits from one said, and that comports with everything said in the article, including particles only hitting one side, and the plate only radiating spacewards – back towards the sun.
It doesn’t make sense any other way.
barry is stuck on “infinite repeat”.
The most fundamental part of Eli’s Green Plate Effect is that according to him, you always “split by two”, regardless of view factors, or anything else. Without always “splitting by two”, his entire argument comes crashing down.
The NASA example is an “authority” not “splitting by two”. So, no matter what way you look at it, ultimately it is a problem for Eli’s argument, not mine.
There is nothing in that NASA example to suggest the plate only emits from one side, either. There is “space” on both sides of the plate. “Space” between the plate and the Earth, and “space” between the plate and the Sun. So the quote, “the plate is in sunlight. Sunlight warms the plate, and the plate radiates thermal energy back into space” doesn’t mean the emission comes from only one side.
“he comes across an actual problem solved by a NASA scientist”
DREMT quotes authorities, without understanding the logic behind they are saying.
They must be right!
This is a perfect example of ‘deferring to authority’.
“hey calculate the plate receiving 1,360 W/m^2 to be at a temperature of 394 K, thus emitting 1,360 W/m^2.”
“There is nothing there that suggests they think their plate only emits from one side. Its entirely in your imagination.”
So DREMT imagines the plate receives 1 x 1360 W/m^2, and emits 2 x 1360W/m^2.
What could be wrong with that?!
It’s a point source sun, DREMT. If you insist that the plate is emitting from both sides, then it behaves like the blue plate as you described it, each side emitting half the input that one side receives.
But the text says it’s only emitting in one direction.
“Sunlight warms the plate, and the plate radiates thermal energy back into space.”
Either you accept that what you said in April is true, or you deny it now. Or you realize that the NASA sheet has the plate only emitting “back into space,” in the direction the energy came from.
There’s no wiggle room here. No sun-filled field of view for the plate. In that respect it is the same as the blue plate in Eli
s set-up.
barry ignores every word of my 3:25 AM comment, and just repeats himself again.
Here it is:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1545388
Respond to it.
When you say that the NASA sheet is an “authority” of “not splitting by two,” then you are contradicting what you said back in April.
And I’m repeating it because you’re not dealing with it.
“the blue plate, essentially, has two ‘losing sides’. It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output”
Here you are endorsing “splitting by two.” Yet today you are saying that what you endorsed is now illegitimate according to the “authority” of the NASA page.
You can’t have it both ways, DREMT. Either you were correct in April and you’ve misunderstood the NASA article. Or the plate in the NASA article radiates both sides, in which case you were wrong about “splitting” in April and should now say so.
NASA don’t “split by two”, barry. That’s a problem for Eli, not a problem for me.
Now, I would have preferred it if the example were more clear cut, like having two infinite parallel plates facing each other – one powered, and the other passive – but I’ll take what I can get.
If it turned out the answer to the original GPE was actually 290 K…290 K, rather than 244 K…244 K, that wouldn’t bother me much.
DREMT shows here that he quotes without thinking.
He has given up on rational thought and logic in favor of mindless belief.
Just for completeness, let’s have the whole quote rather than the little bit you keep quoting:
“So, basically, the key is that a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit. There is nothing happening to block any emission from either side of either plate. It’s just that with the blue plate, on the side facing the point source Sun, it emits to space along every direction in the entire hemisphere of possible directions without receiving anything back. There is only that one direction, perpendicular to the plate and directly pointing at the Sun, along which it is receiving all of its energy. So it cannot lose energy in that direction only, because that is the direction from which it is gaining all of its energy. It can lose energy in every single other direction though on the source facing side, and obviously also along every single other direction on its other side, facing the green plate. The blue plate loses energy to the green plate, the green plate gains all of its energy from the blue.
So the blue plate, essentially, has two "losing sides". It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.
The green plate, on the other hand, has only one "losing side", the side facing space. On the side facing the blue plate, it is gaining its energy along every single possible direction, since the blue plate fills the green plate’s entire field of view on that side. Remember, a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Thus, with only one "losing side", you divide by one for the green plate. The 200 W/m^2 input remains 200 W/m^2 output…
…and that’s all there is to it.“
Yes, of course you would prefer two parallel plates, because then you could treat the plate in the NASA page you linked like the green plate.
You argued that the NASA plate must have its field of view filled with the sun – just like the green plate field of view is filled with blue plate.
But as soon as I pointed out the plate in the NASA page gets its energy from a point source sun, 1 astronomical unit away, you thereafter completely ignored what you’d said in April, that a plate receiving energy from a point source “splits” the input between two emitting faces. Once the view factor of 1 was shown to be false, you just relentlessly ignored your contradiction. You simply refused to explain it, despite me repeatedly challenging you to do so.
You will ignore this again. And you will keep repeating your argument from “authority,’ not from reason.
“and that’s all there is to it.”
Indeed. Quote yourself talking about the blue plate and the green plate, but don’t admit that the NASA scenario is analogous to the blue plate, not the green.
You can’t have it both ways.
“They have calculated the temperature on the basis that an object emits what it receives.”
Yes indeed. Conservation of energy must apply.
Thus the plate cannot be receiving 1366 W/m^2 on one side, and emitting that amount from 2 sides.
If DREMT believes it was the intent of the author of the NASA piece to suggest a violation of conservation of energy is taking place by the plate emitting 1366 W/m^2 on both sides, that is quite a dubious assumption!
We can infer that he intends the plate to be emitting from one side.
This makes sense because he did not specify that the plate is a conductor or an insulator, or a black body or a mirror.
He has left it vague. Because he want to keep it simple for the school kids. The plate could well be an insulator, and on the Earth side it simply receives and emits 240 W/m^2, in equilibrium with the Earth.
And on the space side it is receiving and emitting 1366 W/m^2. And this is the only side he wants to discuss.
Nate,
The plate is identified as a blackbody:
“We begin with Stefan-Boltzmann’s law for a black body in sunlight.”
No other emissivity is mentioned, and the clcs proceed on the basis of a blackbody plate.
Other than that, yes, the author is obviously working with unidirectional radiation, as he only speaks of the plate radiating “back” to space, which is where the source of the radiation is. The us of the word “back” clinches it. It’s returning in the direction it came from. If that wasn’t enough, the calcs are based on a single surface, not two.
DREMT’s problem is that he can’t admit that the plate in this document is exactly the same as the blue plate in Eli’s set-up, and that he’s already agreed the blue plate “splits” the input between its two emitting faces.
Same as the blue plate….
in that it’s receiving energy from a point source sun. So according to DREMT, the input energy should be split between two faces if it’s radiating on both sides.
“You argued that the NASA plate must have its field of view filled with the sun – just like the green plate field of view is filled with blue plate.“
No, barry, I argued that, for whatever reason, the NASA author seemed to be treating the situation as though the view factors were equal to one between the plate and the Sun. Since they don’t “split by two”. I was already well aware that it was our Sun, at 1 AU distance from the plate, and that yes, arguably that should be treated as a point source Sun. However, they don’t “split by two”, so, for whatever reason, they seem to be treating the situation as though view factors are equal to one.
You can claim I’ve ignored the contradiction, but this:
“If it turned out the answer to the original GPE was actually 290 K…290 K, rather than 244 K…244 K, that wouldn’t bother me much.”
actually dealt with it directly. Supposing we take the situation at face value, rather than imagining that the plate only radiates from one side when clearly there is no reason for it to do so, then the NASA example suggests that they simply treat the amount received as being equal to the amount emitted, regardless of view factors. In which case their solution to the GPE would presumably be 290 K…290 K. I’m happy to go with either 290 K…290 K or 244 K…244 K. Though I think the latter is more reasonable as it takes view factors into account.
“No, barry, I argued that, for whatever reason, the NASA author seemed to be treating the situation as though the view factors were equal to one between the plate and the Sun. ”
DREMT is again misusing sciency words as if they are wild cards, that allow him to get of physics jail for free.
Here, it is ‘view factor’, VF. He is erroneously thinking VF can allow one to evade conservation of energy.
It does not. VF only tells us how much of the plates emitted radiation would hit the sun.
Whether all (VF = 1), or some, or none (VF = 0) of its emission hits the sun, that is irrelevant to how much the plate is emitting!
In any case, the plate is clearly able to radiate IR on the sun side, so VF being 1 or not makes no difference, whatsoever.
The main point is that the plate simply CANNOT radiate 2x what it receives. That violates conservation of energy, and VF makes no difference.
"Other than that, yes, the author is obviously working with unidirectional radiation, as he only speaks of the plate radiating “back” to space, which is where the source of the radiation is. The us[e] of the word “back” clinches it. It’s returning in the direction it came from. If that wasn’t enough, the calcs are based on a single surface, not two."
No, barry, nothing "clinches" it. You’re desperately reading things into it that just aren’t there. The NASA author simply assumes that the amount received by the plate (1,360 W/m^2) will be the amount emitted by the plate (1,360 W/m^2) and thus the temperature of the plate will be 394 K. He says nothing about the plate emitting from only one side. That is simply your assumption, because nothing else makes sense to you. That doesn’t mean that the NASA author thinks the same way you do.
Taking the example at face value, the NASA author is assuming that the amount received will be equal to the amount emitting, and isn’t adhering to Eli’s "split by two" logic regarding the amount received being over half the surface area that the plate emits from.
That’s what you have to accept, barry. The example is a challenge to Eli. Not me.
“Taking the example at face value, the NASA author is assuming that the amount received will be equal to the amount emitting, and isnt adhering to Elis “split by two” logic regarding the amount received being over half the surface area that the plate emits from.”
Indeed, he is clearly using the fact that the amount received will equal the amount emitted.
To any sane person of at least average IQ, that is NOT consistent with emitting 2x what is received, which is what would be happening if it emitted 1366 W/m^2 on two sides, while receiving 1366 W/m^2 on only one side!
By the way, barry, you never answered my question:
"They have calculated the temperature on the basis that an object emits what it receives. If the plate was only one atom thick, presumably you wouldn’t have a problem with that. If the plate was two atoms thick, would you suddenly decide that you have to “split by two”?"
I asked Norman a similar question, at one point, and he replied that if the plate was only one atom thick, then it would indeed emit what it receives, i.e. if it received 1,360 W/m^2 then it would emit 1,360 W/m^2. No "split by two". I didn’t get as far as asking him what he thinks would happen if the plate was two atoms thick. Maybe you can advise.
“To any sane person of at least average IQ”
Clearly DREMT does not qualify.
Here is Norman:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1535594
I took that to mean he thought a plate of one atom thickness would emit what it received, i.e if it received 1,360 W/m^2 then it would emit 1,360 W/m^2. The idea being that it is just a sheet of single atoms induced to vibrate at a certain rate by the energy they are receiving. So if they were receiving 1,360 W/m^2 they would be induced to vibrate at a rate where they emit 1,360 W/m^2. No reason for them to be induced to vibrate at a rate where they emit only 680 W/m^2. They are receiving energy at a higher rate than that, after all. I would be interested to know your thoughts on that, anyway, barry.
It is a completely different matter with e.g. the Earth. The Earth might receive, after correcting for albedo, 480 W/m^2 over half its surface area, whilst emitting 240 W/m^2 from its entire surface area, in the same moment. I have no problem with that, because the Earth rotates, and does not “heat through” like these perfectly conducting blackbody plates. If the Earth did not rotate, and was made of some perfectly conducting material, would it in fact receive 480 W/m^2, and emit 480 W/m^2? I don’t know. Interesting to think about, though.
Red herrings anyone?
Oh well, all of this does nothing to rebut the fact that MLI insulates, even with blackbody plates, thus contradicting DREMTs claim that passive blackbody plates do not insulate.
…and Swenson’s thoughts on the issue:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1536069
Poor choice for a new authority to defer to…but nice try at distraction.
Oh well!
Anyway, barry, you’ve got a lot to respond to, so let’s see what you have to say…
Barry has already thoroughly debunked the NASA diversion.
Nothing else new or useful here, just more diversions—the endless beating of a dead horse.
…barry, you’ve got a lot to respond to, so let’s see what you have to say…
In these thought experiments plates either emit from one side or two. Very often it is from one side, as in the MIT link I provided.
You are forever trying to squeeze the parameters into some configuration that you hope supports your view. Thus you turn a radiative problem into a conductive one (they are not the same), and here you try to reduce the plates to an atom thickness – for what?
A ‘plate’ an atom thick would radiate from 2 sides. Photons from atoms are directional, so half the energy would be emitted to one side and half to the other (ignoring, as is our convention, photons emitted at the edge of the plate along the axis of the plane).
The wording in the NASA piece completely supports the notion that the plate emits unidirectionally, and the wording does not at all support the notion that it is bidirectional.
The emission is “back” to space – in the direction that the radiation came from. There is absolutely nothing in the text to support your view. That’s just your hopeful assumption.
And if you disagree that the wording supports a unidirectional emission – that doesn’t matter one bit. Because the directionality is not specifically stated, you can’t brandish this as an argument against the GPE. Your assumptions do not count as evidence to the contrary.
But you are wrong in the first instance with your violation of the 1st law. It doesn’t matter if the source is a point source of fills the field of view, you cant create energy.
The GP cant emit twice what it receives from the BP
The plate in the NASA doc cannot emit twice the energy it receives
And you should really know this. Your description of energy flows with the blue plate was accurate, but you go bananas when you hit the green plate, with the outlandish argument (assertion, actually) that a view factor of 1 somehow changes the flow of energy, allowing GP to emit twice as much energy as it receives. It’s bizarre. And it is in direct violation of conservation of energy.
“You are forever trying to squeeze the parameters into some configuration that you hope supports your view.”
I’m an honest man seeking truth.
“Thus you turn a radiative problem into a conductive one (they are not the same), and here you try to reduce the plates to an atom thickness – for what?”
Well, for one, Eli described them as being “infinitely thin”. That’s impossible, of course, but the thinnest they could logically be is one atom in diameter. So, let’s stick to his conditions, for one thing. For another, it shouldn’t be too difficult to work out that if you can accept a plate one atom thick emits the same amount as it receives (with no “split by two”) then a plate millions of atoms thick can also emit the same amount as it receives, so long as it is being “warmed through” so that each layer of atoms vibrates at the same rate as the layer preceding it.
“A ‘plate’ an atom thick would radiate from 2 sides. Photons from atoms are directional, so half the energy would be emitted to one side and half to the other (ignoring, as is our convention, photons emitted at the edge of the plate along the axis of the plane).”
So you don’t agree with Norman. Again, the idea being that it is just a sheet of single atoms induced to vibrate at a certain rate by the energy they are receiving. So if they were receiving 1,360 W/m^2 they would be induced to vibrate at a rate where they emit 1,360 W/m^2. No reason for them to be induced to vibrate at a rate where they emit only 680 W/m^2. They are receiving energy at a higher rate than that, after all.
“The wording in the NASA piece completely supports the notion that the plate emits unidirectionally, and the wording does not at all support the notion that it is bidirectional. The emission is “back” to space – in the direction that the radiation came from. There is absolutely nothing in the text to support your view. That’s just your hopeful assumption.”
You’re deluding yourself, barry. There is no reason for a plate to emit from only one side. So unless they actually specify it is emitting from only one side, for some strange reason, there is no reason to think that it is! You have everything backwards.
“And if you disagree that the wording supports a unidirectional emission – that doesn’t matter one bit. Because the directionality is not specifically stated, you can’t brandish this as an argument against the GPE. Your assumptions do not count as evidence to the contrary.”
It doesn’t need to be specifically stated that the plate emits from both sides. That should go without saying! Silly barry.
DREMT claimed
“Taking the example at face value, the NASA author is assuming that the amount received will be equal to the amount emitting”
Barry and I are assuming that, when agreeing that the plate emits from one side, the same amount that it receives.
The only one not assuming that is you, DREMT, when you nonsensically insist that the plate must be emitting 2X what it receives!
DREMT’s goal seems to be to always be contrary, even if it requires that he makes no sense at all.
…it doesn’t need to be specifically stated that the plate emits from both sides. That should go without saying! Silly barry.
“So if they were receiving 1,360 W/m^2 they would be induced to vibrate at a rate where they emit 1,360 W/m^2. No reason for them to be induced to vibrate at a rate where they emit only 680 W/m^2. They are receiving energy at a higher rate than that, after all.”
If a square metre, atom thick plane emits all its energy from one face, it would illuminate a surrounding hemisphere (a dome completely surrounding the plate) with all the energy it emits. For simplicity, let’s call the energy received by the hemisphere, per second, X.
You are trying to argue that if we now make the plane emit from both sides, the other side would now illuminate the second hemisphere with X.
How is this possible? All the energy from the plate was illuminating the first hemisphere. Where did the extra energy come from? How did you turn X into 2X?
This is the creation of energy from nothing, violating the 1st Law.
A blackbody plate 1 metre square emitting 400 watts from one side has a temperature of 290K.
A blackbody plate 2 metre square emitting 400 watts from one side has a temperature of 244K.
When you double the surface area and keep the power constant, the W/m2 reduces, as does the temperature.
Surface area matters. When you remove the insulation from the back of the plate, you now have twice the surface area.
You’re ultimately arguing with yourself. You held that the blue plate “splits’ the input over two faces. And now you’re trying to argue that it doesn’t.
Does your blue plate suddenly emite twice the energy when it is only an atom thick?
I’m interested in your answer to this question.
…assumptions do not count as evidence to the contrary.
barry, the atom-thick plate is a sheet of single atoms receiving 1,360 W/m^2. The energy that they receive causes them to vibrate at a certain rate. Why would they stop vibrating at a rate where they are emitting only 680 W/m^2, when they are receiving 1,360 W/m^2?
Take a tiny ball, made up of, say, a clump of ten atoms. Irradiate the ball from one direction with 1,360 W/m^2. Does the ball:
a) radiate 680 W/m^2 in two opposing directions?
b) radiate an infinitesimal amount of W/m^2 in an infinity of directions?
c) radiate 1,360 W/m^2 in an infinity of directions?
I’ve answered that and you are now ignoring my responses.
You’re ultimately arguing with yourself. You held that the blue plate “splits” the input over two faces. And now youre trying to argue that it doesn’t.
Does your blue plate suddenly emite twice the energy when it is only an atom thick?
I’m interested in your answer to this question.
I agree, there is an element where I’m arguing with myself. I like to challenge myself. I like to challenge what I think. So, maybe it is the case as I outlined here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1545455
Which leads, ultimately, to this 244 K…244 K solution:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
(Note that there is no violation of conservation of energy).
However…maybe, just maybe…it is simpler than all that. Maybe it is as outlined in the NASA example, and as Swenson explained. Maybe, if the plate is a perfect conductor, it just…warms through. Until all the atoms are vibrating at the rate set by the input. In which case, the solution would be: 290 K…290 K.
You can answer my question about the ball, now.
Simply repeating yourself is not “challenging” yourself.
You are not dealing with your contradiction here.
Were you wrong about the blue plate in April or not?
I don’t know if you realize it, but you are trying to eradicate dimensionality from the equation. That’s why you’re banging on about the rate at which individual atoms vibrate – they don’t vibrate at any W/m2. I’m not joining you in your effort to remove dimensionality from the physics, sorry.
It’s a simple fact that surface area matters.
A 1 metre squared blackbody surface receiving 400 watts and emitting the same from one surface is at 290k
A 2 metre squared blackbody surface receiving 400 watts and emitting the same from one surface is at 244K
You can check that here
The blue plate has 2 faces, receives 400 W/m2 on one side, it splits the input energy by 2 each side. It now radiates 200 W/m2 X 2A = 400 W/m2 X 1A.
(A being area)
This does not violate conservation of energy. And this is what you correctly described in April.
You would now have the blue plate receive 400 W/m2 on one side and radiate 400 W/m2 X 2A = 800 w/m2 X 1A.
This creates energy, in violation of the 1st Law. Balls of atoms have nothing to say to this.
“Were you wrong about the blue plate in April or not?”
Don’t know, barry. I am keeping an open mind on the issue. It could be that the answer is 244 K…244 K. Or it could be that the answer is 290 K…290 K. I will remain skeptical, and not settle my mind on the issue one way or the other.
Meanwhile, I notice that you are repeating yourself again. Everyone understands Eli’s logic behind the “split by two”. There is no need to go over it again and again.
How about answering that question about the ball?
I’ve already answered on atoms. You are trying to remove dimensionality from the issue in order to not have to deal with the fact that surface area matters.
Removing the change in surface area from the argument avoids the argument.
So you may resile from your position on the blue plate.
Let me try to anticipate.
You are now considering that the BP radiates 400 W/m2 from each side.
Right?
This isn’t going to work, because in your conception the 2-plate system would be receiving 400 W/m2 on one side, and emitting the same on both sides, creating 400 W/m2 energy out of nothing.
And you are now considering changing your view on the BP, all because you want to put all your eggs in the “authority of a NASA document that lacks specifics.
I’d say retain your skepticism, and don’t assume that plate emits both ways. The alternative is better evidenced, and doesn’t contravene the 1st Law.
“I’ve already answered on atoms. You are trying to remove dimensionality from the issue in order to not have to deal with the fact that surface area matters.”
Instead of falsely accusing me of this or that, why not have a go at answering the question, barry? I even made it multiple choice. Here you go…
Take a tiny ball, made up of, say, a clump of ten atoms. Irradiate the ball from one direction with 1,360 W/m^2. Does the ball:
a) radiate 680 W/m^2 in two opposing directions?
b) radiate an infinitesimal amount of W/m^2 in an infinity of directions?
c) radiate 1,360 W/m^2 in an infinity of directions?
The ball receives the equivalent of 340 W/m2 over its entire surface area, accounting for the shape of a sphere. It radiates at different intensities depending whether it is receiving direct sunlight or radiating from the dark side.
If you are about to say there is no dark side, then you are removing dimensionality from the argument, thus avoiding the argument.
Surface area matters.
Hmmm…perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. The ball is irradiated with 1,360 W/m^2, so the lit hemisphere will receive 680 W/m^2. The ball is a perfect conductor, and “warms through”. I should change my options accordingly. Does the ball:
a) radiate 340 W/m^2 in two opposing directions?
b) radiate an infinitesimal amount of W/m^2 in an infinity of directions?
c) radiate 680 W/m^2 in an infinity of directions?
“The ball is a perfect conductor, and ‘warms through’.”
Ok, no dark side, effectively dimensionless to incoming solar radiation.
Let’s make this simple. The ball is heated internally to radiate at a rate of 340 W/m2. It will radiate at this rate at any part of its surface.
Now if you keep the power feed the same, but change the surface area, the W/m2 will change.
A ball twice the surface area will now emit at 170 W/m2.
Surface area matters.
It matters whether a plate emits from one side only, or two.
No, barry, there is a lit hemisphere, and a dark hemisphere. It’s just that the ball is a perfect conductor, and “warms through”. So, instead of continuously dodging the question, try to pick an answer. Or just admit that you don’t know. It’s OK to answer “don’t know” occasionally.
“The ball is irradiated with 1,360 W/m^2, so the lit hemisphere will receive 680 W/m^2”
The lit hemisphere will receive 340 W/m2. For a sphere you divide by 4, not 2, which accounts for the changing angle of incidence over the hemisphere as well as the fact that only half the the ball radiated.
A sphere receiving a total of 340 W/m2 over its entire surface area will emit 340 W/m2 over its entire surface area.
A blackbody plate 1 metre square emitting 400 watts from one side has a temperature of 290K.
A blackbody plate 2 metre square emitting 400 watts from one side has a temperature of 244K.
Do you agree?
Do you disagree?
No, barry. For a sphere you divide by 4, thus for a hemisphere you divide by 2. The lit hemisphere receives 680 W/m^2. You could argue the ball receives 680 W/m^2 over the lit hemisphere, and radiates 340 W/m^2 from the entire surface area of the sphere, if you like? That would be option a). Are you going for option a)?
To be precise, the ratio of area receiving sunlight to total area of the sphere is 4 to 1. This takes in the fact that only half the sphere is lit, and that the lit hemisphere does not get the full force of sunlight across its surface. The solar energy being received per unit area is reduced the further away you get from the point on the sphere pointing directly at the sun.
The sphere receives 340 W/m2 across its entire surface (half in darkness, the lit hemisphere receiving a varied amount of insolation depending on latitude). If that energy is distributed evenly across the sphere, it will emit at the same rate across its surface.
If you ignore my following question again I will assume you are proceeding in bad faith.
A blackbody plate 1 metre square emitting 400 watts from one side has a temperature of 290K.
A blackbody plate 2 metre square emitting 400 watts from one side has a temperature of 244K.
Do you agree?
Or do you disagree?
Agree, of course.
barry, the ball receives 680 W/m^2 averaged across the lit hemisphere. You are very ignorant, but always certain that you are correct. Again, you could argue that it is emitting 340 W/m^2 across the entire surface area of the sphere. That would be option a).
Are you going with option a)? Simple question, barry. Please answer.
“Agree, of course.”
Excellent.
Then you must understand
1) that a plate radiating in only one direction – back towards the point source sun – will radiate the same energy rate as the input
2) that a plate radiating from both sides now has twice the surface area, but not twice the input, and must therefore “split” the input between the two faces emitting thermal radiation
This is what you correctly described with the BP in April, and is the logical consequence of your agreement to my query.
So far so good?
No, barry. I don’t necessarily agree with you, for the reasons I have explained, and you have not been able to rebut, e.g:
“…the atom-thick plate is a sheet of single atoms receiving 1,360 W/m^2. The energy that they receive causes them to vibrate at a certain rate. Why would they stop vibrating at a rate where they are emitting only 680 W/m^2, when they are receiving 1,360 W/m^2?”
Also, I have repeatedly tried to get you to answer another related question. Without acknowledging the errors that you’ve made, and without ever providing a direct answer to the question, we are supposed to now proceed with your line of questioning!? And you were to accuse me of not arguing in good faith because I didn’t respond to one of your questions once, due to a cross-post!?
Sheesh.
I already answered that question and the one on the ball.
An atom thick plate receiving 1360 W/m2 to one side will radiate 1360 W/m2 from one side if insulated at the back, and 680 W/m2 from both sides if emitting from two faces.
You have this bizarre idea that individual atoms radiate at 1360 W/m2.
They don’t. They radiate at different rates in a blackbody, which is why you see the famous Wein curve of blackbody radiation across a the spectrum, peaking at the frequency associated with the temperature.
The average rate of the output from all the atoms is 1360 W/m2 if emitting to one side. All the atoms can only radiate in one direction.
Remove the insulation and half the radiation will go one way, half the other. Atoms radiate in random directions, so the result will be 50/50, each way, instead of 100% from one side only.
Do you now understand?
a) is not the right answer, because there are not just two directions that the sphere can radiate. Under the conditions you have stated, the sphere will radiate at the rate of 340 W/m2 in ALL directions.
Do I need to repeat myself or clarify any of this, or have you finally noticed that I’ve answered your questions?
Cross post? You answered the question 6 hours later, after my second prompting and you having replied in the interim. And 8 hours after I initially put forward the notion, which you ignored, and then I turned into a question – twice. You had made numerous replies in those 8 hours.
So, you agree that if you increase the surface area receiving same input, the per unit area output must reduce.
This is the basis for the understanding that a plate receiving energy from one side, but emitting from two sides has twice the surface area of the input, and therefore the input must be “split” over the two faces. Just like the BP you described in April.
If you disagree with that, please explain why.
I put this incorrectly. I’d hope you would amend it in your own mind, but just to be sure…
“So, you agree that if you increase the surface area receiving same input, the per unit area output must reduce.”
Should be:
So, you agree that if you increase the emitting surface area while receiving the same input, the per unit area output must reduce.
It follows that if you increase the emitting surface area of a plate but retain the same absolute input, the per unit are emission rate must therefore reduce.
When you change the radiating surface area of a plate from one side to both sides, you double the emitting surface area. In the case with a point source sun, the input remains the same, but the surface area doubles, therefore the per unit area output is halved.
If you disagree with this, please explain why.
Yes, barry, cross post. We will sort this out, first of all. You posted your question first time at 8:28 PM, but I was composing a post while you were doing that, which posted at 8:29 PM. So, when I wrote that comment, I was unaware that you had even asked me a question. I then went to sleep. When I woke up, I was somewhat surprised to see you acting like I was avoiding a question that I hadn’t even had a chance to answer.
So, no, I wasn’t lying about a cross post. I’ll wait for your apology on that, before we continue.
Looks like I will be waiting forever for an apology, so I will move onto the second issue.
“An atom thick plate receiving 1360 W/m2 to one side will radiate 1360 W/m2 from one side if insulated at the back, and 680 W/m2 from both sides if emitting from two faces.”
So you assert, whilst avoiding the actual question.
“You have this bizarre idea that individual atoms radiate at 1360 W/m2.”
No, I don’t, barry. You just made that up. What I said was:
“The idea being that it is just a sheet of single atoms induced to vibrate at a certain rate by the energy they are receiving. So if they were receiving 1,360 W/m^2 they would be induced to vibrate at a rate where they emit 1,360 W/m^2. No reason for them to be induced to vibrate at a rate where they emit only 680 W/m^2. They are receiving energy at a higher rate than that, after all.”
You can take that “certain rate” to be the average across the entire sheet of atoms.
“They radiate at different rates in a blackbody, which is why you see the famous Wein curve of blackbody radiation across a the spectrum, peaking at the frequency associated with the temperature.”
Yes, barry. I know.
Now, pay attention. Here is the question again:
“…the atom-thick plate is a sheet of single atoms receiving 1,360 W/m^2. The energy that they receive causes them to vibrate at a certain [average] rate. Why would they stop vibrating at a [average] rate where they are emitting only 680 W/m^2, when they are receiving 1,360 W/m^2?”
Maybe you can have a go at answering it, this time.
Endless rabbit holes DREMT wants to go down, rather than deal with the heart of the issue: Conservation of Energy.
No amount amount of goobldegook about what vibrating atoms would do will allow them to create energy that they have not received!
He has decided facts and reality are not for him anymore.
“Maybe you can have a go at answering it, this time.”
I’ve answered it every time. You are blind. Either physically or ideologically. Here it is again.
‘The average rate of the output from all the atoms is 1360 W/m2 if emitting to one side. All the atoms can only radiate in one direction.
Remove the insulation and half the radiation will go one way, half the other. Atoms radiate in random directions, so the result will be 50/50, each way, instead of 100% from one side only.’
What about this does not answer your question. Be specific. Repeating your question while ignoring a reply to this answer simply does not cut it, and proves to me that you are just avoiding the answer.
Amd you have ignored my own question yet again. it follows this post..
Dremt,
So, you agree that if you increase the emitting surface area while receiving the same input, the per unit area output must reduce.
It follows that if you increase the emitting surface area of a plate but retain the same absolute input, the per unit are emission rate must therefore reduce.
When you change the radiating surface area of a plate from one side to both sides, you double the emitting surface area. In the case with a point source sun, the input remains the same, but the surface area doubles, therefore the per unit area output is halved.
If you disagree with this, please explain why.
“When you change the radiating surface area of a plate from one side to both sides, you double the emitting surface area. In the case with a point source sun, the input remains the same, but the surface area doubles, therefore the per unit area output is halved.
If you disagree with this, please explain why.“
I don’t necessarily disagree. I certainly don’t need it to be continuously explained. I fully understood it already five years ago. As I said a couple of days ago:
“Everyone understands Eli’s logic behind the “split by two”. There is no need to go over it again and again.”
The 244 K…244 K solution doesn’t have any issues with conservation of energy:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
It’s just I’ve recently become interested in a simpler solution, the 290 K…290 K. That’s why we’re talking about the atom-thick plate, etc. it could be wrong, I’m just thinking it through.
The main thing is, the 262 K…220 K solution is definitely wrong, and has been debunked a dozen times over these last few years. I’m just trying to decide between 244 K…244 K and 290 K…290 K.
Another cross-post. Whilst I was composing my 8:58 AM comment, you posted your 8:50 and 8:51 AM comments. I saw neither of them at the time I wrote my 8:58 AM comment, so your accusation that I have avoided responding to your "question" (there was no question mark, so it wasn’t actually a question) is again false. You didn’t apologize for the first time this happened, so I doubt you will apologize this time, either.
"The average rate of the output from all the atoms is 1360 W/m2 if emitting to one side. All the atoms can only radiate in one direction.
Remove the insulation and half the radiation will go one way, half the other. Atoms radiate in random directions, so the result will be 50/50, each way, instead of 100% from one side only".
Yes, barry, I saw that you had attempted an "answer", but the thing is…it doesn’t actually respond to the question. It’s just a sort of argument by assertion that the "split by two" applies. But, I can tell you’re getting frustrated, so maybe we should just leave it. I’m not here to wind people up, unlike some. I was going to continue with the ball example, too, but I think that might be pushing you a bit too far. You’re obviously not going to get where I’m coming from.
By the way…Eli’s “split by two” logic seems so “bulletproof” that I wouldn’t even have thought to question it before now, if it weren’t for the fact that there is some empirical evidence that perhaps objects just “emit what they receive” (in other words, there might be no “split by two”):
https://principia-scientific.com/bridging-the-gap-in-greenhouse-gas-theory-one-plate-test/
It’s Geraint Hughes again. He heated a plate, radiatively, and it came to a temperature far in excess of what the “split by two” hypothesis would predict. It came closer to what the “emit what they receive” hypothesis would predict, instead. Not sure what to make of it.
“The main thing is, the 262 K220 K solution is definitely wrong…”
DREMT, again no, Eli’s original solution has long been correct as it follows from 1LOT and 2LOT & is in accord with the textbook Clint R recently found.
There is no hope for your 8:58 am linked cartoon to be correct as it obviously violates 2LOT with a GREEN arrow coming from a BLUE plate.
“The 244 K244 K solution doesnt have any issues with conservation of energy:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB”
But since it doesnt use blackbodies, it cannot be a solution to the GPE.
Oh well!
"There is no hope for your 8:58 am linked cartoon to be correct as it obviously violates 2LOT with a GREEN arrow coming from a BLUE plate."
Ball4, that is the emission from the GP being returned from the BP, rather than violating 2LoT by resulting in an increase in temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP. As you know, the plates may be blackbodies, but that cannot be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT. Besides, all this has been discussed a hundred times before. We will get nowhere going over all that again.
I was much more interested in my discussion with barry. So perhaps you could just go away, and leave us to it? That would be great. Thanks.
DREMT, the emission shown from the GP being returned from the BP violates 2LOT since such a process does not increase universe entropy as required by 2LOT. As such, there is no hope for your linked cartoon to be correct.
Consult Eli’s correct solution which increases universe entropy, the text example found by Clint R which also increases universe entropy, or even ask barry.
You are still the only person on this blog who has ever claimed the 244 K…244 K solution violates 2LoT, and you’re a known (notorious) liar. You are dismissed. Thank you.
DREMT’s 244K….244K “solution” has been thoroughly debunked (& Eli’s solution supported) in various ways for several years by many commenters on this blog so using the 2LOT is just one correct means among many.
I just want to talk to barry, and barry alone. No trolls allowed, so you are dismissed. Thank you.
“As you know, the plates may be blackbodies, but that cannot be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT.”
Well, not using the plates specified in the problem, your solution cannot be a solution to the problem!
You tried, but failed. It is as simple as that.
As Yoda would say,
Do or do not solve the problem. There is no try.
…just want to talk to barry, and barry alone. No trolls allowed, so you are dismissed. Thank you.
As I wrote, then listen to barry who is also correctly debunking DREMT’s incorrect BP,GP solution in barry’s own way consistent with Clint R’s text book example as many have already done.
You are dismissed. Thank you.
Teacher: ‘Why did you change this blackbody, which is a perfect abs.orber, into some sort of mirror? That’s not a blackbody.’
DREMT: ‘Well I couldnt solve it with a blackbody there, because…”
Teacher: ‘So you couldnt solve the assigned problem.’
DREMT: ‘Yeah but you see, the 2LOT…’
Teacher: ‘Oh well, sorry, you get a 0 on that problem’
Again, you are dismissed. Thank you.
“Yes, barry, I saw that you had attempted an “answer”, but the thing is… it doesnt actually respond to the question. It’s just a sort of argument by assertion that the “split by two” applies.”
That is untrue.
You took this to the atomic level and I have answered you there. I made no ‘assertion, but pointed out that atoms emit photons in random directions. This is a fact you can look up if you like.
The consequence of this is that an atom thick plate will emit half its energy in one direction, and half in the other.
Now, you can choose to rebut the fact I have brought up. And I wish you luck trying to prove that atoms emit photons differently to the way science tells us.
Or you can continue to ignore this substantiation to my point, and keep claiming that I’m ‘asserting’ something.
“You’re obviously not going to get where I’m coming from.”
Let’s see if I can see what you see.
You have taken the discussion to an atom thick plane, because in your mind you see the atoms all glowing at the same colour, all with the same energy.
All the atoms are at the same temperature as the average temperature of the surface of the plate they comprise.
And if the atoms are all at the same temperature, then they are emitting the equivalent energy of their input in all directions.
So, every atom emits at the same frequency as the input, same rate as the input therefore they are emitting that 1360 W/m2 in all directions.
That’s how you see it, isn’t it?
barry, I don’t need to rebut the fact that atoms emit photons in random directions, or that the consequence of this is that an atom thick plate will emit half its energy in one direction, and half in the other. I already accepted that the atom thick plate would emit energy in both directions. The question was, since the atom thick plate is receiving energy at a rate of 1,360 W/m^2, and this causes the atoms to vibrate at a certain average rate, why would they stop vibrating at an average rate where they are emitting only 680 W/m^2, when they are receiving 1,360 W/m^2?
“That’s how you see it, isn’t it?”
No.
“The question was, since the atom thick plate is receiving energy at a rate of 1,360 W/m^2, and this causes the atoms to vibrate at a certain average rate, why would they stop vibrating at an average rate where they are emitting only 680 W/m^2, when they are receiving 1,360 W/m^2?”
They “vibrate” – and emit photons at an average rate of 1360 W/m2. They don’t stop doing this. They keep doing this.
You understand that W/m2 applies to a single emitting surface, not a dual-sided plane, right?
So 1360 W/m2 applies specifically to a single surface emitting.
With a dual-sided plate, half that energy goes one way, half the other. What is difficult to understand about this?
The atoms are absorbing and emitting the same rate of energy, but one case has twice the emitting surface area of the other.
I’m perplexed at how you’re not getting this. The only way I could imagine it was the way I described what I thought was your view. Of course, atoms don’t have a temperature, and they transfer their energy radiatively by photons.
A single-sided plate, all the photons are emitted by that surface away from that surface.
A dual-sided plate, half the photons go one way, half the other.
The atoms are emitting at exactly the same rate of energy.
Energy is a conserved property, temperature is not.
And maybe my last sentence needs emphasising.
Energy is conserved, temperature is not.
I wonder if you’re not completely across that idea, as you seem to be relying on maintaining a constant temperature with 290K..290K, 244K…244K.
Could that be the disconnect? That you assume that temperature must be conserved?
barry…you’re rambling, and still not answering the question. I don’t even think you perhaps understand the question.
Did you read this comment, by the way:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1546618
Perhaps take a look at that. Maybe that will help.
“youre rambling, and still not answering the question.”
The crux of your question was why the atoms stop vibrating at the average rate the input requires them to, when the emissions are split between two sides.
I replied that they dont stop vibrating at the average rate and explained why.
And you apparently dont think my explanation of why I rejected this premise constitutes an answer.
No idea how to proceed if you just ignore what I say and pretend I havent answered you.
You have a single sheet of atoms vibrating at an average rate where they emit 680 W/m^2. However, they are receiving 1,360 W/m^2. You don’t seem able, in my opinion, to explain this discrepancy, except to say that the “split by two” should apply because the “split by two” should apply. But, here’s how we could proceed.
You could discuss the empirical evidence I linked to that suggests the “split by two” does not apply. How do you explain those results, barry?
P.S: you demonstrated that you did not understand the question. I didn’t mean that at any point the atoms actually stopped vibrating! I meant, if you irradiate a sheet of atoms with 1,360 W/m^2, and the sheet starts increasing in temperature from 0 K, why does the sheet stop increasing in temperature at 331 K, emitting 680 W/m^2, rather than continuing to increase in temperature to 394 K, emitting 1,360 W/m^2? In other words, why does the increase in the average rate of vibration of the atoms stop when they are emitting 680 W/m^2?
“You have a single sheet of atoms vibrating at an average rate where they emit 680 W/m^2. However, they are receiving 1,360 W/m^2.”
No, they are “vibrating” at the same rate as input.
If the plate emitted from only one surface, the rate of the emission would match the input from that surface.
But they are emitting oved twice the surface area that they are being irradiated.
Imagine a meter square surface, emitting from one side, the other side insulated.
The meter square surface is radiating 1360 watts back in the direction of the point-source sun. No problem with that, right?
But if you remove the insulation, the emitting surface area now doubles, and therefore the power per unit area must be halved, as you agreed upthread.
DREMT: “Agree, of course.”
1360W X 1A = 680W X 2A
The plate is emitting equivalent energy that is being received, but it is emitting over twice the area that it is receiving. The energy is conserved, the temperature is not.
The math is straightforward. Dunno how it is you understood it in April and in the comment you agreed to, but now apparently can’t see it.
Did you want speak to these points at some time, instead of just repeating the question?
barry, I already understand the logic of the “split by two”, as I said. I understood it perfectly well five, six years ago.
We just had a cross-post again. Read my “P.S:” post. Maybe that will help.
Don’t forget to discuss the empirical evidence that the “split by two” doesn’t happen.
Amending:
If the plate emitted from only one surface, the rate of the emission per unit area would match the input per unit area to that surface.
“No, they are “vibrating” at the same rate as input.”
Obviously not, barry. Vibrating at an average rate where they emit 680 W/m^2 does not correspond to an average rate that 1,360 W/m^2 input could induce.
They are vibrating at the same rate, otherwise they would not be able to spread that 1360 watts over twice the surface area.
What you’re refusing to look at, deal with or even argue about is that the emitting area is twice that of the area being irradiated.
You just haven’t spent a single word on that point. You appear to be blind to it, much less have an argument on it.
My guess is that your argument dwelling at the atomic level is somehow trying to remove the notion of there being two sides to deal with.
Whatever the case, you’ve been ignoring the point for multiple transactions now. When will you take it up?
You’re not getting it. That’s OK.
The empirical evidence, barry?
The experiment? Doofus thinks that he is replicating 3K space environment by creating a vacuum in a jar, not realizing that the other side of the disc is being irradiated by the environment, including the hot glass jar and the device above the disc. ‘Empirical evidence’ is facepalm material.
You’ve serially ignored the substance of the replies to your questions and that’s clearly not going to change. No point going on.
I’ll leave you with the consequence of your way of seeing it.
Point source sun irradiates a two-sided plate with 400 W/m2.
DREMT considers the plate now radiates 400 W/m2 from each side.
So now we put insulation on the side of the plate facing away from the sun.
What happens to the 400 W/m2 that was being radiated?
Presumably DREMT thinks it disappears. Surely it would not now be redirected to the sun, and the plate emits 400 W/m2 back to the sun?
Nope, pretty sure you’d have to argue that this 400 W/m2 that was streaming away from the side of the plate just vanishes into another dimension.
sigh
Presumably DREMT thinks it disappears. Surely it would not now be redirected to the sun, and the plate emits 800 W/m2 back to the sun?
Energy was created by having the plate emit 400 W/m2 from both sides, and when the insulation goes on, that 400 W/m2 must now be destroyed.
1st Law violations galore.
Test.
barry, he anticipated your criticism of the experiment. Did you read the article accompanying it? It will not let me post the text from the article, for some reason, but I assume you can find the relevant section.
Look, barry, I never said I definitely thought 290 K, 290 K was correct. I just said I was thinking it through. It could well be wrong, but there is some empirical evidence that it might be correct. So, you have to take that at least somewhat seriously, IMO.
As for your point about insulation: if you covered one side of the plate with insulation, then of course that side of the plate would stop radiating, because it is now covered with insulation. Instead, the layer of insulation would be radiating out to space.</p
I will try to quote that section again:
"Firstly, If we assumed that back radiant hypothesis was real with a 76 percent efficient heat transfer process and we performed the necessary fake back radiant mathematics, we arrive at a predicted temperature of 257 C, and that would be if the external glass along its entire length reached a temperature of 200 C. If we assumed 100 percent efficiency, which is a complete non.sense we still only get 288. The time to end your del.usions is now. Your science is false. As can be seen from the you tube videos the temperature of the glass at the point where the plate is, only reached a mere 77 C. This is not sufficient to emit the rate of energy required to explain the observed temperatures if we assumed the false universe was how it was."
“because it is now covered with insulation. Instead, the layer of insulation would be radiating out to space”
No, you don’t understand the principle. Insulation means that there is no heat loss towards the insulation.
Think of affixing a planet to the back of the plate.
Where does the 400 watts that was radiating out of the back of the meter squared plate go?
Whatever you think, 400 –> is a violation of the first law. 800 watts is coming out of a meter square plate that is only getting 400 watts delivered to it
“Whatever you think, 400 > is a violation of the first law.”
ffs – I am so tired of the issues with this website.
400 watts coming out of each side of a meter square plate is 800 watts total being emitted. It’s a violation of the 1st law when that plate is only receiving 400 watts.
barry, if you cover a radiating surface with something, then that surface stops radiating, and instead conducts energy into the “something” covering it. The outermost surface of the “something” then becomes the new radiating surface.
Earlier, you said the ball would radiate 340 W/m^2 in all directions. Not two, like you insist on with the plates. OK. One last try.
You have a long column of single atoms stacked one on top of the other. Maybe one hundred atoms high. You view the column from above, looking down. The column is irradiated with 1,360 W/m^2 from one direction. Does the column radiate:
a) 13.6 W/m^2 in 100 directions.
b) 1,360 W/m^2 in 100 directions.
c) 680 W/m^2 in 100 directions.
We have been talking about insulated plates here for years, and we’ve always understood that this means that there is no thermal loss where the insulation is – a staple theoretical concept our discussions – as is our use of theoretical blackbodies.
I actually anticipated that you would today decide that the theoretical insulation we have used in the same way for years here would now change into an emitting surface – so that you would not have to deal with the point.
And all because you read a 12 year-old NASA web page that lacks specifics.
I anticipated that you would have to abandon your description of the way energy flows with the blue plate, I even called you on it. lo and behold, you are indeed considering resiling from your original understanding.
All because of your interpretation of that NASA doc, which has a point source sun.
“Earlier, you said the ball would radiate 340 W/m^2 in all directions.”
Yes, a sphere emits in all directions.
“Not two, like you insist on with the plates.”
You make it seem as if I’ve been unreasonable to proceed in this fashion, when we all have adopted this convention for years, including you, including in this discussion. “Insisting?” Please.
You have serially avoided dealing with the concept of a plate having twice the emitting surface area as the area being irradiated. You’ve said you understand the “logic” of “splitting” but not whether you think the logic is sound.
Until you deal straightforwardly with this point, you won’t be getting any more replies from me. A column of atoms now?? Hey, why not cut to the chase and just have one atom emitting in a random directions?
You can try and fish for ways to repudiate or get around the notion of 2 dimensions and surface area, but it is all just ways of avoiding the point. It is the crux of my rebuttal, and you’ve set it aside for 2 days. I’ll wait to see if you ever get around to dealing with it squarely, but I’m not wasting time going down ever-shrinking rabbit holes that are escape passages from the point.
barry, cool it with the false accusations. When you insulate a plate on one side, the insulation does become the new radiating surface for that side. That’s just a fact. Now, if it’s “perfect insulation” it would prevent all the energy from conducting through and there would be nothing left to radiate from that new radiating surface. Typically, in these discussions we would say that a “perfectly insulated” BP would increase in temperature from 244 K to 290 K. Obviously, though, if the BP was already at 290 K, it’s theoretical “maximum temperature”, then insulating one side would not cause it to rise in temperature. It would not suddenly be radiating 800 W/m^2 from the uninsulated side, because it’s only receiving 400 W/m^2 in the first place! I get what you were trying to say, but it’s not quite the zinger you hoped for to leave the discussion on.
The plates don’t just emit in two directions, barry. I have in fact always tried to point out that they emit in an entire sphere of directions, a hemisphere from each side. If you re-read this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1545455
you will notice me referring to a hemisphere of directions.
I have already said many times that I’m not certain the solution is 290 K…290 K, and that I’m just thinking it through. I still prefer 244 K…244 K. The only thing I’m sure of is that it’s not 262 K…220 K. You don’t have to sound so outraged and upset that I’m considering 290 K…290 K, though. Like I said, Eli’s logic for the “split by two” seems so “bulletproof” that the only reason I’m considering it at all is due to the empirical evidence (which you tried to criticise, but failed).
I take it from your refusal to answer the question that you finally realise you have no excuse but to accept that the column of atoms would “emit what it receives” rather than “splitting by two”, and you don’t like where that train of thought leads you. If one shape of an object can “emit what it receives”, then why not all shapes? So long as they can “warm through”, of course.
‘Empirical evidence’
FYI, for those that actually care about empirical evidence, there is quite a lot of empirical evidence that the Law of Conservation of Energy is valid.
Anyone claiming they have done an experiment that violates this Law has a large burden of proof.
It would be an extraordinary finding, and thus requires extraordinary evidence.
Given the large amount of empirical evidence supporting Conservation of Energy, it is highly probable that any one experiment contradicting it has simply made a mistake.
“You have serially avoided dealing with the concept of a plate having twice the emitting surface area as the area being irradiated.“
Not at all, barry. It’s a great argument, and like I said, normally I wouldn’t question it…but for the empirical evidence against it. The counter argument is as I’ve been trying to get across to you from the start. The object “warms through” so that all the atoms are vibrating (on average) at a rate set by the input. So, regardless of the surface area issue, an object that “warms through” has no option but to “emit what it receives”.
“I have already said many times that Im not certain the solution is 290 K290 K, and that Im just thinking it through. I still prefer 244 K244 K. The only thing Im sure of is that its not 262 K220 K.”
DREMT is unsure, but Nature has figured it out already: energy cannot be created from nothing.
DREMT is also unsure about whether blackbody surfaces can reflect or not. Again, nature has already figured that one out, and the answer is NO.
With all his uncertainty about the basic facts, DREMT is still certain that the PhD physicists must be the ones that are confused, not him!
Thus he is certain that the solution found by physics is certainly wrong, or so he mansplains it to us.
So, regardless of the surface area issue, an object that “warms through” has no option but to “emit what it receives”.
… when GPE equilibrium is achieved at 262 K…220 K per 1LOT,2LOT.
Yawn. He’s back again.
“The counter argument is as I’ve been trying to get across to you from the start. The object ‘warms through’ so that all the atoms are vibrating (on average) at a rate set by the input. So, regardless of the surface area issue, an object that ‘warms through’ has no option but to ’emit what it receives’.”
But this has no real sense behind it. You are using the term “emit what it receives” to assert that the object radiates at the same wattage per square metre that is radiated to it. There is no argument here, just assertion.
The atoms DO ‘vibrate’ at the rate set by the input. The atoms DO ‘vibrate’ at the rate set by the input.
You don’t want to deal with 2 dimensions, so you try to make them go away by imagining that the atoms give off radiation omnidirectionally. It’s why you use the word vibrate – it exempts you from having to consider that the atoms release their energies on a random but specific vector.
It’s why you have devolved, as I told you you would, to getting rid of dimensions. A column of atoms has no surface area. What is the temperature of an object receiving any wattage per square metre when it doesn’t have a surface?
So here’s another example of how you have created energy with the view you’re testing.
Let’s make our plate a disc of one metre square area. Let’s furnish the energy by a wire rather than by the sun.
We send 400 watts to the disc, it radiates 400 watts from each side.
Now we place two hemispheres over each face, so that the energy they emit is completely received by these hemispheres.
Each hemisphere receives 400 watts. The entire sphere is receiving 800 watts.
The disc that is receiving 400 watts, is powering a sphere surrounding it with 800 watts.
Do you now see the problem?
ffs – it is tedious to have to spell everything out in minute detail in case the assumed understanding is overthrown. So, amending for clarity.
You are using the term “emit what it receives” to assert that the 2-sided object radiates at the same wattage per square metre that is radiated to it on one side.
Yes, barry, I always saw the problem.
I understand the logic of the "split by two", completely. Same as I did five, six years ago. No need for you to keep repeating yourself.
The column of atoms would "emit what it receives". You haven’t put forward any argument as to why it would receive 1,360 W/m^2 but emit 680 W/m^2. In fact, all you’ve done is tried to claim that a column of atoms wouldn’t have a surface area! If a column of atoms doesn’t have a surface area, why would a sheet of atoms have a surface area!? So, anyway, we’ll go with it receiving 1,360 W/m^2 and emitting 1,360 W/m^2. That’s a start. You must therefore accept that such a thing is possible.
"The atoms DO ‘vibrate’ at the rate set by the input. The atoms DO ‘vibrate’ at the rate set by the input."
Obviously not, if the atom-thick plate receives 1,360 W/m^2 but emits 680 W/m^2. I’m not sure how you don’t see that! The atoms would be (on average) vibrating at a rate corresponding to an emission of 680 W/m^2…even though they are receiving an impetus to vibrate at a rate corresponding to 1,360 W/m^2!
If you see that the disc I described is supplying twice the energy to the sphere surrounding it than the disc receives, surely this conversation should be over.
W/m2 is a vector quantity. It is “the power transferred per unit area, where the area is measured on the plane perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the energy.”
You are trying to remove the vector component from the physics, DREMT.
This is why you are talking about atoms vibrating rather than emitting. Their energy state doesn’t have a direction. But when we talk about power transferred per unit area (W/m2), we are referring to emissions. Photons. And these have direction.
A plate of atoms is irradiated one one side. The atoms take on the energy they receive.
But they emit photons in all directions. At any given moment half the atoms emit to space from the surface facing the point source sun, and half the atoms emit their energy from the surface not facing the sun.
Half the energy they have received is going one way, half the other.
Every time you change the shape of the object, or speak of “warming through” you are trying to eradicate the notion of vector from the matter.
No, barry. I said cool it with the false accusations. That means stop making them, not continue to make even more of them.
"The atoms DO ‘vibrate’ at the rate set by the input. The atoms DO ‘vibrate’ at the rate set by the input."
Obviously not, if the atom-thick plate receives 1,360 W/m^2 but emits 680 W/m^2. I’m not sure how you don’t see that! The atoms would be (on average) vibrating at a rate corresponding to an emission of 680 W/m^2…even though they are receiving an impetus to vibrate at a rate corresponding to 1,360 W/m^2!
You don’t have any response to this argument…so you falsely accuse me of some dishonest tactic, instead. Remove the accusations and what actually is your argument? That the atom-thick plate will emit photons in all directions from the surface? I already acknowledged that they will! So yes, some photons will be emitted in the hemisphere of directions facing outwards from one side of the plate, and some photons will be emitted in the hemisphere of directions facing outwards from the other side. Your fixation on photons changes nothing.
“So yes, some photons will be emitted in the hemisphere of directions facing outwards from one side of the plate, and some photons will be emitted in the hemisphere of directions facing outwards from the other side.”
I don’t understand how you’re NOT seeing it.
1360 W/m2 describes the amount of power transferring to a plane perpendicular to the the direction the energy is propagating from.
The vector quantity (direction) is intrinsic to the definition of power per unit area.
What this means is that if every atom transfers its energy to a perpendicular plane, then that plane will receive the full 1360 W/m2 of energy.
But with our two-sided plate, not every atom will transfer its energy to that plane.
In fact, statistically half the atoms at any given moment are transferring energy to a single plane perpendicular to the emitting plate (our plates are infinitely large, remember), and half are not.
You only get all those atoms transmitting the 1360 W/m2 if they are all illuminating the same plane – if they are all transmitting to one side.
But they are transmitting to two sides. A plane on one side would get 860 W/m2, and the plane on the other side of the plate would have another 860 W/m2 transmitted to it.
The total being transferred, then, is still 1360 W/m2, but it is split between two vectors.
Now imagine what I asked you to imagine before.
A metre square disc is radiating in the way you are considering.
It is receiving 1360 watts to it by wire.
A dome covers one radiating face, absorbing all its radiation – 1360 watts, according to your proposal.
Another dome covers the other face. It, too, is receiving 1360 watts, according to what you are proposing.
Therefore, a disc that is receiving 1360 watts of power, is powering a sphere surrounding it with a total of 2720 watts.
You have created 1360 watts of energy. 1st Law violation.
What is your rebuttal to this?
“Obviously not, if the atom-thick plate receives 1,360 W/m^2 but emits 680 W/m^2. Im not sure how you dont see that! The atoms would be (on average) vibrating at a rate corresponding to an emission of 680 W/m^2even though they are receiving an impetus to vibrate at a rate corresponding to 1,360 W/m^2!”
Barry, this is meaningless gobbldegook that can only have one purpose: to obfuscate.
It allows one to endlessly hand-wave about vague things like the vibration rate of molecules under different conditions while always evading the main issue.
The testable reality is quite simple, the molecules emit in all directions a total energy NO MORE than what they are receiving.
There is no amount of hand-waving obfuscation that can undo that fact.
My rebuttal is the same as it’s always been, barry. You have no counter-argument to it except to ramble and waffle on about various irrelevancies.
A plate emitting 680 W/m^2 has atoms that are vibrating at (on average) one particular rate. That is a rate that is less than 1,360 W/m^2 can induce. That the plate emitting 680 W/m^2 emits in all directions goes without saying, and is irrelevant to the point. It doesn’t even need to be an atom-thick plate to get the point, either, though it ought to help.
I don’t think any progress is going to be made, so we might as well give it up. I’ll stick to 244 K…244 K in future, as life’s too short for this relentless back and forth.
The empirical evidence needs an explanation. That’s all I’m going to say.
Now, you can repeat yourself, and Nate can (presumably, although I don’t read his comments) repeat himself, and Ball4 can chip in and repeat himself. On and on it goes.
“Now, you can repeat yourself, and Nate can (presumably, although I dont read his comments) repeat himself, and Ball4 can chip in and repeat himself. On and on it goes.”
You forgot DREMT keeps repeating himself.
And he keeps seeking new ways to evade reality, while keeping the argument going, endlessly.
On and on it goes.
No, you haven’t said a word about the following.
——————————————————-
Let’s make our plate a disc of area 1 square metre.
We supply 400 watts to the disc internally.
You argue that the disc is radiating 400 W/m2 to the left, and 400 W/m2 to the right.
As the surface area of the disc is exactly 1 square metre, it is radiating 400 watts to the left, and 400 watts to the right.
Place a hemisphere over each side that completely captures the energy being sent. One hemisphere gets 400 watts, and so does the other.
We now have a situation where a disc that is powered by 400 watts is powering a sphere with 800 watts.
That contravenes the 1st Law of Thermodynamics – we’ve created 400 watts of energy from nothing.
What is your response to this? Where is the flaw in that chain?
Yes, good argument, barry. I can’t fault what you’re saying. As I’ve said many times, the logic of the “split by two” seems “bulletproof”…and yet, the empirical evidence to the contrary needs an explanation.
The only thing I could say is that supplying the plate with an electrical supply of 400 W, via a wire, might indeed mean that the plate only emits 200 W/m^2. Whereas supplying the plate with a flux of 400 W/m^2, from a source to one side of the plate, might have a different outcome. So long as it “warms through”.
The argument that I’ve made several times, that you can’t rebut, could also be repeated…but what’s the point? We’ve made our arguments. That’s that. If you want me to say that the 290 K…290 K solution is definitely wrong, you’ll be waiting a very long time. I’m keeping an open mind.
Though, like I said, I’ll probably continue to go with the 244 K…244 K going forward. Less endless back and forths.
“The argument that I’ve made several times, that you can’t rebut”
To keep the rebuttal simple – and to check if you’ve actually responded it more than just repeating your argument…
1. 1360 W/m2 is a vector quantity. It is the power per unit area being transferred to a single surface perpendicular to the propagation of energy. Direction matters.
2. All the atoms are “vibrating” at a rate commensurate with the 1360 W/m2 they are receiving.
3. If all their energy is now directed at a single perpendicular surface, that surface would receive 1360 W/m2.
4. But – and this is where we seem to get lost – an atom-thick plate that radiates on both sides does NOT emit its energy in one direction to a perpendicular surface.
5. Statistically half the atoms at a given moment are emitting in one direction (or towards one hemisphere), and the other half are emitting the other way.
6. If half the atmos are emitting their energy towards a single perpendicular surface, then they are emitting a total of 680 W/m2.
7. The atoms have not lost any energy, it’s just that fewer atoms are radiating towards the single perpendicular surface that gives us the energy transferred in W/m2. The rest of the atoms are directing their energy elsewhere.
Your rebuttal to this argument I make has been to restate your argument.
Yes, we are on a loop.
Were we to move on, taking for granted the BP with 244 || 244, I would then point out that the GP, getting only 200 W/m2 from the BP, must therefore emit 100 W/m2 from each side, otherwise it, too, would contravene the 1st Law.
“2. All the atoms are “vibrating” at a rate commensurate with the 1360 W/m2 they are receiving.”
No, barry. A plate emitting 680 W/m^2 has atoms that (on average) are not vibrating at a rate commensurate with the 1,360 W/m^2 they are receiving. This is where your counter fails, every time…and, you can’t learn. A plate emitting 680 W/m^2 is at a temperature of 331 K. A plate emitting 1,360 W/m^2 is at a temperature of 394 K. The atoms in the latter plate would be (on average) vibrating faster than those in the former plate. A flux of 1,360 W/m^2 incident on a plate at 331 K would constantly be acting to induce a faster rate of vibration in the atoms it impacts. End of story.
“5. Statistically half the atoms at a given moment are emitting in one direction (or towards one hemisphere), and the other half are emitting the other way.”
Yes, I know that the plate emits in all directions. That doesn’t change anything.
“Yes, we are on a loop.”
Since you cannot take on board what is being said.
“Were we to move on, taking for granted the BP with 244 || 244, I would then point out that the GP, getting only 200 W/m2 from the BP, must therefore emit 100 W/m2 from each side, otherwise it, too, would contravene the 1st Law.”
barry, there is no 1LoT violation in this:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
How many times!?
Once again DREMT links to a picture violating 2LOT so there is no hope for that GPE balance to be correct.
The troll is back.
“No, barry. A plate emitting 680 W/m^2 has atoms that (on average) are not vibrating at a rate commensurate with the 1,360 W/m^2 they are receiving.”
Sure it does. It is emitting at 680 W/m2 in two completely different directions, and that is a total of 1360 W/m2 if it were emitting in one direction.
The two hemispheres enclosing either side of this plate are receiving 680 W/m2 each. If the plate is a metre square these hemispheres are receiving 680 watts each, for a total 1360 watts being received by the sphere surrounding the meter square surface being fed 1360 watts.
“A plate emitting 680 W/m^2 is at a temperature of 331 K. A plate emitting 1,360 W/m^2 is at a temperature of 394 K.”
Correct.
Energy is a conserved quantity. Temperature is not.
If you change the configuration of a single plate or open system receiving a constant energy, the total energy in and out of the single plate or system doesn’t change, but the temperature will.
Change the plate from a blackbody to a whitebody and the temperature will change dramatically. Double the size of the plate but keep the total input the same and the temperature of the surface of the plate will change.
Are you misled into thinking that the temperature must remain constant if you change the way a plate radiates?
The sun doesn’t transfer its temperature to a plate. It transfers its energy.
“The atoms in the latter plate would be (on average) vibrating faster than those in the former plate.”
If all the atoms are vibrating as if they were getting 680 W/m2, then they would emit 340 W/m2 to each side.
You have a one atom thick plate. It has no dimensions that you could measure with a thermometer. No kinetic energy by any standard definition, because the atoms are arrayed in a single plane. There is no ‘material’ with a temperature. Atoms don’t have a temperature.
All we have to measure the temperature is determined by the SB law, and that is a vector analysis. The only temperature we can measure from this set-up is that which is emitted to or from a surface.
Energy is conserved, temperature is not.
Here is a challenge for you, relating to something you put to me, and giving insight into what I just said.
You have a blackbody column of atoms at a certain distance from the sun where a blackbody plane would be receiving 1360 W/m2.
The column of atoms is one metre long.
What is the temperature of the column? And how did you work that out using the S/B law in watts per square metre?
barry quotes me:
“No, barry. A plate emitting 680 W/m^2 has atoms that (on average) are not vibrating at a rate commensurate with the 1,360 W/m^2 they are receiving.”
then says:
“Sure it does. It is emitting at 680 W/m2 in two completely different directions, and that is a total of 1360 W/m2 if it were emitting in one direction.”
Wrong, barry! It is emitting in an infinite number of directions – does that mean it is emitting an infinitesimal amount of W/m^2!?
I have made this point so many times, throughout, and you never picked up on it!?
No need to read further. This is your fundamental error in understanding. “Number of directions” has nothing to do with it. Correct your error, re-read my responses to you, and you should realise why your counter fails.
“You have a one atom thick plate. It has no dimensions that you could measure with a thermometer. No kinetic energy by any standard definition, because the atoms are arrayed in a single plane. There is no ‘material’ with a temperature. Atoms don’t have a temperature.”
Take all your nonsense up with Eli, barry. He described his plates as being “infinitely thin”. Not me.
” Im keeping an open mind.”
His mind is open to energy being created from nothing.
Ok then.
“barry, there is no 1LoT violation in this:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
How many times!?”
How many times does it need to be mentioned that this diagram uses bodies that are NOT BLACKBODIES, and THUS it CANNOT be a solution to the GPE!
How many times?!
It seems some people will never stop ignoring the facts.
…take all your nonsense up with Eli, barry. He described his plates as being “infinitely thin”. Not me.
“Take all your nonsense up with Eli, barry. He described his plates as being ‘infinitely thin’. Not me.”
Eli said that only to remove the need to calculate radiation from the edges of the plates, or have to include conduction. That’s it. You could make the plates a millimetre thick and now you have kinetic energy and a macro state to deal with, where classical thermodynamics (as opposed to quantum mechanics) applies.
If you wanted to drill down to an atomic temperature for such an array you would have to state the nature of the atoms (eg, you would no longer have a blackbody condition) and calculate the temperature quantum mechanically. Neither of us has the skill to do that. And it’s a pointless exercise WRT our discussion. And the temperature would be as close to 0 K as makes no difference.
If you want to deal with plates with actual material, then a one metre square plate a millimetre thick radiates 0.4% of its energy from the edges.
So now the faces radiate (x – x/250) W/m2. An unhelpful complication that doesn’t interfere one bit with the point, only its clarity.
Eli just removed the complication by removing the edge and making the plates infinitely large, so we could proceed under classic thermodynamics with fewer complications to the equations.
barry, it ultimately doesn’t matter to my point. Have the plates a mm thick if you want. If they are “perfect conductors” as he also specified, they will “warm through” easily enough so that all the atoms are vibrating at the same rate (on average). So the point about how a flux of 1,360 W/m^2 incident on a plate at 331 K would constantly be acting to induce a faster rate of vibration in the atoms it impacts still applies.
I just thought this would be easier to understand in a plate one atom thick, though I pointed out from the start it ought to also be clear why it would still apply in a plate of more substantial thickness.
For fun, I asked ChatGPT this question:
“If a one square metre plate receive energy at a rate of 400 watts, and radiates from both sides, what is the radiation in watts per square metre that is radiated from each side?”
And this was the reply:
“When a one square meter plate receives energy at a rate of 400 watts and radiates from both sides, the total power radiated from the plate is still 400 watts. Since the plate is radiating from both sides, you can assume that it is radiating 200 watts per square meter from each side. This is because the 400 watts of energy is being evenly distributed over the total surface area of the plate, which is 2 square meters (1 square meter for each side).
So, the radiation in watts per square meter that is radiated from each side of the plate is 200 watts per square meter.”
I am not crediting ChatGPT with any skill in radiative transfer, nor assigning its answer any credence. We can call this corroboration a coincidence, not a conclusion.
Well, that doesn’t surprise me. The logic of the “split by two” seems “bulletproof”, so that’s what I’d expect it to say. What might be interesting is to ask it a less specific question, and see what it comes up with. Something like, “if you irradiate an object with 400 W/m^2, and the object is a perfect conductor, what will it emit?”
There are some quite big differences in temperature, when you come to think about it. 394K – 331 K = 63 K. So that’s a huge difference depending on which way of looking at this is correct. That’s why I found Hughes’ experiment quite interesting. There’s such a big difference in the predicted temperatures, from each hypothesis, that it should be really easy to resolve this through a carefully conducted experiment. It’s amazing that it hasn’t been resolved already, really. Maybe Hughes’ experiment does resolve it? Who knows. He listed a bunch of improvements that could be made to his experiment, anyway. So, going forward, we may get a definitive answer on this.
The biggest temperature difference would be with a cube rather than a plate. If you had a perfectly conducting blackbody cube where each face had a surface area of a metre squared, and one face was permanently pointing towards the Sun at 1 AU distance, that face would be receiving 1,360 W/m^2. However, the total surface area of the cube, multiplied by the six sides, would be 6 m^2. So now, instead of a "split by two", you have a "split by six" going on. So, whereas the "warming through", "emit what you receive" hypothesis would have the cube at a temperature of 394 K, emitting 1,360 W/m^2, the "split according to surface area" hypothesis would have the cube at a temperature of only about 251 K, emitting 226.67 W/m^2! That’s a colossal 143 K difference between the two hypotheses…and it’s hard to see how any object at our distance from the Sun would only be warmed to 251 K, just because of the surface area issue.
I’m really starting to think there might be something to this "emit what you receive" hypothesis.
Barry, that is scary.
You are showing that AI is already more intelligent than some of our regular posters!
…and there would be an 80 K difference in temperature between what the plate would be (331 K), assuming the "split according to surface area" hypothesis is correct, and what the cube would be (251 K). An 80 K difference, essentially just due to the shape of the object! Does that really make any sense? Both objects are at the same distance from the Sun, receiving the same amount of energy from the Sun, but because one is a plate, and one is a cube, there’s an 80 K temperature difference between them! As a basic sanity check…does that seem right to you?
” its hard to see how any object at our distance from the Sun would only be warmed to 251 K, just because of the surface area issue.”
“Does that really make any sense? ”
For example, AI, doesn’t seem to suffer from thinking that incredulity is equivalent to, or can substitute for, sound logic.
Reminds me of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV6NoNkDGsU
Awaiting a response from barry, the only person I’m interested in talking to on this sub-thread…
The set-up for that experiment is way too distant from what is required to get a decent read.
Every single surface in that room is radiating to the jar. Emptying the air doesn’t change that. Also, the thermometer will have a lot of residual heat in it once the jar is empty. The object above the plate will absorb the radiation coming from the plate and re-emit it back to the plate, slowing the rate of heat loss from the side of the plate not being directly heated.
We have no figures for any of this, so no way to check the validity of the test.
What we did get was a plate heated from a very short distance, right across its surface, that didn’t nearly reach the temperature required to prove the theory you’re considering, when the environment around the plate should have helped it – obviously the environment is much warmer than the depths of space.
The author only considered ‘leakage’, but not the additional radiation from the environment and nearby objects heated by the plate itself and radiating back to it. No doubt the experimenter believes that radiation from colder objects can’t be absorbed by warmer objects.
And if that is the case this experiment will fail us both, as we can’t even agree on the principle needed to question it.
The plate warmed to a temperature beyond what it should have done if the “split by surface area” hypothesis was the correct one. Not only that, but it warmed to a temperature beyond what would be predicted even if “back-radiation warming” were correct and the glass was heated to 200 C…and the glass was only measured to actually get to 77 C. Given that, I don’t see how the radiation from the room temperature surroundings could make much difference. Not if the immediate surroundings (the glass) is already warmer than the room.
So, I’ll ask again: as a basic sanity check for your “split by surface area” hypothesis: does it really make sense to you that a plate would be 80 K warmer than a cube, at the same distance from the Sun (one AU)?
None of the result numbers in that experiment are reliable.
“does it really make sense to you that a plate would be 80 K warmer than a cube, at the same distance from the Sun (one AU)?”
The ratio of the radiating area to area being irradiated is greater on a cube than a plate, so with more surface area losing energy than gaining energy, the cube is going to be cooler.
Same with a sphere.
It’s not the number of flat surfaces radiating that matters, it’s the ratio of surface area being irradiated to surface area radiating. So, if you’re going with an icosidodecahedron, you don’t divide the incoming energy by 20, you factor the ratio of surface area irradiance vs radiating. This would be rather complicated, as you now have to account for the view factor of every surface receiving radiation. Simpler would be to use a sphere as a model for a rough approximation.
So in simple terms, the ratio of area energy loss to area energy gain is
2:1 for a plate
4:1 for a sphere
6:1 for a cube
(assuming that only one side of the cube receives solar radiation)
“None of the result numbers in that experiment are reliable.”
Why’s that, barry? Is the experiment not straightforward, and replicable?
“The ratio of the radiating area to area being irradiated is greater on a cube than a plate, so with more surface area losing energy than gaining energy, the cube is going to be cooler.”
Yes, that’s the hypothesis.
“It’s not the number of flat surfaces radiating that matters, it’s the ratio of surface area being irradiated to surface area radiating. So, if you’re going with an icosidodecahedron, you don’t divide the incoming energy by 20, you factor the ratio of surface area irradiance vs radiating.”
Indeed.
So I guess your answer is, “yes, it makes sense to me that a cube would be 80 K cooler than a plate, when both are at the same distance from the Sun”. To me, even though I understand the logic behind the hypothesis, it seems somewhat silly that there would be such a huge difference in temperature, effectively the result of a difference in shape. It doesn’t seem like something you experience in real life…cube shapes being cooler than plates, etc.
If you keep thinking about the cubes in space, and start arranging cubes behind cubes, and thinking about how quickly the amount of energy they would receive and emit tapers off, it seems ever less feasible, as a hypothesis. Whereas with the “emit what you receive” hypothesis, you have cubes behind cubes remaining at the same temperature, or slightly lower when taking view factors into account. Now, this might seem counterintuitive at first, because objects in the shade of other objects we know, from experience, to be significantly cooler. However, those objects aren’t perfectly conducting blackbodies. Real objects provide shade because they don’t perfectly conduct heat all the way through, and because they reflect energy from the Sun.
Still keeping an open mind. It might well be that the 290 K…290 K is wrong. I would like to see more empirical results. Improved experiments. It should be really easy to settle this through experiment.
“Why’s that, barry? Is the experiment not straightforward, and replicable?”
I explained the problems with the experiment already. But one that is completely in our way is that if you think that warmer objects can’t absorb radiation from cooler objects, then you don’t think the disc would absorb any radiation from the object above it. Or indeed the rest of the room.
We have no way forward to even question the experiment if we can’t agree on that principle. We will forever be hamstrung by our different understanding of radiative transfer.
The experiment does not – in any way shape or form – replicate the theory as it applies to a black body object in the radiative environment in extraterrestrial space. The vacuum does next to nothing to ameliorate this problem.
“it seems somewhat silly that there would be such a huge difference in temperature, effectively the result of a difference in shape”
No, it’s purely the difference in the ratio of radiating area to are being irradiated.
“It doesnt seem like something you experience in real life… cube shapes being cooler than plates, etc.”
Because IRL means down here on Earth, where the environment is full of radiation and you have convection and conduction transferring heat.
If you want a real life analogy, then point a propane torch at a small ball bearing, then touch the other side of the ball bearing after a few minutes. You’ll get a little scar. Now get yourself a huge metal sphere the diameter of a human, point the propane torch at it, and touch the metal all the way on the other side. You can wait for a year of propane torching before you touch it if you like. You telling me you expect the far side to be just as hot as the point where the propane is firing?
“If you keep thinking about the cubes in space, and start arranging cubes behind cubes, and thinking about how quickly the amount of energy they would receive and emit tapers off, it seems ever less feasible, as a hypothesis.”
Not in the least. I now have a cuboid with many kilometres of side face, and still a one square metre face perpendicular to the sun – the longest, narrowest box you ever saw.
You seriously expect that if the energy that 1 square metre face is getting were distributed over kilometres of surface that is only shedding energy but getting none, that it should be the same temperature all the way across the surface?
That seems pretty lunatic to me.
“I explained the problems with the experiment already. But one that is completely in our way is that if you think that warmer objects can’t absorb radiation from cooler objects, then you don’t think the disc would absorb any radiation from the object above it. Or indeed the rest of the room.
We have no way forward to even question the experiment if we can’t agree on that principle. We will forever be hamstrung by our different understanding of radiative transfer.”
Not at all. Since, as Hughes did, you can calculate what the temperature would be assuming “back radiation warming” were a thing. It’s like you don’t listen to a word I say.
“The experiment does not – in any way shape or form – replicate the theory as it applies to a black body object in the radiative environment in extraterrestrial space. The vacuum does next to nothing to ameliorate this problem.”
barry, you’re just looking for excuses to reject the results.
“No, it’s purely the difference in the ratio of radiating area to are being irradiated.”
Which is effectively due to the difference in shape.
“If you want a real life analogy, then point a propane torch at a small ball bearing, then touch the other side of the ball bearing after a few minutes. You’ll get a little scar. Now get yourself a huge metal sphere the diameter of a human, point the propane torch at it, and touch the metal all the way on the other side. You can wait for a year of propane torching before you touch it if you like. You telling me you expect the far side to be just as hot as the point where the propane is firing?”
No, because real objects are not perfect conductors.
“Not in the least. I now have a cuboid with many kilometres of side face, and still a one square metre face perpendicular to the sun – the longest, narrowest box you ever saw.
You seriously expect that if the energy that 1 square metre face is getting were distributed over kilometres of surface that is only shedding energy but getting none, that it should be the same temperature all the way across the surface?
That seems pretty lunatic to me.”
Yes, if it was made of perfectly conducting material.
“Yes, if it was made of perfectly conducting material.”
It still couldn’t convert the energy received over one square metre to be the same per unit area over 100 square kilometres. That energy has to be distributed over a greater surface area.
You previously agreed with this. And now you are contradicting yourself.
Me: “A blackbody plate 1 metre square emitting 400 watts from one side has a temperature of 290K.
A blackbody plate 2 metre square emitting 400 watts from one side has a temperature of 244K.
Do you agree?”
You: “Agree, of course.”
You agreed that if you increase the surface area of the plate but keep the input constant, the temperature of the plate would decrease.
And thus, the emission rate per unit area would decrease.
That is EXACTLY what is happening with the cuboid. The energy being received is the same, but now you have a lot more surface area.
You are contradicting yourself here.
All our chat has been under the assumption of blackbodies and perfect conductors, so what is the substantive difference between the two propositions?
Or are you now retracting your agreement from 8 days ago? Are you going to put your understanding on this into probation as well?
In simple English:
400 W/m2 means:
For every square metre of surface area, 400 watts is being irradiated / emitted
Let’s have a cube with 6 sides of one metre square area each
One side is illuminated at 400 watts
If the other 6 sides emit at 400 watts
Then the cube is emitting a total of 2400 watts
But only receiving 400 watts
uh oh
barry, your many km long cuboid receiving 1,360 W/m^2 on the end square meter face is the perfect theoretical debunking of the “split according to surface area” hypothesis. According to that hypothesis, its temperature would be near 0 K! Yet we know that to be a nonsense, because it is receiving 1,360 W/m^2 at one end, and it’s a perfect conductor, so there’s no reason for that energy not to conduct along the length of the cuboid like the classic examples of conduction along e.g. a long, thin rod. It becomes more of a conduction question than a radiation question…and with infinite thermal conductivity to play with, you’ve shot yourself in the foot there. It can’t have a temperature of near 0 K. If it was touching an object at 394 K, presumably you would agree that (being a perfect conductor) it would be 394 K. Separate it from the object, by even a millimetre, and it drops to near 0 K? Just not plausible, I’m afraid.
“According to that hypothesis, its temperature would be near 0 K!”
Correct. Your mistake is to think that the temperature would be evenly distributed when the energy is evenly distributed. Energy is conserved, temperature is not.
In simple English:
400 W/m2 means:
For every square metre of surface area, 400 watts is being irradiated / emitted
Let’s have a cube with 6 sides of one metre square area each
One side is irradiated at 400 watts
6 sides emit at 400 watts
Then the cube is emitting a total of 2400 watts
But only receiving 400 watts
Your hypothesis fails the 1st Law.
Tell me why the argument here is wrong.
I just did…
…and no, I am not “conserving temperature”. I’m simply acknowledging that with infinite thermal conductivity, there is no reason for the many km long cuboid not to “warm through” from the heated end. That’s conduction, barry, not radiation.
1) Do you agree that if the long cuboid was touching another object at 394 K, it would itself warm through to 394 K? 2) If yes, how could you possibly think it would plummet in temperature to nearly 0 K just on being separated from the 394 K object by 1mm?
1) Cube is receiving 400 watts
2) Cube is radiating 2400 watts (according to your hypothesis)
3) This violates conservation of energy
Where is the fault in this analysis?
The fault is not to consider that the cube “warms through”. Now, please answer my questions.
“the cube ‘warms through’ ”
And then emits 6 times the amount of energy it receives, according to to you. Receives 400 watts, emits 2400 watts.
You haven’t dealt with this, DREMT. Not one word.
I’ll answer your questions when you finally deal with this violation of the 1st Law of Thermo.
On the ropes, barry returns to simply repeating the logic of the “split according to surface area” hypothesis, which I’ve already acknowledged multiple times appears “bulletproof”, and demanding that I say some magic words that are going to help him move past it. barry, I don’t know what to say to you other than what I’ve said already. If you still can’t accept it, that’s fine, but you are left with the troubling scenario of the many km long cuboid that you brought up yourself, and which seems to be very problematic for your own position.
When looking at conduction problems, e.g. conduction of heat along a long, thin rod, why does the surface area of the outside of the rod not enter into any of the calculations, barry? The equation for heat flow by conduction only includes the cross-sectional area of the object. Not the surface area.
“And then emits 6 times the amount of energy it receives, according to to you. Receives 400 watts, emits 2400 watts.
You havent dealt with this, DREMT. Not one word.”
” I would like to see more empirical results.”
Just a reminder that Conservation of Energy is probably the most well-tested Law of Physics that there is.
It IS the epitome of an empirical result.
Barry, you are infinitely patient.
DREMT sez:
“On the ropes, barry returns to simply repeating the logic of the split according to surface area hypothesis, which Ive already acknowledged multiple times appears bulletproof”
If its ‘bulletproof’ then why does he keep insisting that it could be violated?
Then he blames you for reminding him that this contradiction is simply not logical.
DREMT, your cube is receiving 400 watts and emitting 2400 watts.
That is the consequence of having every side emit the same amount of energy received by the metre square side facing the sun. Every face emitting 400 watts and the surface area is 6 metres square. 6 X 400 = 2400.
“barry returns to simply repeating the logic of the ‘split according to surface area’ hypothesis”
I’m not talking about splitting anything. I am talking about YOUR model of energy flow and pointing out the glaring flaw in it.
You don’t have an answer to this clear violation of conservation of energy. That’s why you are talking about anything BUT this problem.
Ah, I see Nate responded again. I don’t read any of his comments, but I can just imagine the things he’s saying. Without having a single answer for any of the points I’ve raised, I bet he’s just continuously repeating the 1LoT mantra. Either that, or just making snide little remarks. Nothing constructive, that’s for sure.
“Without having a single answer for any of the points Ive raised”
If DREMT stopped pretending that he doesnt read my posts, he would have learned that I provided an answer for this:
” I would like to see more empirical results.”
I had pointed out that Conservation of Energy is a well tested empirical result.
Barry, you tried your best. But there is simply no cure for his illogical thinking.
Well, that’s that. The arguments have all been made. Readers will decide who is correct, in their opinion. No need to continue any further.
This reader is laughing at DREMT but still, just in case, would like to acquire one of the DREMT ACME model 400 W/m^2 powered “warms through” cubes continuously emitting 2400 W/m^2 off Amazon for the upcoming NH winter. DREMT, what is the UPC?
Fine, I’ll go with 244 K…244 K in future. Less pushback.
Sure DREMT, the laughs will just keep on coming.
Ball4 messed up (nobody’s arguing it emits 2,400 W/m^2), but what the hell. I’m bored of this discussion now.
” Im bored of this discussion now.”
Understandable. No one is buying the crap you are selling.
…I will assume that all those in disagreement with me will be correcting the physics texts on conduction. When they see the long, thin rod being heated from one end, they will immediately point out that due to the issues with the surface area involved, the rod will not warm beyond an extremely low temperature.
Bored DREMT 9:52 am, that situation would be consistent with Eli’s long ago correct 1LOT,2LOT GPE solution so there is no need to update physics texts on conductive energy transfer. Good to see you have now abandoned your 244K…244K GPE solution which is inconsistent with your 9:52 am comment.
I have abandoned nothing. Stop responding to me.
“When they see the long, thin rod being heated from one end”
Thinking that you will find some geometry that has the object emitting more energy than it receives is a pipe-dream.
People have endlessly tried to get around energy conservation..and have yet to succeed.
…have abandoned nothing. Stop responding to me.
… having abandoned nothing but DREMT’s original 244K…244K GPE solution as DREMT commented at 9:52 am which was a good physics move by DREMT as there is no hope for that solution to be correct since not in accord with 2LOT. See Eli’s workout for the correct solution in accord with 1LOT and 2LOT.
Nuisance, begone.
Stop confusing energy with heat.
I’m not, barry.
7:01am wrongly: “radiative heat transfer”
Yes, DREMT’s writing really is confusing energy with heat. “Back-radiation” and forward radiation are NOT heat so DREMT’s conclusion is physically unsupported.
There exists radiative, conductive, and convective energy transfer.
7:01 am: It’s easy to find a textbook example showing the radiative energy transfer equation meaning the heated plate must warm due 1LOT as Eli showed long ago consistent with 2LOT increasing universe entropy.
There’s an example in here, see section 18 of Volume 1:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543534
Ball4 turns up to lie, as usual.
Since Gaslighting Graham for once made an effort:
18. Temperature, Heat, and the First Law of Thermodynamics – 514
His turn.
Yes, that’s the first page of the section, Little Willy. What page is this example on, that Ball4 claims exists?
Gaslighting Graham uses the most common contrarian technique: deny and wait for otters to spoonfeed you.
Got it.
OK, well I skimmed through and couldn’t see anything obvious. So I’m not sure what to say. Seems like Ball4 is lying.
Must suck to be Gaslighting Graham.
Perhaps he should reread what B4 wrote.
I found mention of the radiative heat transfer equation between an object and its surroundings. No example of what I’m looking for, though. Remember, I’m looking for:
"one of your textbooks that shows a heated plate being warmed as a result of “back-radiation” from a passive plate."
So…I need to see: heat source, heated plate, and a passive plate. "Back-radiation" from the passive plate warming the heated plate. Not seeing anything with that, so far.
Let’s see if Gaslighting Graham will get how abusive he is becoming by mirroring it –
I read the exchange he had with B4, and I don’t see where he shows he understood what B4 was saying.
If Ball4 was saying that he doesn’t have the example I’m looking for, then I agree. I guess he said, "it’s easy to find a textbook example showing the radiative energy transfer equation meaning the heated plate must warm due 1LOT".
So you could read it as: all he was saying was you can find an example involving the radiative [heat] transfer equation.
But, that’s not what I asked for…and it’s also not something I dispute. Of course you can find examples involving the RHTE in textbooks. I’m looking for something like the Green Plate Effect, though. You won’t find that in textbooks.
Which is my point.
Gaslighting Graham is using an if-by-whiskey.
Got it.
You won’t find that in textbooks… if you never look.
I looked. The skunk cabbage example fails, obviously.
So here’s the standoff so far:
[BARRY] Heat will always flow from a hotter object to a colder one, while the exchange of radiation (which is not heat) goes both ways. This is in every standard textbook on radiative transfer, and even Clausius mentioned it in his treatise on the 2nd Law.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] barry, you can look at it any way you want. Just be aware that the blue plate will not warm as a result of adding the green plate. If you think it will, find one of your textbooks that shows a heated plate being warmed as a result of back-radiation from a passive plate.
Notice how the topic shifts between the two replies.
So here we are, yet again in another of Gaslighting Graham’s goose chase, just because he has to read the solution to a very specific case. One Eli had to construct himself, no less.
Had he any willingness to learn physics, he’d have settled this over Zoom with Mighty Tim a long time ago.
So here we are, with Little Willy inserting himself into another discussion involving me, due to his obsession.
Yes 11:23 am the skunk cabbage example does fail DREMT’s position on the GPE, obviously since Eli used the 1LOT correctly consistent with the 2LOT.
The example was not what I asked for.
“find one of your textbooks that shows a heated plate being warmed as a result of back-radiation from a passive plate”
… so is an easily found example that meets all those & shows DREMT is wrong at equilibrium temperatures like Eli did long ago.
So here we are. Gaslighting Graham once again fleeing away from Mighty Tim.
Here’s what I said to barry:
"barry, you can look at it any way you want. Just be aware that the blue plate will not warm as a result of adding the green plate.
If you think it will, find one of your textbooks that shows a heated plate being warmed as a result of “back-radiation” from a passive plate. You guys always extrapolate from the radiative heat transfer equation and assume that it means the heated plate must warm. You just can’t seem to find a textbook example showing that."
What has ensued today has completely proved my point. Tim’s comment in particular! They just find the radiative heat transfer equation, in a textbook, and any example that comes with it (however inappropriate to the Green Plate Effect it may be) and just extrapolate from that. You cannot find an example like the GPE in a textbook. As much as they’re desperate to try and claim that it’s textbook physics, they can’t actually demonstrate that. So they just take the RHTE, mumble about 1LoT, and then say, hey presto, there’s your GPE!
Here’s to what Gaslighting Graham is supposed to respond:
Gaslighting Graham is peddling Eli’s thought experiment here.
And Mighty Tim already spoonfed him above.
So here we are, Gaslighting Graham trying to find another way to break the exchange.
barry is always only one step away from mentioning the Green Plate Effect, Little Willy. I just cut to the chase. The real question is, and always has been, "does back-radiation warm"? All the chatter about two-way flows of radiation, heat only flowing one way…that’s just a warm-up.
In any case, I just wanted to make one brief, simple point…but as usual, that can’t be allowed. So, here we are. I predict the thread will only get longer.
Gaslighting Graham is one bait away from pulling Barry into his silly maze of traps.
Got it.
I’m desperate not to continue this discussion any further, but I’m sure barry, you, Ball4, Tim and others will bait and goad me into it, as always.
All Gaslighting Graham would need is to explain to Mighty Tim, via videochat, how a thermos works in the Sky Dragon crank universe.
Well after DREMT started us off this morning on this topic:
“Just be aware that the blue plate will not warm as a result of adding the green plate.”
Now he’s decided its not going too well..
“How vacuum flasks work
A vacuum flask is a bit like a super-insulated jug. Most versions have an inner chamber and an outer plastic or metal case separated by two layers of glass with a vacuum in between. The glass is usually lined with a reflective metal layer. Unbreakable flasks do away with the glass. Instead, they have two layers of stainless steel with a vacuum and a reflecting layer in between them. There’s also a tight, screw-down stopper on the top.
These few, simple features prevent virtually all heat transfer by either conduction, convection, or radiation. The vacuum prevents conduction. The tight stopper prevents air from entering or leaving the flask, so convection isn’t possible either. What about radiation? When infrared radiation tries to leave the hot liquid, the reflective lining of the inner chamber reflects it straight back in again. There’s virtually no way heat can escape from a vacuum flask and a hot drink stored inside will stay steaming hot for several hours.“
“The gap between the two vessels is partially evacuated of air, creating a partial-vacuum which reduces heat conduction or convection.”
So much the worse for Gaslighting Graham’s backconduction riddle!
“Back-conduction” was discussed in the scenario when the plates are pushed together, Little Willy. Boy, you’re not bright.
Gaslighting Graham distances himself from his own riddle.
Got it.
No, I fully embrace it. I was just correcting your comment.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Got it.
Everything I said to you was honest and correct.
Everything Gaslighting Graham says is irrelevant, unresponsive, and misleading at best.
Got it.
What I said to you was honest and correct, Little Willy.
Well after Gaslighting Graham started us off with:
“Just be aware that the blue plate will not warm as a result of adding the green plate.”
Now he’s decided its not going too well…
Got it.
It went great, thanks. All over now, though.
Got it.
Gaslighting Graham can have the last word.
His ego requires it.
If you say so, Little Willy.
Its the son stoopid
https://www.climatedepot.com/2023/10/05/new-study-by-20-climate-researchers-from-12-countries-finds-un-ipcc-ipcc-might-have-substantially-underestimated-the-role-of-the-sun-in-global-warming-published-in-journal-research-in-astronomy/
The Sun and the Little Ice age. Akasofu claimed the IPCC erred by not including rewarming from the LIA in their AGW propaganda.
What rewarming?
The LIA was part of the cooling trend towards the next glacial period which began 5000 years ago.
Without human intervention we would still be cooling.
Ent, is that belief supported by your cult’s belief that ice cubes can boil water?
Like your belief that passenger jets fly backward, you sure have a lot of strange beliefs, huh?
Entropic man
It’s years ago that I read the highly discredited Mann & alii paper (known as MBH98) and Amman/Wahl’s paper about temperature reconstructions of the last millennium.
Recently I found a few articles collected at the German University of Mainz, all focusing on more recent, deeper tree ring evaluation.
*
A press info of U Mainz dated 2012:
https://press.uni-mainz.de/climate-in-northern-europe-reconstructed-for-the-past-2000-years-cooling-trend-calculated-precisely-for-the-first-time/
Therein you read:
” An international team including scientists from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) has published a reconstruction of the climate in northern Europe over the last 2,000 years based on the information provided by tree-rings.
Professor Dr. Jan Esper’s group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC.
In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. “We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low,” says Esper. ”
Esper & alii’s article is behind paywall, but at least a nice picture contained in the article was visible on the net:
https://i.postimg.cc/CL4KVfqW/Climate-in-northern-Europe-reconstructed-for-the-past-2-000-years.png
*
Further, newer publications
Northern European summer temperature variations over the Common Era from integrated tree-ring density records
https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09climatology/files/2012/03/Esper_2014_JQS.pdf
*
Last millennium northern hemisphere summer temperatures from
tree rings: Part I: The long term context
https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09climatology/files/2012/03/Wilson_2016_QSR.pdf
*
Last millennium Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures from
tree rings: Part II, spatially resolved reconstructions
https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09climatology/files/2016/03/Anchukaitis_2017_QSR.pdf
*
Impressing jobs, to say the least.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
I agree with you about the cooling trend.
Temperatures stabilised around 10,000 years ago at 14.3 C and held for 5000 years. Over the 5000 years to 1850 the temperature then dropped to 13.8C.
We are in the end-Holocene cooling, a natural cooling trend interrupted by the Industrial Revolution and the artificial warming. Note that we are now at 15.55C, 175C on the right hand Y axis.
“highly discredited Mann & alii paper (known as MBH98) ”
The pattern described in MBH98 has been replicated many times using a variety of proxies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_(global_temperature)
Yes Ent, that’s how a cult behaves. Each member totally supports the other.
You can see that here. Not one of your cult has challenged your nonsense that passenger jets fly backward. Norman tried, but then he realized that meant the Moon was not spinning. So he quickly reversed himself — such a loyal cultist.
The issue 10:38 am is MBH98 replications used the same proxy, which if that one proxy is not used, the blade significantly diminishes or is eliminated altogether.
The problems for Clint R 11:08 am is youtube dot com has reliable videos of passenger jets flying backwards, our moon possesses inertial spin, and Dr. Spencer’s experiments where reality shows Clint R is wrong.
See Ent?
Ball4 would drink poison to support his cult.
I think he already did
I believe you, Eboy.
For you and your fellow Sky Dragon cranks reality is like a poison.
“Akasofu claimed the IPCC erred by not including rewarming from the LIA in their AGW propaganda.”
Bunkum.
Lord, the stories ‘skeptics’ tell themselves.
The IPCC discusses the mechanism for the LIA. Akasofu treated it like the climate was an elastic thing that rebounded, instead of examining mechanisms.
In later work he had a crack at describing what caused the LIA and ended up repeating the IPCC.
barry, please stop trolling.
Bindidon’s response to being asked to provide factual information –
“Flynnsons specialty is to distract, distort, obscure, misinterpret and misrepresent.”
He can’t even get my name right.
Oh well, maybe he believes he is wise and well respected.
Pity he can’t even describe the GHE.
Bindidog is all bark – no science
Copy/paste all pages from internet to this board, doesn’t understand the meaning of any of it
Aaaah. The little stalking dachshund is here again and spits out his subcutaneously aggressive nonsense.
Vas-y, mon p'tit teckel chéri. Mords-le aux mollets tant que tu peux, ça lui fera comprendre que c'est toi l'chef ici, hé hé.
Binny,
Congratulations!
You can spout nonsense in two languages! How about a description of the GHE in two languages? Too hard?
Okay, a description in one language will do.
[laughing at sauerkraut suffering from canine excrement obsession]
Every time Bindiclown struggles and cannot figure out to post something sensible he flips into spanish babbling
Bindiclown thinks he’s smart because he just posts links lmao. He also criticizes coolistas as if that were a thing.
Yesterday, I caught Norman in another of his attempts to pervert reality. He responded, as usual, with one of his meltdown rants. Everyone needs to see this — it’s what meltdown looks like:
Nothing will change your illogical thought process or your demeaning and empty posts (no science at all just your loud obnoxious opinions). You are deep in a cult and don’t see it or too drunk to care and are just a complete asshole who wants to stir up shit while in a drunken stupor. You certainly are not gifted in any scientific ability. You have zero understanding of science.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Seems fairly accurate.
That’s your future, tr0ll Nate. You get to end up just like Norman.
ClintR
Norman has described you well
Following in the footsteps of tr0ll Nate is NOT very bright, Ent.
We know Dragon cranks lost when they start insults and false accusations.
That’s why this is so much fun.
(And I notice Gaslighting Graham ran, as usual – double fun.)
I’ve learned everything I know about how not to behave in this website from you.
I believe you Ent. I accept reality, but you do not.
Where did the heat escape to?
https://i.ibb.co/N6tNggZ/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-10-06-135647.png
Gordon Robertson wrote: “Radiation theory as covered in many text books is simply wrong on this subject.”
I found a good textbook for you:
Physics for the Utterly Confused
Arkady, please stop trolling.
The utterly confused Gordon Robertson wrote: “An electron located at a specific orbital will only respond to a discrete EM frequency. See Dalton series for hydrogen.”
There is no widely recognized “Dalton Series” specifically associated with hydrogen. The concept of “Dalton Series” doesn’t have a well-established or widely accepted meaning in the context of hydrogen or atomic physics.
John Dalton was a pioneering chemist who introduced the atomic theory in the early 19th century, which laid the groundwork for understanding the composition of chemical elements and compounds. His work primarily focused on the relative weights of atoms and their combinations in chemical reactions, rather than on series or spectral properties of elements like hydrogen.
In his latest assault on the reality, Robertson doesn’t even have the class to post a reference to his utter rubbish.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
How does solar radiation work? Solar radiation is absorbed by the surface from which the troposphere is heated. In the stratosphere, energy comes from ultraviolet radiation with a wavelength of less than 242 nm (Chapman reaction). This is very evident above the 65th parallel. When polar night falls, the height of the troposphere drops to 6 km on average, and stratospheric winds rule the circulation in the upper troposphere. It is so strong and constant that it nullifies the influence of El Nino during the winter season.
It seems to some that Ozone is a greenhouse gas and that is why higher temperatures appear in the stratosphere. But this is not true. If that were the case we would have high temperatures in the tropopause in winter, because more ozone accumulates in the lower stratosphere during the winter season. In fact, ozone cools the surface because it absorbs UV radiation above 242 nm.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2022.png
On Earth, solar radiation works by mostly warming the tropical ocean- most of the sunlight that earth surface absorbs is absorbed by the transparent ocean surface which covers about 80% of tropical region.
Land surface absorb the energy of sunlight at the surface which isn’t transparent, and most energy of sunlight is warming the 10 ton per square meter atmosphere above- land doesn’t much it mostly is heated to transfer the energy to atmosphere which has a large thermal mass, and this large thermal mass retain the heat from the ground surface.
It should be noted the colder the air is, the more heat by convection
into the atmosphere. If air is warmed to around 40 C, the dry surface can reach about 70 C when the sun is near zenith, but if dry and air is cooler, the dry ground heat up to about 60 C when the sun is near zenith or it has to be somewhere around noon and in summer or in lower latitudes. The ground doesn’t absorb much sunlight and doesn’t keep the night time warm, rather it large mass of air which keeps the nights warmer.
If land is wet, it absorbs more sunlight, and transfer heat to atmosphere from evaporative heat transfers- and ground doesn’t get as hot if wet as compared dry- a lawn doesn’t get very hot as compared a dry sidewalk but a damp lawn would be transferring more heat to atmosphere. Or dry desert heats up quickly, and during night it can be quite cool, a forest doesn’t heat up as fast, but has warmer night.
Ocean surface don’t vary much during a day, they warm up or cool over weeks of time. And do not cool at night. And ocean cover 70% of entire Earth surface has much higher average temperature and control global average temperature.
Palmowski
It seems to ‘some’ that you eventually could have misunderstood this O3 thing.
The reason it is called a greenhouse gas may be due to the presence of a strong-looking absorp-tion/emission band at the beginning of the terrestrial atmospheric window:
https://i.postimg.cc/dtvr5D3N/O3-5-40-micron-sbaa.png
The same thing can be seen at an altitude of 50 km, only an order of magnitude weaker.
*
But what looks strong isn’t always so. A comparison with CO2 tells us clearly:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFU0veDw5zzFI9KfVGEVuRfdNtN_4I2V/view
CO2’s absorp-tion/emission intensity is shown here with 0.0025 i.e. 2.5e-3 cm^-1/cm at the surface, thus 10^5 higher than O3.
The utterly confused Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Show me one example in such a text book where they calculate heat transfers in both directions via radiation.”
The following is from: Engineering Introduction to Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer. 2nd edition by Yanus Cengel. McGraw-Hill. 2008
A,
Imaginary radiation which cannot be measured is a convenient fiction, sometimes useful for visualizing concepts which are not easily demonstrated.
About as silly as the imaginary multicolored objects which apparently show that merely cutting an object in two will cause it to increase in temperature.
Imaginary concepts are very useful in some cases. The square root of minus 1, for example. A mathematical impossibility, but without it, imaginary numbers (vitally important in physics, finance, mathematics etc.), would not be possible.
No, Arkady, hot soup does not get hotter by absorbing radiation from ice totally submerged in the soup. If you believe otherwise, you will be able to tell everyone where the photons emitted by the ice “go” (it’s totally surrounded by soup, remember).
Or you could just agree with Einstein, and refuse to accept the reality of quantum physics.
Reality doesnt care what either of you believe.
You have to assume Gordon has never read anything on radiative transfer, even after being quoted and linked to text just like the above many times.
But don’t worry, after having read none of it, he’ll be along again to tell us that the textbooks get it wrong.
That’s how fat his head is.
Come on barry, demonstrate your immense knowledge.
Tell everyone what happens to the radiation from ice when you totally immerse it in hot soup.
Refer to as many textbooks as you like. How hard can it be for a wondrously wise fellow like you?
Changing the subject again? It’s a bad habit.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543540
Come on barry, demonstrate your immense knowledge.
Tell everyone what happens to the radiation from ice when you totally immerse it in hot soup.
Refer to as many textbooks as you like. How hard can it be for a wondrously wise fellow like you?
Posting links which are no doubt irrelevant and pointless does not help you to appear intelligent. Trying to emulate the peabrained Willard is unlikely to help, either.
Can’t you answer a simple question about radiative physics? Colour me unsurprised!
barry…talking about fat heads, I just explained to you why radiation from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by a hotter body. You won’t find that info in textbooks you read because the authors are unaware of quantum theory and are stuck in the 19th century anachronism about heat being transferred body to body by heat rays.
Nonsense, Gordon.
Provide just one source saying that radiation from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by a warmer one.
You will not be able to. Because it is false.
Your nonsense about this being limited by quantum states of electrons is ridiculous. Electrons are not limited to 2 quantum states, and all that is needed to effect a higher energy state is for the molecule to absorb a photon of sufficient energy.
An electron can keep jumping into higher orbitals even if the energy received is lower than the energy of the whole molecule. All that is needed is enough energy of a specific wavelength to cause the discrete jumps to higher orbitals.
Most objects give off radiation over a very wide spectrum. You error is to imagine that an object at a certain temperature only gives off radiation at one frequency. The opposite is true, which is why all objects absorb radiation from all other objects.
And you will find that last concept in EVERY textbook on radiative physics.
You are thoroughly misinformed on this, and it seems to be self-inflicted.
barry, please stop trolling.
Heavy snowstorms are beginning in Scandinavia, and Arctic air will fall over the UK into Central Europe, bringing snowfall to the mountains.
If all the photons are the same and the matter receiving the radiation cannot tell what frequency and temperature emitted them, then photoelectric effect is still a mystery and Einstein has to return his Nobel prize.
No, it just shows Eben doesn’t understand photelectric effect.
No, it just shows that Ball4 has no clue, but likes making pointless unsupported assertions.
[laughing at Ball4’s misguided efforts to appear authoritative]
Einstein has an excuse, when he issued the photoelectric theory in 1905, Bohr had not yet found the relationship between the EM (photons) and electrons in the atoms of the mass emitting the photoelectric emissions. In fact, electrons had only been discovered in 1898.
Obviously, Ball4, Barry, and other alarmists are not yet aware of Bohr’s theory of 1913. That’s unfortunate because it was based on what Eben is trying to tell you about the discrete frequencies of EM emission and absorp0tion. It was the discrete frequencies emitted by the hydrogen atom that led Bohr to his discovery.
Nothing has changed to this day, photons have discrete frequencies while no photon has a spectrum of frequencies.
Objects have a spectrum of frequencies. And so the photons they emit are of a very broad range of frequencies.
This range of frequencies mostly overlaps the range of emission spectra from other objects of different temperatures, which is why warm objects can absorb radiation from cooler objects. The receiving surface doesn’t know what temperature the emitting surface is, it only absorbs photons that are of the right frequency, which all objects provide to all other objects.
Gases are different, in that the emission spectrum is much more discrete.
barry, please stop trolling.
“If all the photons are the same and the matter receiving the radiation cannot tell what frequency and temperature emitted them, then photoelectric effect is still a mystery and Einstein has to return his Nobel prize.”
Einstein correctly deduced that the frequency of light matters in the photelectric effect, not temperature.
Your are erroneously conflating frequency and temperature!
I’m trying to stay out of the Moon “debates” because I consider the issue settled. The cult can NOT provide a viable model of “orbital motion without spin”. They have NOTHING.
What is interesting about the issue is that it has no value to science. It does not matter if Moon is spinning in synch with its orbit, or if it’s not spinning. It matters not. Something that isn’t happening has no effect. Spacecraft landing on Moon are not affected in any way by something this is not happening.
So the only interest the cult has, is to protect their cult institutes. They can’t let it be known that their cult is wrong. Wouldn’t it look funny if the public knew that NASA was wrong about something so simple?
They will, someday….
The debate is settled, long ago, in favor of lunar inertial spin. To an observer on Earth like Clint R, no lunar spin is observed in the earthen accelerated frame.
Ball4,
Settle as many debates as you like. Not a single fact will be altered in the process.
The fact here is that one face of the Moon faces the Earth. Debate away – I hope you win the debate.
Tr0ll Clint R
1. ” The cult can NOT provide a viable model of ‘orbital motion without spin’. ”
All celestial bodies spin about their polar axis.
*
2. ” Spacecraft landing on Moon are not affected in any way by something this is not happening. ”
Thus, not only NASA but also ALL other institutions responsible for lunar missions are wrong, aren’t they?
Especially the poor, ignorant people who planned the Chinese Chang’e 5 mission and unnecessarily worried about the lunar spin.
Look below at how they utterly failed!
Orbit Design Elements of Chang’e 5 Mission
Wang & alii (2021)
https://spj.science.org/doi/10.34133/2021/9897105
*
(a) 4.1. Problem Statement
” Referring to point A in Figure 4, the intended landing site is close to the orbit plane when the lander begins the powered descent at descent point E, and the landing site will be in the descent trajectory plane when the lander lands, owing to the spin of the Moon. ”
*
(b) 4.2. Orbit Inclination Optimization
” … where φ = 43.11° is the specified latitude of the landing site in this study, ωm is the spin rate of the Moon, and tAB is the time that the landing site travels from point A to point B in Figure 4 (the lunar surface stay time of two days). Using the above formula, the orbit inclination is found to be i = 43.7°. ”
*
Similar documents can be found for USA’s Apollo, the Japanese Selene or the Indian Chandrayaan-3; and very certainly in Russian documents as well.
But… we all know on this blog: tr0lls like Clint R and his friends-in-den-ial are ALWAYS right, and hence the NASA, the Chinese, Japanese and Russian scientists and engineers had it ALL wrong.
*
Why did they not ask Clint R, Robertson and a few other geniuses, before planning their nonsense?
Sorry Bindi, but just saying you don’t have a model is NOT having a model.
You don’t like the current model of a ball-on-a-string, so you need to have something to compare. Right now, you’ve got NOTHING.
And, you’ve already learned taking stuff out-on-context, from sources you don’t understand, won’t work. You tried this with Newton’s work. You haven’t learned. That’s because you’re brain-dead.
I thought you said that the ball-on-a-string was not a model of the motion of Moon, Pupman.
Want me to fish it out?
Willard, JAQing off again?
Who cares what you “think” (I use the word loosely, of course)?
Fish away, laddie, fish away. At least it will be a change from playing with yourself.
[chortling at dim SkyDragon]
Mike Flynn,
I do. So do you.
Cheers.
Yes child willy, do all the fishing you want.
Just check with your mommy first.
Willard’s latest gibberish generation –
“Mike Flynn,
I do. So do you.
Cheers.”
Your wish is my command, Puppiteer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1426668
So where’s that Moon Dragon crank model of “motions of the Moon”?
Don’t need a model when you can describe the actual motion.
Child, this is WAY over your head. You can’t keep up.
The “model” under discussion is for “orbital motion without spin”. The correct model is a ball-on-a-string. Your cult needs such a viable model, or they’ve got NOTHING.
See if you can find a responsible adult to explain it to you.
> Dont need a model when you can describe the actual motion.
..________
,.-.~.,
..,.-..-.,
.,/..:,
,?\,
./..,}
../,:`^`..}
/,:/
..?..__..:`../
./__.(..~-,_,:`./
../(_.~,_..~,_..,:`.._/
.{.._$;_=,_.-,_.,.-~-,},.~;/.}
..((..*~_.=-._;,,./`./../
.\`~,~.,..`..}../
(.`=-,,.`(;_,,-
/.`~,`-.\/\
.\`~.*-,.|,./..\,_
,,_.}.>-._\..|..`=~-,
..`=~-,_\_`\,\.-,
.`=~-,,.\,.\.-,
..`:,,`\._-,
.`=-,.,%`>==
._\.._,-%.`\
..,<`.._|_,-&.`
Well, that was supposed to be a monospaced facepalm.
Let’s try this instead:
\_(ツ)_/
Willard, why do want to smack yourself in the face? Mental insufficiency, perhaps?
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Do you have other sadistic fantasies to share?
Willard, why do want to smack yourself in the face? Mental insufficiency, perhaps?
Just the one sadistic fantasy, then.
barry,
Do all SkyDragons fantasize about smacking themselves n the face?
Or is that what they threaten to do when others laugh at their belief in a GHE which none of them can describe?
No, Mike Flynn.
I don’t.
Do you?
Spin is the wrong choice of words. They are referring to a re-orientation of the near face of the Moon wrt the stars. They use the Greek symbol for lower-case omega which is close to our ‘w’, which is meant to represent angular velocity. However, we need to understand that the orbiters use the stars as a reference frame based on an on-board gyro. In that reference frame the Moon would “appear” to be rotating but not wrt the Earth.
When coming up with universal laws, the natural reference should be
a) the universe.
b) the earth.
He said ""appear" to be rotating", Tim. Reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
It happened exactly as I predicted :–)
Den-ial, vague guessings, pseudo-theories and… no scientific contradiction anywhere.
No need for any further discussion.
Dragon cranks keep pulling me in into silly word games and puzzles they always lose. Their three main tricks have been refuted more than a thousand times. It is time to call their bluff.
Moon Dragon cranks don’t have a numerical model of the motion of the Moon. Sky Dragon cranks don’t have any circulation model of the Earth’s climate. Heck, they don’t have an energy balance model of the Earth that works.
After all these years, they succeeded in citing one undergraduate textbook. And they still can’t work with it. When Mighty Tim shows up and demonstrate how the equation works, they flee and appear elsewhere in the thread to gaslight and mock.
So here it is, with Pupman crying about all the things he can’t use as support. All he got is silly riddles. Embarassing himself every day.
When will they grow up?
When will the Ice Age end?
When will we become a space faring civilization?
Will NASA delay putting first woman on the Moon?
When will the New Glenn rocket launch?
Google. wiki:
“The mission is targeting a launch window between 6 and 15 August 2024.”
Willard,
You seem obsessed with models, denying reality.
The IPCC uses at least 131 climate models, giving 131 different outputs, of which at least 130 must therefore be wrong. Which useless output do you support?
Your “energy balance” is pure nonsense. The Earth has cooled and continues to do so, overall. Man made heat is ephemeral, and is observed to affect thermometer temperatures in the vicinity.
As to “Dragon cranks”, what are they? A convenient faction of your imagination – nothing more, nothing less.
So go away, Silly Wee Willy. You obviously cannot find anyone to play with you, so you might as well go back to playing with yourself.
Off you go, now.
[sniggers at peabrain]
How is that relevant?
Why should I care?
What does that even mean?
Aren’t you the space freak here?
Google. Just Asking Questions:
“JAQing off is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one’s opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.”
I think I am the only space freak, here.
I think we could launch a lot more satellites to
measure the global air temperature.
But I am also like the idea ocean settlements.
And also making lakes on Mars [and living below their martian
water pressure].
It seems without much doubt, I am the only aquatic space freak, here.
And it seems have mentioned very cheap floating breakwaters and floating launch pads which I call, pipelaunchers?
It seems the only way to have freshwater lakes on the ocean is to stop the ocean waves. And an ocean settlement should have some lakes
in it.
Cool story, gb.
What does it have to do with my first comment?
Willard, JAQing off again?
Tut, tut.
Why do you want to know, or are you just trying to be disruptive?
Mike Flynn,
Misplaced your comment again?
Willard, JAQing off again?
Tut, tut.
Why do you want to know, or are you just trying to be disruptive?
Mike Flynn,
That’s not JAQing off.
Here’s JAQing off:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543837
What was your first comment? [that you want me to comment about
{or explain or whatever}]?
This:
“Dragon cranks keep pulling me in into silly word games and puzzles they always lose.”
I am not your mother.
???
> What was your first comment?
The comment to which you replied with your string of irrelevant questions. And no – I don’t want you to comment on it. I never did. I still don’t.
Willard,
Well, that has certainly cleared things up. Or not.
–The comment to which you replied with your string of irrelevant questions. And no I dont want you to comment on it. I never did. I still dont.–
Ok.
But it does seem, you want to talk to Mike Flynn.
{And I am not him, either.}
While I respond to Mike Flynn, gb, please don’t mistake that for any willingness to talk to him.
Willard is a strange lad, gb.
He claims that he wants to respond to Mike Flynn, but doesn’t want to talk to him.
Looks like some weird homosexual obsession with an imaginary boy friend who rejected him.
Strange.
Everybody understands that Swenson is Mike Flynn. His ongoing denial of it is just for comic relief.
gb…”I think I am the only space freak, here”.
***
There are a lot of space cadets here, we call them climate alarmists.
–a trainee astronaut.
an enthusiast for space travel, typically a young person.
informal
a person perceived as out of touch with reality, as though high on drugs.–
Does coffee, count?
I would define a space freak has someone struggling to understand why NASA isn’t on the Moon, yet.
I have some answers, but I am still struggling.
How could you think Mercury could have a ice cap, and at same time, not the moon??
“When Mighty Tim shows up and demonstrate how the equation works, they flee and appear elsewhere in the thread to gaslight and mock.“
Are you on drugs?
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Got it.
W,
Your gibberish generator is working, I see. Gaslighting Graham gaslights again?
Do you still claim that the GHE is “Not cooling. Slower cooling”?
Oooooh, sorry, that’s a question. You are opposed to anybody questioning your idiotic statements, aren’t you?
Accept reality. There is no GHE.
Mike Flynn,
Yes, Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
And so are you.
What are you braying about?
W,
Your gibberish generator is working, I see. Gaslighting Graham gaslights again?
Do you still claim that the GHE is “Not cooling. Slower cooling”?
Oooooh, sorry, thats a question. You are opposed to anybody questioning your idiotic statements, aren’t you?
Accept reality. There is no GHE.
Mike Flynn,
Still haven’t found the greenhouse effect?
So sad, too bad.
W,
Your gibberish generator is working, I see. Gaslighting Graham gaslights again?
Do you still claim that the GHE is “Not cooling. Slower cooling”?
Oooooh, sorry, that’s a question. You are opposed to anybody questioning your idiotic statements, arent you?
Accept reality. There is no GHE.
Mike Flynn,
Try copy-pasting your comment, but backwards.
I want to see if I will skip it as easily.
W,
Your gibberish generator is working, I see. Gaslighting Graham gaslights again?
Do you still claim that the GHE is “Not cooling. Slower cooling”?
Oooooh, sorry, that’s a question. You are opposed to anybody questioning your idiotic statements, aren’t you?
Accept reality. There is no GHE.
Mike Flynn,
JAQing off again?
Tut, tut.
Why do you want to know, or are you just trying to be disruptive?
W,
Your gibberish generator is working, I see. Gaslighting Graham gaslights again?
Do you still claim that the GHE is Not cooling. Slower cooling?
Oooooh, sorry, thats a question. You are opposed to anybody questioning your idiotic statements, arent you?
Accept reality. There is no GHE.
By the way, thanks for the flattery by imitation. I confess to accepting flattery from anyone – even those poor specimens of humanity such as yourself. Flatter away.
Mike Flynn,
Your copy-pasting machine is on fire.
W,
Your gibberish generator is working, I see. Gaslighting Graham gaslights again?
Do you still claim that the GHE is Not cooling. Slower cooling?
Oooooh, sorry, thats a question. You are opposed to anybody questioning your idiotic statements, arent you?
Accept reality. There is no GHE.
By the way, thanks for the flattery by imitation. I confess to accepting flattery from anyone even those poor specimens of humanity such as yourself. Flatter away.