Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2024 was +0.86 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up slightly from the December, 2023 anomaly of +0.83 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.20 C/decade over global-averaged land).
New monthly record high temperatures were set in January for:
- Northern Hemisphere (+1.06 deg. C, previous record +1.02 deg. in October 2023)
- Northern Hemisphere ocean (+1.08 deg. C, much above the previous record of +0.85 deg. C in February, 2016)
- Tropics (+1.27 deg. C, previous record +1.15 deg. C in February 1998).
The following table lists various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 13 months (record highs are in red):
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.13 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.09 | +0.17 | +0.00 | -0.10 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.11 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.24 | +0.17 | -0.13 | -1.43 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.26 | -0.03 | -0.37 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.40 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
| 2023 | June | +0.38 | +0.47 | +0.29 | +0.55 | -0.35 | +0.45 | +0.07 |
| 2023 | July | +0.64 | +0.73 | +0.56 | +0.88 | +0.53 | +0.91 | +1.44 |
| 2023 | Aug | +0.70 | +0.88 | +0.51 | +0.86 | +0.94 | +1.54 | +1.25 |
| 2023 | Sep | +0.90 | +0.94 | +0.86 | +0.93 | +0.40 | +1.13 | +1.17 |
| 2023 | Oct | +0.93 | +1.02 | +0.83 | +1.00 | +0.99 | +0.92 | +0.63 |
| 2023 | Nov | +0.91 | +1.01 | +0.82 | +1.03 | +0.65 | +1.16 | +0.42 |
| 2023 | Dec | +0.83 | +0.93 | +0.73 | +1.08 | +1.26 | +0.26 | +0.85 |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.86 | +1.06 | +0.66 | +1.27 | -0.05 | +0.40 | +1.18 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for January, 2024, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days:
Lower Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere:
New page start
https://i.postimg.cc/BvzRHfhy/35654-9.jpg
I expect that LT +0.86 deg. C will end up exceeding the SAT anomaly for January 2024 by a considerable margin.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Anomaly spikes don’t usually sustain themselves for this long. Very unique if it turns out to be real.
Mr Spencer and his lapdogs won’t be happy that you are suggesting his data is not real.
I expect we will be hearing a lot more of the claim that the uncertainty in UAH monthly values is at least +/- 1.5C.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Mr. Qwerty,
It is Dr. Spencer to you, and we, his lapdogs appreciate your notice of us, we who thought ourselves so far beneath your over inflated self esteem, to be beneath such.
Lewis Guignard
Your Climateball Highness,
“Mr” is perfectly fine. Roy is better than a mere doctor, it was not used in an address. You can also use “Roy” because that’s what he uses to sign his comments. And, because, Internet.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
More obsessive stalking by Graham D. Warner.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
As our resident “expert” Clint has declared the so-called “HTE” “LONG gone”, it seems he will need to come up with a new excuse for these values.
The ONI is a full 0.7 below the peak ONI of the 2016 El Nino, yet this is 0.15 higher than the peak monthly UAH anomaly from 2016.
And as this is only 0.07C below the record of three months earlier, I guess that limits the effect of his “HTE” to a maximum of 0.07.
But no, he has ruled himself out of another excuse by stating categorically just three days ago that “the only remaining abnormal forcing is El Nino”.
But of course Clint will learn from this mistake by not making ANY solid commitment to ANYTHING in the future.
Thanks Ant for the opportunity to educate you again.
I thought a small drop was imminent, due to the end of the HTE, even though the El Niño persists.
To help you understand this, consider a room heater. When the forcing from the room heater is turned off, residual thermal energy remains in the room, until it is dissipated. The HTE forcing is “long gone”, but some residual thermal energy remains in the system. I have no idea how long it will last, but it is lessening as the Polar Vortex is operating normally again.
I expect UAH temps to drop over the coming months, especially if the EN continues to weaken.
Clint R
You never came here along with any proof for your vague HTE stuff.
Conversely, I have shown to you that the lower stratosphere data provided by Roy Spencer contains NO hints on HTE for the year 2023.
The LS region most influenced by huge events is the land part of the South Pole, and it appears that October and November show maximal positive or negative values, for reasons of course unknown to me.
Here is an increasing sort of all monthly values in UAH 6.0’s LS data:
2020 11 -13.46 !!!!!
2021 11 -9.03
2015 10 -8.46
2020 10 -8.23
2006 11 -8.13
1987 11 -8.00
2022 10 -7.63
2015 11 -7.42
2022 11 -7.25
2021 10 -6.92
As you can see, HTE 2022 is FAR from having played any visibly relevant role – except in your imagination.
All what people like you and Robertson are able to do, Clint R, is to discredit and denigrate anything that doesn’t fit your personal, egomaniacal narrative.
Bindi, why all the hatred and animosity? If you don’t like people that know more about science than you, why are you here?
If you really want to learn, take a chill pill and behave as a responsible adult. Open your mind. Don’t get mad at reality. Currently you seem like an uneducated, belligerent tr0ll.
HAHAHA – “educate” is not something you’ve ever done here Matey.
You’ve never stated where your “HTE” has drawn its energy from. Even if ALL the eruption’s released energy went into warming the planet (which could not have been anywhere near the case), it is only enough to warm the planet by 0.02C.
So apparently your version of the “HTE” has created energy out of nothing.
Ant, thanks for verifying your ignorance of science.
The thermal energy did not come from the volcano itself.
Some people can not be educated. That’s one of the hazards of being in a cult.
I know it didn’t Clintster. I was simply covering that base, knowing you would default to that claim if I didn’t mention it.
So when do you plan on “educating” everyone here on where all the energy came from? Or will you keep defaulting to a claim of “ignorance” in order to cover up the fact that you haven’t “researched”/spun that part of your story yet?
Thanks for admitting you just made that up, Ant. As usual with your cult, you were just throwing crap against the wall, hoping something would stick. But, it does go well with your ignorance of science.
What will you try next?
My statement was “Even if ALL the eruptions released energy went into warming the planet (which could not have been anywhere near the case), it is only enough to warm the planet by 0.02C.”
Please explain in what sense that was “made up”, and where I “admitted” that it was “made up”.
Now – where is your explanation for how thermal energy was magically CREATED?
I was referring to your nonsense about all of the thermal energy coming from the volcano itself.
Try to keep up.
Perhaps you should learn the meaning of “EVEN IF”.
Do you understand the concept of a CONDITIONAL statement?
If I say “even if it rains tomorrow, I will stay dry” am I claiming it will rain tomorrow?
Clearly basic logic is not your forte.
Now … where is your explanation for how thermal energy was magically CREATED by the eruption?
You’re just throwing more crap against the wall, Ant. I’ve explained the HTE more than once. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. You have to want to learn. You don’t. You reject science and reality.
You have NEVER explained the source of the heat.
You have never explained the source of your ignorance.
Hint: It might have something to do with your cult.
So now it’s official. Clint thinks energy was created out of nothing.
He has stated categorically that the heat came from an internal source (ie. not from the sun), yet didn’t come directly from the eruption. Yet apparently mysterious “waves” caused SOMETHING to release massive amounts of stored up energy, with the intermediary being the polar vortex.
Now he has backed himself into a corner where he is unable to nominate the source for the heat. Instead he goes on personal attacks unrelated to science. Apparently he believes this is how science is done.
What “personal attacks”, Ant?
You’re an immature cult idi0t. That’s not an attack, that’s fact. You do the crime, you do the time. Not my fault, child.
If you had any maturity at all you would know that I’m immune to your insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
But I’m glad to see you tacitly admit you’ve seen my discussion of the HTE. You’ve seen it explained, but you can’t understand it. That happens a lot in your cult….
The funny thing is, you seem to deny the troposphere has any thermal energy, yet you believe your cult’s nonsense that CO2 creates energy! At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.
I predict you won’t understand any of this and will just keep throwing crap against the wall.
Prove me wrong.
Yep AQ is convinced that aerosols cool the planet, ignoring even his own theories of how the surface warms.
Fact is aerosols are capable of reflecting some sunlight but that doesn’t stop them from getting hotter and acting then as a GHG.
AQ is stuck bigtime on cold radiation warming the surface despite the science that says otherwise and yes even the science on his own side that project hot spots in the atmosphere from any kind of atmospheric or solar forcing. They correctly understand how the sun does it but still they don’t have an established blueprint for how CO2 does it. Instead they want to get right to the redistribution of power despite their projections failing to materialize. . .demonstrating conclusively the science has never been settled on this matter.
> thats fact.
That’s actually not fact, Puffman.
That’s judgment.
You may need to revise your critical thinking 101.
Bill
So the vast majority of those on your side of the debate who claim that Maunder-like activity leads to more eruptions, which in turn leads to cooling are all wrong?
I’ll make sure to link to your comment next time I come across one of those.
Anyways, tell me about the year without a summer.
Clintster
Nup – the greenhouse effect TRAPS energy, it doesn’t create it. The source is external.
Yes – the atmosphere has energy. We see it as heat. You are now claiming that the source of the extra heat in the troposphere is the heat in the troposphere.
“I predict you won’t understand any of this and will just keep throwing crap against the wall.
Thanks for proving me right, Ant.
Well there’s one way of making me understand … EXPLAIN IT.
WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR HEAT?
And by WHAT PROCESS is the heat being removed from its source?
Ant, if you sincerely NOW want to learn, after dropping all your immature nonsense, search for the thermodynamic definition of :”heat”. Then admit you didn’t even understand “heat”.
I don’t have a problem teaching, but I need to know if you can learn. Otherwise you’re just wasting my time.
He never explains things, certainly not with any real science.
It seems he is just here to irritate people.
Yeah tr0ll Nate, Ant is just like you.
If you actually knew the answer you would rush into explaining it to me. You still haven’t explained to anyone how your polar vortex anomaly (which you have claimed was happening only in the southern hemisphere) managed to start up in the SH summer when there is NO polar vortex.
Ant, you were given an assignment. If you don’t do the assignments, you can’t learn.
I’ll give you one more chance. What is the thermodynamic definition of “heat”? (You’re allowed to use the Internet, or even a thermo book, if they will let you in a library.)
Do the assignment so we can continue the learning. You don’t want to be a brain-dead cult tr0ll all your life, do you?
Antonin Qwerty says:
”So the vast majority of those on your side of the debate who claim that Maunder-like activity leads to more eruptions, which in turn leads to cooling are all wrong?
Ill make sure to link to your comment next time I come across one of those.”
——————–
What happens in aerosols first enter the atmosphere is they absorb incoming radiation because they are like lamp black. That radiation doesn’t reach the surface. Yet your theory says that 1/2 that absorbed energy will then be radiated at the surface, meaning that instead of all of it the surface only gets half (or maybe none if the GHE doesn’t work which is what the experiments contend)
That means in either case surface cooling.
Now over time these aerosols are broken down into acids that eat away at the ozone layer. First an aerosol must find a water molecule in the stratosphere where very little resides. When ozone is destroyed more UV energy hits the surface so after that period of time after the aerosol destroys ozone it causes warming. Further these acids will keep recycling and destroying ozone like CFCs. Such that it is estimated to take a long time to reverse the warming from ozone destruction. CFCs were ‘effectively’ banned in 1994. The damage to the ozone layer is not expected to be repaired until 2066. So we are 30 years in on a 72 year repair program.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/19/world/cfcs-ozone-montreal-protocol-climate-study-intl-scn/index.html
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc#:~:text=If%20current%20policies%20remain%20in,the%20rest%20of%20the%20world.
CFCs might have gotten a partial bad rap because of the El Chichon and Pinatubo eruptions in 1982 and 1991.
Now we have recently seen a significant reduction in ozone in the past year, right on schedule with volcanic effects on ozone first cooling the planet then converting over to longlived ozone killing molecules. Now we have HTE pumping huge amounts of sodium chloride into the stratosphere and mesosphere. I haven’t seen a discussion of atmospheric breakdown of saltwater in the atmosphere but the electrolysis of saltwater results in hydrogen, chlorine gas, and sodium hydroxide. Hydrogen and chlorine combine to form hcl which when added back to water makes hydrochloric acid that is destructive of ozone like CHCs are.
It would be good for some analytical work to be done in this area as that could be a big concern considering how much got up there. And the timing for the ozone effects is about right now.
Antonin Qwerty says:
”Anyways, tell me about the year without a summer.”
don’t know much about it. You had a volcano that caused the so-called year without summer in 1816. May have deepened the Dalton minimum. But temperature records of the era don’t give many details. reconstructions of the period showed the big dip in temperatures came earlier and was a big factor in the destruction of what was left of Napoleon’s army in the retreat from Moscow hitting winter temperatures of -37C.
Nate says:
He never explains things, certainly not with any real science.
It seems he is just here to irritate people.
———————–
It especially irritates Nate who sees that as his role.
Antonin Qwerty says:
Nup the greenhouse effect TRAPS energy, it doesnt create it. The source is external.
Yes the atmosphere has energy. We see it as heat. You are now claiming that the source of the extra heat in the troposphere is the heat in the troposphere.
——————————
Nobody disagrees that the surface should take on the temperature of its surroundings. But what needs to be established is how the atmosphere got warm, would get warmer, or cooler thus the constant harping on your ”look and see” arguments simply doesn’t even address the issue of how the surface’s surroundings became the temperature that they are.
this is supposed to be ”settled science”. Its horribly embarrassing to the science community that nobody can explain via the scientific method the answer as to why the mean surroundings are 288k. all you ever get is mumbo jumbo that often doesn’t hold up to experimental testing.
> But what needs to be established is
Ze Inspecteur Clouseau strikes again!
Clint
You don’t get to set me assignments. You are not my boss.
All you need to say is you don’t know.
This is what happens when you make things up on the fly … you get caught out by very simple questions that your limited knowledge of science didn’t permit you to consider.
Sorry Ant, but I AM your boss. You want me to explain the HTE to you, so that puts me in charge of educating you.
Now, do the assignment — Find the thermodynamic definition of “heat”. That’s where you must start.
This is your last chance. I’m not going to waste any more time with you if you don’t want to learn.
“But what needs to be established is how the atmosphere got warm, would get warmer”
Bill, I really don’t get what your issue is here.
This is like adding more insulation to your attic, which makes the house warmer in winter, for a fixed heat input.
The entire temperature-gradient from the house, through the ceiling, through the plywood, through the existing attic insulation, WARMS, as a result of adding the extra insulation.
And now you are asking, essentially, what has warmed the insulation? It is the heat input to the house.
In the Earth system, from the surface through the troposphere, the entire lapse-rate curve warms, as a result of an added GHE.
What has warmed the atmosphere? The sun, the heat input to the Earth system.
Wrong Nate. You continue to make the same mistakes as your cult.
Infrared is NOT the same as “heat”. All infrared is NOT the same. You’re confused by infrared because you have no background in it.
You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.
Nate says:
”This is like adding more insulation to your attic, which makes the house warmer in winter, for a fixed heat input.”
I am not sure there is a GHE. Since the proper estimation of a GHE is the difference between the solar constant evenly distributed around the globe warming everything on the globe the GHE is at best 9.5K.
With inaccuracies in the system, the fact that oxygen species have warming potential from failing to absorb or emit IR and thus can have a greenhouse effect as exhibited by the thermosphere by virtue of absorbing high frequency radiation and being incapable of cooling until it emits and equal amount of high frequency radiation. . .the GHE to the extent it exists might not be due to any IR emitting molecule. That said:
gases have never been established as being insulating in a freely convecting environment. Insulating windows include a minimum of two rigid barriers between the warm space and the cold space and that does insulate. But there are zero barriers to free convection in the atmosphere and none has ever been established as effectively being any without the rigid barriers to convection.
So your claim there of the atmosphere being insulated has not been established in science. So your ignorance of science in this area is showing. You will need a different argument.
Hunter wanders around lost in space again:
Hunter tr0ll can’t understand that above the Tropopause into the Stratosphere, there’s no vertical convection because the temperature increases with pressure altitude. There’s your “rigid barrier”, mol. Now, you need to understand that the GHG’s cool the upper Tropophere, which is essential for convection to occur. Without that cooling, there would be no descending cold air, which then is able to lift the warm, moist air from the surface upward higher into the Troposphere.
Your question should be, what would the surface temperature be without any GHG’s, compared to historical data. Then, what would it be with doubled CO2? The only way to assess those questions is with the use of models. Sound familiar?
“So your claim there of the atmosphere being insulated has not been established in science. ”
There is heat flow from the heated Earth surface to the upper troposphere.
There is heat flow from the heated house to the colder outside.
There is a lapse rate from the heated Earth surface to the cold upper troposphere.
There is a gradient of T from the heated house to the colder outside.
These are common features of a heated insulated system.
But this is getting off track from your issue, which was how does the atmosphere get warmed.
“I am not sure there is a GHE.”
You keep flip-flopping on this. Your issue presently was only how the atmosphere gets warmer.
Ive addressed that. So try to stay focused on that.
“With inaccuracies in the system, the fact that oxygen species have warming potential from failing to absorb”
This is getting into the moss on the bark of one of the trees, while what we are talking about here is the whole forest.
Heat transfer fundamentals.
For conduction, we have a heat flow produced by a temperature gradient.
For convection we have heat flow produced by a temperature gradient.
For radiation we have heat flow produced by a temperature gradient.
An insulating effect reduces heat flow by any of these modes, through a system for a given T gradient. Or requires a higher T gradient to achieve the same heat flow.
you are describing a growing hotspot nate with a temperature gradient increase through it. e.g. a change in lapse rate. we have a theory that proposes a mechanism where the primary forcing must be revealed.
noting it as a feedback increase in sw abso-rp-tion could occur from ozone depletion or other types of forcing. and of course delayed feedbacks would likely arise from the amortization of any existing energy imbalance including an lia recovery.
Again you wander off topic. I answered your issue, which was how the atmosphere warms. So it looks like that’s that.
all you did was parrot your daddy. we are still looking for this mysterious hotspot.
The reason for the heating is plain ordinary everyday physics.
But I get it it, you are required to be contrary anyway.
do you mean the plain ordinary physics of the 3rd grader radiation model and the gas gpe that seim and olsen and others have shown to be false? the experiment that you continuously argue to be flawed but you can’t find the flaws? if not that then what plain ordinary physics are you talking about?
Already explained. Not going to repeat it.
Nate is always ready with his stock reply whenever anything he wants to say is going to end up being an embarrassment.
Looks like Gill does not succeed in bossing Nate around.
Perhaps he could ask daddy Gates for help.
No Willard I am not bossing Nate around. I have no illusions of Nate having any science to back up all the BS he spreads around here. All he has is his lap dog, you, to bark at folks that point out he has no science to back up his assertions.
[GILL] No, I’m not bossing people around.
[ALSO GILL] the bill gates approach is to feed workers the SAME garbage as they produce on a daily basis.
LOL, they can choose to not eat it Willard. all depends upon their choice.
Does Gill often fantasize about starving off people over which he could exert power?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I had though the spike might have been falling of a little this month, but I still would put money on ’24 not being as warm as ’23- on the assumption that this El Nino is behaving differently to past ones.
This marks the 7th month in a row where the global anomaly has been a record for that month. February will be interesting as that’s usually the warmest anomaly during an El Nino. The record for February is currently 0.71 set in 2016.
As far as this January is concerned it beat the previous record by 0.43C, set in 2016.
Top 10 warmest anomalies for January.
Year Anomaly
1 2024 0.86
2 2016 0.43
3 2020 0.43
4 2010 0.36
5 1998 0.33
6 2013 0.31
7 2007 0.28
8 2017 0.26
9 2019 0.24
10 2003 0.20
https://imgur.com/a/056In5X
I make the warming rate 0.1447C / decade, which Dr Spencer has rounded to 0.15.
Cherry-picking the trend from certain start dates, the slowest rate of warming starts in December 2015, and is 0.12C / decade.
Starting in September 2014, where people where insisting the pause started – the warming rate is now 0.21C / decade.
The trend over the last 15 years, is 0.30C / decade, starting in January 2009.
And over the last 20 years it’s 0.24C / decade, starting in January 2004.
This you may note is longer than the Great Pause that got some people so exited.
Even starting in 1996, the start of that great pause, the trend is now more or less the same as the overall trend, 0.15C / decade.
All of this is just a reminder that looking at short term trends over variable data can be misleading.
For the record, my simple annual model for the year predicts 2024 will be 0.58 +/- 0.24 – and suggests a better than 70% chance of the year being a record.
But this is based on just 1 month’s data, and last year at this point I was predicting 0% of 2023 being a record. The model simply doesn’t cope with the unusual climate we are currently in.
I suspect things will cool throughout the year, on the assumption that the effects of this El Nino have peaked much sooner than usual.
“I suspect things will cool throughout the year, on the assumption that the effects of this El Nino have peaked much sooner than usual.”
why would they do that?
Because all models are predicting a return to neutral conditions in a few months, possibly heading back into La Nina.
It’s just my amature speculation. Something caused the very unusual warming we are seeing. The obvious candidate is the return of el Nino conditions, but comparison with previous spikes suggest this is happening much faster and string than would be expected at this time if year.
My guess is that either this is a much stronger el Nino than seen in the past, or it’s just happening faster than normal. I suspect the second option, but that might just be my wishful thinking. It’s difficult to imagine this level of warming being maintained for anthor year.
My only uneducated guess is that this may be the result if the extended la Nina’s we’ve seen over the past few years. It’s kept the surface temperatures cooler but meant more heat went into the oceans. Now we are in a positive phase of the enso cycle, all that heat came out in a great rush, which might mean it won’t be sustained.
We’ll just have to wait and see. Whatever though I expect we’ll soon be hearing about the pause that started just before 2023.
Why would assume that the effects of this El Nino have peaked much sooner than usual.
The El Nino peaked as usual in ~ December and is decaying ~ as usual. I would expect the usual persistence of its effects to mid year.
I think the ocean warmed in the Atlantic and N Pacific, prior to El Nino.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
Select N. Atlantic. 2023 is orange. Records broken since March.
“The El Nino peaked as usual”
And La Nina is coming.
We just had a string of La Ninas. Notice that they didnt stop GW or reaching new high T records last year.
Nate last year was 2023 an El Nino year.
He didn’t claim it wasn’t. Try to read Nate’s comment in the light of the comment he was responding to and its implications.
Here is by the way a global map provided by Japan’s Met Agency:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/temp_map.html
Start ‘Monthly’, 2023, 1 (for January) and click on ‘+1 month’.
JMA publishes the ‘coolest’ of all global temperature grids…
I’m getting a trend of 0.14455.
His trend doesn’t include December 1978.
Note the stepwise increase which models cannot replicate
Models make no attempt to predict decadal variation.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Remembering that ENSO seasons run from July to Jun, not Jan to Dec:
1997-98
Jul-Jan: +0.03
Jul-Jun: +0.22
2015-16
Jul-Jan: +0.22
Jul-Jun: +0.34
2023-24
Jul-Jan: +0.82
Jul-Jun: ?
Funny how we don’t hear mention of 97-98 any more.
Stop inciting.
What have I incited matey? It is just data.
What are you insinuating here, Walter R. Hogle?
You mean the New Little Ice Age?
It would be nice if people started using their brainz instead listening the climate shysterz propaganda because then they would realize a little bit of warming is a very good thing
So we should listen to the climate science deniers who told us there wouldn’t be any warming? I think I will stick with the people who know what they are talking about and who predicted this dramatic warming in the first place.
I didn’t say to listen to anybody, I said think, a concept lost to you
Happy Ground Hog day!! Another El Nino warm January. Who would have thought?
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Will February be warmer in the U.S.?
https://i.ibb.co/qMBcZ9z/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f000.png
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/maps/gfs_world-wt_t2anom_d1.png
Antonin, please stop trolling.
According to the Australian BOM data, the current El Nino has been tailing off, having peaked around late November. Values are still well within the El Nino range though. If the usual 3-4 month lag in LT response to ENSO persists this time then we might expect to see record temperatures through Feb and March 2024. Might tail off a bit after that.
About as expected. With the typical 3-4 month lag we normally see the highest El Nino anomalies in Jan-Mar. Two more months to go.
There is an interesting RH anomaly showing up recently.
https://climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
A strange dip at 1000mb in 2023 about the time we started seeing the rise in global temperatures. Just as desert climates are dry and hot, we could be seeing a similar effect at the surface. Maybe this was why we saw the higher anomalies last fall. It looks like it has now returned to more normal values.
Any ideas why this occurred?
Your causation is back to front. This is RELATIVE humidity. It measures how much water vapour the atmosphere holds as a percentage of what it CAN hold. The extreme temperatures allow the air to hold more water. So the graph simply shows that the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere hasn’t risen to match the temperatures, NOT that it has fallen.
That is one possibility, but that goes against climate change theory which states that RH is supposed to increase right along with any warming. Thanks for pointing out the problem this poses for climate alarmists.
Where would I find this aspect of “climate change theory” related specifically to RELATIVE humidity.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Its just a small change in values that is emphasized by rounding, but I am surprised now one has commented that the trends all increased by 0.01 C/decade.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 stands at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.20 C/decade over global-averaged land).
[Although I get 0.144546 C/decade from Jan 79 to Jan 2024, which still rounds to 0.14]
Bellman mentioned it two hours ago.
It’s not really a significant detail anyway. It might be more significant if it’s still up there a couple of years from now.
I guess I missed that post! And, yes it is a small change, but probably significant in a statistical sense. From 0.134 to 0.145 in 8 months is rather remarkable.
Yeah went from +.13 to +.14 , and than +.15 C, from a time period where New York Times were saying we were going to enter an Ice Age.
NYT is often wrong.
First we been in Ice Age for million of years, and if history repeats, it will be tens of thousands of year before we reach the next Glacial Maximum. Which many seem to mistakenly call an Ice Age- because during that fairly short period of time, there are ice sheets everywhere.
But an Ice Age just require one ice sheet, and we have one in Antarctic and another in Greenland, both have been “permanent”
for last couple million years.
And this relatively short period of time, is also commonly called an Ice Age, or last Ice Age. But the Late Cenozoic Ice Age has going on for about 33.9 million years, at a time Earth oceans started to cool.
And our Ocean average temperature currently is about 3.5 C and when the Late Cenozoic Ice Age began, the average ocean temperature temperature warmer than 5 C.
And in recent previous inter glacial periods at the time of their thermal Maximum or at the peak of inter glacial period, the ocean was thought to be 4 C or warmer and sea levels + 4 meter higher than our present sea levels.
During the Holocene thermal max, the sea levels were considered to be 1 to 2 meters higher than present levels.
Anyways take very long time to cool back down to Glacial Max.
I’ll get attacked for this – but to my mind this is the problem with not showing enough digits. For one thing the rounding should make it still 0.14, but I assume it was based on a rounding to 3 digits, 0.145 and then round up again to 0.15C / decade.
But showing just 2 digits means you have months where there is no apparent change in the trend, and then a sudden jump. 0.14 to 0.15 is a 7% jump in the trend, yet the actual change this month was from 0.143 to 0.145, an increase of only 1%.
Tropical storm in northern Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/Wkc5mVp/himawari9-ir-07-P-202402021330.gif
Decadal anomalies:
1980s -0.28
1990s -0.14 (up 0.14)
2000s -0.03 (up 0.11)
2010s +0.12 (up 0.15)
2020s +0.31 (up 0.19 after only 41% of the decade, and despite having 28 La Nina months to 8 El Nino months)
My gut feeling is that this decade is looking very much like the 70s.
The 1970s began with 5 La Ninas in 6 years, with the odd year being an El Nina of roughly the same strength as this one (very slightly stronger).
Then when all the La Ninas were over, the PDO flipped to positive.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a similar finish to the decade – another La Nina or two, possible strong this time, then a switch to El Nino dominant conditions.
“… being an El NinO …”
The big difference from the 1970s is the PDO had been mostly negative since 1945 and AMO was also negative. We are due for an AMO phase change next year. It will be interesting to see where this goes.
You are telling that nonsense since years.
I have explained to you that it is based on AMOS’s detrended variant.
Use the undetrended one, Richard M, and come back to us with the result.
Yes, the AMO is usually detrended, that doesn’t change it from being a cycle. It piggy backs on the millennial cycle. It won’t take us all the way back to the 1960s and 70s unless we are at the peak of the millennial cycle. It will lead to an increase in Arctic sea ice which will cool the rest of the NH. Going to be hard to push the the climate hoax when that occurs.
The AMO has been tracked back multiple centuries. The “nonsense” is all yours.
Not sure Bindidon whether you appreciate suggestions regarding your English, but I’ll assume you are OK with it.
Your first sentence is one of the very few examples I have seen from you which suggest that you are not a native speaker. In fact whenever I see that it tells me there is a very good chance that the writer speaks German.
“Since” is followed only by a specific moment or period in time, which might be “yesterday”, “Sep 11 2001”, “the 17th century” or “I started school”. “Years” is not specific. I understand that “seit” in German is used more expansively, and would be used in this situation. But “for” is the correct word here. And whether it is “since” or “for”, it is always written in the past. So the correct statement is “You have been telling that nonsense for years”.
It is never possible to nominate a specific year in which we are “due” for anything related to ocean circulation patterns.
And NO – the PDO was positive from the late 70s to the late 90s.
I said nothing about the 70s through the 90s. I said from 1945 into the 70s. Read a little more carefully.
I do agree that no one pick the exact year. But, 2025 is the 30 year anniversary of the last phase change.
Or perhaps you should write a little more carefully.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Here are the decadal anomalies with the decades grouped a little differently:
1979-1988 -.31
1989-1998 -.16 (up .15)
1999-2008 -.04 (up .12)
2009-2018 +.09 (up .13)
2019-January, 2024 +.31 (up .22 with 61 months, 51% of a decade, in the bank)
Not much difference, but it includes 1979’s data and it gets the final grouping a little closer to a decade.
The maximum length of the Monckton Pause hit 107 months on the 2023/04 update. The start date at that time was 2014/06.
In just 9 months the trend from 2014/06 went from 0.00 C/decade to 0.23 C/decade.
My model is predicting +0.60 C +/- 0.16 C for 2024. That gives 2024 an 84% chance breaking the 2023 record of +0.51 C.
thats probable. this could be like the 1997/98 el nino. started out la nina ended in winter 1997/98 followed by an extended la nina, but 1998 was a little warmer than 1997.
A little??
Very little warmer AQ!
“In just 9 months the trend from 2014/06 went from 0.00 C/decade to 0.23 C/decade.”
Which tells you that the time period is too short to get a stable enough read on trends.
Why not also publish NASA CERES global cloud cover and absorbed shortwave insolation together with the global temperature in one graph. I think you will find good correlation. The cloud scale should be upside-down.
Contrarians are often dismissive of CERES because 1) it shows an increase in ASR consistent with the positive shortwave feedback predicted by models, 2) it shows a concerning increase in EEI that all but guarantees that we have no yet seen the long term top in temperatures and suggests it is likely that the warming is accelerating, and 3) its creator and maintainer is about as “alarmist” as it gets in terms of the future warming potential and the effects it will have. In that regard I don’t know how well it will be received here.
Not dismissive at all. The ASR mostly jumped during a 2 year period while the PDO changed signs. Looked quite natural. The reason for more SW energy was a reduction in cloud cover by about 1.5%. Hardly a sign that CO2 had any effect whatsoever.
CERES believes the increase in ASR is the result of a reduction in aerosols and a positive feedback from the GHG induced warming. See Loeb et al 2021 and Hansen et al 2023 for details.
“CERES believes”
Correct bdgwx, it’s all about believing. The problem is beliefs ain’t science.
ASR is not known, it Is “believed”. OLR is not known, it is “believed”. So their result — EEI, is also “believed”. It’s all bogus.
Cult beliefs don’t interest me.
What’s very interesting is the cloud cover reduction in 2022 right after HTE. This just went to the top of my list for causes of the extra 2023 warming.
changes in albedo can come from many sources. We have known for 60 years what Hansen believes the source is but we haven’t seen a blueprint for the mechanism that melts ice and snow. Are we just to assume it is so?
“we havent seen a blueprint for the mechanism”
Oh stop. Yes you have.
Nate has been lying about this for years. Finally got him to post what he claimed to be proof. And it wasn’t. It was merely information about how CO2 might be able to warm the surface.
Here is the exchange:
Nate proved that with this thread where he claimed to have produced evidence of the scientific basis of the GHE CO2 theory:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1574567
that is only conditional with this reference of Nates on the basis of a falsification of the Isothermic Atmosphere Hypothesis:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml
Based upon the longheld isothermic atmosphere hypothesis at the center of meteorology:
https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Isothermal_atmosphere
That states that when pressure and water presence is stabilized the atmosphere is isothermic.
Proof positive that Nate has never seen, offered, or posted a blueprint because he certainly would not have posted what he did post if he knew of one that actually was a blueprint.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1612185
“that is only conditional with this reference of Nates on the basis of a falsification of the Isothermic Atmosphere Hypothesis”
Ugggh.
“An idealized atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium in which the TEMPERATURE IS CONSTANT WITH HEIGHT”
FYI for the perpetually clueless, it aint!
Thats not the hypothesis Nate. Thats the definition of an isothermal atmosphere. A definition is not an hypothesis. The hypothesis is that those are the only two parameters that changes trends in the atmosphere. If thats false then maybe CO2 will be one. But so far no evidence of that has emerged. You will have to wait for the observations to confirm the models.
3) its creator and maintainer is about as alarmist as it gets in terms of the future warming potential and the effects it will have. ”
Whos that Loeb? Really?
Yeah. Loeb is a coauthor on the Hansen et al. 2023 Global Warming in the Pipeline publication. He’s also said in the past that everything we are currently seeing in the news like forest fires and droughts are going to get worse.
thats baloney on the droughts and forest fires. Climate changes and when changes occur both warming a cooling vegetation in some regions prosper other regions not so much. But drought and fires are connected and in general drought means less precipitation as experienced recently in a Western US exposed to dry conditions from a dominance of La Ninas in recent years. Since California draws its water resources from as far as Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Oregon, and Nevada these states have shared in the droughts.
Let’s hope Gill never was into forest management.
Bill, would you describe Loeb as an “alarmist” then?
my comment here explains my position on loeb.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1614355
but imo the topic of forest fires and drought is as follows. droughts have occurred forever. i see no credible evidence being put forward linking drought or forest fires.
most increases in forest fires is linked to a growing population and fires resulting from carelessness or arson.
second is an increase in lightning caused fires linked generally perhaps to increases in precipitation.
seems maybe it would be better to link fires to increases in precipitation. but generally that isn’t as effective as less precipitation from an alarmist point of view.
“everything we are currently seeing in the news like forest fires and droughts are going to get worse.”
Reasonable extrapolation.
Forest fires and drought in the US is associated with cold climate not warm climate Nate.
Compare archive drought maps here between say Nov 22 and Nov 23 as we transitioned from La Nina to El Nino. California deluges set in after that as the climate indicators pointed at El Nino.
We are now seeing the fruits of a grand maximum. Whether its TSI or something else precipitation has been increasing world wide. When we enter into a grand minimum precipitation will likely decrease as it does in the Western US during times of La Nina events.
“Forest fires and drought in the US is associated with cold climate not warm climate Nate.”
Evidence?
Drought and forest fires are exacerbated by high temperatures.
ENSO is not AGW.
El Nino makes certain parts of the globe warmer and drier, Australia Indonesia, and surroundings, other parts wetter and cooler, on average.
drought in the west is brought on by cooling of ocean waters off the west coast. that has been a recognized consequence of la nina since i was a child. the question is do you have any evidence to overturn the evidence of history. california had record rains in 2022/23 season as the oceans progressed towards an el nino pattern as the most recent example.
you bring your support and if i get time i will show you what has been happening in the west for the last 2 to 3 decades.
I dont get what you are driving at.
ENSO has different effects around the world. Some places none at all.
It is not AGW.
The Earth has different climates, including some very dry deserts.
AGW may cause some regions to get drier and others to get wetter, on average.
Indeed Nate and the climate has been warming and worldwide precipitation has been increasing. EOS.
Agreed. The best I’ve been able to understand the definition of “alarmist” includes those that believe the effects of global warming will get worse. And considering that Loeb indicts the IPCC of reticence and believes warming, sea level rise, etc. will be worse then the IPCC is expecting is probably sufficient for most contrarians to pin the “alarmist” tag to him.
Well thats probably fair since denialist is frequently tagged on to Roy, Judith, Richard, William, Syun, Don and so many other luke warmers.
Solar activity events and approximate dates
Event Start End
Oort minimum 1010 1050
Medieval max 1100 1250
Wolf minimum 1280 1350
Sprer Minimum 1460 1550
Maunder Minimum 1645 1715
Dalton Minimum 1790 1830
Modern Maximum 1950 2009
So what happens now?
Here is simpler:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarmism
The whole idea of calling the IPCC alarmist is pure crap.
actually willard the political body of the un that edits the policy advice for the ipcc has a majority of votes. these governments are expecting to get fat grants from the developed nations. which in turn after those governments have deducted their administration costs are expected to spend the rest on ”qualified” high technology from corporations from the developed countries. they have also been ordered to fire any public employees who are investigating any fraud related to those funding processes deemed contrary to developed nation interests.
to which willard calls out as pure crap.
Actually Gill has no leg to stand on.
bdgwx says:
”And considering that Loeb indicts the IPCC of reticence and believes warming, sea level rise, etc. will be worse then the IPCC is expecting is probably sufficient for most contrarians to pin the alarmist tag to him.”
1) i don’t consider the ipcc mainstream report to be alarmist, though alarmists do contribute.
2) the political editing of the summary for policymakers doesn’t give adequate consideration to all voices engaged in the ipcc process.
3) alarmists tend to call anybody not in sync with that summary to be deniers.
4) so it might follow any person who thinks the ipcc to be too reticent probably is as much of an alarmist as a denier is a denier.
5) imo, people are entitled to voice their opinions including their vote and to advocate for their position without government restraint, whether denier or alarmist.
It’s a weird thing. I get called an “alarmist” all of the time. It’s not offensive to me or anything, but it is interesting since I usually argue for a more a pragmatic and measured position regarding equilibrium climate sensitivity, attribution to current weather events, future effects, etc.
Those who have tracked my posts over the years know that I have never labeled anyone a “denier”. Instead I use the word “contrarian” which I define as anyone who holds a position that is contrary to the consilience of evidence and which does not carry with it the same negative connotation and stigma as “denier”. I do this because I want to treat people with respect and want them to feel like they have and focus more on the merits (or lack therefore) of their arguments as opposed to a cliche ad-hominem in disguise. So far no one has ever objected to the term “contrarian” or taken offense to it.
“And considering that Loeb indicts the IPCC of reticence and believes warming, sea level rise, etc. will be worse then the IPCC is expecting ”
Does he?
My impression is he is a measurer, and good at it, and he reports the results of those measurements and analyses.
Nate: Does he?
Yes. See Hansen et al. 2023 Global Warming in the Pipeline.
Maybe Hansen conned Loeb into putting his name on that paper?
Maybe Gill will read neither?
bdgwx informed me of the fact his name is on the paper. Of course I checked and sure enough its there. I just figured I would help Nate out with a counter argument that I am sure he won’t double check up on. . .or you for that matter also.
Yes he is a coauthor, but my guess is because he contributed data and analysis. His expertise is not modeling projections or paleo.
Pravda Pundit: Why not also publish NASA CERES
As you can you see Clint R challenges the fact that they measure ASR and OLR at all and Richard M is calling them a cult. This what I mean when I say contrarians are dismissive of CERES.
Not only are ASR and OLR not actual measurements, bdgwx, but different fluxes can not be added/subtracted. Your cult simply does NOT understand the basics.
Most responsible adults know that Loeb and Hansen are extremists anyway.
> different fluxes can not be added/subtracted
Riddle me this, Puffman –
Does that mean a flux F can only add to itself, or that F can only add to another G if they share the same quantity?
Willard, please stop trolling.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
bdgwx says:
”As you can you see Clint R challenges the fact that they measure ASR and OLR at all and Richard M is calling them a cult. This what I mean when I say contrarians are dismissive of CERES.”
I am not dismissive of CERES. I am just dismissive of people who think they can derive accuracies from CERES that simply isn’t there.
Saying that CERES shows that CO2 isn’t the cause of the warming is an example of an accuracy that simply isn’t there.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Take a look at the graphs at the bottom of this article:
https://www.climate-veritas.com/?page_id=26
Perfect match, kills SGW.
I wonder what did happen to Skeptic Gone Wild?
In any case, you presumably meant "kills AGW". Of course, but then that’s been dead for years. Not sure why anyone bothers discussing it any more. That’s partly why I got more interested in the moon stuff…just didn’t seem worth talking about the GHE, the world’s most comprehensively debunked sub-conjecture, any more.
Occasionally it’s worth bringing up again, to annihilate for any new readers, I suppose.
Hi Ned.
I hadn’t seen any comments under Pravda Pundit’s 12:29 PM post for about a day, but I knew as soon as I wrote something, that might change. Sure enough, twelve minutes after I posted…
Nice story bro. Don’t let our presence stop you from continuing your random irrelevant musings.
…then, a little later this time, another comment!
Some commenters here have experienced the joy of just being able to post something without any response. I wonder what that feels like?
I wouldn’t know what that feels like. Some tosser and his copycat won’t let anyone comment without replying “please stop tr0111ng”.
Have you experience that yet?
…and, there we have it. It’s officially another personal thread, within just a few comments. Let’s see how long this one will be.
Please explain what is meant by a “personal thread”, what protection is offered you by nominating it as such, and whether you offer others the same protection.
Just another thread devoted to personal, petty issues between commenters, no protection, and no.
Pravda Pundit linked to something he claims “kills AGW”. You would think that would be of more interest to AGW defenders than whether it’s right that the trolls here get politely asked to stop, but here we are.
You would think that someone who maliciously posts the same nonsense comment over every post he chooses to disagree with would not feel the need to preach, but here we are.
Two graphs, one of ASR compared to temperatures, and one of ASR compared to cloud cover:
“The following figures show the latest CERES satellite data for absorbed shortwave (SW) radiation, the global cloud cover and the corresponding temperature change from 2000 to 2024. Note that decreasing cloud cover corresponds to a lower albedo which causes more solar radiation to be absorbed which raises the earth’s temperature. Green house gases play no role in the warming of the planet. It is warmed because more solar radiation is absorbed because of decreasing cloud cover.”
Why people need to try to torture the data so much to come to other conclusions, e.g.
“ CERES believes the increase in ASR is the result of a reduction in aerosols and a positive feedback from the GHG induced warming. See Loeb et al 2021 and Hansen et al 2023 for details.”
Once you’ve freed your mind from the GHE nonsense, the data speaks for itself. More about how bad I am for saying PST, please.
My comment was about how much of a hypocrite you are.
OK, but even if I were a hypocrite, there is no excuse for you to go around trolling these threads like you do at the beginning of every month, only to disappear after a certain number of days because you believe the readership dies down.
I disappear after a few days because I get bored with the level of intellect on offer here … it’s quite depressing actually. And the moment anyone does makes an intelligent comment you and Flynn jump straight on to it with your nonsense copy-paste comment.
And unlike you and your buddies, I actually have a life to lead. How sad it must be to think your day is not complete without coming here.
Who are you to guess at my motives.
And you don’t get to define “tr0111ng” as “challenging nonsense”. Or in this case, playing the same game as the person I am replying to.
Antonin is another person who has problems accepting he’s a troll. Well, don’t worry, I’m sure other people don’t have a problem seeing you that way.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Never have, never will.
The global data is skewed towards the southern hemisphere (in the negative sense because there is more water than land in the SH).
What does statistics tells us about what average or central tendency to use when the underlying data in skewed?
You really need to learn the difference between skew and bias.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Statistics is concerned with skew, not bias.
You have got to be kidding. Imagine all the statistics you must be misinterpreting by not recognising the underlying biases.
SKEW is an asymmetry in RELATIVE FREQUENCIES (in a statistical analysis) or in PROBABILITIES (in a probability analysis) with respect to the variable being measured.
That has NOTHING to do with what you described.
“SKEW is an asymmetry”
An asymmetry is a bias.
Oh really. So if I wish to undertake a survey of how many hours students study for each week, and I take a biased survey by only surveying students from academically selective schools, that will automatically lead to an asymmetric distribution will it?
Alternatively, if I undertake the survey with no such bias, are you claiming that the resulting distribution cannot be asymmetrical?
Unless the bias shows up as a skew.
“Bias can be introduced by various factors, such as sampling methods, data collection procedures, measurement errors, or human judgments. Skew can be caused by outliers, missing values, or inherent characteristics of the data”
Yes? How does that challenge what I said, and how does it support your claim that you are dealing with skew?
Let’s say the NH is averaging +0.8 and the SH is averaging +0.4.
You average them to get +0.6. Where is the skew? It tells you NOTHING about the symmetry of the distribution or lack thereof.
The only way this is skewed towards the SH is if the SH has a greater variance, as there will then be a larger tail on that side of the distribution.
And to answer your original question, one facet of the central limit theorem tells us that if you average skewed distributions you get a new distribution with LESS skew, ie. closer to normal.
The last paragraph should be phrased:
… if you average samples taken from skewed distributions, the sample distribution asymptotically approaches zero skew as the number of samples grows. (Although the skew can potentially grow for a small number of samples before settling down to its asymptotic approach to zero skew).
Antonin, please stop trolling.
So which statistic should we use for average/central tendency over the whole globe given that there is more land than ocean in the NH and vice versa in the SH?
You mean for time series temperature data?
Yes.
For global, weight the data as equally as possible around the globe. Get the average of sectors in a grid, account for and adjust for a preponderance of data in some areas and a dearth in another.
If the globe is well gridded then you don’t have to counterweight land/ocean.
Do you accept that land and ocean have different temperature ranges over time?
Results of class A (20 students) in a maths test:
77 78 78 79 79 79 79 80 80 80 80 80 80 81 81 81 81 82 82 83
Average: 80
Results of class B (20 students) in the same maths test:
24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96
Average: 60
Average of the two classes: 70
Results of the entire cohort of 40:
24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 60 64 68 72 76 77 78 78 79 79
79 79 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 81 81 81 81 82 82 83 84 88 92 96
Average: 70
No difference. The average of means of two equally sized subsets of the full set with vastly different spreads (‘temperature ranges’) gives PRECISELY the mean of the full set.
RLH, are you trying to create a faux controversy again?
It is well known that the SH is warming slower than the NH, because of the land/ocean ratio.
And?
“Do you accept that land and ocean have different temperature ranges over time?”
Sure. You can split the globe any number of ways and find that warming is not uniform. This is news?
Get to your point.
It’s hard to make sense of what you’ve written. “Ranges” would ordinarily refer to the variability, but I think you mean ‘trends’, and I answered under that assumption.
It’s not the first time that RLH (I call the guy ‘Blindsley H00d, as he stûpidly calls me ‘Blinny’) desperately tries to insinuate major mistakes in weather data averaging.
Three years ago he started on the blog kinda campaign against historical thermometer TMIN/TMAX readings.
He claimed – based on nothing else than generic information he probably found in Wikipedia or statistics text books – that the mean of TMIN and TMAX would unduly elevate the average temperatures, and that only the median of hourly data would be accurate.
The goal was obvious: to denigrate the entire historical temperature measurements.
*
I answered with an evaluation of the Germany’s DWD weather station data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n1XsuuPoLUhMvtZg9SJoLPE4CX7Gc9Ss/view
and proved him wrong by giving for several periods the trends computed for (TMIN+TMAX)/2, median and 24 hour average.
Instead of honestly admitting his misrepresentation of the reality, he claimed that the German stations wouldn’t be accurate enough and requested the pristine USCRN stations to be used instead.
I invested a lot of work at that time by showing with charts and data that in USCRN, the differences between means and medians wrt 24h averages would be spatially and temporally biased.
*
Recently I updated the USCRN charts with data till Dec 2023:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FEoidp-brB2oZ_WyCnHNXZxW8pHS32JI/view
using this time fifth order polynomial means to show how tiny the differences are.
Here is, for the three methods mentioned above, the daily average of all stations in all years from 2002 till 2023:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AaxFh4QW5DTv7KH42H9DmSFGl68qJYRh/view
*
All what Blindsley H00d was ever able to offer was a ridiculous school boy level chart telling us nothing valuable:
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uscrn-contiguous-daily-values-3.jpg
*
But like Robertson, Clint R, the Hunter boy and a few other ‘specialist’s, Blindsley H00d never will admit being wrong with regard to anything.
You can’t discuss with completely opinionated persons.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The New York Times
Could a Giant Parasol in Outer Space Help Solve the Climate Crisis?
Cara Buckley
Fri, February 2, 2024
“Its come to this. With Earth at its hottest point in recorded history, and humans doing far from enough to stop its overheating, a small but growing number of astronomers and physicists are proposing a potential fix that could have leaped from the pages of science fiction: the equivalent of a giant beach umbrella, floating in outer space.”
linked from: https://instapundit.com/
—
HELP US, ELON, YOURE OUR ONLY HOPE: Could a Giant Parasol in Outer Space Help Solve the Climate Crisis?
It needs to do double duty as a solar power satellite.
Posted at 8:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds —
What could possibly go wrong when a bunch of geeks build a giant parasol in outer space?
No.
No.
No.
I tell you three times, No.
Why would anybody want to put a giant parasol out in space?
Svante Arrhenius may not be right about everything but what he has been consistently right about for 115 years is his projection of the only outcome that makes any difference:
”We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”
Arrhenius predicted atmospheric CO2 would rise by 50% in 3000 years. It has risen that much in the last 250 years.
so he didn’t put a time limit on his prediction and so far the prediction has survived the test of time.
And how do you propose making this parasol track the sun?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Well there is place, called Earth/Sun L-1.
It’s vast volume of Space between Sun and Earth. It could even be related, to us being in Ice Age.
But only because we know almost nothing.
Such as, how much dust is currently in L-1. Though it’s known there are rings of dust, they can be seen, but how much dust, are we guessing, right?
A lot things are guessed about for centuries.
Al Gore’s Climate observing spacecraft is at L1. Parked always between Sun and Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory
Put it in orbit around the sun at the same rate the earth rotates around the sun? You know like how a geostationary satellite orbits.
You DO understand that it will rotate at the same rate as the earth only if it is EXACTLY the same distance from the sun as the earth, right?
As as the aim is for the orbit to have the same inclination as the earth’s orbit, that mean it must BE the earth.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
No I didn’t know that. But thanks for pointing that out. I looked that up and see that orbit distance and speed is related. that helps a lot because I have just started working on orbit eccentricity variation and I was wondering if there was a speed element to it. this simplifies that problem considerably.
so it appears it would have to go faster than its natural orbit speed. So the problem seems likely to boil down to keeping such a craft fueled to keep it from crashing to earth.
GEO sits above some place on Earth, and that place has a night. But GEO is so far from Earth, that Earth doesn’t block to sun, as much. Or somewhere around 90 percent orbit is in direct sunlight. But only blocking sunlight from reaching earth in few hours around noon.
You would block more sunlight from reaching Earth if in LEO. And since SpaceX has thousands of satellite in LEO, it “could” alter the direction of solar panel face so they block more sunlight as compared what they “normally” do. Or they harvesting solar energy, but they could harvest solar energy, but do it a way that also blocks the most sunlight. Starlink satellite could focus on blocking the most amount sunlight getting to Earth and thereby make our Ice Age a bit more colder.
What is “geo”? Is it geostationary or geosynchronous?
The ONLY geoSTATIONARY orbit is around the equator.
And geoSYNCHRONOUS orbits do NOT sit above the same location.
Due to the tilt of the earth’s rotation, a geoSTATIONARY object would be between the sun and the point on the earth it rotates with for only about 2 minutes on two days of the year – the equinoxes. IF the earth’s orbit had no tilt it would be 2 minutes every day.
A geoSYNCHRONOUS object would sit between a particular point on the earth and the sun on a handful of very brief “random” periods each year.
And you have your distances ass about. The L1 point is 42 times as far from the earth as the geostationary altitude. That is, L1 is about FOUR earth-moon distances from the earth, while the geosynchronous altitude is about 0.1 earth-moon distances from the earth.
To cover just one percent of the sun’s surface, a parasol at the L1 point would need to be about 1400 km in diameter. Do you think that is feasible?
And the killer blow … the L1 point is only a semi-stable point. An object cannot sit stably at L1. It can only rotate about L1 at a radius far too large to lie between the earth and sun for ANY time.
“Due to the tilt of the earths rotation, a geoSTATIONARY object would be between the sun and the point on the earth it rotates with for only about 2 minutes on two days of the year the equinoxes. IF the earths orbit had no tilt it would be 2 minutes every day.”
We are not talking about shading a point on Earth, we talking shading the entire earth in regards to sunlight reaching Earth.
If want to shade someone’s house from sunlight, as some kind of prank, it’s pretty complicated/difficult and limited. Though an interesting prank.
The point of GEO orbit whether geoSTATIONARY or geoSYNCHRONOUS
is a station {and many stations in different spots on Earth surface} can always receive and transmit signals from and to it.
If got station on Earth- somewhere in Oregon and somewhere in Ohio
you use the same geoSTATIONARY or geoSYNCHRONOUS satellite. But it will rarely shade the sunlight at that these locations or any location. And doesn’t work well at higher latitudes than that. And would not work in Japan or France. Russian don’t use GEO, they have a special polar orbit. Called: Molniya orbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molniya_orbit
“And you have your distances ass about. The L1 point is 42 times as far from the earth as the geostationary altitude. ”
Earth has two L-1 points. Earth/Moon L-1 and Earth/Sun L-1.
The Point of Earth/Sun L-1 is about 1.5 million km from Earth and the point is always between Sun and Earth. Though a vast region and you can orbit the point. You could have far more satellites orbit that L-1 point then one can have orbiting Earth. Big volume of space.
The Earth/Moon L-1 is the closest of all 10 L points and it’s always between Earth and Moon. And Earth/Moon L-2 is always on farside of Moon. L-3 is in orbit on opposite side of Moon orbit around Earth.
L-4/5 point is 60 degree ahead and behind the moon.
L-5 colonies is talking about Earth/Moon L-5 {which you put many “colonies in” and is quite small volume of Space compared to Earth/Sun L-1 [or L-2 which is where the Webb telescope is}.
“To cover just one percent of the suns surface, a parasol at the L1 point would need to be about 1400 km in diameter. Do you think that is feasible?”
I would use Space dust. There is lot of it. I mine space rocks which are brought to Earth/Sun L-1.
There lots of useful satellites in L-1, and this dust would not be useful for such assets.
But if want to spend trillion of dollars and you thing it’s very important.
One make money from mining Space rocks and only charge say 10 billion for all the dust you purpose waste for this silly project of cooling Earth.
Or the dust has some value, but you pay 10 billion for dust, it’s more money than one make from the dust- and it’s easy to make dust- some govt normally wants to limit how much dust you accidentally make. So sell millions of tons of dust for 10 billion dollars, would play significant role in incentizing mining rocks {for some other reasons that just making a lot dust in L-1.
Why are you mentioning the earth-moon L1??
An object placed there would only be between the earth and the sun during a solar eclipse.
And it is 0.84 earth-moon distances from the earth, still 8 times the geostationary altitude.
If you want to shade the whole earth from the whole sun, your parasol at L1 will now need a diameter of 150 000 km. That is an area of 70 billion square kilometres. Do you honestly believe “millions of tons” of dust spread over that area would make a dent?
“That is an area of 70 billion square kilometres. Do you honestly believe millions of tons of dust spread over that area would make a dent?”
70 billion {or 1/4} with billions of kg far less than 1 kg per square km or say 3.5 billion kg or 3500 billions gram is 350070: 50 grams per square km
{or 70/4 is 17.5, 3500 / 17.5 is 200 gram per square km} “would make a dent?”
Supposing not trying to make uniform, say 1 square km has zero and another has 400 grams in square km.
Also I don’t know how much dust is there already. Say it’s doubling the amount present and it’s also not uniform. So range of average amount is 100 grams to density as much as 800 grams
per square km- in terms of not whole Earth disk but just 3000 km radius centered in middle of Earth’s disk.
What amount of dust in Earth Atmosphere?
“The National Science Foundation-funded researchers found that Earth’s atmosphere contains 17 million metric tons of coarse dust — the equivalent of 17 million elephants, or the mass of every person in America, put together.”
https://new.nsf.gov/news/earths-atmosphere-far-dustier-previously-believed
Knowing how much coarse dust is in the atmosphere is essential for understanding not only the atmospheric phenomena dust influences, but also the degree to which dust may be warming the planet.
[Fine dust is suppose to cool and coarse dust warms. But btw not sure I agree, but as general issue fine dust would be more reflective as compared to absorbing as general idea. Though fine dust could
tend have stuff sticking to it].
And also related to search of dust:
Now, in a study recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, a team measuring micrometeorite accumulation in the pristine snow of Antarctica has provided the best-yet estimate for incoming extraterrestrial debris. With clean sampling techniques and accurate ages for dust deposits, the researchers calculated around 5,200 metric tons of micrometeorites fall to Earth every year.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-study-shows-how-much-space-dust-hits-earth-every-year/
Many thanks to Antonin Qwerty for his excellent explanation, which further shows us the poorish, absolutely superficial pseudo-scientific knowledge that the braggadocio Hunter boy always displays.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Binny is a monkey.
Walter is a monkey with a sword.
Walter’s duiker:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Walter%E2%80%99s-Duiker.jpg
“Duiker” cognate with English “to duck” = to dive down or hide.
They dive into the scrub when pursued, or dart about randomly and haphazardly to avoid being pinned down.
Sound familiar? It’s probably a more apt description of Clint and RLH, but it still fits.
Why do you say that about me, Ant? I don’t recall ever engaging with you.
Fair enough, Walter.
You’re a duiker.
Willard is a monkey.
No U
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Japans moon lander sleeps again after sending science
https://cosmiclog.com/2024/02/01/japans-moon-lander-sleeps-again-after-sending-science/#more-29038
So upside down lander did get solar energy, as they predicted it might. So been mostly a success, they charged batteries, hoping it lives again when sun comes back {it’s not designed to and it’s upside down, but maybe}.
Curious to see if high monthly temps sustain for a few more months. That would be usual after el Nino peaks.
How long before this is called a step-jump? Place your bets!
IIRC it took less than 18 months after the peak of the 2015/16 el Nino before someone started talking about it being a pause.
What they refer to as a “step jump” is of course precisely what one would expect to see when natural variation is superimposed on a steady rising trend, and is visible only when the period over which averages are taken is not sufficiently large in comparison to the period of natural variability.
Dr Roy Spencer:
“step-like behavior can be the result of a linear trend superimposed on a low frequency cycle. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/“
If Dr Spencer agrees with me than I guess the denier cult will have no choice but to remain silent on the subject.
I had to reminisce over Salvatore making yet another of his failed predictions. I see his “Climatebusters” website has been deleted. And there are no longer any posts about climate on his Facebook page. Just 50s and 60s music … and the occasional anti-Trump post. Maybe Salvatore is not so bad after all.
That is strange logic.
Why do people think science is about consensus?
In this case Antonin is referring to tribalism, not consensus.
Of course we don’t, Walter. We all know that science is about what YOU happen to believe.
Hogle
Science is not about consensus: it is about scientific contradiction of scientific results.
Polemicists like you are ‘light years’ away from such processes.
Say what you want. At least I grasp the distinction between absolute temperatures and anomalies, Binny. The fact that you regard them as interchangeable with identical values speaks volumes.
Bindi, where are your “scientific results” for a viable model of “orbiting without spin”?
Hogle
” At least I grasp the distinction between absolute temperatures and anomalies, Binny. ”
No you don’t. Not at all.
I have shown often enough double examples explaining exactly how absolute and anomaly data differ resp. how they wonderfully correlate.
1. Germany
1.1 Absolute data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n1XsuuPoLUhMvtZg9SJoLPE4CX7Gc9Ss/view
1.2 Anomaly data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iEdxm4i1JxbVPOa_ZA5GVR1Er8OE2GY2/view
2. UAH LT
2.1 Absolute data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EuZxQTmZynMurw68n5lBo6g35Vh00foK/view
2.2 Anomaly data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
2.3 Anomaly data together with their absolute origin
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zMrnVDsGrI63WWKdlKmt2ez_RWvNpyag/view
*
I repeat: you are just a polemicist, unable to prove your contrarian claims because you lack both scientific education and technical skills to do so.
Clint R
Ask Hogle!
He has all the ‘science’ you need, even if, if I do well recall, seems to be convinced of Moon’s spin about its polar axis.
Well, no. My point was really about averaging. But you thought that choosing one form over the other was really addressing my point, even though the linear regression trends you gave me for your DWD spaghetti graphs revealed both forms had statistically inseparable trends from one another.
My point eluded you then and continues to now. I refrained from responding, because I relished the possibility that your behavior might be a symptom of deeper, irreparable intellectual decay. I decided to generously allow you to have that small victory in your head; such hollow triumphs are a rare spectacle and must be cherished for someone of your intellectual capabilities. I also took into account that data crunching spaghetti graphs is your self-proclaimed niche; I wouldn’t dream of taking away that precious accomplishment of yours.
walterrh03
Your mode of speech is very familiar. Who were you in your past lives on this site?
Willard, Bindidon, please stop trolling.
?
Hogle
You are, like Robertson, manifestly unable to understand how anomalies are computed out of absolute data, but nonetheless discredit and denigrate anything what what I wrote.
Stop talking your superficial, psychedelic blah blah, and start technically contradicting me – if you are able to do so.
Here’s is the average temperature index at a station located in Fairbanks, Alaska:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12elfNYCmFODiJBTbX9qjJFN-9MHiWVpy/view?usp=share_link
Here’s the snow cover index at the same station in Fairbanks, Alaska:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bXriri4-npWDjbox0Z7ZG_k32ts3mS7Q/view?usp=share_link
Here are the trends for the average temperature index:
Y = 0.05824*X – 66.38 (Average Temperature Trend for May)
0.58C per decade
P-value: <0.0001
Here are the trends for the snow cover index
Y = 8.505e-005*X + 0.4523 (Snow Cover for May)
P-value: 0.9901
One might anticipate that the trend in snow cover would align with the temperature index, but instead, the trajectories of these two trends diverge significantly from each other.
*Snowfall not snow cover*
Hogle told us above
” My point was really about averaging. ”
Oh, was it really?
Ah well ah well. I remind him proudly telling somewhere – on this blog or at Watts’ WUWT – that averages are basically wrong.
But… why then does the Hogle genius write
” My statement is grounded in the observation of the current conditions at the North Pole. ”
based on a graph showing a bit of UAH 6.0’s North Pole anomalies, a graph itself originating from data generated by a huge series of averaging processes?
This is typical for polemicists who mostly don’t have a clue of what the’re talking about.
*
UAH 6.0’s North Pole time series is constructed out of nine 2.5 degree latitude bands, each consisting of 144 cells.
Each cell’s value is the result of a complex process where numerous daily temperature measurements via microwave sounding performed by different satellites are subject to a weighted average of anomalies wrt the local satellite data departures:
Each latitude band then is averaged, and a monthly Arctic anomaly finally is computed out of a latitudinal weighting of the average array: it is the sum of all products of each latitude average by the latitude’s cosine, divided by the sum of the cosines of all involved latitudes.
*
In the sum: any UAH time series – Globe, hemispheres, land or ocean surfaces, hemispheres, Poles etc etc – is the result of a huge amount of… averages.
Why do ignoramuses discredit and denigrate things they indirectly themselves use all the time?
Is that your counter to the data I provided per your request?
https://tinyurl.com/the-bingo/but-consensus
Willard, please stop trolling.
barry…”How long before this is called a step-jump? Place your bets!”
***
The great alarmist hope, that El Nino highs will establish themselves as the norm. 1998 fell back below the baseline and 2016 almost to the baseline. What evidence do you have this is any different?
As Walter and I have been trying to point out, the averages upon which the trends are based are not true global averages. Thy are a result of a few hot spots and cold spots drawing the temperature average into a slight warming.
In other words, the entire plant has not warmed by 0.81C.
Here is the UAH anomaly map for december 2022…
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/december2022/2022_Map.png
Here it is for last december 2023…
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/december2024/202312_Map.png
Note to Roy…December 2023 is marker December 2024 in URL.
then January 2024…
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2024/JANUARY/202401_Map.png
Are you trying to infer the recent warming spike is related to CO2? If so, how does CO2 produce such a patchwork quilt that varies month to month and year to year?
Gordon,
barry: “How long before this is called a step-jump? Place your bets!”
***
Gordon: “The great alarmist hope, that El Nino highs will establish themselves as the norm.”
My comment was sarcastic. It is AGW ‘skeptics’ who push the step-jump idea – including you.
“The 1998 EN drove the average above the baseline, establishing a new average global warming around the +0.25C mark. That +0.25C represents a step function that cannot be explained by EN alone.”
And…
Vladimir Paar: “…between the 1979-1997 and 1998-2017 intervals there is an obvious ‘physical phase transition’ (of unknown origin ?) so there is an argument for separate consideration of these two intervals.”
Gordon Robertson:
“The abrupt transition is obvious on the red running average curve which has no noise in it.”
But today you seem to have changed your mind.
“1998 fell back below the baseline and 2016 almost to the baseline. What evidence do you have this is any different?”
Gordon, I agree that the ‘step-jumps’ in the UAH TLT data don’t represent a series actual, physical, sudden jumps to new global temperature plateaus.
As Roy pointed out in the past:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/
“Are you trying to infer the recent warming spike is related to CO2?”
No. Of course not.
Why do ‘skeptics’ keep asking this question, as if it hasn’t been answered a dozen times already?
barry, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Lately been thinking of mobile floating breakwaters.
So made it 20 meter in diameter with total length of 150 meters which could tied to other 150 meter long mobile floating breakwaters. You could 3 or 4 them or just 2 of them could useful.
There are balloon tank construction {thin walled tanks} made of 1 mm thick wall of very strength titanium. And it a floor in middle. So one could fill top half freshwater and bottom 1/2 with sea water.
And make more mobile, you replace bottom half with air, to make float a lot higher in water, to able to move easier. And once moved, remove air and replace it back with seawater.
Now with 1/2 filled with freshwater and sea water, the floating breakwater floats low in the water, about 1/2 meter above waterline.
It floats because it’s in the ocean {ocean has seawater} and freshwater has less density than sea water: freshwater about 1000 kg per cubic meter and sea water averages around 1020 kg per cubic meter.
And both freshwater and seawater within are pressurized a bit as compared to atm and ocean pressure- somewhere around about 5 psig or
5 psi higher than the environmental pressure.
You could fill all with freshwater, but it’s lot water, to waste or somehow manage- such as using a tanker ship.
Here is a big pipe:
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/07/03/eew-rolls-out-first-ocean-wind-1-monopile/
Grand solar minimum sideways update
Over a year of no activity increase turns the 13 average line horizontal
https://i.postimg.cc/xTd9x4pj/02024.jpg
And higher than at any time last cycle. ALL of the last 14 months and 16 of the past 17 months are higher than Zharkova’s predicted maximum for the cycle.
It’s now 9 years since adapt2030 predicted cooling would start, and 24 years since Don Easterbrook said it would start. Yet we keep warming.
Why are you telling me ? I have nothing to do with those people
Go and tell it to them you Twerp
EVERYTHING you believe about the effect of the solar cycle comes from those people, either directly or indirectly. Don Easterbrook was the one who started that BS off in the first place.
Highest average in this cycle is 125.2
And second peak in last cycle was 112.5
If 125.2 is highest for this cycle, it’s weak cycle.
Of course could a second peak which higher, and/or curve could bend upward soon within next couple months- which is what NOAA is guessing for this cycle.
I am guessing 125.2 is highest it gets for this cycle and that this cycle could the weakest cycle. But even if true, it doesn’t mean we in Grand solar min. But it means the 20th century Solar Grand Max, had a pause or it could be counted as over.
Of course Zharkova is predicting another Solar Grand Max, maybe stronger than the last one.
But no one predicting Solar Activity good for near term NASA Mars crew exploration, though NOAA is a tiny bit encouraging.
Looking at longer part {going before beginning 20th}:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Cycle 20 was weakness cycle within 20th Century Solar Grand Max:
With average of 156. Before it {19} peaks as average: 285. And after it, 21 was 254.7
I wouldn’t count that only metric, but we are looking the averaged peak number- unless someone wants to predict the rest the current cycle.
{as I am guessing. And what is anyone guessing?
I forget exactly NOAA but it’s around 140 to 160 as highest guess}.
Which not a particularly strong cycle.
Last cycle peaked at 116.4, not 112.5.
The prediction made by NOAA back in the first month of the cycle was 115 +/- 10, not 140-160. It is the red curve in Eben’s link.
Zharkova’s prediction was 93. In the 12 predictions highlighted on the SC25 Wikipedia page, Zharkova is below the median in terms of how close she got to the current peak.
Your predictions from 4 months ago:
Nov, Dec, Jan all averaging about 50.
Actual average for those three months: 114
” Antonin Qwerty says:
February 3, 2024 at 8:45 PM
Last cycle peaked at 116.4, not 112.5.
The prediction made by NOAA back in the first month of the cycle was 115 +/- 10, not . It is the red curve in Ebens link.”
That’s on curved red line: July 2025 115.3 with high of 125.3 with
low averaged valve of 101.8.
So they predicting the average value of blue line, which so far has
peaked at 125.2.
Obvious a single month has been much higher.
Or point on July 2023:
July averaged number is 160 and it’s smoothed monthly values: 124.3
blue line is the smoothed monthly values.
But NOAA gave a later estimate, that is what I was referring to with the somewhere around “140-160” actually upper value it will be in terms of blue line. I should find it, and link it {which I did at some point in my posting on this blog}.
Try google: “NOAA recent solar cycle 25 estimate”
Hmm, sort of it:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/noaa-forecasts-quicker-stronger-peak-solar-activity
But wasn’t exactly one I meant, that one is called “Solar Cycle Progression Updated Prediction (Experimental)”
But was similar and maybe it’s the same.
In terms this:
Zharkovas prediction was 93. In the 12 predictions highlighted on the SC25 Wikipedia page, Zharkova is below the median in terms of how close she got to the current peak.”
Wiki solar cycle 25. In box:
Zharkova, V. et al 2014, 2015.[13] (Northumbria U.) October 2014 65 (80% of cycle 24)
Also in box: NASA June 2019 70 29 (3050% lower than Cycle 24 (2025))
I looked that before and It’s different system
But Zharkova has said directly the 80% of cycle 24
Actually believe she said 70%
So far as I am concerned, I asked “how” is less. And I think how high and how long are what you call the strength of cycle.
Wide high level are strong and a narrow and high peak is not strong.
Or you could say both NASA and me are concerned GCR {also strength and number solar flares also something NASA would concerned about in terms mission planning.
If you care about the breadth of the cycle, SC25 will almost certainly have more months with an above-100 SSN than SC24.
“If you care about the breadth of the cycle, SC25 will almost certainly have more months with an above-100 SSN than SC24.”
SC24 had about 1 year and SC25 might have more than a year.
SC23 had about 3 years above 150.
A bit of context around SC25
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gp5KQOo4w13Gax8z_YKi6uyZ-EHLeImp/view
Some might well wonder about what could happen in a year: we just need to look at all three other cycles to understand that SC25 could very well start up to a new peak.
Solar wind
speed: 316.3 km/sec
density: 9.84 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 03 Feb 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 131
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 143 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 17.86×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.4% Low
A larger spot appeared on nearside, number: 3575 and now, is closest numbered spot which goes to farside {taking about 4 days- not very close}. Probably continue to grow even bigger, since rapidly grew. And don’t any new spots coming from farside, yet.
So could be have sunspot number of +130 for few more days.
I guess.
Such rapid grow, give signs of sun becoming more active, but sun was not very active in in terms of neutron count or Thermosphere number.
Solar wind
speed: 331.7 km/sec
density: 7.06 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 04 Feb 24
Sunspot number: 123
“Sunspot AR3575 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares.”
It grew bigger, but not near center of sun and quite far south- or it’s not facing Earth and going to farside in about 3 days. There another large spot going from farside, 3576 to nearside. And perhaps not all of it in nearside, yet. It’s largest or second largest spot, south but more toward equator.
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 156 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 17.81×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.1% Low
Losing spots and gaining, Total is eight named spots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ctz5UfR8fU
Live- USA Airstrikes Target IRGC In Iraq and Syria
On 1 to 10 scale of WWIII, 2.
Based on these observed air temperature data, between 1979 and 2023, surface temperature increased by 0.155 C per decade on average. There does not appear to be an acceleration in the temperature rise. This surface air temperature trend is greater than that of the global mean. The global mean temperature trend is less, nearly 0.11 C per decade.There is so much published heat storage than actual, and it is a mystery that need to be addressed.
Nabil Swedan, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1976-5516
Fitting a quadratic trend to the data reveals an acceleration of 0.035C per decade per decade.
AQ,
When do the seas start boiling, then?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Great “logic” there Mikey. Can I try it:
“Dozens died in the blizzard, but the earth didn’t freeze over so everything is alright.”
Great “logic” there Mikey. Can I try it:
“Dozens died in the blizzard, but the earth didn’t freeze over so everything is alright.”
(Mr Spencer, there is no need to approve the identical comment I just made but with the wrong email address)
All depends on how representative is the temperature data of lower tropospher, which is a thick layer of air. In the vicinity of the surface the trend of surface temperature is largest.
Nabil Swedan, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1976-5516
All depends on how representative is the temperature data of lower tropospher, which is a thick layer of air. In the vicinity of the surface the trend of surface temperature is largest.
Nabil Swedan, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1976-5516
The surface temperature trend is largest near the surface … ??
nabil…some 24 years of the trend were essentially flat and the first 18 years was below the baseline, indicating a recovery from cooling.
I think any warming trend can be attributed to a redistribution of water in the oceans as the major currents and oscillations vary.
Think about a summer’s day. Here in the Vancouver, Canada region, it might be 20C, which is room temperature and pleasant. Then it warms to 25C and every one comments on how nice and warm it is. Then it hits 30C and people rave about catastrophic global warming.
That’s a 10C swing in temperatures that can occur in a week. Anthropogenic warming is based on a 0.5C warming in our lifetimes and we talk of it as if it is going to end life as we know it.
Much ado about nothing.
Gordon,
Upon examining weather station data from various locations worldwide, it’s evident that maintaining a consistently homogeneous record over an extended period is hard to do. The recognition of the significance of inhomogeneity did not truly gain momentum until the late 1990s. With that said, the stations that most effectively meet these criteria are relatively new, with a record-keeping history of approximately 30 years. From my experience, for analytical purposes, only select stations with records commencing around 1995 or later; no earlier than that.
Here’s a station near my area that serves as an example.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-9Kn4f0-gtRXcsmbxEd45JNGUl_pzWw-/view?usp=share_link
Looks like el Nino has peaked, with December being the peak month.
ONI have updated and their Nov/Dec/Jan average is the highest so far.
SON 1.8
OND 1.9
NDJ 2.0
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Monthly ONI anomalies:
Sep 1.71
Oct 2.02
Dec 2.02
Jan 1.87
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
BoM NINO3.4 has the peak in November, in the 3rd week of that month.
https://web.archive.org/web/20231210072526/http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Pacific-Ocean&pacific=Sea-surface
BoM combines NINO3.4 with other metrics to index ENSO, but I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a specific metric for that multi-method (any pointers would be great). So I’m not sure what BoM would call the peak. Their January 24 update says:
“El Nino ocean warmth past its peak as positive Indian Ocean Dipole nears its end”
JMA, like NOAA, have November and December anomalies equal highest, though JMA uses NINO3 for its ENSO metric.
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
Beijing Climate Centre has December as peak for NINO3.4, but curiously, also for NINO1+2.
http://cmdp.ncc-cma.net/eng/index.php?channel=92
Finally, the Multivariate ENSO Index has Nov/Dec as the highest anomaly.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
These last three have not updated to the January values yet.
The average of various institutes point to December being the peak of the recent el Nino.
Wanted to get a range of views on when the peak occurred, because of the unusual trajectory of global temps at the same time. Very curious what the next 4 months global temps will be. In an ordinary post-Nino season, they should be slightly higher than current, but that seems statistically unlikely.
Yeah , I said that a month ago so thanks for the last month newz
Are you trying to outclown Bindiclown ???
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1598590
“I said that a month ago”
And the month before. And I said a month ago, “He keeps predicting the end of el Nino over and over. He’s going to be right sometime!”
Well done, you. Amazing.
You were wrong, as usual:
November 21, 20023
“el Nino [is] fully blown and already deminishing”
Not even BoM, which has the earliest 2023 el Nino peak among the monitoring groups, corroborates your premature articulation.
But being wrong doesn’t stop you taking an interest in the post beyond the chest-butting.
Rest assured everybody reading this will see the way you are acting in my threads is you just being stoopid
Eboy acts as if he owned Barry’s threads, this one and the one Barry cited.
barry says:
”You were wrong, as usual:
November 21, 20023
el Nino [is] fully blown and already deminishing”
—————————-
actually barry looks like he was right.
check this link out, page 5, 2nd panel, labeled nino 3.4
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
i/m seeing a peak around the 21st of november with nino 3 and nino 1+2 early indicator areas all peaked out for months in panels 3 and 4.
I believe the difference between BOM and CPC is that they use an earlier reference period to determine the baseline for nino3.4 each week.
“Nate has been lying about this for years. ”
If Bill’s opponent posts science and arguments that disagree with his views, they must be lies!
We have shown you real climate models again and again, like Manabe and Wetherald 1967, Hansen et al, 1981, etc.
You even repost the one I showed you recently which had a detailed study of the mechanisms
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml.
“Greenhouse Effect: The Relative Contributions of Emission Height and Total Absor.ption”
Yet you declare that you havent seen any ‘blueprint for the mechanism’.
What is apparent is that you have seen many blueprints, but you simply don’t know how to read them, and thus dismiss them.
That is all on you.
Nate, this is another perfect example of you accepting cult beliefs, while rejecting reality. Look at the very first sentence of the “Abstract” (bold, my emphasis):
“Since the 1970s, results from radiative transfer models unambiguously show that an increase in the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration leads to an increase of the greenhouse effect.”
That ain’t science. That is cultism.
Your models are built on your beliefs, so in your head, they “prove” the GHE. That ain’t science.
You can’t show from First Principles that CO2 can warm Earth’s 288K surface. You’ve got NOTHING. The GHE is bogus.
Clint, until you offer some actual science, we can safely ignore your unsupported crank assertions.
Here’s a “model” of your cult, child — “Ignore reality and make up crap.”
What makes this so much fun is often your crap results in things like ice being able to boil water.
Or passenger jets flying backward.
Or “square orbits”.
Or “REAL 255K surfaces” that no one can find.
Puffman,
Here’s a model from Sky Dragon cranks – the skies shoot cold rays down to Earth. Another one is that energy can appear out of NOTHING.
My favorite is this one – silly sock puppets produce the same silly inputs at Roy’s since at least 2014, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/do-gcms-model-a-flat-earth/#comment-114441
Meep meep!
Don’t forget the black body plate transforming into a perfect mirror!
yes clint crusaders tend to get caught up confusing an energy balance that is never achieved with the equilibrium temperature. their list of such imbalances is selectively as limited as their database of sources of imbalance is limited.
yeah good job nate as you backtrack to older discredited science and ignore the caveats of the more recent sources you yourself offered up as evidence.
yeah i get how at the drop of a hat you will ignore any science that doesn’t fit your agenda nate.
what you need to do to support future warming you support is to answer the question of why 2/3rds of the ocean is 14 to 15c colder than its surroundings. once you have done that and the answer supports your viewpoint then and only then will you will have an argument even worth listening to.
here noaa recognizes no imbalance.
https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmosphere/energy
here is described a climate institutional industrial complex study that attributes this as ‘snapshot’ positive imbalance brought on by an unknown mixture of natural and anthropogenic climate change but still attributes all atmospheric change as arising from emissions and recognizes it can’t be used as a predictor of the future.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled/
So this imbalance, uncertain itself due to inaccuracies related to ceres and argo is needed along with the warmest, not median, of the instrument record as being both real and wholly due to anthropogenic impacts to support the model spread as being a sufficient tool for policy guidance in lieu of democratic legislation. get out of here nate!
[GILL] here noaa recognizes no imbalance.
[NOAA] The average surface temperature of the moon, which has no atmosphere, is 0F (-18C). By contrast, the average surface temperature of the Earth is 59F (15C). This heating effect is called the greenhouse effect.
Moon has no atmosphere AND no oceans. Thermodynamically, it can NOT be compared to Earth.
Find something else to throw at the wall, silly willy.
The Moon, Puffman.
The Moon.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“The Moon, Puffman.
The Moon.”
To which I respond “Bananas absorb and emit IR”! Which is why they are above absolute zero, and possess a temperature. They have been heated.
You claim “This heating effect is called the greenhouse effect.”
Really? You are away with the fairies again, grasshopper. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. You would have been better off sticking to your previous description of the GHE – “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“To which I respond”
And we should care because…?
willard is so uneducated he doesn’t even understand the conversation in this thread.
Gill loses so much he can’t even play a plausible Black Knight anymore.
Hmmm, appears that Willard has a ‘white’ knight complex. Do you have a hood and a burning cross to go with that Willard?
Gill plays dumb over the most obvious Monty Python reference.
nope just noting that crusaders tend to wear white.
perhaps willard you need to come over to the darkside somewhat. crusaders tend to get caught up in a very excessive manner doing stuff best left to God.
Gill notes that Troglodyte wears white.
Yes Willard wears white.
Yes Gill whiteknights Troglodyte who wears a white hoodie.
Hunter tr0ll wrote:
Is Hunter serious? Has he not learned about the Thermohaline Circulation? The oceans are stratified. The colder, saltier waters of the high latitude North Atlantic and those around the Antarctic, augmented by the sea-ice cycle, are more dense than the surface waters, therefore those waters tend to sink. The mechanisms which mix these waters with those close to the surface are weak or episodic, such as the ENSO wind forcing. These processes have continued over many centuries, particularly during the period before the LGM, the result being that the deepest waters are at temperatures near freezing.
That’s basic oceanography, described in many publications. More recent efforts, such as the Argo floats, support those concepts.
Swanson agrees with the cold brine pump keeping the ocean bottoms cold. But then he waves his arms that the amount of variation in the output is ”weak or episodic” and I presume he believes its also invariable.
But what we do know is that whatever its pumping down there its able to keep 90% of the ocean about 14 to 15C colder than its surrounds despite the surface actually being warmer than the mean global climate temperature.
Which seems reasonable to figure this out as you guys make a big deal over one watt of additional input to the climate system for an environmental apocalypse to occur. You waving your arms about the process being weak or episodic isn’t sufficient.
Hunter wrote:
No, as has been studied for a couple of decades now, the THC has some variation and may be slowing, according to some research. And, we know that the release of melt water has been proposed as the likely cause of the Younger-Dryas Event. If the changes in Arctic sea-ice and Greenland melting continue, there’s the possibility that the THC will be further weakened. Model studies suggest that one result AGW could be a complete shutdown or re-organization of the flow, with serious consequences for Northern Europe.
yes a rapid advance in melt could temporarily slow the thc as the ice is fresh water that would release fewer brines.
but all this does is put more response delay in the system as winds will distribute the fresh water cap. but the rate of shrinkage of summer extent has been decreasing. and eei is allegedly accelerating over the same period. why is that?
Hunter, a larger seasonal variation and more first year ice at the end of the freeze season would likely further freshen the surface water in the Arctic, compared to what it was decades ago. Much of the sinking used to occur outside the Arctic Ocean, in the Greenland, Norwegian and Iceland Seas. That’s because the water moving into those seas were sourced from the North Atlantic Drift. The Sub-Tropical gyre of the North Atlantic is said to be very salty, because winds cause it to lose fresh water across the Isthmus of Panama.
It’s a complicated system and I don’t claim to be an expert. Again, the only method to assess the question is thru the use of models, whether you like it or not.
E. Swanson says:
”Much of the sinking used to occur outside the Arctic Ocean, in the Greenland, Norwegian and Iceland Seas. Thats because the water moving into those seas were sourced from the North Atlantic Drift.”
By definition the North Atlantic Drift sinking areas of the THC are sourced from the North Atlantic Drift. And the sinking areas are adjacent to ice edges, and in ice polynias and other areas soon to be frozen where frazil ice production occurs.
E. Swanson says:
”The Sub-Tropical gyre of the North Atlantic is said to be very salty, because winds cause it to lose fresh water across the Isthmus of Panama.”
Lots of reasons. one major one is runoff through the Mediterrean Sea and Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean Sea where salt is imported into the Atlantic by these enbayed large seas that ultimately subjects the Atlantic to more salt from evaporation. Runoff from Asia, Europe, and Africa keeps water moving out of the Med sea into the Atlantic. In the Gulf and Carib the Gulf Stream threads its way through that zone.
Another major one is probably related to the fact the only high volume exit from the Arctic Sea is into the Atlantic. Not much brine water goes through the narrow and relatively shallow Bering Strait (recall the last glaciation land bridge between Asia and North America). That means virtually all the melt of the Arctic sea exits into the Atlantic and makes for a strong overturning current in the Atlantic
so plenty of northward moving salty water makes its way into the North Atlantic Drift pushing aside any fresh water as it is considerably warmer than the fresh water. The salty drift fades and spreads as it cools moving north
Its a complicated system and I dont claim to be an expert. Again, the only method to assess the question is thru the use of models, whether you like it or not.
Swanson says:
”Its a complicated system and I dont claim to be an expert. Again, the only method to assess the question is thru the use of models, whether you like it or not.”
I left your last paragraph unresponded to in the above post by mistake.
But I agree with this. Just that its important to keep in mind that models provide zero added intelligence. to believe otherwise means you probably have a computer generated girl friend with which you believe you are interacting with mentally and physically.
I grew up with a slide rule, calculator, and spreadsheet and changed to computer modeling in the early 1980’s. . .but never mistook any of them as a girl friend.
I have been working with complicated complicated computer models, first big economic/financial models, later models of natural systems for the past 40 years. The best modeler is the guy with the most experience, meaning he has experienced the most failure and learned to correct his approach. All models are developed through trial and error.
Hunter wrote:
Do you have a reference to support your claim that “virtually all the melt of the Arctic sea exits into the Atlantic” actually exits the Arctic, presumably thru the Fram Strait as part of the East Greenland Current? Surely there would be re-circulation around the Arctic for some fraction of it.
Another basic point where you missed it was the fact that adding low salinity Arctic surface melt water to the higher salinity waters outside the Arctic Ocean would actually inhibit THC sinking.
AIUI, the North Atlantic Drift Current is the continuation of the Gulf Stream as it transits the North Atlantic. Some of those waters turn toward the south around the Sub Tropical Gyre and some turns toward the north, becoming the Norwegian Current. Most of the sinking waters add to the bottom waters of the Arctic Mediterranean, though some is thought to also occur in the Labrador and Irminger Seas. HERE’s a more detailed graphic
Swanson obviously you know little about oceans and there geography . the arctic ocean exits into the atlantic ocean. oceans don’t have established borders. oceans butt up against land and other oceans.
seas are marginal bodies of water that typically are considered to be part of an ocean or part of multiple oceans.
the arctic ocean cold and saline waters move to the atlantic ocean primarily below warmer waters moving northward from the atlantic to the arctic. i can’t be certain if you are trying to obfuscate or its the case you just don’t know.
> obviously you know little about oceans and there geography
Added to Gill’s already immense CV.
Willard continues to be impressed.
Gill continues to feel empty inside.
Hunter the tr0ll claims that I “know little about oceans and there geography.” He apparently can’t grasp the basic fact that any THC sinking into the Arctic Mediterranean adds to the flow over the Greenland-Iceland-Scotland sills, a well known fact which was highlighted in the graphics I posted. To be sure, there are other surface currents into and out of the Arctic region, but it’s those THC sinking waters and the resulting overflow currents which are of importance to climate.
I’ve just posted a comment about a new paper on the subject that was just published. Please reply to that post.
E. Swanson says:
”Do you have a reference to support your claim that virtually all the melt of the Arctic sea exits into the Atlantic actually exits the Arctic, presumably thru the Fram Strait as part of the East Greenland Current? Surely there would be re-circulation around the Arctic for some fraction of it.”
Swanson first off we are talking in terms of climate time scales. Certainly freshwater ice melting in the arctic is going to remain local for some period of time and even during the summer recirculate around the shrunken ice extent.
If talking about annual accelerated refreezes sub climate timing not only will the larger extents refreeze due to the summer retreat because of the lack of sunlight in the winter it will freeze faster because freshwater refreezes at a higher temperature than saltwater.
So obviously the chances of a THC shutdown will occur is increased due to freshwater refreezing, ice insulating the water surface, freshwater being retained in the Arctic and a slowing of overturning.
But that is only increased when ice melt is accelerating in the summer at a greater level than freshwater is mixing with saltwater and exiting and mixing with Atlantic Ocean waters. That acceleration appears to may have ended. Since 2007 there has been a deceleration of ice melt. This has historically been a climate length period of deceleration.
https://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
so at the moment the chances of a THC shutdown is diminishing and as a consequence it is most likely the case that the overturning is increasing. Ice change may be the primary feedback mechanism as has been often cited. Is it natural? Well an LIA recovery could take a thousand years if one focuses on a primary ice recovery and the sorts of climate cycles seen in the 160 year temperature record not explained by CO2.
And as you said, its occurred before so why not again. . .naturally.
Nate you offered this up in this thread as proof of the GHE.
Yet the conclusion is inconclusive. Further all he is talking is theory and can’t even conclude on the theory. He obviously is looking for proof also. Yet for some reason you can’t seem to understand that and you still think its proof.
Thread: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1574567
Study: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml
Thus you are lying that a proven blueprint for how CO2 warms the surface has been provided as what you offered while claiming it was proof isn’t proof. All it is is a theoretical argument that additions of CO2 ‘might’ warm the surface more while assuming it had warmed it some already and didn’t even explain why.
Were we talking about an imbalance or any of that? No. Distraction.
The issue was your claim “but we havent seen a blueprint for the mechanism”
And I’ve been lying about that.
My response was that you have seen the blueprints, many times.
And I showed you specific evidence that you have seen it.
It is not my problem that you don’t understand the science papers that describe it.
End of story.
Nate,
You haven’t yet even described the GHE – just claimed that others have done so.
You might at least attempt to explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling,
How hard can it be?
And Bill, don’t become like Swenson, who only seems to be able to produce a buzzing background noise, like a gnat that occasionally needs swatting.
nate…”We have shown you real climate models again and again, like Manabe and Wetherald 1967, Hansen et al, 1981, etc.”
***
In the 1980s, Hansen produced a projection for the future which he recanted some 10 years later. He blamed the error on his computer, a dumb piece of silicon that he had programmed.
Hansen has been into political propaganda since he began his rhetoric in the ’80s. He appeared on national US TV in summer, and had the air conditioning turned off in the studio to make him sweat and appear uncomfortable. His buddy Al Gore was in the wings cheering him on. Later, Hansen was arrested at a political rally in favour of disbanding the Keystone pipeline project.
Gore raved after the broad.cast that he’d go after anyone who contradicted his Buddy, Jim Hansen.
You sure know how to pick them, Nate.
You have shown a penchant for regurgitating the bs. that comes from the likes of Hansen.
Speaking of bs:
“we have no idea what energy is therefore we cannot measure it as energy. We can only measure the effect this unknown has on mass. So, when the Hydro company sends you your electricity bill and calls it energy, refuse to pay for something that cannot be explained. Ask them where the energy is located and if they tell you it the current drawn by appliances then ask them why they don’t state that.”
Gordon is like many in your cult, Ark. When he starts keyboarding, his brain stops working.
But, as he accepts the GHE nonsense, will your cult now accept him?
“ps. even I will admit that CO2 should be able to warm the atmosphere even though the amount is completely insignificant.”
Gordon said he has doubts regarding ice sheets that were covering North American during Glacial Maximum [about 20,000 years ago], do you also share his doubts?
That kind of stuff is only based on beliefs, gb.
Beliefs ain’t science.
Science is composed of beliefs.
Science was created by a religious worldview.
These are facts.
Sorry gb, but that’s wrong. It’s a “religion” that is composed of beliefs. A cult is composed of false beliefs.
Science is NOT about beliefs. Science is observable, demonstrable, testable, repeatable, and verifiable. Science can NOT violate the laws of physics.
“Sorry gb, but thats wrong. Its a religion that is composed of beliefs. ”
It’s not either or, it’s both.
And science came from somewhere, which was related/caused by a religious worldview.
One can also say neither is, any religion or any of science “done”.
With science a theory can be disproven.
Just need one person.
And a messiah will come.
I googled: “End of science”
“Our descendants will learn much more about nature, and they will invent gadgets even cooler than smart phones. But their scientific version of reality will resemble ours, for two reasons: First, ours is in many respects true; most new knowledge will merely extend and fill in our current maps of reality rather than forcing radical revisions. Second, some major remaining mysteriesWhere did the universe come from? How did life begin? How, exactly, does a chunk of meat make a mind?–might be unsolvable.
That’s my end-of-science argument in a nutshell, and I believe it as much today as I did when I was finishing my book 20 years ago. ”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-i-wrong-about-8220-the-end-of-science-8221/
Do you believe he is correct?
Has Science Ended?
One caveat — a discussion about science should make sense….
Alright here is something
{not that I agree or something}:
— The relationship between religion and science is the subject of continued debate in philosophy and theology. To what extent are religion and science compatible? Are religious beliefs sometimes conducive to science, or do they inevitably pose obstacles to scientific inquiry? The interdisciplinary field of science and religion, also called theology and science, aims to answer these and other questions. It studies historical and contemporary interactions between these fields, and provides philosophical analyses of how they interrelate.–
And goes on and on:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/
“He blamed the error on his computer, a dumb piece of silicon that he had programmed.”
Nope he didnt.
” From my experience, for analytical purposes, only select stations with records commencing around 1995 or later; no earlier than that.
Heres a station near my area that serves as an example.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-9Kn4f0-gtRXcsmbxEd45JNGUl_pzWw-/view?usp=share_link ”
*
You can get a big laugh when reading such absolutely incompetent nonsense.
Look at this station in GHCN daily:
Station list:
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 1386.8 UT GRANTSVILLE 2W
Station inventory:
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 TMAX 1913 2023
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 TMIN 1913 2023
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 TOBS 1999 2023
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 PRCP 1906 2023
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 SNOW 1908 2023
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 SNWD 1906 2023
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 DAPR 1956 2011
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 DASF 1957 2003
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 MDPR 1956 2011
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 MDSF 1957 2010
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 WT01 1915 2020
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 WT03 1959 2022
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 WT04 1956 2009
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 WT05 1915 2022
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 WT06 1956 2017
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 WT11 1982 2023
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 WT16 1923 1940
USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 WT18 1920 1940
*
This station is one of the worst ones I have ever seen in the US.
It starts indeed in 1913 with TMIN/TMAX, but the record is totally inhomogeneous and not only with regard to temperature: from 1915 on, not even one month of data till 1999.
A look at the source tells you everything:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/all/USC00423348.dly
Such stations often enough are automatically rejected due to their tremendous discontinuity.
*
The incompetence of people a la Hogle is amazing.
There are about 250 temperature measuring weather stations in Utah, but he really, really manages to pick up one of the the worst examples in the set.
And such a guy calls me a monkey, oh Noes :–)
Ok, I was wrong.
Hogle
Like most armchair quarterbacks, you are almost always wrong.
No.
When I mentioned homogeneity, I was referring to the post-1999 period. Although I should have checked the metadata, my rationale was based on comparisons of this station’s readings from various random months with a CRN station (Station B), which served as a reference guide for homogeneity, and a station corrupted by Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects (Station A). Station C (the Grantsville station) exhibits comparable diurnal variability and does not consistently display elevated minimum temperatures, unlike Station A.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j3qErw1tiDuajqmC8BzHDm0V_NSmCZ6s/view?usp=share_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t6gzhIDmulEXfTPibRtkNjXSMe9IpQLK/view?usp=share_link
Here are pictures of Station A. It doesn’t appear severely corrupted, but the placement is enough to create a discernible artificial bias.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/191Z6vnUcY0fjgQhq8oQjhh54NZoXYHNP/view?usp=share_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WVD0i_e_YXFFBZsvPPiRFw22pnsnro6D/view?usp=share_link
walter…hope that was tongue in cheek. 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.
We know 1500 stations can’t cover the land surface since it would average out to 1 thermometer for every 100,000 sq. km. of surface area. That has never bothered NOAA, who use a computer model to interpolate and homogenize data to create temperatures for area, and even cities, not covered.
GR,
Here’s a video I think you’d appreciate about the USHCN; it demonstrates many of the issues you are talking about. I recall reading controversy about the TOBS adjustment, given its significant impact on temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s. When you alter the data from the United States for those decades and earlier, it has a more substantial impact on the global index than it would today, considering that the US had a larger number of stations than the rest of the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF16lDtSVrU
I was indeed wrong, but less so for the reasons that Binny pointed out. I was fully aware of the two months of Dec. 1913 and Jan. 1914. Of course, the station wouldn’t meet the GHCN criteria for long-term analysis; I was just trying to make a point/hypothesis that stations with better and more consistent records are relatively new, reflecting the rising awareness of poor surface station siting around that time. The station has data for all but 3 or 4 months post-1999.
My error, instead, stems from not checking the metadata and seeing that the station has moved 8 times since then. It’s not a good station to use.
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Ozone levels remain depressed.
Don’t let them trick you, PhilJ. Ozone wasn’t measured until the late 1970s. The belief then was ozone was being depleted by manmade chemicals. The chemicals were outlawed, but ozone levels remained the same.
It’s almost like they don’t know what they’re doing, huh?
Must you bungle everything, Clint?
Ozone monitoring from 1979 shows a depression in ozone in the poles, particularly the South Pole in Springtime, that grew rapidly through the 80s and 90s, before stabilizing in the 2000s.
At the same time global CFC emissions had also rapidly increased through the 80s and 90s, before plateauing in the late 1990s and dropping off thereafter.
The correlation is excellent.
Since the mid-2000s the Antarctic ozone hole has slowly reduced in size.
CFCs can stay in the atmosphere for decades. They (and other ozone depleting gases) are still catalysing with ozone, but in the last decade the amount of ozone being depleted from CFCs and the like is a bit less than is being restored in the atmosphere through natural processes.
Gosh barry, you can regurgitate your cult’s nonsense so well. What a surprise!
Now, let me bring in a little reality.
* Freon-12, one of the banned gases, is much heavier than air. Very little of it would be able to reach the ozone layer.
* Almost everything is “ozone-depleting” because ozone is highly unstable. Consequently, it is a great oxidizer.
* Even if no other gases are around, ozone “depletes” itself, because it is so unstable. Once sunlight is gone, ozone starts reverting to oxygen. The ozone layer reduces naturally.
* The “ozone hole” is NOT caused by CFCs. It is caused by the uprush of air from the troposphere.
Now, if you can stand all that reality, here’s a simple question for you: How small should the “ozone hole” be?
“Very little of it would be able to reach the ozone layer.”
Several lines of reasoning show this false.
* Freon was measured in the stratosphere.
* gases of different atomic weight do mix well. We don’t get layers with CO2 at the bottom, then Ar, O2, N2, and finally CH4
* gases of different atomic weight do mix well. open a container with a heavy VOC and soon you will smell it above, below, and to the sides as the molecules evaporate and diffuse everywhere (not just inking to the floor).
* Thunderstorms routinely reach the stratosphere, carrying all manner of gases with them, which would include freon.
“Once sunlight is gone, ozone starts reverting to oxygen.”
Correct but presumably intentionally misleading. When sunlight returns the next day, UV returns and O3 is created again. The natural cycle is for long-term stability, not long-term reduction.
Folkerts, you’re such a joke I no longer waste time correcting you.
You never found a credible reference for your “fluxes simply adding” nonsense, huh?
barry,
Ozone is constantly being created by the action of UVC on oxygen in the atmosphere. Thats why no UVC reaches the surface.
Are you really as ignorant as you make out?
What a bunch of fantastic inventions at odds with decades of established research.
You’re a serial misinformant.
Hit barry with some reality, and he hisses like a trapped cat.
barry,
You wrote –
“What a bunch of fantastic inventions at odds with decades of established research.
Youre a serial misinformant.”
What inventions? Who’s misinforming about what?
Are you babbling about anything in particular?
The trouble with you playing dumb, Swenson, is that you can’t tell it apart from when you say something serious.
barry,
You wrote
“What a bunch of fantastic inventions at odds with decades of established research.
Youre a serial misinformant.”
What inventions? Whos misinforming about what?
Are you babbling about anything in particular?
La Nina is Coming
https://youtu.be/AohdnSUKjT4
quick flip. remember who told you first
https://youtu.be/DXHFNtiyqxs
The sun will go down in the evening, and rise the next morning. You heard it first right here.
barry,
A five year old knows that.
Is that the best you can do?
Yeah, that’s the best he got
“A five year old knows that.”
That’s the point, and yet you missed it. Gormlessly spelling it out like someone explaining a joke.
barry,
That is the point, indeed. You got caught out being a donkey, and you are trying to pretend you were only being clever!
Or were you just trolling for no reason at all?
So you didn’t get the point. Dumber than I gave you credit for. Read back and you should be able to figure it out.
barry,
The point?. You got caught out being a donkey, and you are trying to pretend you were only being clever!
Or were you just trolling for no reason at all?
barry…”The sun will go down in the evening, and rise the next morning”.
***
According to you alarmists, then, the Sun is orbiting the Earth? Little wonder you fail to grasp that the Moon is not rotating on a local axis, or that a 1C warming over 170 years is nothing to write home about.
Eben, what is your prediction for UAH TLT this time?
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
My weather is, it’s raining, quite a bit. Forecasted rain two more days. It’s cold, not cold enough to snow. But should snow a lot on hills around me.
And wind warning:
–High Wind Warning
California
2 hours ago National Weather Service
HIGH WIND WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 6 AM PST MONDAY * WHAT…Southeast to south winds 30 to 50 mph with damaging gusts between 70 and 80 mph expected. —
I have not seen any of this strong wind or any wind, yet.
http://tinyurl.com/4esprc8w
gb…a southeast wind normally means it originates in the southeast. Is that right for you? That should mean it is coming from the Gulf of Mexico region.
That what I would think, but it might a Canadian or brit and Americans it’s going to SE. Anyhow I didn’t get any wind {coming from any direction}. Sounded like something to worry about. But all it did was rain. Going rain tomorrow or has 65% chance to rain, wind at 14 mph. Which would be a lot more wind than I got. But has to +20 mph call it some wind worth calling windy- as far, I am concerned.
Raining in the desert. Must be climate change.
The rain has stopped.
Now it getting colder, apparently.
Tomorrow has the low is 32 F, then 30, and then Sat gets to 26 F, but it’s suppose to warm after that.
No near term forecast of rain.
It seems we had enough, but likely to rain more, sometime, fairly soon.
The current trend looks very much like 1998 except with a faster rise and much less variation at the top. The last 5 months seem to indicate that something very strong and consistent is causing this trend and it is holding in place. A conspiracy theorist might say that a hacker has manipulated the satellite data. Since the satellite data is backed up by surface observation, that seems highly unlikely. Probably just as unlikely as the Super Bowl being manipulated for political purposes.
“The last 5 months seem to indicate that something very strong and consistent is causing this trend and it is holding in place. ”
I’m inclined to agree. If you look at the GISTEMP seasonal cycle graph it is consistent with the idea.
In June something new boosted temperatures by 0.2C above previous record conditions and that 0.2C boost has continued through the rest of the year.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
Logic would dictate that anything that happens so abruptly is weather, not climate. It would be more appropriate to classify it as an outlier event rather than a part of the ‘long term trend’.
Actually anything that has happened in the last 2 decades is weather including changes in weather that cover most of the 2 decades.
Thats why what you need to think of is not todays, last months, last years, last decades anomaly what you need to consider as climate is the mean temperature of the last two decades over the previous 2 decades to strictly meet the definition of climate change.
So we say the anomaly of 1984 to 2003 over the anomaly of 1964 to 1983 and now we can figure the anomaly of 2004 to 2023. But it probably makes more sense to just pick change over dates that are convenient like 1961 to 1980, 1981 to 2000, and 2001 to 2020.
Each one of those ends with maximum of a Jupiter Saturn conjuction so at least you filter out the largest orbital perturbation of more than 50% of the planetary perturbation. If you move that down to 10 years you will get the largest fluctuation fluctuation one can find in the temperature record in the last 70 years.
Ocean oscillations appear to have an even longer term effect of maybe 80 years, and solar has patterns of >100 years. With the slow response and build up of EEI in the ocean now finally recognized by climate science they need to backtrack to their dismissal of other phenomena (like claiming the sun has been cooling since 1957 as an inadequate scientific argument for dismissing solar change for the gentle climate change we have been observing.
I agree with what you write, Bill. That’s what the y=mx+b circus clowns don’t understand. Many ‘false predictions’ can’t actually be proven false beyond their precious Excel spreadsheets. Their logic is that the globe’s temperature has followed y= 0.095366x + 14.32, while the PDO index has adhered to y= -0.010057x + 14.32. Therefore, they conclude the PDO has had no discernible effect on the climate. They’ll also concoct the AMO, CO2, solar irradiance, 11-year solar cycle, etc., ‘variables’ into y=0.000012507x + 14.32 – the so-called ‘normal climate.
Yep and when you get into the ice core data you will find that 2c variations in climate are very common and you also find this proxy data to be polluted with the instrument record in an apple to oranges comparison because the first job in a proxy is to estimate ice layer physical structure to a temperature value. Same deal with tree rings. Showing it with instrument record tails opens the door to abuse.
In litigation this comes out. But government is never held to the same standards as private enterprise.
Re sat data hacking….I have questioned that in the past, not by UAH, but by NOAA, who own the sats. There is nothing to stop them hacking the data before handing it over to UAH.
Then again, like other good comments in this thread, there is no reason to read anything sinister into the current warming spike, if you can call a few tenths of a degree C a spike. Weather has likely been varying dramatically over longer spans of time as ocean oscillations and the atmosphere vary in step.
ENSO anomalies for week ending Feb 3
1.2 … +1.0 (up 0.3)
..3 … +1.9 (up 0.1)
3.4 … +1.8 (up 0.1)
..4 … +1.5 (down 0.1)
Just checking RLH … you said that changes ALWAYS move east to west, right?
AQ,
You do realise that anyone who ends their sentence with “right”, is just trolling, right?
No it doesn’t always move east to west. Its just that the ‘prevailing’ winds at the equator are east to west moving the water in that direction.
when the wind subsides, upwelling of deep cold water subsides and the lazy movement of water along the equator has more time to warm before moving far to the west plus sea level is higher in the west due to those winds. And when the wind reduces the water can relax back to the east.
big-mouth Binny….”Hogle
You are, like Robertson, manifestly unable to understand how anomalies are computed out of absolute data, but nonetheless discredit and denigrate anything what what I wrote”.
***
According to NOAA, or anyone else with a smattering of intelligence, an anomaly is simply a departure from a calculated global average over a period like 30 years. Big-mouth Binny wants to convolute that simple meaning so he can live in a theoretical world of his own and get to sound important.
We know the process of actually calculating anomalies has become ridiculous, but still, the above is the basic premise. Meantime BM Binny churns out all sorts of fudged charts and tales based on his own erroneous understanding.
GR,
He didn’t, and still doesn’t, understand the main point being conveyed.
You coward weren’t even able to show the ‘main point being conveyed’.
Show us exactly what you mean, Hogle.
Not in words by what I call robertsoning, but with data and graphs i.e. reasoning.
If you are able to do that.
You’re a liar.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1612415
Hogle
What’s that for a nonsense, armchair quarterback Hogle?
What the hell do May temperatures have to do with snowfall? With every post you seem a little more idîotic.
Me, a liar? Oh Noes…
In May, temperatures up there tend to feature a clash between winter and summer seasons; they tend to hover more around the freezing point, and it is the last month of relatively consistent snowfall, though there are plenty of years with no snowfall. As such, snowfall is more sensitive to temperature variations; it reflects the delicate balance between winter cold and the onset of milder conditions.
The average temperature index shows a substantial rise with a p-value below 0.05; however, the snowfall trend is a polar opposite to that of the average temperature index. We would at least expect some kind of change, but we don’t.
Hogle
” As such, snowfall is more sensitive to temperature variations; it reflects the delicate balance between winter cold and the onset of milder conditions. ”
Ooooh! I can’t recall such superficial, unscientific blah blah, moreover based on ONE single point, and which apparently has merely to do with your personal, egomaniacal narrative.
And the very best is… that the comparison of your useless graphs perfectly confirms my opinion.
*
Nate came along with a wonderful expression unknown to me till now: ‘armchair quarterback’.
The more I read about your nonsense, the more I see how good it fits your behavior.
From now on I will stop responding to your smart comments, let alone your even smarter reactions to mine.
You lack so much self-awareness; it’s actually kind of sad.
If you can’t explain it in words, you don’t understand it.
NOAA explained it in words, and Binny still doesn’t understand it. He doesn’t get it when NOAA explains in words that they are currently using less than 1500 stations to determine the surface global average. That’s about one thermometer per 100,000 km^2.
How many thermometers should you have?
Show your working.
For ignoramus Robertson and armchair quarterback Hogle
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/u-s-a-temperature-trends-1979-2023-models-vs-observations/#comment-1613509
Bindidog back to running around biting peoples ankles left and right .
At least it’s not me anymore.
” … back to running around biting peoples ankles left and right . ”
Me, ankle biting, dachshund?
I just tried for the umpteenth time to explain ignoramuses how anomalies as understood by Roy Spencer really work.
YOU, dachshund, are the real ankle biter here.
I am wondering what misadventure overcame Clint and turned him into an alarmist dweeb.
“Gordon is like many in your cult, Ark. When he starts keyboarding, his brain stops working.
But, as he accepts the GHE nonsense, will your cult now accept him?”
***
The above shot was aimed at my reply to Ark that energy cannot be measured directly since no one knows how to detect it directly. There are no instruments that will measure thermal energy directly, or EM, and even electrical energy.
I don’t make this stuff up, I got it from reading Clausius and Planck, then I went looking for science to back it. Now I must add energy to Clint’s ever-increasing misunderstanding of basic science. He has stated recently that…
1)Clint thinks heat is not energy but a measure of energy transfer. When challenged, he fails to explain how thermal energy can be transferred without being heat. If heat is only a measure of energy transfer, and thermal energy is being transferred, it is obvious that heat now becomes a measure of the transfer of thermal energy, which is commonly known as heat. Ergo, hat i a meaure of heat. Clint believes that thermal energy becomes generic energy which is measured as heat.
2)Clint believes that entropy is a measure of disorder even though the inventor of entropy, Clausius, defined it as a transfer of heat. Clausius did not mince words, he called heat energy. The mathematical equation for entropy, devised by Clausius, is S = integral dq/T where q = heat. Nothing there about disorder.
3)Clint believes electrical current moves positive to negative.
After trying to insert batteries in a device backwards, and finding it won’t work, Clint finally connects them correctly and thinks the manufacturer made a mistake when he labelling the battery holder.
4)Now we find Clint butt-kissing Ark, his new alarmist buddy, while claiming it is me who has gone over to the other side. Based on his reply to Ark, Clint now believes that energy can be defined and measured.
I hope Clint mends soon and comes back to the skeptic camp.
Sorry Gordon, but I never stated any of that. You’re making stuff up again, like when you claimed you have an engineering degree.
You’ve got all the techniques of the GHE cult here. You insult, falsely accuse, and misrepresent, with no qualms. You’re in your own cult.
I don’t think the GHE cult will take you. You’ve got too many issues even for them….
Now Clint is a liar, denying things he stated verbatim.
Gordon makes false accusations that he can’t support. He gets caught. Then uses the “L-word”, hoping it will provide cover.
It’s a typical cult technique.
They never learn.
Puffman denies having said that Shannon was right.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> [Puffman] thinks heat is not energy but a measure of energy transfer.
Good catch, Bordo. Here is some evidence:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/climate-f-words/#comment-294952
Go get him!
Either from ignorance or immaturity, silly willy links to a comment by Gordon. The comment proves Gordon doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but silly willy must somehow believe it proves Gordon is right???
Kids these days….
And so Puffman looked.
Ermahgerd!
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’ll just briefly address one of these.
“3)Clint believes electrical current moves positive to negative.”
The particles (electrons in this case) move from negative to positive through the wire, but current moves from positive to negative. For example,
* if I shoot a beam of protons (H+ ions) from left to right, the particles and the current move left to right.
*if I shoot a beam of electrons from right to left, the particles move right to left BUT THE CURRENT STILL MOVES LEFT TO RIGHT.
You are thinking too concretely about PARTICLES, rather than thinking abstractly about CURRENT.
This is why this nonsense about the GHE won’t go away. The cult doesn’t seek reality. They want confusion, disorder, mayhem, and chaos.
Gordon misrepresents me, and Folkerts and silly willy jump in to continue the confusion. Here’s the reality:
Gordon doesn’t understand current flow. Current flow is “chosen” as the direction of positive charge flow, that is, positive current is in the direction of positive charge flow. There has to be a choice to lessen confusion. Outside a battery, positive current flows + to -. But INSIDE a battery, positive current flows – to +. It can be confusing, so a “convention” has to be adopted so everyone knows what is happening. The convention chosen is a “positive current” flows out of a battery’s positive terminal and into the negative terminal. The convention carries over to AC circuits, even though current is essentially flowing both directions (alternating). This is taught at the very beginning of electrical engineering. It’s simple, but Gordon never got it. That’s just one of the reasons we know he’s NOT an engineer. He wouldn’t have passed the entry-level courses.
All of Gordon’s statements misrepresent me because he’s a cultist. That’s what cultists do — They clog the blog with confusion, disorder, mayhem, and chaos.
Puffman expresses violent agreement with Tim’s explanation of a mere convention, while trying to portray what a fellow Dragon crank does as Team Science’s modus operandi!
Perhaps he should stick with skies shooting cold rays?
“Current flow is “chosen” as the direction of positive charge flow”
Well, you could say it that way. Like current flow in a river is “chosen” to be downstream. But it is really the only logical choice.
Calling the direction of current in a river or a wire a choice is what adds to the confusion.
so where pray tell have you tim found heat traveling toward more heat?
When some of the heat in common glass of ice water is converted to EMR and travels toward the kitchen IR thermometer where the EMR is absorbed and causes the thermometer display to read 32F.
Ball4, yes it well known that everything above absolute zero emits IR, and this emission is sometimes measured as “temperature”.
Maybe you don’t realise that if the IR sensor is exposed to something colder, it cools – by radiating photons to the colder object. Just the same as a mercury thermometer – put it into iced water, it radiates photons, and indicates that the thermometer has become colder than before.
In neither case does the instrument “absorb” anything from a colder body. That would be contrary to the physical laws of the universe as currently understood.
If you need a 19th century description, look at Prof John Tyndall’s meticulous experiments, involving an IR thermometer (a thermopile). He took great pains to “null” his galvanometer, so that it would indicate any temperature deviation, negative or positive, on the basis of the “energy balance” of his thermopile. Radiating more energy than being received indicated a drop in temperature.
No GHE. A colder atmosphere does not warm a hotter surface. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, not become hotter!
so so why pray tell do you Bill suddenly think I would even try to find heat traveling toward more heat?
why do you argue backradiation instead of just net heat flow?
Oh I get it. . .you are just obfuscating.
Because forward radiation net of back radiation physically is heating rate. Writing net heat as does Bill is writing net net heating rate.
no its obfuscation because the effort is to create a focus on the backradiation as the only element of warming ignoring that for warming to occur the sky must get hotter first and all that co2 does is cool the sky where without ir emitting molecules it would not cool and only have sw absorbing molecules that would get hotter until they passed some of that down to the surface like a magnifying glass or mirror can warm the surface. but none of this is ever discussed and the claim is that the surface always heats the sky. indeed the surface is always trying to heat the sky and it succeeds when more sunlight reaches the surface and it overrides atmosphere warming which occurs later in the morning and the winds begin to pickup but later in the morning on cloudy days.
Bill does seem to create a focus on backradiation.
More scientific for Bill to create a focus on all-sky emission to surface. Then find the lower atm. net heating rate for climate time periods from all sources (see top post for a start).
“why do you argue backradiation instead of just net heat flow?”
Ah! So THAT was your point!
Electric current is ALSO the net flow. That level of detail just was not needed for the discussion at hand.
In fact, for pretty much any current:
* at a macroscopic level, net flow is sufficient.
* at a microscopic level, studying individual particles can be enlightening.
Net electric currents move from + to – in a wire
Individual electrons are moving both ways in a wire
Net water current move downhill.
Individual H2O molecules are moving uphill and downhill.
Net IR radiation moves from hot to cold.
Individual IR photons move hot-to-cold and cold-to-hot.
Sometimes net IR is sufficient. Sometime thinking of individual photons is enlightening.
Hunter posted another long paragraph rant. It reads like it was written by an AI chat bot. He claims that:
He doesn’t mention the outward absorp_tion by GHG’s as if it can be ignored, even though it warms the successive layers of air above the surface. Those layers then emit in both upward and downward directions, so increasing CO2 warms the lower layers, but cools the higher levels.
The whole rant comes across as something written while his brain is “impaired”. Hunter would be well advised not to operate machinery under such influences.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Sometimes net IR is sufficient. Sometime thinking of individual photons is enlightening.”
enlightening? I what way? Net photons travel from hot to cold period, never the other way. Name something enlightening to extrapolating movement of photons from the known fact that maximum flow is the equivalent of a net movement of energy depending upon the temperatures the the two objects energy is moving between.
E. Swanson says:
”Those layers then emit in both upward and downward directions, so increasing CO2 warms the lower layers, but cools the higher levels.”
LMAO! You really don’t belong in this discussion. Now cold radiation is warming stuff and hot radiation is cooling stuff. ROTFLMAO!
If Hunter has finished laughing, perhaps he will recall the discussion in Pierrehumbert 2011. There’s a couple of processes going on simultaneously. The emissions from the near BB surface passes upwards thru the atmosphere. Each GHG takes a bite out of that as it transits each layer. The overall absorp_tion may be nearly 100%, except on the wings of the overall emissions lines.
The other thing is that each layer of air can both emit and absorb depending on the layer’s temperature and pressure. With multiple layers, each emitting downward while also absorbing from those layer(s)above, the net effect is cascaded, resulting in warming down to the surface layer. Coincidentally, the upward emissions may be absorbed by the layer above or exit the Earth. Because of pressure effects, the emission lines become weaker with elevation. Finally, the net effect is a cooling of higher layers above the Tropopause as emissions are lost to deep space.
Of course, to add to the confusion, convection within the Troposphere moves warm, moist air upwards, leading to clouds and precipitation.
E. Swanson says:
Theres a couple of processes going on simultaneously. The emissions from the near BB surface passes upwards thru the atmosphere. Each GHG takes a bite out of that as it transits each layer.
——————–
so you are claiming each layer gets warmed a little less than the previous layer. what happened to your claim: co2…cools the higher levels?
E. Swanson says:
”The other thing is that each layer of air can both emit and absorb depending on the layers temperature and pressure. ”
you need to learn what a layer is. each layer is equally capable to emit and absorb. layers simply get thicker with less pressure. and a layer is virtual with each frequency having a different thickness. if you had layers of a set thickness with a line x meters off the ground where all frequencies are significantly absorbed some frequencies in the middle of the co2 bandwidth would have been absorbed and emitted several times.
E. Swanson says:
”With multiple layers, each emitting downward while also absorbing from those layer(s)above, the net effect is cascaded, resulting in warming down to the surface layer.”
this is what i mean about obfuscation. the effect of the bottom layers being warmer is accomplished in part by ”GHG takes a bite out of that as it transits/warms each layer” except it doesn’t warm a layer that is already as warm as the lower layer.
i say in part because convection and conduction and conduction contributes to the warming of layers above in a similar manner as long as the higher layer are cooler.
. . .there is no downward cascading of heat except when the surface is cooler than the atmosphere because it can cool faster than the surface via losing heat through the atmospheric window.
“enlightening? I[n] what way? ”
Do you truly see no enlightenment from learning about the world on a microscopic level? From studying photons … and atoms and electrons? No enlightenment from understanding how net radiation and net pressure and net current result from the collective behavior of individual photons and molecules and electrons?
“ignoring that for warming to occur the sky must get hotter first and all that co2 does is cool the sky ”
Bill, this has all been explained, why play ignorant? The upper layers of the troposphere emits the heat to space via radiation from GHG. Without them, it would be emitted from the surface.
Just as with the insulation of your attic. The top layer of insulation emits the heat to the cold surroundings. Without it, the heat would be emitted directly from the wood surface. The insulation increases the T gradient required to emit the same heat.
Again, the troposphere is doing exactly what insulation does, it raises the temperature gradient required to emit the same heat flow to space.
nate your problem is that you believe that the sky is an insulating layer when physics ever since the insulation industry treated gases as non-insulting. seim and olsen experiment offers physical evidence of that.
you need proof that the atmosphere insulates anything. you don’t have it. i have heard you make this claim thousands of times and you just don’t care that you don’t have any evidence. you want others to believe what you believe only because your daddy/God relayed the information to you through his prophets and apostles.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Do you truly see no enlightenment from learning about the world on a microscopic level? From studying photons?
wow you have actually seen a cold photon in a microscope? then you surely can tell me about how you were enlightened about what you saw as i have never seen one.
Bill, neither of us has seen an atom. Do you hold equal distain for the atomic theory of matter?
Hunter wrote that:
I think that’s not true if one sets layer thickness in pressure altitude. Pressure declines exponentially with physical altitude. Half the atmosphere’s mass is below ~500mb, or about 5km.
Hr insists us that:
Having multiple layers is like combining multiple layers of a some material, each of which transmits some fraction of Sunlight. The more layers, the less makes all the way thru and each receives a smaller fraction of the total. With gasses in the atmosphere, it’s more complicated because the absorp-tion decreases for each layer due to declining pressure.
Each layer emits in both directions and those are in specific GHG wavelengths which are easily absorbed in the layers above and below, with a larger fraction absorbed by lower layers than higher ones, again due to pressures.
Tim Fokerts says:
”Bill, neither of us has seen an atom. Do you hold equal distain for the atomic theory of matter?”
Who said I had disdain about any of these theories Tim? Atomic theory is essentially a cartoon model of the variables we understand, but that doesn’t allow us to extrapolate about stuff that hasn’t been verified by experiment. The model is useful for provoking thought but the model itself doesn’t provide any evidence of the validity of those thoughts. That evidence must be obtained
by experiment.
So lets not travel down the atomic/electron bunny trail here where much has been learned and remains consistent.
I asked a simple question of what have we been enlightened via the photon model. It seems to me we don’t yet have sorted out whether its a wave or a particle. But hey I haven’t devoted by life to studying photons, I have spent several years of my life building passive solar sequestration systems and would love to extrapolate how those work to the atmosphere which would argue strenuously against the CO2 theory. . .but hey none of my designs included only a freely convecting and expanding atmosphere. So I am not running around selling what I learned from that experience as an answer to climate change. Though I can see how somebody who doesn’t have that experience could actually want to believe it does sitting in a windowless room reading about them especially if I could find that Newton once said. . .(fill in the blank).
So I assume you are on this bunny trail because you couldn’t think of an answer to my question. . .which I suspected. . .but would love to have had you proven my suspicions wrong.
E. Swanson says:
”I think thats not true if one sets layer thickness in pressure altitude. Pressure declines exponentially with physical altitude. Half the atmospheres mass is below ~500mb, or about 5km.”
The issue Swanson is optical thickness which clearly is related to pressure. I took a shot at explaining the relationship but can accept my explanation might have been clunky.
But I don’t see you actually addressing the issue.
Swanson says:
”With gasses in the atmosphere, its more complicated because the absorp-tion decreases for each layer due to declining pressure.”
You seem to be stuck on a layered cake model. I am talking about an optical thickness model where optical thickness is how much of a certain frequency of light is completely absorbed.
You then claim that the layer then radiates only 50% upward, but thats not true. Thats only the case when the layer it was absorbed was exactly half the temperature of the previous layer.
We know that there can be many layers within such a layer that reduces the temperature halfway. I could even be that the atmosphere wants to act that way but can’t. that would be an atmosphere incapable of getting warmer and thus incapable of warming the surrounds. which seems to be the case for the simple model sold by 3rd grader radiation model. . .that nobody can ever get any warming out of.
“I asked a simple question of what have we been enlightened via the photon model.”
If you can’t bother to explore physics that has been well-established by experiments for 100 years, I am not going to be able to ‘enlighten’ you about lasers and LEDs and solar panels and the Bohr Model and Compton scattering and Planck’s Law.
Hunter wrote:
Yes if you want to call it that. But, each layer would be of different thickness, summing the optical depths of each layer for the emissions from the surface. For some frequencies, a layer might exhibit zero transmission, bou others would transmit.
Again, each layer also emits as a function of it’s temperature and pressure, which is a different situation. And, of the emissions leaving each layer, half goes up and half goes down (mol). That’s like the GPE, where the total emissions are split between the two sides. Then those emissions are subject to the same optical depth of the layers thru which they meet.
You can’t simply lump all the transmittences of those layers and get a realistic representation, IMHO.
Swanson you are entitled to whatever opinion you want to hold but until it becomes science which isn’t a matter of opinion I would suggest dialing back the proselytization spew.
Tim Folkerts says:
”If you cant bother to explore physics that has been well-established by experiments for 100 years, I am not going to be able to enlighten you about lasers and LEDs and solar panels and the Bohr Model and Compton scattering and Plancks Law.”
Well what are you holding back for. You should be able to recite the quantum mechanics basis of the greenhouse effect by rote now.
we have been asking for that now for a long time and are just dying to see the effect demonstrated for us.
Where’s Monkey Man to ask what Gill’s comments have to do with Tim’s “do you hold equal distain for the atomic theory of matter”?
Hunter tr0ll, I offered a description of what I understand of radiation HT thru the atmosphere, which is rather similar to that of Perrehumbert 2011 or Eli’s GPE. In any event, I think it’s clear that the only way to address these issues requires layered math models of the atmosphere. Remember, math is the language of science. You have presented no alternative to “layer cake science”, which I believe to be a common characteristic of both weather and climate models.
“Well what are you holding back for.”
Because I don’t have time to write an entire textbook here just for you. I have explained the basics many times. A some point, you need to learn several years worth of E&M, thermo, and QM before you are ready for something beyond a 1 paragraph summary of different topics.
“nate your problem is that you believe that the sky is an insulating layer when physics ever since the insulation industry treated gases as non-insulting. seim and olsen experiment offers physical evidence of that.
you need proof that the atmosphere insulates anything. you dont have it. i have heard you make this claim thousands of times and you just dont care that you dont have any evidence. you want others to believe what you believe only because your daddy/God relayed the information to you through his prophets and apostles.”
Bill, you naively to think an insulating material needs to be purchasable at Home Depot, else it cannot insulate!
As I explained, an insulating effect happens whenever heat transfer is reduced. (Temperature gradient)/(Heat flux) defines ‘R factor’ for insulation.
And you know that heat transfer has three modes, including radiation.
The GHE is a reduction of heat transfer mainly from the upper troposphere to space via radiation. Thus that is an insulating effect.
With an increased GHE, the ratio (Temperature gradient)/(Heat flux), its ‘R factor’, increases for the atmosphere.
Nate says: (and applies to Tim and Swanson)
Bill, you naively to think an insulating material needs to be purchasable at Home Depot, else it cannot insulate!
———————–
Funny you would say that. Insulation purchased at Home Depot is certified from an organization like NAIMA:
”All materials that have received the R-value Certification from NAIMA have been tested by an independent, third-party laboratory and meet the thermal performance required by the FTC.”
So you can be comfortable in buying insulation from a company like Home Depot that insists on ensuring the products it sells to perform as advertised.
You, Tim, and Swanson don’t meet that standard. You are not a reliable source of information as you do not insist on actual testing and even go so far as to reject the results of what testing has occurred.
We can also see from Roy’s last 8 posts very clearly that there is an ongoing certification process that hasn’t established any results yet. So here we have you selling what Home Depot would never sell and dishonestly claiming you know that it works.
What does that make you? A gypsy fly by night driveway repair crew salesman?
Nate says:
”As I explained, an insulating effect happens whenever heat transfer is reduced. (Temperature gradient)/(Heat flux) defines R factor for insulation.”
——————————
That’s not true at all. You just don’t have the chops to understand this topic.
Heat transfer is also reduced if you heat the cool object, say for the sky, by changing the particles in the sky that intercepts shortwave radiation from the sun, like oxygen species. The sky warms and surface heat transfer is reduced without any insulation.
Of course you have been told this many times and you just ignore it. You should be spending some time in the corner of the room with the dunce hat on.
“Focus on back radiation’
Well, Bill, if you were a meteorologist, like Roy Spencer, that is the only way to make sense of measurements that they make in order to model the weather and climate change.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/observational-evidence-of-the-greenhouse-effect-at-desert-rock-nevada/
They measure up-welling IR (UWIR) from the emission below and down-welling IR (DWIR) from emissions above. It makes perfect sense to them to think of these separately because the DWIR and UWIR may have DIFFERENT spectra and come from layers with various temperatures.
And he notes that:
“But, of course, it is the net IR (the sum of upwelling from the warmer surface plus the downwelling from the cooler sky) which must flow from higher to lower temperature, which it does.”
This is the way they do things in meteorology. The field that is able to successfully predict the weather.
So although it may not work for you, it ain’t wrong.
yes nate i know how to recognize a budget. i also know how to examine a budget.
just a few comments:
the interception of uv and perhaps high frequencies of light by oxygen molecules in the thermosphere can cause the thermosphere to rise to temperatures of thousands degrees kelvin due to the lack of ability of oxygen to emit lower frequency radiation i.e. the molecule can’t vibrate at low frequencies. that is monoatomic oxygen. o2 also can’t emit at ir frequecies but can absorb high frequency uv. ozone has some ability to emit at ir frequency but apparently not enough to keep it from being a warming source for the stratosphere.
now water and co2 can collide with oxygen species and obtain heat from them in that manner and emit ir. so clearly if there is a ghe at a minimum ghgs are a necessary element of a ghe. but the jury is out on whether more co2 results in more warming.
my analysis approach which is different than any i have seen from others is a super simple reasonableness test combined with agreement related to how much more outgoing ir that co2 can absorb via doubling combined with the negative feedbacks in the detailed in the trenberth budget and i came up with a figure very similar to roy’s analysis of cloud feedbacks. now i can assure you i did this long before roy’s paper so my results were not influenced by roy’s findings.
so as i have said i understand why most scientists give some credibility to warming from co2 as i support it also, with strong negative feedback, but i also realize we may not see the entire picture and i can see how ghgs can cool the sky and i don’t believe in a tipping point where they go from cooling to warming but i can see a mechanism where ghgs warm the surface during the times of day the sky is warmer than the surface, which would also cause the mean global temperature to go up some. . .since that is a statistic that minimum temperature is part of.
my two posts directly above that 1) debunks the insulation argument; and 2) proposes an alternative that doesn’t rely on an insulation argument that yet could explain surface temperature variation without changes to sun.
i left out a third variable that doesn’t require solar activity variation that deals with changes to the earth’s orbit due to the movement of the planets. we have just passed through near triple conjunction of 3 gas giants. to access that issue one must analyze its affect on earths orbit. since the fastest orbit is possessed by jupiter that rotates in the sky wrt the sun about 30degrees per year, double and triple conjunction are goin to have the 3 gas giants all aligned in the sky at the same time either supplemented or counter acted by interior planets during the part of the year that earth is also in conjunction or opposition to the gas giants.
jupiter and saturn, the two most influential planets conjoin once every 20 years. one can detect this in the temperature record finding that 10 year warming trends are most different from other trends. the amplitude is about 2 tenths of a degree per 10 year period and i suspect is why climate must be a twenty year minimun cycle to erase that effect. but triples have longer periods and while one would not at all suspect they approach the same amplitude as saturn and jupiter. however, there are 6 other planets than those two.
so you could have for climate variability:
1) variation in solar activity
2) variation in oxygen species in particular ozone
3) variation orbit eccentricity
4) variation in cloud cover
5) uhi
6) irrigation
7) deforestation
8) perhaps others like variation magnetic fields
and who knows what else all working cycles perhaps to some degree interconnected.
3)
While Gill keeps galloping, a blast from the past (h/t Nate):
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/observational-evidence-of-the-greenhouse-effect-at-desert-rock-nevada/#comment-222140
Perhaps Monkey Man could answer that one for Gill’s sake.
Willard we know most scientists believe that IR detectors are detecting downwelling radiation. But do they have evidence of that? Most IR detectors are detecting temperature change at the tip of the sensor, not radiation. Radiation is the ‘assumed’ mode of temperature change when a sensor is not in contact with the object.
Not that it makes any difference in the outcome, because it doesn’t. The issue really isn’t whether is backradiation or not as that doesn’t change the outcome if there isn’t, its still net energy loss from hot to cold that describes the outcome.
The problem with the concept of backradiation is when its considered able to warm something warmer, which does confuse a lot of people, but only people who believe in backradation. But even if backradiation exists its the hot object thats cooling in accordance with SB equations.
[ANTHONY MILLS] Engineers perform thermal analyses on buildings in order to design HVAC systems.
[GILL] we know scientists
“Thats not true at all. You just dont have the chops to understand this topic.”
As usual, auditor Bill mansplains physics to physicists (Tim and myself) and engineers (Swanson).
“the interception of uv and perhaps high frequencies of light by oxygen molecules in the the”
Again you drift off into tangent weeds. How does this debunk that the atmosphere insulates is anybodies guess.
And it is true that Home Depot doesn’t sell planetary atmospheres.
And yet scientists are still able to apply the same general heat transfer principles to them.
You seem unwilling to allow that.
“we know most scientists believe that IR detectors are detecting downwelling radiation. But do they have evidence of that?”
Yes. Does the auditor have evidence to the contrary?
“Most IR detectors are detecting temperature change at the tip of the sensor, not radiation.”
Yes using established laws of physics one can determine the radiative flux from the temperature change.
We’ve discussed how mercury thermometers detect volume change. And yet determine temperature from it.
So this is common theme in measurement and not a real problem.
Nate says:
”Yes. Does the auditor have evidence to the contrary?”
Its not the auditor’s job to have evidence to the contrary Nate. Its your assertion thus it is you who needs evidence or the auditor will rule that your assertion is a fiat and he will disclose that fact.
Nate says:
”Again you drift off into tangent weeds. How does this debunk that the atmosphere insulates is anybodies guess.”
Indeed Nate you call drifting off into the tangent weeds to be anything that distracts from the message you are trying to sell us here without a validated model to show your theory is correct.
Lets see how did this conversation evolve?
First I said: you need proof how the atmosphere insulates anything. you dont have it.
Then you said: ”Bill, you naively to think an insulating material needs to be purchasable at Home Depot, else it cannot insulate!
As I explained, an insulating effect happens whenever heat transfer is reduced. (Temperature gradient)/(Heat flux) defines R factor for insulation. . .The GHE is a reduction of heat transfer mainly from the upper troposphere to space via radiation. Thus that is an insulating effect.”
definition of insulation: Insulation means creating a barrier between the hot and the cold object that reduces heat transfer by either reflecting thermal radiation or decreasing thermal conduction and convection from one object to the other.
So yeah you don’t get a lot of pushback about the atmosphere having an insulating effect but what we are arguing about is whether CO2 alone in the atmosphere is sufficient to cause that effect. To even begin to understand the answer to that question you need to know what the temperature would be without co2. Seim and Olsen provides that answer.
But you say, gee Bill there is a greenhouse effect. To which I say well we know CO2 doesn’t reflect heat so it must operate to reduce conduction and convection as with the above definition of insulation.
So what is left in order to create a greenhouse effect in the presence of conduction and convection? Well maybe something other than greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere, like UV being absorbed by oxygen species?
maybe water vapor which is full spectrum absorber and emitter of radiation? Oops no we don’t and do want it to do that but we are sure about clouds, so lets just say water vapor which of course is just water on its way to become water and clouds and absorbing SW radiation.
So we are in agreement that there is a chance CO2 could be responsible in part for the gHE, if it actually exists. . .but not by being insulating but by warming the sky so the sky can warm the surface.
As long as the sky is colder than the surface though its not going to warm anything. But hey the surface can get really cold at night so maybe thats when CO2 can warm the surface.
Fact is and we can see it in the temperature record, the earth is colder than the moon when the sun is shining and warmer than the moon when the sun is not. So yes there is a greenhouse effect that will really do nothing more than save lives of people dying from the cold.
What you really fail to ponder is that the pile of bricks in the middle of a room rises to the same temperature as the inside walls which will be the same temperature as outdoors if and only if the movement of molecules from inside the house is not restrained from moving out into the environment outside of the house.
All that does is completely confuse you.
No the sky doesn’t insulate. But there can be more than one way for the sky to be hotter than the surface and we can see the effect of that both in the thermosphere and the stratosphere. . .and that because of that its likely the atmosphere’s standard condition is to have an imbalance with the surface in being warmer than the surface and that the only reason our feet tell us different is an asphalt parking lot conducts heat to our feet a lot faster than air conducts heat to our skin.
Now I can acknowledge being wrong about that but I am not trying to sell it for money so all I need is some proof to show how I am wrong.
Sometimes Gill tries to ask for a “validated model” that would somehow “show” that a theory is correct. An ask that he’d know makes no sense were as big in epistemology as he claims he is. Some other times he prefers what he calls the Bill Gates’ approach:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/u-s-a-temperature-trends-1979-2023-models-vs-observations/#comment-1616430
In that story, Gill is obviously the one who decides if the model compiles or not. Or is it the theory?
Obviously Willard you don’t understand how programs are written. A software developer writes code in a language. He then compiles the program with a compiler designed to compile the language he wrote into machine language. Its not a matter of ”who decides if the model compiles or not”. Either compiler produces an error because you have an error in your code, or it compiles the program and the program may not work as expected, or it may work fine.
In case one you have to correct the error to finish compiling. In case two the next day your new code is going to have work on top of yesterdays work which it probably won’t if your work from the day before is crap. If it compiles and works as expected then you can move forward. Its like backing up your work on a timely basis so if something goes wrong you don’t have to do as much work to get back to you would have to if you only did infrequent backups.
Obviously Gill reveals his age when he suggests that programmers compile programs with a compiler. He’s actually writing on a program that is only interpreted.
He also reveals that he has no idea how compiling works or how it’s related to models, theories, or even formal specification. This may explain why he asks that “blankets warm” must somehow replace the equations Sky Dragon cranks cannot process.
GCMs compile without needing Gill to vouch for them, and they are still amongst the most robust pieces of software known to mankind.
“Its not the auditors job to have evidence to the contrary Nate.”
Sorry, yes it is, when you are denying established physics and standard meteorology measurements.
“No the sky doesnt insulate.”
Good example of the standard Bill playbook.
Make up stuff. Don’t back it up with any logic or evidence.
Demand others disprove it. Change the subject.
Sorry Bill, no one is buying your crap today.
“definition of insulation: Insulation means creating a barrier between the hot and the cold object that reduces heat transfer by either reflecting thermal radiation or decreasing thermal conduction and convection from one object to the other.”
Ok, source for this definition?
“reflecting thermal radiation or decreasing thermal conduction and convection from one object to the other.”
For some reason ANY method of “decreasing thermal conduction and convection” counts as insulation.
But only for radiation, the method is specified and must be “reflecting thermal radiation”.
Bill, we have shown you several times a description of MLI, where even black-body sheets are shown to radiatively insulate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
So your definition is simply made-up bullshit!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/u-s-a-temperature-trends-1979-2023-models-vs-observations/#comment-1620730
A real definition:
thermal resistance (R) measures the opposition to the heat current in a material or system. It is measured in units of kelvins per watt (K/W) and indicates how much temperature difference (in kelvins) is required to transfer a unit of heat current (in watts) through the material or object. It is essential to optimize the building insulation, evaluate the efficiency of electronic devices, and enhance the performance of heat sinks in various applications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conductance_and_resistance
“Applications of Thermal Resistance
12. Environmental science: Thermal resistance is considered in climate studies to understand heat transfer in Earth’s atmosphere and oceans.”
tim f…”The particles (electrons in this case) move from negative to positive through the wire, but current moves from positive to negative”.
***
You claim I am getting too close to the particle level and missing the overall current flow. But the examples you offer have nothing to do with current flow in circuit. To understand that current flow you must go to the particle level. That’s why we take semester length courses in semiconductor theory, for example, so we can visualize current flow through a semiconductor.
Current flow through a copper conductor is different than the flow through a doped silicon channel. In copper, each copper atom has its own complement of electrons (29) with only sole electron in the outer valence band free to move. A new theory has emerged recently, which I think is nonsense, called the metallic bond theory. It is a variation on covalent and ionic bonding and makes little sense, reducing a copper mass into a conglomeration of copper atoms swimming in a sea of electrons.
Sheer nonsense. The covalent and ionic bonding theories are obfuscated enough without adding an even more obfuscated theory. Let’s leave it at the stage where the sole electron is free to move atom to atom but does not swim freely through a copper mass. For that reason, the direction of current flow is limited to the polarities at each end of a copper wired circuit and not to the copper conductors themselves.
It’s plain, that if you connect the positive terminal of a power source to one end of the circuit and a negative terminal to the other end, the electrons will flow from the negative terminal to the positive terminal. This is not open to speculation and thought experiments it is a fact. However, it’s never that simply since electron charge apparently have the ability to separate themselves from their electron and move freely at a much faster speed.
Electric current (through a surface) is I = dQ/dt
That is the definition of electric current. Whether the moving charges are electrons in a wire or protons in a proton beam or ions in an ionic solution or holes in a semiconductor — none of that matters. I = dQ/dt.
+1 coulomb of charge flowing to the left through a surface or -1 coulomb of charge flowing to the right are BOTH a 1 amp current to the left.
So, yes, you are missing the point when you focus on current IN A WIRE. Wires are a very common EXAMPLE of current, but they do not DEFINE current.
So, yes, you are missing the point when you focus on current IN A WIRE. The ‘electron current’ moves one direction down the wire, but the ‘electric current’ moves the other direction.
nate…”You even repost the one I showed you recently which had a detailed study of the mechanisms
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml “.
***
It’s amusing to watch alarmist climate modelers program a computer to reflect heir beliefs re anthropogenic warming then become astounded when the models ‘predict’ something that reflects their beliefs.
Duh!!!
When James Hansen offered predictions based on his models, it was James making the predictions, but when his model failed, it was the model that failed.
In Zen circles, the Cosmic Joke is a reference to God giving us a brain that does not work well at the conscious level but failing to insert that fact into our consciousness. It is left as an exercise for the more curious to figure out.
Even when the curious figures it out through a process called enlightenment, that comes with a sudden bolts of insight, there is no guarantee that the insight will be applied to enhance full functionality. After all, the newly enlightened mind must exist among a host of the unenlightended.
There are scientists in the past and in the present who are obviously not enlightened. They are driven by ego, so much so, they are quite willing to lie about science and abandoned fellow scientists who disagree with them.
The Cosmic Joke is just the fact that we’re looking for something we already have, Bordo. At least that’s Thich Nhat Hanh’s explanation of Osho’s famous saying. Life is kinda funny. Just like Climateball.
yep willard fancies himself as a climateball ace.
yep gill sees himself as some kind of serious contributor
Willard,
Don’t you find it a tad peculiar that the surface temperature record aligns closely with climate model projections? The field of climate science is relatively young, with much left to unravel. Modeling presupposes a sufficient understanding of how the complex system operates. Consider this: How did James Hansen confidently assert in 1988 that global warming was attributed to greenhouse gases? Back then, a large El Nio occurred in the winter of ’87-’88, and in the early 1980s, the El Chichn eruption masked a significant portion of the purported ‘warming,’ which someone could have easily dismissed as a mere anomaly.
Walter,
TL;DR.
Team Science
lol
Walter Da Monkey:
https://climateball.net/but-debate-me/
Team Science
lol
Walter Da Monkey:
https://climateball.net/but-debate-me#coward
Walter, it is no more or less peculiar than Earth’s orbital motion aligning closely with the predictions from Newton’s model of gravity, which BTW, has a free parameter that must be tuned to match observations and which we know is not even the most accurate model of gravity.
wee willy…the fact that you need to look up a definition for the Comic Joke screams loudly that you still don’t get it. When the light goes on, no explanation is required.
The light going on is not an ego-driven concept, it’s a blessing one can come by, usually in a state of grief or despair. It seems we have to be reduced to a state of humility to grasp its true meaning, that the passenger, me or I, is not running the show but a mere passenger in a seriously complex organism.
The explanation you supplied is saying essentially the same thing as I described but it does not explain why it’s a joke. The joke is that God gave us a mind we think works fine but it is impaired and left up to us to figure it out. Some of us will make the effort but most wont.
Ironically, according to the disciple Thomas, Jesus once told him the same thing, that what ever we need is already within, and in modern vernacular, we either use it or lose it. Most of us seem to have preferred to lose it.
The real message is that we spend far too much time running our lives based on our conditioning, what we have been told by others, while ignoring an innate natural intelligence with which we are born. If the real natural intelligence in our systems, that keep our hearts beating regularly, our blood pH at a precise level, etc., and relied on what we have been taught by others, we’d be long dead.
C’mon, Bordo.
The Plum Village is in France:
https://plumvillage.org/fr
There’s no light to speak of. If someone tries to sell you some light, kill them!
And that includes Jiddu, toward whom you’re trying to pivot now.
Light is electromagnetic energy but we use it as a word as in enlightenment. When someone is puzzled and an answer appears we say the light went on. I suppose that suggest we move from the dark, where you reside, into the light.
When you knock Jiddu as you do, you are indulging in a serious misunderstanding of what he was about. He placed absolutely no value on beliefs, theories, or philosophy, his world was a world of fact based on observation. He was one to advise people to avoid gurus. However, better people than you or me, like physicist David Bohm, had stimulating dialogs with Jiddu.
K. used to claim there are three types of minds: those who are serious and strive to understand, those who are interested in understanding but lack the resolve to get there, and those who have absolutely no interest in understanding or change. It’s plain that you have not the slightest interest in intelligence and understanding and that’s why you are an alarmist.
The basic message of Jiddu Krishnamurti was stunningly simple. He reasoned that somewhere along the line, humans have learned to rely on a superficial base of knowledge passed on by peers to children while subverting a natural intelligence to which we have access. That’s the basis of the Cosmic Joke but it comes from Buddhism, in which they try to cloak the obviously in a shroud of mystery.
Physicist David Bohm agreed with him and they had in-depth discussions on that subject. In fact, many luminaries agreed with him, yet wee willy disses him. Then again, it’s that kind of subversive thinking that marks wee willy and his alarmist hordes.
> Light is electromagnetic energy
“Light” as in “enlightenment,” Bordo.
Read harder, write lesser.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
https://youtu.be/xbbAJwnJmiM
Little Stalker, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson, I’m not having this conversation in two different threads; it’s just not that interesting.
You have the most severe case of energy blindness I’ve ever seen in someone professing to have an engineering degree.
Since you brought up hydropower…
Now, will you be answering my question here?
I am beginning to wondering how lacking in comprehension you might be. I had presumed you are just obtuse, now I am beginning to wonder if you are impaired.
You have not once addressed my point that energy cannot be defined or measured because we have no idea what it is. Yet, you run off to Google looking for definitions of energy that are used in the vernacular and have no scientific basis.
I am talking science, not philosophy and not opinion. What is energy??? Show me what it is, not what effect it has or what some dweeb thinks it is.
Your uncited quote states…”Hydropower is essentially solar energy that has been transformed by natural processes into potential energy of water”.
That is one of the dumbest definitions I have ever read. Hydropower is in no way related to solar energy, it is strictly a product of gravity in the sense they deliver it, not solar energy. The only role played by solar energy is ensuring the water does not freeze. Frozen lakes and rivers don’t produce much energy for hydropower.
As I tried to convey to you re prime movers, gravity does not have to be a source, a diesel generator can drive an electrical generator. It is simply a lot easier and a lot cheaper to use water sources driven by gravity. Many who have been displaced to make way for a hydro dam may disagree.
After a convoluted explanation, which is confused, your source finally gets to the point…”The turbine in turn drives a generator that produces electromagnetic energy”.
Another lie. A generator produces electrical current not EM. The EM is a byproduct of electrical current running through a conductor, a motor, or a transformer.
The difference between a generator and a motor is the direction of current in either. A generator is a source, it creates a current flow. A motor is a load, it absorbs electrical current. Many a student has failed an exam by getting the two reversed. Both devices have EM as part of their mechanism but EM is not the product in either case.
Once again, will you stop this masochistic attempt to prop up a losing argument and come to grips with my question? What is energy and how does one measure it? I am not talking about the incorrect use of the word energy, which is nothing more than a generic idea. I want to know what energy is.
Energy is ***DEFINED*** loosely as the capacity to do work. What does that mean in terms of thermal energy, electrical energy, or mechanical energy? What is the phenomenon called energy that is the driving force?
You need to grasp the essence of that question to understand what I am getting at. With mechanical energy, we define work as a force acting on a mass over a distance. Is the force energy? If so, what is the source of the force? The force source is what I call energy.
With hydro power, something causes water to fall from a higher altitude to a lower altitude. We call the prime mover gravitational force, but what causes it? We don’t know. We cannot measure it we can only calculate the work done by the amount falling water per unit time. In other words, we have no idea what causes the water to fall other than a loose idea we call gravity.
I am more conversant with electrical theory. I was taught in the early stages that charged particles exist, some negatively charged, some positively charged, and that like charges repel and unlike charges attract. No one ever explained why that is the case and no one to this date can answer that question. Some things remain as phenomena with no explanation.
I still have no idea what differentiates a positive charge from a negative charge other than the effect they have on other charges. The charge on a proton is claimed to be positive while the charge on an electron is negative. That’s double-speak for a relative condition that no one can explain.
I was also taught that electrons are tiny masses that carry negative charges. Even though an electron is about 1/1800th the mass of a proton, it has an equal and opposite charge. Something in my wants to call bs., go back into the lab and find a better answer. Rather than do that, scientists have invented a cockamamey science called quantum theory which makes absolutely no sense to an intelligent mind. It was invented because we lack the ability to observe at the atomic level.
If you can amass bazillions of electrons with their electrical charges in a unit ee call a battery, so the electrons all accumulate on one plate , which emerges externally as a cathode, we find that when a circuit with a resistive load is connected between that terminal and another called the anode, that electrons will flow from the cathode, or negative terminal, through the load to the anode.
But what causes the electrons to flow? We have defined the capacity of the electrons to do work as energy but that ignores the potential energy that drives the electrons, which is vital. Without it, the electrons cannot flow. I am talking about the repulsion electron charges have for each other and ultimately sets up a potential difference between the poles of a battery.
Still, that PD is not the driving force, we reserve the word electromotive force for the driver. But what is it? Is it the accumulation of charges at one pole of the battery that repel each other? If so, what is the electromotive force in the armature of a generator that causes the same effect?
In essence, something is driving electrons around a circuit, but it’s not that simple. Electrons only move at a modest few centimetres per second whereas the charges on the electrons somehow move at the speed of light around a circuit. Otherwise, when we flipped the switch for lights in a room, it might take a few seconds for the room to light up. Even if that switch is a mile away from the light, it comes on instantaneously.
Are you beginning to grasp what I am talking about? Our normal use of the word energy is far too trite and generalized. We apply the word energy, as just that, a word. We cannot define it accurately when required.
Getting back to your Kw-hr meter, it is measuring both a potential difference and a current. We call that energy because power is defined as voltage x current. In this case, power has no time factor and when we add one, we call it energy. So, energy becomes the power consumed over a certain time period. That is a different inference of energy as opposed to the driving energy. Why???
The horsepower of mechanical energy has a time factor. So why does that power have a time factor and electrical power does not?
It’s about precision. You either demand precision or you end up kidding yourself with multiple definitions of the same unit, depending on how it is applied. I am demanding a precise usage for energy but I am kidding myself if I think anyone is listening to me. Obviously, you prefer to live in a muddled world where any old definition is acceptable. That’s a difference between you and me, I am not willing to accept lukewarm science.
“I am talking science, not philosophy and not opinion. “
And I’m talking engineering so it’s no wonder you’re so lost.
1241 words! That has to be a record, even for you.
Gordon believes endless rambling makes him appear smart.
He’s unable to see reality.
You can always ell the wannabees from the serious student when the wannabees are more concerned with the number of words written and who are unable to respond using science. Sad to see that Clint now identifies with the wannabees.
Gordo, the self proclaimed electrical engineer wrote:
Lets see, as I recall it, electrical power is defined as volts times amps. Don’t forget, the Ampere was originally defined as: “One ampere is equal to 1 coulomb (C) moving past a point in 1 second.” So, “electrical power” does have a time component. This is the second time I’ve tried to correct your confusion on the matter.
“I am more conversant with electrical theory.”
Since you can’t answer my simple question here Mr. I am an engineer, maybe you can answer the following simple question instead then:
Suppose you need to generate an RMS voltage of 120 V at 60 Hz using a permanent magnet for a rotor, in a roughly constant magnetic field of 1000 gauss. What area should the current loop span?
Your question cannot be answered because it makes no sense. You have prescribed a permanent magnet rotor then specified a magnetic field of 1000 gauss. Why would a permanent magnetic be rotating in a magnetic field?
What you are describing is a magnetic field turning within a stator made of copper wire windings. And why are you talking about current loops? Do you mean a stator, as in the number of windings?
I called a buddy of mine a while back and he is an EE with a successful business geared to motors in the mining industry. I was ruminating over a point in theory and ran it past him. He replied, “how the hell do you expect me to remember that stuff”?
If you think I am going to engage with you in a manner that requires me dragging out textbooks to do exacting calculations, you can take your ego-trip elsewhere. You are being a sore loser who is trying to entrap me much along the lines of wee willy. At least he’s just a stalker who I regard as being harmless. You are on some kind of mission, trying to make up from several butt-kickings I have given you on theory.
https://youtu.be/7g4OuX61t7M?si=br6-t-Px_eo_cq2T
Related…
Q: Suppose you need to generate an RMS voltage of 120 V at 60 Hz using a permanent magnet for a rotor, in a roughly constant magnetic field of 1000 gauss. What area should the current loop span?
A: A wire wrapped 100 times around an armature that is about 12 cm in radius would meet these specs.
This would be a fairly compact and simple device, but you still must supply enough mechanical power to turn the rotor. If for example demand requirement is RMS 10 A, you would have to supply nearly 2 hp.
Gordon asks: “What is energy??? Show me what it is, not what effect it has …”
The same can be said for mass. Or electric charge. Or force. Physics is a ‘just so story” where we observe effects and come up with stories to explain them.
* that rock is hard to move because of mass.
* those socks stick together because of electric charge.
* the leaves move because the wind applies a force to them.
* my car moves because of the energy in the gasoline.
* the spectrum of H has distinct lines because of quantized orbitals.
It turns out we are remarkably capable of predicting things with the ‘just so stories’ of physics.
Energy is just one of many abstract concepts we find useful to understand how the universe behaves.
“A generator produces electrical current not EM. ”
Actually …
Energy does not flow down wires in the current. Energy does not flow from + to -, nor from – to +.
Energy is transferred via EM fields in the space round the wires, not by the electrons themselves. Perhaps you remember the Poynting vector from your studies. Or perhaps you could enjoy this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0
tim…you are confusing an electric field with current flow.
The closest I can come to your definition is when an alternating current has a very high frequency. As frequency increases, the current is confined to smaller and smaller areas near the surface of the conductor, a condition called skin effect. Still, the current does travel in that outer layer.
After a certain frequency, copper conductors give way to wave guides, which are essentially metal tubes that contain an electromagnetic field. At even higher frequencies, waveguides give way to fibre optics cable which is essentially made of glass. It conducts EM as light but not electrical current.
There is no practical applications for current flow through a conductor at such high frequencies
The guy in the video is certifiable. He describes a conductor like copper as a lattice of positive ions surrounded by a sea of electrons. This is the theory en vogue although no one bothers to examine it at the atomic level.
A copper atom has a nucleus of 29 protons surrounded by 29 electrons, distributed over several electron orbitals. That leaves one electron in the outermost valence shell. The question is, what binds the atoms together? He makes it sound like you have a positive nucleus “with the electrons included”.
This is a fallacy, that metallic atoms, like copper, represent positive ions. Sheer nonsense. A positive ion is an atom missing one of its valence shell electrons and it cannot exist in a lattice. As long as copper has it’s one valence electron in place, it has its full complement, therefore it cannot be an ion. The only time it could be considered an ion is if that one electron vacated for some reason, leaving a relative positive charge. Such a condition would be temporary.
But is that really a positive charge? I say no, for the simple reason that it exists in a field of electrons, therefore it is relatively positive to the rest, but not a true positive charge. The only true positive charge is hidden behind 28 electrons that surround the nucleus, as protons in the nucleus.
The authors claim that free electrons bounce off that +ve charge is sheer lunacy. An electron would be attracted to that positive charge, not repelled by it. It’s true that a relatively enormous space exists between the electrons and the +ve nucleus, but the suggestion that free electrons can roam freely through this space is nonsense. Remember, negative charges repel, and if free electrons were roaming around as the author suggested, it would create havoc in the lattice as free electrons repelled orbiting electrons.
There was a time when there were only two basic forms of bonds: ionic and covalent. Now we have been presented a different kind of bond called a metallic bond. That’s what the author is raving about, where metal atoms are depicted as positive ions with a sea of free electrons floating among them.
We have to back up and ask how copper atoms are bonded together in a copper conductor. Copper is like sodium in that it has only one electron in the valence band, an orbit where the electron(s) are free to move to another atom. Sodium forms an ionic bond with chlorine to form table salt, NaCl. Chlorine has 7 electrons in its valence band, and needs one electron to form a full complement of 8 electrons. Sodium needs 7 electrons, therefore the two elements form a symbiotic relationship where they somehow make up each others deficit in an ionic bond. The word ionic is a reference to the presumed ions formed by sodium and chlorine in their native states and when brought together, bond via electrostatic charges.
Copper atoms don’t have a complementary element, only other copper atoms. So, how does their one spare electron form a bond? Rather than admit that no one really knows, because no one can see or measure at the atomic level, dweebs throw out a silly hypothesis about electrons swimming in a sea of positive ions.
It makes no sense that a copper nucleus surrounded by 29 electrons in various orbits should bond together. Negative charges repel. But they do bond somehow. My personal feeling is that bonding theory is immensely lacking in practicality. In other words, no one really know.
This theory makes no sense. There are simply no spaces between copper atoms for free electrons to move around at random. If you consider the electron orbitals as forming spheres, then it could be argued that spaces must exist between the spheres. But why should electrons try to fit between those spaces that are full of repelling charges?
The author claims the electrons are prodded along by an electrical field that extends between battery terminals around the circuit. Then he sticks his foot it in by claiming the electric field would be strongest across a load resistor. Duh!!! This is where his theory falls apart.
The conductors are very low resistance paths compared to the load. Obviously the voltage drop is very low across the conductor portion, then almost all of it is across the load. If you put another resistor in series that has an equal value, the voltage drops are equally divided between the resistive loads.
Meantime, the current through both resistors is undiminished. That alone suggests the electric field remains constant around the circuit. In other words, the same number of electrons leaving the negative terminal must arrive at the positive terminal.
The theory offered by the author is full of holes. All of us who have studied electrical theory in-depth are fully aware of the electric and magnetic fields surrounding conductors but there are far better explanations than the sci-fi offered by the author.
Consider sodium, classified as an alkali metal. Like copper it has only one electron in it outermost orbit yet it will form a solid as well. However, when combined with chlorine, the metallic bond conveniently disappears and the bond is termed ionic. Unlike copper, sodium does not conduct an electric current in the solid state but becomes a conductor in the molten state. Copper with the same complement of valence electrons conducts equally well in the solid and molten state.
“you are confusing an electric field with current flow. …
The guy in the video is certifiable. ”
Sorry, but I am not the one who is confused and offering rambling explanations that don’t hold up.
I know about wave guides and skin effect. That is NOT the issue I was addressing.
Try answering the simplest of question about circuits. A battery is connected to a resistor using two wires. Energy goes from the battery to the resistor.
Does that energy travel …
a) out the – terminal and down that wire
b) out the + terminal and down that wire
c) half out each terminal and half down each wire
d) other.
Physics is a very successful just-so-story. Physics gives an accurate, consistent answer to this question. You ignore physics at your peril.
tim…I agree with you, in essence, although there is a hint of sarcasm in your reply. We have managed to explain phenomena using theories that are often suspect.
I get your message, however.
1)”* that rock is hard to move because of mass”.
Not true on a planet without gravity.
2)* those socks stick together because of electric charge.
-essentially true and we can demonstrate that using electrostatics theory. Of course, some unwashed socks can almost stand on their own and that is not due to static.
Until you have been jolted by a 40,000 volts of static electricity, you can’t appreciate the effect.
3)* the leaves move because the wind applies a force to them.
True. In the same manner, we hear because sound pressure from air molecules acts as a variable force on our hearing mechanism.
4)* my car moves because of the energy in the gasoline.
True.
5)* the spectrum of H has distinct lines because of quantized orbitals.
Questionable but the theory is the best we have.
“It turns out we are remarkably capable of predicting things with the just so stories of physics”.
Agreed. In essence, we are still in the dark re the phenomena that underlies physics.
ent…”How many thermometers should you have?
Show your working”.
***
It depends what you want as an outcome. To get a true global average we’d could compare it to the true temperature in a room, but what does that means?
Hopefully we are on the same page here. A global average should be an accurate measure of the air temperature of a defined layer of air overlying the surface to a certain depth.
Let’s look at a room temperature. We have a room with measurements 10′ x 12′ x 8′ high. That’s a volume of 960 cu feet. We have defined an adequate room temperature as 20C. Does it mean thermometers placed every cubic foot in the room will measure 20C. No. We really don’t know what it means.
Dictionary dot come defines it as…”a comfortable ambient temperature, generally taken as about 70F”.
Merriam-Webster…”…a temperature of from 59 to 77F (15 to 25C) that is suitable for human occupancy and at which laboratory experiments are usually performed”.
Two major dictionaries can’t even agree on what it means yet here we are screwing the planet over a hypothetical warming of 1C over 170 years, based on a global average temperature no one can define.
With regard to a room of the given dimensions, I am sure we can agree that a temperature in the range of 20C will suffice. However, many of us in colder climes have likely experienced a room in which it feels warmer and cozier in certain parts of the room free of drafts. Certainly, in my bedroom, it is a lot cozier away from the outside walls in winter, or outside doorways, than it is in a more central part of the room. And that’s with insulated walls.
Same in summer, there are parts of a home that feel cooler than others, sometimes much cooler. It’s far easier to claim an average temperature in a room than it is on an entire planet. Most rooms don’t vary by up to 20C in summer and winter whereas that is normal even at sea level on a planet. In India, where temperatures run easily above 40C in summer, Indians go off to the hills where it is much cooler.
So, how do we define an average temperature first of all? As it stands, for example in California, they have 4 reporting stations, all near the warmer coast, to cover the entire state. Binny is in deep denial about that fact, raving constantly about the GHCN record with its 100,000+ stations, that NOAA abandoned circa 1990. NOAA has openly admitted they now use less than 1500 stations to determine the planetary surface average. That means they use climate models to interpolate and homogenize a handful of temperature to ***SYNTHESIZE*** a global average using temperatures that have no existence to fill out the record.
So, how does one go about determining how many thermometers are adequate when one cannot even define what they are trying to measure? What is meant by a global average temperature? If it is intended to mean the average temperature of a thin layer of the atmosphere adjacent to the Earth’s surface, less than 1500 thermometers to cover the entire land surface is a serious joke. As I said, that is one thermometer per 100,000 km^2 an does no account for changes in altitude or location.
But why are we messing with thermometers when we have satellite AMSU scanners to give us a better global average? The scanners reach 90% of the land and ocean surface. The argument offered by alarmists is that the scanners only cover the atmosphere at 4 km, a bold faced lie, and that the sats have egregious errors, another bold-faced lie.
Admittedly, there are other issues with the sats re coverage. As folks in many parts of Canada claim, if you don’t like the weather, wait an hour and it will change. I think that may be an issue with the sats as well. Exactly what is being measured?
My solution? Drop this bs. about global averages for the simple reason that a global average is meaningless. It becomes even more meaningless when so-called scientific outfits like NOAA and GISS use the mythical global average to enable governments to impose on our democratic rights by lying to us about imaginary catastrophic climate futures.
clint…”Gordon doesnt understand current flow. Current flow is chosen as the direction of positive charge flow, that is, positive current is in the direction of positive charge flow. There has to be a choice to lessen confusion. Outside a battery, positive current flows + to -. But INSIDE a battery, positive current flows to +”.
***
I appreciate you explanation, as you see it. However, you are missing the difference between a defined hypothesis and the actual real world of electron flow. There is no such thing as a positive charge flow in a copper wire. The original definition of conventional flow was based on a mythical positive test charge. No one has ever defined what that means although early scientists claimed it has a mass.
Since conventional flow was defined in the 1920s, I presume there was confusion about electron current wherein the electron was a very new theoretical particle, being discovered 20 years earlier in 1898. Even by 1910, Rutherford, who was in on the early electron theory by J.J. Thompson. could not explain the electron as related to an atom. It was not till 1913 that Bohr put forward a hypothesis about electrons and atomic nucleii that has persisted.
Bohr’s theory did not receive an automatic rubber stamp. Like any other new theory it was resisted by many scientists and I am guessing that certain scientists prevailed with an alternate theory based on a mythical positive test charge. For some reason that theory has persisted which is more a testament to the power of paradigms than scientific fact.
Along the way, some factions broke off and began forwarding the correct theory that current flows negative to positive. This is not a choice between convention and actual, it is scientific fact.
You put forward the action inside a battery, where the terms anode and cathode are reversed from the external world. In other words, the anode inside a battery connects externally to the cathode of the battery terminal, That means current actually flows externally from the negative cathode to the positive anode.
What goes on inside the battery is irrelevant since we never reference voltage drops in a circuit to what is going on inside a battery. Besides, most generators are not chemical batteries but armatures rotating inside a magnetic field. Therefore, internal current flow has no bearing on the external current.
A generator is based on the simple principle that a copper conductor moving perpendicular to a magnetic field will have an electron current induced in it. We can predict the direction of current flow based on the orientation of the N-S poles in the magnetic field, and the direction of the conductor through the field. The internally generated electron flow is simply about free electrons in the conductor being forced to flow in a direction dependent on the conductor motion relative to a defined magnetic field direction.
That rules out the argument of the current flow within a battery which is really a chemical process involving ions and based on the composition of the electrolyte and the electrodes. The electrons that accumulate around one pole of the battery is strictly a result of ionic action and not a current flow per se. In other words, there is no electron flow through the electrolyte, electrons are deposited, on the internal anode when ions have a chemical reaction with the material in that pole. At that time, the electron gets deposited on the pole.
As far as we are concerned in the electrical and electronics field that action is irrelevant to the external current flow through the circuit.
We are concerned with circuit voltage drops based on Kircheoff’s Law and current flow through nodes as per Thevenin’s theorem. One law sums voltages while the other sums currents at a node. In that case, the direction of current flow is irrelevant as long as we are consistent with the signs of voltage drops and current flows. That is theory, whereas I am talking about the real world in which electrons move.
It is not possible for electrons to move positive to negative. I have used the old vacuum tube to demonstrate that. A vacuum tube is based on thermionic emission where electrons are literally boiled off a tungsten filament by running a current through the tungsten that causes it to glow red. An electron cloud is formed around the tungsten filament and in a basic diode, with no cathode cylinder, but with the raw filament as the cathode, the electrons in the cloud are drawn to a cylinder of metal around the cathode called the plate. It is nominally at a few hundred volts positive and the electrons flow through a vacuum to the positive anode.
The point is, there are not mysterious positive charges flowing in the opposite direction.
That is the reality, electrons flow from a negative cathode to positive anode. There is no such thing as a positive charge in this system, that idea coming from a theory that is wrong. In the 1930s, Shockley did work on primitive semiconductors and put forward a theory about ‘holes’ which as essentially empty spaces left in a silicon atom valence band when an electron jumps to another empty space in another atom’s valence band. As electrons flow in one directly the empty spaces move in the other direction.
Some ijits thinks these holes have mass and can constitute a ‘hole’ current. However, Shockley made it clear in his book on the subject that he intended the concept of holes as simply a means of visualizing current flow in positively doped silicon. He never meant the idea of a hole to be taken as a real physical entity. For some reason, my field of electrical engineering is rife ith such ijiotic concepts.
You seem to value reality in physics yet here you are defending an unproved concept upheld by the EE cult.
Gordon, have you considered seeking professional help?
Clint is reduced to a one-line ad hom, a sure sign that he has conceded the debate. Lacks the scientific understanding to respond to a detailed reply on the proper direction of current flow…negative to positive.
Clint believes that the direction of current flow can be determined by opinion and I have tried to point out that electrons don’t give a hoot about opinion. In the real, physical world, electrons can only flow negative to positive. The fictitious positive charge held in high esteem by Clint cannot exist in a copper conductor.
Same with entropy. He believes that entropy can be arbitrarily defined any way it suits one’s opinion. However, Clausius defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal heat quantities. Arrogant ijits who come along later and decide to re-define it as a measure of disorder are Clint’s authority figures.
Clint does not stop there, however, going so far as to redefine heat as a measure of energy flow but he refuses to name the energy in transit, which can only be heat. Therefore, according to Clint heat is a measure of the transfer of heat.
And he suggests I seek therapy.
“electrons can only flow negative to positive.”
Yes, the particle flow is from neg to pos.
But electric flow is the flow of CHARGE. I = dq/dt
As the negative electrons are moving from neg to pos, the charge, q, is moving from pos to neg.
It is as simple concept.
tim…there is no reason why negative charges should flow positive to negative.
Maybe this will help. I have a tank with some (positive) mass of water in it. I come back later and there is less mass. There was a net ‘mass current’ AWAY FROM the tank during that interval.
I have a metal ball with some positive charge on it. I come back later and there is less charge. There was a net electrical current AWAY FROM the metal ball.
The fact that the current was probably physically due to negative electrons moving TOWARD the ball is immaterial. The ball has LESS charge and the current was AWAY.
tim…read my lips….negative charges will not flow positive to negative.
Yes, Gordon. I know and have acknowledged that negatively charged electrons flow from negative to positive in metal wires. If we were talking about particle flow, then particles are flowing from negative to positive.
But if we want to talk about electric current, I = dq/dt, that electric current is flowing from positive to negative.
Test your understanding of currents with this image of ionic conduction involving K+ and Cl-. https://philschatz.com/chemistry-book/resources/CNX_Chem_11_02_electrolyt.jpg
How would you describe the current in the ionic solution?
* left to right?
* right to left?
* zero because half the charged particles are moving each way?
* other?
Gordon, I don’t need to write a book to debunk all your nonsense. You believe endless keyboarding makes up for your lack of understanding of science. But the reason you need professional is your need to constantly claim to be an engineer. Even Norman, as messed up as he is, doesn’t do that.
Get professional treatment. It’s probably free in Canada.
“We are concerned with circuit voltage drops based on Kircheoffs Law and current flow through nodes as per Thevenins theorem. One law sums voltages while the other sums currents at a node.”
You don’t mean Thevenin. You mean Kirchhoff’s Current Law.
You’re right. Don’t know why I said Thevenin because I hated both Thevenin and Norton equivalents. Same thing with transistor equivalent circuits.
Climate science – it’s exactly like this
https://i.imgur.com/L3tRjiv.jpeg
Hint – those gears cannot turn
swannie…”Gordo, the self proclaimed electrical engineer wrote:
So why does that power have a time factor and electrical power does not?
Lets see, as I recall it, electrical power is defined as volts times amps. Dont forget, the Ampere was originally defined as: One ampere is equal to 1 coulomb (C) moving past a point in 1 second. So, electrical power does have a time component. This is the second time Ive tried to correct your confusion on the matter”.
***
Yes, Swannie, but the time factor we introduce to allegedly measure energy is not the same time factor upon which current is defined. When you define current as so many coulombs of charge per second, you define a quantity of current. Then that quantity, in amps, must be multiplied times the applied voltage and another time factor over which the amps are used.
Let’s compare that to a mechanical application. The HP is defined upon the number of pounds a horse could raise by a certain height in a certain time. The weight element also has a time factor since it involves gravitational acceleration measured in feet per second per second.
Since one horsepower equals 746 watts, that means the watt is based on the ‘other’ time factor used to calculate the rate of work done by the horse. The electrical watt should have that same ‘other’ time factor built in, but it does not.
In other words, when the HP/watt was defined, someone used a clock to measure the time factor involved. Yet when the same watt is applied to electrical applications when we use a clock we change the reference from power to energy cosumption.
All power has time associated with it 3 times
kg⋅m2⋅s−3
Not electrical power. It has no time factor, it is simply the product of the voltage and current. When you rate a resistor for power, you measure it as E.I or I^2.R. As I pointed out, time is added by a Kw-h meter and utilities call that energy consumption.
Swannie is arguing that current is defined with a time factor as the number of charges passing a point in a circuit in 1 second. That is not a measure of power, however, since the power referenced is the I^2.R heat (Joule heating) quantity induced in a resistance.
That value is a constant and has no time factor.
If I have a 100 ohm resistor in a circuit with 10 volt across it, the resistor has a current, I = E/R = 10/100 = 0.1 amps. We calculate the power rating it needs by multiplying the voltage across it by the current through it. In this case, P = EI = 10 volts x 0.1 amps = 1 watt.
If I connect a watt-meter with its voltage leads across the resistor and its current leads in series, it will measure 1 watt. That’s what the Kw-hr meter does outside the house but it is measuring the power consumed by all resistive loads in the home. It’s still a constant and to get the total consumption over a time period, the total must be recording by the motor in the meter that drives the dials.
If you look into the older meters you’ll see a wheel turning. It’s driven by the current running through the meter and serves as a driver for the meter’s dials. What the dials read is called energy consumption by the power utilities and it is energy consumption. However, it still doesn’t tell us what energy is or what is being measured as energy. Voltage is not that energy nor is current, both being products of the initial energy that drives the generator.
We tend to use the word energy flippantly. We refer to spiritual energy which is undefined or the energy in crystals which allegedly has healing power. Or we might refer to ourselves as being low on energy at a certain time. I fear that the same flippancy applies to science at times. We fling the word energy around in a very generic manner.
For example, kinetic energy is a rather meaningless term when it comes to identifying a type of energy. All it infers is that some kind of energy is in motion but does not specify what energy is in motion. Therefore, energy gets flippantly applied to both electromagnetic energy and thermal energy in the same thought. That’s how alarmists try to get their notions across that justify contradicting the 2nd law.
ALL power has units of [mass]*[distance^2]/[time^3] … called a watt in the metric system.
For example, electrical work is W = qV [in joules]
Power is the rate at which work is done.
P = dW/dt = d(qV)/dt = (dq/dt)*V = IV [in watts]
Electrical power is still power. It is still watts. It still involves time.
Gordo still doesn’t get it:
Gordo, current is defined as: coulombs per second.
Horsepower is also defined a similar way, the amount of “work” (as in, force times distance against gravity) per unit time. To calculate the energy consumption of a prime mover, one MULTIPLIES the power by the time the power is used, as in horsepower-hour. To calculate electric energy consumed, one doesn’t ADD another time factor, one MULTIPLIES by the time the current and voltage is applied by the time it’s consumed, giving in watt-hours.
swannie…both you and Tim are missing the point. If a horse lifts a load, using a pulley system, and all that is measured is the work, we are interested only in the force applied over a distance. That’s work and it is not measured in HP. To get horsepower, we need to measure the work done over a time period (minute or second) (work rate) and we have to specify the weight involved.
Tim is getting himself tied up in definitions and math without considering the actual practice in the electrical field. The watt, in the electrical field, is defined as the product of the applied voltage across a load and the current through the load.
You have tried to argue that current, defined as the number of coulombs of charge passing a point in 1 second, has a time factor. I acknowledged that and pointed out that the time involved was not the same time used to measure wattage over a different period of time.
A Kw-hr meter (watt-meter) does not care about time, it simply measures the voltage across a load and the current through it and displays the wattage on a meter face. That’s tells you nothing bout the total power consumed. To get that, we need to attach the watt-meter to a clock device with dials that tell us how much power was used over a time period.
Both of you are confusing power with power consumption, a term utilities call energy consumption. If I specify a current of 1 amp through a load it means so many coulombs of charge are passing a certain point every second. It tells us nothing about the total amount of current that passed that point in a month.
Tim F is correct. Gordo, the self-proclaimed engineer, can’t even understand the basics facts of his own profession. Power is the rate at which energy is being consumed. A watt meter measures power, a watt-hour meter integrates the power used over a time period, to indicate energy consumed.
“A Kw-hr meter (watt-meter) …”
These are two DIFFERENT meters!
A kW-hr meter measures ENERGY.
A watt-meter measures POWER.
“Thats tells you nothing bout the total power consumed. ”
Wrong words! You are talking about total ENERGY consumed with you attach a clock and multiple power x time.
“Both of you are confusing power with power consumption”
Its pretty clear you are the one confusing “energy” with “power”.
tim f…”Try answering the simplest of question about circuits. A battery is connected to a resistor using two wires. Energy goes from the battery to the resistor.
Does that energy travel
a) out the terminal and down that wire
b) out the + terminal and down that wire
c) half out each terminal and half down each wire
d) other”.
***
Tim…the words energy is being used her in the vernacular. In other words, we tend to use words incorrectly with no harm done overall. However, in science, that is not acceptable. The correct answer is that electrons flow out the -ve terminal and down the wire, but only if the wire is terminated at the battery positive terminal. If the circuit is not complete, no current will flow. That puts the boots to the other theory that an electric field right down the wire causes electrons to flow.
Energy is not flowing, it acts as a field to propel electrons through conductors from the battery. Although the guy in your video claims the electric field is acting on electrons throughout the circuit, I think it’s the other way around. Electrons carry an electric field with them and produce a magnetic field when they move. The electric field he is referencing is caused by electrons and their charges.
If you try to measure the energy you claim is moving down the wire, how do you do it? I think it is electrical current running down the wire and it involves the flow of electrons and their charges. Some people refer to electric current as energy but I don’t. I refer to the motivating force that drives the electrons as energy and I have no idea what it is.
It’s called electromotive force (EMF) in technical terms and it has an equivalent called magnetomotive force (MMF) as applied to magnetic circuits. I have not studied this stuff for years and there is a lot of rust involved. EMF is defined as potential energy and it is regarded as the prime motivator for electrons in a circuit. No one knows what it is although we could get into the ball park by describing it as the electrostatic repulsion of electrons by a larger mass of electrons.
A chemical battery stores free electrons at the cathode, or negative terminal. When a circuit is connected across the battery terminals, the repulsive force of the accumulated electrons at the cathode, force other electrons around the circuit.
A simple loop of wire rotating between magnetic N-S poles causes a variable current of electrons and their charges to move in the conductor. As the loop breaks the magnetic lines of force at a right angle, a maximum number of electrons is caused to run down the wire. With angles in between a right angle and moving parallel to the field, less electrons flow. Over a full cycle, a sine wave of electrical current is produced.
One might claim the prime mover here is the magnetic field but we have no idea how that works at the atomic level. We don’t know why a magnetic field induced a current in a moving conductor or why electrons moving in a wire produce a magnetic field. So how can we talk about a motivating energy when we have no idea how it works?
You are dancing all around the issue with your paragraphs and paragraphs of extraneous materials.
Conservation of energy is one of the cornerstones of science. Energy is never created or destroyed. It can change forms; it can transfer from one place to another.
There was energy in the battery. Some of that energy got to the resistor. How did it get there?
For example, a crankshaft transmits energy from a car engine to the tires.
The naive thought is that the electrons carry the energy down one or both wires from the battery to the resistor. But that is wrong.
Extraneous material? Nothing extraneous included, I edites it carefully. The problem is in your comprehension of what I have written.
You have watched a video by a guy who was challenged on his claims in an early video and has come up with even more preposterous claims in this recent video. The guy is out to lunch.
In my first paragraph I tried to explain that no current will flow in an open-circuit. If you connect a battery via a switch and ammeter across a capacitor, when the switch is closed, the meter will indicate a sudden spike of current then nothing more. That’s because electrons/charges will flow immediately after the switch is closed until the charge level ***OF ELECTRONS*** builds up on one capacitor plate and repels other electrons till the build up of charge stops current flow altogether.
That kills his argument that current flow is due to an electrical field. With the switch open, an ammeter will indicate no current flow at all as the conductor is connected to the battery terminals.
With both terminals connected, there should be an electrical field along the conductors but it obviously does not cause any current to flow.
Tim…this is basic electrical theory and what this guy is presenting is a bastardized version based on sheer hypothesis.
I am trying to emphasize in the next paragraphs that energy is not flowing, that it is a potential that drives electrons and their charges. Describing energy as a non-descript ‘capacity’ to do work is as dumb as describing heat as a measure of energy.
Of course, it’s obvious I am talking to a closed mind here.
> I edites it carefully
Veeery carfully.
“Nothing extraneous included …”
The discussion — as quoted by YOU! — is about how energy gets from a battery to a resistor. Your discussion veers off to currents and EMFs and MMF and rotating loops. Now you add capacitors. All extraneous to the discussion at hand.
“The guy is out to lunch.”
… and yet the experiment proved him right.
“this is basic electrical theory …”
Basic electr5ic theory says that electric fields cause forces on charges. F = qE. No electric field, no force. So to get the electrons started anywhere in the circuit requires an electric field at that part of the wire.
“Thats because electrons/charges will flow immediately after the switch is closed …”
Well, actually that motion propagates at the speed of light down the wire; the speed at which the E field can travel. But again, the E field is the cause.
“it is a potential that drives electrons ”
… and what creates that potential? Electric potential is found from the electric fields! Integrate E along the path to find the the potential difference. Again it comes back to the E field!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps playing the Hall Monitor.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
(Will Graham hover over the link? Will he not?)
Little Stalker, please stop trolling.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner ought to stick to making covers.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Last but not least: Related
Q:
1/ Consider a house that has a floor space of 2800 ft² and an average height of 10 ft at 5000 ft elevation where the standard atmospheric pressure is 12.2 psia.
2/ Initially the house is at a uniform temperature of 50° F.
3/ Now the electric heater is turned on, and the heater runs until the air temperature in the house rises to an average value of 70° F.
4/ Determine the amount of energy transferred to the air assuming:
(a) the house is airtight and thus no air escapes during the heating process, and
(b) some air escapes through the cracks as the heated air in the house expands at constant pressure.
5/ Also determine the cost of this heat for each case if the cost of electricity in that area is $0.18/kWh.
A:
(a) The amount of energy transferred to the air assuming the house is airtight is 6,184 BTU at a cost of $ 0.33.
(b) The amount of energy transferred to the air assuming some air escapes through the cracks as the heated air in the house expands is 8,680 BTU at a cost of $ 0.46.
You are still using the word energy incorrectly. You cannot tell us what it is.
Would you put away your slide rule for a minute and try to understand what I am saying? I get it that some people call it energy, I am saking what it is they are calling energy.
I have done all the calculations you offer and at a far more advanced level. You are doing simple resistance-based calculations. Try doing them for applications where inductive and capacitive loads are encountered where power factor becomes an issue and there are multiple such devices in a plant.
In any calculations I have ever done, not once was the word energy used. We talked only about real power and reactive power. In fact, rather than using the word energy consumption, we talked about power consumption. Whereas that does not enlighten us any better, it at least associates power and time better. Throwing the word energy in there in a generic sense is of no help at all.
That’s why I have raised the issue as to why power has a time component wrt to the mechanical energy measure, the horsepower (and watt), but has none in the electrical field. The time component is applied only when we want to measure the amount of power required over a time period.
In science, energy is loosely defined as the capacity to do work. The translates to the ability to do work, which is not helpful at all. If I describe thermal energy as the ability to do work. what does that tell me about energy or about heat? Nothing!!!
However, if I consider the association of heat with atoms, I can see that heat causes atoms to move faster in a gas, and to vibrate harder in a mass. In that capacity, adding heat can produce a higher amount of work but it still does no explain what thermal energy is.
What is it that causes the atoms to move faster or to vibrate more vigourously? Naming that property ‘energy’ does not help us understand what it is anymore than called the reading of Kw-hr meter ‘energy’.
Steyn lost.
like talking about the politics of today! $1,000,000 in punitive damages for causing $1 in actual damages. i’d lmao if it was so draconian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnTf2UxjGW8
well mann might end up with $8 if the treble damages rule applies.
https://youtu.be/BSmYxnvUDHw?si=QZ0vTSU2TNZAQAtP
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 451.4 km/sec
density: 0.35 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 08 Feb 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 164
“Sunspot AR3576 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares.”
3576 is a big spot, and another one is coming behind it {though more south of it} from farside.
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 188 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.39×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.5% Low
Solar wind
speed: 405.1 km/sec
density: 6.47 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 09 Feb 24
Sunspot number: 149
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 185 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.39×1010 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.3% Low
They number that spot coming from farside {south the big spot, 3576}3581. I don’t see any others coming from farside. 3581 is moderate size spot. There are total numbered spot.
The big one, 3576, which could give X-flares, is roughly facing us, and might cause us some excitement over next few days.
total of numbered of spots is 9.
And I would guess we will get less 9 in next day or so.
And forgot this:
“MAJOR X-CLASS SOLAR FLARE: Today at 1314 UT, the sun produced one of the most powerful solar flares in years, an X3.4-class explosion from just behind the sun’s southwestern limb. NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) recorded the extreme ultraviolet flash:
The source of the flare appears to be departing sunspot AR3575. Because the blast site was eclipsed by the edge of the sun, the flare was probably even stronger than its X3.4 classification suggests. This was a big explosion.”
It seems sun has fairly active lately in terms creating large explosions, but they haven’t been directed at Earth, yet.
I would guess astronauts are spending time in their solar flare shelters.
I decided poke around to see wat saying regarding crew, I didn’t find anything specific, but I thought this interesting:
https://www.nasa.gov/solar-cycle-progression-and-forecast/
Updated February 6, 2024
Sunspot Number
They got 5 percent of sunspot number crashing, soon and another 5 per cent of taking off, soon. 50 percent of sideways and up a bit
for couple years.
So the two low chance extreme is blue line going to about 170, and 100 within couple months.
Anyhow, it “seems” they got all the bases covered, but I think there chance it go lower than the 5 per cent in 3 months.
Solar wind
speed: 372.1 km/sec
density: 4.22 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 10 Feb 24
Sunspot number: 105
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 183 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.39×1010 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.3% Low
“25% CHANCE OF X-FLARES TODAY: Yesterday, the sun unleashed a powerful X3.4-class solar flare. NOAA forecasters say there is a 25% chance it could happen again today. The most likely source is big sunspot AR3576, which has an unstable delta-class magnetic field and is directly facing Earth.”
Solar wind
speed: 603.8 km/sec
density: 12.60 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 11 Feb 24
Sunspot number: 146
“Sunspot AR3576 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares.”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 194 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.92×1010 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.3% Low
Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
05 February – 02 March 2024
Solar activity is expected to be at low to moderate levels on 05-16
Feb due primarily to the flare history and potential of Region 3776
and the return of old Region 3559. Low levels are expected on 17-23
Feb. An increased chance for moderate levels are possible on 24-29
Feb and 01-02 Mar as old Regions 3359 and 3776 rotate back onto the
visible disk.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
The story remains the large sunspot, AR3576 which has passed the mid-point, and less of story in a couple days when it approaches the farside.
It seems likely, to me, the blue line will continue to curve down though there is a fairly good chance next month, the blue line will not continue down.
But my guess is blue line continue to go down in next few months.
Solar wind
speed: 402.2 km/sec
density: 5.13 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 13 Feb 24
Sunspot number: 153
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 180 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.09×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.4% Low
There spot not named yet coming from farside and spot number with no spots leaving to farside.
The sun seemed like it could get more active, but now, doesn’t seem to going anywhere.
Solar wind
speed: 443.9 km/sec
density: 11.30 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 14 Feb 24
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 195 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.18×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.7% Low
Big spot coming farside northern hemisphere- more north than any current spot on nearside
oh:
Sunspot number: 122
And:
“Sunspot AR3576 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares.”
It’s heading to farside but will take couple days before it’s gone.
Solar wind
speed: 386.0 km/sec
density: 0.98 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 15 Feb 24
Sunspot number: 123
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 184 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.17×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.4% Low
The spot coming from farside side {3586} is smaller than it looked to me, it’s a moderate size spot. There couple small spot not numbered, and there are 7 numbered spots, And I don’t any more coming from farside.
It seems the blue line will continue to curve down.
MethaneSAT Set to Transform Global Methane Emission Tracking with Advanced Technology
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/MethaneSAT_Set_to_Transform_Global_Methane_Emission_Tracking_with_Advanced_Technology_999.html
“Ball Aerospace has marked a significant milestone in environmental monitoring by delivering the MethaneSAT satellite to Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County, California, setting the stage for its launch next month. This pivotal mission, developed in collaboration with MethaneSAT, LLC-a subsidiary of the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)-aims to provide unparalleled insights into the scale and sources of global methane emissions, a critical factor in the fight against climate warming.”
official probabilistic ENSO forecast is out for the month.
el nino ending by AMJ >80%
la nina by JJA 55% el nino 3%
la nina by SON 77% el nino 3%
“Now this science that I love has fallen under attack
A mighty sucker punch came flyin’ in from somewhere in the back
Soon as we could see clearly
Through our big black eye
Mann, we lit up your world
Like the fourth of July
Hey, Michael Mann put your name at the top of his list
And the Statue of Liberty started shakin’ her fist
And the eagle will fly, man it’s gonna be hell
When you hear mother freedom start ringin’ her bell
And it feels like the whole wide world is raining down on you
Brought to you courtesy of the red white and blue
Justice will be served and the battle will rage
This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage
And you’ll be sorry that you messed with
The hockey stick display
‘Cause we’ll put a boot in your ass
It’s the Michael Mann way”
…
https://youtu.be/5QlvgVaHDPk
Cultism — False religion attempting to pervert both science and reality.
He’s a poet,
And doesn’t know it.
But his feet show it,
There are Longfellows.
Anyone who would defend a misogynist like Mann, who deliberately insulted Judith Curry, and who has deceived the public with his manipulation of data, would surely be so base as to issue nonsense and present it as poetry.
What I wonder is why Ark would be so doltish as to present it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fJkHJUYzII
Willard,
Why are you responding with that?
Monkey Man,
Why do you ask, and why should I care?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps threatening Roy’s comment section.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
(I hope Graham took the time to hover over the link…)
Little Stalker, please stop trolling.
(Looks like he didn’t. Very well. He had his chance.)
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
tim f…”For example, electrical work is W = qV [in joules]
Power is the rate at which work is done.
P = dW/dt = d(qV)/dt = (dq/dt)*V = IV [in watts]
Electrical power is still power. It is still watts. It still involves time”.
***
Tim…I get your math, but you fail to grasp that power is not about math, it’s based initially on the amount of weight a horse could lift over a distance in a time period.
Today, the watt has been compared mathematically to other applications and that is what I am questioning.
For example, above, you used the term dq/dt*V. What if ‘q’ (coulombs) is constant as in a direct current? The derivative of any constant is zero. What you are describing using dq/dt is an instantaneous change in charge related to the current flowing into or out of an inductor or capacitor. In a direct current circuit, with a simple resistive load, q will always be constant and dq/dt = 0.
With a capacitor, the initial inrush of current is very high. As electrons accumulate on the capacitor plate, their increasing charge repels incoming electrons and the in-rushing current decays exponentially as those charges build up. If you use a series resistor to limit the current, you can control the time it takes for the capacitor to reach a certain percentage of charge. The combination RC is called a time constant.
That’s what happen when one relies solely on math for a proof while ignoring the physical reality. I appreciate the effort you put into your replies, unlike Clint, who lacks the ability to respond as you do, and who rants in frustration rather than trying to analyze a problem.
Please don’t regard me as coming across as talking down to you. That’s not what I am about. I do it for humour at times with Klowns like Klint but I take you far more seriously than I do his juvenile efforts to antagonize. We’re are all hopefully in this together as students of science, and in that light, I am as much a student as you.
Let’s get something straight, the watt is a measure of mechanical energy only. When we measure heat is watts we are essentially lying. The basic unit of heat is the calorie, defined as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 cc of water by 1C. That is not related to the watt directly in any way.
The reason the watt is used as a measure of thermal energy is an ***EQUIVALENCE*** discovered by Joule between the mechanical agitation of water and an increase in the water temperature. There is no equality between the two since both units of energy have different units of measure, and different heating mechanisms.
An equal sign between joules and calories suggests that the mechanical energy added via agitation is the same energy created in the water as thermal energy. That is nonsense. The mechanical energy added simply agitates the water molecules, breaking weak hydrogen bonds that hold the molecules together and in the process releases heat from the hydrogen bonds. Ergo, the heat produced does not come from the mechanical energy of the agitator, it comes from the water molecules themselves.
The process works in water and is based on the heat capacity of water. Show me any other non-water-based liquids, with different heat capacities, where it applies. 1 calorie = 4.184 joules applies only to water. Mind you, that’s a bit of a no-brainer since the calorie is defined based on the properties of water.
Again, we are dealing with an anachronism dating back to 1925 and it is seriously out of date. The calorie was redefined in 1925 in joules by ijits who lacked the foresight to see the gross generality in their claim.
The error is amplified grossly when EM is measured in watts. EM is not related as an energy to either heat or work, yet people are quite willing to give it a power rating it does not have. It does have a capacity to produce power ***IF*** absorbed by a material of lower temperature than the source temperature of the EM, and converted to heat, but as EM has has no mass, no momentum, and no heat, and cannot possibly be stated in watts.
We have gotten lazy in science and in some cases stoopidly lazy. Rather than keep researching to find some way of detecting atomic motion directly we have accepted quantum theory, an obfuscated science that cannot be visualized. So we are happy to live in the dark, hoping our theories are correct.
Then there are the educated ijits who come across as seriously stoopid when they talk about Big Bangs and a theory of relativity which is based on a non-existent ‘time’. It escapes most of them that the definition of time had to be arbitrarily re-defined to make their cockamamey equations work.
Gordon spouts: “What if ‘q’ (coulombs) is constant as in a direct current? The derivative of any constant is zero.”
Not only are you NOT an engineer, you don’t even understand high school calculus.
A car going 60 mph is NOT motionless — ds/dt = 60, not zero. It’s the distance covered in a unit of time. With direct current, it’s the Coulombs moving past a point in a unit of time.
Get professional help. You may already be a danger to yourself.
Clint gets more st00pid in his feeble attemp.t to discredit me.
You are comparing apples to oranges. dq/dt is not comparable to ds/dt for the simple reason that one is a measure of the change of charge amount per unit time and ds/dt is an instantaneous change in a linear measure per unit time. They have nothing in common.
If we were talking about acceleration, dv/dt, then it would be zero when V is constant. When working with differentials, you have to be aware what context they are related to.
ds/dt says that the distance, s, is changing instantaneously with the time, t. It tell us nothing about the total distance traveled, to get that we’d need to integrate between integration limits, t1 and t2. Speed on the other hand has no differentials and is a simple scalar quantity that presents an overall average sped by dividing the distance covered by the time taken.
dq/dt is another matter altogether. It addresses the total number of charges that are changing by adding or subtracting them. With a constant current, there is no change in the number of total charges, therefor dq/dt is zero.
However, if we applied this to a charging capacitor, the charge quantity on the capacitor plate would be changing per unit time, therefore dq/dt would apply.
If we were analyzing a circuit, with an inductor in series with a resistor across a voltage source … we could write the equation as ..
e(t) = Ldi/dt +iR
In di/dt we can represent ‘i’ as the instantaneous number of charges passing a point in a second. That value will be changing if e is alternating due to the effect of an alternating current running through an inductor. Just as with a capacitor, the number of charges at a given point at a given time is variable.
If the generator, e, was direct current, there would be a brief changing initial current flow through L, therefore di/dt would change very briefly. Therefore, L.di/dt would have a significant reactance, in ohms. However, after the initial effect, di/dt would be zero, and the reactance of L.di/dt would be zero. Of course every inductor has a certain amount of resistance as well and there would be a miniscule voltage drop across it.
The difference between an inductor and a capacitor in a D.C circuit is that during steady state conditions the inductor passes current and the capacitor blocks it.
Sorry Gordon, but you can’t understand even the basics.
When you spout nonsense like, “What if ‘q’ (coulombs) is constant as in a direct current? The derivative of any constant is zero.”, you clearly indicate you don’t have a clue.
There can be a CONSTANT flow of charge past a point, but that does NOT mean the current is zero. You can’t face the reality that you don’t make any sense.
Want another example of your rambling ignorance?
“Let’s get something straight, the watt is a measure of mechanical energy only.”
No Gordon, a Watt is a measure of POWER. Power is NOT energy. You don’t even understand the basics. A Watt is a measure of mechanical power, and also a measure of electrical power, as in P = IV.
Get professional help before you hurt yourself.
New Study Uncovers Asymmetry in Solar Gamma-Ray Emissions During Solar Maximum
by Erica Marchand
Lisbon, Portugal (SPX) Feb 08, 2024
“In a groundbreaking study published in *The Astrophysical Journal*, researchers have unveiled unexpected findings regarding the Sun’s gamma-ray emissions, particularly during periods of heightened solar activity known as the solar maximum. This research, spearheaded by Bruno Arsioli from the Institute of Astrophysics and Space Sciences (IA) and the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon (Ciencias ULisboa), in collaboration with Elena Orlando from the University of Trieste, INFN, and Stanford University, provides new insights into the high-energy processes occurring in our star’s atmosphere.
Gamma rays, the highest energy form of electromagnetic radiation, are produced by various processes in the Sun, including in its halo and during solar flares. These rays carry a billion times more energy than ultraviolet light and are a key to understanding violent events on the Sun’s surface. The study’s findings challenge the previously held belief that gamma rays emitted from the Sun would show a uniform distribution across the solar disk.”
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/New_Study_Uncovers_Asymmetry_in_Solar_Gamma_Ray_Emissions_During_Solar_Maximum_999.html
swannie…”Power is the rate at which energy is being consumed. A watt meter measures power, a watt-hour meter integrates the power used over a time period, to indicate energy consumed”.
***
I have asked several times, Swannie, what is this energy being consumed? Describe it, tell me what it is and how it can be measured.
You and Tim F are talking around the question using words defined by authority figures.
Consider thermal energy. What is it that causes atoms in gases to move faster, and atoms in solids to vibrate harder when heat is added? If I apply a torch to a piece of iron what is causing the iron atoms to vibrate harder?
I am sure you’ll offer a trite explanation, like it’s due to extra energy, but I am not interested in that kindergarten bs. I want to know how thermal energy in the flame interacts with matter to change its temperature. When heat is added to a gas, why do gas molecules increase their velocity? What is the connection between heat and velocity?
In other words, what is this energy we call thermal energy? And how do we measure it directly? If you can’t tell me that then you definitely cannot tells me how solar EM can be measured in watts.
Your whole comment shows that you don’t understand energy. Maybe try the description of a Nobel winning scientist.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html
clint…aka Klinton Klown…continues along his masochistic pursuit of wanting his butt kicked.
“Gordon, I dont need to write a book to debunk all your nonsense”.
No, Klinton Klown, all you need are a few words to attemp.t what your deluded mind desires but you can’t even do that. Instead, you post ad hom attacks and insults because you know you don’t have the science to back your words.
I have observed over my life that those who suggest others need professional help are the ones in need of it the most.
Recently, you completely fumbled an attemp.t to belittle my understanding of differentials and I had to kick your butt once again. Do you enjoy being made a fohl of so much that you need to keep at it? If so, I’ll be happy to continue kicking you sorry butt.
Attempt.
Gordon, when you meet with your therapist, don’t forget to mention your anal fetish.
Sorry Gordon, but you are the one who fumbled the differentials and the topic of current.
“What if q (coulombs) is constant as in a direct current? The derivative of any constant is zero. ”
But q is NOT constant, I is constant. If a battery is providing a constant I = 0.1 A, then q = 0.1 C after 1 second, 0.2 C after 2 s, 0.3 C after 3 seconds. The RATE that charge is delivered stays constant, but the AMOUNT that has been delivered increases.
Tim,
Do you still hold that “A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface” as a description of the GHE?
Is that why you are so keen on everything else but the GHE?
Sure, that is presumable a “slightly better” description of the GHE than whatever other explanation was given before.
The problem is the ocean warms the land.
Or Land cools and ocean warms.
Land heats up quicker {and cools down quicker}.
The land is lacking in terms of a greenhouse effect.
“The problem is …”
The problem usually is that everyone wants their own tangents.
We started with a simple discussion about conventional current vs electron current (which is already a big tangent from a monthly temperature update). Both approaches are interesting and useful. But not everyone understand both or understands they are not contradictory.
That fairly reasonably drifted to energy in circuits. Pretty soon it is capacitors and MMF. and fumbled calculus. and GHE. And ocean warming vs land warming.
I just stick to facts. Land average is about 10 C and land is less than 3rd of Earth surface, so the warmer ocean surface and it’s air temperature air controls global air surface temperature.
And the ocean surface absorbs most of sunlight reaching Earth surface.
In terms of theories, I think we should have ocean human settlements. Or would predict this going happen probably before human settlements on Mars.
Enumerating facts is one thing. Stating relevant ones is another.
tim f…”That fairly reasonably drifted to energy in circuits. Pretty soon it is capacitors and MMF. and fumbled calculus. and GHE. And ocean warming vs land warming”.
***
It’s all related and on-topic. There is nothing that we know of in the universe that does not involved electrons and if you cannot grasp the application of electrons in electrical theory, you cannot begin to understand their application in climate theory.
You and Clint have demonstrated an abject ignorance of electrical theory and I can only reason that your ignorance of other theories in physics is equally poor.
The very concept of warming traces back to electron theory. When a mass is heated, all of its electrons in constituent atoms move to higher energy levels, and as it cools, all of them drop back to lower energy levels. Those energy levels en masse represent relative heat levels.
Quantum theory is electron theory, it is all based on electron orbitals in atoms. Unfortunately, the word quantum was introduced to represent a highly theoretic concept by Planck that was applied by Bohr, that electrons must reside in discrete (quantum) energy orbitals. To this day, no one knows if that is true.
Willard only has room in his head for one cause of climate change at a time. So he is deeply disturbed by any prospects of having to grok more as he is already a little ant man waving his arms wildly from the bottom of a lobster pot with lobster on the menu.
Gill believes that “The problem is” introduces a factual claim. He also believes that “I think we should have” should be included in all statements of fact.
And of course he believes that nobody notices his bait-and-switches.
“Land heats up quicker {and cools down quicker}.”
I think everyone agrees that is true.
“The land is lacking in terms of a greenhouse effect.”
When the GHE relates to the *atmosphere*, not the *land*. So yes, the land completely lacks a greenhouse effect.
So these are both true, but I can’t tell what your point its.
“So these are both true, but I cant tell what your point its.”
In regards to this:
“Sure, that is presumable a slightly better description of the GHE than whatever other explanation was given before.”
??
as response to:
Swenson says:
February 9, 2024 at 10:16 PM
I guess roughly agreeing with you. Or as I have repeated often, global warming is not but Earth getting hotter {as propaganda suggests] but is about a more uniform global temperature. Or global cooling is about more extreme temperatures.
Or since hottest temperature ever to be recorded was over century ago, this doesn’t suggest there hasn’t been global warming, to doesn’t prove it, but it supports it.
tim f…”But q is NOT constant, I is constant. If a battery is providing a constant I = 0.1 A, then q = 0.1 C after 1 second, 0.2 C after 2 s, 0.3 C after 3 seconds”.
***
You should stay away from subjects you clearly don’t understand and that includes the concept of tangents and limits in calculus. If I (current) is constant then the number of charges per second is constant. dq/dt applies only if the number of charges per second is changing and I described the conditions in an inductor and capacitor in which that is true.
If a current of 0.1 amps is constant it means the number of coulombs per unit time is constant as well. In other words, dq/dt for a direct current is zero. In case you missed it, the ‘d’ in dq/dt means the ‘instantaneous change’ in charge per unit time.
With a capacitor, as the capacitor charges with a direct current, the number of charges per second changes, as in dq/dt, and approaches zero as the capacitor becomes fully charged. Same when it discharges, the number of charges per second leaving the capacitor is maximum per unit time and decreases toward zero, based on the time constant of the capacitor and its associated resistance.
Well Gordon, you were able to finally grasp that a constant rate is not zero. Clearly Folkerts and I helped you. You were able to respond to the teaching from adults.
How are you doing with understanding a “Watt”. Do you now know it is a unit of power, NOT energy?
You’ve got a lot to learn. Education is one baby step at a time….
At no time did I claim that a constant rate means zero. I claimed that the ***CHANGE*** in a constant rate is zero, as depicted by dq/dt = 0.
Both you and Tim need refresher courses in basic calculus, provided that is, if you had any training in the first place, which is more likely.
Hope life works out with your new alarmist friends, Mr. Traitor.
Klinton Klown, the Benedict Arnold of science skeptics.
Here Gordon, I’ll let you argue with yourself: “What if ‘q’ (coulombs) is constant as in a direct current? The derivative of any constant is zero.”
“I claimed that the ***CHANGE*** in a constant rate is zero, as depicted by dq/dt = 0.”
Charge, q, is an AMOUNT. Not a rate.
Current, i, is a RATE, depicted by dq/dt.
A “change in a rate” is di/dt, or d(dq/dt) / dt, or d^2q/dt^2.
What dq/dt = 0 tells us is that the current is zero!
La Nina development update
https://youtu.be/aoavLu246nM
Thanks..Interesting stuff.
replying to a post by Tim F earlier when he offered Feynman as an authority figure on energy. Sorry, had posting problems and lost my place.
Reference…
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html
tim…I used to have a deep respect for Feynman, and still respect his abilities, but the more I read him the more I gain the awareness that he was an egotist who would often make claims that he could not substantiate. In one of them he essentially claimed the audience was too stoopid to understand the point he was making and that they’d have to take his word for it.
Having said that, he does support my argument when he claimed at the end of section 4.1…
“It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is”.
Why not stop there…class dismissed. But that won’t work at the university level, many profs seem to have a need to drone on about irrelevant material. I am being facetious, I realize the importance of understanding more about energy, however, we need to get it that we have no idea what energy is.
So, there you have it from your own authority figure. Then he sticks his foot in his mouth by claiming kinetic energy is a ‘form’ of energy. No it’s not, KE is a descriptor of any energy in motion, and Feynman should have known better than to make such a claim.
He states a law, the law of conservation of energy…
“There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this lawit is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in the manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same”.
***
Do you think he could be more obscure? This so-called law is nothing but a load of abstractions. I agree that it is likely true in general, but there are situations as Swenson and I have described in which energy like EM seems to simply disappear through natural dissipation. There has to be a point at which EM generated by the Sun, becomes so diluted it can no longer be described as energy.
EM from the Sun is detected in part by its ability to be converted to heat. Is there a point out there in space where no heating is achieved when EM encounters it? If so, the energy has disappeared wrt to heat and the law no longer applies to EM. Same with heat. When the mass creating the heat disperses to the point where it cannot be measured, the law fails. I think that happens right in our own atmosphere, particularly in the stratosphere.
EM is also detected as light. We can see stars with the naked eye at great distances. Are there stars far enough away where the portion of their EM field detected by the human eye is no longer possible. Of course, we can use telescopes to detect light from bodies at even greater distances. Are there stars so distant that even a telescope cannot detect them?
All the same, much of our abilities to observe are based on human site. We can use instruments like telescopes to enhance our powers of observation in the macro world but we still cannot see to the atomic level.
clint has relegated himself to klown status.
“When you spout nonsense like, What if q (coulombs) is constant as in a direct current? The derivative of any constant is zero., you clearly indicate you dont have a clue.
There can be a CONSTANT flow of charge past a point, but that does NOT mean the current is zero. You cant face the reality that you dont make any sense”.
***
I said nothing about current being zero for a constant charge flow. Current ***IS*** that charge flow, how can it be zero?
The problem is your abysmal ignorance of basic calculus and basic electrical theory. I was discussing with Tim the meaning of dq/dt, a mathematical description of the instantaneous flow of charges past a point in a circuit. Stated literally, dq/dt means an instantaneous change in charge per unit time. If the charge flow is constant then dq/dt is not changing and must be zero.
It should be plain to anyone with even a simple understanding of calculus, that direct current when graphed is a straight line function. The derivative of any straight line is zero because…..ta da….nothing is changing. Duh!!!
dq/dt describes a change in the amount of charge. Steady-state charge quantity does no change in a direct current circuit except for transient changes when a switch is opened or closed in a circuit with reactive elements.
My advice to you is to avoid debating science that you know nothing about, but I doubt that you have the intelligence to understand that.
—-
Want another example of your rambling ignorance?
Lets get something straight, the watt is a measure of mechanical energy only.
No Gordon, a Watt is a measure of POWER. Power is NOT energy. You dont even understand the basics. A Watt is a measure of mechanical power, and also a measure of electrical power, as in P = IV.?
***
And where do you think the concept of power was developed? Do you think power was commonly used to describe EM or heat? Power was initially applied to the work done by a horse, specifically the amount of weight it could lift over a foot in a minute. At that time, heat was in the early stages of study and EM was essentially an unknown quantity. Therefore, power was initially defined based on mechanical energy.
The initial measure of power was the horsepower, for obvious reasons, then the mathematicians and politicians got into the act. The Europeans did not like the foot-pound measure and devised their on measures, all based on the HP. From that came the joule and the watt, with the watt being a sub-division of the HP. The association of 746 watts per horsepower was not pulled out of a hat.
—
“Get professional help before you hurt yourself”.
***
In his closing statement, Klinton Klown reveals his true character. A true neurotic, perhaps suffering from psychotic episodes, who derides both skeptics and alarmists who disagree with him, suggests I need professional help. This typical of his ability to see reality.
> where do you think the concept of power was developed?
Let’s ask the magazine:
https://www.powermag.com/history-of-power-the-evolution-of-the-electric-generation-industry/
Gordon, all that ignorant rambling makes Norman look coherent.
And, that’s hard to do….
“Stated literally, dq/dt means an instantaneous change in charge per unit time. ”
No! dq is an infinitesimal amount of charge. dt is an infinitesimal amount of time (not a unit of time i.e. not one second).
More specifically, these are limits.
You could measure Delta(q) = 0.1 coulomb in Delta(t) = 1 second and get a current of 0.1 A
You could measure Delta(q) = 0.01 coulomb in Delta(t) = 0.1 second and get a current of 0.1 A
You could measure Delta(q) = 0.001 coulomb in Delta(t) = 0.01 second and get a current of 0.1 A.
In the limit as t goes to 0, q also goes to zero, but the current remains 0.1 A
Stated literally, dq/dt means an instantaneous change in charge per INSTANTEOUS amount of time.
” The derivative of any straight line is zero …”
No. Just no!
The derivative of a straight line is a constant, known as the slope. Only a horizontal line has a derivative equal to zero!
There is not any Global Average +33 oC GHE on Earth’s surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
El Nio is CRASHING
https://youtu.be/LNcvtJWYx8A
Not really.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
Oh well.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
…and, like all radiative insulation, it functions via reflectivity, not absorp.tion/emission. Of course, people like to claim it would work with blackbodies, but they can’t prove that. It makes no sense for a blackbody to have radiatively insulating properties, since then everything could insulate radiatively simply by virtue of existing. It makes far more sense for objects with no reflectivity to be completely unable to radiatively insulate and for the ability to insulate to increase with the amount of reflectivity the object has, up to a perfect reflector being a perfect insulator. Otherwise you’re left with the silly GPE model in which large numbers of additional blackbody green plates essentially end up somehow approaching the insulating capacity of a perfect reflector!
“like all radiative insulation, it functions via reflectivity, not absorp.tion/emission.”
When you are designing radiative insulation, you design it it be reflective to make the insulating value high. (similar to designing fiberglass insulation with air pockets to make the insulating value high). But blackbody surfaces still work (similar to solid glass still working).
“people like to claim it would work with blackbodies, but they cant prove that.”
Yeah, we can. It is not our fault if you can’t understand. Dig out a textbook and learn.
tim, you can line your ceiling with tinfoil reflecting 95% of ir being emitted at the ceiling by the objects in the room and it won’t make your room warmer because convection and conduction will replace the heat transfer to your ceiling. the foil only works if there are no gases in the room and that is going to be a lot more difficult to deal with than being a little cold. fill you room with water and the only benefit you will get is the water will have a lot more heat in it than the gasses so if the cold is just overnight you might be a little warmer.
“the foil only works if there are no gases in the room and that is going to be a lot more difficult to deal with than being a little cold. ”
Bill cluelessly thinks radiation is turned off in air!
Well this is easy to debunk. Take the temperature of the ceiling. Coat it with self sticking foil and take the temperature again.
OTOH you can claim some insulation value if you take some self sticking foil and put it on your floor. That will make you perhaps a little cooler on hot days in your basement.
“Take the temperature of the ceiling. Coat it with self sticking foil and take the temperature again.”
OK go ahead. Lets see if you can demonstrate that radiation stops in air.
I am not talking about radiation. I am talking about the temperature of the room. Nobody gives a shiit about radiation.
Bill, there are situations where one mode of heat transfer dominates over the others.
But that doesnt mean it will be true in a different situation.
So you need to focus on the real situations of interest. The GPE. And the atmosphere.
When meteorologists study heat transfer in the atmosphere, they find that radiation is playing an important role.
And you havent shown otherwise.
Nate says:
Bill, there are situations where one mode of heat transfer dominates over the others.
But that doesnt mean it will be true in a different situation.
So you need to focus on the real situations of interest. The GPE. And the atmosphere.
————————–
Yeah but there is no evidence of a difference in a different situation. You need at least something concrete to start extrapolating in your imagination about how it is different.
“Yeah but there is no evidence of a difference in a different situation.”
So you are doubling down on ridiculousness?
You really don’t think different situations yield different results? Or are you just being knee-jerk contrary?
In the upper atmosphere, radiation is important. From the TOA to space, radiation is all there is!
Again, are you seriously going to deny that meteorology has found that radiation matters significantly in the atmosphere?
As Roy showed here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/observational-evidence-of-the-greenhouse-effect-at-desert-rock-nevada/
“Downwelling IR from the sky continuously maintains surface temperatures well above what they would be without greenhouse gases (while at the same time cooling the upper atmosphere well below what it would be without those gases). Surface temperature is a function of energy gain (from the sun) and energy loss (which is reduced by greenhouse gases).
Its not magic..its just physics.”
This last sentence is really the main point.
Nate says:
”Downwelling IR from the sky continuously maintains surface temperatures well above what they would be without greenhouse gases (while at the same time cooling the upper atmosphere well below what it would be without those gases). Surface temperature is a function of energy gain (from the sun) and energy loss (which is reduced by greenhouse gases).”
Well no doubt CO2 causes some warming, especially in the arctic where surface temperatures get very cold and you have warm airs arriving from the tropics and temperate regions of the planet. The only question is if this system is saturated or not. Many scientists think it is very near to that like Happer and Lindzen have it as 1C OR LESS!
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20132171-302668.pdf
“The only question is if this system is saturated or not.”
False. This is a zombie myth that never dies.
The paper we showed you, and explained to you several times, clearly demonstrated that is not the case. That the rise of the highest radiating level in the troposphere dominates the increase of the GHE. But of course you could not understand the paper.
And the document you posted is clearly a political manifesto by activists intended to influence policy.
It should not be confused with a science paper.
Climate science has no way to tell us that “THERE IS NO CLIMATE RELATED RISK CAUSED BY FOSSIL FUELS AND CO2”.
This is obviously simply a political opinion, not science..
Nate says:
”The only question is if this system is saturated or not.”
False. This is a zombie myth that never dies.
The paper we showed you, and explained to you several times, clearly demonstrated that is not the case. That the rise of the highest radiating level in the troposphere dominates the increase of the GHE. But of course you could not understand the paper.
————————-
The paper you offered up entertains the idea and does not reject it Nate. You are only demonstrating your ignorance here. And you argue against it with an entirely different M&W theory that may or may not be valid and you don’t even recognize that its a different theory than the Arrhenius’ theory which is subject to the saturation issue.
So the saturation condition is virtually certain. It doesn’t however apply to the M&W theory just the Arrhenius theory.
Yet we have folks still believing both are operational and capable of more warming. You are one of the ignorant ones that fits in that category as appears to be universally the case with the warmists in this fora.
Nate says:
”And the document you posted is clearly a political manifesto by activists intended to influence policy.
It should not be confused with a science paper.
Climate science has no way to tell us that THERE IS NO CLIMATE RELATED RISK CAUSED BY FOSSIL FUELS AND CO2.
This is obviously simply a political opinion, not science..”
—————————–
The fact is Nate there is no ”identified” climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2” There always can be unidentified risk as unidentified risk is unseen and therefore non-scientific risk.
So there is no climate risk that has been identified by science. If you want to get into lala land theory, sure then there might be some risk.
“So the saturation condition is virtually certain.”
More declaratory nonsense. You don’t even know what you are even talking about.
Nate continues to flout his ignorance.
“The fact is Nate there is no identified climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2 ”
False.
Plenty of risks have been identified, the most obvious one being the irreversible melting of polar ice sheets, consequent sea-level rise and inundation of coastal cities.
Many others, desertification, stronger more damaging hurricanes, extreme damaging rain events, ocean acidification, ocean reef death and consequent fishery destruction, the shutdown of the Gulf Stream.
These are not 100% certain.
But the political manifesto simply asserts that there is NO risk.
How ridiculous.
Nate says:
Plenty of risks have been identified, the most obvious one being the irreversible melting of polar ice sheets, consequent sea-level rise and inundation of coastal cities.
————————
What irreversible melting has occurred by CO2?
What cities have been inundated by CO2?
What desertification is caused by CO2?
What stronger more damaging hurricanes have been caused by CO2?
What extreme damaging rain event was caused by CO2?
What ocean acidification, ocean reef death and consequent fishery destruction, was caused by CO2?
What shutdown of the Gulf Stream was caused by CO2.
These are not 100% certain.
But the political manifesto simply asserts that there is NO risk.
How ridiculous.
Risk isn’t established by innuendo.
One can quantify risk such as the risk of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, rising sea level based upon historic occurrences and identify specific areas at risk. But no such risk have been established for CO2. Its like saying there is the risk of a butterfly in Brazil flapping its wings and causing a tornado in Texas.
“One can quantify risk such as the risk of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, rising sea level based upon historic occurrences and identify specific areas at risk.”
Yes indeed.
“But no such risk have been established for CO2. ”
Just deep denial.
The paleo record shows that the Gulf stream has shut down in the recent past, that the W. Antarctic ice sheet has melted in the past, that sea level has risen in the past.
There is CURRENT evidence that that sea level rise is accelerating, that hurricanes are more rapidly intensifying, that the ocean is acidifying.
So to suggest that there is NO risk of these things in a world that continues to warm, aint science.
Nate says:
The paleo record shows that the Gulf stream has shut down in the recent past, that the W. Antarctic ice sheet has melted in the past, that sea level has risen in the past.
——————-
And one should expect they should in the future but we know those past events occurred without an increase in CO2 so you have no causation argument for CO2.
And our risk window is only a few decades long as if the evidence does arrive we can stop using fossil fuels. All that we are doing now by trying to prepare for that is being done at the expense of addressing real known current risk.
And even that is not being done properly because its being done by mandate and by doing it by mandate it harms the people that need the most help. . .as it always has in the past.
“And one should expect they should in the future but we know those past events occurred without an increase in CO2 so you have no causation argument for CO2.”
Really? Playing dum again?
Obviously it is the warming that causes some of these things.
And at times in the past it has been warm, with causes including CO2 increases (PETM) or other things, such as the Holocene Optimum 8000 years ago, when northern Hemisphere sunlight was greater.
“In the long term, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is likely to disappear due to the warming which has already occurred.[11] Paleoclimate evidence suggests that this has already happened during the Eemian period, when the global temperatures were similar to the early 21st century”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
Sure Nate and if we see the current melt rate dramatically accelerate to say 6mm per year we would still have thousands of years to adapt.
So you assume the acceleration stops when we reach 6 mm/year?
Why?
The rate over the last decade was ~ 4.5 mm/y.
It was 3.5 mm/year in 2000, with acceleration of 8.3mm/y/century since then. So if it continued the rate would reach, ~ 12 mm/year by the end of the century.
There is a RISK of significant sea level rise over the next century or two.
based on which temperature record?
GMSL data, not temperature data…so WTF are you talking about?
GMSL data
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
sea level data is adjusted by the estimated temperature increase in the oceans when tide gauges show too little rise. that was thoroughly discussed when they convinced Josh Willis to retract his report that the oceans were cooling.
You have continental uplifting tidal gauges, expanding oceans from warming, and ice melt. So sea level rise is estimated to make everything fit. they probably don’t have anybody assigned to find sinking tidal gauges like in the New Orleans area. It’s a Travesty if sea levels aren’t rising fast enough.
“sea level data is adjusted by the estimated temperature increase”
No it isn’t. Why keep posting moles that are so easily whacked?
It is simply measured, and adjusted for GIA, as discussed at the link.
“Yeah, we can. It is not our fault if you can’t understand. Dig out a textbook and learn.“
Textbooks aren’t proof, Tim. Not that I’ve ever seen a textbook example that supports the GPE, in any case. Most just have fixed temperature objects, and calculate the heat flow between them. Fixed temperature objects are not the GPE.
Astute readers will notice how our two Sky Dragon bozos try to deflect on the GPE instead of making their own stance on insulation more explicit.
Astute readers will know that bringing up MLI always means you’re talking, ultimately, about the GPE…
…and my stance on insulation couldn’t be more explicit. Radiative insulation functions via reflectivity, and not absorp.tion/emission.
Astute readers will note that Graham D. Warner keeps dancing around Tim’s point:
“When you are designing radiative insulation, you design it it be reflective to make the insulating value high.”
They will also note that he’s having his logic upside-down: the GPE is about the MLI, not the other way around!
Tim doesn’t have a point. He simply asserted, without evidence, that blackbody surfaces still radiatively insulate. You gobbled it up, uncritically, because that’s what you do. You never think to question anything Tim says, you automatically assume he’s correct.
“Tim doesnt have a point. He simply asserted, without evidence, that blackbody surfaces still radiatively insulate. ”
BS. He showed you direct evidence. Black body MLI is thoroughly explained in terms of the laws of physics, and an equation is derived, in his source.
He was correct that if you don’t understand the explanations, or the physics, that is your own damn fault.
Nate there is no such thing as a blackbody MLI nor anything else is a blackbody. He is applying equations to systems that don’t even exist on the surface of the earth.
All you and your ilk are doing is extrapolating effects to situations where you have failed to demonstrate as being science. You treat equations like they were a hammer and everything you can imagine is a nail.
You proved it when you extrapolated to imaginary blackbody MLI.
As I have said there always is some resistance to the travel of energy through anything precisely because nothing is a blackbody and nothing is perfectly conductive with a coefficient of infinity. Blackbody Radiation at about room temperature only theoretically has a coefficient of about 5.5w/m2 K. (a 293k object would pass about 5.5w/m2 to a full view object at 294k)
a blackbody perfect conductor would be in comparison
infinitew/m2 k in other words indefinable as to any resistance.
Climate science hasn’t proven a surface effect from absorbing a few extra watts at 15km as the surface effect would be a feedback. . .and with a blackbody assumption at 15km that energy would be instantly passed on to space.
You can only begin to realize this when you figure out that depressurization is simply a temporary affect as any radiation it receives either warms it passes it right on to space.
Its crazy to think of CO2 cooling and heating the upper atmosphere simultaneously. All this photon BS is about the pea under . . .uh. . .which shell? Its all razzle dazzle. Carny folks know how to run it.
Bill, there is no such thing as a blackbody but blackbody radiation exists with which to calibrate sensors to measure thy atm. DWIR & UWIR in the field.
It’s not at all crazy to think of CO2 cooling the upper, and heating the lower, troposphere simultaneously since Prof. Tyndall has shown the effect experimentally in the lab and others have measured it in the field.
B4 just makes up something new to keep his spewing session alive. IR meters use a reference thermopile that at the same temperature as the sensor before opening the lense. Its not blackbody radiation either.
“Nate there is no such thing as a blackbody MLI nor anything else is a blackbody. He is applying equations to systems that dont even exist on the surface of the earth.”
“All you and your ilk are doing is extrapolating effects to situations where you have failed to demonstrate as being science.”
Bill you are extremely ignorant.
You think high emissivity objects don’t exist on Earth?
You obviously lack the ability and imagination, to understand that what a black body does will be negligibly different from what a high emissivity object will do.
And in fact the equations derived for multi-layer insulation prove this. You can make assign the emissivity, e = 1, like a black body. Or e = 0.95, like real objects on Earth, and see that there will be a negligible difference in the radiative insulation of MLI for these materials.
Sorry Bill, your ignorant assertion that only reflective materials can radiatively insulate is proven FALSE.
You fail to understand how physics has always used ideal cases to gain insight into the real world, since Galileo neglected air resistance to successfully understand projectile motion.
Real objects on earth have a mean emissivity of .70 as far as space is concerned. If the earth emits 240w/m2 it will need to be 378.5K to do so until proven otherwise. Thats one variable frequently misstated.
The global real earthen ocean LW emissivity is measured from airplane radiometers looking down ~0.95 to 0.98 depending on windy waviness.
The global real earthen land LW emissivity is similarly measured at ~0.97.
The avg.d LW emissivity of the global atm. looking up is ~0.80 (~0.95 humid tropics to 0.67 arid arctic regions).
What other “real objects” exist on earth could Bill possibly be writing about with 0.7 emissivity “as far as space is concerned”? How was this 0.7 measured or was it misstated?
“Real objects on earth have a mean emissivity of .70 as far as space is concerned.”
Was I talking about the mean?
No.
So strawman.
Astute readers can see when Graham D. Warner has no argument against the mundane idea that low emittance surfaces don’t reflect all the radiation it receives.
And it is a matter of natural law that all materials in existence give off, or emit, energy by thermal radiation as a result of their temperature.
Either prove that blackbody surfaces can radiatively insulate or concede that I’m correct. Nothing else matters (whatever point it is you’re trying to make, once again I have no idea what that is).
“It makes far more sense ..”
Maybe to you. Not to me.
“Not that Ive ever seen a textbook example that supports the GPE”
Any text covering radiative heat transfer at any level beyond the most basic covers all the needed topics. If you know the pieces, you know the answer.
“Most just have fixed temperature objects, and calculate the heat flow between them.”
That is like saying “this textbook shows examples for ohm’s law for constant voltage sources. But how do we know it works for constant current sources?” If you know the theory, you can easily do constant voltage OR constant current; constant temperature OR constant power. They are two sides of the same coin.
“Textbooks arent proof, Tim. ”
True, but there have also been several people recreate the ‘GPE’ and they found it works.
Theory predicts the GPE. Experiments confirm the GPE. That is exactly how science works.
"Any text covering radiative heat transfer at any level beyond the most basic covers all the needed topics. If you know the pieces, you know the answer."
Sure, Tim, I know the pieces as I have proven to you many times. It doesn’t add up to the GPE except in your head.
"Experiments confirm the GPE"
No Tim, there is only Swanson’s experiment. That’s it. That’s all you’ve got. Which basically amounts to the word of a GHE-defending fanatic on a blog. Nobody’s going to replicate his experiment, ever.
On the flip side you have Hughes’s experiments, and Seim & Olsen, saying there’s no GPE.
Hughes, Siem & Olsen do not “say” there’s no GPE since both of their experiments comply with the 1LOT and 2LOT as does the GPE.
Hughes himself has said there is no GPE, as his experiments show.
“I know the pieces as I have proven to you many times. ”
A blackbody sphere with area 1 m^2 is in deep space, with a 300 W heater in the middle. What is the surface temperature? [270K]
A thin, high thermal conductivity, blackbody shell is placed around the sphere. Let’s say it has a surface area 1.1 W/m^2. What is the surface temperature of the shell? what is the surface temperature of the sphere? [263K, 317K]
This is textbook heat transfer. It should be a piece of cake if you ‘know the pieces’.
No, it’s not "textbook heat transfer" that putting a thin, high thermal conductivity, blackbody shell around a heat source makes the heat source warmer.
The heat source sphere remains 270 K, the 1.1 m^2 shell would warm to 263 K, radiating 300 W to space.
3:21 pm: Hughes himself may have said there is no GPE wrongly since he can “say” anything, but Hughes experiments comply with 1LOT and 2LOT as does the GPE.
…and his experiments showed no sign of any GPE.
“I know the pieces as I have proven to you many times. ”
You just proved your DON’T know the pieces.
A 1 m^2 surface at 270 K radiating to 263 K surroundings will only lose 27 W. The sphere is LOSING 27 W and GAINING 300 W. You seem to be misplacing 273 J of energy every second!
Tim Folkerts says:
”A blackbody sphere with area 1 m^2 is in deep space, with a 300 W heater in the middle. What is the surface temperature? [270K]
A thin, high thermal conductivity, blackbody shell is placed around the sphere. ”
Next Tim mistook that setup as the environment in his trailer so he paid 20 G’s to a contractor to line his ceiling with polished sheets of titanium and fell victim to the trailer trash insulation scam.
Snark is not physics, Bill. What are the temperatures? If you don’t know, stay out of the conversation. If you think you know, explain your answer.
Or we could discuss why your tinfoil ceiling is a bad analogy for proven radiative shielding.
in the 1970’s crews and retailers during the oil embargo and resultant inflation were selling the idea that if you reflect the heat off your ceiling you will save a ton of money on your heating costs.
the problem is if you reflect the ir back it just went up to the ceiling by convection, warmed the tinfoil which conducted the heat to the ceiling and you gained nothing.
it was such a wide spread fraud that the government stepped in and established standards. still though people fall for it. reflective barriers can aid the efficiency of a well designed system but you have to employ a sealed air space to restrict convection and conduction to achieve an insulation value. tinfoil insulation earned the moniker of trailer trash insulation because in those days a lot of people lived in tailers with 2″ walls and it got really cold without a big heater and tons of bs was running around about what insulation is.
ROFL!
Wrong, Tim. The shell is at 263 K but it is 1.1 m^2 in area, so it is radiating 300 W from each side. It radiates 300 W outwards, to space, and 300 W inwards, towards the sphere. The 300 W radiated inwards cannot warm the sphere, so is returned from the sphere to the shell. The sphere also radiates (loses) 300 W to the shell each second, of energy from the internal heater. All the energy is thus accounted for.
“300 W to the shell each second”
should be
300 J to the shell each second
“so is returned from the sphere to the shell. ”
So you say, but that is NOT in any physics text. Is it reflected from the sphere? It is absorbed but re-emitted? Something else? There is no physics to explain “returned”.
“All the energy is thus accounted for.”
No, it is not. For the shell, you are adding 300 W of radiation from the sphere. You are adding 300 W of ‘returned’ radiation. You are radiating away 300 W to space. That is a net +300 + 300 – 300 = +300 J of energy every second into the shell.
Try this one. Make 4 identical spheres like the one above. Put them in three evacuated rooms
ROOM A) walls at 3 K
ROOM B) walls at 263 K
ROOM C) walls at 270 K
ROOM D) walls at 300 K
What temperature will the sphere be in each case?
The answers are 270K, 317K, 321K, and 340 K.
The warmer the room, the warmer the heated sphere within the room. You are claiming that at least A & B are the same. I have no idea what you would claim for C & D because your calculations are simply wrong.
"No, it is not. For the shell, you are adding 300 W of radiation from the sphere. You are adding 300 W of ‘returned’ radiation. You are radiating away 300 W to space. That is a net +300 + 300 – 300 = +300 J of energy every second into the shell."
Wrong, Tim. For the shell, there is 300 W of radiation from the sphere, plus 300 W of returned radiation. That’s 600 W received. Then the shell is emitting 300 W from each side, 300 W from the outside, to space, and 300 W from the inside, to the sphere. That’s 600 W emitted.
Every joule of energy is accounted for.
5:15pm: … and Hughes experiments showed no sign of any GPE so they disproved the 1LOT and 2LOT?
Not so DREMT, you just didn’t understand physics of Hughes experiments followed 1LOT and 2LOT as does the GPE.
As 1LoT and 2LoT insist, his experiments showed no GPE.
“The heat source sphere remains 270 K, the 1.1 m^2 shell would warm to 263 K, radiating 300 W to space.”
C’mon guys. Earlier you admitted that the surroundings temperature matters for a thermopile. If the surroundings are warmer the thermopile surface is warmer.
But here, for some reason the temperature of the surroundings just don’t matter!
No logic to that.
Cult Leader Grammie wrote:
Maybe that’s because it’s hard to work within a vacuum environment. NASA does that all the time when they test their satellites in thermal vacuum chambers, but they probably don’t feel the need to demonstrate the GPE for the engineering world, where “back radiation” from colder bodies to warmer ones is accepted science.
Not that you or the rest of your lazy ass cult would make the effort to search the issue in NASA’s technical reports or read anything published by the ASME.
“…where “back radiation” from colder bodies to warmer ones is accepted science.“
Sure, it is accepted science. It just doesn’t result in warming of the warmer body.
“Is it reflected from the sphere? It is absorbed but re-emitted? Something else? There is no physics to explain “returned”.”
Astute readers might notice that Graham D. Warner evades the question.
Cult Leader Grammie, texts on Radiation Heat Transfer often include an example using two parallel infinite plates where the temperatures of the plates are known. The object is to calculate the energy transfer from one to the other when the surface emissivities are both 1. The energy leaving the hotter plate is assumed to be absorbed by the cooler one and that emitted from the cooler one is assumed to be absorbed by the hotter one. The resulting energy transfer is the difference between the two values, aka, the net energy transfer.
The calculations become more difficult for real materials with emissivities less than 1, since both emission and reflections must be included in the calculations. Nowhere in these examples can I find any case where only the reflected portion of the IR energy is absorbed by the warmer body and the emitted portion is not. But, you already know that. Tr0ll on, little guy!!
“Then the shell is emitting 300 W from each side, 300 W from the outside, to space, and 300 W from the inside, to the sphere.”
You have just passed the buck. You now say “shell is emitting … 300 W from the inside, to the sphere.” So now the sphere is receiving 300W from the shell AND 300W from the heater, but only emitting 300W.
Tim, what are you struggling with?
The 300 W from the shell to the sphere that you mention cannot warm the sphere, and thus is returned to the shell.
So the sphere is receiving 300 W from the heater, and emitting 300 W. No problem with the energy balance for the sphere.
The shell receives 300 W from the sphere, plus 300 W returned, and emits 600 W. No problem with the energy balance for the shell.
Do you need me to draw you a picture?
“Do you need me to draw you a picture?”
I suspect that might help you a lot, if you are honest about your picture. You might start by deciding what you mean by “returned”. Does the 300W from shell to the sphere get ‘returned’ by
a) getting absorbed by the sphere and then re-emitted by the sphere.
b) reflecting off the sphere.
We know “b” is wrong, since black bodies don’t reflect. That leaves “a”. But now we have the shell absorbing 300 W from the heater AND 300 W from the shell (actually just 273 W, but we won’t quibble about that issue atm and call it ‘around 600 W’). So we need around 600 W leaving the sphere. Which means it must be around 317 K.
Tim, it’s 300 W from the shell, not 273 W. The shell’s surface area is 1.1 m^2, and it is at a temperature of 263 K.
What I mean by "returned" is that the energy going from shell to sphere cannot cause the sphere to increase in temperature (due to 2LoT). So, ultimately, it goes back to the shell.
Either acknowledge that there’s no energy balance problem, or the discussion’s over.
“What I mean by “returned” is …”
neither reflected back nor absorbed and re-emitted back. But there is no other option. In other words, ‘returned’ is simply wishful thinking with no physical explanation, based on a misunderstanding of 2LoT.
“Tim, its 300 W from the shell, not 273 W. ”
Actually … the shell at 263K does emit 273 W/m^2 from 1.1 m^2, which is indeed a total of 300 W. The subtle point you are missing is that not all 300 W actually goes to the sphere because the shell is noticeably above the sphere.
The sphere receives just 273 of those watts, with the rest going off to other parts of the inside of the shell. The sphere receives 273 W/m^2 over its 1.0 m^2 surface, or 273 W total.
Thus the number needed to calculate the temp of the sphere is 300 W from the heater + 273W from the shell = 573 W = 573 W/m^2.
The second error is fairly subtle, so it a common mistake and understandable. The first error is fundamental as exposes a deep misunderstanding of physics.
Tim, the view factors between the sphere and shell are equal to 1. Thus all 300 W from the shell is received by the sphere. Not 273 W. That 300 W is then returned to the shell.
You didn’t acknowledge that there is no energy balance issue though, so the discussion is over. Shame.
“Thus all 300 W from the shell is received by the sphere. ”
No. If you can see one part of the inside of the shell from another part of the inside of the shell, then thermal radiation from the first part can go directly to the 2nd part. The larger the shell, the smaller the fraction that gets back to the sphere.
For example, if the shell was 10x the radius and 100x the surface area, the shell would still radiate a total of 300 W outward to space = 3 W/m^2. The shell would also radiate 300 W inward = 3 W/m^2. The sphere would receive 3 W/m^2 = 3 W. Not 300 W = 300 W/m^2.
99% of the radiation inward from the shell would miss the sphere!
“You didnt acknowledge that there is no energy balance issue”
Because there IS an energy balance issue. You want to ‘return’ 300 W (really 273 as explained before). But that 300 W is not reflected by the sphere and not absorbed by the sphere. This ‘return’ is central to your argument, but this ‘return’ cannot be explained.
Tim denies that view factors are equal to 1 between the sphere and the shell, and still refuses to acknowledge that there is no energy balance problem. The discussion is over, but no doubt he will continue, anyway.
Actually, the view factor discussion is interesting (far more interesting than the GPE discussion, which is just the same old, same old – you guys believe that the passive shell can warm the heat source sphere with its emitted radiation, I don’t).
Generally, concentric spheres, or a sphere within a shell, is often given as a textbook example of view factors being equal to one (same with infinite parallel plates). I can see the logic in what you’re saying though. The view factor from the sphere to the shell might be one, but the view factor from the shell to the sphere would be less than one, because not all of the radiation from the shell will hit the sphere.
So, how does the radiative heat transfer equation take into account a situation where the view factor is equal to one in one direction, but less than one in the other direction?
Interesting that Willis Eschenbach’s Steel Greenhouse example never made any note of this. He didn’t even treat the surface areas of the sphere and shell as being different, let alone take view factors into account!
“Tim denies that view factors are equal to 1 between the sphere and the shell”
The view factor from the sphere to the shell is indeed 1
The view factor from the shell to the sphere is NOT 1.
Exactly as I claimed.
Yet another thing DREMT only half understands.
Learn more here:
http://imartinez.etsiae.upm.es/~isidoro/tc3/Radiation%20View%20factors.pdf
“What I mean by “returned” is that the energy going from shell to sphere cannot cause the sphere to increase in temperature (due to 2LoT). So, ultimately, it goes back to the shell.”
He has no physically plausible answer for what “returned” means. So he ignores this fundamental problem.
The shell is not heating the sphere, but it is it making it warmer by radiatively insulating it.
Just as my cooler coat keeps my heated body warmer.
So once again, 2LOT is being abused here.
Tim, I’m not claiming to be a PhD physicist, unlike you. So it’s odd that you didn’t answer my question:
So, how does the radiative heat transfer equation take into account a situation where the view factor is equal to one in one direction, but less than one in the other direction?
Interesting that Willis Eschenbach’s Steel Greenhouse example never made any note of this. He didn’t even treat the surface areas of the sphere and shell as being different, let alone take view factors into account!
Exactly, Nate.
Exactly, DREMT.
Willis made the shell only slightly larger than the sphere, so the VF are ~ 1.
This is a red herring.
Looks like Tim will be evading that question.
“He has no physically plausible answer for what returned means. So he ignores this fundamental problem.”
And there is simply no need to create a new non-existent means of returning radiation since there is no actual heating of a warm body by a cold body going on there.
Obviously my coat keeps me warmer, because it is insulating me from the cold.
Just as the shell is insulating the sphere from the cold of space.
Its just not difficult to understand, if one is open-minded.
…like Tim will be evading that question.
“You might start by deciding what you mean by returned.”
DREMT is evading the question because he has no sensible answer.
…Tim will be evading that question.
DREMT, it is nice to see you acknowledging I was right and you were wrong all along about view factors and 273 WE/m^2.
And nice to see you are eager for me to explain more things that you don’t understand. So what specific question are you wanting to know more about now?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1620649
“So, how does the radiative heat transfer equation take into account a situation where the view factor is equal to one in one direction, but less than one in the other direction?”
There are whole books written on the topic of radiative heat transfer. Perhaps start by reading the link I provided. When you understand the symbols used and can evaluate the surface integrals to reproduce the results, then you, too, will know how the equations work.
Tim evades answering again. I don’t think there is any 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. Prove me wrong, with a worked example. You can use the sphere and shell example you came up with. I’m just interested…this has nothing to do with the GPE discussion (which is over).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_factor
Reciprocity
A1*F12 = A2*F21
No worked example from Tim, and I will assume I’m correct that there is no 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. That would be a pretty serious shortcoming in that equation.
Has Graham D. Warner provided any evidence he clicked on Tim’s link, Nate? For good measures, here is the link again:
http://imartinez.etsiae.upm.es/~isidoro/tc3/Radiation%20View%20factors.pdf
The radiative heat transfer equation, which is what I’m asking about, does not appear to be in the linked document at all.
I await a worked example from Tim, or will assume I’m correct.
“or will assume Im correct.”
Because the facts are irrelevant.
Anyone else is welcome to weigh in, with a simple, straightforward and direct "yes" or "no" answer (although in Nate’s case I won’t be reading or responding to it).
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?
If "yes", please provide a worked example.
> it is nice to see you acknowledging I was right and you were wrong all along about view factors and 273 WE/m^2.
Wow. That might be a first!
“Tim evades answering again. … Prove me wrong, with a worked example. ”
I gave you a whole set of worked examples in the link! That is the answer that proves you wrong. They even have the specific example of a sphere within a larger shell, with the same results I gave you.
The evasion here is you evading the work to understand the physics.
Focus, Tim. The link you have provided does not appear to feature the radiative heat transfer equation at all. That is what I am asking you about.
Why is getting a straight answer out of you people so difficult? Are you pro-science educators, or are you simply here to defend the GHE, at any cost, using any means necessary?
> They even have the specific example of a sphere within a larger shell, with the same results I gave you.
W…………oah.
What Tim has provided is the means of calculating view factors in various situations, including the sphere within a shell example. However, that is not what I am asking for. I have made clear what I am asking for, several times.
Does Graham D. Warner’s response contain any calculation?
If not, he might have difficulties doing the homework Tim gave him!
Tim has given me no “homework”. In fact, I have set him some…which he refuses to do.
> Perhaps start by reading the link I provided.
Exactly, Tim.
All I need from Tim is a direct "yes" or "no" answer to the following question:
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?
If "yes", please provide a worked example.
[And no, the answer is not in the link he provided]
<i"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?"
YES.
“[And no, the answer is not in the link he provided]”
There are two kinds of people: those who can extrapolate from partial information,
Here is your ‘worked example’.
1) Read the FIRST SENTENCE from the link. “The view factor F12 is the fraction of energy exiting an isothermal, opaque, and diffuse surface 1 (by emission or reflection), that directly impinges on surface 2 ”
2) Use the knowledge you have already demonstrated. You know that the “energy exiting an isothermal, opaque, and diffuse surface” of the sphere is 300 J each second. And the “energy exiting an isothermal, opaque, and diffuse surface” of the shell is also 300 J each second.
3) Look up the view factors listed in the link for concentric spheres.
4a) View factor from inner sphere to outer sphere (the shell) is 1. So 300 J * 1 = 300 J exits from the inner sphere and impinges on the shell each second.
4b) The view factor from the outer shell to the inner sphere is r^2 = 1/1.1 = 0.90909 for our case. So 300 J * 0.90909 = 272.72 J exits from the shell and impinges on the sphere each second.
You are still not getting it, Tim. I understood all that, already. Here is what I was asking, though:
https://tanyaeeclcourse.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/cen58933_ch12.pdf
Look at equation (12-19). That is what I am referring to by the radiative heat transfer equation. It has a provision for view factors, but only in one direction. So, I ask again:
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?
If "yes", please provide a worked example.
“It has a provision for view factors, but only in one direction. “
Go to equation 12-18
Q1→2 = A1 Eb1 F1→2 – A2 Eb2 F2→1
There are the view factors in both directions.
You might go back and understand the reciprocity relation A1 F1→2 = A2 F2→1. In our case,
A1 F1→2 = 1m^2 * 1 = 1
A2 F2→1 = 1.1m^2 + 0.90909 = 1
Because these are equal, we can simplify the equation so it LOOKS like F2→1 is not there, but it is. (Just like it LOOKS like the area of surface 2 doesn’t matter, but it does).
Yes, Tim. I saw equation (12-18). However, that’s not the equation I’m familiar with as the "radiative heat transfer equation". That would be (12-19). I appreciate that you’re at least starting to try to help, after having wrongly chastised me for not reading your link when your link did not answer the question I was asking, but we’re still getting nowhere fast.
As far as I can see, still, there is only a provision for view factors in one direction. How would you use (12-19) (or something like it) to tell you the amount of heat being transferred when the sphere is at 270 K and the shell is at 263 K. Because as far as I’m concerned, heat flow should be zero between the sphere and the shell in that scenario…because the shell is bigger than the sphere, and so despite the difference in temperature, the energy should balance out so that heat flow is nil.
With the parallel plates in the GPE it’s easy to establish that heat flow is zero when the plates are at the same temperature. However, I don’t think that heat flow should be zero if the sphere and shell are at the same temperature, due to the difference in size, and the view factors. However, if that’s wrong, just let me know.
“thats not the equation Im familiar with”
Then it is time to get familiar! You have been seeing the simplified version that is good enough for most cases that beginners need or understand. If you want to take things to the next level, you just gotta work harder.
“I dont think that heat flow should be zero if the sphere and shell are at the same temperature, due to the difference in size, and the view factors. However, if thats wrong, just let me know.”
That’s wrong. I let you know. And the paper let you know. And the 2LoT let you know.
FYI people may note that just before eqn 12-19 they state:
“Applying the reciprocity relation”
And Tim also stated:
“You might go back and understand the reciprocity relation A1 F1→2 = A2 F2→1.”
Remarkably unhelpful, Tim.
So, basically, you are saying heat flow is only ever at zero when objects are the same temperature, regardless of size, emissivity, or view factors. Makes absolutely no sense, but OK.
“‘So, basically, you are saying heat flow is only ever at zero when objects are the same temperature”
Yes. That is pretty much the definition of “same temperature” and/or “thermal equilibrium”.
“regardless of size, emissivity, or view factors. ”
Yep! Put 100 unheated objects in a uniform 20 C room. All 100 will settle in at 20 C, regardless of size, shape, emissivity, color, mass, chemical composition or any other property you name. All will have zero heat flow to/from the room (and to/from the 99 other objects).
True, objects generally come to the same temperature. Green and blue plates, for instance…
“True, objects generally come to the same temperature. Green and blue plates, for instance”
No! Its like you are intentionally misunderstanding!
If an object is SURROUNDED by the same temperature (the “20 C room” above) then the object WITHIN that space will become the same temperature as the surroundings (pencils, papers, coffee mugs, chairs, etc).
If an object has two different temperatures around it (for example, the green plate with a hot blue plat on one side and cold space on the other), the object will settle somewhere BETWEEN the two temperatures. Heat flows from Blue Plate to Green Plate, and from Green Plate to space. The Blue Plate is hottest, space the coldest, and the Green Plate in between.
I’m not going over the GPE again, Tim. That’s settled, and not in your favour.
Yes, GPE was settled years ago by Eli in favor of the 1LOT and 2LOT.
DREMT misapplies the 2LOT in DREMT’s solution so there is no hope for DREMT to be correct.
DREMT, given how hard I have had to work to get you to understand the basics of radiative heat transfer and form factors (and now even the meaning of “same temperature”), you will have to forgive us for not taking your word on anything relate to the GPE.
No, Tim, it was actually me who had to work extremely hard, over the last couple of days, to get you to understand the question I was asking you. You still haven’t really answered it, by the way. Except to say that the radiative heat transfer equation is not really fit for purpose, and that it’s a "beginners equation" (even though it is the equation that everybody else on your team refers to in these discussions as if it is of major significance, and act like it is used constantly by professionals). Maybe that’s why Clint R refers to it as "bogus".
In any case, I wouldn’t want you to take my word for it…the balance of the experimental evidence, as it currently stands, is in favour of there being no GPE.
… when the 2LOT is misapplied by DREMT.
How can experimental results possibly be affected by my application of 2LoT!? Ball4 makes less and less sense every day.
There is no “balance” of experimental evidence contradicting the 2LOT, DREMT, so your application of 2LOT remains misapplied.
Ball4 just endlessly twists and distorts everything, as is his purpose here. He’ll respond, but he won’t be getting the last word, so he’s just wasting his time.
No DREMT. You insisted multiple times that 300 W got back to the sphere, not the correct 273 W. My multiple replies were just because it was tough to pinpoint your mistaken thinking and/or get you to accept correct physics.
“Except to say that the radiative heat transfer equation is not really fit for purpose”
Science is all about equations that are ‘good enough’ for the job at hand. For example, there is no need to resort to quantum mechanics or relativity to understand the motion of baseballs.
What you want to call ‘THE radiative heat transfer equation’ is always presented as applying to an object of area A at one temperature with surroundings at another temperature. For that purpose, it is perfect fit. For that purpose, the size of the surroundings doesn’t matter.
No, Tim, that is an incorrect summary of events. The correct sequence of events is available for anybody to read by simply scrolling up and looking through the discussion. The issue with the 273 vs. 300 W was resolved some time ago. I had moved on from that, and was, for the last couple of days, trying to get you to understand the question I was asking. It took considerable effort on my part to get you to see what I was actually getting at. Even though the question was perfectly clear the first time I asked it.
And, you still have not really answered it.
Tim,
I see that Graham D. Warner is still commenting, and his comments are getting longer and longer after you called him out on the Greenplate Effect.
So I suspect he is trying to wash his hands over it.
If that’s correct, then you could remind him that he has justified invading my own thread by pretending that Multi-Layer Insulation was related to the Greenplate Effect.
So he would then be trying to have it both ways.
I’m sure this won’t surprise you or anyone else if that happens.
Tim would no doubt agree with me that MLI is related to the GPE. Little Willy is a proven stalker and doxer, and is lucky that he is able to comment at this blog at all.
Oh, and Tim, just in case (I see him protesting again), Graham D. Warner’s exact words were:
which is kinda backwards, for the GPE is a thought experiment that only has Climateba currency, whereas Multi-Layer Isolation is currently being in use in high tech!
This excuse might not cohere with his claim that some of your comments were unrelated to the GPE, but then we know that Graham isn’t the most coherent Sky Dragon crank.
DREMT, you wanted to know “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?”
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.
You said you understood that … but you still kept asking for further clarification and specific examples, as if a general equation was not good enough.
Plus you thought heat can move between two objects at the same temperature.
Plus you STILL haven’t given any equation or physical principle about how photons get “returned” without getting reflected or absorbed & re-emitted.
No, Tim. For crying out loud. The simple, direct, and honest answer to my question is “no”. There is no provision in the radiative heat transfer equation (12-19) 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. It only has a provision for view factors in one direction! Hence why you redirected me to equation (12-18), and said that (12-19) was just a beginner equation!
Clint R has already given you all the answers you seek on how photons are returned from the blue plate to the green plate, so your constantly asking is not honest.
Clint R? That’s a laugh, Clint R can’t even explain a GHE correctly let alone the GPE.
Photons from the blue plate are new ones having just been created when emitted from the BP increasing universe entropy in the process thus the photons are not the same ones “returned” to the green plate.
“You still havent really answered it”
Yes he did. For anyone with basic math skills who is motivated to understand and learn.
If the radiative heat transfer equation is valid, which it is, then the T of the surroundings of the sphere MATTERS.
It matters because the NET emitted flux from the sphere will be REDUCED when the shell, which is much warmer than space, is present, because the NET flux is proportional to (Tsphere^4 -Tshell^4).
And the only way for the sphere to reach energy balance with the shell present, is for Tsphere to rise.
“There is no provision in the radiative heat transfer equation (12-19) 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. ”
False. This has been clearly explained by Tim, by me, and by the document itself.
It is extremely simple math. But I guess it needs to be spoon fed to DREMT.
The term A1*F12 is equal to A2*F21, by reciprocity, as they noted right above equation 12-19.
Thus in the equation 12-19, only the first term is needed, because the two terms are EQUAL.
Ball4, as everybody on your little team is more than well aware, Clint R has explained that photons arriving at the blue plate, from the green plate, are reflected due to "wavelength mismatch". I’m not sure why we have to go through this silly ritual every time where various members of your team suddenly pretend to be completely unaware that this has been explained multiple times over many years, in great detail. You disagree, sure…but don’t pretend it hasn’t been explained. You will say, "the blue plate is a blackbody, so cannot reflect the photons". Clint R will say, "a blackbody cannot be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT". You will say, "there’s no 2LoT violation because it’s just an example of radiative insulation", Clint R will explain that’s not the case…and on and on it goes.
Ultimately, I don’t pretend to know what happens to individual photons, and I think it’s a waste of time arguing about it. So, since I’m aware that the energy from the GP cannot possibly result in the BP warming (and that, in the end, no matter what way you try to dress it up, is what you’re saying is happening), I simply state that the energy from GP to BP is returned to the GP. I don’t really care how it happens. All I know is…it must…since that energy cannot warm the BP.
“Clint R has explained that photons arriving at the blue plate, from the green plate, are reflected due to “wavelength mismatch”
And you know that he is correct how? Hint: he just made it up.
You claim that since you are not a PhD physicist, that you were seeking answers from Tim, who is, on radiative heat transfer.
But then you deny that answers were given (they were), and bizarrely insist that you know better about radiative heat transfer and thermodynamics than the physicists!
And you defer instead to the faux authority of non-physicist Clint.
"You might go back and understand the reciprocity relation A1 F1→2 = A2 F2→1.
In our case, A1 F1→2 = 1m^2 * 1 = 1 A2 F2→1 = 1.1m^2 + 0.90909 = 1
Because these are equal, we can simplify the equation so it LOOKS like F2→1 is not there, but it is. (Just like it LOOKS like the area of surface 2 doesn’t matter, but it does)."
Tim, there is no provision for view factor F2→1 in the radiative heat transfer equation. Hence the correct answer to my question was "no". You could add that, thanks to the reciprocity relation, there is no need for the RHTE to include F2→1 in the case of the sphere and shell, if you want…but the answer was still "no".
“There is no provision in the radiative heat transfer equation (12-19) 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.”
False, the equation is correct as given, for just that situation.
…but the answer was still "no".
What did Graham D. Warner say, Nate?
Did he give a straight answer to Tim’s remark that the reciprocity relation applied?
Yep…and the correct answer to my question was still “no”.
As ever he is blaming others for his confusions.
…and the correct answer to my question was still "no".
Is Graham D. Warner still trying to last word a subthread by pretending he does not respond to you but by repeating over and over again his comment after yours, Nate?
Another last word attempt from Little Willy.
Yep as usual, he will get the coveted last word award.
Though overall his efforts are a bust.
Nate is still in their punching for the last word, but DREMT isn’t going to let him have until he offers actual scientific proof his position is correct; which of course is his responsibility as he is the one obligated to defend the science he claims to be correct.
Its important to defend your freedom to fight to your last breath against BS offered as a legitimate reason to take your freedom away from you.
"…when the sphere is at 270 K and the shell is at 263 K. Because as far as I’m concerned, heat flow should be zero between the sphere and the shell in that scenario…because the shell is bigger than the sphere, and so despite the difference in temperature, the energy should balance out so that heat flow is nil."
The only reason I think the above is that with the sphere at 270 K and the shell at 263 K, the shell is now emitting out to space the 300 W that the sphere is emitting. It would be like the outside of the shell had simply become the new outer radiating surface for the sphere, and its internal 300 W heater.
Whereas, if the sphere was at 270 K and the shell was also at 270 K, even though I understand that the sphere would now be receiving 300 W from the shell, the outside (and inside) of the shell would have to be emitting more than 300 W. It would be emitting 300 W/m^2, but with a surface area of 1.1 m^2, so 330 W each side. Where would the extra 30 W, each side of the shell, have come from?
So, that was all that was going on there. It’s specific to this particular problem with the heat source sphere and passive shell. It’s not like I didn’t understand that unheated objects in a 20 C room will come to 20 C. It’s not like I hadn’t come to understand that the view factor from the shell to the sphere is less than one (0.90909).
And, none of this affects my understanding of the Green Plate Effect, because the view factors between the plates are one in both directions, in any case. It’s all been a diversion from the GPE, for the most part.
> which is kinda backwards, for the GPE is a thought experiment that only has Climateba currency, whereas Multi-Layer Isolation is currently being in use in high tech!
Climateball currency, that is.
Looks like Tim has “left the building”, anyway.
> isnt going to let him have until
And so Gill projects his own sammich request technique onto Graham D. Warner. And as if any Sky Dragon crank left a thread saying “oh, I see, my bad.”
LMAO!
Little Willy is quite determined to get the last word.
“DREMT isnt going to let him have until he offers actual scientific proof”
First, he doesnt want any proof from me.
Second, he has seen the proof by Tim.
Third the proof was shown by Eli over 6 years ago for GPE and not long after by Willis E. for the Steel Greenhouse, using basic, well established physics.
And again by folks here from time to time over the years.
And then an experiment was done by Swanson.
It takes real effort to continue to deny and evade learning the very basic physics involved for that long!
…Willy is quite determined to get the last word.
If Graham D. Warner can’t grasp the basics after all these years, that’s on him.
I understand the basics, your comments demonstrate that you do not.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1618895
…understand the basics, your comments demonstrate that you do not.
…Graham D. Warner cant grasp the basics after all these years, thats on him.
…the basics, your comments demonstrate that you do not.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1619059
…basics, your comments demonstrate that you do not.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1619736
You love everything Tim says, whether he’s right or wrong. Got it.
I bet Graham D. Warner declared himself the winner once again.
…love everything Tim says, whether he’s right or wrong. Got it.
Graham D. Warner should be drawing.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner wastes more of his time.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts says:
”But blackbody surfaces still work (similar to solid glass still working).”
single glazed windows generally pass 5.2w/m2 k . That is very near blackbody which represents insignificant resistance to heat loss.
https://www.cuin.glass/blog/u-value-single-vs-double-vs-triple-glazing-vs-c-u-in/
That would represent a u value of approximately 1 (.95-.98)
https://indowwindows.com/resources/blog/r-value-vs-u-value
As I have pointed out numerous times there is only a slight resistance to heat passing through a window or a metal plate. Yet you guys continue to spew your nonsense without coming up with a shred of evidence.
There are literally hundreds of sources that say you are wrong.
Gill ignores that absolutely still air has an R-value of 3.6 per inch of air – as good as most insulation materials.
LMAO!
willard is really struggling with this topic.
i was talking about Tim’s claim ”But blackbody surfaces still work (similar to solid glass still working).” why are you talking about air gaps?
Gill still refuses to accept that 300 + 300 300 = 300.
ROLCOPTER
…and 300 + 300 – 300 – 300 = 0.
…which works with Tim, but not for Graham D. Warner.
Besides:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1619736
Tim was wrong, I was right. There is no energy balancing problem with my solution to his problem. You clearly cannot follow the discussion.
Graham D. Warner is surely doing a touchdown dance as we speak.
Those who read him might confirm.
You clearly cannot follow the discussion.
Graham D. Warner should be drawing, instead he is wasting time writing comments that are not read.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Looks like nobody including obviously Willard knows what Willard was talking about an air gap having a R value of 3.6.
Why especially Willard? An air gap by itself has no R value. In a well designed wall system that include reflective foil, interior drywall, exterior plywood, covered with siding you might achieve an R value of 3.6 . . .no doubt Willard read something like that an imagines the sky to be an optimally constructed wall with an air gap while he lives in his basement.
Looks like Gill really believes that the atmosphere is a wall of air. This might explain why he provides quite an atmosphere to Roy’s.
Air can indeed be more efficient than what I suggested earlier:
https://www.sealedair.com/content/dam/protective-materials/tempguard/kevothermal/kevothermal-vip-brochure-na.pdf
Perhaps he could write to that company and explain to them that they are breaking thermo.
LOL!
Willard says:
”Sealed Airs vacuum insulation panels have unmatched performance
with an Rvalue of 40”
Perhaps Little Willy you will add to the list below in your huddle with Tim over how many polished and black aluminum panels are flying around in the sky affecting our climate with how many ”vacuum insultation panels” are flying around.
It’s about time Gill realizes that his R-values are a complete red herring. LOL!
“single glazed windows generally pass 5.2w/m2 k . That is very near blackbody ”
I am not sure how this is “near a blackbody”. Are you saying that a number like 5.2 W/m^2 K applies to blackbodies? [N.b. “W” and “K” should be capitalized.]
“only a slight resistance to heat passing through a window or a metal plate. ”
Glass is ~ 200x better insulation than metal. Lumping these together as similar seem odd indeed.
You might also pay attention to this in your link:
“Uncoated Double Glazing 2.7 W/m2K
Coated Double Glazing 1.2 W/m2K”
Adding a coating to change IR emissivity halves the energy loss! Apparently the IR properties DO make a big difference in insulation.
Finally, I will point out the the circumstances of the earth vs a house are quite different. Using house insulation as a stand-in for global insulation is dubious at best. A tin ceiling being inefficient as house insulation does not tell us much at all about GHGs being effective for the earth.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Finally, I will point out the the circumstances of the earth vs a house are quite different. Using house insulation as a stand-in for global insulation is dubious at best. A tin ceiling being inefficient as house insulation does not tell us much at all about GHGs being effective for the earth.”
i agree completely tim. i have been trying really hard to get you guys to actually explain what you are using in detail. but all you do is stonewall and criticize every analogy. what are you using to rationalize the ghe?
Gill agrees that he’s throwing useless squirrels around. And and then asks for more receipts. As if squirrels-for-science was in any way fair. LOL!
willard is basically saying just pay taxes and just ignore government waste. sorry willard i am asking nothing from you cause i already know you won’t service the request
Gill thinks that only the Chewbacca Defense can save Sky Dragon cranks.
ROFL!
Caveat Emptor!
Res ipsa loquitur.
“i agree completely tim. i have been trying really hard to get you guys to actually explain what you are using in detail. but all you do is stonewall and criticize every analogy. what are you using to rationalize the ghe?”
Glad you agree that different situations produce different answers.
Not our job to spoon feed to you the scientific papers that describe the GHE. We have tried explaining things many times, and provided papers and articles and discussed them with you many times.
What we have learned is that there is no profit in it, since, you don’t really grasp the details, and don’t appear to want to learn.
Your goal in the end is to reject the evidence.
Nate continues to lie. Here is the discussion and the paper he claimed as proof.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1574567
With this paper that doesn’t purport to prove anything.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml
The discussion you posted perfectly illustrates this:
“We have tried explaining things many times, and provided papers and articles and discussed them with you many times.”
Similarly I have discussed MW 1967 with you several times, and Hansen et al 1981 several times.
MW 1967 developed the multi-layer atmosphere model, with radiation and convection, and used it to more accurately predict AGW.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-0469_1967_024_0241_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml
Hansen used a quite similar but more sophisticated model (yet more simply explained) and used it to model the previous T history, and make specific predictions for future warming that proved accurate.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html
The paper you mentioned above, shows why the increasing radiating level (Hansen described it at a basic level), is the dominant contributor to AGW.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml
And Modtran data concurs.
The point is we have discussed these papers, that contain real GHE models (blueprints) in them, with you in detail.
Are they easy to understand for a non-expert like yourself?
No.
But if you dont really comprehend them, then you have no business judging their merits.
Science is not wrong simply because you don’t understand it.
Nate says:
MW 1967 developed the multi-layer atmosphere model
Hansen used a quite similar but more sophisticated model
And Modtran data concurs.
The point is we have discussed these papers, that contain real GHE models (blueprints) in them, with you in detail.
But if you dont really comprehend them, then you have no business judging their merits.
Science is not wrong simply because you dont understand it.
———————-
Well what you fail to understand is models don’t prove anything. You can make a model nearly do anything you want simply by fudging multiple variables even when each of those variables are constrained within a reasonable range.
Thats why accountants have to provide disclaimers when ever they review prospective results of operations. Proof comes from when all variables were correct in a model and the model in retrospect matched what had happened and that had occurred a statistically determined number of times without error.
The last 6 out of 9 posts by Roy has been showing how the models are failing to do that and yet you sit there waving your arm claiming the models prove the mainstream greenhouse theory. What would it take for you to accept that you are wrong?
> Well what you fail to understand is
Inspecteur Clouseau strikes again!
“Well what you fail to understand is models dont prove anything.”
Firstly they clearly prove that your repeated claims that we havent shown you the ‘blueprints’ of GHE theory, are FALSE.
And they prove that the real issue is that you don’t know how to read the ‘blueprints’ that have been shown to you.
Yet continually demand that people spoon feed them to you, else you feel empowered to reject the science.
Sorry to tell you that the science aint wrong simply because you don’t have the ability to understand it.
I have asking for years a link to few of those alleged blueprints. Saying they exist in black boxes is one thing, saying that information is publicly available is another.
We are all interested in why the models have such strong variations. AFAIK, there are no specific physics as to how the energy absorbed at new and higher TOA places in the atmosphere gets back to the surface.
An analysis of the better performing models vs their parameterizations and observations of those parameterizations would reveal for example if the physics is there or they just start with CO2 caused surface warming after abso-rp-tion at a mean 16km up in the atmosphere or whether the thing the models purport to prove is assumed in the model.
Thats relatively easy to test if you have the code and initiation parameters.
The second test would be to determine if all known parameters that affect the climate are in the model such as details of the Milankovich cycles currently implicated for major climate changes. What good would be a model without them? Did somebody just wave their arms and assume they don’t apply?
People want to know what the assumptions are in the models so they can see and determine whether there is a reality to their outputs.
So please deluge me with the underlying code for the models and the opening parameterizations for each model matched to a beginning date so we can determine if the changes in each field is matching observations.
I am sure everybody in here is interested in knowing if your statement here is true: ”Firstly they clearly prove that your repeated claims that we havent shown you the blueprints of GHE theory, are FALSE.”
the last time you claimed that here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1574567
obviously you were lying then as one only needs to read what you provided to clearly see you were lying. I can only presume you continue to lie.
“I have asking for years a link to few of those alleged blueprints. Saying they exist in black boxes is one thing, saying that information is publicly available is another.”
You have gotten all the links. Quit ur bitchin!
“AFAIK, there are no specific physics as to how the energy absorbed at new and higher TOA places in the atmosphere gets back to the surface.”
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’.
And thus the entire lapse rate curve warms. Reread the paper.
This is the result that the physics and math explicitly produces.
This has been explain several times. And I have given you helpful analogies, eg. the T gradient in your attic.
If you still don’t get it that is your problem, not mine, not science’s.
“obviously you were lying then”
Quote the specific lie. And explain why it is a lie.
Nate says:
AFAIK, there are no specific physics as to how the energy absorbed at new and higher TOA places in the atmosphere gets back to the surface.
The whole point of the layer model MW 1967, is that thermal energy is shared upward and downward between the layers.
—————————–
A model doesn’t prove anything Nate. They are built on theories proven and not proven. A model can help you zero in on proof as can a handheld calculator by quickly crunching numbers. But like all software, garbage in garbage out.
And of course you are wrong in generally saying ”thermal energy is shared upward and downward. A layer only shares energy in the direction that heat can travel. For a typical layer in the atmosphere it can lose energy upwards because upwards is generally cooler. But it loses zero energy downwards because downwards is generally warmer.
Insulation works on the same principle but with insulation you don’t have buoyant molecules transferring heat mechanically instead of electromagnetically.
Its a lie because you keep insisting you have provided the proof when you haven’t even come close.
“Models don’t prove anything”
Irrelevant to your false claims that I have been lying about showing you the ‘blueprints’.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1623161
“keep insisting you have provided the proof”
Shameless misrepresentation.
I have only been insisting that you have been given the blueprints, which are the GHE theories, and had them explained to you several times.
“And of course you are wrong in generally saying thermal energy is shared upward and downward. A layer only shares energy in the direction that heat can travel.”
Still mansplaining physics to a physicist?
The layers radiate upward and downward. Thought you understood this basic physics. Apparently you still don’t.
You could have just looked at the equations in MW 1967. Obviously you didnt, or didnt understand them.
And convection reduces, if the layer above has warmed relative to the layer below.
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-influential-climate-science-paper.html
Layman’s explanation of why MW 1967 was so important.
Except there is a lie in Nate’s source where it claims if it were a solar or orbit change influence the entire atmosphere should have heated up.
The problem is that variation in ozone strongly affects the stratosphere and increases in water vapor and clouds will do the same. It seems safe to presume an increase in cloudiness as the climate warms. But Nate’s masters have trained him to not think for himself. He is a bad bad boy if he thinks such thoughts. Another would be my gawd what happens if convection and/or cloudiness increases as a result of more CO2? Suddenly it might not even warm one degree even if CO2 has some weird ability to warm something warmer than itself.
“Except there is a lie in Nates source where it claims if it were a solar or orbit change influence the entire atmosphere should have heated up.”
Nonsense.
And my supposed LIE seems to have vaporized, again.
Do you ever feel like you need to take a break from all this grievance?
Nonsense?
Are you claiming that if the solar constant increased by either a hotter sun or variation in the earth’s orbit due to planet alignment that more water wouldn’t evaporate carrying orders of magnitude more heat and that stratospheric cooling wouldn’t result from all the clouds that would generate?
You calling it nonsense is the biggest piece of nonsense I have seen anybody post around here.
“Are you claiming that..”
Your wild speculations don’t prove the source is lying.
The source you appear to be bashing is MW 1967, considered the most influential Climate Science paper of the last few decades.
In it, they model the effect of added CO2 with a physic-based model. And their simulation clearly predicts that troposphere will warm, and the stratosphere will cool a greater amount.
It is specifically the CO2 that produces the strong stratospheric cooling, they found.
And indeed, another mechanism for warming, increasing solar insolation, did not produce the stratospheric cooling in their simulations.
Both the tropospheric warming and the stratospheric cooling from increasing CO2, that they have predicted, have been observed over the following decades.
And more details have been learned about the subject since then.
Have you done any simulations? I suspect not.
Thus your claims have not been ‘certified’ in any way, so I am surprised you consider them to be valid….
Graham D. Warner gaslights again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
That’s it.
Your own link proves me right:
“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.”
Thank you.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again:
Thermal insulation. Subject.
Provides a region of insulation. Predicate.
In which thermal conduction is reduced. The main description he keeps missing.
Creating a thermal break or thermal barrier. One possibility.
Or. Logic connector Graham always distorts.
Thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body. Another possibility.
This is not *my* website, BTW. It’s just a wiki entry.
…but we’re not talking about thermal conduction being reduced, because we’re talking about radiative insulation, specifically. Thus the only relevant sentence is the "reflected rather than absorbed" one…and that proves me right.
Graham D. Warner keeps trying to determine what *I* am talking about.
In *my* own thread.
Thermal insulation is the reduction of heat transfer between objects in thermal contact or in range of radiative influence.
That’s it.
Nothing more, nothing less.
…and, radiatively, it’s where thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.
That’s it.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting:
Op. Cit.
By his Sky Dragon crank logic, spacecrafts would only need one layer!
. This thread isn’t about what he tries to make it about. Worse, he keeps insisting on pure reflection *while* whining about blackbodies!
"By his Sky Dragon crank logic, spacecrafts would only need one layer!"
That’s certainly not my logic. More layers are more effective, but of course all of those layers, in practice, use reflective materials. The GPE idea that multiple layers of blackbody materials would somehow eventually add up to a perfectly reflecting layer is nonsense. What would changing all those layers to reflective materials then achieve? Nothing!
It is indeed Graham D. Warner’s logic that insulation either proceeds one way or the other but not both, whereas it is an engineering fact that multi-layer insulation works both ways, just *any* substance in the universe, except perhaps black holes.
Huh? What on Earth are you talking about?
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Absolutely not.
This makes sense:
A blackbody (reflectivity zero) has no radiative insulating capability. A perfect reflector (reflectivity one) is a perfect radiative insulator. Everything real exists on a spectrum between the two.
This makes no sense:
A blackbody (reflectivity zero) already has considerable radiative insulating capability. A perfect reflector (reflectivity one) is a perfect radiative insulator. So everything real exists on a spectrum between pretty good radiative insulator and just below perfect.
DREMT, here’s what makes sense for real objects conforming to Planck’s law:
Reflectivity + emissivity + transmissivity = 1.0
For the GPE objects which do conform to Planck’s law:
0 + 1.0 + 0 = 1.0
No contradiction there to anything I said.
Great. Less word salad.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
No, I’m not gaslighting. Never have, never will.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1619059
…I’m not gaslighting. Never have, never will.
Again, DREMT shamelessly picks and choose which information to accept and which to reject in Wikipedia pages.
This
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
“The principle behind MLI is radiation balance. To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the StefanBoltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space. The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W. So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”
is rejected, with no rationale offered.
Nate, knowing full well that I do not read or respond to his comments, nevertheless once again tries to interject into a discussion that I am involved in.
nate’s dialog isn’t proof. where is your evidence?
Gill’s comments are an absolute proof that he still does not know that air can act as an insulator.
LOL!
“nates dialog isnt proof. where is your evidence?”
After I show a link, with a clear explanation, a derived equation, using real laws of physics, Bill asks for evidence.
Clearly, he doesnt actually WANT evidence.
DREMT pretends that facts in posts he doesnt read, but everbody else can read (and he has read before) can be ignored!
DREMT, try this for intuition.
“A perfectly transparent material has no radiative insulating capability because is does not interact with radiation. It stops no radiation and sends no radiation back.
A perfect reflector (reflectivity one) is a perfect radiative insulator. This returns all radiation and lets none through.”
You should be thinking “perfectly transparent” for your “other end of the spectrum”.
Maybe this will help. Consider sitting outdoors on a chilly day with an IR heater a few feet away. The transparent air between you and the heater will provide no radiative insulation for that IR heater. You (and your chair and your table) will be warmed by the heater.
At the ‘other end of the spectrum’ a sheet of reflective aluminum will provide excellent radiative insulation. The IR from the heater will bounce off in other directions.
What if we paint the aluminum black on both sides. Now the IR gets absorbed, rather than reflected. This makes the sheet warm up a bit. This makes the side facing you warm up — and radiate more. Not a lot perhaps, but more than the the chilly surroundings. You are pretty well, isolated from the warming effects of the IR heater, but not perfectly.
Thanks, Tim, but I’m happy with my 2:07 PM comment from yesterday.
No GPE.
Be happy then. But don’t expect to convince others.
…Tim, but I’m happy with my 2:07 PM comment from yesterday.
No GPE.
Has Graham D. Warner said he was drawing, Nate?
I stopped reading his comments since he started hot doggin’.
… only if the 1LOT and/or 2LOT are misapplied as in DREMT’s work.
No GPE.
… only if the 1LOT and/or 2LOT are misapplied as in DREMT’s work and as shown by Hughes, S&O experiments.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Maybe this will help. Consider sitting outdoors on a chilly day with an IR heater a few feet away. The transparent air between you and the heater will provide no radiative insulation for that IR heater. You (and your chair and your table) will be warmed by the heater.”
————————
You haven’t thought this one out well Tim. Perhaps you should try blueprinting it and actually testing if your blueprint is correct.
Obviously the near blackbody sheet of aluminum will absorb more energy than the polished one. But in a vacuum it will warm to the same temperature as the polished one. In air it won’t because convection will affect how warm the plates get as its coefficient of heat transfer is unaffected by the color of the aluminum.
First off you have to estimate falloff of the light from the IR heater to the panel. Then you have to look at the falloff of light from the panel to you. In fact that explains everything you need to know. Insulation isn’t even a major factor for the black painted aluminum (and no factor if it was actually a blackbody). It is a factor for the aluminum because of conduction and convection becoming more dominant as the aluminum panel wants to get as warm as the black painted one.
So to sum up your intuition is real in thinking there needs to be an explanation for the effects you feel but you have the wrong equation inventory to explain it. But you think you do have the right equations. Its quite simply the case you don’t have experience in this area.
I have agreed that the total downwelling radiation from the sun and that everything that is actually able to sequester heat is a factor in sequestration and how cold you will feel.
But to understand sequestration you have to understand what insulation is and is not as in gas environments as shown in Seim and Olsen which is a GPE experiment using gases as plates. Your equations simply don’t work. That doesn’t mean that the atmosphere doesn’t sequester heat seeable by the surface as these plates are far more thicker. It simply means the equations you are using are wrong. They simply do not apply to a convective environment.
Sequestration of heat isn’t something that happens without insulation.
But you think of this as a single track simple problem and it isn’t and quite honestly Seim and Olsen, et al doing their experiments were actually only responding to all the noise surrounding this topic on blogs, in media, including Harvard University at one time promoting the multiple plate 3rd grader model as if the atmosphere was made up of several solid layers of. . .uh. . .still air with the molecules frozen in place.
Fact is you can’t find any concrete descriptions of how the GHE operates in any reputable paper. They leave that to folks on blogs to explain it like you are doing here.
But its Like Einstein said about light: ”All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question “What are light quanta?” Nowadays every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.”
Albert Einstein, 1951
Its obvious that nobody on this blog knows what it is and there are a lot of tom dick and harry types who believe they do but can’t bring forth the evidence to support what they believe.
Willard says:
”Gills comments are an absolute proof that he still does not know that air can act as an insulator.
LOL!”
———————
LMAO! Little Willy and Tim Folkerts need to go back into the huddle and get their story straight. And come up with a story that includes all the means of heat transfer within the air.
Tim Folkerts says:
”The transparent air between you and the heater will provide no radiative insulation for that IR heater.”
And oh yeah while at it how about describing how many polished and black plated aluminum sheets are flying around affecting the climate. Several holes here need patching from the warmist cultists on this board.
Gill does a lot of skating to help his fellow Sky Dragon crank.
Perhaps he could help his daddy with his homework:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1619996
LOL!
Oh, and perhaps he should also read back what I said about air, but more slowly!
What a buffoon!
Willard said:
”Gill ignores that absolutely still air has an R-value of 3.6 per inch of air as good as most insulation materials.”
————————-
No it doesn’t Willard.
Gill says:
February 13, 2024 at 12:23 AM
Willard said:
Gill ignores that absolutely still air has an R-value of 3.6 per inch of air as good as most insulation materials.
–
No it doesnt Willard.
####################
********************
???????????????????
((((((((((((((((((
Yes it does
#2
No GPE.
Willard no it doesn’t.
to get a r-value you must have the insulation tested as to its insulation performance.
so what source did you use? did you take a bucket of still air into a lab and and get it tested? fact is if you put an energy difference across a parcel of air it won’t remain still.
Perhaps Gill could tell us what Graham D. Warner just said.
“But in a vacuum it will warm to the same temperature as the polished one.”
Well, it will depend on the precise emissivity at different wavelengths, but yes, the values will at least be similar.
You miss the more important point. Even if both are at, say 100 C, the painted one with higher emissivity (nearly 1 instead of nearly 0) will emit far more IR and warm you much better. (and as you point out, the painted one will be warmer due to convection losses, so that enhanced the differences even more.)
So no sheet provides no radiative insulation.
A painted sheet provides some radiative insulation.
A polished sheet provides excellent radiative insulation.
Exactly as claimed.
[no time to address all the rest atm]
As I said before…
…this makes sense:
A blackbody (reflectivity zero) has no radiative insulating capability. A perfect reflector (reflectivity one) is a perfect radiative insulator. Everything real exists on a spectrum between the two.
This makes no sense:
A blackbody (reflectivity zero) already has considerable radiative insulating capability. A perfect reflector (reflectivity one) is a perfect radiative insulator. So everything real exists on a spectrum between pretty good radiative insulator and just below perfect.
Looks like Graham D. Warner still tries to make himself relevant after having dropped from what Gill and Tim are actually discussing.
Just ignore him.
Tim Folkerts says:
So no sheet provides no radiative insulation.
A painted sheet provides some radiative insulation.
A polished sheet provides excellent radiative insulation.
Exactly as claimed.
as i pointed out glass provides extremely limited insulation and as you pointed out blacked aluminum provides about 200 times less even if it is as thick as the glass.
and as to how well reflection works it only works as well as convection allows it to. so if you look to home insulation standards reflection only is appropriate for an upward facing application against downwelling radiation, such as reflective roof coatings and loss of heat through floors using it looking up at the floor with an air space between the floor and the reflective barrier. and there are some limited uses for wall applications but it would be advisable for you to hire a licensed professional to ensure those applications actually work before spending money on them. a licensed professional is also advisable for the upward looking applications as longevity and serviceability are issues with different materials.
Gill says
Tim Folkerts says:
So no sheet provides no radiative insulation.
A painted sheet provides some radiative insulation.
A polished sheet provides excellent radiative insulation.
Exactly as claimed.
as i pointed out glass provides extremely limited insulation and as you pointed out blacked aluminum provides about 200 times less even if it is as thick as the glass.
and as to how well reflection works it only works as well as convection allows it to. so if you look to home insulation standards reflection only is appropriate for an upward facing application against downwelling radiation, such as reflective roof coatings and loss of heat through floors using it looking up at the floor with an air space between the floor and the reflective barrier. and there are some limited uses for wall applications but it would be advisable for you to hire a licensed professional to ensure those applications actually work before spending money on them. a licensed professional is also advisable for the upward looking applications as longevity and serviceability are issues with different materials.
=======================
————————
)))))))))))))))))))))))
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
……………………..
))))))))))))))))))))))))
Gill’s old house is drafty in winter, swampy in summer? Almost impossible to heat and cool effectively? That’s because when his house was built a half-century or more ago, no one thought much about insulation. Energy was abundant and cheap. Half of the world’s oil was produced in the U.S. Conserving energy was just not very important. Experts believed that the 4″ of “dead” air space captured inside the stud cavities of your walls, combined with a vapor barrier, was enough to keep heat inside your home.
There are weaknesses to using a single laboratory model to simultaneously assess the properties of a material to resist conducted, radiated or convective heating. The rate of heat transfer through a material is dependent on different factors depending on the mode of transfer. For conductive transfer, the thermal conductance matters, and the result may be calculated by the formula above. Convective transfer may depend on the velocity of gas or fluid flow (amongst other variables), or, in the case of natural convection it may exhibit a nonlinear dependence on temperature difference. Radiative transfer depends on thermal emissivity and depends nonlinearly on temperatures. The extensive debate among representatives from different segments of the US insulation industry during revision of the US FTC’s regulations about advertising R-values illustrates the complexity of the issues.
The R-Value for spray foam insulation can vary depending on the product, manufacturer, and other variables. Open cell spray foam insulation is R-3.6 to R-3.9 per inch. This R-Value is normal for open cell spray foam. Closed cell spray foam insulation is R-6 to R-7 per inch. Not all spray foams are created equal, which is why youre likely wondering why there is a difference in the per inch R-Value of open cell and closed cell spray foam.
What does it have to do with the greenhouse effect?
Absolutely nothing!
The jury must acquit.
If only you could ignore me, Little Willy…
…and what I’ve said (twice now) directly relates to what Bill and Tim are talking about.
I mostly ignored Tim’s comment to me on this sub-thread because his example had no relation to the GPE. He does that a lot. Tries to make a point about the GPE by bringing up scenarios that bear no relation to it.
Looks like Graham D. Warner still tries to make himself relevant.
I bet he’s whining about how he feels unwelcome in my thread…
Should I start being worried about his stalking?
Little Willy is not doing a very good job of ignoring me.
Graham D. Warner is still responding in my thread.
Start a thread about MLI, expect my involvement. As you knew when you started it.
Graham D. Warner wastes more of his time, probably whining about how relevant he should be in the grand scheme of things.
Pity that nobody reads him.
Bill you seem to have missed the word “radiative”. Go back and try try again.
For example, aluminum can simultaneously be excellent insulation for radiation and terrible insulation for conduction.
thats your mistake Tim. you are in the wrong forum to be talking about radiant insulation. go find a space or astronomy forum for discussion of reflection as insulation. in this world of climate nothing is insulation unless its able to insulate all means of energy transfer including reflection, conduction, diffusion, and convection as these things are fungible. the concept of insulation is restriction of energy transfer. . .not just one means of energy transfer.
diffusion covers cool air sinking as the air radiates to space, cools, sinks, and is replaced by warmer air. if you want to prevent that you need to stop the cooling toward space. afawk, radiation is a net flow of energy from warm to cold and since the bottom of the atmosphere is usually warmer than the top you must limit convection which is fungible for toa cooling.
thus a vacuum separation between the atmosphere and the surface is required to call reflection a form of insulation, since insulation is a word reserved for restricting energy transfer. most good insulation has multiple layers of tiny pockets filled with low conductive gases or a vacuum. this removes convection as a fungible means of heat transfer.
Willard says:
What does it have to do with the greenhouse effect?
Absolutely nothing!
The jury must acquit.
————————-
absolutely! the ftc only regulates advertising for items for sale.
the government doesn’t sell anything except bonds, bills, and postage stamps.
everything else is a tax of some nature where zero guarantees of accuracy of information or serviceability are provided.
its pure caveat emptor.
Gill tries to distance himself from the squirrel he himself has thrown into the mix. And now he’s blaming Tim for correcting him.
LOL!
"Pity that nobody reads him"
I sure get a lot of responses for someone who nobody reads.
And there is no doubt you irritate Willard to an extreme response. If Willard wasn’t lying about that you would never hear from him.
Nate says:
After I show a link, with a clear explanation, a derived equation, using real laws of physics, Bill asks for evidence.
———————-
People make up stories all the time using the laws of physics Nate, but real scientists like to see proof the equation written is applicable to the system its being applied to. . .all you have to do for it to be wrong is miss a variable and I can name a few variables that are ignored.
I see that Graham D. Warner has responded in a subthread in which he has no business to respond.
And now Gill tries to bait Nate by lying again!
So I have no business to respond in a sub-thread that begins:
“Graham D. Warner gaslights again:”
OK, Little Willy.
I see that Graham D. Warner responded again.
Let’s remind him where he took his leave:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1619755
Astute readers can ignore his juvenile protestations.
I never said I was leaving the thread.
Graham D. Warner seems to have responded.
Is it an answer to Tim’s devastating comment?
I bet not.
I see Little Willy responded again. Will it be a substantive comment? I bet not.
Graham D. Warner is still responding!
Looks like he will be evading Tim’s request while pretending he owns the thread or something.
Bill shows he ignores evidence even as he demands it.
“People make up stories all the time using the laws of physics Nate”
If you cant tell the difference then your rejection of it is based on ignorance.
Actually and in fact the sequence of equations was constructed out of ignorance as outlined by Dr. Syun Akasofu. An argument from ignorance begins with claiming to not know if any other phenomena was present to explain the warming. So I suppose that if that is actually true then the equations sequence would have to be right. But building an equation on being ignorant other other possible phenomena is actually known as an argument from ignorance.
What request?
And now Gill deflects toward Akasofu, which has nothing to do here.
Perhaps he realized that his deflection toward Judy yesterday led to the silly Italian Flag?
#2
What request?
” outlined by Dr. Syun Akasofu.”
Yes, his views are extreme outliers.
Among all the climate scientists studying these issues, how do you know he is the one dude getting it right?
#3
What request?
Exactly, Nate.
Is Graham D. Warner’s latest comment related to Gill’s new squirrel?
#4
What request?
Nate,
I hope you did not miss that comment from Tim:
given how hard I have had to work to get you to understand the basics of radiative heat transfer and form factors (and now even the meaning of same temperature), you will have to forgive us for not taking your word on anything relate to the GPE.
Yes, we all caught it. That comment was not correct, as I explained:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1622489
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1622543
Nate,
I hope Graham D. Warner was not responding for you, for we both know he claims not reading your comments.
This exchange with Tim might become the gold standard with how physicists ought to deal with a crank!
It’s certainly the gold standard for showing how a physicist can repeatedly fail to understand a simple question, whilst falsely accusing their opponent of not understanding what they’ve been saying.
I don’t know.
DREMT claims that since he is not a PhD physicist, he is seeking answers from Tim, who is.
He gets answers. But refuses to learn anything, even if very simple, if it contradicts his prior feelings.
And continues to insist that he understands radiative heat transfer and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, while the physicists Tim, me, Eli, and engineers like Swanson, are getting it all wrong.
Then he defers to the authority of the ignoramus Clint on physics!
It is all quite astonishing.
…certainly the gold standard for showing how a physicist can repeatedly fail to understand a simple question, whilst falsely accusing their opponent of not understanding what they’ve been saying.
Tim’s patience with students determined not to learn is admirable.
…the gold standard for showing how a physicist can repeatedly fail to understand a simple question, whilst falsely accusing their opponent of not understanding what they’ve been saying.
Indeed, everyone blames the educators for all the failings of the students these days.
It indeed is, Nate.
There’s only one Mighty Tim.
Nate argues that teachers are always right and its all about under performing students.
Thats such an empty argument Nate. Why not give an answer that somebody can test if it is true.
All you have are true believes that no matter how bad the models fail there will be an excuse they can dream up. . . while those with inquiring minds and not part of the religious establishment see it as FUBAR.
Gill wishes away Graham’s defeat by gaslighting Nate.
If they want to surpass their teachers, students need to listen, ask relevant questions, and their homework.
Alternatively, they can do like Gill and jump the corporate ladder by abusing people.
No defeat here. I listened to Tim, and learned that the view factor from the shell to the sphere was less than one. Not something that I had considered before. However, it has no bearing on the GPE, where the view factors are one in both directions between the plates.
When it came to asking Tim a simple question to get a bit of clarity on a related issue to the sphere and shell example, boy did I regret asking…because he just kept falsely accusing me of not listening to what he’d said, whilst not really understanding what I was asking him. He should have just said, a long while ago, that he didn’t know what I meant by the "radiative heat transfer equation".
What I have learned, overall, is that if you ask Tim a question, you’d better be prepared for him to use that as an excuse to try to discredit you as a commenter!
I notice that Graham D. Warner has written another wall of words.
Perhaps Gill could find in it and all the other comments from Graham that I haven’t read, his solution to Tim’s exercises, with calculations, citations, and everything?
Auditors, after all, are supposed to good at providing receipts.
If Little Willy hasn’t read my comments, then he won’t have been able to follow the discussion between me and Tim. So, why does he keep commenting on it?
Graham D. Warner seems to have responded.
Why doesn’t he wait for Gill to provide a summary of all the work he’s done so far to salvage a Sky Dragon crank in distress?
He looks so gallant in his shining armor.
…because Little Willy is just trolling again.
“Nate argues that teachers are always right and its all about under performing students.”
Bill again weirdly assigns his black and white thinking to me.
I think by now, we are all aware that DREMT is not allowed to be at fault for anything, ever. So we can all quietly laugh when he again creates his usual convoluted excuses which blame others for what are entirely his failings.
…Little Willy is just trolling again.
Nate I was referring to the depth of your argument. Simply noting how shallow it was.
“Nate I was referring to the depth of your argument”
With your patented method of shamelessly misrepresenting your opponent’s posts.
"Simply noting how shallow it was."
Is Nate onto the snide little personal remarks, Bill?
Where’s Gill’s rendering of Graham D. Graham’s response to Tim’s clear and concise demonstration?
Little Willy continues to pretend to have followed a discussion between two people when he hasn’t read one of those people’s comments. No wonder he’s so confused.
Did Graham D. Warner say anything that would help Gill answer my request, Nate?
No wonder he’s so confused. Asking about a “clear and concise demonstration”…what clear and concise demonstration?
Graham D. Warner has responded again.
When will he resort to gaslighting?
What clear and concise demonstration?
Nate says: Indeed, everyone blames the educators for all the failings of the students these days.
I say: Nate argues that teachers are always right and its all about under performing students.
Nate responds ignorantly: Bill again weirdly assigns his black and white thinking to me.
—————————–
I would point out the black and white thinking entered the conversation when Nate said ”everyone”. And yes I pointed that out to Nate.
DREMT asks: ”Is Nate onto the snide little personal remarks, Bill?”
Yes!
Bill also makes convoluted excuses for shamelessly misrepresenting his opponents posts.
Graham D. Warner responds, and then Gill waves his hands.
LOL!
“Yes!”
Thought so! He always used to wind up making those sorts of comments when things didn’t go his way.
Of course Gill does, Nate.
After all, that’s what he does best.
#2
What clear and concise demonstration?
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-global-warming-merely-a-natural-cycle/a-57831350
“Without the greenhouse gas effect, surface temperatures would drop 33 degrees Celsius (59.4 degrees Fahrenheit), according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) making the planet a frozen, uninhabitable place.
For thousands of years, nature had well-regulated the concentration of these gases. But this started changing when humans began burning fossil fuels as a global means of creating energy resulting in a sharp rise of unnatural CO2 emissions. This has interfered with the planet’s atmospheric balance.
And, as a result, Earth started warming faster.”
–
“For thousands of years, nature had well-regulated the concentration of these gases.”
Thank you GOOD NATURE!!!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
nature is now plotting to kill all humans to regulate the gasses
What Nature does is a one way decaying process. It is a never stopping cooling process.
–
Earth is slowly cooling since its formation.
Once in the process carbon (C) occured, when combined with hydrogen (H2) the life occured.
Carbon in form of CO2 gets captured and sequestered. It gets sequestered in the natural sinks (oceanic waters, rocky sediments, and coal, natural gas and oil deposits).
By doing so, Nature exploites life. Also, Nature doesn’t care about life’s future existence.
Many large forms of life (dinosaurs etc…) went extinct, because the Natural CO2 depletion from Earth’s atmosphere made the food for the large species very scarce, so the smaller species were more adapted. It was then large mammals (whales) turned back into sea, because there still was enough food.
If Nature is left on its own, Nature will lead life on Earth to inevitable natural ecological catastrophe.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
… cooling process except recently our planet stopped cooling and started warming with nil change in planetary rotation rate or relevant weather cycles. So far Christos has not been able to ‘splain why that near surface atm. warming started to happen (see top post for detailed measurements).
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Pls, I never started.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Here’s a news story for Hunter the tr0ll:
Critical Atlantic Ocean current system is showing early signs of collapse, prompting warning from scientists
The article references a newly published model study of the possibility of a climate “Tipping Point” in the form of a massive change in the THC aka, the AMOC. The paper is open source, so that even Hunter the tr0ll can read it. You never know, he might do some homework, instead of his usual pontificating about his ignorant world view.
to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary
Here’s some hopium for you mijo. Inhale deeply…
“Christy thinks it equally likely that the Earth’s 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,” he says. Sunspots, volcanic eruptions, El Niños, variations in aerosols, water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane from living creatures, and other unknown factors may all tweak the planet’s temperature up and down, Christy says. His satellite data show that the average temperature of the United States has been slightly higher recently than in previous years, but the average temperature of the southern hemisphere has been lower. When hot and cold spells are seen from a global perspective, he concludes, they eventually even out.”
I’m happy to see Swanson refer to it as a “news story”, because that’s all it is. It ain’t science.
The first sentence of the abstact: “One of the most prominent climate tipping elements is the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), which can potentially collapse because of the input of fresh water in the North Atlantic.”
Two false beliefs (bold for emphasis) in the first sentence! When a paper starts out with beliefs, you know know it’s cult nonsense.
Here’s the paper that Puffman tries to denigrate:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk1189
If only he could realize that formatting ain’t argument!
Hence why it is so much fun.
The news article is about the just published research paper and there are other reports form other news organizations. But, one presumes that grammie hasn’t read the paper beyond the abstract or doesn’t understand how long the problem has been studied by oceanographers. Just scanning the references reminds us of:
41. H . Stommel, Thermohaline convection with two stable regimes of flow. Tellus 13, 224230 (1961).
There are more than 60 other references grammie might want to read if he were really interested. That’s the way science works, slow, steady progress of learning the truth.
Right Swanson read it and concluded that the arctic and antarctic oceans are separated from the Atlantic by barriers keeping the freshwater polar melt out of the Atlantic.
Gill should go tell Tim that he’s being too mean to Graham D. Warner:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1619093
Tim actually has the wrong temperature value for the sphere (he has 317 K) even by his own way of thinking about the situation, with the sphere increasing in temperature thanks to the emissions from the shell. Can you tell me what temperature he should have for the sphere, according to his own way of looking at it?
Graham D. Warner has returned to a mere semantic game.
This time it is *returned*.
The Sky Dragon crank cycle is complete.
Little Willy cannot answer. No surprises there. He demonstrates, once again, that he has no idea about any of this.
Graham D. Warner has a very small repertoire, so every single exchange must be redirected to them. And when he does not succeed in getting his way, he gaslights. And when he’ll get old, he’ll sill be doing that. That and PSTing people that dare to stand in front of Dragon cranks.
Perhaps one day he’ll get that insulation won’t be refuted by imagining an infinite plate.
Astute readers might notice that Little Willy continues to evade the question.
Once Graham D. Warner feels secured in his greenplate bailey, he can be stuck on repeat for a while.
It’s better not to pay much attention to what he says, then.
Evade and attack, evade and attack. That’s all you do.
Graham D. Warner surely said something vapid once again.
Graham D. Warner should be drawing, instead he is wasting time writing comments that are not read.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
More obsessive stalking by Graham D. Warner.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Here’s how to analyze a cult “paper”:
1. Read the Abstract.
2. Read the Conclusion.
3. If either contains violations of physics or false beliefs, then the “paper” ain’t science.
Here’s how to analyze Puffman’s comment:
1. If there is a riddle, ask him about his skies-shooting-cold-rays theory.
2. If there is pontification about SCIENCE, ask him about his skies-shooting-cold-rays theory.
3. If there is caps lock and lulz, ask him about his skies-shooting-cold-rays theory.
That should cover 97% of his comments.
As usual silly willy verifies with his immature and incompetent flak, that he’s got NOTHING.
[ME] 3. If there is caps lock and lulz, ask him about his skies-shooting-cold-rays theory.
[PUFFMAN] As usual silly willy verifies with his immature and incompetent flak, that hes got NOTHING.
E. Swanson says:
”Critical Atlantic Ocean current system is showing early signs of collapse, prompting warning from scientists
The article references a newly published model study of the possibility of a climate ”Tipping Point” ”.
Oh boy the science community has ginned up another tipping point. I guess they had to as the other ones they came up with never tipped.
No, Hunter tr0ll, shutting down the THC is an old subject in climate studies, as I just pointed out to your fellow cult member, grammie.
Poor Swanson still hasn’t worked out that Clint R and I are two different people.
Consider the source, Swannie thinks heat can be transferred by it own means from cold to hot.
Gordon 2:20 pm yet again mistakes heat for EMR.
EMR is NOT heat, Gordon, so EMR can transfer thermodynamic internal energy cold to hot.
Your blethering, B4. Show how EM can transfer heat cold to hot.
Ball4 says:
”Gordon 2:20 pm yet again mistakes heat for EMR.
EMR is NOT heat,”
today Ball4 makes EMR distinct from heat. . .until of course he will want to express it as heat.
Come on man end the childish games!
bill…B4 is sore because I exposed his ignorance re the 2nd law years ago partly by pointing out that EM is not heat. He still believes that heat can be transferred cold to hot by EM. Now, he is trying to throw it back at me but he still fails to grasp my point about EM not being heat.
My point is that EM is a product of heat dissipation. When electrons drop to a lower energy levels en masse, that represents a drop in the kinetic energy of all atoms in the mass that represents heat. That KE drop is also converted to electromagnetic energy, therefore the heat lost in producing it cannot possibly be transferred anywhere. It’s gone as the EM is produced.
B4 and other alarmists cling to the out-dated notion that heat is somehow being transferred as EM. That theory dates back to 1850, at least, when scientists believed that heat was being transferred by a mysterious heat ray. Bohr put the boots to that theory in 1913 when he postulated that EM is the product of electron transitions. At the same time, he postulated that EM is both absorbed and emitted at discrete frequencies.
In other words, in order for an electron to absorb EM, the frequency of the EM must match the angular velocity of the electron in its orbit. It is simply not possible for EM emitted at a lower temperature to have a frequency that will excite an electron in a hotter object. B4 does not understand basic quantum theory and continues to cling to the anachronism that heat is transferred in both directs by EM between bodies of different temperature.
At the same time, EM from a hotter body can be absorbed by a colder body and that satisfies he 2nd law. Even though Clausius was influenced by the heat ray theory, he still insisted that EM must obey the 2nd law.
2:47 pm: “Show how EM can transfer heat cold to hot.”
EM stuff is not heat either Gordon but Planck Law conforming relevant experiments long ago (~1899) showed EMR can transfer thermodynamic internal energy cold to hot.
A recent experimental method shows some of the heat in common glass of ice water is transformed into EMR and travels to the kitchen IR thermometer where the EMR is absorbed and causes the thermometer display to read 32F.
—-
Bill, EMR is never heat. Gordon and you need to better consistently deal with experimental reality.
b4…an IR thermometer picks up an IR frequency from ice water, not heat. And as you keep preaching, EM is not heat.
3:56 pm: “(Ball4) and other alarmists cling to the out-dated notion that heat is somehow being transferred as EM.”
No Gordon, your words are physically wrong yet again so read & better understand my physically correct wording proven by experiment long ago: “EMR can transfer thermodynamic internal energy cold to hot.” Proven by experiment as far back as 1899 during the development of Planck’s Law.
“When electrons drop to a lower energy levels en masse, that represents a drop in the kinetic energy of all atoms in the mass that represents heat. That KE drop is also converted to electromagnetic energy… “
Gordon manufactures energy out of nothing! Both KE + EMR spring into existence? No Gordon, in a solid, the atoms are translating while vibrating in place (KE of motion) and their translation is not quantized.
Funny, but it is Gordon that still does not understand basic quantum theory and continues to cling to the anachronism that heat is transferred only in one direction by heat rays between bodies of different temperature.
Gordon, there is only rays of energy in the form of EMR in a near vacuum between any two bodies in view of each other with no aether needed any longer. There is no heat there in the near vacuum. Clausius’ heat is just a measure of the total KE of motion in a glass of ice water sitting on your kitchen counter.
4:32pm: Gordon gets closer to physical reality: an IR thermometer picks up (i.e. absorbs, reflects, transmits) all light’s EMR frequencies from ice water in view, not heat. Try to stick to that.
Also, the ice water in view picks up (i.e. absorbs, reflects, transmits) all light’s EMR frequencies from the IR thermometer, not heat.
Ball4 says:
EM stuff is not heat either Gordon but Planck Law conforming relevant experiments long ago (~1899) showed EMR can transfer thermodynamic internal energy cold to hot.
A recent experimental method shows some of the heat in common glass of ice water is transformed into EMR and travels to the kitchen IR thermometer where the EMR is absorbed and causes the thermometer display to read 32F.
———————–
I realize you are one of those who just believes everything your daddy told you Ball4 and/or you decide you are smarter than you daddy and you start extrapolating.
Unfortunately Bill goes with “your daddy”, Ill go with understanding the proper experimental evidence.
it doesn’t count when you are lying ball4
E. Swanson says:
”No, Hunter tr0ll, shutting down the THC is an old subject in climate studies, as I just pointed out to your fellow cult member, grammie.”
Right they just dusted off the sky is falling rhetoric following AR3. They even made a movie out of in 2004. ”The Day After Tomorrow”. They just dust this one off every 20 years or so as Jupiter moves out of conjunction with Saturn. . .where hot makes it cold.
Gill is just three years off.
That’s good for his batting average!
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Third_Assessment_Report
Oh boy our Sky Dragon cranks have found a new thing to say NOTHING about. LMAO!
another hypothetical model study that would serve better as toilet paper than a scientific paper. And wouldn’t you know it comes from CNN, a fake news leader.
The silly idea that fresh water from ice melt will catastrophically dilute salt water is typical of the alarmist swine. Where do they think the water comes from to create the ice? It’s a cyclical process and like the ice floating on the Arctic Ocean, when it melts, it won’t raise sea levels.
Besides, the thermohaline current is global, beginning in warmer climes like the Indian Ocean. There’s no way the North Atlantic portion will be an issue.
> fresh water from ice melt will catastrophically dilute salt water
Bordo at least tries to be creative.
When will other Sky Dragon cranks follow suit?
wee willy the scumbag strikes again by cherry picking statements as one would expect from someone with a seriously low IQ.
Bordo tries to white knight someone who would follow Puffman through Hell instead of lifting an eyelash for him.
Sometimes he’s adorable.
Gordo trounces the news story solely because it was posted on CNN. That’s a typical reply from the no-nothings on the far right who think all left leaning news sources are from hell or liars or what ever. Perhaps he would prefer this one:
Why this is one of the planetary shifts scientists are most worried about.
Oh, wait, that’s from the WP. But, here’s one from AP on our local FOX station:
Ocean system that moves heat gets closer to collapse, which could cause weather chaos, study says.
Swanson, incompetent news stories ain’t science, no matter the source.
swannie…this is what I said in addition to the CNN ad hom…
“The silly idea that fresh water from ice melt will catastrophically dilute salt water is typical of the alarmist swine. Where do they think the water comes from to create the ice? Its a cyclical process and like the ice floating on the Arctic Ocean, when it melts, it wont raise sea levels.
Besides, the thermohaline current is global, beginning in warmer climes like the Indian Ocean. Theres no way the North Atlantic portion will be an issue”.
Unless I am having a bad hair day, I try not to use simple ad homs. I strive to explain why I have ad hommed someone.
I have noted that Swannie focused on my ad hom and failed to address the science I put forward.
> Unless I am having a bad hair day, I try not to use simple ad homs.
It’d be hard to recall the last good hair day Bordo had.
Except that you, Gordo didn’t “address the science”. While the THC is a global phenomena, the sinking process occurs in only a few locations, primarily associated with the growth of sea-ice during the freeze season. That would be around parts of Antarctica, but not “beginning in warmer climes like the Indian Ocean”. Warm water would not sink to the bottom, plane and simple. There’s also no sinking in the North Pacific, either. When the “ice floating on the Arctic Ocean” melts, it mixes with the water below, the result being a cap of low salinity water, which prevents sinking until the next freeze season. As a result, a large fraction of the THC sinking is found in the polar North Atlantic, the GIN Seas and the continental shelf regions of the Arctic Oceans.
Gordo, there’s been considerable effort to study the THC and the AMOC, including campaigns for instrumentation to actually measure it. If you don’t like that science, you will need to provide a lot of support for your objections.
Swanson science isn’t some person hiding in a cubicle running figures on a computer. Science is established by actual measurement.
So now I take it by ”the science” you mean theories like oceans being separate pools separated by imaginary barriers. You guys just love imaginary barriers. Imaginary barriers is what is wrong with the science surrounding the GHE also.
This is classic BS science here: ”When the ice floating on the Arctic Ocean melts, it mixes with the water below, the result being a cap of low salinity water, which prevents sinking until the next freeze season.”
Fact is light water sitting on top of heavy water runs off the heavy water and mixes with light water or dives under the warmer water like a waterfall moving out of the arctic like pouring water onto the top of a concrete slab only moves slowly if really thin.
There is a lot of good data in ARGO for example probably one of the best examples of this waterfall is highly saline water that has been lounging in the Mediterranean Sea where precipitation and runoff resides for an average of 80 to 100 years before pouring out into the Atlantic now more saline than the Atlantic from evaporation in this temperate sea. You can see details of this in the data of many thousands of buoy dives in that area.
So in the arctic we are talking about 6 foot plus slabs of ice melting away. Have you ever seen 6feet of water sitting on a concrete slab without solid walls to hold it there? Yet you imagined this in your statement.
And you call that science such that you can conclude it refreezes as low salinity water?
Give me a break! Yes there is no doubt some low saline refreeze but nobody has any idea what it is because its not measured. Yet you and/or your daddy manages to formulate an entire theory around the assumption that its an ”awful lot”
Hunter tr0ll exhibits his ignorance again, writing:
Imaginary barriers? Like the Bering Strait, the Denmark Strait and the Faroe-Shetland Banks? Those underwater features separate deeper basins and flows across them are critical to understanding the THC and the AMOC.
Kinematic Structure and Dynamics of the Denmark Strait Overflow from Ship-based Observations
Discovery of an unrecognized pathway carrying overflow waters toward the Faroe Bank Channel
Here are some measurements for you:
The Faroe-Shetland Channel Jet: Structure, Variability, and Driving Mechanisms
It’s obvious that Hunter is seriously confused about physics, as he? wrote this word salad:
Try this, Hunter guy. Put some water in a container. Pour a little oil on it. What happens to the light oil relative to the denser water? The oil floats. The same thing happens to low salinity water on top of high salinity water, though the two can mix over time.
No Swanson you completely missed what I was talking about and in the process admitted that the science is not ready for primetime.
”Imaginary barriers? Like the Bering Strait, the Denmark Strait and the Faroe-Shetland Banks? Those underwater features separate deeper basins and flows across them are critical to understanding the THC and the AMOC.”
Exactly just out of the Arctic you have a 1,000 miles of ocean making up the straits into the Atlantic. We are not even close to understanding the volume of current flows on the surface but especially the cold saline flows deep running flows that are produced in the ice factory of the north.
all in all you have more than 25,000,000 square kilometers of ice melting and refreezing each year. The arctic has increased from about 7,500,000 squarekm to 10,000,000 square km. The change this past year in antarctic is anomalously high but otherwise there hasn’t been that much variation there.
so you are right we need to understand how these processes are operating to keep the ocean colder than their surrounds and we certainly don’t have a handle on that and if you want to talk about the possibility of an AMOC shutdown you need those figures to even start understanding the risk.
Hunter tr0ll, have you sobered up yet? Are you still claiming that; “Fact is light water sitting on top of heavy water runs off the heavy water…,etc”?? That one rates up there with your claim that adding fresh water to the Arctic would increase the THC sinking in the Atlantic.
Your latest reply implies that the Arctic surface currents are all important regarding the THC sinking. You further note that:
Sorry, Hunter, there’s a considerable effort underway actually quantify these flows, with the deployment of instruments to measure what’s happening.
But, you still refuse to recognize the known facts regarding the THC sinking from the Arctic Mediterranean into the deep North Atlantic. That occurs primarily at two locations, over the the Denmark Strait sill and the Faroe-Shetland Channel sill. There’s no such outflow across the relatively shallow Bering Strait, where flows of lower salinity waters from the North Pacific can enter the Arctic Ocean.
You appear to insist on perfection, as if it were possible to achieve that, like accounting for the money flows in a bank or corporation or doing an energy audit for a house. To be sure, it’s a complicated problem and the only way to assess it is thru the use of models. When one builds a model, one takes the information available, flawed or limited as it is and works with it. That’s science and the latest results are referenced in the news articles I pointed to.
the trouble with all models is they inflate error. you should read judith curry’s papers on uncertainty and the types of uncertainty and how the ipcc ignores major categories of uncertainty. ultimately we need a comprehensive data set to ground truth model assumptions.
that is what we have for the atmosphere but we need to understand the entire climate system. for example argo data is qc’d to be in compliance with the expansion of the oceans which is modeled currently. we may be now just getting a fair amount of data on the oceans but obviously not enough to write a comprehensive paper on its historic record. we see a lot of effort to belittle uncertainty. and for whatever reason you have chosen to advocate for that. you standing there essentially waving your arms in the air does nothing to build confidence. its not good enough.
in fact the paper you referenced admits its not good enough. its exactly like the proof nate alleges he provided for the ghe.
i have been dealing with differences of opinion professionally for decades. . .you just can’t cherry pick your experts and when it involves truly dedicated scientists they will acknowledge that. curry’s article the other day on michael mann shows that in the recent court case, mann was just a pot calling the kettle black and refusing to acknowledge that.
Hunter the tr0ll ignores my main point, which was, we know quite a bit about the THC in the North Atlantic and the GIN seas. You ignored my comments about the Bering Strait, the Denmark Strait and the Faroe-Shetland Banks, calling them “Imaginary barriers”.
Now, you claim that “we need a comprehensive data set to ground truth model assumptions”. You don’t want to consider that oceanographic data has been collected for more than 150 years, with the most “comprehensive” data only the past several decades. For example, consider the appearance of The Great Salinity Anomaly, which has been associated with a cessation of THC sinking in the Labrador Sea, etc. HERE’S a paper with lots of background information in the introduction.
You really are saying that you want to dismiss any and all modeling efforts, given that none are perfect. Sorry, your agenda is showing again.
Swanson your paper you provided is only covering a small area in the middle of the Labrador Sea and corresponds to a period when global mean temperatures were low.
the deeply negative NAO causes the area in question to tend to be warm. And following a large increase in ice this warmth caused a great deal of ice to flow through the Fram Strait.
Warm air temperatures and having a high proportion of the surface covered by drifting but unmelted but melting ice resulted in a lack of surface cooling that suppressed deep convection in a small area of the Labrador Sea.
Fact is you don’t get deep convection when you have lots of ice and when you get an accelerated melt its also going to suppress deep convection. But the NAO has been positive consistently (smoothed) since around 1980.
One cannot build the big picture with small snapshots like this. Thats why a comprehensive ocean temperature dataset is essential as you need to know not a small regional impact but we need to understand these deep convection areas on the global sea and its affects on the global sea. And no thats no asking for perfection. Thats asking a minimal dataset that gives you the big picture.
Hunter the tr0ll now changes his tune, admitting that adding fresh water to the areas of THC sinking will reduce said sinking, writing:
BTW, the NAO is an index. While it may be associated with changes in the THC, it is not a cause, it’s a result. Adding more fresh water to the surface waters of the GIN will reduce the water’s density, inhibiting sinking.
He finished his rant with:
Hunter still doesn’t understand that the THC sinking has historically occurred in only a few locations, particularly the Greenland Sea.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter the tr0ll now changes his tune, admitting that adding fresh water to the areas of THC sinking will reduce said sinking, writing:”
No I didn’t. I have always known that ice covered water doesn’t cool. This event is only occurred because of massive amounts of ice coming through the Fram Strait. they were calling it solid water in the study you offered up.
Not only did this event during the coolest part of recent history between the 1944 peak temperatures until the 1980 resumption of a warming (1966-1971), it occurred during an anomalously strong negative event that brings warming across Greenland and northern Europe essentially flushing huge amounts of ice out of the arctic melting in place.
This is a multi-decadal cyclical event and the summation of the modeling exercises did not agree on any affect to the THC. You must have read over those parts Swanson and not have had them sink in.
The problem that must be tackled is whether the millions of KM of new deep convection areas would be overridden by the fact such an event occurred in a small known deep convection area that was being studied regularly. That seems implausible, once the sunlight leaves these areas deep convection is universal. There isn’t much deep convection in ice covered areas. Its the uncovering of those areas that causes deep convection to occur.
You are taking facts and trying to stand them on their head as you guys don’t want to recognize any cycles of the sort plotted by Dr. Akasofu.
It appears to me that both the Pacific and Atlantic may be transitioning to a negative state, portending a possible ice recovery. Looking at ocean oscillations and extended warming periods that are only cyclical since 1850 one can detect a cycle in that. Dr. Akasofu wrote about it.
The warming from 1911 to 1944 has an identical slope of 1980 to 2013 when conveniently the surface record was discontinued and replaced with another one that included modeled weather data.
But with the modeled weather data the slope continued at the same rate now with polar temperatures included. So the three slopes are all essentially the same 1911-1944, 1980-2013, and 1990-2023.
Possibly the addition of the arctic brought in new data about feedbacks with ice that with the accelerated arctic temperatures continued warming into the equation. 11 years have passed without much loss of ice. Is this a transition of another ocean oscillation into the negative. It may well be.
Hunter Guy tosses out a bunch of disconnected stuff, as if it proves something. For example he conflates the effect of sea-ice over the Arctic’s slowing freezing of the water below the sea-ice with adding fresh water to the GIN Seas, both in the form of liquid and ice, which melts during the summer months.
Then, he switches to playing games with global temperatures, describing trends between different periods instead of the temperature record over the entire period. The record goes back to 1850, but he picks 1911 for one start point, for an unknown reason. Perhaps because that date was close to a large volcanic eruptions in 1911 and 1912.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taal_Volcano
https://www.usgs.gov/news/impact-1912-novaruptakatmai-eruption-pacific-northwest
He ends that time period with 1944 when 1940 may have been as warm or warmer. The result is careful cherry picking to present an empty claim, not science.
But he continues, changing topic to sea-ice:
One might think that the dramatic recent Arctic SI minimums represent something of a limit in available ice to melt, but who knows? Besides, the Chinese and Indians haven’t cut their burning of coal, continually releasing lots of SO2 into the air. Also, the dramatic increase in cross ocean shipping with vessels burning high sulfur fuel also contributed a cooling effect.
Swanson says:
”Perhaps because that date was close to a large volcanic eruptions in 1911 and 1912.”
————————–
Gee I thought you guys thought all volcanoes did was cool things.
So what would you do to assess a claim made that consistently called the warming we were experiencing as unprecedented? We know that before 1980 it had been cooling since 1944 from the surface temperature record.
So how would you validate the claim?
Hunter shows his ignorance again, claiming that:
Exactly. A sharp cooling for a few years after 1912 would increase the calculated trend from 1912 thru 1944.
Then, he concluded:
A proper analysis would include the entire record, not just trends calculated for cherry picked periods. It would also include the reasons for various excursions, such as the massive emissions of black carbon during to WWII when entire cities were burned to the ground. Efforts to control air pollution, particularly SO2 emissions, didn’t take off until the mid-1970’s.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter shows his ignorance again, claiming that:
Gee I thought you guys thought all volcanoes did was cool things.
Exactly. A sharp cooling for a few years after 1912 would increase the calculated trend from 1912 thru 1944.
—————————
I thought you were trying to claim the volcano caused more warming over the period than the other periods. My bad.
Of course its also the case that 1980 to 2013 includes the major climate disrupting explosion of El Chichon in Mexico in 1982 and the 1990 to present includes the Pinatubo eruption in 1991. All occurring at or near the start.
If you want to see that as a factor pick other climate length times within the window as these volcanoes only cause a couple years of cooling not really enough to have much affect on a 33 year long warming trend. Seems to me you are just lying to yourself, wildly imagining things. The question stands why with an order of magnitude change in emissions hasn’t the climate warmed a lot faster than it did back in the early 20th century?
Then, he concluded:
So how would you validate the claim?
A proper analysis would include the entire record, not just trends calculated for cherry picked periods. It would also include the reasons for various excursions, such as the massive emissions of black carbon during to WWII when entire cities were burned to the ground. Efforts to control air pollution, particularly SO2 emissions, didnt take off until the mid-1970s.
Also the WWII is grasping at straws. Ash and aerosols are blamed for cooling not warming.
Now you are flip flopping on your own side and getting into the reasons why the early 20th century warming should have been more than it was. Do you really want to go there?
Hunter, AIUI, black carbon absorbs sunlight, warming the atmosphere. And, just comparing trends for different periods does not present the overall warming. That’s a gig for those who don’t want to talk about the total, that is, those who’s intent is to spread disinformation.
Swanson if you want to be a scientist you can’t just flip flop. A minute ago you said the volcano in 1912 caused a warmer trend compared to 1980-2013 and 1990-2023.
The surface station evidence is available look at as well as lining up volcanoes with the beginnings of those trends.
1911 was the colder than in any year associated with volcanic cooling. some cool some don’t it depends upon the ejecta.
There is no sign of the 1912 eruption cooling anything. But there is for the 1982 and 1991 eruptions. If you are going to cherry pick facts to dispute comparisons of 33 year warming trends found in the climate record you should come up with some research to show that in fact there is a difference.
You did the same thing with your criticism of UAH arctic summer temperatures complaining that they were not cold enough because you didn’t do your research and figure out that the summer arctic temperatures have been colder, its arctic winter temperatures that have gotten considerably warmer which can probably be explained by the inversion layers over the arctic as a result of the great convection loops bringing warm airs to the upper levels of the troposphere in the arctic from the tropics and as a result of much more ice freezing during the arctic winter than occurs when the summer ice extent is much larger. You seem to let yourself get twisted around the axle a lot by not taking the time to figure out the entire program.
Hunter guy says:
I made no comparison with those other periods, that’s your game. I just noted that a short term cooling from volcanic activity at the beginning of the period would result in a stronger positive trend.
You assert:
The Katmai eruption was a high latitude event, whereas El Chichon, Pinatubo, Krakatoa and Tambora were near or in the tropics. The effects on the climate record would be different.
Over the Arctic Ocean, there’s typically an summer inversion because the sea-ice keeps the surface layers of the atmosphere near freezing. Your comment regarding Arctic Winter suggests that the avection of warmer air from mid latitudes to the Arctic has increased. But, you fail to make the connection between mid-latitude warming and your claimed increase in the strength of tropic to pole circulation. Wouldn’t that be the result of Global Warming? I submit that it’s you who is “not taking the time to figure out the entire program”.
E. Swanson says:
”I made no comparison with those other periods, thats your game. I just noted that a short term cooling from volcanic activity at the beginning of the period would result in a stronger positive trend.”
Well thank you for backtracking on your criticism of my comparison. Obviously criticism has no impact unless you offer up a contrast. remember what your 8th grade teacher told you to do in your reports? Compare and contrast?
E. Swanson says:
”Your comment regarding Arctic Winter suggests that the avection of warmer air from mid latitudes to the Arctic has increased.”
No I made no such claim at all Swanson. I very clearly said what changed, which was the ice cover which appears to repeat itself each ~80 years. Certainly the similarity to ice loss documented in the 1930’s and 40’s should not be ignored and clearly isn’t directly linked to CO2.
This does not imply advection from the mid latitudes being the cause, perhaps if there is some advection increase it could be an effect of the cause.
The cause is simply the stripping of ice insulation from the surface of the ocean allowing the warmer waters below the ice to now be exposed directly to the atmosphere resulting in cooler summers and warmer winters seen in the arctic temperature record. Living on the waters edge as I do I see this every year. Quite simply liquid water does not warm or cool as fast as does frozen water or soil.
So I realize that you believe the loss of ice is related to increased CO2. I see a climate oscillation that’s not influenced by CO2. However both could contribute as suggested by Dr. Syun Akasofu and Dr. Don Easterbrook. Neither one of us though has the science to properly quantify any of this.
Hunter guy now wants us to think that there’s no AGW, just some natural oscillations, with (maybe) an 80 year cycle. All that without any supporting data or analysis.
Well, Hunter guy would have a hard time finding such a cycle in the Hadley v5 data for the Arctic, especially after ~1980.
His latest rants are nothing more than his continued efforts to divert the discussion away from the problem of a possible THC shutdown. He can’t grasp that reducing summer sea-ice would result in warmer conditions, as the open water would absorb the sunlight which in previous years would have been reflected/scattered away.
E. Swanson Strawman, Inc. says:
”Hunter guy now wants us to think that theres no AGW, just some natural oscillations, with (maybe) an 80 year cycle. All that without any supporting data or analysis.”
Did I say anywhere that there is no AGW Swanson? I have consistently said we have some impact on the climate.
E. Swanson Strawman, Inc. says:
”Well, Hunter guy would have a hard time finding such a cycle in the Hadley v5 data for the Arctic, especially after ~1980.”
Really? Have you tried that? I haven’t. Its pretty hard with a record that is reliable for only 45 years long to find an 80 year cycle in it.
In terms of there being a weather cycle what I find interesting
is that 1) gravity and/or planet motion has been attributed as a cause of the ice ages;
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
2)That the family dog apparently ate Milankovitch’s work on this; hence what is known as the 100,000 year problem, and
3) that science says its not a smooth transition over 100,000 years but it is made up of many shorter term cycles of various lengths.
E. Swanson Strawman, Inc. says:
”His latest rants are nothing more than his continued efforts to divert the discussion away from the problem of a possible THC shutdown.”
thats total BS I have been discussing it with you. You are just pissed that I don’t buy the line you and some are selling.
E. Swanson Strawman, Inc. says:
”He cant grasp that reducing summer sea-ice would result in warmer conditions, as the open water would absorb the sunlight which in previous years would have been reflected/scattered away.”
if it absorbs more it emits more.
Hunter Guy continues to display his ignorance, as usual, writing:
There are data for surface temperatures going back centuries, though the efforts became more organized about 1880. There are numerous examples of researchers trying to find cycles in the climate record. Those who claim that “it’s the Sun” think the Sunspot cycle is one such, another example from decades ago involved Lunar cycles. The various data sets, especially the proxy ones, go back thousands of years. Milankovitch cycles are thought to be active over much longer periods, thus of no importance for 100 year time scales.
Hunter guy wrote:
No, most of my comments were efforts to correct your ignorance, such as:
“…what you need to do to support future warming you support is to answer the question of why 2/3rds of the ocean is 14 to 15c colder than its surroundings. ”
“virtually all the melt of the Arctic sea exits into the Atlantic and makes for a strong overturning current in the Atlantic”
“…oceans being separate pools separated by imaginary barriers. You guys just love imaginary barriers.”
“Fact is light water sitting on top of heavy water runs off the heavy water and mixes with light water or dives under the warmer water like a waterfall moving out of the arctic like pouring water onto the top of a concrete slab”
“…you are right we need to understand how these processes are operating to keep the ocean colder than their surrounds and we certainly dont have a handle on that”
“Fact is you dont get deep convection when you have lots of ice and when you get an accelerated melt its also going to suppress deep convection.”
Hunter guy, referring to the Arctic Ocean, finishes with:
Sure, if the water absorbs more SW than the sea-ice, it warms, so what? Just another empty assertion without any attempt to provide supporting information or relevance to the climate problem.
I am not going to play your childish game where you throw up strawmans about what I believe and don’t believe. I have said repetitively I believe mankind has had a role in climate change. I suspect at some scale every single living does. What matter is what the scale and its silly to claim somebody actually believes he has no effect on the world. . .unless of course he is ignorant enough to believe that. Here I will answer your question if you don’t continue to skip over mine.
Swanson says:
”Sure, if the water absorbs more SW than the sea-ice, it warms, so what? Just another empty assertion without any attempt to provide supporting information or relevance to the climate problem.”
So you want to tell me how much it has warmed? My answer is I don’t know. The sea surface was covered with ice and we didn’t have any thermometers there. Obviously if you strip away the insulation on the top of the ocean the ocean will warm. In fact this has happened naturally in the past. You aren’t making a unique point about CO2 which apparently you believe is what caused the ice to melt in the first place.
So why go down this silly avenue that tells us absolutely nothing about why the ice melted?
I think we are in agreement that objects take on the temperature of their surrounds. That’s fundamental. There is one other avenue I am aware of and that’s via objects not capable of absorbing LW but can and does absorb SW. I think its clear that CO2 didn’t warm the heated plate that heated the CO2 in the Seim and Olson study. Its even clear that objects that reflect heat may actually get hotter than its surrounds.
What I haven’t seen is an object that absorbs LW below the mean temperature of its surrounds get hotter.
Perhaps you have seen that proven. If so please give me a link to that. For my case I will submit the thermosphere as an example of an object getting hotter than its surrounds due to it being a better absorber of SW than LW. And I submit the S&O experiment as evidence that LW radiation doesn’t warm objects that have already warmed to a LW temperature than the longwave emissions.
I will note in the interest of full disclosure that CO2 does absorb in the 4 micron range which corresponds to a temperature higher than earth is currently but that seems much weaker than its ability to radiate at 15microns.
So if you want to discuss causation further, submit what evidence you have of CO2 warming stuff. I think CO2 can have influence on lower temperatures, like at the poles or on cold nighttime temperatures. But the evidence I submitted above seems to suggest its limited to that.
Hunter guy wrote anther off topic reply:
Hunter, I wrote nothing about what you believe (or don’t). I just quoted some of your comments which exhibited seriously flawed understanding of the science regarding the THC and AMOC.
He wrote:
.
We are discussing what happens as energy flows thru the Earth’s natural systems. Isothermal temperatures may occur within some part of the overall systems, but the net energy flows from hot to cold, because some locations are warmer than the cooler surroundings.
Hunter continues, switching topics again, writing:
Uh, WHICH S&O STUDY? Hunter is being sloppy, as usual. Perhaps he recalls the other big one from a couple of years ago when he wrote this:
That reads like Gordo’s mantra regarding the 2nd law. Very imprecise from a fellow engineer, if you are one (or, are you a Gordo puppet, as Willard suggests). Reading your posts is like trying to decipher one of the Trumpy guy’s rally rants.
Time to stop. Past my bed time.
Gill Guy posts a reply 7 days after my comment.
He clearly doesn’t understand the sea-ice process in the Arctic Ocean, where there’s little possibility for THC sinking. Seasonal melting of sea-ice, along with river runoff into the Arctic Ocean, results in too little salt. Some occurs on the Russian side, where salty waters branch off from the Norwegian Current and flow into the Arctic Ocean.
Then, he posts a graph, claiming that “Since 2007 there has been a deceleration of ice melt”, pointing to a graphic of minimum volume. But, LOOK AT THE MINIMUM EXTENT records, there’s considerable loss, therefore less melt is possible as thicker, multi-year is what’s left.
https://nsid*c.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/09/2023-09-19_asina_N_iqr_timeseries.png – Remove the “*”
Finally, with his weak understanding of the processes, he pontificates:
Lastly, he wanders off into speculation about “the sorts of climate cycles seen in the 160 year temperature record”. As usual, he provides no references and no data, just hype and hand waving.
Swanson I am not the scientist. I am the auditor. I am looking for evidence. Not relative terms like little, some, weak, etc. But solid numbers that demonstrate the arctic is freshening.
Its not hard to run around outside the ice where the THC gets its input (very little from under the ice). Ice retreat along shorelines, ice edges in the open sea you could have high school students taking salinity samples of surface water. So where is the database?
Gill Guy wrote:
I think we figured that out a long time ago. Then he wrote:
I gave you three references which I found with a web search. The first one describes the data collection for flows thru the Denmark Strait over decades of effort. You apparently didn’t read, or, more likely, didn’t understand, that paper. For example, the problem isn’t the freshening of the Arctic Ocean, but a much more complex involving the GIN seas and the Labrador and Ingmar Seas as well.
Understanding science is rather like putting together a large picture puzzle with lots of pieces, except that many of the pieces aren’t in the box. To get the most complete picture, one must not only read the recent papers, but one needs to also read the references and the references in the references, etc. That takes a long time and your demand for instant access to “data” isn’t available as a simple answer.
Swanson I didn’t need to read the whole thing. It talks about very few samples taken along a small front between Greenland and iceland.
Where is the latest data on salinity in the arctic? We know more ice is freezing the key variable is going to be surface salinity trends.
Gill Guy, Sorry to take so long to reply, but I’m away from home.
Of course, your reply ignores many decades of investigation and the facts regarding the THC and AMO. That small area is one of the two main locations supplying the deep waters of the Atlantic. Your objections are just another example of your continued refusal to accept reality.
CO2 – the ultimate green gas – overwhelmingly beneficial
https://youtu.be/BQHhDxRuTkI
Hmm. Is there anything better to put in the atmosphere?
wee willy…”Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting:”
***
I see wee willy is completely disrespecting posters by stalking them and revealing personal identity. Wee willy continues to be a scumbag.
“When bad people get annoyed by something, you know youre doing something right.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1590291
We are talking about far more than annoyed, you are breaching basic ethics when it comes to endangering people on the Net by stalking them and revealing their real identity. To show good faith, how about revealing your own identity?
Bordo has no ethics to speak of. Here’s a small sample of the silly claims he made over the recent weeks:
“Radiation is not heat”
“All feedbacks in nature are negative.”
“As far as I am concerned, if the derivative does not exist, there is no continuity.”
“A Russian proved that the Pythagorean theorem only applies to plane surfaces.”
“As far as I am concerned, if the derivative does not exist, there is no continuity.”
“After all this stuff about atomic clocks, has the length of the second changed?”
“clocks do NOT measure time, they generate time.”
“the only way a plane can fly backwards is in the human mind.”
“When I studied a bit of geology, we learned that the Earth is actually oblate, like a pumpkin. That shape apparently comes from the stress of the gravitational pull of the Sun the Moon
When UAH moved to the newer 30 year average, the anomalies all moved to show cooling.”
“who knows if the [pediodic] table is correct”
“there is no known genetic sequence for covid, or even HIV. ”
“Thats the basis of the GHE argument, that a real greenhouse warms when IR is trapped by glass.”
“UV explains why CO2 radiates and absorbs in the IR band”
“The Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation makes it clear that a gas cannot transfer more heat into a mixed gas than its mass percent.”
“I seriously doubt that any atom has the time to form a positive charge. ”
“It strikes me as being wrong that CO2 only emits at 15um.
Planck fudged the solution and he readily admits that.
Conduction/convection is 260 times more efficient at cooling a surface than radiation.”
“EM is never transferred between bodies of different temperatures
“Climate” suggests a global climate and we know there is no such thing.”
“A photon is a poorly defined quantum of electromagnetic energy. It has no mass, by definition, but oddly it is given a momentum.
the word thermopile, a reference to thermocouples in series, is not applicable to the semiconductors used in the IR detectors.
“The derivative of any straight line is zero”
“Stated literally, dq/dt means an instantaneous change in charge per unit time.”
“the ***CHANGE*** in a constant rate is zero, as depicted by dq/dt = 0.”
And that’s just a small sample of all the absurdist crap he served readers of this blog over the decade of his residency at Roy’s.
Had he any honor, he’d have taken his marbles and went home a long time ago.
this list only proves wee willy’s obsession with stalking. When his nose is out of joint, after being revealed as a stalker, he spends a great amount of time trying to dig up dirt on people.
Ironically, wee willy is far too stoopid to get it that the points I have made are based on real science. I took back one of them which Tim F took out of context. Rather than stating that the derivative of a horizontal line is zero I claimed incorrectly that the derivative of any straight line is zero, however the context of my post was a horizontal straight line representing a direct current. I inadvratantly used ‘straight’ in place of ‘horizontal’.
Even more ironic, if wee willy was asked to explain any one of those points he could not.
This list rather proves that Bordo has no business here.
And it’s far from being a complete one, e.g.:
Perhaps Bordo doesn’t care about his daily fabrications.
I do.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner has nothing much to say.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
tim f pounces on a slip of the tongue when the context was plain…
[GR]It should be plain to anyone with even a simple understanding of calculus, that direct current when graphed is a straight line function. The derivative of any straight line is zero because..ta da.nothing is changing. Duh!!!”
[Tim]”No. Just no!
The derivative of a straight line is a constant, known as the slope. Only a horizontal line has a derivative equal to zero!”
***
Tim, there are times hen you need to give someone the benefit of a doubt. I made it clear that I was talking about the graph of a direct-current, which is a horizontal line. I erred by generalizing it as a straight line rather than a horizontal line.
The point is, you are pouncing on irrelevant points rather than addressing the point I was making. I was talking about a direct current, or voltage, which is a horizontal line during steady state conditions. You just agreed that dq/dt is based upon such a horizontal and is zero. So, what’s your point?
“You just agreed that dq/dt is based upon such a horizontal and is zero.”
Still no.
The graph of CURRENT, i vs t, is horizontal; i has a constant value. di/dt is zero. So for example, if the voltage was 1.5 V and the resistance was 10 ohms, the current would be 0.15 A = 0.15 C/s everywhere on the graph. The slope of that graph is di/dt = 0 A/s
For this graph, ‘di/dt (NOT dq/dt) is based upon such a horizontal and is zero’.
**************************
The graph of CHARGE, q vs t, slopes upward. Every second, the graph increases by 0.15 C. The slope of this graph is dq/dt and is 0.15 C/s = 0.15 A = the current. dq/dt is NOT zero.
For this graph, ‘dq/dt is based upon such a diagonal (NOT horizontal) and is NOT zero’.
*************************
The point is, you STILL don’t seem to grasp the difference between dq/dt and di/dt.
tim…”The graph of CURRENT, i vs t, is horizontal; i has a constant value. di/dt is zero”.
***
Since i = instantaneous current value = a constant value, and i (lower case) is defined as the number of charges passing ***a POINT*** in the circuit in that instant, then the amount of charge passing that point in the same instant is a constant.
You seem to think the number of charges per second must add second by second. The definition of the amp as a coulomb/second is a reference to a constant number of charges/second passing a point and not a cumulative number of charges/second.
The only way the rate of charge per unit time passing a point can change is if the number of charges passing that point changes. If that happens, the current either rises or decreases.
As I tried to explain, in a normal direct current circuit, that can only happen if the circuit contains inductive or capacitive elements. When a D*C circuit is first turned on, and it has inductive or capacitive elements, the number of charges per unit time will vary during start up and shutdown.
Consider a series D*C circuit with an inductor in series with a resistor. When power is applied, normally through a series switch, current beginning to run through the inductor is resisted by a counter EMF produced by the magnetic field. That action limits the current hence the number of charges per second passing a point in the circuit.
The CEMF is not self-sustaining and over a brief period of time, it relents and allows the inductor to act as a very low resistance conductor. The response of the inductor, via its reactance (inductive impedance), is exponential, therefore the initial current is low and gradually increases exponentially to the value set by the series resistor.
During that period, the number of charges/second passing a point in the circuit increases exponentially and dq/dt applies. When the CEMF no longer applies, the condition is named steady-state, and the current levels off as a steady current. At that time, the number of charges passing a point per unit time is a constant as well and dq/dt is zero.
Remember, the ‘d’ in dq/dt means an instantaneous change in charge per unit time. In order for dq/dt to be non-zero, q must be increasing or decreasing. If it is constant, as in a constant direct current, dq/dt = 0.
—–
“The graph of CHARGE, q vs t, slopes upward”.
***
We are not interested in the cumulative number of charges over a time period unless we are interested in measuring power consumption. Current is not related to power consumption by definition, only to the number of charges passing a point in a circuit is a second. If that quantity is a constant, as in 1 amp, then no change in the number of charges occurs, and dq/dt = 0.
Remember, a coulomb is defined as 6.24 x 10^18 charges, which basically references 6.24 x 10^18 electrons. If that many charges passes a point in a circuit per second, by definition, that is 1 amp. Unless the number of charges rises or decreases the charge count is constant, therefore dq/dt = 0. That does not mean the current has stopped, only that it is neither increasing or decreasing.
—-
“The point is, you STILL dont seem to grasp the difference between dq/dt and di/dt”.
***
That’s because there is no difference. The i in di/dt is simply another way of stating dq/dt. Rather than dealing with 6.24 x 10^18 charges per second we are dealing with 1 unit/second. Officialdom doesn’t even like talking about 6.24 x 10^18 charges and named it a coulomb. When a coulomb of charge passes a point is a circuit in 1 second we call it 1 amp.
“If that quantity is a constant, as in 1 amp, then no change in the number of charges occurs, and dq/dt = 0.”
i = dq/dt. That is the definition of current.
If the current is constant at i = 1 A = 1 C/s, then dq/dt is ALSO constant at 1 C/s = 1 A.
You simply can’t have i equal to one value and dq/dt equal to another value. Just like you can’t have (the x component of) velocity equal to one value, but dx/dt equal to another value.
“i = dq/dt. That is the definition of current”.
***
Not really, as in not exactly. We have to be careful. Don’t forget that, i, is dependent on the instantaneous driving voltage, e. No one really cares about the number of charges flowing in real life, it is mainly a tool used in the early stages of learning.
1 amp of current is defined as 1 coulomb of charge passing a point in a circuit in 1 second. That is an integral quantity and not a differential. When you state it as a differential, you are talking about the change in charge amount, not the rate in the circuit.
It’s not worth messing with the charge amount in a circuit. At least, I have never seen that done. I have learned in electronics that one must wear two hats. One hat is meant for understanding theory and the other to applying it practically. In practice, we learn to associate current with a driving voltage and not to focus on theory like charge quantity.
However, when you introduced dq/dt, I had to scratch my head for a minute or two while visualizing what it meant. It means essentially that a charge quantity is changing and when it stops changing, dq/dt = 0. With a steady current, there is no change in charge therefore the change is zero.
‘i’ is normally defined as the instantaneous current at a point in a circuit related to an instantaneous voltage, e. Furthermore, instantaneous currents and voltages are normally related to situations where voltages and currents are changing quickly with time like in a generator or a capacitor charge.
As a generator, or alternator, turns, the instantaneous voltage it generates, e, determines the instantaneous current, i, delivered to a load. Because the armature is turning, there is a sine and cosine component involved that determines the amplitude and phase of e and i.
Charge is normally only used early in theory or in capacitive (C) devices where charges actually collect. Charge is not normally related to resistive and inductive components. Rather, an inductive component is normally related to its magnetic field (L).
“Not really, as in not exactly. ”
Yes, exactly. You can google it too, but here are a few quick results
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/circuits-topic/circuits-resistance/a/ee-voltage-and-current
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current
https://physics.info/electric-current/
Every place you look for a definition, you will find some form of i = dq/dt.
“1 amp of current is defined as 1 coulomb of charge passing a point in a circuit in 1 second. ”
Apparently you also define current as the amount of charge (Delta(q)) passing a point relative to the time (Delta(t)) for that charge to pass. In this case with Delta(q) = 1 C and Delta(t) = 1 s, the current is
I = Delta(Q) / Delta(t) = 1C / 1s = 1 A
“However, when you introduced dq/dt, I had to scratch my head for a minute or two … ”
This is the definition introduced in the first week of circuits in engineering physics classes. It should not be confusing to any engineer.
“It means essentially that a charge quantity is changing and when it stops changing, dq/dt = 0. With a steady current, there is no change in charge therefore the change is zero.”
Maybe thinking about a capacitor will help. If you start to *charge* a capacitor, the ‘charge quantity is changing’ on the plates and dq/dt is not zero. A current is flowing.
As the plates get charged, the rate of charging slows. When the capacitor is charged (ie ‘it stops charging’), then the charge on the plates stops changing, dq/dt = 0 C/s, AND NO CURRENT FLOWS in the circuit.
Quick flip
Mainstream starting to notice
https://youtu.be/wSszxWXeaDo
https://youtu.be/R801Tvwt9hE
Gordon: “To show good faith, how about revealing your own identity?”
https://twitter.com/theresphysics?lang=en
And so Monkey Man falls for Pat Frank’s fraud.
Is that your buddy instead?
Is this your Mormon past that makes you act like that, Monkey Man?
What are you talking about? How about communicating like a normal person for once lol.
No, Monkey Man. This is about owning what you do on the Climateball field. Your disingenuousness is unbecoming. It does not mix well with your overall incompetence.
Perhaps you could explain your fellow cranks how you would “sum” climate?
I don’t know what you’re smoking but it must be powerful.
Normal Communicator Lulzes Again
walter…I have been on the Net a while and have engaged with many different sorts. If you wait long enough on any one group, ijits like wee willy will show up.
Wee willy is not as extreme as most but AFAIC, when he starts publishing the real identity of posters he has obviously stalked to retrieve the information, I regard that as crossing the line.
I have questioned from his first appearance why he is here in Roy’s group. He obviously has little or no background in science yet from the start he has opposed anything Roy writes in his articles, making it obvious he is not here to discuss anything but to act as a representative of the alarmist crowd by trohling.
Roy has banned that word and I am not using it in defiance. I just don’t think Roy is aware of the true meaning of a trohl and how dangerous they can be to his blog and to his message. Many people use the word incorrectly, like Clint, who calls anyone a trohl who disagrees with him. A real Internet trohl is someone who shows up in a blog with the specific motivation of disrupting the blog.
That’s wee willy. He has nothing to offer but disruption. His current target, Dremt, has been very helpful with his input. For whatever reason, wee willy started stalking him and managed to dig up his real name. The fact that wee willy sees no harm in that reveals his lack of conscience and marks him as the most dangerous type of trohl.
I made it clear a while back that the only reason I reply to his comments is not for him but for third party viewers who should know the facts.
Bordo,
Binny said that your username was a pseudo.
Is this true?
Don’t worry, I know you won’t respond. Just like you didn’t respond when I offered a short sample of all the crap you recently spouted:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1618983
In fact, I’m not even talking to you. I’m actually making a point for Monkey Man.
Good morning, BTW.
Walter was quoting me in the opening statement in this thread. Whatever, made you think I was responding to you?
Monkey Man mentioned a fraud Pat Frank ended up with when we last met at Tony’s:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2024/01/16/how-to-cavil-like-cranks/#comment-221910
Bordo forgot to confirm Binny’s theory if his nickname was a pseudo. It’s very important to clarify that I’m referring to the pseudonym. That he himself is a pseudo has been established over the years.
For real, though, you should be mindful of your online behavior. Insults, name-calling, etc., are fair game and nobody cares, but online stalking is weird. You may think it’s a joke, but the person on the receiving end may not see it that way and may think of it instead as cyberstalking or online harassment. You could get yourself into serious legal trouble.
Trouble is, Little Willy is anonymous, so there’s nothing I can do. I would do something if I could, because I do indeed consider his behaviour to be harassment. He crossed a line some time ago when he used his position as a moderator at ATTP to determine roughly where I live from my IP address. Then he published that information on here. That’s not acceptable, but I know that whatever I say, he’ll just throw some crap back in my face about PSTs or whatever. Apparently I deserve to be stalked and doxed because I ask people to PST, and according to him I’m a "sky dragon crank". Therefore I have no rights.
that pretty much sums it up dremt. what should somebody call what willard advocates for and its form of government.
a fascist organized technocracy? or a communist organized technocracy? i guess which all depends upon if willard supports ownership of beneficial private property by those considered beneficial to the technocrats. perhaps he will tell us.
Monkey Man,
You’re right. My stalker is still at it –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1620678
Should I be worried?
Little Willy never answers questions, Bill.
I don’t see the point you’re trying to make with DREMT’s comment, Willard.
I agree with you, Monkey Man. You are willing to play dumb every time things don’t go your way. Perhaps this could help you out:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1597538
Now, suppose that the narrator’s perspective in that story was you. Suppose also that the narrator kept stalking you and other members of Team Science.
Would you be worried about weird snuff fantasies targeting you?
Little Willy’s so vain, he probably thinks this song is about him…
Monkey Man,
Since you now have shared your concerns about the T-word, you may appreciate this backstory:
http://tinyurl.com/roy-speaks-to-graham-d-warner
Around the time of this exchange, the T-word was added to the blacklist of the verboten words on the website.
What do you think we should do about a stalker and an usurper who keeps using the T-word even after it has been banned?
In fact, our stalker-usurper takes pride in using the T-word, but that’s another story.
Thank you for your consideration.
Little Willy, nobody on this blog is going to be convinced that I’m the stalker. You’re like a child. As soon as people start to see through you, you immediately lash out by accusing the person you stalk as being the stalker! That’s so transparent. You never defend yourself. You just shift the focus and start the attack on your victim.
I notice that Graham D. Warner keeps replying to me, Monkey Man.
Has he said anything of importance?
Let’s hope it’s not the T-word.
Oh, I just thought about something he might say. He might minimize the fact that the song is not about Team Science members. That would be gaslighting:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1597641
Graham’s mental health looks shaky to me.
I remember when DREMT wrote that song; I clicked on the link to the Youtube video. If I recall correctly, you were the one that linked it. Would you have found it if you weren’t lurking on his Youtube channel? I didn’t see anything to indicate that you were the target of that video. It could have been something else. But even considering if it were, you were the one that stalked him and leaked his real identity here. He’s not the one with the unmasked identity; he doesn’t know who you really are.
And to answer your question, I definitely agree we shouldn’t use the T-word if Roy is really bothered by it. It’s his blog. I would like to know what the circumstances are behind that ban? Because when I first started reading the comments here a couple of years ago, I remember seeing “please stop t…” all the time and never saw them get in trouble.
There are some scary people on here. You’re one of them. That doesn’t mean the song is about you, or them. It’s just a song about online bullying and stalking getting out of hand. If you choose to identify yourself with it, that’s on you.
And, of course I keep replying to you. You’re talking about me! You act like I’m supposed to just sit here quietly whilst you write comment after comment about me, personally.
PST is not stalking Willard.
You are the only known stalker on this board. People should never visit your website unless they enjoy being stalked.
Here are the guidelines regarding what cyberstalking entails and recommendations of how to deal with it.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-cyberstalking-5181466
Using your website to gain information on a visitor and releasing that information is within the definition of cyberstalking.
When I say that even if he wrote the song about you, I’m not defending it saying it’s not wrong, but it would be because he’s lashing out at you or some type of vengeance.
Dear Monkey Man,
I’m not sure what you’re saying here –
“Im not defending it saying its not wrong”
Would you please be so kind as to remove the double negative?
Thanks!
*Im not defending it by saying its not wrong*
Here’s the double negative, Monkey Man:
Im not defending it by saying its not wrong*
Here’s a better version:
I think he’s just adding fuel to the fire by writing that song; maybe his intention is revenge or whatever. But you are the stalker here and he is not; there is no doubt about it.
I’m not gonna lie; it’s a little bit scary seeing how lightheartedly you’re taking a conversation in which you have been accused of online harassment.
Monkey Man,
This kind of comment is unacceptable:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1619066
That you can make such underhanded insinuations without any evidence whatsoever will always be worrying. Not because I feel threatened. Because it reveals who you trust (i.e. Pat) and because it shows you’re just being an opportunistic asshat.
Look at you. You pretend to be all serious business and have some kind of moral upstanding. But you obviously don’t.
You think that’s not enough? I could recall how you tried to “rally the troops” with Puffman. Or I could recall how the time you tried to team up with people to bully Binny. Imagine how it feels for a French who lives in Germany to be associated with Hitler. This is more serious stuff than you just tried to minimize.
But the best was your recent concerns about my tone. Where have they gone now?
I actually happen to have friends who are Mormons. I have a fairly good idea about what you’re trying to do works.
Perhaps you’re taking Climateball too srsly.
Just a thought.
Ta.
> I have a fairly good idea about what youre trying to do works.
Replace “about” with “how” or remove “about” and “works.”
As to the silly accusation:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1240543
It still takes four clicks to realize that Graham D. Warner is victim bullying.
Okay, you’re right, and I apologize. This is not my battle, and I have overstepped the line. I don’t know everything, and it is unfair to speculate. This is between you and DREMT; I won’t comment on your affairs anymore.
All of that stuff is false. Calling people monkeys is not bullying.
And I’m not Mormon btw.
Completely separate from using my YouTube account to follow links about me to try to ascertain my real name, and email address, and publishing both on here, is the accusation that when I commented at ATTP, you used my IP address to establish roughly where I lived, then published that on here. Both are stalking and doxing, to some extent, but the second one was particularly creepy, and I found it quite disconcerting. It was harassment.
Monkey Man,
Thank you.
As a token of appreciation, here is what I mean by rallying the troops:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1603504
Bordo, Puffman, and Graham D. Warner are not worth your reputation.
Let Sky Dragon cranks be.
"Let Sky Dragon cranks be"
If only Little Willy would take his own advice.
Monkey Man,
Oh, and I forgot to add that if you still want to help out Sky Dragon cranks, you can always help Graham D. Warner on his View Factor homework:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1621483
We both know he won’t lift one finger for his own education.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1621484
Willard, I still think you should take what DREMT is saying seriously. You don’t seem to be denying what he’s saying, and that’s really what was behind all that I said earlier. But I won’t comment, like I said.
Monkey Man,
Thank you for your concerns. They go beyond the limits of justified disingenuousness. While that was to be expected, going through the motion provides a trace.
Perhaps you do not know when Graham D. Warner appeared here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277855
I hope you agree that not using Eli’s nom de plume while piggybacking on his real name is very creepy.
Were you really concerned about any of this, you’d have thought of at least four ways to patch what he misrepresents as security breach. And that would have been before your breakfast.
Thanks again,
It’s like he thinks the fact that he has links to what he believes are my comments from years ago just "to hand" is not evidence of an obsessive, stalking nature in and of itself…
Willard obviously believes his ”official” victim card and the victim cards of others on his side of the debate entitles him to engage in online harassment.
Gill obviously relishes when Graham D. Warner entertains murderous thoughts:
It allows him to witness a pulsion that he prefers to sublimate like Sade would:
A nice duo we got there.
Monkey Man should make sure to hang with them to learn the ropes.
Well hate is well deserved Willard when you are stalking and doxing people. But I don’t see any such quote here.
Its pretty difficult to see what you think is mean about my comment considering the context is was given in. You appear to be a rather angry guy actually trying to harm people.
The quote is from a song, Bill. A song! Little Willy takes the words of a song as if they are meant to be read as a quote directly from me to him! The words of the song are actually just meant to be read as being from person A to person B. Person A and person B could be anybody. That’s the point of the song. The song is just about online bullying and stalking getting out of hand. That could happen to anybody!
I should have figured. Willard is such a sleaze bag he will twist things out of context. Unfortunately we are seeing an awful lot of that in politics these days. It has no place on a science board but you see one helluva lot of it here.
And Gill rubberstamps his daddy’s lyrics!
LMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
He’s just full of irrational hatred for who he perceives to be “sky dragon cranks”.
Graham D. Warner has replied something.
We can be sure it was to explain how he introduced the lyrics the first time, and how they reminded him of people here.
Not that he would admit they are related to anyone here in any way
I said that the level of hatred expressed in the lyrics is reminiscent of what I notice from some of the people here, sure. That doesn’t mean that the lyrics were written about the people here.
Obviously, what you experience in real life will influence the music. However, you can’t pretend that the quote you took is written directly from me to you. That was just more of your manipulation, as Bill correctly noted.
Graham D. Warner must be gaslighting again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Let’s introduce to the very POWERFUL the Solar Irradiated planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon ( N*cp )^1/16.
When comparing the various different planets and moons (without-atmosphere, or with a very thin atmosphere, Earth included), when comparing their mean surface temperatures (Tmean), the temperatures
RELATE, (everything else equals), as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.
( N*cp )^1/16
or
[ (N*cp)^1/4 ]^1/4
Where:
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin.
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
Tmean.1 /Tmean.2 =
= [ (N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2) ]^1/16
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It is said that Earth once had much faster rotational speed.
I am not certain Earth would warmer or cooler if it’s day was 48 hours or 12 hours.
Or because Earth has ocean, it seems it makes it more uncertain.
For example in tropics, days start without clouds and as one get past noon, clouds to develop, a faster rotation seems it have less clouds develop, but perhaps not.
It seems maybe twice rotation could solar panels work better. Or 12 hour day would have 3 hours of peak solar hours, and only 9 hours without solar power. One would have only 1/2 energy storage problem.
Thank you, gbaikie, for your response.
“I am not certain Earth would warmer or cooler if its day was 48 hours or 12 hours.”
–
The answer is:
the temperatures
RELATE, (everything else equals), as their (N*cp) products SIXTEENTH ROOT.
Tmean.1 /Tmean.2 =
= [ (N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2) ]^1/16
Where:
N rotations/day, is the planets axial spin.
cp cal/gr*oC, is the planets average surface specific heat.
–
Earth rotates N =1rot/day it is N1
Earth Tmean = 288K it is Tmean.1
–
Now if its day was 12 hoours, N2 =2 rot/day
Everything else equals, in both cases Earth is covered with ocean, so cp1 = cp2
Let’s calculate for Tmean.2:
Tmean.1 /Tmean.2 = ( N1 /N2 )^1/16
288K /Tmean.2 = ( 1/2 )^1/16 = 0,9576
Tmean.2 = 288K/0,9576 = 300,75K
If Earth’s day was 12 hours, Earth’s average surface temperature would have been 300,75K
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
27.6 C
?
That’s pretty warm.
Maybe some Greenhouse global climates have been that warm, most of time in non icehouse or greenhouse global climate it been around 20 C.
Our ocean average is about 3.5 C, it seems ocean would have to be 15 C or warmer.
People argue about whether our ocean has been more than 20 C.
ball3…”EMR can transfer thermodynamic internal energy cold to hot. Proven by experiment as far back as 1899 during the development of Plancks Law”.
***
Planck had no idea what EM is in reality. He conjured the idea of light being represented as tiny oscillators, one per frequency unit. Therefore his entire model was imaginary and based solely on math, itself based on an imaginary model.
Planck was a scientist who believed heat moved through space as heat rays. After Bohr hypothesized the more likely scenario, that EM is a product of electrons transitioning to a lower energy level, which meant the utilization of the newly discovered particle, the electron, Planck conceded that had he known about electrons it would have made his work infinitely easier.
Planck made no mention of EM transfer from cold to hot. He did not even know the relationship between EM and heat.
——–
“Gordon manufactures energy out of nothing! Both KE + EMR spring into existence? No Gordon, in a solid, the atoms are translating while vibrating in place (KE of motion) and their translation is not quantized”.
***
This claim is so absurd it is hardly worth the response. However, I respond to it only for third party readers who want to understand the error contained.
B4 claims “atoms are translating”. He seems to be confusing the meaning of translation as any movement in any direction, with transitions of electrons as defined by Bohr between atomic energy levels.
Bohr claimed that as an electron, elevated to a higher energy level, descends (transitions) to a lower level, it emits energy as EM. That energy, EM, has an electric and a magnetic field and a frequency that corresponds to the angular frequency of the electron in its orbit.
So, where could the electric and magnetic field of the created EM come from? The electron has a negative charge that creates an electric field, and when it moves, it creates a magnetic field. B4 thinks the EM energy magically appeared out of nothing. It even has a frequency closely related to the electron’s angular frequency, yet B4 thinks it appeared magically.
B4 claims KE and EMR both spring into existence. Why should KE suddenly spring into existence if it was already there in the electron in the higher energy orbital? The electron has mass and velocity and KE = 1/2 mv^2. Bohr claimed it must shed some of that KE when transitioning to a lower energy orbital.
Here’s the problem. KE is not energy per se, it is a descriptor for any energy that is in motion. Therefore, some of the energy of the electron in its higher energy orbital is emitted during the transition as an electromagnetic energy.
KE does not have to be conserved as one form of energy. If the electron energy in motion is converted to another form of energy that has no mass, EM, there is a loss of electron energy during the downward transition as it is converted to EM. That translates to a loss of KE in the electron which shows up as a lower orbital velocity.
—-
“Funny, but it is Gordon that still does not understand basic quantum theory and continues to cling to the anachronism that heat is transferred only in one direction by heat rays between bodies of different temperature”.
***
No anachronism here. Heat can only be transferred by its own means from hot to cold. The anachronism is that heat is transferred by heat rays. I have explained the basics to B4, that no heat is ever transferred as heat by EM. The idea that heat is transferred as heat is the anachronism dating back to an era when it was believed that heat could flow through space as heat rays.
The illusion that heat can be transferred by EM is based on a misunderstanding of quantum theory. When EM is emitted by electrons, heat related to the reduction in KE, is dissipated then and there. There is no heat to transfer since it has been converted to another form of energy, EM, that has no mass and has a frequency, neither of which can describe heat.
B4 is disputing the 2nd law which states that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means, from cold to hot.
———–
“There is no heat there in the near vacuum. Clausius heat is just a measure of the total KE of motion in a glass of ice water sitting on your kitchen counter”.
***
There is no heat in a vacuum because heat requires mass to exist.
Clausius defined heat as the KE of atoms, however, as B4 incorrectly reports, Clausius did not define heat as a “measure” of the total KE, he defined it as the energy associated with atoms in motion.
Why else would he write a plethora of articles about the relationship between heat and work. Clausius contributed the U = internal energy parameter in the 1st law and he defined internal energy as internal heat plus the internal work performed by vibrating atoms in a solid.
Gordon is wrong just writing stuff in Gordon’s own words.
Gordon should use Planck’s published words from Planck’s treatise on the subject.
Gordon wrongly claims: “Planck was a scientist who believed heat moved through space as heat rays.”
Planck’s words in his treatise on the subject: “..physical phenomena of … light rays. Every light ray …”
Gordon’s attempted point falls apart.
—–
Gordon wrongly claims: “Planck made no mention of EM transfer from cold to hot”
Planck: “body A at 100C emits toward a body B at 0C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B at 1000C.”
The rest of Gordon’s writing on the subject falls apart accordingly.
—–
“(Ball4) is disputing the 2nd law which states that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means, from cold to hot.”
That is not the 2nd law Gordon, Clausius actual written words on the second law for any process (9th memoir, p. 365): “2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.”
Gordon, EMR is NOT heat as I have told you time and again.
EMR transfers thermodynamic internal energy cold to hot as required by the 2LOT to increase universe entropy (“tend to a maximum”) in that isolated process by making integral dQ/T positive.
Gordon’s misleading writing falls apart again.
—–
Gordon claims: “Clausius did not define heat as a “measure” of the total KE”
Clausius 1st memoir, p.18 within a body “a motion of the particles does exist, and that heat is the measure of their KE.”
Gordon is again proven wrong.
—–
All of Gordon’s inaccurate writing has thus fallen apart simply by going to the library to find out what our predecessors themselves wrote in their work, which is NOT what Gordon writes.
Read & quote the original papers, Gordon.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
In the history of science, the history of heat traces its origins to the first hominids to make fire and to speculate on its operation and meaning to modern day particle physicists who study the sub-atomic nature of heat. In short, the phenomenon of heat and definition of what it is evolved from mythological theories of fire, to heat, to terra pinguis, phlogiston, to fire air, to caloric, to the theory of heat, to the mechanical equivalent of heat, to thermo-dynamics (sometimes called energetics) to thermodynamics. The history of heat, then, is a precursor for developments and theories in the history of thermodynamics
https://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/History_of_heat.html
Another source for Willard’s “history of heat” is: Truesdell, Clifford 1980: “The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics 1822-1854”, Springer. This book is great fun to read. Truesdell doesn’t mince words.
I will note the application around here of Truesdell’s assertion that “Every physicist knows exactly what the first and second laws [of thermodynamics] mean, but it is my experience that no two physicists agree about them.” To forestall critics, integral dQ/T wrt time being positive in any isolated process is only one of the many forms of the second law of thermodynamics.
I like this comparison to an opera:
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/891118/pdf
test
No, Bordo. Don’t even try.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps failing to learn this thread’s object lesson.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I am doing some quick math. 1979 to 2023 is 4.4 decades and per your warming rate that is +0.63 C. Mauna Loa shows CO2 go from ~325 ppm to 422 ppm today which is an increase of 30% or 0.3 of a “doubling” of concentration.
Assuming all the measured warming was due to the increase in CO2 and extrapolating, at 650 ppm we could expect a temperature change of +2.1 C. So, an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.1 C / doubling of CO2
Am I in the ballpark?
jesse…you have to look closely at the UAH record. It does show a mathematical warming trend of about 0.14C/decade but look where the data begins. It’s all below the baseline till late 1997. Therefore the warming you have calculated is relative, not absolute.
If warming is recorded from a negative anomaly to a positive anomaly it means the portion under the baseline must be considered a relative cooling wrt the baseline. Before you claim 0.6C overall, you must subtract the cooling portion. The ‘true’ warming over the 45 years is then closer to 0.1C to 0.2C.
Of course, that does not tell you the absolute warming over that period, just warming relative to the baseline.
To Swannie and others who use the word ‘trohl’ (sp) as a missive of hatred, the reason Roy banned the word was due to people like Swannie using it inappropriately to attack other posters.
Swannie leveled that accusation at Bill Hunter, a poster who has done nothing to disrupt the operation of this blog. In fact, Bill has added to the blog immensely with his measured views. The word trohl (sp) means in Internet lingo, a person who intentionally tries to subvert the operation of a blog, mainly for no other reason than to be subversive.
Swannie has a penchant for taking shots at other posters but he usually tries to qualify it by at least attempting to be scientific. It’s obvious this shot at Bill H is done out of spite and no doubt because Bill has raised his hackles by exposing an untruth in Swannie’s posts.
I have warned about his before, Roy has the ultimate say in how this blog is run. He has given us plenty of leeway and he can shut the blog down, or at least, cut off commentary. I ask fellow skeptics, who does that benefit the most? Only one group, the alarmists. They would like to see nothing better than Roy’s blog being shut down.
> to people like Swannie
For instance:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1614382
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1610891
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1614384
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1614387
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1614388
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1610962
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1610964
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1610922
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1614398
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1614400
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1614401
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1614404
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1614407
About time Bordo starts to negotiate!
> to people like Swannie
For instance:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1614382
Or:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1610891
See also:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1614384
And also:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1614387
And finally, for now:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1614388
About time Bordo starts to negotiate!
It’s about time wee willy gained the maturity to understand what I am saying. Of course, wee willy, being a true trohl, is here for only one reason, to disrupt the blog. If Roy decided to terminate comments, wee willy’s goal would be accomplished.
BTW.. I do not use the term wee willy in affectionate terms I mean it in the true Latin…modicus dickus. That is who he comes across as being in this blog.
I agree with what you write, Gordon. It would be a shame if this blog’s comments ended up shutting down. We really are lucky given all of the leeway we have here.
It’s about time people realize that Bordo just used the T-word.
With every T-word added to the comment section, a non-null chance of having the comment section being shut down.
Should we wait until Roy does something before asking Bordo to stop using the T-word?
I nominate Monkey Man to keep Bordo in check.
Please, Monkey Man, tell Bordo to stop using the T-word!
Our future together is at skate.
Did I say “skate”?
It’s true that the Vancouver Canucks are doing well this year.
Thank you.
And Northeastern just won both the M&W Beanpot over BU. Thank you.
Little Willy, Ball4, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps butting in where he does not belong.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ball4…”I will note the application around here of Truesdells assertion that Every physicist knows exactly what the first and second laws [of thermodynamics] mean, but it is my experience that no two physicists agree about them. To forestall critics, integral dQ/T wrt time being positive in any isolated process is only one of the many forms of the second law of thermodynamics”.
***
B4 keeps spouting off about heat and the 2nd law but he has never supplied scientific proof to back his allegations. Now he is cherry picking quotes from on of his authority figures.
Clausius wrote ‘THE’ version of the 2nd law. The other version was put forward by an ijit, Thompson, who envied the intellect and insight of Clausius and tried in various ways to undermine him.
Clausius laid out his reasoning behind the 2nd law in detail, both subjectively and mathematically. He explained clearly why heat can only be transferred, by its own means, from hot to cold. This was not a philosophical reasoning, he used heat engine theory to follow the pressure, temperature and volume of a process in minute detail.
However, the point missed by B4 and others is that the 2nd law is not based on entropy (dQ/T). It’s the other way around, entropy is based on the 2nd law. Clausius had already stated the 2nd law in words in different forms over the years between 1850 and 1867, and one of them was this…”Heat can never, by its own means, be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object”.
That is the 2nd law and the reference to entropy, S = integral dQ/T, came later. People unfamiliar with this history, like B4 and many modern day scientists, are confused about that fact and insist on presenting the 2nd law in terms of entropy, a murky concept at best. While Clausius was developing the 2nd law based on heat engine theory, he did not reference dQ/T in terms of entropy because he had not yet developed that theory.
The theory, as applied to radiation, becomes murky because all scientists in the era of Clausius believed that heat flowed through air as heat rays. Of course, no one could describe these heat rays for the simply reason they did not exist. Therefore, the description given by Clausius, of heat flowing both ways between bodies of different temperature via radiation is clearly wrong. Somehow, Clausius was aware of that dichotomy and insisted that heat transfer via radiation had to obey the 2nd law.
It was not till 1913, about 60 years after Clausius did his work on heat, that Bohr discovered the true relationship between heat and electromagnetic radiation. In the interim, the electron was discovered, a key component in Bohr’s theory that Clausius knew nothing about. For that reason, comments made by Clausius that heat could be transferred simultaneously via radiation must be ignored.
That should cast no doubt on the brilliant work done by Clausius on the 1st law, the 2nd law, and entropy. None of them are affected since Clausius was careful to stipulate that heat transfer by radiation must obey the 2nd law.
It turned out that no heat is transferred between bodies of different temperature as heat. Heat, as thermal energy, does not leave the hotter body and move through space to a cooler body. Rather, heat is converted to a different form of energy, EM, and in that conversion the heat is lost at the hotter body. If that EM encounters a cooler body, it can be absorbed and converted back to a “new” heat.
That process cannot be reversed from a cooler body to a hotter body. Bohr explained why. The frequency of EM emitted by a body is dependent on the energy level electrons in the atoms of that body reside before they transition down ward in energy levels. When they do transition, they can emit EM at only one discrete frequency.
The rlationship given by Bohr is E = hf. E is the orbital energy lvel and can be written as E2 – E1, where E2 is the higher energy level. Therefore, the frequency, f, is dependent the orbital energy level difference over which an electron transitions.
It’s plainly obvious that electrons in the atoms of a cooler body will emit EM at a lower frequency than the electrons in a hotter body, since E2 – E1 will always be lower in a relative sense. Electrons in the hotter body, require EM quanta of a discrete frequency that matches their orbital angular frequency. That required frequency cannot be reached by emissions from a cooler body. Therefore, no energy can be transferred from the cooler body to the warmer body.
This explanation by Bohr’s theory meets the requirement of the 2nd law, any other theory does not.
Gordon is back 1:22 pm after being thoroughly discredited earlier now falsely writing: “(Clausius) explained clearly why heat can only be transferred, by its own means, from hot to cold.”
Gordon yet again confuses heat and EMR. EMR is NOT Clausius’ heat.
Clausius explained clearly EMR can be transferred cold to hot because it makes integral dQ/T wrt time positive so complies with Clausius 2LOT statement: “2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.”
—-
Yes Gordon, Clausius had already stated the 2nd law in words in different forms over the years between 1850 and 1867, BUT then Gordon proceeds to not use any Clausius quote at all!
Clausius did not write this in his collection of memoirs: “Heat can never, by its own means, be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object”, Gordon wrote that and falsely attributes it to Clausius.
Clausius words verbatim 4th memoir, p.117: “.. we find that in one and the same process heat may be carried from a colder to a warmer body … without any other permanent change occurring.”
The rest of Gordon’s diatribe writing completely falls apart again. Gordon is unfamiliar with this historical writing because Gordon simply doesn’t do his homework.
Go to your local library, Gordon, it is what it is there for. Read & quote the original papers.
ball4…”Clausius did not write this in his collection of memoirs: Heat can never, by its own means, be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object, Gordon wrote that and falsely attributes it to Clausius”.
***
Actually, while researching yesterday I came across this footnote in his paper about heat and the steam engine…
Clausius 1864 …steam engine
p. 139 of 401 (bottom of page) refers to subjective definition of 2nd law
footnote…”Heat cannot by itself pass from a colder to a warmer body”.
That is a slightly altered version of what I stated that “Heat can never, by its own means, be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body”. The difference is between “by itself” and “by its own means”.
In both cases he took time to explain the meaning of “by itself” and you can see that explanation in the footnote, which is lengthy. In essence, he ended up claiming that a ‘compensation’ was required in order that heat can be transferred cold to hot.
We have seen the extent of that compensation in modern air conditioners: a gas that can be easily compressed, a compressor to compress the gas, power to drive the compressor, etc. In essence, an air conditioner does not transfer heat from a colder room gas to a warmer environment gas, it first compresses the gas to a high pressure liquid and the heat is extracted from that high pressure liquid.
Gordon’s gas compression example is made up by Gordon, not Clausius. Gordon doesn’t include Clausius adding explanation for “compensation” in Clausius’ two way heat transfer, 4th memoir p. 118:
“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.”
which adds to Clausius’ previous statement I already quoted:
“.. we find that in one and the same process heat may be carried from a colder to a warmer body … without any other permanent change occurring.”
which renders Gordon’s gas compression example pointless & irrelevant.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
ball4 claims I was ‘thoroughly’ discredited when he used cherry-picked comments from Clausius to form the basis of his claim. B4 claimed…”Clausius 1st memoir, p.18 within a body a motion of the particles does exist, and that heat is the measure of their KE.”
***
I was troubled by the use attributed to Clausius of heat being a measure since I had read a different account. I decided to look at the original version in German and discovered an outright fraud committed by the translator. At no time did Clausius ever refer to heat as a measure of anything. Rather he referred to a ***QUANTITY*** of heat as the measure of KE.
Here’s the German translation (1879), from Google, of the same reference supplied by B4…
“First law of mechanical heat theory
or
Theorem of the equivalence of heat and work.
. 1. Starting point of the theory.
In earlier times the view was almost universal that heat was a special substance which was present in bodies in greater or lesser quantities and thereby determined their higher or lower temperature, and which was also emitted by the bodies, and then fly [sic] through the empty space and also those spaces that contain ponderable mass with tremendous speed, and thus form the radiant heat, the view has recently emerged that heat is a movement.
***The heat in the bodies, which determines their temperature, is viewed as a movement of the ponderable atoms, in which the ether in the body can also participate, and the radiant heat is viewed as an oscillating movement of the ether***”.
I added the asterisks to emphasize his point.
Here, Clausius makes it clear that heat determines temperature and is viewed as atoms in motion. In the statement, the confusion over the so-called aether becomes apparent. The presence of such an aether was required in order for heat to ‘fly’ through that aether as heat rays, a theory subsequently found to be in error.
A translator has committed fraud by changing the words of Clausius to represent a view which is not that of Clausius. The translator has mislead the reader by imposing the nonsense that heat is a measure of KE rather than a form of energy. Unfortunately, the fraudulent version is now making the rounds.
—
Later in the same section, Clausius comments…
“First law.
In our development we want to start from the assumption that heat consists in a movement of the smallest bodies and ether particles, and that the quantity of heat is the measure of the living force of this movement. We do not want to make any special assumptions about the type of movement, but rather just apply the theorem of the equivalence of living force and work, which applies to every type of movement, to heat and the resulting theorem as the first law of the mechanical theory of heat put down”.
There you have it, straight from Clausius, that heat is the motion of small particles (atoms) and that ***THE QUANTITY OF HEAT*** is the measure of KE (the living force).
I knew I had read that before from Clausius but it appears a fraudulent translator has translated his words not only incorrectly, but with a motivation of deceit. I am sure there are better translations out there than B4’s version because I have read them.
Actually, there is a literal translation of Clausius, 1879, in which the translator translates Clausius correctly from German. So, why is there a fraudulent translation circulating?. That version was translated by Walter R. Browne M.A. of Trinity College, Cambridge University, 1979.
The translator indicates in the Preface that he had been in touch with Clausius to seek his views on amendments the translator had approved.
When time permits, I plan to look up the fraudulent translator.
Electrons in the emitting body, require EM quanta of a discrete frequency that matches their orbital angular frequency.
Since matter emits EM energy as the EM quanta of a discrete frequency that matches their orbital angular frequency, and since matter consists from a number of elements… how scientists expect a planet surface to emit IR EM energy of a continuous spectra?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos….I don’t think the surface can emit a continuous IR spectrum. Rather, it would be a collection of individual frequencies from different elements in the surface at different temperatures.
I think there is something wrong with the entire alarmist theory.
I see. Thank you.
— how scientists expect a planet surface to emit IR EM energy of a continuous spectra?–
–Christos.I dont think the surface can emit a continuous IR spectrum.–
Have to start somewhere.
I would start with question why does Earth absorb so much sunlight.
And why is Earth so cold.
Does Earth absorb a lot sunlight?
If human wanted to absorb the most amount sunlight energy, how would they do it.
A solar panel can absorb about 20% of the energy of sunlight and convert it into electrical power. And solar thermal panel can absorb about 60% of the sunlight and get warmed water.
If harvested solar energy into electrical power, and used electrical power to heat water, it is inefficient, compared to just heating water with sunlight. But if wanted boil water for tea, the electrical energy can make some tea.
But if wanted warmed water, and solar pond is more efficient, the water is hot below the surface, or surface gets to about 30 C, and meter below water it’s 80 C.
And ocean in terms of warming the world, ocean is better than solar pond or simply it’s a solar pond which doesn’t give humans 80 C water to use. But give Earth vast heat engine which warms the rest of Earth. Humans get rain, and can grow crops.
So almost all sunlight is absorbed by our oceans.
And it’s probably somewhere around 240 watt per square meter on average.
gb…”How does Erth absorb a lot of sunlight”?
***
Everything on Earth has electrons at a lower temperature than the Sun. That means all substances are capable of absorbing EM from the Sun and converting it to heat. That includes atmospheric gases.
ABOVE atmosphere the sunlight is about 1360 watts per square meter,
and at location on Earth where sun is at zenith and clear skies, about 1120 watt per square meter passes thru atmosphere and reaches the surface. Or 240 watts doesn’t reach the surface. And some is absorbed.
Wiki, sunlight:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg
Water vapor and O3 mostly
Though a lot of it is scattered and reflected, though more is scattered/reflected if sunlight isn’t at zenith.
[It could noted that solar sails reflect sunlight, and this imparts velocity to the solar sail.]
Thank you, gbaikie.
Thank you, gbaikie, for your response.
“So almost all sunlight is absorbed by our oceans.
And its probably somewhere around 240 watt per square meter on average.”
The portion of sunlight which is absorbed, is mostly absorbed by our oceans.
It is not somewhere around 240 watt per square meter on average. There is not 240 on average, because the specular reflection is being omitted.
When we consider the very strong specular reflection, the not reflected portion will be somewhere around 111 watt per square meter on average.
But, it doesn’t happen that way either. The 444 W/m^2 do not get averaged over the entire Earth’s surface, because a large portion of it is IR emitted at the very instant of the solar light’s incidence.
Thank you again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“how scientists expect a planet surface to emit IR EM energy of a continuous spectra?”
You could always try getting some textbooks and reading about the topic. Your main error is thinking only of individual atoms.
An individual carbon atom would have a specific emission spectrum.
An individual hydrogen atom would have a specific emission spectrum.
A molecule of CH4 has a completely different spectrum than either of these.
A molecule of C2H6 has yet another spectrum.
You can’t simply extrapolate from individual atoms to get the behavior of larger molecules or extended solids. Read up on ‘band structure’ maybe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_band_structure
Thank you, Tim, for your response.
Let me ask,
Does spectrum depends on the electrons’ emission frequencies, or there are some other EM energy emitters?
Sun consists from H2 and He2 atoms. What about sun’s continuous spectra then?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“What about suns continuous spectra then?”
If you don’t already know, then a blog like this is not the place to learn all the details about spectra and EM radiation. Take a course or read some textbooks on the topic.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps being a poor sport.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
We shall forbear entering at present on the nature of the motion which may be supposed to exist within a body, and shall assume generally that a motion of the particles does exist, and that heat is the measure of their vis viva. Or yet more generally, we shall merely lay down one maxim which is founded on the above assumption :
In all cases where work is produced by heat, a quantity of heat proportional to the work done is consumed ; and inversely, by the expenditure of a like quantity of work, the same amount of heat may be produced
https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/2559_Therm_Stat_Mech/docs/Clauius%20The_Mechanical_Theory_of_Heat%201867.pdf
ball4 and Clint have referred to a statement by Clausius as proof that entropy is about disorder in the universe rather than about heat. They refer to the following statements by Clausius…
1. The energy of the universe is constant.
2. The entropy of the universe strives
toward a maximum.
However, they omit the entire statement he made…
“In the meantime, I shall limit myself to mentioning one result: Imagine the same quantity that, relative to one body, I have called its entropy, consequently, with due regard to all circumstances, applied to the entire universe, and also that other, simpler concept, energy, applied at the same time: then the fundamental laws of the universe that correspond to the two laws of mechanical heat theory can be pronounced in the following form:
1. The energy of the universe is constant.
2. The entropy of the universe strives
toward a maximum”.
***
This has nothing to do with a measure of disorder, rather it is Clausius generalizing on his theories as they apply as a whole to the universe. Disorder is a product of an irreversible reaction which usually involves the release of heat. There is no way to measure it as disorder.
Entropy is still about heat but as a measure of heat released during an irreversible process. Once that heat is released, it cannot be used to do work.
That’s one value of entropy as applied by Gibbs in his free energy equation…G = H – T.S
Obviously this equation is about heat since the value H is a reference to the total heat in the system, enthalpy. The value T.S means temperature x entropy which is another measure of heat, entropy, being derived from S = integral dQ/T.
Put together, the Gibbs equation tells use the total heat in a system equals the total heat minus the heat lost in a process.
Ergo, entropy is about heat, not disorder.
No reference by me, Gordon, since previously I’ve posted some examples that show increased entropy does not equal increased disorder. Some authors do achieve that correlation by simply defining disorder in a particular way which defeats their premise.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MIMINUM UPDATE
Before proceeding further, let us collect together, for the sake of reference, the magnitudes which have been discussed in the course of this Memoir, and which have either been introduced into science by the mechanical theory of heat, or have obtained thereby a different meaning. They are six in number, and possess in common the property of being denned by the present condition of the body, without the necessity of our knowing the mode in which the body came into this condition : (1) the thermal content, (2) the ergonal content, (3) the sum of the two foregoing, that is to say the thermal and ergonal content, or the energy, (4) the transformation-value of the thermal content, (5) the disgregation, which is to be considered as the transfor mation-value of the existing arrangement of particles, (6) the sum of the last two, that is to say, the transformational content, or the entropy.
https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/2559_Therm_Stat_Mech/docs/Clauius%20The_Mechanical_Theory_of_Heat%201867.pdf
SpaceX set to launch Intuitive Machines IM-1 mission from Florida
written by John Sharp February 13, 2024
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/02/im1-launch/
“A SpaceX Falcon 9 is set to launch a lunar lander for Intuitive Machines (IM) of Houston, Texas. The mission, IM-1, will see the launch of the first of the IM Nova-C class landers from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Teams are currently targeting Feb. 14 at 12:57 AM ET (05:57 UTC) for launch. If IM-1 successfully lands on the Moon, IM will become the first commercial organization, and the first American spacecraft in over 50 years, to successfully land on the surface of the Moon.”
[I would say it’s first attempt to land on lunar polar region.]
“Following liftoff, Falcon 9 will steer onto an easterly trajectory out over the Atlantic Ocean. Two minutes and 17 seconds after launch, the booster will separate from the second stage, reorient itself, and return to land at LZ-1. The fairings will separate three minutes and six seconds into the flight and splash down in the Atlantic Ocean, where they will be collected by a SpaceX support vessel.
Falcon 9s second stage will burn for five and a half minutes to take the spacecraft into a 185 x 60,000 kilometer Earth orbit. Following about 35 minutes of coasting, the second stage will then perform a further short burn to propel Odysseus into a Trans-Lunar Orbit (TLO) a trajectory that will send the lander to intercept the Moons orbit. Deployment of the spacecraft will occur 48 minutes and 24 seconds after launch when the second stage will use spring force to gently push the lander away.”
MALAPERT MOUNTAIN: GATEWAY TO THE MOON
https://www.academia.edu/31949842/Malapert_mountain_Gateway_to_the_moon
“Based on analyses of Clementine and Earth-based radar imaging of the Moon, the authors conclude that the summit of Malapert Mountain near the South Pole has the best combination of factors for a sunlight-dependent lunar base.”
Malapert (crater)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malapert_(crater)
“The southwestern part of the rim forms part of a 5-km-high rise in the surface that has been unofficially designated Malapert Mountain. This ridge appears wider along a line running roughly eastwest, although details of the back side are hidden by shadows. The peak of this ridge lies almost exactly along 0 longitude, and it has the unusual attribute of lying within sight of both the Earth and the crater Shackleton at the south pole.
Mission concepts and plans
Due to the location of Malapert Mountain, it has been proposed as the site of a transmitter for an expedition to the south lunar pole.The back side of this ridge also lies within the radio shadow for transmissions from the Earth, and it has been suggested as a site for a radio telescope because the radio noise from our planet would be blocked.”
Going to try tomorrow.
Starship:
-On X, Musk told Ye that the next Starship launch may only be weeks away after the rapper asked “ELON WHERE MY ROCKET SHIP.” He also tagged Nicki Minaj as he referenced her song “Starships.”
Starship were meant to fly and our next one launches in about 3 weeks, but I recommend waiting for a few more test flights before hopping on board, Musk said. —
It seems the launch pad infrastructure, is the delaying factor.
Musk wants fast turn around, and compared any other large rocket, it’s fast, but no anywhere near fast enough for Musk.
Pointing to the obvious, if it was smaller rocket, the launch pad would less of problem. Or Falcon-9 takes a lot less time.
And New Glenn is smaller rocket- of course, it’s yet to launch yet.
For Starship, the short term fix, is to make another launch tower.
Anyways, I am still hopeful about New Glenn, and I think NASA keeping SLS {despite it’s costs} is the kind of redundancy NASA should keep.
Long term, Starship needs to launch from the ocean, but first, got see if Starship can get crew to the Moon.
Apparently it launched:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvdgoX-3WOM
I haven’t watched it yet. Need coffee.
Apparently it launched:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvdgoX-3WOM
I haven’t watched it yet. Need coffee.
It went.
https://youtu.be/YqhnizHzklo
Just one more person that is benefiting from the hoax.
“Follow the money”.
The fact that you listen to her propaganda is proof that your brain is malfunctioning.
It’s not nice to make broad, overgeneralizing statements about those with opposing beliefs.
[ALSO MONKEY MAN] it’s bizarre how much they’ve brainwashed my generation.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps threatening Roy’s comment section.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
walter…”I agree with what you write, Gordon. It would be a shame if this blogs comments ended up shutting down. We really are lucky given all of the leeway we have here”.
***
I am trying to empathize with Roy and often wonder how he sees this constant squabbling, that goes far beyond petty grievances and into the realm of stalking and hate-filled venom. I am not excusing myself since I have engaged in taking shots, however, I have tried to compensate by offering scientific arguments to back my immature usage of petty ad homs and insults.
I think humour and wit are both good in a blog like this but we also have as a topic, an emotionally-charged subject that goes beyond a simple scientific discussion. It is so emotionally-charged that twits passing themselves off as scientists regularly take shots at Roy and his colleague John Christy. They have taken steps to block the publication of papers by both, even on IPCC reviews.
It even goes to the political level. I watched John Christy testifying at a senate hearing in the US that was attended by Hillary Clinton. She was extremely rude to John, a scientist of the highest integrity who pays his own way to those hearings to remove any question of a conflict of interest. When she was not insulting him, she sat there with arms crossed glaring at him.
That did it for me with Clinton. I have branded her an ijit since. When she lost to Trump in 2016, I hooted loudly.
Even Trump was not immune to the climate hysteria. His admin hired Ken’s authority figure, Will Happer, to advise them on climate policy but the backroom boys over-ruled Happer and Trump, claiming Happer’s ideas would not go over well with the voters. As long as Republican lack the courage to call a spade a spade, they will be relegated to second choice. Goes to show who actually runs the US.
I don’t think Dr. Spencer reads past the first few posts at the top of the article, but I agree. When I first started reading these comments a couple of years ago, I was a bit taken aback by the animosity and nastiness directed towards one another. No doubt, politics have destroyed rational climate discussion.
Regarding this blog, I think what it is, is intellectual validation. People participate in discussions not only to share ideas but also to establish an image. That desire will influence how they present their arguments and responses. That means that people will try to outshine each other, which will create a more confrontational atmosphere. No doubt, when people participate in discussing topics they feel strongly about, they tend to invest part of their identity into their contributions. As such, I think they’ll perceive a contradiction or challenge to their idea as an attack, which triggers a defensive response. People fear appearing nonsensical, and when someone brings to light the contradiction in their arguments, they’ll try to resolve it by steadfastly defending their position or dismissing the contradictor.
That’s all just human psychology.
agreed. Humans have developed a mental security blanket, called an image, which they hide behind when dealing with others. If the image is assaulted or compromised the response is usually emotional.
I think you are correct. May I recommend a book that most people find informative and fascinating that helps address this issue? It is, The Righteous Mind; Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, by Jonathan Haidt. He is a left leaning, atheist social psychologist.
Haidt does a good job of explaining that while we think we are using conscious logic and reason to arrive at our individual political or theological positions, most of the time we are using our conscious logic and reason to merely support our subconscious emotional mental processes. He points out how strongly our emotional side rules how we think. It is very human and common to view information as credible only if it supports our subconscious emotions and to view information as not credible, or filter it out altogether, if it conflicts with our subconscious emotions. These deep-rooted emotions start at a very young age and constantly change throughout our lives.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
[BORDO, 3:28 PM] I am trying to empathize with Roy and often wonder how he sees this constant squabbling, that goes far beyond petty grievances and into the realm of stalking and hate-filled venom. I am not excusing myself since I have engaged in taking shots, however, I have tried to compensate by offering scientific arguments to back my immature usage of petty ad homs and insults.
[BORDO, 3:29 PM] The fact that you listen to her propaganda is proof that your brain is malfunctioning.
Gordon was replying to an unfair, overgeneralizing post.
Monkey Man,
The fact that you listen to Bordo is proof that your brain is malfunctioning.
No, Willard. What he responded to was an unfair, overgeneralizing post. Is it not overgeneralizing and unfair?
Your comment is worse, Monkey Man. It is a smarmy argument by an assertion that ignores the point I am making.
Thus it warrants me to say that the fact that you listen to Bordo is proof that your brain is malfunctioning.
walter…I have learned through dealings with wee willy that it is a waste of time trying to communicate intelligently with him. The best way is to reply to a third party who might be reading and who wonders what wee willy is trying to accomplish, which is disruption of the blog.
He lacks the intelligence and maturity to engage in a meaningful dialog and he does not care if Roy shuts the blog down over his incessant trohling. In his midget mentality, he would regard that as a victory.
[MONKEY MAN] Its not nice to make broad, overgeneralizing statements about those with opposing beliefs.
[BORDO] He lacks the intelligence and maturity to engage in a meaningful dialog and he does not care if Roy shuts the blog down over his incessant trohling.
Wait – is that…the T WORD??????????????????
C’mon, Bordo!
He holds some kind of animosity towards skeptics.
MEI.v2 updated
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/mei_lifecycle_current.png
Sunspot AR3576 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXxkxCBPqCk
Grr, I meant this:
F16 Impact On Ukraine: COL (Ret) Fischer Weighs In
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXxkxCBPqCk
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.15177.pdf
The very first sentence of the Abstract: “Although the scientific principles of anthropogenic climate change are well-established…”
And they claim the “principle” is the bogus CO2 forcing equation (Equation 1).
Whenever someone claims to be an “environmental scientist”, you know he has no grasp of physics.
Typical propaganda from an astronomer. I presume he is blethering about CO2 but his notion of a quantum resonance is nothing more than an astronomer blabbering about things he does not understand.
Quantum resonance makes no sense in the context he is trying to apply it. The word quantum simply means discrete and Planck offered it as an explanation for EM being formed by a spectrum of discrete frequencies he likened to oscillators. Using the oscillator model is the only way to approach EM using differential equations.
Of course, what the author means by quantum is the way Bohr applied it to discrete energy levels for electrons in atoms. Still, how can there be a discrete resonance other than with EM frequencies that resonate with the angular frequency of the electron in its orbit.
The only reference I can see to quantum resonance in CO2 is in the interaction of IR frequencies with the bonding electrons joining the carbon and oxygen atoms. In other words, those electrons will only accept discrete IR frequencies by resonating with them.
That requires a Homer Simpson, “Doh!!!”, since there is nothing special in that interaction that has not been known for at least a century. There is not a shred of proof that such an interaction can cause catastrophic warming. In fact, it is already known that CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere can warm it no more than about 0.06%.
Of course, this paper will be accepted by alarmists, who will drool over it, not because it’s true but because it bolsters their pseudo-science.
Thanks.
Looks like the first author is from Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and the third from University of Reading’s Department of Meteorology.
Do you think Bordo has a theory to account for these inconvenient facts?
“Do you think Bordo has a theory to account for these inconvenient facts?”
I don’t think about him at all… e^(iπ) + 1
Little Willy, Arkady, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps stalking.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Today in [Engineering] history.
On Feb 15, 1946 – ENIAC (Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer), the first electronic general-purpose computer, was formally dedicated at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
Before ENIAC’s time, “computers” referred to the people who worked on complex math equations.
ENIAC cost almost $500,000 to build (equivalent to about $13 million in 2024) and weighed more than 30 tons. It was roughly 8′ tall x 3′ wide x 100′ long and took up a total of 1,800 square feet.
When running it consumed 150 kW of power.
It contained 17,468 vacuum tubes, 7,200 crystal diodes, 1,500 relays, 70,000 resistors, and 10,000 capacitors. There were around 5 million hand-soldered joins.
Last but not least, the ENIAC could do around 385 FLOPS; today’s HPE Cray EX235a can do 1.2 x 10^18 FLOPS.
Related: https://ibb.co/2kW3ZJc
Elon Musk Interviews RFK Jr.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFpk0HAIVYA
Could be interesting.
RFK Jr. looked promising but he’s a Kennedy. He was recently criticized by a few Kennedy’s who think some of his policies are contrary to their established belief system.
They did not see any problem with JFK and RFK Sr. messing around with Marylin Monroe while offering the illusion that both were happily married. Or Ted Kennedy messing around on his wife with Mary Jo Kopechne, getting her killed in an automobile he was driving, then leaving the scene of the accident to cover his butt. But RFK Jr.’s views on vaccines and health care are viewed as diabolical.
I am more than 1/2 way thru it.
In addition to RFK Jr, there is Tulsi Gabbard and Michael Shellenburger {and some others}.
“Measurements of the sun showed that the radiation sent out from its surface and reaching the ground on Earth is usually consistent with the spectrum of a black body with a temperature in the range of 5,5006,000 K (5,2305,730 C), except that there was no radiation below a wavelength of about 310 nm at the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. “
“It was deduced that the missing radiation was being absorbed by something in the atmosphere. “
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
“The ozone layer or ozone shield is a region of Earth’s stratosphere that absorbs most of the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation. It contains a high concentration of ozone (O3) in relation to other parts of the atmosphere, although still small in relation to other gases in the stratosphere. The ozone layer contains less than 10 parts per million of ozone, while the average ozone concentration in Earth’s atmosphere as a whole is about 0.3 parts per million. The ozone layer is mainly found in the lower portion of the stratosphere, from approximately 15 to 35 kilometers (9 to 22 mi) above Earth, although its thickness varies seasonally and geographically.[1]
The ozone layer was discovered in 1913 by French physicists Charles Fabry and Henri Buisson. Measurements of the sun showed that the radiation sent out from its surface and reaching the ground on Earth is usually consistent with the spectrum of a black body with a temperature in the range of 5,5006,000 K (5,2305,730 C), except that there was no radiation below a wavelength of about 310 nm at the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. It was deduced that the missing radiation was being absorbed by something in the atmosphere. Eventually the spectrum of the missing radiation was matched to only one known chemical, ozone.[2] Its properties were explored in detail by the British meteorologist G. M. B. Dobson, who developed a simple spectrophotometer (the Dobsonmeter) that could be used to measure stratospheric ozone from the ground. Between 1928 and 1958, Dobson established a worldwide network of ozone monitoring stations, which continue to operate to this day. The “Dobson unit”, a convenient measure of the amount of ozone overhead, is named in his honor.
The ozone layer absorbs 97 to 99 percent of the Sun’s medium-frequency ultraviolet light (from about 200 nm to 315 nm wavelength), which otherwise would potentially damage exposed life forms near the surface.”
I think you need to include O1, O2, O3, and O4 in the sunlight reactive territory. Apparently from the little research I did, this very short wave length radiation is responsible for reducing the oxygen molecule down to a single atom. Oxygen is very reactive and could be responsible for the GHE. The thermosphere houses mostly O1 from 500k to thousands of K depending upon shading by the earth and solar activity. So the chart at the bottom of this page.
https://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php
Shows large amounts of sunlight being absorbed by the atmosphere to the extent that only about 5% of the suns emitted UV reaches the surface. But the article also says in the text:
”You have already learned that Earth’s atmosphere is composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen. These gases are transparent to incoming solar radiation.”
Amazing stuff coming out of a government funded project involving 3 universities that span the nation California to Florida.
testing…
[quote]”The ozone layer absorbs 97 to 99 percent of the Suns medium-frequency ultraviolet light (from about 200 nm to 315 nm wavelength)…”
Seems doubtful.
Same argument as the one that CO2, at 0.04% concentration, can absorb a significant amount of surface radiation.
It actually only absorbs about 7% and 0.04% is similar to the concentration of oxygen in the stratosphere.
“…sun showed that the radiation sent out from its surface and reaching the ground on Earth is usually consistent with the spectrum of a black body”
–
“sun … is usually consistent with the spectrum of a black body”
But it is not, sun is a real celestial body, sun is not a black body theoretical emitter, what happens is that ozone does not absorb, because ozone cannot absorb what sun has not emitted.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It was deduced that the missing radiation was being absorbed by something in the atmosphere.
There is not any missing radiation! There is nothing absorbed!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ark…from video…”It turns out Im not the only German who is interested in whats wrong with Americans. A group of Germans recently set out to study the matter. The results are just in and theyre quite surprising”.
***
That’s rich. The Teutonic German mind, that has started two world wars in a century is questioning what is wrong with American’s. She can’t even understand that no nation called America exists. All she has to do is look it up on a world map but I fear she lacks the intelligence to do so.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Increasing diplomatic tension between the European great powers reached a breaking point on 28 June 1914, when a Bosnian Serb named Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. Austria-Hungary held Serbia responsible, and declared war on 28 July. Russia came to Serbia’s defence, and by 4 August, Germany, France, and Britain were drawn into the war, with the Ottoman Empire joining in November of that same year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
Jings, crivvens, help ma boab!
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The IsraelEgypt border region composed of longitudinal sand dunes is a very unique arid environmental ecosystem in the world: the Israeli side with much more vegetation cover has notably higher land surface temperature (LST) during daytime than the Egyptian side where bare sand prevails. In order to understand this thermal anomaly and its scientific significance in the arid environmental ecosystem development, a series of intensive research activities have been conducted in the past several years, including remote sensing analysis and meteorological modeling. In the paper, we present part of the series studies on the issue: the ground temperature measurement and emissivity determination. The region is mainly composed of four basic surface patterns: biogenic crust, bare sand, vegetation and playa (physical crust). Our hypothesis to occurrence of the thermal anomaly is that it is the direct result of the different surface composition structures and ground emissivities on both sides. Results from our ground temperature measurements during 19971998 validate the hypothesis of a significant LST difference existing among the main surface patterns of the region. Biogenic crust covering 72% on the Israeli side and only about 12% on the Egyptian side has an average kinetic surface temperature of above 3C higher than bare sand. Emissivity of the two most important surface patterns also presents a significant difference. Biogenic crust has an average emissivity ranging from 0.9671 at low temperature to 0.9725 at high temperature. Bare sand occupying above 80% of the surface on the Egyptian side and only about 7% on the Israeli side has an average emissivity between 0.9435 and 0.9543. On the basis of the ground temperature measurements, we use the estimated surface cover percentage to factor the emissivity for a simple simulation of average LST on both sides, which results in an outcome that strongly support the explanation of the thermal anomaly in the border region. Since biogenic crust that covers most surface of the region plays important functions in arid ecosystem development and is common in several deserts such as north Africa and central Australia, our documentation of its surface temperature change and determination of its emissivity, which have not been seen in the literature, will provide valuable scientific basis for other studies on arid environmental ecosystems.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140196304000898
Arid areas getting hotter would be expected say from increased solar activity or moving closer to the sun in gravitational variation due to the alignment of the planets. After all arid areas have far lighter ghe’s lacking humidity which is expected to be 2/3rds of the warming.
Perhaps somebody should do an analyis of that in total rather than serially and passing off the missing Milankovich data and the 100,000 year problem that our astronomers are completely ignoring.
Gill goes on a tangent once again, once again to ask for a silly sammich.
Oh no Willard I wasn’t asking for a free sammich for myself.
I was just noting that the astronomer community doesn’t really give a shit about being serious about this whole topic.
Oh noes, Gill is asking for sammiches in general!
lol
No Willard its only socialists who expect others to do something for them. If I want something I either do it myself or find somebody begging to do it for me. Why would I want somebody who was ambivalent about doing a good job do anything for me?
Gill takes his red baiting rants so seriously he believes they will divide the Red Sea. LOL!
“If I want something I either do it myself or find somebody begging to do it for me.”
OMG
“I have asking for years a link to few of those alleged blueprints.”
As I have noted several times,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1612185
he has repeatedly been given ‘blueprints’, had them explained, yet doesnt DO THE WORK to read and understand them, can’t understand them in any case, keeps demanding new ones, while falsely accusing me of not giving him what he keeps demanding!
What a POS.
and Nate continues to cover up is ignorance of the blueprint by claiming it exists and that he gave it to everybody.
What a liar!
Willard says:
Gill takes his red baiting rants so seriously he believes they will divide the Red Sea. LOL!
——————–
Hmmmmm,
I guess Willard agrees with me and is expressing how determined he is to force people to give him what he wants.
Looks like Gill finally concedes that he was just joking around and was in fact in agreement with Team Science all along.
Success!
Thank you, Willard for the interesting and important article.
“the Israeli side with much more vegetation cover has notably higher land surface temperature (LST) during daytime than the Egyptian side where bare sand prevails.”
Is the (LST) land surface the average day-time temperature?
Christos,
LST is just an internal abreviation that burdens the readers’ working memory. The paper is not that important in the grand scheme of things. However, it has enough citations to be worth mentioning.
If you look at the first citation, you should see an image as to why natural sand can sometimes have a very high emissivity:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140196320301592
None of that reinforces your hypothesis, I’m afraid.
“None of that reinforces your hypothesis, Im afraid.”
–
Thank you again, Willard!
“In the end, there is only one team Team Science.”
Willard,
Of course, your irrelevant link does not contain what you claim it does.
“You should see an image which . . . “?
Pull the other one – it plays Jingle Bells!
Dummy.
Mike Flynn,
Earth is the only planet in the Solar System with plate tectonics. Basically, the outer crust of the Earth is broken up into regions known as tectonic plates. These are floating on top of the magma interior of the Earth and can move against one another. When two plates collide, one plate will subduct (go underneath another), and where they pull apart, they will allow fresh crust to form.
What are you braying about?
Willard,
Of course, your irrelevant link does not contain what you claim it does.
“You should see an image which . . . “?
Pull the other one it plays Jingle Bells!
Dummy.
By the way, have you upgraded your description of the GHE from “not cooling, slower cooling”?
If you haven’t, you’d be a loser as well as a dummy, wouldn’t you say?
Mike Flynn,
The emissivity of a surface depends on its chemical composition and geometrical structure. Quantitatively, it is the ratio of the thermal radiation from a surface to the radiation from an ideal black surface at the same temperature as given by the StefanBoltzmann law. The ratio varies from 0 to 1.
What are you braying about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Looks like Graham D. Warner is stalking once again.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Willard,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1622850
You’re digging up my past comments? That comment is from April 2023 and has been buried deep in WUWT’s website since then.
Monkey Man,
Are you indirectly disowning what you said?
Oh, and why do you almost never respond to bdgwx here – is it because you prefer watching the Gorman bros or Mr. Nice taking pot shots at him at Tony’s?
Back then, I was a more uninformed, casual commentator who just enjoyed conversing with others.
I’m going to answer bdgwx’s questions. I know he’s asked me like 3 or 4 lately; I’ll get around to all of them. The conversation about GUM 4.4 will delve heavily into mathematics. He’ll probably ask me to mathematically state the uncertainty associated with each variable that goes into the measurements and, therefore, the averages. Since you ask, I’ll answer them very soon, within a matter of days.
> Im going to answer bdgwxs questions.
I’m glad you will, Monkey Man.
That might help you revise your stance regarding Pat’s crap and other statistical misconceptions by other regulars at Tony’s.
And no I don’t disown what I said. I still think that way.
When I first started researching the issue many years ago, I was taken aback by the claimed level of seriousness of the situation. In light of that, I was searching for another point of view, perhaps one that took a more rational, less alarmist approach. I found nothing. In search of more skeptical viewpoints, all I found were sources that talked of climate denial and how dangerous it was, emphasizing a consensus. Make no mistake; I believed it at first and took it seriously. I was very conscious about my own carbon footprint and felt guilty about it. But the thought of never encountering a less alarmist and more middle-ground view during that initial period of research seemed off to me. I never forgot it; it lingered in the back of my mind every time I read about climate change in the news or if it was being talked about by my friends or family.
Then you have no business tone policing anyone about making broad, overgeneralizing statements about those with opposing beliefs, Monkey Man.
Simple as that.
I was referring to scientists claiming that carbon dioxide was making extreme weather more extreme. Our area went through a 2-year drought, and they used that as ammo to promote a crisis. However, last year, a cold and very snowy winter ended it; all of our reservoirs filled up, and no one talks about it anymore. My friends, who I mentioned in that link, converted to skeptics after realizing that the media stopped talking about the drought. More and more people are starting to realize that.
You are making an overgeneralizing statement about those with opposite beliefs, Monkey Man. If you can lulz about Trenberth, then you’re old enough not to be mistook for two kids in a trenchcoat. Snark and smarm don’t mix very well:
https://www.gawkerarchives.com/on-smarm-1476594977
Your Damascus moment is also part of the Climateball Bingo, btw:
https://climateball.net/but-damascus/
Welcome to Climateball!
Willard,
Did you suffer from a really bad shroom trip at any point in your past?
“I was referring to scientists claiming that carbon dioxide was making extreme weather more extreme.”
It’s the news, not the scientists.
There is no scientific basis for CO2 levels making extreme weather.
Monkey Man,
Do you really think asking a leading and loaded question is your best out right now?
Since gb insists, here is the basic Contrarian Gambit in a nutshell:
[DENIAL] There is no scientific basis for CO2 levels making extreme weather.
Pure, unsupported denial. Now, why would I need to spoon feed you or gb? Instead, let me return that stance back at you. In fact, let’s do a combo. Here is pure denial under the form of a leading and loaded question:
You and gb never Read The Freaking Report (RTFR), haven’t you?
Go RTFR. Report.
gbaikie,
have you noticed extreme weather getting worse where you live? I haven’t.
Willard says:
”[DENIAL] There is no scientific basis for CO2 levels making extreme weather.
Pure, unsupported denial.”
Lets just call it the null hypothesis until such time somebody finds some evidence of CO2 causing extreme weather. That seems to be the control model approach established by the scientific method.
–walterrh03 says:
February 17, 2024 at 12:27 PM
gbaikie,
have you noticed extreme weather getting worse where you live? I havent.–
Extreme weather has lessen. Which is evidence, that Earth global temperature has increased, since the Little Ice Age.
We in an Ice Age, and Ice Ages have more extreme weather, but somehow we have manage to survive, despite the bad weather.
The greatest climate change, recently, the drying of Sahara Desert, which has be ongoing for last 5000 years.
And it seems possible humans activity could made the Sahara Desert more green.
HOLD ALL NULL HYPOTHESES, screams our Sammich-Requester-in-Chief!
LOL!
When will he be adult enough to go RTFR?
“Lets just call it the null hypothesis until such time somebody finds some evidence of CO2 causing extreme weather.”
Pretty easy:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters
But not just limited to that.
More from our world in data:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yearly-number-of-objects-launched-into-outer-space
Looking at graph, when will the 8 billion people, have left Earth?
“HOLD ALL NULL HYPOTHESES, screams our Sammich-Requester-in-Chief”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
The Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation provided a comprehensive assessment on changes in extremes and how exposure and vulnerability to extremes determine the impacts and likelihood of disasters.
What are you braying about?
gbaikie,
I agree with what you write. It makes sense when you think about it: during colder periods, life tends to die off, while in warmer periods, life thrives. More volatile extremes would logically play a part in that.
gbaikie says:
More from our world in data:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yearly-number-of-objects-launched-into-outer-space
Looking at graph, when will the 8 billion people, have left Earth?
————————
well if we use the prognostication techniques of our CAWG friends in here. . .it will take about 42 years according the rate of increase of objects being launched into space over the past 7 years.
“Our area went through a 2-year drought”
If you mean California and vicinity, it was a 20 y drought.
No one in climate science was predicting that there would never be rainy periods again in California, as ordinarily happens with El Ninos.
What was being predicted was that the usual periods of drought would become drier and longer.
They appear to be doing just that, but we will have to see if that trend keeps going.
how much of earth’s internal heat is from radioactive decay:
“About 50%
The radioactive decay of elements in the Earth’s mantle and crust results in production of daughter isotopes and release of geoneutrinos and heat energy, or radiogenic heat. About 50% of the Earth’s internal heat originates from radioactive decay.” Wiki
Anyone disagree?
–When you breathe in radon, radioactive materials can get trapped in your lungs. Over time, these radioactive materials increase the risk of lung cancer. It may take years before health problems appear.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that radon causes about 21,000 lung cancer deaths in the United States each year.–
US govt nuked Japan and did a lot nuclear bomb tests.
And RFK Jr opposes using nuclear energy.
Though it seems is more opposed to using coal as energy source.
But he hasn’t said he against all the wood burning to generate electrical power plants, which was and is still subsidized by the US govt.
And supports solar panels use which aren’t a viable way to generate electrical power.
It think we should mine methane Hydrates from the ocean, if it’s viable. But it seems to me, US govt has wasted too much time in failing to determine if it’s viable. So, we should end funding to determine if it’s viable- as it seems it’s been waste of tax dollars.
It seems to me, Musk and Bezos, have greatest potential of making us a spacefaring civilization,
Many Space Cadets don’t have much faith in Bezos, but it seems Bezos is a believer, and has pathway to be factor.
I think we plant trillion trees, but I don’t think governmental program could do it. I think Musk and Bezos should team up, to do it.
I think the trillion trees should done cheaply, and done in Africa.
–Posted on February 16, 2024 by Andy Tomaswick
New NASA Report Suggests We Could See Space-Based Power After 2050
Space-based solar power (SBSP) has been in the news recently, with the successful test of a solar power demonstrator in space taking place last summer. While the concept is fundamentally sound, there are plenty of hurdles to overcome if the technology is to be widely adopted not the least of which is cost. —
https://www.universetoday.com/165766/new-nasa-report-suggests-we-could-see-space-based-power-after-2050/
And:
“But even with that lower cost, 863 launches to geosynchronous orbit for the smaller of the two systems will likely not allow any system to be cost-competitive with terrestrial alternatives.”
It takes less Delta-v to get to lunar orbit, as compared to GEO.
From lunar orbit, it’s less distance to lunar surface and the Moon has no atmosphere. And there are no birds to kill, with higher intensity microwaves [or lasers or whatever}.
Before 2050, we should have some idea whether lunar water is mineable. We should have some clue, before 2035.
But even if the Moon doesn’t have mineable water, you could still mine the Moon, if electrical cost were low enough.
And low enough, is like $5 per Kw hour, but if could prices like on Earth, it’s easier.
And you could start with less than dozen launches, and charge say $5 per kw hours, and with goal that with enough demand, lower to less than $1 per kw hour, within 10 years.
So say got radio telescope and/or some bases on the moon, and they have solar energy on lunar surface. But they want more electrical power, instead doing more lunar surface solar power, they do SBSP
instead, and once delivering some electrical, you simply launch more
of them. And part of energy use, could use to make solar panels on the Moon. Which later, can launched from the Moon, instead of launching them from Earth. And after this, launch them from lunar surface to Earth GEO {which isn’t much more delta-v as compared to lunar surface to lunar orbit].
One disadvantage of lunar surface, it there is limited real estate where you get 80% of the time getting solar energy, but lunar orbits have unlimited “real estate” of +80% of getting solar energy, one even get higher percentage than GEO.
Solar wind
speed: 395.9 km/sec
density: 6.58 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 16 Feb 24
Sunspot number: 151
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 178 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.17×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.7% Low
Daily Sun: 17 Feb 24:
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Solar wind
speed: 337.5 km/sec
density: 2.39 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 97
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 169 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.88×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.3% Low
7 sunspot numbered
Don’t any new spots coming from farside, and couple will go to farside within a day
Solar wind
speed: 318.2 km/sec
density: 1.09 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 18 Feb 24
Sunspot number: 100
“All of these sunspots have simple, stable magnetic fields that pose no threat for strong flares. ”
And:
“BIG FARSIDE SUNSPOT: There’s a sunspot on the farside of the sun large enough to affect the way the whole sun vibrates. Helioseismic images have pinpointed it just behind the sun’s northeastern limb. The sunspot (or sunspot group) should turn to face Earth this week.”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 170 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.73×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.4% Low
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
12 February – 09 March 2024
Solar activity is expected to be low to moderate throughout the
period with M-class flares likely and a chance for X-class flares.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit, barring
significant flare activity.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
expected to reach high levels on 15-17 Feb, with normal to moderate
levels expected throughout the remainder of the period. ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
They don’t seem to expect much from the farside big spot, and I tend to agree. It seems likely blue line will go down. But whatever it will do it’s sideway, up a bit or down a bit. But now, March sunspot number has fair chance of turning it around.
Solar wind
speed: 274.4 km/sec
density: 2.92 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 20 Feb 24
Sunspot number: 64
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 152 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.44×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.0% Low
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
19 February – 16 March 2024
Solar activity is expected to be low with a varying chance for
M-class flare activity throughout the period. Old Region 3575 (S37,
L=177), which produced M-class flares last rotation and multiple
CMEs during its transit of the far-side, is expected to return to
the visible disk on 20 Feb. “
Solar wind
speed: 347.0 km/sec
density: 2.72 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 22 Feb 24
Sunspot number: 45
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 170 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.24×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.2% Low
Two sunspot numbers: 3590, quite a big spot, and 3586 a moderate size spot. Nothing leaving, and don’t see anything coming from farside.
Solar wind
speed: 439.1 km/sec
density: 5.74 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 26 Feb 24
Sunspot number: 114
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 181 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.47×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.9% Low
The Sahara Desert used to be a green savannah new research explains why
“This greening of the Sahara didnt happen once. Using marine and lake sediments, scientists have identified over 230 of these greenings occurring about every 21,000 years over the past eight million years. These greening events provided vegetated corridors which influenced species distribution and evolution, including the out-of-Africa migrations of ancient humans.”
https://theconversation.com/the-sahara-desert-used-to-be-a-green-savannah-new-research-explains-why-216555
“This caused warmer summers in the Northern Hemisphere, and warmer air is able to hold more moisture. This intensified the strength of the West African Monsoon system and shifted the African rainbelt northwards. This increased Saharan rainfall, resulting in the spread of savannah and wooded grassland across the desert from the tropics to the Mediterranean, providing a vast habitat for plants and animals. ”
It seems to me if Sahara was greener, the northern hemisphere would warmer. Or if the northern hemisphere was warmer, it would green the Sahara desert.
Or the northern hemisphere is too cold. We know Europe is cold, and Russia is very cold, as is Canada, and China is colder than Europe.
But about 61% of northern hemisphere is ocean and if a region of ocean was warmer, it make a greener Sahara, which in turn would cause the northern hemisphere to be warmer.
Or add water:
**Abstract
Global water resources are under pressure due to increasing population and diminishing conventional water resources caused by global warming. Water scarcity is a daunting global problem which has prompted efforts to find unconventional resources as an appealing substitute for conventional water, particularly in arid and semiarid regions. Ice is one such unconventional water resource, which is available mainly in the Arctic and Antarctic. In this study, opportunities and challenges in iceberg utilization as a source of freshwater were investigated on the basis of a systematic literature review (SLR). A search in three databases (Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest) yielded 47 separate studies from 1974 to 2019. The SLR indicated that harvesting iceberg water, one of the purest sources of water, offers benefits ranging from supplying freshwater and creating new jobs to avoiding iceberg damage to offshore structures. Economic considerations and risks associated with iceberg towing were identified as the main limitations to iceberg harvesting, while environmental impacts were identified as the main challenge to exploiting this resource. Assessment of trends in ice sheets in Arctic and Antarctic across different spatiotemporal scales indicated that the main sources of icebergs showed a statistically significant (p < 0.01) decreasing trend for all months and seasons during 20052019.**
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/22/3220
I think the main problem is we don't have nuclear powered tug boats.
Here’s a comment in full, from the bizarrely obsessed Willard –
“Mike Flynn,
The Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation provided a comprehensive assessment on changes in extremes and how exposure and vulnerability to extremes determine the impacts and likelihood of disasters.
What are you braying about?”
He has obviously suffered some severe malfunction of his already diminished facilities.
Yes, Willard, climate changes. Always has, always will.
Humans adapt or die.
It’s no coincidence that National Engineers Week occurs around President’s Day. George Washington, in addition to being this nation’s first president, has also been described as America’s first engineer. He was a gentleman farmer who also acquired notable surveying skills early in life, and excelled as a manager, strategist, and leader. Washington directed this growing nation toward technical advancements, invention, and education.
He promoted construction of roads, canals, the Capitol, docks and ports, water works, and new efforts to extract coal and ores and develop manufacturing resources.
On June 9, 1778, at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, General George Washington issued a call for engineers and engineering education. This order is considered the genesis of a US Army Engineer School, which found its permanent home at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, where Washington had practiced surveying.
In 1794, President Washington established a Corps of Artillerists and Engineers to be educated and stationed at West Point in New York, which later became the US Military Academy at West Point. From transportation to education, Washington’s engineering vision proved to be ahead of its time.
After his death in 1799, many of the technologies he supported provided an impetus to the American Industrial Revolution. New York’s Erie Canal (1817-25) was built, and canals soon crisscrossed America east of the Mississippi.
By the 1830s, the nation’s population tripled, traveling west through canals, along rivers, and across new roads and bridges. The Army Corps of Engineers began many of these projects.
By the middle of the century, the railroads became the favored mode of transportation. As a result, America had gone west, and Washington’s vision was realized.
Happy Presidents Day and the kickoff of National Engineers Week.
https://youtu.be/EA-8wT6vjb0
The age of institutionalized and fake science
St5op paying and funding these quacks
https://youtu.be/6wN8B1pruJg?t=102
Hear, hear!
You might yet make a hand.
Q: What is the optimal temperature for life on Earth?
A: 20 °C. Maybe.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3mr1d0z4
It depends on whether you are a walrus, a human or a climate alarmist.
20 C would be great
1/ A reduction in body size is an effective adaptation to a warming climate, as it allows organisms to reduce their metabolism in times of stress.
2/ The fisherman’s Temperature-Size Rule says that as the water warms, the biochemical processes of the fish speed up and require more oxygen. However, because gills have limited surface area that constrains the amount of oxygen they can supply, fish cannot grow as large under warm water conditions.
3/ Therefore, many fish species may be “shrinking” as waters grow warmer due to climate change.
Goo Goo Ga Joob.
You only need an average temperature of ocean to be about 5 C to get an average surface air temperature of around 20 C.
Or Ocean only needs to warm up by 1.5 C.
Or unless you mean ocean which as average temperature of 20 C rather than our cold ocean of 3.5 average temperature. And fish in ocean tend to only go near surface in daylight hours. And if fishing best to fish in morning or near evening. Or big fish follow little fish, and to avoid predators, little fish limit their time when there are visible to larger fish [and low angle sun illuminates shallower surface waters}.
During our Ice Age we had 20 C average surface air temperature but average ocean temperature of 20 C, might have only occurred much longer ago in very distance past [and ocean floor is quite young- all of it less than 250 million years old and most of it is much younger].
If want to live in world around 20 C, you can get it by having ocean settlements as the average ocean surface temperature is close to about 17 C and vast amounts of ocean surface area being 20 C or warmer.
Or large human population can not live on the small land area of tropical island paradises, but you make a lot man made tropical island paradises.
Tomorrows landing of Intuitive Machines Odysseus lunar lander
February 21, 2024 9:26 am Robert Zimmerman
https://behindtheblack.com/
–NASA has now announced its planned live stream coverage of tomorrows landing attempt of Intuitive Machines Odysseus lunar lander near the south pole of the Moon.
Intuitive Machines is targeting no earlier than 5:49 p.m. EST Thursday, Feb. 22, to land their Odysseus lunar lander near Malapert A in the South Pole region of the Moon.–
Odysseus Achieves First Ever Private Lunar Soft Landing
Essay by Eric Worrall
“An exciting new milestone in the quest to conquer space.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/23/odysseus-achieves-first-ever-private-lunar-soft-landing/
Btw, what is conquering space.
It seems one thing is to be able to live in space.
And maybe artificial gravity will allow that.
And I would also say, mining water in space.
And unlikely most water mined will be from the Moon, but what exciting about mining lunar water is starting a market of water in space. And if we can mine lunar water and sell lunar rocket fuel, then we will have more access to the Moon. So we explore the Moon a lot. Exploring the Moon a lot, is things is finding and exploring lunar caves {lava tubes} how deep and how big are they??
It’s possible they could go deeper depth than we can drill on the Earth- but mainly we just don’t know.
The other aspect is the lunar surface is very old and sort of tree rings, we can read the history for billions of years.
What little we have learned about the moon has transformed our understanding of Earth {and rest of our solar system}.
Another aspect about the Moon, is it’s first step to exploring Mars.
Mars has similar thing about it’s caves {how many, how deep, and how much]. How Mars different than Moon.
And is Mars habitable- could human settlement be on Mars- can you grow crops and export food to rest of solar system. And is Mars water mineable [can mine billions or trillions of tons of water.
I think if Mars can have towns and cities on it, than it will require using Venus orbit. And Venus orbit is place where one could have very large market for water mined in space. Some could be gotten from Moon and/or Mars, but rest solar system has many Earth oceans of water, which could lead to water in space being as cheap or cheaper than water on Earth.
Conquering space, could be mining all the space rocks which might have impacted Earth is some more distant future.
Or preventing another extinction of life on Earth
“Images from NASAs Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera team confirmed Odysseus completed its landing at 80.13S and 1.44E at a 2579 m elevation”
https://7c27f7d6-4a0b-4269-aee9-80e85c3db26a.usrfiles.com/ugd/7c27f7_357496b3ba404948ba24ad63081b5d23.pdf
So less than 10 degree from south pole- or about 300 km from it.
The ridge it on can have elevation of about 5000 meter and for comm relay, you want them at highest elevation. So can see more of Earth and more southern polar region. And need a few different places further towards the pole which have high elevation to extend the communication reach, back to Earth. Though one would also have things in orbit, including the lunar gateway station which can also be used.
Japan Moon lander revives after lunar night
By Kyoko HASEGAWA
Tokyo (AFP) Feb 26, 2024
–Japan’s Moon lander has produced another surprise by waking up after the two-week lunar night, the country’s space agency said Monday.
The unmanned Smart Lander for Investigating Moon (SLIM) touched down last month at a wonky angle that left its solar panels facing the wrong way.–
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Japan_Moon_lander_revives_after_lunar_night_999.html
Reality bites: https://ibb.co/tZLVDm7
Basking in the light of knowledge and understanding are those who learn about AGW from the degreed and professional scientists whose research and studies have been peer reviewed and verified.
Enshrouded in the darkness of willful ignorance are those who rely on the Internet and propaganda to inform and fortify their AGW denial.
A,
If by AGW, you mean anthropogenic global warming, who is denying that thermometers get hotter when exposed to sufficient man-made heat? Can’t name a single person? Gee, how sad is that!
You are probably implying that hotter thermometers are due to some magical process involving a gas like CO2, but are too gutless to state such a stupid thing!
Keep sliming along, someone more silly than you might value your opinions.
–I Interview Tulsi Gabbard on Her Chances as VP, Biden, Israel, and Maui | Julie Noted–
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVIOhBrcTWU
2000 Mules is Jackass manure.
More proof that 2000 Mules was a complete work of fiction.
True the Vote admits, in response to a subpoena, that they have no evidence of voter fraud.
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/true-vote-tells-judge-doesn-221224320.html
Meanwhile True the Vote has been raking in the cash from gullible donors.
https://truethevote.org/donate
Suckers!
The Russian capture of the entire Republican Party is the most successful intelligence operation of our time.
MAGA Republicans have become useful id!ots for Russian intelligence. They’re willing (eager?) to be exploited by the Kremlin and to exploit Russian disinfo.
The key CPAC story isn’t that right-wing influencer Jack Posebiec said, “Welcome to the end of democracy. We are here to overthrow it completely.”
The story is how many Republican lawmakers are absolutely silent about it.
What senility looks like: https://youtu.be/DUp7DqsmWtw
You come here to vent your Trump derangement syndrome ???
You gotta admit, that’s pretty damn funny!
You gotta admit, that’s pretty darn funny!
Ark is a monkey.
Republican men are rallying around such a path.etic, delu.sional, sore loser?
Wow, what has happened to the values of ‘real men’ in America?