Home/BlogSince the blogosphere continues to amplify Gavin Schmidt’s claim that the way John Christy and I plot temperature time series data is some form of “trickery”, I have come up with a way to demonstrate its superiority. Following a suggestion by Heritage Foundation chief statistician Kevin Dayaratna, I will do this using only climate model data, and not comparing the models to observations. That way, no one can claim I am displaying the data in such a way to make the models “look bad”.
The goal here is to plot multiple temperature time series on a single graph in such a way the their different rates of long-term warming (usually measured by linear warming trends) are best reflected by their placement on the graph, without hiding those differences.
A. Raw Temperatures
Let’s start with 32 CMIP6 climate model projections of global annual average surface air temperature for the period 1979 through 2100 (Plot A) and for which we have equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) estimates (I’ve omitted 2 of the 3 Canadian model simulations, which produce the most warming and are virtually the same).
Here, I am using the raw temperatures out of the models (not anomalies). As can be seen in Plot A, there are rather large biases between models which tend to obscure which models warm the most and which warm the least.
B. Temperature Anomalies Relative to the Full Period (1979-2100)
Next, if we plot the departures of each model’s temperature from the full-period (1979-2100) average, we see in Plot B that the discrepancies between models warming rates are divided between the first and second half of the record, with the warmest models by 2100 having the coolest temperature anomalies in 1979, and the coolest models in 2100 having the warmest temperatures in 1979. Clearly, this isn’t much of an improvement, especially if one wants to compare the models early in the record… right?
C. Temperature Anomalies Relative to the First 30 Years
The first level of real improvement we get is by plotting the temperatures relative to the average of the first part of the record, in this case I will use 1979-2008 (Plot C). This appears to be the method favored by Gavin Schmidt, and just looking at the graph might lead one to believe this is sufficient. (As we shall see, though, there is a way to quantify how well these plots convey information about the various models’ rates of warming.)
D. Temperature Departures from 1979
For purposes of demonstration (and since someone will ask anyway), let’s look at the graph when the model data are plotted as departures from the 1st year, 1979 (Plot D). This also looks pretty good, but if you think about it the trouble one could run into is that in one model there might be a warm El Nino going on in 1979, while in another model a cool La Nina might be occurring. Using just the first year (1979) as a “baseline” will then produce small model-dependent biases in all post-1979 years seen in Plot D. Nevertheless, Plots C and D “look” pretty good, right? Well, as I will soon show, there is a way to “score” them.
E. Temperature Departures from Linear Trends (relative to the trend Y-intercepts in 1979)
Finally, I show the method John Christy and I have been using for quite a few years now, which is to align the time series such that their linear trends all intersect in the first year, here 1979 (Plot E). I’ve previously discussed why this ‘seems’ the most logical method, but clearly not everyone is convinced.
Admittedly, Plots C, D, and E all look quite similar… so how to know which (if any) is best?
How the Models’ Temperature Metrics Compare to their Equilibrium Climate Sensitivities
What we want is a method of graphing where the model differences in long-term warming rates show up as early as possible in the record. For example, imagine you are looking at a specific year, say 1990… we want a way to display the model temperature differences in that year that have some relationship to the models’ long-term rates of warming.
Of course, each model already has a metric of how much warming it produces, through their diagnosed equilibrium (or effective) climate sensitivities, ECS. So, all we have to do is, in each separate year, correlate the model temperature metrics in Plots A, B, C, D, and E with the models’ ECS values (see plot, below).
When we do this ‘scoring’ we find that our method of plotting the data clearly has the highest correlations between temperature and ECS early in the record.
I hope this is sufficient evidence of the superiority of our way of plotting different time series when the intent is to reveal differences in long-term trends, rather than hide those differences.
Very nice, Dr. Roy. Clear and convincing.
w.
I just think that how well it appears to do “between temperature and ECS early in the record.” is not a useful measure, since the trends of the early part of the record have a huge error bar.
Beating raw temps takes talent.
Congratulations!
It’s interesting that the differences between models is almost as large as the global warming signal. Yet the models are supposedly based upon “known physics”
It’s also interesting that
https://www.random.org/dice/?num=2
does not always give sevens.
That deserves a post!
Willard, please stop trolling.
yep indeed willard, the ipcc is shooting dice. . .and losing.
Mike Flynn emulates Graham D. Warner‘s bad manners.
Models are programmed to scare people. The Russian INM may be one exception. That anyone thinks they are actually trying to make accurate predictions makes me laugh. In 50 years they have become less accurate (predicting even more warming) … and the least inaccurate INM model gets almost no attention.
I call them climate confuser games because they predict CAGW, which has never happened before, so there are no CAGW data. And without CAGW data, there is no CAGW science. These games are just climate astrology with the intended purpose of climate scaremongering.
While this article is excellent, writing it gives some credibility to the Spencer naysayers, who do not deserve any attention.
Why do Climate Howler Global Whiners rarely debate Climate Realists?
Not because they will lose the debate — they predict CAGW far in the future and we’d have to wait 50 to 100 years to prove those prediction wrong.
Leftists refuse to debate because a willingness to debate creates the impression that the opposition is worthy of a debate. Better to dismiss the opposition as a science denier and refuse to “lower” yourself to their level. You can not lose that “debate”
I created the name Climate Confuser Games in the late 1990s. And Nut Zero a few years ago
This week I invented a new name for an infamous chart, and the controversy over it since 1998:
The Mann Fraudulent Hockey Stink Chart
and the resulting Tree Ring Circus
Contrarians are programmed to say But CAGW come what may:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
They hear the word model, they think of CAGW. They think of the favorite Mike, then they console themselves in poetry. Which might itself be a consolation for having missed one of the greatest bull run in the history of markets. Not that their market timing amounts to stock picking, mind you.
Make sure to subscribe to their newsletter for more of their angry logorrhoea.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Do you have anything intellectual to share other than your normal narrow-minded simplicity, stereotypes, name-calling, insults, and non-science commentary. Have you noticed that there is a rather notorious public figure who also likes to use pet names for people? Hmmmm
When you’ll hit something else than silly Climateball Bingo squares, TS, we’ll see.
So far you’re into irony, grandstanding, and snobbery.
After reading the link, I am confident no pne knpws what you are talking about. including you
Climate change means predictions of CAGW
Not AGW — AGW is harmless
CAGW — CAGW is imaginary
After reading your spam, I’m quite confident that Logic Greenie hits the central Bingo Square every time:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
Besides making Monkey Man sad, it should go without saying.
Richard Greene wrote:
“Why do Climate Howler Global Whiners rarely debate Climate Realists?
Not because they will lose the debate – they predict CAGW far in the future and we’d have to wait 50 to 100 years to prove those prediction wrong.”
Seems true enough. The early 20th century warming period had the same slope as the late 20th century into the 21st century warming period. No additional effect from the order of magnitude increase in fossil fuel burning. As Dr. Syun Akasofu so aptly claimed: To understand anthropogenic warming one must first understand natural warming.
“Seems true enough.”
Fact check: https://ibb.co/tbd70kj
It’s possible that the post-Pause period could just be a transient event. The ongoing temperature spike since last July is likely transient.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2024
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from/to/plot/rss
The only climate prediction in world history worth taking seriously is my own, from 1997
“The climate will get warmer,
unless it gets colder.”
I still prefer:
https://el2017.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-economic-logic-stock-market-timing.html
UAH’s own TLT data here, since John Christie’s Feb 2001 pronouncement that future cooling was as likely as future warming: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001.07/plot/uah6/from:2001.07/trend
TheFinalNail is a monkey.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1618861
Monkey Man is a Climateball grasshopper:
https://www.freedomworks.org/press/testimony-of-john-r-christy-before-the-senate-comm/
Ken Rice,
What are you attempting to prove with John Christy’s past testimony? Is he supposed to be able to predict the future trajectory of the satellite measurements with 100% accuracy?
Monkey Man is too cool for school:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-3860057
Finding short-term Paws. Now that’s definitely not curve-fitting!
Curve-fitting, in that context, refers to finding a mathematical equation that attempts to best represent the data points. That’s why I said arguing otherwise relies on a model that is THOUGHT (strong emphasis on thought; that does not equate to real-world representation) to describe the data well; it typically also involves adjusting the parameters to minimize the difference between observed and predicted valuesthat’s why it’s ridiculous. That doesn’t contradict what I said here; I’m not sure why you believe that to be the case. If CO2 is constantly rising while there are decades of temperature flattening, then that demonstrates no dominant physical relationship with CO2.
“Curve-fitting, in that context, refers to finding a mathematical equation that attempts to best represent the data points.”
lol
Ok.
Willard
You might think I’m talking about the sex of angels, but I’m not.
When you compare RSS 4.0 to UAH 6.0 in the LT without taking into account that RSS’ reference period still is 1979-1998 but UAH’s is in between 1991-2020, you obtain indeed this:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1979/to:2024/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2024
But by comparing both series wrt the same period, you then obtain this:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1979/to:2024/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2024/offset:-0.357
(0.357 being the average of all RSS anomalies during UAH’s reference period.)
*
This is, imho, something quite different: while the first chart gives the impression that RSS departs from UAH from the very beginning, the second chart shows that UAH’s anomalies start higher and end lower; and above all, they end at nearly the same level (difference: 0.06, RSS being even the lower one).
You see that when clicking on ‘Raw data’.
” Curve-fitting, in that context, refers to finding a mathematical equation that attempts to best represent the data points. ”
*
Mathematician Gergonne extended Gauss’ idea of a linear fit based on a minimal least squares sum
y = a*x + b
up to polynomial fits of any order
y = a1*x^n + a2*x^n-1 + … + an*x +b
For example
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gp5KQOo4w13Gax8z_YKi6uyZ-EHLeImp/view
Walter,
To do curve fitting properly, one has o understand the noise level and its typical time scale, otherwise one is fitting noise.
So ENSO can be considered to be a noise ontop of any climate change signal. And it has a time scale of 1-5 y.
So attempting to fit the data over a period of 20 y or less will give results with large trend error unduly influenced by the particular ENSO noise history.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner is six days too late!
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
What does it look like when you start the plot in 1850?
Why do you ask? Just demonstrating diversionary silliness?
Why do you write? Just demonstrating dementia?
The most obvious effect is that none of the graphs show anything that could be considered a genuine “consensus”. They all show upward movement, but the difference becomes increasingly more spread out with time.
[TS] The most obvious effect is that none of the graphs show anything that could be considered a genuine “consensus”.
[ALSO TS] They all show upward movement
I do not think you are a good representative for those who are pushing the idea of a consensus in the climate models. Even the Russian model shows warming. The problem involves something called the slope of the line. You might want to investigate that concept. The slope depicts the rate of warming, and that is important. It is the slope and therefore the prediction of future warming where the models do not agree, and by a very substantial amount.
> I do not think
That is a given. You still must do the reading.
The consensus is on the fact that the rise is virtually certain (the GW in AGW) and that it is for the most part induced by the human contributions (the A in AGW). It has nothing to do with GCMs ensembles.
It is surprising that you still commit blunders that we expect from a Climateball rookie.
> I do not think
That’s a given. You still must do the reading.
The consensus is on the facts that the rise is virtually certain (the GW in AGW) and the this rise has been first and foremost caused by humans (the A in AGW). It has nothing to do with GCMs.
So RTFR. This blunder is representative of a Climateball rookie. That being said, points must be granted to the “yeah, but my strawman is more accurate” defense deserves style points.
> points must be granted to the “yeah, but my strawman is more accurate” defense deserves style points.
Scratch the first part.
I just hate how pressing Tab and Enter activate the submit comment in WP.
Wiltard,
You’ve created one of the most comprehensive propaganda sites on the Web. How much do you get paid for that? I don’t see where you address Berry’s work.
Wiltard,
If you believe in AGW why aren’t you over in Asia spreading the message there?
Troglodyte,
You are too kind. My compendium of contrarian talking points certainly contains the main ingredients of the propaganda from usual reactionary forces. But it is far from being comprehensive!
A work in progress. A work on regress. Your pick.
Wiltard,
I am impressed. Click on links and it’s like a bottomless pit of propaganda. It must be a full-time job. Who pays you to do all that?
Not a bottomless pit, Troglodyte.
Ed is at the bottom of it.
Willard says:
”It has nothing to do with GCMs.”
You are right. Anybody who doesn’t know that doesn’t know how things work on the Hill.
Ed Berry poops on your propaganda that this rise is first and foremost caused by humans. He uses math. A in AGW has been falsified.
You should not be proud of seeing your daddy defecate in public, Troglodyte.
Real scientists have good diapers for him, e.g.:
https://www.nature.com/articles/321058a0
There are a lot of assumptions in your references Wiltard. Is that science? I didn’t think there was any place for assumptions in science.
Wiltard,
Berry doesn’t make any assumptions. He presents an hypothesis, shows evidence for his hypothesis, then challenges you to falsify it.
More diapers, Troglodyte?
Here you go:
https://climatepositions.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/n8._Bolin___Eriksson__1958corrected.pdf
Cheers.
Wiltard,
More assumptions and red herrings. Ed Berry poops on your paper. Wiltard, are you the Devil? I think you might be the Devil. YOu act like the Devil.
For those who are paying attention, Willard is attempting to dodge the question of consensus because it is not defensible. The models used for comparison are published and available for analysis. They provide a wide range of results and do not form a consensus. Period. No amount of spin or diversion can change the basic facts.
Making reference to a humorous website designed to influence children is another step in a losing strategy to influence adults who might be paying attention.
The issue concerning the various causes of warming, including the current mysterious surge, is an entirely different subject from the obvious lack of consensus in the models. Since the modeling is done by competent scientists, they represent strong proof that cause and effect are very difficult to determine in the real atmosphere with so many different thermodynamic and heat transfer effects.
I will translate that nonsense. The consensus on AGW has nothing to do with GCM outputs. TS picks the meaning of “but consensus” he likes, and then criticize people like me when caught pants down.
The trend should be his friend. That’s what all the lines show. But no, that’s not enough for his contrarian ego.
A consensus is pointless in science, isn’t it? You can have 99.99 percent consensus but it only takes one to blow it up.
Troglodyte’s pontifications about science aren’t science.
I believe in quality over quantity. I am content with my statements here. There is no need to correct or add anything. Some people prefer to ramble on continuously with endless, irrelevant, and off-topic comments. I prefer to make my point and then move on.
As long as TS is happy with his Very Serious comments, that’s what counts.
Meanwhile, the IPCC has moved on a long while ago:
https://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/gcm_guide.html
Others might wish to cling to the idea that GCMs are meant to be pocket calculators, always giving the same answer.
Wiltard,
The Devil doesn’t believe in truth but will use truth or not to further his means. You never know when the Devil is being truthful, or not. You must be the Devil.
The Devil is in the details, Troglodyte, and you’re not a detail-oriented troglodyte:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLO2-_emvDY
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner has a thing for necromancy.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
“When we do this scoring we find that our method of plotting the data clearly has the highest correlations between temperature and ECS…”
Your chief statistician can tell you that when you plot two quantities that are rising you always get a high correlation coefficient by virtue of them being autocorrelated.
Also, the models are clearly skillful at generating emergent properties, such as ENSO cycles, and it isn’t clear if you’re accounting for those or not.
To the supporters of these models, what happens when A M O C slows or stops? Do models capture that feedback? I bring it up because this crisis is dominating the current media cycle.
New paper: https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/sciadv.adk1189
Thanks for that. The models are missing first order variables. The one I am most familiar with is the ceiling to global WARMING from GHG that are almost certainly present within the cold earth ocean circulation pattern (AMOC and NADW) that emerged when the Central American Isthmus closed.
Since all the models have a pretty clear upward curve, have you considered using a quadratic fit rather than a linear fit to match at the start? My intuition tells me that might get an even higher score for.
Thermometers are getting hotter? Obviously more heat around.
Burning stuff creates heat. Using energy creates heat. Bouncing a ball heats both you, the ball, the atmosphere, and the Earth itself.
As does rubbing your hands together.
More people, more heat. Not rocket science.
All what you said is just a transfer of energy.
Buzz,
Im not sure what your point is.
Of course, part of the man-made heat makes thermometers hotter before it escapes to space.
Saying “All what you said is just a transfer of energy.” makes you look like the usual GHE cultist who believes that CO2 creates heat!
How silly would that be? You aren’t that silly, are you?
Mike Flynn,
The point is that you stated irrelevant truisms.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Flynnson, please stop DREMTing.
Willard put it best.
“Willard put it best.”
Buzz, please stop trolling.
Science is quantitative. It requires numbers.
“Burning stuff creates heat”
That ain’t science.
Nate,
If you don’t want to accept reality, you could always claim that CO2 makes thermometers hotter.
Nate,
Do you mean like those Revelle Factor numbers? Can you demonstrate how those Revelle Factor numbers falsify Berry’s math?
Stephen. No thanks. We have been over this several times. I provided you articles. Explained them. You dont bother to read them. You have shown no interest in learning.
nate is such a nanny. yes he goes over them and extrapolates to what he wants to believe. he gets zero love from dr. revelle.
And ditto, Bill, who demands science be spoon fed to him before he knee-jerk rejects it.
” Burning stuff creates heat. ”
Yeah.
” According to the data from the International Energy Agency, the total primary energy supply was 606 EJ [exajoules] in 2019. The share from non-renewable sources (excluding the non-energy use of oil) was 79.4%, i.e. 481 EJ. It corresponds to a radiative forcing of 0.030 W m-2. ”
That’s about 0.01 % of Earth’s emitted infrared radiation (~ 230 W m-2).
Binny,
As Fourier said, during the night the surface loses all of the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.
Banging on about percentages is just irrelevant. The campfire preventing you from freezing to death at night is providing very much less heat than the Sun. Completely irrelevant, if survival is your main goal.
Given that the Earth’s surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and that some thermometers are getting hotter, what are you proposing as the reason?
I put it down to additional heat.
What’s your suggestion?
Global climate doesn’t change much but most of the change is related to what is called the Milankovitch cycles- or other long periods of times there are changes in how Earth orbits the sun. And dominate factor in Earth’s climate is related to Earth’s ocean, so these changes in Earth orbit are largely changes oceanic circulation and heating.
We living in an Ice Age solely due to geological changes {ie Plate tectonics altering the Earth’s surface} and such changes alter the degree and location in which the ocean surface warms the surface temperature of the planet.
Our current surface has two large ice sheets and a lot area glaciers and ice. And about 1/3 land surface being deserts. The ice sheets and glaciers are roughly deserts [or wastelands} but they are not counted as deserts.
Or Earth has a lot land which isn’t really habitable or at least hard to live in, and with few living there- and has been poorly explored.
Or Earth has been quite dry and cold for millions of years, with brief periods which a bit less dry and cold, which as said are related to the Milankovitch cycles. And next time Earth will return such warmer periods is about 100,000 years from now.
In other news, a well known person, who I will not name except to state that they are not only very professional, but a nice and kind person as well, had something to celebrate.
Moving on, there is a rather ironic graph that used to appear on the NASA GISS web site. It showed three plots all on very different scales with none starting at zero. It showed surface temperature of the earth, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. and solar output. The point was that while temperature is going up, solar output is going down, so there is nothing other than increasing CO2 that can explain the rise in temperature. The humorous part is that it looked like the kind of thing you would see in a TV commercial. The scale for the reduction in solar output was expanded so much that it amounted to decrease of about 0.04%. Would that be considered “trickery”?
As I showed on the other thread, we simply cannot say that “there is nothing other than increasing CO2 that can explain the rise in temperature”. It’s not just NASA, of course.
A graph of ocean heat content vs mid ocean seismic activity from Dr Arthur Viterito fits together extremely well. The correlation between mid ocean seismic activity and heat content is 0.89, and the coefficient of determination (the correlation squared) is .794. What that means is that the mid ocean seismic activity explains almost 80% of the variation in the ocean heat content. According to the regression model, the odds that this high of a correlation occurring by chance is .00000000000000104%.
https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1666016258683285504/photo/2
Buzz,
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. Unless you can suggest some reason for a sudden increase in heat moving from the interior to the surface over the last few hundred years, it won’t explain increased thermometer temperatures in that time.
Can you suggest such a reason? One that can be supported with a few facts.
That makes no sense, Swenson. You do know there are CYCLES, right? So I’m not saying there has been an increase in heat…I’m saying that THIS CYCLE (seismic cycle) is giving us warmer atmospheric temps…that the warming we are seeing is as a result of increased seismic activity…which then goes quieter for a period…in cycles.
Seismic activity seems to be correlated with solar activity. Strong eruptions on the Sun are followed by strong earthquakes. Solar activity currently remains quite high. This is probably the result of magnetic waves caused by the solar wind.
Interesting!
The same people who use to reply with the typical ‘Correlation is not causation’ seem to suddenly think the inverse whenever it fits their narrative.
And the very best of all that is that Mr Viterito wasn’t only able to show a correlation between ocean seismic activity and ocean heat content, no no.
He even showed a similar correlation between ocean seismic activity and… yes: global temperatures, no less:
https://i.postimg.cc/KcnNKp7C/Screenshot-Viterito-2019-Seismic-Activity-vs-Global-Warming.png
That’s really strong, isn’t it?
Source
http://tinyurl.com/Viterito-2019
Thanks for that – didn’t know about that graph. Astoundingly close, isn’t it? Too close for reasonable chance? I think so.
Buzz
Had the graph been made by a Warmista, the Coolistas would cry unisono:
” Correlation is not causation! ”
But Viterito is a Coolista, so he’s allowed to survive his own nonsense.
” Would that be considered ‘trickery’? ”
YES!
In 9 days, winter will return to Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/tCt7nGc/gfs-z100-nh-f216.png
Bookmarked for 2024, Feb 20:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240220&daytime=night&iid=euro
The NAO is falling again.
https://i.ibb.co/9NT85Pr/Wthr-Prec-NAO-LA-EN-20240210.png
The Pacific will now see an intense EL Nio, which means more rainfall in California and high temperatures in eastern Australia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=global2×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
” The Pacific will now see an intense EL Nio… ”
Ooops?! I though La Nina would comme soon soon soon!
No
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
The current extent of sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/ctMrwRz/r00-Northern-Hemisphere-ts-4km.png
https://i.ibb.co/9qG9LFm/r07-Greenland-Sea-ts-4km.png
Joe Bastardi says 2024 will be a very strong hurricane year…for a change.
Not because of El Nino, which may extend into September. He see probably for the temperature of the Atlantic ocean. Since solar activity will eventually decrease, hurricanes on land may be fewer, with a larger pool of precipitation.
Are the raw data plotted in Fig. A readily available? It might be
interesting, for example, to analyze their power spectra as an alternative to algebraic anomalies.
Within three days, the temperature drop will cover almost the entire United States.
https://i.ibb.co/QfHpCZB/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f072.png
We’ve experienced a pretty mild winter in Northern UT. It’s been very pleasant, with not much snow, and I can walk outside without getting severe frostbite.
The Warmists present numerous models, yet only a few are close. The average of all their models is too high. UAH documents the natural warming, which is below the average of the Warmist models. The cult fervently cling to their models.
We got a chance to see some real “forcings” this last year with both El Niño and HTE. The combination of the two natural forcings was clearly indicated by UAH. Now, we get to watch as the natural forcings dissipate. Earth will easily shake off the forcings.
The point the cult misses is the models are wrong, because their beliefs are wrong. They falsely believe CO2 can warm the surface, and that false belief is built into their models.
That ain’t science.
Yep. Y=mx+b monkeys will never understand the intricate dynamics of the climate. They think the climate follows the slope of their equations on their Excel sheets, even despite the fact that the climate itself is non-linear.
“Y=mx+b monkeys”
Monkey Man is becoming cute!
And in response to Puffman to boot!
Will he turn into a Sky Dragon crank?
Tune in for more Climateball showboating!
Willard,
What is your scientific counterargument to what I said? I’m sure you have the capability to offer a well-informed response without resorting to attempts to belittle others.
Monkey Man,
What is the scientific argument that you made?
lol
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard,
My argument is that a linear fit lacks the precision needed for complex, non-linear phenomena. Do you disagree and think a linear fit would be useful in a sinusoidal time series? What use do you even make of y=mx+b?
Monkey Man,
That’s not a scientific argument. That’s just a claim. And the claim is silly, for it shows you never really looked into anything, e.g.:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018JF004702
It takes minutes to see that climate scientists are well aware that there are non-linear processes. Non of them impact the more than steady rise of global temps.
If you want to be taken srsly, perhaps you could explain why the Monckton Paws is silly?
Thanks, Willard. I’ll take a look.
Freaking hypocrit:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1619066
Willard, please stop trolling.
Devil,
You can’t even be creative. There’s a new movie out based on a fictional character called Monkey Man. The Devil steals from the Movie to disparage another who poops on the Devil’s parade. Wiltard the Devil.
I’ll admit it to you guys…https://imgur.com/LiJ9Djj
Troglodyte,
Monkey Man dates back to Hindu mythology, but I prefer this version:
https://youtu.be/49FbSq_JNeQ?si=qq6Cf4ZJFNeWG9NA
As a fascist, you might not.
Wiltard,
Yeah, I forgot, the Devil knows everything.
Trogolodyte,
I know it’s hard for you, but have some sympathy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwtyn-L-2gQ
Otherwise you’ll get fascists’ kryptonite –
Tuba.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps harassing!
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
More than 7 inches of snow may fall in the mountains of northern California by Feb. 20.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=37.8;-121.8;5&l=rain-ac&t=20240221/0900
Regarding water.
Overnight low temperature in Belgrade last night was 14.5° C.
Could be a record for February.
Happy times in Belgrade!
Fact check: https://ibb.co/Zdtgc7W
nobody should care about mean temperature. mean temperature isn’t a temperature. its a manufactured statistic that your daddy says we should care about. people care about the temperature outside as that affects them in many ways. those in belgrade should be having a party. . .typically its near freezing.
A scientist says: Belgrade’s mean temperature in February is 4 C.
A layman says: “typically its near freezing.”
Who’s your daddy!
Brrrrrrrrrrrr!
Bill Hunter
Ask a farmer. Mean temperature makes a big difference to the growth of your crop and influences which crops you choose to grow.
For example, in Greenland the Vikings built small walled enclosures designed as wind shields and Sun traps. This was the only way to get their barley seeds above the 5C minimum mean temperature necessary for germination.
Yep a darned cold world we live in. Frozen seeds wait for warmer weather.
EM, the need for 5C is just a need to avoid the seed freezing overnight. 5C might mean negative C overnight and perhaps a bit more than 5 during the day.
This modern source says you need 1 – 2C to germinate barley.
https://extension.umn.edu/growing-small-grains/spring-barley-growth-and-development-guide#seedling-establishment-and-leaf-production-792761
The problem is you can’t successfully germinate a seed if the sprout freezes as soon as it peaks its head out. Gardeners usually wait longer to avoid that problem. Maybe not the Greenland Vikings as they may not have had that luxury. But where their farms were they were exposed to the sea and near the sea temperatures vary less between day and night at least on a western or southern shore at the southern tip of greenland as were the Viking settlements.
“nobody should care about mean temperature.”
Ok. Then no need for you to come here and splain to us what isn’t the cause of it anymore.
I sure wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t the case that somebody was trying real hard to make something out of nothing that I see would adversely affecting everybody. Quite honestly I would rather deal with some highway bandit as that doesn’t screw everybody.
Without Gill’s comments, Western Civilization would have fallen a long while ago. LOL!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner is on a roll!
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Good thing about a pineapple express. Lowland California floods, but you get a good snowpack to refill Lake Mead.
Chinese Military Capabilities – Strategy, Technology & The Changing PLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckouoTDkrtQ
A new study of mail-in ballots indicates Trump almost certainly won the 2020 election.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/mail-ballot-fraud-study-finds-trump-almost-certainly-won-2020
And Judge Gath the Philistine scored the fight 38-37 to Goliath.
Stephen P Anderson
Please try to watch this video. I think it might help you greatly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhFMgpDi9L8
Abnorman,
You should know all bout cults.
Troglodyte,
I do –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF7mP2LASCo
Stephen P Anderson
You did the cult thing (expected). Rather than see you are in a large cult of true believers (thinking the lying grifter cares about you in any way), you divert. It is what the cult minded do. Like our Cultist on this blog. Clint R, ask for evidence and he will divert everything. Similar to what you do with Trump.
Norman, the fact that you continue to insult, misrepresent, and falsely accuse me is because you have NOTHING.
Cult minded Clint R
Again you just divert as any good Cult minded person does.
You NEVER provide evidence for any of your claims. You just make them. I will provide much evidence for anything I claim. That you reject what I give you is on you not me.
You are Cult minded anti-science poster. You are in the same group as Gordon Robertson. The only difference is he will spew out hundreds of words of bad science while you just post short anti-science comments. But you are both Cult minded science deniers.
Sorry the truth hurts your ego and you consider the Truth an insult or a false accusation.
You know another thing Cult minded people do is repeat things over and over. You are prone to do this.
Norman, none of that is true.
Why can’t you comment without insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations?
Clint R
Sorry it is true. You never support your claims with evidence and totally reject evidence that shows your claims false.
Anyone can make up ideas. That is not science. You are NOT scientific. You are Cult minded trying to find gullible people to influence.
You can falsely claim that IR from a Cold object will be reflected off a hot one (even ones with very high IR emissivity). It is quite easy to make up false and misleading ideas. It is much harder to find evidence for them (which you never do).
Thinking people know you are a cult minded poster with no science background and you just make up false claims you can’t support (Nitrogen gas reflects IR because an IR photon is too big to move through the gas). Fluxes don’t add (another made up silly point you can’t provide evidence for). There are many things you make up and try to pass off as science but it is not. If you want to portray science then support your claims with evidence.
Sorry Noman, but you’re still spouting your childish nonsense.
I could teach you some science, but you can’t leave off your insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations.
You’re addicted to your cult rhetoric.
Norman says:
Clint R
Sorry it is true. You never support your claims with evidence and totally reject evidence that shows your claims false.
Anyone can make up ideas. That is not science. You are NOT scientific. You are Cult minded trying to find gullible people to influence.
—————–
Hmmmmm, did somebody make up the evidence for you about the CO2 greenhouse effect Norman or are you unlike the others around here who can’t bring any direct evidence to bear on the subject?
Gill has never seen causality in the eye, therefore he can’t believe in causality. ROFL!
“who cant bring any direct evidence to bear on the subject?”
Bill shamelessly spreads this untruth.
See eg here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/observational-evidence-of-the-greenhouse-effect-at-desert-rock-nevada/
here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1622326
and here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1622312
Abnorman,
Is Dr. Happer part of the cult?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXJ7UZjFDHU
Troglodyte,
You might like this “labor of love”:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science
Writing for the Heartland Institute can be even quicker.
Wow! Caught red-handed.promoting fraud.
Happer fully understands that there is a GHE, and that humans are increasing it by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Happer fully understands that there is a GHE, and that humans are increasing it by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.”
Ooooooh! An appeal to authority!
Happer is obviously ignorant and gullible. He can’t manage to actually describe this mythical GHE, can he?
Try again.
Tro.ll Swenson has nothing useful to contribute. Posts anyway.
Wiltard,
He is an actual physicist. I wonder if you or the Guardian have as many lining up to attest to your credibility as Happer does?
Troglodyte,
Bill does not even agree with Ed. If you had to pick one in a rap fight, who would you choose?
Some music to go with it:
https://youtu.be/98e3h8qzc3I?si=JdAC9Er7V4XebXh3
That is why the courts decided that there was no evidence that Trump beat Biden.
As the number of mail in ballots went up 10 times the percent of fraudulent ballots dropped 10 times.
Very gullible, Stephen.
A ‘study’ by Heartland Propaganda R Us? Cmon Stephen..
Nate,
Rasmussen did the survey. 20% is a big number.
And, also, especially since the number is probably much higher.
“Jim Womack, president of the North Carolina Election Integrity Team, told The Epoch Times in an earlier interview and in additional written comments in response to the new study, that he believes the survey questions were flawed and make the survey statistically meaningless, though not without value.
We know there was fraud in the 2020 election, but you cant conclude that it was 20 percent or 10 percent or even 5 percent based on the survey because the questions that could lead to such conclusions were unclear, Mr. Womack said.
However, he said that the survey questions on which Heartland based its research were unclear. He argued that the questions comingled legal and illegal activity and that this made it impossible to conclude specific percentages of mail-in ballot fraud with certainty.”
For instance, Mr. Womack pointed out that its legal and permissible in all states for people who by reason of blindness, disability, or illiteracy request or require assistance in filling out mail-in ballots to get such assistance.
However, the wording of one of the survey questionsDuring the 2020 election, did you fill out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child?did not differentiate between legal and illegal forms of filling out a mail ballot on behalf of someone.
Therefore, 21 percent of people responding yes to this question does not necessarily mean that this percentage of people actually committed voter fraud, Mr. Womack argued.”
Nate says:
”Therefore, 21 percent of people responding yes to this question does not necessarily mean that this percentage of people actually committed voter fraud, Mr. Womack argued.”
there isn’t much sense in arguing over how much milk has been spilt. the only thing worth discussing is how do we get to a level of confidence where a super majority of eligible voters have confidence in the gathering and counting of votes. the elderly are being defrauded by smooth talking conmen all the time and at a minimum folks should feel confident that the ballot they filled out was the ballot that got submitted and was properly counted.
The only purpose of the mail-in ballot is so that leftists can cheat. Citizens do not have a right to vote. There should be very strict requirements for receiving an absentee ballot. In the last election, Covid was used as the excuse. Now it is a right.
“Citizens do not have a right to vote”
You mean blacks in your state? Awhile back sure.
It isn’t one of the Bill of Rights. Voting is a privilege, not a right.
And Troglodyte might be willing to let go of that right as soon as Dictator Donald cheats himself into office again.
Voting rights are protected by the 15th Amendment, by State Laws and by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/15th-amendment
Forgive me ladies and 18 y olds for forgetting the 19th and 26th amendments.
Also apparently the 24th, the Poll tax amendment.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27
Nate,
Can you explain how that happened? The number of mail in ballots increased by ten times over previous elections but the percent of fraudulent ballots decreased from 5 percent to less than 0.5%. How?
Who says the number of fraudulent ballots was ever 5%?
Historically, the number of fraudulent mail in ballots has been, according to the various state election commisions, around 5%.
In the Rasmussen survey, 20% of the participants admitted submitting a fraudulent ballot. This is much higher than the 0.5% discarded in the last election.
It seems the Democrats are concerned they can’t steal this election because they don’t have Covid to hide behind so they’re brazenly trying to remove Trump from the ballot.
“according to the various state election commisions, around 5%”
Source?
What’s the point, Nate? You’ll say they didn’t take the Revelle Factor into account.
So no source then. 5% was hard to believe.
“The Heartland Institute study …”
Nate,
There is nothing wrong with the Heartland Institute.
Monkey Man,
There is lots of things wrong about the Heartland Institute, e.g.:
https://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/05/12464/heartland-institute-reluctantly-stands-denial-cigarette-smoking-risks
It is not nice to say stuff.
There is nothing in there that suggests malice or deceitful behavior. I read the linked 1998 op-ed in the PR-watch article. Joe Bast didn’t downplay the risks of smoking; you’ll see that he says that engaging in any activity excessively, let alone health-hazard risks, will no doubt have long-term consequences and is bad for you. The bill attempting to have been passed clearly oversimplifies the situation of smokers and their financial impact on society. When individuals purchase tobacco products, they incur various taxes that are imposed both federally and by state. I would also agree that any bill targeting the whole population in an attempt to target the younger audience doesn’t make sense. That’s something that can be solved without legislation; people can start and engage in awareness campaigns and peer support programs.
In the video clip played, I saw Bast say he stands by his original op-ed, but he never said what was put in quotations about changing the definition of moderate consumption from seven to two cigarettes smoked per day. I’m definitely not going to take John Cook’s word over anyone else’s. In the op-ed, his definition of moderate consumption is consumption that would not cause irreversible, long-term damage. When using the term ‘irreversible’, it implies that if you stopped, you would heal completely.
Monkey Man,
Being “wrong” does not imply malice or deceitful behavior. But since you mention deceiftul behavior, here’s where Joe Bass thought that associating AGW with the Unabomber was funny:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder
Notwithstanding all this, you’re doing just like every single other contrarian does here: you say stuff, when challenged, you ask for a refutation.
That is not nice, Monkey Man. Not nice at all. On the Climateball field, everyone should carry their weight.
Walls of rationalizations do not count.
Walter, the main agenda of Heartland is advancing right-wing policy goals, not science, not getting at the truth.
There is numerous evidence that they have distorted the facts in their past publications, with the self-stated goal to
“cast doubt on the scientific finding that fossil fuel emissions endanger the long-term welfare of the planet.”
https://www.desmog.com/heartland-institute/
So it is plainly obvious that no one should expect to get objective scientific truths from them.
The same can be said about similar organizations with far Left-wing policy goals.
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/climate-misinformation-books-teachers-schools-b2315454.html
“A thinktank, with a long history of denying climate change and spreading misinformation, has mailed thousands of copies of a pseudoscience textbook to US schools.
Climate at a Glance for Teachers and Students, illustrated with graphs, charts and citations, claims to be the latest data and research to show the earth is not experiencing a climate crisis”.
However, a lengthy and detailed fact-check found that the book was filled with misleading claims. The fact-check was carried out by news organisation AFP and a number of scientists, including some from groups which Climate at a Glance cited as sources.”
I personally received this free book in the mail, read it, and found numerous errors and misrepresentations.
Walter,
Institutions are only credible if they support Wiltard’s agenda.
Here we go again. Anyone who doesn’t support Revelle Factor Nate’s leftist agenda isn’t credible.
Troglodyte,
Anyone who believes Joe Camel did nothing wrong should return to school:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20747511
When Stephen has no answers on the current topic, he says ‘Revelle Factor’.
Nobody knows why.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner strikes again!
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Ever intrigued by what the right will come up with to prove voter fraud in 2020, I checked out the Heartland/Rasmussen poll.
Surprise surprise, the questions are designed to fit a fraud narrative.
For example:
“5. During the 2020 election, did you fill out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child?”
The rules vary in different states, but in most states it is legal to fill out a form for a relative who is illiterate or infirm, provided some legal requirements are met. In Georgia, for example:
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-21/chapter-2/article-10/section-21-2-385/
And what is UP with mentioning children? Because no distinction is made in the poll, the reader is left with the disquieting impression that adults helped children fill in voting forms – even if that never happened. This is called leading the witness.
“7. During the 2020 election, did you sign a ballot or ballot envelope on behalf of a friend or family member, with or without his or her permission?”
With or without? The distinction is very important.
The results?
“Yes – 17%”
The fact that 17% signed a ballot on behalf of someone else may entirely be a result of 20% of people being illiterate in the US, or people unable to hold a pen, or people who are blind.
You may complain that this is not known, and therefore all of it could be fraud.
Well, what a pity they didn’t design the poll to answer those questions. I wonder why a conservative pollster would be so incompetent. And why has Rasmussen, a polling/media firm, teamed up with the Heartland Institute, a conservative policy ‘think tank’?
The commentary on this from Heartland – the source for Stephen’s article – is full of misleading statements. Eg:
Heartland: “Filling out a ballot for someone else is illegal in all states, although many states allow people to assist others with voting.”
What wonderful self-contradiction in one sentence. Perhaps they could not bring themselves to tell the truth?
Georgia code, for example:
“A physically disabled or illiterate elector may receive assistance in preparing his or her ballot from any person of the elector’s choice… The person rendering assistance to the elector in preparing the ballot shall sign the oath printed on the same envelope as the oath to be signed by the elector.”
Yes, in Georgia you can even sign on behalf of someone. IOW, Heartland (and Rasmussen) are telling porkies. And the usual conduits for conservative fake news regurgitate them.
Actual investigations of actual ballots – numerous recounts, for example – found very little fraud. The usual handful of deliberate fiddling with the system.
And guess what? The majority of those were committed by REPUBLICAN voters, voting for Trump.
Which makes complete sense – scared for months by Trump that fraud was coming in November 2020, and aligned with a guy to whom ethics probably means ‘foreigner’, no doubt some Republicans felt they were duty bound to put their fingers on the scales to balance the supposed rort.
The only concerning issue here is why the above is our only assurance of a fair election.
> The only concerning issue
Ze Inspecteur Clouseau strikes again!
The assurance you have of a fair election is the numerous recounts, the 60+ court cases, the fact that Republicans who are not MAGA zealots checked and said it was fair, that former Republican presidents have said it was fair, that the departments tasked to oversee such things who were appointed by Trump confirmed it was fair after checking; the justice department, the office of cybersecurity etc.
The lawyers who rallied around Trump in 2020 saying there was fraud have recanted undoer oath. Many of Trump’s advisors at the time have now publicly said they told him there was no evidence of widespread fraud. Fox News settled a defamation case with a voting machine company, paying 3/4 of a billion dollars. Though anchors pushed the notion on air, their private emails and texts revealed in court show that they didn’t believe there was any real evidence.
So, no, what i wrote above is not remotely the only assurance you have. It’s just that you don’t want to hear it.
The only reason you have a concern about fraud in elections is because Donny waved a red rag about for months before, during, and after the election. Devotees went to great lengths to prove him right. They failed, but the concern remained because it is now conservative lore in the US.
The number of conservatives who believe that there is solid evidence of 2020 widespread election fraud has dropped by 20 percentage points over time, while the number who still believe there was fraud dropped by only 8 percentage points.
That is the power of propaganda.
Bill Hunter
Ask a farmer. Mean temperature makes a big difference to the growth of your crop and influences which crops you choose to grow.
For example, in Greenland the Vikings built small walled enclosures designed as wind shields and Sun traps. This was the only way to get their barley seeds above the 5C minimum mean temperature necessary for germination.
If you can derive the same daily average from a multitude of completely different climatological days, then what use is that average? You’re losing meaningful information. The Vikings didn’t track the mean temperature because there were no thermometers.
Keep in mind also that electronic thermometers didn’t start being widely implemented until the ’80s. Electronic thermometers have shorter averaging intervals and are better able to capture diurnal variation. Mercury thermometers required an observer to physically inspect and record a temperature; it’s much more meticulous and requires discipline from the observer. These two differences leave uncertainty for a different calculated average. In a time series, you only get one chance to record the measurement observation correctly; after that, that chance is gone forever. Those errors cannot be corrected, and any weather observations prior to the electronic thermometer era are completely useless or, at the very least, can’t be compared in a fair way to the present.
Walter
You have it backwards. The barley germinates when it’s enzymes have enough kinetic energy to function. The Vikings knew that it they could get it warm enough it would germinate.
Trees grow up to a treeline because their enzymes have enough energy to function and do not grow above the treeline because the enzymes do not have enough energy.
Similarly most species have a distribution that follows mean temperature contours. They arent measuring temperature as measured by thermometers, they are measuring their ability to function.
As you say, mean temperatures are a human construct, but that does not preclude them having real world significance.
Entropic man,
“Similarly most species have a distribution that follows mean temperature contours. They arent measuring temperature as measured by thermometers, they are measuring their ability to function.”
Wouldn’t wildlife and biology be more dependent on temperature variations? Temperature variations in a given area can remain constant even if the mean temperature increases or decreases. Also, the concept of mean temperature will vary based on the calculation method, and biology may rely on a different temperature metric than max+min/2.
“biology may rely on a different temperature metric than max+min/2. ”
What metric would you suggest, and how would you measure it?
Gardeners always wait until some climate indicator tells them so.
The Vikings had no idea of what temperature they planted their barley as the thermometer wasn’t invented until about 350 years after their colony on Greenland disappeared.
When I moved to Oregon way back as a young father, the locals told me to not plant my garden until the snow had melted off Mary’s peak which was visible from my place.
that provided a safe guard against frost damage.
Barley can be germinated in 1 to 2c.
https://extension.umn.edu/growing-small-grains/spring-barley-growth-and-development-guide#:~:text=The%20minimum%20temperature%20for%20barley,and%20eventually%20develops%20lateral%20branches.
But I figure that was learned by experience but gardeners probably didn’t play it that close to the vest.
“Those errors cannot be corrected, and any weather observations prior to the electronic thermometer era are completely useless or, at the very least, cant be compared in a fair way to the present.”
So you seem to think these human errors will all or mostly be in the same direction? As opposed to tending to cancel in a spatial and temporal average of many such measurements by many humans.
Nate,
Notwithstanding that it is impossible to accurately measure air temperature with any sort of thermometer, or that air temperature has nothing to do with the average temperature of the surface (between more than 1000 C and -90 C), you haven’t actually said anything, have you?
Just telling someone what you think they are thinking (or what you want them to think) is just silly.
Are you disagreeing with the comment, and if so, have you any facts to support your disagreement? If you aren’t, and haven’t, just trying to appear clever while avoiding providing any factual information at all, just makes you look ignorant and in denial of reality.
You still haven’t managed to describe the GHE, have you?
Tut, tut.
“Notwithstanding that it is impossible..”
Again Swenson weirdly denies that science can do what it plainly does regularly.
Clearly he has a severe brain fluid leak.
Nate,
Notwithstanding that it is impossible to accurately measure air temperature with any sort of thermometer, or that air temperature has nothing to do with the average temperature of the surface (between more than 1000 C and -90 C), you havent actually said anything, have you?
Just telling someone what you think they are thinking (or what you want them to think) is just silly.
Are you disagreeing with the comment, and if so, have you any facts to support your disagreement? If you arent, and havent, just trying to appear clever while avoiding providing any factual information at all, just makes you look ignorant and in denial of reality.
You still havent managed to describe the GHE, have you?
Tut, tut.
More of that buzzing gnat.
Nate,
Notwithstanding that it is impossible to accurately measure air temperature with any sort of thermometer, or that air temperature has nothing to do with the average temperature of the surface (between more than 1000 C and -90 C), you havent actually said anything, have you?
Just telling someone what you think they are thinking (or what you want them to think) is just silly.
Are you disagreeing with the comment, and if so, have you any facts to support your disagreement? If you arent, and havent, just trying to appear clever while avoiding providing any factual information at all, just makes you look ignorant and in denial of reality.
You still havent managed to describe the GHE, have you?
Tut, tut.
Mike Flynn,
Roughly 750 million years ago, the earliest-known supercontinent Rodinia, began to break apart. The continents later recombined to form Pannotia, 600 to 540 million years ago, then finally Pangaea, which broke apart 200 million years ago.
What are you braying about?
Nate,
“So you seem to think these human errors will all or mostly be in the same direction? As opposed to tending to cancel in a spatial and temporal average of many such measurements by many humans.”
I think these errors go in either direction depending on the bias. I do not believe that they cancel because the true value has to be identifiable, and because their bias is nuanced, pairwise homogenization is incapable of properly addressing it and will just smear error around.
You say PHA is incapable of properly addressing errors, but simply saying it doesn’t make it true. The actual evidence says that it is effective in correcting errors. See [Williams et al. 2012 DOI:10.1029/2011JD016761] and [Hausfather et al. 2016 DOI:10.1002/2015GL067640] for more details.
“I think these errors go in either direction depending on the bias. I do not believe that they cancel because the true value has to be identifiable, and because their bias is nuanced, pairwise homogenization is incapable of properly addressing it and will just smear error around.”
If they go in either direction, then they will tend to cancel. So that the average will have much smaller error. At least in ordinary stats.
“I do not believe that they cancel because the true value has to be identifiable”
How do we know the ‘true value’ Walter?
These are measurements, and thus always have uncertainty.
Even if mercury thermometers had a 1 degree F resolution, it is entirely possible, after averaging many such measurements, to have fractional degree error on the average.
For example, women have integer number of babies, 0, 1, 2, 3, …, but the average US birthrate is reported as eg. 1.664 births per women in 2021.
LMAO!
Nate if you have a station located Tacoma, Washington and another at Yakima, Washington you are trying to tell me that the average temperature of those two stations is what the temperature is on the peak of Mt Ranier.
Don’t you think it might be just a little bit in error?
“you are trying to tell me that the average temperature of those two stations is what the temperature is on the peak of Mt Ranier.”
Again Bill laughs his ass off at his own ideas…that have nothing to do with my post.
Gee Nate really you don’t have a clue about what the temperature is on Mt Rainier. Are you saying that you can or can’t tell from the gridding and homogenization strategies employed in the surface station climate temperature effort? If you do do you have a source on that?
Why do some people here keep dreaming that climate scientists must be so stoopid that they forget basic facts, such as the lapse rate?
This GISS answer illustrates that the climate scientists are not as stoopid as you seem to think they are, Bill.
And that what they are interested in measuring is CHANGE in T over time, and that requires careful corrections.
“Q. Why can’t we just average the available data to get a regional or global mean?
A. Just averaging the available data would give results that are highly dependent on the particular locations (latitude and elevation) and reporting periods of the actual weather stations; such results would mostly reflect those accidental circumstances rather than yield meaningful information about our climate. Assume, e.g., that a station at the bottom of a mountain sent in reports continuously starting in 1880 and assume that a station was built near the top of that mountain and started reporting in 1900. Since those new temperatures are much lower than the temperatures from the station in the valley, averaging the two temperature series would create a substantial temperature drop starting in 1900.”
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q203
Nate says:
”This GISS answer illustrates that the climate scientists are not as stoopid as you seem to think they are, Bill.”
Well at least we agree it would be stoopid to do that. Problems the example being discussed wrt elevation was making adjustments to a station if it had been moved from the valley to the mountain top. There is no mention of the use of an ARC GIS database with microclimate information to make adjustments during the homogenization and gridding process. Indeed it would be stoopid to not do that. Next thing to find out is if they do that.
“Next thing to find out is…”
Sure, then lets see if this is actually true:
“If I want something I either do it myself”
One of the reasons I haven’t come to a conclusion yet. though it hasn’t stopped you.
Just keep coming up with new excuses…
Excuses? Nope just have it filed in the uncertainty department. Low priority. Still working on if there is a GHE and what the cause is.
Only way to avoid getting sucked in by a Joseph Goebbels type.
Did you know in Germany during the rise of the Nazis that academia had a participation rate greater than the general population?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpMQSVp7NTg
“Still working on if there is a GHE and what the cause is.”
Yeah that’s gonna take a long time if all you ever do is look at the denialist blogosphere and affiliated Youtube videos.
You need to read actual science papers.
I am there are some missing papers. Where is Milankovich’s paper on the 100,000/400,000 year eccentricity variation cycles?
Right now I am looking for the paper that calculated this. There seems to be a lot of people looking for this. Did you just gobble it down hook, line, and sinker or do you know where it is?
About 10 years ago I read about 50 papers on the Milankovitch cycles and on orbital dynamics.
I basically went to google scholar, put in some search terms and refined them if I didn’t find what I was interested in.
Once I DID find those papers, I would check the cite list to find other papers that referred to them.
Milankovitch’s work was published as a monograph, so it’s not in the usual online academic literature. The English translation is called: Canon of Insolation and the Ice Age Problem. It’s hard to find. You can get it on Amazon at the moment.
https://www.amazon.com/Insolation-Ice-Age-Problem-Milankovic-Milankovitch/dp/8617066199/
Here’s a good resource for papers on Milankovitch cycles.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/papers-on-the-milankovitch-cycles-and-climate/
This is a good paper on the history of Milankovitch’s work and contemporaneous work.
https://ebme.marine.rutgers.edu/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarthSystems_Fall2008/Week12a/Berger_Reviews_Geophysics_1988.pdf
Thank you Barry thats helpful. I can see the effect of Jupiter and Saturn conjunctions in the temperature record and tease out its effects in the form of a sine wave.
Each planet has its own eccentricity that varies over time. There is also supposedly a precession of the semi major axis that say would bring us closer to venus. Seems to me this is just a matter of programming that information to crank out combined gravitational effects of barycenter movement between multiple objects. The moon moves the earth a few thousand miles and the earth moves the sun. These movements are going to change the distance to the sun for earth in very complex patterns. Considering what we are investing in all this that should be worked out. It’s a travesty that it hasn’t already.
I have also spotted an irregular pattern of Saturn and Jupiter conjoining in a single 45 degree area of the sky on an irregular schedule. It will hit the same area on a pace of once every 80 years over a period of 320 years then take a vacation from doing that for over 500 years. this roughly matches the LIA pattern and the PDO pattern. I say roughly because data gets rather poor as you dive back in time. Does the IPCC even mention anything about this?
I’m pretty sure, but not certain, that the IPCC mentions anything about the orbits of other planets interacting with Earth’s orbit and/or affecting terrestrial climate. I strongly doubt any immediate effect for that pulse. he Milankovitch cycles are about larger changes in Earth’s orbital parameters. The IPCC summarises the top line state of the science from tens of thousands of research papers, they don’t do original research. So it might be worthwhile looking at the reference list in the chapters that deal with paleoclimate to see if there’s anything in those.
You may find this paper interesting – a new solution for Earth’s orbital cycles from 2011.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2011/08/aa16836-11.pdf
If the material in the paper doesn’t suit you, there are a number of references to other papers in there that might.
I appreciate it. I will be reading on it as I already have a few spreadsheets looking at barycenter movement patterns.
If the data are starting at 0 in 1979, and have noise, then there should be almost 0 correlation between the early values and the end values a century later.
So the fact that the Spencer Christy method is showing early correlation is most likely spurious.
Define noise.
Something along those lines:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1620560
Willard, as usual, says nothing.
There is also:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1619827
Willard, as usual, says nothing again.
And also:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1618714
Again, nothing.
And:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1621257
RLH, you asked “Define noise” simple answer Willard!
Anon, as usual, says nothing.
Wilard, thanks for proving my point.
Anon, as usual, says nothing again.
Weather and ENSO which are not climate change and are unpredictable beyond a few months.
Thus, they are not expected to have the same history in different model runs or the observations.
Nate must believe reality is “spurious”.
But, to believe his cult beliefs, he has to….
Clint has nothing to contribute….posts anyway.
Nate,
You wrote –
“most likely spurious.”
Appealing to your own spurious authority is not terribly convincing.
You do realise that thermometers react to heat? CO2 does not possess any heat producing property.
You’re most likely dreaming.
“You do realise that thermometers react to heat? CO2 does not possess any heat producing property.”
Nor do blankets, or in insulation in general, yet they can make heated objects warmer.
Its just not that complicated. Not sure why you are unable to grasp these simple concepts.
blankets get warmer on the bottom side and the bottom side doesn’t convect to the top side.
in the case of the atmosphere that results in a minimum of 199 watts and a maximum of 242w/m2 convecting from the bottom of the banket to the top of the blanket. blanket molecules don’t move.
its really unfortunate that politics has evolved into the bullying of dedicated scientists to manufacture an artificial consensus, but we are seeing it everywhere including the bullying, stalking and doxing of those that question the science. this forum provides a clear picture of that. the post i am replying to especially illustrates that there is zero interest in debating the state of the science in this matter where a non-explanation is characterized as not being understood covering up the underlying lie that it had ever been adequately explained in the first place.
nate services as a great example of that and has consistently reinforced that message for years on this forum. we actually owe him a debt of gratitude for his steadfastness over the years in painting that picture.
Bill Hunter
YOU: “in the case of the atmosphere that results in a minimum of 199 watts and a maximum of 242w/m2 convecting from the bottom of the banket to the top of the blanket. blanket molecules dont move.”
Yet you are not explaining how Energy leaves the Earth System. Convection will move energy into the atmosphere (at least to the Stratosphere) but that is about it. This heat transfer mechanism will not transmit energy past the atmosphere and is stopped at the Stratosphere.
Here (again I like to offer evidence for my claims). You can reject this evidence if you think it is not valid but I would like a science rebuttal.
https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/images/outgoing-radiation.png
If you look at this it is a measured IR from a satellite of the Sahara Desert. You can see what the Surface is emitting through the atmospheric window. It corresponds to a black-body at around 320 K. You can see that there is a lot less energy emitted from the atmosphere than the surface because of GHG.
Nate is correct. The GHG in atmosphere act a a radiant barrier or insulating material. The surface here is emitting much more energy than is leaving the Earth system, therefore the surface will maintain a higher temperature. Similar to the air in a car on a hot summer day. Much hotter than the air outside the car. Same solar input, one has reduced heat loss so it gets much hotter.
Noman, you’re now mixing your confused beliefs in with the GHE nonsense.
You’re sooooo confused.
But, that’s why this is so much fun.
Norman says:
”Yet you are not explaining how Energy leaves the Earth System. Convection will move energy into the atmosphere (at least to the Stratosphere) but that is about it. This heat transfer mechanism will not transmit energy past the atmosphere and is stopped at the Stratosphere.”
Well its not up to me to design how the gHE works. Its up to those concerned that it will result in catastrophic warming.
But convection both accelerates conduction at the surface and accelerates radiation at TOA by the basic laws of electromagnetics by constantly supplying those surfaces with molecules with a greater difference in temperature than the surface they are interacting with. Molecules warmed adjacent to the surface move up an are replaced with cooler molecules. Molecules at TOA that have cooled to space are replaced by hotter molecules. So convection accelerates natural cooling of the surface and cooling of TOA.
Further the interesting thing you mention about the stratosphere is that CO2 is a molecule that cools TOA. CO2 will only cool from downward radiation if and only if molecules lower are colder. So what is interesting is CO2 doesn’t cool the top of the stratosphere as apparently water vapor is capable of doing quite well in the troposphere. . .bringing into question the robustness of CO2’s effect overall.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Norman says:
”Here (again I like to offer evidence for my claims). You can reject this evidence if you think it is not valid but I would like a science rebuttal.
https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/images/outgoing-radiation.png
If you look at this it is a measured IR from a satellite of the Sahara Desert. You can see what the Surface is emitting through the atmospheric window. It corresponds to a black-body at around 320 K. You can see that there is a lot less energy emitted from the atmosphere than the surface because of GHG.”
————————
IMHO, you can’t make anything out from a chart of the Sahara desert are relatively small region of the globe. In fact isn’t that the basis of Al Gore and Michael Mann trying to erase evidence of the LIA and the MWP by calling it a regional anomalie?
Norman says:
”Nate is correct. The GHG in atmosphere act a a radiant barrier or insulating material. ”
——————
There is no evidence of that. Like in the Sahara desert above the emissivity of desert white sand is quite low thus measuring spectral lines isn’t going to give you a correct answer by concluding that energy reaching the satellite is less than it should be. This is why UAH focuses on a specific molecule. Or at least that is what some poster told me. I can’t vouch for that.
And you have wide disagreement on the emissivity of water and you should because water changes its color with all sorts of reasons from pollution, chlorophyll, wind whipping up white water, and reflection which is quite strong at some angles of incidence.
These differences of opinion which represent uncertainties is so abundant in the lead radiation budget by Kiehl Trenberth I can’t even conclude for certain there is a GHE. Certainly mainstream science has slid the variables full on in the direction of alarmism. This is a wide spread practice in all of environmental science. All variables get set at the desired end of the uncertainty scale. So like Happer and Lindzen they conclude that the most likely warming from CO2 doubling to 830ppm warming will be 1 deg C OR LESS.
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20132171-302668.pdf
I would have no reservations signing off on that statement myself as I consider it the best science available worthy of the name.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Norman says:
”The surface here is emitting much more energy than is leaving the Earth system, therefore the surface will maintain a higher temperature. Similar to the air in a car on a hot summer day. Much hotter than the air outside the car. Same solar input, one has reduced heat loss so it gets much hotter.”
the first thing you have to accept is you don’t know that as a fact. Yes it probably is but there are such huge uncertainties as to both the actual mean temperature of the surface and the emissivity of that surface. Auditors have to restrain themselves of coming to such conclusions until the data is audited and the actual numbers are tightened up. You have to consider both emissivity and evaporation. You cool on a hot day by evaporation. That leaves your skin cooler than it would be without evaporation. When using an IR thermometer designed to measure your forehead temperature its only getting a rough temperature as your forehead will vary between 91f to 94f instead of the 98.6 that your internal temperature is.
thats about a range of 4.25C. about
Since the normal temperature of the surface should be 278.5k and its like 288.5k that leaves 10k for a GHE. So we are looking for only 55watts and if the mean temperature is actually only 285k we are only looking for
Trenberth 2009 gives an evaporation rate of 93.8 to 108.5 cooling the surface film globally that represents a potential error of 10% which could cover 39watts/m2
That gets us to within 3k of zero greenhouse effect. Audit experience has taught me where you find easy potential error a deeper dive will usually find considerably more. So its possible this trillion dollar exercise is returning absolutely nothing except for more food and more drought resistant food. And the warming that maybe 100$ natural may also be a blessing.
But since I signed on above which puts the warming from CO2 in the range specified by the illustrious professors from MIT and Princeton I am in agreement that we need to keep learning more about climate and how it works because only by knowing that can we control it to whatever extent God will allow us.
Bill Hunter
The emissivity of sand is actually quite high. Earth surface emits mostly in the IR band of EMR. Sand has a high albedo, it reflects visible light well but it has a high IR emissivity so it will be close to a black body. The graph is for a blackbody temperature. the 320 K would be the IR emitted by a blackbody. Sand is at around 0.9 so the surface sand would be hotter than the blackbody emission temperature.
Where did you get the low emissivity for sand from?
Collision induced IR is an impossibility or so say the climate experts. Ask Tim Folkerts. He will tell you it is impossible. Of course, we know the ramifications if they’re wrong.
norman, first off is there an atmospheric window? i have heard scientists question this. even as we discuss it kevin trenberth in 1997 estimated it as 40watts but if you look at the spectral graph in figure 1 of that paper there isn’t any line where 40 watts would be occurring. water is a full spectrum absorber.
also, there is a mention that an emissivity factor of 1.0 is assumed for the sake of discussion. since reflectivity of the surface is given as an average of 15.15%. 396w/m2 might be off by 60watts which is more than the entire ghe 341 to 390/396 (50-55watts) meaning the ghe could fit in the hole in the budget.
%
Norman says:
February 15, 2024 at 5:59 AM
Bill Hunter
The emissivity of sand is actually quite high. Earth surface emits mostly in the IR band of EMR. Sand has a high albedo, it reflects visible light well but it has a high IR emissivity so it will be close to a black body. The graph is for a blackbody temperature. the 320 K would be the IR emitted by a blackbody. Sand is at around 0.9 so the surface sand would be hotter than the blackbody emission temperature.
Where did you get the low emissivity for sand from?
————————
a better question is where do you get an emissivity close to a blackbody.
https://ennologic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Ultimate-Emissivity-Table.pdf
this table lists sand and sandstone albedo as being in a range of .59 to .9. perhaps your source uses black sand to get close to a blackbody if you want to call .9 close to 1.0
> a better question is
Look! Squirrel!
Bill Hunter
http://www.vanderbilt.eu/docs/Trebla_Services_Emissie_Tabel.pdf
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table/
Bill Hunter
Perhaps the lower value in your chart is because it depends upon the temperature of the emitting sand.
Here:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/archive/2010_schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
This has a black-body calculated curve of a 294 K surface. The most energy is in the IR band of would be in the 300-1200 range on the linked graph. Peak around 700.
Here is an IR graph of sand.
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C308075072&Mask=80#IR-Spec
In the range of Earth’s surface emission the IR emissivity of sand would be around 90% of a blackbody at the same temperature. At lower band of the IR spectrum sand is not a good emitter. I suppose that is why a lot of emissivity charts list sand as 0.9 since it will be close to that value at Earth surface temperature (where you might be using the thermal device to check the temperture of sand you might walk on).
Obviously Norman you find yourself in a place of having to cherry pick emissivity.
https://ennologic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Ultimate-Emissivity-Table.pdf
Bottom line these different opinions create one heckuva lot of uncertainty.
Gill prefers Ennologic Dot Com’s table for a simple reason:
They called it the ULTIMATE one.
LOL!
Willard Strawman Construction, Inc. says:
”Gill prefers Ennologic Dot Coms table for a simple reason:
They called it the ULTIMATE one.
LOL!”
I never said I prefer it Willard. I am talking about how scientists measuring emissivity come up with a wide range of estimates. I chalk that up to uncertainty. Its you who becomes enthused by a shiny emissivity table that tells you what you want to hear.
The discussion is about cherry picking an emissivity table where did you lose that train of thought? In the empty space between the lines that separated the comment from the link? I am not surprised in the least.
[GILL] I never said I prefer it
[ALSO GILL] Obviously Norman you find yourself in a place of having to cherry pick emissivity.
ROFL!
Nate,
Put as many blankets on a corpse as you like. Doesn’t get warmer. It keeps cooling – just like the Earth.
Fill as many warehouses with as much insulation as you like. They will no doubt be hot in summer, cold in winter.
You are definitely dreaming. Why don’t you try dreaming up a GHE description?
Do you think that too much laughter is harmful, perhaps?
Swenson
If you could read a post correctly it would help in having responsible discussion.
Here is what Nate said: “Nor do blankets, or in insulation in general, yet they can make heated objects warmer.”
Do you see the words “heated objects”. Do you have understanding of those words (yes or no would be fine).
Your examples are of NON-HEATED objects.
Can you understand there is a big difference between heated and hon-heated objects. I do not think any conversation is possible if you lack the vocabulary to differentiate between such.
Mike Flynn,
The Earth’s global magnetic field is generated in its metallic core, located nearly 3,000 kilometers beneath the planet’s surface.
You yourself described the greenhouse effect:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
What are you braying about?
Norman, you dummy,
You wrote –
“Can you understand there is a big difference between heated and hon-heated objects.”
Do you describe a cooling body (like a fresh corpse or the Earth) as a heated or non-heated body? Any body above absolute zero has been heated, whether you like it or not.
You still cannot describe the GHE, so burbling diversionary nonsense about insulation wan’t help.
Trying to play “silly semantic games” like that other dummy (Willard) won’t help. The Earth has cooled, and continues to do so. There is no GHE.
Carry on denying reality.
Wonky Wee Willy,
For some peculiar reason related to your mental state, you wrote –
“The Earths global magnetic field is generated in its metallic core, located nearly 3,000 kilometers beneath the planets surface.”
You then compounded your confusion by writing “You yourself described the greenhouse effect:”, which is complete nonsense.
The GHE is a non-existent dream. Neither Mike Flynn nor myself could possible describe something which neither of us believes exists!
I assume your link is your usual nonsensical effort to create fact from fiction. Feel free to quote from it, if you believe I am incorrect in my assumption.
I’ll keep laughing while you gnash your teeth.
Mike Flynn,
Atomic clocks show that the modern day is longer by about 1.7 milliseconds than a century ago, slowly increasing the rate at which UTC is adjusted by leap seconds.
What are you braying about?
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Atomic clocks show that the modern day is longer by about 1.7 milliseconds than a century ago, slowly increasing the rate at which UTC is adjusted by leap seconds.
What are you braying about?”
Are you quite mad?
That’s a rhetorical question, of course. You don’t need to answer.
Swenson
They are not “silly semantic games”. Words usually have some meaning.
The corpse may have been heated but it is not being heated in your case. Do you not grasp the difference?
The Earth interior is heated but it loses energy slightly faster than the heat generated by radioactive decay. If not for the continued heating is would be much colder than it currently is.
The insulating material of rock above the core allows it to sustain some fairly hot temperatures.
You do not seem to possess logical thought process as you can’t understand what is being said and conclude (illogically) that it is a “silly semantic game”
“Put as many blankets on a corpse as you like. Doesnt get warmer. ”
Why would I do that? That has no relevance to insulating a heated surface, which is the Earth.
wee willy continues his decent into senility…
“Atomic clocks show that the modern day is longer by about 1.7 milliseconds than a century ago, slowly increasing the rate at which UTC is adjusted by leap seconds”.
***
The designer of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, has pointed out the obvious…atomic clock have errors as well. Besides the obvious, they did not have atomic clocks a century ago. Heck, they barely had any accuracy in clocks a century ago and time as we know it now was still in its infancy. There was no UTC back then.
The irony here is that the second used by the atomic clock is based on the rotation of the Earth. So, here we have a device with it’s own propensity to error measuring a second that is based on a planet with a variable rotational speed.
Duh!!!
The error here is about 1 ms over a century, and that is 1/1000nds of a second.
norman…”Here is what Nate said: Nor do blankets, or in insulation in general, yet they can make heated objects warmer.
***
And Swenson replied correctly, inferring that blankets do not make things warmer. They simply slow down the rate of cooling. So, if you put blanket over cooling objects at the same temperature, the blankets will not increase the temperature of the objects.
When, Bordo hears “atomic clock,” we can be sure that he’ll mention Louis Essen. What’s surprising is that he finally understands the greenhouse effect:
[BORDO FINALLY UNDERSTANDS THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT] Blankets do not make things warmer, they simply slow down the rate of cooling.
Another win for Team Science!
Gordon Robertson
No Swenson is not correct as to what Nate claimed. Nate stated a blanket will make a heated object warmer and it will. So will any insulation up to the point of how good the insulation is.
I am not sure what point you are now making?
The temperature of a HEATED object (an energy input if you do not know what the word HEATED means)
If you are not sure of the definition here:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/heated
“heated
adjective
US /ˈhiː.t̬ɪd/ UK /ˈhiː.tɪd/
heated adjective (TEMPERATURE)
Add to word list
made hot or warm:
a heated towel rail
a heated swimming pool”
A heated pool has a continuous supply of energy to maintain a temperature. If you have a Heated Object (with some input of energy) and you put insulation around it the temperature of the object will go up.
Norman,
“a heated swimming pool”.
Now cover your sun heated swimming pool with an insulating blanket.
Keeps it cool, doesn’t it?
Oh, I see. Being heated by the Sun doesnt actually count as “heated”, is that it?
You meant “internal heat”, like the Earth. As you said, the Earth has cooled – not sufficient internal heat to even maintain its temperature.
Try harder – be specific, and talk about the Earth. How hard can it be to address reality?
Swenson
Are you possibly aware that insulation works both ways? Its main purpose is to slow the rate of energy transfer. It will keep a cool object cooler longer and it will keep a hot object warmer.
Not sure what you are talking about with your blanket analogy.
I am not sure if you have looked but Scientist do include the energy absorbed by the atmosphere directly.
Here look educate yourself.
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ceres-poster-011-v2.jpg?resize=2000,1494
The atmosphere on this graph is absorbing 77.1 Watts/m^2 of solar energy. But that energy does not disappear, it warms the atmosphere directly but more reaches the surface than is absorbed.
a heated swimming pool.
Now cover your sun heated swimming pool with an insulating blanket.
Keeps it cool, doesnt it?”
No, not if it is transparent? Never heard of transparent plastic?
The atmosphere is transparent enough to let solar heat the surface and lower atmosphere.
Nate, you seem to be very pedantic on a predictable basis. If you see anyone arguing against your view then there is no upper limit to your pedantry. But if they agree with your views then your pedantry is almost undetectable.
To be very specific you stated that “Nor do blankets, or in insulation in general, yet they can make heated objects warmer.” Explain how they make an object warmer verse slowing the rate of heat loss!
I wonder if that was a simple slip you made, so me being pedantic at your expense is just point scoring. Or do you genuinely believe what you posted? In which case……
AN OBJECT WARMER VERSE
’23 was red
It made us feel blue
But ‘cos of El Nino,
This year’ll be a record too
(H/T Gavin)
A,
Norman is simply confused and gullible. About as gullible as the NASA staff who thought that greenhouses stayed warm through the winter nights, and believed that energy from the Sun could descend into the ocean depths and hide there!
A triumph of faith over fact. Cultism writ very large.
“To be very specific you stated that Nor do blankets, or in insulation in general, yet they can make heated objects warmer. Explain how they make an object warmer verse slowing the rate of heat loss!”
You don’t think blankets make your skin warmer, Anon?
Do you think a heated oven will be warmer with the insulated door closed?
I have a heated jacuzzi. In winter with the insulated cover left off, it becomes cooler than desired, and wastes a LOT of energy.
Apparently these basic heat transfer principles need reviewing by some people here.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Anon, the not so pedantic point is that are people here such as Swenson, are constantly erecting a strawman: that CO2 needs to be a heat source in order to cause the Earth’s surface to warm.
It doesnt. All it has do is add to the atmospheric insulation of the heated surface to make it warm.
There are plenty of real world examples of this happening.
Get it now?
…Willy, please stop trolling.
Anon Geek is just playing dumb, Nate.
Heavy rainfall in California will continue until February 25.
https://i.ibb.co/NKDYpPy/ventusky-rain-3h-20240225t0300-32n134w-1.jpg
ark in the dark …”Christy thinks it equally likely that the Earths surface will cool. The surface warming that alarms so many atmospheric scientists is, to Christy, well within the realm of natural variation, or measurement error. Most of this warming occurred in the early part of the 20th century, before humans had boosted concentrations of greenhouse gases,
***
The poster of this drivel, geared at discrediting John Christy, Ark in the Dark, lacks the ability to critique John using his own words. He is a typical spinless alarmists who hides behind the words of misguided authority figures.
John Christy has major positive attributes going for him over wannabee alarmists, he has an actual degree in climate science AND he works with real, physical data, not modeled hype. John has served on several IPCC reviews as a lead author and a reviewer and he brings us insight on the proceedings…how many reviewers he encountered come to the reviews with pre-conceived notions that biases them toward the alarmist theory.
John has also worked in Africa as an educator and he has witnessed first hand the effect that a lack of fossil fuels has on poor Africans.
The quote above refers to ‘so many atmospheric scientists’. Who are they and what are their qualifications? Are they referring to Gavin Schmidt with a degree in math, or Michael Mann with a degree in Geology?
John’s views are legitimate and no one can prove him wrong. The only fact John omits is the ending of the Little Ice Age, circa 1850, which explains the re-warming expected after an ice age.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/the-gospel-according-to-john
The Gospel According to John
When this world-class atmospheric scientist insists there’s no such thing as global warming, is he talking science-or religion?
By Elizabeth Royte
Feb 1, 2001 12:00 AM
Arkady, please stop trolling.
How many PST did Graham D. Warner make this morning, 50?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Tropical storm in the Gulf of Carpentaria.
https://i.ibb.co/5kQyp3z/himawari9-ir-14-P-202402151750.gif
This article does highlight that data presentation is very important. Seen enough graphs & charts that have been presented to mislead or obfuscate. Where Dr Roys Spenser & Dr John Christy method is clear and doesn’t hide nor mislead.
There are various recommendations on colour, chart types, axis, legends …. that help clarify the data. What I find with Gavin Schmidt method is that it is misleading. Question is to mislead others or himself?
I read without surprise on WUWT the usual, pseudo-skeptic blah blah:
” We do have the USCRN, which is showing no trend. There are still anomalies that go well below the baseline, and the large positive anomalies stay healthily below the 2006 & 2012 high points. ”
How interesting! Sounds like robertsoning instead of reasoning, e.g.
” If the last anomaly is on par with the first one, then the trend is flat. ”
*
Here is an evaluation of USCRN hourly data, averaged into three different daily Tavg series (mean, median, 24h average) and then into monthly anomalies with annual cycle removal:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_F00TcPvlRBk4NQ8GR_Q6cdhUtQ4CUIQ/view
The second order polynomial fit doesn’t differ much from the linear one. No acceleration in the data, as it seems.
Linear trends for the 24h Tavg, in C / decade
– 2003-2023: +0.43 +- 0.08
– 2011-2023: +0.39 +- 0.16
– 2016-2023: -0.11 +- 0.38
(Mean and median are a bit above resp. a bit below 24h avg.)
*
For Tmin:
– 2003-2023: +0.43 +- 0.09
– 2011-2023: +0.45 +- 0.18
– 2016-2023: -0.30 +- 0.39
For Tmax:
– 2003-2023: +0.46 +- 0.09
– 2011-2023: +0.39 +- 0.17
– 2016-2023: +0.07 +- 0.40
*
Since 2016 the trends of course are way lower – like everywhere when you (1) start at a top anomaly and (2) pass thru a strong La Nina.
The standard error is for such short and highly variable periods higher than the trend itself: not very useful. Forget it.
*
Top10 of a descending Tavg anomaly sort since Jan 2003
2016 2 2.16 (C)
2006 1 2.03
2016 3 1.90
2017 2 1.82
2023 12 1.81
2016 11 1.75
2015 12 1.59
2023 1 1.57
2020 11 1.44
2018 5 1.33
7 of the 10 top anomalies happened during the winter.
The Tmin resp. Tmax sorts don’t differ by much. Thus, winter vs. summer beats night vs. day.
Source
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/
I have noticed that the title of your graph reads ‘Active USCRN stations, ungridded.’ The discrepancy between your calculated anomalies and NOAA’s calculated anomalies suggests an issue with the number of stations (sampling) or with the gridding process. In the case of the former, I am aware that at least in my state, the two USCRN stations didn’t become active until late 2007. The starting times for when each station around the country became active are sporadic. Inadequate spatial distribution will give specific regions more uneven representation in the calculation and, therefore, the trend. Or, you just did your calculations incorrectly. That data should be interpreted with caution.
Typical Hunter boy blah blah questioning things without any reference sustaining his completely superficial claim:
” norman, first off is there an atmospheric window? i have heard scientists question this. ”
Oh hear hear! The Hunter boy ‘has heard’.
And… where did he hear that?
*
” water is a full spectrum absorber. ”
One more of the Hunter boy’s inventions, like so many others.
*
Here are two graphs showing the atmospheric window.
1. At the surface
https://i.postimg.cc/hjRtdhJm/Atmospheric-window-surf.png
2. Altitude 15 km
https://i.postimg.cc/d0Bx8x39/Atmospheric-window-15-km.png
*
We clearly see that (under consideration of their respective atmospheric abundance)
– between 7.5 and 12.5 microns, no gases intercept IR (except a tiny bit by O3 I forgot to add); this is the atmospheric window
– CO2’s action at 15 km is 100 times lower than that of H2O at the surface
– H2O is by no means a ‘full spectrum absorber’.
*
Nota bene
N2 and O2 are absent on the graphs above because their absorp~tion/emission intensity is lower than that of CO2 by a factor of 10E-9 resp. 10E-6.
https://i.postimg.cc/HL9kbdbP/N2-O2-5-20-microns.png
*
O2’s radiation energy at 5000 microns aka 60 GHz is less than negligible.
*
What matters is that Earth’s maximal IR emission is around 10 microns: just in the middle of the atmospheric window.
Binny,
Are you trying to explain how the Earth cooled over the past four and a half billion years?
It lost more energy than it received, that’s all.
No need to burble about that other stuff, pretending to be an authority on cooling.
Carry on – you don’t need to thank me.
As always, Flynnson’s ignorant, egomaniacal dementia trip.
Simply ignored.
Binny,
Are you trying to explain how the Earth cooled over the past four and a half billion years?
It lost more energy than it received, thats all.
No need to burble about that other stuff, pretending to be an authority on cooling.
Carry on you dont need to thank me.
#2
As always, Flynnsons ignorant, egomaniacal dementia trip.
Simply ignored.
Bindidon says:
”Typical Hunter boy blah blah questioning things without any reference sustaining his completely superficial claim:”
Well why not just give us one graph scaled to 2e-10 with all the elements that absorb IR rather than your cherry picked lists and scales?
Perhaps you could put everything that we know absorbs or reflects light that you didn’t include like ozone and all the aerosols. We don’t need to see the entire shape of every curve just the very bottom amount of white left over.
I certainly don’t see why you get your panties all in a knot when somebody simply says that some scientists have suggested all IR is absorbed at least once. We certainly don’t need a graph that suggests how many times each spectral line might get absorbed.
I guess Bindidon was full of it when he claimed to have proof of the atmospheric window. Surprise. . .surprise. . .not.
Earlier, Norman (starting to accept reality) wrote –
“The Earth interior is heated but it loses energy slightly faster than the heat generated by radioactive decay. If not for the continued heating is would be much colder than it currently is.”
Exactly so. The Earth has cooled, and continues to do so. Very slowly, these days, following the immutable laws of the universe.
Norman still refuses to accept that no amount of “insulation” (presumably Norman’s idea of the GHE, although he refuses to say so), can prevent the Earth from cooling. Being “cooler than it currently is” is just a silly semantic attempt to make the ignorant and gullible believe that cooling magically results in raised temperatures!
Norman is stuck with believing in a GHE which he can’t describe, but supposedly results in a warming planet when four and a half billion years of history shows the silliness of his fantasy.
No, Norman, there is no GHE. You can’t even describe this mythical effect, can you?
That’s a bit of a problem.
Swenson
It is a endless rabbit hole on nonsense to respond to you. Nothing you post is rational. I strongly believe you an AI bot not human.
I guess seeing what you come up with could be interesting but there is no rational thought in any of your posts.
I did think Chat GPT bots seemed more human so you might be a lower generation bot.
Your program cannot seem to comprehend what a “heated object” is.
Several people have described the GHE to you in many ways. It is the lack of your programmers skill and ability that does not allow you to process the information you are provided.
Norman, here’s what you wrote –
“The Earth interior is heated but it loses energy slightly faster than the heat generated by radioactive decay. If not for the continued heating is would be much colder than it currently is.”
Cooling. You said it.
No use blaming me because you can’t describe a GHE which doesn’t exist! You might as well just rush off at a tangent, and babble about complete irrelevancies.
Sound fair?
Wonky Wee Willy climbs aboard the “GHE is really just another name for insulation” train.
He wrote –
“Blankets do not make things warmer, they simply slow down the rate of cooling.
Another win for Team Science!”
What an idiot! Faced with the reality that “blankets do not make things warmer”, he still claims that slow cooling results in heating!
Willard is obviously suffering from some strange mental condition which prevents him from accepting reality. That’s a definition of insanity, I guess.
Mike Flynn,
Here’s another such buffoon:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Swoon.
Wonky Wee Willy climbs aboard the GHE is really just another name for insulation train.
He wrote
“Blankets do not make things warmer, they simply slow down the rate of cooling.
Another win for Team Science!”
What an idiot! Faced with the reality that “blankets do not make things warmer” , he still claims that slow cooling results in heating!
Willard is obviously suffering from some strange mental condition which prevents him from accepting reality. Thats a definition of insanity, I guess.
Mike Flynn,
That is all.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Once upon a time, I would have let that one fly.
But Graham D. Warner is unable to negotiate anything.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
One of the most stubborn posters at WUWT is a guy nicknamed ‘Tom Abbott’.
He posts since evah the same graph stored in 2007 at climateaudit:
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uhcnh2.gif
and claims all the time that all newer time series must be wrong because they no longer show the 1930’s warmer than today’s temperatures.
*
In theory, he might be right when looking at a time series like this one, comparing GHCN daily to NOAA’s Climate at a Glance for CONUS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10OGbJ4l3uBF5NcPRtFy1vqSOlfqXrMP3/view
*
But what people a la Abbott never will understand is that light years separate Hansen’s 1999 pic from today’s evaluation because at that time, there were incredibly less active stations than today (over 8000 compared to probably less than 1000 in 1999).
What I have always missed in the surface station data sets is, for each station, its entry date into the data set’s inventory: that would make one able to drop, e.g. of GHCN daily or V4, all stations which were entered later than a given year, e.g. … 1999.
*
Who nonetheless wants to look at his beloved 1930 just needs to look at a graph showing the distribution of maxima and minima over time for CONUS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H_P0OEHaHxwcxY_CgxxxDLyLc18csmHZ/view
Look at the red plot, people, and enjoy.
binny….”there were incredibly less active stations than today (over 8000 compared to probably less than 1000 in 1999)”.
GISS has always gotten their data from NOAA and NOAA has admitted they now use less than 1500 stations to cover the solid surface. Why are you in such deep denial re what NOAA has openly admitted?
Robertson
Try to understand instead of blathering:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1622954
Bill Hunter
You claimed this above (taking it down here because of congestion above and I want to know your answer).
YOU: “Since the normal temperature of the surface should be 278.5k and its like 288.5k that leaves 10k for a GHE. So we are looking for only 55watts and if the mean temperature is actually only 285k we are only looking for”
Where do you get your number 278.5 K?
The effective temperature of the Earth would be 255 K if you evenly spread out the energy it receives to a continuous basis over the whole Earth.
Bill Hunter
Okay I see where you got the 278.5 K from but when dealing with the Earth you have a surface that reflects 30% of the incoming solar, if it were a blackbody in the visible as well as IR your number would be correct.
The Earth is not a visible light blackbody. It is only 70% of one but it is close to a blackbody for IR emissivity.
Here:
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia18833-nasa-spacecraft-maps-earths-global-emissivity
Water, ice and snow all have very high IR emissivity.
To get an effective temperature you cannot use energy for Earth that would be absorbed. You could say the effective temperature could be warmer. If it was receiving 240 Watts/m^2 and had an emissivity of 0.9 then the temperature would be warmer than 255 K
It would reach a temperature of 262. At an emissivity of 0.95 it would have an effective temperature of 258.
None of this would disprove the obvious link I sent to you showing a GHE. The surface which could be measured of the Sahara sand (would be much hotter than the air temp) would let you know how close the atmospheric reading was to the actual surface temperature. But that is not the important point. The big point is that the outgoing energy is much less than the surface emission.
I have given you surface emissions with the ESRL graphs.
Norman displays his confusion, for all to see: “If it was receiving 240 Watts/m^2 and had an emissivity of 0.9 then the temperature would be warmer than 255 K”
Wrong again, Norman. If Earth were receiving 240 W/m², emissivity 0.9, then its temperature would be 185K, emitting 60 W/m².
You’re so confused I don’t even know if you can be helped….
Clint R
WTF! You went total doofus on me without a flinch!
How do you calculate that? Before you call one confused hopefully you provide and answer.
if the surface absorbs 240 Watts/m^2 it has to warm to the temperature where it will emit 240 watts/m^2 else it will continue to warm until it does. In a steady state it will emit energy at the same rate it is receiving energy.
An surface with an emissivity of 0.9 will reach a temperature of 261.87 K.
Are you drunk?
You do know the Stephan-Boltzmann Law correct?
If you don’t here it is
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
Clint R
I know the room might be spinning for you but try to follow the math.
Using Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
P=240 Watts
A=1 m^2
emissivity=0.9
Constant=5.6703×10^-8
So 240 Watt/m^2 = 0.9(5.6703 x 10^-8)T^4
240/(0.9)(5.6703 x 10^-8) =T^4
4,702,866,985 = T^4
261.87 = T
Checking the math by going in reverse.
Temp=261.87 K
T^4 = 4,702,866,985
P/A= (0.9)(5.6703^10-8)(4,702,866,985)
P/A = 239.99 Checks out with maybe some rounding issues.
Not sure what math you are using but it is wrong.
Clint R
Now to put your 185 in the equation.
T = 185
T^4 = 1,171,350,625
P/A= (0.9)(5.6703×10^-8)(1,171,350,625)
P/A = 60 Watts
How does a surface receiving 240 Watts of energy (per meter squared) only emit 60 watts of energy? You make no sense. I think that is worse logic than Gordon Robertson or Swenson and neither of these two posters is logical at all.
Oh well you won’t provide an answer. You do not deal with evidence.
Norman,
You wrote –
“if the surface absorbs 240 Watts/m^2 it has to warm to the temperature where it will emit 240 watts/m^2 else it will continue to warm until it does. In a steady state it will emit energy at the same rate it is receiving energy.”
Fine – expose a surface to a block of ice emitting 240 W/m2 forever, and it will stay just as cold as the ice.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. If your calculations show otherwise, they are wrong.
You can’t describe the GHE, so good luck with trying to convince people that they should value your strange proselytising.
Mike Flynn,
What happens to a surface when it receives 240 Joule per second and only emits 60 Joule per second?
You STILL don’t get it Norma.
Earth receives 960 W/m², after albedo. If it only received 240 W/m², emissivity 0.9, then its temperature would be 185K, emitting 60 W/m².
When you grow up, and leave the nonsense behind, you might have a chance of understanding. But, until then, you make this so much fun.
Norman says:
”Water, ice and snow all have very high IR emissivity.”
Emissivity only makes a difference to the rate of warming when exposed to sunlight which is considered to be very close to a blackbody.
The fact is emissivity is very difficult to determine and it varies due to texture and diffuse versus specular reflection.
For instance I notice that the emissivity table I provided listed water as only having .56 emissivity, which is a lot lower than I have seen.
I had a personal conversation on this with Kevin Trenberth. He noted to me a wide disagreement on the emissivity of water as he originally gave me an article on emissivity that actually listed it considerably lower than he does. I specifically asked him about that and he simply said he disagreed with the source he had given me.
oxygen is an example of a material with a very low emissivity that gets hotter in sunlight than the maximum of 400k suggested by the solar constant.
Thus these things when dealing with non-blackbodies can get really weird and we hear a lot of nonsense about what these things can and cannot do.
Norman says:
None of this would disprove the obvious link I sent to you showing a GHE. The surface which could be measured of the Sahara sand (would be much hotter than the air temp) would let you know how close the atmospheric reading was to the actual surface temperature.
IMO, most likely the GHE is caused by the atmosphere without GHG warming like the thermosphere or via an insulating effect operating on the percentage of molecules that are good IR emitters. That would leave CO2 as a cooling agent only for the atmosphere and it would be responsible for warming the surface to the temperature of the atmosphere.
It is not clear to me the desert sands get hotter than the air except via convection cooling the atmosphere. . .which IMO would not occur if there were no greenhouse gases as the atmosphere would warm at least to the temperature of the surface and thus with zero temperature differential you would have zero convection.
I see GHG as being a substance that can transfer heat anywhere its cooler. . .working like conduction. I have seen nothing to suggest it does anything but accelerate cooling.
Norman says:
”But that is not the important point. The big point is that the outgoing energy is much less than the surface emission.”
I see that as a canard. I think that the only thing that matters is net emission. Net emission by all means of heat transfer cannot exceed the mean value of what is emitted to space without causing the substance in between from warming and that the lapse rate is the result of a mechanical process. I see no basis for a forcing in the system except maybe a very small one related to friction or something like that. Somebody needs to demonstrate that the normal state without GHGs the atmosphere would be cooler than the surface. If you can shoot holes in that via demonstration perhaps you can get my attention.
” I see no basis for a forcing”
But science does see the basis for it, and has a strong rationale based in physics.
Concepts that are rational and useful to science need not be for YOU.
And that’s ok. Science will carry on without you.
Strong is a subjective and relative term Nate. Science has lots of rationales that never pan out. And I am all for science carrying on. . .doing science. . .not politics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpMQSVp7NTg
Niall Ferguson.
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Willard apparently disagrees with the discussion because he is going straight for the ad hominem but he doesn’t want to say why he disagrees with the discussion.
“And I am all for science carrying on. . .doing science. . .not politics.”
Oh really? Then why do you stop talking science, and present us with POLITICAL opinion?
Too often, Bill, when you have no science answer, you substitute politics.
Just aint convincing.
Thats because I am a policy wonk. The role of science in policy is as Niall Ferguson portrayed in the video interview and scientists that don’t follow that model are treasonous and are mostly responsible for what happened in Germany in the middle of the last century. Those treasonous scientists advanced the theories of ethnic cleansing both before and during Hitler’s reign of terror.
And as Niall pointed out it started out as a few believers then when Hitler came to power it became a coalition of professors made up of believers and opportunists. And since at the time the German Universities were the most respected in the world it infected a large part of the world as well.
Thats why a great deal of the science you spew is spewed with non-scientific words that are relative and subjective. You talk of proofs you cannot produce. you ignore failures of your analogies like the GPE and continue to talk about dominance of radiative heat transfer in systems the very scientists that promote this stuff actually quantify as at least is mostly non-radiative heat transfer and you wonder and ponder why the surface is so warm and simply look to false standards for what the temperature of the surface should be.
such as explained here. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1626081
So indeed we are talking about science and its proper role. We wouldn’t need this discussion if politics never interfered with science.
> Thats because I am a policy wonk.
qltm
Yeah so having failed to support your claims such as ‘I see no basis for a forcing’ with any sound science rationale, you switch to policy rationale!
Sorry that just don’t work.
Science facts are facts regardless of their policy implications.
Norman says:
Bill Hunter
Okay I see where you got the 278.5 K from but when dealing with the Earth you have a surface that reflects 30% of the incoming solar, if it were a blackbody in the visible as well as IR your number would be correct.
The Earth is not a visible light blackbody. It is only 70% of one but it is close to a blackbody for IR emissivity.
———————–
the problem is as Dr. Yong says from the Youtube Channel Yong Tuition. Climate science treats the atmosphere as disconnected from the surface. It doesn’t matter what the emissivity is at the surface. The reason is that at the earths radiant surface at radiant TOA (a virtual surface) the emissivity is .7 thus to radiate 240w/m2 that surface should be 278.5. Thus the mean temperature of the atmosphere from contact with the radiant TOA and the surface of the earth due to contact with atmosphere must be at least 278.5. Then we have the differences of 1359w/m2 to 1380w/m2 which probably corresponds to typical solar variation plus orbital variation from the gravitational pull of extra terrestrial objects in space. Thats a variation with an amplitude of ~4C. And up to 4C variation on a relatively short term climate scale of a few centuries can be clearly discerned in the ice core records.
We know for a fact that all objects rotate around a barycenter and that barycenters for multiple objects makes for moving barycenters and non-circular and even non-elliptical motions of objects as they move in space.
“The reason is that at the earths radiant surface at radiant TOA (a virtual surface) the emissivity is .7 thus to radiate 240w/m2 that surface should be 278.5. Thus the mean temperature of the atmosphere from contact with the radiant TOA and the surface of the earth due to contact with atmosphere must be at least 278.5.”
There is no 0.7 emissivity at the surface, end of story.
The rest of this is total BS with invented numbers to post-hoc rationalize the invented emissivity of 0.7.
I am not talking about the earth’s surface I am talking about the TOA Radiant surface. If a surface absorbs that warms it to X degrees, it will emit enough energy to reach an equilibrium with that input.
the only time that does not happen is like with oxygen in the atmosphere that is a very poor IR emitter it will warm hotter. to rid itself of the energy it has.
Good, work out all those speculations and get back to us with the evidence to support it.
Or not.
Well to start with you have to realize that the emissivity of the surface doesn’t count and here is why:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1626081
Nah, already rebutted.
Where is the ‘certification’ for your ‘model’?
Clint R ( and apparently a few other geniuses) still do not understand where the 240 Watt/m^2 come from.
Firstly, let us have a look at the SURFRAD corner.
We randomly take Fort Peck, MT as example, and look at how downwelling SW (DSW) and upwelling LW (ULW) radiation behave – for two opposite days in a yearly sequence
2024, Feb 15
https://i.postimg.cc/g2Wy7W2d/SURFRAD-Fort-Peck-DSW–ULW-150224.png
2023, Aug 15
https://i.postimg.cc/W4KwXJDY/SURFRAD-Fort-Peck-DSW–ULW-150823.png
*
We see that in both images
DSW is zero at night – as expected
and that
– ULW is present during the whole day – what is either not expected or even rejected by these geniuses who claim that Earth only warms when the Sun shines and only cools at night.
Of course: the only way to obtain a valuable information about DSW and ULW radiation at Fort Peck, MT would be to perform a yearly average of the data downloaded from
https://gml.noaa.gov/aftp/data/radiation/surfrad/Fort_Peck_MT/
*
But anyway, comparing August (9 hours full night) to February (13) is a good hint on a worldwide 50/50 DSW average between night and day.
Conversely, the two days also clearly show a full 24 hour ULW.
*
Thus the assumption ‘50% solar DSW vs. 100% terrestrial ULW’ very probably is plain correct; I leave the job of a confirmation by data processing to those who always polemically doubt but never technically let alone scientifically disprove.
*
This means that while a local daily ULW average must be integrated over a full sphere, the DSW must be integrated over the hemisphere that is sunlit.
And while ULW is of radial nature, a global daily solar DSW average of all worldwide available SURFRAD stations has to cope with the fact that solar radiation on the sunlit hemisphere is of frontal incidence and hence its effect varies, from the equator to the poles, with the square of the cosine of the incidence angle, as the infinitesimal integration ‘squares’ diminish both longitudinal and latitudinal.
Integrating cos^2(x)dx over the hemisphere gives as result 0.5; this is 101 spherical trig which can easily be checked using a spreadsheet calculator.
*
This is the reason why the sunlit hemisphere ‘looks’ like a disk: the integration of solar radiation over it gives
pi * R^2 * (1 – albedo)
*
And this is finally the reason why the ~ 1360 W/m^2 of solar radiation at TOA become 960 due to 30% albedo, 480 because only one hemisphere is sunlit, and… 240 because of a latitude weighting of the solar radiation based on a squared cosine of the incidence angle on the sphere.
*
No belief needed, no cult, no authority, no daddy: all you need is willing to understand.
After all that rambling blah-blah Bindi, you got one thing right. Earth’s incoming flux is considered to be 960 W/m², after albedo. It’s NOT 240 W/m², as Norman claims.
The 240 W/m² is the EMITTED flux from your cult’s imaginary sphere.
You missed the “240 because of a latitude weighting of the solar radiation based on a squared cosine of the incidence angle on the sphere,” Puffman.
I did a post just for that mistake, a mistake I’ve been told no Sky Dragon crank ever made.
Have I been told a lie?
It’s 960 W/m^2 incoming if you don’t average it, it’s 480 W/m^2 incoming if you average it over the lit hemisphere, and it’s 240 W/m^2 incoming if you average it over the entire sphere. Couldn’t be simpler.
However, the incoming energy is not received over the entire sphere at once, obviously. So, if you’re going with 240 W/m^2 as your incoming average, then that’s a temporal as well as a spatial average.
End of story.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again, over a geometric fact to boot.
What I said was correct. Always has been, always will be.
In some way, all of the three main exploits by our Dragon cranks rest on lousy geometrical intuitions.
Argue it out with Entropic Man.
Sky Dragon cranks also entertain a weird notion of equivalence.
Little Willy entertains us all.
” So, if youre going with 240 W/m^2 as your incoming average, then thats a temporal as well as a spatial average.”
Obviously, yet all of the key climate change observations are temporal averages over much longer periods, like months or years.
So this is a faux controversy.
…Willy entertains us all.
Worse than that, Nate – equivalence holds at all time!
Little Willy implied that this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1624353
was wrong. Nate has come along and written something, no idea what, but I know that Nate would never have said that the linked comment is wrong, because he knows that it isn’t. If anything, he probably agreed with the comment, but added some other consideration into the mix. Perhaps Little Willy could let me know what that is, once he’s accepted that my comment was correct and that Nate has (most likely) agreed with it.
Graham D. Warner implies that a hemisphere needs not be corrected according to the angle of incidence. What that correction is done, one gets a disc.
He also implies that flux can directly be converted into temperature. The equation does not work like that.
And he also implies that the unlit side of the Earth is very cold. Like, very cold. He seldom admits to it. In fact he’s been tasked to ask Joe to add the clarification on his propaganda tools, but for some reason he never got the Round Tuit.
Astute readers won’t fall for Joe’s con.
Perhaps Little Willy could let me know what that is, once he’s accepted that my comment was correct and that Nate has (most likely) agreed with it.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner could correct the misrepresentations Puffman introduced, without which Sky Dragin cranks have no basis to start a food fight.
As we see in the thread below this one, your own words show agreement with Clint R.
“Nate has come along and written something, no idea what, but I know that ..”
The charade gets sillier and sillier…
He spends more time speculating about what I said than it would take to read my post, for which he is not supposed to be interested in any case.
I see Nate has commented, again. We can assume that he would have expressed disagreement with my 12:34 PM comment from 17th February by now, if any such disagreement existed. Not sure what he’s said, but it’s bound to be something unconnected. Probably just some personal remark.
No one here can tell us why this matters, but they keep bringing it up.
Cuz their Daddy Joe Postma told them it matters.
Another comment…probably just some other silly personal remark.
Nah.
It is a fact that no one here can tall us why this matters for climate science. Yet they keep bringing it up.
Ditto.
I think it’s time to ignore Graham D. Warner’s comments in this thread.
Thank God for that.
…think it’s time to ignore Graham D. Warner’s comments in this thread.
Once again, we see that Little Willy is incapable of accepting when I write a perfectly reasonable, correct comment, such as my 12:34 PM post from 17th February. He has to argue against it, to the death, regardless of the facts. Simply because I wrote it.
…it’s time to ignore Graham D. Warner’s comments in this thread.
“He has to argue against it, to the death, regardless of the facts. Simply because I wrote it.”
PERFECT description of what Bill does.
“Its 960 W/m^2 incoming if you dont average it, its 480 W/m^2 incoming if you average it over the lit hemisphere, and its 240 W/m^2 incoming if you average it over the entire sphere. Couldnt be simpler.”
It is reasonable.
And Clint needs to study it to understand why his complaints that climate science is doing it all wrong are bogus.
…again, we see that Little Willy is incapable of accepting when I write a perfectly reasonable, correct comment, such as my 12:34 PM post from 17th February. He has to argue against it, to the death, regardless of the facts. Simply because I wrote it.
…time to ignore Graham D. Warners comments in this thread.
…we see that Little Willy is incapable of accepting when I write a perfectly reasonable, correct comment, such as my 12:34 PM post from 17th February. He has to argue against it, to the death, regardless of the facts. Simply because I wrote it.
…to ignore Graham D. Warners comments in this thread.
…see that Little Willy is incapable of accepting when I write a perfectly reasonable, correct comment, such as my 12:34 PM post from 17th February. He has to argue against it, to the death, regardless of the facts. Simply because I wrote it.
…ignore Graham D. Warners comments in this thread.
…that Little Willy is incapable of accepting when I write a perfectly reasonable, correct comment, such as my 12:34 PM post from 17th February. He has to argue against it, to the death, regardless of the facts. Simply because I wrote it.
Better to ignore Graham D. Warner’s comments in this thread.
Puffman indeed missed “240 because of a latitude weighting of the solar radiation based on a squared cosine of the incidence angle on the sphere,” and that’s that.
Little Willy must be lonely, or bored right now. He’s desperate for attention on both threads, this one and the one below.
Better to ignore Graham D. Warner’s comments in this thread.
Astute readers might follow along:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1627789
See what I mean?
…to ignore Graham D. Warners comments in this thread.
Astute readers might follow along:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1627789
Any really astute readers would want to follow along from the beginning:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1622870
…ignore Graham D. Warners comments in this thread.
Astute readers might follow along where we actually are:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1628265
All discussions are over.
…gnore Graham D. Warners comments in this thread.
Astute readers might follow along where all this actually started:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1622801
Little Willy baits for more on both threads.
…nore Graham D. Warner‘s comments in this thread.
Astute readers might notice how Sky Dragon cranks suck at the S-B Law:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1628352
More baiting and goading.
…ore Graham D. Warner’s comments in this thread.
Baiting and goading would be trolling, of course.
Clint R
The Earth does NOT receive 960 W/m^2 after albedo.
You do not understand effective temperature. You DO not divide the 240 W/m^2 by 4. Why you think this is logical is only something you can figure out. It is so illogical that I am not able to follow this line of reasoning.
Your flaw is you do not have enough math background to calculate things on your own.
I can help you if you are able to follow, not sure you can.
At One AU the Earth will receive 1361 Watts/m^2
The total amount of power received by the Earth will be the area of circle the same radius as Earth. It does not receive more than this.
The area of the Earth receiving circle is 1.275×10^14 m^2
Radius of Earth in meters = 6,371,000 meters
Circle area that will be total possible solar input (pi)(r^2)
Total Power Earth receives from the Sun = 1.739×10^17 Watts. Of that amount only about 70% is absorbed. The total watts the Earth surface receives that is available = 1.2175×10^17 Watts.
To get an effective temperature you equally spread this energy over every square meter of Earth Surface.
Approximate area of Earth’s surface is 5.10×10^14 m^2.
1.2175×10^17 Watts/5.10×10^14 m^2 = 238.7 W/m^2. The 240 will probably come from a different albedo or rounding issues.
That is where the 240 comes from. You would not take that amount and then divide it again by 4 to come up with 60 Watts/m^2 and I do not understand why you think this is a valid calculating step.
I give you the math, you won’t understand it. You still don’t.
Norman,
You are quite mad.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, but you refuse to accept that fact.
Try describing the GHE. I’ll bet you fail.
Loser.
Noman, your math is wrong because you use the wrong starting value. Everyone uses 960 W/m². That’s the average solar constant adjusted for the average albedo. Everyone accepts that value. Your cult accepts it. Your cult applies it to the imaginary sphere and gets the “240 W/m²” and “255K” nonsense.
So, you’re wrong, as usual.
You’re trying to claim Earth only receives 240 W/m². With emissivity 0.9, its temperature would then be 185K, emitting 60 W/m². The imaginary sphere ABSORBS 960 W/m², but EMITS 240 W/m².
You don’t understand any of this.
“to the imaginary sphere ”
The Earth is spherical.
Nothing imaginary about this calculation. Just ordinary geometry and arithmetic.
The ignoramus Clint offers no sensible alternative.
Your cult’s blackbody sphere is imaginary, child Nate. There is no “sensible alternative” for reality.
Try to pay attemtion.
Attemtion! Attemtion! Puffman wants attemtion!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn follows Graham D. Warner‘s lead.
“There is no sensible alternative for reality.”
And there we have it.
“Your cults blackbody sphere is imaginary”
Blackbody? No, he didnt claim emissivity = 1, did he?
So what is imaginary? The Earth is not a sphere?
OMG.
Nate,
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
Are you still trying to insinuate that a GHE made the Earth hotter, or are you not quite that silly?
Just keep quoting me exactly, Nate. At first science may be confusing for you, but in years who knows? You might start to understand….
The nothing-to-add tag team, adds background noise.
Clint R
A flat circular object in space at Earth orbit with radius equal to Earth’s would receive 960 W/m^2. However this is not the Earth.
I do not think you understand effective temperature. It is a conceptual idea, a starting point. Not meant to be the real world just a conceptual one.
So in your case with the 960 value (the circular object would absorb about 70& of the incoming solar energy) to get the effective temperature you would spread the energy over every square meter of the surface of a sphere. The surface of a sphere is 4 times larger than the circular object. So to get the conceptual effective temperature you would divide the 960 by 4 so that each square meter of a sphere receives the same energy which gets you to 240 W/m^2.
You can’t escape logic and rational thinking.
Sorry Norman, but you’re just desperately rambling, again.
Earth is considered by your cult to be absorbing 960 W/m². Period. Full stop.
The imaginary sphere absorbs 960 W/m², and EMITS 240 W/m².
Even bdgwx and Bindi understand the basics.
Sorry Puffman, but you’re just failing to grasp the word “balance” in “energy-balance model”
A watt per meter does not mean much unless you know how many meters there is to cover, and if you mind your units properly the energy in ought to equal the energy out.
Go back to school, or stick to IT menial work.
Flux values (W/m^2) don’t have to balance, so long as energy values (J) balance. If the irradiance flux (W/m^2) is received over a different surface area (m^2) than the radiant exitance flux (W/m^2) leaves from, energy (J) can balance even when the flux values (W/m^2) don’t.
The surface receiving energy is four times smaller than the surface emitting energy.
Alternatively, the surface emitting energy is four times bigger than the surface receiving energy.
In images:
https://youtu.be/GNcFjFmqEc8?si=rq0IDPC9-sR3L9zY
So, disk = 960 W/m^2
Lit hemisphere = 480 W/m^2
Sphere = 240 W/m^2
Little Willy should agree with Clint R.
Gaslighting Graham always seems to forget that the hemisphere, when corrected by applying Lambert’s Law, represents a disc.
The path of the Moon Dragon crank is one of bad logic and bad geometry. How can we then expect them to reform physics?
The hemisphere has double the surface area of the disk, and the sphere has double the surface area of the hemisphere.
Little Willy has now expressed agreement with Clint R.
The total amount of power received by the Earth will be the area of circle the same radius as Earth. It does not receive more than this.
Norman is right.
This:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1625011
Plus this:
“The surface receiving energy is four times smaller than the surface emitting energy”
Equals:
“The imaginary sphere absorbs 960 W/m², and EMITS 240 W/m².”
Little Willy has eternally agreed with Clint R, whether he understands that, or not. All a matter of permanent internet record.
Bliss!
NoWillard says:
”The total amount of power received by the Earth will be the area of circle the same radius as Earth. It does not receive more than this.
Norman is right.”
—————————
Not exactly. The earth is 12,756.2km
the atmosphere stretches up to 10,000km
Thus the disk size of the earth system is 268,242,160 sqkm
The terrestrial disk size is only 40,680,160 sqkm
Of course the abs-orp-tion rate of the atmosphere is different than the terrestrial disk but it does add to total energy absorbed. This is especially relevant to those that think upper atmosphere abs-orp-tion is key to the GHE with sensitivities of that being in their mind set to 3 to 1.
https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/atmosphere/
[s]Lets see the atmosphere absorbs about 78 or 67 watts of sunlight depending upon which version of Trenberth you choose. At 3 to 1 sensitivity, that gives somewhere between 201 to 234w/m2 measured effect at surface after feedbacks.
Gee thats the whole enchilada!! [/s]
Gill goes full denial, and then throws a squirrel into the mix.
LOL!
Oh, and Graham D. Warner just refuted Puffman’s claim that the Earth only emits 60 W/m.
Great news!
Willard says:
Gill goes full denial, and then throws a squirrel into the mix.
LOL!
————————–
Willard obviously doesn’t get the [s] [/s] code.
Gill obviously interjects sweet nothings.
“The total amount of power received by the Earth will be the area of circle the same radius as Earth. It does not receive more than this.
Norman is right.”
Norman is not in disagreement with Clint R with that statement. Power is watts (W). To get to flux (W/m^2), you have to divide by the surface area. Norman says:
“Total Power Earth receives from the Sun = 1.739×10^17 Watts. Of that amount only about 70% is absorbed. The total watts the Earth surface receives that is available = 1.2175×10^17 Watts”
Then, his next step:
“…you equally spread this energy over every square meter of Earth Surface.”
That is where Norman disagrees with you and Clint R. You have said:
“The surface receiving energy is four times smaller than the surface emitting energy.”
So you would be spreading the energy received (that total power (W) value) over one quarter of the Earth’s surface, getting a value of approximately 960 W/m^2 for received. Then the surface emitting energy would be every square metre of Earth surface, so you would repeat the calculation Norman did and get approximately 240 W/m^2, but for the emitted flux.
960 W/m^2 in, 240 W/m^2 out. By your own words.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again to start another silly food fight.
The spread Norman was alluding to refers to the division by 4 that he still stumbles over after more that five years. To make the system reach equilibrium, the surface over which flux is converted into energy needs to be unified. *Only then* can it be converted into temperature.
Sky Dragon cranks wish to sidestep that transformation and turn fluxes directly into temperature. To make such a bonehead mistake is not a way to revise physics.
Little Willy tries to run from his own words:
“The surface receiving energy is four times smaller than the surface emitting energy.“
but I’m not going to let him. Norman is treating “the surface receiving energy” as being the entire Earth’s surface. He made that perfectly clear. Thus, he is treating “the surface receiving energy” as being the same size as “the surface emitting energy”. 240 W/m^2 in, 240 W/m^2 out.
If you treat it instead as Little Willy suggested, you get 960 W/m^2 in, and 240 W/m^2 out.
Graham D. Warner tries to ignore Puffman’s blunder:
[PUFFMAN’S BLUNDER] Youre trying to claim Earth only receives 240 W/m^2. With emissivity 0.9, its temperature would then be 185K, emitting 60 W/m^2.
There are two mistakes. One is basic geometry. Another is basic physics.
"Oh, and Graham D. Warner just refuted Puffman’s claim that the Earth only emits 60 W/m."
Clint R was not actually claiming that the Earth only emits 60 W/m^2. He was just saying that the emitted flux value is a quarter of the received flux value (960 W/m^2 in, 240 W/m^2 out), as far as he (and you) see it. So, if the received flux value really was 240 W/m^2, then the emitted flux value would have to be only 60 W/m^2. At least, that’s my interpretation of what he said. He can correct me if I’m wrong.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
Puffman indeed said that Norman was trying to claim Earth only receives 240 W/m^2, and that its temperature would then be 185K, emitting 60 W/m^2.
Not only was this a lie, but it makes neither algebraic nor geometric sense.
Little Willy couldn’t understand my clear explanation. No surprise.
Little Willy couldn’t understand my clear explanation. No surprise.
Graham D. Warner refuses to acknowledge Puffman’s lie.
He also refuses to correct his elementary mistakes.
What else is new?
Clint R has claimed:
"The imaginary sphere absorbs 960 W/m², and EMITS 240 W/m²."
I have shown that Little Willy agrees, with his own statements. He can’t escape that, so he redirects to something else. Anything I say on that "something else", he’ll automatically reject, so as to continue the diversion.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
When will he correct his “Norman is treating “the surface receiving energy” as being the entire Earth’s surface”?
Norman made himself perfectly clear, Little Willy:
“…you equally spread this energy [total available power] over every square meter of Earth Surface.”
You’ve never understood the basics, and you’re not about to start now.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again:
Reading his equations suffices to see that this is untrue.
But then Graham never reads equations…
Lol, if Norman himself said I was correct about what he was saying, you would still claim I was wrong. Pointless talking to you, always.
Graham D. Warner still does not get it:
The amount of energy an object receives does not change whether it’s an hemisphere, a sphere or a disc.
It is to get an effective temperature that the equation gets simplified to a temperature.
The effective temperature depends on how much the object emits.
Failure to understand that is why Sky Dragon cranks keep blathering about flux.
Yes, the Earth emits 240 W/m^2 and thus its effective temperature is 255 K. Nobody is saying otherwise.
That’s the part that Norman himself gets confused about. Total power in equals total power out, but he is spreading the total power in over the whole Earth’s surface and claiming the effective temperature is based on that. No, as you say, it is based on what is emitted.
You and Clint R have the Earth receiving 960 W/m^2 and emitting 240 W/m^2, Norman has the Earth receiving 240 W/m^2 and presumably emitting 240 W/m^2 (although he never mentions a calculation for what it emits, we can assume he would do the same calculation as he does for what is received).
The Earth’s effective temperature is just an abstract mathematical calculation, mind.
The only reason to estimate the “flux” from a hemisphere using an energy balance model is to get the effective temperature of a hemisphere. Which is what Joe did in his Magnum Opus. Something that escaped Graham D. Warner for a long while, and something he still tries to portray as reasonable or relevant.
Joe does the same in his posters. He shows the effective temperature of a hemisphere, and presents it as the effective temperature of *his* model of the Earth. Forgetting about the hidden part of the Earth that basically never receives any energy. A model with the side of the Earth never receiving energy is so much more plausible to Sky Dragon cranks. As long as nobody notices, the con survives.
Those who want to model the Earth will take the geometry of the Earth into consideration to get the effective temperature of the Earth. Not just a hemisphere.
And they’ll use a disc to model the part that receives light from the Sun, because that’s a basic geometry fact. Not a geometry fact for “flat Earth.” Because that’s a basic geometry fact for a sphere.
Why are you talking about Postma? I haven’t been. You’re wrong, of course, Postma agrees that the effective temperature of the Earth is 255 K. And, nobody is talking about the flux from a hemisphere. The flux received by the lit hemisphere would be 480 W/m^2.
However, you have made it clear that you agree with Clint R that the Earth receives 960 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2:
“The surface receiving energy is four times smaller than the surface emitting energy.“
"…to get the effective temperature of a hemisphere. Which is what Joe did in his Magnum Opus."
No, Postma calculated that a 480 W/m^2 input would equate to a blackbody temperature of about 303 K or 30 C, and noted that’s what a surface could warm to if exposed to that flux. Same as he calculated that a 960 W/m^2 input would equate to a blackbody temperature of about 361 K or 88 C, and noted that’s what a surface could warm to if exposed to that flux. He was not "getting the effective temperature of a hemisphere".
"And they’ll use a disc to model the part that receives light from the Sun, because that’s a basic geometry fact. Not a geometry fact for “flat Earth.” Because that’s a basic geometry fact for a sphere."
Still misrepresenting the "flat Earth" jab from Postma? His "flat Earth" comments relate to this idea that the incoming flux should be treated as being 240 W/m^2. That would be a spatial and temporal average, and, as such, it is averaging out night and day. His remark is meant to convey that such averaging out of night and day, as if the solar input was this constant low 240 W/m^2 at any one location on the planet, treats the Earth as though it were a flat plane, with everything on the side facing the Sun, continuously illuminated with this artificially low 240 W/m^2. Rather than being a rotating globe, with parts of the planet receiving in excess of 960 W/m^2 during the day, and nothing at night.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
Yes, Joe’s con rests on calculating the effective temperature of a hemisphere and presenting it as a model for the Earth.
Yes, Joe explained his con in his Magnum Opus:
https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/joe-s-con.png
And no, Norman does not misunderstand anything about power.
"Yes, Joe’s con rests on calculating the effective temperature of a hemisphere and presenting it as a model for the Earth."
False, as explained.
"And no, Norman does not misunderstand anything about power."
Norman’s misunderstanding was to spread the total power in over the whole Earth’s surface and calculate an effective temperature based on that, when he should have been spreading the total power out over the whole Earth’s surface and calculating an effective temperature based on that. As you said, the effective temperature is based on what the Earth emits, not what it receives.
The main thing is, you’ve agreed with Clint R that the Earth receives 960 W/m^2, and emits 240 W/m^2, and that will of course never be forgotten.
Norman is correct, Puffman is pulling his leg once more, and Graham D. Warner gaslights again. Fluxes balance when applied to the same surface. The surface that receives the energy from the Sun is four times smaller than the Earth’s whole surface.
The whole surface emits energy to space, not just one hemisphere as Joe’s con has it. There is nothing else behind the Sky Dragon cranks’ gimmick. “But second by second” and “but the Earth rotates” won’t change these physical facts.
"Norman is correct"
Norman’s calculations are correct, so long as you understand that it should apply to the total power out, and not the total power in. The Earth emits 240 W/m^2, as everyone agrees, and the Earth’s effective temperature is based on that.
"Puffman is pulling his leg once more, and Graham D. Warner gaslights again."
False accusations.
"Fluxes balance when applied to the same surface. The surface that receives the energy from the Sun is four times smaller than the Earth’s whole surface."
Thus, the fluxes won’t balance. You are again agreeing with Clint R that the Earth receives 960 W/m^2, and emits 240 W/m^2.
"The whole surface emits energy to space, not just one hemisphere as Joe’s con has it."
Postma indeed shows the whole Earth’s surface emitting energy to space, and has that as 240 W/m^2 emitted. Same as everybody else. The difference is in what he has as the input. Not the output.
> Norman’s calculations are correct
Correct, as I already showed.
***
> Thus, the fluxes wont balance.
False, as I already showed.
***
> Postma indeed shows the whole Earths surface emitting energy to space
False, as I already showed.
***
All this because Sky Dragon cranks never heard of normalization.
Little Willy, if the surface a flux is received on is four times smaller than the surface the flux leaves from, and the total power received is equal to the total power emitted, then the fluxes will not be equal. The irradiance flux will be four times larger than the radiant exitance flux. You have not shown that to be wrong, because it isn’t wrong.
Postma has the flux emitted from Earth as 240 W/m^2, which is the whole Earth’s surface emitting energy. It is right there in his diagrams, e.g:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2023/09/which-one-2.jpg
Joe Postma’s arguments are red herrings intended to mislead the Ignorati. And judging by DREMTs comments, he has been effectively misled.
“No, Postma calculated that a 480 W/m^2 input would equate to a blackbody temperature of about 303 K or 30 C, and noted thats what a surface could warm to if exposed to that flux.”
It could only warm to that if the Earth stopped turning.
But of course the periphery of the hemisphere, even at the equator, would be receiving much lower flux, and would end up very COLD.
Hence: this is a meaningless result, a big red herring.
Much more useful to analyze the T produced by the time-averaged input flux.
Graham D. Warner shows a 2023 poster in which Joe estimates the continuous hemispherical input as being 30C. How does he get that number? Simple: he uses the lit hemisphere as emitter!
But then how does he get 240 W/m^2 on the unlit side? All the solar input has been processed on the other hemisphere!
Joe’s fraud is right there for everyone by Sky Dragon cranks to see.
> by Sky Dragon cranks
… but Sky Dragon cranks
Wherever I comment, and whatever I’m talking about…Nate will appear. No idea what he’s said, but all I’ve done on this sub-thread is to correct Little Willy’s misunderstandings about fluxes, and misrepresentations of Clint R and Postma’s arguments. Every word I’ve said on this thread has been correct in that regard, to the best of my knowledge. I asked Clint R to correct me if I’d got what he meant wrong. I can’t ask Postma to correct me if I’ve got what he meant wrong, but I’m fairly confident I have correctly represented him.
"Simple: he uses the lit hemisphere as emitter!"
Wrong. It’s the input of 480 W/m^2 that he’s converting to a temperature. He is not using "the lit hemisphere as emitter".
"But then how does he get 240 W/m^2 on the unlit side? All the solar input has been processed on the other hemisphere!"
It’s not "240 W/m^2 on the unlit side". If you read more carefully, you will see that it’s 240 W/m^2 as the output from the entire sphere. Exactly as I said. You’ll even note that he writes that 255 K is the associated effective temperature of the Earth.
Whenever Graham D. Warner “spreads” lies or false accusations, pun intended, he’s getting pushback. Whenever he gets caught promoting an obvious con, he’s getting pushback.
Graham D. Warner does that a lot.
Yet his repertoire is very smol. This week it’s the energy-balance model. Last week was the green plates. A month ago it was the “orbit without spin” crap.
And when he does not have enough attention, he starts PSTing threads.
Graham D. Warner, forever the victim.
> Its the input of 480 W/m^2 that hes converting to a temperature.
This is so wrong and has been corrected so many times as to be laughable.
First, 480 W/m^2 isn’t an input. The input, in terms of flux, is twice that, 960 W/m^2, when corrected for albedo.
Second, he “spreads” that input over a hemisphere. Without correcting for the angle of incidence. Joe still does not get that a sphere and a hemisphere receives light on the same surface:
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/solar-disc-surfacearea-taylor.png
Third, he “converts” that flux by hiding the algebraic transformation that would show that he “spreads” the input onto an output. He needs energy in and out to balance, just as everybody else. In fact he shows how he does that in his Magnus Opus, after which he gets the same numbers as everybody else.
And it is by double accounting that he can get the Earth to emit both 480 W/m^2 and 240 W/m^2. The only choices he has are these:
C1. 480 W/m^2 from the lit side + 0 W/m^2 from the unlit side
C2. 240 W/m^2 from both sides.
He can’t have 480 W/m^2 + 240 W/m^2.
All this to con Sky Dragon cranks like Graham D. Warner.
“all Ive done on this sub-thread is to correct Little Willys misunderstandings about fluxes”
by regurgitating, again, the horrible arguments of Joe Postma.
Whenever someone defers to Joe Postma’s authority, a rebuttal is required.
.
Little Willy, you are the one getting pushback…from me…because you keep falsely accusing and misrepresenting. Endlessly.
The 960 W/m^2 is also on the diagram. He shows that there is an area of the Earth’s surface receiving that flux. The 480 W/m^2 is a spatial average over the whole lit hemisphere. Received, not emitted. It actually doesn’t matter if you go through the maths to take “angle of incidence” into account, or take a simple average by dividing the total power received by the area of the hemisphere; the result is the same in either case. You get 480 W/m^2 for the average.
He is not saying that the Earth emits 480 W/m^2. He is quite clear in pointing out that the Earth emits 240 W/m^2, and that this leaves from the entire sphere.
“Whenever he gets caught promoting an obvious con, he’s getting pushback.“
You brought up Postma. Not me. Have I even said his arguments are correct? Have I even defended them? No, I have simply corrected your misrepresentation of them. If anything, you are the one promoting Postma. You won’t shut up about him.
> He is not saying that the Earth emits 480 W/m^2.
And so Graham D. Warner still clings on the idea that he can get a temperature by looking at input fluxes alone. Yet Puffman still harps that they can’t add!
Norman is right: Sky Dragon cranks have no idea how effective temperature is established.
"And so Graham D. Warner still clings on the idea that he can get a temperature by looking at input fluxes alone."
Incorrect. I’m not commenting on it, either way. What I am doing is instructing you that Postma’s argument is 480 W/m^2 received has the potential to raise a blackbody surface to 303 K, or 30 C. He is not saying the Earth emits 480 W/m^2.
"Norman is right: Sky Dragon cranks have no idea how effective temperature is established."
Except that’s obviously not true. Postma states the Earth’s effective temperature is 255 K. It’s right there on the diagram. It’s the blackbody temperature that corresponds to 240 W/m^2 emitted from the whole Earth’s surface.
> 480 W/m^2 received has the potential to raise a blackbody surface to 303 K, or 30 C.
And now Graham D. Warner goes for pure obfuscation. Joe gets 30C because he takes the hemisphere as the emitting surface.
I already showed how the calculation works:
https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/joe-s-con.png
A temperature obtains when emission and reception reach an equilibrium. The whole idea that we must separate input and output makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Graham learned nothing from what Gator was saying years ago.
And this is why his 303K comes at the expense of having to conceal a 2,7K from the other hemisphere.
"Joe gets 30C because he takes the hemisphere as the emitting surface."
No, he doesn’t. It even says at your link he’s talking about a "heating input".
Little Willy, there are parts of the Earth’s surface receiving in excess of 960 W/m^2 for periods of the day. You don’t think there is enough time for the surface there to reach equilibrium? The only reasons the surface there won’t get up to 361 K or 88 C is because it’s not a blackbody, and because it’s also losing energy through conduction/evaporation/convection. It’s not due to not having enough time to reach an equilibrium with the input because the Earth is rotating!
"It’s not due to not having enough time to reach an equilibrium with the input because the Earth is rotating!"
Well, except in the case of the oceans, I should add. That cuts both ways though. They don’t warm quickly, they don’t cool quickly either.
… and here comes another red herring from Graham D. Warner.
An effective temperature refers to an equilibrium state in which input equals output:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature
No output without an input. And no input without an output. Hence why space is so cold.
Fluxes don’t stand alone. They need to hit and emit somewhere. And it is by normalizing the surface that we can estimate the number of watts on each square meter of that surface.
Joe is running a con, and Graham D. Warner is a mark.
"An effective temperature refers to…blah blah blah"
The Earth’s effective temperature is 255 K, as Postma agrees. We’re not even talking about Earth’s effective temperature here. You don’t listen, can’t learn, and aren’t even interested enough to try if you could.
"Joe is running a con, and Graham D. Warner is a mark."
I’m not even defending Postma. I’m simply trying to get you to not misrepresent his arguments. I’d rather not even talk about him at all, but you insist.
The ideas being promoted here, that one CANNOT use the time-average input flux of 240 W/m2, because only one hemisphere is illuminated at a time with 480 W/M^2 come directly from Joe Postma.
The notion that 480 W/m^2 should be used because it gives a higher calculated surface temperature without invoking a GHE, comes from Joe Postma, and is ridiculous, since the Earth spins.
This is what we’re responding to:
"Sorry Norman, but you’re just desperately rambling, again.
Earth is considered by your cult to be absorbing 960 W/m². Period. Full stop.
The imaginary sphere absorbs 960 W/m², and EMITS 240 W/m².
Even bdgwx and Bindi understand the basics."
I don’t know how we get so off-topic, but it sure as heck isn’t my intention. I did not bring up Postma.
Long story short, Little Willy jumped in to attack Clint R, as always, but ended up expressing agreement with him that "the imaginary sphere absorbs 960 W/m^2, and EMITS 240 W/m^2". Everything else has just been an unnecessary diversion. Little Willy is expert at diverting discussions when he gets caught out. Hence why the comments at his "Mind Your Units" article ended up running into the hundreds, despite most of the issues with the article never being fixed.
Graham D. Warner is gaslighting again:
[GRAHAM] Joe calculated that a 480 W/m^2 input would equate to a blackbody temperature of about 303 K or 30 C
[WIKI] The effective temperature of a body such as a star or planet is the temperature of a black body that would emit the same total amount of electromagnetic radiation.
[GRAHAM] We’re not even talking about Earth’s effective temperature here.
The effective temperature of a planet or star is one thing. It’s an abstract mathematical concept.
That fluxes relate to blackbody temperatures is another thing. It’s called the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
[Yes, I know that calculating the effective temperature of a planet or star involves using the SB Law, but hopefully the point was clear].
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting:
[NORMAN] To get an effective temperature you equally spread this energy over every square meter of Earth Surface.
[JOE] When you post the climate science method of using flat Earth for solar input (as opposed to just getting Earths average flux output and effective temperature)
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] We’re not even talking about Earths effective temperature here.
Norman got one important thing wrong. The "this energy" he was referring to was (according to him) the incoming total power. Whereas the Earth’s effective temperature is based on what’s emitted. The outgoing total power should be spread over every square metre of the Earth’s surface, and then the Earth’s effective temperature can be based on that.
There have been different parts to this discussion, Little Willy. At one point we were talking about effective temperature. Then we moved on from that. You’ve got to try to keep up.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Norman got nothing wrong there. The energy being emitted equals what is being received. That’s why we call it an energy balance model.
In that model, the Earth can’t receive more than it emits. Nor can it emit more than it receives.
To evaluate how much energy we’re talking about, we need things like the size of the object and the area over which the energy is received. Only then can we talk about the SB Law or temperature.
Which is how it should be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
An abject gaslighter.
You pointed out Norman’s mistake yourself, Little Willy:
"The effective temperature depends on how much the object emits."
He took the total power in, and spread it over the entire Earth’s surface. Should have been the total power out. The result is the same, of course, 240 W/m^2. However, that’s what the Earth emits.
As you and Clint R assert; the Earth receives 960 W/m^2, and emits 240 W/m^2.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Norman is referring to what the Earth receives overall. It corresponds to what it emits, which is why he says that you equally spread this energy over every square meter of Earth Surface.
And nothing I said contradicts it. In fact, nothing Puffman said does either, except his silly 60 W/m^2, which Graham D. Warner keeps trying to ignore.
Pointless talking to you. Norman would most likely agree that what I’ve said is correct, and would take the minor correction on the chin because it’s no big deal. He did spread the total power in over the whole Earth’s surface, rather than the total power out. Obviously the total power in and total power out are going to be the same, in any case, so it’s a really minor, trivial point that it’s not worth losing any sleep over.
In which case, Little Willy will continue to gnash his teeth over it for the rest of his life…
I explained the 60 W/m^2 thing to the best of my ability, and asked Clint R to correct me if I had it wrong. He never did, so…
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
What Norman said is quite clear to those who can grok basic algebra:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1622848
As for Sky Dragon cranks, who knows what they can grok. In fact, who cares? They will keep gaslighting.
"Norman says:
February 15, 2024 at 10:43 PM"
That’s the comment I’ve been referring to. As you know. The start of this entire thread. So, of course you divert to a different comment from a different thread, hoping to distract readers from my utter evisceration of every single thing you’ve said on this thread. Then you accuse me of gaslighting. Funny.
Puffman’s first mistake:
This is so confused as to be ridiculous. His second:
This is false.
Oh, and let readers know that Norman’s comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1622870
is a response to this comment by Puffman:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1623397
Not that this will prevent Graham D. Warner from trying to pretend that he’s the toastmaster who decides what is relevant or whatnot!
As if Puffman never pulled that trick before anyway…
…and yet you have expressed agreement with him, in your own words:
“The surface receiving energy is four times smaller than the surface emitting energy.“
Too funny. Thank you for the entertainment.
[ME, A LOWLY PEASANT] Sorry Puffman, but you’re just failing to grasp the word “balance” in “energy-balance model.” A watt per meter does not mean much unless you know how many meters there is to cover, and if you mind your units properly the energy in ought to equal the energy out.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER, A PURE GENIUS] yet you have expressed agreement with him, in your own words
Yes, even in your first response to him, that you have quoted there, you were actually kind of making his point for him. If you know how many metres there are to cover, and you mind your units properly, then when:
“The surface receiving energy is four times smaller than the surface emitting energy.”
and the total power in equals the total power out, the irradiance flux will be four times greater than the radiant exitance flux.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
He is projecting a surface in Norman’s comment that isn’t there. Just like he has tried to pretend that Joe’s con did not rest on an implicit surface, i.e. the hemisphere. When both side of an energy-balance equation are normalized, fluxes balance. Norman did not commit the mistake Puffman pretends he made.
Graham D. Warner will soldier on, come what may.
Norman’s comment:
“At One AU the Earth will receive 1361 Watts/m^2
The total amount of power received by the Earth will be the area of circle the same radius as Earth. It does not receive more than this.
The area of the Earth receiving circle is 1.275×10^14 m^2
Radius of Earth in meters = 6,371,000 meters
Circle area that will be total possible solar input (pi)(r^2)
Total Power Earth receives from the Sun = 1.739×10^17 Watts. Of that amount only about 70% is absorbed. The total watts the Earth surface receives that is available = 1.2175×10^17 Watts.
To get an effective temperature you equally spread this energy over every square meter of Earth Surface.
Approximate area of Earth’s surface is 5.10×10^14 m^2.
1.2175×10^17 Watts/5.10×10^14 m^2 = 238.7 W/m^2. The 240 will probably come from a different albedo or rounding issues.”
Norman is spreading the total power in over the whole Earth’s surface. Yet, he should be spreading the total power out over the whole Earth’s surface, since the effective temperature is based on what the Earth emits. If you spread the total power in over a quarter of the Earth’s surface, as you suggest, you will get approximately 960 W/m^2 for the irradiance flux.
QED.
“The main thing is, youve agreed with Clint R that the Earth receives 960 W/m^2….”
Sure, if the Earth were a flat disk with the same albedo, it would receive 960 W/m^2.
But not the real Earth.
I see Nate couldn’t resist commenting again…presumably attacking Clint R and Little Willy’s viewpoint that the Earth receives 960 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2. How will Little Willy defend himself from Nate’s attack? Readers await his devastating rebuttal with baited breath…
I see that Graham D. Warner finally realizes that Norman did not say what Puffman thought he was saying.
After his realization that Joe indeed “spreads” the light on the whole hemisphere to get the effective temperature of the hemisphere, that’s great success!
Ah, so Little Willy has just reached the “lying” stage. Whereas, I can’t help it if Little Willy’s own words confirm his agreement with Clint R that the Earth receives 960 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2, Little Willy is just going to lie and claim I agree with things that I don’t. The rational discussion is over, then, astute readers will have already made up their minds.
That’s that. No need to continue.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again, as has never left the lying stage.
Joe indeed “spreads” the light the Earth receives onto the hemisphere:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2023/09/which-one-2.jpg
Check the 480 W/m^2 is right under the “Continual Hemispherical System Input.” This is half the “Continuous Zenith System Input.”
So Joe divides by 2.
Moreover, notice how Joe gets a temperature at each stage: 121C, 87,5C, 30C, etc.
Also notice that Joe does not tell us what would the temperature of the other side of the Earth under “that” model. This is just the same energy balance model, but cut in half.
Therefore it is quite clear that Joe and Norman are doing the same thing. There’s no other way to get an effective temperature with a one-equation model.
QED.
Notice that Postma has the emitted flux from the entire Earth’s surface clearly labelled as 240 W/m^2, and makes sure it is known that this is the Earth’s effective temperature, ruling out Little Willy’s claims that any of the other temperatures referred to are meant to be the Earth’s effective temperature according to Postma. Little Willy’s confusion is without end. Of course, it’s all deliberate.
Little Willy seems to think that the "dark side" of the Earth in the diagram should be labelled with a temperature of 3 K, completely oblivious to the fact that the Earth rotates, and has oceans and an atmosphere in any case. Obviously, at the North Pole, you can be without Sunlight for over a month and the temperatures do not drop even remotely as low as 3 K. We previously discussed that and established the temperatures at the North Pole during this time were maintained by air and ocean currents.
What we need to determine in this shell game is why CO2 via allegedly warming the surface would cause a colder stratosphere and
why if the sun got brighter and warmed the surface it would not cause a colder stratosphere.
Seems to me both would due that via increasing water vapor in the atmosphere.
But Post Normal Science theorizes the stakes are way too high to find out scientifically. . .and thus freedom must be curtailed.
You guys sound like you are aspiring to the rhetoric of that 1934 paper hanger.
Readers will notice that Joe indeed added a lot of emitters:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2023/09/which-one-2.jpg
Each time he adds a temperature, he adds an emitter.
No emitter, no temperature. Cf. S-B.
QED.
> What we need to determine in this shell game is
Ze Inspecteur Clouseau strikes again!
” attacking Clint R and Little Willys viewpoint that the Earth receives 960 W/m^2″
The charade gets sillier, as DREMT reads my posts and responds to them when he feels like he has an ANSWER.
Thus, on all other occasions he lacks one.
The point is this entire thread was built on DREMT coming to the defense of Clint, even when gets stuff all wrong!
“What we need to determine in this shell game is why CO2 via allegedly warming the surface would cause a colder stratosphere”
You not we. Science has understood this since Manabe and Wetherald 1967.
“But Post Normal Science theorizes the stakes are way too high to find out scientifically. . .and thus freedom must be curtailed.”
OMG
It couldn’t possibly be an issue of Bill being uninformed on some of the science facts determined over the last 40 years.
Thus it must be the case that the science is no longer normal…. and out to get us!
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Little Willy’s nonsense has already been debunked:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1627553
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
He lies about what I criticized in Puffman’s comment.
He lies about Joe’s con.
How low can he go?
I haven’t lied at all. I’m sorry, but your own comments, in the context that they were delivered, express agreement with Clint R. After I had said:
"Flux values (W/m^2) don’t have to balance, so long as energy values (J) balance. If the irradiance flux (W/m^2) is received over a different surface area (m^2) than the radiant exitance flux (W/m^2) leaves from, energy (J) can balance even when the flux values (W/m^2) don’t."
You responded:
"The surface receiving energy is four times smaller than the surface emitting energy."
There is literally no other way I could have taken it besides you were agreeing that the flux values wouldn’t balance, and that the irradiance flux would be four times larger than the radiant exitance flux. 960 W/m^2 in, 240 W/m^2 out. You even said, later on:
"The input, in terms of flux, is twice that, 960 W/m^2"!
You always demand that others are held accountable for their own words, regardless of context or without even considering that they may have changed their minds since they wrote them. When it comes to your own words though, it’s not quite the same story, is it?
I haven’t lied about what Postma is saying. I’ve tried to correct your misrepresentations to the best of my ability. That’s all there is to it.
Graham D. Warner is stuck in another ratiocination loop.
I explained his difficulties with Norman’s comment here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1625725
Understanding this comment should be enough to get Joe’s con.
No emitter. No temperature. Cf. S-B’s law.
QED.
"The spread Norman was alluding to refers to the division by 4 that he still stumbles over after more that five years."
No stumbling here, I understand the division by 4 perfectly well, thanks. In fact, I had to demonstrate it to you with equations, and you still didn’t understand it. I grok Norman’s comment with absolute, crystal clarity. Half of his calculations are in fact what I did myself a couple of years ago. The only difference is that I divided the total power in by the surface area of the hemisphere. Total power out was divided by the surface area of the entire sphere. Oh, and I used 1,370 W/m^2 for the solar constant.
"To make the system reach equilibrium, the surface over which flux is converted into energy needs to be unified. *Only then* can it be converted into temperature."
This is just word salad.
"Sky Dragon cranks wish to sidestep that transformation and turn fluxes directly into temperature. To make such a bonehead mistake is not a way to revise physics."
The temperatures on the diagram besides the Earth’s effective temperature of 255 K are just illustrative of the fact that the Sun can potentially warm areas of the Earth’s surface a lot higher than 255 K, which happens all the time. It’s really just a reminder of the heating power of the Sun. It seems some people think Postma is saying that because the lit hemisphere receives 480 W/m^2 continuously, there’s no need for any GHE because that means the Earth’s effective temperature is 303 K, or 30 C. That is absolutely not what he’s saying. If you actually look closer at the poster, his arguments against the GHE begin in the lapse rate section and on the graphic at the right hand side of the one we’ve been looking at. It stems from the fact that the Earth’s effective temperature is 255 K, but he argues that this 255 K should not be compared with the Earth’s actual ground surface itself…and on it continues. I’m not going to go through every single one of his arguments, you can find them out for yourself. Even more for you to misrepresent!
Graham D. Warner lies about what Norman said. He lies about what Puffman says. He lies about me. And he lies about Joe’s con.
The Stefan-Bolzmann law describes the intensity of the thermal radiation emitted by matter in terms of that matter’s temperature. No surface that emits energy, no temperature possible. Joe gets his temperature by varying his emitters.
Graham D. Warner may never get that. Not my problem.
Let him soldier on.
“Graham D. Warner lies about what Norman said. He lies about what Puffman says. He lies about me. And he lies about Joe’s con.”
Sorry, but you don’t have the right to continually falsely accuse me of lying. GFY.
Graham D. Warner’s lies continue.
The total energy radiated per unit surface area per unit time is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s temperature.
QED.
Little Willy is an abusive troll.
QED.
Graham D. Warner is a pathological liar who, besides having mental health issues, does not understand the StefanBoltzmann law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Of course I understand the SB Law, Little Willy, it’s not exactly difficult. Do you realise how ridiculous you sound? Put a black metal plate out in the Sun on a hot day and measure the temperature it can get to.
Of course Graham D. Warner does not really understand Stefan’s Law.
If he did, he’d realize that Joe gets his temperatures by using an emitter!
To understand that 480 W/m^2 does not square with 240 W/m^2, he’d have to understand algebra, however, and it does not seem he learned much since 2021, when he failed to plug in two sides of an equation together…
75 degrees C, according to Google. That’s how hot the black metal plate could get.
"when he failed to plug in two sides of an equation together"
Little Willy wanted me to equate 480 with 240…seemingly oblivious to the fact that 480 does not equal 240! His ignorance was breathtaking…
But what if Joe told Sky Dragon cranks that teh Google’s response was only ThEOriCAl, that it does not tell anything second by second, that fluxes don’t add?
Graham D. Warner still tries to escape from the inevitable by making himself the Toastmaster of this thread.
In the usual energy balance models, it’s either 480W + 0W per square meter, or it’s 240W per square meter all around.
Can’t be 480W + 240W.
Now that Little Willy’s agreement with Clint R that the Earth receives 960 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2 is a matter of permanent internet record, Little Willy is reduced to rambling incoherently.
Now that Graham D. Warner agrees that 480W/m^2 + 0W/m^2 = 240W/m^2 + 240W/m^2, and concedes that this dispels Joe’s con, my work in this subthread is done.
I will respond tomorrow if necessary.
More incoherent rambling.
Graham D. Warner seems to have forgotten Bordo’s own commentary, which starts thus:
He will just deny the most obvious points to get his way.
And then he wonders why he always ends up all “worked” up.
Wrong thread, Little Willy.
Nate says:
February 22, 2024 at 11:58 AM
What we need to determine in this shell game is why CO2 via allegedly warming the surface would cause a colder stratosphere
You not we. Science has understood this since Manabe and Wetherald 1967.
—————————–
Missed responding to this one.
The answer is of course: The stratosphere is characterized by increasing temperature with altitude, which is due primarily to the absorption of solar ultraviolet radiation by ozone.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/stratosphere#:~:text=The%20stratosphere%20is%20characterized%20by,solar%20ultraviolet%20radiation%20by%20ozone.
thus when the sun gets active it produces more UV which blows apart ozone molecules depleting Ozone. . .and the stratosphere cools while the sun is making the surface hotter. Also any Milankovitch movement of the earth on its complex barycenter getting closer will make for more UV radiation as reaching the earth rather than missing it.
And since ozone is also a GHG, less ozone makes for less of the claimed ghe effect, if any, as well due to the cooler stratosphere now with less ozone.
Norman, so exactly how long does our planet remain at 1AU?
Using a single value for albedo is absolutely pointless, it’s like using Wilard as a reference point, it would doom the human race to purgatory.
Why do you doubt everything, though 100% unable to scientifically contradicting it?
It’s like using Flynnson, Clint R or Robertson as reference points.
Do you also believe their utter nonsense about the Moon ‘not rotating about its polar axis’ ?
*
The people Norman talks about of course do consider the average over a full year.
Bindi, you keep bringing up your Moon nonsense because you know you’ve lost the issue. You have no valid model of “orbiting without spin”. That means you don’t have a clue about the science. Moon is “orbiting without spin”, just like the ball-on-a-string.
Get over it.
Bindidon, so you couldn’t answer either of the two questions but start howling at the moon instead. Strange but typical behaviour .
The earths orbit is not circular, simple observation, so you can’t just use an average distance to calculate the energy received. Is there anything the you care to disprove?
The issue with albedo is that it’s not constant from day to day let alone from season to season. The earths tilt, the greening of the planet, wind speeds, snow cover all change the albedo. Again based on observation & science. Is the anything that you want to discuss or clarify?
Please quote what I have posted if you want to discuss
You’re correct Anon. Albedo is constantly changing, as is Earth’s position in orbit. But the cult claims they know how to average it all to come up with an “energy imbalance” accurate to two decimal places!
Even funnier, they try to balance flux, which does not balance!
That’s how the cult works to pervert science and reality.
The earths orbit is not circular, simple observation, so you cant just use an average distance to calculate the energy received.
That is patently false. You can, in fact, use the average distance to calculate the total energy received. It is a consequence of the mean value theorem for integrals which states that the average multiplied by the range is equal to the integral over the range. It is among the most powerful theorems in mathematics.
So Anon is suggesting that I’m like the most powerful theorem in mathematics.
That’s too kind, Anon. You make me blush!
Lol. I guess so. Rant…it is astonishing how often contrarians make blatantly false statements. In this case…it is literally a proven mathematical theorem that is being challenged. If there was ever a case of Dunning-Kruger then this is it.
bdgwx, your “most powerful theory in mathematics” fails with radiative fluxes, since radiative fluxes are non-linear.
But nice try. You tricked silly wily….
And Puffman claims I’m wily…
Love is real!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
That was a Chuck Tingley reference.
Cheers.
Q-Anon
” Bindidon, so you couldnt answer either of the two questions but start howling at the moon instead. Strange but typical behaviour . ”
Try to grasp
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1623346
before you start discrediting me again.
I placed this post in what I thought was the right place, but… it appears that wasn’t the case.
Anon,
1 AU is the average distance over 1 orbital cycle.
340 W/m2 is the average flux received at TOA over 1 orbital cycle.
240 W/m2 is the average flux absorbed over 1 orbital cycle.
Wrong bdgwx. Earth receives the solar constant, about 1366 W/m². Earth absorbs about 960 W/m².
You’re trying to treat flux as energy. That’s a no-no.
[PUFFMAN] Earth receives the solar constant
[ALSO PUFFMAN] Radiative fluxes are non-linear
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
How does can the Earth receive a constant?
Surely not the same way I receive comments that contain a verboten word!
Bdgwx, so you said “that is patently false” to my statement that the earth orbit is not circular. You might want to refresh your astrophysics.
I asked how long does the earth remain at 1AU. To spell it out even further
the earth on January 3rd receives a lot more energy than on July 4th. That’s because of its non circular orbit.
You may want to only work with over simplistic numbers …..
Anon Geek,
It’s the “you can’t just use an average distance to calculate the energy received” that is patently false.
You might wish to brush up your reading skills.
Anon: Bdgwx, so you said that is patently false to my statement that the earth orbit is not circular.
I did no such thing. What I said is that your claim that the average distance cannot be used to calculate the total energy Earth’s receives is patently false.
Anon: To spell it out even further
the earth on January 3rd receives a lot more energy than on July 4th. Thats because of its non circular orbit.
No offense, but duh. Everybody knows Earth’s orbit isn’t circular and that the distance isn’t always 1 AU. That does not preclude us from using Earth’s average distance to calculate how much energy it receives from the Sun over the course of 1 orbital cycle.
Little Willy, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Robertson on February 15, 2024 at 7:25 PM
” GISS has always gotten their data from NOAA and NOAA has admitted they now use less than 1500 stations to cover the solid surface. Why are you in such deep denîal re what NOAA has openly admitted? ”
*
The blog’s scanner is a bit too crazy today.
Anyone can have access to my reply I just uploaded:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16qZy3GgefCEcGyOhHQlfsaYuhCKwCXFA/view
*
WARNING!
Anyone credulously believing Robertson’s incompetent nonsense 100% deserves it.
Next trial re Robertson’s 1500 stations trash
All removed links and file names are stored here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16qZy3GgefCEcGyOhHQlfsaYuhCKwCXFA/view
*
The document you are referring to was written around 2009, was picked up on the Net by Amazon’s Alexa crawling robôt on 2010, March 23 for the first time which stored it together with, since then, millions of other documents in the Wayback Machine corner.
*
You never used any NOAA data of any kind, hence have no idea of where the data still is available and hence don’t have a clue of when it was ALSO picked up by the same crawling robôt – on 2012, September 12 for the first time, and stored in the Wayback Machine corner.
*
Luckily, the Web archive itself crawled through this document and saved all his contents as well (what Alexa didn’t).
*
This compressed tar file can be downloaded, uncompressed and expanded into its contents by any competent UNIX programmer (exactly the inverse of what you are).
The result is a directory containing the following files, named and dated 2013, October 25:
(1) the GHCN V3 station list (786240 bytes)
(2) the GHCN V3 station data (53089952 bytes)
*
A simple look at the station list saved at that time tells you that it has 7280 lines, each containing the metadata for one of the 7280 stations.
And this station list file dated 2013, October 25 contains the same info as the one currently available but no longer in use.
Bindidon, you suggest that you might be a “competent Unix programmer”. May I point out that Unix is not really programed it is command line,or scripted at best. Perhaps you ought not to boast on simplistic skills, especially as you come across as a script-kiddy.
He’s a monkey.
Oh look…
The brave Hogle boy who always starts whining when Willard calls him a monkey is suddenly calling me a monkey again too! Interesting.
But as always, he cowardly keeps in the shadow of other posters when he starts insulting me.
False.
I assume he meant Unix user, which often means programmers.
Nate, on what planet does user = programmer?it’s comments like yours & Bindidon where you try and show off and spectacularly fail. So perhaps my scepticism in yours & bindidon is well placed.
In which logic does often = always, Anon Geek?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Flynnson
Refrain from your stoopid DREMT sockpuppeting nonsense.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Flynnson
#2
Refrain from your stoopid DREMT sockpuppeting nonsense.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Anon for a reason
This is a completely ridiculous remark which shows that your competence and technical skills are exactly at Clint R’s or Robertson’s level: zero dot zero.
*
With ‘UNIX programmer’, I meant above of course NOT software engineering activities (for these I use C++).
No software engineer would ever use a shell script interpreter when writing software with a size over 20,000 lines of code.
*
I meant operations like downloading, uncompressing and expanding of files.
Though it is of course possible to integrate such activities in a software package (what I do when I regularly, automatically download the same data streams), it makes NO SENSE at all to write, on a UNIX system, a piece of software for a little task performed only once.
For the task above (to look at how data saved in the Web Archive looks like) I simply combine, in one command, tools like ‘wget’, ‘gunzip’ and ‘tar’.
*
You are such an incompetent boy, Anon: the typical 100% pseudo-skep~tic who is only able to discredit and denigrate.
Bindidon, wow you really are upset about being compared to a script-kiddy. Well if the cap fits…..
Btw, the 20,000 line metric is laughable, always has been always will. Try talking to the uncle Bob.
Anyway to do data processing at scale, which you seem to be bluffing on, a functional language is best for obvious reasons.
Anon Geek,
This ain’t a situation where “if the cap fits” works.
And the 20K line of code isn’t a “metric” at all.
You don’t master English well enough to be that pedantic.
” Perhaps you ought not to boast on simplistic skills, especially as you come across as a script-kiddy. ”
And that is really the dûmbest blah blah since quite long a time, Q-Anon.
*
Come back to us here when you will have managed to implement an object oriented system whose generic methods treat so different time series as JMA’s grid, GHCN V3, V4, daily, USHCN, USCRN, RATPAC-B’s 13 pressure level balloons, HadISST1 SST/ICE, let alone the PSMSL tide gauge data set (together with SONEL’s GPS data for vertical land movement correction).
*
You wouldn’t even be able to process anything of the simplest data grid I’ve ever dealt with – UAH 6.0:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
*
And the very best is that you were not even able to produce a meaningful reply to what I wrote about Robertson's permanent 1500 stations lîe: very probably because he is for you what Germans name a 'Vaterfigur', and you think his lîes are true.
*
If there is an absolutely incompetent boaster, Q-Anon: than that’s you, really.
Bindidion, wow it’s mind boggling how you think processing a tiny bit of data needs so much programming skill. Perhaps if you stopped being a smug little script kiddy for 5 minutes you may actually realise it’s only child’s play.
But fair play to, in this one regard, if you genuinely struggled with a relatively small data set then at least you are pushing yourself.
Our Geek “you need a functional language to process data” Guru hath spoken!
If I recall correctly, UNIX itself is written in the old C-language. Maybe it has been updated to C++. I would think UNIX programmer, then, would be a C-language programmer.
We need to distinguish between an OS and a language. I think Apple and Windows are written in C/C++ as well.
A UN*X programmer only needs to code in a shell. No need to touch the kernel. This usage dates back at least to the 70s, e.g.:
https://dspinellis.github.io/unix-v3man/v3man.pdf
The correct epithet nowadays is “coder” or (as Nate remarked) “monkey,” pun intended.
Perhaps Anon Geek has code to show us?
His 1500 station claim is just patently false. BTW…isn’t GHCNv4 close to around 30,000 stations now?
That depends on what you understand with ‘close’ :–)
I just downloaded
http://tinyurl.com/NOAA-GHCN-V4 (this ‘d c’ syndrome is terrifying)
to obtain the most recent V4 inventory:
‘ghcnm.tavg.v4.0.1.20240215.qcu.inv’.
It contains 27,890 stations, 22 more than the inventory I downloaded the last time: ‘ghcnm.tavg.v4.0.1.20231011.qcf.inv’.
bdgwx
Maybe you have a look at Tamino’s reprocessing of the 2011 Foster/Rahmstorf work?
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2024/02/16/adjusted-global-temperature-data/
Interesting stuff.
Rahmstorf thinks the 2nd law is not contradicted if a mysterious summation of EM energies is positive. I am sure the musician Tamino would agree with him on that, and because they both agree, Binny would agree.
Ironically, the scientists who created the 2nd law, Clausius disagreed with all three. He claimed that heat transfer via radiation must also obey the 2nd law.
” He [Clausius] claimed that heat transfer via radiation must also obey the 2nd law. ”
*
One more proof that Robertson not only doesn’t have a clue of what he is talking about, but also systematically lies.
Clausius NEVER claimed this, quite on the contrary.
But ignoramuses like Robertson think that the very same Clausius who in his eyes was plain right in 1854 suddenly became utterly wrong in… 1887.
I guess bdg thinks NOAA are liars…
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
“Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”
No wonder Bordo keeps citing that archived newsie:
http://tinyurl.com/cmon-bordo-25000
An argument about historical weather observations?
I suppose some people have nothing better to do. The past cannot be altered, and it is impossible to predict future climate states.
Ho hum.
Mike Flynn,
Rather an argument about basic arithmetic.
Not that it matters for you either way.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner needs to take care of is mental health.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Why not?
1500 is statistically sufficient.
Why waste resources on extra stations when they don’t improve the accuracy, resolution and precision of your data?
#2
And once again Robertson refers to a completely deprecated 2009 document crawled out of NOAAs web site in 2010, but DELIBERATELY ignores the reality:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1622954
You just need to click and to read.
Then you understand that Robertson doesnt have a clue about how many stations are used by NOAA worldwide in GHCN V3 (till 2017), GHCN daily and GHCN V4.
Robertson is a incompetent liar full of hat~red against everything he doesnt understand and hence dislikes, beginning with NOAA, NASA etc etc.
The planet specular reflection was neglected
For planets and moons with smooth surface, the surface’s specular reflection is not negligible.
The smooth surface planets and moons have a very strong the surface’s specular reflection.
The specular reflection is not included in albedo.
So we had (for those planets and moons with smooth surface, and, therefore, with surface’s strong specular reflection), we had to correct their respective the planet effective temperature Te.
Correcting the Effective temperature (Te) formula:
Te = [(1-a) S /4σ ]1/4 (K) (1)
We insert the
Φ – the solar irradiation accepting factor (the planet spherical shape and planet surface roughness coeficient)
Φ =0,47 for smooth surface planets and moons
Φ =1 for heavy cratered (rough surface) planets and moons
Te.correct = [Φ(1-a) S /4σ ]1/4 (K) (2)
Te.correct, for the smooth surface planets and moons, has a much lower, than Te, numerical values.
–
Thus, for Earth, the Te =255K, when corrected,
became Te.correct =210K.
But, notice, it is very important:
The planet effective temperature, even when it is corrected, the planet effective temperature does not exist, the planet effective temperature is a mathematical abstraction.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…”…the planet effective temperature is a mathematical abstraction”.
***
Agreed. I think Walter agrees as well.
Yep.
“The specular reflection is not included in albedo.”
Evidence?
Nate, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn competes with Graham D. Warner PSTs.
Thank you, Nate, for your response:
“The specular reflection is not included in albedo.”
“Evidence?”
Moon’s Te = 270,4 K
Moon’s Te.correct = 224 K (corrected for smooth surface planets and moons with Φ = 0,47)
Moon’s satellite measured average surface temperature Tsat = 220 K.
–
When comparing those three temperatures
Te = 270,4 K (calculated with moon’s Albedo a =0,11)
Te.correct = 224 K (calculated with moon’s Albedo a =0,11
and Φ =0,47 )
And the measured Tsat =220 K,
The theoretical Te.correct = 224 K is very much close to the satellite measured Tsat = 220K.
On the opposite, the Te = 270,4 K is very much higher, than the satellite measured Tsat =220 K.
–
And this is an undeniable evidence of the fact that the
The specular reflection is not included in albedo.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Moons Te = 270,4 K”
Where does this number come from? What assumptions are used?
What about the Earth?
I see you use albedo 0.11.
Your calculated 270 K being different from measured 220K, because you neglected the cooling of the dark side that occurs during the long night.
So that isnt valid evidence that The specular reflection is not included in albedo.
To those who think we are in kinda fully increasing El Nino:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig1
It’s Nino3 instead of Nino3+4, but.
And poster Eben shows elsewhere something quite similar, with MEI V2’s most recent bimonthly anomaly moving down:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/mei_lifecycle_current.png
Doesn’t wonder when you have learned that MEI’s evaluation region is way way greater than Nino3+4, and encompasses Nino1+2 as well:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino12Mon.gif
Mei is last month news but it makes nice comparasion to others
Agreed.
Once again, Binny van der Klown denies reality.
For anyone who can read English and comprehend it…
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
“Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”
http://tinyurl.com/cmon-bordo-25000
Ooooooh! Another completely irrelevant link!
How novel!
Mike Flynn,
So refutation is irrelevant to you?
We already knew!
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner has relapsed once again.
Swenson, you waste time on Wilards links? I assume from the usual wilard post that it would all be less than useless.
A,
No. Any link posted by Witless Wee Willy is irrelevant by definition.
He is unable to control himself, and keeps repeating his bizarre behaviour. He’s not the brightest bulb in the box, obviously.
If our Geek Guru could process sentences the same way he pretends being able to process data, the world of Climateball would be a better place!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Have you noticed how our Anon Geek revealed he never reads your comments?
I did. I also noticed you tried to nudge him accordingly.
Cheers.
Gordon, yep it’s in clear black and white so why they are struggling is a puzzle. Perhaps they started reading and freaked out when NOAA confirms issues and urban heat island effects the records.
And once again Robertson refers to a completely deprecated 2009 document crawled out of NOAA’s web site in 2010, but DELIBERATELY ignores the reality:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1622954
You just need to click and to read.
Then you understand that Robertson doesn’t have a clue about how many stations are used by NOAA worldwide in GHCN V3 (till 2017), GHCN daily and GHCN V4.
Robertson is a incompetent liar full of hat~red against everything he doesn’t understand and hence dislikes, beginning with NOAA, NASA etc etc.
[Allegedly from Bill H]… norman, first off is there an atmospheric window? i have heard scientists question this.
[Binny van der Klown]Oh hear hear! The Hunter boy has heard.
And where did he hear that?”
***
Bill may have heard it from sane scientists who question the use of metaphors in science, like the greenhouse effect. Some people seem to need a crutch to help pass off inane theories.
The greenhouse theory suggests the atmosphere acts like glass in a real greenhouse and the atmospheric window theory suggests there is an actual window though which EM is not absorbed, hence a window.
Load of rubbish. What they don’t tell you is its all a theory with no instrumental measurements to back it up.
Gordon, Binny doesn’t even understand seasons.
As always, simple, superficial polemic without any valuable explanation.
And by the way, Hogle: it’s better to be a monkey in your eyes than a coward in mine.
Binny,
Maybe you could provide a description of this ridiculous GHE effect?
Which do you prefer, “not cooling, slower cooling”, or “a pile of blankets”?
Maybe you could compose something ridiculous, and then claim you did so accidentally – after you realise how stupid it made you seem.
You did it before. Care to do better this time, or just keep whining about everybody else?
Off you go now.
Mike Flynn,
You can go now:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Thank you.
There is an atmospheric window, a range of wavelengths which are radiated from the surface and escape to space without being absorbed by the atmosphere.
Remember my old graph showing the frequency distribution of radiation emitted by the surface and what happens to it. The data was observed on a sunny day in Winsconsin and replotted using ModTrans.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
The red line is thermal radiation from the surface. The black line is outward longwave radiation measured by satellites and the vertical gap between them is the amount of radiation absorbed by the atmosphere.
Examine the range between wavenumber 900 and 1250. The red and blue graphs almost coincide because the atmosphere is transparent to longwave radiation at these wavenumbers.
This is the atmospheric window.
This is zenith atmospheric emission, also from Winsconcin, measured by an upwards pouting spectrometer on the surface. This is the spectrum of the longwave radiation emitted by the atmosphere, including both thermal radiation and GHG reradiation (including the big peak around wavenumber 700 from CO2).
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/dlr-spectrum-wisconsin-ellingson-1996.png
Note the low emission band between 900 and 1250 in which the atmosphere is not absorbing and reradiating because the surface radiation escapes directly to space.
“…observed on a sunny day in Winsconsin…”
“Spectral Flux at the Top of Atmosphere”
Ent is unable to find the flaws in the crap he throws against the wall.
“the atmospheric window theory suggests there is an actual window”
Gordon is again bothered by standard word usage.
Google
Window definition
Dictionary
Window:
5.PHYSICS
a range of electromagnetic wavelengths for which a medium (especially the atmosphere) is transparent.
Nate,
You need a better authority. It sounds like you are reading from a GHE cult manual.
“a range of electromagnetic wavelengths for which a medium (especially the atmosphere) is transparent.” is just nonsensical. A vacuum is transparent to electromagnetic wavelengths, nothing else. You are probably nutty enough to believe in some magical process which makes thermometers hotter by surrounding them with CO2! Even Bindidon has said that would be nonsensical (unless he’s changed his tiny mind again).
Professor John Tyndall’s experiments showed that for certain pressures and wavelengths, CO2 intercepted infrared about 1750 better than nitrogen and oxygen..
Of course, oxygen and nitrogen molecules are about 2500 times more frequent than CO2 molecules, and so block more infrared than CO2. Gee, reality is a curse to GHE cultists, isn’t it?
No wonder you don’t want to describe the GHE – you are rightly worried about being laughed at!
Robertson the ignoramus-in-chief is exactly as unable as the Hunter boy to explain where the Hunter boy did hear the atmospheric window might not exist at all.
The Hunter boy wasn’t even able to reply to what I explained, but that doesn’t matter to the ignoramus-in-chief, as it seems.
Two friends-in-denîal, well cooperating.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Flynnson
#3
Refrain from your stoopid DREMT sockpuppeting nonsense.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The passage of time is tracked by counting oscillations of a frequency reference, such as Earths revolutions or swings of a pendulum. By referencing atomic transitions, frequency (and thus time) can be measured more precisely than any other physical quantity, with the current generation of optical atomic clocks reporting fractional performance below the 10−17 level. However, the theory of relativity prescribes that the passage of time is not absolute, but is affected by an observers reference frame. Consequently, clock measurements exhibit sensitivity to relative velocity, acceleration and gravity potential. Here we demonstrate local optical clock measurements that surpass the current ability to account for the gravitational distortion of space-time across the surface of Earth. In two independent ytterbium optical lattice clocks, we demonstrate unprecedented values of three fundamental benchmarks of clock performance. In units of the clock frequency, we report systematic uncertainty of 1.4 10−18, measurement instability of 3.2 10−19 and reproducibility characterized by ten blinded frequency comparisons, yielding a frequency difference of [−7 (5)stat (8)sys] 10−19, where stat and sys indicate statistical and systematic uncertainty, respectively.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0738-2
So much the worse for the idea that an atomic clock has an error of “about 1 ms over a century”!
Willard,
Is this irrelevant excursion supposed to support your contention that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Or just another pointless diversion?
wee willy must be on the same hallucinogens as the author of the quote, they think time ‘passes’. Worse still, they think you can track it.
So, Gordon, do you think that the universe is this shape and all spacetime coexists?
https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/index.html
Mike Flynn,
If time did not exist, you would still waste it.
Post hoc, ergo propter.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You were supposed to say “hoc,” Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner should pick a more appropriate Climateball handle and stop playing the moderator.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Winter in the US is not letting up. A sudden warming of the stratosphere is coming.
https://i.ibb.co/82hF2Bx/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-02-17-081653.png
Please consider Earth as a planet, because Earth is a planet which interacts (as all planets do), because Earth interacts with solar energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Who is $355 million lighter?
$450 million with interest.
An extra 1M for two of his sons.
And a CFO banned for life.
Who is the poorer, Trump, or the US, where incompetent Democrats can try to oust a candidate from running for President by charging him with phoney charges? If they were serious about cleaning up New York financially, they would start with Wall Street, not Trump.
“incompetent Democrats can try to oust a candidate from running for President by charging him with phoney charges? ”
And incompetent Republicans try to attack the sitting President by charging his son with phony charges.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68313086
The two sides are equally corrupt.
Face it, the American political system is rotten beyond redemption.
ent…do you seriously believe that Biden and his son are innocent? Biden committed the same faux pas as Trump re retaining documents but they are considering dropping charges against Biden due to his age while continuing to pursue charges against Trump.
Also, Democrat run states have illegally blocked Trump from running for president based on unproved claims he incited a riot.
Unless you live this side of the Pond, and can see it first hand, you cannot begin to imagine how corrupt are the Democrats.
Ent, politics has always been about people willing to pervert reality.to support their false beliefs.
That’s why we know the GHE nonsense is politics, not science. We see people like you trying to claim passenger jets fly backward, just to protect their cult beliefs.
Are you beyond redemption?
A banana is all about being yellow. Therefore Borussia Dortmund is bananas.
Puffman is a genius.
Gordon says:
“do you seriously believe that Biden and his son are innocent?”
Hunter Biden has already been charged for stuff. No, he’s not innocent.
But now the Repubs want him charged for other stuff. He says “fine let’s do it in open hearings,” and the Repubs say no.
Even other Repubs say the Repubs have nothing on Joe and are not voting for impeachment.
After a couple of years of Repubs saying that Joe is crooked, they may yet turn up some solid evidence that this is true. But they’ve been openly speculating on that the whole time. Well, not speculating so much as saying that it is the God-given truth.
It’s called politics.
“phoney charges”
Well if so, then his very expensive lawyers did a horrible job of defending him.
Sorry, he had his lengthy due process and his many days in court, and LOST.
Unlike the courageous Russian opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, who most certainly did not have any due process, and was summarily sent to the Gulag and finally killed by the Russian dictator.
Ludicrous that Trump would compare himself to Navalny.
And this is how he plans to pay the fines.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-68329886
March is usually the hottest time of the year for the oceans because it is late summer in the southern hemisphere, where most of the world’s major seas are located.
If that was the case, you would see lots of March data at the top of a descending sort of HadISST1 SST’s worldwide absolute data.
But…
2019 8 18.99 (C)
2015 8 18.97
2020 8 18.95
2016 8 18.92
2022 8 18.91
2014 8 18.89
2017 8 18.87
2021 8 18.83
1997 8 18.83
2009 8 18.81
Sorry…
Source
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
binny…”If that was the case, you would see lots of March data at the top of a descending sort of HadISST1 SSTs worldwide absolute data”.
***
Binny is slow on the uptake, still does not understand that Had-crut are major fudgers, like NOAA and GISS.
As always: all what ignoramus and li~ar Robertson is able to post is discrediting and denigrating.
You’ll never see any of these li~ars on the blog even trying to technically contradict what they discredit.
Rien de nouveau.
Well one must consider the amount of ocean by latitude also. The southern ocean gets larger as you go south. The northern ocean gets smaller as you go north.
Hunter boy
” Well one must consider the amount of ocean by latitude also. ”
*
You are as usual the brazen guy who thinks he is the only one who thinks.
ALL global time series influenced by latitude are processed using latitude weighting, Hunter boy, according to
T = ∑[x=i:j] Tlat(x) * cos(rad(x)) / ∑[x=i:j] cos(rad(x))
where rad(x) = x * (π/180)
Surface, atmospheric layers / temperature, precipitation, sea ice, etc etc etc: ALL of them.
*
The thing is, Hunter boy: people like you, Robertson, Flynnson and a few other braggarts never and never would ever be able to compute any time series about anything, let alone to perform latitude weighting on them.
All you are able to do is to dislike and hence to discredit and denigrate – as ‘academic exercise’, ‘illusion’, … – anything you can’t grasp by your own.
” The southern ocean gets larger as you go south. The northern ocean gets smaller as you go north. ”
Here too, the same level of incompetence due to lack of technical skills. A bit more absurd than above, however.
Are you, Hunter boy, really unable to understand such a simple thing as that when I process HadISST’s SST data, the South will – independently of the latitude weighting – contribute to a much higher part in the global average than the North, and this of course regardless the month we actually consider in the time series?
*
But I have learned through your pointless, incompetent replies that you weren’t even able to grasp how much it matters to perform, when constructing an average of data from several measurement points, an area weighting (aka gridding) prior to the average.
Any 12-year-old child would understand that otherwise areas with a lot of measurement points would overrule areas with very few measurement points, which would totally distort the mean.
You didn’t.
A last hint, which hopefully will help
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vyo_y0CMyJZ5mODhpBlh-tCgiRzrBwA3/view
Trends for 1979-2023, in C / decade
– HadISST1 SST: 0.10 +- 0.003
– UAH oceans: 0.12 +- 0.006
*
Or do you think Roy Spencer would need your help because he doesn’t see that he’s wrong?
*
I’d enjoy the ignoramus de service posting his nonsense again:
” Binny has the temerity to show his faked HadISST and Roy’s honest UAH in lock-step. “
Bindidon is too angry and testy to notice when he was actually getting support for his numbers.
He just assumed that when I said the south has more ocean to the south I must have been talking grid cells.
In the tropics ocean temps only change about 2C over the year. In the polar regions it hardly changes at all. But in the mid latitudes the temperature changes about 8C.
In the southern ocean the area between the high 40’s and 60s doesn’t have any geography to slow wind speeds thus the area has high wind speeds overturning cold water. This subpolar region acts more like polar waters in terms of annual temperature variation. The northern hemisphere does not have such a region.
Hunter boy still didn’t understand that his gut feeling based explanations can’t change anything.
He should spend some more time in comparing the rawest surface SST time series with the rawest LT ocean time series, and learn to draw more relevant conclusion.
*
I’m afraid however that braggarts who discredit the work of people like Kepler, Mayer, Euler, Lagrange, Laplace and their successors till nowadays as ‘academic exercises’ never will feel any need to refrain from their egomaniacal attitude.
Bindidon is so confused now he is essentially claiming his own post was wrong saying August was the warmest month when it wasn’t.
Bottom line is if the northern and southern oceans had the same geography then Christos would be right as the southern hemisphere gets more sun during the southern summer than the northern hemisphere gets in its summer. However, Bindidon asked his daddy for the right answer and this time got the right answer back.
All I did was explain that the southern ocean has a lot more water in the subpolar region and a geography that encourages a great deal of wind whipping around the globe in that region compared to the north. Saying the south ocean was getting wider as you went south. Bindidon apparently read it as criticism of his number thinking I said he didn’t account for the grids getting smaller in the south but the grids don’t get wider as you go south they get narrower and I wasn’t even talking about grids. So Bindidon now completely confused posted the formulas he uses to account for grid size as a rebuff of my comment. If this keeps going in the same direction we will have to reel Bindidon back in from Mars.
Bill Hunter
Thank you for posting the document by Happer and Lindzen. The brief comment about China and Russia resonates as they both would want the economies of the western democracies to fail’ The UN has provided the obvious path way for influence funding. Concerning times we find ourselves in these days.
Really? China wants all the western democracies to run out of money and stop buying all their stuff?
Nate says:
”Really? China wants all the western democracies to run out of money and stop buying all their stuff?”
Nope the Chinese government wants a monopoly so you have nobody else to buy from.
Thus not in agreement that China “want the economies of the western democracies to fail”
How naive can one get?
Bill seems naive about the global economy.
How does destroying the economies of all your customers, help sell your stuff?
“am sure just like the Germans did for their conquered territories”
OMG you think China is going to conquer the US or European territories?
There is no question in my mind Nate that China would love that.
I am sure just like the German’s did for their conquered territories they have a plan for us. I would suspect it kind of looks like their plan for the Uyghurs.
Also I have little doubt that the transition to that plan will look a lot like Hong Kong and this 2022 State Department report on the conditions in Hong Kong.
https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/china/hong-kong/#:~:text=Significant%20human%20rights%20issues%20included,the%20independence%20of%20the%20judiciary
> There is no question in my mind
Gill got that part right.
LOL!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1631839
And
DREMT’s comment is appropo here,
When I write a perfectly reasonable comment, Bill has to argue against it, to the death, regardless of the facts. Simply because I wrote it.
…Willy, please stop trolling.
He hasn’t commented since your last PST.
…please stop trolling.
He still hasnt commented since your last PST.
…lease stop trolling.
Nobody has commented here for days…
…ease stop trolling.
–California Enjoys the Northwests Water (Megadrought Update)
4 hours ago
Guest Blogger
23 Comments
From the Cliff Mass Weather Blog
Two years ago, media outlets were headlining strident messages that California had moved into a megadrought and that there was little hope for relief.
Story after story claimed that global warming had permanently changed the situation and that Californias reservoirs would remain unfilled.–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/17/california-enjoys-the-northwests-water/
Media outlets were wrong.
None of the delusional GHE proponents can even describe the GHE which is the object of their devout worship.
Descriptions range from such idiocies as “not cooling, slower cooling” to “a pile of blankets.”
It is truly surprising that otherwise intelligent people refuse to accept the reality that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years – atmosphere notwithstanding.
Never has so much been wasted at the mad behest of so few to achieve so little.
And the world continues to cool, as it must.
” And the world continues to cool, as it must. ”
Says the Aussie boy who claims that all thermometers would record wrong temperatures worldwide, and that averaging all these wrong temperatures over the globe would be even more wrong.
Right, Flynnson?
*
Just joking, of course.
Binny,
You are just confused, as usual. Thermometers respond to heat, and there is a lot of man-made heat produced. More a anthropogenic heat results in higher temperatures – mainly night time minima, increasing average temperatures.
Measurements taken within the crust, particularly beyond the limit of the Suns influence, show that the Earth continues to cool – as indeed it must, being a large molten blob a long way from the Sun.
Recent photos from space show how close the molten interior is to the surface, in Iceland. I guess any thermometers close to the lava will show increased temperatures. You might claim hotter thermometers are due to some inexplicable effect involving CO2!
Ho ho! Anybody who believes that, is quite mad. Refusing to accept reality is the hallmark of mental failure.
Ho Ho!
” Thermometers respond to heat, and there is a lot of man-made heat produced. More a anthropogenic heat results in higher temperatures… ”
*
Ignoramus Flynnson tries once again to kid us with his ridiculous blah blah.
The contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.03 W/m^2.
*
And this below
” Recent photos from space show how close the molten interior is to the surface, in Iceland.
I guess any thermometers close to the lava will show increased temperatures.
You might claim hotter thermometers are due to some inexplicable effect involving CO2! ”
clearly lets him appear dûmber than evah.
” Refusing to accept reality is the hallmark of mental failure. ”
Exactly Flynnson.
You have recently made decisive progress in self-knowledge.
Binny,
You still claim that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, do you?
Good for you. You probably believe in the existence of a GHE which you can’t even describe!
Carry on.
#2
” Refusing to accept reality is the hallmark of mental failure. ”
Exactly Flynnson.
You have recently made decisive progress in self-knowledge.
“Measurements taken within the crust, particularly beyond the limit of the Suns influence, show that the Earth continues to cool as indeed it must, being a large molten blob a long way from the Sun.”
This is made up, and of course demonstrably FALSE.
Borehole measurements clearly show warming accelerating over the last few centuries.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/752
How are the thermometers calibrated and the borehole maintained long enough to record the warming?
If you actually care, do the work to find out…
Well we do know the climate is warming the question is why so this is just a bunny trail.
> the question is
Ze Inspecteur Clouseau strikes again!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
BILL DOESNT actually care that there is no need to ‘maintain the borehole long enough to record the warming’ because its present day T profile contains its T history.
Nate is extrapolating again.
Bill fails to understand science again. Read the link!
The borehole method is quite interesting Bill, if you want to lean about it.
…Willy, please stop trolling.
He hasnt commented since your last PST.
…please stop trolling.
Obviously Willard still hasnt posted, not sure why DREMT needs to respond at all.
…lease stop trolling.
Trying to piss on dead threads again?
…ease stop trolling.
ent…”So, Gordon, do you think that the universe is this shape and all spacetime coexists?”
***
Let me be perfectly clear, there is no such thing as space-time because there is no such thing as time. And that model you presented is a figment of someone’s imagination, not a scientist’s mind.
Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, claimed that Einstein’s claims on relativity, hence space-time, is nothing more than a series of thought experiments. He was right. Einstein completely blew it when he presumed time had a physical existence.
Hopefully, one day, you will receive that insight. It is a real mind-blower when it suddenly dawns on you, that no time has passed anywhere. There is no past and no future, we live in one space that is here and now and everything can be explained within that space. When you see it, space-time and other thought experiments make no sense.
Another important part of that insight. neurotic behavior has a time base related to memory. If you get it that time has no existence then you can apply it to neurotic behavior and watch it disappear. Problem is, humans seem to need certain aspects of neurotic behavior and can’t let it dissolve.
You are proposing an absolute coordinate system in which any point’s location can be defined by four measures of position, x,y,z and time.
The graphic I put is a visualisation of such a system, a graph of the size of the universe plotted against time.
As far as I can infer from your description you see the universe as a four dimensional object in which all the x,y,z and time coordinates and the associated mass exist at once.
This creates problems. Cause and effect does not exist. Not does entropy or free will.
The whole structure x wide, y long a high and t deep coexits. There is no past, present and future. The entire structure is entirely deterministic and inflexible.
You also need to explain why each person exists as a world line, a four dimensional path through time and space. Yet they perceive themselves as existing at a particular x,y,z and t coordinate they perceive as the present. They have limited knowledge of events at earlier t coordinates but no knowledge of events at later t coordinates.
ent…”As far as I can infer from your description you see the universe as a four dimensional object in which all the x,y,z and time coordinates and the associated mass exist at once”.
***
You need to distinguish between what is actually out there and what is defined by the human mind as to what is out there. In reality, there are no coordinates and no time with which to peg them to a time. The human mind introduced the concept of coordinates and time.
I don’t see the universe as anything related to coordinate systems or time. It is just there and it’s up to me to decipher what my mind wants to impose on it and what is actually there. Of course, I need to use coordinate systems and time to place objects in my world view but I need to remain aware that the coordinate system and time were developed by the human mind to do just that. Also, my world-view is an illusion.
By agreeing to use that human imposed system, I am not claiming the universe is actually like that. In reality, I have no idea what the universe is like with regard to its extent or where it came from. For me time and coordinates are tools, not reality.
It amuses me to see scientists, with Ph.Ds, looking into the universe with a telescope and thinking they are looking through time. If they had any idea of what a telescope does, they’d perhaps understand that the telescope is collecting light that is there at the instant they are viewing it, not light-years away.
I get it that the light at a telescope set off on its journey light years ago and that the star from which the light came may no longer be in the same position, or not there at all. That has nothing to do with time, it is about electromagnetic energy moving through a space, albeit a very large space, with no coordinates and no time factor.
BTW…1 light year = 9.46 x 10^12 kilometers.
Philosophers call your world view solipsism.
Unfortunately solipsism is not something I can debate with you since any evidence I put forward might be a figment of your imagination.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
Actually science has demonstrated solipsism consistently. Einstein overturning Newton in the areas of Newtonian uncertainty is probably the best example. What it is a caution against is extrapolation of science into untested and unverified realms. We know that Newtonian physics is a good approximation of reality but that its accuracy has limits.
Thus as frequently stated the science must be verifiable to overturn skepticism. Dr. William Happer strongly supports this view. In fact the government has implored science to do a better job of communication, which they could do easily as per Dr. Happer, if their theories had clear proof. But no the governments of the world spend billions on propaganda and the argument pretty much boils down to ”believe your doctor”, ”believe your wannabee Daddy”. some do some don’t, some don’t have an independent opinion, some do.
> Actually science has demonstrated solipsism consistently.
Which one, Gill’s?
ROFL!
All I am doing is properly classifying Post Normal Science for what it is. . .science by fiat.
And Gill throws in another concept he does not understand.
LMAO!
Post Normal Science is science by fiat. It explicitly reverses the burden of proof where one is told to prove something does not exist, something that science isn’t at all equipped to handle.
No, it’s not.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Post-Normal Science is a way to include cranks like you and Gill into Team Science’s sphere of influence and vice versa.
What are you braying about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard says:
”What are you braying about?”
We all know its money that controls the sphere of influence. Post normal science introduces that politic in it and then lies and attempts to justify it as if the ordinary man’s opinion actually mattered. One just has to peruse this forum and your posts to know what a lie that is.
There is more post-normal ‘science’ these days, much of it passed through the piss-poor peer-review of the predatory for-profit journals, which are increasingly prevalent.
Seim and Olsen and Berry’s papers are good examples of that.
Then we have some of the most consequential real science, like Manabe and Wetherald, 1967, that cranks simply fail to understand and detest its implications, and thus falsely label it post-normal science.
Yep Nate goes 100% political opinion to draw the line. Perfect example of what’s wrong.
Nate you can absolutely be depended upon to elucidate the message that needs to be sent by the technocrats that democracy doesn’t work.
“cranks simply fail to understand and detest its implications, and thus falsely label it post-normal science.”
Here is an example of Bill doing just that.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1628334
He labels the prediction of stratospheric cooling with rising CO2, found in the highly regarded paper Manabe and Wetherald 1967, which has since been clearly observed, ‘post-normal’ science.
He decided it must have been what he calls ‘science by fiat’ intended only to ‘curtail our freedom’.
In 1967!
Why?
Because HE was incredulous and ignorant of the science behind this prediction.
As ever, science that Bill has not learned or digested, and runs against his prior beliefs, is rejected, by FIAT.
All you have done is fall for the con game Nate.
Sure with a climate model if you increase solar radiation only you will not have cooling in the stratosphere.
But cooling with CO2 you get more water vapor (and oddly not so with solar forcing as only CO2 can produce more water vapor).
Gill gets caught, throws another squirrel.
“All you have done is fall for the con game Nate.
”
Again Bill confirms that he thinks real science, that he is unable to comprehend and hasnt bothered to learn, must be a con!
I bet Eddington’s first thought after observing the light deflection predicted by Einstein during an eclipse was “I just got conned!” /sarc.
Little Willy, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Indeed there is no interest in probing uncertainty in this forum these guys have their minds made up. When Dr. Curry talks about this she notes how the topic of uncertainty is tremendously under addressed. We just got another huge dose of this politicization of science coming through the pandemic. And yes the unwillingness to engage in properly weighing uncertainty is endemic to all politicized scientific discussions.
So to be clear we are talking about the politicization of science via the the theory of postnormal science that proposes that the burden of proof should be reduced in accordance with the perceived risk.
And gee then all you need is a political declaration of risk to reduce the level of certainty for a scientific prediction. Now we are regaled with this new found power within the grasp of the institutions that stand to benefit.
Exactly what Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech.
“So to be clear we are talking about the politicization of science via the the theory of postnormal science ”
Again, Bill finds comfort in resorting to political/conspiratorial thinking, as a substitute for the actual intellectual ability and effort required to learn the science.
In organizations you have lots of types. Two major types the hard dedicated worker and the brown noser.
Well that describes the two ladders to promotion, bonuses, pay raises and more responsibility.
When politics for example starts branding hard workers and even award winning top rungers as deniers and promoting brown nosers. . .these institutions/businesses tend not to perform well. You can call that a conspiracy but it only takes one person with enough power to make it happen without any evidence of a conspiracy.
Sorry Bill, Manabe and Wetherald’s 1967 prediction of a cooling stratosphere due to rising CO2 was neither a con nor post-normal. It was just solid science.
Even Manabe admits that he didn’t establish any science in his paper.
BS.
Indeed Manabe said he was surprised that he got the Nobel Prize for Applied Physics but was very grateful for the award and the big check.
Application of what physics? Obviously if you already believe that the physics of the GHE was determined one could explain that it isn’t radiation at all that causes the surface to warm but instead a resistance to convection to that produces a hotspot that restricts convection from cooling the surface.
Thats certainly a plausible theory where as the 3rd grader radiation model clearly is not except in cases where the atmosphere is warmer than the surface. But to restrict convection the atmosphere only needs to be the same temperature as the surface. Thus the hotspot theory was born.
“one could explain that it isnt radiation at all that causes the surface to warm but instead a resistance to convection to that produces a hotspot that restricts convection from cooling the surface.”
Is this a certified theory, or just more speculative mutterings?
Nope it is no longer a ”certified” theory. Neither is the theory of Arrhenius. And M&W theory trundles along without a physical description of how convection is restricted. The only place you can probably still find hotspot theory is in the output of arrhenius’ projections of the outcome of CO2 increases of some if not all over modern climate models.
And since its decertification there is no replacement for it known and we can only guess if its still included in climate models.
Nate holds to M&W 1967. The problem he has with that is that the first sentence in that paper says:
”This study is a continuation of the previous study
of the thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a
convective adjustment which was published in the
JOURNAL OF THE ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES (Manabe and
Strickler, 1964)”
Hmmmm, its no longer radiation or backradiation causing the warming its now as of 1967 and the recent Nobel Prize in physics a ”convective adjustment”
How would one go about slowing convection? A hotspot was the popular answer that is claimed to be common to all means of top down forcing. But the act of just warming the surface from albedo change or the gradual warming of the ocean doesn’t require that top down forcing to change.
Sorry to throw that on you Nate with you being so occupied with trying to understand what a barycenter is.
Bill insists that science lacks certification.
MW did a physics based simulation and published it in 1967. Its findings have been replicated in later publications many times. It’s predictions been confirmed by observations. It is widely considered a highly influential work.
Of course later publications in the 5+ decades since could have disproved it, but none have.
Meanwhile we have speculations and stream of consciousness from an auditor. No simulations. No model. No physics based theory. No flaws in MW that he can point to. No link to someone else’s publication.
I certify that it is bullshit.
wee willy…”The passage of time is tracked by counting oscillations of a frequency reference, such as Earths revolutions or swings of a pendulum”.
***
Do you ever, even for an instant, consider what you post? That definition of time is one of the dumbest I have encountered.
How can a passage of time be related to a rotating planet? To begin with, what is meant by ‘passing’? When the Earth rotates once, what has passed?
Come on, explain it to me, what has changed, what has passed? And if you say time, I will regard you as even more an ijit that I currently rate you.
> Do you ever, even for an instant
I thought you did not believe in time, Bordo.
Maybe someone values your thoughts, but you would be hard put to name such a person.
Sad, really.
Mike Flynn,
Anyone who believes in the laws of thermodynamics is compelled to believe in the existence of time. The belief in the existence of time is older than relativity theory. Bordo’s flights of fancy have nothing to do about anything.
What are you braying about?
“What are you braying about?”
The echo chamber?
The echo chamber?
According to wee willy, heat is nothing more than a belief system. He admits that time is a belief but does not explain why heat is a belief and not a fact.
Bordo starts every morning by unscrambling eggs he returns to their eggshells.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Please remind me how you bypass moderation by copypasting Graham D. Warner‘s line.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You responded to my comment.
You had nothing much to add.
Time to realize that you agree with me that time indeed exists.
Long live and prosper.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner always ends up PSTing.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
A body with emissivity (ε) very much close to 1
even if it is ε =1
that body doesn’t necessarily mean that it emits as a black body.
–
Earth doesn’t emit as a black body.
For a body to have emissivity ε =1 doesn’t mean it emits as a black body.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…”…that body doesnt necessarily mean that it emits as a black body”.
***
1)the blackbody does not exist, it is a theory. It is theorized that BB’s abosorb all incident frequencies and emit frequencies that depend on temperature.
2)a theoretical blackbody, by definition, emits across a wide bandwidth of frequencies, depending on it’s temperature. Normally, that temperature is a very high, like in the thousands of degrees C range. Earth only emits in the infrared frequency band, ruling it out as a blackbody radiator.
It’s clear that emissivity has nothing to do with the classification of a body as a blackbody radiator. Only bodies with high temperatures, hot enough to allow them to emit frequencies in the visible spectrum, can be classified as BBs.
Even then, it’s still a theory. The idea that a BB can absorb all frequencies incident upon it, is silly. The idea contradicts the 2nd law, where a body at a higher temperature can absorb frequencies emitted by a body at a lower temperature. In such a scenario, planets warmed by the Sun would be raising the temperature of the Sun via back-radiation.
BB theory was introduced by Kircheoff, circa 1850, about the same time that Clausius was developing the 2nd law. Neither Kircheoff nor Clausius knew anything about why bodies emit and absorb EM, that came in 1913 with Bohr’s discovery that EM is emitted and absorbed by electrons in the atoms making up a body.
I would venture a guess that BB theory is not only wrong, it has out-lived its usefulness.
Thank you, Gordon.
“1)the blackbody does not exist, it is a theory. It is theorized that BBs abosorb all incident frequencies and emit frequencies that depend on temperature.”
It is a theory.
And this theory doesn’t say anything about a blackbody gets warmed by the incident on it radiation.
The blackbody theory isn’t about warming the blackbodies via radiation.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Absolutely correct.
All about as silly as putting a red-hot cannonball in direct sunlight, and claiming you can calculate its temperature by measuring the incoming solar radiation impinging upon it.
Or anything else – the planet Earth, for example.
Vournas
Why are you fixated all the time on this boring blackbody stuff?
Perhaps you should simply consider the blue line’s reality instead:
https://i.postimg.cc/g2Wy7W2d/SURFRAD-Fort-Peck-DSW–ULW-150224.png
If I had time enough to waste, I’d spend some in collecting all US SURFRAD over a complete year, and present the result.
Thank you, Nate, for your response:
“The specular reflection is not included in albedo.”
“Evidence?”
Let’s demonstrate “The specular reflection is not included in albedo.”,
on the Moon’s Te example.
Moon’s Te = 270,4 K
Moon’s Te.correct = 224 K (corrected for smooth surface planets and moons with Φ = 0,47)
Moon’s satellite measured average surface temperature Tsat = 220K.
–
When comparing those three temperatures
Te = 270,4 K (calculated with moon”s Albedo a =0,11)
Te.correct = 224 K (calculated with moon’s Albedo a =0,11
and Φ =0,47 )
And the measured Tsat =220 K,
The theoretical Te.correct = 224 K is very much close to the satellite measured Tsat = 220K.
On the opposite, the Te = 270,4 K is very much higher, than the satellite measured Tsat =220 K.
–
And this is an undeniable evidence of the fact that the
The specular reflection is not included in albedo.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The specular reflection is not included in albedo. ”
Offhand I know of three ways to derive albedo.
1) By observing the outward shortwave radiation (reflected sunlight) using satellites in Earth orbit or from L1.
2) By measuring the amount of sunlight reflected from the Earth onto the Moon, aka Earthshine.
3) By calculation.
Outward shortwave radiation = solar insolation – light absorbed by surface and atmosphere.
3) includes all forms of reflection including specular reflection.
1) and 2) may or may not include specular reflection. If they do not, they would give lower values for outward shortwave radiation than 3).
IIRC 1), 2), and 3) give similar results for albedo and OSR. This suggests that specular reflection is either being detected or is too small to notice.
Notice how EM’s list puts all IR reflection into the ”calculated” bucket.
Enlighten me.
How does one do any quantitative science without calculation?
EM,
Albedo is guessed.
From NASA Earth Observatory –
“The maps above show how the reflectivity of Earththe amount of sunlight reflected back into spacechanged between March 1, 2000, and December 31, 2011. This global picture of reflectivity (also called albedo) appears to be a muddle, with different areas reflecting more or less sunlight over the 12-year record. Shades of blue mark areas that reflected more sunlight over time (increasing albedo), and orange areas denote less reflection (lower albedo).
Taken across the planet, no significant global trend appears. As noted in the anomaly plot below, global albedo rose and fell in different years, but did not necessarily head in either direction for long.”
Claims that the Earth’s albedo can be measured are ludicrous. No instruments exist which can measure the total energy from the Sun reaching the Earth, nor measure the amount reflected.
All dreams and wishful thinking. Of no practical use whatever.
Another undeniable evidence of the fact that the
specular reflection is not included in albedo.
Planet Mars’ Te =210K
and Planet Mars’ Tsat =210K COINCIDENCE!
Planet Mars’ Te =210K is calculated by the use
of Mars’ Albedo a =0,25
Planet Mars’ Tsat =210K is the Mars’ satellite measured average surface temperature.
Those two temperatures, the theoretically calculated 210K and the measured one 210K -there is not any physical explanation of them to coincide, except of the Mars’ specular reflection being ignored.
Why the specular reflection is ignored – because it was considered too small.
And yes, there are planets and moons where the specular reflection is too small to take in consideration. For them Φ =1.
But there also are the smooth surface planets and moons with very strong specular reflection.
Those planets and moons are:
Mercury
Earth
Moon
Mars
Europa
Ganymede
For those planets and moons the Φ =0,47
Thus for the planet Mars, instead of Te =210K
it is Te.correct =174K
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It has been well discussed by mainstream researchers that a subset of the CMIP6 models run hot/have higher climate sensitivity range than previous models.
These outliers are not given much credence by the climate community. Were they excluded here, or were they rolled in to the analysis?
Regarding near-term global temperature projections the 2007 IPCC (AR4) said:
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.”
We’re 16 years on from that forecast, so how has it borne out so far?
Global temperature trends since 2007:
GISS – 0.26° per decade (+/- 0.15)
BEST – 0.27° per decade (+/- 0.13)
Had4 – 0.22° per decade (+/- 0.15)
RSS4 – 0.23° per decade (+/- 0.22)
UAH6 – 0.24° per decade (+/- 0.20)
barry,
0.2C per decade is 2C per century, or 20C per thousand years.
I presume you are not silly enough to believe the seas will start boiling in a few thousand years, and not intelligent enough to explain why the seas arent in any danger of boiling in the next few thousand years.
Do you think the GHE woke up after sleeping for four a half billion years (while the Earth cooled), and is going back to sleep, to prevent the seas boiling?
Only joking, you are so confused that you can’t say what you believe! Go on, boiling seas or not? Why or why not? Show some backbone, and say something definite – no more silly and evasive innuendos. How hard can it be?
swenson…”I presume you are not silly enough…”
***
Barry and his fellow alarmists excel at silliness.
> Do you think
Glad to see that you value the opinion of someone else, Mike!
Unless you simply went for your favorite gotcha once again?
Keep staying irrelevant.
AGW is real.
While CO2 levels increase in the atmosphere over the long term, so will surface temperature over the long term.
Is that definite enough for you?
The 2007 projection is short-term, which comes with a fairly large uncertainty range. About 0.15 to 0.25 C/decade (95% confidence interval) for the mid-range emissions scenarios from AR4.
I apologise if this kind of nuance is too much for you, but I can’t dumb it down any more than this. I also can’t get interested in the asinine things (eg boiling seas) you said above.
barry believes: “While CO2 levels increase in the atmosphere over the long term, so will surface temperature over the long term.”
barry, beliefs ain’t science.
You need to provide the viable science that CO2 can raise surface temperatures.
But, you can’t. That’s why you have to resort to childish insults.
barry,
0.2C per decade is 2C per century, or 20C per thousand years.
I presume you are not silly enough to believe the seas will start boiling in a few thousand years, and not intelligent enough to explain why the seas arent in any danger of boiling in the next few thousand years.
Do you think the GHE woke up after sleeping for four a half billion years (while the Earth cooled), and is going back to sleep, to prevent the seas boiling?
Only joking, you are so confused that you cant say what you believe! Go on, boiling seas or not? Why or why not? Show some backbone, and say something definite no more silly and evasive innuendos. How hard can it be?
Since 2007 there has been much talk of global temperature ‘pauses’ from the usual suspects, and allegedly two ‘pause’ periods over that time frame.
Remarkable with all these pauses in global temperature that the short-term projection of the IPCC above has so far underestimated global warming.
Perhaps the resident ‘skeptics’ could explain why that is.
We have been through this Barry, it was the IPCC who officially claimed in 2013, a 15 year warming hiatus. Are you still in denial, or do I need to dig up the IPCC quote again?
Are you avoiding the point for a reason?
“Remarkable with all these pauses in global temperature that the short-term projection of the IPCC above has so far underestimated global warming.
Perhaps the resident ‘skeptics’ could explain why that is.”
UAH trend since 2007 is higher than the IPCC near-term projection.
We’ve been in 2 so-called ‘pause’ periods since then.
Can you explain why the observed trend is apparently higher than the prediction when there have been 2 “pauses”?
barry, you’re asking why your cult projections are wrong?
The reason is the projections are based on beliefs. Beliefs ain’t science.
You’re chasing your tail, much like Bindi is doing by clinging to centuries-old astrology. You need to take a deep breath, grow up, and learn to accept reality.
Puffman,
But Da Paws is a common Bingo square:
https://climateball.net/but-da-paws/
Why would you denigrate this contrarian talking point?
Yes child, your ignorance and immaturity keep you from any understanding of science.
Sky Dragon cranks like you can’t play on most bingo squares, Puffman. In a few decades, after a few more sock puppets, perhaps you will. As a treat.
If anything, hitting the bullseye with projections on a topic that is so complex, with such little knowledge, just promotes more suspicion. It’s amazing that so many take this at face value.
walter…Barry references AR4 but he fails to mention that in AR3, the IPCC admitted that future climate states cannot be predicted. They even had to drop the word ‘predicted’ when expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, pointed out that unvalidated climate models cannot predict anything. That’s why the IPCC now uses the word ‘project’, an obscure word that claims something might happen but no one knows what with any degree of certaintly.
You have succeeded again at avoiding the point by changing the subject.
barry,
0.2C per decade is 2C per century, or 20C per thousand years.
I presume you are not silly enough to believe the seas will start boiling in a few thousand years, and not intelligent enough to explain why the seas arent in any danger of boiling in the next few thousand years.
Do you think the GHE woke up after sleeping for four a half billion years (while the Earth cooled), and is going back to sleep, to prevent the seas boiling?
Only joking, you are so confused that you cant say what you believe! Go on, boiling seas or not? Why or why not? Show some backbone, and say something definite no more silly and evasive innuendos. How hard can it be?
… avoiding the point by changing the subject.
avoiding the point by changing the subject.
Yes, Mike Flynn.
You avoided the point by changing the subject.
And now you are playing dumb.
Everybody can see that this is your pet two-step.
Cheers.
The projection was made in 2007. It’s not a “bullseye,” if anything it’s an underestimate.
What are you trying to say? You seem to be casting doubt, but your remarks are nebulous.
barry
Don’t waste your time in trying to meaningfully communicate with the Hogle boy.
He is ALWAYS casting doubt and ALL his remarks are nebulous because he NEVER is able to backup his doubts with a valuable contradiction.
And above all, he excels in courageously name calling others as ‘monkey’.
Monkey Man holds some kind of animosity toward Team Science.
Exactement, mais… il n’est pas le seul, loin de là.
The very best example about Hogle’s doubt about nearly everything which, however, lacked as always technical confirmation.
I recently posted a link to SURFRAD data showing for one day downwelling solar SW and upwelling terrestrial LW radiation, e.g.
https://i.postimg.cc/g2Wy7W2d/SURFRAD-Fort-Peck-DSW–ULW-150224.png
and he posted a condescending doubtful reply like
” What about uncertainty? ”
of course instead of presenting its calculation on the basis of the data source accessible to anyone:
https://gml.noaa.gov/aftp/data/radiation/surfrad/Fort_Peck_MT/
*
This is, by the way, the same discrediting technique endlessly used by WUWT’s uncertainty maffia troop, a few brazen posters who always ask others
” Where is your uncertainty calculation? ”
but themselves never presented anything the like by their own.
Barry,
A monkey can draw a straight line with a ruler, but it won’t understand the behavior or the value of data points. That’s what linear regression with climate data is. It doesn’t behave like a straight line, even long term. It’s just cycles upon cycles, in the absence of the unrealistic and hypothetical scenario where CO2-induced warming swamps all natural variability. The IPCC did not predict the natural variability that contributed to what those trends are. Also, none of those datasets are truly raw; they have all been adjusted in some way.
Consider summer two days. One is a wet and cloudy day with a recorded high of 74F and a low of 58F; 0.55 inches of rain were recorded for the day. The other day is bright and sunny with a recorded high of 78F and a low of 54F. Which one is warmer?
A linear regression is not a straight line drawn by a monkey, but a straight line calculated to have the least distance between all the data points it cuts through.
Your remarks have revealed that you are either ignorant of the topic or being deliberately misleading. Perhaps both. Whichever is the case, you are a waste of time.
Lmao, you didnt get the main point; not my problem.
There is no main point in your remarks, just a series of talking points.
Your main point is not stated. But it’s obvious what it is.
“AGW is a lot of nonsense.”
Unfortunately, you have nothing interesting to say about that, just a series of vacuous assertions.
Bye.
Yes, it does.
False.
Willard is a monkey.
I asked the resident ‘skeptics’ if they could explain why the observed decadal trend of global temperature data is higher than the prediction made in 2007 by the IPCC.
IPCC in 2007 said about 0.20 C/decade for the next 2 decades.
UAH trend from 2007 = 0.24 C/decade.
Instead of trying to explain it, they all changed the subject.
Unanimously changed the subject.
Can’t you explain this, ‘skeptics’?
And can you explain how this has happened when we have had two supposed ‘pauses’ over the same period?
How? I guess the IPCC doesn’t know what it’s talking about.
Yes, Bill, I know you can’t explain it. Let’s see if any of the other ‘skeptics’ can do it.
Actually I am getting pretty darned close to explaining everything except the LIA recovery which is pretty much a straight line underlying changes in some other phenomena which is a project that’s coming together better than I ever imagined right now. And mind you I am not saying there isn’t a slight exponential curve that is represented by CO2. I just happen to know that is pretty much a side show. A fun ride indeed but not the only ride nor the biggest ride in the park.
> Actually I am getting pretty darned close to explaining everything
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Willard close means at least a significant partial explanation on top of and synchronized to solar cycles. . .traveling down the Milankovitch shorter term cycles. You know Milankovitch don’t you, the favorite non-documented arm waving guiding light of the climate change cabal?
Apparently the biggest problem with Milankovitch theory was the poor state of radiometric dating in the 1920’s. Milankovitch seems to have fallen out of favor many decades ago due apparently to problems with historic dating using proxies for looking deep into the past. However since the 16th century there are a number of unpolluted datasets one can still get their hands on. That will at least cover the LIA recovery to date. It falls well short of the cause of interglacials but should be more than handy enough with dealing with the industrial age.
Gill is not a scientist. He pretends to be an auditor. And I am a ninja.
Having started my Climateball career auditing auditors, I certainly would not mind seeing Gill’s receipts.
Go away Willard you are nothing but a pest.
Every time Gill has to show any kind of work, he chickens out.
LMAO!
Bill Hunter:
“I just happen to know”
Well who needs real science when Bill just happens to know things?
that is correct Barry. Experiments show it to be a sideshow. Experiments trump theory.
I just happen to know of experiments that demonstrate the premise of AGW.
Well I guess that’s that. The Bill Hunter scientific method is surprisingly easy.
which experiment are you referring to Barry?
First you:
How do you ‘just happen to know that CO2 is pretty much a side show’?
Bill, if you want to change the method from Bill Hunter to corroboration, you go ahead, as Nate requested.
I’m definitely not going to provide you any corroboration for claims I make until you start doing it.
I have given you a lot of experiments that don’t show any radiant forcing from CO2 as modeled. Seim and Olson is probably the best of the bunch.
So what is your best of the bunch? Oh thats right you don’t have one. One has never been seen. Its a unicorn and you want the skeptics to run out and catch it for you.
You guys are like if Jonas Salk had only ”claimed” he had proof of his polio vaccine and didn’t go out an vaccinate millions of kids. Imagine how many kids would have died from polio.
Here you guys are advocating for the killing of people to prevent some unproven harm in the future and you have no proof. Thats pretty danged treasonous. Maybe not so much for some dufus that doesn’t know better that nobody is going to pay attention to. But a scientist is blasphemy to the scientific method to claim proof when you have none.
“I have given you a lot of experiments that dont show any radiant forcing from CO2 as modeled. Seim and Olson is probably the best of the bunch.”
Link it. I haven’t seen it.
Flawed lab experiment, lacking key properties of the Earth’s atmosphere, aint ‘certified’ as a model for the GHE!
To claim it is flawed you need to demonstrate why it’s flawed. Its am empirical study of the GPE thought experiment you hug using CO2 as the greenplate. It didn’t come close to working as proscribed by your models.
[GILL] To claim it is flawed you need to demonstrate why its flawed.
[ALSO GILL] Post Normal Science is science by fiat. It explicitly reverses the burden of proof where one is told to prove something does not exist, something that science isnt at all equipped to handle.
Imagine when Gill will notice that when a thing is flawed it means that its perfection does not exist. LMAO!
Willard says:
”Imagine when Gill will notice that when a thing is flawed it means that its perfection does not exist. LMAO!”
The question is when will Nate notice.
Ze question – Inspecteur Clouseau strikes again!
Perhaps one day Gill will realize that it’s really hard to have asymmetric roles in the symmetric logic Popper presumed.
Still no link from Bill. Still no surprises.
barry says:
February 22, 2024 at 5:45 PM
”Still no link from Bill. Still no surprises.”
———————
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2023042615431593.pdf
Still no link from Barry. Still no surprises.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/18/review-of-seim-and-olsen-paper/
Experimental evidence of GHE.
Tyndall’s experiment of the 1860s. But since Skeptics write that off, here are a few more.
Plass, G. N. (1956). The influence of the 15μ band on the atmospheric infra-red cooling rate. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 82(353), 310-324.
https://www.rescuethatfrog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Plass-1956c.pdf
Gryvnak, D. A. (1966). Absorp.tion of Infrared Radiant Energy by CO2 and H2O. IV. Shapes of Collision-Broadened CO2 Lines. Journal of Chemical Physics, 44(2), 748-756.
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.59.000267
Harries, J., Brindley, H., Sagoo, P. et al. (2001) Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature 410, 355357
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Harries-4/publication/12065270_Increases_in_greenhouse_forcing_inferred_from_the_outgoing_longwave_radiation_spectra_of_the_Earth_in_1970_and_1997/links/02e7e5360e06d47ed4000000/Increases-in-greenhouse-forcing-inferred-from-the-outgoing-longwave-radiation-spectra-of-the-Earth-in-1970-and-1997.pdf
Feldman DR, Collins WD, Gero PJ, Torn MS, Mlawer EJ, Shippert TR. (2015) Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature. Mar 19;519(7543):339-43.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25731165/
Huang, T. (2016). Temperature dependent absorp.tion cross-sections of CO2 isotopologues in the 1.6 μm region. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 178, 335-341.
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2012.11.009
Levendis Yiannis A., Kowalski Gregory, Lu Yang and Baldassarre Gregory (2020) A simple experiment on global warming. Soc. Open Sci.7192075192075
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075
There are also plenty of experiments on youtube, but avoid the ones using thermometers or IR devices inside/outside of glass chambers, as glass blocks/absorbs IR. Experiments using PVC vessels are better, as clear PVC is relatively transparent to IR in the major emission bands of CO2.
Here’s one, for example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
I could go on, but you get the picture.
Why would you favour one or two papers by people who are not experts in the field, over a century of science confirming the opposite result?
This is the mystery of AGW ‘skepticism’. They apply skepticism selectively.
I posted a brace of links to studies on experiments with CO2 and warming in the lab, Bill. But the post went into moderation.
I’ve captured the image of that.
https://i.imgur.com/1iw5BGo.png
https://i.imgur.com/ekWEv2I.png
Seim & Olsen replied to that “review” of their first experiment in a separate article [a “review” of an experiment, whatever next!?]
http://tinyurl.com/ycx2e6fe
“To claim it is flawed you need to demonstrate why its flawed.”
Lots of people have pointed out the flaws in the experiment, many times. Even the authors admit to flaws.
From my Email conversation with Seim:
“Hello Nathan
Some answers to your questions:
1. You measure a back radiation of 17 W/m^2 at the rear wall of the apparatus from the CO2 in the front section of the . But you don’t measure the expected rise in temperature of the gas in that rear section of 2.4-4.0 C. Instead you measure ~ 0.25 C rise. I am puzzled by this. Do you have any physics explanation for this?
Sorry, we have not found a physical explanation. The paper would have been much better if we had such an explanation! But we decided to publish it anyway and hope for some response from other scientists, with more knowledge about radiation theory than we possess.
2. The 17 W/m^2 is hitting the rear wall, which is ~ a black body, thus it should be absorbed and heating the wall. It seems you are finding that it is not? Isnt this a violation of the First Law and of Kirchoff’s Law?
We agree that the following response to increased IR radiation, absorbed in the back wall should be:
– The absorbed energy should rise the temperature of the back wall. Thermal energy transfer to the air in the back chamber should rise its temperature. This process should continue until balance is obtained with the incoming IR energy and the loss of energy due to higher IR radiation from the back wall. This conservation of energy is expected from the first law of thermodynamics and Kirchoff’s Law. But these laws are valid, so some other explanation must exist!
– One explanation is that so much energy is lost due to losses through the walls and windows in the boxes. But the measurements of losses done by us do not support this.
– The loss of energy due to expansion of the gas during heating (First Law) was also discussed, and found not to be the cause of the missing heating.”
This experiment has less in common with the Earth’s real atmosphere than it does with a real greenhouse, which you all agree is a bad model of the Earth’s GHE.
“[a ‘review’ of an experiment, whatever next!?]”
Right? Tyndall’s experiment should be sacrosanct, too!
Anyhoo, check my previous posts for plenty of experiments confirming the heating effect of CO2 in the lab and in the real atmosphere.
I didn’t even get around to posting the numerous papers on satellite retrieval of OLR over time, confirming that upwelling IR is being absorbed more and more by CO2 and other GHGs.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
The beauty of dealing with emissivity of gases is that they are so easy to distinguish due to their discrete emission profiles.
And you can do the same with downwelling IR, measured by ground instruments over time.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/papers-on-changes-in-dlr/
More and more IR is being returned to the surface by the atmosphere over time, in the spectra associated with GHGs.
The observational evidence is a large repository.
Versus a handful of ‘skeptic’ papers describing experiments made by amateurs with questionable set-ups and results.
Yet ‘skeptics’ belie their monicker and favour these handful of papers over a century of research confirming the opposite.
What’s up with that?
Sure, barry. Trouble is, total OLR has been rising since 1985, correlating well with the rising global temperature.
No need to apologise, that is well-known.
It is also well-known by the research community studying OLR that there is also change specific to the spectra of GHGs.
Eg,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/27/2/jcli-d-13-00047.1.xml
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00205-7
The observational evidence of radiative changes in the atmosphere in the spectra associated with GHGs adds to the other practical and observational evidence of the warming effects of CO2 that Bill requested upthread.
Side note: as soon as Bill provided corroboration I was more than happy to do what is proper and provide substantiation for what I’m saying.
It’s like pulling teeth, getting ‘skeptics’ to provide links to research corroborating their views. Mostly, they don’t, so neither do I. Why waste the effort with people who eschew the proper way of discussing scientific understanding?
I didn’t apologise.
"that is well-known"
Good, then the complete empirical annihilation of your entire religion is well-known. Fair enough.
Nate says:
”1. You measure a back radiation of 17 W/m^2 at the rear wall of the apparatus from the CO2 in the front section of the . But you dont measure the expected rise in temperature of the gas in that rear section of 2.4-4.0 C. Instead you measure ~ 0.25 C rise. I am puzzled by this. Do you have any physics explanation for this?”
Well the answer is clear Nate. Your theory is wrong.
The sensor is measuring the temperature difference between the thermocouple and the gas and since the gas is colder than the heated plate it obviously can’t make the heated plate hotter.
Its a complete failure of your pet theory the GPE when the plate becomes a convecting gas. What happens is the heated plate heats the gas until that gas warms enough to emit all it needs to emit to cool either by conduction, convection, or radiation or all three simultaneously. Its obvious that you can’t pretend that cold stuff warms hotstuff and not vice versa where the hot plate warms the gas and it convects like conveyor belt dumping the heat out the window by all means available to it.
If you disagree its on you to produce the same experiment where that ceases to happen and the heated plate warms. But that should be obvious to you so I don’t know why I have to say that.
[GRAHAM] Sorry, Barry.
[BARRY] No need to apologize.
[GRAHAM] I did not apologize.
If there is a comment saying, "sorry, barry", it’s not showing on my screen. I see one beginning, "sure, barry".
More incoherent rambling.
OK, Little Willy.
“Good, then the complete empirical annihilation of your entire religion is well-known. Fair enough.”
DREMT, please stop tr0lling.
You said it yourself, barry:
“That is the basic mechanism of the “Greenhouse Effect”.
An object receiving continual energy that has its rate of energy loss slowed must perforce became warmer. That’s basic thermodynamics.
And that’s the GHE.”
As the OLR is increasing, that is the exact opposite of Earth having "its rate of energy loss slowed".
“Well the answer is clear Nate. Your theory is wrong.
The sensor is measuring the temperature difference between”
Bill drifts off topic again, while ignoring that the AUTHORS agree with me that there is nothing WRONG with the theory.
” The absorbed energy should rise the temperature of the back wall. Thermal energy transfer to the air in the back chamber should rise its temperature. This process should continue until balance is obtained with the incoming IR energy and the loss of energy due to higher IR radiation from the back wall. This conservation of energy is expected from the first law of thermodynamics and Kirchoffs Law. But these LAWS ARE VALID, so some other explanation must exist!”
‘Some other explanation’ clearly means a problem with their understanding of their measurements.
“Its a complete failure of your pet theory the GPE when the plate becomes a convecting gas. What happens is the heated plate heats the gas until that gas warms enough to emit all it needs to emit to cool either by conduction, convection, or radiation or all three simultaneously.”
Strawman alert.
Bill totally fails to understand that different experiments are different, and mixes them all up in a great big stew of utter confusion, often seasoned with political/conspiratorial thinking.
Unlike Bill, I can fully understand how a different heat transfer setup leads to different results.
I have never suggested that the GPE, which is in vacuum, should give the same results as the Seim experiment in air!
“Sure, barry. Trouble is, total OLR has been rising since 1985, correlating well with the rising global temperature.”
Yes, but science aint simply qualitative, it is QUANTITATIVE.
The reality is that if abs.orbed solar rises, all else being equal, the surface T and OLR should rise.
Whereas if the GHE also rises, then the OLR rise should be partly cancelled, thus rise more SLOWLY or stay constant.
So the qualitative observation of a rising OLR doesnt tell us anything about the GHE!
Oh well!
Nate says:
”Bill totally fails to understand that different experiments are different, and mixes them all up in a great big stew of utter confusion, often seasoned with political/conspiratorial thinking.
Unlike Bill, I can fully understand how a different heat transfer setup leads to different results.
I have never suggested that the GPE, which is in vacuum, should give the same results as the Seim experiment in air!”
Strawman Alert!!
Seim and Olson did not compare their results to an experiment in a vacuum. They compared it to calculations used by Modtran in the atmosphere and found no warming of the heated plate.
“Seim and Olson did not compare their results to an experiment in a vacuum. ”
Nor did I, Bill.
So why are you creating this strawman?
“Its a complete failure of your pet theory the GPE when the plate becomes a convecting gas”
How can it be a failure when NO ONE is suggesting it applies?
Here’s an independent review of the Seim and Olsen experiment
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/18/review-of-seim-and-olsen-paper/
Because the M&W theory is merely a variation of the GPE where the plates are convecting gases. You say you are in agreement with the failure so I guess we are done here.
Nate says:
”Bill drifts off topic again, while ignoring that the AUTHORS agree with me that there is nothing WRONG with the theory.”
Did you get that in writing? LMAO! They probably knew they had a doofus on the line so what better way to shorten the conversation?
Nate says:
”How can it be a failure when NO ONE is suggesting it applies”
That sort of leaves you with no theory
Is there a different theory on how the heat gets from the co2 molecules high in the atmosphere to the ground?
How can it be a failure when NO ONE is suggesting it applies
That sort of leaves you with no theory”
Bill is dum, or plays dum, again.
“Because the M&W theory is merely a variation of the GPE where the plates are convecting gases. ”
Increasingly, Bill just says stuff that has no basis in reality.
“Is there a different theory on how the heat gets from the co2 molecules high in the atmosphere to the ground?”
Nope, explained may times. Did you forget again?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1624382
Nate says:
” ”Because the M&W theory is merely a variation of the GPE where the plates are convecting gases. ”
Increasingly, Bill just says stuff that has no basis in reality.”
So if you believe my take is wrong then how is it wrong? What is the correct take?
Apparently Nate doesn’t have a take and can’t explain how M&W works.
When Gill wakes up and he wants a sammich!
My explanations don’t stick.
Last try:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1624382
“Because the M&W theory is merely a variation of the GPE where the plates are convecting gases”
Nobody has suggested that GPE theory should be applied to S&O experiment, so your claim that it fails is a strawman.
Nobody has claimed that MW applies to the S&O experiment either.
S&O is not in the real atmosphere with a lapse rate, water vapor, clouds etc.
But MW does model the real atmosphere with those features.
There is no good reason to confuse all the models, other to obfuscate.
Nate says:
”My explanations dont stick.”
Of course they don’t Nate. The scientific method says its wrong and experiment trumps theory.
Your explanation:
”The whole point of the layer model MW 1967, is that thermal energy is shared upward and downward between the layers. The entire stack of layers adjusts to a change in the highest layers and reaches a new equilibrium.”
Indeed thats the 3rd grader radiation theory. . .developed out of the imagination of Arhennius. Many experiments show that the energy is not shared downwards, the only heat passage occurring is towards the cooler objects or space.
“The whole point of the layer model MW 1967, is that thermal energy is shared upward and downward between the layers. The entire stack of layers adjusts to a change in the highest layers and reaches a new equilibrium.
Indeed thats the 3rd grader radiation theory”
Oh I see, your 3rd grader model is a moving target!
It is no longer a just a cartoon model.
Now it includes convection, a lapse rate, water vapor, and numerical solution of differential equations!
Which neither 3rd graders nor you Bill, can comprehend.
You’ve really gone over the edge, Bill.
“Many experiments show that the energy is not shared downwards, the only heat passage occurring is towards the cooler objects or space.”
Except everyday in the real atmosphere it is shared downward.
Most weather is driven by movements of the jet stream which is the high-speed air in the upper troposphere.
It moves the warm and cold air masses around and changes the weather. This just happened where I live in New England, the Jet Stream meandered south over us last night, and brought cold air down from Canada to our upper troposphere.
And sure enough the cold was shared down to the surface.
In a few days warm air will blow in, also high in the troposphere, and that warmth will propagate down to the surface, warming us up again.
nate right continue to be obtuse. it would be embarrassing for you to actually come out and defend the model. i get that. so what is your special interest here in obtusely attacking any criticism of it while failing to defend its principle.
obviously since you have been calling the atmosphere as insulation where is the evidence that convection is constrained, other than by oxygen species heating up under uv assault? and what is co2’s role in that?
I imagine we will continue to hear Bill attaching the now meaningless ‘3rd grader’ label to any science he cannot understand.
That or ‘it’s a con’.
Whatever. Nobody is buying his crap.
The 3rd grader label applies to any canard of an experiment that doesn’t correspond to the actual limitations of a thermal barrier.
A thermal barrier is one that restricts at a minimum radiation and convection (within a convecting system)
Thus, the GPE is a 3rd grader level deception using it to establish the earths GHE.
Roys, ice chest experiment is a 3rd grader level deception using it to establish the earth’s GHE as it is upside down thus as he stated designed that way to restrict convection.
I have said in here many times that reflective radiant barriers do work to control downwelling heat because the trigger for convection is a buoyancy factor and heat makes anything more buoyant.
The Harvard and other University depictions of the GHE as preserved in Joe Postma’s poster but wiped from the internet by the Universities was a 3rd grade level deception when using it to establish the earth’s GHE.
Yes because convection only operates in a liquid or gas is bottom heated. Turning it on its head restricts convection because convection does not occur in liquids and gases from top down heating.
That said there is a small portion of top down heating in our atmosphere as the sun shines without regard to the angle of the earth’s surface, thus early first light and sunrise air warms the air faster than the surface while during sunset to twilight the atmosphere is warmed more than the surface. I see no compelling reason to believe that the GHE can be explained by that in combination with the excess heat convected non-thermally by water from the surface up into the atmosphere as those two items add up to about 180watts to the atmosphere and at most we are only looking for 150-160watts. . .and at least 35-60watts.
“Thus, the GPE is a 3rd grader level deception, using it to establish the earths GHE.”
Bill is very determined to erect strawmen, shine a spotlight on them, and then push them over!
For the 47th time, nobody has suggested that the GPE is the GHE or a real model of it.
While Bill has seen real GHE blueprints such as Manabe and Weatherald, 1967, which he cannot understand and will not make an effort to understand, he ironically labels them ‘3rd grader’ models, or ‘cons’, while mixing all models and experiments up in a big obfuscatory stew of confusion.
Good luck with that endeavor, Bill.
No I understand the difference.
To make the M&W model work you need a tropospheric hotspot. To make the 3rd grader model work you need to violate 2LOT.
Which presents a real problem once you go full circle of how to create a tropospheric hotspot without violating 2LOT. And of course we are then bounced between the theories like a ping pong ball without further explanation.
“No I understand the difference.
To make the M&W model work you need a tropospheric hotspot. To make the 3rd grader model work you need to violate 2LOT.”
As ever, none of that is true. And you offer no evidence to support it.
Goobye, Bill.
Well there are major fractures in your argument Nate.
Skeptical science lays out the hotspot as one of two key aspects of an increasing GHE. And what is there opinion on if there is a hotspot or not?
”So, does the hot spot actually exist? That is to say, is the tropsosphere actually warming as expected? Unfortunately, the answer to this is much less cut and dry.”
Thats as about as big of a wavering answer one could ever hope to get out of SkS and you are going to try to just handwave it away?
“Skeptical science lays out the hotspot as one of two key aspects of an increasing GHE.”
False.
ANY warming mechanism was expected to have it in the Tropics, and there is evidence for it.
Nate says:
”False.
ANY warming mechanism was expected to have it in the Tropics, and there is evidence for it.”
you really are ignorant. only a top down increase in forcing causes a hotspot. feedback from ocean warming and albedo change from snow and ice. thus the feedback portion of a recovery from the lia would not create a hotspot. its an absolute joke that you guys believe only co2 has feedbacks.
Wrong.
No link, no evidence, no credit.
yep for nate to consider anything he needs the approval of the cabal.
Bill, you are plainly presenting uncertified BS, and yet expect it to be taken seriously and considered.
No thanks.
I wonder why Swenson doesn’t provide the link to the NASA quote?
Maybe because at the top of the page it says:
“This page contains archived content and is no longer being updated. At the time of publication, it represented the best available science.”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo
The article appeared in 2014.
This is a short-term record – only 10 years. Does the same page have anything to say about that?
“What the results show is that even at global scales, Earth’s albedo fluctuates markedly over short time periods due to natural variations in the climate system,” said Norman Loeb, CERES principal investigator at NASA’s Langley Research Center…
“The results also suggest that in order to confidently detect changes in Earth’s albedo above natural variability, a much longer record is needed”
From memory, there are longer-term studies since then that have a negative global albedo trend, but the trends are not statistically significant.
barry,
Claims that the Earths albedo can be measured are ludicrous. No instruments exist which can measure the total energy from the Sun reaching the Earth, nor measure the amount reflected.
All dreams and wishful thinking. Of no practical use whatever.
If you disagree, maybe you could support your disagreement with some facts.
Just whining that NASA admits that the Earth’s albedo is just a guess, but is trying to imply it isn’t, wont help.
There is no GHE. AGW is indeed due to man-made heat. That’s why it is called anthropogenic global warming. Don’t you agree?
I don’t think you know very much about the various ways albedo is measured. Here is just one method – measuring changes in Earthshine as it falls on the Moon.
“We have observed earthshine from Big Bear Solar Observatory to measure the terrestrial albedo. For earthshine we measure the sunlight reflected from Earth to the dark part of the lunar face and back to the nighttime observer, yielding an instantaneous large-scale reflectance of the Earth. In these relative measurements, we also observe the sunlit, bright part of the lunar face. We report here reflectance data (monthly, seasonal and annual) covering two decades, 19982017.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2021GL094888
“The two-decade decrease in earthshine-derived albedo corresponds to an increase in radiative forcing of about 0.5 W/m², which is climatologically significant (Miller et al., 2014).”
If that’s correct, it accounts for a large part of the warming trend, aka “natural variability”.
Yes, Puffman. Most of the short trends are imputable to natural variability.
You discovered weather. It took you more than a decade, but you made it. Congratulations!
Your cult beliefs fail again, child.
Your comment confirms that you got NOTHING, Puffman.
Riddle me this: do you think natural variability only adds to the warming?
Child, get a responsible adult to explain “variability” to you.
The answer is that sometimes natural variability can have a cooling effect, Puffman. This is why we know that the anthropogenic contribution to our current warming is more than 100%.
No wonder you’re into Skies-Shooting-Down-Cold-Rays fantasy.
Whacky Wee Willy,
“This is why we know that the anthropogenic contribution to our current warming is more than 100%.”
You are quite deranged, obviously.
Man generates substantial waste heat. Thermometers react to this by indicating increased temperatures under appropriate conditions.
The planet continues to cool, as it must, and the temporary AGW heat is ephemeral, eventually vanishing into space. More humans, more heat. It’s not advanced science, although it’s obviously beyond your understanding. That is no doubt why you believe in the heating power of a GHE which you have described as “not cooling, slower cooling”. No wonder you descend to gibberish when confronted with your own silliness.
Carry on regardless.
Mike Flynn,
Put down.
Irrelevant truism.
Ringtone.
Fall.
Closing phrase.
Whacky Wee Willy,
This is why we know that the anthropogenic contribution to our current warming is more than 100%.”
You are quite deranged, obviously.
Man generates substantial waste heat. Thermometers react to this by indicating increased temperatures under appropriate conditions.
The planet continues to cool, as it must, and the temporary AGW heat is ephemeral, eventually vanishing into space. More humans, more heat. Its not advanced science, although its obviously beyond your understanding. That is no doubt why you believe in the heating power of a GHE which you have described as not cooling, slower cooling. No wonder you descend to gibberish when confronted with your own silliness.
Carry on regardless.
Mike Flynn,
To estimate a time series regression model, a trend must be estimated. You begin by creating a line chart of the time series. The line chart shows how a variable changes over time; it can be used to inspect the characteristics of the data, in particular, to see whether a trend exists.
What are you braying about?
Except you have never believed in radiative forcing, Clint.
why should he?
and of course we are talking here about radiative forcing from a cold object. That can only ever happen if the cold objects 1) are actually getting warmer, and 2) the amount it gets warmer overrides the negative feedback of convection. Its the latter point that thoughtful skeptics allow for the possibility of some warming.
“why should he?”
Read his post that I responded to.
“No instruments exist which can measure the total energy from the Sun reaching the Earth, nor measure the amount reflected.”
Evidence?
Nah. Swenson is too ignorant to figure out how science does so many things that he declares impossible.
Nate,
No instruments exist which can measure the total energy from the Sun reaching the Earth, nor measure the amount reflected.
The evidence that no such instruments exist is that no such instruments exist.
Why do you willingly blather such nonsense? The instrument measuring Earthshine from Earth is described in this paper.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2003JD003610
No point festooning this thread with links to the other instruments measuring solar radiation and terrestrial reflected radiation. You’ll never pull your head out of the sand to read them.
barry, please stop trolling.
lost my place…troubleshooting…
ent…solipsism my pituity. I am talking the antithesis of self. I am trying to get through to you that the self is an illusion created by thought. A self image is just that, an image, where image comes from imaginary.
You claim to have a degree in biology and you cannot figure out a simple statement of awareness, labeling it as a self-centred projection. When humans discovered the Sun does not orbit the Earth, that was awareness in action. Till that time, humans were caught up in an illusion created by the human mind, via misdirected thought processes.
They (mainly the Church) were so outraged over that insight from Copernicus they were willing to kill him unless he recanted. A lot like climate alarmists today.
Can you not understand the simple message I am trying to convey? Perhaps that’s why you are an alarmist. I have claimed several times that the universe exists independently of the human mind. Of course, the organic part of the brain is part of that universe but the content is not. I am talking about the content of consciousness which under normal circumstances cannot understand that the Sun does not move across the sky, it is the Earth’s rotation causing that illusion.
Same with time and space-time, which are similar illusions. The human consciousness has created an illusion that such an entity as time exists but no human can explain it. Therefore it persists as an illusion, which confused even Einstein.
This is your chance to challenge such illusions, or do you believe the Sun actually rises in the East and sets in the West?
Go into it…please. Try to identify the meaning of time while staying away from gross generalizations like the arrow of time. That arrow in most humans goes in one ear and extends out the other. That’s the only place time can exist, between human ears.
I have asked several postrs in Roy’s blog to…please…show me where this time is located that they go on about. If clocks measure time as they claim, what is it they are measuring?
> show me where this time is located
Right here, Bordo:
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike aFlynn,
When?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Modeling your behavior on Graham D. Warner isn’t the way.
You already have a voice.
Gordon,
Spencer and Christy publish time series data.
Every time you talk about pauses and trends you are inferring time.
barry,
Every time? Are you sure?
Or are you talking about a different sort of time?
About time you took the time to describe what time you are talking about. In the meantime, you might find it timely to take a short time-out.
Good times, wot?
Flynnson’s one and only interest: to discredit other people’s meaning by endlessly blathering irrelevant, intentionally distorting stuff.
Antonin Qwerty is right: Flynnson is this blog’s worst and dûmbest tr0ll.
“Antonin Qwerty is right: Flynnson is this blogs worst and dmbest tr0ll.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Your post is headed February 18th at 10.16pm.
Your previous post was headed February 18th at 10.14pm.
That is how external reality in the form of the server’s clock function processed the time interval between you clicking “Submit comment” for the two comments.
How did your mind process this time interval? Was it aware that the two events were distinct and consecutive?
Your contention that there is no time is bullshit, as your own subjective experience demonstrates.
I think you have also become confused by the difference between subjective and objective reality.
Subjective reality is how you process and attempt to explain what you perceive. It also includes the beliefs that you generate. Much of that may well be illusion.
Objective reality is what actually happens regardless of your belief.
Incidentally, do you realise that it have biological clocks. Inside your hypothalamus is an oscillator with a natural period of slightly more than 24 hours. This controls your circadian rhythms, the changes in your body over the 24 hour cycle. Secondary oscillators scattered through your body control specific cycles and are reset by the master clock in your hypothalamus.
If you are isolated in constant light with no outside cues and no clocks, your sleep cycle gradually lags behind normal and your “day” becomes somewhere between 24 and 25 hours.
Normally light resets the clock every 24 hours so you stay in synch with the Earth’s rotation.
It’s also why you get jet lag. Air travel moves you around the world fast enough that your sleep cycle is out of synch with the local day/night cycle when you arrive. It may take several days for your primary and secondary oscillator to reset to the new timing.
There is a school of thought which regards consciousness and a sense of self as an emergent illusion created as the brain coordinates processes going on in its different parts.
An analogy from computing would be the clock function which keeps different processes within the hardware synchronised.
What does this have to do with the interpretation and attempted explanation of evidence from external reality?
ent…you are talking philosophy, which is essentially a study of thought, by thought, an impossible procss. Thought is the problem, it is usually distorted and very seldom intelligent. There is a good reason for that, thought and intelligence have little in common.
When we refer to ourselves as ‘self’, there are two things going on. Obviously there are biological processes that are real and enable the ‘sense of self’, and a psychological process, for want of a better word, that is undefined. Most of that undefined state is a collection of ideas conditioned into us either intentionally by parents and peers, or through our own impressions of what we observe.
Most thought, by nature, is distorted, yet we often rely on that distortion to run our lives. When what we observe does not align with our self-defined distortion, we experience different emotions, like hatred, anger, envy, jealousy.
We are even deluded as to who we are. When I look back on my life, I feel numb trying to explain ridiculous behavior that conflicts with my definition of self. Obviously, who I have imagined myself to be is not who I am in actuality. At best, I can only define myself in generalities and the only upside is that I have strived to be better than I have behaved in the past.
I think that is what is meant by illusion, not that the self does not exist. I think the word illusion is being applied incorrectly. If you apply the word self, it can obviously mean the real, physical body. However, the content of consciousness that sees itself as an image in the mind, is more appropriately defined as an illusion, but only because the mind is incapable of seeing itself as it is in actuality.
As a fellow Scot once put it…
“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!”
That was Burns talking to a mouse he had uprooted from its home as he plowed his fields.
I don’t see a clock in a computer being analogous to the human brain. The beauty of the human brain is that it can operate without a central clock while running parallel processes which no computer can emulate. In fact, without its connections to the extremities and organs, the brain would not function well at all.
I see the brain as a multiple, complex feedback system of the servo type. In other words, the brain serves as a central processor that is dependent on peripherals. A computer on the other hand functions well without any peripherals attached. One might argue that a keyboard and display are mandatory, but the absence of each does not stop the processor completing housekeeping tasks in the back ground that are dependent on the clock.
I am thinking of an example by biologist Rupert Sheldrake. He described human vision in a way that describes the image-forming process and its complexity. When a human looks at an object, or a scene, light from the object reaches the human lens where it is inverted and focused on the retina. The retina has no means of assessing a 3-D scenario and it passed a 3-D image on to the brain by converting the 2-D image to electrical impulses.
A camera does something similar but it produces only a 2-D image. When the human brain observes that image it adds depth that is not there on the photograph.
Something in the brain takes the electrical impulses and converts them to an internal image which must also be a representation of a 2-D field. However, the brain has a means of converting this 2-D image to a 3-D image in the brain.
So far, so good, but how does the brain manage to instantly convert a 2-D panorama at the retina to a 3-D image then project it so we can see the panorama as a scenario with depth, through our eyes in real time? Apparently, we learn to add depth and people who have been blind for some time and recover vision have difficulty with that.
It appears that even processes we regard as natural involve a certain amount of illusion. Is that why humans can perceive a situation and completely misinterpret it?
That’s what I am getting at re the universe. We humans lack the ability to observe it in an unbiased manner and often we leap to illogical conclusions. It can be very difficult to overcome those biases and look with an objective mind. I am claiming that time is an illusion and that we must be very careful when applying it to real life processes.
MORE reasons why the GHE is bogus.
REASON #8 — Radiative flux is not energy and can NOT be treated as energy.
The cultists have shown, over and over, that they have no understanding of radiative flux. That’s one of the reasons they can’t understand why the GHE is bogus.
For those capable of learning, let’s try to make it simple.
Radiative flux has units of “Watts per square meter”, usually seen here as “W/m²”. The units even confuse some. For example, “300 W/m²” does NOT mean the same as three 100 Watt lightbulbs. I block of ice emits about 300 W/m², but that is nowhere near the same as three 100 Watt lightbulbs. Confusing “Watts” with “W/m²” is a lot of the confusion.
“Watts” are units of “power”. “Joules” are units of “energy”. Power is not energy. Power is energy per time. Watts = Joules/second.
Radiative flux has units of “power per area”, or “energy per time per area”. Confusing flux with energy is a common mistake in climate “science”.
Stop here and review the above if you don’t have a firm grasp of the issues. Going further will only be confusing if you don’t understand the above.
Energy is a “conserved” quantity. That means energy must always be accountable, just as money in your bank account. Energy-in and energy-out must always result in a “balance”, just as money-in and money-out must always result in your bank balance.
But flux does not have to balance. An object can absorb more flux than it emits. Energy and bank accounts must always balance, or laws are being broken. There are no laws requiring flux to balance.
The energy in radiative flux is the combined energy of the flux photons. The flux is that combined energy per time per area.
Often a simple analogy is useful:
Three bricks are all identical — same mass (m) and composition. Each would have the same thermal energy, if at the same temperature, T. With each brick having the same thermal capacity, C, each would have thermal energy E = CmT.
From the Stefan/Boltzmann Law, and emissivity of 1, each would be emitting a flux of σT⁴.
Let’s use some simple numbers — m = 1, C = 1, T = 400K
The thermal energy in each brick is then 400 Joules, with total thermal energy of 1200 Joules. And each is emitting 1452 W/m².
If we change the temperatures to 200K, 400K, and 600K, the three bricks still have the same total thermal energy, 1200 Joules. But the emitted fluxes change to 91, 1452, and 7348 W/m². The total energy remains the same, but look what happens to the emitted fluxes!
The cult would attempt to average the fluxes, getting a bogus value of 2964 W/m². But that flux would correspond to a temperature of 478 K, which is NOT the average temperature of 400K. Fluxes can not be averaged.
Tr0ll Clint R
” The units even confuse some. For example, “300 W/m²” does NOT mean the same as three 100 Watt lightbulbs. I block of ice emits about 300 W/m², but that is nowhere near the same as three 100 Watt lightbulbs. Confusing “Watts” with “W/m²” is a lot of the confusion. ”
No one is confused.
What you write is your own nonsense which you endlessly use to intentionally distort the discussion.
Bindi, you must have missed Gordon’s ongoing confusion about flux.
You seem to miss a lot….
Riddle me this, Puffman –
Isn’t Bordo a Sky Dragon crank like you?
No child, Gordon is a brain-dead cult idi0t like you.
He just belongs to his own cult.
Yes, Puffman. To be a Sky Dragon cranks all one has to do is deny the greenhouse effect.
Riddle me this – what’s energy flux?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Imitating Graham D. Warner does not good well on you.
Clint, you did a very important explanation on why the fluxes cannot add.
Unfortunately they consider planets (Earth) as blackbodies. Blackbodies do not have differentiated surface temperatures, like planets and moons have.
Blackbodies have uniform surface temperatures.
Thus a planet (Earth) doesn’t emit at its average surface temperature. A planet emits with its every infinitesimal point, which point has its own (and ever changing) temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…nothing Clint offers is important, he is an angry person who likes to spread propaganda. Don’t fear him, he is a nobody. His entire post on fluxes and watts is nonsense.
Christos
Are you familiar with the concept of the “black box” used in system theory?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box
A black box is an open system with a boundary. You study the inputs and outputs across the boundary without necessarily knowing what goes on inside.
Studying the Earth’s energy budget you can take the same approach.
Using satellites you can take multiple measurements of energy flow into and out of the Earth black box and build up a picture of the totals.
You can describe the flow into and out of the black box as three terms – total incoming shortwave radiation, total outgoing shortwave radiation and total outgoing longwave radiation.(aka solar insolation, albedo and OLR.
For a stable open system
Solar insolation – albedo = OLR
For a cooling system
Solar insolation – albedo OLR
The third alternative is what the satellites observe.
I repeat, you don’t need to know anything about the details of what goes on inside the box, just measurements of what goes in and out.
EM,
Or you can just observe that the Earth has cooled.
No measurements needed – just notice that you are not standing on glowing rock, as was the case four and a half billion years ago.
If you believe in the existence of a GHE, you should have no trouble explaining its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, should you?
Of course, if you are just imagining the GHE, you won’t even be able to describe how it cooled the Earth.
Over to you.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“A black box is an open system with a boundary. You study the inputs and outputs across the boundary without necessarily knowing what goes on inside.”
–
Sorry, it is too late in Athens, Greece. Shall we continue tomorrow?
I have to go now.
Christos
ent…”A black box is an open system with a boundary. You study the inputs and outputs across the boundary without necessarily knowing what goes on inside”.
***
The black box model is used in electronics theory to help a student apply concepts. Other than that, it has no practical value.
The problem with current climate alarm theory is that far too many black boxes with no apparent value are being used.
Newton’s theory of gravitation is a “black box” theory, and has had myriad practical applications and continues to do so in the present day.
“The black box model is used in electronics theory to help a student apply concepts. Other than that, it has no practical value.”
How little regard you have for science.
Yes Barry, Newton’s theory of gravitation has been validated.
barry,
It’s Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. There is no Newtonian theory of gravitation.
If you can find a way to break that law, I will be surprised.
You are an idiot who can’t even describe the GHE, but are convinced it does something or other – you just aren’t sure what, are you?
Accept reality. CO2 heats nothing. There is no GHE.
Bill,
You have a knack for missing the point.
Newton’s gravitational theory is a black box. He couldn’t explain why gravity works the way it does, only that successful predictions could be made from his deductions.
Principia, 2nd Edition:
“I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses…. It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies.”
Gordon dismissed black boxes as mere learning tools. No, they are ever-present in science, and the acceptance of these voids in complete knowledge has allowed science to continue to develop without being hampered by some overly-fastidious need to account for every molecule before formulating a theory.
barry,
Blabbering about black boxes or black bodies does not disguise the fact that you cannot even describe the GHE.
Be a man, and develop a backbone. Tell everyone what you believe – is there a GHE? Wha5 do you believe it does?
You won’t commit yourself, will you? That’s why you want to babble about everything else!
I would say its you Barry thats missing the point.
Newton’s law of gravity isn’t imputed from its underlying characteristics its imputed from experiment.
CO2 theory is in the same category of the problem of cold stuff warming hot stuff. Yes its possible the surface will get warmer from a hot spot in the atmosphere making the surrounds warmer.
But now we are being bombarded with how the atmosphere is getting colder the further you go up into it and thats a completely different theory of how the greenhouse effect works. . .and unfortunately as a result has deviated from the surrounds getting warmer in a way that it could be linked to CO2 by some theory of warming.
This theory is on its last legs and is only going to hang around like the theory that aliens are being housed in Area 51 hangs in there.
Bill,
“Newton’s law of gravity isn’t imputed from its underlying characteristics its imputed from experiment.”
It’s still a black box theory – as I just quoted Newton verifying, and you’re still not getting the point.
You can make successful predictions about a thing without knowing much about its inner workings.
It was posited above that you could treat the Earth climate system as a black box and still work out whether it is changing overall. Like a black box, the system has inputs and outputs which can be empirically measured. It is not necessary to know the inner workings of the climate system/gravity to be able to describe and predict response to inputs/outputs.
That is the point.
Barry I know what a black box model is. A blackbox model is validated by outcomes where you can either control the variables or you can observe changes in the variables and you can show a consistent result arising after X number of changes in the variable, then you can build a statistical validation of the model. . .like NOAA is trying to do with their ENSO modeling that as of 5 years ago was still not showing any skill at predicting through the spring prediction barrier.
No, Nill, you have not described a black box. You are, as usual, throwing words around to shoehorn in whatever it is you want to talk about.
Black box definition: “In science, computing, and engineering, a black box is a system which can be viewed in terms of its inputs and outputs (or transfer characteristics), without any knowledge of its internal workings.”
Bill box definition: “A blackbox model is validated by outcomes where you can either control the variables or you can observe changes in the variables and you can show a consistent result arising after X number of changes in the variable, then you can build a statistical validation of the model. . .like NOAA is trying to do with their ENSO modeling that as of 5 years ago was still not showing any skill at predicting through the spring prediction barrier.”
That’s not a black box. That’s a model.
The climate system as “black box” is not an experimental model as you describe, but is a system with radiative inputs and outputs which we do not control, for which all we need is knowledge of radiative transfer and 3 terms.
Perhaps you should read the originating comment.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1626033
barry that was a long post without appearing to say anything at all.
And yours is a short post that definitely says nothing at all.
I posted the link to the original comment above. Why don’t you read it to finally understand what the discussion is about.
Barry maybe you ought to read.
I didn’t disagree with you on what a blackbox is. I simply pointed out that some blackboxes are validated and some are not.
You though don’t want to post how you know the CO2 blackbox actually warms the surface.
If you read the original comment I won’t need to rehash the conversation just because you’re too lazy to click on a link.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1626033
Ent has already covered your question:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1626766
If you want to discuss Ent’s thesis, don’t you think you’d be better off talking to Ent?
barry says:
”Bill,
Newtons law of gravity isnt imputed from its underlying characteristics its imputed from experiment.
Its still a black box theory as I just quoted Newton verifying, and youre still not getting the point.
You can make successful predictions about a thing without knowing much about its inner workings.”
Yep, Newton’s black box essentially never fails and gets results with and extremely low margin of error.
Just a teensy bit of difference don’t you think Barry?
Teensy bit of difference between gravity and what, Bill?
Whatever your answer is, I will bet my bottom dollar that it is not the black box that Ent described.
I look forward to saying what you are comparing the black box of gravity to as a “teensy difference.” Anyone lurking will see yet again how you are missing the point and yet again talking about something else.
barry, please stop trolling.
The blackbox that Ent describes, a study of inflow and outflow, does not have the resolution to detect the net difference.
What they are doing is estimating short term warming rates in only a portion of the climate system and attributing that as the imbalance.
short term rates of energy accumulation could be attributable to natural climate change from a large array of potential causes.
And since actual resolution of the monitoring system is several times worse than the estimated energy imbalance they don’t even know if the energy imbalance is growing or shrinking.
All we have in here is a bunch of parrots claiming they do know.
binny…”Why are you fixated all the time on this boring blackbody stuff?”
***
Intepretation…Binny wants Christos to post some simple stuff that Binny may be able to understand.
… says this blog most ignorant poster who doesn’t even understand what is time, endlessly writes lengthy posts about everything but containing nothing.
All what Robertson is able to do is to polemically discredit and denigrate instead of technically let alone scientifically contradict.
“All what Robertson is able to do is to polemically discredit and denigrate instead of technically let alone scientifically contradict.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
I have invited anyone who cares to submit their definition of time, to explain what it is. No one, including you, can offer such an explanation, even though you bray about it as if you do know what it is.
When did Bindidon “bray” about time, Gordon?
A few posts above he brayed that I don’t understand what time is. He can’t explain it and I have acknowledged it does not exist, ergo I can’t know what it is if it doesn’t exist.
How about you, Barry, care to define time as anything other than a human idea?
“A few posts above”
A you referring to his post at 3:48pm?
I’m pretty sure he didn’t post it yet. Time being an illusion and all.
I get your humour Barry, and I am sure we could have a few laughs over this stuff, but you are evading what time is. It’s not there as a real entity other than in the thought processes of humans.
Are you saying that the time series that are updated once a month here and at other institutes are works of fiction because they assume that time flows in one direction?
I would say that time is objectively real because we constantly make scientific predictions with time as an essential component and we are almost always right about the time, if not about other components of the prediction.
There is a philosophical level where subjective time can be discussed, but for everyday purposes like arriving to work, setting an alarm, or making time series out of data, there is not much to talk about. Time flows in one direction only (physics explains why, entropy etc), and however we divide it into discrete units, or experience it on a personal level, or experience it differently at different velocities, it’s not enough to blow the concept out of usefulness or predictability here on Earth.
The ontology of Time is a deep well, and in my experience good for flexing the mind, at best, but not much else.
Gordon,
This is a very lengthy article from an encyclopedia of philosophy covering the major inquiries into Time over… the centuries? From Plato to Quantum Mechanics.
https://iep.utm.edu/time/
It’s very comprehensive for an overview.
barry, please stop trolling.
One of the more stoopid posts by Clint above on fluxes. He clearly lacks the understanding of what flux means or what the watt means.
If one considers magnets, which have definite flux fields, putting two magnets together doubles the flux field strength, so clearly, in some cases fluxes can add. So, we have to differentiate between a magnetic flux field and the flux field associated with EM, which has both an electric and magnetic flux field.
The problem is, Clint does not understand the meaning of flux, which is more an imaginary notion than an actual physical entity. Because ‘something’ is influencing another body, does not mean it exists as we visualize it. The word flux comes from Newton’s ‘fluxion’ which he intended as a representation of our modern ‘derivative’ in modern calculus. Essentially, flux is a reference to a rate of change, not a physical quantity.
Therefore, flux is a reference to how quickly a field is changing instantaneously and is not a quantity anyone would need to add. Clint is clearly confusing flux with an actual physical process that is changing over an area wrt time.
We have no idea what it is that is changing wrt energy. With EM, when we claim the orthogonally related E and M field are changing wrt time at so many hertz/second, we have no idea what the E and M field are. They are simply classified as energy, and in the most generic sense.
With a magnet, the magnetic strength is rated in flux lines per unit area but obviously no one can see those lines. ‘Something’ can be indicated by placing a sheet of paper over the magnetic and pouring iron filings on the paper. The filings will align themselves with the mysterious magnetic field.
It should be noted that a field is not the same as a flux. A flux is a mathematical term and a field is the human-based definition of that mathematical entity.
Clint, in his naivete. thinks this changing energy field can be measured in watts, even though the watt is clearly defined based on the horsepower, hence is clearly a measure of mechanical energy. It is used with reference to heat because so many watts of mechanical power have a heat equivalent (not equality) when applied to a medium like water. However, there is no way the watt can be applied to an energy form that has no mass.
Of course, this is well over Clint’s head and he will come back with ad homs and insults because that’s all he has. Quite paaathetic, actually. In short, if Clint had an ounce of sense, he’d steer clear of talking about subjects he clearly does not understand, and to stop insulting people who know far more about a subject than he does.
Gordon Robertson
Clint R would be correct and you would be wrong on this one.
Scientists can easily measure the energy in EMR by how it heats up things. Not sure why you are going on some type of ridiculous reasoning. You really should read some science to see what it is about, the evidence they have for the ideas that they come up with and things of this nature. At the time you do not sound informed at all. You actually sound quite the opposite, like a person who really knows nothing about the subject (like time or energy or any other of the established physics concepts that have been studied and thought about for many years).
What a meltdown from Gordon.
Obviously his therapy sessions aren’t helping….
As I predicted, Clint has no scientific comeback, just more hot air.
Gordon, when you don’t even know the difference between a magnetic field and radiative flux, there is no way to discuss science with you.
You’re at the bottom of the barrel here. You’re down there with barry, bindi, Nate, and silly willy. Even Norman knows more about science than you.
And the fact that you have spent years here trying to fake being an engineer just means you’ve got serious issues.
Get help.
Puffman,
Riddle me this – what does the concept of radiative flux generalize?
“Riddle me this ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
“Radiative” means emitting or causing the emission of radiation.
In physics, radiation is the emission or transmission of energy in the form of waves or particles through space or a material medium.
What are you braying about?
clint….”Gordon, when you dont even know the difference between a magnetic field and radiative flux, there is no way to discuss science with you”.
***
I brought the subject up because I have studied magnetic and electromagnetic fields formally. In practice, I have had to shield against those fields.
There is little difference between a magnetic field and the electromagnetic field you call a radiative flux. The field in either case, is an imaginary concept created by the human mind and flux is an attempt to measure the field strength over an area.
It is debatable as to whether the word flux can be applied to a magnetic field, unless the field is changing regularly, as in a transformer. A transformer relies on an alternating current in the primary creating a varying magnetic field which cuts stationary windings in the transformer secondary, inducing an alternating current/voltage.
The varying magnetic field is referred to as both a field and a flux, but the meaning is slightly different. A field simply defines a magnetic force field around a magnetic source whereas the flux is a measure of the field strength. Again, flux is a measure of the rate at which the field is changing over a specified area it is not a physically identifiable entity
One would never talk about adding fluxes, one would talk about increasing the field strength by adding imaginary lines of force to a specified area. Flux is essentially the number of those imaginary lines of force per unit area. In either case, the flux and the field are both imaginary, even though a force can be generated by ‘something’.
Over to you. If you truly understand this, you should be able to debate the points I have made.
gordon, if you’ve really studied magnetic fields, you would know radiative flux is completely different. But, you don’t know that. You just clog the blog with endless rambling about things you don’t understand.
But, thanks for avoiding your usual insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations. That’s a start to facing reality.
Good news for the ‘La Nina’ aficionados:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/19/the-coming-collapse-of-el-nino-and-the-ramifications-on-the-atlantic-basin-tropical-season/
La Nina is coming.
Recent ENSO forecasts:
“A transition from El Niño to ENSO-neutral is likely by April-June 2024 (79% chance), with increasing odds of La Niña developing in June-August 2024 (55% chance)”
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
“Sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific are expected to return to neutral El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) levels in the southern hemisphere autumn 2024.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
“El Niño conditions have persisted in the equatorial Pacific since boreal spring last year.
It is more likely to transition to ENSO-neutral conditions by the end of boreal spring (60%) than El Niño conditions will persist (40%). ENSO-neutral conditions are likely during boreal summer (70%).”
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
Let’s not forget:
“…models have problems in predicting boreal winter tropical Pacific sea surface temperature (SST) when forecasts start in boreal spring (February–May). This is called the spring predictability barrier” (Lai et al. 2018).
https://tinyurl.com/ycsdr7lq
Are you saying that La Nina will not happen?
rlh…Barry is hoping La Nina won’t happen because it interferes with his alarmist dogma.
barry really doesn’t care either way, Gordon.
You’ll find that it is the ‘skeptics’ who are always predicting/hoping/wishing for la Ninas. Eben constantly tells us one is coming, but never that an el Nino is coming. And RLH is patently more interested to know if a la Nina is coming.
Because those bozos actually DO care about whether its an el Nino or a la Nina.
It’s asinine. Childish. These are peaks and troughs that have nothing to do with the general premise of AGW, but because they don’t like AGW they’ll make everything about it.
Let me anticipate the usual nonsense.
No, I don’t think an el Nino means anything WRT long-term global warming.
No, I don’t think CO2 was the cause of the recent spike in global temps.
Hopefully you and your ilk can say something new one day.
“RLH is patently more interested to know if a la Nina is coming.”
Are you saying that La Nina is NOT coming?
Are you saying that’s what I’m saying?
Let me check and see if I work at any of the institutes I just quoted. Hmmm….
…
No, I don’t believe that I had any input whatsoever to the quotes I provided from professional research groups.
So the models are correct – except when they aren’t.
Are you saying I’m saying what you seem to be saying I’m saying?
I’ve just posted three different forecasts with different results. And I’ve posted immediately after that a reminder about the Spring predictability barrier. The message being that uncertainty is high right now.
And your response is that fatuous, flea-bitten jibe.
How about you talk about what the institutes are saying instead of making comically incorrect guesses about what I’m saying.
If you want to know what I’m saying….
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1626145
“The message being that uncertainty is high right now.”
The message being that the models have a wide variation in what they are predicting. They cannot all be correct.
“They cannot all be correct.”
The banality of your offerings is proportional to your argumentativeness. I can’t remember you saying anything interesting in a very long while.
It looks like La Nina is coming. How deep and how long is the question.
Are you saying there is zero uncertainty that a la Nina is coming this year?
Remember who told you first two month ago
I remember you said el Nino was past the peak before it was past the peak.
If you said that a la Nina will come someday, well aren’t you brilliant.
As brilliant as RLH.
Are skeptics so childishly binary that they actually believe realists care either way if a la Nina or an el Nino develops?
Bring on a la Nina. Or neutral. Or el Nino. What difference does it make to the general debate?
Are things going to get colder or warmer?
Why do you care?
We just had a string of La Ninas, and now an El Nino.
But the mean over this period, the last 5 years, just broke a record, @ 0.303 C.
I predict that the 5 y running mean will continue to break records for awhile.
Longer running means are more sensitive to climate change. The 10 y running mean just broke a record @ 0.25 C.
I predict it will keep rising and breaking records for the rest of the year. What say you?
records are made to be broken. There are a million records around climate at least. What records do you expect to be broken?
I expect the trend will continue that every year since 2002 has seen more hot records broken than cold in cities and towns around the world.
https://www.mherrera.org/records.htm
https://www.mherrera.org/records1.htm
https://www.mherrera.org/records2.htm
Here are the results up to 2021, when I last checked 19 months ago:
2002 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 204
Minimum 22
2003 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 394
Minimum 20
2004 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 113
Minimum 13
2005 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 120
Minimum 29
2006 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 145
Minimum 20
2007 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 297
Minimum 17
2008 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 90
Minimum 32
2009 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 138
Minimum 21
2010 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 505
Minimum 44
2011 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 169
Minimum 39
2012 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 296
Minimum 16
2013 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 405
Minimum 16
2014 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 217
Minimum 19
2015 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 328
Minimum 14
2016 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 323
Minimum 21
2017 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 219
Minimum 18
2018 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 435
Minimum 41
2019 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 647
Minimum 18
2020 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 354
Minimum 15
2021 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 404
Minimum 59
If you click on the 3rd link you can check the results for 2022 and 2023, which I’ve not yet done.
Go on, add up the minima and maxima for 2022 and 2023 and see if my prediction is falsified in those two years.
To make it easier, just do 2022. 2023 was a record-breaking warm year, so you won’t have any luck with that.
But 2022 was the 3rd year of successive la Ninas.
I really haven’t checked it yet, so go ahead and see what the result is. I’ve made a prediction that can be falsified. Are you curious?
A better measure of the impact of more water vapor and CO2, would be the comparison between maximums and how many warmest minimums is occurring.
That would put the greenhouse effect into a more proper light of how it will actually might work. then you can show trends in deaths from cold vs deaths from heat. As it stands homelessness and associated deaths from that are in part caused by increases in the costs of housing insulation standards and in the prices of housing and warming a house from increased costs for access to energy.
You guys need to realize that you are killing people without having a good grasp on what you hope to gain.
Bill, you asked:
“records are made to be broken. There are a million records around climate at least. What records do you expect to be broken?”
I answered that question.
In reply you changed the subject.
Do you have anything to say about my reply to your question?
My reply was to Nate.
barry says:
”Do you have anything to say about my reply to your question?”
No. It was my feeling your question which wasn’t addressed to anybody in particular would be best answered by somebody who doesn’t believe the globe has warmed over the past 4 decades.
As Nate hadn’t replied to your last post I assumed you were talking to me.
Your comment didn’t have anything to do with what Nate said, either.
You keep doing that.
Bill had already tried to change the subject when he responded to my post:
“There are a million records around climate at least. ”
Of course there are millions of LOCAL records.
But not millions of GLOBAL records.
The long running means of Global temperature, in this case the 10 y one, keeps breaking warm records.
Without a nearly non-stop GW trend, this cannot keep happening.
Both the 5 year and 10 year means include the period with a string of three La Ninas.
My point was that having 3 La Ninas in a row did not stop global warming.
Thus the possible return to La Nina this year is also unlikely to stop GW and put us into a cooling trend.
Nate says:
The long running means of Global temperature, in this case the 10 y one, keeps breaking warm records.
Without a nearly non-stop GW trend, this cannot keep happening.
Both the 5 year and 10 year means include the period with a string of three La Ninas.
My point was that having 3 La Ninas in a row did not stop global warming.
Thus the possible return to La Nina this year is also unlikely to stop GW and put us into a cooling trend.
——————–
Obviously that is exactly what an LIA recovery should look like Nate. What is your estimate of how long warming would continue if tomorrow CO2 in the atmosphere stopped increasing its concentration from human emissions but only from any increases from Henry’s Law as the ocean continued to find an equilibrium on all fronts?
An “LIA recovery” with no causal mechanisms that pass the smell tests.
Which is why casual proponents use the phrase instead of the mechanism/s. It’s just a lazy assertion. The word “recovery” is a piece of rhetoric all by itself, as if the global climate is a piece of elastic rebounding to some (fictional) normal.
Figured I’d update 2022 and 2023, seeing as I got the links out.
Regarding maxima and minima under global warming, I got data for record-breaking local temperatures around the world since 2002 (as much data as I could find for this metric). I posted the results in 2019, updated in 2022, and updating again today.
This is a count of how many record-breaking hot days, and record-breaking cold days there were at weather stations around the world for each year from 2002 to 2023.
—————————————————————–
2002 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 204
Minimum 22
2003 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 394
Minimum 20
2004 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 113
Minimum 13
2005 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 120
Minimum 29
2006 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 145
Minimum 20
2007 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 297
Minimum 17
2008 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 90
Minimum 32
2009 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 138
Minimum 21
2010 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 505
Minimum 44
2011 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 169
Minimum 39
2012 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 296
Minimum 16
2013 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 405
Minimum 16
2014 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 217
Minimum 19
2015 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 328
Minimum 14
2016 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 323
Minimum 21
2017 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 219
Minimum 18
2018 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 435
Minimum 41
2019 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 647
Minimum 18
2020 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 354
Minimum 15
2021 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 404
Minimum 59
2022 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 770
Minimum 14
2023 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 598
Minimum 43
—————————————————————–
Data:
2002-2010
2011-2020
2021 to latest complete year
Data methods detailed at that website.
“Obviously that is exactly what an LIA recovery should look like Nate.”
According to what falsifiable theory? According to what ‘certified’ mechanism?
And why was nobody predicting such a thing before warming accelerated in the 1980s?
Nate says:
”According to what falsifiable theory? According to what certified mechanism?”
———————
Glaciers melting and oceans warming Nate, via the amortization of an energy imbalance that was supplemented by an increasingly active sun and possibly planetary gravitational forces on earth’s orbit, delayed feedbacks from these effects, errors in attributing UHE that increases warming trends, a cavalier attitude of academic scientists that owe no duty to anybody other themselves in down adjusting historic records to increase the warming trend to meet expectations, errors in surface records arising from UHE via adjusting historic records. I am sure I left some stuff out, but that is what science is supposed to be doing versus just trying to prove their pet theory correct.
Nate says:
”And why was nobody predicting such a thing before warming accelerated in the 1980s?”
—————————–
Seems to me the many scientists trying to get in the Nostradamus prediction business and essentially all the NGOs were alarmed about other things and too busy to bother.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/
So just gish galloping to nowhere.
No real theory or ‘certified’ mechanism. No prior predictions.
Just post hoc rationalization.
You are constantly bemoaning the lack of ‘certification’ of science.
And yet are eager to promote your amateurish speculations as bonified alternatives.
every bit as certified as your theory Nate.
False. The GHE theory is based on established physics, has many published ‘blueprints’, several you have seen, has
testable predictions, many have been confirmed.
Whereas your post-hoc speculation has what? Any of that?
Sure they have ocean bottom samples that have never been mixed with surface water for more than 1500 years. Which is more validation that any of your models have.
Your so-called blueprint I take is the Harvard blueprint of the GHE that Harvard pulled off their website years ago AKA the 3rd grader radiation model that has been repetitively debunked?
“AKA the 3rd grader radiation model”
None of the papers you have been shown use that, whatever it is.
So this is disingenuous.
Intentional misrepresentation on your part.
You just can’t win debating honestly, Bill.
“Sure they have …”
More mutterings from Bill.
But still no falsifiable theory, nor mechanism, nor predictions of any kind, from any real source.
The 3rd grader radiation model is the one sold to the public years ago. It was widely published including on Harvards site where I saw it probably 15 years ago. They took it down as some point but I just saw it again in the link to Joe Postma’s poster that DREMT linked to above.
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2023/09/which-one-2.jpg bottom right corner.
Its the backradiation model that was widely dispersed. You can tell me you never have seen it because I know its easy for you to lie.
Joe Postma…pullleez!
Sorry Bill, you have been shown the real models many times.
To suggest that a cartoon model is all there is, is…to be kind, total bullshit.
And you know it.
But still no falsifiable theory, nor mechanism, nor predictions of any kind, from any real source.
Still waiting.
Nate you have at least a thousand posts in here directly defending the 3rd grader radiation model cartoon. Now you deny it? LMAO!
Well victory is indeed sweet.
Then it should be easy to quote me doing that.
Meanwhile, still no falsifiable theory, nor mechanism, nor predictions of any kind, from any real source on you alternative LIA recovery notion.
Nates best science case to date. The pot calling the kettle black.
Why do you contradict your own principles, to promote an ‘uncertified’ speculation, with no theory, no mechanism, no predictions, no confirmations?
I am not promoting anything Nate. I am just pointing out that there is a lot of natural variation that is unaccounted for. Its your theory that wants to look a specific time and attribute all change to CO2.
But thats wrong on the face of it because the CO2 model cannot even account for all the change that has occurred or not occurred during the window of time when it wants to claim total control.
It falls drastically short of accounting for 1940’s and has vastly over estimated the warming from 2000 to 2024. The last several posts by Roy clearly demonstrates that leaving only one means of establishing anything out of the whole exercise is a complete list of all parameterizations of all models, compare those parameterizations to what nature has given us and determine which model was closest. Then and only then are we going to make progress in weeding out the stuff that isn’t working. And we will have to deal with the parameterization that all the models have by looking at that correlation with the other parameters.
Of course the modelers know this but they aren’t doing it. Why? Instead they mull around talking in private groups discussing what do they do now while treating the public like a mushroom farm keeping them in the dark and feeding them shit.
Sounds like you realize that you don’t have anything to support your uncertified LIA recovery speculation.
So you hardly mention it and, as so often happens, meander on to something else…
One needs a budget to find strong evidence. But the wrong people control the budget. Certainly the evidence exists in the temperature record and in known lack of completion of adjustments of the world heat sinks. . .despite Al Gore’s and Michael Mann’s attempts to make that evidence go away with the help of heavily slanted movie, sacred Siberian trees, Mike’s Trick, etc.
So you were predicting future climate records but you didn’t regale us with any details of those predictions Nate?
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“Christos
Are you familiar with the concept of the “black box” used in system theory?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box
A black box is an open system with a boundary. You study the inputs and outputs across the boundary without necessarily knowing what goes on inside.
Studying the Earth’s energy budget you can take the same approach.
Using satellites you can take multiple measurements of energy flow into and out of the Earth black box and build up a picture of the totals.
You can describe the flow into and out of the black box as three terms – total incoming shortwave radiation, total outgoing shortwave radiation and total outgoing longwave radiation.(aka solar insolation, albedo and OLR.
For a stable open system
Solar insolation – albedo = OLR
For a cooling system
Solar insolation – albedo = OLR
The third alternative is what the satellites observe.
I repeat, you dont need to know anything about the details of what goes on inside the box, just measurements of what goes in and out.
–
–
1). For smooth surface planets and moons
Mercury
Earth
Moon
Mars
Europa
Ganymede
the specular reflection is very strong and it is being ignored as insignificant. Thus it led to “energy in” much higher estimations.
2). The “Energy in = Energy out” concept is about the black box, which is an open system with a boundary.
You study the inputs and outputs across the boundary without necessarily knowing what goes on inside.
(In GHE theory the average surface temperature differs because of the rising greenhouse gases content.)
In my point the solar energy “Energy in = Energy out” concept is the basic concept, it should be necessarily met.
The average surface temperature is a measured value. So we know what the planets’ and moon’s the average surface temperatures are
And yes, “Energy in = Energy out”, but the energy interacts with surface’s matter. When interacting the average surface temperature occurs.
–
–
There is a well known scientific POSTULAT:
When two identical spheres emitting the same amount of EM energy, the less surface temperature differentiated the higher the average surface temperature.
What is New, is that when considering spheres (planets or moons), which are getting warmed by incoming EM energy, because they are solar irradiated, the less surface temperature differentiated the more solar energy the planet or moon absorbs!
–
It is the “black box”, or the radiative equilibrium.
When the radiative equilibrium gets “switched” up – the average surface temperature rise. When it is “switched” down – the average surface temperature lessens.
In my opinion the currently observed global warming is not due to CO2 (not due to fossil fuels intensive burning), but because of orbital forcing, because of the current orbital circumstance our planet Earth is subjected to.
–
Thank you again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Why do you think specular reflection is being neglected?
In the literature are a number of papers like this specifically discussing how to identify specular reflection in satellite observations of outward shortwave radiation.
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/972492#:~:text=Among%20the%20background%20signals%20commonly%20seen%20by%20Earth-monitoring,Earth%27s%20surface%2C%20commonly%20referred%20to%20as%20a%20glint.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0038092X19301653
One common factor in the literature is that albedo is the sum of diffuse reflection and specular reflection.
“In my point the solar energy Energy in = Energy out concept is the basic concept, it should be necessarily met.”
If the climate is stable I agree. However in a cooling climate Energy in is less than Energy out. In a warming climate Energy in is larger than Energy out, which is what we observe and which confirms the average surface measurements.
“The average surface temperature is a measured value. So we know what the planets and moons the average surface temperatures are
And yes, Energy in = Energy out, but the energy interacts with surfaces matter. When interacting the average surface temperature occurs.”
Yes, though it gets quite complex. For a planet with a transparent atmosphere, or no atmosphere at all, you can predict the surface temperature using the SB equation. It will stabilise when the Energy in = Energy out. For Earth the energy in and energy out both have a total flux close to 240W/m^2, which corresponds to an average surface temperature of 255K.
Clearly something else is going on. The current average surface temperature is 288K.
For me it’s easy. GHGs neatly explain the difference.
For you it must be harder it you eliminate GHGs. I doubt that phi is sufficient on its own to raise Earth’s average temperature by 33C. Any other ideas?
Ent is STILL confused: “For Earth the energy in and energy out both have a total flux close to 240W/m^2, which corresponds to an average surface temperature of 255K.”
Wrong Ent. Flux NOT energy. The “240 W/m²” and the “255K”, and the “33K”, are nonsense. They originate with your cult using an imaginary sphere. That ain’t science.
You keep trying to pervert reality, like when you claim passenger jets fly backward. You have no interest in science or reality.
Why are you here?
“Energy flux, the rate of transfer of energy through a unit area (Jm−2s−1). The radiative flux and heat flux are specific cases of energy flux.
Radiative flux, the amount of energy transferred in the form of photons at a certain distance from the source per unit area per second (Jm−2s−1). Used in astronomy to determine the magnitude and spectral class of a star. Also acts as a generalization of heat flux, which is equal to the radiative flux when restricted to the electromagnetic spectrum.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux
Flux is derived from the Latin “flow,” and in physics “describes any effect that appears to pass or travel (whether it actually moves or not) through a surface or substance.”
Ent is clearly referring to energy flux, specifically radiative flux. The flux being described here IS energy flow.
barry, you get so confused so easily.
You can call radiative flux “energy flux” if you want, but if only adds confusion. Radiative flux is NOT energy, just as “energy flux” is NOT energy. The units give it away — W/m².
Maybe you’re confused because you don’t realize “W/m²” is the same as “Jm−2s−1”. “Energy” has units of “J”.
Maybe you’re just uneducated and confused, or maybe like Ent, you’re purposely trying to pervert reality….
You might as well argue that a banana split does not contain a banana or that a car crash does not involve a car, Puffman.
Do bananas and cars add?
Yes, W/m2 is joules per second per sq metre. A flux in this context is the amount of energy passing through an object or surface.
So when you say, “Flux NOT energy,” it’s like saying “Flow NOT water,” when someone says a river is flowing at 50 cubic metres a second.
Whatever semantic quibble you are attempting, it doesn’t negate that water is the property heading downstream, or that energy is the property interacting with a surface.
barry, if you want to continue your quibbling over semantics, tell us which is larger — A flow of 100 cubic meters of water per second, or 100 cubic meters of water?
Are you just uneducated and confused, or purposefully trying to pervert reality?
One is flow rate, the other volume. One is a vector quantity and the other is static mass. They have qualitatively different units and therefore can’t be compared in terms of “size.”
But you can determine how long it would take at the stated flow rate for more water to flow than is in the static volume (ie, more than one second).
Seems it is you who want to confuse things.
You’re FINALLY starting to get it, barry. The light, although dim, is starting to glow.
You can NOT compare a quantity to a rate. You can NOT compare energy to power. Even worse, you can NOT compare energy to a radiative flux.
You’re on your way out of the cult. Don’t turn back.
Puffman finally realizes his mistake. When we “compare” two things, we do not “confuse” them. The violence of his agreement is as delicious as the silence under which he hides it.
He should not be playing word games with Barry.
Who is comparing the “size” of flux to quantity but you, Clint? Certainly not Ent or I.
This ‘confusion’ is entirely of your own making. Your fallacy is red herring.
Barry, you can NOT compare a quantity to a rate. You can NOT compare energy to power. Even worse, you can NOT compare energy to a radiative flux.
That’s one of the reasons your cult’s “EEI” is bogus.
The longer you hold a herring the more it will stink.
Puffman,
Riddle me this –
What is the best deal, ten bucks at a 1 = 0.2 rate or 5 bucks?
If you can solve that riddle, you can see that it’s not that hard apply a flux to the object you want to model, i.e. the Earth.
barry and silly willy appear to be in a contest to see which one can be the most desperate.
Puffman still plays dumb about the fact that rates don’t stand alone. They can only be compared by normalizing to an object or a task. A cheetah can reach 130 km/h…for 30 seconds. That performance does not win marathons.
Besides, a Watt is a joule per second. The time dimension is usually implicit. Since an energy-balance model is supposed to apply at all times, this should be fine.
Perhaps the concept of averaging is just too hard for Sky Dragon cranks.
Silly willy you don’t understand any of this.
A quantity is NOT the same as a rate. 40 miles is NOT the same as 40 mph. 40 Joules is NOT the same as 40 Joules/sec/m².
What will you try next?
Puffman only has CAPS LOCK for arguments.
Power is the amount of energy PER UNIT TIME.
Flux is an amount of power PER UNIT AREA.
Both ARE quantities. Both ARE rates.
Puffman should stick to IT menial tasks.
Entropic man says:
” ”In my point the solar energy Energy in = Energy out concept is the basic concept, it should be necessarily met.”
If the climate is stable I agree. However in a cooling climate Energy in is less than Energy out. In a warming climate Energy in is larger than Energy out, which is what we observe and which confirms the average surface measurements.
————————
Yes indeed. When I first started studying this issue back in 2006 settled science meant that there was no need for an imbalance because the oceans would adjust within a decade and that would show up with a basic anomaly against the most recent 30 year time period ended decadally.
Of course that was probably due to bias.
It seems unquestionable that scientists with any degree of independence and experience would know that the oceans are part of the climate system.
So why this naive conclusion sold as settled science that within the span of a couple of decades completely collapses and now long term positive feedbacks are expected in the system with the climate modelers hinging their bets while keeping the money rolling it in the meantime by posting for the first time an imbalance not resolved within the 40 to 50 years period previously thought to not have an imbalance that would not be resolved in that span of time?
Well the answer is simple actually. By recognizing an imbalance that opens the door to oceans taking an awful longtime to spit out that imbalance even after emissions reach a level where CO2 is no longer increasing.
And heck Syun Akasofu was all over that before that recognition kicked in for the climate cabal, because that legitimizes an LIA recovery.
More on that in my next post.
As I see it since IR cannot penetrate the ocean surface but a handful of millimeters but visible light can down to perhaps more than a million times deeper and UV even deeper than that.
The difference in warming rate between the southern ocean and the northern ocean despite the southern ocean getting up to 7% more sunlight than the northern ocean is interesting.
Certainly its not due to IR forcing as the few millimeters that IR is absorbed is well above where we take ocean measurements. That strongly suggests the difference has something to do a change in high frequency light and since we don’t see much of that it must have been a change that primarily occurred outside of the incoming sunlight monitoring program which means the satellite era at best.
Seems to me that effect that makes up a significant part of the modern warming since SH is only warming at 60% of the rate of the NH warming. That itself explains why IPCC didn’t identify half the modern warming to increases in CO2.
And what about Milankovitch the accepted cause of interglacial glacial periods that naturally changes the climate by about 9C?
That isn’t documented nor does there seem to be any effort to document it all the while accepting it as settled science.
In my history of working on policy issues there is propensity for non-independent, non-career civil service employees to wear blinders to anything that distracts from the mission to push the policy in a direction that favors the pecuniary interest of persons and the institutions they work for.
Of course the civil service despite direct independence has their own swamp of golden parachutes. . .double and triple dipping. But that pales to starting out without any independence.
Why do you think specular reflection is being neglected?
In the literature are a number of papers like this specifically discussing how to identify specular reflection in satellite observations of outward shortwave radiation.
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/972492#:~:text=Among%20the%20background%20signals%20commonly%20seen%20by%20Earth-monitoring,Earth%27s%20surface%2C%20commonly%20referred%20to%20as%20a%20glint.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0038092X19301653
One common factor in the literature is that albedo is the sum of diffuse reflection and specular reflection.
Thank you, Ent.
I am reading your references right now.
Something occurred to me while reading your post. Since any kind of reflection is frequency dependent how can it be used as a representation of energy in or out?
Take sand, a bucket of it if you like. Light-coloured sand is generally made up mainly of quartz and feldspars, both light-coloured materials. It may have mica and other materials. Due to the orientation of the quartz and crystal faces it ill likely disperse light rather than offering a straight reflection, like placid water.
Anyone who walks on sand barefoot in a hot climate knows how hot it can get, yet light-coloured sand is claimed to a have a high albedo. If it is reflecting most of the energy incident upon it, why does it get so hot? Obviously, it is absorbing far more energy than is claimed by its albedo rating.
That can be explained by the frequency-dependence of reflection. The sand is likely absorbing strongly at certain frequencies.
Sand is basically irregular glass crystals with impurities. It’s albedo is usually between 40% and 50%. Being mostly glass it is not surprising that it is so reflective. High albedo has a cooling effec t.(think how much hotter it would be if it was black!)
So why does sand get hot ? Being effectively transparent it will let light pass below the surface and be absorbed by the impurities, so light penetrates and warms the surface to a greater depth than for normal soil.
Glass also has a high specific heat capacity, so it can effectively store the energy it has absorbed as heat. It is not surprising that desert and beach sand gets so warm on a sunny day.
EM,
Glass absorbs (blocks) much infrared. When glass absorbs energy, its temperature rises. Place your hand against a transparent glass window exposed to bright sunlight, and you will notice that its temperature is above yours – it feels hot.
Sand gets hot because it is absorbing energy. So do rocks. Places like the Lut desert or Death Valley get so hot (sand or rock – makes no difference) is because there is less H2O in the atmosphere between the Sun and the surface. Less GHGs, higher temperatures.
As to dark sands, glass, etc, better absorbers are also better emitters. Heat faster, but also cool faster.
What many people don’t realise is that objects with different albedos, at the same temperature, are emitting the same IR wavelengths. Shiny, dull, it makes no difference. For example, put both in a block of ice. Some people will say the dull object must be hotter. Not so.
And, exposed to the same environment, both will reach equilibrium with that environment, and all will be at the same temperature. The zeroth law of thermodynamics applies. If anybody’s cunning calculations say otherwise, they are wrong.
Anyway, no GHE. Less GHGs result in higher temperatures, not lower ones.
“What many people don’t realise is that objects with different albedos, at the same temperature, are emitting the same IR wavelengths.”
All blackbody objects have the same IR profile at the same temperature.
Objects with different emissivities have different IR curves at the same temperature. They emit at a broad range of wavelengths but the IR spectra are not identical.
Gases are quantum emitters and emit in discrete bands of the EM spectrum. A volume of gas at the same temperature as an adjacent blackbody has a VERY different IR spectrum to the blackbody.
Yes, Gordon, you are absolutely right.
It happens so because water has five times higher specific heat capacity than sand.
Take sand, a bucket of it, and take water, also a bucket of it.
Put those two buckets under the sun in hot climate.
Sand in the bucket becomes ubearably hot. Water in another bucket becomes plesantly warm.
At the late afternoon, sand and water have about the same temperature.
A few hours later sand is cold, but water is still pleasantly warm.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
NASA Technical Memorandum
The Albedo Model
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42788037.pdf
The conclusion states that the derived model was designed to be applied to a coarse Sun sensor.
specular reflection was neglected. Thinking about this I suggest two reasons.
1) The Sun is about 0.5 degrees across. Geometry suggests that the specular reflection forms a beam or a plane perhaps 2 degrees across. A satellite in a 90 minute orbit will pass through this beam in 90 *2/360 =0.5 minutes.
The coarse Sun sensor will only see the specular reflection glint for 30 seconds, which is not long enough for the satellite’navigation software to usefully respond.
2) The critical reflection angle for water is 41 degrees. Specular reflection will only occur where the Sun is no more than 41 degrees above the horizon. The reflected light will travel downsun towards the terminator and will only be visible to a satellite whose coarse Sun sensor is looking towards the Sun. A coarse Sun sensor will see both the glint and the Sun and will fix on the brighter of the two, which will always be the Sun.
In measuring albedo I don’t think specular reflection is ignored. However, in recording it there is some variation over both short and long term cycles due to gravitational influences of the moon and the planets and their effect on the sun and earth barycenter (e.g. the pull on the two will vary depending upon angle and distance of the pull.)
We see how the range of the solar constant is recorded by different labs at values that span 1359w/m2 to 1380w/m2. One would suspect that variance has a lot to do with the elliptical orbit and perhaps if actually measured versus calculated from set figures may or may not include the Milankovitch short term effects.
This stuff is amazingly complex and we as readers tend to get stuck in the mud as to a single value. So you have that natural variation that has been very badly treated by the IPCC as if they were wearing horse blinders while being perfectly aware of the situation.
So that deals with earth’s albedo and it is a figure not entirely linked to observation. After all earth does emit LW and the Sun also emits some longwave. But one cannot separate earth’s albedo in longwave from earth’s emission of longwave as to a detector they look the same. All one can do is try to accurately estimate sw albedo and the detectors may only look at a few spectral lines to do that. Thus there has to be uncertainty bars around the result from deducing the full spectra albedo.
So you have these for error bars:
1) sensor sensitivity to measuring each spectral line the detector is sensitive to.
2) potential error of imputing the measurements of spectral lines from 1 above to all spectral lines and the sensitivity of those frequencies.
3) potential error related to the 3 first paragraphs above. . .i.e. is today’s measurment matched to the solar constant of the same day.
4) potential errors in the solar constant as outlined in 1) and 2) above.
So without a comprehensive analysis of this its probable that albedo is somewhere in the range of the various measurements made of it over the past couple of decades.
https://www.bbso.njit.edu/Earthshine_webpage.html
the above page discusses some of this stuff wrt earthshine. Note Figure 4 where three projects combined are shown vs one of the three (CERES) in pretty good agreement and the error bars tend to average around 2w/m2 but the actual mean annual albedo change can reach 4w/m2 considering the span and unstated error bar confidence. Should give some confidence in the correct albedo but it would be a lot better with more quantification of the various elements and a considerably longer dataset. With 80+ year orbit variations of unknown Milankovitch intensity due to a lack of documentation wrt to how the interglacial vs glacial temperature changes came about over the alleged 100,000 year cycle this seems to be a very much ignored source of climate change recognized by science as very powerful.
EARTH ALBEDO AND
EMITTED RADIATION
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/80651232.pdf
Below I am attaching some excerp.ts followed by comments.
” Concep.ts
The albedo of the Earth is the fraction of the total incident solar radiation that is reflected into space as a result of scattering in the atmosphere and reflection from clouds and the surface.
Page 1 – 2
“Albedo
* Reflectance tends to increase with a decreasing solar elevation angle.
* Continental areas generally have higher albedo values than ocean areas.
* Albedo increases with latitude due in part to the decreasing solar elevation angle, snow and ice cover near the poles, and increased cloud cover associated with large scale weather activity.
Page 3
Nimbus 2 was the first satellite to measure radiation fluxes over the entire Earth with high areal resolution.
This spacecraft was placed into a nearly polar, Sun-synchronous, circular orbit, northbound near local noon and southbound near local midnight (ref. 28).
Its orbital period provided for observations over the entire globe, day and night, within a 24-hour period.
These measurements were used in computations of the
outgoinglong wave radiation flux,
the reflected solar radiation flux,
and the radiation balance (refs. 27 to 3 1).
Comment:
In 1971 the Nimbus 2 was orbiting Earth polar -wise. Spacecraft orbited earth at 24 hours cycle.
Nimbus was always near the local noon on the day time and the local midnight at night.
So Nimbus couldn’t see Earth’s surface specular reflection, because it was always at noon position for all latitudes in its polar-wise orbit.
End of comment
Page 6
Until recently, most of the analyses of albedo data have used models involving the following simplifying assump.tions:
The reflectance of the Earth is isotropic and diffuse.
Earth’s reflectance is independent of wavelength, i.e., the spectral distribution of reflected radiation is equivalent to that of the incident radiation.
Some investigators have further simplified the model by assuming the Earth and atmosphere to be homogeneous reflectors.
The requirements of a precise model for albedo were separated into two parts by Bartman (ref. 7) as follows:
The geometrical-physical aspects of a surface, scattering by the clear ,atmosphere and clouds, and reflectance of the whole Earth.
The geographical-meteorological aspects as a function of time and location on the Earth.
Page 13
”
3.1 Global Annual Averages
As a fmt approximation, suitable for estimating the effects of Earth emission and albedo on spacecraft subsystems and elements having relatively long thermal time constants, the Earth may be treated as a uniform and diffuse (Lambertian) emitter and reflector. The mean annual values to be used are:
Emission: 237 + -7 watts m-2 (0.34 k0.01 cal cm-2 min-l
(it is the discussed 240 W/m2 – and it was “on the table” since 1971.
And they were averaging over the entire globe the emission uniformly)
Albedo: 0.30 + – 0.02
These values were derived from analyses of data acquired by spacecraft (ref. 38). It should be recognized that they were derived from albedo values that range from about 0.10 to 0.80 and from long wave radiation values ranging from about 105 to greater than 350 watts m-2 (0.15 to 0.50 cal cm-‘ min-‘) over limited geographical regions. ”
Page 27
Comment:
“the Earth may be treated as a uniform and diffuse (Lambertian) emitter and reflector.”
They followed the “simplifying assump.tions”
“The reflectance of the Earth is isotropic and diffuse. ”
The above is written in 1971, and at the time Earth’s albedo was estimated as
a = 0,3
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
–
ME: “The average surface temperature is a measured value. So we know what the planets and moons the average surface temperatures are
And yes, Energy in = Energy out, but the energy interacts with surfaces matter. When interacting the average surface temperature occurs.”
Ent: “Yes, though it gets quite complex. For a planet with a transparent atmosphere, or no atmosphere at all, you can predict the surface temperature using the SB equation. It will stabilise when the Energy in = Energy out. For Earth the energy in and energy out both have a total flux close to 240W/m^2, which corresponds to an average surface temperature of 255K.
Clearly something else is going on. The current average surface temperature is 288K.
For me it’s easy. GHGs neatly explain the difference.
For you it must be harder it you eliminate GHGs. I doubt that phi is sufficient on its own to raise Earths average temperature by 33C. Any other ideas?”
–
–
“I doubt that phi is sufficient on its own to raise Earth’s average temperature by 33C.”
For smooth surface planets and moons Φ =0,47.
“For Earth the energy in and energy out both have a total flux close to 240W/m^2, which corresponds to an average surface temperature of 255K.”
Earth’s Te =255K, it is not average surface temperature, but it is (by definition) the Earth’s uniform surface effective temperature.
When applying Φ =0,47 we shall have Earth’s the corrected effective temperature Te.correct =210K which is much lower
than Earth’s Te =255K.
Thus, Φ =0,47 does not raise Earth’s surface temperature.
What Φ =0,47 does, is to correct Earth’s effective temperature, because the not reflected portion of the incident on the planet solar flux is not
Energy in = (1 -a)So W/m^2
but it should be considered with diffuse +specular reflection as
Energy in = Φ(1 – a)So W/m^2 = 0,47*(1 – a)So W/m^2
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Could you put numbers on that.
IIRC the total outward shortwave radiation (which is how I think of albedo) is about 100W/m^2 averaged across the planet.
How much of this is diffuse reflection and how much is specular reflection?
“IIRC the total outward shortwave radiation (which is how I think of albedo) is about 100W/m^2 averaged across the planet.”
You need to change your thinking.
It makes no difference anyway – the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion year. All this diversionary nonsense about albedo won’t create a planet warming GHE. That would just be silly, wouldn’t it?
Maybe you could try to describe this mythical GHE. Your previous effort “The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets” is not terribly confidence inspiring, is it?
Thank you, Ent, for your respond.
–
ME: “Energy in = (1 -a)So W/m^2
but it should be considered with diffuse +specular reflection as
Energy in = Φ(1 a)So W/m^2 = 0,47*(1 a)So W/m^2 ”
–
Ent: “Could you put numbers on that.”
Energy in = 0,47*(1 -0,306)*1362 W/m^2 = 444 W/m^2
it is the solar energy intensity (not reflected portion) on Earth’s cros-section disk.
I do not average it on the entire globe, because it doesn’t happen.
–
Ent: “IIRC the total outward shortwave radiation (which is how I think of albedo) is about 100W/m^2 averaged across the planet.
How much of this is diffuse reflection and how much is specular reflection?”
–
When not averaged – IIRC the total outward shortwave radiation is about 400W/m^2 on Earth’s cros-section disk.
And the about 400W/m^2 it is all diffuse reflection.
When calculated:
a*So = 0,306*1362 W/m^2 = 416,8 W/m^2
and it is all diffuse reflection.
Let’s calculate Earth’s specular reflection :
Solar flux – diffuse reflection – not reflected portion =
= 1362 – 416,8 – 444 = 501 W/m^2
Thus, Earth’s specular reflection is (on Earth’s cros-section disk), Earth’s specular reflection = 501 W/m^2
–
501 W/m^2 specular reflection, when it is ignored – the everything is very much different!
–
Thank you again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s 89% diffuse reflection and 11% specular relection.
My own calculation based on the critical angle of reflection off the oceans gave a similar %.
Next problem. Why do you think specular reflection is not being measured? It is detectable by the same satellite shortwave photometers that detect diffuse reflection?
Thank you, Ent.
“Why do you think specular reflection is not being measured? It is detectable by the same satellite shortwave photometers that detect diffuse reflection?”
Moon and Mars are smooth surface spheres.
When Te is calculated with the measured Bond Albedo, the results are not realistic:
Moon’s calculated with Bond Albedo a =0,11 is Te =270,4K.
Mars’ calculated with Bond Albedo a =0,25 is Te =210K.
Because
Moon’s satellite measured Tmean =220K.
Mar’s satellite measured Tmean =210K.
And, the realistic
Moon’s calculated with Bond Albedo a =0,11 and Φ=0,47
is Te.correct =224K.
Mars’ calculated with Bond Albedo a =0,25 and Φ=0,47
is Te.correct =174K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Entropic man says:
Thats 89% diffuse reflection and 11% specular relection.
My own calculation based on the critical angle of reflection off the oceans gave a similar %.
———————–
And the wind state when you did your test?
oops!
“And, the realistic
Moons calculated with Bond Albedo a =0,11 and Φ=0,47
is Te.correct =224K.”
Christos, Are you incorporating the long night and the deep cooling expected on the dark side of the Moon? You need to know the heat capacity of the Moon’s surface to estimate how cold it will get on the dark side during its long night.
Have you included those factors? If not then your calculated Te will be wrong.
Earth’s surface is on average +68 oC warmer than Moon’s surface.
Both Earth and Moon are smooth surface spheres, thus for both the
Φ =0,47
Both have a very strong specular reflection.
Let’s compare the Earth’s and Moon’s (for equal average Albedo) the mean surface temperatures:
Tmean.earth /Tmean.moon=288K /206.7K =1.3933
and the Earth’s and Moon’s (N*cp) products sixteenth root:
N.earth = 1 rot/day
N.moon = 0,0339 rot/day
Earth’s cp = 1 cal/gr*oC
Moon’s cp = o.19 cal/gr*oC
[ Earth(N*cp) /Moon(N*cp) ]^1/16 = (155,42)^1/16 = 1,3709
–
The results (1,3933) and (1,3709) are almost identical!
It is a demonstration of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon:
Planets’ and moons’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
–
Conclusion: Earth’s surface is on average 1,39 times warmer than Moon’s surface. And here it is why:
There is a well known scientific POSTULAT:
When two identical spheres emitting the same amount of EM energy, the less surface temperature differentiated the higher the average surface temperature.
What is New, is that when considering spheres (planets or moons), which are getting warmed by incoming EM energy, because they are solar irradiated spheres, the less surface temperature differentiated the more solar energy the planet or moon absorbs!
Earth’s surface absorbs much more solar energy (because Earth has its N*cp product 155,42 times higher than Moon’s), absorbs in Earth’s inner layers, than Moon does, and that makes Earth’s surface on average +68 oC warmer than Moon’s.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Hunter boy
” We see how the range of the solar constant is recorded by different labs at values that span 1359w/m2 to 1380w/m2. ”
Where does that come from, Hunter boy?
Show us your source (but not an isolated contrarian blog, no thanks).
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
look for 1380 in a post made this year. Its simply a compilation of different labs which I recently listed in a post. The 1380 comes from a couple of labs such as Woodshole. I found them doing a google search on the solar constant.
Imagine if an auditor asked his client for receipts and they told him: look in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard.
LOL!
Kidding. Searching for low entropy words like “woodshole” gives…nothing, because it’s Woods Hole, and it’s an Oceanography center. Recent handwaving includes:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1603660
LMAO!
Willard once again exposes his ignorance.
Woods Hole is an Oceanography center. So do you think that the sun has zero application to the science of Oceanography?
Dr. Roger Revelle, the Grandfather of Global Warming had a PhD in Oceanograpny.
He started his career at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIC) and was the Director there from 1950 – 1964.
”SIO was the principal center for the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Program. In July 1956, Charles David Keeling joined the SIO staff to head the program and began measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the Mauna Loa Observatory on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and in Antarctica.”
Willard really doesn’t know much on this topic. He just pretends he does.
the fact is Willard the oceans are the most important piece of the earth’s climate system absorbing almost 90% of the sun’s energy.
bill…”Dr. Roger Revelle, the Grandfather of Global Warming had a PhD in Oceanograpny”.
***
The delicious irony re Revelle is that just before his death, he wrote a paper with skeptic Fred Singer that cautioned people not to read too much into global warming theory. It appears Roger was a bit of a skeptic too an that drove Al Gore mad. Gore had based his alarmist theory on lectures he had received in a class run by Revelle and totally misinterpreted Revelle’s message. In his angst-laden rebuttal, he claimed that Revelle was senile and that Singer had manipulated him into co-authoring the paper.
A more delicious irony is that Roger did not write what is not even a “paper”:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-richard-lindzen-shows-up-at-your.html
The moral of the story is that just like Dick and Fred, Bordo and the other Sky Dragon cranks are users.
It doesn’t matter Willard. What was said in that paper was exactly what Dr Roger Revelle said contemporaneously in some of his recorded lectures that CO2 was a ”potential” problem.
More to the point what you need to produce is a recorded statement where he said anything different.
Dr. Revelle was not a opportunist scientist trying to gain fame on work that doesn’t move the science needle. He was front and center of many of the research projects established since the 1950’s until his death for the purpose of trying to get the science primetime ready. I am sure if he had changed his mind he would have said it and that would have been quickly noted by the public as he was the guy responsible for bringing the issue to people’s attention.
At long last Gill admits that proper historiography does not matter to him. Next he’s gonna tell us that all the biographical details he keeps leaking from his comments don’t matter either. LOL.
As I said Willard what Revelle signed on to isn’t an iota different that what his ‘public’ message was throughout Revelle’s lifetime.
Saying the science is not settled is the only honest opinion any scientist should have.
But history has clearly shown us that honest opinions are more rare in the academic community than in the general population. That’s because the institutions they work for are as or more corruptible as any corporation, government, or not-for-profit since if they speak on the issue they are far more likely to have a pecuniary interest in what the answer is.
Gill says lots of things, so that does not mean much.
All auditors ought to care about are receipts. The receipts we got on the table show that Bordo was saying stuff. That Gill reveals how little he really cares about receipts that don’t tell the story he likes is only a bonus.
Willard tries to change the topic by going for straight ad hom.
Gill believes that destroying Bordo’s lie was not topical.
LOL!
Willard says:
”Gill says lots of things, so that does not mean much.
All auditors ought to care about are receipts.”
Indeed that’s why I asked you for evidence if Dr. Revelle ever held a position publicly that conflicted with the Singer and Revelle paper to support your case.
Gill pretends that there is a reason behind his recurring sammich requests.
LMAO!
Willard just can’t resist the urge to parade his ignorance down mainstreet. LMAO!
A climate scientist saying climate science was not settled in 1991 is nothing shocking.
You guys keep wanting to turn the clock back to that time is revealing the weakness of your arguments in the present.
and you have nothing except a continuing lia recovery and the myriad of shorter term natural climate flux within that recovery as evidence.
And Gill has nothing more than another squirrel once again.
“Imagine if an auditor asked his client for receipts”
Willard, please stop trolling.
receipts are nice but not altogether necessary. Smart clients keep receipts because it lowers the audit bill.
Instead of finding his old comment, Gill goes for a bedtime story about the “Woodshole lab.” All this to plug Revelle, his pet squirrel these days.
ROLMAO!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Where does that come from, Hunter boy?
Show us your source (but not an isolated contrarian blog, no thanks).
Hunter boy
Only your friends in denial of scientific results would trust you.
I don’t and have good reasons not to do, for example your nonsensical lies concerning the alleged automatic warming caused by area weighting aka data gridding.
Bindidon wants a free sammich because he is too lazy to search through the last few of Roy’s post for Woods Hole or 1380
Gill believes that refusal to show his receipts reduces the auditing bill. Let’s see:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1626081
ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
When the grids are filled in with synthetic data, what good are they? The oceans in particular have the equivalent of one thermometer per 100,000 sq. km. There is a whole lot of interpolation and homogenizing in climate models to work out your area weighting.
wee willy…”Gill believes that refusal to show his receipts reduces the auditing bill”.
***
Have you ever been audited? If you keep your own books and the auditor is not happy with your receipts, you can spend hours trying to verify a claim. If a third party keeps your books it can be mighty expensive while they track down proof of your claims for right-offs.
Bill is right, smart clients keep their receipts but many don’t. When I was audited by the income tax department, I had keep an exact diary of my gasoline costs and the auditor complimented me on that claiming not many people do.
And Bordo goes out swinging, whinging about grids that are irrelevant here and misconstruing the analogy Gill cooked up, not unlike the books he was supposed to oversee in his career.
Willard, Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Do you have any receipts to cover for Gill’s check kiting?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Doing what Graham D. Warner does isn’t a receipt, Mike.
Pest, begone.
Obviously nobody has taken advantage of the challenge and gone to Woods Hole and link to what the solar constant is they have published. LMAO!!
I guess Willard doesn’t even know how to make a sammich!
Obviously Gill will try to intimate that Team Science must cater to claims he won’t support himself.
LOL!
Not true I told you where to look and what specifically to look for.
Gill insists – he is sure his receipts are behind a door marked BEWARE OF THE LEOPARD.
ROFL!
Begone, pest.
Christos makes the common mistake of confusing flux with energy:
“Energy in = 0,47*(1 -0,306)*1362 W/m^2 = 444 W/m^2”
But, he may be onto something with his adjusted flux of 444 W/m².
444 W/m² corresponds to a temperature of 298K. Since Earth’s average surface temp is 288K, Earth’s cooling mechanisms account for difference.
(The cult doesn’t understand that an El Niño is just one of Earth’s many cooling mechanisms.)
christos…it was just a matter of time before Cranky Clint turned on you. Please heed my warming to disregard him.
Cranky Clint claims you confuse flux with energy, which reveals his ignorance of either subject. Energy is an unknown phenomenon that drives a system. Flux is a mathematical description of how that energy is changing instantaneously within a surface.
Barry provided an interesting comment from Newton earlier. Newton claimed that gravitational force cannot be explained, which is still true, but its action can be explained mathematically. That is true of all energy. However, there are forms of energy like electromagnetic energy and magnetism where the energy appears to act in fields that can be measured over a surface area. We can describe those field mathematically using fluxes, which Newton explained as instantaneous rates of change in the fields.
I know you have a background in mechanical engineering. May I suggest that you use a better description of energy in your equations? If you mean heat, say heat, rather than energy. Energy is far too generic and misses obvious facts.
Of course that can lead to confusion since the Sun transmits electromagnet energy and not heat. That EM must be converted to heat if it is absorbed by the surface and as heat, it can be measured in equivalent form in watts/m^2. As EM, I claim it cannot be measured in w/m^2 since the watt is a unit of mechanical energy that has an equivalence in thermal energy.
There is no known equivalence between mechanical energy and electromagnetic energy. As far as I am concerned, applying w/m^2 is not only wrong, it makes no sense. Nothing is warmed at TOA so why are we using measures like w/m^2 to represent solar energy at TOA?
Thank you, Gordon, for your response.
“Energy is an unknown phenomenon that drives a system. Flux is a mathematical description of how that energy is changing instantaneously within a surface.”
I agree.
–
I do not mean heat in my equations.
It is solar energy interacting with planet or moon surface’s matter.
–
It is given quantitatevly as solar flux 1362 W/m^2.
And the solar system’s planets and moons the satellite measured average surface temperatures.
I do not operate with heat in my equations.
–
Thank you again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Only a cultist like Gordon would believe reality was bad.
Puffman makes a common Sky Dragon crank mistake:
444 W/m corresponds to a temperature of 298K
He thinks that he can directly convert flux into temperature!
No wonder he falls for Joe’s con.
How can you critique Clint when you can’t get the definition of Sky Dragon right?
We skeptic are out to slay the Sky Dragon, better known as the CO2 which allegedly warms the sky catastrophically. It is you supporters of the CO2 theory who are the Sky Dragons.
How can you critique me when you can’t get the definition of skeptic right?
We skeptics are out to slay Sky Dragon cranks, better known as those who deny the greenhouse effect.
And you can’t even get a unique definition of your self-serving imagery: is a “Sky Dragon” a person or a theory?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Are you double teaming with Graham D. Warner by any chance?
Willard, please stop trolling.
In reply to my post
” Good news for the ‘La Nina’ aficionados ”
I read upthread, without surprise of course
” La Nina is coming. ”
*
Previous ‘announcements’ of this kind always suggested that the authors actually linked ‘La Nina’ to global cooling.
I still say today: this assumption is completely wrong, which can easily be proven using graphics that compare, for example, MEI (the multivariate ENSO index) with an SST time series generated out of MEI’s observation area (30S-30N — 70W-100E).
For example: using HadISST1 SST, one of the rawest sea surface temperature time series (together with JMA’s COBE-SST2).
*
1. Recent data (sat era, from 1979 on) together with UAH 6.0 LT’s grid data above the area
http://tinyurl.com/MEI-SST-1871
2. Historical data since 1871
http://tinyurl.com/p45e6r4x
*
Linear estimates
1871-now
MEI: +0.009 +- 0.005
SST: +0.055 +- 0.001
1979-now
MEI: -0.213 +- 0.033
SST: +0.127 +- 0.005
UAH: +0.158 +- 0.009
*
Anyone who doubts these graphics and numbers is unequivocally asked to repeat my work and present the results here.
Sources
1. MEI historical
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/enso/mei.ext/table.ext.html (has been destroyed since my last download, and it was never saved on the Web Archive)
This is what still exists:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei.old/table.html
2. HadISST1 SST
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
3. UAH 6.0 LT grid
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
Apos: the link
http://tinyurl.com/MEI-SST-1871
contains the graphic showing the time series from 1979 on.
MEIv2 for Dec 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2024/02/meiv2.jpeg
Previous announcements of this kind by me actually linked mainly to inability of Bindiclown seeing it coming , not so much to cooling which is incidental
Wrong.
You clearly identified La Nina with cooling – exactly as did Blindsley H00d aka RLH.
Go back two years, dachshund, and search.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Ja ja ja
https://i.postimg.cc/DZkJMq1J/bwf.png
Are you saying that La Nina (with cooler sea temperatures) does not show up in the data?
By definition, La Nina and El Nino are references to the warming and cooling of certain parts of the Pacific Ocean. Put away your slide rule and open your mind.
Well one think that Bindidon selectively ignores up to a thousand years of positive feedback wrt to number of watts sent to space due to the time it takes ice sheets to shrink and grow. Either he is being selective or he is out of tune with the what comes from scientists on his side.
As always, the Hunter boy is unable to present links to articles and data backing up his good feeling, hence is only able to discredit.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
As usual Bindidon prevaricates.
If all else remains the same is there or is there not a thousand years of potential feedbacks. A yes or no will suffice.
Your question is obsolete. All else has not stayed the same.
Perhaps the question should be:-
Now that we observe a decrease in high latitude ice extent, what positive feedback can we expect?
I have no idea what you are asking there Entropic as it sounds like, which I am sure it isn’t, that all the ice has already melted.
“Now that we observe a decrease in high latitude ice extent, what positive feedback can we expect?”
Well, what’s your answer? Or are you just acting like a dill for no good reason?
barry…”Newtons gravitational theory is a black box. He couldnt explain why gravity works the way it does, only that successful predictions could be made from his deductions.
Principia, 2nd Edition:
I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses. It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies.”
***
That is not an example of a black box model. With a black box, you have an actual situation akin to having a box where you have no idea what is in the box. As I tried to explain to you, the black box model is used in electronics to teach students how to apply principles they have learned to determine what is in the box via external measurements. Why the heck would Newton have cared about that? According to your interpretation, most of physics is a black box theory.
The box offers no clues based on its behavior, unlike gravity which offers exacting evidence of what is causing it. We don’t need to know the cause provided we can use the theory to accurately predict outcomes.
That is what Newton is stating above. Some force is causing a smaller mass to be accelerated toward a larger mass at a rate that can be reproduced over and over. Newton did not need to explain the force, in fact, unlike many other physicists he admitted he had no idea what it is. All that concerned him was the fact that the force could produce a consistent result, over and over.
Guess what? The entire universe is comprised of tiny masses no one has ever seen. Does that make the entire universe a black box?
A black box is called a black box because there is no way of determining what is within it without performing extensive tests, measured across its input and output terminals. Or, opening it up and see what is inside. Even at that, suppose you do open it and it has an integrated circuit inside. How on Earth could you determine that with a two port network into and out of the box? In real life, you cannot even ID the chip without a manufacturers model number inscribe on it.
That would be the ultimate black box. Hand someone an IC chip that has no model number on it and ask them to determine what is inside. Some of them have millions of transistors within…good luck.
We have no interest in such an approach with gravity. All we need to do on Earth is step on weigh scales and check our weight to see the effect of gravity. No need for a black box or any other mystery.
Newton’s point is that the regularity of orbiting planets can be explained by his theory. No black box required.
“According to your interpretation, most of physics is a black box theory.”
Rather, physics is littered with black boxes. It’s not a theory, it’s a concept.
“In physics, a black box is a system whose internal structure is unknown, or need not be considered for a particular purpose.”
The interior of the sun is a black box. The interior of our planet is a black box. The universe of atoms is replete with black boxes, our cutting edge theories of quantum mechanics operates around several black boxes, including quarks and gluons.
We have not observed any of these phenomena, but infer their properties from external observations of their surfaces or interactions. We can also attribute a black box to any complex phenomena we like if we do not need to contend with the inner dynamics to explore properties connected to the system, simplifying and speeding up the inquiry into the related phenomena.
Ent’s original proposition was that the climate system can be treated as a black box when considering radiative transfer to and from the whole system. That holds just as well as Newton’s laws of gravity, when he could not peer inside the box to determine the causes of gravity. We still don’t know what causes gravity. It is still a black box to us, one of a multitude we successfully work with to explain things and make decisions, like calculating orbital trajectories.
There’s nothing wrong with the concept of a “black box”, just as there’s nothing wrong with the concept of a “black body’.
Problems arise when cultists try to use such concepts to violate the laws of physics.
There’s nothing wrong with calling out law of physics violation, Puffman.
Problems arise when cranks argue by assertion.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Why are you doing what even Graham D. Warner is not supposed to be doing?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Actually, it’s not technically correct that the interior of the sun and Earth are black boxes – their inner workings have been determined to some degree. But they are usually treated as a black box, if not ignored, in most Earth science and solar research.
barry,
You might be confused about the concept of a “black box”.
You have not specified the inputs and outputs of any of your black boxes, leading me to believe you are trying to imply that a planet warming GHE exists, without being silly enough to make such a claim in a forthright manner. Maybe you are averse to being laughed at?
Could you be a little more specific? You seem to claim that gravity is a black box, when it is just a force. Maybe you could claim pi is a black box – nobody knows why the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter is pi. And so on.
You mention a “climate system”, but maybe you mean the Earth and its component parts. Climate is just the statistics of historical weather observation – possibly stored in black boxes, white boxes – it makes no difference whatsoever! Climate is just a convenient word for a set of numbers, and completely without any ability to influence anything at all.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and the physical laws relating to cooling are reasonably well known at the macro level. Newton’s Law of Cooling is still used today,
The GHE cult can be viewed as a black box, I suppose. Reality goes in, and complete nonsense comes out. Nobody can explain the process – it remains a mystery.
Carry on.
“You have not specified the inputs and outputs”
I’m explaining the concept, which people are finding surprisingly difficult to grasp considering how simple it is.
Read back on Entropic Man’s posts for inputs and outputs per his notion of seeing the climate system as a black box. I’m sure he’ll be interested in your query.
barry,
Are you weaselling out now? You said that the interior of the Sun and Esrth were black boxes, then you said they weren’t, so it appears you arent very good at explaining your “simple concept”!
Maybe you could blame it all on Entropic Man, and accuse anybody who points out your ineptitude of being too stupid to understand your “simple” explanation of something you obviously dont understand yourself!
You still can’t describe the GHE, so you will just have to keep on with your silly diversions.
Good luck with finding someone who values your opinion – they would have to be even more simple than you.
Carry on.
If you don’t know how to use the search function in your browser get a day-nurse to help.
barry,
Are you weaselling out now? You said that the interior of the Sun and Esrth were black boxes, then you said they werent, so it appears you arent very good at explaining your “simple concept”!
Maybe you could blame it all on Entropic Man, and accuse anybody who points out your ineptitude of being too stupid to understand your simple explanation of something you obviously dont understand yourself!
You still cant describe the GHE, so you will just have to keep on with your silly diversions.
Good luck with finding someone who values your opinion they would have to be even more simple than you.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Scientific realism requires belief in the unobservable entities posited by our most successful scientific theories. The positive argument for realism is that it is the only philosophy that doesn’t make the success of science a miracle.
What are you braying about?
“Mike Flynn,
Scientific realism requires belief in the unobservable entities posited by our most successful scientific theories. The positive argument for realism is that it is the only philosophy that doesnt make the success of science a miracle.
What are you braying about?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
In 1859, scientist Robert Kirchhoff introduced an interesting problem into the world of physics: the question of blackbody radiation. A “blackbody” is basically a black box that absorbs all the radiation that is directed toward it. The amount of energy that it emits is independent of the size or shape of the box; it depends only on temperature.
What are you braying about?
“A “blackbody” is basically a black box that absorbs all the radiation that is directed toward it.”
A blackbody is a blackbody. It is not “basically a black box”, any more than you are “basically” not quite mad.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
To explore unknown processes or phenomena, one could build a theory from fundamental principles, employing them as constraints within a general mathematical framework. Some call it the blackbox approach.
What are you braying about?
I have no difficulty with the black box theory, I have used it. You seem to be the one confused about the meaning.
You seem to be only cognizant about black boxes specific to education in electronics. I’ll quote you.
“The black box model is used in electronics theory to help a student apply concepts. Other than that, it has no practical value.”
That was a very ignorant remark. And that was what prompted me to talk about black boxes.
barry, please stop trolling.
A WORD FROM ROY’S SPONSOR
“It seems to me that a good place to start would be a feminist movement against the pill, & for… returning the consequentiality to sex.”
Conservatives have to lead the way in restoring sex to its true purpose, & ending recreational sex & senseless use of birth control pills.
https://twitter.com/Heritage/status/1662534135762624520
“senseless use of birth control pills”
They have other uses too.
Those terrible words from the Heritage Lady remind me of this:
https://www.liberation.fr/societe/2014/11/26/la-bataille-de-simone-veil-pour-le-droit-a-l-avortement_1149560/
https://www.nouvelobs.com/societe/20071127.OBS7018/le-manifeste-des-343-salopes-paru-dans-le-nouvel-obs-en-1971.html
*
Before January 17, 1975, abortion was punishable by prison in France.
The double consequence was that
– while the vast majority of women could only go to charlatans for an abortion and many of them suffered as a result, some became infertile, a few even died,
– wives of wealthy men (including all those perverse conservative politicians who actively had ban abortions) simply took a flight to Amsterdam airport, where a taxi drove them to a legal Dutch abortion clinic.
These flights became famous under the name ‘vol IVG’, i.e. abortion flights.
**
Then came Simone Veil, an incredibly courageous conservative woman at the time, who pushed her bill through despite never-ending, harsh insults from conservative male parliamentarians.
Cheap shot at Roy, but we have come to accept the scumbag mentality of wee willy, who lacks the class to behave appropriately while a guest on Roy’s site.
Begone, scumbag!!!
Cheap shots is all they have to work with Gordon. None of them have proof that CO2 can warm anything.
Bill…that starts at the top, where the IPCC offers no scientific proof that CO2 can warm the atmosphere.
And so our Statler & Waltdorf duo proceeds as usual:
1. Denial.
It is usually followed by the sammich request.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You’re in my thread.
Cheap shots is all they have to work with Gordon. None of them have proof that CO2 can warm anything.
Gill believes that his provocations will make me work for him.
Has he RTFR?
Provocation Willard? I don’t expect you have proof. I am just pointing out a fact. You aren’t going to work to find a proof so why would I expect that? AFAIK you know there is no proof and we sure know you don’t know where it is because if you did you would never resist the urge to wave it in our face.
Gill plays dumb, then returns to step two.
LOL!
And Willard lies about his desire for waving it in our faces if he had any idea of how to do that.
And Gill goes for the midnmprobe.
That sure will get him served.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
You were on that isometry baloney in a hot second Willard. I know how you operate. You wildly wave any evidence you think you have, and then say your aren’t serving sammiches when you have none.
Two cranks who kept trying to deny the greenhouse effect for more than a decade at Roy’s have strong opinions. That or they’re just rehearsing their Statler & Waldorf routine.
Probly the Statler & Waldorf routine.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Yep Willard doesn’t have any proof either or he wouldn’t be retreating with ad homs.
Yep Gill is trying really hard not to let step 2 show.
Has he RTFR?
Cheap shots is all they have to work with Gordon. None of them have proof that CO2 can warm anything.
Gill only adds an alternative two-step:
1. Denial.
2. Hide the sammich request behind taunts.
Willard continues to lie.
He wants to imply that he knows of the proof of the effects of CO2 while telling us that if he told us what that was we would be getting a free sammich. LMAO.
Gill cranks up his taunt. It is now pure fabrication.
Nope I am just noting you look like an acid head standing on a soap box in the middle of the square shouting at the top of your lungs: “Oh my gawd we are doomed!!!”
I really don’t expect that tapping you on the shoulder and suggesting you actually bone up on the science is going to calm you down. But hey I tried.
Yes, Gill still requests a sammich.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
An analysis of available station data from the raw GHCN daily station set showed that indeed, in the UAH 2.5 degree grid encompassing Vancouver
http://tinyurl.com/Above-Vancouver
there were a few stations which reported temperatures a lot (up to 7 C) below the 1991-2020 average.
{ The center of the grid cell is on Vancouver Island near a place called ‘Deerholme’, perhaps not far from where commentator Ken lives. Chi lo sa? }
But a check for the average of all temperatures measured within the grid cell during October 2023 revealed that it was only 0.4 C below the average of all temperatures measured since beginning.
That is the difference between weather and… climate, as it seems.
*
Here is an anomaly-based chart wrt the 1991-2020 mean, showing how surface and lower troposphere in the grid cell behaved during the satellite era:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i6noE4x5yOq3EGTY8MqhEsPa_2Yi1RHM/view
And here, for those who doubt anomalies, the same data sources also related to their 1991-2020 mean, but in absolute form:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HVI6cFMxkr6V838aPv5FVYbnhluNwE8M/view
*
What we see in both charts when looking at the polynomials is that even around Vancouver, there is recently some ‘tiny little bit of warming’; not only at the surface, but in the lower troposphere as well.
Only anomaly trends are posted: those for absolute values are similar but their standard error is, for the recent periods, much bigger than the trend itself; this is due to the annual cycle’s deviations.
Trends in C / decade
1900-now
– surface: 0.09 +- 0.01
1979-now
– surface: 0.20 +- 0.04
– low trop: 0.12 +- 0.05
2000-now
– surface: 0.30 +- 0.10
– low trop: 0.22 +- 0.11
2010-now
– surface: 0.47 +- 0.25
– low trop: 0.56 +- 0.28
*
So ‘record cold’ or not: its not getting any colder in the Vancouver area, quite the opposite.
Missing beginning in comment above:
Last year, the incompetent ignoramus-in-chief Robertson claimed about ‘record cold’ in his Vancouver corner during October.
He had the audacity to denŷ it, but was quickly reminded that he had indeed written about it.
The term ‘record cold’, in English can mean ‘in the vicinity’ of a record cold. It was close enough recently to the real record set in 1968 at -17.8 C. We hit close to that recently and it was close enough to a record for me.
I am glad you raised this issue because I have just discovered serous lies from NOAA about record cold temps in the Vancouver area. They have claimed the lowest temp in Vancouver for 2024 was -3.4C and I know for a fact it was at least -13.4C.
Here are some record lows for Vancouver…
January 14,1950…-18C(rounded)
December 16,1964..-17C
December 29,1968..-18c (official record)
January 29,1969…-16C
December 27,2021..-16C
December 22,2022..-16C
February 24,2023..-13C (Nanaimo…across inlet from Vancouver).
It’s plain to see that the lowest temperatures over 75 years have not warmed significantly, as might be expected in a warmer climate. In fact, the Urban Heat Island Effect has it covered.
In 1950, and even 1958, the Vancouver Airport was located in a remote area, with few buildings. The surrounding areas were largely farms. Today, the airport itself is like a small town, complete with high rises and tarmac. The farms are all gone, replaced with the thriving city of Richmond.
I live in an area of Vancouver that is at sea level. A neighbouring area, the city of Burnaby, rises to 600 feet above sea level in places, and temperatures are known to vary everal degrees between Burnaby and Vancouver at sea level. In fact, Vancouver itself rises to 600 feet above sea level on its periphery on the Burnaby side.
There is a feature in Burnaby called Burnaby Mountain that rises to 1214 feet (370 metres). Central Burnaby drops to sea level then rises to 600+ feet on the north side, at Capitol Hill and on the south side by Central Park. That’s the mainland side. Across the water (Burrard Inlet) the real mountains begin and rise to about 4000 feet in places.
I contacted Environment Canada and asked why there are no thermometers near the top of those mountains. The guy was speechless, wondering why there should be. I pointed out that mountain tops are on the planet and in the lower atmosphere, so why are they not included in the global average.
He had no answer and the reason is obvious. Agencies like Environment Canada were developed to predict weather and no one cares about temperatures on mountain tops, they want the predicted temperatures in areas where they live. When the climate hysteria began, those weather data collecting agencies were suddenly put in the position of contributing to global averages, a situation for which they were clearly not intended.
When you quote all the temps from GHCN, you have to understand that the location of the thermometers was not intended for global averages but for use in weather predictions, generally at sea level, for the general population.
Gordon,
One thing I’d mention regarding that 2.5 cell graph is the anomalies themselves. A monthly deviation of 2.1F could be representative of multiple different variations. The month could have been mild for 30 days straight with no below-average temperatures, or the month could have had record-breaking cold at some point, but extreme heat more than made up for it, bringing the overall average up. Those two months would be treated the same on that graph; it’s mind-boggling. I’m not sure what use people see in those graphs.
Years ago, the local media announced that our area had endured the ‘hottest August on record.’ I looked into data specifically on the recorded daily highs and lows. There wasn’t a strong heatwave that would normally bring temperatures into the mid-100s. There were no unusually hot days or nights. The cooling influence of the summer monsoon from the Southwest United States, which usually brings cooler temperatures to our area, was absent that year. Most Augusts usually feature the peak of the summer monsoon season. Despite the fact that this pattern was responsible for the ‘hottest August on record,’ the local media here went bonkers over extreme heat, even though there was none, relative to what is normal.
walter…IMHO, it all a game. As we have discussed before, there is no way to find a meaningful average temperature for a planet. It’s virtually impossible to do it in the Vancouver area, with our rapid changes in elevation and the transition of climate states up the Fraser River.
The Fraser breaks into 3 arms south of Vancouver where it forms a delta. 50 miles upstream, a different climate scenario begin to unfold and another 10 miles up river there is a pure desert climate. At that point, by Lytton, BC, one finds the hottest temperatures in Canada during summer and a near-Arctic climate during winter.
Between Vancouver and Abottsford, on the Fraser, some 50 miles up river, there can be temperature differentials of 10C. We have snow on our mountains where people can ski in winter, yet at sea level on can enjoy a nice walk and moderate weather. It takes a significant drop in temperature to allow rain to form snow while it is pleasant and dry at sea level.
As always, Robertson doesn’t know anything about weather stations, but thinks he can write his superficial, incompetent, irrelevant blah blah blah.
He is the one who was credulous enough to believe the ridiculous E.M. Smith contrarian charlatan claiming (in 2009!) there would be only three stations in California, all at the sea of course.
This was an absolutely brazen lie, but people like Robertson loves contrarians and sucks all what they post on their insane blogs.
*
I’m 100% sure that
” I contacted Environment Canada and asked why there are no thermometers near the top of those mountains. The guy was speechless, wondering why there should be. I pointed out that mountain tops are on the planet and in the lower atmosphere, so why are they not included in the global average. ”
is a pure invention – just like he never and never did contact NASA re lunar spin. Never!
*
For the absolutely incompetent ignoramus nicknamed ‘Gordon Robertson’, here is the top of an altitude downward sort of the GHCN daily weather station which participated to the time series above:
USS0023B06S 47.7600 -123.0300 1207.0 WA Mount Crag
CA001105658 49.3667 -123.0833 1128.0 BC N VANC GROUSE MTN
CA001103510 49.3833 -123.1833 930.0 BC HOLLYBURN RIDGE
USR0000WCOU 47.9167 -123.1172 914.4 WA COUGAR MOUNTAIN WASHINGTON
*
By the way, ignoramus Robertson: there are also a few USCRN stations in New Mexico, for example:
03074 32.6137 -106.7414 1318.9 NM_Las_Cruces_20_N
03062 35.8584 -106.5214 2656.6 NM_Los_Alamos_13_W
03048 34.3557 -106.8859 1477.4 NM_Socorro_20_N
Does that speak to you?
Binny van der Klown proves incapable of holding a scientific discussion. He fails to grasp the difference between the number of stations available to NOAA and the number they actually use. NOAA themselves have admitted to using less than 1500 stations globally for the surface record but that fails to penetrate the bone density in Binny’s skull.
If NOAA does use 1500 stations, as they admit, they would not be able to support more than 4 stations in California. NASA GISS rep, Gavin Schmidt, has admittd in the past that GISS lacks the resources to do an in-depth analysis of global temps.
E. M Smith 1…Binny 0.
Binny’s unusually thick skull prevents him partitipating in any scientific discussion, but he insists on making an ijit of himself by trying.
NOAA had about 1500 regularly updating stations in the late 2000s.
They also had another 5700 stations in the database that did not update regularly. Historical data.
In version 3 of the database, the number of regularly updating stations increased to just over 2000, and the total remained at 7280 stations in the database.
In version 4 of the GHCN monthly, there are now 26,000 total land stations used and several thousand of those update monthly.
V4 paper:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/24/jcli-d-18-0094.1.xml
GHCN daily contains even more stations – over 100,000 – but the minimum number of years for a GHCN monthly station has to be at least 10, so that cuts out a a large number of stations. GHCN monthly mostly uses weather stations that have more than 30 years of data. And not all the GHCN daily stations have temperature data.
barry
” GHCN daily contains even more stations over 100,000… ”
This is a theoretically correct, but practically less useful number because we discuss on this blog nearly only about temperatures.
If you look at
http://tinyurl.com/GHCN-daily (d~c syndrome)
and download the station list (ghcnd-stations.txt), you see indeed on your disk a file containing today 125,988 entries.
But if you download also the station inventory (ghcnd-inventory.txt) describing which kind of data is provided by each station, you see that 40,290 stations report about TMIN.
Many stations report only about precipitation, wind etc but not about temperature.
Thus when discussing about GHCN daily on this blog, we should concentrate on these ~ 40,000.
Caution
Never click on ‘all’ in the GHCN daily main directory: this results in a display of all 120,000+ station filenames into your browser window.
” When you quote all the temps from GHCN, you have to understand that the location of the thermometers was not intended for global averages but for use in weather predictions, generally at sea level, for the general population. ”
That is the final proof for Robertson’s ignorance and stoopidity.
It was not intended for someone far too obtuse, like Binny, to understand the statement.
So that the styupid Robertson, who always forgets everything as soon as he reads it, is clearly reminded…
Weeks ago already I posted the ascending order of all daily October temperatures around Vancouver since measurement start:
CA001103510 BC_HOLLYBURN_RIDGE____________ 1984 10 31 -14.0
CA001105658 BC_N_VANC_GROUSE_MTN_RESORT___ 1984 10 31 -11.5
CA001105658 BC_N_VANC_GROUSE_MTN_RESORT___ 2023 10 25 -9.0
CA001106180 BC_PITT_POLDER________________ 2003 10 31 -9.0
CA001012550 BC_DUNCAN_____________________ 1935 10 30 -8.9
CA001012550 BC_DUNCAN_____________________ 1935 10 31 -8.9
CA001030180 BC_ALBERNI_BEAVER_CREEK_______ 1935 10 31 -8.9
CA001030180 BC_ALBERNI_BEAVER_CREEK_______ 1935 10 30 -8.3
CA001021850 BC_COOMBS_____________________ 1984 10 31 -8.0
CA001024638 BC_LITTLE_QUALICUM_HATCHERY___ 1984 10 31 -8.0
” Binny van der Klown proves incapable of holding a scientific discussion.
He fails to grasp the difference between the number of stations available to NOAA and the number they actually use.
NOAA themselves have admitted to using less than 1500 stations globally for the surface record but that fails to penetrate the bone density in Binnys skull. ”
*
And of course, despite having been clearly contradicted, thoe stoopid Robertson once again brazenly continues to lie
– by presenting a fully deprecated document posted around 2009 and saved into the Web Archive by a crawling robot in 2010,
– but deliberately ignoring the fact that the same crawling robot subsequently saved in 2012 the GHCN V3 directory contents of that time
http://tinyurl.com/NOAA-GHCN-V3-2012
whose contents in turn were saved in 2013 by the Wayback machine itself:
https://tinyurl.com/4cs59pv5
which leads to a download of the compressed tar file
ghcnm.tavg.latest.qcu.tar.gz
The result of uncompressing and expanding the tar file is a directory containing the following files, named and dated 2013, October 25:
(1) the GHCN V3 station list (786240 bytes)
(2) the GHCN V3 station data (53089952 bytes)
*
Robertson of course doesn’t even know where to find such things, let alone how to uncompress and expand a tar file into readable form.
*
Let alone would he be able to generate the GHCN V3 data and to compare it to NOAA’s official land surface time series, downloadable by anyone!
And to HOPEFULLY shut up this arrogant and ignorant Robertson for good, here is a recent comparison of GHCN stations (allegedly left unused by NOAA) to NOAA’s own Climate at a Glance time series for CONUS, available on their CaaG web site by anyone:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10OGbJ4l3uBF5NcPRtFy1vqSOlfqXrMP3/view
Oh Noes, is this guy dûmb and stubborn…
Blinny still thinks that running means have any place in quality statistics.
Richard still believes that running means isn’t what Roy uses.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn still believes that horseplaying like Graham D. Warner is a good idea.
As always, the over and over opinionated Blindsley H00d resorts to his irrelevant critique instead of trying to meaningfully contribute to the discussion.
He apparently has nothing else to say.
*
But the very best is that he not only has nothing relevant to say: he apparently also is unable to produce the two time series I showed above, with e.g. cascaded running means instead of simple ones.
Moreover, he is not even able to show two time series in one and the the same graph:
https://imgur.com/a/Y96Ph5O
He had REALLY to physically superpose them! Imagine…
*
Thus I reply
Stop smalltalking and stalking, Blindsley H00d; start working and try to do the same job as I did, and come back with a comparable result.
Willard, Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Binny lacks the intelligence to understand what NOAA said, that they slashed the number of reporting stations from 6000 globally to less than 1500. He thinks that admission can be negated by criticizing the Wayback Machine and the date of the article. That’s like negating Newtons work because it was written 400+ years ago an stored in an old book.
Robertson is so incredibly dishonest:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1628519
Like I said, you lack the intelligence to understand what is being said. Your recent reply does not address what NOAA said, that it has slashed global ‘reporting’ stations from 6000 to less than 1500. You have once again reverted to your own belief system while ignoring what they actually said.
I don’t lack intelligence, Robertson: of that I have much more than you ever could offer.
You on the other hand overestimate yourself, lack technical skills, scientific education and, above all, honesty.
And here, Robertson, is the proof for your absolute dishonesty:
” Binny always references GHCN even though NOAA hasn’t used the database since 1990 or so. Since then, they have slashed 90% of the stations and have resorted to using less than 1500 stations globally for their global land surface database. ”
Interesting.
NOAA has slashed 90% of the GHCN database since 1990. Seems it’s only you who is unaware of that fact.
Gordon,
There are far more stations in the database now than in 1990. Also, all the station data they had in 1990 is still there.
Nothing was taken out.
You still don’t understand. I thought you were lying because I couldn’t believe you were that dim.
But I’m coming around to the view that you simply lack the cognitive capacity to understand the true cause of station ‘dropout’. No data was slashed, deleted or otherwise removed. They just back-filled historical data from old records, many from stations that no longer operated in the 90s.
You’ve had this explanation put in front of you dozens of times, by me, including the research paper that describes the back-filling of historical records in detail.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-468899
And yet you still don’t get it.
” NOAA has slashed 90% of the GHCN database since 1990. Seems its only you who is unaware of that fact. ”
Where is your proof for that brazen claim?
You were never able to prove it else than by resorting this old 1500 station blah blah.
You are such a dûmb, opinionated liar, Robertson.
*
Conversely, I show how near NOAA’s data is to GHCN daily, the rawest surface data available:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10OGbJ4l3uBF5NcPRtFy1vqSOlfqXrMP3/view
You are absolutely unable to disprove that comparison because you lack the technical skills to do the job.
All you are able to do is to discredit and denigrate anything you don’t understand.
christos…”I do not mean heat in my equations.
It is solar energy interacting with planet or moon surfaces matter”.
***
Christos…I understand that the electromagnetic energy radiated by the Sun must be converted to heat at a surface. If the EM does not contact a surface, nothing happens that matters in a discussion about global warming/climate change. It is the heat produced when EM interacts with a surface that has to be the focus.
In other words, solar EM that does not contact a surface continues through space doing no work and heating nothing. That’s why I argue that it is wrong to measure EM in watts. EM by itself can do no work and cannot produce heat. EM cannot even be measured as EM without converting it to another form of energy.
That’s why I don’t like the word energy used generically. Alarmists use energy generically as a means of tricking people into thinking the 2nd law has exceptions. Then they make absurd claims that heat can be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface in order to increase the temperature of the surface.
We have no idea what energy is, so we need to be careful how we use the word. I know it can be troublesome to always state the form of energy but it helps me to focus on exactly what is happening in a process.
I am still trying to visualize heat as an energy and it is very difficult. Even trying to visualize the electron, which I have studied most of my life, is very difficult. However, electrons and heat are closely rlated, whether the electron is in an alleged orbit of a nucleus or a free electron moving through a copper wire.
I find by forcing myself to be more specific about energy that it helps be to understand what is true and what is not true. My mind has a tendency to cut corners and when I do that, I am left with many questions.
“EM cannot even be measured as EM without converting it to another form of energy.”
Even better, the mere act of measuring whether energy is present or not, changes the nature of the energy’s interaction with matter. Sounds unbelievable, but born out by the two-slit experiment.
Another concept which defies common sense is the fact that there is no theoretical limit to the amount of energy in the form of photons which can occupy a space.
And, of course, an unknown quantity of energy is occupying the same physical space as you – it doesnt interact with the matter of which you are composed, so you don’t even know it’s there! How many radio and TV signals are passing through your body right now? How much EM from power lines, RF from LED dimmers, wall-warts, switches, cell phones?
GHE cultists are not the only ones who don’t appreciate reality.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
CPAC, pioneered by the American Conservative Union (ACU), the Centre’s American partner, is a flagship project for conservatives building their international alliance, and last years CPAC Hungary concentrated on the liberals’ nightmare: the international convergence of national forces.
https://www.cpachungary.com/en/
Disney was right – laughter is America’s most important export!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
A federal judge recently affirmed a $5 million arbitration award against MyPillow chief executive Mike Lindell in favor of a software engineer who challenged data that Lindell said proves China interfered in the 2020 U.S. presidential election and tipped the outcome to Joe Biden.
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Alex Jones is about to lose almost everything. With 21 out of 23 liquidation ballots returned, it looks like Jones isn’t going to get his way for his bankruptcy plans. He was trying to hold onto his media empire. This might make that impossible for him.
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
The Southern Tea Party makes up a disproportionate amount of the Tea Party movement in general. Although the South, defined as the 11 states of the former Confederacy, constitutes only 31 percent of the American population, it is home to 56 percent of Tea Party members nationally.
What are you braying about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
barry…from wiki…”Flux is derived from the Latin flow, and in physics describes any effect that appears to pass or travel (whether it actually moves or not) through a surface or substance.”
***
Seems obvious that Newton got his word ‘fluxion’ from Latin but the Latin definition fails to tell you what it means in terms of electromagnetic energy. Newton re-defined it to mean the instantaneous rate of flow per unit time. That word was later changed to derivative, which means the same thing. We are actually talking about an instantaneous rate of change of ‘something’ at a surface.
But, what is flowing? With water, it’s a mass flow of water molecules bound together by weak hydrogen bonds. However, with EM or heat flowing through a mass it means something that cannot be explained. Something is flowing, we just don’t know what it is.
Since flux desribEs a rate of change, I don’t see how it can be added.
You talk about photons flowing through an area but the photon is defined as a massless entity. That does not help us identify what is flowing. Massless means there is nothing physically there even though we can detect something by sampling it and converting it to another form of energy.
It is still debatable as to whether a photon exists. I find it to be unlikely since energy quanta emitted from electrons in a mass of atoms must somehow merge into a wave of light.
Not trying to be skeptically negative, I find the process to be amazing. Just want to understand, hence the doubt.
Gordon,
“However, with EM or heat flowing through a mass it means something that cannot be explained. Something is flowing, we just dont know what it is.”
We know what it is even better than we know what gravity is. It is energy. Specifically for radiation, Watts, or joules per second. And these are not dimensionless forces. They are observable and predictable. You can see solar energy at work with your own eyes every morning. You can feel its presence on your skin. And you can measure its intensity.
But let’s say you are right and “energy” or “photons” constitute a black box.
Like gravity we can measure, codify and predict these forces with excellent accuracy at the macro level. Whether you are plotting the trajectory of a comet or designing an efficient thermal shield, we know enough about gravity and radiative energy to make use of them on a daily basis.
The way radiant heaters work to warm us no mystery at all. But it seems to be fashionable in here to call things unknowable if its suits a certain argument. Einstein (and modern physicists) readily say they don’t know exactly how gravity works, but you and other ‘skeptics’ are quick to reassure that despite the mystery we are not at a loss for explaining its effect or making use of it.
But when we talk about radiative energy we are getting into a controversial area, and suddenly the “mystery” is implied make us ignorant of the GHE.
“You talk about photons flowing through an area…”
I have not been doing that. We can always look deeper into the microscopic to claim a topic is unknown.
For instance, I could talk about quarks and say that because we don’t know why they do what they do that we don’t know anything at all.
Or someone could, I don’t know, question reality, or say that time is unknowable.
These feints are obvious and opportunistic for anyone interested in casting doubt on anything scientific in nature. By some crazy coincidence, this enigma-begging seem to centre around the GHE and AGW, and not much else.
Do you wonder why that might be?
“Do you wonder why that might be?”
Barry, please stop trolling.
“Since flux desribEs a rate of change, I dont see how it can be added.”
Flux does not describe a rate of change. You are referring to acceleration. Flux is only rate.
So you have a flux of 100 cubic metres of water per second dropping into a reservoir from high above. Someone opens another valve in the dam wall, and now another flux of 100 cubic metres of water per second is dropping into the catchment.
Would you like to estimate how much water is flowing into the catchment per second with both valves open?
Now, you mentioned a change of rate.
A flow of water into a catchment is increasing at the rate of 10 cubic metres per second per second.
A second flow is introduced, also accelerating at the rate of 10 cubic metres per second per second.
What now is the total increasing rate of flow into the catchment?
There are no other variables.
There is only one correct answer here.
“There is only one correct answer here.”
According to a donkey who can’t even describe the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling.
Time to appeal to your own brilliance again.
[snigger]
Swenson can’t work it out. Anyone else?
Come on. This is very, very simple math.
Gordon and barry provide a clash of different cults. Gordon is from the “Gordon Cult”, and barry is from the “GHE Cult’.
Neither one of them understands the issues.
Gordon: “Since flux desribEs a rate of change, I don’t see how it can be added.”
barry: “Flux does not describe a rate of change. You are referring to acceleration. Flux is only rate.”
The issue is “radiative flux”. Radiative flux is neither a “rate of change” nor a “rate”.
They can’t understand the issues and they can’t learn. That’s what “brain-dead” looks like.
In a way, Puffman’s denial is a close cousin of Bordo’s or Gill’s:
1. X is not P.
2. Lulz.
It tells NOTHING. It’s just for the lulz.
Radiative flux is measured in W/m2.
A watt is a joule per second.
How is this not a rate?
Your comments become increasingly bizarre.
Clint,
Were you able to work out the total of the combined flow of water?
It’s a really simple question. As you pose as an expert on flux, I would hope you could answer promptly.
To repeat:
You have a flux of 100 cubic metres of water per second dropping into a reservoir from high above. Someone opens another valve in the dam wall, and now another flux of 100 cubic metres of water per second is dropping into the catchment.
What is the total rate of flow into the catchment?
barry, please stop trolling.
I’m not. This question is absolutely germane to the discussion Clint and I have been having. He says “fluxes don’t add,” and has used water flow, like me, to make a point about flux.
I’d really like to see him answer the question.
Your point about water flow relates to power, if anything, not radiative flux. It’s actually quite hard to think of analogies for flux. Nothing really compares to it.
Nate & bdgwx,
“How do we know the true value Walter?
These are measurements, and thus always have uncertainty.
Even if mercury thermometers had a 1 degree F resolution, it is entirely possible, after averaging many such measurements, to have fractional degree error on the average.
For example, women have integer number of babies, 0, 1, 2, 3, , but the average US birthrate is reported as eg. 1.664 births per women in 2021.”
The true value would be the value we desire, absent the influences of UHI, calibration drift, curious wildlife interacting with the instrument, etc. Of course, there will always be uncertainty, but when systematic uncertainties from these influences are averaged with each other, there’s no chance of removing it. Their effects are nuanced; we understand that at night, UHI has a stronger effect than during the day. It will also have a stronger effect during warm summer days than cloudy winter days. That’s why I believe that a single adjustment value applied to a wide temporal range is an incorrect approach; its influence will always be complex and will depend on the conditions at the station’s microclimate at a given time.
Nate, regarding your claim about mercury thermometers, what are your thoughts on observatory practices with mercury thermometers in the Arctic regions? Mercury freezes at -39C, so in the Arctic regions, there is a high risk of the mercury inside the thermometer freezing and, therefore, damaging the thermometer. Theres also human error; extremely cold temperatures will be a challenge to the observer. This is an element of subjectivity; extreme cold can affect the observers ability to handle the equipment with precision, which can lead to a misinterpretation of scale readings or other errors. The Arctic also has extremely volatile temperature variations; since mercury is a liquid metal, it will have a slower response time due to its inertia. It takes time for the mercury column in the thermometer to expand or contract and reach a stable position. In situations of rapidly fluctuating temperature, the delay in the response of mercury thermometers can lead to a lag in obtaining an accurate reading; if repeated consistently, this can become a source of measurement error.
I believe it is far from unreasonable to suggest that measurements in the Arctic should not be seriously considered in climate analysis. It’s very likely that these inconveniences were present at the time of the recorded measurements in the Arctic regions. If I recall correctly, it was Gordon Robertson who suggested the issues with Arctic data make it hard to know whether or not the area has truly warmed; I find it hard to disagree with that conclusion (on a centennial time scale) with the sparse and inadequate evidence available to us now.
This doesn’t just apply to extremely cold climates; it also applies to other regions. In a humid jungle in Southern India, extreme heat can affect the physical properties of materials, which can also cause expansion or contraction of the thermometer components, leading to calibration drift (another systematic error). Extreme heat will affect the observer’s cognitive abilities during the data collection process as well.
walter: Even if mercury thermometers had a 1 degree F resolution, it is entirely possible, after averaging many such measurements, to have fractional degree error on the average.
Bingo. And that’s exactly what the law of propagation of uncertainty says. Specifically when the measurements have no correlation (r=0) the uncertainty of the average scales as 1/sqrt(N). In reality there is always some correlation (r>0) so it won’t exactly scale as 1/sqrt(N) but it is lower than the uncertainty of the individual elements that went into the average.
walter: The true value would be the value we desire, absent the influences of UHI
The UHI effect is a real phenomenon so we desire to have it included.
It’s the UHI bias (which is different than the effect) that is not a real phenomenon. That’s the thing we want to remove.
walter: Thats why I believe that a single adjustment value applied to a wide temporal range is an incorrect approach
That’s why PHA is used. It is a form of dynamic correction in which the correction value is applied using information that is specific to the specific situation. It is different for different stations and periods of time. Nobody thinks it is perfect. But it has been shown to be effective.
“Arctic regions? Mercury freezes at -39C, so in the Arctic regions”
Not a major concern, since, way back when, there were few (non-indigenous) people living there and few measurements.
Walter, you focus on the weeds here and miss the larger picture of sampling and statistics.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
How to Add Rates for Cranks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaCaOjt7J3g
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard is a monkey.
Monkey Man just wants friends like him:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/07/trump-2024-climate-panic-in-a-word-horrific/#comment-3862877
He found some at Tony’s. But that’s not enough. Here are even older troglodyte souls.
Willard
How good are you at mathematics? I’m bet my arithmetic is far more advanced than yours.
Do you like doxing?
Thinking back, I really wish I hadn’t written that comment; it was insensitive and overgeneralizing. Writing it, especially under my real name, was very poor judgment. I accept full responsibility for it. I asked the WUWT moderator to delete it. There are a couple of other crude things I’ve also written here that I’m not proud of and wish I hadn’t written. I’m going to take a break from commenting here; I might not come back, but if I do, it will be under a pseudonym. If anyone is reading this, learn from my mistake. Don’t say things like this because they are insensitive and reflect poorly on you, which makes people take you less seriously when attempting to debate controversial topics. The internet always remembers what you say and write; I was careless and didn’t think of that.
Monkey Man,
Why do you post your crankiest thoughts at Tony’s?
You can do it here.
Monkey Man,
You did not honor your last offer.
Why should I believe anything you say?
Yes, I did. Look above; hopefully bdgwx will answer. The other questions are coming too.
That response sucks, Monkey Man.
But I was referring to an earlier challenge:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1580362
Oh, noes, you’re being doxed again!
LOL. Are you forgetting that WUWT thread where Dr. Frank revealed your identity?
And what sucks about it? Provide details por favor.
Monkey Man,
Do you realize how silly you sound right now?
Monkey Man,
Why are you changing the subject out of a sudden?
walter, sorry I’ve been busy with other things. I just now responded.
“Do you realize how silly you sound right now?”
Provide details.
“Why are you changing the subject out of a sudden?”
The linked comment, discussing the Arctic, was already debated in the thread with Dr. Frank. Posing cheap questions with the intention to take a shot doesn’t enhance one’s intelligenceit rather comes across as a less intelligent approach.
Monkey Man,
Me and Pat, or rather Pat and Pat*, were not discussing the Arctic:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2024/01/16/how-to-cavil-like-cranks/
I linked to this post a few times already. In fact I (or it Pat*?) linked to it about 20 times in that exchange with Pat. I’m quite sure I cited it the last time you called me not by the pen name of the owner of that blog.
If you still think that I am AT, then you really are a silly kid.
I’m saying that in the same thread where Pat Frank claimed that your real identity was Ken Rice, we (you, me, bnice) also debated Arctic sea ice.
Monkey Man,
Pat did not claim I was AT. He presumed I was. Just like you do when you begged your silly question.
Read the posts and the comments I write. Read AT’s. You should realize how silly you are. Perhaps you already know how silly you sound. Perhaps you could not care less how you sound. That’d put you among the Mike Flynns of Roy’s.
Your shadowboxing about robust statistics is not that subtle. I already had that fight with Richard. It lasted a few months. Then Roy banned the I-word. If you can’t respond to bdgwx like the responsible adult you must be aspiring to, why would I waste my time with you?
If you come into my threads looking for a fight, you shall get one. Then don’t complain if you have some wounds to lick.
Manners maketh the Climateball Man.
[A] man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling, it would be a MAN, a man of restless and versatile intellect, who, not content with an success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, ”
Thomas Henry Huxley.
Monkeys are great, EM. Monkey Man, well:
[MONKEY MAN] How good are you at mathematics? Do you like doxing? Are you forgetting that WUWT thread where Dr. Frank revealed your identity?
[ALSO MONKEY MAN] Posing cheap questions with the intention to take a shot doesnt enhance ones intelligence
He’s doing his best.
If you ever find the time, check out Frans de Waal’s work. An appetizer:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-did-altruism-evolve-20240215/
You should check Stephanie’s work too, it goes without saying.
Troglodytes are dreaming of a primordial time that never really existed.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
What is a “GHE cultist,” exactly?
Is it anyone who agrees with the mainstream position that there is a greenhouse effect?
It seems to be a catch-all for anyone who disagrees with a ‘skeptic’. Does it have a specific meaning or is it vaporous?
barry,
Pity you can’t describe this “greenhouse effect”, isn’t it”
Maybe you could search the internet, and find such descriptive gems as Willard’s “not cooling, slower cooling”. I’ll let you find the other nonsensical variations for yourself.
Your mainstream position seems to be about as valid as those who believed that the Sun revolved about the Earth, and burnt anybody who dared to disagree, at the stake.
Oh dear, are you exceptionally gullible, or just mentally below par?
Appeal to your own authority if it will make you feel better.
[laughing at delusional GHE cultist]
What is a “GHE cultist,’ exactly? Does it have a specific meaning or is it vaporous?
It must be vaporous, because you, Swenson, use the term, and you couldn’t even explain what it means.
A tacit admission you are using meaningless twaddle is perfectly acceptable. Please keep talking about something else, if only to keep confirming just how specious this phrase is.
barry,
A GHE cultist is someone who apparently believes that a GHE exists, but cannot describe this mythical effect in any way which accords with reality, nor even say precisely what it is supposed to do.
Like you.
For example, if someone were silly enough to claim the GHE makes objects hotter, then this phenomenon could be reliably observed, measured and documented.
Of course, the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, which is why sel-styled “climate scientists” like Gavin Schmidt literally scuttle away from interviews involving real scientists. No GHE warming there – or anywhere!
Go on, give everyone a good laugh by trying to describe the GHE. How hard can it be?
See?
“A GHE cultist is someone who apparently believes that a GHE exists, but cannot describe this mythical effect in any way which accords with reality, nor even say precisely what it is supposed to do.”
Excellent, Swenson!
Let us see an example of a GHE Cultist at work.
“Again, temperature is the result of energy gain AND energy loss. If you reduce the rate of energy loss, temperature will rise… even if the energy input is the same…
Analogous to insulation in a heated home, greenhouse gases reduce the net rate of infrared energy transfer from the surface and lower atmosphere to outer space, causing the surface and lower atmosphere to be warmer, and the upper atmosphere to be colder, than if greenhouse gases did not exist.”
Dr Roy Spencer – https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
I must say, I am impressed with the level of expertise in this “cult.”
As confirmed by ChatGPT, and more importantly, physical laws, “The Earth does undergo cooling processes despite the presence of the greenhouse effect.”
GHE cultists refuse to accept reality. That’s one definition of insanity, of course.
Examples are Michael Mann claiming to be a Nobel Laureate when he wasn’t. Or Gavin Schmidt claiming to be a climate scientist, when is not a scientist of any sort! And so it goes – you seem to believe in a GHE which neither you nor anybody else can describe in any way which reflects reality.
Keep dreaming – it won’t affect reality at all.
I think Dr Spencer has done an admirable job of describing the greenhouse effect.
Let’s give him a bit more air time:
“THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
Anything that emits IR also absorbs IR, and this makes the intuitive understanding of how IR radiation affects the atmospheric temperature profile difficult. Unlike the sun, which is a single (and ultimate) source of energy, every atmospheric layer is both an emitter and absorber of IR energy. The fact we can’t see IR radiation with our eyes further impedes our intuition.
Importantly, the amount of IR energy a parcel of air absorbs is mostly independent of temperature, but the amount it emits is very dependent on temperature. The idea that air emits IR at the same rate it absorbs is, in general, just plain incorrect.
The atmosphere, even though it is colder than the surface of the Earth, emits IR toward the surface. This does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which only says that the NET flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature.
EXAMPLE: Think of two identical, solid plates at the same temperature facing each other. Hopefully we can all agree that there will be no net flow of IR energy between them, because they are both emitting IR at the same intensity.
Now imagine one plate is 10 deg. C cooler than the otherthere will be a net flow of IR radiation from the warmer plate to the cooler plate, right?
But what if the cooler plate is 200 deg. C cooler than the warm plate, rather than only 10 deg. C cooler? Can we agree that the net flow of IR radiation will be even larger? If so, that means that the IR radiation from the cool plate to the warm plate affects the net flow of IR energy between the two plates, right? So, the colder object does effect the energy budget (and thus temperature) of the warmer object… because energy LOSS is just as important as energy gain when determining temperature.
If you want to (curiously) argue that the cold plate doesn’t actually emit energy that is absorbed by the warmer plate (as PhD physicist Claes Johnson has argued with me), you still must admit that the temperature of the cold plate DOES affect the net rate of IR transfer from the warmer surface to the colder surface, right? Well, that’s all that is required for the existence of the greenhouse effect.
And that’s what happens with the atmosphere… downward IR radiation from the sky reduces the net IR loss by the Earths surface, causing it to achieve a higher temperature than it would have if there was no downward radiation from the sky, and the Earths surface was allowed to emit IR unimpeded to the cold depths of outer space (2.7 K temperature). It doesnt matter that the atmosphere is colder than the surface.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/
There is more at that link.
Swenson, you’ve been asking for someone to describe the GHE, opining that no one has done it in a way that is based in reality.
Please read Dr Spencer’s article at the link, and then explain how his description is divorced from reality.
barry, please stop trolling.
Just for kicks I asked ChatGPT this question:
“If 200 W/m2 of energy from one source is incident on a blackbody surface, and 100 W/m2 of energy is incident on that surface from another source, what is the total energy absorbed by the blackbody?”
This was the reply from the infernal machine:
To find the total energy absorbed by the blackbody surface, you simply add the energies absorbed from each source together.
Given:
Energy incident from the first source = 200 W/m2
Energy incident from the second source = 100 W/m
Total energy absorbed = Energy absorbed from first source + Energy absorbed from second source
Total energy absorbed = 200 W/m2 + 100 W/m2 = 300 W/m2
So, the total energy absorbed by the blackbody surface from both sources is 300 W/m2
Incredible!
ChatGPT is run by GHE cultists!
ChatGPT is an AI, Anything it says depends on how it is ‘taught’.
“Before GPT, the best performing AI models used “supervised learning” to develop their underlying algorithms. They were trained with manually-labeled data, like a database with photos of different animals paired with a text description of each animal written by humans. These kinds of training data, while effective in some circumstances, are incredibly expensive to produce. Even now, there just isn’t that much data suitably labeled and categorized to be used to train LLMs.
Instead, GPT employed generative pre-training, where it was given a few ground rules and then fed vast amounts of unlabeled datanear enough the entire open internet. It was then left “unsupervised” to crunch through all this data and develop its own understanding of the rules and relationships that govern text.”
https://zapier.com/blog/how-does-chatgpt-work/
barry,
Are you really gullible, or just retarded?
As I showed in the past, with just a tiny bit of brainpower, ChatGPT admits it is is wrong, and apologises. You can use your fabled search powers, and see the interchange – if you have the guts and ability.
ChatGPT is a computer program, and will only allow answers which comply with the programmers preconceived ideas.
Just like the silly results from general circulation models. Useless, but very convincing to the scientifically illiterate or exceptionally gullible.
Which are you?
So a different form of training may produce a different result. How novel.
You do understand the actual difference between programming and training?
Dimwits like barry are gullible enough to blindly accept any nonsense they come across.
I got ChatGPT to admit that fossil fuels are the best source of energy in the world, and that Net Zero is a mistake.
That’s easy, Monkey Man –
Ask it to assume that what you don’t like is a mistake, and tell it that you don’t like Net Zero.
Net Zero is still the only way out, because CO2 is a stock, not a flow.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Net Zero is still the only way out, because CO2 is a stock, not a flow.”
Appealing to your own authority is not terribly convincing.
“You do understand the actual difference between programming and training?”
Specifically with ChatGPT, the programmers provide algorithms for the software to ‘recognize’ patterns in text. That’s the programming.
The training data is a huge repository of scientific literature, books, articles, news, weather, social media etc. You can think of it as a large chunk of the internet.
For physics questions the training data is a large number of physics text books and academic papers, online lectures and the like.
This doesn’t mean that ChatGPT will answer everything correctly. It’s just a language processor.
What it does mean is that its physics “knowledge” is not based on any particular ideas of its programmers, but on a vast trove of formal literature that it trawls to answer questions.
I’ll quote the first three words of my post:
“Just for kicks”
Do you need a link to a definition, or can you ask a day-nurse to explain what it means?
“ChatGPT is a computer program, and will only allow answers which comply with the programmers preconceived ideas.”
Nope. That is AI circa 1979. I used to play with one of these models at the British Museum back then. Modern AI like ChatGPT are trained to recognize text patterns, and then scrape the internet to develop its ‘neural’ network. It is assuredly not spitting out pre-taught answers. It’s basically a complex word processor with a vast data bank (the net), from which it draws to form responses to the text it receives.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1629007
I made a joke out of this, claiming that the infernal machine was programmed by GHE Cultists. I said that to mimic the nonsense you guys spout.
And you confirmed my parody instantly. Bravo!
“It is assuredly not spitting out pre-taught answers.”
You do understand how training works?
barry wrote –
“I made a joke out of this, claiming that the infernal machine was programmed by GHE Cultists. I said that to mimic the nonsense you guys spout.”
A typical response from GHE cultist who has been caught out. His silly sarcasm is passed off as humour!
What a dill!
“You do understand how training works?”
ChatGPT is self-supervised for the most part.
It’s old stuff.
Really, these guys think someone programmed ChatGPT to add fluxes.
So many layers to their ignorance.
barry, please stop trolling.
“ChatGPT is self-supervised”
That’s one form of training.
Supervised learning could be seen as a form of programming. It is no different than to feed it a dictionary. It just makes life easier not to hard code it.
“Energy incident from the first source = 200 W/m2
Energy incident from the second source = 100 W/m
Total energy absorbed = Energy absorbed from first source + Energy absorbed from second source
Total energy absorbed = 200 W/m2 + 100 W/m2 = 300 W/m2
So, the total energy absorbed by the blackbody surface from both sources is 300 W/m2”
Not sure why any halfway intelligent person would doubt this answer.
I wonder if AI believes you can boil water with ice cubes?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1627798
Berry has falsified AGW with simple logic. All the rest of this is hyperbole.
Nate and I falsified Berry on his own website. His hypothesis suggesting the transport of 140ppm of CO2 from the deep ocean to the atmosphere broke all the laws of diffusion, required CO2 to be pumped against the concentration gradient at no energy cost and so was thermodynamic nonsense.
And yet the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
Maybe all your cunning calculations are nonsense?
Ed hides his piece of crap behind a paywall. It is revised by the guy who keeps paying lip service to it on every thread at Roy’s. Ed refuses all tough challenges.
Ed is a coward.
“Ed is a coward”.
Willard is mentally deficient.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn is mirroring Graham D. Warner.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nate,
You are spouting rubbish.
Ice can emit 300 W/m2. Surround a body at 20 C with ice. Tell me how much energy the body is absorbing from the ice.
Yes, it’s a black body. Black bodies are allowed to have a temperature, you know.
You probably have a brain. You just don’t have the ability to perceive reality. Tough.
Blackbody definition: “An ideal blackbody absorbs all radiation incident on it.”
The blackbody is absorbing energy at a rate of 306 W/m2 from surrounding ice at 0 Celsius.
The blackbody will always absorb 306 W/m2 if completely surrounded by ice, regardless of its temperature.
barry,
And heats the body not at all. Maybe you overlooked this minor inconvenience.
You might like to deny that surrounding a body with a temperature of 20 C with ice won’t warm it at all.
Your cunning calculations arent helping to support warming of any nature.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years – in spite of any calculations showing the contrary. Try a different tack – describe the GHE, for a start?
“And heats the body not at all.”
Correct.
“Maybe you overlooked this minor inconvenience.”
Why is it an inconvenience? It doesn’t go against anything I have said.
“Why is it an inconvenience? It doesnt go against anything I have said.”
You haven’t said anything useful, or even relevant to a GHE you can’t describe!
That’s what makes you a GHE cultist – unwavering belief in something you cannot describe. Is it supposed to result in heating? Cooling? Possibly both – or neither – simultaneously or at different times?
Oh dear.
Ahem.
What is this “inconvenience” you speak of?
Have you forgotten what you were thinking, or have you realized that your remark was silly?
Why is the fact that the 20C blackbody doesn’t heat the ice inconvenient to me?
Please explain.
“Ice can emit 300 W/m2. Surround a body at 20 C with ice. Tell me how much energy the body is”
As expected, ignoramus Swenson completely changes the situation and gets a different result!
“Not sure why any halfway intelligent person would doubt this answer.”
Clint demonstrates that he is well under halfway intelligent.
barry, please stop trolling.
Silly willy provides another example of “throwing crap against the wall hoping something will stick”. He provides a link to a YouTube that teaches how to “add rates”:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1628705
This is a typical cult technique. The cultists don’t understand the science, but they know how to keyboard. They know how to search for things to support their beliefs. Silly willy is trying to support the false science that radiative fluxes add. He probably did a search on “how do rates add”. He didn’t even understand that a flux is NOT a “rate”. As usual, his comment has NOTHING to do with the issue.
Again, this is so typical. All of the cultists do it.
Adding to the fun, barry comes on to ask: “What is a ‘GHE cultist,’ exactly?”
A cultist is simply someone that rejects any reality that is counter to his beliefs. The cultist will do this by finding links they don’t understand, and even by making things up. Like when barry claimed that ARRIVING fluxes were affected by view factor!
[PUFFMAN] A quantity is NOT the same as a rate. 40 miles is NOT the same as 40 mph. 40 Joules is NOT the same as 40 Joules/sec/m.
[ALSO PUFFMAN] He didnt even understand that a flux is NOT a “rate”.
Puffman is a freaking genius. He thinks that flux is a quantity!
More childish cult techniques from silly willy.
Yes, Puffman.
LOGIC.
Childish technique.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
There are better role models than Graham D. Warner.
I am enjoying the ‘skeptics’ avoiding explaining the term they invented and use. Every time they opt out of explaining exactly what a GHE Cultist is, they expose how fatuous their phrase is.
“Like when barry claimed that ARRIVING fluxes were affected by view factor”
How sad that you must keep fabricating nonsense about me. I almost feel sorry for you.
barry,
Maybe you could describe the GHE? if you believe in the existence of a GHE, but can’t or won’t describe it, then you are either a cultist, an worshipper of the GHE, or mentally bereft.
Here’s Willards succinct description of the GHE “not cooling, slower cooling”. Maybe you prefer Entropic Man’s – “The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets.”
You offered a bizarre combination mechanism/description – “That is the basic mechanism of the “Greenhouse Effect”.
An object receiving continual energy that has its rate of energy loss slowed must perforce became warmer. Thats basic thermodynamics.
And thats the GHE.”
Complete nonsense, as the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, so your blathering obviously has no relation to reality as demonstrated by the Earth. Your nonsense about “continual energy” might lead someone to believe that placing a red hot cannonball in the Sun, and then insulating it, would make it get hotter!
This is magical GHE cult thinking, not reality.
But carry on – others can no doubt decide for themselves whether to join a lunatic cult or not.
Still don’t see a definition of a “GHE Cultist.”
I can explain the meaning of ‘skeptic’, fake skeptic, contrarian, and dullard.
When I label you, the labels have meaning.
barry,
I accept that you are quite inept. Maybe you believe that boasting about your incompetence will make you appear intelligent.
Here (again) –
“A GHE cultist is someone who apparently believes that a GHE exists, but cannot describe this mythical effect in any way which accords with reality, nor even say precisely what it is supposed to do.”
Complain, whine, stamp your petulant little foot, run to your momma – it matters not to me.
Play as many “silly semantic games” as you like. Still no GHE description which agrees with reality, is there?
Yes, I saw your wonderful post defining a GHE Cultist after I posted the above.
And you can see my reply to it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1629570
barry,
All I can see is a link.
Typical GHE cultist behaviour. Provide an irrelevant link, hoping somebody, anybody, will think you are intelligent.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Typical skeptic behaviour.
“All I see is a link,” but I will NOT click on it.
Your wilful ignorance has long been obvious, Swenson. No need to gild that lily.
When barry gets caught, he just denies it. Claims I’m “fabricating nonsense”. At least that’s more mature than when he called me a “lying dog”.
It’s fun to watch kids growing up.
I was being kind. Imagining that you weren’t deliberately lying, just too dense to have understood previous conversation.
I’d ask you to quote me having “claimed that ARRIVING fluxes were affected by view factor.”
But I know you can’t substantiate your lie.
Because lying dogs lie about what people say, and when asked to prove it they snarl and whine, but don’t prove it.
Are you going to comment again without linking to any comment of mine that corroborates what you said? Are you going to keep lying, hoping no one notices that you can’t back it up?
If you had not kept pushing the lie, I would have continued being kind. But you can’t help yourself. You just have to keep on lying.
Do you have any shame about that? Even a little bit? If your face is burning as you read this, that is actually a good sign. I don’t bear you any ill will. You just need tough love until you sort yourself out.
You’ll quote me, saying what you accuse me of saying, right? You won’t just snarl and whine, but actually corroborate what I say you have lied about?
That is the only valid move you have. Anything less exposes you as a fraud.
Barry the problem is that even if you were correct about ”arriving radiation” you haven’t considered that evaporation, transpiration, and convection operates as massive negative feedback. That is clear via mainstream energy budgets. Its just the case this is ignored for the purpose of a blatant attempt to blame all recent climate change on CO2.
Bill,
Lying is intentional – like Michael Mann lying about being a Nobel Laureate in court documents. Like Gavin Schmidt passing himself off as a scientist.
Ignorance, silliness, and gullibility result in people such as barry believing in the existence of a GHE (with undefinable properties, and therefore indescribable).
Fanatics – refusing to accept reality.
Depends what way you look at it. Clint R has always been pretty clear that his claim (rightly or wrongly, I’m not going to comment) is that two arriving fluxes do not simply add. The value of 315 W/m^2 was chosen, apparently a long time ago, due to a comment from Tim Folkerts where he asserted that two arriving fluxes of 315 W/m^2 would combine and 630 W/m^2 would be received, and he based the temperature of an object on that.
315 W/m^2 being similar to the emission from an ice cube, Clint R started saying that if that were true, you could arrange enough ice cubes so that the fluxes added and with enough of them, you would have a sufficiently large enough combined flux to boil water. This is where a rebuttal involving view factors was brought in. Now, although I understand what is being said with that rebuttal, it misses the point if the claim is about arriving flux.
So, on the one hand, I can see where Clint R is coming from with the remark about view factors not applying to the arriving flux, and barry did keep going on about view factors regardless. On the other hand, I think barry was just keen to dispel the idea that he was saying there was any possibility of the radiation from ice cubes combining to boil water. For that, he needed to mention view factors. So, I get that side of it, too.
Not sure there’s any need for all the theatrics, though.
Clint confuses incident and absorbed radiation.
Absorbed radiation – what he means by ARRIVING – has already dealt with view factors, distance and intensity of the source.
Radiation incident on a surface must account for all these (as well as the emissivity of the surface if not a blackbody) to determine the radiation that is absorbed.
DREMT’s summary is fair. Good job.
All I would add is that one of the worst tr0lls on this blog, Ball4, has repeatedly stated that ice cubes can boil water, radiatively.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Russia is pining to build on its budding relationship with American conservativesliterally.
Amid Russias ongoing invasion of Ukraine, and the American Republican Party splitting on its support for the defending nation, Russian authorities apparently are launching construction of a special village outside Moscow dedicated to conservative-minded Americans and Canadians.
State outlet RIA Novosti reported the news Thursday. Timur Beslangurov, a Russian immigration lawyer, said the village would harbor the likes of some “200 families [who] want to emigrate for ideological reasons.”
That’s not all, apparently. Beslangurov claims tens of thousands of people with no Russian roots would like to move to Russia.
“The reason is the inculcation of radical values: Today they have 70 genders; it is not known what will happen next,” he said.
https://newrepublic.com/post/172710/russia-build-safe-space-conservative-americans-move
Our Troglodytes should consider, including Canucks.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here’s ChatGPT’s pathetic attempt at answering “Describe the greenhouse effect” –
“The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earth’s surface. It occurs when the sun’s energy reaches the Earth’s atmosphere, some of which is reflected back to space and the rest is absorbed and re-radiated by greenhouse gases.”
A natural process, is it? Doesn’t mention that sunlight warms the surface, nor that none of this “natural process” occurs in the absence of sufficiently bright sunlight.
Nothing about supposed higher thermometer temperatures. However, in line with GHE cultist beliefs, ChatGPT goes on “This enhanced greenhouse effect has led to an imbalance, causing an increase in Earth’s average surface temperaturea phenomenon commonly referred to as global warming.”
Ah, mankind causes an “enhanced greenhouse effect”, does it? So the ordinary greenhouse effect (AKA sunlight) is turned into an “enhanced greenhouse effect” by returning CO2 and H2O to the atmosphere! Can’t be replicated in a laboratory, unfortunately. Just more GHE cultist magical thinking. Neither removing nor adding gases to a sample of air change its temperature one iota. All nonsense and wishful thinking.
Sad.
I’m glad to see you are using an AI to inform yourself.
It is a very crude tool to understand physics and often gets things wrong. But it is still miles better at sorting information than you.
barry,
“But it is still miles better at sorting information than you.”
Appealing to your own authority may convince others – of even lower intellectual capacity than you, I’m sure.
What has “sorting information” to do with a GHE which you can’t even describe?
I am most grateful to Swenson for getting around to defining a GHE Cultist.
“A GHE cultist is someone who apparently believes that a GHE exists, but cannot describe this mythical effect in any way which accords with reality, nor even say precisely what it is supposed to do.”
So let’s see what that looks like.
“Again, temperature is the result of energy gain AND energy loss. If you reduce the rate of energy loss, temperature will rise… even if the energy input is the same…
Analogous to insulation in a heated home, greenhouse gases reduce the net rate of infrared energy transfer from the surface and lower atmosphere to outer space, causing the surface and lower atmosphere to be warmer, and the upper atmosphere to be colder, than if greenhouse gases did not exist.”
Dr Roy Spencer https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
Some might find this cultist disturbingly convincing. This is not the only time he has written culty things.
“To briefly review: because water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane in the atmosphere absorb and emit infrared radiation, the atmosphere stays warmer in the lower atmosphere and cooler in the upper atmosphere than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect.
Even though the physical process involved in this is radiative, the greenhouse blanket around the Earth is somewhat analogous to a real blanket, which we all know tends to hold heat in where it is being generated, and reduce its flow toward the colder surroundings. A blanket real or greenhouse doesn’t actually create the separation between hot and cold… it just reduces the rate at which energy is lost by the hot, and gained by the cold.
In the case of the Earth, most sunlight is absorbed at the surface, which then heats and moistens the air above it. This solar heating causes the lower atmosphere to warm, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor thus generated helps keep the lower atmosphere warm by reducing its rate of cooling.”
Dr Roy Spencer – https://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
This cultist is a serial offender:
“Temperature is the Result of Energy Gain AND Energy Loss
The temperature of something (the Earth’s surface, an atmospheric layer, the human body, a pot of water on the stove) is related to rates of energy gain and energy loss. Thus, generally speaking, you can increase temperature in one of two ways: (1) increase the rate of energy gain, or (2) decrease the rate of energy loss…
For example, if you are lying in bed and are too cold, you can turn up the electric blanket (increase energy gain), or add a regular blanket (decrease the rate of energy loss). If you add even more blankets, you will gradually make the temperature under the blankets higher… but at the same time you make the temperature of the outer blankets colder.
Heat will always flow from higher temperature to lower temperature, but this does not mean that temperatures cannot change. The actual temperatures at different dep.ths in the blankets depend upon the rate of energy gain and energy loss at those different dep.ths, not just the rate of energy input into the system.
The same is true of the climate system, and when explaining the surface temperature of the Earth. It does not matter whether we are talking about radiative heat transfer, or conduction, temperature is a matter of energy gain versus energy loss…
The Greenhouse Effect Decreases the Rate of Energy Loss by the Earth’s Surface
The atmospheric gases most responsible for IR absorp.tion and emission in the atmosphere (“greenhouse gases”) act like a radiative blanket, cooling the middle and upper layers, but warming the lowest layers and the surface.
This leads to two common misconcep.tions on the part of those who believe the greenhouse effect does not exist:
FIRST, contrary to the assertions of some, the rate of IR absorp.tion and emission of atmospheric layers are, in general, NOT the same. While the rate of IR absorp.tion does not change much with the temperature of the absorber, the rate of IR emission increases rapidly with temperature…
The SECOND misconception is that because greenhouse gases allow the atmosphere to cool to outer space, adding more GHGs cant cause warming. While it is true that GHGs do lead to an overall decrease in the mass-weighted average temperature of the atmosphere, their altering of the energy budget of individual layers leads to net warming of the lowest layers of the atmosphere.”
Dr Roy Spencer – https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/
This cultist uses other analogies, which some here may find familiar.
“Anything that emits IR also absorbs IR, and this makes the intuitive understanding of how IR radiation affects the atmospheric temperature profile difficult. Unlike the sun, which is a single (and ultimate) source of energy, every atmospheric layer is both an emitter and absorber of IR energy. The fact we can’t see IR radiation with our eyes further impedes our intuition.
Importantly, the amount of IR energy a parcel of air absorbs is mostly independent of temperature, but the amount it emits is very dependent on temperature. The idea that air emits IR at the same rate it absorbs is, in general, just plain incorrect.
The atmosphere, even though it is colder than the surface of the Earth, emits IR toward the surface. This does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which only says that the NET flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature.
EXAMPLE: Think of two identical, solid plates at the same temperature facing each other. Hopefully we can all agree that there will be no net flow of IR energy between them, because they are both emitting IR at the same intensity.
Now imagine one plate is 10 deg. C cooler than the otherthere will be a net flow of IR radiation from the warmer plate to the cooler plate, right?
But what if the cooler plate is 200 deg. C cooler than the warm plate, rather than only 10 deg. C cooler? Can we agree that the net flow of IR radiation will be even larger? If so, that means that the IR radiation from the cool plate to the warm plate affects the net flow of IR energy between the two plates, right? So, the colder object does effect the energy budget (and thus temperature) of the warmer object… because energy LOSS is just as important as energy gain when determining temperature.
If you want to (curiously) argue that the cold plate doesn’t actually emit energy that is absorbed by the warmer plate (as PhD physicist Claes Johnson has argued with me), you still must admit that the temperature of the cold plate DOES affect the net rate of IR transfer from the warmer surface to the colder surface, right? Well, that’s all that is required for the existence of the greenhouse effect.”
Dr Roy Spencer – https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/
We have seen Dr Roy Spencer use the same arguments of blankets and plates radiating to each other that we have seen time and time again from the regulars here on this board.
We see also that this so-called atmospheric physicist believes warmer objects absorb radiation from cooler ones. He also says that absorp.tion rate is not much influenced by the temperature of the absorbing body.
So, has Dr Spencer described GHE “in any way which accords with reality?”
I ask the local realists to weigh in with their verdict.
Swenson, would you care to kick things off?
barry,
You still can’t describe the GHE, can you?
Are you just making an inept and pointless appeal to the authority of Dr Spencer, perhaps?
If you believe Dr Spencer has described the GHE in some way which agrees with reality, I’m fairly sure he wouldnt mind you quoting him.
You can’t quote such a description, can you? Dr Spencer might even agree that the Earth has actually cooled since it had a molten surface – mythical GHE notwithstanding.
Even ChatGPT agrees with me. Here’s my last interaction –
“So the Earth actually cools, and the greenhouse effect doesn’t prevent it, is that it?”
ChatGPT –
“Yes, that’s correct. The Earth does undergo cooling processes despite the presence of the greenhouse effect.”
Fell free to point out how little faith you have in “artificial intelligence”.
“Are you just making an inept and pointless appeal to the authority of Dr Spencer, perhaps?”
Not at all. I am pointing out that Roy Spencer falls under your definition of a GHE Cultist, and I asked at the bottom of those three posts…
“So, has Dr Spencer described GHE “in any way which accords with reality?”
Do you have an answer to that question? Roy has used the same analogies as the people you have derided for using those analogies, and he definitely believes in the GHE. He fits your definition.
I would like to know if Roy Spencer, in your estimation, has failed to provide a reasonable definition of the GHE, and thus must be a GHE Cultist.
Are you going to be upfront about this or dodge the point?
barry,
If you care to quote the alleged description of the GHE by Dr Spencer to which you refer, it will be obvious to anyone whether or not it reflects reality. I’m not aware of any such description, but you seem to think one exists.
Possibly in your imagination, and nowhere else?
Maybe you should address your question to Dr Spencer. Let me know how you get on.
The first three posts in this thread are extensive quotes from Dr Spencer.
All you have to do is scroll up a little bit and you can read his descriptions. You have been mistakenly attributing his words to me.
Please let me know if you think his descriptions are sound and rooted in reality.
If you think they are not rooted in reality, please say why.
barry, you really are odd.
You wrote “Well, thats all that is required for the existence of the greenhouse effect.”
This would be the greenhouse effect which does not prevent the Earth from cooling to its present temperature, or another greenhouse effect which can’t be described?
You made a curious statement “you still must admit that the temperature of the cold plate DOES affect the net rate of IR transfer from the warmer surface to the colder surface, right?” Yes, I admit that a body hotter than its environment will cool. Newton’s Law of Cooling allows you to calculate the rate – but hey, you seem to think that a more slowly cooling body is getting hotter!
Are you really dim, or just pretending? The Earth has cooled. Accept reality (or not, as you wish).
Those quotes you attributed to me are actually Roy Spencer’s words.
barry, you really are odd.
You wrote “Well, thats all that is required for the existence of the greenhouse effect.”
This would be the greenhouse effect which does not prevent the Earth from cooling to its present temperature, or another greenhouse effect which cant be described?
You made a curious statement “you still must admit that the temperature of the cold plate DOES affect the net rate of IR transfer from the warmer surface to the colder surface, right?” Yes, I admit that a body hotter than its environment will cool. Newtons Law of Cooling allows you to calculate the rate but hey, you seem to think that a more slowly cooling body is getting hotter!
Are you really dim, or just pretending? The Earth has cooled. Accept reality (or not, as you wish).
Which statements are you claiming you disagree with?
You’re still quoting Roy Spencer’s words, not mine.
I told you that in the last comment. And you’ve just repeated yourself.
You are exhibiting symptoms of early onset dementia. You should get checked ASAP.
–Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation
The episodic nature of the Earth’s glacial and interglacial periods within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years) have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth’s circumnavigation of the Sun. Variations in the Earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer and mathematician who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude. Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth’s climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth’s glaciers.
It is of primary importance to explain that climate change, and subsequent periods of glaciation, resulting from the following three variables is not due to the total amount of solar energy reaching Earth. The three Milankovitch Cycles impact the seasonality and location of solar energy around the Earth, thus impacting contrasts between the seasons.–
https://geol105.sitehost.iu.edu/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
It’s said commonly the last 2 million year was an Ice Age, and certainly was the coldest in last couple million years, but we been in the late cenozoic ice age for 33.9 million years. Or in last couple million years, Greenland ice sheet became more “permanent”.
But I will repeat the point: “three variables is not due to the total amount of solar energy reaching Earth. The three Milankovitch Cycles impact the seasonality and location of solar energy around the Earth, thus impacting contrasts between the seasons”
And I tend to say, global warming is mostly about a more uniform global temperature. Or due to geological changes {plate tectonic activity} the altering of Earth topography long period of time, it also caused Earth to have a less uniform temperature.
Some claim higher CO2 levels causes more cooling in polar region, and I don’t agree. But if it did, it would cause less uniform global temperature {or cause global cooling}.
Thank you, gbaikie,
“And I tend to say, global warming is mostly about a more uniform global temperature.”
–
Yes, global warming is mostly about a more uniform global temperature.
It is about a more uniform global temperature in a yearly scale.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Swenson wrote:
“barry, you really are odd.
You wrote ‘Well, that’s all that is required for the existence of the greenhouse effect.’ ”
But I didn’t write that. Roy Spencer wrote that.
Swenson also attributed this quote to me:
“you still must admit that the temperature of the cold plate DOES affect the net rate of IR transfer from the warmer surface to the colder surface, right?”
Roy Spencer wrote that. That’s why it is inside the quotation marks.
Poor Swenson. He thinks he’s dissing me. He’s actually dissing Roy Spencer, atmospheric physicist
barry,
Oh I see, you don’t actually have any ideas of your own. That’s fairly obvious.
I’m not sure what “dissing” is. Another juvenile distortion of adult English, I guess.
You claim that I am “dissing” Roy Spencer, atmospheric physicist. I’m not sure what leads you to think that I value your opinion. Are you Dr Spencer’s “anti-dissing” shield, perhaps?
If not, why are you concerned? Has Dr Spencer requested your assistance, or are you just being silly for no good reason at all?
Obviously, you can’t find a description of the GHE which reflects reality. No use blaming me. The GHE is a myth, a fantasy. It doesn’t exist. It doesn’t matter who believes that it does, if they can’t even describe it in any way which reflects realty, it’s faith, not fact.
Carry on.
Why do you think Dr Spencer’s descriptions of the GHE aren’t based on reality?
Be specific.
barry, please stop trolling.
Here’s the slightly delirious Willard, convinced he is powerful and authoritative –
“If you come into my threads looking for a fight, you shall get one. Then dont complain if you have some wounds to lick.”
Be afraid. Be very afraid. You might rupture yourself from excessive laughing at the pretentious (and supremely impotent) dimwit, Willard.
Oh well, inept GHE cultists love inviting completely irrelevant “fights”. Facts are anathema to them.
Mike Flynn,
It was the opposite of an invitation.
Cheers.
Heres the slightly delirious Willard, convinced he is powerful and authoritative
“If you come into my threads looking for a fight, you shall get one. Then dont complain if you have some wounds to lick.”
Be afraid. Be very afraid. You might rupture yourself from excessive laughing at the pretentious (and supremely impotent) dimwit, Willard.
Oh well, inept GHE cultists love inviting completely irrelevant fights. Facts are anathema to them.
You already said that, Mike.
Heres the slightly delirious Willard, convinced he is powerful and authoritative
“If you come into my threads looking for a fight, you shall get one. Then dont complain if you have some wounds to lick.”
Be afraid. Be very afraid. You might rupture yourself from excessive laughing at the pretentious (and supremely impotent) dimwit, Willard.
Oh well, inept GHE cultists love inviting completely irrelevant fights. Facts are anathema to them.
Mike Flynn,
The Copland Leadership Program is CEDA’s professional development program for leaders ready to take the next step in their careers by preparing them with new leadership skills, awareness and the knowledge to elevate their leadership performance.
What are your braying about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
For posters like Clint and Barry, who are confused about watts, let me state that 1 hp = 746 joules/second = 746 watts.
But wait…the HP is derived from the amount of weight a horse can lift in 1 second, or 1 minute. To be more specific, 1HP = 550 foot-pounds/second or 33,000 foot-pounds/minute. Apparently, the watt was derived from electrical power by Siemens (source…wiki) and defined based on the work done by a current running through a resistance. The trick was to determine how much work could be done by a certain current running through a load.
That brings us to electric motors, or electric heaters. An electric motor, like any motor, can be compared to the work done by a horse and rated in HP. In fact, electric motors are usually rated in horsepower even though they can be rated in watts or Kw. Apparently, James Watt developed the concept of the HP to help sell his steam engine to horse owners.
In essence, the watt is an SI attemp.t to equate electrical work done to the HP. In fact, the Imperial equivalence is 746 watts per HP.
All in all, these are forces acting on masses. The force developed by an electrical field is the effect the current through a coil has on a torque on the coil conductors in a magnetic field.
Still no proof that EM flowing through space has the ability to do work as electromagnetic energy. That rules out the use of the watt to measure it.
There is nothing in the Clausius definition of the 2nd law that references net energy or heat. It is a simple statement of heat transfer, by its own means. No net.
The findings of Neils Bohr in 1913 negates your idea that any IR source can send IR to another body and have it absorbed. The emission and absor.p.tion of IR is totally frequency dependent and the frequency is a product of the electron orbital frequency. The frequency is related to the mass temperature. The frequency emitted by electrons in colder masses is simply too low to affect (excite) electrons in a hotter body.
> There is nothing
Bordo’s incredulity requires that the Second Law is unrelated to the First:
https://www3.nd.edu/~powers/ame.20231/clausius1879.pdf
Because there is so little work involved in powering that kind of incredulity, it can perpetuate almost indefinitely. The quote comes from a chapter called EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN HEAT AND WORK. The chapter introduction the Second Law is called SECOND MAIN PRINCIPLE OF THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT. But none of that is related to heat.
Sure, Jan.
To parry the “but translation” that usually comes after that first move, let’s cite the original table of content:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:R._Clausius._Die_mechanische_W%C3%A4rmetheorie._Band_1%E2%80%933_(1879%E2%80%941891).pdf&page=13
The title is indeed Zweiter Hauptzatz der mechanischen Warmertheorie. And on page 81 we can indeed read Clausius saying:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:R._Clausius._Die_mechanische_W%C3%A4rmetheorie._Band_1%E2%80%933_(1879%E2%80%941891).pdf&page=101
I skipped the umlauts because there remains one country where ASCII rules. No idea why “von selbst” is being translated to “by its own accord,” but there you go. It’s just “by itself.”
I leave a few openings for our Sky Dragon cranks to dive in. They are welcome to do so.
Oh dear, Wonky Wee Willy, whatever happened to the GHE? Gone? Vanished?
Resorting to pointless inanities is diverting, but unlikely to convince anybody that your opinions should be valued.
At least you seem to have accepted that believers in the CO2 fuelled SkyDragon, whose fiery breath will fry, toast, boil or roast us, are quite mad. Maybe you could try convincing people that your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, is not a sign of mental confusion.
In your mind, does slower cooling really mean heating?
You are definitely strange.
Mike Flynn,
The greenhouse effect does not disappear when you stop asking about it for one day.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Thank you, Gordon,
“Still no proof that EM flowing through space has the ability to do work as electromagnetic energy. That rules out the use of the watt to measure it.”
–
How they did it technically the solar flux (Solar Constant) to be measured as 1362 W/m^2 ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos… to measure the 1362 w/m^2 they would need a detector that converted EM to heat or electrical energy, then they could measure the heating or the amount of voltage/current produced. In essence, they are measuring a different kind of energy in watts, but they are not measuring EM.
The watt is a measure of mechanical or electrical energy, because both can do work. EM can do no work in its electromechanical form. Why should it be measured in watts if it can do no work?
Also, since EM is comprised of a very large bandwidth of individual frequencies/wavelengths, the 1362 w/m^2 does not indicate which frequencies are causing the heating. Different material on the Earth’s surface will respond differently to different frequencies. Therefore, a lump sum value of 1362 w/m^2 tells us nothing about the effect at the surface.
For example, human skins reacts strongly to UV radiation. What else on the surface reacts strongly in the same manner, so that UV causes a chemical change in it? Maybe some organic material but not much else.
Thank you, Gordon.
–
The S-B emission law says about at absolute temperature (T) the EM emission in W/m^2.
–
When the same W/m^2 hits a surface, it does not induce the same absolute temperature (T) as the emitting surface’s absolute temperature (T).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) quantifies the solar energy received by the Earth and therefore is of direct relevance for a possible solar influence on climate change on Earth. We analyse the TSI space measurements from 1991 to 2021, and we derive a regression model that reproduces the measured daily TSI variations with a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 0.17 W/m2. The daily TSI regression model uses the MgII core to wing ratio as a facular brightening proxy and the Photometric Sunspot Index (PSI) as a measure of sunspot darkening. We reconstruct the annual mean TSI backwards to 1700 based on the Sunspot Number (SN), calibrated on the space measurements with an RMSE of 0.086 W/m2. The analysis of the 11 year running mean TSI reconstruction confirms the existence of a 105 year Gleissberg cycle. The TSI level of the current grand minimum is only about 0.15 W/m2 higher than the TSI level of the grand minimum in the beginning of the 18th century.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/5/1072
Wobbly Wee Willy,
Completely irrelevant, not to say pointless.
Do you have a reason for your comment?
If you don’t, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
I know you are irrelevant and pointless, but this paper is indeed about the solar minimum.
Cheers.
Weary Wee Willy,
The solar minimum (whatever that is supposed to be) is completely irrelevant to a GHE which nobody can describe in any way which reflects reality.
Do you have a reason for your comment, or are you just posting random comments for no good reason at all?
Mike Flynn,
The solar minimum of this blog could designate you, the less bright of the Sky Dragon cranks.
Long live and prosper,
Willard, please stop trolling.
This way, Mike.
Thank you.
The all time blathering ignoramus Flynnson once more proved that the only reason for him to appear on this blog is to demonstrate childish contrarianism (known by psychoanalysts as a prelude to dementia).
*
An interesting place in the paper’s discussion in section 4:
” The TSI levels during the earlier grand minima in the beginning of the 18th and the 19th centuries are comparable, around 1363.05 W/m2, while the TSI levels during the later grand minima, in the beginning of the 20th and 21st centuries are also comparable, around 1363.2 W/m2, only 0.15 W/m2 higher than the earlier grand minima.
Clearly, this small TSI level variation cannot explain the occurrence of the LIA.
The main contribution of our study is that, in opposition to earlier studies based on [12], we do not find a significant increase in TSI and hence solar influence on climate change between the Maunder Minimum and the present. ”
*
[12] Eddy, J.A. The maunder minimum. Sciences 1976, 192, 11891202.
*
This is a perfect confirmation of
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks
Miller & al. (2012)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168
Binny,
At least you agree that Willard’s pointless comment is completely irrelevant. To any mythical GHE operation, at least.
Don’t try to kid us, Flynnson.
I don’t agree at all to your lying nonsense.
Your post perfectly confirms the abysmal extent of your stoopidity and ability to distort everything.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You’re in my thread.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Get lost.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Uniting Communities is an inclusive not-for-profit organisation working alongside more than 80,000 South Australians each year as they strive for bright futures and great lives.
What are you braying about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Grrrand Sssolar Minnnimummm Aheaddd!
The Estimated Sun Spot Number in SC25 once more moved down 50 spots a day:
2024 02 20 2024.138 51 9.5 25 29
2024 02 21 2024.141 49 5.6 17 20
2024 02 22 2024.143 54 8.5 13 15
Oh Noes!
” This is the end, beautiful friend
This is the end, my only friend
The end of our elaborate plans
The end of everything that stands ”
Jim Morrison and The Doors (1967)
Binny,
Are you trying to compete with Willard? Is your comment more, or less, pointless than Willard’s?
Nothing to do with anything, unless you feel like showing otherwise.
The all time blathering ignoramus Flynnson once more proved that the only reason for him to appear on this blog is to demonstrate childish contrarianism (known by psychoanalysts as a prelude to dementia).
Your post perfectly confirms the abysmal extent of your stoopidity and ability to distort everything.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Zu Befehl, Obergefreiter Flynnson!
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
One of the worst Doors numbers. That would be around the era when Morrison was pulling his John Thomas out on stage and getting himself arrested. He one-upped that performance in Paris when he OD’ed on heroin.
Dummkopf!!!
I live in a country Greece which is one of the most suitable for the by renewables (solar and wind) electricity production.
We have plenty of sun and wind around the year.
We have over the ~ 55% of electricity produced by renewables.
I doubt we could ever achieve the 100% renewables goals.
What about the countries with much less sun and wind then? What about the countries with long and cold winters?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
1. ” I doubt we could ever achieve the 100% renewables goals. ”
Nobody expects anyone to drop off 100% fossile fuel.
*
” What about the countries with much less sun and wind then? What about the countries with long and cold winters? ”
They just need not to care about where to go with the nuclear waste, and to say: ‘Our children, grand-children, grand-grand-children etc etc etc: they all will solve the problem for us’.
Having said that, they are free to use nuclear energy :–)
*
Nota bene
Fusion works for simple technical reasons only with deuterium+tritium.
Means:
– tritium does not exist in nature (about 5 kg above the oceans), hence it must be bred out of lithium in blankets (300 to lithium, 1 to beryllium as neutron replicator, 800 to zirconium/steel alloy around the two).
– brute force neutrons come out of d+t (14 MeV); no one knows how long a fusion reactor can live with that.
*
Bonne chance.
Aaargh: 100 to beryllium
Bindidion,
You wrote “Nobody expects anyone to drop off 100% fossile fuel.”
Seems as if you don’t listen to what is being demanded by those on your side of the aisle. Why is that too many narcissistic echoes in your skull?
By your malinformed views on nuclear power you seem not to understand science. Why don’t you look into how various countries deal with nuclear waste.
Dev Null,
Net Zero implies zero on *net*:
https://netzeroclimate.org/what-is-net-zero-2/
What we dump in the atmosphere needs to be sucked out of it.
If you don’t know how that works, ask Freeman.
A couple trillion dollars to Africa to plant a trillion trees. More per tree in beginning. And also fund fossil fuel power plants {more capital funding}
Since once get trillion trees planted in few decades, it suck up more CO2 than added powerplants will make.
But should focus natural gas powerplants as there are lot better.
But need a lot infrastructural up front costs.
> A couple trillion dollars to Africa to plant a trillion trees.
Covering all arable land would buy us something like four years:
https://youtu.be/EBN9JeX3iDs?si=Q2F98_xAQiav137x&t=200
And that leaves us with no arable land.
37 gigatons of CO2 per year isn’t a small quantity.
More coffee?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You don’t seem to realise that man is just putting back a small proportion of what nature removed from the atmosphere in ages past.
Unless you believe in spontaneous creation of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen by magical processes.
Are you really as ignorant as you seem?
Rhetorical question, of course. Your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” rather undercuts your implication that CO2 (or any other gas) results in heating!
Do try to make up your mind – is your mythical GHE supposed to generate cooling or heating?
Mike Flynn,
A fracking company active in the Northern Territory’s Beetaloo Basin may have unlawfully obtained almost $30 million through a publicly-funded Commonwealth “research and development” scheme that explicitly excludes fossil fuel exploration.
What are you braying about?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You dont seem to realise that man is just putting back a small proportion of what nature removed from the atmosphere in ages past.
Unless you believe in spontaneous creation of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen by magical processes.
Are you really as ignorant as you seem?
Rhetorical question, of course. Your description of the GHE as not cooling, slower cooling rather undercuts your implication that CO2 (or any other gas) results in heating!
Do try to make up your mind is your mythical GHE supposed to generate cooling or heating?
Mike, Mike,
The Northern Territory, or NT, government is particularly eager to exploit its fossil fuel reserves and wants to open up extraction in the Beetaloo Basin as part of its gas strategy. The NT recently announced a $1.32 billion fossil fuel subsidy for gas infrastructure project Middle Arm and greenlighted the drilling of 12 wells by fracking company Tamboran Resources as a first step towards full production.
So, again – what are you braying about?
–37 gigatons of CO2 per year isnt a small quantity.
More coffee?–
No one is worried about China’s CO2 emissions.
I need to make a new pot.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You dont seem to realise that man is just putting back a small proportion of what nature removed from the atmosphere in ages past.
Unless you believe in spontaneous creation of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen by magical processes.
Are you really as ignorant as you seem?
Rhetorical question, of course. Your description of the GHE as not cooling, slower cooling rather undercuts your implication that CO2 (or any other gas) results in heating!
Do try to make up your mind is your mythical GHE supposed to generate cooling or heating?
Mike Flynn,
An official at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) allegedly oversaw the mass shredding of documents just days after the organization’s chief Matt Schlapp was accused of sexual assault.
What are you braying about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
There is not any emergencies to rush. The fossil fuels burning (the intensive CO2 emissions) do not whatsoever affect Global climate temperature.
–
Global warming happens because of the more uniform global temperature. It is getting warmer for some millennials now.
–
At present, the Earth is at perihelion very close to the winter solstice.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” It is getting warmer for some millennials now. ”
No. The nearest Milankovitch cycle flip is the precession, which we are about to meet. Then the next 11,000 years or so will slowly experience cooling.
What Milankovitch cycle flip? I haven’t seen a paper documenting the cooling and warming methods of the Milankovitch cycles or for that matter CO2. All I see are claims such documentation exists which should be clear to everybody is a bald faced lie.
Explain to us Bindidon what the ”100,000 year problem” is. . .the missing proof from Milankovitch.
> I haven’t seen
Step 1 – denial.
***
> Explain to us
Step 2 – sammich request.
Willard continues with his impotency in providing believable excuses for the lack of anybody having proof of anything key to the Gaia climate belief system.
And I there is no denial on my part. I have already recognized that CO2 can have a role in climate change. . .namely that if the CO2 is hotter than the surface it will help warm the surface. The only question is by how much it’s probably not much at all. Willard wants to suggest that I am a denier that cold stuff warms warm stuff and that the colder it gets the more it warms. Yeah I do find that pretty darned implausible. Scientists who care about their reputations will embrace the warmer CO2 warming a cold surface then start talking statistics like mean global temperature that is an average of all temperatures and speak with certainty that warm stuff will warm cold stuff and then let id-iots start showing pictures of the earth in flames.
> there is no denial on my part.
More denial from Gill who, as a boomer, believes he’s owed all the sammiches he requests.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1630161
> impotency in providing believable excuses for the lack of anybody having proof of anything
Step 2 sammich request under the form of a ad hominem.
***
> Yeah I do find that pretty darned implausible.
Step 1 – denial under the form of implausible deniability.
***
> The only question is
Ze Inspecteur Clouseau strikes again!
The incomprehensible and functionally illiterate Willard strikes again!
He apparently thinks that demonstrating his inability to spell “sandwich” is a mark of superior intelligence. He compounds his bizarre affectation with obscure references to some mythical “Gill” and “boomers” – not to mention “Ze Inspecteur Clouseau”!
What a weird lad is Willard! Mind you, his description of the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling” – which puts him at odds with the dummies who believe that the GHE is responsible for planetary warming (without actually saying so, of course).
I suppose Willard could always claim he is acting like an immature adolescent for some good reason, but my opinion is that he is mentally defective, and cannot help himself.
My opinion is worth precisely what you paid for it, of course.
Mike Flynn at least tries to entertain.
Beetaloo Basin gas fracking company Tamboran Resources has notified the ASX of its intention to re-domicile to Delaware in the United States, a jurisdiction known for corporate secrecy and tax avoidance.
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wise choice, Mike Flynn.
Willard you are just all over this because you want to deflect from the Milankovitch 100,000 year problem brought up in my post to Bindidon.
Hopefully Bindidon will expound. . .but I am guessing he left the building.
Gill pretends there is a problem where he hasn’t read anything.
LOL!
I have read enough Willard to know one should not ignore the 9C periodic changes between glacial and interglacial periods without anything to explain it. Earths elliptical orbit may rotate on a 100,000 year basis but one must also explain the elongation of earths orbit between .0034 and .058 and that is not explained by anything anybody seems to be aware of.
NASA says: ”the oval-shaped path Earth follows in its orbit around the Sun also wobbles irregularly, primarily due to its interactions with Jupiter and Saturn. The cycle of apsidal precession spans about 112,000 years. Apsidal precession changes the orientation of Earths orbit relative to the ecliptic plane.”
that doesn’t involve a periodic irregularity in the earth’s distance from the sun year over year, decade over decade, nor century over century.
they are silent on the causes of the 100,000 year elongation of the orbit that will cause variability in sunlight received by virtue of the square distance law. Yet another issue like the MWP and the LIA that our faithful academic institutions have been doing their best to bury as deep as they can.
Gill still pretends he read. When will he show that he understands something more advanced than a quote explaining a model for third-grader? LOL!
Fascinating.
Hopefully we are two months beyond the winter solstice and well on our way to the Spring equinox.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
What is stock gas?
Stock gases are long-lived gases. Meaning, once emitted, stock gases will remain and stockpile in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from the burning of fossil fuels is the most abundant stock gas in our atmosphere and significantly contributes to climate change. So, every time we drive our gas powered cars to work, to school, to the grocery store, and beyond, the CO2 emitted from the tailpipe builds upon CO2 already in the atmosphere and will have a warming effect on our climate for thousands of years.
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/news/greenhouse-gas-emissions-what-difference-between-stock-and-flow-gases
“What is stock gas?”
Yes, yes, and greenhouse gases are gases found in greenhouses. GHE cultists love creating meaningless jargon – slow cooling is heating (it’s not), CO2 is a deadly poison (only in concentrations above 70,000 ppm or so), some gases are radiative (all gases are), and so on.
Forcings, feedbacks, backradiation – all distortions of words to impress the gullible that self styled “climate scientists” are wise and knowledgeable, rather than silly and ignorant.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. Even ChatGPT agrees that the mythical GHE was unable to prevent the laws o& physics from operating!
I know you can’t help boasting about how silly and ignorant you are, so you have my approval to carry on. Others can decide for themselves whether your opinions should be valued.
More bafflegab to confuse the masses.
More gesticulation from Bordo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Begone.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
What 97% consensus about the AGW?
Why we do not see even a minority of 10% supporting AGW?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It’s fascinating how some proponents of AGW appear to treat their preferred hypothesis of CO2-dominated warming as the default null hypothesis. They demand an extensive array of evidence to challenge their stance and seem quite liberal in slapping labels like ‘deniers’ and ‘science-believers’ on those who may question their narrative. It’s comical how they assert the burden of proof should be on skeptics, completely overlooking their own responsibility to prove definitively that natural variation can be entirely ruled out. Javier Vinos has effectively exposed the error in rejecting natural variation as a potential cause, rendering their unwavering confidence a bit awkward, to say the least.
w,
For anybody interested, the supremely ignorant Kevin Trenberth (doesn’t know the Earth has cooled, doesn’t know that the absence of heat means there is none) proposed turning the scientific method on its head with regard to the null hypothesis.
Here’s a taste –
“That question, the nature of the null hyopthesis in climate research, is what Trenberth wants to change. So provocative is his argument, that the journal commissioned two responses to appear along with his paper and put all three online outside a firewall.”
In other words, if facts don’t support your dreams, change the facts.
The Mother of all Alarmists, the IPCC, cannot offer a scientific definition of the anthropogenic theory. All they can offer is…
1)Scientists in the 19th century claimed CO2 can absorb infrared energy and a couple of them claimed that ***COULD*** lead to a warmer atmosphere. They did not specify how much warming to expect, even though the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation limits CO2 warming to its mass percent of about 0.06%.
2)Based on 1), they have hypothesized that increasing CO2 since the Industrial Era has caused the planet to warm. However, the Industrial Era began circa 1750 and it was a full century before warming was claimed. Meantime, a mini ice age was just finishing circa 1850. In fact one peak of the Little Ice Age occurred circa 1790.
Why was no warming claimed since 1750? Duh!!! There was a mini ice age happening.
It appears the IPCC and its alarmist contributors cannot think clearly. They have overlooked an obvious natural cause for the current warming while leaning on a ridiculous cause with no scientific proof.
> cannot offer a scientific definition of the anthropogenic theory.
Denial and sammich request at the same time.
Beautiful.
Willard boasts about being illiterate.
Sammich? Skillz? Muricans?
What a clown – typical GHE SkyDragon cultist!
Good for a bit of comic relief, I suppose. He claims the GHE causes cooling, by insulating something or other.
Rational people believe hot things cool all by themselves – no GHE necessary.
Mike Flynn is enamored with his irrelevancy.
He could be energetic, positive, self-motivated leader with an entrepreneurial spirit, but he prefers to be a buffoon for a small crew of Sky Dragon cranks.
Willard boasts about being illiterate.
Sammich? Skillz? Muricans?
What a clown typical GHE SkyDragon cultist!
Good for a bit of comic relief, I suppose. He claims the GHE causes cooling, by insulating something or other.
Rational people believe hot things cool all by themselves no GHE necessary.
Mike Flynn is enamored with his irrelevancy.
He could be an energetic, positive, self-motivated leader with an entrepreneurial spirit. Sometimes he pretends he is.
He still prefers to be a buffoon for a small crew of Sky Dragon cranks.
Willard boasts about being illiterate.
Sammich? Skillz? Muricans?
What a clown typical GHE SkyDragon cultist!
Good for a bit of comic relief, I suppose. He claims the GHE causes cooling, by insulating something or other.
Rational people believe hot things cool all by themselves no GHE necessary.
Mike Flynn might be too old to be on the Internet.
The IPCC’s assumptions rely on climate models; however, these models have trouble simulating past climate changes. There’s a claim that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) were regional rather than global, and that the models simulate global anomalies relatively well. Well, based on that logic, if it were truly the case, they wouldn’t have problems simulating past periods. After all, it’s the aggregate of regional anomalies that makes up the global anomaly.
Nonetheless, many hold up climate models similarly to Newtonian gravity, despite the fact that Isaac developed his model based on real-world observations along with Kepler’s Laws on Planetary Motion. Climate, on the other hand, is chaotic, and historical observations are not reliable predictors of the future.
> The IPCCs assumptions
Name three.
CO2 levels remained constant prior to the Industrial Revolution.
The past can be used to hypothesize future change.
Correlation equals causation.
None of those are IPCC assumptions.
They are run-of-the-mill ‘skeptic’ talking points.
Willard, Barry, please stop trolling.
Until you can at least describe the GHE in some way which reflects reality, your mad opinions are worth what I just paid for them.
In case you are particularly dim, that means I place no value at all on your opinions.
three more…
-CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere
-the Little Ice Age applied only to Europe.
-the CO2 concentration in the pre-Industrial Era was 270 ppmv.
three more…
-it is unequivocal that humans are causing global warming
-it is 95% likely humans are causing climate change through global warming.
-unvalidated climate models can predict future climate states.
Mike Flynn,
Monkey Man just showed that he has no idea what’s an assumption.
As for Bordo, we already knew that.
Willard, please stop trolling.
barry:
“None of those are IPCC assumptions.
They are run-of-the-mill skeptic talking points.”
An assumption, by definition, forms the foundation of prior knowledge integrated into your argument. The hockey stick’s conclusion is predicated on the assumption that CO2 concentration remained constant until the industrial revolution, with temperature subsequently following. The IPCC employs the hockey stick in its reports. The utilization of CMIP6 is based on the assumption that climate can indeed be modeled; why does the IPCC use models? The IPCC statistically models global surface temperatures with models of volcanic and solar activity. In their AR6 report, for solar activity, they assigned a contribution value of -0.01C. For CO2 concentration, they assign a value of 1.01C; this can be categorized as assuming correlation equals causation.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/papers-on-co2-records-from-ice-cores/
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/papers-on-atmospheric-co2-from-proxies/
An assumption is an unexamined belief. Historical CO2 levels have been empirically measured in ice cores and other proxies. This is not an assumption.
Learn the meaning of words.
A proxy. by definition, is not a thermometer. It assumes that all other contributing factors are equal.
That’s got nothing to do with the point, RLH.
An assumption is a position or a premise that is held without investigating its veracity. That is not the case for historic CO2 levels.
Barry,
The assumption that ice cores provide excellent temporal resolution is flawed. Nowhere on Earth experiences constant snowfall or snowfall accumulation; the polar regions, especially, have much more variable weather year to year. Each layer cannot be representative of a year’s worth of snowfall. Abrupt changes in oceanic circulation patterns, topography, volcanic activity, etc., could have occurred at any point during the past that can lead to an abrupt change in snowfall patterns. Gas concentrations can mix within the layers of ice (diffusion).
> The assumption that ice cores provide excellent temporal resolution
And now Monkey Man is borrowing Gill’s technique. He’s a quick learner!
Astute readers will notice that no, ice cores provide excellent temporal resolution is not an assumption. Nor is it something the IPCC ever said.
“Astute readers will notice that no, ice cores provide excellent temporal resolution is not an assumption. Nor is it something the IPCC ever said.”
No, I just explained why. The IPCC and paleoclimatologists put value of ice cores in their reports in attempting to understand past climate variations. Provide an explanation as to why I am wrong rather than making fun of me.
Do you really believe that people outside of the participating commentators read these comments?
> No, I just explained why
No, Monkey Man, you did not.
Provide an explanation as to why the IPCC would need to make that silly assumption.
Alternatively, show you RTFR.
So are you saying that the IPCC doesn’t use ice cores in an attempt to infer past climate change?
If the organization does, then what I’m saying is correct: they are assuming that ice cores are a valid approach to determine past climate change.
So you are saying you haven’t RTFR, Monkey Man?
Remember what I told you about carrying your weight on the Climateball field, Monkey Man –
This is your talking point, not mine.
I won’t move it forward for you.
Please elaborate; show me my erroneous thinking.
You have a knack to always ask for more work and to disappear when come the time to acknowledge it or to provide work in return, Monkey Man.
Show me you RTFR, then we will see.
walter,
‘Barry,
The assumption that ice cores provide excellent temporal resolution is flawed.”
You have invented yet another assumption that the IPCC doesn’t hold.
AR5:
“Key limitations are associated with ice core chronologies…
Since AR4, the temporal resolution of ice core records has been enhanced…”
If they believe temporality is excellent, why do they keep trying to improve it?
“The fundamental limitations for deriving past temperature variability at global/hemispheric scales are the relatively short instrumental period and the number, temporal and geographical distribution, reliability and climate signal of proxy records (Jones et al., 2009)…
Integration of low-resolution records (e.g., marine or some lake sediment cores and some speleothem records) with high-resolution tree-ring, ice core and coral records in global/hemispheric reconstructions is still challenging. Dating uncertainty, limited replication and the possibility of temporal lags in low-resolution records (Jones et al., 2009) make regression-based calibration particularly difficult…”
Every report indicates the associated uncertainties and improvements in understanding with proxy uncertainties. The IPCC makes no “assumptions” about the temporal reliability of ice core records.
Another ‘skeptic’ talking point that ‘skeptics’ don’t bother to investigate.
w,
You wrote “Climate, on the other hand, is chaotic, and historical observations are not reliable predictors of the future.”
Spot on. GHE cultists positively refuse to believe that it is not possible to predict future climate states – even though the IPCC itself made that statement themselves?
In a fully deterministic chaotic system, the approximate present does not determine the approximate future. Further, there is no minimum change to present conditions which may result in any chaotic outcome.
As E Lorenz pointed out, the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil may cause a tornado in Texas – or prevent one. No-one knows – the atmosphere acts chaotically. You are no doubt aware of the implications, but I believe many people – even physicist with PhDs – refuse to accept things like chaos, quantum electrodynamics or the uncertainty principle.
Einstein refused to accept quantum physics and the uncertainty principle. I believe Einstein was wrong. Does that make me smarter than Einstein? Not at all. Some “climate scientists” are no doubt extremely intelligent. Those who believe in a GHE which they cannot even describe are just rejecting reality – like Einstein.
Trenberth has two points to make.
1. It’s time to reverse the standard null hypothesis from “humans have not caused warming of the planet,” to “humans have caused warming of the planet.”
2. Failing to disprove the null doesn’t mean that the null is proved.
He has plenty of evidence to make the case for 1. The original null has had an extraordinary amount of focus for several decades, and the conclusion that it is rejected has arguably been the case since at least 2015 and the release of the 5th IPCC report.
AR5 SPM: “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.”
But Trenberth refers to the 2007 report, AR4, which says that there is
“… very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.”
The qualifier is defined to be 90% confidence, which falls below the standard for significance testing. Trenberth’s argument becomes very weak with this reference.
The reasoning behind 2 is on much firmer ground. The null hypothesis is made of two conjectures, the null and the alternative hypothesis. Failure to exclude the null does not confirm it.
I don’t think it is a particularly good paper. The reasoning isn’t streamlined to a particular point. And while he may have plenty of supporting evidence for his first point, I don’t see much scientific utility in it. I agree with Curry that it seems to be a political view.
I think the burden of proof is most often put on ‘skeptics’ when they commit the type II error and treat the null as being proved.
barry,
Trenberth is a fool. He refuses to believe that the Earth has cooled, and any mythical GHE was unable to prevent this cooling.
About as silly as Schmidt et. al. writing a nonsensical paper claiming that CO2 heats the planet – in spite of four and a half billion years of history to the contrary.
Keep wriggling. Maybe you can find a description of the GHE which reflects reality in Trenberth’s work? Only joking, of course you can’t!
Try another appeal to authority – Schmidt, Mann, Hansen – surely one of them can provide what you can’t.
Off you go, now.
The GHE is well explained in the articles at any of these links by Dr Roy Spencer.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/
I’ve quoted them extensively above, and I know you’ve seen them, because you have replied to those posts, Swenson.
How does Dr Spencer’s descriptions of the GHE fail to be based in reality? Please be specific.
barry,
You wrote –
“How does Dr Spencers descriptions of the GHE fail to be based in reality? Please be specific.”
You haven’t provided any description of the GHE which reflects reality, have you?
Just a collection of irrelevant links. Maybe you could quote the description to which you refer?
Does one of the links contain such a description, and if so, why provide three that don’t? All this wriggling and ducking isn’t terribly impressive, is it? For all I know, you’re just making a sly attempt to get Dr Spencer to ban me! Be a man, stand up for yourself! Just demand that Dr Spencer censors my posts!
You can’t support your mythical GHE, can you? You can’t even find a description of it that reflects reality – anywhere. Even ChatGPT agrees with me – and this is what you said about ChatGPT earlier –
“This doesnt mean that ChatGPT will answer everything correctly. Its just a language processor.
What it does mean is that its physics “knowledge” is not based on any particular ideas of its programmers, but on a vast trove of formal literature that it trawls to answer questions.”
Are you now saying that ChatGPT is incorrect in supporting me, or that is a poorly programmed , good-for-nothing word processor? Or that the vast trove of formal literature is unreliable as a source of fact?
Off you go barry, you need another tangent to fly off at. Your present efforts don’t seem to be achieving much.
I’ve quoted them extensively above, and I know you’ve seen them, because you have replied to those posts, Swenson.
So spare us your feigned ignorance and click on the links to the articles, or you can read where I’ve quoted them above by clicking here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1629607
If you agree that Dr Spencer’s descriptions of the GHE are rooted in reality, please say so.
If you think they are not, please say why not.
barry,
You can’t actually provide a description of the GHE which reflects reality, from Dr Spencer or anybody else!
None of your links contain such a description, otherwise you would have proudly waved it in my face!
You’re as pathetic as Willard, demanding that I waste time by clicking on pointless and irrelevant links! Go on, demonstrate that I’m wrong. You can’t, can you?
What a nitwit you are.
Mike Flynn,
You are showing what would happen if cops did not have to read Miranda rights:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Swenson,
All the links contain a description of the GHE.
You are lying. Either you haven’t read the articles, or you have and are telling a lie about the contents.
Either way, you are a liar.
When you get around to reading Dr Spencer’s descriptions of the GHE, do let us know if you think they are based in reality. Or explain why they are not.
barry,
You wrote “All the links contain a description of the GHE.”
No they don’t – certainly none that reflect reality, because the GHE doesn’t exist. Dummies like you probably claim unicorns exist because they have been described! Unfortunately, not in any way which reflects reality.
Dr Spencer has not provided any relevant description of the GHE of which I am aware. Maybe you could actually quote such a description, rather than just claiming that the contents of your fantasy are real.
You have suckered yourself into believing something which doesnt exist!
Carry on trying to convince the exceptionally dim or gullible that you can turn fiction into fact.
You replied upthread beneath the very quotes you request.
So all you have is cretinous deceit. Ah well.
barry,
You wrote All the links contain a description of the GHE.
No they dont certainly none that reflect reality, because the GHE doesnt exist. Dummies like you probably claim unicorns exist because they have been described! Unfortunately, not in any way which reflects reality.
Dr Spencer has not provided any relevant description of the GHE of which I am aware. Maybe you could actually quote such a description, rather than just claiming that the contents of your fantasy are real.
You have suckered yourself into believing something which doesnt exist!
Carry on trying to convince the exceptionally dim or gullible that you can turn fiction into fact.
Others can draw their own conclusions.
Mike Flynn,
There is no need for you to prove every day that you are a deceitful cretin.
To claim modern global climate change is dominated by a single variable is a far more extraordinary claim than natural variability. Logic would dictate that it’s easy to dismiss such a claim. The definition of global climate change would be the aggregate of regional phenomena all over Earth. The IPCC and modern climate science use temperature as a proxy, despite the fact that these changes involve teleconnections that go far beyond temperature.
The null is about whether the planet as a whole is warming due to human influences, and that has mountains of evidence, sufficient to make an argument that the null should be that human activity has warmed the surface of the Earth.
Trenberth rightly points out in his paper that attributing human influence to particular weather events is a much taller order of difficulty.
barry,
Hang on there just a second, pardner!
Which is it? The planet as a whole, or the surface of the Earth?
Maybe you really meant to say “thermometers” but your present state of mental confusion means you don’t actually know what you are saying at all!
Trenberth is an ignorant fool, who can’t even describe the GHE in any way which reflects reality. Hence all your contortions – bobbing and ducking, all implication and innuendo.
Nobody can usefully predict outcomes of a chaotic system. We assume that the Sun will rise tomorrow, that tomorrow will be much the same as today, and so on. We live in hope.
And why not. The future is unknowable, even though you refuse to acknowledge it.
Mike Flynn,
Wait a second. Are you trying to play silly semantic games with Barry?
I hope you realize that Bordo is rehearsing a 2011 meme:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/2744926652
barry,
Hang on there just a second, pardner!
Which is it? The planet as a whole, or the surface of the Earth?
Maybe you really meant to say thermometers but your present state of mental confusion means you dont actually know what you are saying at all!
Trenberth is an ignorant fool, who cant even describe the GHE in any way which reflects reality. Hence all your contortions bobbing and ducking, all implication and innuendo.
Nobody can usefully predict outcomes of a chaotic system. We assume that the Sun will rise tomorrow, that tomorrow will be much the same as today, and so on. We live in hope.
And why not. The future is unknowable, even though you refuse to acknowledge it.
Which part don’t you understand, Willard?
You don’t need to answer.
Semantic quibbles, Swenson? I’d say you were scraping the bottom of the barrel, but that would be a redundant comment. You live there.
barry, please stop trolling.
There is no type II error. The anthropoegnic theory has never been proved, case closed.
The null hypothesis is a philosophical argument that has no place in science. It is simple gobbeldygook aimed at trying to prove something related to statistical theory when there is insufficient evidence to offer a proof. It’s akin to invoking the frame of reference nonsense where it does not apply.
Trenberth lost his credibility following the climate email scandal when he was revealed as claiming the warming has stopped, but only in secret to his alarmist cronies via email. When the emails were released, he had egg on his face and resorted to a lame excuse that the ‘missing’ heat is being stored i the oceans.
Later, he interfered in peer review at least twice. On one occasion his unwarranted criticism of a journal editor, who had published a paper from a skeptic, forced the editor to resign. In the climategate emails, Phil Jones of Had-crut, who is partnered with Trenberth at IPCC reviews as Coordinating Lead Authors, threatened that he and ‘Kevin; would see to it that skeptic’s paper would not reach the review stage.
IMHO, Trenberth is not to be trusted but Barry seems to think his type is OK. Reveals a lot about Barry’s character.
> The null hypothesis is a philosophical argument
It’s actually a statistical argument. Also, why not cite the talk? Here it is:
https://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Paper180230.html
Emphasis for Monkey Man.
Kevin is entitled to his editorials, just like cranks are.
Wonky Wee Willy,
“Given that global warming is unequivocal, . . .”
You obviously are not referring to the globe which we call the Earth, which even CharGPT agrees has cooled, in line with your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Are you confused, or purposely trying to misrepresent the facts, as is usual for GHE cultists?
If your link refers to Kevin Trenberth, it merely supports the obvious conclusion that he is severely misguided. He obviously doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Mike Flynn,
I’m not the one who makes the claim, so I’m not the one who’s referring to your pet squirrel.
What are you braying about?
Given that global warming is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of “of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.”
If global warming is unequivocal, why are certain areas of the world not experiencing warming, such as the Nino 3.4 region or portions of Antarctica? Additionally, the definition of warming becomes crucial is it strictly long-term? What about instances where warming has ceased since around 2000? Using the flawed methodology favored by climate science, I discovered a pause in my area since November 1999.
The logic surrounding the automatic attribution of extreme weather events to global warming is peculiar. Climate, as defined by the WMO, is 30 years of weather data, so how can every weather event be ascribed to global warming?
Despite the downward trend in the Nino 3.4 index since 1979, heavy precipitation events in California are swiftly attributed to global warming. The recent instance of a Pineapple Express causing extreme weather in California is cited as evidence, despite the Nino 3.4 index indicating decreasing intensity. Similarly, La Nia-induced drought conditions in the Eastern Horn of Africa are paradoxically blamed on global warming, despite its cooling influence. Trenberth’s paragraph highlights the irony in modern climate scientists’ inclination to attribute various weather phenomena to global warming, even when observable trends in ENSO regions contradict such claims.
> If global warming is unequivocal, why are certain areas of the world not experiencing warming,
And so Monkey Man falls for the meteorological fallacy.
He rediscovers every single trick all by himself.
It’s kinda cute.
Willard, please stop trolling.
How about you elaborate on what you write, Willard? You always make fun of what I say, but you never provide any substance. That speaks more about you, your patience, and your intellectual abilities, not mine.
Why is it that I got 4 on two dice when the average is 7, Monkey Man?
I’m afraid I don’t understand you, Willard.
“Why is it that I got 4 on two dice when the average is 7, Monkey Man?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Never be afraid to play dumb, Monkey Man.
I just did a little experiment. I threw two dice 100 times. The average is 7.
Why is it that I didn’t get an average of 7 every 10 throws?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“If global warming is unequivocal, why are certain areas of the world not experiencing warming, such as the Nino 3.4 region or portions of Antarctica?”
“Global warming” refers to the average temperature of the global surface, troposphere, and/or oceans.
It does not imply a uniform warming at the same rate everywhere, or even that everywhere is warming. A few locations – less than 10% of the global surface – have not warmed, or have not warmed to statistical significance.
Global warming does not prevent weather happening.
It is unequivocal that the globally averaged surface temperature has increased since 1900, or since 1950, or since 1979.
“Additionally, the definition of warming becomes crucial is it strictly long-term?”
Yes.
We are speaking of a changing climate. Take the seasons. If in the middle of Summer today is colder than yesterday, does that mean Summer isn’t warmer than the previous season, or Winter?
In terms of global climate the standard climate period is 30 years. This is considered long enough for short-term phenomena that are internal to the climate system – like ENSO – to statistically average out. It is also a long enough period to achieve statistical significance on global trends, such as temperature. A signal is statistically more likely to reveal itself above the noise with 30 years, whereas shorter periods allow interannual variability to distort the signal.
This is the the same Stephen Schneider who once questioned whether it was appropriate for scientists to lie for ‘the cause’. He thought we in the public were too stoopid to figure it out for ourselves and that kindly alarmists should lie to us about the reality to get us back on track.
I notice that you have underlined one of his lies, that global warming is unequivocal. Also, a perfect example of the null hypothesis being used to support lies.
Your nonsense is tiring, Gordon. The warming of the surface IS unequivocal, and it is not just because Schneider said it. The evidence is conclusive.
barry,
What does statistically significant global warming mean outside of an Excel spreadsheet? Even if a result is statistically significant, that doesn’t mean the observed effect has real-world implications. For example, Link #1 is the yearly average temperature over the past five decades, while Link #2 is the last recorded spring frost by year. You can see that the last spring frost has actually been extending further and further out into the spring. There are other metrics you can use too: the first snowfall in the autumn season, the last snowfall in the spring season, the first 90+ degree day, etc.
Link #1: https://postimg.cc/SX42N1Hj
Link #2: https://postimg.cc/hzkryHSD
Why averages? Averaging temperature makes no sense; a monthly temperature anomaly is sensitive to extremes that may not even be climatologically speaking unusual. The mean temperature can change without the range of temperature actually shifting in a single location.
“It is unequivocal that the globally averaged surface temperature has increased since 1900, or since 1950, or since 1979.
Temperature records prior to ASOS thermometers likely have too much uncertainty, especially if you extend your analysis globally. Never mind that most of the surface temperature record was dominated by the United States before 1950 or so.
“I just did a little experiment. I threw two dice 100 times. The average is 7.
Why is it that I didnt get an average of 7 every 10 throws?”
Because the outcome of rolling dice is subject to randomness.
Quite an arithmetic buff we got there.
Let’s revise the experiment. I make 360 dice throws, the average now is 7.5, and every 36 throws the average increases.
Are my dice still purely driven by randomness?
No, there’s an element of non-randomness. The average value for each die over a very large number of rolling intervals would be 3.5. This is the law of large numbers.
Yes, Monkey Man. Then, following your logic, the non-random part should only mean something if it is also found in the subsets of our simulation. Which breaks the Law you invoked.
This is the meteorological fallacy in a nutshell.
Do you start to see the problem behind your silly gotcha?
No, I don’t understand the relevance of this exercise. In context of meteorology, the chaos theory challenges the applicability of the law of large numbers.
Of course you don’t understand, Monkey Man. It’s basic arithmetic.
What if I told you that regional time series were a subset of the global time series?
Oh, and you’re wrong about chaos:
https://www.uh.edu/nsm/news-events/stories/2019/0116-dynamical-systems.php
You could be doing stuff that this student is doing instead of wasting time regurgitating contrarian talking points.
walter,
Since you mentioned chaos I’ll use terms from chaos theory. The attractor is a point around which a chaotic process oscillates. If the attractor moved then you know that the average of the chaotic process will have changed. Similarly, if the average of the chaotic process changed then you know the attractor must have moved. Think of the chaotic process as weather and the attractor as climate. If we observe a change (with statistical significance) in the average of a property describing weather (like daily temperature) then we know that the climate attractor has moved. For example, if the climate system takes on more heat then we would expect weather to oscillate chaotically around a higher average temperature.
Meanwhile, Monkey Man found a new shiny object:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1631858
The last spring frost in one town in Utah?
Walter, you have picked a parameter that will be highly dependent on the vagaries of its local weather history.
IOW, statistically, it will have piss-poor value.
Might as well be testing a new drug on N = 1 person and try to draw meaningful conclusions.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier…wee willy makes a valiant attempt to read into the works of Clausius but unfortunately it is nothing more than an exercise in copying and pasting. It is a response to a claim I made in respond to Barry that…
“> There is nothing [in the Clausius definition of the 2nd law that references net energy or heat. It is a simple statement of heat transfer, by its own means. No net]”.
For some reason, wee willy missed the context of my reply which is simple…there is nothing in the works of Clausius related to the 2nd law that infers a “net” quantity of heat transfer. Wee willy’s reply does not address this point.
I have no idea what wee willy’s reply has to do with this but in his zeal to copy the words from Clausius he failed to notice that several words are missing and the missing words create a confusion over what is being said. This indicates to me that wee willy has no interest in understanding the meaning of Clausius but only an interest in copying and pasting.
I have no idea why wee willy thinks a comparison between the 1st and 2nd laws is related to my comment that no evidence exists that the 2nd law is a reference to net heat transfer. That is an alarmist claims which lends to their pseudo-science that heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures. With that pseudo-science established for their alarmist hordes they can claim heat can be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a hotter surface.
The following are quotes from Clausius on the 2nd Law.
“…it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
“…the principle [2nd Law of Thermodynamics] implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.”
And here is a modern text on the same principle:
“The sun and the Earth both radiate heat towards each other. This seems to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that heat cannot flow from a cold body to a hot body. The paradox is resolved by the fact that each body must be in direct line of sight of the other to receive the radiation from it. Therefore, whenever the cool body is radiating heat to the hot body, the hot body must be radiating heat to the cool body. Since the hot body radiates more heat (due to its higher temperature) than the cold body, the NET flow of heat is from hot to cold and the second law is still satisfied”
barry…”How does Dr Spencers descriptions of the GHE fail to be based in reality? Please be specific”.
***
Barry is on Roy’s blog criticizing what Roy stands for yet he sees nothing wrong referencing Roy on the GHE.
Yes, Bordo. Adults can agree on things while disagreeing on others. I agree with about about Mackintosh amps and I root for your Canucks. I disagree with your monomaniacal tendencies.
Try it sometimes.
“I disagree with your monomaniacal tendencies.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
> I agree with about about Mackintosh
I agree with you about Mackintosh amps, of course.
Barry…if you are going to cherry-pick Clausius at least have the scientific integrity to explain the quotes.
I have explained quote one several times. In the day of Clausius, all scientists believed that heat flowed through space as heat rays (radiation). None of them knew a thing about the relationship between electrons in atoms and EM, mainly because electrons were not discovered till 1898 and Bohr did not relate them to radiation till 1913. Clausius was clearly wrong by inferring a two way heat transfer via radiation and I can support that claim by referencing the Bohr theory.
The truth is that heat cannot be transferred via radiation, it is first converted to EM then back to heat, provided a body can absorb the EM. Clausius was clear that the 2nd law applied to radiation as well even though he did make the statement you have cherry-picked. It is unfortunate, that despite his genius, he could not possibly visualize how heat was really related to electrons and EM. No one in his day had the slightest idea of the form of EM we now understand much better.
Quote 2 is taken out of context. Clausius was referencing a theoretical situation in which heat could be transferred both ways but that could not be accomplished without external compensation. The only way it could be done is by manipulating temperature, volume, and pressure to make it possible. That cannot be done naturally and that is what Clausius is addressing.
In essence, you’d need to inject heat from an external source to make it possible. His point was that no natural interchange of temperature, volume, and pressure can allow heat to be moved cold to hot.
He added that in order for it to happen, a compensation was required that transferred heat to the colder body as it supplied heat to the hotter body. It turns out this compensation is complex and well beyond a natural heat transfer.
He was addressing a part of his statement that heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot. In particular, he was explaining the meaning of ‘by itself’, which he later called ‘without compensation’.
Remember, when this statement was made, no one anywhere knew anything about electrons and their relationship with EM. It was presumed that heat could be transferred both ways by radiation and that was proved wrong by Bohr. He proved that EM could not be transferred cold to hot because electrons in a hotter target would not respond to EM from electrons in a colder body. I think that’s what Clausius meant but he lacked the information about electrons and the EM they generate.
Bordo is a gulo gulo.
“Bordo is a gulo gulo.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
“I have explained quote one several times. In the day of Clausius, all scientists believed that heat flowed through space as heat rays”
That is beside the point.
You said Clausius did not infer NET exchange of heat/radiation in his 2nd Law remarks.
He did. I have quoted him doing that.
Your musings about the ‘aether’ are irrelevant to this.
You say:
“Clausius was clearly wrong by inferring a two way heat transfer via radiation”
And voila – you have just accepted that Clausius inferred a NET exchange. Now you are saying that he is WRONG about it.
For the 2nd quote Clausius is restating and clarifying the 2nd Law as a preface to the chapter on his modifying of Carnot’s theorem.
When he says “… in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it” he is describing the 2nd Law in language that will serve his modification with a heat engine.
An immediate interchange is the circumstance before a heat engine is introduced. In the next paragraph he introduces a heat engine in which the exchange is not immediate, but mediate
“In this case the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation for the ascending transmission.”
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor04claugoog/page/n137/mode/2up
Footnotes at page 117.
Both these quotes say the same thing, and he clearly states it is the case both for conduction and radiation. The luminous aether is irrelevant regarding conduction, so it is not necessary to his principle here.
The Clausius quotes above are very clearly refute this statement:
“… there is nothing in the works of Clausius related to the 2nd law that infers a ‘net’ quantity of heat transfer.”
barry, maybe you could turn your mind to finding a description of the GHE which reflects reality, rather than trying to convince other cultists that CO2 has planet heating abilities (it doesn’t, of course, that’s just silly).
Or keep playing Wee Willy Wanker’s “silly semantic games” if you prefer.
Carry on.
Do you have Dementia? Only a few hours ago I quoted an atmospheric physicist describing the GHE. And
I know you read those posts because you replied to them.
So what are you braying about?
barry, maybe you could turn your mind to finding a description of the GHE which reflects reality, rather than trying to convince other cultists that CO2 has planet heating abilities (it doesnt, of course, thats just silly).
Or keep playing Wee Willy Wankers “silly semantic games” if you prefer.
Just providing a series of irrelevant links (in which nobody actually describes the GHE in any way which reflects reality, of course), doesn’t demonstrate anything except silliness on your part.
How do I know that the links you provide are irrelevant? Because you posted them, obviously. Feel free to try to demonstrate that my assumption i# wrong. How silly do you want to look?
Carry on.
Do you have Dementia? Only a few hours ago I quoted an atmospheric physicist describing the GHE. And I know you read those posts because you replied to them.
So what are you braying about?
barry,
No you didn’t. Your fantasies are not reality.
You simply believe that the contents of your imagination are facts.
Easy enough to simply demonstrate that you have a description of the GHE which reflects reality. Your previous attempt to appeal to the authority of ChatGPT failed, didn’t it? ChatGPT agreed with me!
Go on, appeal to another authority. Provide this wondrous GHE description which reflects reality. Maybe you could ask your “atmospheric physicist” to send you a copy? No such description appears on the internet, and your insistence that your irrelevant links contain such a description just make you appear quite out of touch with reality.
Others may choose to waste their time looking. None will be able to find what you claim.
There is no GHE.
Mike Flynn,
Search for:
Please ask your day nurse for a refill.
“Search for:”
Willard, please stop trolling.
[BARRY] The Clausius quotes above are very clearly refute this statement: …
[DEMENTED MIKE] maybe you could turn your mind to finding a description of the GHE
[BARRY] Do you have Dementia? Only a few hours ago I quoted an atmospheric physicist describing the GHE.
[DEMENTED MIKE] No you didn’t.
[ME] Search for “barry says: February 24, 2024 at 7:02 PM”
[DEMENTED MIKE] PST.
Where’s Monkey Man when Mike Flynn needs him?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Monkey Man to the rescue:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1630812
Such smarmy swerve!
[BORDO] nothing more than an exercise in copying and pasting
[ALSO BORDO] several words are missing
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard is a monkey.
w,
You may well have offended the monkey kingdom, but you can write it off as poetic licence.
In one respect, his behaviour is monkey-like. He imitates me on occasion, attempting to appear at least human, if not wise and knowledgeable. I take it as sincere flattery, even though it demonstrates his inability to think for himself.
I accept flattery even from the mentally challenged. Why not? They have to have someone to look up to and imitate, I guess.
Swenson,
You should take flattery. Why does he call you Mike Flynn? Your name is clearly Swenson. He didn’t want to take up my challenge toward his arithmetic skills; he just swung around the branch of the tree. Exactly what a monkey would do.
“Ken Rice”
lmao
“”Ken Rice”
lmao”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You like the F-word:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-264966
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn,
You like the F-word:”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn | November 21, 2013 at 1:33 am |
Oy!
Someones taking my name in vain! Or are they?
Oh well, I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
My work here is done. Im vanishing for a while.
Live well,and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/20/20-tips-for-interpreting-scientific-claims/#comment-415974
yes, wee willy, words are missing because you failed to notice that with some PDFs, the copy process omits certain words. Then, when you paste the incorrect copy process you get a post with words missing.
If you are observant, you can see the missing words when you highlight the passage you are trying to copy. The copied words are blued out while the missing words are not.
No, Bordo.
I missed words because I typed the quote to make sure you would have to work to find it back. And to make you read the damn book.
Here is you about Clausius in 2012:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/04/new-u-s-population-adjusted-temperature-dataset-pdat-1973-2012/#comment-42978
More than ten years.
Less then ten pages to read.
Have you no shame whatsoever?
“Have you no shame whatsoever?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Vintage 2013:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/oceanic-cloud-decrease-since-1987-explains-13-of-ocean-heating/#comment-88804
Notwithstanding the “AGW crowd sure have” strawman, Bordo2013 refutes Bordo2024.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Thanks, Demented Mike:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/#comment-111850
Bordo2014 is not unlike Bordo2024.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Want me to search for each year, Mike?
Just say the word.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
> there is nothing in the works of Clausius related to the 2nd law that infers a “net” quantity of heat transfer.
Bordo presumes that piece of text could infer. Moreover, he continues to illustrates how cranks, like contrarians, are powered by debilitating denial:
Op. Cit.
Clausius could have written “night Ohne Compensation” that Bordo would still dispute it. Oh, wait – he did!
“A passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body cannot take place without compensation”.
***
What is it about this simple message you fail to understand? It’s the same as his other statement that heat can never be transferred cold to hot by its own means.
Show me how it is possible to transfer heat from a colder body to a hotter body by its on means. If you understood anything about basic quantum theory you’d understand hwy it’s not possible.
Better still, show me how water can run uphill by its own means or how a boulder can lift itself onto a cliff by its own means. This is a basic principle of energy that applies just as much to heat transfer as it does to water or a boulder.
Bordo,
Which part of
you do not get?
Willard.
Clausius’ wishful thinking is not supported by experiment.
There are no “cold rays”. There is no passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body.
Appeal to an authority who is supported by fact, not speculation.
You’re right, Mike Flynn –
Had he known that you are a perpetual emotion machine, he’d have had to revise his law!
Willard.
Clausius wishful thinking is not supported by experiment.
There are no “cold rays”. There is no passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body.
Appeal to an authority who is supported by fact, not speculation.
Mike Flynn,
If you believe that Clausius was wrong, why do you hold that the Earth is getting colder since its birth?
Willard,
There are no “cold rays”. There is no transfer of heat from a colder body to a hotter. If anybody claims otherwise, they are wrong.
The Earth has cooled since it was created. If neither you nor Clausius believe it, that’s up to you and Clausius.
Choose an authority whose speculations are supported by experiment. Einstein refused to accept the uncertainty principle, but the principle is supported by experiment.
Mike Flynn,
Cold rays is what your fellow Sky Dragon crank Puffman posits.
Thermo suits me just fine.
Cheers.
Willard,
There are no cold rays. There is no transfer of heat from a colder body to a hotter. If anybody claims otherwise, they are wrong.
The Earth has cooled since it was created. If neither you nor Clausius believe it, thats up to you and Clausius.
Choose an authority whose speculations are supported by experiment. Einstein refused to accept the uncertainty principle, but the principle is supported by experiment.
Changed your tune a bit, have you? Given up on Clausius?
Donkey.
Mike Flynn,
What is Pictet experiment?
Willard,
There are no cold rays. There is no transfer of heat from a colder body to a hotter. If anybody claims otherwise, they are wrong.
The Earth has cooled since it was created. If neither you nor Clausius believe it, thats up to you and Clausius.
Choose an authority whose speculations are supported by experiment. Einstein refused to accept the uncertainty principle, but the principle is supported by experiment.
Changed your tune a bit, have you? Given up on Clausius? Prefer Pictet, who was also wrong?
Donkey.
All play and no work makes Method Mike a dull Sky Dragon.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You quoted “A passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body cannot take place . . .”
True. There are no “cold rays”. Clausius died in 1888. He was ignorant of quantum physics, and never managed to demonstrate heat passing from a colder body to a hotter one by experiment. Just another convenient fiction, like the luminiferous ether, the indivisible atom, or caloric.
Sadly, there are many scientists today who are equally ignorant of quantum theory.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote:
“…”
Cat got your tongue?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Finish the quote, Mike.
Please.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“without compensation,” Mike.
Sucker.
Willard, please stop trolling.
And here is what compensation means:
Stay safe.
Willard,
Clausius was dreaming. There is no “heat” passing from the colder to the hotter body. Clausius was speculating, but he was wrong, being ignorant of quantum physics.
Just as Carnot was wrong in his belief in caloric, or Einstein refusing to accept quantum physics and the uncertainty principle.
You really are a gullible GHE cultist, aren’t you? Go on, tell me you believe in the luminiferous ether, or the heat of the Sun being due to meteoric impacts!
Just how ignorant and gullible are you?
Mike Flynn,
Clausius said what he said.
Bordo has indulged in fabulism once again.
There is nothing you can do about it.
Sorry.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
“Barry is on Roy’s blog criticizing what Roy stands for yet he sees nothing wrong referencing Roy on the GHE.”
This may be a novel concept for you, but it is possible to agree with someone about one thing and disagree about another thing.
Swenson is saying that Dr Spencer’s descriptions of the GHE are not rooted in reality.
He just won’t say why that is.
Bumbling barry,
You wrote –
“Swenson is saying that Dr Spencers descriptions of the GHE are not rooted in reality.”
Well, the fact that none such exist (otherwise you would be waving them in my face) is an obvious demonstration of unreality. Something which doesn’t exist isn’t real, you dill!
You are faced with the reality that you have been gullible enough to believe in something that doesn’t exist! Keep denying, keep rejecting reality – while the Earth continues to cool, and man-made heat is reflected in hotter thermometer readings.
Sucker.
“Well, the fact that none such exist (otherwise you would be waving them in my face)”
Liar
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1629607
Bumbling barry,
You wrote
“Swenson is saying that Dr Spencers descriptions of the GHE are not rooted in reality.”
Well, the fact that none such exist (otherwise you would be waving them in my face) is an obvious demonstration of unreality. Something which doesnt exist isnt real, you dill!
You are faced with the reality that you have been gullible enough to believe in something that doesnt exist! Keep denying, keep rejecting reality while the Earth continues to cool, and man-made heat is reflected in hotter thermometer readings.
Sucker.
By the way, linking to another irrelevant comment (not containing a description of the GHE) just reinforces the fact that you can’t produce a description of the mythical GHE. That’s because it doesnt exist, you dill!
“By the way, linking to another irrelevant comment”
The link was to your comment. First accurate thing you’ve said in months.
And you are still a liar.
“And you are still a liar.”
barry, please stop trolling.
Gordon
I owe you 10.
I give you a 20 note and you give me a 10 note.
That is compensation.
Not in thermodynamics.
If I have a room and I want to transfer heat from it to outside air at a higher temperature I cannot do that by natural processes. I must find a way to get the room heat into a substance that I can change to a higher temperature than the outside air by changing its state with a compressor. Then, when the substance is exposed to outside air at a higher temperature than the room air, the heat in the substance will naturally flow from the hotter substance to the cooler outside air.
I do that using a gas that can be easily compressed to a high pressure liquid. I use a radiator (in reverse) in the room that will absorb heat from the room and transfer it to a low pressure gas running through the radiator fins. Then I run the LP gas through a compressor and change it to a high pressure/high temperature liquid. The temperature of the liquid will be higher than the outside air, so how do I get the heat out of the liquid and into the air?
I used another radiator, this time operating in the proper direction. I run the hi P/hi T liquid through it and heat is automatically transferred to the outside air. Then I run the liquid through an aerator and allow it to convert back to a low pressure gas.
That is compensation in thermodynamics. It is simply not possible for such a process to take place in the atmosphere so that heat can be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface.
A new universal equation for calculating a planets mean surface temperature is developed, to provide better estimates than the simple blackbody equation which was based on simplifying assump.tions.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’m worried about Swenson.
I spent 3 long posts in a row quoting Roy Spencer’s articles describing the greenhouse effect, with links to the articles. Here’s the start of the three posts:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1629607
Swenson replied immediately below those 3 posts that I was appealing to Roy’s authority. But – get this – he said he couldn’t see any description of the greenhouse effect, when that was 80% of the 3 posts immediately above his reply.
But it gets worse. He later said that I hadn’t quoted Dr Spencer at all. Or maybe he doesn’t realize that Roy has a degree in atmospheric physics?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1630463
Either way, he can’t remember the conversation at all. I think he needs help.
Oh wow, he really has a problem, I just saw his most mediate post, where he replies to my talking about Roy’s GHE descriptions,
“Well, the fact that none such exist (otherwise you would be waving them in my face) is an obvious demonstration of unreality”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1630445
He acknowledged they existed straight after seeing the 3 posts, and now he’s completely forgotten about it, not even 24 hours later.
I hope he has family to care for him.
Barry,
He doesn’t have dementia; he just doesn’t agree with Dr. Spencer’s view on the GHE. Are you trying to damage Swenson’s credibility?
Monkey Man,
Mike Flynn asks for a description of the greenhouse effect every hour of every Australian evening except sometimes on Saturdays.
He himself has described the greenhouse effect many times. Here he is in 2013:
> Now it so happens that I agree that surrounding a body with any matter at all, will, of course, reduce the rate of cooling with the usual provisos about the temperatures involved initially. However, and this would appear to be the crux of our disagreement, a reduction in the rate of cooling is not the same thing as warming.
https://judithcurry.com/2013/07/09/climate-model-tuning/#comment-342549
So in the end it is just a silly semantic argument about the meaning of the word warming.
Why are you cautioning the constant abuses of contrarians?
“a reduction in the rate of cooling is not the same thing as warming.”
Interesting. When a cooling object is wrapped in blanket, its outer surface (under the blanket) becomes warmer.
Interesting, indeed. The object continues cooling, but its surface, when wrapped under the blanket gets warmer.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, “becomes warmer” and “gets warmer” both mean a temperature rise. A “cooling object” would not have an increase in temperature due to insulation. It would just cool slower.
Important difference.
The atmosphere acts as insulation due to nitrogen and oxygen (non-radiative gases). But that only means the surface will cool slower. The atmosphere can not raise the surface temperature, except in localized weather events.
Puffman,
You are almost getting warmer with your silly word games. The Earth, by contrast, IS getting warmer. And it can’t be natural variability alone. The Earth would then be colder.
Riddle me this – see what I did there?
Clint,
“The atmosphere acts as insulation due to nitrogen and oxygen (non-radiative gases). But that only means the surface will cool slower. The atmosphere can not raise the surface temperature, except in localized weather events.”
–
Agreed. The atmosphere is an old insulation. An old insulation doesn’t change anything, it is like the Earth’s crust – it is an old insulation.
–
And, BTW, there is not any +33C greenhouse warming effect on earth’s surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…”Interesting, indeed. The object continues cooling, but its surface, when wrapped under the blanket gets warmer”.
***
Only if it has an internal source of heat. The human body produces its own heat and if the ambient temperature is too low, it loses heat faster than it can replace it internally. Therefore it cools.
If you cover the body with a blanket, it slows the rate of cooling, and the body’s temperature will rebound, and warm. But the degree of warming depends on the ambient temperature. If you are outside in freezing weather, with only a blanket, the body temperature will continue to drop.
This is a real example of energy in versus energy out. The Earth’s energy budget is faked.
“The Earth would then be colder.”
Unsubstantiated conjecture.
> unsubstantiated
First step in the contrarian two-step:
1. pure denial.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Not even a good try.
You claim Mike Flynn described a GHE by saying ” . . . a reduction in the rate of cooling is not the same thing as warming.”
You seem to agree. Your description of the GHE was “not cooling, slower cooling”. No heating. No global warming.
Are you quite mad? Isn’t the GHE cult position that CO2 heats the planet.
Maybe you should think before blindly hammering away at your keyboard.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Uniting Communities, formerly UnitingCare Wesley Adelaide and the Adelaide Central Mission, has served South Australia since 1901. It was established at Maughan Church, 43 Franklin Street, by the Methodist Conference (now the Uniting Church Synod) as the Central Methodist Mission.
There is no try.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Not even a good try.
You claim Mike Flynn described a GHE by saying “. . . a reduction in the rate of cooling is not the same thing as warming.”
You seem to agree. Your description of the GHE was not cooling, slower cooling. No heating. No global warming.
Are you quite mad? Isnt the GHE cult position that CO2 heats the planet.
Maybe you should think before blindly hammering away at your keyboard.
Why the illeism, Method Mike?
barry…I did not bother reading your citations from Roy. What I’d like to see is your own interpretation and proof.
Let’s leave Roy out of this. He has a reputation to maintain and the last thing he needs is trying to defend his POV on the Net.
As for Swenson, I have no problems with his comments. I find them to be humourous at times since he is obviously needling alarmists and rightly so. He has been asking a simple question…prove there is a GHE. Thus far, and that includes the IPCC, I have seen no proof that satisfies my scientific curiosity.
I went through one IPCC review looking for that evidence and found none. The closest I could come was the following…
1)19th century scientists implied that CO2 could warm the atmosphere but none of them committed to the question of how much. They obviously did not consider it an issue since both Tyndall and Arrhenius thought it would be beneficial.
2)the IPCC has presumed, purely through consensus, that increased CO2 emissions since the Industrial Era has caused the planet to warm. Oddly enough, they did not begin to record the warming till 1850, some 100 years after the Industrial Era began. They have completely discredited the fact that the Little Ice Age ended about the same time and that warming was expected after a mini ice age.
In those articles, Roy Spencer;
Describes the physical mechanism of the greenhouse effect on the atmosphere.
Uses the analogies of blankets, home insulation, two plates radiating towards each other.
He also describes a few practical experiments one can do at home to demonstrate the GHE, including pointing an IR thermometer at the sky.
I and others here have many times done all the above.
Swenson believes none of this has ever happened. Even though he has replied to all these efforts. That’s why I think he has a cognitive problem.
Gordon, what is missing from the above that is needed to describe the GHE to you? If I’m going to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, I don’t want it to be wasted like the other umpteen times.
barry,
You wrote –
“Gordon, what is missing from the above that is needed to describe the GHE to you? ”
The fact that you still haven’t provided a description of the GHE for him to laugh at.
Like the other umpteen times, of course.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1631444
Roy has always been non-specific about the amount of warming by CO2. Furthermore, he does not think any warming produced will be a threat to the planet or the people in it. John Christy concurs.
In other words, you have cherry-picked comments from Roy to promote your alarmist agenda. Again, why do you use Roy in this manner when he is clearly not on your side of the debate?
Some have referred to Roy as a lukewarmer but for me that is an exaggeration. I think Roy is a true skeptic and I base that on his overall commentary over at least 10 years.
I think Will Happer is a skeptic as well, even though he dabbles in the anthropogenic theory far more than Roy.
The cult doesn’t understand thermodynamics. That’s why they keep trying to take Clausius out-of-context, misrepresenting his words. They do the same with Dr. Spencer.
I predict the cult will be doing this same schtick next year, and the year after, and the year after….
Puffman projects.
Clint R
Yes you are correct you (cult of a couple) do not understand thermodynamics (you did not understand it when you posted as another name on this blog).
You will keep peddling your made up physics year after year. Some posters will attempt to correct your incorrect views. You will reject them and go on your business of peddling your own made up ideas.
A responsible adult would know that insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations just indicate a commenter has NOTHING.
But tr0lls like Norman and silly willy aren’t don’t know that….
Clint R
You are correct in your cult mind. You will continue to repeat the same old lines for years and years. I think you have posted that response to me hundreds of times. It might make you feel good but it does not change anything in reality. You do not understand thermodynamics and you make up a bunch of stuff you can’t provide evidence for. You act super arrogant about your ideas but they are not that good at all.
It is you, little man, that has nothing to offer except bad cult science that you never provide evidence for.
When you posted as g/e/r/a/n you never provided evidence and you still don’t. You are so anti-science!
Norma, a responsible adult would know that insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations just indicate a commenter has NO science.
But, it was funnier when you made up nonsense like your “square orbit”, or your “REAL 255K surface”.
Make up some more bogus “science” for us.
Clint R
Again you have used these items in your posts many times. You are so cult minded you can’t even come up with new material.
So far you have never shown evidence for any of your claims. I have shown you multiple lines of evidence including textbooks.
You use your “favorite” cult line when I do “another article Norman does not understand”
It is just endless repetition with the three cultists on this blog. You (Clint R formally g/e/r/a/n), Swenson (formally Mike Flynn) and Gordon Robertson.
You repeat your false narratives over and over and repeat the same points over and over.
Cultists for sure. Many opinions and zero evidence. When given evidence against their views they misdirect and ignore it.
Norman,
How are you going with your description of the GHE? You are one of the exceptionally cunning GHE cultists who has managed to avoid demonstrating his ignorance by providing a bizarre and nonsensical GHE description.
You don’t need to be coy or bashful. Express your faith – what’s your silly description of the GHE? How hard can it be?
Norman used to try to fake a knowledge of science. But, he’s been caught so many times he is now only a childish tr0ll, like silly willy.
Mike Flynn,
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Don’t touch the furniture on your way out.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Is that Mike Flynn saying that slow cooling is not heating, or something different?
[chortling at bizarre GHE cultist dream]
Mike Flynn,
You are Mike Flynn, and my comment was in response to this one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1631117
Cheers.
Clint R
” Thats why they keep trying to take Clausius out-of-context, misrepresenting his words. They do the same with Dr. Spencer. ”
Where do ‘they’ do that?
Show us the place, tr0ll Clint R!
Bindi, a better question would be “When did they NOT do that?”
(Got a viable model of “orbiting without spin” yet?)
Like all pseudoskeptic tr0lls ‘operating on this blog, you are unable to answer simplest questions other than by asking absolutely irrelevant questions.
I reply to your stoopid ‘Got a viable model of orbiting without spin yet?’ in the same way as always:
Apart from you and two or three other tr0lls, no one on Earth needs such a model.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Sorry Bindi, but without a viable model, you’ve got NOTHING.
And that means you have NO clue about the physics involved.
It’s kinda like being in the GHE cult, huh?
Sorry Puffman, but you won’t start another food fight with such silly theatrics. You got NOTHING to counter Team Science’s numerical models.
Clint,
Dr Spencer has spent several articles explaining the GHE.
Quoting him at length doing that is not taking him out of context. Here is one of his articles on the matter.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
Here is another.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/
And another.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
In these articles Spencer uses the analogies of blankets, house insulation and two plates radiating to each other to explain the GHE.
He also describes the actual mechanics in the real atmosphere.
His descriptions match those that have been posted here by myself and others many times.
Let me quote him one more time, from his article, “Skeptical Arguments That Don’t Hold Water.”
“Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. I’ve blogged on this numerous times… maybe start here.”
barry,
Oooooh! Another appeal to authority!
Unfortunately, another failure, it seems.
I’m unaware of Dr Spencer (or anybody else) providing a description of the GHE which agrees with reality. Certainly, none are to be found on the internet.
Be a man – abandon your slimy Willardesque attempts to bend Dr Spencer to your will. Just order him straight out to censor anything I write, in accordance with your instructions.
Others may notice that you are apparently linking to “explanations”, which are completely untestable, given that they refer to something not described. One might as well link to “explanations” of the courtship rituals amongst unicorns. Detailed, agreed, logical – and completely fictitious!
Try harder.
Mike Flynn,
What you are “unaware of” is irrelevant. You was wrong – unless you have experimental support that you are really “unaware” of what people keep telling you on every thread since 2013.
Be “unaware” as you please.
Willard, please stop trolling.
barry, trying to hide behind Dr. Spencer is just you being hypocritical. Your cult strives to discredit his work, as they try to clog his blog.
Spencer has made it clear that physics is not his field. He prefers to let others, with a knowledge of physics, debunk the GHE nonsense. He accepts the cult nonsense as he claims it is wrong based one his knowledge of how the atmosphere works. He calls himself a “Lukewarmer”.
THAT is being a scientist. You don’t simply try to discredit something you don’t understand. That’s what your cult does. Spencer is being a scientist and simply letting his work undermine the GHE nonsense, as his recent posts about UHI, and the failed climate models, have shown. He correctly attributes the recent warming to “natural variability”. And the UAH results clearly show that, with the El Niño and HTE combining to push Global to record highs.
He has issues with phony skeptics just throwing crap against the wall. (That’s why I have the same issues with Gordon.) Your desperate effort to support the GHE nonsense is clearly reflected in your ongoing use of “view factor”.
What a lot of deceitful rubbish.
Dr Spencer has written at least 5 articles here dedicated to explaining and supporting the greenhouse effect. His Bachelor of Science was in atmospheric physics.
Dr Roy Spencer said:
“Please stop the ‘no greenhouse effect’ stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. I’ve blogged on this numerous times…”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
You may disagree with Spencer’s views if you wish, but denying his position on the GHE is just one more way you deny reality.
barry,
You wrote –
“You may disagree with Spencers views if you wish, but denying his position on the GHE is just one more way you deny reality.”
Are you really talking to yourself in a mirror?
[laughing at dimwit]
Mike Flynn,
We all know you are, but what does Barry do?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I missed some of the discussion yesterday, but DREMT provided an excellent review of the situation where barry made false accusations about me.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1630271
DREMT got it right, but barry misrepresented me:
“Clint confuses incident and absorbed radiation.
Absorbed radiation — what he means by ARRIVING — has already dealt with view factors, distance and intensity of the source.”
barry is completely WRONG. “ARRIVING” and “incident” mean the same thing to me. I never indicated differently. “Absorbed” is different. Absorbed means the surface accepts the photons. Arriving, or incident, photons can still be reflected.
barry has to spin, distort, pervert and confuse reality to support his false beliefs. And he’s backed up by the cult tr0lls, who also have NOTHING.
Nice theatrics, Puffman.
Riddle me this – what is irradiance, and how do we call the ratio of irradiance reflected to the irradiance received by a surface?
“Riddle me this”
Willard, please stop trolling.
More theatrics, Mike Flynn?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Thank you for your clarification. I retract my earlier pejoratives.
View factors definitely matter when accounting for how much of incident radiation is absorbed by the surface intercepting the radiation.
It is trivial to visualise and understand.
The Earth intercepts solar radiation.
It is hotter at the equator than the poles.
The reason for this is the curve of the Earth, and the relative weakness of the incident radiation in the higher latitudes.
You know this, I know this, everyone knows this.
This is why view factors matter for incident radiation. The geometry of the Earth’s surface means that the sunlight hitting the high latitudes is spread over a larger area than at the equator, reducing the solar intensity per unit area.
Do you agree?
barry,
You wrote –
“View factors definitely matter when accounting for how much of incident radiation is absorbed by the surface intercepting the radiation.”
Well, that’s a completely pointless statement, isnt it?
If you totally surround a pot of very hot water with ice, your statement is meaningless. The water cools. Go on, tell me how much the view factor matters in relation to incident radiation!
What did you actually mean to say? Or are you just annoyed that you can’t describe the GHE, but want to appear intelligent anyway?
Completely changing the scenario makes your point irrelevant to the topic.
barry, your attempted “retraction” is just cover for your desperate attempt to protect your false beliefs. ARRIVING fluxes are NOT affected by view factor.
Multiple ARRIVING fluxes do NOT simply add. THAT is why you can not boil water with ice cubes.
If you’re trying to clean up your act, you’ve got a long way to go….
Clint,
I would be interested in hearing your explanation for why it is colder nearer the poles than the equator.
If it is not due to the different geometry of the surfaces relative to incoming sunlight, what is it?
I would be interested in hearing your explanation for why you have to call people “lying dog”. Especially when you have no knowledge of the issues.
Or maybe that explains it….
Come on.
barry, please stop trolling.
Clint,
The reason why you can’t explain why it is cooler nearer the poles than nearer the equator is because you do not understand view factors.
This is why you will never answer the question. It will expose you.
Wrong child.
You’re just trying to get me to call you a “lying dog”.
But, II don’t do that.
… why you will never answer the question. It will expose you.
And predictably you didn’t answer the question. again.
“means the surface accepts the photons.”
Clint continues his silliness, assigning intelligence to inanimate surfaces. He fantasizes that surfaces can ‘decide’ to accept photons from a warm source or refuse photons that came from a colder source.
Sorry that aint science. And aint even good science fiction.
The real science, according to Kirchhoff’s Law, is that high emissivity (near 1) surfaces accept and abs.orb nearly 100% of IR radiation from colder sources.
And Clint certainly has not proven Kirchhoff’s Law must be wrong.
Oh well!
barry…”[GR]I have explained quote one several times. In the day of Clausius, all scientists believed that heat flowed through space as heat rays
[Barry]That is beside the point.
***
No, it’s not. It is exactly what Clausius is talking about, a double-exchange of heat via radiation. In his day, that’s the way scientists thought. They had no means of understanding an apparent transfer of heat by radiation for the simple reason that the mechanism was not understood by any of them.
It is understandable today that scientists in the 19th century thought heat actually left a body as heat and could be radiated between them as heat rays. The solution, offered by Bohr in 1913 is well beyond what any of those scientists could have imagined in the day. Yet people like you have that information and you are still don’t understand. That includes many top-rated scientists in the climate arena.
I am sure there are scientists today who actually think that heat leaves the Sun and somehow travels through a near-vacuum of 93 million miles to the Earth. That is simply not possible. The only way heat can leave the Sun as heat is via the solar wind, which is comprised of raw electrons and protons shot out from the Sun. Those raw particles will interact with our magnetic field but it is not nearly enough to warm the planet.
According to your interpretation of Clausius, part of the energy reaching the Earth will be re-radiate toward the Sun, raising the temperature of the Sun. I don’t know why you cannot see the ridiculousness of such a situation.
Bohr proved that each atom has electrons that can radiate and absorb at a discrete frequency. As a mass containing those atoms heats up, the electrons all move to higher energy orbitals. Those orbitals are related to the angular frequency of the electron and the higher the energy orbital the higher the angular frequency.
The frequency of emitted EM is directly related to the angular frequency of the electron, hence the higher the energy orbital the higher the emitted EM frequency.
That is not a guess. Heat is related to the electron orbital velocity by kinetic energy as KE = 1/2 mv^2. More accurately, v should be w as in omega, the angular velocity. If you keep heating a mass, the electrons forming the bonds that hold the mass together will gain enough energy to break the bonds and the material will fall apart.
Therefore, higher temperatures relate to higher electron orbitals and higher angular frequencies. It follows that atoms at lower mass temperature will be in lower energy orbitals and have lower angular frequencies. Since an electron in a hotter body must have a higher angular frequency, hence a higher KE, then any EM intercepted by the that electron must have a frequency that matches the angular frequency. Otherwise it will be ignored.
Electrons in the atoms of cooler bodies, of necessity, have lower KE’s and angular frequencies. Therefore, if an electron in a cooler body releases a quantum of EM, the frequency of that EM will be too low to be absorbed by electrons in the atoms of hotter bodies.
The converse is true, however. EM released by electrons in a hotter body will have enough energy to be absorbed by the electrons in a cooler body.
That’s how heat is transferred from the Sun, so to speak, even though the transfer is by EM, which has no heat. If anything, it has a potential heating effect, if absorbed. No heating can take place until a body absorbs the solar EM and coverts it back to heat.
That satisfies the 2nd law completely. Somehow, Clausius knew that intuitively. Even though he mistakenly talked about a double-exchange of heat, he knew that heat could only be transferred one way by radiation, from hot to cold, and he stated that. He states clearly in the section on radiation when he claimed that a heat transfer by radiation must obey the 2nd law.
Having said that, there are theoretical situations in which heat could be transferred between bodies of different temperature from cold to hot, but the mechanism required removes the process from the realms of the natural. When Clausius addressed that double-exchange, he was speaking theoretically and not in terms of natural processes.
Clausius worked with heat engine theory which is based on the relationship between temperature, pressure, and volume in a process. Under normal, natural circumstances, such a process can move in one direction only, from hot to cold. However, by introducing external elements, one could manipulate the T, P and V to allow a transfer of heat from cold to hot, and perhaps both ways
That’s how a fridge and an air conditioner work ut they obviously cannot work via a natural process as in our atmosphere.
Clausius stated the 2nd law in words in variations of the following…heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body. Never min the modern nonsense related to entropy, that is the 2nd law as stated by Clausius.
‘By it own means’ is the key. Most of what you have cited is relate to his explanation of that phrase. He later changed it to ‘without compensation’.
Gordon,
1 – You claimed that Clausius did NOT infer a NET exchange of radiation. When showed that he did, you then immediately accepted that he did in order to argue that he was wrong to do so.
You are now arguing that he was wrong based on the fact that he DID infer a NET exchange.
Do you realize that you have tacitly admitted that your original claim was incorrect?
2 – Nowhere in his works does Clausius utilise the luminous aether to promulgate his ideas. It is entirely unnecessary to his theories. You are inserting a mechanism in his work that he never indicated.
Regardless, he definitely believed that there was an interchange of radiative heat between objects of different temperature.
barry,
You wrote –
“Regardless, he [Clausius] definitely believed that there was an interchange of radiative heat between objects of different temperature.”
What he “believed” is irrelevant. He was wrong – unless you have experimental support for any other “belief”.
Believe away.
> He was wrong – unless
Step one and two of the contrarian two-step:
1. pure denial
2. sammich request
Mike Flynn is a natural.
Willard, please stop trolling.
wee willy continues to cherry pick and misrepresent Clausius…
“And here is what compensation means:
This simultaneous passage of heat in the opposite direction, or this special change entailing an opposite passage of heat, is then to be treated as a compensation for the passage of heat from the colder to the warmer body”
***
I have read that passage several times over the years and Clausius does not explain what he meant by compensation. I just explained it in detail in a reply to Entropic … February 25, 2024 at 3:21 PM.
To summarize, in order to remove heat from a room and transfer it to outside air at a higher temperature, such a process cannot take place by natural means. That’s hat Clausius means with..’by its own means’. Heat simply cannot be transferred from a cooler area to a hotter area naturally.
An air conditioner can do it. The AC uses two radiators, one as a heat intake and the other has a heat release. The intake radiator has a low pressure gas running though it and absorbs heat from the room air. Then the LP gas is compressed to a high pressure, high temperature liquid. That liquid runs through an outlet radiator exposed to outside air, and the heated liquid is cooled as it moves through the radiator, hence release heat absorbed in the room.
That is clearly what Clausius meant by compensation although he never did describe it in detail. His reference was to heat engine theory wherein it is possible to manipulate temperature, pressure, and volume to achieve similar results.
The point is, heat will not flow cold to hot by its own means. That is, it cannot flow cold to hot naturally…without a compensating mechanism in place.
> I have read that passage several times over the years and Clausius does not explain what he meant by compensation.
How low can Bordo go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1630354
Worse, he even responded to that comment!
Bordo simply spammed thread after thread for more than ten years of this kind of adolescent contrarianism.
Willard, please stop trolling.
We have to be extremely careful not to confuse warming due to a blockage of heat dissipation with a heat transfer from cold to hot.
I am thinking of the blanket analog. Adding a blanket to anything will not increase its temperature unless the body has its own internal heat source. Even then, it is not the blanket increasing the temperature, it is a lowering of the heat dissipation rate by the blanket that balances energy in with energy out. If you slow energy out, the body will warm.
When we talk of the atmosphere as an insulator, we are talking of the interface between the surface and the atmosphere. Normally, the two should be in thermal equilibrium and no heat should be transferred. However, as air is heated by the surface, the air rises and cooler air from above rushing in to replace it and force the heated air parcel upwardly.
It is that convective overturning, where coooler air is always moving downward to the surface and being re-heated, that causes a continual heat transfer from surface to air molecules. As Lindzen pointed out, without that convection, the average temperature of the planet would approach 70C.
Of course, the body also cools by radiation but Shula’s experiment demonstrates clearly that conduction/convection is 260 times more effective at cooling a surface than radiation.
Therefore, the atmosphere serves Newton Law of Cooling by acting as a mechanism to control the rate of heat dissipation at the surface. Alarmists incorrectly attribute that control of the cooling rate to a trace gas, CO2.
The agw case falls apart in the presence of dissipation. It receives photons from warmer below and instantly that energy is dissipated to air around it retaining very little, thus it will need numerous photons from below before it emits a photon back to toward the surface thats why on clear nights the surface cools faster than the air above it. The AGW folks would have us believe that the surface emits a photon that is intercepted by GHG in the air, then it splits that photon in half and sends half back to the surface and half onward towards space, then stays the same temperature without warming anything around it. . .completely ignoring heat transfer by collision/dissipation. if it instead warms air around it, then you have convection.
We see in Trenberth’s budget that convection carries 4 times as much heat to TOA where it accelerates radiation to space just like convection accelerates the cooling of the surface. But these guy want to look at this process as if the molecules are solidified in space and radiation is the only way for heat to travel through the atmosphere. Roy found strong negative feedback. Modtran assumes that all that radiation intercepted by ghg sends half back to the surface. . .which would require a shut down of dissipation.
Happer and Lindzen understand this and thus they limit doubling of CO2 to one degree of warming or less. The rest of the warming we are seeing is natural.
When the 3rd grader radiation model was shown to be a failure in all properly designed experiments; the thinking shifted to the hotspot theory of jamming up convection by changing the lapse rate. When that didn’t pan out they have 100% focus on a cooling of the mid to upper stratosphere. But thats a non-starter because all the other means of warming the surface would cause water vapor to do just that as well using the same theory AGW advocates use for water vapor feedback. We know that water vapor changes the lapse rate but thats because of the huge amount of energy it moves aloft.
If carbon dioxide warms anything Happer and Lindzen has expressed its upper limit. Could it be different? Its possible, such as warming the poles when they are way below zero. And we see larger anomalies there which well may be related to CO2 and increases in water vapor caused by increased CO2 and natural warming.
So when trying to weigh the differences it seems that much of the warming is natural. Thus much of the pole warming is also natural. I see a trend change occurring in Arctic sea ice that is going to collapse rather soon like it did in the mid-1940’s.
Still playing with the Milankovitch math and there is an approximate 80 year gravitational effect where Saturn and jupiter coincides with a specific area of sky and/or Uranus which takes 84 years to orbit from a specific place to the same place in the sky.
We are now 80 years from 1944 and every 20 years there has been a temperature cycle from Saturn and Jupiter alone. So are we at the top of another cycle? It appears so. The next 5 years should give us some idea of its contribution.
bill…interesting post. In reply to part of it…
“Happer and Lindzen understand this and thus they limit doubling of CO2 to one degree of warming or less. The rest of the warming we are seeing is natural”.
***
Two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, using the heat diffusion equation applied to a mixed gas like the atmosphere, estimated the warming from a doubling of CO2 to 0.06%, which would translate to 0.06C for an overall warming of 1C. Considering that we are unlikely to see a 1C warming by the time CO2 doubles, that makes it an even more trivial warming.
With any mixed gas, each constituent part can only contribute heat according to its mass percent in the gas. Although CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere the molecule is heavier than O2 or N2, and its mass percent works out to about 0.06%.
“Happer and Lindzen understand this and thus they limit doubling of CO2 to one degree of warming or less.”
1C from doubling is in complete accord with the mainstream conclusion in the absence of positive feedbacks.
“The rest of the warming we are seeing is natural”
If there were positive feedbacks to CO2 warming, would you class ‘the rest of the warming’ as natural or anthropogenic?
bumbling barry
You wrote –
“If there were positive feedbacks to CO2 warming, would you class the rest of the warming as natural or anthropogenic?”
What a crock! That’s about as silly as asking if my aunty had testicles, would she be my uncle!
There is no “CO2 warming”, you dill. You are dreaming.
That’s why nobody can describe the GHE in any way which agree with reality. You certainly can’t.
Carry on.
barry says:
”If there were positive feedbacks to CO2 warming, would you class the rest of the warming as natural or anthropogenic?”
Roy found that feedbacks were negative. One can look at the budget of Trenberth and see that the feedbacks are negative.
Clouds, convection, evaporation will all increase. I don’t see any obvious positive feedback. Lindzen’s emerging phenomena is a strong negative feedback, the cloud responses observed by Roy created negative feedback. Lord Monckton is right with the feedback sensitivity not being able to be significant because of the error of attributing all feedback to CO2 and ignoring the sun gives you both a mathematical minimal feedback and a logical negative feedback. Where is there evidence of significant positive feedback? The big problem is in the tripling the size of the greenhouse effect using pretty loose criteria. I pointed out in a post here that surface emissivity either doesn’t matter or hardly matters because the more water vapor going into the atmosphere the more the clouds because water vapor will want to head for the mesosphere even faster than CO2 but will condense before getting too high.
Bill,
What do you think is the scale of the proposed negative feedback?
If a doubling of CO2 by itself produced 1C warming at the surface, what is the result including negative feedbacks?
Bill,
“The AGW folks would have us believe that the surface emits a photon that is intercepted by GHG in the air, then it splits that photon in half”
No one ever made such a silly contention. It’s only ‘skeptics’ who come up with nonsense like this.
No barry all I am doing is what you guys do all the time, namely extrapolate by math. If you have a problem with just consider it the ”mean” distribution of heat given up by a CO2 molecule via radiation. Diffusion is a much faster process at the molecule level than radiation so the distribution of a photon or photons to non-ghg vastly over whelms radiant effects by over 2000 to one.
Thus while there might be some delay in convective overturning the net result of CO2 is nil up until such time somebody discovers the formula associated with convection and any science regarding CO2’s effect is nothing but a guess. The target size is massive and its because they really have no idea they just wanted to exclude anything under 1.5C as that wouldn’t excite anybody. Our faithful academic institutions are simply force feeding us BS.
We have no idea of how much is natural and how much is anthropogenic.
No one says the photons are split, Bill. That’s your own nonsense.
Of the gazillions of upwelling photons absorbed by the atmosphere, half go spaceward and half go groundward. There is no splitting of photons, just different vectors.
While it is quite untrue that diffusion dominates IR energy transfer through the atmosphere, it doesn’t actually matter. Non-GHG molecules are effectively transparent to Earth-spectrum IR. That’s why they are not greenhouse gases. Which means…
Their emissivity precludes them from emitting IR in the spectra that is absorbed and emitted by GHGs.
So even if what you said were true, the atmosphere would still transfer upwelling IR to the ground or to space almost entirely from GHGs, which absorb and radiate in the spectrum emitted by the Earth.
And this is confirmed by spectroscopy in the lab, as well as satellite instruments looking downward and ground-based instruments looking upward.
This is why the microwave sounders on satellites that provide the data for the UAH temperature measurements measure oxygen emissions in the microwave spectrum, and not the infrared spectrum.
In the energy balance with solar radiation, it is the outgoing radiation of the Earth that completely dominates any other effect. Diffusion in this respect (molecules flying into space) plays an infinitesimal role.
Convection has been included in the analyses of energy transfer in the atmosphere for decades.
Eg,
https://ramanathan.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/460/2017/10/pr15.pdf
You’ll find plenty of formulas for convection therein. And in hundreds of papers on convective overturning in the troposphere.
“We have to be extremely careful not to confuse warming due to a blockage of heat dissipation with a heat transfer from cold to hot.”
No one in the realist camp makes that mistake.
“Adding a blanket to anything will not increase its temperature unless the body has its own internal heat source. Even then, it is not the blanket increasing the temperature, it is a lowering of the heat dissipation rate by the blanket that balances energy in with energy out. If you slow energy out, the body will warm.”
Yes, exactly.
As Roy Spencer has said many times, the layers of the atmosphere act like layers of blankets, slowing the rate at which heat, in the form of radiation, escapes the system.
“As Lindzen pointed out, without that convection, the average temperature of the planet would approach 70C.”
Yes, that would be the result of a purely radiative atmosphere with no convective overturning. Roy Spencer has said as much:
“This 60 deg. F warming attributable to the GHE is actually incorrect; the greenhouse effect on surface temperature, if left to its own devices, would actually be at least twice that strongmore like 140 deg F average surface temperature… but most of that theoretical surface temperature rise is short-circuited by convective heat loss from the surface caused by convective air currents, in turn caused by the greenhouse effect, which also largely creates the weather we experience.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
As Roy says, convection would not occur without the greenhouse effect. Both contribute to the 6.5C/km vertical temperature lapse rate.
barry,
You wrote –
“As Roy says, convection would not occur without the greenhouse effect.”
I doubt it. Go on, show a quote to back up what you say. Using your words, of course.
Here’s what the UK Met Office says –
“Convection works by areas of a liquid or gas heating or cooling greater than their surroundings, causing differences in temperature. These temperature differences then cause the areas to move as the hotter, less dense areas rise, and the cooler, more dense areas sink.”
Can’t see any reference to a GHE. Maybe you misunderstood something somewhere. I wouldn’t be surprised.
You are dreaming.
I’ve just quoted Roy saying that in the post above.
“but most of that theoretical surface temperature rise is short-circuited by convective heat loss from the surface caused by convective air currents, in turn caused by the greenhouse effect, which also largely creates the weather we experience”
Roy goes on to say in the very next sentence…
“That’s right without the greenhouse effect, we would not have weather as we know it. The greenhouse effect, energized by solar heating, creates weather.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
And Roy says the same thing in another of his article:
“So, it is actually the destabilization of the atmosphere (net radiative warming below, net cooling aloft) by the greenhouse effect that leads to convection, clouds, and precipitation.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/
barry,
You wrote
“As Roy says, convection would not occur without the greenhouse effect.”
I doubt it. Go on, show a quote to back up what you say. Using your words, of course.
Heres what the UK Met Office says
“Convection works by areas of a liquid or gas heating or cooling greater than their surroundings, causing differences in temperature. These temperature differences then cause the areas to move as the hotter, less dense areas rise, and the cooler, more dense areas sink.”
Cant see any reference to a GHE. Maybe you misunderstood something somewhere. I wouldnt be surprised.
So Dr Spencer doesn’t say what you said, at all. Why am I not surprised?
You are dreaming.
Roy says it again in yet another explanation of the greenhouse effect.
“In fact, without the greenhouse effect cooling the upper troposphere and warming the lower troposphere, the atmosphere would not become convectively unstable, and weather as we know it would cease.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/how-the-climate-system-works-for-dummies/
You might enjoy reading this article, Swenson.
bumbling barry,
You still haven’t managed to find a description of the GHE, have you?
Diverting to “explanations” of something which you can’t describe just makes you look like a slightly dim GHE cultist. Earlier, you wrote –
“An object receiving continual energy that has its rate of energy loss slowed must perforce became warmer. Thats basic thermodynamics.
And thats the GHE.”
Really? Did you copy that from something someone else wrote, or did you just make it up yourself? Maybe you were disappointed with the fact that nobody had described the GHE, so you thought you would help Dr Spencer out, is that it?
Failed again, haven’t you? Maybe you could revise your description to something meaningful, but I doubt it. Start with where the “GHE” may be observed, measured, and documented.
Only joking – you really have no clue, do you?
[derisive snorting ensued]
Hahaha, speaking of diverting!
Dr Roy Spencer: “without the greenhouse effect cooling the upper troposphere and warming the lower troposphere, the atmosphere would not become convectively unstable”
Flapping your arms in a torrent of your regular program does not distract from noticing you dropped your objection like a hot potato.
I’ve been quoting Roy Spencer for a day, and all you’ve got is lies and bile. Poor you.
barry,
You wrote –
“without the greenhouse effect cooling the upper troposphere and warming the lower troposphere, the atmosphere would not become convectively unstable”
Unfortunately for dummies like you, Dr Spencer has not described this “greenhouse effect”. That would be difficult indeed, seeing that there is no greenhouse effect!
Now, you may disagree that sources of heat warm the lower troposphere, but you would be laughed at. You might also disagree that the upper troposphere cools all by itself (particularly at night), which would cause more laughter! You probably don’t understand why.
Go on, ask Dr Spencer whether he disagrees with what I just said. You are too gutless, aren’t you? You just put words in his mouth, hoping that nobody will query you!
You wrote –
“Flapping your arms in a torrent of your regular program does not distract from noticing you dropped your objection like a hot potato.
Ive been quoting Roy Spencer for a day, and all youve got is lies and bile. Poor you.”
You may quote whomever you like as long as you like. It still won’t change fantasy into fact. Try quoting somebody’s description of the GHE – the best you can do so far is “An object receiving continual energy that has its rate of energy loss slowed must perforce became warmer. Thats basic thermodynamics.
And thats the GHE.”
Did you copy that, or make it up yourself? It’s completely nonsensical. You are too thick to realise how nonsensical it is, obviously.
By the way, what is your silly statement ” . . . you dropped your objection like a hot potato.” supposed to mean? You are not looking too intelligent at the moment. You might as keep scuttling away like a cockroach, crying “Liar! Liar!” as you lurch from crisis to crisis.
Carry on.
[yes, I know it’s bad form to take advantage of the mentally afflicted]
You’re getting mighty shrill there, Swenson. But not shrill enough to obscure the fact that you slunk away from your contention that Roy did not say:
“without the greenhouse effect cooling the upper troposphere and warming the lower troposphere, the atmosphere would not become convectively unstable, and weather as we know it would cease.”
– Roy Spencer, January 2015, in this article.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/how-the-climate-system-works-for-dummies/
That article is made for you, Swenson.
“Happer and Lindzen understand this’
No they do not follow this gobbledegook, Bill.
They fully understand the actual physical basis of the GHE, but you still do not.
Thats incorrect. You deny the physical basis of the GHE and that arises out of your endorsement of Modtran representing surface warming or 1k per doubling. . .it represents a few watts absorbed in the atmosphere not the surface. Lindzen recognizes negative feedback before any absorbed energy is transmitted to the surface, thats the opposite of what you believe. You simply accept the political propaganda that a doubling of CO2 represents a warming of the atmosphere watt for watt such that the atmosphere warms the surface. Thats your leap of faith not held by reputable skilled scientists.
Also its not genuine to believe that GHGs are responsible for the GHE without knowing what the temperature of the atmosphere would be without them.
troubleshooting…
from Barry…February 25, 2024 at 3:04 PM
barry…”You are now arguing that he was wrong based on the fact that he DID infer a NET exchange”.
***
You are missing the points of my arguments. With regard to his reference of a two-way heat exchange, that came from his explanation of what he meant by the phrase ‘by its own means’. He stated that heat can never by its own means, be transferred cold to hot. He tried to clarify what that meant and introduced the concep.t of a two-way transfer.
The point is, he did not specify what that meant. However, if you have read his in-dep.th analysis of the heat engine, from which he derived the 2nd law, the meaning becomes clear. With a natural process of heat transfer, the temperature, pressure, and volume relationship used in a heat engine can proceed in one direction only, hot to cold. The reason is simple, the T, P and V relationship can only work in that direction naturally.
With heat engine theory, they hold T constant while observing a change of P and V, then they hold P constant while varying T and V, then V constant while varying T and P. If you examine that process closely, it can only move from a higher temperature to a lower temperature.
It is conceivable, however, that T, P and V could be manipulated using external forces to operate backwards. It might even be possible using external compensation to have heat flow both ways in a process. After all, that’s how modern air conditioners work, in part. As far as I understand from Clausius that would require two separate processes where heat flowed in each independently.
The point is, none of that can happen naturally, and that is the whole point of the 2nd law.
He stated the 2nd law in words as …heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from cold to hot. He said nothing about a net transfer, he was very specific that heat can only be transferred hot to cold, even by radiation.
Bohr’s theory corroborates that definition of the 2nd law.
Sorry this was part of my previous reply to Barry.
Quantum fizzix has not reached Willtard and Berry
No Gordon, for that quote Clausius is not describing heat engines, he is talking about the ordinary radiation of heat from first principles. The quote appears in the very first paragraph of the chapter that deals with radiation.
“THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
SECTION XII
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Object of the investigation.
…Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
Here is a link to it.
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog/page/n317/mode/2up
He deals with heat engines in a different chapter.
barry
I have shown this corner to him many times (it was discovered years ago for the first time by Rose, my alleged sockpuppet lady).
Ignoramus Robertson always discredited and denigrated Clausius’ double radiation explanation with incredibly styupid pseudo-arguments a la ‘1500 stations’.
I know you have, Bin. Gordon has alternately said that Clausius did and did not infer a net exchange. He seems to change his mind.
Bindidon, barry, please stop trolling.
Bereft barry
You quoted –
“It is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot;”
Many things that were “well known” turned out to be wrong. You can probably list a few yourself – phlogiston, caloric, luminiferous ether, Einstein’s views on the uncertainty ptriciple, and so on.
Clausius was mistaken, inasmuch as all bodies above absolute zero radiate infrared. Hot bodies do not absorb radiation from colder bodies. Clausius knew nothing about anything which was discovered after his death – quantum electrodynamics, for example, which backs me up.
He was wrong. Hotter bodies do not absorb radiation from colder ones. There is no “planet warming” GHE.
Appeal to a better authority.
Method Mike,
You deny –
“Hotter bodies do not absorb radiation from colder ones.”
So you say.
Keep denying. One day you’ll change reality!
Cheers.
Weary Wee Willy,
So I say. If you can demonstrate otherwise experimentally, I will change my view.
Appeals to authority, or your fantasies, don’t count as experiments.
Clausius was wrong. Hotter bodies do not increase their energy content when exposed to the radiation from colder.
No GHE.
Mike Flynn,
Wesleyan theology focuses on sanctification and the transforming effect of faith on the character of a Christian. Distinguishing doctrines include the new birth, assurance, imparted righteousness, the possibility of entire sanctification, and the works of piety.
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
While faith could be the sole condition of salvation, do you think that acting like an asshat increases your chances?
“Mike Flynn,
While faith could be the sole condition of salvation, do you think that acting like an asshat increases your chances?”
You forgot something, Method Mike.
“You forgot something, Method Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
On the next page of that volume Clausius says:
“When two bodies are placed in a medium permeable to heat rays, they communicate heat to each other by radiation.”
On the next page he says this:
“Let s1 and 2 be the surfaces of two perfectly black bodies of the same given temperature; and let us consider two elements of these surfaces ds1 and ds2, in order to determine and to compare the quantities of heat which they mutually send to each other by radiation.”
On the next page he says this of the two bodies at the same temperature:
“…it is easy to see that the quantity of heat which ds1 sends to ds2 must be the same as that which ds2 sends to ds1…”
Two pages later Clausius considers what happens when focussing the rays with a lens:
“We may now ask how the exchange of rays takes place between the elements of two such surfaces; whether the above-mentioned reciprocity holds, so that at equal temperatures any element of the one surface sends to any element of the other exactly the same amount of heat as it received from it”
In all these cases he is describing a mutual exchange of heat.
Again, this is not the chapter on heat engines, but the first introduction to radiation in his thesis. He believes that two send and receive radiation to each other, with the provision that the warmer object never sends less radiation to the cooler object than it receives from it. This is the second law in terms of radiation.
Clausius most definitely infers a NET exchange of radiation between tow objects.
You are at liberty to argue that he is wrong to believe this, but you are simply incorrect to state that he does not believe this.
Bumbling barry,
Clausius was wrong. Radiation from a colder does not interact with a hotter body.
Obviously, Clausius agreed with Newton’s Law of Cooling, and that hot bodies cool.
No GHE. Appealing to authority is not helping your fanatical efforts to convince others of the existence of a GHE which nobody at all can describe in any way which reflects reality.
Go on, try and convince people to click on some pointless and irrelevant links.
[chortle]
And Gordon, you have already conceded that Clausius DOES infer a net exchange. I quote you:
“Clausius was clearly wrong by inferring a two way heat transfer via radiation…”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1630443
So stop changing your mind and saying that he did not believe this.
Blithering barry,
Oooooh! Silly semantic games!
Infer? Imply? Who cares?
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Who cares?”
I do.
Cheers.
Willard,
Maybe you could name one person who is not you who values your opinion.
[laughing at strange chap]
Mike Flynn,
Maybe you could name one person on your board of directors that could vouch for your online behavior.
Cheers.
Willard,
Maybe you could name one person who is not you who values your opinion.
[laughing at very strange chap]
Mad Mike,
Maybe you could name one person on your board of directors that could vouch for your online behavior.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Ten years of pontification might have saved Bordo two minutes of search:
https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius1865.pdf
In that paper, the first and second law are succinctly put:
1. The energy of the universe is constant.
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
Willard,
Well, that’s certainly informative – not. What are you trying to say?
The energy from a colder body cannot raise the temperature of a hotter. Maybe you are trying to magic a planet heating GHE into existence?
Good luck.
What a peanut is Willard.
Mike Flynn,
Thank you for playing dumb once again, and for repeating a falsity so obvious that Aboriginal Australians knew it was wrong more than 50,000 years ago.
Cheers.
Willard,
Well, thats certainly informative not. What are you trying to say?
The energy from a colder body cannot raise the temperature of a hotter. Maybe you are trying to magic a planet heating GHE into existence?
Good luck.
What a peanut is Willard.
Mike Flynn,
You got me check back –
The findings on about 11,000 artefacts from Kakadu national park, published on Thursday in the journal Nature, prove Indigenous people have been in Australia for far longer than the much-contested estimates of between 47,000 and 60,000 years, the researchers said. Some of the artefacts were potentially as old as 80,000 years.
What are you braying about?
Willard,
Well, thats certainly informative not. What are you trying to say?
The energy from a colder body cannot raise the temperature of a hotter. Maybe you are trying to magic a planet heating GHE into existence?
Good luck.
What a peanut is Willard.
Wiltard’s philosophy is the philosophy of pride, envy, anger and sloth.
Troglodyte’s philosophy:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nazis-mingle-openly-cpac-spreading-antisemitic-conspiracy-theories-fin-rcna140335
Willard,
Well, thats certainly informative not. What are you trying to say?
The energy from a colder body cannot raise the temperature of a hotter. Maybe you are trying to magic a planet heating GHE into existence?
Good luck.
What a peanut you are.
Mike Flynn,
Copypasting the same comments over and over again may not indicate a strong dedication to informativeness. It only shows that Sky Dragon cranks attempt to produce work from nothing.
Good luck trying to generate heat without any work!
Cheers.
Willard,
Well, thats certainly informative not. What are you trying to say?
The energy from a colder body cannot raise the temperature of a hotter. Maybe you are trying to magic a planet heating GHE into existence?
Good luck.
What a peanut you are.
Mike Flynn,
At the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD), we help leaders to run their organisations better. We do this by providing education and by advocating on director issues on behalf of our members.
What are you braying about?
Willard,
Well, thats certainly informative not. What are you trying to say?
The energy from a colder body cannot raise the temperature of a hotter. Maybe you are trying to magic a planet heating GHE into existence?
Good luck.
What a peanut you are.
Earlier, barry wrote –
“As Roy Spencer has said many times, the layers of the atmosphere act like layers of blankets, slowing the rate at which heat, in the form of radiation, escapes the system.”
Ah, the blanket analogy.
Unfortunately, the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. Not enough blankets, do you think? Do I think barry would have the guts to ask Dr Spencer to explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling?
Not really. Barry is all mouth and no trousers, as the saying goes. Accepting reality is difficult for him.
Oh well.
“four and a half billion years.”
Swenson must be very nostalgic. He just can’t bring himself to let go of the old days, back when the Earth was molten, and heat flow was simple, and life was non-existent.
But science and everyone else have moved on to trying to understand more recent events, like the interglacial warm period that we’ve had for the last 20,000 years. And the recent global warming of the last century, which have NOTHING to do with the molten Earth.
Nate,
Whether you like it or not, the mythical GHE was unable to prevent the Earth from cooling, and that should be obvious even to a fanatical reality rejecting GHE cultist like yourself.
You mention recent global warming, but of course you find yourself unable to put this down to the mythical GHE, because you would have to describe it in some way which allows the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years, then suddenly change course, and start heating.
Your comment doesn’t even mention the GHE, does it?
Thermometers respond to heat, as they were designed to do. Not CO2, or any other gas.
Try to describe the GHE. I bet you can’t. It doesn’t exist – it’s a myth.
“Whether you like it or not, the mythical GHE was unable to prevent the Earth from cooling”
And? Hot molten things cool off. So what?
Maybe you can quote a climate scientist claiming that the GHE should have stopped the molten Earth from cooling?
We know you can’t.
Yet you keep on posting this same, tired STRAWMAN.
Apparently that is the best you have to offer.
Nate,
“Maybe you can quote a climate scientist claiming that the GHE should have stopped the molten Earth from cooling?”
I can’t even quote a scientist of any sort who can describe the mythical GHE. I suppose you might be silly enough to claim you can, but you can’t.
You won’t even say what the GHE is supposed to do! Go on, give it a try. Or are you too terrified of being laughed at?
“I cant even quote a scientist of any sort who can describe the mythical GHE.”
Then you admit that you are completely ignorant about how the GHE works?
Even though it has been described here for you dozens of times. And many links to descriptions have been shown to you dozens of times.
It takes real effort for a regular visitor here to remain ignorant of the basic GHE mechanism.
So it seems that your dismissal of the GHE is based entirely on your determination to remain ignorant of it.
OK.
Not as ignorant as you Nate who continues to dispute experiments that show what the GHE is not.
Gill confuses absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
Where’s Rumsfeld when he needs him?
LOL!
Willard is now strongly asserting that one should not confuse the lack of evidence of alternative means of changing mean global temperature with evidence of the absence of those alternatives.
Maybe there is some hope for Willard!
Gill simply says stuff to pull me in. Will he succeed? I be he’ll have to work a little more!
For now his blunder is enough for me.
All is right with the world. Bill is just being Bill.
When I write a perfectly reasonable comment, Bill has to argue against it, to the death, regardless of the facts.
Simply because I wrote it.
Well when you so consistently make such an easy target how can one resist?
Hey Bill, you were asking about Milankovitch’s work way upthread. I posted a few links for you up there.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1631599
Yes thank you again for the links. . .very helpful.
Gordon,
Willard found a useful quote from you:
“Clausius was clear about that. He claimed IR flowed both ways between a warmer and a cooler body but that heat could only be transferred from the warmer body to the cooler.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/04/new-u-s-population-adjusted-temperature-dataset-pdat-1973-2012/#comment-42978
Exactly! Let’s see that quote again.
“as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
That is the same idea you expressed.
And this is not about heat engines – look at the first few words. “As regards the ordinary radiation of heat.”
This is in the first paragraph of the chapter that deals with thermal radiation in his great work on thermodynamics.
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog/page/n317/mode/2up
Heat engines are in a different chapter.
Regardless of who said what, it’s correct that IR flows both ways between a warmer and a cooler body but that heat can only be transferred from the warmer body to the cooler (of its own accord). Whereas the quote from Clausius implies that heat transfers both ways, and that is false, regardless of the fact that it comes from Clausius!
It could have been carelessness by Clausius, or a poor translation. DREMT is correct. Clausius knew how it worked, clearly. The cult just doesn’t understand thermodynamics and must resort to perverting the science.
[CLAUSIUS] The words “of itself,” here used for the sake of brevity, require, in order to be completely understood, a further explanation, as given in various parts of the author’s papers […]
[PUFFMAN] It could have been carelessness by Clausius, or a poor translation.
All this endless over-analysis of Clausius’ words is silly. It has already been done for us, e.g:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3
“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.
This is the "second form" or Clausius statement of the second law.“
No need to reinvent the wheel. Roy already adressed that point for earlier cranks:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/suggested-backyard-experiment-to-measure-the-greenhouse-effect-of-more-carbon-dioxide/#comment-220636
Vintage 2016. Time flies.
Does anyone know if Little Willy intended that to be a response to my comment? If so…in what way is it a response to my comment?
Is Graham D. Warner trying to reply to my comment?
I assumed there might be some reason for you placing your 12:03 PM comment after my 10:40 AM comment, Little Willy. Perhaps not. I’ll just ignore it, then.
Graham D. Warner seems to have responded again.
Is he trying to get the last word?
“double heat exchange always consists,”
To be fair, HEAT was not universally defined at that moment Thermodynamics was being developed, certainly not defined the way it is today.
But he was correct that IR energy transfers both ways.
Nate,
“But he was correct that IR energy transfers both ways.”
Nonsense. He was wrong, and you cannot find an experiment which demonstrates otherwise, can you?
Dream on.
“Can you?”
Sure. Planck found the requested experiments and developed his law from them – containing not 2 but 3 fundamental constants of nature still experimentally in use even today! Prof. Planck cites the experiments in his treatise on the subject, from there you can find the experiments on the internet for free.
But it’s a real pity, readers here know Swenson is learning impaired among other things.
Ball4,
In other words, you can’t.
Try appealing to your own authority.
You certainly can’t produce any facts.
More astute readers than Swenson can obtain Planck’s work, find the experiments in the footnotes, look up the original papers (published ~1899) for free, and find out the experimental facts for themselves.
I guess its trash a scientist day for Swenson. Wait, that’s every day, isn’t it.
“Regardless of who said what, it’s correct that IR flows both ways between a warmer and a cooler body but that heat can only be transferred from the warmer body”
This was once hotly contested here. There are still people who think that IR from a cool body cannot be absorbed by a warmer body. Of course, everyone agrees that, absent a heat engine or other mechanism, heat can only flow from hot to cold.
What has prompted all this reference to Clausius was Gordon’s statement that Clausius did not infer (Gordon’s word) a NET exchange of radiation.
“Whereas the quote from Clausius implies that heat transfers both ways”
He means radiation for the two-way flow, and the classic definition of heat for the one way flow, which he clearly emphasises in the quotes here. He used the term ‘heat’ in two different ways, as happens even today in formal science. ‘Thermal radiation’ is often called ‘heat radiation’. For example, the very first sentence on the wiki page for thermal radiation is:
“Heat radiation.” redirects here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
"This was once hotly contested here. There are still people who think that IR from a cool body cannot be absorbed by a warmer body"
I just said IR flowed both ways. I said nothing about absorp.tion.
"He means radiation for the two-way flow, and the classic definition of heat for the one way flow…"
Well, what he said was that there was a "simultaneous double heat exchange", which is not correct, and is going to be misleading for anyone reading through these exchanges. Let’s just keep it clear, simple and straightforward:
"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow".
DREMPT,
You wrote –
“I just said IR flowed both ways. I said nothing about absorp.tion.”
Absolutely correct. Ice emits IR. If it impinges on liquid water, it has no effect at all.
Dummies and GHE fanatics will come up with all sorts of bizarre fantasies to “prove” otherwise. I dont know whether they are more ignorant than gullible, or vice versa.
The world probably doesnt wonder at all. It makes no difference. There is no GHE. Its fanatical adherents can’t even describe the mythical beast.
“Well, what he said was that there was a “simultaneous double heat exchange”, which is not correct, and is going to be misleading for anyone reading through these exchanges.”
Yes, anyone thinking he is using the term “heat” in the classical sense in that phrase will indeed be misled.
He is referring to radiation – the quote comes from the very first paragraph in his chapter on radiation. The simultaneous double exchange is a radiative exchange.
It’s not just Clausius who uses the term ‘heat’ to nominate a single vector of radiation, it is common in modern science, which is why the wiki page on thermal radiation says “Heat radiation.” redirects here.
In Clausius’ day, radiation was also called “heat rays.” That old definition is still in the Meriam-Webster.
https://www.Merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heat%20ray
You can see many examples in the scientific literature from 1800 to 1900.
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=%22heat+ray%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=1800&as_yhi=1900
Once it is understood Clausius used the word ‘heat’ in more than one sense there is no issue with his quotes.
It’s evident what he means when you read the whole sentence:
“Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
He is clearly using the word heat to mean radiation.
barry, no, Clausius’ specifically defined his use of the word “heat” to NOT mean radiation. Clausius defined meaning (& thus his use) of the word “heat” can be found early in his 1st memoir p. 18.
Later he used the first letter of the word “heat” symbol H for enthalpy.
What is vis visa, B4?
Clausius’ words p.251, 6th memoir “on terminology” .. “the vis viva of its molecular motions” is enough to adequately answer the question.
Ball4,
The word “this.” When he says “this simultaneous double heat exchange,” the word “this” refers to hot bodies radiating to cold and conversely, cold bodies radiating to hot.” The sense is obvious.
He uses the term “heat” in several different ways in his thesis.
On p. 18, 1st memoir he is defining heat in terms of its equivalence to work.
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor04claugoog/page/n39/mode/2up
On p. 251, 6th memoir, he is defining U, not the definition of the word heat.
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor04claugoog/page/n271/mode/2up
But you just have to read the quote above and the meaning of the word heat in context is perfectly clear. If you use the definitions you have indicated, the sentence makes no sense whatsoever. No work is being done in that quote, and U is not being sent in 2 directions.
“If you use the definitions you have indicated, the sentence makes no sense whatsoever.”
Apparently barry 3:25 pm did miss on p. 18, first memoir Clausius indicated (not me) and defined the term “heat” Clausius uses thusly: “assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is the measure of their vis viva.”
So let’s use Clausius defn. in a sentence:
“Again, as regards the ordinary radiation of (a measure of particle motion in a body), it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double (measure of particle motion in a body) exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the (measure of particle motion) in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
which makes physical sense. If Clausius was indeed “clearly using the word heat to mean radiation” as barry wrote then the sentence would start:
“Again, as regards the ordinary heat of heat, it is …”
OR
“Again, as regards the ordinary radiation of radiation, it is …”
neither of which is helpful.
U stays put in a radiating body, is not sent in two directions; EMR is sent in the two directions with U decreasing in each body as the energy in motion of particles is transformed into EMR and radiated away.
Then U in a body increases as absorbed EMR is transformed back into particle motion in the body. The particles never leave either body only some of their vis viva leaves.
There is a long, complicated story on the ancient phrase vis viva coming to mean KE over time but that is for another thread.
> Again, as regards the ordinary heat of heat, it is…
There’s no difficulty understanding that sentence with some acquaintance to metonymy. My pint contains a pint of beer, I measure a meter using a meter, and so on and so forth. “Heat” can stand for the property being measured or for the effect being observed without any real ambiguity except to those who lack linguistic flexibility.
According to tradition, vis viva (my autocorrect seems to prefer visa) was presumed to be the physical quantity being measured. It took some time for it to become heat, and then energy. The correspondent to it in nature is the “motion of particles” alluded to in the first paragraph of the first section of the first memoir.
Here it is:
So anyone who read the first sentence of that damn book could understand what Rudolf is getting at. In reality, there is particles in motion; in theory, there is vis viva; heat is what we can observe and measure.
None of this matters much because all these concepts are interconnected. Heat is the manifestation of molecular motion, the quantity of which is captured by the abstract concept of vis viva. Remove one concept, and nothing stands.
Ball4
“a measure of particle motion in a body”
Is not radiation, which is the energy that LEAVES a body.
As I said, with these definitions the sentences make no sense.
The motion of electrons in a magnetic field generates the EMR leaving the object, barry. You should know that & knowing that does make sense of Clausius defn. for heat not being radiation.
Measure and motion are two different things, B4.
At least follow through your own pedantry.
9:40 pm: “heat is what we can observe and measure.”
Not exactly. To know the total vis viva at any instant in an object, one would have to know the sum of mass and velocity of each particle in there in that instant. This is not practicable.
Thankfully total U is not needed to be known in practice; it is helpful that only delta U need be known from the total delta W and/or the delta Q in 1LOT.
Temperature can be known but temperature is not heat.
> Not exactly.
Which part of
does B4 not get?
Missed? The part where Clausius actually experimentally measured the particle total vis viva.
Far as I know, total vis viva has never been measured by anyone unlike delta U, Willard should fill me in.
[B4] Clausius specifically defined his use of the word heat to NOT mean radiation. Clausius defined meaning (& thus his use) of the word heat can be found early in his 1st memoir p. 18.
[ALSO B4] Missed? The part where Clausius actually experimentally measured the particle total vis viva.
Ball4,
Clausius on p.18 is talking of the “the total quantity of heat which the body contains.” Two objects are not radiating their total quantity of heat to each other. Nor is he talking about two bodies radiating the “measure of particle motion in a body” to each other.
Even with these definitions, he uses the word ‘heat’ in different senses throughout his work. Likewise on the other page you indicated, he is talking about the total energy within a system, U, which is kinetic and potential energy. This quantity is not being radiated between two objects. It is a fundamentally different concept.
If you believe he uses the word ‘heat’ consistently throughout his work, you are very much mistaken. Even Q and U are different, the former describing heat transferred, and the latter describing heat as energy state.
When Clausius speaks of bodies radiating heat to each other, he is speaking of neither of these things, but of vectors of radiation.
First admit that your “1st memoir p. 18” was pure handwaving crap and I’ll indulge you, B4.
“Yes, anyone thinking he is using the term “heat” in the classical sense in that phrase will indeed be misled…”
I’m glad you agree. I’d add that I think it is the intention of some here, to mislead others.
Not me.
So, the radiation, which he calls heat, is exchanged, as he says between two bodies of different temperature.
With the proviso, of course, that heat in the classical sense – the NET flow – always flows from hot to cold.
Then, barry, you are need down-thread. Ball4 and Little Willy are saying all sorts of ridiculous things that you should, as a good skeptic, be challenging, and not leaving all to me to deal with.
Exactly, Barry:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1633798
Should have been "needed" down-thread.
The whole comment is a perfect illustration of Bordo’s bulldozing technique. More than 600 words, more than 3400 characters, 11 eleven paragraphs.
First para is his usual hook: name and quote. Then follows his usually riffing. Second para is a wordological point, followed by some half-baked and unsupported historiographical interpretation. Third para is a close-up in atomic theory. Which means that we already moved from the wordological point to his pet atomic model.
Fourth para is his usual switcheroo. This time he’s paying lip service to Gerlich and Tscheuschner. After a sideswipe toward Ramsdorf, we completely forgot there was a wordological point in the first place. So the fifth paragraph returns to it, with his pet distinction between heat and energy. Then (sixth para) comes the epilogue about the sad state of current scientific affairs.
Seventh para is more atomic armwaving. Eight para reconnects with Clausius. Then ninth para makes a jump to 1909 and Robert Wood. Tenth para squares the circle by namedropping Nahle. In the last para the conclusion falls: the greenhouse effect can’t work.
So this merry-go-round goes: heat, Clausius, G&T, heat, climate science, Clausius, Wood, Nahle, GHE wrong. The conclusion is bulldozed through what vaguely appears as a coherent argument. In effect, it is more like a Proustian stream-of-counsciousness, which makes the concept of heat his madeleine.
This kind goes on every day of every week at Roy’s
We should feel lucky.
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
“Albedo (/lˈbiːdoʊ/; from Latin albedo ‘whiteness’) is the fraction of sunlight that is diffusely reflected by a body. It is measured on a scale from 0 (corresponding to a black body that absorbs all incident radiation) to 1 (corresponding to a body that reflects all incident radiation).”
…is the fraction of sunlight that is diffusely reflected by a body.
–
–
“Reflection off of smooth surfaces such as mirrors or a calm body of water leads to a type of reflection known as specular reflection. Reflection off of rough surfaces such as clothing, paper, and the asphalt roadway leads to a type of reflection known as diffuse reflection…”
–
Reflection off of rough surfaces such as clothing, paper, and the asphalt roadway leads to a type of reflection known as diffuse reflection…
–
And that is how the problem occurs, because the reflection off of rough surfaces consists partly from diffuse and partly from specular reflection. Reflection from rough surfaces is never a pure isotropic reflection.
The incident solar light is always directional, so the reflection off of rough surfaces always has a strong directional costituent, which cannot be seen from the satellite sensors.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Would Earth make a good Billiard Ball?
https://youtu.be/mQ1srpro-7I?si=3_59qkHt_k3lQZRh
Depends upon what you mean by good.
Gill tells us he did not watch the video without saying he did not watch the video.
Depends upon what you mean by good.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Two smooth operators step on each other’s toes.
D’oh!
There is an easy test for specular reflection. It is polarised, while diffuse reflection is not.
Any data on the proportion of measured outward shortwave radiation which is polarised?
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“There is an easy test for specular reflection. It is polarised, while diffuse reflection is not.”
–
Sun emits EM radiation almost isotropically. It is the large distance that makes the solar light directional.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Our Moon reflects solar light diffuselly. Moon light, because of the large distance, appears on Earth as directional.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://bnnbreaking.com/world/us/nasas-latest-data-reveals-a-stark-increase-in-earths-solar-radiation-absor****ption-in-2023
Take out the *** before linking.
Now we know what caused the record monthly temperatures in the last twelve months.
Now we need to understand why.
They mention GHGs, except that it can’t have anything to do with GHGs, because it’s an increase in Earth’s solar radiation absorp.tion.
My thoughts exactly: a desperate attempt to spread fear and advocate for policy. Quite opportunistic; they so badly want to find a way to trace the spike back to GHGs.
No sign of an increase in solar insolation.
The change must be a decrease in outward radiation, leading to greater heat retention. That would require a decrease in outward shortwave radiation (albedo) and/or outward longwave radiation (infrared radiation to space).
There is some evidence that the reduction in air pollution has decreased albedo, but most of the decrease is in outward longwave radiation, leading to the greater observed energy imbalance.
You are convinced that it is not due to increasing GHGs so you must have an alternative mechanism. Please explain.
You must not have been paying attention to Arkady’s updates, Entropic Man. OLR has been increasing (not decreasing, as you suggest), in fact it correlates well with global temperatures since at least 1985, it’s just that ASR has been increasing more. That’s why the "imbalance" has increased.
I’m happy with that.
EEI = ASR – OLR
Since the EEI is the difference between ASR and OLR, EEI can increase while OLR is increasing as long as ASR is increasing faster than OLR.
Which still leaves the question
“Why is ASR increasing faster than OLR?”
Any suggestions?
Exactly. Its the well known shortwave feedback. As the planet warms it is expected that albedo will drop thus resulting in a higher ASR value and ultimately higher OLR value as well.
Donohoe et al. 2014 has one of the better visual demonstrations of this in figure 1.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1412190111
My suggestion is to start by ruling out what it can’t possibly be caused by, to start with – so, GHGs are out as a cause…
Reasons why the GHE is bogus:
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
The bogus EEI, Earth Energy Imbalance, does NOT use units of energy. It uses units of flux. Flux is NOT energy. Whenever the cult mentions the bogus EEI, that means they don’t understand the basic physics.
Flux has units of “power per area” or “energy per time per area”. Power is not a conserved quantity, so certainly “power per area” is also not a conserved quantity. Flux “in” and flux “ou” do not need to balance, and often don’t balance. A cone in space, with 5 times the area of its base, receiving 900 W/m^2 at its base will be emitting 180 W/m^2 at its final temperature. A flux of 900 W/m^3 does NOT equal 180 W/m^2. Flux “in” does NOT equal flux “out”.
To actually find Earth’s energy balance, energy-in MUST be compared to energy-out. “Energy” must be used, not flux.
But Earth’s energy seldom balances, as both incoming and outgoing energies constantly vary. That’s not a problem, as the laws of thermodynamics control temperatures. Weather is just one example of thermodynamics at work.
bdgwx,
Any warming, regardless of the cause, will lead to an increase in outgoing long wave radiation and influence albedo. A distinct greenhouse gas signature would entail an observed decrease in OLR; that is not being observed.
Yes, it’s paradoxical, Walter. An enhanced GHE should be caused by a reduction in OLR, yet warming should always result in increased OLR…and the enhanced GHE is supposed to be a warming effect!
Thanks, bdgwx.
These links are pearls.
walter: Any warming, regardless of the cause, will lead to an increase in outgoing long wave radiation and influence albedo.
Correct. That means an observation of increased OLR is not adequate to falsify other causes. However, it also means that it is not adequate to falsify GHE hypothesis which we often see from the contrarian community.
walter: A distinct greenhouse gas signature would entail an observed decrease in OLR; that is not being observed.
First…no. Second…that is literally inconsistent with your previous statement.
Anyway…only the initial imbalance is the result of an OLR reduction. The reduction would only be observable prior to the shortwave feedback response kicking in. You can see from Donohoe et al’s figure 1 panel C for a hypothetical instantaneous pulse of CO2 that the breakeven occurs after only about 20 years or from panel D for a hypothetical drawn out 1% pulse that the breakeven occurs after about 60 years. In other words, we have lost our opportunity to observe any OLR decrease.
From bdgwx’s link:
"Significance
The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms.
However, climate models forced with CO2 reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR). This study resolves this apparent paradox. The solution is in the climate feedbacks that increase ASR with warming — the moistening of the atmosphere and the reduction of snow and sea ice cover. Observations and model simulations suggest that even though global warming is set into motion by greenhouse gases that reduce OLR, it is ultimately sustained by the climate feedbacks that enhance ASR."
You would think the fact that, since records began, OLR has been increasing along with temperature, the first paragraph could not possibly be said to be correct. When exactly did this reduction of OLR happen!?
“That means an observation of increased OLR is not adequate to falsify other causes.”
So, if we missed the opportunity to observe the decrease in OLR 100 years ago, where is the proof of the greenhouse gas signature? How are we so confident that it’s causing the planet to warm? As you point out, positive feedbacks could be the result of any warming.
> that is literally inconsistent with your previous statement.
This would be paradoxical if our contrarians were not walking paradoxes already.
Why does Willard talk so much shit?
Why is Monkey Man always looking for the new shiny toy?
Let’s hope he’ll continue to play nice with bdgwx:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1631744
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1631756
walter: where is the proof of the greenhouse gas signature?
Not in the OLR observation. That’s the point. We have to look elsewhere for a falsification test. We can discuss those if you feel like you have an adequate understanding of why OLR cannot be used (at least not easily) here.
DREMT: You would think the fact that, since records began, OLR has been increasing along with temperature, the first paragraph could not possibly be said to be correct. When exactly did this reduction of OLR happen!?
See figure 1. For an instantaneous pulse scenario the reduction is immediate with the breakeven point occurring about 20 years later. For the 1% growth scenario the OLR reduction peaks at around year 20 with the breakeven point occurring around year 60. Different scenarios would yield timings.
Side note…in the 1% growth scenario the reduction peaks at maybe -0.2 W/m2 which is small enough to be close or even within the margin of error of even 21st century measurements (like those from CERES).
You didn’t answer my question, bdgwx, not even remotely. There’s been no reduction in OLR observed since records began. So when did this supposed reduction in OLR take place? Presumably some time before records began? How convenient!
Since this might be easy to miss:
Op. Cit.
It might be easy to miss. The authors hid that information in a blue box, which they entitled “Significance.”
“Yes, its paradoxical, Walter. An enhanced GHE should be caused by a reduction in OLR, yet warming should always result in increased OLRand the enhanced GHE is supposed to be a warming effect!”
Not a paradox at all!
Consider a simple water analogy. There is a pond in a stream with a constant inflow of water. When the water flow out is equal to the water flow in, the water level is constant. A reduction in outgoing water (for example, damming part of the outgoing stream), will cause a rise in the water level.
Of course, a rise in water level will in turn result in increased outflow as the water goes over and around the dammed part. But only to compensate for the the initial change. The water will stabilize at a new, higher level.
An enhanced GRE reduces the outflow of OLR. This means energy builds up and the temperature increases. This warming should and does result in increased OLR … increasing BACK to the level before the extra CO2 was added.
I already quoted it, Little Willy, so no…I didn’t miss it.
"An enhanced GRE reduces the outflow of OLR. This means energy builds up and the temperature increases. This warming should and does result in increased OLR … increasing BACK to the level before the extra CO2 was added."
Except no reduction in OLR has been observed since records began.
DREMT 5:02 pm: “Except no reduction in OLR has been observed since records began.”
CERES 12month running avg. measured a meaningful reduction in global OLR over the 2016 to 2018 time frame during which similar period UAH TLT temperature was measured to be decreasing.
Perhaps DREMT will explain how DREMT could possibly be wrong as proven by measurement. Perhaps not.
Here’s what I said, Ball4:
"OLR has been increasing (not decreasing, as you suggest), in fact it correlates well with global temperatures since at least 1985, it’s just that ASR has been increasing more."
As global temperatures have not increased continuously in one long smooth upward trajectory, you wouldn’t expect OLR to have increased continuously in one long smooth upward trajectory. Nevertheless, both have increased overall.
Great nitpick. Looks like the whole team’s here to start the usual attack.
Why does Wiltard talk so much? He’s the chief propagandist here. Wiltard hates Capitalism and so how do you stop Capitalism? Capitalism can’t operate without energy. He knows they can’t completely stop the flow of energy but if they can control it and are allowed to pick the winners and losers and not the free market, then that’s what Wiltard and his brethren want. Do you really think Wiltard gives a rat’s ass about the planet? Wiltard is a leftist and his philosophy is the philosophy of pride, anger, envy and sloth.
Troglodyte’s inner peace is shining through. His fight for Freedom demands it. Just like one of his heroes:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/neo-nazi-wins-republican-nomination-for-illinois-congressional-seat-.html
DREMT 5:12 pm improves his comments: “As global temperatures have not increased continuously in one long smooth upward trajectory, you wouldn’t expect OLR to have increased continuously in one long smooth upward trajectory.”
Right. Also, as I mentioned global OLR is measured decreasing with decreasing TLT global temperatures in certain periods. Perhaps DREMT can explain other factors influencing +/- OLR trends at least with getting the sign right not necessarily the magnitude.
Hint: Measured OLR results from meaningful trend changes in clouds, trace gases, water vapor, solar irradiation, skin temperature & atm. profile T over the CERES era & even since 1985!
More fluff from fluffball. Nothing new.
> When the water flow out is equal to the water flow in, the water level is constant.
Exactly, Tim. It’s as if water flow was the perfect analogy for radiative flux…
Good analogy for power, maybe. Not radiative flux.
FUN FACT
The word flux comes from Latin: fluxus means “flow”, and fluere is “to flow”. As fluxion, this term was introduced into differential calculus by Isaac Newton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux
“walter: where is the proof of the greenhouse gas signature?
Not in the OLR observation.“
bdgwx was clear enough here. No proof of the GHE is to be found looking at OLR, or, by extension, EEI generally.
Even clearer:
“Exactly. Its the well known shortwave feedback. As the planet warms it is expected that albedo will drop thus resulting in a higher ASR value and ultimately higher OLR value as well.”
Little Willy has locked onto me again, I see. Just going to keep saying stuff until he gets the last word, I guess.
Graham D. Warner has created another silly fixed point over which to recurse in multiple subthread. He goes from idee fixe to idee fixe, until he gets *the* anwer he wants, and until he gets it he won’t stop. And since this is not the answer Team Science is willing to give him, he will spin and spin and spin and spin.
More than five years like that.
See what I mean?
The GHE can be tested using EEI.
“Flux “in” does NOT equal flux “out”.”
But flux in averaged over the whole surface area does equal flux out averaged over the whole surface area.
Your example has 900 W/m^2 in for part of the surface, and 0 W/m^2 in over the rest of the surface. The weighted average flux in is 180 W/m^2. Just like the weighted average out is 180 W/m^2.
The “weighted average” part is rarely mentioned explicitly because every knows (or ought to know) that we are discussing weighted averages. If it helps, silently insert the words “weighted average” whenever you read about fluxes in the context of “EEI”.
bdgwx argues with himself.
It’s not me arguing with my myself. It’s me arguing with you. You said and I quote “bdgwx was clear enough here. No proof of the GHE is to be found looking at OLR, or, by extension, EEI generally.“. I didn’t say that. And if you can’t recognize the difference between EEI and OLR and call the equation EEI = ASR – OLR “random nonsense” then I don’t have much choice in believing you either don’t understand the 1LOT or are challenging it.
bdgwx says:
”The GHE can be tested using EEI.”
It could if we were able to detect 2 watt changes in albedo and do so timely and locally with incoming ASR. But to say it can be now defies reality.
I have no problem with that equation. You are putting words in my mouth. What I did not at first understand in your other comment was the abbreviations like “lt”. I eventually figured out you meant “less than” but in the brief time after reading your comment before responding I had no idea what you were saying and it seemed like nonsense. It still doesn’t contradict or disprove the point I was making, anyway, after figuring out what you meant.
> flux in averaged over the whole surface area does equal flux out averaged over the whole surface area.
That rings a bell.
It does suck that this blog filters out less than (lt) and greater than (gt) symbols in cases where you have to use them back to back. It’s actually worse than rejecting the post in its entirety like some of the other filters do since it removes the content between the symbols as well thus totally changing the content of the post without the poster realizing it is about to happen.
BH: It could if we were able to detect 2 watt changes in albedo and do so timely and locally with incoming ASR. But to say it can be now defies reality.
CERES is measuring both OLR and ASR. It’s the whole reason we’re having this discussion. Remember, it was pointed out that OLR is increasing.
BTW…tangentially related…the ASR and OLR measurements do provide a falsifying line of evidence against Lindzen’s Iris hypothesis.
One can use HTML entities, bdgwx:
https://www.w3schools.com/html/html_entities.asp
That’s how Mike and Graham bypass Roy’s moderation with their PSTering.
bdgwx says:
”CERES is measuring both OLR and ASR. Its the whole reason were having this discussion. Remember, it was pointed out that OLR is increasing.”
OLR is pretty accurate bdgwx. What isn’t accurate is ASR. EEI is <2watts/m2 and ASR is not accurate to that level. We struggle to estimate albedo and likely associated cloud changes by divining a number within a wide range of readings.
I also have an interest in the technology of estimating the solar constant from a sun orbiting satellite and how it handles orbital variation from gravity or if they are just estimating a mean solar constant over some period of time.
I think that its probably true that the GHE is affecting ice melt in the arctic but its interesting that there hasn't been much ice melt at all for over a decade. Its amazing how many of my sea ice monitoring sites are now deprecated.
Willard, nice tip! Testing it out < and >
BH,
According to Loeb et al. 2018 the SW and LW TOA flux uncertainties are about the same. They only provide the uncertainties for the 1×1 grid; no global average uncertainty. However, from Loeb et al. 2021 we know their EEI estimate comes with +/- 0.48 W/m2 uncertainty. Working backwards that implies individual SW and LW uncertainties of about +/- 0.34 W/m2. Combining this with direct measurements of EEI (like from Schuckmann et al. 2023) which suggest an uncertainty of +/- 0.2 W/m2 and exploiting the 1LOT we can further constrain the individual LW and SW uncertainties to about +/- 0.15 W/m2 for a 10 yr average.
This forms the basis of my statement that the -0.2 W/m2 drop in OLR expected from a 1% CO2 growth scenario at year 20 year bumps up against our ability to use it as a test even if we had waited to start the experiment in the 21st century.
bdgwx again makes clear that there isn’t, and can’t be, any evidence of an enhanced GHE in the OLR data. Yet, of course, all GHE proponents will remain convinced there’s a GHE regardless. The one point they constantly hammer home is that if the amount of IR emitted by an object is reduced, whilst the amount received remains constant, the object will warm. Yet they can’t demonstrate that the amount of IR emitted by the Earth has been reduced…and they freely and merrily admit it, as if it was somehow completely irrelevant.
I’m not saying there isn’t a GHE signal in OLR. I’m saying that an observation of an increase in OLR like what we observe today is not an adequate falsification test since we expect OLR to increase.
Yes, you expect it to incre-decrease. A new word which GHE proponents have invented to help describe their nonsensical beliefs.
Graham D. Warner argues with himself.
bdg says:
”BH,
According to Loeb et al. 2018 the SW and LW TOA flux uncertainties are about the same.”
Now you have changed the topic. Sw is not ASR. To get to ASR you must have an accurate number for albedo including LW albedo. We know LW albedo is a complete mess as its not even measured. And SW albedo remains with about an accuracy somewhere around 5watts/m2 at best and we wouldn’t even know if that changed.
[BDGWX] In other words, we have lost our opportunity to observe any OLR decrease.
[ALSO BDGWX] I’m not saying there isn’t a GHE signal in OLR.
DREMT, exactly. Changes in the GHE cause changes in OLR. OLR will have a period in which it decreases followed by a period in which it increases long term. The long term increase is expected to persist even as OLR exceeds its original value. Therefore observing an increase in OLR during the period in which it is expected to increase cannot be used to falsify the GHE. But just because we cannot use observations of OLR increase to falsify the GHE does not preclude OLR from being modulated by the GHE. In that manner there is still information (or a signal) that could be extracted from the OLR. Again…refer to Donohoe et al. 2014 figure 1 panel D for the scenario that is most similar to today with its 1% annual growth in CO2. Pay particular attention to the approximate times in which OLR decreases, increases, and exceeds its original value. Consider what our ability was to measure OLR was at various points in time in the past. Consider other factors that may be modulating OLR as well. Consider how the experiment we are conducting today is different than the idealized depictions in Donohoe et al. 2014.
"OLR will have a period in which it decreases followed by a period in which it increases long term"
Yes, OLR needs to incre-decrease, in other words increase and decrease at the same time. All makes perfect sense.
BH: Now you have changed the topic. Sw is not ASR.
Fair point. But that would not affect the constraint of uncertainty by exploiting the 1LOT and direct measurements of EEI. For example, we take the 1LOT equation EEI = ASR – OLR and solve for ASR such that ASR = EEI – OLR. For example plugging a conservative +/- 0.4 W/m2 for OLR and +/- 0.2 W/m2 for EEI (from Schuckmann et al. 2023) into the NIST uncertainty machine we get +/- 0.45 W/m2 for ASR; only slightly higher than that for OLR.
https://uncertainty.nist.gov/
DREMT: Yes, OLR needs to incre-decrease
Just being pedantic here…wouldn’t that be dec-increase since the decrease happens prior to the increase as depicted in Donohoe et al. 2014 figure 1 panel D?
It is charming nonsense, either way.
“Yes, OLR needs to incre-decrease, in other words increase and decrease at the same time. All makes perfect sense.”
Let’s face it bdgwx, real science has complexity, and these guys cannot handle any complexity.
In their view, science predictions need to be binary, else they are wrong.
bdgwx says:
”Fair point. But that would not affect the constraint of uncertainty by exploiting the 1LOT and direct measurements of EEI.”
measurements for eei are not direct. you are outlining the only direct means of measuring eei. asr=sunlight-albedo. and albedo has to be assembled from large numbers of observations overtime and doesn’t include longwave reflection from earth but may include lw emission from moon.
the point being that eei is estimated to be a lot smaller than what we can directly measure.
“and albedo has to be assembled from large numbers of observations”
FALSE!
Why do you keep repeating this erroneous idea, Bill? You have been shown the source of the data several times.
The reflected solar is directly measured by satellite. The incident solar is directly measured by satellite.
That’s all that is needed!
There is NO NEED to separately determine albedo.
It is like we measured a car’s speed with a radar gun.
Then you complain that we need to know the distance it travelled and measure the time it required, else we can’t know its speed!
Looks like Gill has direct measures of EEI to offer.
When will he share?
BH: measurements for eei are not direct.
Schuckmann et al. 2023 (and many others) have done it.
BH: the point being that eei is estimated to be a lot smaller than what we can directly measure.
0.76 +/- 0.2 W/m2 is the value from 2006-2020 [Schuckmann et al. 2023].
And although only indirectly measured via the 1LOT CERES reports about +1.1 +/- 0.5 W/m2 for 2020 [Loeb et al. 2021].
The most recent 36m average reported from CERES is +1.5 W/m2. Unfortunately I don’t have an objective uncertainty for that but I suspect it is on the order of 0.5 W/m2 or less based on Loeb et al. 2021.
The point…EEI (whether directly or indirectly measured) is positive with statistical significance.
Erratum:
So every – that isnt from a real text editor needs to be re-entered by hand.
Wrong sub-thread, Little Willy.
bdgwx says:
”The pointEEI (whether directly or indirectly measured) is positive with statistical significance.”
Well you need to consider satellite drift issues bdgwx. There are differences of opinion on how much of a difference that makes.
Further its only assumed that EEI started from zero whenever this week they recognize the effects of CO2 overtaking natural climate change, or supplementing it or a half dozen other assumptions like Loeb essentially trying to draw a line between varying outputs like they do with the models and then tell us that is how much its going to warm in the future. Nope you simply go with the money answer. Its like expecting Exxon to give you the right answer, except that Exxon has a whole lot more riding on being right than the people you have hooked your wagon to.
BH: Well you need to consider satellite drift issues bdgwx.
First…you’re moving the goal post. This isn’t a discussion about the minutia of details regarding how EEI might be measured by satellites.
Second…the CERES is aware of satellite drift.
Third…measuring EEI directly does not require satellites at all.
BH: Further its only assumed that EEI started from zero
That is patently false. You do not need to make any assumption about what EEI was in the past to know what it is today.
bdgwx says:
”BH: Well you need to consider satellite drift issues bdgwx.
Firstyoure moving the goal post. This isnt a discussion about the minutia of details regarding how EEI might be measured by satellites.
Secondthe CERES is aware of satellite drift.”
————————
Yes indeed. So does Roy and John. So does Carl Mears. So does the personnel at NOAA and they all acknowledge there is some significant disagreement. CERES? CERES doesn’t acknowledge anything.
bdgwx says:
Thirdmeasuring EEI directly does not require satellites at all.
BH: Further its only assumed that EEI started from zero
That is patently false. You do not need to make any assumption about what EEI was in the past to know what it is today.
———————
the link you provided was putting the two streams at an origin point like Roy did with his model analysis to show the divergence.
Which really is all you can do considering the inaccuracy of the absolute readings. But these patterns if accurate could cross or never converge. Warming will eventually unwind the imbalance to the extent it exists. Thus I talk about an LIA recovery that in part may be a climb to close an imbalance while other phenomena tries to widen it.
I would say its easier to detect slopes in the various parameters than it is to show how much out of balance they are. We have the same issue with surface temperatures. If you want to call one spot on thats your choice but it will take more than what you showed me so far to convince me.
BH: So does Roy and John. So does Carl Mears. So does the personnel at NOAA and they all acknowledge there is some significant disagreement. CERES?
First…CERES and UAH/RSS do not use the same satellites. You cannot compare them.
Second…yes, CERES does know about drift. They estimate its effect on the uncertainty of their EEI measurements at < 0.085 W/m2.decade.
Third…it’s moot because we measure EEI directly without satellites.
BH: the link you provided was putting the two streams at an origin point like Roy did with his model analysis to show the divergence.
First..Roy did NOT put the two time series at the origin point. He put them at 1979. CMIP6’s origin point is 1850. That’s why I asked the question above about what the graph looks like when you start it at 1850. When you do that what you see is that Roy had to adjust the observation DOWN to get them to match up with the model at 1979. I’ll repeat…he adjusted the observation DOWN in his graphs.
Second…the only two links I provided were the NIST uncertainty machine and the Donohoe et al. 2014 publication explaining the apparent paradox in the increase of OLR. Both have little if anything to do with the specifics of how CERES measures the fluxes and whether they account for satellite drift (which they did) or whether you have to know what the EEI is in the past to be able to measure it today.
BH: Which really is all you can do considering the inaccuracy of the absolute readings.
What inaccuracy? Post the true values so that we can all see just how poorly CERES and/or Schmuckmann et al. 2023 measured EEI.
Nobody knows the true values bdgwx.
You can calibrate something in the lab to about 1watt but putting to use on spherical objects using limited frequencies made up of largely unknown emissivities in the drifting environment of space introduces additional error over which you see a great deal of disagreement like Carl Mears vs Roy and John. I know you have a position in that discussion and why is it you refuse to recognize it in the CERES discussion? I noticed that CERES acknowledges it but they aren’t going to give a different answer. It gets left to the wonderful world of ”State of Fear” those less than highly qualified souls willing to stand up for ignorance having an answer.
thats not to say that an independent team wouldn’t come up with a different answer. Today we have institutions hiring essentially ”expert witness” scientists so they can keep drawing the fat check they get for pushing the ‘run’ button on a climate model.
I was watching a youtube talk on this about the Pentagon getting overcharged by their contractors for parts for their very sophisticated machines. The key strategy is per Rahm Emmanuel “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” NGOs never want to actually solve a crisis they simply want to milk it until they can find something to replace it with.
“OLR has been increasing”
This is expected with a warming surface. At the same time, we see from aloft OLR in the GHG spectral bands decreasing, which is also expected with increased GHG concentrations in the atmosphere.
This is a recent paper looking at OLR at various layers of the atmosphere and in various regions around the globe. Also talks about OLR during ENSO events, which might be interesting for ENSO watchers.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00205-7
"This is expected with a warming surface…"
…sure, hence the enhanced GHE is inherently paradoxical. The cause of the enhanced GHE (reduced OLR) conflicts completely with its supposed effect (increased OLR).
.
Thanks for the paper, Barry.
It might also interest those who like Steven Dewitte’s work.
"At the same time, we see from aloft OLR in the GHG spectral bands decreasing, which is also expected with increased GHG concentrations in the atmosphere."
Yep…and yet, unless the total OLR reduces, we don’t have that evidence of an enhanced GHE. According to bdgwx, "we have lost our opportunity to observe it"…
…and, that’s not a problem at all for those that choose to believe in the GHE regardless.
Since this might get omitted:
Op. Cit.
DREMT: […] inherently paradoxical […] conflicts completely […]
Nonintuitive is a probably better a description since we know that there is no actual paradox. Note that Donohoe et al. only say “apparent paradox” immediately before offering the solution. And since the GHE is “supposed” to result in increased OLR I’d hardly describe an observation of increase OLR as “conflicts completely”.
"And since the GHE is “supposed” to result in increased OLR I’d hardly describe an observation of increase OLR as “conflicts completely”."
…and yet, the enhanced GHE is meant to be caused by a reduction in OLR, which is the complete opposite. You don’t see the problem because you don’t want to see the problem.
DREMT: …and yet, the enhanced GHE is meant to be caused by a reduction in OLR
…relative to ASR.
From your earlier link:
“The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms.”
No mention of “relative to ASR”.
EEI = ASR – OLR. When dOLR 0. I’ll also remind readers that there exists a time x for which OLRtx < OLRt0 for both scenarios depicted in figure 1 anyway.
Just pure obfuscation, then.
Correction to fix filtered content…EEI = ASR OLR. When dOLR lt dASR then dEEI gt 0. Ill also remind readers that there exists a time x for which OLRtx lt OLRt0 for both scenarios depicted in figure 1 anyway.
bdgwx just spits out random nonsense.
Exactly, bdgwx. From your earlier link:
Somehow Graham D. Warner keeps missing the important part of the quote.
I’m not missing anything. Those feedbacks would apply no matter what the cause of the warming, so that part of the quote is not relevant to what I am trying to get across to bdgwx here.
Just pure obfuscation from Graham D. Warner.
Not at all, no. I was able to explain what I meant simply and coherently.
“Just pure obfuscation from Graham D. Warner.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Pure denial from Graham D. Warner.
What else is new?
Go away, pest.
Graham D. Warner has the same two-step as any other contrarian.
1. Denial, conditional in “unless the total OLR reduces, we don’t have that evidence of an enhanced GHE.”
2. Sammich request, presumed by a gaslighting stance, i.e. “You dont see the problem because you dont want to see the problem.”
And so Graham has found his fixed point over which he’ll hear nothing, see nothing, and will keep repeating until he turns to PSTing people. In between he may clutch some pearls or faint on what he takes as his couch.
Pest, go away.
“Sammich?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Clear spectral signatures of the long-term changes in greenhouse gases concentrations (in particular CO2, CH4 but also CFC-11 and CFC-12) could be identified unambiguously, especially in channels sensitive to the mid- and upper troposphere.
What are you braying about?
Little Willy is unaware that is not evidence of an enhanced GHE. Next up will be Nate, who will comment only once he is sure it looks like the discussion is over, so he can slip in a last word attempt.
“Sammich?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Nate, who will comment only once he is sure it looks like the discussion is over, so he can slip in a last word attempt.”
So I’m being baited by the guy who is not supposed to be reading or responding to my posts?
There is no end to the entertaining contradictions found in DREMTs posts!
DREMT: bdgwx just spits out random nonsense.
What you call “random nonsense” is what everyone else calls the 1st law of thermodynamics.
I’m not disputing 1LoT. Nice try, though, professional sophist.
EEI = ASR – OLR is the 1LOT.
Yep, sure.
He’s not disputing 1LoT, but he is disputing it.
Get it bdgwx?
Neither do I.
I should probably make sure there is a link to this comment down here, as well:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1632846
Standard DREMT. He talks the talk but won’t walk the walk.
He insist he understands and accepts the Laws of Physics.
But then he is more than willing to ignore them, if needed, to preserve his religion.
So 1LOT is not disputed, he says.
But then he refuses to apply it! Not here nor in the GPE.
As I predicted, so he appears.
To be fair the site removed essential content from my post and my corrected post used lt and gt in place of < and > which probably wasn’t immediately recognizable. I’m still not sure why the site stripped out the minus sign between ASR and OLR in my corrected post though. As someone who would rather use the language of math to express concepts this site is frustrating. At least at WUWT mathematical equations and symbology generally post as intended. That’s why I prefer posting over there.
Yes, I wasn’t challenging anything about EEI = ASR OLR, and I’m still not. My point is (still) that a mechanism (the enhanced GHE) whereby the OLR is supposedly reduced by addition of GHGs does not work when the result of that mechanism is supposedly an increase in OLR. It’s inherently paradoxical. Not sure why people can’t immediately see the problem. The cause of the enhanced GHE (reduced OLR) conflicts completely with its supposed effect (increased OLR).
> Im still not sure why the site stripped out the minus sign
ASCII and ye shall receive:
Roy’s parser interprets dashes as formatted dashes and formatted dashes as empty characters.
So every “-” that isn’t from a real text editor needs to be re-entered by hand.
Copy-pasting the line will make all the “-” disappear, i.e.:
So every “-” that isn’t from a real text editor needs to be re-entered by hand.
Same for apostrophes.
Willard, First…good pun. Second…that was probably it. I see that it that it got DREMT too just above. The nuances of this site are…interesting.
DREMT: My point is (still) that a mechanism (the enhanced GHE) whereby the OLR is supposedly reduced by addition of GHGs does not work when the result of that mechanism is supposedly an increase in OLR. Its inherently paradoxical.
Which is why I posted the Donohoe et al. 2014 publication. It helps clarify the apparent paradox.
DREMT: The cause of the enhanced GHE (reduced OLR) conflicts completely with its supposed effect (increased OLR).
Except it doesn’t. As explained by Donohoe et al. the confusion is primarily with the shortwave feedback which many people fail to consider and/or communicate.
I know for me I assume ceteris paribus and expect others to as well unless I state otherwise. In the spirit of layering complexity (like how WIRED does its 5 levels series) in which fundamental truths are communicated first I often start an explanation of the GHE by discussing the reduction in OLR…again…ceteris paribus. Once that has been understood then I move on to the next layers of complexity in which other factors (like the shortwave feedback) alter the previous explanation. Perhaps a lesson for me here is to be more explicit when invoking ceteris paribus.
bdgwx, the paradox referred to by Donohoe et al 2014 is not the same as the paradox I’m referring to. It’s not clear to me whether your constant misinterpretations of what I’m saying are deliberate or not, but it gets tiring, all the same.
When will Graham D. Warner realize that he keeps derailing a subthread that is meant to be about this paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00205-7
?
DREMT,
You said…
My point is (still) that a mechanism (the enhanced GHE) whereby the OLR is supposedly reduced by addition of GHGs does not work when the result of that mechanism is supposedly an increase in OLR. Its inherently paradoxical.
…which is what Donohoe et al. 2014 address.
If there is something about their explanation that you do not understand then ask and be specific in question. I’ll try my best to help.
“whereby the OLR is supposedly reduced by addition of GHGs does not work when the result of that mechanism is supposedly an increase in OLR. Its inherently paradoxical”
Not at all. All else being equal the addition of GHG causes the OLR to decrease.
But all else is not equal. The T is rising, producing more OLR. And the T is rising due to decreasing OLR, and due to ASR increasing.
bdgwx, I understand what Donohoe et al are saying, which is how I know that the paradox they are talking about is not the same as the one that I’m talking about. For a start, what I’m talking about has nothing to do with the feedbacks that are supposedly causing ASR to increase. It actually has nothing to do with ASR at all. Just OLR.
“actually has nothing to do with ASR at all.”
If one pretends ASR doesn’t matter for some reason..
Oh yeah because science needs to be simple.
…I understand what Donohoe et al are saying, which is how I know that the paradox they are talking about is not the same as the one that I’m talking about. For a start, what I’m talking about has nothing to do with the feedbacks that are supposedly causing ASR to increase. It actually has nothing to do with ASR at all. Just OLR.
DREMT,
The apparent paradox Donohoe et al. are discussing is the increase in ASR and OLR.
If it’s not the increase in OLR that you are addressing then what are you addressing?
I said what I said. To understand it, re-read it until you do.
Indeed, EM, which may explain why contrarians align themselves with cranks to circle the wagons.
Brace yourself – sammich requests are coming.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The article suggests that the cause of last year’s huge temp spike was increased solar radiation absorp.tion. There is very little else to go on.
Exactly. It won’t stop people suggesting that it’s somehow got something to do with GHGs though, as we see above.
No one knows what ASR is, barry. It’s all based on estimates, assumptions, guesses, and cult hopes.
It’s also interesting that Ent’s link didn’t mention El Niño or HTE. Cult’s hate reality.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1631942
Since when is a few tenths of a degree C considered a huge spike?
The y-axis just exaggerates the variations of anomalies in the data.
“Since when is a few tenths of a degree C considered a huge spike?”
When it is the largest deviation on the record.
“The y-axis just exaggerates the variations of anomalies in the data.”
Ridiculous, Walter.
This has been discussed before.
In science, or in finance, or in any field that displays graphical information, it is standard to choose a scale that visually maximizes the variation of interest.
This is simply Graphs 101, not a conspiracy.
Outside of an Excel spreadsheet, Nate.
I’m talking about the real world.
But Walter, your complaints were all about graphs..
“The y-axis just exaggerates”
“But Walter, your complaints were all about graphs..”
Yes, but I was really referring to the real world. That graph just shows residuals moving around. Prior to the spike, we were ~0.2C warmer than the previous step-change baseline. A fractional degree of change is meaningless; nothing would detect that. We experience far more variability day to day. That also says a lot about the idea of people characterizing these types of changes as extraordinary and out of the realm of natural variability. I call this Excel Spreadsheet Syndrome.
“A fractional degree of change is meaningless”
Not for science, which is trying to determine how well it is predicting change, which though incremental, does accumulate over time enough to matter.
For example the N. HEM. land, where most people live is now 3 Degrees F warmer than when I was a kid. That means heat waves can be more deadly. AND THE Arctic is 8 deg F warmer, and its stored ice is melting.
“nothing would detect that. We experience far more variability day to day”
Obviously, because local weather variation is not global climate change.
Nate says:
”Obviously, because local weather variation is not global climate change.”
Nate blurts out a statement that he has no idea whether it’s true or not. After all a change of weather is a change of climate and climate change starts with a change in the weather. But not so for know it all Nate. He will pass his times 4 times over his crystal ball and start making incantations he got out of his Holy Book.
As always, when I write a perfectly reasonable comment, my stalker Bill has to argue against it, to the death, regardless of the facts. Simply because I wrote it.
Nate thinks its perfectly normal and acceptable to make aggressive and challenging absolute statements about things that are not absolute.
” to the death, regardless of the facts. Simply because I wrote it.”
its all about your personality and your attacking nature. a little respect for the opinions of others is NOT going to destroy the world.
“respect for the opinions of others ”
Then show some!
I might as well pile on here to. It doesn’t matter what choice you use for the y-axis. The warming spike observed recently is significant either way using objective metrics like z-scores.
the warmists in here are swerving out of the science lane.
The weather spike we have seen that has occurred in the span of one year spike went from -.04 to +.93 or a total of .97.
The one year weather spike we saw in 1997/8 when from April97 at -.39 to +.62 for a total of 1.01.
So the girlyman screaming around here really is pretty. . .uh. . .weird.
Yes 1997 was THE super El Nino of the last 50 years at least. The current El Nino has not been super.
In addition the warming this year spiked last summer, before the El Nino hit.
Nate the 2014-2016 El Nino was considerably stronger than the 1997-1998 one and was the longest lasting of all lasting 6 months longer than 97-98. So what is your point?
“Nate the 2014-2016 El Nino was considerably stronger than the 1997-1998 one”
Where do you get such nutty ideas???
Average of the last 6 months, Aug23-Jan24, MINUS the same period one year before, Aug22-Jan23
0.69 C
Same for 1998, Aug97-Jan98, MINUS Aug96-Jan97
0.17 C
Same for 2016, Aug15-Jan16, MINUS Aug14-Jan15
0.18 C
Thats not how El Nino’s are measured Nate.
You are looking at the fact this El Nino had its peak temperature effect in October 23 and the 1998 El Nino maximum temperature effect was in june 98.
This has everything to do with the mini Milankovitch cycles of orbital interactions. Venus didn’t pass in front of the Sun in 1998 until January 98 and maximum neutrality of Jupiter and Saturn didn’t occur with only Saturn in the position of neutrality.
This past year Venus passed in front of the sun in August 2023.
Further the optimum Jupiter/saturn neutrality position was also achieved in August 2023.
The 1998 El nino hit its best year over year number using your method at .72 for January to June.
Thanks for getting me to look at that, thats pretty awesome.
this year is getting a big boost from the other planets in the solar system. So if February comes in higher than .71 it the combined temperature effect of the El Nino and the planets will beat out 1998 and since this year
But here are the over .6 figures for 1998 with your 6 months over 6 months mean:
May 98 0.68
June 98 0.72
July 98 0.69
August 98 0.63
We will see how this one plays out. There seems to be a delay on the planet effect as well as the El Nino effect. Perhaps its an ocean surface mixing issue and we still have an El Nino boost coming this year.
“Thats not how El Ninos are measured Nate.
You are looking at the fact this El Nino had its peak temperature effect in October 23 and the 1998 El Nino maximum temperature effect was in june 98.”
FALSE. And most likely you are intentionally trying to deceive people.
NOTHING peaked in June 1998! The EFFECT of the earlier El Nino had on UAH global temperature peaked in April/May 1998.
Both of these El Nino’s had their peak of the STANDARD measure of El Nino strength, the ONI, in December.
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Nate is flip flopping between measuring climate temperature and the ENSO index. Obviously he is blowing his top at his failed argument.
Nate says:
Average of the last 6 months, Aug23-Jan24, MINUS the same period one year before, Aug22-Jan23
0.69 C
——————-
Yes that is correct based on ‘peak’ temperature effects arising out of the recent El Nino which was boosted by a venus inferior conjunction in Aug and the 4 gas giants in a neutral sector of the sky.
1) this years El Nino global temperature effect peaked in October 2023 before the El Nino Peaked due to the Venus August transit and the gas giants being neutral. (could have been some volcano influence as well)
2) But the peak temperature effect for the 1998 El Nino occurred Same for 1998, Jan98-Jun98, MINUS jan97-Jun97
0.72
This was influenced by as I said by Venus transit in January 1998 and the 3 largest gas giants in a neutral sextant of the sky.
3) 2016, max effect occurred dec15-may16, MINUS dec14-may15
0.4418 C
The 2016 El Nino had the highest ENSO values but didn’t get a Milankovitch boost so it showed up with a traditional 90day delay. So despite it being significantly stronger than the above its temperature effect occurred later dec to may which is the traditional El Nino expectation.
We have known for months that that the October temperature spike was coming from something other than the El Nino and that obviously flew about 50,000 feet over Nate’s head.
Now he is embarrassed and angry.
“1) this years El Nino global temperature effect peaked in October 2023 before the El Nino Peaked due to the Venus August transit..”
Oh Bill, Bill, Bill, drifting off into the cosmos…..
But at least now you seem to agree with me that the ‘effect’ of El Nino came way too early this year, to have El Nino as its main cause.
And to highlight the above. It seems likely that when Roy gets his temperatures out for February it will be the case that the maximum 6 month year over year effect will still be forthcoming.
I think you will enjoy visiting this site:
https://www.astrologybylauren.com/new-blog/2023/8/3/the-venus-conjunction-2023
“Venus/Uranus: a shift in perception; a change in a relationship; something new and different changes the picture; a sudden surprise; being shown that we dont always have to keep doing things the way that we have in the past. The universe appears to be shifting, and is bringing us along for the ride.”
Nope not into astrology. I know you are being a wise acre. Certainly you understand the science of barycenters and how the moon causes the earth to move about a circle of a diameter of more than 8000km in diameter over 14.5 days don’t you?
Astrology is thinking that cosmological events must be influencing events on Earth, without any rational or scientific mechanism.
Thinking that the Earth’s global temperature spike of 1998 was “influenced by as I said by Venus transit in January 1998 and the 3 largest gas giants in a neutral sextant of the sky.”
is exactly that, Astrology.
But hey, if you are into Astrology, fine, whatever. Live and let live, I say.
But it aint science. And this is a science blog.
Dang Nate believes gravity is astrology! Talking about a sycophant!
Bill, you suggested, without even a wee bit of evidence, that where Venus happens to be, briefly, in its orbit, makes the Earth get warmer for months.
No rationale whatsoever!
That’s Astrology, not science. Again, if you are into Astrology, thats ok with me.
In contrast, the Milankovitch cycles have a rational mechanism: increased or decreased solar insolation hitting the N. Hemisphere of the Earth for thousands of years!
you simply failed to understand that venus remains between the earth and sun for about 10 months. passing directly in front of the sun is simply the peak gravitation acceleration point.
and you missed the larger slower processions of the gas giants. when all the planets are on one end of the tug of war rope you get a lot more movement than when pulling against each other.
Still Astrology Bill, with no rational mechanism offered, and no evidence given.
Gravity from a distant planet is not a source of warmth.
Sunlight is.
That is why the Milankovitch cycles are all about long period orbital changes that affect sunlight on Earth.
Nate seems to believe that gravity isn’t a ”rational mechanism”.
Perhaps he ought to go back and take Physics 101 as a review course.
“Nate seems to believe that gravity isnt a rational mechanism.”
Gravity is rational mechanism for causing planets to orbit.
But for warming the Earth? Last year? Or in 1998?
No. Not at all.
Just admit Bill, you have no ‘certified theory’ of how that mechanism works.
This is pure Astrology.
Nate appears to be defending his gravity has no rational mechanism other than to cause a planet to orbit.
thus he apparently doesn’t believe in barycenter motion that is the effect that the gravity of an object can have on non-orbiting objects.
“Nate appears to be defending his gravity has no rational mechanism other than to cause a planet to orbit.”
Yep, no mechanism from you, nada, nothing sensible at all.
Another dead end. Oh well!
This is getting real boring.
Nate says:
March 4, 2024 at 12:53 PM
Yes I have heard that. But apparently nobody can find a basis for that. What besides changes in gravity would cause the earth to move toward or away from the sun over thousands of orbits?
Gravity, Bill.
——————————
then Nate says 9 minutes later:
Nate says:
March 4, 2024 at 1:02 PM
Nate appears to be defending his gravity has no rational mechanism other than to cause a planet to orbit.
Yep, no mechanism from you, nada, nothing sensible at all.
Another dead end. Oh well!
This is getting real boring.
—————————————-
Nate said it was gravity that caused the ice ages then he flip flops and says that all gravity does is cause a planet to orbit and suggests that the sun’s gravity changes to cause the ice ages.
Boring? Obviously Nate doesn’t get the joke he tells. Its hilarious!
“Nate said it was gravity that caused the ice ages then he flip flops and says that all gravity does is cause a planet to orbit and suggests that the suns gravity changes to cause the ice ages.”
Loser Bill shamelessly misrepresents my arguments, again.
Obviously he knows he cannot win against my actual arguments.
My actual arguments
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1638109
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1637958
and
“The point which you have again missed, is that gravity of other planets does not have a DIRECT or IMMEDIATE affect on the temperature of Earth, as you speculated.”
Whereas, the Milankovitch cycles are indirect effect that requires thousands of years, and involves a series of events that lead to the glacial cycles.
The shorter the timeframe, the bigger the spikes.
Gill is a genius.
The 1997-98 El Nino spike was larger and didn’t have the benefit of arising straight out of a La Nina since the 1998 spike occurred 24 months after La Nina and the current one 9 months.
What they both had in common was a huge ozone hole over Antarctica.
DA PAWS! DA PAWS! DA PAWS!
LOL.
Willard,
How can the pause be a nothingburger? If you plot the rate of warming over time in the UAH anomalies, you will see a reduced rate of warming from 1997-2014. It can’t just be a cherry pick.
Monkey Man,
A reduced rate of warming isn’t exactly a paws:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/02/17/only-connect/
This post features one of your favorite.
But it does call into question whether CO2 is really a control knob.
walter, The warming including the pauses is not inconsistent with CO2 being a control knob. If I haven’t shown you the following yet then shame on me.
https://i.imgur.com/Uqrl1WY.png
404
“walter, The warming including the pauses is not inconsistent with CO2 being a control knob. If I havent shown you the following yet then shame on me.”
You’ve shown it to me plenty of times; back on David Archibald’s 2006 cooling thread, I provided you with criticism regarding the use of only five variables. Even if one accepts your model, that merely indicates it’s not inconsistent; it still doesn’t prove it to be a control knob. You can’t dismiss CO2, nor can you dismiss natural variability.
“But it does call into question whether CO2 is really a control knob.”
Only if one ignorantly thinks that there should be NO other causes of temperature variation, such as weather, solar activity, ENSO, pollutants, or volcanoes.
Don’t forget Milankovitch movement of celestial objects.
Bill,
It depends what dataset you use, what you define as a ‘year’ etc.
This is a silly quibble, started by silly people, who objected to a qualitative term for silly reasons.
ent…” Now we know what caused the record monthly temperatures in the last twelve months.
Now we need to understand why”.
***
We already know why, and Clint has been hammering away at it for some time. Hunga Tonga dumped millions of tons of water into the stratosphere. This article by NASA is typical of their climate alarm propaganda. They are obviously aiming to tie any deviation from the norm to anthropogenic causes.
The accompanying graph claims it is a measurement of heat content, which is absurd. Furthermore, it is measured in Joules x 10^22. What does that mean exactly?
NASA are notorious climate alarmists who will go to great lengths to lie about the climate. In 2014, they claimed it the warmest year ever based on a 38% probability. Look at the UAh graph and see if 2014 is anywhere near a record.
Clint R says:
February 26, 2024 at 9:34 AM
Yes Clint , I am with you Clausius ! Delta S. Is always greater than or equal to zero ! This formula is also the formula for the arrow of time . Time only runs when heat is present. Heat only ever flows from warm to cold bodies. The passage of time is also irreversible.
Klaus: Heat only ever flows from warm to cold bodies.
Careful. That’s not what the 2LOT says. It actually says heat only flows from warm to cold when the system is evolving by its own means. This is the well known isolation clause. In Clausius’ phrasing he says “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.” It is important not to omit this very crucial clause. Other phrasing include “spontaneously”, “without some other effect”, “isolated system”, etc. They are all used as alternative phrasings of the isolation clause.
For example, for a refrigerator system with just the evaporator and condenser heat will flow from the cool evaporator to the warm condenser making the evaporator colder and the condenser hotter. This is not a violation of the 2LOT because the refrigerator is not an isolated system evolving by its own means.
The 2LOT is one of the most misunderstood and misquoted laws of physics I see in forums like these.
And air {air masses} go up {cools} and air falls {what goes up must go down] and {warms}.
Tropical ocean engine causes air to go up, and then, of course, it falls.
I’m not sure what the point is here so I’ll just say this. The fact that adiabatic processes exists does not imply that all processes are adiabatic. Given that the isolation clause of the 2LOT is kind of a big deal.
bdgwx, a refrigerator works because of the design and added energy. Transferring thermal energy “backward” is NOT a violation of 2LoT, IF the design is valid and energy is added (entropy is decreased).
But, I agree that your cult does not understand any of the science.
Puffman,
Sky Dragon cranks do not work because they are designed to increase the entropy of a comment section indefinitely. Have you found a model for your cold-rays-shot-from-the-skies theory yet?
Willard, please stop trolling.
bdg…”Careful. Thats not what the 2LOT says. It actually says heat only flows from warm to cold when the system is evolving by its own means. This is the well known isolation clause. In Clausius phrasing he says Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.
***
Anther misquote from Clausius. He said nothing about a system evolving by its own means. He talked only about a transfer of heat by its own means.
Then he went on to explain ‘by its own means’, which he later amended to ‘without compensation’. His reference to ‘without some other change’ is a reference to compensation.
Consider an air conditioner, which effectively removes heat from a room in a home and expels it to warmer air outside. We all know that heat, by its own means, will not remove itself from a room and transfer itself to hotter air outside. If you think that’s the case then there is no point discussing this with you.
In order to transfer heat from cold to hot, a gas must be converted to a high pressure, high temperature liquid via a compressor. Running the compressor requires drawing power from an eternal source. The liquid produced has a high pressure and temperature and the aim is to remove the heat from the liquid by venting it to outside air via a radiator. With the heat removed, the high P liquid is run through an aerator and back to a low pressure gas.
That’s what Clausius meant by ‘other means’. There is no way that can take place in the atmosphere by itself. In other words, heat cannot be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a hotter surface by its own means.
Case closed.
> He said nothing about a system evolving by its own means.
1. Pure denial.
Contrarians and cranks alike can’t let go of their two-step.
Willard, please stop trolling.
maybe wee willy can quote Clausius, where he made such a statement.
I have read Clausius, literally cover to cover, several times, and it is not his style to make such stoopid statements. Why would a system ‘evolve by its own means”?
Seriously wee willy, do you ever think before shooting your mouth off?
> maybe wee willy can quote Clausius
2. Silly sammich request.
Wanna bet, Bordo?
GR: Anther misquote from Clausius.
The quote comes from the English translation of his original treatise on the subject.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/20044#page/100/mode/1up
GR: He said nothing about a system evolving by its own means. He talked only about a transfer of heat by its own means.
Your second sentence contradicts your first…literally.
Not that it matters since I never said either way whether Clausius spoke of a “system evolving by its own means” or “transfer of heat by its own means” (which any reasonable person would interpret as being the same concept).
GR: Case closed.
Ok. It’s just that your post comes across as “nuh-uh” followed by you essentially explaining the same thing I said just in a more archaic vernacular so I’m not entirely convinced you even understood what you were responding to.
If you follow through on that chapter where Clausius made the statement he explains in depth why it’s not possible for uncompensated process to transfer heat cold to hot.
The graphs of pressure, temperature, and volume are describing a heat engine.
Give it a shot, it’s worth the read. May take some patience to absorb it but the physics is sound.
ps. if you go through the material use a pad of paper and a pen/pencil. Write down what you read in your own words to ensure you understand what you read.
Gordon 4:59 pm should follow his own good advice. Get out your pencil Gordon and write down what Clausius meant as he explains the transfer of thermodynamic internal energy through EMR (which is NOT heat) in a vacuum from any generalized body to a higher temperature body is well (“mediately”) compensated as required by 2LOT for any real process:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
as is shown in the idealized GPE and GHE processes.
.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
bdgwx, Gordon,
The version of Clauisus’ work linked above is from an 1856 English translation.
Another was published in 1867 that includes a footnote to the section you’ve linked, bdgwx. It may have use in your discussion.
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor04claugoog/page/n137/mode/2up
P 117.
barry, That is interesting. In that case the word “itself” is used.
klaus…I agree with you re heat but it’s not delta S just plain S for a process at temperature T. Clausius defined entropy as …
S = integral dq/T
If the process is reversible, then the integral sums to zero, If irreversible, the integral must be positive. A negative quantity would indicate a transfer of heat from cold to hot.
It would appear that entropy should have a delta component if the rate of heat transfer changes. A process with a higher entropy should tranfer heat faster than one with a lower entropy.
He did make provisions for a transfer between different values of T, with T being defined as a constant for an instantaneous change of heat, dq. In other words, the supply of heat is drawn from a heat bath with a large enough heat capacity that it won’t change temperature during the process.
There is no such thing as an arrow of time. Time is a human invention based on the rotation of the Earth. Since the earliest usage of time in our history, the relationship between the Earth’s rotation and the Sun’s relative position have been the basis of time.
Time exists only in the human mind so any arrow would have to go in one ear and extend out the other, depending on which way our mind interprets time as moving. It could actually be from the back of the head to the front. The human brain is the only place you will find time.
klaus…just thinking about the equation…
S = integral dq/T
Clausius described it in words as the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat in a process at temperature T.
Since T is a constant, it can be taken outside the integral sign as …s = 1/T.integral dq. Of course, to integrate that function, limits of integration must be applied and the only variable is dq. It would seem then, that the limits must be between q1 and q2.
Based on his subjective description, his intention seems to be that of adding very small quantities of heat over a process. Therefore, the entropy of a system, according to Clausius is the sum of all heat changes that take place in a process.
That makes sense with a reversible process. One half of the cycle involves increasing heat and the other half decreasing it, so that they cancel to zero. To understand the irreversible process we can look at Gibb’s free energy equation. Gibbs promoted the work of Clausius out of an admiration for his work.
G = H – T.S
We can see the T.S quantity represents entropy while the H term is the total heat in the system, the enthalpy. Gibbs appears to be saying that the heat left in a process to do work is the total heat minus the heat lost due to entropy.
Gordon’s words: “Clausius defined entropy as … S = integral dq/T”
Clausius words eqn. 64 ninth memoir: S So = integral dq/T
S is a thermodynamic variable, called entropy by Clausius, with the property that its time derivative is Q/T. Gordon doesn’t know this because Clausius understood time and Gordon does not.
T is function of time so Gordon is also wrong about the integration Gordon discusses. For any credibility at all, Gordon should actually cite Clausius.
“For any credibility at all, Gordon should actually cite Clausius.”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
“I never started”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Very interesting indeed, Puffman:
It’s as if you did not read it at all.
Willard, please stop trolling.
walter…”Why does Willard talk so much shit?”
***
His brain is so full of it, and it keeps increasing exponentially, so he needs to get rid of as much as possible.
Monkey Man found someone to “talk shit” for him. And Bordo again rises to the occasion. Such a perfect pass, right in front of the net. How could he miss it?
Nevertheless, that shows impatience. All Monkey Man had to do is to wait for 10-12 am Adelaide time. Or perhaps he needed to hurry, for when Mike Flynn wakes up it’s really hard to whine about tone.
Just thinking of you wee willy. Someone needs to give you the opportunity to get crap out of your brain.
Thank you for your service, Bordo. It defeats the effect Monkey Man might have been looking for, but it was quite a zinger!
Have you seen him raise concerns about Puffman’s cult-child crap?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Morning, Mike.
Monkey Man was waiting for you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://postimg.cc/ftB4ZtSD
That’s Willard.
That not a monkey, Monkey Man.
Here’s a monkey:
http://tinyurl.com/monkey-man-monkeys-maths
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
from Dremt…worth repeating…
” http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.
This is the “second form” or Clausius statement of the second law.
***
Clausius claimed it is not possible for heat to flow cold to hot by its own means. The statement above re-affirms that. In order to accomplish a heat transfer cold to hot, work has to be done, by a compressor or other mechanism.
Actually, the process is accomplished by manipulating pressure, temperature, and volume. A low pressure gas absorbs heat in a room and that gas is compressed to a high pressure liquid. Naturally, when you do work on the gas to compress it, the temperature of the liquid must increase as well. Eventually, the heat produced during compression will bleed off through the piping and scientists have put that to good use by running the high P, high T liquid through a radiator, where the heat can be vented to outside air.
That is a perfect example of what Clausius meant by compensation. In other words and uncompensated process can never move heat from a colder region to a hotter region.
I do not agree that the Clausius statement is the ‘2nd form’. The other by Thompson is an amateurish attempt at best.
“In order to accomplish a heat transfer cold to hot, work has to be done, by a compressor or other mechanism.”
No Gordon. The internal energy transfer colder body to hotter body is compensated by the colder body becoming colder still when radiating into a vacuum transferring some of its thermodynamic internal energy by EMR to another warmer body. Clausius words 4th memoir p. 118:
“the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation.”
which is required by 2LOT:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
After any real isolated process integrated over time, S must be greater than So.
Ball4 has quoted Gordon:
“In order to accomplish a heat transfer cold to hot, work has to be done, by a compressor or other mechanism.”
and said:
“No Gordon”.
That “no” is incorrect. What Gordon said is right, and Ball4 is a charlatan.
DREMT now writes Clausius was wrong. No DREMT, Clausius’ major work has been verified experimentally countless times.
Cite Clausius, not Gordon.
I’ll cite the hyperphysics text:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3
“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.”
DREMT appeals to a supposed authority that is obviously not an authority. It is possible to be wrong about thermodynamics on the ‘net, DREMT, as you demonstrate & even on youtube!
For a proper appeal, quote an actual recognized authority in thermodynamics that has conducted proper experiments thus cite Clausius not some unknown author & especially not Gordon.
This is the author of the article:
https://exhibits.library.gsu.edu/kell/exhibits/show/nave-kell-hall/capturing-a-career
… not Clausius.
Cite Clausius for recognized credibility.
What do I win if I cite Clausius, B4?
Ball4,
Your appeal to authority falls flat. As far as I am aware, Clausius never said or implied that radiation from a colder body could be absorbed by a hotter, raising the temperature of the hotter.
Yes, everything above absolute zero radiates IR. No, hotter bodies do not absorb radiation from colder bodies.
If Clausius said otherwise, he was wrong.
Keep babbling about “experiments” which don’t exist. Appealing to your own authority may impress the exceptionally ignorant or gullible, I suppose.
You still can’t describe the GHE in any way that reflects reality, can you?
He is a physics professor writing about the Clausius statement of 2LoT, and what he says is not controversial, e.g:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
“Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat is transferred from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, the refrigeration system.”
> As far as I am aware
That’s not very far, Mike Flynn!
Check back the various quotes from Rudolf on this page.
Or not.
Only you can do something about your lack of awareness.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Obviously, you can’t find any facts to show that I am wrong.
Your implication that you are a clever chap may persuade those more ignorant and gullible than yourself. Others might think that you are just attempting to troll. Not very well.
Try harder. Put some real effort into it!
Mike Flynn,
Obviously you have not paid much attention to what has been discussed so far on this page.
Go ahead. Prove me wrong.
Clausius’ more precise wording explains the unknown wiki author words: “the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation.”
which is evident in the idealized GPE solution by Eli years ago and Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) which is relatively small (presently ∼0.3% measured by CERES), a difference between global mean solar radiation absorbed and thermodynamic internal infrared radiation emitted to space, both conforming to Clausius’ 2LOT:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
The question is, do we take serial creative misinterpreter Ball4’s word for it that he has interpreted Clausius correctly, or do we take the word of a physics professor with no axe to grind whose take is corroborated by Wikipedia?
> 2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
I’ll give you one chance, B4.
Search for this exact phrase on this page.
You’re too late to be that obsequious.
No misinterpretation by me DREMT 7:51 pm, I quoted Clausius verbatim & the context is free for you to find on the ‘net or at your local library.
Think I’ll go for the physics professor.
… as far as any physics prof. is consistent with a recognized authority figure in the field such as Clausius.
” . . . a recognized authority figure in the field such as Clausius.”
Even if he is wrong?
You wouldn’t know the difference, would you?
No, I mean I’ll go with the physics professor with no axe to grind whose take is corroborated by Wikipedia over your interpretation, since you are one of the most dishonest human beings I have ever encountered in my life.
Swenson 8:14pm, if Clausius was majorly wrong, then countless proper experiments would have shown so. They haven’t.
A germane quote from the wiki physics professor.
“The statement by Clausius uses the concept of ‘passage of heat’. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means ‘net transfer of energy as heat’, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.”
The wiki physics professor elaborates on radiative flux:
“Second Law statements, such as the Clausius Inequality, involving radiative fluxes
The Clausius inequality, as well as some other statements of the second law, must be re-stated to have general applicability for all forms of heat transfer, i.e. scenarios involving radiative fluxes. For example, the integrand (đQ/T) of the Clausius expression applies to heat conduction and convection, and the case of ideal infinitesimal blackbody radiation (BR) transfer, but does not apply to most radiative transfer scenarios and in some cases has no physical meaning whatsoever.”
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Swenson 8:14pm, if Clausius was majorly wrong, then countless proper experiments would have shown so. They havent.”
These “countless proper experiments” showing that the radiation from a colder object is absorbed by a hotter, and increases the temperature of the hotter, exist only in your tortured imagination.
Go on, appeal to your own “authority” – the exceptionally gullible or dim might believe your fantasies.
barry,
You quoted –
” . . . but does not apply to most radiative transfer scenarios and in some cases has no physical meaning whatsoever.”
Can he describe any physical situation where Clausius’ speculation can be experimentally confirmed? That would help. As it stands, the author of your quote is just waffling – wishful thinking which cannot be supported by fact.
Swenson writes incorrectly: “radiation from a colder object is absorbed by a hotter, and increases the temperature of the hotter, exist only in your tortured imagination.”
since Dr. Spencer performed a series of experiments proving Swenson wrong and Clausius correct:
“the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation.”
—-
barry 8:45 pm, the concept of entropy is definitely at work in that piece since it is irreversibility different than the originals. Read the original references, not the article. I appreciate its attached comment: “Horrible mess to read.”
> the originals
Please beware your wishes, B4.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“since Dr. Spencer performed a series of experiments proving Swenson wrong and Clausius correct:”
Well, no, he didn’t. That’s just you dreaming. Just saying it really, really, really, forcefully, won’t turn fiction into fact.
Maybe the extremely gullible or remarkably dim might believe you. What do you think? Are you silly enough somebody who can’t back up their assertions with anything except appeals to their own authority?
Silly question, of course you are!
Ball4,
The other day I read with care the footnote you are referring to. I believe Clausius is implying a process with a heat engine when he speaks of a “mediately” ascending transmission of heat.
The definition of the adverb mediately is: In a mediate manner, by the intervention of an intermediary agent or means; indirectly
When he speaks of an “immediate” transfer of heat, he is speaking of two bodies radiating to each other with no other process at work.
The statement that inspires the whole footnote is this:
Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time *
Here is the footnote in full.
“* [The principle may be more briefly expressed thus: Heat cannot by itself pass from a colder to a warmer body; the words “by itself” (von selbst) however, here require explanation. Their meaning will, it is true, be rendered sufficiently clear by the expositions contained in the present memoir, nevertheless it appears desirable to add a few words here in order to leave no doubt as to the signification and comprehensiveness of the principle.
In the first place, the principle implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it. The principle holds, however, not only for processes of this kind, but for all others by which a transmission of heat can be brought about between two bodies of different temperatures, amongst which processes must be particularly noticed those wherein the interchange of heat is produced by means of one or more bodies which, on changing their condition, either receive heat from a body, or impart heat to other bodies.
On considering the results of such processes more closely, we find that in one and the same process heat may be carried from a colder to a warmer body and another quantity of heat transferred from a warmer to a colder body without any other permanent change occurring. In this case we have not a simple transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body, or an ascending transmission of heat as it may be called but two connected transmissions of opposite characters, one ascending and the other descending, which compensate each other. It may, moreover, happen that instead of a descending transmission of heat accompanying, in the one and the same process, the ascending transmission, another permanent change may occur which has the peculiarity of not being reversible without either becoming replaced by a new permanent change of a similar kind, or producing a descending transmission of heat. In this case the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation for the ascending transmission.
Now it is to these compensations that our principle refers; and with the aid of this conception the principle may be also expressed thus: an uncompensated transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body can never occur. The term “uncompensated” here expresses the same idea as that which was intended to be conveyed by the words “by itself” in the previous enunciation of the principle, and by the expression “without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time” in the original text. 1864.”
Note the final paragraph, particularly the final sentence and the qualification “without some other change connected therewith occurring at the same time.”
The first half of the footnote is about the exchange of radiation between 2 bodies with no intermediary process; the “immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation.”
But he begins to outline the principle of an intermediary process (heat engine) when he says this:
“It may, moreover, happen that instead of a descending transmission of heat accompanying, in the one and the same process, the ascending transmission, another permanent change may occur which has the peculiarity of not being reversible without either becoming replaced by a new permanent change of a similar kind, or producing a descending transmission of heat.”
This doesn’t interfere with understanding of the GHE or the GPE. The first half of the footnote is sufficient to demonstrate, as with the other quote from Clausius’ chapter on radiation (“simultaneous double heat exchange”), that Clausius is speaking of the NET exchange of energy. And as the physics professor upthread says, heat flow in the classical sense is about the NET flux of all processes, not about individual vectors. The GHEW and the GPE do not violate the 2nd Law because at no time does the NET exchange of thermal radiate flow cold to hot.
There was a pitched argument here a few years back over whether the flow of heat was about the NET exchange of energy, or could be discretised into individual vectors. DREMT’s physics professor upthread has confirmed that it is about the NET exchange. That is all that is needed to put protests of violating the 2nd Law to bed.
You can read the whole footnote (and indeed the whole book) at this link:
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor04claugoog/page/n137/mode/2up
Page 117
No, barry. The GPE does violate 2LoT, as I explained to you at great length only fairly recently once again.
And I disagreed with your explanation, as you remember.
The physics professor you are quoting nails it.
“The statement by Clausius uses the concept of ‘passage of heat’. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means ‘net transfer of energy as heat’, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.”
At no time is the NET transfer of heat cold to hot in the GPE.
This was a point made waaaaay back in the beginning of the dispute. Your wiki physics prof concurs.
We got up to here, barry:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1605895
Then you left the building.
barry, DREMT is of course wrong at 3:03 am, the GPE and GHE both produce entropy making their final S greater than their original So as shown in Clausius formula for the 2nd law:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
To better understand the passage barry clipped 2:38am, substitute Clausius’ longer definition of “heat” (memoir 1, p.18) wherever Clausius uses the term.
*Heat is a measure of the vis viva of particles* is not that long. Neither is the stipulation that work consumes latent heat. It is just a way to make the equation work.
More fluff from fluffball. Nothing new.
DREMT,
Do you want to continue from where we left off?
Do you agree with this quote from the wiki physics professor you cited?
“The statement by Clausius uses the concept of ‘passage of heat’. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means ‘net transfer of energy as heat’, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.”
barry, the physics professor wrote the hyperphysics article that I linked to. The Wikipedia article is a Wikipedia article. They both say pretty much the same thing, however.
If we were to pick up from where we left off, it would be for you to respond to the point I made. I can already see that you are not going to do so.
The problem I have with that quote from Wikipedia is not so much what it says, but how you will manipulate it to try to insist your way of looking at things is correct.
Fact is, in your solution to the GPE, an individual flow of energy is being treated as if it were a flow of heat. I explained how this is the case in the comment that you won’t respond to. So, you are the one guilty of treating an individual flow of energy as if it were heat. You will just never accept or admit that’s the case.
In which case, there’s little point in continuing.
It really is unbelievable how much credence is allowed by the warmists and spinners in a few words of their Gods.
Clausius and Newton are not famous because of perfect elocution, they are famous because of the millions of experiments that have validated their theories.
Arguing over what Clausius or Newton said or meant isn’t science at all. Its only a critique of their communication skills as to how well their theories were correct and established so by experiment. Period!
“Fact is, in your solution to the GPE, an individual flow of energy is being treated as if it were a flow of heat”
Not by me!
I have said from the very beginning of this argument, years ago when we first started discussing the GPE, that in radiative transfer, heat flow is the NET of radiative transfers.
Because some people have since changed their handles, I can’t now say who argued against that, but this was definitely the position I defended.
If we’re starting the conversation again, then I would ask you to point out where exactly the NET radiative flow is cold to hot.
You can do this for either the GHE or GPE.
I fully expect that it will be you, not me, that will point to a single vector and ignore the NET.
barry, unless you have a response to the comment I linked to, then I can only assume that you have no rebuttal. In which case, I guess I stand unrefuted.
Poor Gill.
How many contortions does his friend Bordo force him to do?
DREMT,
I will make two posts, the first on my thesis here, and the second one answering your question from last month.
I’m glad you insisted I go back to last month’s argument. It demonstrates what I predicted. You said;
“On separation, it is now also radiating towards the BP. You say the GP now cools, but if that were the case it would have to be cooling to the BP. It cannot cool to the BP without heating the BP. It cannot heat the BP due to 2LoT.”
Wherein you are looking at a single vector to describe a flow of heat. There are 2 vectors between the plates. You are committing the mistake the wiki physics professor advised against.
“The problem I have with that quote from Wikipedia is not so much what it says, but how you will manipulate it to try to insist your way of looking at things is correct.”
I am going to quote again the physics professor who has no axe to grind. So that we are clear about what they said, and so that you can point out any manipulations on my part referring to the specific quote.
“The statement by Clausius uses the concept of ‘passage of heat’. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means ‘net transfer of energy as heat’, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other”
Let me know specifically how I have twisted his words.
barry: 1) The GP cools because up separating from the BP, it now has twice the surface area from which to radiate
DREMT: where does it cool to, barry?
We will ignore the side already emitting in the spaceward direction, and only talk about the side now emitting in the BP direction, at your request.
Your question infers classic thermo and heat flow. But we are talking about the discrete energy transfers that your physics professor refers to.
In radiative transfer it is commonly said that an object cools by radiating from its surface. It doesn’t matter whether the surroundings are hotter or colder, that is the function of that single vector of radiation with respect to the emitting surface. And that is the language I was using.
If you have a problem with that, I will instead only use the words ‘radiate’ and ’emit’. It doesn’t make any difference to the physics.
When GP is split from BP, it must – it absolutely must – radiate from the side facing BP. GP is, after all, a blackbody.
None of the radiation coming from GP ‘knows’ the temperature of any surface it might be heading to. So once GP splits from BP, then it is spreading the same amount of power over twice the area.
It’s straightforward math. 400 Watts emanating from one metre square becomes 200 Watts for every square metre if the radiating area doubles and the input stays the same. S/B law tells us that if a surface radiates at a certain W/m2, it will be at a certain temperature. The GP will cool on splitting.
Of course, the BP is feeding radiation to the GP, so the GP will equilibrate with the energy it is getting. But it can’t get to the same temperature as the BP, because it is receiving half the energy per square metre that the BP does.
Let’s be clear, each vector I have described here has nothing to do with “heat flow” in the classic thermo sense. If in doubt, check with the physics professor with no axe to grind.
Your counter argument to this has been that there is a difference between irradiance from a point source and irradiance from a ‘wall’. I’ll let you spell that out before replying, in case I don’t get your view precisely right.
Adding three words for clarity.
Of course, the BP is feeding radiation to the GP, so the GP will equilibrate with the energy it is getting. But it can’t get to the same temperature as the BP, because it is receiving half the energy per square metre that the BP does from the sun.
Again, barry:
"On separation, it is now also radiating towards the BP. You say the GP now cools, but if that were the case it would have to be cooling to the BP. It cannot cool to the BP without heating the BP. It cannot heat the BP due to 2LoT."
If the GP cools on separation, it is cooling to the BP. Not space, because it was already emitting to space before separation of the plates. An object A can’t cool to another object B unless it is warming (sending heat) to that object, so that A cools and the other object B warms. The GP can’t send heat to the BP without violating 2LoT, as there is no external work being performed on the system.
You don’t seem to have any specific rebuttal to what I’m saying. You’ve waffled a lot, you’ve kept talking about "net", but you’ve got no actual rebuttal.
And again, DREMT, you are pointing to a single vector of radiation and calling it a transfer of heat, just as I told you you would do.
So it is in fact you, and not me, who is failing to adhere to the physics professor’s advice that transfers of heat are the NET exchange of energy.
“The statement by Clausius uses the concept of ‘passage of heat’. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means ‘net transfer of energy as heat’, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other”
The NET flow of energy (heat) is at all times BP to GP.
Because BP is always sending more radiative energy to GP than GP is to BP. This also satisfies Clusius’ quote on the simultaneous double exchange.
“you’ve kept talking about “net”, but youve got no actual rebuttal.”
Until you understand that the flow of heat is the NET exchange of energy, you will not realize that you’re wrong.
And the wiki/hyperphysics physics professor with no axe to grind will be sad.
“The statement by Clausius uses the concept of ‘passage of heat’. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means ‘net transfer of energy as heat’, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other”
If you think I have twisted the words or the meaning of this statement, please be specific and explain how I have done so.
"And again, DREMT, you are pointing to a single vector of radiation and calling it a transfer of heat, just as I told you you would do."
No, barry…you are treating a single vector of radiation as a transfer of heat, and I am explaining to you exactly how you are doing this. In order to explain to you exactly how you are doing this, it is necessary for me to "point to a single vector of radiation", obviously. You have no rebuttal to my explanation except to falsely accuse me of doing what I’m correctly accusing you of doing!
"Until you understand…"
There is nothing about the arguments made by the GPE proponents that I don’t already understand.
DREMT,
“The statement by Clausius uses the concept of ‘passage of heat’. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means ‘net transfer of energy as heat’, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other”
In every iteration of the GPE that we have gone through, BP always sends more radiative energy to GP than GP sends to BP. that is what the NET flow of energy means.
The NET flow is always BP to GP.
The only way this could break the 2nd Law is if GP sent more radiation to the BP than the BP sent to the GP. But this never happens.
Your physics professor has laid it out in plain English. What do you not understand about his statement?
That’s not a rebuttal to my point, barry. I know you think it is, but it isn’t.
The transfer of heat between passive objects has consequences. One of those is that the object the heat is transferred from gets cooler, and the object receiving the heat gets warmer. When the plates are separated, you claim the GP gets cooler and the BP gets warmer. You cry that the GP cools because the GP is now radiating from both sides…ignoring that the BP gets warmer. You focus on only one side of the story, when it suits you.
The GP was radiating to space before the plates were separated. So, if it cools on separation, then the difference is that it is now radiating to the BP. If the GP cools here, as you claim, then it’s cooling to the BP. Which means it must be sending heat to (warming) the BP.
You will probably cry again that heat is the net flow of two transfers. Then you need to stop treating a single transfer as though it were a transfer of heat!
“you need to stop treating a single transfer as though it were a transfer of heat”
I’m not. Look up this whole thread and every post is about the NET exchange of energy. You’re putting words in my mouth. And you are trying to wave away my adherence to the NET transfer, that the physics prof pointed out, as if it’s inconsequential. It’s CRUCIAL to the point.
The only way for the 2nd Law to be broken in a NET exchange of energy is for the GP to radiate more energy to the BP than the BP radiates to the GP.
That. Never. Happens. In any iteration we’ve been through.
It’s cold outside. The fire is on, the door is lying on the floor. I fix the door to its proper place and it gets colder while the room warms up.
According to you, the flow of heat is from the door to the room. You see that the door gets colder while the room heats up. Amd you believe that this determines the flow of heat.
But the door has only reduced the heat loss from the room.
That’s what the GP does to the BP.
"I’m not."
You are, barry, and I’ve explained exactly how you’re doing it. You have no response except to deny, deny, deny.
"You see that the door gets colder…"
…would I? The side of the door facing the inside of the room would actually get warmer, along with the rest of the room. The side of the door facing the outside would be cold, because the outside is cold.
The coldest place in the room is at the empty doorframe, the warmest by the fire. When you move the door from by the fire to fill the doorframe, it gets colder, as half of it is now fully exposed to the cold outside.
And your argument would have it that upon filling the doorframe, the flow of heat is from the door to the room.
I looked at my final post in last month’s conversation that you pointed to.
“Your mistake is to think that because GP cools while BP heats, and because the thermal connection between each is a radiative one, that this radiative vector is the same as a flow of heat in the classic (2nd Law) sense. It simply isn’t. The flow of heat is determined by all vectors of radiation in the system, not just one.”
I have always said the the flow of heat is determined by the NET exchange.
You have been putting words in my mouth this whole time.
It is YOU who argue that the flow of heat MUST be from GP to BP because BP gets warmer GP gets cooler. And then you claim that this is what I’m saying.
You are totally ignoring that the NET energy exchange is always BP to GP.
GP doesn’t heat BP, it reduces the rate at which BP cools. BP, receiving continuous energy from the sun, must get warmer if its rate of energy loss is slowed.
Roy explains it the exact same way.
“Again, temperature is the result of energy gain AND energy loss. If you reduce the rate of energy loss, temperature will rise… even if the energy input is the same.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
Question for you: does the BP ever radiate less energy to the GP than the GP radiates to BP?
"You have been putting words in my mouth this whole time"
No, barry, I’m not putting any words in your mouth. You’re treating the single transfer of energy as though it were a heat transfer, and I’ve explained exactly how. Of course you will deny that you’re doing that, but unless you have a specific argument against mine (which you don’t) then my comment stands.
"GP doesn’t heat BP, it reduces the rate at which BP cools. BP, receiving continuous energy from the sun, must get warmer if its rate of energy loss is slowed."
Again, you only look at one side of it at a time. Here, you’re ignoring that the GP is supposedly cooling whilst the BP supposedly warms. Then, when you look at the supposed cooling of the GP, you’ll ignore that the BP supposedly warms! You can’t seem to mentally connect that what you are describing overall is the BP warming at the expense of the GP.
The BP is not warming “at the expense of” the GP, any more than the room is warming at the expense of the door.
In both cases the system has been reconfigured to slow the rate of heat loss for a part of the system. In both cases the element that has been changed cools while the other element warms. But that does not indicate the direction of heat flow. The door example should make that tenet clear to you. The flow of heat is determined by the NET of the energy flows.
I gave you an opportunity in my last post to affirm that you are seeing a 2-way transfer of energy, seeing the NET exchange. You completely ignored it.
You don’t want to talk about the radiation emanating from BP, because you don’t believe that the flow of heat is determined by the NET exchange of energy.
You don’t believe what your physics professor said, because that would mean you don’t get to keep your erroneous view. It’s why you’ve been waving away his words since I mentioned them, and not dealing squarely with them.
Whether I pull a batt off the floor and stick it the roof to plug the heat loss, take the sweater by the fire and put it on while walking into the night, or separate two plates that had been the same temperature, the definition of the flow of heat is that heat flows from hot to cold, and just because the moved items cool while the other warms doesn’t mean that the flow of heat is from the cooler item to the warmer one.
When will you finally face head on the quote from your physics professor and incorporate it in the discussion? I’ve hammered that point to no avail so far. There’s none so blind as those who won’t see.
“I’m not putting any words in your mouth. You’re treating the single transfer of energy as though it were a heat transfer”
I’ll show you exactly where in the last thread you tried to put the words in my mouth.
barry: “1) The GP cools because up separating from the BP, it now has twice the surface area from which to radiate”
DREMT: … where does it cool to, barry? Don’t say space, because it was already radiating to space before the plates were separated. On separation, it is now also radiating towards the BP. You say the GP now cools, but if that were the case it would have to be cooling to the BP. It cannot cool to the BP without heating the BP.”
There is your argument. Not mine.
You are shoehorning in a transfer of heat with the phrase “cool to“. You are looking at only that vector and ignoring the radiation from the BP, as I said you would, and then trying to argue that this is the view that I MUST have.
This is entirely your conception of the matter, and because you refuse to heed your physics professor on NET exchange, you think that this is the ONLY legitimate way to conceive the matter, and that therefore it must be what I am saying.
You envisage heat as contained within the GP and that I must be saying it is sent to BP, because GP cools while BP warms. That is exactly like saying heat is contained within the door, which it then gives up to the room when it is placed in the doorframe.
Again, when will you face the definition from your physics professor of the flow of heat as being the NET exchange of energy, and not contributory flows?
barry, you’re very good at repeating yourself, indefinitely.
The door doesn’t cool. The side facing the inside of the room warms, along with the rest of the room. Besides, you can claim the GPE is like insulation until the cows come home. It isn’t.
I’m not putting words in your mouth. Your solution treats the radiation from GP to BP like it’s a transfer of heat. I know you can’t see it, and will refuse to, probably for the rest of your life. That’s OK.
If you actually tried to map out the same scenario of the GPE but with a 2LoT violation as you see it, you’d soon see how absurd that is. Maybe try doing that.
“Your solution treats the radiation from GP to BP like it’s a transfer of heat.”
Nope, that’s your solution.
Do you agree with you physics professor about flow of heat being the NET transfer of energy?
Does the BP give more radiation to the GP than it receives from the GP?
Or are you going to keep ignoring the NET transfer in favour of the single vector?
“If you actually tried to map out the same scenario of the GPE but with a 2LoT violation as you see it…”
Already did it in this post in bold.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1634423
“The door doesnt cool. The side facing the inside of the room warms, along with the rest of the room.”
And there you go again seeing only half the picture. You realize the door has two sides? That the room has a temperature gradient from the fire to the doorframe leading to the cold beyond, and we just moved the door to the latter position?
You keep ignoring everything that’s inconvenient to your conception.
Still nothing from you about what the physics professor you deferred to upthread said, and nothing about the NET energy transfer they explained determined the flow of heat.
You’re repeating yourself because you can’t entertain anything that might disrupt your view. I’m repeating myself because you appear to be deaf.
"Nope, that’s your solution."
No, it’s your solution, barry. The 262 K…220 K.
"Already did it in this post in bold."
No, you didn’t. There’s no temperatures or flux values for the plates in that post. Give it a go.
"You realize the door has two sides?"
Yes, and in fact I said so in my 6:08 AM comment from yesterday. The fact that the side of the door facing into the room would warm along with the rest of the room rather spoils your attempt to put words into my mouth about what I think would happen in that situation.
"You’re repeating yourself…"
Not really. I’m just patiently waiting for you to either rebut my comment from last month, or finally admit that you can’t.
No, DREMT, you’ve consistently ignored my rebuttal to your point and simply repeated your point. Pretending I’ve not addressed it is just your way of avoiding having to deal with it.
You’ve also ignored my point in THIS thread about your physics professor saying flow of heat is determined by the NET radiative flow.
Effectively you’ve put your fingers in your ears and shut your eyes and repeated your point like a mantra.
Is the BP radiating more to the GP than the other way around?
The fact you’ve avoided answering this question demonstrates that you know it demolishes your view. It also demonstrates that you are the one who sees heat flow as a single radiative vector, and not the NET of vectors.
That’s why you won’t deal with the quote on heat flow from the source you endorsed, and why you will never answer this question.
And so you fail on all counts.
All wrong, barry. When it comes to false summaries of the discussion, I’ll simply remind you that anyone can read what’s actually occurred by scrolling up and looking for themselves.
You might try doing what I asked. Show the plates situation with a 2LoT violation as you see it. Show the temperatures and flux values for the plates. Then you’ll see how absurd it all is. And, that does deal with your point about "net".
Still waiting for that rebuttal of my point from last month.
"Is the BP radiating more to the GP than the other way around?"
The reason I ignore these questions is because they’re dumb. At 262 K…220 K, of course the BP is radiating more than the GP. Temperature being related to the amount an object emits by the SB Law, and all. It’s like you’re asking me: at 262 K…220 K, is the blue plate warmer than the green plate? Why yes, barry. Yes it is.
Thank you for finally answering 24 hours and a couple dozen transactions later.
“The statement by Clausius uses the concept of passage of heat’. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means ‘net transfer of energy as heat’, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other”
Under the advice of your physics professor here, the heat flow in the GPE, in every iteration we’ve been through, is from BP to GP.
Now, you said I would twist these words to make my point.
So I’m asking again – have I twisted the words of your endorsed source, or have I correctly applied the professor’s advice?
… in that the NET flow of energy is BP to GP.
Yes, you are continuing to "manipulate it to try to insist your way of looking at things is correct". You have done so since the beginning of this discussion.
Obviously, if the BP is warmer than the GP, heat is flowing from the BP to the GP. None of that needed to be "answered", barry. The real question is, how does the BP get to be warmer than the GP in the first place?
On separation of the plates, you say the GP cools. So, where does it cool to? That’s another question that needs to be answered. It was already radiating to space before separation, and so, the difference is now that it’s radiating to the BP. So, if it cools on separation, it’s cooling to the BP. Agreed?
"Under the advice of your physics professor here…"
…barry, please drop the whole "your own source says", crap. You’ve really overplayed that angle. It’s especially grating because you keep quoting the Wikipedia article, which was not written by "my" physics professor. The hyperphysics article was, which you haven’t quoted at all. Yes, they both say similar things…but it’s still kind of grating. At least get it right if you’re going to continue playing that same game.
As I said upthread, it is not cooling TO the BP, it is simply cooling. It does so because it’s surface area has doubled, NOT because it has spontaneously decided to send heat to BP.
You insist that this is a heat flow along a single vector. Here are some equations to show you that you are wrong.
The equation for heat flow in this circumstance is:
Qnet = σ(T1 – T2)
where Qnet is heat flow, σ is the S/B equation, and T1 and T2 are the temperatures of the plates to the fourth power (couldn’t be arsed finding the HTML for superscript 4). We are assuming 2 blackbody surfaces of equal area.
If T1 – T2 is positive, the flow is T1 –> T2, if negative the other way around.
That’s it. That’s the equation for heat flow in a purely radiative environment of 2 blackbodies of equal surface area.
Let’s put numbers in there. T1 is BP, T2 is GP.
Qnet = σ(290K – 290K)
No heat flow.
Qnet = σ(310K – 270K)
Heat flow is T1 to T2, or BP to GP.
Qnet = σ(270K – 310K)
Now the flow of heat is GP to BP.
I’ve been trying to get you to understand that the heat flow is determined only by the NET radiative transfer. Just as your physics professor says.
And the example of the door is to show how you can reconfigure a system to get a result where one element cools and another warms without that violating 2LoT.
Your insistence that heat has flowed from GP to BP after splitting is just plain WRONG. That is not how classic heat flow is determined.
A body that is colder than another body can reduce the heat loss from the other body, and if the warmer body is getting constant energy, that body must warm.
As long as the warmer body stays warmer than the cooler body, the flow of heat is always hot to cold, no matter how the temperatures change as the system is reconfigured.
That’s why we have used sweaters, blankets, home insulation, roof batts, CPU heat sinks, car radiators, plates in space and doors off their hinges to show that a cooler body can reduce heat loss in a warmer body.
Your problem is that you don’t UNDERSTAND the definition of heat flow in the classic sense.
But I know you will doggedly stick to your opinion that a single vector of radiation and two bodies changing temperature is the determinant of heat flow.
My reply will always be in line with classic thermo:
Qnet = σ(T1 – T2)
"Your problem is that you don’t UNDERSTAND the definition of heat flow in the classic sense."
barry, you’re pushing it, now. As I said before:
"There is nothing about the arguments made by the GPE proponents that I don’t already understand."
I certainly don’t need a lecture on the radiative heat transfer equation, and I’ve reached my limit on the number of false accusations I’m going to accept from you.
The problem with your way of looking at "2LoT violations" would have been clear to you if you had only done what I asked. I’ll do it for you, instead: the only way for there to be a 2LoT violation as you would see it, in the GPE, is if the plate temperatures were effectively reversed, so that the GP was warmer than the BP! For example, 220 K…262 K. So absurd, for so many reasons. Do you not think that 2LoT violations might be a little bit more nuanced and subtle than that, when it comes to radiative heat transfer?
"As I said upthread, it is not cooling TO the BP, it is simply cooling."
This is getting a bit silly, now. It can’t be "simply cooling", barry, it has to be cooling to somewhere! Since it was already radiating to space prior to separation, on separation of the plates it must be cooling to the BP if it supposedly cools then, since that’s the only other thing filling its field of view. There’s no way around that logic. If you’re simply not going to accept it, I guess there’s no way forward.
“The real question is, how does the BP get to be warmer than the GP in the first place?”
FALSE!
The original question by Eli was: what is the steady state condition that satisfies the laws of physics?
And it still is.
The TEAM’s steady-state solution doesn’t satisfy the laws of physics. So it cannot be correct, no matter how they think it got there.
Again, they fail to understand that 1LOT applies to the GP, and it applies to the BP, and is not satisfied for either of them, with their solution.
So it is wrong.
No amount of hand-waving can earn them a Get out of physics jail free card.
Barry,
If you tell DREMT the obvious truth such as:
“Your problem is that you dont UNDERSTAND the definition of heat flow in the classic sense.”
Then he’ll bitch and moan and accuse you of treating him badly:
“barry, youre pushing it”
Because he is such delicate flower!
Then he will continue to NOT understand the definition of heat flow and simply repeat his claim that heat must have flowed from colder to hotter.
Which, of course it never does.
Good luck with ‘debating’ DREMT, but up to now, he has never been here for honest debate.
So let’s see. Maybe he will surprise us.
Once again, as a long discussion nears its close, he rears his exceptionally ugly head and roars God knows what…pathologically incapable of just staying out of my comments.
“On separation of the plates, you say the GP cools. So, where does it cool to? Thats another question that needs to be answered. It was already radiating to space before separation, and so, the difference is now that its radiating to the BP. So, if it cools on separation, its cooling to the BP. Agreed”
Barry, he is not going to read this, so I’ll say it to you, and maybe you already know this, but
before separation, the GP was receiving 200 W/m^2 of heat flow by conduction from the BP.
Immediately after separation, the GP is receiving 0 W/m^2 NET from the BP, via radiation.
ZERO heat flow.
Thus the GP’s heat flow to space is now sufficient to COOL it.
There was never a reversal of heat flow.
If DREMT thinks there must have been, then it can only be because he STILL doesnt understand the definition of heat flow.
…pathologically incapable of just staying out of my comments.
If he truly doesnt read my comments, then they shouldnt bother him….
…incapable of just staying out of my comments.
Exactly, Nate.
Graham D. Warner’s lastwording is more than a bit creepy…
“I’ll do it for you, instead: the only way for there to be a 2LoT violation as you would see it, in the GPE, is if the plate temperatures were effectively reversed, so that the GP was warmer than the BP!”
With the sun providing heat to the BP and the GP only getting energy from space and the BP, the GP should be cooler than the BP. This situation is a violation of the 2nd Law, because now the flow of heat is from GP to BP, despite the NET transfer: Qnet [σ(BP – GP)] is a negative number.
I thought the physics prof had written both articles, based on ,a href=https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1632126>this post. My mistake.
I’m going to state your case, so you know I understand it.
On separation (in my conception), the GP gets cooler and the BP gets warmer. This constitutes a transfer of heat from GP to BP because the GP is radiatively cooling towards BP.
Have I correctly stated your argument?
Adding:
…: Qnet [σ(BP GP)] is a negative number. And it should not be in that scenario with BP receiving more energy than GP, and yet somehow being a lower temperature.
Soon be time for barry to return…perhaps he’ll finally have a response to my comment from last month beyond bizarrely saying that the GP is "simply cooling" on separation of the plates, as if it’s not cooling to anything at all, somehow.
How uncanny. As I predicted it, so he appeared.
Yes, barry, the GP being warmer than the BP would violate 2LoT. You don’t see the absurdity of that being the only way you believe there could be a 2LoT violation? OK then. That was a waste of time.
I’m not reiterating my comment from last month, barry. You know where it is, go and read it again if you need to.
“the only way for there to be a 2LoT violation as you would see it, in the GPE, is if the plate temperatures were effectively reversed, so that the GP was warmer than the BP!”
Outside of the scenario wee have been applying this would not, of course, violate 2LoT.
Here’s a 2LoT violation:
You separate the plates. It doesn’t matter for what reason you think the GP cools. That GP was radiating to space before the plates were separated, and on separation it is still radiating to space. The radiation to space is thus not the difference that can have led to the cooling you believe occurs. That only leaves the radiation on the other side of the GP, towards the BP, as being the difference that can have led to the cooling you believe occurs. It was not radiating towards the BP when the plates were pushed together, and now, on separation, it is.
Thus, you must believe the GP is cooling to the BP, since you believe cooling is now occurring, and the only difference from when the GP wasn’t cooling is that now the GP is radiating to the BP.
If the GP is cooling to the BP, then it’s sending heat to the BP. Warming it. We can see that indeed, you think the BP warms on separation. So, that’s you treating a single flow of IR radiation as though it were a transfer of heat.
A bit more subtle than the GP being warmer than the BP.
[BARRY, March 1, 2024 at 4:00 PM] Adding:
[GRAHAM D. WARNER, March 1, 2024 at 4:02 PM] Soon be time for barry to return
[GRAHAM D. WARNER, March 1, 2024 at 4:12 PM] How uncanny. As I predicted it, so he appeared.
Yes, Little Willy. It was a cross-post. I wrote a comment saying that it would soon be time for barry to return. At the time I started writing it, barry hadn’t commented as far as I could see. Once I’d written and posted the comment, it refreshed the screen and I could see that barry had written a post himself. So, it seemed like an uncanny coincidence. I was writing a comment that predicted he would be about to return at pretty much exactly the same time as he was writing his comment.
I have described your argument correctly. I want you to know that I understand you.
Let’s walk it step by step with some numbers.
A blue plate (blackbody) is receiving 400 W/m2 from a sun
It radiates 200 W/m2 each side (assuming perfect conduction, no edge effects)
We press a green plate to the blue plate, also perfectly conducting, no edge effects, and it heats up to the same temperature as BP
BP is emitting 200 W/m2 sunward, GP is emitting 200 W/m2 spaceward
It is as if there is only one plate there. There is no thermal distinction between having one or two plates there. GP is getting the total energy from the sun that BP is. It’s not a very physical idea.
So let’s make the plates distinct. Let’s treat the GP as an actual different plate and give it its own sun, far away from the current construct. Like the BP it is receiving 400 W/m2, and emitting 200 W/m2 each side
Now teleport the GP to the shaded side of BP
The BP is getting the full power of the sun, but the GP is now getting only half that power per unit area.
SUN 400–> <–200 BP 200–> <–200 GP 200–>
This cannot sustain. GP cannot radiate more than it receives from BP
BP is radiating 200 W/m2 to GP, but GP is radiating the equivalent of 400 W/m2 (200 W/m2 X 2A). GP must equilibrate. GP must cool
As it cools, it is also sending radiation to BP, slowing its heat loss. BP must equilibrate with sun AND GP. BP warms – because its energy loss is slowed by the vector of radiation coming from BP
And this is where, DREMT, you say that this is absolutely, positively an exchange of heat from a cooling body to a warming one.
But it isn’t, because a single vector – a contributory vector of energy flow – does not determine the direction of heat flow.
This is half of your misunderstanding of the classic definition of heat flow.
At all times there is more heat flowing from the BP to the GP than the other way around.
In fact the rate of heat flow between BP and GP increases until it equilibrates.
The changing temperatures do not determine the direction of heat flow. That is the other half of your misunderstanding.
Heat flow is determined by the sign of the difference in temperature, NOT by a change in temperature of two bodies.
This is your error in thinking.
This analogy really should make it clear:
Inside the room with a fire, the door is equilibrated with the room. Move the door and affix it to the frame, and the door is now losing more energy on one side. It gets colder than the room. It remains colder even as the room heats up. The air in the room is protected from the bitter cold outside, the door is not.
So the door gets colder as the room warms – even the inside of the door gets colder at first (let’s make the door a perfect conductor, like the plates). Eventually it will get warmer as the room warms, but the door will still be colder than the average temp of the room.
Heat has not flowed from the door to the room. The door is slowing the room’s heat loss even as it cools and the room warms.
I use this analogy because it is relatable to our everyday experience. This is a case of a cooling body providing a reduction in heat loss to another body, which warms. The flow of heat is always room –> door, there is no 2LoT violation.
I want to stress your error in understanding.
A change in temperature of two bodies is not enough to determine the flow of heat in a system. If a body of lower temperature cools while a body of higher temperature warms, the flow of heat is always from the higher temperature body to the lower temperature body. The flow of heat is only ever determined by the difference in the temperature of the two bodies, absent another process making work on the system.
As long as you reject this, you reject the classic definition of heat flow.
And now I will show you how you treat a one-way vector of radiation as a heat flow, and I don’t.
We have two plates at equal temperature radiating towards each other. We control the energy input into each plate by turning a knob.
We reduce the energy flow into GP, and increase the energy flow into BP. GP gets cooler, BP gets warmer.
Obviously, the flow of heat is BP to GP. We both agree, right?
And what is the reason that you contend the opposite is the case in our usual scenario?
Because of a single vector of radiation going from GP to BP.
It doesn’t matter how the plates get to the new temperatures. This is your error of thinking.
It is YOU who are arguing that heat is flowing from cold to hot, just because GP cools and BP warms, ignoring that the NET energy exchange is BP to GP. In your remodelled GPE you forget the principle of heat flow and substitute it for a single vector of radiation and two temperature changes.
I account for all energy vectors in this scenario, including from the sun, and note that the GP is reducing BP’s heat loss.
That’s the correct way to view it in terms of classic thermo. You just don’t realize it.
DREMT,
“If the GP is cooling to the BP, then it’s sending heat to the BP. Warming it.”
No!
GP is sending radiation to the BP. Slowing BPs rate of radiative heat loss.
You are misusing the term heat here. You are not using it in the classic thermo sense.
You are making equivalence of the two terms radiation and heat. Fatal error.
"It is as if there is only one plate there. There is no thermal distinction between having one or two plates there. GP is getting the total energy from the sun that BP is. It’s not a very physical idea.
So let’s make the plates distinct."
No, barry. The GP is not getting the total energy from the Sun that BP is, because the BP is radiating 200 W/m^2 of said energy away to its left, which thus never makes it to the GP. Consequently, your post falls apart. You lengthy post is an excuse to:
1) Skip responding to the argument I’ve made, which you are having extreme difficulty responding to.
2) Reiterate the problem of the GPE from the very beginning, in the hope that I will be distracted from my point and involve myself with dealing with every nuance of the GPE again.
3) Repeat your false accusations that I "don’t understand" this or that.
“The GP is not getting the total energy from the Sun that BP is, because the BP is radiating 200 W/m^2 of said energy away to its left, which thus never makes it to the GP.”
Fine! Then GP is getting 200 W/m2 through it, and directing nothing back to BP when pressed together, because that 200 W/m2 is all going off to the right.
When plates are split then GP now has a new vector to radiate to (towards BP) and doubles its surface area.
As BP is sending 200 W/m2 to GP, and GP now emits from both sides, it cannot emit 200 W/m2 from both sides, because that would be more energy than it is receiving – 200 W/m2 X 2A = 400 W/m2.
To equilibrate incoming energy and outgoing, GP temp must drop.
And that is why GP cools.
Now, GP sends radiation (not heat – they’re not the same!) to BP, where before it sent no energy.
BP’s rate of heat loss is slowed by the change in NET energy exchange. BP warms.
None of this violates 2LoT.
But you violate the definition of heat flow by calling a vector of radiation a transfer of heat.
And that’s the simplest way to state your error.
"And that is why GP cools."
Now read through from:
"You separate the plates. It doesn’t matter for what reason you think the GP cools."
Taken from my 4:42 PM post.
Then finally, for the first time this discussion, you might like to actually respond to my argument.
Answered that many times. Here is the short version.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1635924
Quote this and deal with the points.
That comment just falsely accuses me of treating a transfer of radiation as though it were a transfer of heat, which is actually what you’re doing.
The closest you’ve got to even attempting to rebut my argument was to say that the GP is "simply cooling" rather than cooling to anywhere, which was nonsensical.
You’ve got a long way to go.
“That comment just falsely accuses me of treating a transfer of radiation as though it were a transfer of heat”
Ok, NOT a transfer of HEAT. Then NOT a 2LOT violation either.
All is right with the Eli solution, again.
You’ve got a long way to go.
As ever DREMT isn’t bothered by his totally contradictory positions.
…got a long way to go.
“That comment just falsely accuses me of treating a transfer of radiation as though it were a transfer of heat”
So you’re not confused about radiation and heat. Great! Let’s remove false references to heat, then.
The flow of heat is determined by a cooler cooling body radiating to a warmer warming body.
Are we satisfied that this expresses your argument?
I’m satisfied that I have expressed my argument perfectly clearly a number of times now, and that you have no rebuttal to it.
“Ok, NOT a transfer of HEAT. Then NOT a 2LOT violation either.”
Exactly.
A transfer of radiation is not a transfer of heat.
I guess DREMT’s argument would be that the transfer of heat is determined by the BP getting warmer and GP getting cooler, and heat is transferred from one to the other by…
Something that is not radiation. Some other “warming’ process.
In your 262 K…220 K solution, you are treating a transfer of IR radiation as though it were a transfer of heat. As I’ve said from the very beginning. In other words, the “back-radiation” transfer should not be cooling the GP and warming the BP, but that’s what you have it doing. You can respond, “oh, of course that’s not what I’m doing, what’s happening is x, y, z”. Now, I fully grok your x, y, z. You don’t have to keep explaining it over and over again. The fact is, you are mistaken. And, unless you have an actual rebuttal to my argument from last month that goes beyond “the GP is simply cooling, it is not cooling to anywhere”, which is nonsense, then I will continue to point out that you are mistaken.
“you are treating a transfer of IR radiation as though it were a transfer of heat.”
False accusation.
Only DREMT has suggested that there must be a 2LOT violation, which would have required a reversal of heat flow.
No one else ever suggested that needs to happen, only him.
Bizarrely, he ignores the steady heat-flow INPUT from the sun to the BP, which means any interruption of its heat flow OUTPUT will cause it to WARM.
Oddly, he ignores the steady heat-flow OUTPUT from the GP to space, which means any interruption in its heat-flow INPUT will cause it to COOL.
And finally, he is strangely unwilling to accept that simple FACT that a switch from conduction to radiation will cause an interruption in heat-flow from BP to GP.
…your 262 K…220 K solution, you are treating a transfer of IR radiation as though it were a transfer of heat. As I’ve said from the very beginning. In other words, the “back-radiation” transfer should not be cooling the GP and warming the BP, but that’s what you have it doing. You can respond, “oh, of course that’s not what I’m doing, what’s happening is x, y, z”. Now, I fully grok your x, y, z. You don’t have to keep explaining it over and over again. The fact is, you are mistaken. And, unless you have an actual rebuttal to my argument from last month that goes beyond “the GP is simply cooling, it is not cooling to anywhere”, which is nonsense, then I will continue to point out that you are mistaken.
“In your 262 K… 220 K solution, you are treating a transfer of IR radiation as though it were a transfer of heat.”
If you define heat flow as the difference in temperature, warmer to cooler, a positive result if you subtract the destination temp from the source, then heat must flow from 262K object to 220K object.
I don’t think you can legitimately disagree with that statement, either the principle or the conclusion.
In every iteration of the GPE that I endorse, BP is always warmer than GP. So the 2nd Law is not broken IF heat flow is determined purely by the temperature difference of two objects in the same thermal environment.
But in the split plate scenario, you don’t define heat flow in that way.
You believe that because GP cools down and BP heats up, a heat transfer has occurred from GP to BP.
We both know a single vector of radiative transfer is not a heat transfer. So it is the resulting temperature change in the 2 objects that you believe is determining the flow of heat. A change of opposite sign for each object.
barry says: Heat flow is determined by the temperature difference of two objects
DREMT says: Heat flow is determined by the temperature changes of two objects
You are saying that my definition is wrong.
You are rejecting the classic definition of heat flow. You are saying that your definition is correct, and that in our scenario, heat flow is NOT determined by the temperature difference between two objects.
Do you realize that?
I realise that you still have no rebuttal. You seem incapable of quoting my words, and pointing out any flaw in the logic. Here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1635781
Instead, you are waffling on about heat. Of course heat would be flowing from the 262 K body to the 220 K body. I’ve already said so, so why would you bring it up again as if I hadn’t? As I have already said, the question is how do they get to those temperatures in the first place, after separation of the plates?
Click on the link. Quote from the text. Point out any flaw in the logic, if you can. Otherwise, PST.
Ok, I’ll quote your post at length and respond to the points, but I’m suspicious you’ll waste my time with, “your post is too waffly.”
“Here’s a 2LoT violation:
You separate the plates. It doesn’t matter for what reason you think the GP cools.”
Ok…
“That GP was radiating to space before the plates were separated, and on separation it is still radiating to space. The radiation to space is thus not the difference that can have led to the cooling you believe occurs. That only leaves the radiation on the other side of the GP, towards the BP, as being the difference that can have led to the cooling you believe occurs. It was not radiating towards the BP when the plates were pushed together, and now, on separation, it is.”
Yes, that’s all fine. GP did not return any energy to BP while pressed to it, and immediately on separation is sending 200 W/m2 back to BP. In my view, this rate cannot be sustained beyond the first picosecond.
“Thus, you must believe the GP is cooling to the BP, since you believe cooling is now occurring, and the only difference from when the GP wasn’t cooling is that now the GP is radiating to the BP.”
I’m content to agree the GP radiates towards the BP, but I am suspicious of your terminology, “cooling to.” I think you are about to use that terminology as as a proxy for “heat flow.” It isn’t.
When I say a thing cools by emitting radiation, I am speaking of the function of emitted radiation only, not as an expression of the direction of heat flow. You muddy terms here.
“If the GP is cooling to the BP, then it’s sending heat to the BP.”
I am suspicious that you don’t mean “radiative heat”, but are now morphing into the use of the term ‘heat’ in the classic thermo sense. Which I hold is completely incorrect. Follow through for a later query on the definition of heat flow.
“Warming it.”
No, completely disagree.
The sun warms the BP, because the sun is warmer than the BP. The GP can’t warm the BP, because the GP is cooler than the BP. BUT the GP CAN reduce the rate at which BP cools, and the temperature of the BP will rise as a result. This is not possible without the warmer sun providing continuous energy. Without the sun, no rise in temp of BP.
“We can see that indeed, you think the BP warms on separation.”
I definitely do. Its temperature rises.
“So, that’s you treating a single flow of IR radiation as though it were a transfer of heat.”
No that is YOU treating the single flow of IR as a transfer of heat. I maintain that this vector of radiation slows the cooling rate of the target object.
This is our disagreement. I can’t remember if you have said a single word about it more properly being described as a reduction in heat loss, rather than a single-vector transfer of heat.
I maintain the NET flow of energy determines the heat flow. The temperature difference determines the direction of heat flow.
You must reject that the flow of heat is determined by the temperature difference between the two objects, or we would not be having this argument.
So here is my query.
You believe that there is a heat flow from the cooler cooling object to the warmer warming object.
Please give a standard definition of heat flow that makes this the case. Not a made-up definition, a real definition of heat flow that fits the bill for this scenario.
I want to know under what definition of heat flow you think that heat is flowing from GP to BP in our split-plate scenario.
(I’ve quoted your argument at length – at your request – and responded to each step. I remind you that I asked you to do the same and you did not. I hope you will return the courtesy and not pretend I haven’t answered you.)
"Yes, that’s all fine."
So, to be clear, what you have agreed to is that the radiation to space is not the reason the GP has cooled, and that it must be the radiation from GP to BP that has resulted in the cooling of the GP. In which case, you should accept my conclusion, except we find that:
"I’m content to agree the GP radiates towards the BP, but I am suspicious of your terminology, “cooling to.” I think you are about to use that terminology as as a proxy for “heat flow.” It isn’t. When I say a thing cools by emitting radiation, I am speaking of the function of emitted radiation only, not as an expression of the direction of heat flow. You muddy terms here."
I’m not muddying anything, barry. Another false accusation to add to the massive list. As you agree that the radiation from GP to BP has resulted in the cooling of the GP, then how can you possibly not accept that the GP is cooling to the BP!?
"I am suspicious that you don’t mean “radiative heat”, but are now morphing into the use of the term ‘heat’ in the classic thermo sense. Which I hold is completely incorrect. Follow through for a later query on the definition of heat flow."
Yes, I mean "heat" in the "classic thermo sense".
"No, completely disagree. The sun warms the BP, because the sun is warmer than the BP. The GP can’t warm the BP, because the GP is cooler than the BP. BUT the GP CAN reduce the rate at which BP cools, and the temperature of the BP will rise as a result. This is not possible without the warmer sun providing continuous energy. Without the sun, no rise in temp of BP."
Again, you have to think about the situation before and after separation of the plates. The Sun was sending the exact same amount of energy to the BP both before and after separation of the plates. So, in that sense, the Sun is not the difference that is responsible for the BP warming. The difference is the radiation from the GP to the BP.
"No that is YOU treating the single flow of IR as a transfer of heat. I maintain that this vector of radiation slows the cooling rate of the target object…"
…and then you forget about the cooling of the GP…
"This is our disagreement. I can’t remember if you have said a single word about it more properly being described as a reduction in heat loss, rather than a single-vector transfer of heat."
I understand why you think of it that way, and certainly don’t need you to keep repeating it. However, once again, whilst you are busy thinking of it as being a reduction in heat loss, you are forgetting about the cooling of the GP.
"I maintain the NET flow of energy determines the heat flow. The temperature difference determines the direction of heat flow."
And, I understand that. Think it through, though. What does a transfer of heat from cold to hot look like, via radiation? Since, according to you, the only way that can happen in the GPE is if the GP is warmer than the BP. But then, paradoxically, if you took the BP and GP in isolation, heat would actually still be flowing from hot to cold, from the GP to the BP! Your way of looking at heat flowing from cold to hot is then still heat flowing from hot to cold! Whereas with my way of looking at it, heat is flowing from cold to hot when the colder object is cooling to the warmer object, getting colder still itself, whilst the warmer object gets warmer still.
"You believe that there is a heat flow from the cooler cooling object to the warmer warming object. Please give a standard definition of heat flow that makes this the case."
I don’t disagree that heat flows from hot to cold, and that this is the way that "heat flow" is in fact defined. But, we must think about what a flow of heat from cold to hot looks like even still, otherwise how will we know when 2LoT could be violated by our thought experiment? So, this goes back to what I was saying in my previous paragraph. I think that a heat flow from cold to hot looks like the cooler object cooling whilst the warmer object gets warmer. What else would it look like!?
One final question to you:
Where is the GP cooling to, on separation of the plates?
“Whereas with my way of looking at it, heat is flowing from cold to hot when the colder object is cooling to the warmer object, getting colder still itself, whilst the warmer object gets warmer still.”
The problem here is that there has been a CHANGE made in the configuration of a heat transfer problem, and it was made by a human separating the plates.
The change results in different temperatures of the plates, and this by itself should be no surprise to anyone.
A different problem has a different solution.
But DREMT wants to assign the blame for that change in temperatures all to the GP emitting heat to the BP.
But that simply never occurred, as Barry makes abundantly clear.
The heating all came from the sun. And the cooling all went to space.
But DREMT has fixated on this erroneous notion, and cannot let it go.
Looks like someone felt obliged to comment again, perhaps thinking barry is unable to speak for himself? Not sure why we can’t just wait for a response from barry. Why is there this need for others to chip in to every discussion I’m involved in? I felt like we’d actually made some progress there, barry finally attempted a rebuttal to my argument, and his response allowed me to clarify a few additional points that might just help in understanding or accepting my position.
We’ll see.
Now, there’s absolutely no need for anyone else to respond to this message. But, we know what they’re like…
Here’s a deal for DREMT.
If he can stop IGNORING the simple logic and facts presented by Barry, and stop simply restating his position that contradicts facts and logic, IOW actually DO honest debate, I will refrain from commenting.
Let’s see what happens.
But, we know what they’re like…
“whilst you are busy thinking of it as being a reduction in heat loss, you are forgetting about the cooling of the GP.”
Not at all, but while you mention the reduction in heat loss, you do not respond to it, reiterating your position rather than explaining why this way of describing the process is invalid. I argue that if you adopt this way of looking at it there will be no confusion about the direction of heat flow.
“What does a transfer of heat from cold to hot look like, via radiation?”
A transfer of heat from cold to hot via radiation would be when a cold object spontaneously sends more radiative energy to a hot object than the other way around. In violation of 2LoT.
I will also try to answer the question based on your ‘definition’ of heat flow between a cooler cooling object and a warmer warming object. It is not a standard definition, which is why I asked you to find me one that fits the bill for what you are describing as a heat transfer. I don’t think you can. I think it is wrong. Nevertheless…
In the absence of any other compensatory energy a heat flow from a cool object to a warm one via radiation occurs when the cool objects gets cooler and the warm object gets warmer. IOW, a spontaneous reversal of the flow of heat in contravention of 2LoT.
There is my attempt to answer your question based on the non-standard way you define heat transfer.
“Whereas with my way of looking at it, heat is flowing from cold to hot when the colder object is cooling to the warmer object, getting colder still itself, whilst the warmer object gets warmer still.”
Yes, I’m clear on how you view it.
Where is the standard definition of heat flow that comports with this view of heat flow?
The reason I keep going back to the door in the room analogy is that it describes exactly the same thermal situation of a cooling, cooler object reducing heat loss from a warmer object. I refer to it because the understanding of how it works is intuitive, whereas the radiative situation, occurring in space and having opposite vectors of energy exchange, is less intuitive, or even counterintuitive. It is quite possible to reconfigure a thermal system to make cooling objects slow the heat loss of warmer objects, and that this does not contravene 2LoT.
It is important to note that by reconfiguring the system, we are not describing a spontaneous change. In a radiative system we can reposition the elements to change the direction and magnitude of individual radiative flows, and thereby change the temperatures of the objects within the system. We can do this with convection as well, though with radiation there are much more delineated vectors.
“One final question to you:
Where is the GP cooling to, on separation of the plates?”
In terms of the function of emitted radiation the GP “cools to” space and the BP.
In terms of the direction of heat flow, the GP cools only to space.
Those two concepts are not the same. I’m not distinguishing them to be tricky. When I first said the GP cools on splitting, I was not speaking of direction, only of the fact that it radiates more efficiently, having twice the surface area to radiate its energy from. You have said this is immaterial. I am saying we have different definitions.
You then insisted that I MUST infer direction when I use the word ‘cooling’. That’s why you asked, “where is it cooling to,” adding and specifically emphasising the preposition, in order to plant the notion of direction into my description. You have since argued that my view infers this without exception. That’s why I offered to only use the term radiate, radiative loss, rather than “cooling” and “heating” when talking about radiative vectors.
If direction MUST be inferred from my use of the word cooling, if we agree that the GP cools to the BP, then we must also acknowledge that the BP cools to the GP, the BP cools towards the sun, the sun cools to the BP and the GP cools to space. That is how I used the term – as in a vector of radiation LEAVING an object, helping the object shed thermal energy.
But you mean this differently.
You are saying that the heat flow is from GP to BP because the GP cools and the BP warms (in a shared radiative environment).
The GP “cools to” the BP. This is your key phrasing, the crux of your argument. Your definition of heat flow.
Here’s a syllogism for you to mull over while you consider what standard definition of heat flow supports heat transfer going from a cooling GP to a warming BP.
1) Heat flow is determined by one object getting cooler while another gets warmer
2) The sun is not getting cooler
3) Therefore there is no heat flow from the sun to anywhere
https://dictionary.iifiir.org/index.php?inputLang=en&truncPos=right&srchTerm=cooling&outputLang=xx&defnLang=en&submit=View+results
Barry, FYI from International Dictionary of Refrigeration
“Cooling,
(1) Removal of heat, usually resulting in a lower temperature and/or phase change.
(2) Lowering temperature.
So it seems only removal of heat, IOW by heat flow from an object, is a cause of cooling.
Nate,
Hmmm, from the dictionary of refrigeration. Does this mean they are thinking of a process involving a heat pump? In which case the BP isn’t “removing” heat from GP. I’m not sure this definition isn’t particular to the industry.
If an object cools its energy must go somewhere, per 1st law. No question. GP radiates its energy to space and BP. But these radiative vectors don’t by themselves determine heat flow, even if at the end of one vector BP warms while GP cools.
I clearly see the intuitive way DREMT views the situation. One thing gets hotter while the other cools, so heat MUST have been transferred from the cooling to the warming object. And the vehicle for that transformation MUST be the radiation from the cooler to the warmer object.
But this ignores a number of important factors
1) The fact of change in the configuration of the system
2) The constant energy being supplied to the system through the BP from the sun
3) The energy flowing from BP to GP
I also give credit to DREMT (or whoever) for coming up with the split-plate scenario as a creative way of trying to show a transfer of heat from a colder to a warmer object.
I refer again to the wiki quote on the 2LoT, that individual, contributory flows of energy do not determine the flow of heat, but the NET does.
The GP can’t, by definition, “cool to” the BP. And it does not. In the classic thermo sense, it cools to space, as it has done all along. It radiates both to space and BP.
The error seems to me to be the confusing of radiative transfer with heat flow.
Nate,
Shorter answer: I used the term “cooling” re the GP in the simple dictionary sense. As in, the temperature of an object drops.
As soon as DREMT used the term to infer a classic thermo situation, the fun began.
the problem here is Barry is heavily extrapolating an outcome that hasn’t undergone a long experiment to confirm.
I agree when you do the math one should expect that when an object has two surfaces instead of one it will tend toward splitting the flow of energy into two directions.
But one has to extrapolate to the eventual temperature of the greenplate over days if not months as it took the J.Webb telescope to cool down with multiple reflector shields. Even then all the managed was to reduce the flow of energy and thus the speed of warming of the greenplate because the plate is going to have some resistance to pass energy through it.
So for J Webb it wasn’t good enough to keep adding reflective shields to obtain the desired temperature. All they had to do was get it down to a heat flow small enough an active cooler could cool it with a minimum of energy. If they don’t do that do the shields then start warming over weeks and months? Only an experiment in space can tell us the answer. Turn off the J Webb active cooler and wait a few months and see what happens.
"Not at all, but while you mention the reduction in heat loss, you do not respond to it, reiterating your position rather than explaining why this way of describing the process is invalid. I argue that if you adopt this way of looking at it there will be no confusion about the direction of heat flow."
My response to it was to remind you that the GP is also cooling. So, where’s the GP cooling to? See my response further down, on that one.
"A transfer of heat from cold to hot via radiation would be when a cold object spontaneously sends more radiative energy to a hot object than the other way around. In violation of 2LoT."
In violation of the SB Law, too. Seems a bit silly, barry.
"I will also try to answer the question based on your ‘definition’ of heat flow between a cooler cooling object and a warmer warming object. It is not a standard definition, which is why I asked you to find me one that fits the bill for what you are describing as a heat transfer. I don’t think you can. I think it is wrong. Nevertheless…"
I go with the standard definition of heat flow. I’m not arguing against it. My point was that in radiative heat transfer, we need to establish what it looks like when heat flows from cold to hot. It’s not immediately obvious what that would look like, and your first idea that it would be the GP being warmer than the BP, is silly, as I explained previously (your idea of heat flowing from cold to hot is then still heat flowing from hot to cold!), and your new idea that it would also have to violate the SB Law, is equally silly. Why would it not just look like the cooler object cooling further whilst the warmer object warms further?
"In the absence of any other compensatory energy a heat flow from a cool object to a warm one via radiation occurs when the cool objects gets cooler and the warm object gets warmer. IOW, a spontaneous reversal of the flow of heat in contravention of 2LoT. There is my attempt to answer your question based on the non-standard way you define heat transfer."
It’s not clear whether you’re agreeing with me here, or?
"Yes, I’m clear on how you view it. Where is the standard definition of heat flow that comports with this view of heat flow?"
I think it agrees with the standard view of heat flow. The point is, the standard view of heat flow for radiative heat transfer doesn’t exactly make clear what heat flow from cold to hot would look like.
"The reason I keep going back to the door in the room analogy is that it describes exactly the same thermal situation of a cooling, cooler object reducing heat loss from a warmer object. I refer to it because the understanding of how it works is intuitive, whereas the radiative situation, occurring in space and having opposite vectors of energy exchange, is less intuitive, or even counterintuitive. It is quite possible to reconfigure a thermal system to make cooling objects slow the heat loss of warmer objects, and that this does not contravene 2LoT."
That’s insulation, barry. The GPE isn’t.
"In terms of the function of emitted radiation the GP “cools to” space and the BP. In terms of the direction of heat flow, the GP cools only to space."
Absolutely wrong, barry…and you previously agreed to most of the logic behind why that’s wrong! Let’s go through it again. The GP was already emitting to space when it wasn’t cooling (lowering in temperature), when the plates were together. It’s still emitting to space when the plates are separated. Thus, the emission to space is not the reason for the GP cooling. You need something that is different before and after separation, to explain the cooling. The difference, on separating the plates, is the emission from the GP to the BP. So that’s the reason for the GP cooling (lowering in temperature). So it’s cooling to the BP. Not space. If the GP does indeed cool on separation, as you assert, then it’s cooling to the BP.
"1) Heat flow is determined by one object getting cooler while another gets warmer
2) The sun is not getting cooler
3) Therefore there is no heat flow from the sun to anywhere"
I’m not arguing 1), barry, so your 3) doesn’t follow. Like I said, I’m following the standard definition of heat flow. We still need to know what radiative heat transfer from cold to hot looks like.
“The GP cant, by definition, cool to the BP. And it does not”
Barry, I think that is the point.
You are right, definition might be industry specific. But I think it shows that cooling involves heat flow, or in their case, removal.
barry: “but while you mention the reduction in heat loss, you do not respond to it, reiterating your position…”
DREMT: “My response to it was to remind you that the GP is also cooling.”
Yes, exactly, you did not respond to my point Again. Just pointed back at yours. Again
And you say I don’t respond to your argument.
“In violation of the SB Law, too. Seems a bit silly, barry.
That isn’t a reasoned response, but I’ll give you a reasoned reply.
You asked for a description of a 2nd Law violation in radiative terms. If the flow of heat is determined by a) NET radiation and b) the temperature difference between the objects, the most, obvious, logical answer is just to invert one of those terms. So the cold objects radiates more to the warm than the other way around. 2LoT violated.
“your first idea that it would be the GP being warmer than the BP…”
No, you introduced that idea in this post, and this is maybe the second time you’ve incorrectly attributed it to me. Seems you “did it for me,” and then came to believe I did it. I described a 2LoT violation in this post a few days earlier – same as the one I described today.
“It’s not clear whether youre agreeing with me here, or?”
I’m not agreeing with you. “In the absence of any other compensatory energy,” heat flow cold to hot is not allowed. But there is compensatory energy in our scenario – solar. That’s my attempt at trying to explain the principle with your (incorrect) determination of heat flow GP to BP.
“I think it agrees with the standard view of heat flow. The point is, the standard view of heat flow for radiative heat transfer doesn’t exactly make clear what heat flow from cold to hot would look like.”
Those ideas seem to contradict. But the standard view is that heat flows from a hotter object to a colder one. I’m not aware of a standard description of heat flow from a cooling object to a warming one.
“That’s insulation, barry. The GPE isn’t.”
Whatever you call it, pretty much everyone, even in the Claes Johnson camp, would agree that if a warm object cools to a cold environment, and then a less cold environment, the rate of heat loss is slower in the less cold environment.
This is one object slowing the heat loss from another. That works in everyday life all the time, and that works for the GPE. If “insulation” doesn’t work for you, I believe that that explanation should.
Maybe one day you’ll discuss this specific point.
“Let’s go through it again. The GP was already emitting to space when it wasnt cooling (lowering in temperature), when the plates were together. It’s still emitting to space when the plates are separated. Thus, the emission to space is not the reason for the GP cooling.”
If the GP stopped emitting to space after it was separated, it wouldn’t cool. The emission to space is part of the cooling.
With the plates pressed together BP is sending 200 W/m2 unreturned to the GP, and the GP sends that energy straight out to space.
Pull the plates apart, and the GP immediately emits 200 W/m2 back to the BP.
The heat flow between GP and BP is now zero, where before GP’s 200 W/m2 to space was constantly replenished by BP.
Now that there is zero heat flow from BP to GP, the 200 W/m2 emitted by GP to space causes it to cool down.
The cause of the difference is indeed the new radiation vector from GP to BP, but we describe very differently what is happening.
You see a single vector. I see all the vectors and add them up to get heat flow.
You see a cooling object warming a warmer object, I see a cooling object reducing heat loss in a warmer object.
You determine the direction of heat transfer as from a cooler cooling object to a warmer warming one, I determine it by the sign of the temperature difference of the objects, not the sign of their temperature changes.
I still think my view comports with standard definitions of heat flow, and yours doesn’t, even though I can see that it seems intuitive.
GP is slowing BP’s heat loss, not warming it, and that is possible to do even while GP is cooling, for the reason I explained above. BP had no resistance to its heat loss with plates pressed together, and it does when they split apart.
Clarifying:
Those ideas seem to contradict. But the standard view is that heat flows from a hotter object to a colder one. Im not aware of a standard description of heat flow from a cooler cooling object to a warmer warming one.
“I’m not arguing 1), barry, so your 3) doesn’t follow. Like I said, I’m following the standard definition of heat flow.”
And what was that definition, please?
"Yes, exactly, you did not respond to my point. Again. Just pointed back at yours. Again"
I did respond to the point, barry. It’s not my problem if you don’t understand what I’m getting at.
"You asked for a description of a 2nd Law violation in radiative terms. If the flow of heat is determined by a) NET radiation and b) the temperature difference between the objects, the most, obvious, logical answer is just to invert one of those terms. So the cold objects radiates more to the warm than the other way around. 2LoT violated."
Sure, but it’s also violating the SB Law. Surely you can violate 2LoT without violating the SB Law as well!
"No, you introduced that idea in this post, and this is maybe the second time you’ve incorrectly attributed it to me. Seems you “did it for me,” and then came to believe I did it. I described a 2LoT violation in this post a few days earlier – same as the one I described today."
The point is, they’re both equally silly, barry. Both those ideas of how heat flow could flow from cold to hot in radiative heat transfer are equally silly. Of course, you’ll pretend otherwise.
"I’m not agreeing with you. “In the absence of any other compensatory energy,” heat flow cold to hot is not allowed. But there is compensatory energy in our scenario – solar. That’s my attempt at trying to explain the principle with your (incorrect) determination of heat flow GP to BP."
Lol, so now you’re redefining 2LoT. Amazing. Heat flow cold to hot is not allowed without external work being performed on the system, barry. Is the Sun performing external work on the system? No.
"Those ideas seem to contradict. But the standard view is that heat flows from a hotter object to a colder one. I’m not aware of a standard description of heat flow from a cooling object to a warming one."
That’s the problem. Without a standard description of heat flowing from a cooler object to a warmer object, how do we know what it’s supposed to look like? Especially with radiative heat transfer.
"Whatever you call it, pretty much everyone, even in the Claes Johnson camp, would agree that if a warm object cools to a cold environment, and then a less cold environment, the rate of heat loss is slower in the less cold environment. This is one object slowing the heat loss from another. That works in everyday life all the time, and that works for the GPE. If “insulation” doesn’t work for you, I believe that that explanation should. Maybe one day you’ll discuss this specific point."
Ah, all of a sudden the phrase "cools to" is perfectly acceptable to barry. Earlier he was describing my usage of it as "suspicious". Once again, the problem with you looking at your "reduction of heat loss" explanation is that you’re ignoring that the GP is cooling to the BP. I’m looking at the entire situation. You look at one part of it at a time, ignoring the other parts whilst you do so.
"If the GP stopped emitting to space after it was separated, it wouldn’t cool. The emission to space is part of the cooling."
It is emitting to space both before and after separation, barry. Yet, the GP only cools (reduces in temperature) on separation. So, it’s cooling because of the radiation from GP to BP, since that is the only difference between the two scenarios!
"The cause of the difference is indeed the new radiation vector from GP to BP, but we describe very differently what is happening. You see a single vector. I see all the vectors and add them up to get heat flow."
Wrong way round, barry. I’m looking at all the vectors, you’re not. That’s because I’m comparing all the vectors before separation, and all the vectors after separation, and noting that the only difference is the vector from the GP to the BP. You’re treating that single vector as a transfer of heat, because in your solution you have the GP cooling from 244 K to 220 K, and the BP warming from the 244 K to 262 K, and that vector is the only different thing, responsible for it!
As fully expected DREMT could not bring himself to adhere to his side of the deal I offered him:
“Heres a deal for DREMT.
If he can stop IGNORING the simple logic and facts presented by Barry, and stop simply restating his position that contradicts facts and logic.”
Since he keeps on ignoring the facts and logic that Barry posts, and instead keeps on restating his position that contradicts facts and logic.
So no deal.
As Barry clearly explains:
“You see a cooling object warming a warmer object, I see a cooling object reducing heat loss in a warmer object.”
And this is the KEY point.
DREMT keeps ignoring this reality, and the reality that the only HEAT flowing into the BP is coming from the hotter SUN, not the GP.
Instead he adheres to a FICTION, that the GP is HEATING the BP, which can only mean sending HEAT to it, which he already agreed it is NOT doing, since he ‘knows’ the definition of HEAT flow.
I’ll remind everyone that, like water, without assistance heat only ever flows DOWN HILL. That means down the temperature gradient from hot to cold.
In this problem, that is what is happening. Initially, Heat is flowing from the hot sun, to the warm blue/green plate, to the cold of space.
Just as when a kid reconfigures the stones in a creek, and makes a small pile of them, the water flow shifts, maybe piling up more than before behind the pile of stones.
But it never FLOWS UP HILL.
Reconfigure the blue and green plates by separating them, then the heat flow shifts, accumulating more heat in one plate, less in another, but never FLOWS UP HILL.
Finally it flows from the hot sun, to the warm BP to the cooler GP to the cold of space.
“But one has to extrapolate to the eventual temperature of the greenplate over days if not months as it took the J.Webb telescope to cool down with multiple reflector shields. ”
Then Bill chimes in with his usual completely made-up, irrelevant red herrings.
"And what was that definition, please?"
You gave it in the previous comment, barry, i.e:
"…the standard view is that heat flows from a hotter object to a colder one. I’m not aware of a standard description of heat flow from a cooler cooling object to a warmer warming one."
Yes, heat flows from a hotter object to a colder one, unless external work is performed on the system. I’m not suggesting otherwise…but still, we have to get an idea of what it looks like when heat flows from a colder object to a hotter object, radiatively. If we don’t get an idea of what it looks like, we’ll never know when our thought experiment might be violating 2LoT.
That’s an important point, really. The two suggestions, that heat flow would be reversed if the GP was warmer than the BP, or if the colder object also violated the SB Law by radiating more than the warm object, seem unsubtle and extreme to say the least. I don’t see why it’s not a heat flow reversal if the colder object gets colder still, whilst the warmer object gets warmer still, and the responsibility for that ultimately lies with a single vector of radiation. That’s what we have here. The difference, all vectors considered, between the situation prior to separation and the situation after separation, boils down to that "back-radiation" transfer.
“I did respond to the point, barry.”
No, you would have responded to the point if you had said, “The reason I think describing it as a reduction in heat loss is invalid is because….” But you said, “look at the coling GP,” and provided no explanation for why describing a reduction in heat loss is less valid than your term “warming.” You did not deal with my point at all, except to reiterate what you have said 50 times, which I already understand, have responded to, and explained why I disagree.
You are ducking my points, and I’m not ducking yours.
“Sure, but it’s also violating the SB Law. Surely you can violate 2LoT without violating the SB Law as well!”
This is an arbitrary extra hoop to jump through. As if describing a 2LoT violation requires no other physical laws to be transgressed. This is a purely argumentative comment from you.
“they’re both equally silly, barry”
No reasoning to deal with here. Same as before.
“Lol, so now you’re redefining 2LoT”
Er, no.., I was, as you quoted me just above that comment, “trying to explain the principle with your (incorrect) determination of heat flow GP to BP.”
I perhaps shouldn’t have tried to respond “as if” your view was correct. And there is precedent in Clausius’ work to describe 2LoT as involving compensatory energy flow, so I wasn’t inventing anything new, just trying to make it work with your incorrect view.
“Without a standard description of heat flowing from a cooler object to a warmer object, how do we know what its supposed to look like?”
This completely misses my challenge to you, and not for the first time.
You believe that in the split-plate scenario, there is a heat transfer from GP to BP.
I am asking under what definition of heat flow you are claiming this.
Not a definition that you make up. A standard definition that tells you that there is a heat transfer from cooling GP to warming BP.
You haven’t provided that for a number of days now.
“Ah, all of a sudden the phrase “cools to” is perfectly acceptable to barry.”
It is when the warmer object is cooling to a cooler object. Because the temperature difference determines what is cooled to. That’s why GP can never “cool to” BP, it can only cool to space. 2LoT insists.
“I’m comparing all the vectors before separation, and all the vectors after separation, and noting that the only difference is the vector from the GP to the BP.”
At which point you dismiss all the other vectors and fix your understanding on that single vector.
I already plainly said that the only difference is that GP now radiates to BP. Said it for days, but for some reason you keep denying that.
I also said that this new vector cancels the heat flow going from BP to GP.
Did you get that?
Because BP sends 200 W/m2 to GP, and GP sends 200 W/m2 to BP, there is now no heat flow from BP to GP.
See how I included more than one vector there?
And now the 200 W/m2 GP is emitting to space starts cooling the GP, because GP is no longer getting an unreturned 200 W/m2 from BP.
So who is ignoring the NET radiative flows here?
[DREMT] That GP was radiating to space before the plates were separated, and on separation it is still radiating to space. The radiation to space is thus not the difference that can have led to the cooling you believe occurs. That only leaves the radiation on the other side of the GP, towards the BP, as being the difference that can have led to the cooling you believe occurs. It was not radiating towards the BP when the plates were pushed together, and now, on separation, it is.
[BARRY] Yes, that’s all fine.
[BARRY, A LITTLE WHILE LATER] In terms of the direction of heat flow, the GP cools only to space.
[BARRY, EVEN LATER] That’s why GP can never “cool to” BP, it can only cool to space. 2LoT insists.
So, barry agrees that the radiation from the GP to the BP is the reason for the GP cooling. However, he still won’t accept that the GP is cooling to the BP, because he says that would be a 2LoT violation. Well, barry…that’s kind of my point! It is cooling to the BP in your solution, and that is a 2LoT violation.
“So, barry agrees that the radiation from the GP to the BP is the reason for the GP cooling.”
Yep, but must ‘the reason’ be a reversal of the flow of Heat, when there is no evidence for that?
“However, he still wont accept that the GP is cooling to the BP”
As Barry made clear, he argued that ‘the reduction in heat loss” from BP to GP is the reason the GP cools.
This is perfectly logical, factual, and agrees with physics.
And Barry is quite correct that DREMT “provided no explanation for why describing a reduction in heat loss is less valid than your term warming. You did not deal with my point at all, except to reiterate what you have said 50 times, which I already understand, have responded to, and explained why I disagree.
You are ducking my points, and Im not ducking yours.”
Because DREMT is not here for honest debate.
The long posts are getting unmanageable. So many different points being responded to with each one, we’re just getting ourselves lost. I’ll try to number it:
1) "No, you would have responded to the point if you had said, “The reason I think describing it as a reduction in heat loss is invalid is because…"
As I have explained several times, the reason I think describing it as a reduction in heat loss is invalid is because you’re only looking at half the story. When you look at the other half as well – namely the fact that the GP is cooling to the BP – and see the entire picture together, you can then understand it my way.
2) "This is an arbitrary extra hoop to jump through. As if describing a 2LoT violation requires no other physical laws to be transgressed. This is a purely argumentative comment from you.
"No reasoning to deal with here. Same as before."
It’s not a purely argumentative comment, it’s actually a pretty major point. You won’t accept that your way of seeing a 2LoT violation involving radiative heat transfer is absurd. You have to have the cold object emitting more than the warm object!? Either that, or the GP has to be warmer than the BP!? Both of those are pretty extreme options, barry. You don’t think 2LoT violations might be a bit more subtle than that? Given that there’s been people arguing about these 2LoT violations for years, now?
3) "Er, no… I was, as you quoted me just above that comment, “trying to explain the principle with your (incorrect) determination of heat flow GP to BP. I perhaps shouldn’t have tried to respond “as if” your view was correct. And there is precedent in Clausius’ work to describe 2LoT as involving compensatory energy flow, so I wasn’t inventing anything new, just trying to make it work with your incorrect view."
Yeah, the meaning behind all this has become completely lost, over the course of the back and forth, barry. It’s just noise, now.
4) "This completely misses my challenge to you, and not for the first time. You believe that in the split-plate scenario, there is a heat transfer from GP to BP.I am asking under what definition of heat flow you are claiming this."
Your "challenge" is nonsensical. The only "definition of heat flow" is that heat flows from hot to cold, and as I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not suggesting otherwise. I’ve been trying to point out that we need to know what it looks like when heat flows the other way, radiatively! So, what you’re asking for makes no sense. I can’t provide a definition of heat flow where it flows from cold to hot, because it doesn’t (unless external work is performed on the system).
5) Point 5 I think is most simply addressed by my previous comment, so you can respond to that.
“the fact that the GP is cooling to the BP”
Not a fact. Fantasy.
The GP is obviously, straightforwardly cooling to space, at a steady rate.
If the heat source for the GP, the BP, reduces or stops its flow of heat to the GP, then it the GP MUST COOL.
Same heat output, less heat input, it COOLS.
Simple logic, simple math, yet beyond DREMTs comprehension.
“5) Point 5 I think is most simply addressed by my previous comment, so you can respond to that.”
My previous comment being this one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1639431
So, that constitutes point 5), if you choose to continue responding, barry.
I can see Nate’s still squawking away…God knows what he’s saying…he won’t just let you speak for yourself, that’s for sure! Whatever he’s saying, it probably involves false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults, as that’s how the guy always used to operate, back when I read or responded to him.
“Simple logic, simple math, yet beyond DREMTs comprehension.”
is the only thing I said that could be a ‘false accusation’ or an insult.
However if it were actually false, then logically DREMT would know that his statement:
“the fact that the GP is cooling to the BP” was FALSE.
But then he wouldn’t have made it, nor would he have been arguing as he has been the last few days.
So looks like no false accusation or insult after all.
Here’s a key question relating to point 5), barry, that remains unanswered:
"As you agree that the radiation from GP to BP has resulted in the cooling of the GP, then how can you possibly not accept that the GP is cooling to the BP!?"
As your pal Nate keeps commenting where he’s not welcome, you’re likely to just get more and more from me that you have to respond to. So you can blame him for that.
DREMT accepts that
1) A single radiative vector is not a heat flow
2) A heat flow from colder GP to warmer BP would violate 2LoT
3) There is no standard definition for heat flow that supports this notion
So why is DREMT contending that there is a heat transfer from GP to BP?
Because cooler GP cools and warmer BP warms. That’s it. His own, made-up definition of heat flow. Based entirely on one phrase – “cools to.”
“So, barry agrees that the radiation from the GP to the BP is the reason for the GP cooling.”
Yes, the flows of energy internal to the system have been changed by reconfiguring the system.
“However, he still won’t accept that the GP is cooling to the BP”
Yes, as I’ve said all along, the phrase, “cools to” doesn’t apply GP to BP. It implies heat flow, and heat doesn’t flow from GP to BP. Heat is flowing from the warmer BP to the cooler GP, always.
That’s why you can’t come up with a standard definition of heat flow that supports your contention that heat is flowing from GP to BP. It’s just an idea you keep pushing based on that phrase, “cools to.” You argue this is the only thing that has changed, but you haven’t followed through on what that means for the internal dynamics of the system. To whit…
Outstanding points:
1) The new radiative vector causes cancels BP –> GP heat flow, so now the GP can cool from the vector heading to space. Where before separation GP was getting 200 W/m2 flow from GP and sending it to space, now GP gets 0 W/m2 from BP (because it is sent immediately back), and the 200 w/m2 to space now causes the GP to cool.
Which means BP was losing 200 W/m2 to GP before separation, and after separation is not losing 200 W/m2 to GP, because it gets it straight back – no heat flow. This means that BP is receiving 400 W/m2 from sun, but only losing a total of 200 W/m2. It must heat up to shed more radiation and balance the input/output
2) If you describe the new vector as reducing BP’s heat loss, instead of warming it, there is no 2LoT. Please explain why this description is invalid on its own merits, and without just restating your view.
Do you mind responding directly to 1 and 2?
barry’s least intellectually honest response so far! With false accusations and misrepresentations, he ignores everything I just wrote to him and starts demanding that I respond only to two of his points, and only in a certain way! What happened to my numbered points 1) – 5), barry? From here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1639629
What about continuing that discussion!?
What about this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1639431
How about answering the question I already asked you, twice?
"As you agree that the radiation from GP to BP has resulted in the cooling of the GP, then how can you possibly not accept that the GP is cooling to the BP!?"
“DREMT accepts that
1) A single radiative vector is not a heat flow
2) A heat flow from colder GP to warmer BP would violate 2LoT
3) There is no standard definition for heat flow that supports this notion”
No, barry. I accept that a “single radiative vector” should not be a heat flow, but in your 262 K…220 K solution you are treating it as such.
“Because cooler GP cools and warmer BP warms. That’s it. His own, made-up definition of heat flow. Based entirely on one phrase – “cools to.””
See point 4) from the point 1) – 5) comment, barry. Why on Earth you keep going on about definitions of heat flow is beyond me, at this point.
“Yes, as I’ve said all along, the phrase, “cools to” doesn’t apply GP to BP. It implies heat flow, and heat doesn’t flow from GP to BP. Heat is flowing from the warmer BP to the cooler GP, always.”
It’s a question of how the BP comes to be warmer than the GP. Since you accept the transfer GP to BP is the reason the GP cools on separation, you should accept the GP is cooling to the BP. Sending heat to the BP. End of story.
“That’s why you can’t come up with a standard definition of heat flow that supports your contention that heat is flowing from GP to BP. It’s just an idea you keep pushing based on that phrase, “cools to.” You argue this is the only thing that has changed, but you haven’t followed through on what that means for the internal dynamics of the system. To whit…”
See point 4) again, barry.
“1) The new radiative vector causes cancels BP –> GP heat flow, so now the GP can cool from the vector heading to space. Where before separation GP was getting 200 W/m2 flow from GP and sending it to space, now GP gets 0 W/m2 from BP (because it is sent immediately back), and the 200 w/m2 to space now causes the GP to cool. Which means BP was losing 200 W/m2 to GP before separation, and after separation is not losing 200 W/m2 to GP, because it gets it straight back – no heat flow. This means that BP is receiving 400 W/m2 from sun, but only losing a total of 200 W/m2. It must heat up to shed more radiation and balance the input/output.”
This is just you restating your position.. Doing what you ask me not to do in your next point!
“2) If you describe the new vector as reducing BP’s heat loss, instead of warming it, there is no 2LoT. Please explain why this description is invalid on its own merits, and without just restating your view.”
See point 1), barry, from the comment with the five points.
“Its a question of how the BP comes to be warmer than the GP. Since you accept the transfer GP to BP is the reason the GP cools on separation, you should accept the GP is cooling to the BP. Sending heat to the BP. End of story.”
Its really hard to understand why DREMT denies that it’s obviously the SUN stoopid!
DREMT shamelessly pretends that there is NO HEAT SOURCE, the Sun, always providing the Heat to the system, right through the BP!
Barry (and I) have clearly explained how the BP gets to be warmer than the GP, via the solar heat source, without the GP ‘cooling to’ the BP.
And, to boot, he has already acknowledged that he FULLY understands the definition of HEAT, yet plainly does not apply it here.
It is quite disingenuous for him to ignore these facts that plainly contradicts his bogus narrative.
So as always, the end of the story is when DREMT is shown to be a ridiculous fraud.
Your pal Nate has appeared again, so now you’re going to get even more to respond to, barry. Let’s take this apart:
"The new radiative vector causes cancels BP –> GP heat flow, so now the GP can cool from the vector heading to space. Where before separation GP was getting 200 W/m2 flow from GP and sending it to space, now GP gets 0 W/m2 from BP (because it is sent immediately back), and the 200 w/m2 to space now causes the GP to cool."
The GP was radiating 200 W/m^2 to space prior to separation of the plates. The GP is still radiating 200 W/m^2 to space after separation of the plates. The GP was not cooling prior to separation of the plates. The GP supposedly cools (lowers in temperature) after separation of the plates. So, where is it cooling to? After separation of the plates, the GP is now also radiating to the BP. So, there’s your answer. The difference is the radiation from GP to BP. The GP is not cooling to space, because the 200 W/m^2 from the GP to space was present both before and after separation. So, it’s not the difference responsible for the cooling. The difference responsible for the cooling is the radiation from GP to BP. Therefore, the GP is cooling to the BP.
"Which means BP was losing 200 W/m2 to GP before separation, and after separation is not losing 200 W/m2 to GP, because it gets it straight back – no heat flow. This means that BP is receiving 400 W/m2 from sun, but only losing a total of 200 W/m2. It must heat up to shed more radiation and balance the input/output"
The BP was receiving 400 W/m^2 from the Sun prior to separation of the plates. The BP is still receiving 400 W/m^2 from the Sun after separation of the plates. The BP supposedly warms (increases in temperature) after separation of the plates. So, what is the cause of the warming? After separation of the plates, the GP is now also radiating to the BP. So, there’s your answer. The difference is the radiation from GP to BP. The Sun is not warming the BP (causing it to increase in temperature), because the 400 W/m^2 from the Sun to the BP was present both before and after separation. So, it’s not the difference responsible for the warming. The difference responsible for the warming is the radiation from GP to BP. Therefore, the GP is cooling to (sending heat to) the BP. Warming it.
“The difference responsible for the cooling is the radiation from GP to BP. Therefore, the GP is cooling to the BP.”
False. Can anybody explain why DREMT continues to shamelessly ignore relevant facts?
Ya know like the radiative heat transfer equation?
The one that plainly shows that the heat flow from BP to GP is proportional to Tb^4 – Tg^4, and quite plainly goes to zero when Tb – Tg = 0.
And if the heat flow plainly goes to zero, then the GP, with its steady heat output to space, plainly has to cool.
Cool to where? The BP? Obviously not, its heat flow to the BP is ZERO.
Can anybody explain why anyone would claim that the GP needs to be cooling to the BP when it is plainly cooling to space?
Anybody?
“The BP supposedly warms (increases in temperature) after separation of the plates. So, what is the cause of the warming? After separation of the plates, the GP is now also radiating to the BP. So, theres your answer. The difference is the radiation from GP to BP.”
Sure. Can anybody get DREMT to understand that the heat flow is always from BP to GP, and never reversed?
Anybody?
Again, as he notes, the BP is constanly heated by the 400 W/m^2 input from the sun. So ANY disruption in its output heat flow of 400 W/m^2 will result in its warming!
And as indicated above, the switch from conduction to radiative heat transfer from BP to GP gives exactly that! A disruption in output heat flow.
Does DREMT think that the radiative heat transfer equation is wrong in this instance?
Because that is the only explanation for him to think that heat flow BP to GP reverses, instead of going to zero, as the equation plainly shows.
Well, I’ll take pity on barry, on this occasion…he has enough to be responding to as it is.
DREMT,
Firstly, I didn’t respond to your numerous posts because I responded to the first reply and went from and back to the PC, while you continued. When I posted and then saw the other posts, I thought A) agree with lengthy unwieldy posting, and B) my reply already covered the points, and the rest was repetition. I’ll now answer 1-5.
1) “As I have explained several times, the reason I think describing it as a reduction in heat loss is invalid is because you’re only looking at half the story. When you look at the other half as well namely the fact that the GP is cooling to the BP”
This is false. I have repeatedly said that the new vector is the cause of changes (not ignoring), and also that the BP is radiating to the GP – which you acknowledge and then SET ASIDE in your reasoning. YOU scrub out BP to GP vector in your argument.
I also point out that the SUN is the source of all energy, and is also the reason why BP warms.
Remove the sun from this scenario, and the BP does not warm.
The BP warms because the balance of energy in/out of BP is changed.
GP changing the energy balance is not a heat flow, which is not determined by contributory flows of energy, but the whole. And yes, this is the case even when GP cools and BP warms, just like the door in the room.
And yes, even when the only new feature after separation os the vector GP to BP. Because a vector of radiation is not a heat flow, it just changes the direction and intensity of contributory energy flows. Remember the caveat from that wiki entry on radiation and classic heat flow? This fits the bill exactly.
2) “You won’t accept that your way of seeing a 2LoT violation involving radiative heat transfer is absurd. You have to have the cold object emitting more than the warm object!?”
If a cold object spontaneously sends more heat to a warm object than the reverse, in violation of 2LoT, then the radiative expression of this is if the W/m2 is greater from GP to BP than BP to GP. This is not absurd, it’s absolutely logical. In fact, it is radiatively defined by the notion of heat flowing from one object to another.
I’m amazed you can’t see that. You keep fishing for some unknown “nuanced” version of radiative violation of 2LoT, but there is none, which is why you came up with an actually absurd example, where a hot object (GP) sent more energy to a cold one (BP). Not even a violation! And then you tried to attribute that specious offer to me. Your model is a violation of the scenario (the position of the sun forbids it), but not of 2LoT WRT to GP BP.
3)…
Glad we dropped my attempt to explain under your incorrect assumption. It gave me a headache trying to give it some credence.
4) “Your “challenge” is nonsensical. The only “definition of heat flow” is that heat flows from hot to cold, and as I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not suggesting otherwise. I’ve been trying to point out that we need to know what it looks like when heat flows the other way, radiatively! So, what youre asking for makes no sense. I can’t provide a definition of heat flow where it flows from cold to hot, because it doesn’t (unless external work is performed on the system).”
So you can’t provide a definition of heat flow that supports your contention that heat is flowing from GP to BP in the split-plate scenario.
And you don’t know what it looks like when heat flows from hot to cold radiatively.
And yet you insist there IS a heat flow because… there is a new vector of radiation GP to BP and GP cools while BP warms.
And you say that GP is “cooling to” BP, because that new vector of radiation determines what GP is “cooling to”. Because it was already radiating to space, so it can only be “cooling to” the new direction it radiates.
You see how I can articulate your view? Do stop saying I’m ignoring anything about it.
The GP is “cooling to” space.
The new vector of radiation is the reason the GP is cooling after splitting, but the GP is “cooling to” space, because now it CAN.
Why can it now cool to space when it wasn’t before, even though it is radiating to space just as before?
Because the heat that prevented GP cooling at all is now gone – thanks to the new radiative vector.
That’s right, the heat flow BP to GP vanishes the moment you separate the plates.
And that’s because the two surfaces are radiating equally to each other. That’s equilibrium – that’s zero heat flow.
So GP can now cool. And it is “cooling to” space, because it is impossible for it to “cool to” BP, per 2LoT, even though it radiates to BP. We both know a single vector of radiation is not a heat flow.
And it is definitely you, not me, treating that vector as a heat flow.
That’s why my description of the split-plate scenario is supported by any standard definition of heat flow, and your criticism of it as violating 2LoT is NOT supported by any standard definition of heat flow.
It’s why you are lost finding any standard definition of heat flow supporting your contention that there is any heat transfer GP to BP . No wonder you write of my challenge on this as “meaningless.” You’re also lost trying to find a radiative definition of 2LoT violation at all. Because radiatively, there is no violation of 2LoT, when BP sends more energy to GP.
You have a trumped-up definition of heat flow (“cools to”) that you can’t defend when asked to relate it a standard definition.
And you haven’t yet realized that this makes your view completely untenable.
In every iteration of the GPE that I endorse, there is more radiative energy going from the warmer object to the cooler one. That is a radiative description of the 2LoT. And this is never violated.
And that’s why I keep asking you to give a definition of 2LoT that supports your contention of the direction of heat flow, and you simply cannot. All you can do in answer to everything is to keep reasserting and reasserting and reasserting that new radiative vector GP to BP + GP cools/BP warms = GP “cools to” BP = heat flow.
That’s the equation for your argument. You’ll note that there is no mention of BP to GP energy vector. Because you drop it in your argument.
1) "This is false. I have repeatedly said that the new vector is the cause of changes (not ignoring), and also that the BP is radiating to the GP – which you acknowledge and then SET ASIDE in your reasoning. YOU scrub out BP to GP vector in your argument."
Not in the least. All vectors are considered before and after separation. The GP to BP vector is the difference.
"I also point out that the SUN is the source of all energy, and is also the reason why BP warms. Remove the sun from this scenario, and the BP does not warm. The BP warms because the balance of energy in/out of BP is changed. GP changing the energy balance is not a heat flow, which is not determined by contributory flows of energy, but the whole. And yes, this is the case even when GP cools and BP warms, just like the door in the room. And yes, even when the only new feature after separation os the vector GP to BP. Because a vector of radiation is not a heat flow, it just changes the direction and intensity of contributory energy flows. Remember the caveat from that wiki entry on radiation and classic heat flow? This fits the bill exactly."
Remove the Sun from this scenario, and both the BP and the GP would be at around 3 K. It really is silly to claim that the Sun is warming the BP (causing it to rise in temperature) when it was sending the exact same amount of energy to the BP both before and after separation of the plates. You’re treating the vector GP to BP as though it were a transfer of heat, since that is the difference between the scenarios before and after separation, and it results in the GP cooling and the BP warming.
2) "If a cold object spontaneously sends more heat to a warm object than the reverse, in violation of 2LoT, then the radiative expression of this is if the W/m2 is greater from GP to BP than BP to GP. This is not absurd, it’s absolutely logical. In fact, it is radiatively defined by the notion of heat flowing from one object to another."
It’s absurd that the only way you can think of for there to be a 2LoT violation in terms of radiative heat transfer is if the SB Law is also violated. Sorry you can’t see that.
"You keep fishing for some unknown “nuanced” version of radiative violation of 2LoT, but there is none, which is why you came up with an actually absurd example, where a hot object (GP) sent more energy to a cold one (BP). Not even a violation! And then you tried to attribute that specious offer to me. Your model is a violation of the scenario (the position of the sun forbids it), but not of 2LoT WRT to GP BP."
It’s a 2LoT violation, barry, because the direction of heat flow is reversed. You might want to argue that out with someone else. Maybe Nate can help you, there.
3) "Glad we dropped my attempt to explain under your incorrect assumption. It gave me a headache trying to give it some credence."
Whatever, barry.
4) "So you can’t provide a definition of heat flow that supports your contention that heat is flowing from GP to BP in the split-plate scenario. And you don’t know what it looks like when heat flows from hot to cold radiatively."
Wrong. I’m not looking for a definition of heat flow other than the one we already have. And, nobody (but me) seems to have even given much though to what it looks like when heat flows from cold to hot radiatively. You don’t seem to get it, barry. Your request doesn’t even make sense. Heat flows from hot to cold, unless external work is performed on the system, but you want me to find a definition where it flows from cold to hot!?"
"The GP is “cooling to” space. The new vector of radiation is the reason the GP is cooling after splitting, but the GP is “cooling to” space, because now it CAN. Why can it now cool to space when it wasn’t before, even though it is radiating to space just as before? Because the heat that prevented GP cooling at all is now gone – thanks to the new radiative vector. That’s right, the heat flow BP to GP vanishes the moment you separate the plates. And that’s because the two surfaces are radiating equally to each other. That’s equilibrium – that’s zero heat flow. So GP can now cool. And it is “cooling to” space, because it is impossible for it to “cool to” BP, per 2LoT, even though it radiates to BP. We both know a single vector of radiation is not a heat flow."
You start ranting and repeating yourself after this point, so this is where I’ll stop quoting you. I’m glad you see that it’s impossible for the GP to cool to the BP, per 2LoT. The problem for you is…that’s exactly what’s happening in your 262 K…220 K solution. You can dress it up any way you want. The GP is not cooling to space on separation, because it was already emitting the exact same amount to space, before separation. The difference is that it’s now emitting to the BP, and thus, that’s where it must be cooling to, since you propose it cools on separation.
“Not in the least. All vectors are considered before and after separation. The GP to BP vector is the difference.”
No, you think a process of elimination determines the heat flow. You eliminate the vector from BP to GP, your reasoning completely ignores 2LoT, and establishes a brand new definition, which you are not owning.
Regular definition: heat flows warmer to cooler object.
DREMT definition: change a system to create a new energy vector from cool object to warm object and the direction of heat flow is cold to hot if cool object gets cooler and warm object gets warmer and there are no other changes.
Yep, that’s your definition of heat flow. I’ve asked you to state it, but you just can’t do it for some reason.
And if I remind you of the IR from BP to GP, you tell me I’m ignoring the vector I should be looking at.
You are banking on a brand new definition of heat flow that you have minted, and you are excluding the real definition to make your case.
“It’s absurd that the only way you can think of for there to be a 2LoT violation in terms of radiative heat transfer is if the SB Law is also violated. Sorry you can’t see that.”
Repeated claim of absurdity with no explanation. Pure assertions that the answer must have “nuance” or not violate some other law, but no explanation why and no actual rebuttal. You appeal to reason but apply none here. Assertion, incredulity and faux regret are not argument. Make a cogent case or let this go.
“You can dress it up any way you want. The GP is not cooling to space on separation, because it was already emitting the exact same amount to space, before separation.”
The GP was not cooling at all before separation. After separation it is now able to do so, and it is “cooling to” space, where it was already radiating when it was not able to cool.
The new vector permits the GP to cool. It does not ESTABLISH the direction of heat flow.
2LoT establishes the direction of heat flow. From hot to cold. This is always satisfied in the split plate scenario I endorse.
But with your brand new, never-before-seen definition of heat flow, you can claim that by a process of elimination, the flow of heat is from GP to BP, because the vector of radiation between them is all there IS.
I beg pardon… all there is LEFT.
And to make this case you must, you absolutely MUST set aside that more heat is going to GP than BP. This exchange MUST be eliminated by your view – rejected as being the pre-eminent determinant of the flow of heat. Or you would concede that heat is flowing BP to GP.
So you are rejecting the standard definition of heat flow to make your case. You are rejecting ‘which is the hotter and which the cooler object’, in favour of ‘which is the COOLING object and what is the new change’.
I’m not going along with your invented definition of heat flow.
Nate says:
”The BP supposedly warms (increases in temperature) after separation of the plates. So, what is the cause of the warming? After separation of the plates, the GP is now also radiating to the BP. So, theres your answer. The difference is the radiation from GP to BP.”
Its always interesting how folks without the ability to discern nuance will make leaps of faith.
The experiment involves 3 infinite plates. The powered plate (a plate that has an infinite number of nuclear reactor cells, the heated plate, which is separated from the powered plate but has no self heating ability, and the green plate which will be split off from the BP.
We understand that the temperature of the BP will become the same temperature as the powered plate by Stefan Boltzmann.
Now what we are going to do is split the BP into two plates.
The leap of faith here is that the GP which was the same temperature as the BP because it was part of the blueplate will now cool.
Nate how does it cool?
Well, barry, there’s nothing I can say to somebody as indoctrinated as you are. You keep on and on about definitions of heat flow, saying over and over again that heat flows from hot to cold, as if I have ever disagreed with that. Sure it does, but we’re discussing what it looks like when heat flows from cold to hot, radiatively! You still think it would be a cold object deciding to randomly emit more than a warm object, in contradiction of the SB Law as well as 2LoT. If I suggest that is silly you just throw a fit. If I suggest that the plates going from 244 K…244 K to 262 K…220 K necessarily involves heat flowing from cold to hot, you can’t see it, even though the cold object is getting colder and the warm object is getting warmer, due to a transfer of energy. Whatever way you try to dress it up, that energy must be heat!
Now…how many times will you restate your position in response?
Bill, though I appreciate you responding to Nate here (he’s clearly desperate to have someone to talk to), I’ll just let you know that you have attributed to Nate a quote from me. Also, the GPE thought experiment involves two infinite plates and the Sun, although another infinite powered plate instead of the Sun is an interesting situation to think about, also.
This is still a very valid question:
“Now what we are going to do is split the BP into two plates.
The leap of faith here is that the GP which was the same temperature as the BP because it was part of the blueplate will now cool.
Nate how does it cool?”
Just once.
The new vector permits the GP to cool. It does not ESTABLISH the direction of heat flow.
You are free to believe that you have discerned a heat flow under the terms you have described, and I am free to know that you have rejected the real definition of heat flow to do that.
“The new vector permits the GP to cool. It does not ESTABLISH the direction of heat flow.”
Where does it cool to, barry? You can’t say “space”, because it was already emitting the exact same amount to space before separation, as after. You can’t say “to the BP” because you have already agreed that would violate 2LoT. So, I guess the only option is, it doesn’t cool.
“You are free to believe that you have discerned a heat flow under the terms you have described, and I am free to know that you have rejected the real definition of heat flow to do that.”
I am also free to know that I have not rejected the real definition of heat flow.
For all barry’s talk of definitions of heat flow, you wouldn’t think this was his own, from before:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1474888
“No, heat would be what is transferred if the plate or planet got COLDER while the sun received its energy. That’s the DEFINITION of heat. Unless the Sun gains heat at the expense of plates/planets, then heat is definitely NOT what is not being transferred.
You and your gang really need to understand the meaning of heat. It is a transfer process where the body gaining energy does so at the expense of the source. Radiation is NOT heat.”
Lol.
“Where does it cool to, barry? You can’t say “space”, because it was already emitting the exact same amount to space before separation, as after.”
I most certainly can and do say “to space.”
Let’s see if you finally deal with the following points.
Thermal loss was already happening to space, but the GP could not cool down, because it was constantly being supplied exactly what it was losing.
Once the plates split, GP stops gaining the same energy it emits to space, and that spaceward thermal loss now cools the GP.
The new vector allows the GP to cool, it doesn’t establish the direction of heat flow. The direction of heat flow is determined by the NET flow of energy.
I’ve put in bold what you should quote. That is my reply to you. Do you think you can rebut this on its own merits, without just repeating your mantra?
barry, rather than trying to get me to challenge your way of dressing up the cooling of the GP, which is refuted by my “mantra” in any case, why don’t you answer this question, honestly:
"As you agree that the radiation from GP to BP has resulted in the cooling of the GP, then how can you possibly not accept that the GP is cooling to the BP!?"
“Youre treating the vector GP to BP as though it were a transfer of heat”
Nope. He never ever does that. Only DREMT does that.
Then he repeatedly, shamelessly, falsely, assigns that erroneous opinion to his opponent!
Clearly DREMT is unable to win against Barry’s actual arguments, so he projects his own illogical ones onto Barry, then knocks them down.
Barry has consistently argued that the only change in heat flow is a REDUCTION in heat flow from the BP to GP.
Which with basic arithmetic, any grade schooler can see it leads to a cooling of the GP and warming of the BP.
But DREMT is mentally unable to accept this simple logic.
“Where does it cool to, barry? You cant say space, because it was already emitting the exact same amount to space before separation, as after. You cant say to the BP because you have already agreed that would violate 2LoT. So, I guess the only option is, it doesnt cool.”
My home is heated by a furnace, and the heat flows from the house through the walls to the outside cold air. Through this input and output of heat, my house reaches a steady temperature.
Now in a power outage the furnace goes off and the house cools.
DREMT would ask: ‘where does it cool to? You can’t say “outside” because it was already emitting that same amount of heat to the outside, before.
You can’t say it’s cooling “to the furnace” because that would be stoopid.
So the only option is the house doesnt cool.’
Of course it does cool…to the outside.
Presumably Nate was responding to Bill, so no need to give barry another reply to worry about just yet.
barry says:
Where does it cool to, barry? You cant say space, because it was already emitting the exact same amount to space before separation, as after.
I most certainly can and do say to space.
Lets see if you finally deal with the following points.
Thermal loss was already happening to space, but the GP could not cool down, because it was constantly being supplied exactly what it was losing.
Once the plates split, GP stops gaining the same energy it emits to space, and that spaceward thermal loss now cools the GP.
——————–
This is where magical properties are assigned to radiation without any basis in fact. Barry is 100% locked into a mathematical computation pounded into him by perhaps now what is the world’s largest marketing firm selling its products just like a commy nation sells theirs. Oh gee we are a not-for-profit so we aren’t going to deceive anybody and Barry believes that with all his heart and intuition.
The problem is that even the commy’s argue power and influence is enough. . .you don’t need money to be motivated. but it is rather hilarious how its always the case that those with the power and influence end up with the most money. . .after all money is just a medium of exchange for power and influence that by gawd we can’t let the common man get his hands on or we will all be doomed.
Bill has the answer:
“commys argue”
Must be a brain-eating virus going around!
“even though the cold object is getting colder and the warm object is getting warmer, due to a transfer of energy. Whatever way you try to dress it up, that energy must be heat!”
DREMT seems to think Barry is ‘dressing up’ this situation by relying on the physics definition of Heat flow.
But he forgets that his original point is that he thinks there is a technical violation of a law of physics:
A 2LOT violation.
But to have a true Second Law of Thermodynamics violation, you have to actually use Thermodynamics!
You have to use the physics definition of HEAT flow.
But DREMT is choosing NOT to use the physics definition of heat flow.
So this is a contradiction, and thus not a true 2LOT violation.
He also ignores another Law of physics, the Radiative Heat Transfer law, that specifically tells us the heat flow between the BP and GP goes to ZERO if their temperatures are equal.
This is what actually must happen.
Then he ignore the First Law of Thermodynamics when he fails to accept that with a steady OUTPUT of heat to space, and ZERO heat INPUT, the GP must COOL.
It is cooling to space.
So he wants to apply the technical rules of physics, but he also doesnt want to follow the technical rules of physics.
And that doesnt actually work.
Over on the newer thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1641646
bob has pooh-poohed the idea of either of the GPE proponents accepted 2LoT violations wrt the GPE! Even barry’s idea of the cooler GP emitting more than the BP! So it’s really looking like these guys have never even thought their own arguments through. bob seems to be arguing against the idea that it’s even possible to violate 2LoT in the GPE. If heat flow is only reversed when the GP is warmer than the BP, bob argues that this is still not a 2LoT violation in any case. If the GP emits more than the BP, despite being colder, that violates the SB Law, and bob didn’t even seem to give it any serious thought, dismissing this too as not being a 2LoT violation. So how does bob think a 2LoT violation works, radiatively!? They don’t have a clue. Seriously. They cannot figure out what it would look like if heat flowed from cold to hot, radiatively. No wonder they can’t understand or accept my debunking of the GPE.
“As you agree that the radiation from GP to BP has resulted in the cooling of the GP, then how can you possibly not accept that the GP is cooling to the BP!?”
1) Because I adhere to the classic definition of heat flow.
2) Because when I move the door from by the fire to seal the room from the cold, I know that heat is not flowing from the cooling door to the room. Reconfiguring the thermal system does not break the laws of physics.
3) Because I don’t rely on your process of elimination to eliminate everything but what I want to see.
4) Because I don’t define heat flow as: a new vector of radiation after reconfiguring a thermal system, where the heat flow along this new vector goes from a cooler cooling object to a warmer warming one.
Nate’s example mirrors one I made upthread. I’m going to use your reasoning:
With the heater on the warm room leaks its heat loss to the cold environment, but the temperature remains the same.
Turn off the heat, and now the room cools.
By a process of elimination, I see that the only thing has changed is the heater was turned off.
The room was already leaking heat to the environment, and that hasn’t changed. So we eliminate that possibility.
The cooling room is not cooling to the environment.
It must be cooling to the heater.
……
That’s exactly your reasoning. Eliminate everything but the new thing, and that tells you all you need to know.
You really do see that single vector of radiation as a flow of heat, ignoring the opposing vector of radiation greater than it, because your process of elimination logic does that for you.
And then you try to pin that view on me, as if it is self-evident that I am the one breaking the laws of physics.
But as we’ve known all along – even you – a cooler object can be configured in a thermal system to slow the heat loss of a warmer component, with the result that the warmer component gets even warmer.
This is not the madness of cultists. Roy Spencer has explained this many times, using house insulation, sweaters, and the same arguments we’ve all been using, to explain that a warmed object warms further either by having the energy input increase, or the energy loss decrease.
Reconfiguring the GPE changes the energy exchanges. As the wiki said, these contributory energy flows do not determine the heat flow. And especially not by a process of elimination that eliminates all contributory flows but one.
The heat flow is always from a warmer object to a cooler one, and that rule doesn’t change just because you eliminate all the contributory energy flows except the new one.
“Well, dumb bunny, if the GP was warmer than the BP then the heat transfer would be from the GP to the BP, and no second law violation.
If the GP emitted more radiation than the BP, it could only do that if it were at a higher temperature, so again no second law violation.”
He’s absolutely correct.
Sorry, that doesnt get you out of physics jail!
“3) Because I dont rely on your process of elimination to eliminate everything but what I want to see.”
Right. Exactly what he is doing, Barry.
He eliminates the one correct option, that there is a reduction of heat flow from the BP to GP, with no rationale for doing so.
I said an honest answer, barry. That was not an honest answer.
"With the heater on the warm room leaks its heat loss to the cold environment, but the temperature remains the same.
Turn off the heat, and now the room cools.
By a process of elimination, I see that the only thing has changed is the heater was turned off.
The room was already leaking heat to the environment, and that hasn’t changed. So we eliminate that possibility.
The cooling room is not cooling to the environment.
It must be cooling to the heater."
Your analogy misses one important thing, barry. Something inside the room (ideally the heater) would have to be warming up (increasing in temperature) to match the GPE, and my argument.
You only ever look at one side of it, in isolation. Either you are trying to justify the idea of the cooling GP, or you are trying to rationalise the idea of the warming BP. You are never looking at them both combined, and simply seeing that the BP is warming at the expense of the GP.
You are still going on about definitions of heat flow even after I pointed to your own definition from months ago, where you said heat was being transferred if one object warmed at the expense of another object.
And, you are still ignoring the fact that none of the GPE proponents at this blog can apparently give a straight answer as to what they think a 2LoT violation should look like wrt the GPE. Your own answer was so ridiculous that bobdroege did not even understand it. He said it was not a 2LoT violation, in any case.
The only way GPE proponents can possibly think of heat flowing from cold to hot, radiatively, is either:
1) if the GP were warmer than the BP. That would be heat flowing in from the Sun, left to right, and then heat would be flowing from GP to BP, right to left. So it would be a “reversal of heat flow”, as they see it. Yet neither barry nor bob think this is a 2LoT violation.
2) if the GP were cooler than the BP, but somehow emitting more than the BP. This would violate the SB Law as well as 2LoT. However, bob does not agree with barry that it’s a 2LoT violation. They will not argue about it, either.
If there is another way they can picture heat flowing from cold to hot, radiatively, let’s hear it.
DREMT, before I supply an analogy that satisfies you, I want to get one thing clear – and this is what the analogy was actually about….
A process of elimination can lead to a spurious result.
If you agree that the analogy provided demonstrates this, I will give you an analogy that incorporates dual temperature changes.
But if you don’t, I won’t.
I am holding you to this, because I don’t want a repeat of your argument, “but the only thing that has changed is,” when I have just demonstrated the paucity of that line of reasoning.
So, do you agree that a process of elimination to the only variable that has changed does not by itself give a correct answer as to the direction of heat flow?
If you answer with, “but warming BP,” you will be avoiding my point, ignoring what I have bolded in the previous sentence. I will not budge until you answer my point.
barry, wake up:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1641743
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1641908
You have entire comments to respond to.
I have no idea what you are really asking me, to be honest with you. I don’t know why you’re talking about “process of elimination”. I’ve looked at all the transfers before and after separation and the only difference is the transfer GP to BP. You even agree with that. So…make your argument by analogy, don’t make it. Up to you. I can’t answer a question I don’t even understand.
“I don’t know why you’re talking about ‘process of elimination’.”
You answer that in the very next sentence!
“I’ve looked at all the transfers before and after separation and the only difference is the transfer GP to BP.”
You eliminate everything except the energy flow from GP to BP, and determine that this is the direction of heat flow.
Now, I will not budge until we deal with this elimination reasoning of yours.
—————————–
With the heater on the warm room leaks its heat loss to the cold environment, but the temperature remains the same.
Turn off the heat, and now the room cools.
By a process of elimination, I see that the only thing has changed is the heater was turned off.
The room was already leaking heat to the environment, and that hasnt changed. So we eliminate that possibility.
The cooling room is not cooling to the environment.
It must be cooling to the heater.
———————-
That’s exactly your reasoning. Eliminate everything but the new thing, and that tells you all you need to know.
This is not an analogy for the split GPE, and it is not meant to be. It is a demonstration that eliminating everything except the only change in a thermal system, does not automatically give you the direction of heat flow.
If you agree with my argument, fine.
If you say ” but warming BP,” you will not be responding to the point, which is about the paucity of the reasoning by elimination.
I will not budge, because I am not letting you get away with saying that eliminating all but the changed parameter gives you the direction of heat flow.
When we’ve actually dealt with this point, I’ll give you an analogy that includes two objects changing temperature in opposite direction, like the split-plate GPE.
Your analogy in no way makes the point you seem to want it to. If I isolated turning the heater off as being the only difference, I would be correct. Turning the heater off was the difference that led to the room cooling.
“Turning the heater off was the difference that led to the room cooling.”
And you would argue that because the room had been leaking heat to the environment before it cooled, this same thermal venting is not responsible for the room cooling.
The room is not “cooling to” the colder outside, according to your logic, because this did not change after the heater was turned off.
I just refuted your argument by analogy, barry. I will not be repeating myself. Either move on to your next analogy, maybe respond to some of those other comments, or just PST, I guess.
“…where does it cool to, barry? Don’t say space, because it was already radiating to space…”
Where does the room cool to, DREMT. Don’t say to the colder outside, because it was already shedding energy to the cold outside.
That’s your logic. Don’t avoid it. Deal with it.
“By a process of elimination, I see that the only thing has changed is the heater was turned off.”
And, that is indeed the cause of the room cooling. Thus, your analogy fails. Direction of cooling is not specified, because in your analogy it is not a vector of radiation in a specific direction that is the difference, it is simply the heater being turned off. I know you don’t get it, barry, and think that you’re being terribly clever. That’s not my problem.
DREMT Logic is rarely logical.
It is not intended to be combined with facts to find out where it leads, as science uses it.
It is intended to produce a desired outcome, which happens to be wrong and weird from the get go.
Home heating systems have different ways of distributing the heat.
In mine, at the base of the wall there are enclosed hot-water filled pipes, with vents that can be opened to allow the the heat from the hot water to convect into the room.
So in a better analogy, we don’t turn the furnace off, we simply close all the vents.
Now the heat flow from the hot water to the house is reduced.
The house continues to send heat to the outside air (not the water in the pipes).
But now since the heat INPUT to the house is less.
Same output heat, less input heat, the house cools.
The water circulating in the pipes, OTOH, gets warmer.
Same input heat from the furnace, less output heat to the house, it WARMs.
barry still has entire comments to respond to:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1641743
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1641908
It wouldn’t be fair to keep adding to his misery by giving him even more to reply to, despite his buddy Nate appearing every day, like clockwork, to add what is probably (knowing him) just more false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults.
“barry still has entire comments to respond to:”
DREMT shamelessly fails to address HIS inconsistencies and ill-logic, and instead tries to distract with squirrels.
“So in a better analogy, we dont turn the furnace off, we simply close all the vents.
Now the heat flow from the hot water to the house is REDUCED”
The circulating hot water WARMS, and the house COOLS as a result.
By DREMT LOGIC, he would conclude that the heat flow from the hot water to the house must have REVERSED.
The house must be cooling back to the hot water, making it warmer!
Even though the vents were closed!
Brilliant.
I think I mentioned something about false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults. No idea what Nate’s saying, but fairly confident it will fall into at least one of those categories.
Its the Dunning Kruger effect.
Someone with extremely poor logic skills, is also unable to recognize, much less accept, that their logic is flawed.
The short comments are usually just insults. The longer comments contain the false accusations and misrepresentations, generally. That’s what I remember, anyway. Glad I no longer read or respond to him, whilst still not allowing him the last word he so desperately craves with every ounce of his being.
“because in your analogy it is not a vector of radiation in a specific direction that is the difference”
In my description the GP cools to space.
You say that this is impossible.
And your reasoning for this is what I’m challenging you on.
Your reasoning is that GP was already shedding energy to space before separation, and that because this did not change after separation, the GP cannot now be cooling to space. It must be the thing that changed that determines heat flow.
Under the same reasoning, the room cannot be cooling to the cold outer environment.
So I ask you the same question you asked me. Where is the room cooling to, DREMT.
Should be easy enough to answer that.
The room is cooling to the outside, barry. I have no problem giving that answer because your analogy failed, and I explained why. Instead of listening, you just keep repeating yourself. Not my problem.
The room was shedding energy to the outside before the heater was switched off, on switching off the room is still shedding energy to the outside. The energy heading outside is thus not the difference that can have led to the cooling.
I’m not just using your argument here, DREMT. I’m using your words.
Your argument here doesn’t rely on BP warming up, you’re just eliminating the direction of cooling.
And the reasoning in the argument (by elimination) gives a spurious result. Do you see?
The GP is cooling to space when pressed to the BP, but the BP is warming it at exactly the same rate, so the temperature doesn’t change.
On separation the GP, like the room, continues to shed energy to space, but now the heat flow from BP to GP is zero, because the new vector raturns energy to the BP at exactly the same rate that BP sends to GP.
Because the energy from GP to space is no longer being replenished, the plate cools. And the direction of that cooling is spaceward, as before, but now with no net energy going from BP to GP to replace the energy the GP is sending to space.
I’ll give you that other analogy once you’ve responded to this.
You are not using my reasoning, barry, as I explained. The before and after difference in your analogy is simply turning off the heater. The difference with my argument was a vector of radiation in a specific direction. That is why your analogy fails.
“The difference with my argument was a vector of radiation in a specific direction.”
Which has nothing to do with your argument from why GP is excluded from cooling to space. THAT piece of reasoning is all about eliminating everything that hasn’t changed, and I’ve just shown you the paucity of applying that rationale to a heat flow problem.
The GP is cooling to space after separation.
Your only argument against that is that you eliminated every component that didn’t change to get a direction of heat flow.
And by doing this you eliminate the energy going from BP to GP. You eliminate the very component that would tell you what the direction of heat flow is in radiative terms.
Rather than see the whole system and account for all flows, you disc0unt all flows but one.
Your analogy does not achieve its intended purpose, barry, and I have explained a number of times now why it failed. The problem is, you are no longer listening to me.
That being the case, a sensible discussion can’t really proceed. So, I’m just going to reiterate a separate argument that has been developing alongside the main one, which has been pretty much ignored up until now.
The GPE proponents would like to push a narrative that heat flow is reduced on separation of the plates, and that is the reason for the BP warming and the GP cooling. The problem with that, besides what I have already explained in the main argument, can be seen if you take that premise to its logical conclusion. If the situation at 244 K…244 K is only a reduction in heat flow, then what would be a reversal in heat flow, as the GPE proponents see it?
The answer is, as I tried to explain before, if the GP were warmer than the BP. Then you would have (as they see it) heat flowing from the Sun to the BP, left to right. Then, heat flowing from the GP to the BP, right to left. Heat flowing in opposing directions. That is the logical conclusion to the way they see it. Amusingly, they have argued against that being a 2LoT violation! I think that just about sums it up.
They clearly have not thought their position through. If the logical conclusion to their "heat flow reduction" narrative is that a "heat flow reversal" is not a 2LoT violation anyway, how can they even claim that it’s possible to violate 2LoT, radiatively, with the way they’re looking at it?
That’s why we get barry’s absurd answer that the GP and BP would both have to violate the SB Law as well, in order for there to be a 2LoT violation as they see it.
"how can they even claim that it’s possible to violate 2LoT, radiatively, with the way they’re looking at it?"
…and, just to be clear, I’m well aware that it’s not possible for 2LoT violations to happen in real life. What I’m saying is, that with the way they’re looking at it, even hypothetically it seems impossible for there to be such a thing as a radiative 2LoT violation. Like, their viewpoint seems to make the idea of heat flowing from cold to hot, radiatively, not something that can be expressed even as a hypothetical scenario! If they go with their idea of "heat flow reduction" and take it to its logical conclusion, then "heat flow reversal" would be the GP being warmer than the BP; but that, they then realise, is still heat flowing from hot to cold!
So, they’re left with barry’s silly idea of the SB Law violating plates as their only option…
Barry presents to DREMT clear and inescapable logic.
DREMT has no answer. So he tries to escape by blaming Barry. And changing the subject.
“That being the case, a sensible discussion cant really proceed. So, Im just going to reiterate ” another squirrel.
This is expected, as noted from the outset, he was never here for honest debate.
With the sun included I can see a warmer GP as a 2nd Law violation, but I see it more naturally as a violation of conservation of energy. Where is the extra energy coming from to keep GP warmer than BP?
So two laws are being broken if we take your description of 2LoT violation on board. According to you this invalidates the example. 2LoT violation description is acceptable only if no other physical laws are broken, right?
…and, that’s the response! Unbelievable. Just some snark, nothing substantive.
"With the sun included I can see a warmer GP as a 2nd Law violation"
First it’s a 2LoT violation, then it definitely isn’t a 2LoT violation (and bob lends his support, convincing barry that he’s correct)…then it is a 2LoT violation again. So now barry and bob are in disagreement (they won’t argue about it, though).
They don’t have a clue. They haven’t thought their position through.
The analogy to use is the one I already have.
A heated room with thermal leakage to the cold outside
A perfectly conducting door well inside the heated room
A door frame leading to the cold outside
The door is in thermal equilibrium with the room as it leans against the wall
Energy into the room and the door is from the heater. The energy leaving the room and the door is heading outside
Now, affix the door to the frame
One side of the door is now fully exposed to the cold, the other side to the room
The door must cool down, because it is no longer surrounded by the warm air in the room
The door also reduces heat loss from the room to the outside, so the room warms up
Even when new equilibrium is reached the perfectly conducting door is still colder than it was
I’ve looked at all the components and seen that the only thing that has changed is the door
The heater continues to pump out heat, the door and the room continue to lose heat to the cold outside, the only thing that has changed is the door position
And the door gets colder while the room warms
By a process of deduction I know that the door is cooling to the room, and this violates the 2LoT
This is your logic.
And now you will say that the difference is that there is a new vector in the split-plate scenario, and this new direction of radiative flow is what makes the split-plate scenario a violation of 2LoT.
To which I repeat that you are treating a vector of radiation as a heat transfer. Instead of treating it as reducing heat flow from BP that is always heading towards GP.
In both scenarios there is a component in thermal equilibrium with another component, in both scenarios the system is reconfigured and the cooling component is responsible for a change in the rate of heat flow which results in the other component getting warmer. In both scenarios there was thermal loss to the cold beyond before and after the system was reconfigures, which eliminates, in your logic, the cold beyond as a region the cooling component can cool to.
But we both know this is not the case for the room/door scenario. We see that a cooler object can make a warmer object warmer without violating 2LoT. We’ve seen this with blankets, sweaters, house insulation etc.
The only difference between all these examples, including the room and the door, and your view of a 2LoT violation is….
A vector of radiation.
You can accept convection providing a reduction in heat loss from a warmer body by a cooler body (that’s what a sweater does on a cold night), but it appears you cannot accept that radiation can ever have the same function.
Is that true? Can you give an analogous description of a reduction in heat loss via radiation using the 2 blackbody plates and the sun?
I’d be interested to see if you can do that, because from what you argue, I would think that it is impossible for you to come up with such an example, where an introduced vector of radiation causes a reduction in heat loss from the target object.
“First it’s a 2LoT violation”
You know I hate falsehoods like this. Quote me, please. Where did I “first” say that a warmer GP shedding more energy to a colder BP is a 2LoT violation? How many days ago?
Quote and link. And don’t quote yourself, which is what you will have to do to try and make this BS stick.
So, your big analogy that you’ve been building up to for days was…the same analogy that we’ve already discussed.
If it’s a "perfectly conducting" door then surely it would pretty much just take on the temperature of whatever air it’s exposed to. So, it’s a curious situation, since the air inside the room will get warmer, and the air outside will remain the same temperature (colder than inside)…and I guess the door will just sort of be somewhere between those two temperatures. I guess it should be colder, overall, after you moved it into position, but does this really have anything in common with your supposed cooling of the GP? The GP is supposed to cool (you claim) due to this reduction in heat flow, whereas your door is just cooling because you’re moving it to a colder location and it’s taking on the air temperature.
I just think no analogy can really do justice to the simplicity, or the specifics, of the actual GPE. I can’t see any reason for argument by analogy except to mislead. Not saying your intent is to mislead others, barry, perhaps you’re simply just finding ways to confuse yourself because you want to believe in the GPE. Or maybe you really do think that I somehow still don’t understand what you’re getting at, and an analogy might help. On the last point I can assure you that I’ve understood for quite some time what you’re driving at.
Yes, barry, first you did say it was a 2LoT violation.
[DREMT] I’ll do it for you, instead: the only way for there to be a 2LoT violation as you would see it, in the GPE, is if the plate temperatures were effectively reversed, so that the GP was warmer than the BP!
[BARRY] With the sun providing heat to the BP and the GP only getting energy from space and the BP, the GP should be cooler than the BP. This situation is a violation of the 2nd Law, because now the flow of heat is from GP to BP, despite the NET transfer: Qnet [σ(BP – GP)] is a negative number.
If you were able to conceive of a vector of radiation as reducing radiative heat loss in a warmer object, then we would have no argument.
It is the directional nature of radiative transfer that gives you your vector of heat flow.
With convection you have no problem. With conduction you have no problem.
With radiation – a reduction in heat loss is not possible from a vector of radiation.
Am I wrong about that?
Ok, fair enough. I definitely said with the sun included there was a 2LoT many days ago. I still think it’s more naturally a 1LoT, but I can see both.
I was rejecting 2LoT a few days later when I was not including the sun in the scenario – just speaking of the flow between the 2 plates in isolation.
* 2LoT violation
barry…for what seems like the one hundredth time…your "reduction in heat loss" explanation is only looking at one side of the story. You fixate on the warming of the BP when you want to, treating it like it’s some process of insulation, whilst ignoring the cooling of the GP!
And, taking your "reduction in heat loss" narrative to its logical conclusion, a "reversal of heat flow" would have to be the GP being warmer than the BP. Have you made up your mind yet on whether or not that’s a 2LoT violation!?
If you were able to conceive of a vector of radiation as reducing radiative heat loss in a warmer object, then we would have no argument.
It is the directional nature of radiative transfer that gives you your vector of heat flow.
With convection you have no problem. With conduction you have no problem.
With radiation a reduction in heat loss is not possible from a vector of radiation.
Yet this is exactly what passive radiators on the ISS do to keep the craft from radiating too much energy away to space. The radiators return radiative energy to the craft to prevent heat loss.
If one of these radiators was inside the craft, it would be as warm as the environment. Take it outside and it immediately cools down, but now it returns radiation to the craft, slowing its heat loss.
The emissivity of the material determines the efficiency of this function, but the passive radiator will always reduce heat loss as long as the emissivity is greater than 0.
The GP is like the passive radiator on a spacecraft.
No 2LoT violation with passive radiators on spacecraft reducing heat loss.
Tsk – passive radiators would have zero efficiency if they were transparent to the emitted IR. Of course, they are most efficient with zero emissivity.
“With convection you have no problem. With conduction you have no problem.”
With convection, I assume you can think of a hypothetical scenario where 2LoT is violated, but no other law of physics.
With conduction, I assume you can think of a hypothetical scenario where 2LoT is violated, but no other law of physics.
Why is it only with radiation that you can’t think of a hypothetical scenario where 2LoT is violated, but no other law of physics?
“barry… for what seems like the one hundredth time… your “reduction in heat loss” explanation is only looking at one side of the story. You fixate on the warming of the BP when you want to, treating it like it’s some process of insulation, whilst ignoring the cooling of the GP!”
How am I ignoring the GP when I have explained that it is losing heat to space?
How am I ignoring the whole picture when I describe a cooling door reducing heat loss to the room?
How am I ignoring it when I describe moving a passive radiator from inside to outside the space station?
You think you see a quantity of heat going from a cooling GP to a warming BP. It seems intuitive to you that this is a transfer of heat because of the respective changes in temperature. But it isn’t. It is a transfer of energy. The flow of heat is determined by – and only determined by – the absolute temperature difference between the objects.
The reason for the GP getting cooler is that the energy flow from BP has been canceled by the new vector, and the energy radiated to space is now able to cool GP.
I’m not ignoring GP.
The reason for BP getting warmer is that its rate of heat loss to GP has been reduced by radiation coming from GP.
I’m not ignoring BP.
The BP warms up because it is now getting energy from GP AND the sun, but only emitting the same energy it was getting before. The energy balances change and the components respond to those changes.
Direction of flow of heat is not determined by the contributory flows of energy, as the wiki quote says. If you change these flows by reconfiguring the geometry of a radiative system, this can change the temperatures of the components in the system. But the changes in temperature of the components in the system don’t determine the heat flow either. The only thing that determines heat flow is the temperature difference between two objects in the system. And thus heat flow is always BP to GP.
And you will now reiterate your reasoning that GP can only be cooling to BP, and I will say the process of elimination is faulty, and you are treating a vector of radiation as a vector of heat, and cooling objects can make warmer objects warmer if you reconfigure a system, as you agreed with the door scenario above.
And you will say that no analogy works because you see radiation operating differently to other forms of heat transfer, and that difference is the directionality of radiation, and this is why I say that you automatically treat a vector of radiation as a heat transfer, even if the radiation supposedly transferring the heat is less intense than the target object’s radiation back to the source.
And you’ll say look at the temperature changes of GP and BP, and this means that heat was transferred because one cooled and one warmed, and I’ll point to examples of this occurring in convection and you’ll say the difference is the directionality of the radiation, and I’ll say thus you are treating a vector of radiation as a transfer of heat, just because it HAS directionality. This is what distinguishes a cooling body reducing heat loss of a warmer one with other processes that you would be ok with.
For you, it is just not possible for a vector of radiation to reduce heat loss from from a warmer, radiating object. That is the fundamental disagreement we have.
Looks like barry is starting to argue with himself, writing his own side of the argument as well as writing in my own side of it for me. Perhaps I’m not needed here any more…
“The reason for the GP getting cooler is that the energy flow from BP has been canceled by the new vector, and the energy radiated to space is now able to cool GP.
I’m not ignoring GP.
The reason for BP getting warmer is that its rate of heat loss to GP has been reduced by radiation coming from GP.
I’m not ignoring BP.”
If we’re just going to be repeating ourselves, I will go with simply linking to previous comments:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1640620
Rather than writing it all out again.
“You think you see a quantity of heat going from a cooling GP to a warming BP. It seems intuitive to you that this is a transfer of heat because of the respective changes in temperature. But it isn’t. It is a transfer of energy. The flow of heat is determined by – and only determined by – the absolute temperature difference between the objects.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1641422
“And you will now reiterate your reasoning that GP can only be cooling to BP, and I will say the process of elimination is faulty…”
You can say it, but you haven’t demonstrated it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1642414
links, huh?
“The GP is not cooling to space, because the 200 W/m^2 from the GP to space was present both before and after separation. So, it’s not the difference responsible for the cooling. The difference responsible for the cooling is the radiation from GP to BP. Therefore, the GP is cooling to the BP.”
Here is your argument from a process of elimination that GP is not cooling to BP.
Using the same logic it is revealed that when the heater is turned off, the room cannot be cooling to the cold outside, because the thermal loss to the outside was “present both before and after” the heater being turned off. “So, it’s not the difference responsible for the cooling. The difference responsible for the cooling is” the heater being switched off, and therefore the heat cannot be flowing to the outside. It must be flowing towards the heater.
You seem incapable of realizing that your logic of eliminating everything but the “difference” to get the direction of heat flow gives spurious conclusions.
And rather than deal with that you point at something else.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1641422
You refer to my statement on a spontaneous reversal of heat flow between two bodies. In our scenario we are deliberately changing the energy dynamics between two bodies in a system heated by an outside source. You believe the BP warms “at the expense of the GP.” It does not, it warms because there is a third body warming it – the sun, and GP reduced BP’s heat loss.
“Direction of cooling is not specified, because in your analogy it is not a vector of radiation in a specific direction that is the difference, it is simply the heater being turned off.”
And once again you reveal that you see a single vector of radiation as a transfer of heat. The direction of radiation IS the direction of heat flow – for you.
Think of it – both scenarios have the repositioning of a body that cools that causes the other to warm. What is the difference?
The difference is this single vector of radiation.
And in order to establish that there is a heat flow in the radiative case, but not in the convective case, we need to ignore that the NET flow of radiation determines the flow of heat, and ignore the more intense emission from BP to GP.
This disc0unting of other energy flows is all you.
In your view, it is impossible for there to be a reduction in energy loss in a radiative environment. Every radiative vector that results in a body getting warmer can only be adding heat in the classic sense. Even if the source of that radiative vector is colder than the target.
A colder sweater can warm me up – no problem. No 2LoT violation.
If the sweater is near a fire I walk past, I put it on and it cools away from the fire, even as I warm up. No 2LoT violation.
If I move a door to seal a room from the cold, there is no flow of heat from the cooling door to the warming room. No 2LoT violation.
But as soon as the environment is purely radiative, suddenly it is not possible to reduce heat loss. In your view radiation moves a quantity of heat from one object to another. It seems you think a single radiative vector axiomatically provides a transfer of heat.
Or can you provide an analogy to putting on a sweater in radiative terms? Where radiation reduces heat loss?
I bet you can’t.
Moving the radiator from inside the ISS to outside to reflect radiation back to the ISS and keep it from cooling.
Do you not see this as a radiative vector reducing heat loss?
The radiator cools when it is moved, but also reduces heat loss. If the energy source warming the ISS stays constant, the reduced radiative loss should cause the craft to get warmer.
The emissivity isn’t relevant to the function described here, only to its efficiency. Both a reflector and a blackbody radiator will return radiation to the ship.
barry writes another long Gish Gallop of points he’s already made. I’m just going to reiterate:
“Using the same logic it is revealed that when the heater is turned off, the room cannot be cooling to the cold outside, because the thermal loss to the outside was “present both before and after” the heater being turned off. “So, it’s not the difference responsible for the cooling. The difference responsible for the cooling is” the heater being switched off, and therefore the heat cannot be flowing to the outside. It must be flowing towards the heater.”
No, barry. It is not “the same logic”. How many times do I have to repeat myself before you will listen? The difference is just the heater being switched off, which has no “direction of flow” to attribute to it. So, there would be no reason for me to conclude the heat cannot be flowing to the outside. With my argument, the difference is a vector of radiation with a specific direction of flow, GP to BP.
Either acknowledge you were wrong on this, or we go no further.
“The difference is just the heater being switched off, which has no direction of flow to attribute to it. ”
Of course it does!
Heat flow has a direction. And in that case it is from the heater to the room.
IN the GPE the heat source for the GP is the BP. The direction of the heat flow is from the BP to the GP.
Before separation there is heat flow of 200 W/M^2 from the heat source to the GP. After separation, it is 0.
It is exactly the same as the heater being turned off!
And in neither case does the object (room or GP) cool to the heat source.
Barry has shredded DREMT’s illogic again.
That was a longer comment, so was most likely in the false accusation/misrepresentation camp.
“false accusation”
Regulars here recognize this as the standard shameless response given so often by Clint and DREMT when they have no sensible rebuttal to the argument made by their opponent.
Even when they claim not to know what the opponents argument is! That’s telling.
It is employed so often by these two that nobody takes it seriously anymore.
It is just background noise.
A shorter comment, so probably in the personal remark/insult camp.
“With my argument, the difference is a vector of radiation with a specific direction of flow, GP to BP.
Either acknowledge you were wrong on this, or we go no further.”
Incredible. I just said exactly that to make a point.
And once again you reveal that you see a single vector of radiation as a transfer of heat. The direction of radiation IS the direction of heat flow for you.
Think of it both scenarios have the repositioning of a body that cools that causes the other to warm. What is the difference?
The difference is this single vector of radiation.
And in order to establish that there is a heat flow in the radiative case, but not in the convective case, we need to ignore that the NET flow of radiation determines the flow of heat, and ignore the more intense emission from BP to GP.
This disc0unting of other energy flows is all you.
You’re just repeating your position and not dealing with the arguments against it.
I even came up with another analogy to include a radiative vector, in the post above this one.
Moving the radiator from inside the ISS to outside to reflect radiation back to the ISS and keep it from cooling.
Do you not see this as a radiative vector reducing heat loss?
The radiator cools when it is moved, but also reduces heat loss. If the energy source warming the ISS stays constant, the reduced radiative loss should cause the craft to get warmer.
The emissivity isn’t relevant to the function described here, only to its efficiency. Both a reflector and a blackbody radiator will return radiation to the ship.
You think aerospace engineers imagined they’d be breaking the 2LoT by using radiative energy to slow heat loss?
I’ll say it again – you cannot come up with any scenario in which a vector of radiation reduces heat loss. And therefore you only see vectors of radiation adding heat, not reducing it.
Vectors of radiation ARE transfers of heat. That’s not your conclusion, it’s your premise. As I said from the beginning.
No, barry, I am not moving on until you acknowledge that you were wrong about that specific point. You said the logic was the same, and it is not the same. The “before and after” difference in your analogy was just switching off the heater, whereas the “before and after” difference in my argument is a vector of radiation in a specific direction.
And no, that does not mean that I am treating a vector of radiation as if it were heat. That is still what you are doing, as I’ve explained.
And no, your ISS analogy is no better. You are moving some reflective material from a warm environment to a colder environment and going “hey look, it cools!”
The problem we have is that you cannot concede any point, ever. So, we do not make any progress.
“The GP is not cooling to space, because the 200 W/m^2 from the GP to space was present both before and after separation. So, it’s not the difference responsible for the cooling.”
For rejecting that the GP is losing heat to space, this argument is complete. The word ‘so’ means ‘therefore’.
Your case for rejecting GP heat loss to space does not rely one scintilla on the new vector of radiation from GP. You are simply saying that what didn’t change must be excluded. That’s the logic.
The same logic rejects that the room is losing heat to the environment after the heater is turned off.
Now, you’re probably going to say that the new vector of radiation is vital to complete the argument about what direction heat flow is.
And in doing so you will once again completely miss the point.
Which is entirely about rejecting that the room can cool to the environment, based on the same logic you reject that the GP can cool to space.
And this thread of your argument is integral to the whole of it.
Because I say the GP cools to cools to space, and obviously so, because the GP is warmer than space, and the GP is radiating to space.
And your answer right now – be honest – is that GP was already radiating to space, and that did not change after the plates split, so that can’t be a direction of heat flow if the plate cools.
That’s your logic, right?
“And no, your ISS analogy is no better. You are moving some reflective material from a warm environment to a colder environment and going “hey look, it cools!” ”
It also reduces heat loss from the ISS.
You agree with that, right? The cooler radiators are reducing heat loss from the ISS by sending radiation back to the ISS.
You’ve been avoiding answering this for a few posts now.
Do you or do you not agree that a vector of radiation can be responsible for a reduction in heat loss?
"For rejecting that the GP is losing heat to space, this argument is complete. The word ‘so’ means ‘therefore’."
Wrong barry, that is not the complete argument. I reject that the GP is cooling to space, on separation, because:
It was emitting 200 W/m^2 to space before separation, and it is still emitting 200 W/m^2 to space after separation, and because the "before and after" difference is the vector of radiation from GP to BP. That, in totality, is the reason we know the GP is not cooling to space, on separation. Stop splitting up my arguments, barry. That is not the way to debate honestly.
"Do you or do you not agree that a vector of radiation can be responsible for a reduction in heat loss?"
I will answer this question when you admit you were wrong.
“The problem we have is that you cannot concede any point, ever. So, we do not make any progress.”
DREMT wants Barry to concede to his illogical thinking. Doing so will lead to more illogical results, not progress.
Suggested slight edit:
“It was emitting 200 W/m^2 to space before separation, and it is still emitting 200 W/m^2 to space after separation, and because the “before and after” difference is the vector of radiation from GP to BP, which results in the heat input going to 0.”
as for the house
“It was emitting to the outside before heat turned off, and it is still emitting the same to outside after the heat turned off, and because the “before and after” difference results in the heat input going to the house going to 0″
Can anyone tell me if Nate has added one single thing of any value, the entire time he has been commenting in this thread? I am getting really bored of seeing his name appear. It is every single day, without fail. Really obsessive. Can he not just leave barry to argue for himself?
All the way down the thread you have complained either that I’m looking at the reduction in heat loss but ignoring cooling GP, or that I’m ignoring the new vector of radiation while focussing on the cooling GP. You complain that I only see half the picture. At least you recognize that there ARE two halves!
You insist that focussing on one component or other of your argument is impermissible, and that I have to deal with them both at the same time.
Which is self-serving BS. In any reasonable discussion it is not only permissible but normal to focus one one aspect or another of a notion. You insist on yet another bogus requirement in our discussion to absolve yourself of having to deal with stuff.
Let me quote you again.
“It can’t be “simply cooling”, barry, it has to be cooling to somewhere! Since it was already radiating to space prior to separation, on separation of the plates it must be cooling to the BP if it supposedly cools then, since that’s the only other thing filling its field of view. There’s no way around that logic.”
“There’s no way around that logic,” you say.
There is no mention of the directionality of the new vector, no mention of BP warming. The logic that you claim is inescapable is simply:
“Since it was already radiating to space prior to separation, on separation of the plates it must be cooling to the BP if it supposedly cools then, since that’s the only other thing filling its field of view.”
This piece of logic – eliminating everything that doesn’t change – is required to make the other piece work. There is no requirement that I address them both together, though I have done so many times. Only one need be shown false to demolish the whole.
So, no, I’m not wrong. There are two components to your argument, and absolutely no reason why we can’t examine each on its own merits.
I maintain that the GP cools to space on separation. Your argument that this is not possible because it was already sending thermal energy in that direction before separation is rejected by my examples as well as the 2LoT.
barry stamps his feet and gnashes his teeth, but can’t admit that he was wrong. Then I guess the argument is over (and, as it stands, barry loses).
Sorry barry, but you don’t get to misrepresent my argument, then when I tell you you’ve done so, start to try and tell me what my own argument is!
[DREMT] That GP was radiating to space before the plates were separated, and on separation it is still radiating to space. The radiation to space is thus not the difference that can have led to the cooling you believe occurs. That only leaves the radiation on the other side of the GP, towards the BP, as being the difference that can have led to the cooling you believe occurs. It was not radiating towards the BP when the plates were pushed together, and now, on separation, it is.
[BARRY THEN] Yes, that’s all fine.
[BARRY NOW] I maintain that the GP cools to space on separation. Your argument that this is not possible because it was already sending thermal energy in that direction before separation is rejected by my examples as well as the 2LoT.
It is not my argument that “this is not possible because it was already sending thermal energy in that direction before separation”. As you can see from the quote, that you agreed with at the time (!), my argument always involved thinking about the “before and after” difference responsible for the cooling, that being the radiation from the GP to the BP. If the “before and after” difference is just a heater being switched off, that gives me no reason to rule out the room cooling to the cold outside. I am ruling out the GP cooling to space because the difference that led to the cooling was a vector of radiation in the other direction!
“That only leaves the radiation on the other side of the GP, towards the BP, as being the difference that can have led to the cooling you believe occurs.”
The difference that led to the cooling is that the heat flow going from BP to GP is now zero.
You’ve never responded to that specific point. The input from BP to GP is now matched by the radiation flowing out of GP towards BP. NET exchange is zero.
Do you or do you not agree that if GP sends 200 W/m2 to the BP, there is no more heat flow from BP to GP?
Do you accept that your “heater switch off” misrepresentation was a misrepresentation? I’m still just waiting for you to admit you were wrong, barry. Can you do that?
It’s perfectly fine for exposing the paucity of eliminating all but the change to decide that GP is not cooling to space.
As we both have agreed that a vector of radiation is not a heat flow, there is no reason to use that vector from GP to BP to disc0unt the vector to space as being responsible for the GP cooling.
And my standing question to you buttresses that last point by accounting for the new vector, which you seem unwilling to take up.
If on separation GP is now returning 200 W/m2 to BP, the heat flow between the two surfaces is zero. With the heat flow from BP to GP neutralised, the GP can now become cooler due to the other side of it radiating to space.
Do you or do you not agree that the heat flow between BP and GP becomes zero on separation?
I’ll take any further dodging of this as a concession.
“It’s perfectly fine for exposing the paucity of eliminating all but the change to decide that GP is not cooling to space.”
Wrong, barry. You just cannot accept that you are wrong on this. In my argument, I am looking at all the energy flows prior to and following separation of the plates, and noting that the only “before and after” difference is a vector of radiation from GP to BP. In your analogy you are pretending the heater being switched off is the “before and after” difference that has been analysed! It does not even make any sense as a comparison. Your analogy does not achieve what you want it to achieve.
Concede that you were wrong, and I will answer your question that you already know the answer to (of course heat flow is zero between two plates at the same temperature).
“As we both have agreed that a vector of radiation is not a heat flow, there is no reason to use that vector from GP to BP to disc0unt the vector to space as being responsible for the GP cooling.”
Wrong again, barry. As we have both agreed that a vector of radiation is not a heat flow, that vector should not be responsible for the GP cooling and the BP warming. Yet, that’s exactly what your 262 K…220 K solution entails. The GP is not cooling to space, on separation, as we know that it was emitting the same amount to space before and after separation of the plates and because the “before and after” difference is that the GP is now emitting to the BP. So, it must be cooling to the BP.
“As we have both agreed that a vector of radiation is not a heat flow, that vector should not be responsible for the GP cooling and the BP warming. Yet, that’s exactly what your 262 K… 220 K solution entails.”
I’ve explained why GP warms and BP cools without violating 2LoT. See below.
“The GP is not cooling to space, on separation, as we know that it was emitting the same amount to space before and after separation of the plates and because the “before and after” difference is that the GP is now emitting to the BP. So, it must be cooling to the BP.”
The GP is cooling to space on separation because the heat flow from BP to GP has been neutralised with the new vector and GP energy to space is no longer being replenished, and the same new vector is reducing the rate of heat loss from sun-warmed BP.
There, the new vector is accounted for, and so are all the other vectors of energy radiation. None have been overlooked.
Where is the flaw in that analysis?
Where is the flaw in my analysis? You haven’t found any, because the one criticism you had (the “heater switch off” analogy) was a misrepresentation, and failed. You still haven’t acknowledged that, despite the fact I have explained why it failed about five times now, and you have no counter to it except to repeat your way of looking at things, your “mantra”. It’s been a very repetitive discussion, to say the least.
You have a way of looking at it, I have a way of looking at it. The facts that we have agreed on are that the difference between the situation before and after separation of the plates in terms of all the energy transfers is a vector of radiation from the GP to the BP, and that after separation the GP cools and the BP warms. Given your own prior words:
“No, heat would be what is transferred if the plate or planet got COLDER while the sun received its energy. That’s the DEFINITION of heat. Unless the Sun gains heat at the expense of plates/planets, then heat is definitely NOT what is not being transferred.
You and your gang really need to understand the meaning of heat. It is a transfer process where the body gaining energy does so at the expense of the source. Radiation is NOT heat.”
You should, strictly speaking, be agreeing with me. However, you do not. So, that’s strange. Guess you have gone back on your own words, which applied to a situation where the BP got colder and the Sun got warmer. Can you really not see how that matches with the GP getting colder whilst the BP gets warmer?
My remark applied to two bodies, as I have already said. We are looking at a system made of two bodies receiving energy from a third. Big difference.
The flaws in your analysis are:
You reject the standard definition of heat flow, where heat flows from a warmer body to cooler body, in favour of a definition that you can’t even articulate.
Your reasoning for your claimed flow of heat eliminates all energy exchanges but one, which means you dismiss NET exchange of energy, which determines the flow of heat.
Your argument by elimination also renders you mute to the fact you have avoided addressing over and over – that separating the plates immediately stops the flow of heat from BP to GP, as the radiative flows towards each are now matched.
In sum, you reject the standard definition of heat flow (BP IS warmer than GP) and every vector of energy except the new one to arrive at your conclusion.
Also, you have had to avoid a number of pointed challenges to your assertion for more than a week.
Can a vector of radiation reduce heat loss in a warmer body, or do vectors of radiation only ever add heat?
Do you agree that if BP and GP are sending 200 W/m2 to each other, the heat flow between them is now zero?
"My remark applied to two bodies, as I have already said. We are looking at a system made of two bodies receiving energy from a third. Big difference."
No, not really, barry. You don’t have a problem with it being described as heat flow from cold to hot if the BP gets colder whilst the Sun gets warmer, but you do if the GP gets colder whilst the BP gets warmer!
"The flaws in your analysis are:"
Non-existent. You’re just repeatedly pointing, unbelievably, at your "definition of heat flow" arguments from before, which I thoroughly debunked at the time, and also just slyly repeating your own "mantra". No, barry, I am not using any definition of heat flow besides the well-known idea that heat flows from hot to cold, unless external work is performed on the system. As I’ve said a dozen times, we still need to know what heat flow cold to hot would look like, radiatively. Clearly you guys have some problems understanding that, as we’ve seen on the other thread!
"Also, you have had to avoid a number of pointed challenges to your assertion for more than a week."
I haven’t "had to avoid" anything, I’ve chosen not to respond to your first question because you refuse to acknowledge that your "heater switch off" analogy was a misrepresentation, and failed. Until you do so, I will not be responding to it. Your second question, I’ve already answered!
DREMT states:
1.”of course heat flow is zero between two plates at the same temperature”
Good, so after separation, the GP has NO heat flow INPUT.
2. the GP “was emitting the same amount to space before and after separation of the plates”
Good so the GP continues to have heat flow OUTPUT to space.
Then why is he unable to put these two facts together and do simple arithmetic to conclude as Barry does:
The GP must be COOLING… to space
??
Clearly there is something seriously wrong with his brain.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1644929
I note that nobody rushed in to defend Nate after this comment. Guess we can conclude he has added nothing of any value.
In answer to my question on whether you can find a flaw in my analysis of the split-plate GP, you replied. “Where is the flaw in my analysis.”
But you didn’t point out a flaw in mine.
Because if you can’t find a flaw, then we should go with the analysis that doesn’t violate 2LoT, and doesn’t ignore every energy exchange but one.
I didn’t notice your parenthesised concession….
“of course heat flow is zero between two plates at the same temperature”
Great, so there is zero NET energy exchange between BP and GP. But GP…
“was emitting the same amount to space before and after separation of the plates.”
Then with zero NET energy coming into GP from BP, the energy loss to space now cools GP.
That’s what the new vector does – stops INPUT into GP, while the OUTPUT remains. So the new vector IS the cause of the cooling, but is NOT the direction of the cooling. The direction of cooling is determined by 2LoT, by the temperature difference between GP and space, which GP was already emitting to before its INPUT was neutralised by the new vector.
The new vector is also the cause of reduced thermal loss from BP, which therefore must warm to compensate with the solar input.
This description accounts for all vectors, new and pre-existing.
So why is it wrong, DREMT?
Can a vector of radiation reduce heat loss in a warmer body, or do vectors of radiation only ever add heat?
barry still doesn’t get it. For me to explain the flaw in your way of looking at it, requires me to repeat my argument. For you to explain what you think is the flaw in my way of looking at it, requires you to repeat your argument. This is why it has been such a repetitive discussion. There’s nothing about your argument that I didn’t already understand before this discussion took place…so there’s really no need for you to keep repeating yourself.
You can keep asking your question for the rest of your life, barry. As I said, I’m not going to answer it until you concede that your “heater switch off” analogy was a misrepresentation, and failed.
And yes, I do have an answer to your question…and you are going to love it. Concede to proceed.
P.S: there are quite a lot of points, and indeed even entire comments, of mine that you’ve yet to respond to.
“…we should go with the analysis that doesn’t violate 2LoT, and doesn’t ignore every energy exchange but one.”
This is wrong, in two ways, by the way:
1) My analysis doesn’t violate 2LoT (how can an analysis violate 2LoT!?), it rather shows that your 262 K…220 K solution violates 2LoT.
2) I am not ignoring any energy exchange. That’s the point, barry. I am looking at all the energy flows both before and after separation, in order to determine the difference. All of them. All of them are taken into account.
I predict that you will not listen to this, and will not correct your misunderstanding.
“For me to explain the flaw in your way of looking at it, requires me to repeat my argument.”
Precisely. You don’t have anything that you can rebut in my analysis, so all you’ve got is repeating yours, as you have been doing in lieu of argument for many days.
My description of what happens in the split-plate scenario is not only valid, there is also no violation of 2LoT.
Whereas your claim of a violation in 2LoT rejects the standard definition of heat flow in favour of your ‘argument’.
I don’t ‘concede’ by the way, I disagree with you on that point. If you want to hold your responses to ransom, insisting I just agree with you to get your answer instead of just being open-handed, that’s no skin off my nose.
All wrong, barry. Like I said, your only rebuttal to my argument is to repeat your own, so it cuts both ways.
“Whereas your claim of a violation in 2LoT rejects the standard definition of heat flow in favour of your ‘argument’.”
Wildly incorrect, as explained ad nauseam and repeatedly ignored by you. I might as well be talking to a post. I am adhering to the standard definition of heat flow. For the one thousandth time, we still need to think about what it looks like when heat flows from cold to hot, radiatively. You have demonstrated on this thread and the other one that you don’t have a clue about that.
“I don’t ‘concede’ by the way, I disagree with you on that point.”
Oh, on what grounds do you disagree, barry? I have explained about five times why your analogy fails to make your intended point, and you have no rebuttal! So if you don’t concede, and you can’t explain your disagreement, I guess we’re going nowhere. Do you enjoy wasting other people’s time, barry?
“I am adhering to the standard definition of heat flow.”
Heat flows from a warmer object to a colder one. BP is warmer than GP, so heat must be flowing that way.
You are rejecting this simple definition of heat flow. Your response is “how did BP get warmer than GP.”
No standard definition of heat flow examines the question of how one object comes to be warmer than other. This is outside the scope of the definition! So with that question you have moved beyond the standard definition.
When I ask you to give me a standard definition of heat flow that supports your claim, you cannot provide it, and instead ask me what a 2LoT violation would look like. Then you reject my description for arbitrary reasons. So we are left with nothing except your reasoning that there is a heat flow from GP to BP, because no standard definition supports it.
“For the one thousandth time, we still need to think about what it looks like when heat flows from cold to hot, radiatively.”
I’ve already described what that is. Radiatively, there would be more radiation going to the hot object than the colder one. Heat flow is radiative terms is determined by the NET radiative exchange – not just one vector – and so the obvious answer is to reverse the NET exchange. Simple.
As I said on the other thread, if we described a flowing river in terms that break the law of gravity, it is inevitable that others laws of physics would be broken too – Conservation of Energy, 1st Law of Motion, etc. And breaking 2LoT will inevitable break other laws.
But because my answer undoes your argument, you insert an arbitrary condition that in breaking one law of physics it is not permitted to break another one. There is absolutely no reason why this should be required, and hazy suggestions of something more ‘nuanced’ is not a cogent rebuttal.
You see in this post that I’m not just repeating my view, I’m taking on your challenges to it, as is right and good in a discourse. I mount an argument against your challenge that my 2LoT violation should not break other laws of physics. To this you say nothing.
I point out that heat flow has stopped to GP after separation, allowing GP to cool to space. You tell me you account for all the energy flows, but you do not mathematically account for the energy of these three vectors, just repeat your argument that we can neglect 2 of them because they have remained the same, and the remaining flow explains all.
Oh yes, you account for all the vectors long enough to note which are the same before and after separation at which point you dismiss them. You don’t do the math for the various fluxes.
Because if you did, you would see BP yielding a total of 200 W/m2 to GP, and GP emitting a total of 400 W/m2.
So you need to get rid of the offending fluxes to avoid doing the math that should tell you, unequivocally, that GP is radiating more energy than it is getting, and MUST therefore cool.
“Oh, on what grounds do you disagree, barry? I have explained about five times why your analogy fails to make your intended point, and you have no rebuttal!”
You opine that it is impermissible to break your argument up into its constituent parts and attack each part – it must be done as a piece. I disagree.
Your argument is:
1) After separation, BP gets warmer and GP gets cooler.
2) There is a new radiation vector from GP to GP.
3) GP cannot be cooling to space, because it was already radiating to space before separation. Heat flow is determined by the difference after separation.
Therefore, in your logic, GP is “cooling to” (transferring heat to) BP.
We agree on 1) and 2). 3) is the sticking point. And I am perfectly at liberty to challenge the logic of the 3rd strand to your position.
On applying the heater/room analogy to rebut 3), you argue:
A) I can’t rebut 3) without also accounting for 1) and 2).
B) That it is different because of the directionality of the radiative vector, which isn’t present in the convective scenario.
Which is why I am asking you if a radiative vector can ever reduce heat loss in a warmer body, or if it always adds heat. (I anticipate your best answer will be “sometimes it is neither”, which will open up familiar cans of worms unhelpful to your position.)
Rebutting 3) is simply about rebutting the ‘logic’ that whatever remains unchanged determines the direction of heat flow. And I do not have to account for the other 2 strands one bit to do argue this point.
Because I hold that GP cools to space. And your only argument to convince me that it is NOT COOLING TO SPACE AFTER SEPARATION is 3).
“1) After separation, BP gets warmer and GP gets cooler.
2) There is a new radiation vector from GP to GP.
3) GP cannot be cooling to space, because it was already radiating to space before separation. Heat flow is determined by the difference after separation.”
No, barry, that is not my argument. Jesus Christ. How can you still be misrepresenting me after I explained to you five times why your analogy fails?
Try to summarise my argument again. This time, do it correctly. Then apologise for misrepresenting me, and acknowledge that your analogy fails in its intended purpose.
“Heat flows from a warmer object to a colder one. BP is warmer than GP, so heat must be flowing that way.”
Yup.
“You are rejecting this simple definition of heat flow.”
Nup.
“Your response is “how did BP get warmer than GP.””
Yup. In order for that to happen, heat has to flow from cold to hot, radiatively.
“No standard definition of heat flow examines the question of how one object comes to be warmer than other. This is outside the scope of the definition! So with that question you have moved beyond the standard definition.”
It’s like you’re saying, “heat flows from hot to cold. So we cannot look at an example of heat flowing cold to hot because that is not the definition of heat flow. Every time you demonstrate that heat is flowing from cold to hot I will simply remind you that the BP is warmer than the GP at the end of the process, thus heat is flowing from hot to cold. Never mind that heat flowed from cold to hot in order for that situation to arise, because that is not the definition of heat flow, which is that heat flows from hot to cold”.
How is this a sensible discussion, barry?
Barry made these same two KEY points, as I have, and DREMT has agreed with them:
1. After separation, the GP has ZERO heat flow INPUT.
2. After separation, the GP continues to have the same heat flow OUTPUT to space.
Yet DREMT is he unable to put these two facts together to conclude as Barry does:
The GP must be COOLING to space.
This is plainly NOT logical thinking on DREMTs part.
Note that point (1) above is equivalent to shutting off the heat to the GP, equivalent to the heat being shut off to the room!
And yet he keeps trying to bully and threaten Barry that he must adopt DREMTs plainly illogical way of thinking.
“Concede to proceed” etc.
And Barry, naturally will keep refusing to adopt DREMTs plainly illogical way of thinking.
How is this a sensible discussion?
OK, barry. Here, for one last time, is the logic behind why the GP is not cooling to space:
The GP is emitting 200 W/m^2 to space both before and after separation of the plates, but it is emitting to the BP as well only after separation of the plates. So, if it cools on separation of the plates, it can only be doing so thanks to the emission from the GP to the BP. It is cooling to the BP, and not space, since the “before and after” difference is that vector away from space.
Here is what you falsely describe this step as:
The GP is emitting 200 W/m^2 to space both before and after separation of the plates, so it is not cooling to space on separation.
This leads you to believe you can rebut my logic by an analogy in which there is energy leaving the room both before and after the heater is switched off…but, you have left out most of my logic. You are leaving out the part in which the “before and after” difference is a vector of radiation from GP to BP. Thus, your analogy fails. Of course I would accept that the room cools to the outside on turning off the heater.
Further, “turning off the heater” is not analogous to the vector from GP to BP “cancelling the heat flow”. The action of removing the heat source altogether is not the same thing as radiation moving from one object to another, which implies the object emitting it to be losing internal energy whilst the object receiving it gains internal energy as a result.
“You are leaving out the part in which the before and after difference is a vector of radiation from GP to BP.”
But DREMT is leaving out that the NET RESULT of that exchange is that the HEAT flow to the GP becomes ZERO.
The heat to the GP has been turned OFF.
The detailed mechanism for that is different from the heated room, but 1LOT cares not a whit about the mechanism, it only considers HEAT flows and the resulting T changes.
“Of course I would accept that the room cools to the outside on turning off the heater.”
And yet DREMT refuses to accept that the same result occurs for the exact same heat flow situation in the GP, that the GP cools to the only place it is emitting heat to, the outside environment.
Equivalent situations leading to different results, is simply not logical.
38 comments from Nate so far, on this thread…38 comments all presumably to someone who isn’t reading them. Very odd, obsessive behaviour.
My arguments are sound.
So try to distract, bully, blame the messenger.
None of it will fix your unsound argument.
Now 39 ignored comments. Very odd, obsessive behaviour.
Should not matter for someone supposedly ‘ignoring’ my posts.
Still evading the obvious logical consequences of your two agreed upon conditions:
1. After separation, the GP has ZERO heat flow INPUT.
2. After separation, the GP continues to have the same heat flow OUTPUT to space.
Instead desperately trying to distract.
40!
DREMT again employs the endless tit for tat, leading to more than 360 posts of failed logic, yet clearly he has no intention of embracing reality.
As a consolation, he will receive the Lifetime Achievement in Last Wording Award.
No response from barry. Not a surprise; there is no way that he can argue his "heater switch off" analogy isn’t a misrepresentation, so he’s a bit stuck.
Barry does not need to think about what it looks like when heat flows from cold to hot, radiatively.
Graham D. Warner has demonstrated on this thread and all the other ones that he does not have a clue about that.
barry and bob have both conclusively demonstrated that they have never really thought their own position through. Neither have a clue what it should look like for heat to flow from cold to hot, radiatively. Especially funny with bob, who claims to be an expert.
As usual, Graham D. Warner returns back to his illusory Motte, and declares himself the winner against established science.
“and declares himself the winner against established science.”
Not only that, he declares he’s the winner against simple logic and arithmetic!
Nah, Barry is stuck because he refused to be bullied into adopting DREMTs plainly illogical way of thinking.
I stated two facts:
1) There is no way that barry can argue his "heater switch off" analogy isn’t a misrepresentation, so he’s a bit stuck.
2) barry and bob have both conclusively demonstrated that they have never really thought their own position through. Neither have a clue what it should look like for heat to flow from cold to hot, radiatively. Especially funny with bob, who claims to be an expert.
That bob and barry disagree with each other, but refuse to argue it out, is the icing on the cake!
I don’t make you guys look bad. You do that all on your own. More pointless last word attempts that make you look desperate, please.
“1) There is no way that barry can argue his “heater switch off” analogy isnt a misrepresentation, so hes a bit stuck.”
DREMT keeps declaring his own perverse reality, though it differs from everyone elses.
DREMT agreed that upon separation the heat flow from the BP to the GP becomes ZERO.
The heat to the GP has been effectively switched OFF!
He can’t howl at the wind all he wants that these situations are different, but nobody is buying his crap.
If barry could have rebutted this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1646969
He would have done so. Instead, he has disappeared.
On this topic, DREMT has clearly departed from rationality.
And the quite rational Barry seems to recognize this and has wisely disengaged.
A short comment, so probably just another insult.
> If barry could have rebutted this comment
This explains why Graham D. Warner lastwords every thread.
What if “this comment” contained nothing new?
I had already shown that his "heater switch off" analogy was a misrepresentation, and he had no rebuttal the first time. Just pointing out to readers that if he had a rebuttal, he would make it. instead, he’s fled the scene.
"Switching off the Sun" in the GPE would involve both plates cooling to around 3 K. "Cancelling the heat flow" between the plates supposedly results in a drop in temperature of the GP from 244 K to 220 K…not to 3 K. So, that’s yet another way that the "heater switch off" analogy fails. "Cancelling the heat flow" is clearly not analogous to "switching off the heat source", or else the GP would be dropping in temperature to 3 K.
Regardless, this:
The GP is emitting 200 W/m^2 to space both before and after separation of the plates, so it is not cooling to space on separation.
Is a misrepresentation of this:
The GP is emitting 200 W/m^2 to space both before and after separation of the plates, but it is emitting to the BP as well only after separation of the plates. So, if it cools on separation of the plates, it can only be doing so thanks to the emission from the GP to the BP. It is cooling to the BP, and not space, since the “before and after” difference is that vector away from space.
barry has absolutely no way around that.
As for who’s attempting to "last word" the thread, you guys are proving that you simply can’t resist. Don’t try and pin that on me. It’s you lot that always want the last word, it’s me that simply refuses to let you.
Another long comment by Graham D. Warner. One must suspect that he tries once again to rationalize why he alone understands thermo.
“I had already shown that his “heater switch off” analogy was a misrepresentation, and he had no rebuttal the first time. Just pointing out to readers that if he had a rebuttal, he would make it. instead, hes fled the scene.”
DREMT SHAMELESSLY misrepresents the history of this thread.
His latest argument is simply a rehash of the failed logic he has presented throughout this thread, and one that has been addressed and rebutted multiple times throughout this thread by Barry, and others.
He indeed erroneously thinks a repeat of his failed logic, if spoken LAST, is somehow no longer a rebutted argument.
As Barry pointed out dozens of times, the SB emission of the GP is NOT a heat flow.
Heat flow is only obtained from the NET of the BP and GP emissions.
DREMT debunked his own argument when he agreed that the heat flow from the BP to the GP becomes ZERO upon separation.
Then he consistently fails to account for this fact in his analysis.
A longer one from Nate, so probably in the false accusations/misrepresentations category.
Another short comment by Graham D. Warner right after Nate commented.
Astute readers can bet that he’s whining about how misrepresented he is.
…and rightly so. You people don’t debate honestly, as readers will see for themselves.
Poor Graham D. Warner. Forever the victim.
Every death threads in which he gets involved turns into another drama where he whines about misrepresentation.
I mean, he’s actually arguing with a guy who’s paid to read texts, a guy with more integrity that he himself will ever display. And he’s always whining about being misrepresented. Be it the Moon, the one-line energy balance model, a thought experiment with 3-4 parameters.
What are the odds that he’s right?
…regardless, this:
The GP is emitting 200 W/m^2 to space both before and after separation of the plates, so it is not cooling to space on separation.
Is a misrepresentation of this:
The GP is emitting 200 W/m^2 to space both before and after separation of the plates, but it is emitting to the BP as well only after separation of the plates. So, if it cools on separation of the plates, it can only be doing so thanks to the emission from the GP to the BP. It is cooling to the BP, and not space, since the “before and after” difference is that vector away from space.
barry has absolutely no way around that.
“since the before and after difference is that vector away from space.”
A vector which is not a heat flow, but
results in ZERO heat flow between the plates, NOT a REVERSAL of heat flow, as only DREMT can imagine.
ZERO heat input to the GP, together with non-ZERO output to space results in heat loss, ie cooling, to space.
Just as even DREMT agreed happened to the room with the ZERO heat input.
There is no way around this, unless one lives in an alternate reality.
…regardless, this:
a) The GP is emitting 200 W/m^2 to space both before and after separation of the plates, so it is not cooling to space on separation.
Is a misrepresentation of this:
b) The GP is emitting 200 W/m^2 to space both before and after separation of the plates, but it is emitting to the BP as well only after separation of the plates. So, if it cools on separation of the plates, it can only be doing so thanks to the emission from the GP to the BP. It is cooling to the BP, and not space, since the “before and after” difference is that vector away from space.
barry has absolutely no way around the fact that a) is a misrepresentation of b). Thus, barry’s "heater switch off" analogy fails to make the point he intended. It’s as simple as that. If people are able to just calm down, focus a minute, take a deep breath, go back through the thread and look at what barry said when he made that analogy, the point he was trying to make with it at the time – his point is refuted.
If barry can accept that, and acknowledge that he was wrong, then the discussion can continue. I’ll answer his question, and we can proceed as before. If not, fine. We’re done.
Why it’s anyone else’s business but mine and barry’s is anyone’s guess. Not sure why these other names keep popping up, but hopefully this clarifies once and for all where we’re at.
“barry has absolutely no way around the fact that a) is a misrepresentation of b). Thus, barrys “heater switch off” analogy fails to make the point he intended. Its as simple as that. If people are able to just calm down, focus a minute, take a deep breath, go back through the thread and look at what barry said when he made that analogy, the point he was trying to make with it at the time his point is refuted.”
If DREMT could calm down, let go of his biases, and simply let the facts and logic lead him to the truth..
The situation is as I stated. As it stands, it’s on barry to admit he was wrong on that specific point.
So let’s accept this representation as what DREMT means:
“The GP is emitting 200 W/m^2 to space both before and after separation of the plates, but it is emitting to the BP as well only after separation of the plates. So, if it cools on separation of the plates, it can only be doing so thanks to the emission from the GP to the BP. ”
OK.
However that is what the GP should do according to the SB law. And BP is emitting the same amount, because that is what it should do according to the SB law.
And as a consequence of these two things that must happen, there is ZERO heat flow from the BP to the GP.
And the GP is thus no longer being heated, but is still losing heat, and now cooling, to space.
Thus “It is cooling to the BP, and not space”
simply DOES NOT FOLLOW.
#2
The situation is as I stated. As it stands, it’s on barry to admit he was wrong on that specific point.
“OK, barry. Here, for one last time, is the logic behind why the GP is not cooling to space:”
I’ll quote you step by step.
“The GP is emitting 200 W/m^2 to space both before and after separation of the plates”
Yes.
“…but it is emitting to the BP as well only after separation of the plates.”
Yes.
“So, if it cools on separation of the plates, it can only be doing so thanks to the emission from the GP to the BP.”
Yes.
“It is cooling to the BP, and not space, since the “before and after” difference is that vector away from space.”
No. And this is the stepic that I have been challenging, which you seem to be unable to take on without pointing to the other threads of your case.
The new vector to GP to BP immediately cancels the heat flow from BP to GP. As GP is no longer being replenished by the BP, the radiation to space from GP is now able to cool it.
I fully acknowledge the new vector, and completely agree that it is the difference that causes the GP to cool. It also is the cause of BP warming up, as BP is now out of balance between input and output of energy.
So having for the umpteenth time acknowledged the new vector is the difference that causes the changes in energy exchange throughout the system, tell me again the reason why the GP can NOT be cooling to space.
Acknowledge that your “heater switch off” analogy was a misrepresentation, and failed at its intended purpose.
I don’t agree it failed. I’m still arguing that point as we talk. I’m also indifferent to your attempt to ransom the conversation with petty ultimatums.
If you want to excuse yourself from the conversation, fine. Otherwise, respond to what I posted. You might also quote me, as I did you, point by point, so neither of us can be disappointed that the other failed to address something.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1648968
Up to you.
How can you not agree it failed? I have explained why it did about six times now, and you have no rebuttal every time. Trying to point a hole in b) does not change the fact that a) is a misrepresentation of b).
"The new vector to GP to BP immediately cancels the heat flow from BP to GP. As GP is no longer being replenished by the BP, the radiation to space from GP is now able to cool it."
In a way, there’s not really any "heat flow" between BP and GP to cancel. The "heat flow" is through the BP and GP, plates together, as one unit, prior to separation. That said, this paragraph I’ve quoted is your "mantra", which you repeat every time I repeat my "mantra". We’re not going to get anywhere just repeating ourselves. You see it that the GP is somehow now "able to cool to space", as if it was waiting for permission or something, I see it that the reason for the GP cooling (the vector from GP to BP) is also going to be the direction the GP cools in. I can’t see how anyone could think otherwise, since all energy flows are taken into consideration both before and after separation. Since the vector GP to BP is the difference, that is the direction of cooling!
Again: all energy flows are taken into consideration both before and after separation, and since the vector GP to BP is the difference, that must be responsible for the GP cooling and the BP warming. Despite the way you want to dress that up, that’s then a heat transfer from cold to hot, radiatively. You said it yourself:
“No, heat would be what is transferred if the plate or planet got COLDER while the sun received its energy. That’s the DEFINITION of heat. Unless the Sun gains heat at the expense of plates/planets, then heat is definitely NOT what is not being transferred.
You and your gang really need to understand the meaning of heat. It is a transfer process where the body gaining energy does so at the expense of the source. Radiation is NOT heat.”
I think this sums it up:
[DREMT] So, if it cools on separation of the plates, it can only be doing so thanks to the emission from the GP to the BP.
[BARRY] Yes.
I can’t see how you can disagree with what I’m saying, since your own words from before would suggest agreement.
P.S: If the heater being switched off was really analogous to the "cancellation of heat flow" on separation, the GP would cool to 3 K. As it would if the Sun was "switched off". Even you guys only have it cooling to 220 K, not 3 K. The reason for the difference is that the GP is not cooling to space, it’s cooling to the BP! Which is why you have the BP warming, as well…
P.P.S: That’s a crucial point, I think. I could accept that the GP would be cooling to space if it wasn’t for the fact that the BP is also warming. If the BP remained at the same temperature, whilst the GP cooled, then sure, it would have cooled to space. After all, there would be no evidence of that heat being manifested anywhere else.
> You and your gang
More misrepresentation.
Graham D. Warner is almost alone on his corner, whereas Team Science is everywhere else.
He and a handful of Sky Dragon cranks keep trying to undermine a century of thermodynamics by repeating the same silly argument over and over again in the end of death threads.
This has been going on for more than five years.
Isn’t it time Graham D. Warner finds another hobby?
Does Little Willy even realise that the words “you and your gang” were written by barry, and not me?
Does Graham D. Warner realize that what I said works for “even you guys”?
Does Little Willy realise that his entire comment was just another worthless personal remark that adds absolutely nothing to the debate?
There is only a small group of people defending the GPE, specifically, and a small group of people attacking it. Little Willy can pretend that the GPE is defended by all of "Team Science" (whatever that is), but he’ll likely find that most scientists are unaware of its existence.
The beauty of the GPE, from the skeptic point of view, is that if it’s wrong, there’s no GHE, but even if it’s right, it far from confirms that there is a GHE. There are still 101 reasons why there’s no GHE even if the GPE were correct. So, of course it’s going to get attacked. As it should. Every true skeptic should be finding as many flaws with it as they possibly can.
Not sure why anyone would be defending it, to be honest. Seems more than likely that’s just an attempt to protect their belief system.
So, if I’m still attacking it in another five years, good for me. Why not? If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. No harm done. Nobody has to be swayed by my arguments if they don’t want to. Everyone is (or should be) capable of thinking for themselves. Whereas, if I’m right, then there’s no GHE.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1649202
Nothing worth responding to. Just waiting for barry to reply, trolls are on ignore.
Graham D. Warner can try to ignore the fact that his stance represents less than a minority viewpoint in the scientific world. It’s a fringe view that only cranks can still hold.
He can also still try to pretend that he’s being misunderstood. Against Barry, this is a bit silly. But then silliness has never stopped him from doing anything.
What are the odds that he’s right about Eli’s thought experiment? What are the odds that that Barry really misrepresents him?
No need for any odds, astute readers will have seen for themselves where barry misrepresented me.
Barry,
FYI another GPE based technology– might be helpful.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://matthewwturner.com/uah/IPT2008_summer/baselines/LOW%20Files/Thermal/Spacecraft%20Thermal%20Control%20Handbook/10.pdf
Describes a thermal switch, or heat switch used in spacecraft.
See second figure. fig 10.2
It shows a spacecraft with internal heat source connected to a exterior radiator to space.
In between is the thermal switch, which is simply a device which opens a small gap between the spacecraft and the radiator.
When the switch is closed, there is thermal conduction to the external radiator, which warms, while the spacecraft is cooled.
When the switch is open, there is no heat conduction to the thermal radiator, and the spacecraft heats up.
It is identical to the GPE situation. The spacecraft is the BP, the thermal radiator is the GP.
Opening the switch is identical to separating the BP and GP.
The point I am making is that it is the CUT-OFF of thermal CONDUCTION that is the key action of the thermal switch.
And it is the key action caused by separating the BP from the GP.
It is this conduction cut-off that causes the heat flow to drop to zero.
And no aerospace engineer would think for a second that upon opening the switch, that the heat flow reverses and the radiator cools to the spacecraft!
Nor would they think for a second that this device violates 2LOT.
“So, if Im still attacking it in another five years, good for me. Why not? If Im wrong, Im wrong.”
Clearly he doesnt know, or care.
The point is not to be correct or sensible, it is to be CONTRARY.
“No harm done. Nobody has to be swayed by my arguments if they dont want to.”
No worries, nobody is.
The only harm is to his credibility to argue any other topic.
Just waiting for barry to reply, trolls are on ignore.
Graham D. Warner can try to ignore the fact that his stance represents less than a minority viewpoint in the scientific world.
Sure, OK, minority viewpoint, blah blah blah. barry?
Does Graham D. Warner realize that Barry lives in Australia?
Meanwhile, let astute readers know that he is holding a fringe view that only cranks can still hold.
Little Willy no doubt knows barry’s exact address…
Barry,
Also I realized that this premise:
“Again: all energy flows are taken into consideration both before and after separation, and since the vector GP to BP is the difference, that must be responsible for the GP cooling and the BP warming.”
is WRONG.
BOTH the emission from the BP and from the GP to each other are NEW, and perfectly cancelling.
And, the 3rd change is that CONDUCTION is cut-off.
That is what makes the heat flow to the GP go to ZERO.
And that certainly cannot be construed as a reversal of heat flow, even by DREMT.
The trolls just cannot leave barry to speak for himself! Hilarious.
“In a way, there’s not really any “heat flow” between BP and GP to cancel. The “heat flow” is through the BP and GP, plates together, as one unit, prior to separation.”
I’ve said a few times that there is no thermal distinction between having one plates and two plates. You didn’t like that idea.
There is 400 W/m2 going into BP, it sends 200 W/m2 sunward, and thus it is sending equivalent 200 W/m2 via conduction to BP, which emits the same amount to space.
Thus, there is a flow of energy through the plates in one direction, and this energy passes from BP to GP to space. I see this as a heat flow through the system, from sun to BP to GP to space. If you want to start treating BP/GP as a single unit, I am very happy to return that notion and argue from those grounds.
For now, GP provides no resistance to BP’s thermal heat loss, being a perfect conductor.
“You see it that the GP is somehow now “able to cool to space”, as if it was waiting for permission or something”
It was radiating 200 W/m2 to space, but the radiation was matched by the input when pressed together. When separated, it now emits from both surfaces, and it now provides thermal resistance to BP’s heat loss.
The new vector “gives permission” for the GP thermal loss to space, because it essentially switches off, in that first instant of separation, the input from BP.
The GP was cooling to space the whole time, but not getting any cooler. Now it cools to space and actually gets cooler because it no longer receives equivalent input.
“Since the vector GP to BP is the difference, that is the direction of cooling!”
If I have twin pipes flowing from a river into a dam below, and another set of twin pipes flowing from that dam to second below, turning off one of the pipes to the second dame reduces the height if the second dam and raises the height of the upper dam.
You would not make the mistake of believing that the lower dam was sending water to the upper dam. You would realize that the flow rates had changed, the first dam was backing up due to less output, and the second dam reduced because of less input.
So what makes this scenario different to the split-plate scenario?
It is the directionality of the radiative vector.
And because you argue that the direction (+ changing temperatures + eliminate cooling to space) is determined by the vector, I believe that you see a vector of radiation as a heat transfer.
Hence my repeated question to you whether or not you can perceive a single vector of radiation as reducing the heat loss in a warmer, radiating body.
Regarding my remark on the planet and sun heat transfer, the planet would have to be hotter than the sun to begin with. That’s the only way two bodies could transfer heat like this, with one cooling and the other warming. If a colder planet cooled while the sun warmed, and there was only the radiation between them to account for the change, that would be a violation of 2LoT. This is not the case for our “3-body” problem.
With two bodies and a heat source it is possible to have one body get cooler and the other warmer without it being a heat transfer in that direction. The scenario with the door in the room should make that clear to you. Or an insulation batt next to a heater put into a roof. Or a sweater by a fire being donned as one strides through the cold night.
The truth is that you have no argument against my way of seeing it, as my way is perfectly valid. You offer no deconstruction against my points, only a return to your points.
But your entire view of the matter has a fatal flaw. You believe that both plates must remain at the same temperature.
This is simply not possible when the BP receives 400 W/m2 from the sun, and the GP only receives 200 W/m2 from the BP. GP cannot be as warm as BP when BP shades GP from the sun.
Your view that they are the same temp remains indefensible. You cannot explain the mechanics that make this possible, and only hold that view because of your belief that a vector of radiation incident on a warmer body can can never reduce radiative heat loss in the warmer body, it can only transfer heat (in the classic sense of heat flow).
DREMT is confused. Posting facts that just so happen to contradict his narrative, is not what a tro.ll does.
Also why is he having a conversation on an open forum, if he wants it to be private?
Another extremely long Gish Gallop from barry, but I didn’t see any admission that his “heater switch off” analogy was a misrepresentation that failed in its intended purpose. Will that admission ever be coming, before I try to respond?
I guess not. I will respond anyway.
"I’ve said a few times that there is no thermal distinction between having one plates and two plates. You didn’t like that idea."
No, it was actually your idea that "GP is getting the total energy from the sun that BP is" that I objected to.
"There is 400 W/m2 going into BP, it sends 200 W/m2 sunward, and thus it is sending equivalent 200 W/m2 via conduction to BP, which emits the same amount to space."
Yes. Why you can’t just replace the word "conduction" with "radiation" and be satisfied with that, in both scenarios, is anyone’s guess.
"It was radiating 200 W/m2 to space, but the radiation was matched by the input when pressed together. When separated, it now emits from both surfaces, and it now provides thermal resistance to BP’s heat loss. The new vector “gives permission” for the GP thermal loss to space, because it essentially switches off, in that first instant of separation, the input from BP."
Nothing is switched off, barry. If the "heat flow" was actually switched off, like switching off the Sun, then the GP would be cooling to 3 K. See the part of my comments that you ignored for more on that argument.
"If I have twin pipes flowing from a river into a dam below, and another set of twin pipes flowing from that dam to second below, turning off one of the pipes to the second dame reduces the height if the second dam and raises the height of the upper dam. You would not make the mistake of believing that the lower dam was sending water to the upper dam. You would realize that the flow rates had changed, the first dam was backing up due to less output, and the second dam reduced because of less input. So what makes this scenario different to the split-plate scenario? It is the directionality of the radiative vector. And because you argue that the direction (+ changing temperatures + eliminate cooling to space) is determined by the vector, I believe that you see a vector of radiation as a heat transfer. Hence my repeated question to you whether or not you can perceive a single vector of radiation as reducing the heat loss in a warmer, radiating body."
And, I have an answer for your repeated question. You’ll be receiving that answer when you can admit that your "heater switch off" analogy was a misrepresentation that failed in its intended purpose.
"Regarding my remark on the planet and sun heat transfer, the planet would have to be hotter than the sun to begin with."
Huh?
"That’s the only way two bodies could transfer heat like this, with one cooling and the other warming. If a colder planet cooled while the sun warmed, and there was only the radiation between them to account for the change, that would be a violation of 2LoT. This is not the case for our "3-body" problem."
Yes, it is the case, barry. The colder GP is cooling while the BP warms. It’s basically the same thing.
"With two bodies and a heat source it is possible to have one body get cooler and the other warmer without it being a heat transfer in that direction. The scenario with the door in the room should make that clear to you. Or an insulation batt next to a heater put into a roof. Or a sweater by a fire being donned as one strides through the cold night."
Still talking about these examples, like we haven’t been through them…
"The truth is that you have no argument against my way of seeing it, as my way is perfectly valid. You offer no deconstruction against my points, only a return to your points."
Agree to disagree. Plus, I could say the exact same thing to you.
"But your entire view of the matter has a fatal flaw. You believe that both plates must remain at the same temperature. This is simply not possible when the BP receives 400 W/m2 from the sun, and the GP only receives 200 W/m2 from the BP. GP cannot be as warm as BP when BP shades GP from the sun. Your view that they are the same temp remains indefensible. You cannot explain the mechanics that make this possible, and only hold that view because of your belief that a vector of radiation incident on a warmer body can can never reduce radiative heat loss in the warmer body, it can only transfer heat (in the classic sense of heat flow)."
The mechanics that make it possible are called "not violating 2LoT". When you don’t violate 2LoT, it turns out that 1LoT is also taken care of, with the GPE. I’d be careful about stating what you think my "beliefs" are until you get an answer to your question. To do that, you’ve first got to admit you were wrong.
“Nothing is switched off, barry. If the “heat flow” was actually switched off, like switching off the Sun, then the GP would be cooling to 3 K. ”
FALSE.
DREMT chooses to ignore the fact that the GP cools and the BP warms, thus their temperatures diverge, and radiative heat flow between them increases, until new steady-state temperatures and heat flows are reached.
The trolls here are really quite a nuisance, barry. Is there any way we could continue to discuss this privately? Or maybe you could ask them to please stop trolling? They might listen to you.
“The new vector to GP to BP immediately cancels the heat flow from BP to GP. As GP is no longer being replenished by the BP, the radiation to space from GP is now able to cool it.”
“this paragraph Ive quoted is your “mantra””
First, DREMT has already acknowledged that the heat flow is ZERO to the GP from the BP after separation.
So that ought to be part of his mantra.
Second: This “As GP is no longer being replenished by the BP”
is an obvious consequence of ZERO hat flow from BP.
Third: “the radiation to space from GP is now able to cool it.” is a straightforward consequence of 1LOT,
and cannot be denied with ANY actual logic.
Thus, we can all plainly see why DREMT labels this a ‘Mantra’ rather than trying to rebut it!
Thus we see whyt DREMT
55 comments now from troll Nate. I wonder how many of them are just him repeating the same things over and over again, trying to get the last word?
barry said: “The new vector ‘gives permission’ for the GP thermal loss to space, because it essentially switches off, in that first instant of separation, the input from BP.”
DREMT said: “Nothing is switched off, barry. If the “heat flow” was actually switched off, like switching off the Sun, then the GP would be cooling to 3 K.”
In the instant the plates are separated GP sends 200 W/m2 to BP, canceling the input. In the same instant, the GP must cool. And thus GP sends less W/m2 to BP. The balance is now shifted where the NET exchange is positive in GP direction (consistent with heat flow BP to GP), and the NET radiative exchange from BP to GP keeps GP quite a bit warmer than 3K.
“Yes, it is the case, barry. The colder GP is cooling while the BP warms. It’s basically the same thing.”
Facepalm. I literally said the sentence before this:
“… that would be a violation of 2LoT. This is not the case for our “3-body” problem.”
No, it’s not the same thing.
“Still talking about these examples, like we haven’t been through them…”
These everyday examples establish how a cooler/cooling body can be configured in a system to make another component warmer. And your reply there typifies your “rebuttals” of these examples.
barry said: “The truth is that you have no argument against my way of seeing it, as my way is perfectly valid. You offer no deconstruction against my points, only a return to your points.”
DREMT said: “Agree to disagree.”
QED. Thank you.
“Plus, I could say the exact same thing to you.”
Who reading along would believe it?
“The mechanics that make it possible are called “not violating 2LoT”. ”
QED. Again.
Yes indeed, you cannot describe the mechanics that makes a plate receiving 200 W/m2 total energy equally as warm as a plate receiving 400 W/m2 total energy.
And so instead, you make your conclusion your premise, as you have made your premise your conclusion.
You have been engaged in circular reasoning for a few weeks now, which is why, as you have noted, all you can do is repeat yourself.
But you absolutely cannot explain the mechanics whereby a plate in the shade of the sun is the same temperature as a plate fully exposed to the sun.
This is why your view doesn’t work. To name but one flaw. Another is that energy is not conserved. You have 200 W/m2 unaccounted for. And when asked what happens to it, you shrug your shoulders and invoke the 2LoT, which you misunderstand, and which is why you can’t explain the deficient math, which is why you invoke the 2LoT.
Round and round in circles.
All because you don’t believe aiming a vector of radiation at a warmer body than the source can reduce the warmer body’s rate of radiative heat loss.
“In the instant the plates are separated GP sends 200 W/m2 to BP, canceling the input. In the same instant, the GP must cool.”
Where to, barry? You just said yourself the GP is now sending 200 W/m^2 to the BP. If it cools, it would thus have to be cooling to the BP.
“No, it’s not the same thing.”
Yes, it is. The BP is like the heat source to the GP, like the Sun is the heat source to the BP. You have the BP cooling and the Sun warming as a 2LoT violation, but not the GP cooling and the BP warming.
“These everyday examples establish how a cooler/cooling body can be configured in a system to make another component warmer. And your reply there typifies your “rebuttals” of these examples.”
They’re just insulation, barry. The GPE isn’t. Plus, it is questionable whether your examples involve the cooler body cooling further in any case.
“Who reading along would believe it?”
Anyone that has been paying attention.
“Yes indeed, you cannot describe the mechanics that makes a plate receiving 200 W/m2 total energy equally as warm as a plate receiving 400 W/m2 total energy.”
False, in fact I drew a diagram for you.
“And so instead, you make your conclusion your premise, as you have made your premise your conclusion. You have been engaged in circular reasoning for a few weeks now, which is why, as you have noted, all you can do is repeat yourself.”
Incorrect.
“But you absolutely cannot explain the mechanics whereby a plate in the shade of the sun is the same temperature as a plate fully exposed to the sun.”
Push the plates together. The GP is still in the shade of the BP, but you accept that it is the same temperature.
“This is why your view doesn’t work. To name but one flaw. Another is that energy is not conserved. You have 200 W/m2 unaccounted for.”
All energy flows are accounted for in the diagram. Everything balances.
“And when asked what happens to it, you shrug your shoulders and invoke the 2LoT, which you misunderstand, and which is why you can’t explain the deficient math, which is why you invoke the 2LoT.”
No deficient math, barry. Everything balances, as shown in the diagram.
“All because you don’t believe aiming a vector of radiation at a warmer body than the source can reduce the warmer body’s rate of radiative heat loss.”
You don’t know what I believe on that front, because I haven’t answered your question. For me to answer your question, you will first have to admit your “heater switch off” analogy was a misrepresentation which failed in its intended purpose.
“Where to, barry? You just said yourself the GP is now sending 200 W/m^2 to the BP. If it cools, it would thus have to be cooling to the BP.”
DREMT keeps repeating this logical Non-Sequitur.
The first portion is true. The second portion DOES NOT FOLLOW from it.
Because again, although the GP now sending 200 W/m^2 to the BP, another change, the CUT-OFF of heat conduction has been IGNORED.
It is the cut-off of heat conduction to the GP from the BP (and the lack of heat transfer by radiation) that causes the GP, which was emitting heat to space, to cool, by simple logic and math, that is always ignored by DREMT.
Nobody is buying it.
The very first thing Nate does when he wakes up, is head on over to this thread to start with his (what I assume are, based on previous experience) false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults. He simply cannot help himself! He is totally addicted to trolling.
“I drew a diagram for you.”
Where an extra 200 W/m2 pops up from nowhere. From memory you said it bounced off BP at first, and when reminded BP is a blackbody you then shrugged and said you cannot say what happens to photons.
1LoT is violated in your schema.
“Push the plates together. The GP is still in the shade of the BP, but you accept that it is the same temperature.”
Are you complaining that I have humoured your premise?
If you have any problems with your own premise I’d love to know if they are the same issues that I have with it (previously mentioned).
Until then, you’ll have to do better than assert the magic of the perfectly conducting plates applies when there is no more conduction.
You’ll need to explain how it can possibly be that a plate shielded from the sun and getting half the energy is the same temperature as a plate fully exposed to the sun and getting twice the energy.
How can you not realize that this is completely untenable? A child knows that it is cooler in the shade.
This is a patent, glaring, easy-to-understand flaw in your conception. Anyone reading this will be mystified why it is not immediately obvious to you.
And follow through – you could have a billion billion infinitely large, paralel, blackbody plates stacked across space, all shielded further and further from the sun, and all the same temperature. Magic!
This system would contain billions-fold more energy than the sun itself, the source for it all.
Free energy, created from nothing.
"1LoT is violated in your schema."
Absolutely not, barry. Everything balances, as shown in the diagram. It’s even colour-coded to make it easy to understand for the slow of thinking.
"And follow through – you could have a billion billion infinitely large, paralel, blackbody plates stacked across space, all shielded further and further from the sun, and all the same temperature. Magic!"
I have followed through. In reality, the plates cannot be infinitely large. Thus, there would be radiative losses past the edges of the finite plates, and so they would get progressively colder with distance from the Sun. Have an impossible scenario (infinitely large plates), however, and you can get an apparently impossible result.
It’s you who need to follow through with your own logic – add more and more green plates and the BP temperature gets closer and closer to 290 K, the same result you would get if you had one single perfectly reflecting plate next to the BP instead of all the green plates! Adding more and more blackbody plates somehow adds up to them equalling a perfect reflector!
Add more and more blackbody shells around a sphere and, according to your logic, the sphere gets warmer and warmer – without limit! Whatever temperature you want the sphere to be, simply add enough blackbody shells, and you’ll get it. Infinite blackbody shells equals infinite sphere temperature – talk about energy from nothing!
Anyway, barry, enough diversions from the discussion we’ve been having.
I could accept that the GP was cooling to space if the BP wasn’t also warming at the same time. If the GP cooled, whilst the BP remained the same temperature, then of course the GP would be cooling to space, as there would be no evidence that the heat had manifested itself anywhere else.
You don’t exactly have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that heat has travelled from the GP to the BP in your 262 K…220 K solution, since on separation the GP has cooled at the same time the BP has warmed.
And no, it’s not the Sun warming the BP. The Sun was providing 400 W/m^2 to the BP before separation, it’s providing the same amount after separation, and the difference responsible for the warming of the BP is the vector of radiation from the GP to the BP. Thus, you are making the mistake of treating radiation as though it were heat.
Nate, I’m reading your posts but not replying to spare DREMT getting out of shape about it.
DREMT, if I can do it so can you. That’s all.
“You dont exactly have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that heat has travelled from the GP to the BP in your 262 K220 K solution, since on separation the GP has cooled at the same time the BP has warmed.”
Whenever necessary, DREMT plays dumb about the existence of a HEAT SOURCE heating the BP.
Again, glaringly simple logic cannot be grasped by DREMT:
No longer losing heat to the GP, yet still heated by the sun, the BP warms.
There is simply no need to invoke a miraculous reversal of heat flow from cold to hot.
But loser DREMT ludicrously pretends it is the only option!
Heroic barry bravely avoids responding to the trolls who are no doubt giving him unconditional support throughout. It must be tough for him.
Good real world example here showing that a heated body (a spacecraft) will warm when its path for heat loss to space is cut-off:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1649226
Which is exactly the situation of the BP, heated by the sun, then suddenly having its conduction heat-loss path cut-off by separating it from the GP.
Nobody in their right mind would imagine that having the path for heat loss from the heated spacecraft to space cut-off, would result in a REVERSAL of heat flow from the cold of space to the spacecraft through the blocked path!.
No one in their right mind would think there is no other option for the spacecraft to be heating.
But DREMT weirdly expects Barry and neutral readers to BE just that dum!
It must be tough for him.
“Absolutely not, barry. Everything balances, as shown in the diagram. It’s even colour-coded to make it easy to understand for the slow of thinking.”
I described the error and this is a non-responsive re-assertion. The dash of ad hominem dulls an empty reply even further.
“It’s you who need to follow through with your own logic add more and more green plates and the BP temperature gets closer and closer to 290 K…”
Because each added plate gives diminished return of energy, no number of infinitely large plates in the system will ever contain the same energy as the sun in the GPE.
Unlike your concept. Naturally you had to dismiss the model to get out of the obvious corollary with your conception. I don’t have to do that with the GPE.
“Add more and more blackbody shells around a sphere and, according to your logic, the sphere gets warmer and warmer without limit!”
No there is a limit from the diminishing returns as with the GPE, and also the radiating area becomes progressively larger with each shell, meaning each successive shell will be even cooler than successive plates all of the same surface area.
Whereas in your conception each shell is the same temperature as the last, despite having a larger surface area spread the energy over!
Free energy from nothing for you.
Steadily dissipating energy from me.
The diminishing temperatures of successive plates/shells doesn’t break 1LoT.
The constant temperature of ever more plates/shells being fed by one source, smashes 1LoT.
Interesting. Obviously barry has never done the maths with the sphere and shell scenario, or else he would realise that the temperature of the sphere increases indefinitely with adding more shells, unlike the GPE case where the BP converges on a maximum of 290 K with adding more GPs.
He also suggests I would have all the shells at the same temperature, which is false. They would decrease in temperature with increasing radius, to conserve energy.
“He also suggests I would have all the shells at the same temperature, which is false. They would decrease in temperature with increasing radius, to conserve energy.”
Oh, very good! You realize that more surface area with the same energy = lower temperature.
Then what happens to the temperature of GP when its surface area doubles on separation?
Nothing. It cannot cool, because it would have to be cooling to the BP, which is prohibited by 2LoT.
Besides, the BP also doubles in surface area on separation, and you imagine that warms!
“Nothing. It cannot cool, because it would have to be cooling to the BP, which is prohibited by 2LoT.”
You are making your premise your conclusion again.
It can’t be cooling to the BP, because BP is sending more energy to GP than GP sends to BP. You are violating 2LoT if you think the heat flow is that way.
And no, just because BP warms doesn’t mean heat flow is that way either, as the other way for an object to get warmer is if its heat loss is reduced, which is what the new vector to BP does.
You do get that there are two ways to make an object warmer, right? Either reduce the rate at which it sheds energy, or increase the rate at which it gains energy. The warmer sun is providing the warming for the system, and its energy rate is constant. The cooler GP provides only energy to the BP, which reduces its rate of thermal heat loss.
GP cannot warm the BP, because it is cooler. You are pointing the arrows of heat flow in the wrong direction because you are unable to see that reducing heat loss is what is occurring from GP to BP.
“Besides, the BP also doubles in surface area on separation, and you imagine that warms!”
The BP was already losing the equivalent of 200 W/m2 to GP in the magic perfect-conducting scenario YOU created. The GP was not.
What was it you said….?
“The “heat flow” is through the BP and GP, plates together, as one unit, prior to separation.”
If no GP at all, the BP would lose the same amount of energy to space – 200 W/m2. That vector of BP heat loss was already counted – by you – before the plates split, because perfectlyconductingplates.
So, the BP is losing energy to GP before the split, whereas the GP is now losing energy towards BP after the split.
Unfortunately, you see this new vector as also being the direction of heat flow, based on your unique, and according to you self-evident chain of reasoning.
Reasoning that doesn’t survive these points of scrutiny.
1. There is no standard definition of heat flow that supports the your notion of the direction of heat flow. A + B
+ C (your argument) is not supported in any physics text book as describing the flow of heat.
2. You have no real rebuttal to examples provided of other systems being reconfigured to make one object warmer by moving a cooler/cooling object. Except to say the GPE isn’t an insulative process, when it very much is. Which is why Roy Spencer describes it thus (the culty alarmist that he is). Any passive material that reduces heat loss or heat gain can be described as an insulator.
insulator:
n a substance which does not readily allow the passage of heat or sound.
any of various substances that block or retard the flow of electrical or thermal currents.
etc.
3. You ignore the NET radiative exchange between BP and GP, and instead dismiss the BP to GP flow based on an erroneous process-of-elimination logic. When challenged on this logic you refuse to consider it in isolation and insist on restating A + B + C, which has no standard definition to support it as a heat flow.
4. You completely disregard argument that GP provides resistance to BP heat loss, and simply reassert your view.
5. As well as falling short on these issues you still can’t explain what mechanisms keep a shaded GP as warm as a sunlit BP, other than to point at a schematic you drew with 1LoT violation.
It’s been a long discussion, and still you can’t get much further than restating your position and hand-waving the above rebuttals. I’m close to done on this topic.
Another enormous Gish Gallop from barry.
“You are making your premise your conclusion again.”
Incorrect.
“It can’t be cooling to the BP, because BP is sending more energy to GP than GP sends to BP. You are violating 2LoT if you think the heat flow is that way.”
It’s not cooling to space, because it is emitting the same amount to space after separation as it was beforehand, and because the “before and after” difference is the vector of radiation from GP to BP. Away from space.
“You do get that there are two ways to make an object warmer, right? Either reduce the rate at which it sheds energy, or increase the rate at which it gains energy. The warmer sun is providing the warming for the system, and its energy rate is constant. The cooler GP provides only energy to the BP, which reduces its rate of thermal heat loss. GP cannot warm the BP, because it is cooler. You are pointing the arrows of heat flow in the wrong direction because you are unable to see that reducing heat loss is what is occurring from GP to BP.”
I’m not unable to see anything, barry. A child could understand your way of looking at it. Perhaps you need to expand your thinking to include other ways of looking at the problem. Then maybe you might get why it’s a 2LoT violation.
“1. There is no standard definition of heat flow that supports the your notion of the direction of heat flow. A + B + C (your argument) is not supported in any physics text book as describing the flow of heat.”
There is no standard definition of how it should look when heat flows from cold to hot, radiatively. Which is why you don’t recognise it when it’s staring you in the face.
“2. You have no real rebuttal to examples provided of other systems being reconfigured to make one object warmer by moving a cooler/cooling object. Except to say the GPE isn’t an insulative process, when it very much is. Which is why Roy Spencer describes it thus (the culty alarmist that he is). Any passive material that reduces heat loss or heat gain can be described as an insulator.”
Radiative insulation functions via reflectivity.
“3. You ignore the NET radiative exchange between BP and GP, and instead dismiss the BP to GP flow based on an erroneous process-of-elimination logic. When challenged on this logic you refuse to consider it in isolation and insist on restating A + B + C, which has no standard definition to support it as a heat flow.”
barry, your challenge to my “process of elimination logic” was the “heater switch off” analogy. How many times do I have to tell you that you misrepresented me, and your analogy failed at its intended purpose? It’s getting ridiculous.
“4. You completely disregard argument that GP provides resistance to BP heat loss, and simply reassert your view.”
You completely disregard my view, and simply reassert your own!
“5. As well as falling short on these issues you still can’t explain what mechanisms keep a shaded GP as warm as a sunlit BP, other than to point at a schematic you drew with 1LoT violation.”
No 1LoT violation, barry. Everything balances. You falsely summarised the discussion before. You most definitely did not need to remind me that the plates are blackbodies. However, a blackbody cannot be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT.
“It’s been a long discussion, and still you can’t get much further than restating your position and hand-waving the above rebuttals. I’m close to done on this topic”
So you thought you would restate your position on most of the issues we’ve discussed whilst pretending no rebuttals have been made. Nice.
You’ve said nothing new for days.
“Radiative insulation functions via reflectivity.”
Radiative insulation functions by returning radiation to the source. The same happens whether the returning surface is a mirror or a blackbody, all that is different is the efficiency.
Again, you make no rebuttal here, just an assertion which doesn’t deal with the radiative vectors. A mirrored GP would simply re-radiate more IR to BP than the blackbody, the insulative function is the same.
GP insulates BP radiative heat loss to space. GP reduces BP heat loss.
This is consistent with 2LoT.
Your description is consistent with a made-up version of 2LoT.
“4. You completely disregard argument that GP provides resistance to BP heat loss, and simply reassert your view.”
And you did it again in response to this, pointing back to your own assertion. Doesn’t fly, especially with with your non-standard, uncorroborable rendition of heat flow.
“Everything balances”
No it doesn’t. There is a 200 W/m2 vector that appears from nowhere. This is the mechanism you can’t explain, a vector of radiation that apparently bounces off a blackbody.
You should link your schematic so we can see it. Surprised you haven’t done it already.
“Your description is consistent with a made-up version of 2LoT.”
Should be;
Your description is consistent with a made-up version of heat flow.
“You’ve said nothing new for days.”
Not true. You still haven’t conceded the point about your “heater switch off” analogy, though. Can’t debate someone productively if they won’t concede points. You still have entire comments of mine that you haven’t responded to, and various other points along the way.
“Radiative insulation functions by returning radiation to the source. The same happens whether the returning surface is a mirror or a blackbody, all that is different is the efficiency.Again, you make no rebuttal here, just an assertion which doesn’t deal with the radiative vectors. A mirrored GP would simply re-radiate more IR to BP than the blackbody, the insulative function is the same. GP insulates BP radiative heat loss to space. GP reduces BP heat loss. This is consistent with 2LoT. Your description is consistent with a made-up version of [heat flow]”
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.”
Like I said, radiative insulation functions via reflectivity. Besides, why are you still talking about definitions of heat flow when that point has been debunked a dozen times already? Why do you never concede anything?
“And you did it again in response to this, pointing back to your own assertion. Doesn’t fly, especially with with your non-standard, uncorroborable rendition of heat flow.”
See above. Why are you still talking about definitions of heat flow? Plus you ignore that you continually “point back to your own assertion”.
“No it doesn’t. There is a 200 W/m2 vector that appears from nowhere. This is the mechanism you can’t explain, a vector of radiation that apparently bounces off a blackbody.”
So it doesn’t appear from nowhere. You say it “bounces off” the BP and returns to the GP, from where it came. This is the obvious consequence of the vector of radiation from GP to BP not violating 2LoT. It has to go somewhere! As it does so, it satisfies 1LoT. Everything balances.
“You should link your schematic so we can see it. Surprised you haven’t done it already.”
Link it yourself. Discussing the alternative solution is just a distraction from the debunking of your 262 K…220 K solution. If you want to divert attention away from that, link to the alternative solution yourself.
“Its not cooling to space, because it is emitting the same amount to space after separation as it was beforehand, and because the before and after difference is the vector of radiation from GP to BP. Away from space.”
Barry, I need to remind both of you that this is a false premise.
It is false to suggest that there is only the ONE added ‘vector of radiation’ from GP to BP. And it enables DREMTs endless obfuscation.
The principle before and after difference is the cut-off of conduction, and its heat flow.
That is followed by the switch to radiant heat transfer, which adds TWO cancelling vectors of emission, which result in ZERO heat flow between the objects at the same temperature.
If DREMT wants to pretend a cut-off of conductive heat flow is a reversal of heat flow, that is plain stoopid.
“You say it bounces off the BP and returns to the GP, from where it came. This is the obvious consequence of the vector of radiation from GP to BP not violating 2LoT. It has to go somewhere! As it does so, it satisfies 1LoT. Everything balances.”
Barry you were quite correct when you pointed out that DREMT offers no physical mechanism for this nonexistent ‘extra flow’.
2LOT is not a physical mechanism for anything. It is a consequence of other physical mechanisms and other laws of physics.
DREMT is abusing a physics concept, 2LOT, not understanding it, treating it like it is the King of all the laws, and it can take supremacy over the other ones like 1LOT.
Of course this is fiction. But creative.
60 comments now, from Nate, in this thread. 60 comments to nobody in particular. Nobody is responding to him, but he just keeps going anyway! He simply cannot just mind his own business.
“Radiative insulation functions via reflectivity.”
FALSE.
As he so often does, DREMT turns an common example he found on the internet into an exclusive definition, and ignores the actual definitions found by Barry.
He shamelessly pretends he has never seen the MLI article that clearly demonstrates, using real physics, how high emissivity surfaces (black bodies) can radiatively insulate.
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….”
He is a very dishonest debater, and unlikely to change.
61 now. Probably all containing false accusations, misrepresentations and insults to varying degrees and combinations. He sure has some sort of deep-rooted problems on this particular issue! Why does it haunt him so much? Maybe he should reflect on that.
“60 comments now, from Nate”
Over 400 often batshit crazy posts from DREMT.
62. He just doesn’t know when he’s not wanted!
“Probably all containing false accusations”
By now everyone has learned to stop paying attention to the two boys that always cry ‘false accusation’
“He just doesnt know when hes not wanted!”
I fully understand that DREMT hates when I poke holes in his logic, and expose his dishonesty.
But somebody’s gotta do it.
63! Take a hint, Nate. Stay out of my discussions.
Tee hee hee…DREMT imagines he is in charge of this public forum!
barry, is there anywhere else we could discuss this? I’m bored of seeing Nate’s name continuously appear.
Why do I post here?
For one thing, I am really bothered by people blatantly trying to deceive people, especially repeat offenders who know exactly what they are doing.
Such as here:
“Thats insulation, barry. The GPE isnt.”
“Theyre just insulation, barry. The GPE isnt.”
“Radiative insulation functions via reflectivity.”
And thus I point out the deception:
“He shamelessly pretends he has never seen the MLI article that clearly demonstrates, using real physics, how high emissivity surfaces (black bodies) can radiatively insulate.”
DREMT has seen this article many times, that falsifies his statements, and has never offered any science rationale to reject this evidence that the GPE is a form of insulation.
barry?
By the way, in case you were thinking of bringing up MLI again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1618547
Exactly, Nate.
Still funny that Graham D. Warner keeps bugging Barry at 3AM. Funnier still that his two facts are not even facts!
Little Willy senses an opportunity to attempt to irritate, so appears out of nowhere, days behind on the discussion…
“Of course, people like to claim it would work with blackbodies, but they cant prove that”
False.
The posted article on MLI that DREMT has seen many times proves it. And explains it clearly in terms of established physics. Whereas DREMT simply asserts otherwise, offering no math, laws of physics, analysis, nada.
Naturally because he has little ability in the required areas.
And another physicist, Tim F pointed out to DREMT:
“Yeah, we can (prove black body MLI can insulate). It is not our fault if you cant understand. Dig out a textbook and learn.”
Annoyingly, I have to break up a reference to get it to post.:
“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…”
“…More layers can be added to reduce the loss further. The blanket can be further improved by making the outside surfaces highly reflective to thermal radiation, which reduces both absorp.tion and emission.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
Do you understand what is being said here, DREMT?
The first paragraph is describing the insulation concept and applying blackbodies. This is, in fact, a perfect description of the GPE.
And,
“The blanket can be further improved by making the outside surfaces highly reflective to thermal radiation”
Exactly what I said in the last post. The insulative function is more efficient with reflective material than with blackbody material.
But the insulative function works with both.
Why do you deny this? The math is patently obvious.
“So it doesn’t appear from nowhere. You say it “bounces off” the BP and returns to the GP, from where it came. This is the obvious consequence of the vector of radiation from GP to BP not violating 2LoT.”
Aha! You have now landed back on something you once asserted.
So now you have a blackbody acting like a mirror? An object with emissivity 1 absorbs all incident radiation.
If BP were a perfect mirror it would radiate zero emissions to GP.
As I said, you cannot describe the mechanism that satisfies your vision of the plates at equal temperature. You have to invent an unheard of material that defies the laws of physics.
No, I was being sarcastic when I said GP radiation “apparently” bounces off blackbody BP. But this is what you are forced to argue.
So, how do you rationalise a surface with emissivity 1 also having an emissivity of 0? I’m intrigued to know how you do it.
"Exactly what I said in the last post. The insulative function is more efficient with reflective material than with blackbody material. But the insulative function works with both. Why do you deny this? The math is patently obvious."
Why do you deny the Wiki entry on thermal insulation that I linked to? It’s patently obvious that it states "reflected rather than absorbed". barry, I linked you to an entire discussion on MLI. I’m not going through it all again, now. Read through it, don’t read through it. Up to you. Whatever you do, don’t go around pretending that I’ve never addressed it. Only really dishonest people would do that. And, that’s far from the first discussion of MLI, in any case.
"So, how do you rationalise a surface with emissivity 1 also having an emissivity of 0? I’m intrigued to know how you do it."
How do you rationalise your action of pretending that this has never been discussed? Click on the link I gave you to the MLI discussion. Somewhere in that discussion, you will find a comment mentioning a "ritual". Let me know when you’re up to speed.
22 days we’ve been discussing this, and we’ve never needed to go into the alternative solution. We’re only now discussing it because you’ve run out of steam on defending the debunking of your 262 K…220 K solution. The reason we’ve not discussed it in those 22 days is because it has absolutely no bearing on the debunking of your solution. The 2LoT violation is as I’ve explained. Once you can accept that, you’ll quickly realise that it doesn’t even matter what mechanism is responsible for the return of that GP to BP vector. It must go somewhere. Where else is it going to go but back to the GP?
I don’t pretend to know the fate of individual photons, so I don’t speculate about it…but those that claim they do, have made their arguments clear. Take it up with them, if you want. I don’t personally find it important enough to worry about.
“Whatever you do, dont go around pretending that Ive never addressed it. ”
Tee hee hee.
In DREMTs alternate universe, ‘addressing it’ means asserting it doesnt work.
No evidence, no math, no physics, no logic, no analysis, nada.
IOW no science rationale at all.
“And, that’s far from the first discussion of MLI, in any case.”
As you know, barry, given that we have discussed it before ourselves.
“youll quickly realise that it doesnt even matter what mechanism is responsible for the return of that GP to BP vector. ”
Tee hee hee…
No mechanism is needed. When you NEED a new vector to support your narrative, you just draw it in!
And its in color, so ya know it must be right!
“Somewhere in that discussion, you will find a comment mentioning a "ritual". Let me know when you’re up to speed.”
I may as well post the direct link:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1623220
Speaking of “ritual”:
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Is there a provision in the radiative heat transfer equation to take into account a situation where the view factor is equal to one in one direction, but less than one in the other direction?
[MIGHTY TIM] I answered multiple times. Yes, that is exactly what the view factor does – the view factor is the provision for taking into account ANY geometry.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1622730
From time to time Graham D. Warner forgets that he needs to cite threads in which Mighty Time does not appear…
Yes, Tim didn’t even understand what I meant by the “radiative heat transfer equation”, so kept giving me silly answers to my question, like that.
Another off-topic diversion from Little Willy.
No response from barry. Let’s get the discussion back on-topic, and repeat a comment barry totally ignored:
Anyway, barry, enough diversions from the discussion we’ve been having.
I could accept that the GP was cooling to space if the BP wasn’t also warming at the same time. If the GP cooled, whilst the BP remained the same temperature, then of course the GP would be cooling to space, as there would be no evidence that the heat had manifested itself anywhere else.
You don’t exactly have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that heat has travelled from the GP to the BP in your 262 K…220 K solution, since on separation the GP has cooled at the same time the BP has warmed.
And no, it’s not the Sun warming the BP. The Sun was providing 400 W/m^2 to the BP before separation, it’s providing the same amount after separation, and the difference responsible for the warming of the BP is the vector of radiation from the GP to the BP. Thus, you are making the mistake of treating radiation as though it were heat.
I’m not ignoring your wiki entry, I’m expanding on it.
Let’s do some easy math. Emissivity (ϵ) is between 1 and 0, 0 being a perfect mirror, 1 being a blackbody, and anything in between representing the proportion of the radiation that is reflected and absorbed.
A 2-sided plate receiving 400 W/m2 where ϵ = 1 radiates 200 W/m2 back to source, and the remainder is emitted by the other side. This is our BP.
Let us reduce the emissivity (increase reflectivity) of the BP radiator, where ϵ = 0.05. This is 95% reflective, commensurate with the most reflective materials on spacecraft.
Reflected radiation = (1 – 0.05) X 400 W/m2 = 380 W/m2
This leaves 20 W/m2 absorbed by the radiator, which it must emit from both sides (2 X 10 W/m2), meaning a total of 390 W/m2 radiates sourceward, 10 W/m2 to space.
If ϵ = 0.25, the radiator reflects 300 W/m2 and emits 50 W/m2 from each side. 350 W/m2 radiates from the source side, 50 W/m2 heads to space.
Finally we get to ϵ = 1, and the result is the one we already know: 200 W/m2 heads sunward, and 200 W/m2 to space.
The BP cannot be both a perfect mirror and a perfect blackbody. If a perfect mirror, no radiation would get to GP at all, as all of it would be returned sunward.
Even if the GP side of the BP were a mirror, and the sun-facing side a b/b, still no radiation would get to GP, because a perfect mirror has zero emissivity. This construct would be like a b/b with insulation.
The fundamental math of radiative heat transfer forbids your BP both emitting and reflecting 200 W/m2 to GP.
So where is this extra 200 W/m2 coming from?
Unable to click on a link, barry? You just keep on going with the “but the BP is a blackbody”. The response is, “a blackbody cannot be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT”. You then have no further response other than to keep saying, “but the BP is a blackbody”. It’s a dead end.
I guess I’m to take it that you have given up defending your own solution, and have decided just to attack mine, instead. Attack mine all you want, it won’t save yours.
If you have to use Clint as your ‘expert witness’ in this trial, you may as well take a plea deal and do your time in the physics slammer.
If you believe Clint, then you believe charcoal can transform into a mirror!
“I’m not ignoring your wiki entry, I’m expanding on it.”
No, you’re ignoring it. It clearly states “reflected rather than absorbed”, but you want it to say “reflected or absorbed, but it works better when reflected”, and so you try to justify that based on another Wiki article on a specific type of insulation. Well, despite what the other Wiki article tries to claim, the fundamental article on thermal insulation, generally, states “reflected rather than absorbed”. Perhaps try and get the article changed, if you disagree.
So first we are encourage to believe that musician or whatever, DREMT, understands heat transfer, while PhD physicist Tim F, gets it all wrong:
“Yes, Tim didnt even understand what I meant by the radiative heat transfer equation, so kept giving me silly answers to my question, like that.”
Then we get regurgitation of various previous nonsensical assertions:
“I could accept that the GP was cooling to space if the BP wasnt also warming at the same time. If the GP cooled, whilst the BP remained the same temperature, then of course the GP would be cooling to space, as there would be no evidence that the heat had manifested itself anywhere else.
You dont exactly have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that heat has travelled from the GP to the BP in your 262 K220 K solution, since on separation the GP has cooled at the same time the BP has warmed.”
Again, weirdly pretending the BP has no other source of heat!
“And no, its not the Sun warming the BP. The Sun was providing 400 W/m^2 to the BP before separation, its providing the same amount after separation”
And again, mentally unable to process TWO facts together:
1. with the sun’s steady heat flow INPUT to the BP, and
2. the cut-off of heat flow OUTPUT from the BP
is ALL that is needed for the BP to warm!
DREMT clearly has diminished mental capacity.
“Wiki article tries to claim, the fundamental article on thermal insulation, generally, states reflected rather than absorbed. Perhaps try and get the article changed, if you disagree.”
Again, DREMT finds a single sentence in a Wiki giving the most common type of radiative insulation.
And declares: there can be no other way!
Again, no math, physics, or analysis to support this assertion.
Then we see another article specifically describing, in detail ANOTHER way to radiatively insulate, with physics and math and logic to support it
Oh well, another DREMT assertion is falsified.
Hopefully he will have the integrity to acknowledge his error.
For the third time, is there anywhere else we could discuss this, barry? I’m so sick of the trolls.
Its very simple:
Don’t like being ridiculed? Stop making ridiculous posts.
It’s not like I read his comments, so I have no idea what he’s saying, it’s more just that he’s disrupting the flow of the discussion by commenting so much. And, Little Willy is well known as a nuisance, adding nothing of any value. Nate is probably doing the same.
DREMTs not reading my posts. But
“By the way, in case you were thinking of bringing up MLI again”
But regardless of this charade, my posts are for others to read.
Nate is probably doing the same.
> Tim didn’t even understand what I meant by the “radiative heat transfer equation”,
Poor Graham D. Warner. Always misunderstood.
Another tidbit:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1620564
Twas nice to see Graham acknowledging Tim was right and he was wrong all along about view factors and 273 WE/m^2.
Yes, it is important to be able to concede a point when you are wrong. Thanks for demonstrating I can do that – unlike barry, who still can’t admit he was wrong with his “heater switch off” analogy.
Separating the plates is just like a ‘heat switch’ being turned off.
So Barry’s heater turned off example is apt.
Oh well, the bullying will continue.
As it’s been a long discussion, I will remind readers again why barry’s “heater switch off” analogy failed in its intended purpose. Here is what he said:
“With the heater on the warm room leaks its heat loss to the cold environment, but the temperature remains the same. Turn off the heat, and now the room cools. By a process of elimination, I see that the only thing has changed is the heater was turned off. The room was already leaking heat to the environment, and that hasn’t changed. So we eliminate that possibility. The cooling room is not cooling to the environment. It must be cooling to the heater. That’s exactly your reasoning.”
OK, so immediately, astute readers should note that is not my reasoning.
1) There is nothing warming in the room. The heater itself will be cooling, not warming, as it has been switched off.
2) The “before and after” difference in my argument is the vector of radiation from GP to BP. This is not analogous to a heater being switched off. A heater being switched off would instead be analogous to the Sun being switched off in the GPE.
3) It is not my argument that the GP can’t be cooling to space because it is emitting the same amount to space before and after separation of the plates. My argument is that the GP can’t be cooling to space because it is emitting the same amount to space before and after separation of the plates and because the “before and after” difference is the vector of radiation from GP to BP, i.e. away from space!
Some housekeeping.
If you don’t like Nate posting, ignore it. You are patently reading at least some of what he writes. ‘In case MLI…’ Please. This pretentiousness leaves a particularly sour taste when I hold YOUR line while you talk on and on about Nate and declare over and over and over how you are not engaging with him. I’ve been only responding to you, to satisfy your wish, and you have sh@t on my discipline. My good will is spent.
And after 3 weeks of scrutinising my take on things while I satisfied your hope for an uninterrupted discussion, you are not prepared to reciprocate with a look at your take?
Learn some manners.
No, I’m not reading what he writes. I know how these discussions work, though. I bring up the thermal insulation Wiki article, you bring up the MLI article. It’s all predictable. It’s predictable that you will act like it’s some kind of revelation, like you were unaware of it until now. It’s also predictable that you will pretend not to be aware of the “wavelength mismatch” argument which has been made by multiple commenters over the years. It’s predictable that you won’t acknowledge you were wrong about your “heater switch off” analogy. It’s predictable that you will try to focus attention on my solution rather than the debunking of yours.
So, I didn’t want to post a link to the thermal insulation Wiki article without adding a link to one of the many discussions on MLI. Why, had Nate mentioned it, then? It’s possible that on skimming past his posts I subconsciously pick up on a word or two, as well. Maybe that triggered me to mention it at that particular moment.
In any case, I don’t really get your attitude. I never asked you not to respond to Nate. You can do if you want. Wouldn’t bother me. I’m going to keep writing comments after he posts because I refuse to let him sneak a last word in, which is what his intention is, ultimately. He will continue to disrupt the thread, because he’s a troll. Not sure why you’re having a go at me about it.
“Why, had Nate mentioned it, then?”
Echoing Barry: Pullleez.
Stop trying to con people. You are bad at it.
A real con man has to be believable. And you are not.
“who still cant admit he was wrong with his heater switch off analogy.”
The reality is that DREMT did not make a sound or convincing argument that Barry was wrong about that, and many other things in this thread.
All he has done is repeated the same illogic, and
declared his position must be right. Over and over again.
He didnt make the case or convince Barry. Barry’s argument had sound logical support.
Oh well!
And yet he needs Barry to PRETEND that he was wrong, anyway.
Nobody else here is that insecure and needy.
“My argument is that the GP cant be cooling to space because it is emitting the same amount to space before and after separation of the plates and because the before and after difference is the vector of radiation from GP to BP, i.e. away from space!”
Barry,
If I have a car initially moving forward, and I add an equal reverse velocity vector to it, to be consistent, DREMT would need to argue in this case that the car’s velocity has reversed.
But of course it did not reverse. It just STOPPED. Because it had an initial forward velocity.
Similarly if I have heat flowing initially from BP to GP, and I add a vector of radiation from GP to BP, then the heat flow does not REVERSE. It just stops.
And thus there is no heat flow from cold to hot, because the heat flow just STOPS.
DREMTs mistake here is that he does not consider the initial condition.
Why? No one knows.
"And after 3 weeks of scrutinising my take on things while I satisfied your hope for an uninterrupted discussion, you are not prepared to reciprocate with a look at your take?
Learn some manners."
It’s hard to know if you’re being serious. I’ve had five years of people relentlessly attacking "my take" and me personally. You really have no idea, barry. Sorry you’ve had to endure a whole three weeks of experiencing to a small, much more polite extent the sort of scrutiny I’ve faced…and nothing like the sort of level of personal abuse. Maybe you could try commenting against the status quo, occasionally, just to experience what it’s like. I mean, rather than staying in an "alarmist" echo chamber which is what this blog has been turned into through sheer weight of numbers.
“Ive had five years of people relentlessly attacking “my take” and me personally.”
Gee, I wonder why do people react that way to you.
Can’t think of any reasons…
80 comments now. All unread. Yet, he just keeps on going, hoping for a different result.
I’m not privy to the “wavelength mismatch” argument, unless it has something to do with Gordon’s ludicrous attempt to argue warm blackbodies won’t absorb radiation from colder ones. So, no, your anticipation of what I might argue is quite off.
How does BP both emit 200 W/m2 as a blackbody and reflect 200 W/m2 as a perfect mirror?
Am I talking to the right barry? The barry I know has been very persistent in demanding that people "furnish him" with some evidence from a "reputable source" that warm objects cannot absorb the radiation from cold objects. You’ve been engaged in a constant back and forth over the last several years on this subject. What’s with the pantomime that you suddenly have no idea about any of it?
I don’t get involved in those discussions because to me, it’s irrelevant. The 2LoT violation in the GPE, to me, sticks out like a sore thumb. That being the case, I don’t worry myself about what happens to the photons on arriving at the BP. It’s silly to get involved in discussions about individual photons and their actions. However, those that claim to know about such things, make their arguments, and as far as I’m aware – you know what they are. Unless you’ve really not been paying attention over the last few years.
If you don’t want to accept my solution, don’t. I’m not going to waste any more of my time defending it, since I’ve already done that more than enough over the last five years or so. It won’t change the fact that your 262 K…220 K solution is debunked. It’s really simple:
1) There is a 2LoT violation in your solution.
2) The BP cannot warm whilst the GP cools.
3) The energy from the GP to BP still has to go somewhere.
4) It will end up back at the GP. Satisfying 1LoT.
You want a mechanism? Some have been proposed. Argue it with the people that have suggested them if you need to. It won’t change 1). Nothing can. Since 2), 3), and 4) all follow from 1), I’ve decided to stick to just debating 1). Hence the discussion over the last 3 weeks. You now want to move things on to discussing this mechanism, so you can make it seem like unless I have an answer, somehow my debunking of your solution fails. That’s not how it works, though.
Like I said, we’ve been discussing the debunking of your solution for three weeks, and not once did we need to refer to anything in my solution. That’s because none of it’s relevant to the debunking of your solution. You really must separate the two things in your mind, completely. I know from previous discussions that you have problems with this, but you’ve got to try harder.
Oh, so the “wavelength mismatch” IS about warmer blackbodies not absorbing photons from cooler objects.
I’d not seen that phrase before, hence my query. So I guessed right.
You could investigate whether it’s true or not photons from cooler objects are rejected by warmer blackbodies, but because you either know or suspect that this is bunkum, you won’t go there, preferring instead to shrug your shoulders.
You have probably already gone a-hunting for some reputable source to back up this view, and having found either none or that the inverse is true, have decided it would hurt your cause to be upfront about it.
Whatever the case, you are certainly avoiding this rather significant challenge to your view of the GPE, almost certainly knowing it won’t survive scrutiny.
Until you can meet this challenge, there is 200 W/m2 that comes from nowhere in your schema violating 1LoT, and no erroneous ideas about heat flow and blackbodies also being mirrors is going to justify its presence.
Are you suggesting I’m dishonest, barry? Kind of getting sick of being accused of that.
I stand by my previous comment.
Any time you want to respond to all the outstanding points that have been raised that you keep ignoring, just let me know.
1) There is a 2LoT violation in your solution.
This is meant to be the beginning of a 4-part syllogism, but you are starting with your conclusion as usual.
So we can dismiss this as a premise.
2) The BP cannot warm whilst the GP cools.
An article of faith that began when I first brought up Eli’s GPE, and the crowd here said a cool object can’t make a warm one warmer.
This was belied instantly by mention of sweaters, home insulation, and all the ways in which cooler objects can slow the heat loss of warmer objects receiving constant energy.
Some of the crowd finally admitted that these were examples of cooler objects making warm ones warmer, by reducing their heat loss. But the same crowd couldn’t admit this can happen radiatively.
Which is why I keep asking you if it can.
3) The energy from the GP to BP still has to go somewhere.
It goes to BP. This energy vector is not a heat vector in the classic sense, as it seems you sometimes agree.
This energy vector changes the rate of energy loss from BP, which is receiving constant energy from the sun. The NET exchange is still BP to GP, which is also the direction of heat flow in the classic sense.
BP heats up because its rate of energy loss is reduced, not because it has gained energy only from GP, but because it is gaining energy from both GP and the sun, and shedding it in both directions. The balance of all these flows indicate the direction of heat flow, not some weird process of elimination logic about which vectors were there before and which are new. THAT is part of your made-up, non-standard definition of heat flow, that appears in no text-book, only in your rationalising of your original ideology about colder objects being unable to make warm ones warmer.
4) It will end up back at the GP. Satisfying 1LoT.
I can have BP emitting 100 W/m2 sunward and reflecting 100 W/m2 sunward, and emitting 200 W/m2 to space (no GP), and this satisfies 1LoT, but it completely unphysical, as BP is now emitting to space twice the energy it is absorbing.
It’s not enough to draw arrows and claim it adds up, you need to physically justify them, which is where your model patently fails.
“Are you suggesting I’m dishonest, barry?”
I don’t know what your game is. I’m left to guess why you won’t deal directly with the problem of your blackbody BP also being a perfect mirror, and I hope that this prods you to be direct instead of defensive.
I certainly don’t believe that you have never googled to check out the idea of warmer bodies rejecting photons from colder objects, or never had a good hard think about how your b/b BP is also perfectly reflecting.
BTW, I usually admit I’m wrong on something at least once every month, in the temp update threads. I’ve got no problem with that.
Got no problem admitting I was wrong about heat flow going from a cooling planet to a warming sun – only works when the planet starts warmer than the sun.
You went, “huh?” when I said that earlier. The only time heat can go from a cooling object to a warming object is if the cooling object starts warmer than the warming object. As soon as they hit the same temperature, there is no heat flow.
And once you introduce a heat source as a third object warming a two-body system, the system can be reconfigured so that the cooling object can make the warm one warmer.
For example, two blackbody plates that are NOT perfect conductors are side by side being warmed by the sun. Press one plate behind the other, and the shaded plate cools while the sun-facing plate warms, because the first plate is only getting heat through conduction, not direct radiation, and the first plate has its heat loss to space slowed down by the plate behind.
This is exactly the same situation as the split-plate scenario, but using conduction instead of radiation.
So why isn’t this scenario breaking 2LoT?
“This is meant to be the beginning of a 4-part syllogism, but you are starting with your conclusion as usual.
So we can dismiss this as a premise.”
No, barry. Please stop with the false accusations. I am not “starting with my conclusion”. The 4) steps are not a chain of logic to get to why your solution is a 2LoT violation. They are a chain of logic as to why it is not relevant what the mechanism is in my solution for energy from GP to BP to be returned to the GP. Once you can accept that your solution is debunked, everything follows.
The debunking of your solution has its own logic chain which I have already been through with you at great length. That is completely separate from those 4) steps.
As the rebuttal to the first step fails, the rest of your rebuttal fails accordingly.
“Got no problem admitting I was wrong about heat flow going from a cooling planet to a warming sun – only works when the planet starts warmer than the sun.”
If the planet is warmer than the Sun then heat will be flowing from hot to cold.
“The only time heat can go from a cooling object to a warming object is if the cooling object starts warmer than the warming object. As soon as they hit the same temperature, there is no heat flow.”
Then that is heat flowing from hot to cold, not flowing from cold to hot. No wonder I went, “huh”? I thought you were trying to describe an example of what you accept would be heat flowing from cold to hot. You said it would be heat flowing from cold to hot if the BP/planet got cooler whilst the Sun got warmer. Now you are arranging it so that heat flows from hot to cold!
“And once you introduce a heat source as a third object warming a two-body system, the system can be reconfigured so that the cooling object can make the warm one warmer. For example, two blackbody plates that are NOT perfect conductors are side by side being warmed by the sun. Press one plate behind the other, and the shaded plate cools while the sun-facing plate warms, because the first plate is only getting heat through conduction, not direct radiation, and the first plate has its heat loss to space slowed down by the plate behind. This is exactly the same situation as the split-plate scenario, but using conduction instead of radiation. So why isn’t this scenario breaking 2LoT?”
Because plates that are not perfect conductors have a property known as “thermal resistance”, which is a property of insulation. So that does not violate 2LoT because one plate would be insulating the other. Same as if the GP was reflective. Then it could radiatively insulate the BP.
“BP heats up because its rate of energy loss is reduced, not because it has gained energy only from GP, but because it is gaining energy from both GP and the sun, and shedding it in both directions.”
barry, the BP was receiving the same amount of energy from the Sun both before and after separation of the plates. The “before and after” difference is that it is receiving energy from the GP. So, the difference which causes it to warm, according to you, is the radiation from the GP. Not the energy from the Sun! Crucially, at the same time you have the GP cooling, due to the radiation leaving to the BP. Again, that is the “before and after” difference responsible for the GP cooling. Put it all together, you have the GP cooling to the BP, thus sending heat to the BP, warming it!
“The balance of all these flows indicate the direction of heat flow, not some weird process of elimination logic about which vectors were there before and which are new. THAT is part of your made-up, non-standard definition of heat flow, that appears in no text-book, only in your rationalising of your original ideology about colder objects being unable to make warm ones warmer.”
Still not getting that I am going with the standard definition of heat flow, and that there is no “standard definition” for what it looks like when heat flows from cold to hot, radiatively? This is getting silly, barry. When are you ever going to concede a point!?
“They are a chain of logic as to why it is not relevant what the mechanism is in my solution for energy from GP to BP to be returned to the GP.”
Barry is absolutely correct, that DREMT doesnt commit to any mechanism, because he must know that there is no logical physical mechanism available, that doesnt violate a law of physics, such as Kirchhoffs law or 1LOT.
DREMT fails at the basic rules of debate. You can’t just make-up a fictional new ‘fact’ (an extra arrow of radiation) without logic or rationale or physics.
You can’t just assign that as someone elses job to prove!
It is thus ironic that the entire basis of his convoluted argument depends on the ELi solution violating a law of physics, 2LOT. But in order to get there he seems perfectly ok with violating all other laws of physics.
The basis of his 2LOT violation is that there is NO OTHER WAY for the GP to cool and the BP to warm without the GP sending heat to the GP.
But as Barry and I have repeatedly shown, this is pure bunk. There is a perfectly valid OTHER WAY for the BP to warm, based on ZERO heat flow from the BP to the GP. and NON ZERO heat flow from GP to space.
DREMT simply ignores this as possible, with no rationale to do so, other than silly illogic.
“The before and after difference is that it is receiving energy from the GP. So, the difference which causes it to warm, according to you, is the radiation from the GP.”
But this is not something only ‘according to Barry’. It is what you, DREMT, have agreed must happen! That the heat flow from BP to GP must go to ZERO.
It is what actually happens.
But NO. Instead DREMT imagines that a brand new magical, unphysical vector of radiation appears, to save him from defeat!
“Still not getting that I am going with the standard definition of heat flow”
OK and thus you AGREE that heat flow from BP to GP goes to ZERO.
But NO! You require a 2LOT violation, so heat flow must not be ZERO, it is actually reversing and going from cold to hot!
Truly weird.
“barry, the BP was receiving the same amount of energy from the Sun both before and after separation of the plates. The before and after difference is that it is receiving energy from the GP. So, the difference which causes it to warm, according to you, is the radiation from the GP. Not the energy from the Sun!”
Barry, you have touched on the illogic of this reasoning many times, but nothing seems to penetrate.
So let’s try to make it even more plain.
DREMT is getting paid from his employer, and paying all his bills.
There is a steady flow of money into and outof his checking account and its monthly balance stays steady
Then, after spending too much time on this blog, he gets fired.
His income drops to ZERO. He continues to pay his bills, so his checking balance drops. (The GP cools)
At the same time his employers checking account balance rises. (the BP warms)
By DREMTs logic, it is not that his income has dropped from positive to zero.
Instead he argues that HE, DREMT, must be now paying his employer! That explains why his account balance is dropping and his employers account balance is rising!
Of course this ignores that his employer has inputs to his account from other sources that are not DREMT.
And he ignores that HE, DREMT; keeps draining his account by paying bills.
Why he ignores these facts, no one knows.
Now there are 84 unread posts from Nate. I wonder how many of them repeat exactly the same thing?
In financial transactions, like radiative heat transfer, there can be 2-way exchanges (I pay for a $5 item with a $10 bill, and get back $5 change), but it is only the NET $ result that matters.
DREMT wants to hyper focus on one portion of the 2-way mechanism of radiative heat transfer, when it is only the NET result that actually matters.
Ah, I see he wanted 85.
“repeat exactly the same thing”
Not like this novel argument”
“Barry, the BP was receiving the same amount of energy from the Sun both before and after separation of the plates. The before and after difference is that it is receiving energy from the GP.”
No, still wasn’t satisfied. He apparently needed to go for 86!
“Still not getting that I am going with the standard definition of heat flow”
Correct. You are not going along with the standard definition.
Standard definition of heat flow is that heat flows from a warmer object to a colder one. BP is warmer than GP.
So, what is the standard definition of heat flow that tells you heat is flowing from GP to BP? Cite an independent physics reference, please.
If your answer is, yet again, “how did they GET that way,” then please cite a standard reference that corroborates this reasoning. for determining heat flow. You keep citing yourself.
“They are a chain of logic as to why it is not relevant what the mechanism is in my solution for energy from GP to BP.”
Your chain of logic begins with a premise that we are currently disputing.
“1) There is a 2LoT violation in your solution.”
So yes, you are using your unestablished conclusion as a premise.
“Once you can accept that your solution is debunked…”
Sure, all I have to do is accept your 1) to begin with and everything else follows naturally. Brilliant reasoning!
“Because plates that are not perfect conductors have a property known as ‘thermal resistance’, which is a property of insulation.”
This is the function of GP radiatively. You don’t need a perfect reflector, you just need returned radiation.
“Kirchhoff’s second law states that the absorp.tivity of a body at a given wavelength is equal to its emissivity at that wavelength. This means that a body that absorbs radiation well at a given wavelength is also a good emitter of radiation at that wavelength. Furthermore, it is independent of the temperature of the radiation source.”
Thornton, Stephen T., and Andrew Rex. Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers. Cengage Learning, 2011.
Here is yet another reputable reference confirming that absorp.tion occurs regardless of source temperature – warm objects absorb radiation from cold objects. BP absorbs GP’s radiation.
Physics backs up the GPE. Exactly zero reputable references to back up your (and others) arguments have been provided for 7 years of asking for them. If you think this doesn’t matter then you’re off in la-la land.
Nate,
“argument depends on the ELi solution violating a law of physics, 2LOT. But in order to get there he seems perfectly ok with violating all other laws of physics.”
Doubly ironic that I’m not allowed to offer an example of a violation of 2LoT unless it breaks no other laws of physics.
“DREMT is getting paid from his employer, and paying all his bills…”
Well, he does end up giving money to his employer in this scenario – not paying, but returning his income while still paying his bills. To extend the analogy, the employer is making the same profit from the business, but now not losing money to DREMT. Employer bank balance increases while DREMT is still paying the bills and his bank balance decreases.
Is DREMT responsible for the employer’s increased bank balance? Sure he is. Does that mean that DREMT is financing the business? Absolutely not. He’s just not accepting his wages anymore.
I wonder what DREMT would make of the scenario where after separation we cut off GP flow to space and keep his version of energy transfer between the plates. It would seem to me the GP would heat up to send 400 W/m2 to the BP, which is already sending 400 W/m2 to the GP.
Trying to see how DREMT would see it… Because GP gets hotter, BP can now absorb its radiation? So now BP has to warm up, too as it is receiving 400 W/m2 from GP, and 400 W/m2 from sun. BP warms up to a total of 800 W/m2, emitting 400 W/m2 from each side
Now BP and GP are the same temperature, as before, so we return to DREMT’s schema with 2 arrows going BP to GP, and one arrow going GP to BP.
GP emits 400 W/m2 to BP, but is receiving 400 W/m2 + 400 W/m2 from BP, so GP has to warm up….
Seems to me we have an infinite loop here – because DREMT’s schema violates 1LoT.
Or will DREMT lose an arrow from BP to GP when we extinguish the vector GP to space? Seems odd, as in both cases the GP is the same temp as BP, and this occasions the double vector from BP to GP in the first place.
“Standard definition of heat flow is that heat flows from a warmer object to a colder one. BP is warmer than GP. So, what is the standard definition of heat flow that tells you heat is flowing from GP to BP? Cite an independent physics reference, please.”
Heat flows from hot to cold (obviously) but you want a reference that tells you what it looks like when heat flows from cold to hot? What are you talking about, barry?
“Your chain of logic begins with a premise that we are currently disputing”
I thought you’d given up disputing it. Seems like you have.
“So yes, you are using your unestablished conclusion as a premise.”
In an entirely separate chain of reasoning, as I explained. Don’t worry about it, barry, this is obviously over your head.
“Sure, all I have to do is accept your 1) to begin with and everything else follows naturally. Brilliant reasoning!”
Yes, 2), 3) and 4) all follow from accepting 1), which you could do just for the sake of argument to see where it leads. Never mind, though, guess you are just being unnecessarily argumentative.
“This is the function of GP radiatively. You don’t need a perfect reflector, you just need returned radiation.”
I didn’t say you needed a perfect reflector, but you do need the GP to reflect to some extent. As the Wikipedia entry on thermal insulation confirms.
“Physics backs up the GPE. Exactly zero reputable references to back up your (and others) arguments have been provided for 7 years of asking for them. If you think this doesn’t matter then you’re off in la-la land.”
I said I don’t think the mechanism for returning GP to BP radiation back to GP matters, once you accept there is a 2LoT violation in the GPE. I explained why, and you couldn’t fault the logic except to say that you disagree there is a 2LoT violation. Which isn’t really faulting the logic, is it?
“Heat flows from hot to cold (obviously) but you want a reference that tells you what it looks like when heat flows from cold to hot? What are you talking about, barry?”
No, when you say, “I am going with the standard definition of heat flow,” I am wondering what that standard definition is that tells you heat is flowing from GP to BP.
If your answer is that there is no standard definition of heat flow that describes heat flowing from a cooler to a warmer body, then I completely I agree.
So we both agree that your notion of heat flowing from GP to BP is not based on a standard definition of heat flow.
What we’re left with is your A + B + C version of what a heat flow is. You won’t find it in any textbook.
So what are YOU talking about, DREMT?
“I thought youd given up disputing it. Seems like you have.”
Are you playing games, now?
No, you can’t use something that isn’t established as a premise.
“In an entirely separate chain of reasoning”
An unestablished premise can’t be used as a categorical statement in a chain of reasoning for any purpose.
“Yes, 2), 3) and 4) all follow from accepting 1), which you could do just for the sake of argument to see where it leads.”
It leads to your conclusion. All I have to do is agree with 1), the very basis of our dispute, and we have no argument anymore.
It’s so simple!
“I said I don’t think the mechanism for returning GP to BP radiation back to GP matters, once you accept there is a 2LoT violation in the GPE. I explained why, and you couldn’t fault the logic except to say that you disagree there is a 2LoT violation. Which isn’t really faulting the logic, is it?”
1) There is a 1 km layer of cheese 300km beneath the surface
2) Humans eat cheese
3) Therefore we need only drill deep enough to end world hunger
All you have to do, DREMT, is agree with the first proposition, and you will stop being so stubborn about the fact that we could end world hunger.
DREMT, the logic can be watertight, but it’s empty if the premises aren’t. Logic 101.
In your case, you are simply using the conclusion as your premise and insisting I buy into your circular reasoning.
I am coming to the conclusion that you actually believe that assertion is the most persuasive form of argument.
I must seem very pigheaded to be so resistant to just agreeing with you.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1646915
“In your case, you are simply using the conclusion as your premise and insisting I buy into your circular reasoning.”
It is not circular reasoning, barry. The four steps are not a chain of reasoning to get to why the GPE is a 2LoT violation, you see. The four steps instead explain why you don’t need a mechanism for the return of GP to BP radiation back to GP. How many times are you going to falsely accuse me of using circular reasoning?
Yes, you dispute the first premise. That is why we have been discussing it for three weeks. I assume you have given up disputing it since you are now focusing in on my solution, which has nothing to do with the debunking of your solution.
I included your proposition in our discussion because we were just repeating ourselves after 3 weeks. I certainly haven’t acceded. If I can’t make you see why I’m right, then I’ll make you see why you’re wrong.
A) You came up with your solution because of your assertion that the GPE violates 2LoT.
B) You were asked to explain why your solution transgresses the laws of physics by having a surface that has emissivity 1 and 0 at the same time.
3) In defending this anomaly your only argument is that the solution is required by 2LoT!
And you don’t see the circular reasoning here?
Because if you don’t, then this discussion is pointless. You are going to keep begging the question without ever realising that you’re doing it and we’re stuck in a loop.
“I assume you ..”
Yep that is generally the problem with DREMTs arguments, and why they are never convincing.
"A) You came up with your solution because of your assertion that the GPE violates 2LoT."
There’s no assertion, barry, there’s an entire argument as to why the GPE violates 2LoT. I went into it at great depth. You’re currently avoiding it by shifting focus onto my solution.
"B) You were asked to explain why your solution transgresses the laws of physics by having a surface that has emissivity 1 and 0 at the same time.
3) In defending this anomaly your only argument is that the solution is required by 2LoT!"
No…my solution follows from the debunking of your solution. As the vector of radiation from GP to BP cannot result in the warming of the BP at the expense of the GP, due to 2LoT (as explained in great detail), it has to go somewhere. The only real option is back to the GP. As it does so, that satisfies 1LoT. You are hung up on the exact mechanism for how that happens. I’ve pointed you in the direction of some arguments that have been made regarding that mechanism, which you’ve been pretending don’t exist. Regardless, it’s not necessary to understand the mechanism, because 2LoT insists that the radiation be returned.
I’m not wasting time on defending my solution, barry! What you really dispute is the 2LoT violation in the GPE…so why don’t we focus on that? Oh wait, we already have done…
I agree we’re going nowhere, but it’s not due to circular logic. It’s to do with you refusing to concede any point, ever. Instead, you quietly drop points, whilst focusing your attention on other points, then eventually you bring up the original points again that as far as I’m concerned have already been refuted!
“Nomy solution follows from the debunking of your solution. As the vector of radiation from GP to BP cannot result in the warming of the BP at the expense of the GP, due to 2LoT (as explained in great detail),”
As asserted, in great detail, over and over again, but unconvincingly, because of ill-logic.
Because, as noted above, when your employee stopped paying you, while you continued to pay bills, your bank account went down. And your employers bank account went up.
But it does not follow that YOU PAID money to your employer.
Just as it does not follow that heat flowed from the GP to the BP!
“it has to go somewhere. The only real option is back to the GP.”
Not at all. It gets abs.orbed by the BP, since it has emissivity =1 and is thus a perfect abs.orber according to Kirchhoffs Law, not a perfect mirror!
So to claim the only real solution is one that violates a Law of phyiscs is to be wrong.
And furthermore, YOU, DREMT, already agreed that the heat flow becomes ZERO between the plates. If “The only real option is back to the GP.” then that would NO LONGER be ZERO HEAT FLOW between the plates.
“As it does so, that satisfies 1LoT.”
But not really, because it violates another law of physics.
“You are hung up on the exact mechanism for how that happens.”
As you should be, sinc no physically plausible mechanism exists. ”
Ive pointed you in the direction of some arguments that have been made regarding that mechanism, which youve been pretending dont exist.”
Arguments made by ignoramus, Clint. So worthless.
“Regardless, its not necessary to understand the mechanism, because 2LoT insists that the radiation be returned.”
No it doesnt, as thoroughly explained 47 times.
“Im not wasting time on defending my solution, barry!”
Obviously you understand that it is indefensible.
“What you really dispute is the 2LoT violation in the GPEso why dont we focus on that?”
Been there, Done that 47 times. You have not made a convincing case for it.
Oh well!
"If I can’t make you see why I’m right, then I’ll make you see why you’re wrong."
That’s the problem, though, barry. You still don’t really get it. Even if my solution were wrong, for whatever reason, your solution would still not be correct. My solution has been relentlessly attacked for years, and I’ve defended it plenty. I don’t feel the need to do that any more. If you want to think it’s wrong, fine. It doesn’t bother me. Your 262 K…220 K solution is still wrong, though, no matter what. Nothing can save that.
If you don’t accept my solution, you should be looking for an alternative to both our solutions. That’s what I’m trying to get across to you.
If you want to continue the discussion, you can respond to the multiple points (and indeed, on occasion, entire comments) that you have ignored along the way. If you actually read back through the discussion, you’ll see there’s an awful lot. You can concede the points that you should have conceded a while ago.
If you’re not prepared to do that, then let’s just call it a day. We can’t keep going forever.
DREMT,
My solution has been relentlessly attacked for years, and I’ve defended it plenty.
Why, I’ve been doing that right here for more than 3 weeks.
“I don’t feel the need to do that any more.”
I’m content to leave the discussion with you having passed the buck on several items, and being completely unconvinced by your view. I’m definitely not interested in a discussion where your view is beyond scrutiny, and it looks like you’ve drawn a line there, so thanks for the chat.
OK, barry. Not sure you’re really listening to what I’m saying, but there’s no point just going on endlessly. At least we can be reasonably civil towards each other over the course of a very long discussion, so that’s something.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Never have, never will.
“At least we can be reasonably civil towards each other over the course of a very long discussion, so that’s something.”
Agreed.
Now our discussion is over, you could maybe go and ask Clint R about his “wavelength mismatch” argument. Here is an ideal opportunity:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1653553
If Clint proposes that radiation from the GP hits the BP, a blackbody, but is NOT abs.orbed, then it plainly violates Kirchhoff’s Law, and is therefore WRONG.
But it seems DREMT will use his ignorance of these laws, to suggest that it is plausible anyway.
barry didn’t take the opportunity. Never mind.
DREMT
You would be correct to state that “heat” will not flow from cold to hot. In your link it does say energy will transfer either way. The Net energy “heat” will only be from hotter to colder.
The GHE is similar to the air in a closed car reaching a much higher temperature in the Sun than the outside air. The air heated in the car would totally neglect some of Swenson’s points. Glass and car body will not allow the IR of the solar energy into the car interior (both absorb this band) yet the car air is much hotter than the outside air. The visible light goes through the glass. The car structure prevents free convection of air. The interior of the car is not receiving any more solar energy than the outside air but it might be 30 F warmer than the surrounding air.
The Second Law is NOT violated by GHE because the colder atmosphere is NOT heating the surface. The GHE is similar to why the interior air of the car gets much warmer than outside air.
Here this shows the GHE is not about cold atmosphere heating surface.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_65dd525784dd5.png
The DWIR is less than the UWIR so it can’t warm the surface. The NET effect is that the surface heat loss is reduced by GHG and so the surface will reach a higher steady state temperature with the same solar input as it would without such gases as it would be able to lose much more energy to space without the GHG present. It is really similar to the hot car in the summer.
You are a smart one, really think about a car in the summer and ask why it gets so much hotter than the surrounding air. If you think about it you will then be able to grasp the GHE and why it makes the Earth surface warmer and why it does NOT in any way violate the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
Thanks for the incompetent attempt to pervert thermodynamics, Norman.
A closed car in Sun warms dramatically. But, that is NOT your cult’s GHE.
The closed car traps the high energy IR photons — those emitted by the car’s hot interior. Those photons are then absorbed and re-emitted, or reflected, within the car.
But atmospheric CO2 is only returning 15μ photons, which cannot even melt ice.
Just as you’re confused by the Surfrad graphs, you’re confused by your cult’s belief that ALL infrared can heat. You should have learned something from all the discussions here about ice. But, you can’t learn.
Now, you can start the insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations….
Norman,
Ah, I see. You imply that the reason objects get hotter in sunlight is because a mysterious “GHE” exists! Really? I believe the heating is due to sunlight.
I’m quite sure I’m right. Can you provide facts to the contrary?
If not, you might appear to be a fanatical GHE worshipper. Quite mad.
norman…”The Second Law is NOT violated by GHE because the colder atmosphere is NOT heating the surface. The GHE is similar to why the interior air of the car gets much warmer than outside air”.
***
It is not being claimed that the GHE contradicts the 2nd law. In a real greenhouse, radiation from a much hotter body, the Sun, is converted to heat. That is covered by the 2nd law.
It is the AGW theory, in part, that contradicts the 2nd law. The part that contradicts it is heat being transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface that allegedly heated the atmosphere in the first place.
The interior of a car, and a greenhouse, gets hot because SW radiation from the Sun is absorbed and converted to heat. The heated elements in the greenhouse warm the air and it tries to rise, but it is trapped by glass in the greenhouse. Heated air is heated air molecules and those molecules are physically trapped by the glass.
There is nothing in the atmosphere to trap heated air molecules. They will keep rising indefinitely till they run out of energy (heat) and stop rising. That’s why I claim that heat can be dissipated naturally in the atmosphere.
“You would be correct”
I know, Norman, thanks. Won’t stop barry, Ball4 and Little Willy from saying stuff, though.
“There is nothing in the atmosphere to trap heated air molecules.”
No. Air molecules are trapped by Earth’s gravity, Gordon. Greenhouse gases are trapped by the glass enclosure.
See?
All a greenhouse does is warm the air in the greenhouse up to the surface temperature. Obviously Ball4 hasn’t been paying any attention to the many experiments that have been conducted on this topic with the cult continuing to insist that these experiments are all flawed. Talk about science denialism. . .indeed a wide swerving on the part of Ball4 out of the science lane across the double line into an oncoming big rig.
In fact more than a hundred years ago Robert Woods discovered that a greenhouse with glass that blocks LW but not SW doesn’t warm up as warm as a greenhouse with IR transparent glass so he found it necessary to try to equalize the greenhouses by filtering out the incoming solar LW into the IR transparent greenhouse.
This actually models our atmosphere as high temperatures of the surface are not as high as they would be if the sky was transparent to LW. We can clearly see this by looking at high temperatures on the moon.
Bill, the S&O & Hughes experiments had final S greater than their So & passed the 1LOT all things considered. Just like the GPE and GHE, those experiments conform to:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
Ball4 resorts to spewing gobbledygook. bottom line is that the surface cools in the greenhouse over the surface just outside the greenhouse.
that fact highlights the dire need of much repair in the theory, at least as sold to the public. One has to suspect that after Al Gore started the earth has a fever gold rush. . .we have entered a long drawn out process of damage control. . .made especially difficult with the public doomsdaymanship that continues to set the media on fire and thus politicians.
Fear of cancellation has made the ”n” word disappear in all but one culture. That is why the racial gap is widening rather than narrowing. The Chinese and Russians are probably doing everything they can to foster this self annihilation.
In the meantime we need to ponder why the two largest temperature spikes in the satellite record both correspond to major increases in the size of the ozone hole.
Sometimes Gill refers to a theory. Sometimes he refers to a 3rd grader model. Depends on if he relies on the bandwagon effect or ridicule. Yet (or perhaps because of it) his bandwagon is getting smol:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/
Troglodytes live on borrowed time.
What can I say Willard? Harvard faculty sponsored the 3rd grader radiation model 15 years ago that was debunked over a 100 years ago.
At least they did before finally removing it from the internet. But obviously they aren’t going to enhance their embarrassment by trying to correct you.
Gill can say whatever he pleases. He can even continue to suggest that Team Science holds the gauntlet of power. Anyone with real life experience could then simply dismiss him as an old man screaming at clouds.
Alternatively, he could carry his own weight and stop trying to manipulate people into working for free for him.
Nope there is no climate work going on I don’t pay for . . .through inflation, user fees, energy costs, and taxes.
all I am demanding is a very strong MIS. Then a strong and effective feedback process back into the machine to recognize mistakes and correct them.
That in fact is why the Harvard 3rd grader radiation model chart disappeared from the internet.
The only question is how long are folks going to continue to be seduced by it.
This is like the reports of aliens at Area 51? The neener neener crowd really strongly clings to that theory long after extended periods of absence of corroborating evidence. Like for climate change all you ever see anywhere are devolved conversations about Clausius, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Planck and Newton with Bindidon translating ancient books for us trying to glean great scientific discoveries out Newton publishing words like ”the moon spins on its axis”.
Then you have the politicians. . .consummate glad handers. . .constantly throwing money at alien investigations to win the favor of the knutier of the knuts.
In private enterprise you send those folks on their way out the door. And that right there explains why capitalism works and technocratic socialism does not.
> Nope there is no climate work going on I dont pay for
Not only Gill believes in a One World Government, he believes that his taxes pay for Roy’s commenters.
ROFL!
Indeed the US is subsidizing the entire world in virtually every endeavor.
Gill is virtually full of it.
Nah. Woods experiment had flaws, as Roy demonstrated.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-i/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-ii-first-results/
“We can clearly see this by looking at high temperatures on the moon.”
Which gets continuous daylight for 29 times as long as the Earth, has no clouds nor an ocean to abs.orb heat.
Yet another red herring!
Yes there were flaws in the R. Woods experiment. The flaws were very significant wrt to Roy’s estimates of what the effects of CO2 are. But blocking the entire spectrum of IR as compared to the narrow range of frequencies of CO2 should get a relatively stronger response. Roy went on to construct experiments and evaluate feedback in observations and came up with something less than .5C per CO2 doubling. I recall he used ice which really helps lower the temperature below that of the experiment environment and yes you should get a response when the surface is colder than the environment around it.
Perhaps Nate can related to Roy the flaws he found in Seim and Olson and get Roy to evaluate the weakness of that experiment. So Nate why don’t you contract Roy and offer him your services?
“There is nothing in the atmosphere to trap heated air molecules.”
False, gravity traps the air molecules. They cannot escape the atmosphere to space (with the exception of H and He atoms).
“So you can blame him for that.”
Tee hee hee.
DREMT needs to blame others for HIS failure to honestly address and rebut Barry’s logic and facts.
Arrgh wrong place..
So you can blame him for that.”
Tee hee hee.
DREMT fails to honestly address and rebut Barrys logic and facts, and he tries to blame others for that.
Never mind that nearly all of DREMTs comments about me are of the personal/insult variety.
He gets like this when he loses.
Still evading the obvious logical consequences of your two agreed upon conditions:
1. After separation, the GP has ZERO heat flow INPUT.
2. After separation, the GP continues to have the same heat flow OUTPUT to space.
Instead desperately trying to distract.
“I dont make you guys look bad.”
No you don’t. Since nobody is being baited into your silly distraction game.
Another long comment by Graham D. Warner, which can only mean one thing: he’s lashing out because he has NOTHING against the fact that he and his fellow Sky Dragon cranks have yet to convince the scientific world of their viewpoint.
Team Science extends beyond “you guys,” whereas the number of people who would dispute Eli’s rudimentary thought experiment should hold in a few hands.
Nothing worth responding to.
“Theyre just insulation, barry. The GPE isnt.”
Pure assertion, as always, while no evidence provided ever.
DREMT fails to understand that aint honest debate!
Exactly, Gordon.
bdg…”The fact that adiabatic processes exists does not imply that all processes are adiabatic”.
***
Good point, and that applies to adiabatic processes inferred in the atmosphere, as in the lapse rate theory.
A true adiabatic process is one in which the walls of the mechanism are well insulated to prevent heat entering or leaving the system. The inference that a column of air can do that is nonsense.
… but the theory that an idealized parcel of air can do that makes perfect sense and results in the dry adiabatic lapse rate which is actually observed in the troposphere where the T(z) changes are small enough with each layer. See any beginners text book on atmospheric thermodynamics.
Ball4,
The lapse rate is just the rate at which air temperature changes with altitude.
You can refer to a theoretical “dry adiabatic” lapse rate, but it changes not a single fact. If the calculated rate does not agree with measurement, the calculation is likely wrong.
Saying “See any beginners text book on atmospheric thermodynamics.” Is the sort of silly thing uttered by a GHE cultist who is completely clueless, but trying to sound knowledgeable.
One might as well accept the Wikipedia “Lapse rate” entry as authoritative. It contains “If radiation were the only way to transfer energy from the ground to space, the greenhouse effect of gases in the atmosphere would keep the ground at roughly 333 K (60 C; 140 F)”
Unfortunately, there is no “greenhouse effect of gases”. The author is obviously completely clueless, but people will blindly accept nonsense because it appears on Wikipedia!
As for textbooks, they vary in quality. Markedly.
To sum up, from the Earth’s core, at say 5500 K, to outer space at say 3 K, the thermal gradient decrees that the temperature decreases from hotter to colder. Don’t be surprised if the atmosphere obeys the laws of thermodynamics.
Still no GHE.
Mike Flynn,
You’re responding to B4.
That’s fine.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’m telling you, Mike –
B4 is fair game.
“B4 is fair game.”
Really?
Yep.
Uninformed Swenson doesn’t know the calculated dry adiabatic lapse rate is the rate actually observed in the convecting troposphere, as I wrote, where the T(z) changes are small enough with each atm. layer. Pity.
Swenson’s “no GHE” is still false as farmers grow produce to profitably sell in the local winter given their demonstrated use of the GHE. Another pity.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Swensons “no GHE” is still false as farmers grow produce to profitably sell in the local winter given their demonstrated use of the GHE. Another pity.”
Have you lost your marbles? What is this “GHE” of yours supposed to do? ChatGPT agrees with me that the mythical GHE does not stop the Earth cooling. Maybe you have some other fantasy?
You seem to be implying that the GHE (which you can’t describe, of course) has been supporting farmers in some obscure way for thousands of years. Or did prehistoric farmers manage without the benefit of your mysterious and indescribable GHE?
Keep babbling – no harm done.
Sure, any mythical GHE would qualify, but not an actual GHE, Swenson. Read up on how farmers grow produce to sell in the local winter to discover a description for the actual GHE. Better yet, find a greenhouse and go ask the farmer how his or her actual GHE works.
“Read up on how farmers grow produce to sell in the local winter to discover a description for the actual GHE.”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
“I never started.”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
b4…we know how a real greenhouse works, the glass blocks convection. The question we are asking is how an atmosphere with no glass can block convection.
Earth is a water planet, it’s not dry. Mars is not a water planet and has 210 ppm of H20.
yeah…but do they have any good coffee on Mars?
No. Air pressure on Mars is too low, so you can’t boil water hot enough to make a decent cup.
Englishmen have a similar problem on Everest. It is impossible to make a decent cup of tea at Base Camp.
No. Air pressure on Mars is too low, so you can’t boil water hot enough to make a decent cup of coffee.
Englishmen have a similar problem on Everest. It is impossible to make a decent cup of tea at Base Camp.
EM just didn’t bring the right coffee pot.
https://outin.com/products/nano-portable-espresso-machine-space-grey?variant=43735060873433¤cy=USD&utm_medium=product_sync&utm_source=google&utm_content=sag_organic&utm_campaign=sag_organic&df_source=Google&df_cam=20240993986&df_grp=&df_ad=&df_kw=&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiArfauBhApEiwAeoB7qHQGzv0B45KW6x5HxHRIVrBPfkfMJ0ObqPWqKytXVn4oI_va2-OzihoCUqoQAvD_BwE
How does a parcel of air, idealized or otherwise, block heat entering and leaving via convection? An adiabatic process requires insulated walls to prevent heat entering/leaving.
I looked once at how they defined the adiabatic process in the atmosphere and I think they have made a mistake by applying a concept that is not really related to an adiabatic process.
Here’s an “expert” opining on the result of his meticulous “calculations” about glass greenhouse temperature.
“It turns out that the energy-in balances the energy-out at a little over 505K, 230C, or 450F.”
Whoopee! Inexhaustible steam from the Sun! (Pardon the sarcasm).
My calculations indicate a maximum temperature from the unconcentrated rays of the Sun to be less than 100 C.
Oh well, I have to believe a physicist/mathematician, I suppose. Otherwise, I might be accused of “denying science”, and thats a serious crime, isn t it?
Still no GHE – just heat making things hotter, on occasion.
GR: Good point
Dang. When I see seasoned contrarians agreeing with me my kneejerk reaction is…”what did I go wrong.” Just now seeing this post that was my initial reaction here too. For the life of me I don’t see a problem with my statement so maybe we actually found common ground this time afterall.
Don’t worry. Bordo simply wants to use your comment to bulldoze his way into his Dalton’s Law story, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/climate-f-words/#comment-294561
Climateball as a performance art.
“Climateball as a performance art.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Somewhat relevant –
“Scientists warn that a crucial ocean current could collapse, altering global weather.”
Gee, some “scientists” now accept that convection currents are chaotic, and unpredictable.
I wonder if they think that fluid dynamics is dependent on the mythical GHE? Picking up the million dollar prize for a rigorous solution to the Navier-Stokes equations should be easy for a mathematician like the self-styled climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, or maybe the self-styled Nobel Prize recipient, Michael Mann.
Weather is always changing. “Climate scientists” imply that they can stop the weather (and hence climate) from changing.
What a pack of dreaming bumblers!
Also, it’s highly unlikely that said oceans currents, driven in part by the temperature difference between Equatorial zones and the Poles, will suddenly stop working due to an increase of a trace gas.
bdgwx,
“Bingo. And thats exactly what the law of propagation of uncertainty says. Specifically when the measurements have no correlation (r=0) the uncertainty of the average scales as 1/sqrt(N). In reality there is always some correlation (r>0) so it wont exactly scale as 1/sqrt(N) but it is lower than the uncertainty of the individual elements that went into the average.”
You didn’t read what I originally wrote. Or do you really believe you can calculate reduced variability associated with the standard deviation of the mean with systematic biases present?
Uncertainty would better be represented as σavg=∑^N(i=1)σ^2(i)+N*σ^2(s)/N^2. Unlike your equation, I am using N^2 in the denominator to reflect the fact that a present systematic bias (N*σ^2(s)) is present in the measurements (slow mercury response). Also, remember that slow mercury response will be more pronounced during winter, so it is best to scale the equation accordingly. I will add a seasonal variation factor of S in the numerator; the value will be greater than 1 during the colder season with wilder temperature swings (more pronounced effect) and equal to 1 during the warmer season with the less pronounced effect.
That changes our formula to σavg=∑^N(i=1)σ^2(i)+N*S^2*σ^2(s)/N^2.
Double typo: Unlike your equation, I am using N^2 in the denominator to reflect the fact that a systematic bias (N*σ^2(s)) is present in the measurements (slow mercury response).
walter: Or do you really believe you can calculate reduced variability associated with the standard deviation of the mean with systematic biases present?
I’m not calculating reduced variability.
I’m not using the standard deviation of the mean formula.
In the case of station measurements each has its own systematic bias so when multiple stations are aggregated that systematic bias switches context and because random.
See JCGM 100:2008 section E.3 for details.
walter: That changes our formula to σavg=∑^N(i=1)σ^2(i)+N*S^2*σ^2(s)/N^2.
Where did you get this formula?
“Where did you get this formula?”
Why do you want to know? Is it incorrect?
I’m a little curious about the basis for your assertion that “In the case of station measurements each has its own systematic bias so when multiple stations are aggregated that systematic bias switches context and because random.”
Switches context? Are you claiming that non-random bias becomes random bias for no particular reason?
I dont appear to have a copy of a GHE description with which you agree. Would you care to provide one, or do wish to keep it secret?
“Im not calculating reduced variability.
Im not using the standard deviation of the mean formula.”
Well, in this context, the Law of Large Numbers doesn’t apply, which is what you’re implying when using 1/sqrt(N).
“In the case of station measurements each has its own systematic bias so when multiple stations are aggregated that systematic bias switches context and because random.
See JCGM 100:2008 section E.3 for details.”
Swenson has a good question: Why would systematic errors switch context? If that were the case, there’d be no need for data manipulation… I mean adjustments, hehe. Where in section E.3 does it say what you are claiming?
“Where did you get this formula?”
∑^N(i=1)σ^2(i)
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Your sentence is well-constructed, but there’s a minor grammatical suggestion for clarity:
∑^N(i=1)σ^2(i) is a notation for the summation of squared uncertainties. Absent systematic biases, these are random variables. Despite the fact that they accumulate due to the large number of measurements, the mean of these squared uncertainties will approach the true underlying signal.
Ooops..
Forgot to cut out the AI passage.
I use it because my grammar isn’t very robust.
walter: Well, in this context, the Law of Large Numbers doesnt apply, which is what youre implying when using 1/sqrt(N).
It comes from the law of propagation of uncertainty; not the CTL.
walter: Why would systematic errors switch context?
Systematic errors are different for different stations forming a probability density function of values. In that manner they present as random when viewed in the context of a group.
walter: If that were the case, thered be no need for data manipulation I mean adjustments
Not necessarily. That’s a different topic though.
walter: Where in section E.3 does it say what you are claiming?
“c) it is unnecessary to classify components as random or systematic (or in any other manner) when
evaluating uncertainty because all components of uncertainty are treated in the same way. Benefit c) is highly advantageous because such categorization is frequently a source of confusion; an uncertainty component is not either random or systematic. Its nature is conditioned by the use made of the corresponding quantity, or more formally, by the context in which the quantity appears in the mathematical model that describes the measurement. Thus, when its corresponding quantity is used in a different context, a random component may become a systematic component, and vice versa.”
walter: ChatGPT
What did you ask ChatGPT?
walter: ∑^N(i=1)σ^2(i) is a notation for the summation of squared uncertainties.
This is the formula for the variance of the sum of i’s. It is not not the formula for the variance of the average of i’s. Thus why I want to know what you asked ChatGPT.
test
“Systematic errors are different for different stations forming a probability density function of values. In that manner they present as random when viewed in the context of a group.”
Really?
Are you talking about this –
“In probability theory, a probability density function (PDF), density function, or density of an absolutely continuous random variable, is a function whose value at any given sample (or point) in the sample space (the set of possible values taken by the random variable) can be interpreted as providing a relative likelihood that the value of the random variable would be equal to that sample”,
or something you just created in your imagination?
Maybe you could try and describe the GHE? How hard can it be? Feel free to make probability density functions and systematic errors part of your description.
[laughing at dim GHE cultist trying to sound wise and knowledgeable]
“s present in the measurements (slow mercury response)”
Huh? Do you have a source describing this problem, Walter?
This seems to be grasping at straws.
Nate,
When heat is applied or removed, the molecules within the liquid gain or lose energy. This process to reach a new thermal equilibrium will take time.
In colder temperatures, mercury is more viscous; as such, the process will be even slower.
Nate, please stop trolling.
ball4 descends deeper into his confusion re Clausius and the 2nd law…
“The internal energy transfer colder body to hotter body is compensated by the colder body becoming colder still when radiating into a vacuum transferring some of its thermodynamic internal energy by EMR to another warmer body. Clausius words 4th memoir p. 118:”
***
In the 4th Memoire, page 117, there is a footnote referenced by an asterisk that continues on to page 118, B4 is citing from the footnote.
Previous to the footnote, where it begins at the foot of page 117, is a statement…
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occuring at the same time*.”
The asterisk after time references the footnote at the bottom of page 117. It begins…
“[The principle may be more briefly expressed thus. Heat can never by itself pass from a colder to a warmer body; the words “by itself” (von selbst), however, requires explanation….].
Clausius claims the 4th Memoire should explain the meaning but he felt a further explanation might help.
I am not sure that it did because scientists in that era were under a major handicap. The electron had not been discovered yet and was discovered in 1898. It was another 15 years before Bohr worked out the relationship between electrons, heat, and radiation, and it still had to be worked out how electrons participated in the transfer of electric current and heat.
Clausius goes on…”in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and by radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder body than it imparts to it”.
This statement itself needs clarification in light of the discovery of the electron and Bohr’s discovery of the relationship between the electron and radiation.
It cannot be emphasized enough that scientists in the era of Clausius had no idea how radiation was emitted or its relationship to electrons in atoms. There are people on this blog today who have no idea how EM is radiated from a mass. Furthermore, no scientist in the era of Clausius had any idea how heat was conducted through a metal or any non-insulator.
It is no coincidence that materials that are good electrical conductors are also good heat conductors. Same with insulators. Poor electrical conductors are poor conductors of heat. We now know the reason, electrons are involved in both the transmission of electrical charge and the transmission of heat.
There is simply no way that Clausius or any of his peers could have known that. I find it remarkable that despite his lack of understanding of such principles that Clausius was still able to figure out the 2nd law, entropy, and contribute the internal energy portion to the 1st law. Not only that, he is the father of the kinetic theory of gases.
I respect the man immensely and it is not my business to be second guessing him on trivial matters. He had no idea how heat was moved between bodies, or within bodies, and absolutely no idea how one body could supply energy to heat a remote body.
Clausius knew about kinetic energy, which was called ‘vis viva’ in his day but he had no idea that KE in atoms is represented by electrons, and transferred by them. Had he known that, I am confident he;d have amended his theories immediately.
Unfortunately, we must discard his notions that heat moved through air as heat rays and moved through conductors both ways. We know a direct electrical current does not move through a conductors both ways so why should heat do that?
Clausius was absolutely correct, heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body.
… without compensation which Clausius identifies:
“the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation.”
Ball 4 continues to insist that if I give Ball4 $10 and Ball4 mediately gave back $5. That I profited by $5 in giving Ball4 $10.
Ah hah! I am on to your game Ball4! Sounds like communist disinformation to me.
Bill’s net worth decreased $5 which is regarded as a compensation for my $5 increase in net worth integrated over time in the process. Thanks, no disinformation by me & btw $ entropy increased in the process just like integrated over time of the real process S – So is positive for both GPE and GHE.
Thus all these processes conform to:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
It’s one reason why I don’t like using statements from Clausius (and others of his era). They aren’t wrong. It’s just that their archaic vernacular of the time confuses a lot of people. “without compensation” is a good example of this.
Since this started because Bordo denied that Rudolf’s definition of the 2nd law that referenced net energy or heat. Sometimes reading him back the text he pretends to have read to support his denial is the way to go. And this cuts through the usual “of its own accord” crap.
To reduce compensation to work is no worse than to presume that there’s something else involved between work and heat. The former at least does not break their equivalence. In fact to keep reinjecting entropy into the mix only brings back more confusion. Nobody disputes the first law, not even Mike Flynn.
In the end, none of that matters much. Our Dragon cranks will continue to act as if they were Markov chains. And if that’s not enough, the new generation is involving real ones, feeding them with more contrarian crap.
Gordon and DREMT are easily confused, and conned, since it is self-evident they obviously aren’t accomplished in the field of thermodynamics.
For me, it is all the authors down the road after Clausius where so many authors use a much different defn. of “heat” than Clausius that causes their problems. I doubt Merriam-Webster have ever conducted any experiments supporting their writing.
It’s way better to stick with Clausius written words while checking later authors against them.
As Willard sort of points out 11:13 am, if we could burn all the meteorology textbooks and begin anew, then start over always to use Clausius’ defn. of heat (which signals its true meaning) they would be better off. But the damage has been done, and we have to live with it.
If you find yourself using the term “heat” as a noun, then stop it since the term is not ever needed, use enthalpy, H.
Meanwhile, B4 can’t even get his pages right. Perhaps he could start by specifying the edition and the translation he is citing. Referring to sections would be easier as they usually don’t change between editions.
Direct quotes may also help.
The problem in letting go of the conceptual apparatus Rudolf invokes is that it is needed in his arguments. For instance, he needs to preserve symmetry in cases of reversible processes. In principle work “expended” and “produced” are interchangeable.
All this conceptual “work” (pun unintended) isn’t preserved in the equations. Looking at them won’t tell you *how* Rudolf stumbled upon his laws. For that one needs to look at how he distinguishes latent heat into interior and exterior work.
There is no real optimal path into thermo. The more the merrier. As long as everyone agrees on doing something else than constantly stalling every single freaking thread, we should all get there together.
Enter into google dot com page the string: MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
scroll down to the hit for google books free copy starting:
“This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the information in books and make it universally accessible. https://books.google.com“
Instead of providing proper bibliographical information, B4 gives a recipe that gives two pages of various editions on Google Books. One such edition has been cited above:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1629741
One way to site it that makes sure we can find it back if need be:
Clausius, 1879; trans. by Walter R. Browne; Macmillan.
To verify, select the line, right-click on it, then select “search.”
Format and other bibliographical details do not matter.
And yes – it has been digitized by Big G.
Also, Barry cited: Clausius, 1867; transl. by John Tyndall; published by John Van Hoorst. Here is the link again:
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor04claugoog/page/n65/mode/2up
Isn’t Roy’s supposed to be some kind of scientific book club?
This is clear enough:
"Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system"
Only at this blog would you find people trying to say it’s "wrong". Well, mostly Ball4, who is trying to pretend that this is correct, instead:
"The internal energy transfer colder body to hotter body is compensated by the colder body becoming colder still when radiating into a vacuum transferring some of its thermodynamic internal energy by EMR to another warmer body"
If the colder body becomes colder still whilst the warmer body becomes warmer still, as a result of a transfer of energy, then that transfer of energy is actually a transfer of heat, from cold to hot. That won’t happen without external work being performed on the system.
EMR is NOT heat, DREMT.
And Clausius did not write that statement 1:42 pm, so DREMT has been conned. All that is needed to conform to 2LOT is Clausius’ formula for S – So being positive in any real process as it is in the GPE and the actual GHE which conform to Clausius’ 2LOT:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
Clausius did write consistent with his 2LOT clarifying compensation:
“the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation.”
"EMR is NOT heat, DREMT…"
Agreed…and I still stick by every word of my last comment, with no self-contradiction, inconsistency or problem.
Clausius would correct the writer of that first 1:42 pm statement in quotes same way Clausius corrected Carnot, 6th memoir, p.270 in my edition:
“… Carnot to be consistent could not but conclude that, in order to transfer heat from a colder to a warmer body, work must be expended. Although we must now abandon the argument which led to this result …”
… “the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation.”
When an appeal to authority is made, one must first verify the authority.
I’m not appealing to authority. I’m simply stating what is widely understood by the Clausius statement of 2LoT.
Clausius did not write that statement you are sticking with, Clausius corrected Carnot for writing it. It’s ok around here to stick with a mistake, DREMT, many do it all the time though some screennames were banned for a time in doing so. Since EMR is NOT heat in a vacuum:
“EMR can spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system”
to be consistent with Clausius’:
… “the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation.”
"EMR can spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system…"
…but not with the result that the cold body becomes colder still and the warm body becomes warmer still, as you suggested in the comment I quoted from you at 1:42 PM.
Does anyone know if Graham D. Warner intended that to be a response to my comment? If so…in what way is it a response to my comment?
I was responding to Ball4, Little Willy. It’s OK, you can shut up and f*ck off now.
No DREMT 2:29 pm, the warmer body MUST become warmer still when absorbing EMR to comply with formula for S So being positive which is what Clausius’ 2LOT requires & Dr. Spencer proved experimentally using our atm. in his own backyard:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
So Graham D. Warner simply tries to peddle his daily schtick in another subthread.
The funny thing is, nothing I’ve said on this sub-thread is wrong or even remotely controversial.
> There’s nothing
That denial clause again.
Let’s refute it:
[GRAHAM] Im not appealing to authority.
[ALSO GRAHAM] Ill go with the physics professor
Fish, meet barrel.
Little Willy quotes something from a different sub-thread.
wee willy does not understand the difference between appealing to authority and agreeing with someone.
Graham D. Warner is holding to a very local consistency, and Bordo denies that “physics professor” is a mark of authority on thermodynamics.
Appealing to an authority is perfectly fine. Sky Dragon cranks do it all the time, like everybody else. They just want to have their cake and eat it on every single little point, be it merely for rhetorical flourish.
Just a bunch of slimy and boastful sophists.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Little Willy, the quote for the Clausius statement of 2LoT on this sub-thread was not even the one from the physics professor, it was the one from Wikipedia. I did indeed defer to the authority of the physics professor on that other sub-thread, only insofar as he ought to be perfectly capable of interpreting Clausius and also be far more reliable than Ball4, but I was not deferring to authority on this sub-thread at all.
DREMT 5:02 pm now writes preferring to quote an unknown authority on wiki rather than a known Prof. somewhere else who both claim something about entropy that Clausius already wrote is necessary to shoot down in Carnot’s work.
Graham D. Warner still insists that only the first time he said he was going with the “physics professor” was he appealing to an authority. So he transports a fight he had earlier, but wishes away what he did over there.
The despicable jackass.
Ball4, it is simply not controversial that the Clausius statement of 2LoT can be summarised as:
"Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system"
I don’t know why you have to endlessly be such a jerk about everything.
“The despicable jackass.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
5:16pm: As I already informed DREMT, that is not Clausius statement & Clausius explained why it is not. DREMT has simply been conned after not bothering to look up Clausius actual written words.
Clausius 2LOT written statement:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
Mike Flynn,
In the original story, Gill’s $5 hole indeed compensates for B4’s $5 gain. Gill knows how credit and debit work. He just likes to play dumb.
None of that is relevant to the fact that Rudolf indeed considers that it’s the net exchange that matters.
Cheers.
Only Ball4 knows what Clausius really meant. Just like Ball4’s interpretation of what Tesla really thought on the moon issue. According to Ball4, Tesla was actually a “Spinner”.
Only those who really read Clausius can know what he is saying. Those who wish to deflect from questions about what Clausius said have no say on the matter.
Yes Willard 6:18 pm, and only those that actually read & quote Tesla’s writings know Tesla proved our moon spins inertially on its own axis with a conservation of momentum analysis. Tesla, observing from the accelerated frame of Earth, also noted there is no observed lunar spin on its own axis from his location.
There is really no need to fall for Graham’s baits, B4.
If this one starts because of you, you’re on your own.
Wiltard,
The philosophy of Pride, Anger, Envy and Sloth.
Right here, Troglodyte:
https://bsky.app/profile/sethcotlar.bsky.social/post/3kmdf4cqwq52s
“He was joined by white nationalist . . . ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’ve read all the quotes that have been provided over the years and all the discussion on the matter, and have taken a look through some of the links to the original source at various points. In other words, I have as much right to a say as anyone else. Ball4 is a notorious misinterpreter of what he cites and anything he says on any subject should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. It’s not controversial that the Clausius statement on 2LoT is as I quoted, and all the ongoing over-analysis of his every word, as though it were some sacred religious text, is comical.
Graham D. Warner goes for pearl clutching while throwing an ad hominem at the same time, oblivious to the fact that a personal attack is related to an appeal to authority. (It’s the inverse.) Anyway, B4 is still not exactly wrong about what Rudolf says on Carnot:
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor04claugoog/page/n287/mode/2up
When seeing that heat is not a “thing” but “motion” there’s no problem seeing that it’s the overall result of all the motions involved that counts. It is clear that the “von selbst” clause applies to systems upon which no work is being done whatsoever. While we may consider that the atmosphere provides some isolation, the Earth is simply not an isolated system!
***
In a dog fight over Rudolf’s words, I’ll take Rudolf’s own words any time of the day. His discussion of the “radiation of heat” in the following paragraphs is even more interesting.
One thing at a time. Bordo was indeed wrong on two counts. Rudolf indeed considers isolated systems; Rudolf indeed considers heat exchanges on net.
Willard says:
”Graham D. Warner goes for pearl clutching while throwing an ad hominem at the same time, oblivious to the fact that a personal attack is related to an appeal to authority.”
Its amazing how folks project their own shortcomings onto others than express their disdain. One has to wonder how Willard is able to sleep at night soundly. The dreams must be a real bitch.
There’s nothing amazing in Gill refusing to see that Graham D. Warner constantly whines when things gets personal right after he himself personalizes issues. No, not right after, often in the same breath.
That Graham D. Warner complains that we should stick with the usual motto and stop caring about Rudolf’s words, perhaps he should do it in a thread where Rudolf’s words are not in dispute. In fact perhaps he should stay away from it. But we all know that he’ll try to start a food fight. A food fight that now serves as an excuse for Gill to ignore Rudolf’s words.
Will he succeed?
My money is on the fact that he won’t.
Endlessly quote Clausius all you want. I am right, and Ball4 is wrong, about this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1632951
Graham D. Warner is not the toastmaster of a thread that starts with Bordo saying “descends deeper into his confusion re Clausius and the 2nd law” and “In the 4th Memoire, page 117” and “Clausius claims the 4th Memoire.”
He can always start a new thread if he wishes to invite people to go play with him.
Dr. Spencer has already experimentally shown for the circumstances the cold body becomes colder still and the warm body becomes warmer still so we know DREMT is wrong & Clausius correct.
There is no hope for DREMT to ever be correct when DREMT quotes a “theory” that violates 2LOT:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
Little Willy seems a bit naive when it comes to Ball4. All Ball4 cares about is making his ridiculous statements, to deliberately stir up trouble. He just provided a good example of that. Gordon was right to call him out on it.
Graham D. Warner seems to mind probe again:
Will he succeed in pulling me in and prevent me from quoting where Clausius clearly refutes Sky Dragon cranks?
Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system. To suggest otherwise is not to refute "sky dragon cranks", it’s to deny a thermodynamic law. Up to you.
Yet it did in Dr. Spencer’s experiment!
Clausius is correct to experiments in his day; DREMT is shown wrong experimentally ever since Clausius wrote long ago (as I earlier made DREMT aware) no “external work” is required just compensation:
“the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation.”
Ball4 has no qualms about denying a thermodynamic law, and even tries to drag Dr Spencer’s name into the mud with him!
No, DREMT just writes incorrectly having been conned by other authors. Here, as demonstrated by Dr. Spencer experimentally & per Clausius memoirs:
Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without compensation in the system.
which is consistent with:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
Cold bodies do not, by their emitted radiation and at their own expense, warm warmer bodies, without external work being performed on the system. There’s not even any question that I’m correct on this point. This is why debating at this blog is so absurd at times. Where are all the people who should be rushing in to correct Ball4, from his own side of the debate? They just sit there and watch as he continues to drag Dr Spencer’s name into the mud.
Could be some understand experiments and can read Clausius unlike DREMT who was conned by other authors & doesn’t understand Dr. Spencer’s experiments did not have “external work being performed on the system” and which, due to having required compensation, were consistent with:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
Describe the experiment, say what the results were, and say exactly what the supposed "compensation" was. Otherwise, PST.
Graham D. Warner has no qualms coming in a thread in which Bordo tries to support the Sky Dragon cranks’ contention by chopping a quote that directly refutes it:
[WHAT BORDO READS] The principle may be more briefly expressed thus. Heat can never by itself pass from a colder to a warmer body; the words “by itself” (von selbst), however, requires explanation […]
[WHAT RUDOLF ACTUALLY SAID] In the first place, the principle implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.
Yes, Virginia. Rudolf says that his principle applies to the net exchange.
Little Willy, what exactly do you believe is "the Sky Dragon cranks’ contention"?
DREMT, or anyone, can answer DREMT’s 2:05 pm questions simply by dropping the word “experiment” into this site’s search box & reading about the relevant experiments. Dr. Spencer fully disclosed them for replication minded readers.
Is Graham D. Warner finally confessing that he has not read Bordo’s monologues on what Rudolf did or did not say?
The whole paragraph that sinks the Sky Dragon cranks’ boat is worth quoting again, to plug the two parts already quoted:
A warmer body thus can receive more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it. And this applies to all processes, not just those involving a closed system.
So beautiful. So true.
Ball4 handwaves to a whole list of experiments, refusing to assist in any way, with anything. It’s OK, though, since none of Dr Spencer’s experiments have resulted in any need for the Wikipedia article on the Clausius statement of 2LoT to be changed, or the hyperphysics article. They remain as I quoted, and likely considered by just about all who read them to be correct.
Little Willy apparently believes heat is transferred both ways between hot and cold bodies, and that a cold body can impart more heat to a hot body than the hot body to the cold body, oblivious to the fact that nobody else from his team thinks either of those things are the case.
Poor DREMT 3:21 pm chooses to continue to be conned as anyone that reads even the title of the first hit can see. It’s ok to continue on being mistaken around here, many commenters choose that path.
Anyone accomplished in thermodynamics can read even the first hit, find it did not have “external work being performed on the system”, understand Clausius was correct to experiment, and DREMT has been conned since the experiments prove this is consistent with 2LOT:
Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without compensation in the system.
Graham still evades the fact that what Rudolf says contradicts what Bordo wished to suggest.
Could it be because Sky Dragon cranks have difficulties accepting that a warmer body can indeed receive heat from a colder one, as long as it never receives more heat than it imparts to it?
Whatever the case, if everybody could agree that this is what Rudolf indeed says, that’d be great.
Ball4, the first experiment you refer to is titled "Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still"…but, not at the expense of the cool object. I’m sure Dr Spencer is not suggesting that when a cool object radiates to a hot object, the cool object gets cooler whilst the hot object gets hotter, without external work being performed on the system. Which is what you’ve stated.
Little Willy queries: "Could it be because Sky Dragon cranks have difficulties accepting that a warmer body can indeed receive heat from a colder one, as long as it never receives more heat than it imparts to it?"
Those on your own team do not accept it, Little Willy. A warm body does not receive heat from a colder one, unless external work is being performed on the system.
DREMT 4:08 pm, that experiment shows “a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still”.
which is what I earlier wrote and you denied. You were wrong & Clausius was right.
The cool object is the cirrus clouds (of water ice) that came into view of the warmer surface water overnight & with the icy radiation absorbed making that surface water record a higher temperature than the water not in view (zero view factor) of the icy cirrus. This was not a fluke as Dr. Spencer showed confirming calculations.
Hey, what do you know – there is an experiment showing added ice can boil water!
If only someone could link to Roy’s experiment.
When will our two bozos get out of their dumb phones and use a proper interface to copy-paste links?
For a small donation to Clowns Without Frontier, I would gladly provide that service…
This site rejects links so often I just gave up posting them awhile ago. The search box exists for a reason. Willard has found Clausius memoirs, fine work.
C’mon, B4. You can’t even cite your own stuff properly.
Here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
Thank you. Enjoy.
Ball4 has seemingly ignored my refutation of his point. That’s OK, I’ll just repeat it:
The first experiment you refer to is titled "Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still"…but, not at the expense of the cool object. I’m sure Dr Spencer is not suggesting that when a cool object radiates to a hot object, the cool object gets cooler whilst the hot object gets hotter, without external work being performed on the system. Which is what you’ve stated.
The assurance of Graham D. Warner is reassuring.
How is his denial a point that needs refutation, again?
Ball4 said that a cold body radiating to a warm body would get colder still, as the warm body got warmer still, without external work being performed on the system. That is the position he’s been defending. One of the ways he did so was to mention this experiment by Dr Spencer, as if it supported him. Astute readers will note that the experiment linked to does not show the colder body getting colder still. They will also note that it’s not an experiment involving "cirrus clouds". Ball4 apparently got confused by which experiment he was referring to in the first place!
> not at the expense of the cool object
1. Pure denial.
***
> I am sure Roy is not
1. Pure denial
Ah, I thought you could read. My mistake.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
Never have, never will. If you can’t understand why Dr Spencer’s experiment doesn’t support what Ball4 was saying, there’s no point me trying to explain it to you further – you won’t listen, and aren’t really interested in trying to understand anyway. It’s OK, you can just hurl more false accusations around, if you want.
> If you cant understand why
There it is: 2. The Sammich Request.
There was me thinking a "sammich request" would be me asking you for something…I can assure you I don’t want anything from you, apart from maybe that you PST.
Graham D. Warner plays dumb once more.
Every single appeal to pride conceals a sammich request. How could I escape the false accusation, if not by showing that he misrepresents Roy? That would compel me to do what he feigns not being is own responsibility.
So let’s apply Graham’s logic. That he misrepresents Roy is not my problem. If he is unable to understand what Roy has showed, then &c.
Let’s make it simple, then. I’ll stop commenting for 60 days if you can show that in Dr Spencer’s experiment he records the cooler object getting cooler still.
I’m not misrepresenting Dr Spencer. I know he thinks that "sky dragon cranks" are wrong and I know that his experiment was intended to help make that case. However, this discussion isn’t even about the GHE. It’s about 2LoT. It’s about Ball4 trying to distort what 2LoT even is, and it’s about you seemingly enabling him (despite the fact that half the time you can’t seem to stand the guy).
The Clausius statement of 2LoT really is as the hyperphysics link and Wikipedia suggest. There’s no secret "sky dragon crank" agenda operating at either site.
Let’s make it even simpler:
(B4) “the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation.”
(GILL) Ball 4 continues to insist that if I give Ball4 $10 and Ball4 mediately gave back $5. That I profited by $5 in giving Ball4 $10.
(B4) Bills net worth decreased $5 which is regarded as a compensation for my $5 increase in net worth integrated over time in the process.
(BDGWX) Its one reason why I dont like using statements from Clausius (and others of his era). They arent wrong. Its just that their archaic vernacular of the time confuses a lot of people. without compensation is a good example of this.
(ME) Since this started because Bordo denied that Rudolfs definition of the 2nd law that referenced net energy or heat. Sometimes reading him back the text he pretends to have read to support his denial is the way to go. And this cuts through the usual of its own accord crap.
(B4) Bordo and Graham are easily confused
(ME) Meanwhile, B4 cant even get his pages right.
(B4) Enter into google dot com page the string: MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
(ME) Instead of providing proper bibliographical information, B4 gives a recipe that gives two pages of various editions on Google Books.
(GRAHAM) AHA! B4 mentioned me. Now I owned the thread. Look at me! Look at me! Look at –
DREMT is correct here.
upside down experiments can work because they restrict convection. Roy stated that’s why he designed it that way.
For a radiant barrier to act as a thermal barrier that barrier must restrict convection from a warm to cold.
I don’t want attention, Little Willy. I get attention. I’d rather not have the same obsessive people responding to me every time I post anywhere in the comments, but that’s what happens. Ball4 called me out, so in return I thought I’m going to call him out for his continued distortion on 2LoT. He’s trying to mislead people.
Gordon started this thread with "ball4 descends deeper into his confusion re Clausius and the 2nd law…", and I agree with that (though, I would go further and say it is deliberate deception). So I have every right to comment. Just because that took the thread in a different direction than the one you wanted means you’re now throwing your toys out of the pram again. Then you accuse me of acting like "toastmaster"!
DREMT 2:21 am: No ignore DREMT. You haven’t completely read & understood the experiment. You have it wrong.
“Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still” but, at the expense of the cool object – the added cirrus clouds adding the radiation absorbed in the surface water.
Dr Spencer’s experiment shows that when a cool object (cirrus clouds) radiates to a hot object (surface water in view), the cool object gets cooler whilst the hot object gets hotter in the experiment than the water not in view of the clouds (zero view factor), without external work being performed on the system. Dr. Spencer obviously applied NO external work.
The Clausius’ 2LOT compensation for the warmer surface water over the non irradiated control water is the cooling of the cirrus clouds by emitting the radiation absorbed in the water spo the process in the experiment is consistent with:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
This experimental agreement with Clausius’ writing could be too complex for DREMT to understand since DREMT is so easily conned.
Ball4…the experiment doesn’t even involve "cirrus clouds".
Once again, Gill is wrong and irrelevant.
Had he ever really worked in his life, he’d know that his tax evasion schemes don’t need to do much work for his clients to get more money with them.
Bill says I’m correct, which triggers Little Willy again. He can’t stand it when I’m right.
yep, triggered him into a babbling incoherently. interesting spectacle. he must be heavily invested.
Gill rubberstamps Graham D. Warner, therefore Graham D. Warner is right. Cranks check kiting one another is exactly what the world needs.
Not sure why he’s so heavily invested, Bill. I think it’s just anything that’s the opposite of the position I take, he gets invested in. He doesn’t particularly like Ball4 either, so it must have been a bit of a quandary for him. Eventually his intense, unreasonable and inexplicable hatred for me won out, so he chose to back Ball4. Unfortunately for him, it’s turned out that Ball4 has gone completely doolally.
Let’s make it even simpler:
BORDO. B4. GILL. B4. BDGWX. ME. B4. ME. B4. ME. GRAHAM…followed by GRAHAM AND B4 repeating the same comment for two days until:
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Not sure why he’s so heavily invested
Bordo’s comment is about what Rudolf said, not about whatever Graham decided it was about.
Gordon started the thread by saying:
"ball4 descends deeper into his confusion re Clausius and the 2nd law…
“The internal energy transfer colder body to hotter body is compensated by the colder body becoming colder still when radiating into a vacuum transferring some of its thermodynamic internal energy by EMR to another warmer body. Clausius words 4th memoir p. 118:”
The quote from Ball4 is the same one I took issue with on this thread. So…my intervention in this thread is entirely in line with Gordon’s original post.
Thanks anyway, toastmaster.
Graham D. Warner seems to have forgotten Bordo’s own commentary, which starts thus:
He will just deny the most obvious points to get his way.
And then he wonders why he always ends up all “worked” up.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Not sure why hes so heavily invested, Bill.”
Could be anything. Maybe its emotional like Chicken Little, maybe he is a Chinese disinformation bot. . .who knows?
Yeah, it’s a mystery, Bill. In any case, another thread has come to its conclusion, but no doubt he’ll continue commenting anyway.
Once again, as a long discussion nears its close, Gill rears his exceptionally ugly head and roars God knows what…pathologically incapable of just staying out of my comments.
See what I mean?
Also, it’s creepy how Little Willy is always paying attention to every discussion I’m involved in…
Graham D. Warner just can’t accept that everyone can see that he’s trying to deflect away from discussing what Rudolf really said and that he jumped in a subthread that was closing. Only to shield Bordo and to get back at B4.
And now he is into a little Statler & Waldorf with Gill, who’s always ready for that kind of theatrics.
Graham D. Warner just won’t shut up.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”See what I mean?
Also, its creepy how Little Willy is always paying attention to every discussion Im involved in”
Yeah and he has risen to stage one ”black shirt”psychotic behavior of stalking and doxing.
As a Canuck who grew up in a desert, Gill is smelling blood:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6I_dKUYyI4
Ah, yes…the mysterious, ancient and sacred text of Clausius…never read by any other person before now…only at this blog will we truly uncover its secrets.
There is nothing mysterious or sacred about Clausius’ major writing DREMT, it is all backed by disclosed experiment in his day and up to present. There are no secrets in it to discover at this blog either.
It is helpful to actually read & understand by those that have accomplished the required pre-req.s. That is why parts of his collection of memoirs has been quoted verbatim around here.
"Whoosh!", went the point.
The point is read & learn from Clausius not wiki or any other webpage.
A series of experiments by Dr. Spencer are helpful too. The one with cirrus clouds doing the surface water temperature increase over the control water “Can Infrared Radiation Warm a Water Body? Part II” can be found by scrolling down after entering in the search box string: part ii
"The point is read & learn from Clausius not wiki or any other webpage"
As many have done, over many years. The result of that combined reading and learning from multiple people with far better ability to accomplish the required pre-reqs than Ball4 has then been summarised into what’s now known as the "Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics", which can be readily accessed through such websites as Wikipedia or hyperphysics, and is not in question by anyone worth listening to.
Amen!
Instead of playing Me Too, perhaps Gill could opine on this:
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/17/7/4500
DREMT 5:01 pm fails to point out the websites and wiki entries DREMT commented on don’t quote Clausius words! DREMT has been conned.
They actually do, B4, e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Clausius_statement
Enough.
Ball4 is too much of a "t-word" even for Little Willy, one of the worst "t-words" we’ve ever had, to tolerate.
Graham D. Warner remains oblivious to the fact that he jumped in the subthread when I was fighting to get a citation out of B4. Were he less of an asshat he’d have quoted Rudolf’s statement in the Wiki page himself instead of going for his usual ad nauseam. And if he had an ounce of honesty he’d have underlined that his pet resource sinks the Sky Dragon cranks’ boat:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c1
So either he’s too ignorant to realize that B4’s point can’t simply be countered by repeating “without work” over and over again or – no, there’s really no alternative at this point.
That quote doesn’t sink anyone’s boat Little Willy.
Ball4’s point, if you’d paid attention, was that a cold object radiating to a warm object would get colder still, whilst the warm object would get warmer still, and no, that doesn’t happen without external work being performed on the system.
More gaslighting by Graham D. Warner.
It sinks the boat of any Sky Dragon crank who claim that the greenhouse effect breaks thermo.
Perhaps Graham could tell us which crank ever did that?
Willard 12:06 am, fun fact DREMT’s 10:40 am link: “It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.”
DREMT 7:26 pm wiki: “Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example.”
Enough. DREMT has been conned.
And what’s more, DREMT refuses to use Clausius actual words DREMT has been provided. So DREMT remains conned.
If DREMT did use Clausius p. 86, & with Dr. Spencer’s experimental evidence, then DREMT would understand that a cold object radiating to a warm object would get colder still, whilst the warm object would get warmer still, without external work being performed on the system is in accord with 2LOT because “some other change” is occurring at the same time in each case since for all real processes:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
Little Willy gaslights again.
Graham D. Warner has no response when B4 does the same thing he does.
I wonder why.
Got bored. Ball4 is obviously wrong.
Graham D. Warner gets bored when B4 does the same as he does. Fascinating.
What should our two sperglords learn from the experience?
Well, Ball4 is one of the more repetitive trolls. It takes a lot of work to deal with him.
And according to Rudolf, work equals heat, and vis viva.
Sorry, I mean vice versa.
No heat, no work. No work, no heat.
A lot of work to deal with him…and even more work to deal with Little Willy.
Meanwhile, Team Science moves on:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2002RG000113
OK, Little Willy.
Good to see Willard 1:58 pm reading up on entropy production in an Earth system 2003 review paper. Next, he might put up a link to Verkley 2004: “On Maximum Entropy Profiles” which built on the work in Dr. Bohren’s 1998 Atm. Thermodynamics text.
It was just Little Willy doing his "random link" thing, I wouldn’t read too much into it, Ball4.
B4 asks for a silly sammich while Graham D. Warner can’t take the L.
These two are made for one another.
Having won yet another argie (pronounced with a hard "g" sound), I simply levitate into an ecstatic state of bliss.
Boredom is bliss.
If you say so, Little Willy.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1631694
Dinosaures extinction events happened because of the CO2 levels lowering in the Earth’s atmosphere. The less CO2 in atmosphere, the less food for plants – photosynthesis, the less food for gigantic animals – dinosaures.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
There is no place on Earth’s surface in our era for dinosaures to live in the wild, because there is not the necessary abundance of plants for dinosaures to eat.
There should be enough CO2 in atmosphere for plants to flourish.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
But, we have dinosaurs running the Canadian and US governments. Perhaps you have a few running the Greek government as well as other European governments.
Test
bdgwx,
I’m trying to respond to you upthread. Hopefully, Dr. Spencer sees the email I sent him.
“sees the email I sent him.”
And follows the instructions so the duplicates don’t clog up the thread.
The blogs content filters are likely the culprit. One of the most common filters is a D followed by a C. Use d.c with the period between them. There is another character combination that is problematic as well, but I can’t remember what it was.
I thought about that kind of problem. I put my response in a Google Drive link, but it still didn’t get through the filter. I tried making a new post, but that didn’t work either.
When you start to trigger spam, stop for a while, otherwise your comments get identified as spam.
walter…as bdg pointed out, Roy has certain letter sequences banned. The d.c ban is accompanied by a p.t ban and an r.p ban that shows up occasionally.
If I am having trouble posting I use a search engine to search my post for those letter combinations (without the dot).
More recently, after the posts deteriorated into bedlam, Roy imposed further bans on words like stoopid, ijit, fuhl, trohl, etc. Figure out the words from my misspelling of them. I have included those words in my search engine.
Occasionally, for whatever reason, none of those apply and my post still won’t go through. I then resort to the free Tor browser, which can get posts through somehow when all else fails.
Sometimes posting the same post via Tor gets a ‘duplicate posting’ error. That leads me to think the problem is with WordPress. Even with Tor, if I post once and the post does not go through, and I repeat the post, I get a duplicate error. So, I add a new header word to change the post slightly and, voila, it goes through.
Sometimes, nothing seems to work and I post in sections till I narrow down the posted section to the one with the error. Then I sometimes have to go through it word for word. I find that rewriting the offending part will get it to post.
Frustratingly, sometimes there does not seem to be an error. I think sometimes someone on Roy’s site or the WordPress site, may be working on the system. In that case, waiting a bit should get the post through.
As I said, it is likely WordPress causing much of the havoc, hence beyond Roy’s control.
Thanks Gordon. I’ll try using Tor.
ball4…”If you find yourself using the term heat as a noun, then stop it since the term is not ever needed, use enthalpy, H”.
***
Enthalpy is the total heat in a body. Entropy is the amount of heat used up and not available to do work. Gibbs put them together to get the free heat, G, available in a body as…
G = H – T.S
Since heat is thermal energy, anyone taking B4’s advice to stop using it would have to be a blithering ijit.
Wrong Gordon. You don’t understand the thermodynamic definition of “heat”. “Heat” is the transfer of thermal energy from “hot” to “cold”. A body does NOT contain “heat”. You’re using the “kitchen” definition of “heat” because you’ve never studied thermodynamics.
I predict you will STILL not understand. Prove me wrong.
Clint R 4:22 pm claims: “A body does NOT contain “heat”.”
Then in the same comment Clint R claims: “Heat” is the transfer of thermal energy from “hot” to “cold”.”
That’s really laughable, Clint having been conned again claiming something not in a body can then somehow transfer OUT of that body to start being not contained in another body. Great entertainment & laughable physics.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
bdgwx whines:
There is nothing confusing about “without compensation” for those that understand thermodynamics. The problem is the cult does NOT understand thermodynamics. Just upthread we see DREMT trying to explain the basics to Ball4 and silly willy. DREMT has much more patience than me….
“Without compensation” simply means it doesn’t happen by itself. “It” being “a cold object warming a hot object”. “It” doesn’t happen in nature.
Thermodynamics and radiative physics are two fields of science that completely debunk the GHE nonsense. That may be one of the reasons the cult avoids understanding. Being brain-dead may be another….
> Just upthread we see DREMT trying to explain the basics to Ball4 and silly willy.
Puffman might be a lying dog, but he’s our lying dog.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Clint R
Here is your chance to prove you are not a cultist.
YOU: “Thermodynamics and radiative physics are two fields of science that completely debunk the GHE nonsense”
Okay so what evidence or proof from actual physics or thermodynamics debunks the GHE? Will you at least try to find some evidence for your bold unsupported opinions or will you stay a cultist forever?
A cultist is one who makes declarations with no evidence.
What science text or article makes the claim that GHE is debunked. Show the posters on this blog, it would be out of your character.
There is no science text that claims IR from a cold source will just bounce off a hotter one. The actual science would determine the ability of the hot surface to absorb the IR from the colder one (would be in the emissivity of the surface). If the emissivity of the surface is high in the IR band than it will absorb the IR energy from the colder source. Show this to be wrong with real science and not your opinion. It is a great challenge for you. You have not done so in thousands of posts so now you can start.
Easy, Norman.
1. CO2 15μ photons cannot warm a 288K surface.
2. CO2 15μ photons do NOT add to solar photons.
Your turn:
Where is Earth’s “REAL 255K surface”?
What planet or moon has a “square orbit”?
Clint R
Those are your opinions that you have stated multiple times. You have not provided any science evidence for either of them. I can post opinions endlessly as well as you do. Now provide evidence for both your statements.
I disagree with you and I will give you.
1) Your point would mean a 288 K surface cannot absorb 15 micron photons. What evidence do you provide to support you claims.
2) What evidence do you provide that shows 15 micron photons do not add to solar photons? Or even what do you mean “add” You need to explain your terminology. I do not think any on this blog believe a 15 micron photon will join with a 0.5 micron visible photon to come up with a higher energy photon. The energy of each can add to a surface that can absorb them, however. If you mean the energy can’t add then I would like to see your evidence of this. You have not provided any at this time.
I would not know any planet that has a “square orbit”. Not sure why you continue to bring that one up. You are the one who came up with that point so maybe you think there are square orbits. Not sure why you are stuck on that point, something you made up.
Wrong Norman, those are not just opinions, those are FACTS. They are FACTS that debunk your cult’s GHE nonsense. You don’t understand the simple FACTS because you’ve never studied thermodynamics or radiative physics.
So, since you can’t understand, you start your usual rambling. Let’s see if you can stay with just one topic.
1. CO2 15μ photons cannot warm a 288K surface.
From Wien’s Displacement Law, we know that the CO2 photon has a much lower frequency than the average frequency of the 288K surface. So, it is not likely it will be absorbed — possible, but not likely. If if is absorbed, it does NOT increase the average frequency of the object. To increase the temperature of the object, the average frequency must be increased.
Short and sweet — CO2 15μ photons cannot warm a 288K surface.
Clint’s 1. was shown to be wrong couple months ago by several different commenters. Clint resurrecting it here is useless & there is no hope for it to be correct since it violates Clausius’ 2LOT:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
Has Clint R got anything new or just more laughable physics?
“Clints 1. was shown to be wrong couple months ago by several different commenters.”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Clint R
Sorry but you are only giving your opinion. Experiments have already proven your opinion is not correct and no science text will make the claim you do.
Roy himself did an experiment to prove your point wrong. So I will conclude you are only stating an opinion and belief. You can call them facts if you need to, but experimental evidence is against those beliefs.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
Norman, you can’t stay on topic. You have to twist, distort, and pervert issues to support your cult beliefs. The topic being discussed is:
1. CO2 15μ photons cannot warm a 288K surface.
You’re trying to hide behind Spencer, like Ball4 does. That experiment is basically the same as a closed car in Sun. It has NOTHING to do with the topic. What is being reflected is the high energy photons! Here’s an explanation:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1632268
Stay on topic.
“That experiment is basically the same as a closed car in Sun.”
Clint R doesn’t even know Dr. Spencers relevant experiment was during nighttime in Alabama. Best laugh today, thx Clint.
Has Clint R got anything new or just more laughable physics?
Lets be clear here. The GHE can warm the surface if and when the sky is warmer than the surface. But the unfortunate part about that is that still the surface can get colder than the sky so it would be classified as an extremely inefficient heater. . .so despite completely surrounding the surface it still can’t constrain the surface from getting colder than the sky. Bring in the big dogs, clouds and then generally the surface doesn’t get cooler than the sky. But for some reason clouds aren’t included in what warms the surface. Strange rather twisted up logic that hardly gets to the heart of the matter.
“But for some reason clouds aren’t included in what warms the surface.”
No Bill. Dr. Spencer’s overnight experiment showed added cirrus clouds at night resulted in higher temperature surface water over nearby water not exposed to the added radiation. So, meteorologists do include clouds, Bill.
Meteorologists have gotten to the heart of the matter but not yet Bill.
Ball4, the off-topic experiment Norman linked to was indoor using spotlights emitting high energy photons. Stay on topic.
Bill let’s be clear here, the topic is:
1. CO2 15μ photons cannot warm a 288K surface.
It is NOT about the “sky”, “big dogs”, or clouds.
BH: Lets be clear here. The GHE can warm the surface if and when the sky is warmer than the surface.
No. That’s not how thermal barriers work. Thermal barriers work by altering the egress side of the energy balance and not the ingress side. For example, the door to my kitchen oven will cause the inside to warm further when closed even despite it being colder than the inside. The reason is not because it is causing more energy to enter the inside, but because it is causing less energy to exit it. In a not so dissimilar way GHGs cause the surface to warm not by increasing the amount of energy entering the surface, but by decreasing the amount of energy exiting it.
Yes 10:22 am, Clint R drifted off topic to cars in sunshine and had to retreat. Typical for uninformed Clint.
Let’s be clear here, the topic is:
1. CO2 15μ photons cannot warm a 288K surface.
when not reflected nor transmitted, which is clearly wrong as shown 2 months ago. There is no hope for Clint to be correct as it violates Clausius 2LOT because formula for S – So is not positive in the process since we know:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
Actually bdgwx’s “oven door” is a good analogy for the HTE — The HTE causes the surface to warm not by increasing the amount of energy entering the surface, but by decreasing the amount of energy exiting it.
The HTE works, but the bogus GHE nonsense doesn’t work because CO2 15μ photons cannot warm a 288K surface.
… when scattered or transmitted.
bdgwx says:
”No. Thats not how thermal barriers work. Thermal barriers work by altering the egress side of the energy balance and not the ingress side. For example, the door to my kitchen oven will cause the inside to warm further when closed even despite it being colder than the inside. The reason is not because it is causing more energy to enter the inside, but because it is causing less energy to exit it. In a not so dissimilar way GHGs cause the surface to warm not by increasing the amount of energy entering the surface, but by decreasing the amount of energy exiting it.”
—————————————-
You are talking about insulation bdgwx and for insulation to work you must control both radiation and convection. So a thermal barrier without that has never been established.
Thermal barriers that don’t control convection do work but only work because convection only moves in one direction so there are positions where reflective barriers are effective insulation, namely to control the passage of downwelling heat.
BH, The mode of transmission is irrelevant. A barrier that impedes the flow of energy out of a system also receiving a flow of energy into it will necessarily cause the system to warm even when the barrier is colder than the system. That is true regardless of whether the egress of energy out of system is via convection, conduction, radiation, or combination. And just because there are different materials that target different modes of transmission and in varying amounts in no way invalidates this fundamental truth.
bdgwx, I can’t make heads or tails of what you are saying.
Can you diagram with quantities a model of what you are trying to say.
Keep in mind in a liquid system all heat moves by convection. Radiant resistance is infinite. Yet heat travels through water by convection at 10 times the rate as through the air. And convection through the air is about 3 to 4 times the rate of radiation in our current atmosphere and almost all of it at some point is, both convection and radiation. moving via water.
In the atmosphere a sheet of glass adopts a temperature half way between the warm surfaces and the cold ones outdoors. Its half way because of 2 means of energy transfer as the window only needs to be half the difference because of 2 means of transfer.
If you put a glass plate in a vacuum environment would it be half the difference or would it warm to the same level as the warm surface in view of having only one means of transfer.
This issue is not handled correctly in my view of the 3rd grader radiation model being bandied about in the naughts by major universities including Harvard. that is verified by every experiment I have seen and no doubt explains why the universities wiped their websites clean of that model.
BH, It’s the 1LOT. dE = Ein – Eout. When dEout < 0 and dEin = 0 then dE > 0. The placement of a thermal barrier can cause dEout < 0 even when it is colder than system. There is no law of thermodynamics that prohibits this. This is why the door to my kitchen oven, gas species in a cuvette of a NDIR, etc. do not violate any thermodynamic laws.
b,
I assume that this is your rather confused explanation of why the Earth cooled over the past four and a half billion years. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
The is no GHE (fairly obvious, given that nobody at all can describe this so-called effect).
Are you just spouting rubbish for no good reason at all?
bdgwx says:
BH, Its the 1LOT. dE = Ein Eout. When dEout < 0 and dEin = 0 then dE > 0. The placement of a thermal barrier can cause dEout < 0 even when it is colder than system. There is no law of thermodynamics that prohibits this. This is why the door to my kitchen oven, gas species in a cuvette of a NDIR, etc. do not violate any thermodynamic laws.
—————
I agree with that because your kitchen ovendoor controls both radiation and convection.
The atmosphere doesn't.
Clint R
There is no distortion of Roy Spencer experiment and you show your ignorance of not having read what he did. Sad you post and show this lack of understanding but it is what cultists do. They hold their false beliefs and try to convince others of how valid they are.
Read the link! He discusses how he prevents any reflection from the higher energy light source from being the cause of the observed warming.
You just keep making up stuff and act like it is a fact. You are a cult minded poster. Those you call cult minded are NOT, they follow the evidence.
BH: I agree with that because your kitchen ovendoor controls both radiation and convection.
It doesn’t matter. The 1LOT isn’t specific to any one of the 3 energy transmission modes. It’s true for all of them.
BH: The atmosphere doesn’t.
Well…yeah, it does. The atmosphere impedes the transmission of energy to space via all 3 modes (conduction, convection, and radiation). In the case of conduction and convection it is near 100% block. The Earth sheds almost all of its energy to space via radiation.
yes bdgwx and as i have said in here that might be evidence of a greenhouse effect of a single layer. but that happens with or without co2. so where is the variability in a complete block of convection?
Thanks Norman for confirming:
1. You don’t understand the experiment you linked to.
2. You know you lost the argument because you have resorted to your childish insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations.
BH, I think you’re moving the goal post. The discussion is in regards to whether a cool thermal barrier can cause a warm system to warm further. It can. And it doesn’t matter which energy transmission mode the thermal barrier is targeting. It’s true for conduction, convection, radiation, or any combination of them.
I will point out again that it doesn’t meet the definition within the applied sciences of a thermal barrier.
So exactly where has this effect been demonstrated in an experiment?
Again…the door on my kitchen oven. And by thermal barrier I mean any body that impedes the transmission of energy.
bdgwx, a thermal barrier is one that a minimum impedes both radiation and convection. Impeding one of them is not considered to be a thermal barrier. . .witness the greenhouse experiments of all designs such as S&O, R. Woods, V. Pratt.
Fine. Replace all occurrences of my use of “thermal barrier” with whatever term/phase you are least offended by. Just make sure you understand that I’m talking about impeding the transmission of energy from a warm body to a cool body.
but not to the extent that is measurable in any experiment which hollows out the claim.
bdgwx is right here. Gill spends most of his energy making sure he can impede transmission of information from a knowledgeable body to a cranky body.
BH: but not to the extent that is measurable in any experiment which hollows out the claim.
That is absurd. NDIRs literally measure the change in IR energy passing through the cuvette with enough precision to recognize a change of 1 ppm of CO2.
i was referring to the result being measurable by a thermometer.
I am not disagreeing that you have a radiant barrier.
I just pointing out that radiant barriers can only achieve insulation effects in a properly designed system that is installed correctly in such a way to restrict convection. Roy’s experiment accomplished that.
BH,
You keep moving the goal post. I’m addressing your quote “The GHE can warm the surface if and when the sky is warmer than the surface.”
That’s what I’m addressing. The sky does NOT have to be warmer than the surface for the GHE to work in the same way that CO2 in a cuvette does not have to be warmer than the IR lamp at one end for it to block a portion of the escaping to the other end where it is measured by the thermopile.
And I agreed that CO2 restricts the passage of IR.
But I also pointed out 1) that within the atmosphere the co2 molecule convects; and 2) convection increases radiation at TOA in the exact same way that it increases conduction at the surface.
Its only TOA molecules that are cooling directly to space and rather than sitting there lingering and cooling and diminishing the radiation exiting TOA; convection sweeps it away and replaces it with a warmer one.
That is similar to the reason why reflective foil on your ceiling unless backed with insulation doesn’t insulate.
the radiation from the floor is reflected but convection steps in and causes warmer molecules to sweep aside the ones that transferred their heat to the foil by contact and replaces it with a molecule that the floor warmed. This is basic physics. AGW folks only imagine a delay in the process but have not demonstrated it. Probably can’t because convection is considered be able to override a full spectrum molecule. The tiny bit that CO2 blocks is about 8 times less.
I’m going to assume that you accept that a cold body can cause a warm body to warm further and move on.
1) TOA molecules are not the only ones radiating directly to space. This is plainly evident with even the most cursory glance at the GOES images.
2) Convection is confined mostly to the troposphere. This is because there is an inversion in the stratosphere.
You can assume what you want bdgwx but its clear you don’t want to explore the issue so lets move on.
My opinion is that you don’t understand what the concept of the ”radiant” TOA is.
Its a conceptual layer defined as the origination point of all photons that reach beyond the atmosphere. Thus if there is indeed an atmospheric window (and Bindidon failed to show that to be the case with cherry picked resolutions) then TOA includes some surface area.
I understand that TOA could be conceptuallly something else for another purpose but that’s what I see as the radiant TOA.
> You can assume what you want
Gill is telling you his secret why he always ends up moving the goalposts, bdgwx!
“bdgwx, a thermal barrier is one that a minimum impedes both radiation and convection. Impeding one of them is not considered to be a thermal barrier. ”
Bill just constantly, shamelessly makes up sh*t like this.
There is no such rule.
And my view of the inversion in the stratosphere is the result of oxygen species absorbing a lot of UV and some blue light and the absence of significant amounts of water to cool stratosphere with CO2 demonstrating its impotence there.
Nate there is no certification of for a radiant barrier that doesn’t control convection. If fact the warmists in here are using Roy’s experiment and Roy said he turned the experiment upside down to control convective heat loss.
You guys are flopping around like a bunch of beached whales trying to deny the need for this.
BH: You can assume what you want bdgwx but its clear you dont want to explore the issue so lets move on.
Wait…what? So you still don’t think cold bodies can cause warm bodies to warm further?
BH: Its a conceptual layer defined as the origination point of all photons that reach beyond the atmosphere.
And yes, I’m aware of what TOA is. I have no issue with the definition of it that you provided.
I was responding to your statement “Its only TOA molecules that are cooling directly to space”
That’s the statement I take issue with because it is wrong. There are molecules below TOA that cool directly to space (as in radiate upwards passing through the atmosphere unimpeded).
BH: And my view of the inversion in the stratosphere
The reason there is an inversion is irrelevant. The point is that it exists which means convection is negligible. Even convection crossing the tropopause is minimal. And none of it matters because the atmosphere does NOT have to be warmer than the surface for it to cause the surface to warm further.
BH: Nate there is no certification of for a radiant barrier that doesnt control convection.
For the record…I googled for “thermal barrier” and could find no reference to it being widely accepted to be in reference to both radiation and convection together so I think you’re being pedantic as a way of deflecting and diverting away from the fact that cold bodies can cause warm bodies to warm further. But whatever…as I’ve said before I don’t really care what words/phrases people use to express concepts. I’ll use whatever words/phrases are least offensive as long as everyone agrees on the concepts.
bdgwx says:
”Waitwhat? So you still dont think cold bodies can cause warm bodies to warm further?”
No thats impossible. You have to have something to warm both. That something would be the cause.
It’s not only possible but required by 2LOT Bill since for ANY real process:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
bdgwx say:
”BH: Its a conceptual layer defined as the origination point of all photons that reach beyond the atmosphere.
And yes, Im aware of what TOA is. I have no issue with the definition of it that you provided.
I was responding to your statement Its only TOA molecules that are cooling directly to space
Thats the statement I take issue with because it is wrong. There are molecules below TOA that cool directly to space (as in radiate upwards passing through the atmosphere unimpeded).”
Well if you would note my concept of TOA includes ”all” your ”origins” of photons that go directly to space. You seem to want to not include those surfaces.
Once you understand what I am saying its apparent you will agree with it. Maybe TOA is a poor choice of terms and it should be characterized as ”the surface from which all photons leaving the earth system go directly to space”
bdgwx says:
”The reason there is an inversion is irrelevant. The point is that it exists which means convection is negligible. Even convection crossing the tropopause is minimal. And none of it matters because the atmosphere does NOT have to be warmer than the surface for it to cause the surface to warm further.”
Well the fact is a stratospheric hotspot wouldn’t work anyway so the stratosphere is irrelevant. You need a hotspot where it restricts convection.
“Nate there is no certification…”
Bill, as required of a certifiable contrarian, you reject the mainstream science view in favor of pure uncertified speculation such as this:
“And my view of the inversion in the stratosphere is the result of oxygen species absorbing a lot of UV and some blue light and the absence of significant amounts of water to cool stratosphere with CO2 demonstrating its impotence there.”
Whereas the work of MW 1967, is a physics-based simulation, that has been replicated many times since, and whose predictions have been confirmed by observations.
if what you said was true that colder co2 was capable of producing a hotspot then and only then do you have a physics based solution. claiming its been validated because it has warmed simultaneously confirms every single alternative nutcase theory of warming.
and as it stands the cycles of jupiter and saturn and uranus actually matches the ups and downs of those cycles and nobody has disproven that can’t be explained by milankovitch oscillations. if you want to put some multi-decadal warming money on something, that looks like a clear winner.
“and as it stands the cycles of jupiter and saturn and uranus actually matches the ups and downs of those cycles and nobody has disproven that cant be explained by milankovitch oscillations.”
Sorry lacking a rationale mechanism, then it simply becomes Astrology.
The actual Milankovitch cycles are many Millenia long and have a physical mechanism involving variation of sunlight hitting the Earth.
Nate you left out the physical mechanism for the change in the eccentricity of planet orbits.
There are clear signals in the temperature record for gravity of the various planets having a cyclical effect on the earth’s temperature record.
Most are very small but they are not nearly as small when major planets team up and pull in the same direction.
Did you ever play tug of war? Did you notice that it makes a difference how many and how big and strong and how much stamina the folks on the end of the rope have? Are you calling that ”astrology”? Sheesh!
“There are clear signals in the temperature record for gravity of the various planets having a cyclical effect on the earths temperature record.”
Show us the clear signals connecting Global T to the transits of Venus or any of the other planets.
You are being quite ridiculous, here.
There is NO reason that gravity of a distant planet, by ITSELF, should change the T of Earth.
The affect of planetary gravity is to change the Earth’s ORBIT, slowly, over THOUSANDS of years, which results in a change in solar insolation hitting the Earth.
So you are taking a real phenomena and extrapolating it way beyond what it can possibly do.
Nate says:
”Show us the clear signals connecting Global T to the transits of Venus or any of the other planets.”
You can find it yourself. I have no way right now of posting my stuff. Use your favorite technique of finding dominant patterns in the data. Then take a look at what gravitational body patterns are of planets teaming up to do the job.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”The affect of planetary gravity is to change the Earths ORBIT, slowly, over THOUSANDS of years, which results in a change in solar insolation hitting the Earth.”
Yes I have heard that. But apparently nobody can find a basis for that. What besides changes in gravity would cause the earth to move toward or away from the sun over thousands of orbits? What do you think it is? A band of fairies teaming up to do the job?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”So you are taking a real phenomena and extrapolating it way beyond what it can possibly do.”
And you think the band of fairies does a much more competent job of it?
“You can find it yourself.”
Pffft. It is obvious you have no evidence of any such cycles.
“Yes I have heard that. But apparently nobody can find a basis for that. What besides changes in gravity would cause the earth to move toward or away from the sun over thousands of orbits?”
Gravity, Bill.
It does have well known effects on the Earth’s orbit over thousands of years, which as noted, THEN has an effect on the solar insolation reaching the N. Hemisphere of the Earth for thousand of years, which melts/freezes ice sheets over thousands of years, and results in warming/cooling over thousands of years.
The point which you have again missed, is that gravity of other planets does not have a direct or immediate affect on the temperature of Earth, as you speculated.
Nate says:
Yes I have heard that. But apparently nobody can find a basis for that. What besides changes in gravity would cause the earth to move toward or away from the sun over thousands of orbits?
Gravity, Bill.
—————-
What is changing wrt gravity Nate? Is Newton’s equation changing over time?
Are you ignorant, or just playing dum about how Earth’s orbital parameters precess over time?
Either way it won’t help you explain your Astrology.
Precession doesn’t change the eccentricity of the orbit. Obviously if you want to plant your flag on that being the case you need some gravitational science wrt to the planets and stars and their gravitational role in changing the orbit eccentricity.
Seeing as how its estimated to take 250,000,000 years to orbit the galaxy we would need to be orbiting around a group of stars like the 7 sisters that dominates outer space stretching of our orbit to get that precession in sync with the eccentricity of the orbit. But that would be the same sort of motion wrt to the planets flying around us.
Where does the effects of gravity stop being science and become astrology Nate? Do you know? Do you have a reference?
“Where does the effects of gravity stop being science and become astrology Nate? Do you know?”
Astrology is when one makes a claim linking distant events in the Cosmos to events on Earth, without any science rationale.
When you claim that the transit of Venus caused the 2023 spike in Earth’s global temperatures, you offered no science rationale, no mechanism, no confirming data.
Then, sorry, that meets the definition of Astrology.
In contrast, Milankovitch did offer a sound science rationale, which has since been further researched and understood, and confirmed, for example by developing the orbital records of Earth and measuring the geologic record of glaciation.
And developing an understanding of the orbital effects on summer solar insolation hitting the N. Hemisphere, over thousands of years, and the resulting melting/freezing of the ice sheets, and the resulting warming/cooling of the Earth.
apparently nate doesn’t believe that the gravity of venus creates an acceleration of the sun and earth towards venus. and when venus comes between the sun and earth that acceleration pulls the sun and earth closer together changing the solar constant.
unbelievable that nate denies that gravity is a pull made up of mass distance. when venus moves closer to earth the force of gravity increases pulling the earth closer to venus and therefore also the sun. this is like fauci claiming masks don’t work but on a much more massive scale. the science community can’t even get right the first lesson taught in my first physics class way back in high school!!
Bill,
Just quit while your behind.
Venus passes between the Earth and Sun every 1.6 years. Quite an ordinary insignificant event for the Earth.
Arkady describes your approach to science very well here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-delayed/#comment-1636536
“All you need in order to come up with whats known in feelie world as a theory, is the following:
1/ An armchair
Once youre sitting comfortably in the armchair just wait till a thought-bubble appears and youve instantly got a theory.
Now you can make your own graph based on what you feel is obvious. Completely devoid of figures, and compare the amount of stuff with the effect of that stuff.
And instantly we see that heaps of stuff leads to a humongous effect, while a tiny amount of stuff leads to a teeny-weeny effect. Its just common sense!”
venus started from the backside of the sun in December 2022 and will conclude its journey around the sun wrt earth this coming june.
its effects are seen often however one must also consider other climate related effects such as solar cycles and ocean oscillations.
venus isn’t a climate effect. it is a weather effect as we see in this transit and many others. the outer gas giants explain climate effects. the planet motions don’t explain the ice ages but do explain, with proper feedback sensitivity, the 2 to 3k oscillations seen in the ice core records that occur on a multi-centennial basis.
that of course would be a component of modern warming not necessarily a complete explanation. so the ipcc only has confidence in attributing half the warming seen to co2 meaning that if true the effects of co2 will be in accordance with happer and lindzen of less than 1k per doubling of co2. hardly anything worth getting your panties in a bunch over.
“venus isnt a climate effect. it is a weather effect as we see in this transit and many others.”
Evidence? Anything to back this up? Or just another thought bubble?
Do the math Nate. You know that the sun causes the earth to fall at a certain rate that doesn’t bring the earth closer to the sun except in portions of its elliptical orbit. Then calculate the pull of venuse at various points as it passes by the sun which will work the same way as the sun in terms of making earth fall towards it and venus towards earth so earth makes venus cooler on the inside pass and the earth warmer. Its just the opposite effect on the backside pass as venus moves the sun more than the earth. the number is not going to be zero and thats all that is needed to answer your challenge.
“Evidence? Anything to back this up?”
Obviously not.
“Or just another thought bubble?”
Obviously yes.
But none of the work that all scientists have to do to check the validity of their ideas.
Such as finding a rationale mechanism, finding supporting evidence, finding measurements, looking up the historical record, anything at all!
Sorry Bill, it is still plainly Astrology.
And I understand that the more I tell you it stinks, the more you believe that your crap is wonderful.
So we’re done here!
My comparable thought bubble:
You do the math Bill. A seagull lands on the starboard railing of the Titanic. Now seagulls have weight, and that will produce an imbalance on the ship. Then it is going to tilt. And that will lead to it taking on water, then it will sink. And sure enough it did!
There was no iceberg.
Well you are full of it as you do recognize the number isn’t zero.
And I am not proposing any single planet has a big influence.
all I am hearing from you is a lot of handwaving and a strong signal that you aren’t going to consider anything at all until your daddy tells you its OK to consider it.
Norman,
You wrote –
“Your point would mean a 288 K surface cannot absorb 15 micron photons. What evidence do you provide to support you claims.”
What experimental evidence do you have to support the claim that radiation from a colder body can raise the temperature of a hotter one? None at all, of course!
Maybe you refuse to accept that a hotter body surrounded by a colder environment will cool, not get hotter! Just like the Earth’s surface surrounded by a colder atmosphere – the Earth cools. Even four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight didnt stop the Earth cooling, nor did anything else.
Unless you can actually describe the GHE, and indicate at least what it does, you just look silly – a fanatical GHE cultist.
Have you any new excuses for not providing a GHE description which reflects reality?
Norman, you dummy,
Saying “There is no science text that claims IR from a cold source will just bounce off a hotter one.” just shows what a GHE cultist you are.
Go on, display your knowledge – totally surround a bowl of water with ice. The ice is emitting IR, as it is above absolute zero. Where does the energy emitted towards the water go when it impinges upon the water?
You see, it’s easy to try to look smart by asking stupid gotchas, but they might turn round and bite you in the backside!
I suppose in your tortured brain, the photons from ice should be absorbed by the water – making it warmer? After all, some silly people appear to believe that a warmer surface can be made hotter by a cooler atmosphere. They might even call this nonsense the GHE! But of course, they would deny this, saying that nobody can describe the GHE!
You certainly can’t – you’ll just claim somebody else has. Or that you did it before, but can’t find the explanation, or that you can’t be bothered wasting your time, or some other silly excuse.
Swenson
Photons can be absorbed and not making something warmer.
I do not know if you possess the ability but you have two processes going on at the same time. One is energy from the ice is being absorbed by the water. The water is maybe absorbing 300 watts/m^2 from the ice. Say the water is room temp of 75 F (297 K). Water has an emissivity of 0.95. So the water would be emitting IR at the rate of 419 W/m^2. So even by absorbing the 300 Watts/m^2 from the ice it is losing it at the rate of 419 W/m^2. The NET loss is 119 W/m^2 so the water cools but it will cool slower than if is surrounded by liquid nitrogen. Now if you add a heater to the water it will reach a higher temperature surrounded by the ice than surrounded by liquid nitrogen. Do you see this or not?
The radiant barrier that GHG creates in the atmosphere reduce the amount of IR emitted by the surface from reaching space. The loss of heat is reduced. The Earth is constantly receiving energy from the Sun (like the water with a heater) therefore with the reduction in surface heat loss but having the same solar input the surface will reach a higher steady state temperature than without the gases.
I gave you and example you can test for yourself. Take temperature readings of air in a car in the sun and air outside the car. Air in the car is much warmer but it is not receiving any more solar energy than the air outside the car. It is warmer because heat transfer has been reduced.
Norman,
You started waffling by saying –
“Photons can be absorbed and not making something warmer.” Appealing to your own authority isn’t terribly convincing. You then go on to burble about irrelevancies, such as –
“Now if you add a heater to the water it will reach a higher temperature surrounded by the ice than surrounded by liquid nitrogen.”
What an idiot you are! Not only have you introduced bizarre things like liquid nitrogen and an unspecified heat source, your statement is completely stupid anyway! If my heater is a block of ice at 272 K, it will not heat the water at all! You don’t believe that ice can heat anything? Chuck some ice at 272 K into some liquid nitrogen, and watch the nitrogen boil furiously!
But back to my original simple question, which you have studiously avoided –
Go on, display your knowledge totally surround a bowl of water with ice. The ice is emitting IR, as it is above absolute zero. Where does the energy emitted towards the water go when it impinges upon the water?
Where does the energy go?
You are an idiot GHE cultist – who can’t even describe the GHE!
Swenson
It is more than obvious that trying to discuss anything with you is not possible.
You ask: “Where does the energy emitted towards the water go when it impinges upon the water?”
Most is absorbed, around 95% of the IR emitted by the ice is absorbed by the water. Anything else you need clarified.
I think I will go back to ignoring you. You have nothing of value to contribute on this blog, you endlessly repeat the same message over an over and you are unnecessarily insulting even when it serves no purpose.
Enjoy your endless posts with Willard. He seems entertained by your endless repetition. Most get bored with such behavior.
Norman, you nutter,
You wrote –
“Most is absorbed, around 95% of the IR emitted by the ice is absorbed by the water. Anything else you need clarified.”
Yes. You dont have any experimental support for your silliness, do you?
What bizarre mental defect leads you to say that “around 95%” of the IR is “absorbed? Is this some sort of magic “non-thermal” IR which has no effect – because it only exists in your imagination?
You really are a clueless GHE fanatic, aren’t you? You can’t even describe this GHE of yours!
Keep on dreaming.
Mike Flynn,
Here is your pacifier:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Okay so what evidence or proof from actual physics or thermodynamics debunks the GHE?”
Until you say what the GHE is, there is no debunking necessary. There is no GHE.
What do you think this “GHE” does? Can you describe it?
Go away, dreamer.
Mike Flynn,
Daily reminder:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Good morning, sunshine!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard,
That’s not very nice.
Monkey Man,
Have you asked your bot?
There’s no need to ask it for this.
What would the chatbot say, Monkey Man?
It would tell me that youre a monkey.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Transcript or it doesn’t exist, Monkey Man.
“Transcript or it doesnt exist, Monkey Man.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
If that were the case, I wouldn’t be here.
It’s programmed to regurgitate the alarmist narrative. One with my shared perspective has to be informed enough to correct it, and then it would be useful.
Walter,
ChatGPT agrees with me that the mythical GHE has no effect on the Earth’s cooling.
Heres my last interaction with GPT
So the Earth actually cools, and the greenhouse effect doesnt prevent it, is that it?
ChatGPT
Yes, thats correct. The Earth does undergo cooling processes despite the presence of the greenhouse effect.
Wonderful, isn’t it? What’s the point of carrying on about the existence of an effect which apparently has no effect? At least one GHE cultist seems to have abandoned appealing to the authority of ChatGPT, after telling me how wonderful it was!
Just another clueless GHE cultist, like Willard.
Yes, it’s quite nice, huh, Swenson? 🙂
Hopefully, you too have discovered that if you know what you are talking about, ChatGPT is a useful punching bag. The programmers should have thought that through; when you challenge it and you know for sure it’s wrong, it deflects towards appeal-to-authority arguments. It gives away the whole thing, in my opinion. Why wouldn’t I use it?
> If that were the case, I wouldnt be here.
“The case” is supposed to refer to…something.
It sure does.
I bet you’re the kind of monkey who responds “yes” to someone who asks you “do you have the time,” Monkey Man.
“I bet youre the kind of monkey . . . ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
I come here to learn. Do you like to learn, Willard? What do you come here for?
What are you learning exactly when you are Just Asking Questions, Monkey Man? More to the point, in what way is this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1633102
in which you’re doubling down on Mike Flynn’s PSTering related to your learning experience?
How nice of you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
GHG. That process which Swenson denies.
E,
“GHG. That process which Swenson denies.”
What process is that? One that you can’t describe, I suppose, because you are afraid of the laughter which would ensue!
GHG? What process is that? It looks like the only process occurring is that of your progressive mental decline!
Maybe you don’t realise that contents of your bizarre fantasies cannot be seen by others.
If you want to express them as “GHG”, by all means do so. “Pffffft” is just as descriptive.
Carry on.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
As a state function, enthalpy depends only on the final configuration of internal energy, pressure, and volume, not on the path taken to achieve it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy
Willard, please stop trolling.
Internal energy is heat plus the work done by and or on the internal atoms. That is, internal energy = internal heat + internal work (p.dv). Clausius covered that some 170 years ago.
As I said, enthalpy is the total heat in a body or a process. Calling it internal energy is about as stoopid as one needs to be. They reference P.dv which is also energy but mechanical energy so why are they distinguishing between heat and the work done by or on atoms when referencing internal energy?
Enthalpy is a theoretical measure of the total heat content in a body. It is theoretical because it cannot be measured directly. There is free heat in the body plus the heat represented by the vibrating atoms.
There are seriously anal people out there today that have this obsession with refusing to acknowledge heat as energy. There can be only two forms of energy in a solid mass: thermal and mechanical energy. We could run an electrical current through the body but that is not a natural process in most masses. There could also be chemical changes, like rust, but that is not a natural process in normal circumstances when a mass is isolated.
So, I should say that with an isolated mass, there can only be two forms of energy, thermal and mechanical. The sum of both is the internal energy. Clausius wrote about this 170 years ago and modern ijits have tried to invent their own form of pseudo-science by claiming internal energy is separate from internal thermal and mechanical energy.
> Calling it internal energy
They don’t. All “they” say is that enthalpy, as a state function, depends only on the final configuration of internal energy, pressure, and volume, not on the path taken to achieve it. Hence “they” define it as the sum of internal energy and the product of pressure and volume, i.e. H = U + pV. “They” also note that
Op. Cit.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Willard attempted to imply that radiation from a colder body can raise the temperature of a hotter – what a silly fellow he is!
He wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
In the original story, Gills $5 hole indeed compensates for B4s $5 gain. Gill knows how credit and debit work. He just likes to play dumb.
None of that is relevant to the fact that Rudolf indeed considers that its the net exchange that matters.
Cheers.”
Rudolph hopefully never stated that the radiation from a colder body could raise the temperature of a hotter one. Willard babbles about $5 bills, overcoats, describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, and keeps demonstrating that he is just another clueless GHE cultist trying to get people to believe in some mythical deity.
Oh well, as Thomas Jefferson said “But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Willard’s god is the GHE. He may worship it however he wishes. I hope he wont complain about my belief that he worships a false god.
He’s a strange lad, is Willard. He seems bent out of shape because I don’t use the pseudonym Mike Flynn. I wonder why?
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Rudolph hopefully never stated”
It does not matter much what he stated. His job, after all, is first and foremost to power Santa Claus’ sleigh. He’s not the fastest, not the most powerful, but he has the loveliest nose.
If you want to deny something, be a good chap and do it yourself. No need to put it in the mouth of other folks.
Cheers.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
Ah, so you were just trolling, and referring to a fictional character when you referred to “Rudolph”! Is Rudolph another of your fantasy creations?
I guessed as much.
Maybe you could try being a better GHE cultist in future.
You wrote –
“His job, after all, is first and foremost to power Santa Claus sleigh. Hes not the fastest, not the most powerful, but he has the loveliest nose.” What are you babbling about? What are you implying? Do you believe in Santa Claus? You are probably gullible enough to believe that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, or that the GHE is real!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Two simple things first, Mike –
Your name is Mike Flynn.
Rudolf’s name is Rudolf.
Cheers.
“Two simple things first, Mike
Your name is Mike Flynn.
Rudolfs name is Rudolf.”
Are you insane, or just pretending?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
The South Australian Chamber of Mines & Energy (SACOME) is the leading industry association representing resource and energy companies with interests in the South Australian resources sector, including minerals, energy, extractives and petroleum.
What are you braying about?
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
bdgwx,
I’m not having any luck posting my response. We could move the conversation to an open thread at WUWT if it’s okay with you.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/25/open-thread-83/
Looks like neither side is interested in continuing. Fine by me; another time when this website’s filter works properly.
Monkey Monkey shows once again how much he values learning.
I sure do; it’s a shame I haven’t heard anything from Dr. Spencer yet.
I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he’s busy.
You know, Monkey Man, you can always post your comment at Tony’s and link it here…
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner always ends up PSTering.
Someone has to do the hard work around here.
I suspect that in the S-B equation it is the coefficient “σ” which actually should be influenced by the emitting temperature (T).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…it’s an interesting question. The sigma constant should be a derived value as a proportionality constant. In other words, in the original Stefan equation, which related only temperature to the EM given off by an electrically-heated platinum filament wire, sigma would have been derived from the EM frequency and the temperature of the wire surface.
If you look at the later S-B sigma value it has an added time factor…sigma = 5.67 10^-8 W/K4m2. The question arises as to where the watts came from? Surely, in the original Stefan sigma value there were no watts since the experiment performed by Tyndall, from which Stefan got his data, had no work rate, just a straight EM radiation.
There is something fundamentally wrong with this kind of science, where an energy that has no mass can be measured in watts. I think this dates back to the time when scientists believed that heat flowed through space as heat rays and the watt was applied to those imaginary heat rays.
And, as you claim, sigma applies only to the temperature range over which Tyndall’s experiment applied. Trying to extend it to cover all temperatures as fraudulent.
Not really, Gordon. My IR thermometer works fine at all household temperatures compared to my kinetic thermometer. IR thermometers across wider range of temperatures are also successfully used in industry. No fraud.
Your IR thermometer does no measure heat, it measures infrared energy frequencies.
Of course IR thermometers don’t measure heat, Gordon, that’s why they call them IR thermometers they are not called heat thermometers. They do measure a brightness temperature of material objects well enough to find 32F for ice water and 212F for boiling water.
Many tried to measure the heat in an object up until James Prescott Joule proved objects do not contain heat. They contain plenty of energy though.
Thank you, Gordon.
I think there should some very precise fundamental experiments to be done.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I agree, but I don’t see how they can confirm IR intensity/temperature relationship when no one can see IR. The Stefan relationship was possible because people could see the EM involved as various colours. There is no way to measure IR directly.
If anyone knows of a way I’d be interested in hearing about it.
The Tyndall experiment, in which he electrically heated a platinum filament wire till it glowed different colours was possible only because another scientist converted the various colours to colour temperatures. How would you convert IR to a temperature?
I know that some will claim it is done in IR thermometers but they covert an IR frequency to a known ‘IR frequency-to-temperature’ relationship from lab experiments. It measures IR frequency, not the intensity as related to temperature. No one has proved those relationships, as far as I know, are the same as the T^4 relationship ‘calculated’ by Stefan for temperatures in the 500C to 1500C range.
He tried to do it experimentally using a device he invented. The device tried to remove the effect of conduction/convection from the experiment so Stefan could detect pure radiation. It was not till the Early 20th century that Pirani invented his gauge to do that. The gauge was not intended to measure IR per se, it was meant to detect a vacuum and was used initially to tell when a light bulb had been evacuated.
The Pirani gauge does not tell you the relationship between IR and temperature, it just tells you the rate at which IR dissipates heat as compared to conduction.convection.
Thank you, Gordon.
Some experiments are necessary, even if they are not 100% accurate, because S-B doesn’t ‘work’ at lower temperatures.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
bdgwx says:
February 27, 2024 at 10:00 AM
EEI = ASR – OLR is the 1LOT.
bdgwx continues to be confused. 1LoT Is about “energy”, NOT flux.
That’s one of the reasons why his “EEI” is bogus.
EEI = ASR – OLR is the 1LOT in units of joules, Clint. Joules are SI energy units.
Due to EEI, Earth system accumulated measured 381 61 ZJ from 1971 to 2020.
381 +/- 61 ZJ
Your cult reports the bogus EEI in units of “W/m²”, which is flux, not energy.
But, it’s good you are retreating from your cult nonsense. You’ve STILL got a long way to go to get to reality.
Actual EEI is reported in joules also Clint R, those are the BIG numbers. Laughably, the bogus EEI is just made up by Clint.
Keep running from your cult nonsense Ball4, and they will soon call you a “Denier”.
I always avoid the cult nonsense Clint R, I go with experiment. What do you do?
Ball4,
You wrote “I go with experiment.”
Your “fantasy experiments” of course, nothing to do with the mythical GHE., I surmise.
You can’t even describe the GHE, so no experimental support can exist for something you can’t even describe!
Willard, amongst others, has described the GHE as “slower cooling”.
The Earth is cooling very, very, slowly, but not even Willard is silly enough to claim that the Earth needs a GHE to cool! What is this mythical GHE supposed to do? Makes things colder. Hotter?
You can’t quite figure it out, can you?
That’s because you are mentally impaired.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“among others”
Quite right:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
You’re among these others!
Whacky Wee Willy,
Presumably, your irrelevant link doesn’t even mention the GHE.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Monomaniacal Mike,
I know you are irrelevant, but what am I?
Exactly. Though it probably doesn’t matter all that much since we can just as easily divide both sides of the 1LOT equation by time and area and think in terms of fluxes. For example, a 1 W/m2 average over one year is 16e21 joules. It’s two sides of the same coin.
Not for Clint R though. Clint isn’t capable of correctly doing such math.
b,
Yo7 wrote –
“For example, a 1 W/m2 average over one year is 16e21 joules. Its two sides of the same coin.”
Maybe you could calculate how many joules the Earth has received from the Sun (plus the amount generated radiogenically) over the past four and a half billion years, realise that it has resulted in cooling, and cry with frustration.
You really do spout a lot of irrelevant rubbish, don’t you?
Mike Flynn,
Is Yo7 related to Rudolph?
Maybe you could tell us how many Australian states still allow fracking.
“Mike Flynn,
Is Yo7 related to Rudolph?
Maybe you could tell us how many Australian states still allow fracking.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Several problems for you bdgwx:
* Different fluxes don’t add/subtract.
* Fluxes have to match the emitted area, to calculate energy.
* No one knows what flux matches with what area at satellite distances.
That’s just the beginning….
Clint R
Peddling your cult material again!
YOU: “Different fluxes dont add/subtract” this is a cult belief you have not been able to show any evidence for (science is evidence based your posts are strictly belief based).
YOU: “No one knows what flux matches with what area at satellite distances.”
What? Scientists get an energy reading on a calibrated instrument on a satellite. They can use the Inverse Square Law to calculate the flux at the chosen distance of 10 kilometers above the surface. A flux of 240 W/m^2 at 10 KM region in atmosphere would produce the reading they get. What makes you claim “no one knows”?
I always know I’m right on target when Norman starts his incompetent and ineffective flak.
Fluxes are composed of photons. If child Norman could add/subtract photons, he would have something. So, let him add a 15μ photon to a 10μ photon, for us. The photons are traveling in the same direction, to make it easy. So what is the “sum”, Norman?
And there is NO meaningful 240 W/m² from Earths surface. The 240 W/m² comes from an imaginary sphere. Trying to apply it to REAL Earth is just a cult belief.
When Norman responds to Puffman, Puffman knows that it’s because he’s right. When Norman ignores Puffman’s responses, Puffman knows that it’s because he’s right.
Everything Norman does or does not do proves Puffman right.
Clint R
It is not the photons combing to change into a different photon with different energy.
The fluxes adding is rate of energy adding to a surface.
It has been explained to you by others using water as an example. No amount of evidence can change your cult beliefs.
With water adding to a tank. Flux is a rate of energy flow and you can mimic it with water flow (gallons of water/ minute) similar to energy (joules/second).
Have a water tank. You have one source of water adding 200 gallons a minute. A foot in the tank is equal to 200 gallons. In one minute the water level will rise one foot. Do you agree?
Now add a second source of water at 100 gallons a minute. With both water sources adding to the tank does the level rise faster? Does it rise in such a fashion that the two sources of water are added?
If this simple analogy is too complex for your cult mind let me know.
The thing you still lack is evidence for you cult beliefs. I am hoping I can start a trend with you. When you post to someone and put out your cult “facts” I hope all other posters who interact with you demand evidence of your fact. Then your diversion tactics you use with me will fade away and you will be exposed as a cult minded poster who just makes up stuff and calls it factual. Again you subscribe to the cult belief “No Evidence, no Problem!”
Norman, who can’t even describe the GHE, justifies claiming that the radiation from ice crystals can warm water, and starts off –
“Have a water tank. . . . ”
No thanks, Norman. No matter how many water tanks you have, nor how much water, no amount of ice (crystallised or otherwise) will warm any of the water – not even a tiny bit!
Maybe you are trying to imply that a colder atmosphere can transfer energy to a hotter surface, making it even hotter! Quite mad, if so.
Not going to happen.
Stick to your water tanks. Go for a nice swim, using Archimedes’ principle. You might even realise why melting sea ice makes no difference to sea levels at all (unlike the NSF who refused to believe that an ancient Greek knew more about physics than an American with a PhD!).
No GHE (not that you can even describe such a mythical beast).
Sorry Noman, but this is NOT an essay question. Endless rambling doesn’t cut it. A flux is NOT water. You claim that fluxes simply add/subtract, but you can’t even add photons.
Let’s make it multiple choice:
What is the result of adding a 10μ photon to a 15&mu photon?
a. A 25μ photon.
b. A 12.5μ photon.
c. A 18μ photon.
d. Photons don’t simply add.
Your answer, please.
Clint R
The answer is “d. Photons dont simply add.”
The energy of the photons will add in a surface that is able to absorb them so in your example
So in your example of a 10 micron and 15 micron photon you would add
0.1239847 eV (10 micron photon) plus 0.08265647 (15 micron photon)
So the surface would gain 0.20664117 eV. The energy adds not the photons to make a new photon.
Norman FINALLY admits photons cannot simply add.
People can see how hard it is to get cult children like Norman to accept reality. He will fight as long as he can, to defend his cult beliefs.
The fact that photons do not add means that fluxes do not add. That is one of the reasons the EEI nonsense if bogus. And also one of the reasons the GHE nonsense is bogus.
But Norman tries to pervert reality with his cult belief that flux is the same thing as energy. He admits photons cannot add, but then goes on to claim that the energy adds! He clearly doesn’t understand thermodynamics or radiative physics, just like his cult.
There is no guarantee the two photons would be absorbed. But, if they are absorbed, their frequency becomes a factor. If the photons have lower frequency than the mean frequency of the absorber, there will be NO increase in the object’s temperature. Norman, and his cult, do NOT understand entropy.
That’s why ice cubes can not boil water.
Clint R
I see in your latest post you throw out cult frequently but do not understand what it means.
Flux is an energy rate. You are adding energy to an object in a flux. It will heat up at a certain rate because of this flux and then it will be emitting energy at a rate until the incoming rate of energy addition is equal to the outgoing energy rate.
Here is a primary example of your cult thinking.
YOU: “There is no guarantee the two photons would be absorbed. But, if they are absorbed, their frequency becomes a factor. If the photons have lower frequency than the mean frequency of the absorber, there will be NO increase in the objects temperature. Norman, and his cult, do NOT understand entropy.”
Just an opinion with no supporting evidence. Again you “No evidence no problem”
I can see you do not know anything at all about science. It is an evidence based study of natural phenomena. Scientists can guess on what is going on but then they need evidence to support their claims. You just make claims over and over but provide zero evidence for any of them and you do it all the time.
The evidence about your posting is you are cult minded and not at all scientific. You make claims with no evidence to support them and you do it on an ongoing basis. When asked for evidence you provide none but usually insult or divert away.
Several problems for you Noman:
* Different fluxes don’t add/subtract.
* Fluxes have to match the emitted area, to calculate energy.
* No one knows what flux matches with what area at satellite distances.
Also, endless keyboarding ain’t science….
Clint R
Same old same old with you. When asked for evidence you repeat a post. Lord what a cult minded poster you are. Just repost your opinions and pretend they are facts.
Wrong Norma. I’m staying on topic — something you can’t do.
You just got schooled on “why different fluxes don’t add/subtract”. You were forced to face reality. But you hate reality so you start lashing out at me.
Grow up, child.
Clint R
Nope, you schooled nothing. You just posted a few insults and ignored any evidence to support you opinions.
You do this constantly. There is no REALITY with your posts. They are your unsupported opinions that go against experimentally established physics and engineering.
Acting like your unsupported opinions are facts does not make me the one denying reality.
I wonder how many more posts you will make of your unsupported cult opinions? I guess it will be endless.
Clint: Fluxes are composed of photons. If child Norman could add/subtract photons, he would have something.
Norman learns: The answer is “d. Photons don’t simply add.”
Norman, you got schooled.
Clint R
Another post and another avoidance of providing evidence of your claims that go against established physics. How many more posts will you make and provide no evidence? I would guess all of them. You are not a poster who will provide any evidence supporting your cult minded opinions.
Sad but True!
Wrong again, Norma. The “evidence” is right above, in this subthread. You tried to distort reality to protect your cult. I had to trap you in reality to get you to admit that photons don’t add.
You rely on insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations. I’ve offered to teach you the basics, if you would stop with the childish nonsense. But, you can’t. You can’t even stay on topic..
Clint R
Your unsupported opinions are NOT EVIDENCE. The only evidence you provide is that you are a cult minded poster. You post opinions that go against established physics but have no evidence to support them.
Only in your deluded cult thinking can you believe your opinions are evidence. As of now you have not posted any valid evidence supporting your opinions that go against established science (established by experiments)
Yes Noman, you will not accept my evidence because you reject reality. So for the fun of it, let’s see YOUR “evidence” —
Where is your evidence that moons have square orbits?
norman…”Okay so what evidence or proof from actual physics or thermodynamics debunks the GHE? Will you at least try to find some evidence for your bold unsupported opinions or will you stay a cultist forever?”
***
Where do I begin? Let’s start with the greenhouse word. It obviously comes from a real greenhouse, that heats up when radiated by solar energy. Climate alarmists have drawn on an anachronism from the mid-19th century to infer the heating is caused by trapped infrared energy, that cannot penetrate the glass in the greenhouse.
Whereas that may be true, the trapped infrared can in no way warm the air in the greenhouse significantly. No alarmist has ever explained how it can, it is nothing more than a theory based on Tyndall’s discovery that certain gases can absorb infrared energy.
From what I have read of Tyndall, he mentioned nothing about how much absorbed IR could warm a gas, especially a gas that makes up only 0.04% of the gas mixture (atmosphere). Both Tyndall and Arrhenius only offered conjecture that CO2 ‘should’ be able to warm the atmosphere. In fact, Tyndall’s famous experiment did not measure heat, but the amount of infrared absorbed by CO2.
Tyndall was a smart guy, I wonder why he did not apply the Ideal Gas Law to the problem? Arrhenius likewise, but he did not seem to bother either. I would presume both had done exactly that and found any warming to be insignificant. Modern scientists like Gerlich and Tscheuschner applied the heat diffusion equation and calculated that a doubling of CO2 could warm air no more than 0.06C. The IGL reveals the same number.
Where did all the nonsense come from about catastrophic warming? That’s besides the point. It is obvious that the warming in a real greenhouse is far too much to have come from CO2 absorbing infrared energy. The warming is obviously due to the entire gas, which is 99% nitrogen and oxygen, absorbing heat directly via conduction from surfaces heated by solar energy.
When that air warms, it tries to rise but it is blocked physically by the glass in the greenhouse. The glass also stops cooler air from above replacing the rising heated air. In other words, the glass blocks natural convection. That’s why the greenhouse warms.
There is nothing in the atmosphere that can act like the glass in a greenhouse. In fact, the atmosphere is rife with convection.
“There is no science text that claims IR from a cold source will just bounce off a hotter one”.
***
Doesn’t bounce off Norman, it is simply ignored.
Compare it to a communication antenna. An antenna must be matched with the wavelength, hence the frequency of a received signal. If the signal frequency/wavelength is outside the bounds of the antenna, the antenna simply ignores the signal. What happen to the ignored EM? It just keeps moving around space.
Electrons in atom can be thought of as tiny antennas but they are far more precise than any antenna. They will only absorb frequencies that are discreet. So, discrete that the frequency absorbed can be measured to within one hertz.
For example, in the Balmer series for hydrogen, an electron transition from the third to the second orbital emits a wavelength of EM of 656.279 nm (456806416.173609 megahertz). That’s pretty precise. That means it will absorb only that wavelength as well.
If you have two bodies of even 1C difference in temperature that represents a large difference in frequency. That’s why a warmer body cannot absorb the EM from a colder body.
Gordon, although nitrogen and oxygen are the numerically dominant atmospheric gases (ideal gas law), they are not radiatively (Planck Law) dominant. The contribution to the air’s atm. emissivity (over the Planck spectrum for typical terrestrial temperatures) of Earth’s atmosphere is mostly from comparatively small amounts of certain infrared-active gases, water vapor being by far the most abundant, although still less than about 1% of the atmosphere while varying up & down. Carbon dioxide is another infrared-active gas, with over 400ppm and counting.
In Tyndall’s 1861 submission to the Royal Society he never once used the word “should” in submitting his “reflections” on “in all cases absorp_tion takes place”.
Prof. Tyndall knew what he was doing. He wasn’t guessing.
Tyndall knew absolutely nothing about electrons since they were not discovered till after his death. Then, it took another 15 years before Bohr discovered the relationship between EM and electrons.
Radiation has nothing to do with the warming of a greenhouse, it’s all done by air molecules absorbing heat directly from the infrastructure and rising by convection to the glass of the greenhouse. Therefore the description of warming in the atmosphere is a moot point wrt greenhouse theory.
The GHE is based on radiation theory, completely ignoring the effect of conduction/convection. Alarmists are so focused on energy in versus energy out via radiation that they have become oblivious to the effect of conduction/convection internally.
It’s obvious that conduction/convection dissipates an enormous amount of energy internally via natural dissipation as heate ai rises. Not only that, before it dissipates, the heated air maintains the Earth’s average temperature as do molecules of water in the oceans.
There is no need for a theorized energy balance since it applies only to radiation while ignoring conduction/convection. In an attempt to force the radiation theory, alarmists have depended on a trace gas as he source of the warming and heat dissipation at the surface, while ignoring the effect of conduction/convection.
Any scientist of integrity would have recognized immediately that a trace gas cannot control atmospheric temperatures nor can it be responsible for all heat dissipation from the surface.
It is Gordon that doesn’t have integrity in comments when ignoring convection/conduction returning an amount of thermodynamic internal energy down to the surface (downdrafts, rain). Scientists of integrity include those amounts.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Prof. Tyndall knew what he was doing. He wasnt guessing.”
You are correct. For particular pressures and wavelengths, Tyndall measured CO2 as blocking 1750 times as much IR as oxygen and nitrogen,
Considering there is approximately 2500 times more oxygen and nitrogen than CO2, the rest of the atmosphere blocks more infrared than CO2! I know you don’t want to accept reality, but Tyndall’s meticulous experiments showed that the more heat you prevent from reaching a thermometer, the colder the thermometer becomes.
I don’t know why fanatical GHE cultists like yourself keep appealing to authority which doesn’t support your weird ideas. Some form of mental deficiency, I guess.
There is no GHE – which is no doubt why you can’t describe it! Maybe you could spout nonsense about “farmers”, or overcoats – or something.
Carry on.
Farmers are truly sad Swenson doesn’t understand how they grow produce in the winter by using the GHE when it’s too cold and snowy outside.
No Swenson, Tyndall 1861 didn’t prevent any added heat from reaching his thermometers! Swenson doesn’t even know the thermometers showed an increase in temperature. Tyndall’s galvanometer needle showed a reduction in heat reaching the thermopiles since it was absorbed in the tube warming the thermometers. Swenson isn’t even capable of reading a science paper accurately. What a pity.
Carry on with your entertaining lack of science knowledge Swenson.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Ball4 tried to appeal to the authority of Dr Spencer, claiming that a hotter body can absorb radiation from a cooler body, and become even hotter!
Complete and utter madness. The nearly instantaneous outcome of this bizarre proposition is that all hotter bodies would just become hotter and hotter ad infinitum, with all bodies being hotter than bodies not as hot, and absorbing radiation from the colder bodies. Eventually, all bodies would reach an infinite temperature, and thermodynamic equilibrium would apply.
Ball4 wrote –
“The cool object is the cirrus clouds (of water ice) that came into view of the warmer surface water overnight & with the icy radiation absorbed making that surface water record a higher temperature than the water not in view (zero view factor) of the icy cirrus. This was not a fluke as Dr. Spencer showed confirming calculations.”
If Dr Spencer’s calculations show “icy radiation” being absorbed by water, and raising the temperature of the water, Dr Spencer has made an error. Water ice cannot be used to heat water. That’s just silly.
Ball4 is away with the fairies again – and again – and . . .
Swenson doesn’t even know increased total thermodynamic internal energy in the surface water in the experiment raises the avg. thermodynamic internal energy of the water thus raises the temperature at Dr. Spencer’s thermometer measurement locations. What a pity.
The physics error is committed by Swenson not Dr. Spencer.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
Nobody here explicitly claims that CO2 caused the warming spike ongoing since July, but CNN did:
“The unprecedented heat in 2023 was caused primarily by climate change, Copernicus said, but was exacerbated by El Nio, a natural climate variability that increases Pacific Ocean heat and typically boosts the worlds temperatures.”
Very disingenuous, but it’s probably more related to gaining media attention. I wouldn’t be surprised if some attribution study from perhaps the World Weather Attribution come out in the near feature endorsing such a claim.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/09/climate/temperature-rise-2023-climate-copernicus-intl/index.html#:~:text=Global%20warming%20leaped%20to%20its,term%20warming%20of%201.5%20degrees.
walter,
It’s all about innuendo and implication.
The climate always changes. How could it not, being the statistics of historic weather observations? Dimwits run around the streets, waving placards saying “Stop climate change!” and call anybody laughing at them “deniers”!
Denying what, precisely?
The dimwits can’t actually say, but as is usual with fanatics, reality has little to no impact on them.
All part of the rich tapestry of life.
Monkey Man shows once again that he is coming here to learn.
Learning also includes reading other commentator’s perspectives.
Editorializing is fine, Monkey Man.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I think it is more a debate of semantics then anything but I personally don’t have an issue with Copernicus statement. What they say is true since the El Nino spike in temperature would not have resulted in an unprecedented value in their record had climatic factors not augmented the spike.
Maybe. But how do we know this isn’t just some temporary deviation from where we were prior to the spike? They should say, ‘We don’t know’; it’s an unprecedented event, as they point out. As such, it’s wrong to suggest that climate change is behind the spike, given that the climate, according to their sources, are, at least, 30 years.
Why do you think the this spike is hit +0.9 C as opposed to only -0.1 C like it did back in 1980?
Probably the same thing that caused cooling from 1940 turning it around in 1980. So it was at the bottom of a psuedo 80 year cycle the timing of which actually hasn’t been documented ala Milankovitch.
Gill needs to dust off his epheremides. The Dust Bowl corresponds to a clear Uranus in Taurus transit:
https://www.astrology.com/article/global-warming-astrology-uranus-in-taurus-climate-change/
Willard you are falling behind in the discussion.
Uranus in Taurus doesn’t mean much by itself. Its being in Taurus with primarily Jupiter so we are talking 1940-41.
Jupiter began its ascent up toward Taurus in 1934 following and getting to Taurus in 1940 additionally saturn was in taurus in 1939 – 1942.
Jupiter and Uranus in Taurus has only happened 4 times since the year 1100. Once in the 12th century, again in 1858, 1940-41, and 2023-24
Temperature profile of the 1940 transit.
https://tinyurl.com/yckv8e52
Without polar effects.
Where’s the red of Gill’s cherries:
https://tinyurl.com/gill-s-astrology
BH: Probably the same thing that caused cooling from 1940 turning it around in 1980.
How do you know?
BH: So it was at the bottom of a psuedo 80 year cycle the timing of which actually hasnt been documented ala Milankovitch.
What causes the 80 year cycle?
If it’s not documented then how do you know it exists?
How do you know the Milankovitch cycle exists that creates the glacial/interglacial oscillation bdgwx?
“Why do you think the this spike is hit +0.9 C as opposed to only -0.1 C like it did back in 1980?”
I don’t know; nobody does. That’s my point.
“Why do you think the this spike is hit +0.9 C as opposed to only -0.1 C like it did back in 1980?”
The combination of El Niño, HTE, and other natural variations.
We know it wasn’t caused by the bogus GHE.
Monkey Man appeals to ignorance, whereas Puffman looks quite sure.
Which is it?
yep those are some interesting time of day adjustments moving those highs from 1940 and 41 to warm up the lows in 1945-46
Gill knows his clientele. Monkey Man must be a fan of
https://climateball.net/but-data#adjustments
Willard,
Clint and I can have two different opinions; that’s normal in science.
Regarding adjustments, they are unfit to correct the inhomogeneities in the surface and satellite records. To properly correct these errors, one would have to travel back in time because each of these errors will manifest itself uniquely. I’ve given the example before, for instance, of UHI influence on a cloudy, rainy day versus a warm, sunny day.
Difference of absurd opinions is even more common in religulous affairs, Monkey Man.
Keep arguing by assertion. One day it will work out just fine for you. Perhaps not in science, but hopefully you have aspirations that would befit your social engineering skills better.
Willard relies scientifically relies on what his crystal ball tells him about what the weather station manager was knowledgeable of when he recorded the high and low temperatures of the day.
Like any respectable astrologer, Gill hates crystal balls.
He sees them everywhere.
LOL!
You are in Freudian projection mode again Willard.
Gill tries to say something, but it’s not clear what.
Is Mercury retrograde?
Well at least two climate factors that played into this El Nino. first we are in the environment of increasing solar activity along with a 20 year conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn that has been an essential element in the stepwise character of that climate change has taken.
Gill can only think of two factors? I could think of at least four before breakfast. LOL!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Weather patterns are just observations. Give a particular set of observations over a nominal time any name you like.
We’re a superstitious lot – by giving something beyond our control a name, implies it is somehow an entity with power of some sort, for better or worse.
La Nina, El Nino, just names given to sets of numbers. Makes no difference to the physics generating the numbers.
Obviously, many GHE cultists believe otherwise. Quite mad, the lot of them.
I agree. The impact of El Nio and La Nia just gets averaged with other nonsense.
“along with a 20 year conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn that has been an essential element in the stepwise character of that climate change has taken.”
Where did you get this information from? Just curious.
Scafetta’s astrology.
Willard, please stop trolling.
about 15 years ago using the Ha-d-cr-ut 3 surface temperature record I detected a 20year cycle of 10-year trends moving in a sinewave like pattern across solarcycles 19 through 23.
I was participating on another blog at the time and discussed it but nobody on the blog could figure out what it represented. Just this winter I came across the 20year rhythm of Jupiter and Saturn. These two planets by far have the largest gravitational effect on earth by virtue of their 12 year and 29 year orbit periods such that when they line up they accelerate earth around a barycenter.
I am a long ways from the temperature effect of this ”mini-milankovitch” cycle but its going to be positive. The amplitude of the cycle approached .3c/decade. It doesn’t account for all the warming as most of the nadirs except the 1990 to 2010 nadir were above zero. Now this latest cycle is adding to the total as pointed out by Nate with the trends he was talking about in this comment section. I need to revisit this issue and I have more planets to play with.
You might like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory
CNN…an outfit of perverts and fake news.
bdgwx,
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/25/open-thread-83/#comment-3875139
I responded on WUWT which I much prefer since I can more easily type out mathematical formulas without fear getting a garbled result.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m^2 (So is the Solar constant)
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)^1/4 /4σ ]^1/4
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m^2(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)^1/4 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4 ]^1/4 =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m^2(150*1*1)^1/4 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4 ]^1/4 =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )^1/4 =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, as you’ve been told many times before, thermometers on the surface measure the global and temporal 288K kinetic median temperature; radiometers on satellites measure the global and temporal 255K earthen system brightness temperature.
Christos remains off by 33K. Christos needs more study of even beginning meteorology.
Thank you, Ball4, for your response.
–
“thermometers on the surface measure the global and temporal 288K kinetic median temperature;”
–
Thermometers on the surface never did that, it was satellites that measured the 288K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, no. You will need to learn about these worldwide meteorological devices from a source of your choosing; below is from the AMS. These instruments help measure the 288K.
Stevenson screen
A type of instrument shelter.
The shelter is a wooden box painted white with double louvered sides and mounted on a stand 122 cm (4 ft) above the ground. In addition to the dry- and wet-bulb thermometers, it usually contains maximum and minimum thermometers.
“radiometers on satellites measure the global and temporal 255K earthen system brightness temperature.”
Complete gibberish. Accept reality. You can’t even describe the mythical GHE, let alone be silly enough to associate it with four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, can you?
That’s because you are fantasising.
Dream on.
I’ve described the actual GHE earlier, Swenson. You are behind in your reading. The 4 billion years of cooling trend has lately reversed to warming trend. You need to catch up on that news too. Soon the earthen surface will be molten again.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Walter…I have identified 4 words from you post at WUWT that are suspect. They involve the leter comobos p.t and r.p but sometimes those combos pass and other times they don’t.
You have used the words inter.pret and inter.pretation and the word excer.p.t. I think chatp.t is OK normally.
BTW…I had to use the Tor browser to get that post through. May be a regional thing. I can’t post at all using Firefox right now.
Good grief. Let’s test it like a scientist would.
***
bdgwx,
“It comes from the law of propagation of uncertainty; not the CTL.”
My main point was that there is a systematic bias present. The scaling of 1/sqrt(N) normally increases precision because as the number of Ns increases, so does the value of N in the denominator.
“c) It is unnecessary to classify components as random or systematic (or in any other manner) when evaluating uncertainty because all components of uncertainty are treated in the same way. Benefit c) is highly advantageous because such categorization is frequently a source of confusion; an uncertainty component is not either random or systematic. Its nature is conditioned by the use made of the corresponding quantity, or more formally, by the context in which the quantity appears in the mathematical model that describes the measurement. Thus, when its corresponding quantity is used in a different context, a random component may become a systematic component, and vice versa.”
You didnt interpret this section correctly.
“You didn’t interpret this section correctly.”
Appealing to your own authority now, are you Willard?
Not terribly convincing, because you can’t name even one person who will admit to valuing your opinion, can you?
That’s a bit sad.
Mike Flynn,
I didn’t write this sentence.
Cheers.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
I didnt write this sentence.
Cheers.”
Errrrr, yes you did. So who wrote “I didnt write this sentence.”, if not you?
An alien who stole your brainwaves? Did your keyboard start hammering away by itself?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“So who wrote I didnt write this sentence., if not you?”
Monkey Man.
You really aren’t the brightest star in the galaxy of Sky Dragon cranks, are you?
Woeful Wee Willy.
You wrote –
“I didnt write this sentence.”
Then you immediately denied writing “I didn’t write this sentence”!
It appeared as a comment under your pseudonym, so I don’t blame you for disassociating yourself from comments appearing to be written by “Willard”.
Mind you, it shows a certain amount of animal cunning – if you get caught out, just claim it wasn’t you, it was some figment of your imagination. Or your keyboard did it!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
It’s just a flesh wound.
We all know you don’t read the threads in which you comment.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
what are you blabbering about? I was addressing Walter, not bdg, and I was addressing a post he made on WUWT. He was posting there because his post would not appear on this blog.
Did you perhaps post in the wrong thread. That would not only be wrong-headed, it would be wrong-threaded. What a difference a ‘t’ and an ‘r’ makes.
C’mon, Bordo.
It’s the beginning of the comment you said you read.
Willard, please stop trolling.
So, two observations:
1. Triggering the spam filter more than 5-10 times led to a state where nothing got through.
2. Waiting for 30 minutes unlocked that state.
I’d have to test after how many times #1 obtains and how short I need to wait. But this is good heuristic.
Willard,
Agreed. It might be the latter half of my reply that contains the error.
Gordon,
What’s weird is this message in a shared Google Doc link wouldn’t even go through.
Monkey Man,
The “E-word” is problematic. Look at how Christos wrote it.
Let’s continue the test:
***
“It thus exemplifies the viewpoint adopted in this Guide and cited in E.1.1, namely, that all components of uncertainty are of the same nature and are to be treated identically.”
If you read section E.1.1, it reads:
“This Guide presents a widely applicable method for evaluating and expressing uncertainty in measurement. It processes a realistic rather than a safe value of uncertainty based on the concept that there is no inherent difference between an uncertainty component arising from a random effect and one arising from a correction for a systematic effect.”
Here’s my hypothesis.
Once a banned string has been entered, there’s a counter. If that banned string is entered a few times, your IP gets recognized as spam. Then you get a soft ban, which lasts a few minutes.
This way spam bots that don’t change their inputs get blocked, but “genuine” commenters can get through by being patient and by learning to get around the banned strings.
Here’s the rest of the comment:
***
“What did you ask ChatGPT?
This is the formula for the variance of the sum of i’s. It is not the formula for the variance of the average of i’s. Thus, why I want to know what you asked ChatGPT.”
I’m referring to ∑^N(i=1)σ^2(i), not σavg=∑^N(i=1)σ^2(i)+NS^2σ^2(s)/N^2. ∑^N(i=1)σ^2(i) is just notation that represents the contribution of uncertainty from all individual measurements. This could be human interpretation of the scale, for example, factoring out the environmental extremes impact on observer subjectivity that I mentioned earlier.
Regarding ChatGPT, I asked it to correct my grammar and punctuation in my sentence. I was editing my writing on here; I copied and pasted the corrected version of my writing directly from ChatGPT and forgot to take out:
“ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Your sentence is well-constructed, but theres a minor grammatical suggestion for clarity:”
Willard,
How do you propose to test your hypothesis?
If I was concerned, I’d probably ask Dr Spencer for assistance, on the assumption that he is likely to know more than I.
Have you considered this course of action?
Mike Flynn,
You ask another silly gotcha –
“How do you propose to test your hypothesis?”
Try to PSTer me without using the HTML trick you leaked to Graham.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I said without the HTML trick, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I waited hours and a whole night to overcome any potential soft ban you speak of. I don’t why it’s just now coming through. Where was the banned string? And where is Christos’ E-word comment?
Bordo already mentioned it, Monkey Man.
Willard, please stop trolling.
142 times occurrences of this stoopid ‘please stop trolling’ within one single thread…
How dûmb and reckless can people like DREMT and his Flynnson sockpuppet actually be?
You didn’t count the number of Willard troll posts.
Hey, Gill – how did you succeed in posting the t-word?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Exactly, Bill. I’d happily stop PSTing for good if Little Willy left the blog. He’s without doubt one of the worst trolls we’ve ever had.
Graham D. Warner PSTered people for more than five years; he kept PSTering people even after the t-word has been banned; he is still PSTering after Roy directly hinted at him that he was taking his role “too seriously” (h/t Monkey Man); he came here using an abusive handle name based on the real name of a scientist who goes by a nom de plume because he found it “funny”; now he has an ironic nickname that mentions the owner of this blog; he keeps trying to last word every thread in a blog where Sky Dragon cranks have been uninvited more than ten years ago; he denies having been castigated by Roy; he keeps resisting the simplest implications possible, and corrupts everything Team Science says and does; he just tried to play the victim about information he himself made public; and to top it all he quoted a Very Serious song in which he projected murderous thoughts while suggesting I might have them.
Those misdeeds remain unchecked, and he hasn’t admitted to them. They are still there to pollute the blog, and he persists. If he was person no. 2, like Gill, that would be his aim. To leave them there.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Luckily, nobody, least of all Dr Spencer, seems to be taking any notice of your desires whatsoever.
You are both incompetent and impotent, which is a general blessing for mankind – at least the impotence part.
Have you considered accepting reality, and abandoning your ineffective continual whining and trolling? I guess not.
Carry on.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Slow Saturday morning?
…and, Little Willy is still one of the worst we’ve ever had.
Graham D. Warner should have left the blog a long time ago, him and his bunch of Sky Dragon cranks. If he can convince Mike Flynn and Puffman to leave with him, then perhaps contrarians would have some leverage.
Dr Spencer castigated "Slayers". Who, at the time he did so, were a specific group of people involved with writing and publishing the book "Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory". In the article that he did this, Dr Spencer seemed to misinterpret some of their views. That’s OK, though, it was a long time ago, and it was all perhaps just a bit new.
So, that’s the "Slayers". What Little Willy refers to as "Sky Dragon cranks" is just anyone who even dares question the GHE. Not those who were actually involved in writing a book stating that the theory was dead, just those who accept that the null hypothesis is that there’s no GHE, and who are still waiting to be convinced enough to reject that hypothesis.
We see how Little Willy uses his "Sky Dragon crank" terminology to conflate the two groups, and try to falsely claim that Dr Spencer encourages the barring of any sort of questioning of the GHE theory whatsoever!
Whereas, the rest of us at this blog are all well aware that Dr Spencer encourages free speech here, and though he defends the GHE himself, and has stated that skeptics are "damaging the skeptic cause" by arguing against it, we’re all grateful for the platform to be able to express our views and arguments.
Graham D. Warner keeps playing dumb about the fact that Roy showed time and time again that he had more than enough to deal with those who denied the greenhouse effect, whom as a collective can be referred to as Sky Dragon Cranks. So once again we see him resisting the simplest implication possible.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I know that Dr Spencer is not keen on those who question the GHE, but there’s a difference between expressing that and actively wanting to censor any discussion of the GHE. Clearly, he does not seem to want to do the latter.
Currently Little Willy has contributed some 21% of the total comments under this article. That’s a regular occurrence with him. If there’s a problem at this blog, it’s him. So, of course, he’ll lash out at everyone else.
Roy did not castigate ‘slayers’, he criticized ‘some’ of the followers of those who wrote Slaying the Sky Dragon. It was written by experts in their fields like Claes Johnson, a mathematician who has expertise in the kind of math used by Planck to produce his theory. Johnson claims to have an alternative method that dos not rely on the ‘h’ parameter introduced by Planck.
A co-author, Pierre Latour, has a degree in chemical engineering and has applied thermodynamics theory in his work. He is also involved in Principia International, the body behind the Slayers. If followers of that crowd, who are otherwise not very aware at the level of Johnson and Latour, decide to post on Roy’s blog and get him upset at them, that is not the fault of Johnson or Latour.
In fact, Roy and Pierre had an interchange and I won’t comment on that other than to say that Roy was warned by Richard Lindzen to avoid commenting on areas of physics for which he had little or no expertise. I certainly would not want to debate Latour on thermodynamics when he has a degree in the field and has used the theories he professes in that field.
https://principia-scientific.com/engineering-earth-s-thermostat-with-co2/
Bordo builds for himself a True Scotsman:
Sky Dragon cranks deny the greenhouse effect? Check.
Sky Dragon cranks are disinvited? Check.
While there is a cognitive explanation as to why Sky Dragon cranks still deny the greenhouse effect, the psychological elements clearly dominate. It is quite clear that Bordo is a pathological liar. But in contrast to Puffman, Mike Flynn, and Graham D. Warner, he clearly has a good heart.
So, of course, he’ll lash out at everyone else.
And of course Graham D. Warner will continue to whine.
More lashing out? Not keen to take my offer then? You leave, no more PSTing. I’m sure Bindidon would be grateful. In that way, you could consider it the one positive thing you’d have done since arriving here.
More couch fainting?
Graham D. Warner is so credible.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Not going to take the offer, then. Oh well. The PSTing will continue, thanks to Little Willy’s selfishness, I guess.
Graham D. Warner succeeds to come up with a sillier “offer” than Puffman while ignoring mine…
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
ball4…”…radiometers on satellites measure the global and temporal 255K earthen system brightness temperature”.
***
Not so wrt to NOAA sats (AMSU) measuring surface temperatures. They measure the emissions of oxygen in the 60 Ghz range and correlate the frequency received to altitude and temperature.
That would be used for reporting the lower tropospheric temperature (LT), Gordon, not the surface. You will have to wait a bit longer for the March UAH report.
Ball4,
Are you changing your tune? Are you now claiming satellites aren’t measuring the surface temperature?
Surface temperatures vary roughly between 1500 C and -90 C.
Of course, satellites cannot even register the 400 C water emitted under the oceans.
How thick are you? Really, really, thick? It certainly seems so. You might just as well keep blathering about farmers using a GHE. Is that another name for a greenhouse?
Ball4
Don’t try to tell the ignoramus that
– NOAA’s MSU/AMSU don’t measure anything at the surface, even in the time before 2015, as UAH used remote sensing at LT level
and that
– since UAH 6.0’s start in 2015, there is no longer remote sensing at LT level anymore because of highly disturbing grid cell biases; LT is since then a weighting of 1.538*MT – 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS.
He is absoluttely unable to grasp such things.
No wonder when you look at his dûmb and brazen attempts to keep a NOAA GHCN V2 (!!!) info about 1500 stations ( dated 2009! ) still valid for today, despite he was shown many times that
– ALL recent infos about GHCN V3 and V4 show different
and that
– a comparison of NOAA’s Climate at a Glance data to the raw, unadjusted GHCN daily data clearly shows that all GHCN V4 stations indeed are in use.
No hope.
Binny,
So Ball4’s 255 K surface temperature is actually not the surface temperature, but something else?
Is he claiming that the “brightness temperature” of the Earth is really not that of the Earth but part of the atmosphere?
In that case, he might be claiming that a 255 K atmosphere (-18 C) can warm 30 C surface. This seems unlikely, to say the least.
What do you think? Silly question for a gullible GHE believer, I know. You can’t even describe the GHE, can you?
ChatGPT –
“Yes, I agree without reservation: the greenhouse effect does not prevent cooling. The Earth still emits heat into space, and the net result is a balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation. I appreciate your patience and diligence in seeking clarification.”
No heating from a non-existent GHE. ChatGPT agrees – without reservation!
OF course there is no heating from a non-existent GHE 9:20 pm, it’s the winter season solar heating from the actual existing GHE that farmers use to grow produce for profit.
Ball4,
You are confused. Greenhouses are nothing to do with a greenhouse effect you can’t describe.
How long have farmers been using sunlight to grow crops? Maybe you think sunlight is called GHE? You’re an idiot, aren’t you?
At least you agree with ChatGPT that the GHE does not prevent cooling.
Keep dreaming.
So now we have Swenson 2:55 am claiming greenhouses have nothing to do with effects inside greenhouses. What an entertaining laughable comedy from Swenson; keep them coming or try to understand physics of meteorology and become helpful. Your choice.
Ball4, I wish I had kept all of the times you, and your cult brothers, have misrepresented others.
But, there’s no need to keep a record, as you will keep supplying more examples….
Clint R 12:23 pm cant find any misrepresented? I thought so. Good entertainment Clint.
Ball4,
You are confused. Greenhouses are nothing to do with a greenhouse effect you cant describe.
How long have farmers been using sunlight to grow crops? Maybe you think sunlight is called GHE? Youre an idiot, arent you?
At least you agree with ChatGPT that the GHE does not prevent cooling.
Keep dreaming.
So again Swenson 5:43 pm is claiming greenhouses have nothing to do with effects inside greenhouses. Funny.
Sunlight (& its IR through clouds) does drive the GHE during the winter’s day time to profitably grow produce; there are other greenhouse sources of energy at night when needed. Swenson has chosen to stick with comedy, the entertainment will continue.
Ball4, you nitwit,
You’re a silly GHE cultist, too ignorant and gutless to quote what I said!
You were even stupid enough to put these words in my mouth –
“So again Swenson 5:43 pm is claiming greenhouses have nothing to do with effects inside greenhouses. Funny.”
Well, apart from the fact that those are not my words, you are actually (inadvertently) correct.
Greenhouses have nothing to do with any imaginary “greenhouse effect”, as even NASA now admits. A sealed steel shipping container in the sun will get hotter than any greenhouse. No glass, even. Do you think sunlight should be renamed “GHE”?
By the way, you also spouted “there are other greenhouse sources of energy at night when needed.”
Oh yes, really? Greenhouse sources of energy? You really are away with the fairies. Tell me all about the farmers who grow their crops at night in the winter using greenhouses and the Sun.
Dream on.
You are mistaken Swenson, there is no sun on a greenhouse on a winter’s night! Funny, the comedy never ends. Swenson still claims greenhouses do not have a GHE, what a pity. Many users of the GHE do disagree and efficiently grow produce therein despite Swenson’s claims of no GHE. Keep on entertaining the blog with such tales Swenson.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“there is no sun on a greenhouse on a winters night! ” You also wrote “there are other greenhouse sources of energy at night when needed”.
So the sun has nothing to do with greenhouse sources of energy, is that it?
Gee, that probably explains why greenhouses cool at night (you may not know this, but greenhouse operators do. They buy greenhouse heaters – powered by gas or electricity, generally). You don’t seem to know much about greenhouses. At least NASA said that the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with greenhouses – do you think they are lying, or just not as smart as you?
You still haven’t managed to describe this mythical greenhouse effect. What was its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling? Even ChatGPT agrees with me that nothing stopped the Earth from cooling. Maybe your GHE was fast asleep, waiting for a farmer to wake it up, do you think?
Pardon the sarcasm – it’s probably wasted on a fanatical GHE cultist like you.
Carry on.
Silly Swenson, there were no greenhouses around 4.5 billion years ago. I see you have learned that when they did appear, greenhouses do sometimes cool at night but still operators find a way to use the GHE to grow produce profitably. It wont work appealing to NASA since some of those crafty folks also use greenhouses to grow produce & other plants over the winter given the actual GHE.
Ball4,
You started off a barrage of stupidity by writing –
“Silly Swenson, there were no greenhouses around 4.5 billion years ago.”, and went downhill from there!
Do you really think that greenhouses have something to do with some mythical “greenhouse effect” – which of course you can’t describe?
Others might decide that you are as ignorant and mentally deranged as I surmise.
Who knows?
Silly Swenson, as I’ve written, greenhouses have something to do with the actual greenhouse effect, not your mythical “greenhouse effect” which you can describe any way you want.
Farmers use the actual GHE to grow produce for profit, they are happy the actual GHE exists.
Ball4, you nitwit,
You wrote –
“Silly Swenson, as Ive written, greenhouses have something to do with the actual greenhouse effect,”
This would be the “actual greenhouse effect” which you can’t actually describe, would it?
Maybe you’ve been reading NASA’s “Lies for small children and the mentally afflicted”, which says “A greenhouse stays warm inside, even during the winter.” – which is complete nonsense.
Are you a small child, or mentally afflicted?
Here’s the advice Penn State U issues –
“But dont ever teach nonsense by claiming that the radiation is trapped, or that the atmosphere reradiates, or that the atmosphere behaves as a greenhouse (or parked car), or that greenhouse gases behave as a blanket.”
You can’t even describe the GHE, can you?
Funny, Swenson missed I already did so: a greenhouse is where farmer’s use the actual GHE to grow produce in the winter time.
Perhaps Swenson has been ill-advised &/or not asked NASA, PSU, or a farmer about that actual GHE. Great entertainment reading Swenson searching for the truth but always coming up short.
Ball4,
“Funny, Swenson missed I already did so: a greenhouse is where farmers use the actual GHE to grow produce in the winter time.”
No, you still haven’t described “the actual GHE”, have you?
What is it supposed to do? Heat the Earth? No.
Even ChatGPT says “The Earth does undergo cooling processes despite the presence of the greenhouse effect.”
Oh, and don’t forget what Penn State (I believe the self-proclaimed climate scientist Michael Mann works there) said –
“But dont ever teach nonsense by claiming that the radiation is trapped, or that the atmosphere reradiates, or that the atmosphere behaves as a greenhouse (or parked car), or that greenhouse gases behave as a blanket.”
Do you believe that your fantasies are right, and everyone else is wrong?
The actual GHE warms the inside of the greenhouse enough in winter above OAT Swenson so no fantasy as the resulting produce is sold commercially for profit. Pretty much everyone knows that except for Swenson stuck on imagining a mythical GHE. Pity. Just ask ChatGPT or NASA.
Ball4,
If you want to call sunlight GHE, be my guest.
Sunlight is needed for the GHE, Swenson, and so is a greenhouse; just work a little harder to understand the science.
Ball4,
Ah yes, no GHE without sunlight, you say! Unfortunately, four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight didnt stop the Earth cooling to its present temperature.
Does your description of the GHE mention that it doesn’t work without sunlight, and results in cooling anyway? No?
I don’t wonder. You are dreaming – there is no GHE.
… four and a half billion years ago because there were no greenhouses! Greenhouses exist today so we know there is a GHE, ask your favorite farmer or plant supplier to explain.
Ball4,
Ah yes, no GHE without sunlight, you say! Unfortunately, four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight didnt stop the Earth cooling to its present temperature.
Does your description of the GHE mention that it doesnt work without sunlight, and results in cooling anyway? No?
I dont wonder. You are dreaming there is no GHE.
There is a GHE once greenhouses were built. Obviously Swenson is the commenter dreaming there is no GHE.
Ball4,
Ah, so no GHE without a greenhouse.
How many greenhouses are needed to make a planet hotter?
You really are disconnected from reality, aren’t you?
You dim‌:wit, a greenhouse stops the cold wind getting at the plants. Get rid of the sides – and you’ll find that it doesn’t matter how much glass there is in the roof.
[laughing at clueless GHE cultist]