Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2022 was +0.26 deg. C, up from the March, 2022 value of +0.15 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 16 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.49 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.12 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.29 -0.02 0.02 0.29
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.06 -0.41 -0.04 0.02
2021 06 -0.01 0.30 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 0.63 -0.76
2021 07 0.20 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.58 0.43 0.80
2021 08 0.17 0.26 0.08 0.07 0.32 0.83 -0.02
2021 09 0.25 0.18 0.33 0.09 0.67 0.02 0.37
2021 10 0.37 0.46 0.27 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.06
2021 11 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.50 -0.43 -0.29
2021 12 0.21 0.27 0.15 0.03 1.62 0.01 -0.06
2022 01 0.03 0.06 0.00 -0.24 -0.13 0.68 0.09
2022 02 -0.01 0.01 -0.02 -0.24 -0.05 -0.31 -0.50
2022 03 0.15 0.27 0.02 -0.08 0.21 0.74 0.02
2022 04 0.26 0.35 0.18 -0.04 -0.26 0.45 0.60
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for April, 2022 should be available within the next several days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Incredible!
LOL you jinxed it
Im making $80 per/hr to complete some jobs on the laptop.I have not at all believed that itd even possible but my close buddy was making $27k only in five weeks working this easy offer and she had influenced me to join. Check extra instructions by visiting following web
>>>>> https://extrasavingshere1.blogspot.com/
You were more correct than I was. Want to predict next months as well?
Globalchanges in temperature cannot just be estimated or predicted. This is determined with proven scientic monitoring procedure that is plausable.
Reason why many countries wait for PNAS RE PORTS KLMATHIAS UGANDA FORT PORTAL KSBATOL REOir
The Best opportunities To Earn $62,000/Month. Stay at home safe and sound avoiding corona virus but do not sit idol work online and make full use of this hostage period and raise extra money to over come daily financial difficulties…
Visit this web ……. https://coinworks53.blogspot.com/
Repeating an old question:
Dr. Spencer, to my knowledge, you and Dr. Christy have not presented a public description of the method used to produce the equation you use to combine the three MSU/AMSU channels, which is central to your LT product. As with the earlier TLT versions, the logic for this effort was to remove the known cooling influence of the stratosphere on the TMT, which you now call the MT. The Version 6 equation is a weighted averaged of the TM, TP and LS series, given by :
LT = 1.538 * MT .548 * TP + 0.01 * TP
So again, I ask:
Where in published literature do you document your method used to derive this equation? Is the derivation based on an assumption of the U.S. Standard Atmosphere which is appropriate for mid-latitudes? How does well does this equation fit the winter Arctic, which exhibits a lower tropopause than summer, or the low latitudes of the tropics, there the tropopause is higher than the mid-latitudes simulated by the U.S. Standard Atmosphere?
Yes, I’ve read your published paper on version 6.
Dr. Spencer, here’s another question. It’s well known that sea-ice appears warmer than the open ocean at microwave frequencies. In fact, the difference is the basis for the passive microwave data which is used to monitor sea-ice concentration and extent. Given that there’s a well documented decline in melt season sea-ice, along with the possibility for increased melt pond coverage over first year ice, how has this change impacted your MT data?
Regarding the sea ice decline effect on our LT trends, it’s pretty easy to estimate the effect. Arctic sea ice has declined since 1979 at an average rate of about 5.4% per decade. Ice-free ocean is about 0.4 deg. C cooler in brightness temperature than ice covered ocean for AMSU channel 5 (unless there is substantial snow cover, in which case this change can flip, but let’s assume worst case that doesn’t happen)…..
So, assuming 0.054 fractional decrease of the Arctic Ocean per decade, and 0.4 deg. C spurious cooling for that fraction, I get ~0.02 C/decade spurious cooling over the Arctic Ocean in the LT temperature product. This compares to our Arctic Ocean warming rate since 1979 of 0.27 C/decade. So, maybe that 0.27 should be more like 0.29. That 0.02 C/decade error is well within our error bound for that region, which John would probably say exceeds +/-0.06 C/decade or more (I can ask him).
Of course, since the area of the Arctic Ocean is less than 1% of the globe, you can further calculate the declining Arctic sea ice effect on global temperature trends, which turns out to be 0.0016 C/decade (I understand there has been little change in Antarctic sea ice over the same period of time).
“… since the area of the Arctic Ocean is less than 1% of the globe …”
Actually it is 2.75% of the earth’s area. So you might want to recalculate.
as
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Regard the LT equation coefficient question:
I assume you are familiar with the concept of deconvolution (or convolution) of overlapping weighting functions (called an “averaging kernel”), it’s been widely used for decades in the retrieval of atmospheric temperature profiles. We did the same thing for the original LT, which Frank Wentz (RSS) verified was legitimate, as he also started computing LT with our coefficients.
Regarding the new (V6) LT coefficients, AMSU channels 5, 7, and 9 weighting functions can be linearly combined to produce an averaging kernel weighted lower in the atmosphere than channel 5 alone (but not as low as the original LT w.f., which was also a combination of w.f.s at different altitudes, but from different view angles at the same channel frequency).
The sum of the coefficients must be 1.0 so that temperature energy is conserved, and the signs will always alternate, in this case, +, -, +. You basically try different coefficients at many altitudes where the microwave absorption theory gives you the individual channel w.f.s, and just apply the weights at each altitude. This works well in the microwave O2 channels (unlike the infrared CO2 channels) because the weighting functions have very little dependence on atmospheric temperature.
Dr. Spencer,
From now on you can skip all that and just ask gbaikie. I think he missed it by 0.01C.
It was guess and I didn’t expect it to be that close.
Just for the record.
If you don’t mind saying, I have a question about the stock market.
Dr. Spencer, you didn’t answer my question. Your “weighting functions” are derived from theoretical calculations. One assumption in these calculations, AIUI, is the temperature profile vs. pressure height. If one assumes that profile is the U.S. Standard Atmosphere, which begins at the surface with a temperature of 20C and then declines almost linearly to the tropopause at 200 hPa, then continues with a constant temperature well into the stratosphere at 45 hPa, how well do the resulting “weighting functions” represent real world conditions in Arctic winter where the tropopause might be as low as 300 hPa or over the Tropics? Is it reasonable to use one equation for all seasons over the the entire Earth?
Woops, The surface temperature for the US Std atmosphere is 15 C (288.15 K), not 20 C.
E. Swanson, I may be missing something, but I think he did answer your question. In Statistics, there are times when a best fit is desired, and coefficients are selected so that a best fit occurs. From Dr. Spencer’s reply, I understand that he used deconvolution of overlapping weighting functions to derive the coefficients. Although I have not personally used that procedure, it is not all that uncommon in metereological studies.
AI: ES only comes on here to promote RSS over UAH.
AI, Dr. Spencer didn’t really answer my question.
Those three weighting functions of emissions vs. altitude are purely mathematical constructs which are based on certain assumptions. I just think those assumptions, which are not stated, may effect the resulting LT equation, such that the equation is “tuned” to those assumptions. If those assumptions do not match real conditions, then the UAH LT may not be providing a correct assessment of changing climate.
Swanson admits he lied and that Roy did answer his question.
I know for a fact that the LT weighting function has a big impact on the final LT temperature trend. For example, shifting a miniscule 0.01 of weight from LS to MT is enough to flip the trend from +0.13 C/decade to +0.14 C/decade.
But thats not the question bdgwx. A .01 change in clouds would have enormous impact on mean global surface temperature also. One can cherry pick the limitations we live with but ultimately overall confidence is pretty low that anything dramatic is going on.
A .01 reduction in albedo could explain the entire modern warming and there is almost zero certainty if that occurred or not much less if did what caused it.
Hunter wrote:
No, Hunter, Roy did not answer my question about the assumptions used to create those theoretical weighting functions. If you think so, please show where by giving a quote from Roy’s replies posted above.
My question was summed up with this question:
“Is it reasonable to use one equation for all seasons over the the entire Earth?”
Swanson he replied:
”I assume you are familiar with the concept of deconvolution (or convolution) of overlapping weighting functions (called an averaging kernel)”
If you aren’t familiar with that you should ask more about it rather than claim your question wasn’t answered.
Hunter, deconvolution would be what one does AFTER the creation of the 3 sets of theoretical weighting functions.
It’s important to understand that the original purpose for the TLT was to remove the contamination of the TMT by the known stratospheric cooling. Other researchers have taken a different approach, using just the TMT and the TLS data, which RSS provides as the TTT:
TTT = 1.10*TMT – 0.10*TLS
The current trend for the global TTT is 0.171 K/decade and for the North Polar it’s 0.255 K/decade.
Bill Hunter, I’m talking about a 0.01 change in clouds or any element that modulates the energy flows into and out of the UAH TLT layer. I’m talking about the UAH model for deriving the LT temperature via the weighting function. Small changes in the weighting function lead to big changes in the warming trend regardless of what clouds are doing.
Not sure what you are getting at Bdg.
Why make changes in the weighting function? As I understand it UAH is either the best or one of the best of comparing to weather balloon records. That would provide a degree of ground truthing of the results.
Further a .01c/decade difference in trend is practically nothing. Natural variation is much higher than that.
OTOH, Swanson appears to be complaining about the US Standard Atmosphere which is the product of a huge amount of scientific work important to many things. I don’t know if Roy or RSS uses that but if one does not use that what would one use?
Is it the best?
https://i.imgur.com/a31C7Ky.png
I agree that 0.01 C/decade isn’t significant. But if you do say LT = 1.25*MT – 0.25*LS all of sudden the LT trend is +0.19 C/decade.
bdgwx, why does it need to be the best?
I look at the chart you provided and in my view I am perfectly comfortable with the reanalysis products the link offers up.
Reanalysis should be the best product as it incorporates a look at the entire monitoring system. (as discussed in the link to the KCN system I posted below Gordon’s comments on a similar process he is familiar with).
A warming rate of 1.7 is what I have been using. The two reanalysis products are at 1.6 and 1.7, essentially in complete agreement and they should be. I was happy to find the KCN link to see how modern computing can be used to improve on the same kind of work I did as an apprentice mostly manually, at least beyond an IBM XT and a 10 key calculator.
The KCN paper describes what we did with a combination of computations and the expert opinions of the partners to lay out defense positions in litigation support.
So I can’t help but note that UAH is both cooler than the analysis and other monitoring systems but also closer to the reanalysis.
then there is the models. True outliers. If the models were putting out financial data for a private business’ sources of revenues, it wouldn’t pass muster. Heck they could be correct but you need more than a declaration they are correct. The reanalysis (subject to quite a few hours of review work on it) would be what the models would be adjusted to. And I am in good company on that as there are a good number prominent climate scientists that hold the exact same opinion, one does not need to be a climate scientist to understand why.
So I am not sure what the issue is here. I don’t think Swanson has any answers for the FUD he is spreading and completely failed to see the significance of his comment about the tropopause being lower at the poles. Why would that matter? Already the 15C starting point of US Std Atmosphere considers the surface temperature at the poles as well as at the equator as 15C is the global mean surface temperature. I has to be lower because it is obvious the tropopause represents the extinction phase of water vapor that is going to be related to water purity, temperature and perhaps turbulence.
Second we are looking at stuff above and below the tropopause and certainly not below ground level just because the height of the tropopause varies during the year and with latitude. And finally I can understand Roy’s answer to Swanson’s concerns about the loss of ice so Swanson should probably put that one to bed as immaterial.
BH said: “why does it need to be the best?”
I don’t know that it does. You are the one who brought it up.
BH said: “I look at the chart you provided and in my view I am perfectly comfortable with the reanalysis products the link offers up.
I have no problem with reanalysis either. But you specifically asked about “weather balloon records”.
Anyway, matching other datasets is not my primary concern right now. My point is that the UAH TLT warming trend is very sensitive to the weighting function. What makes LT = 1.538*MT – 0.548*TP + 0.01*LS (+0.13 C/decade) more valid then LT = 1.25*MT – 0.25*LS (+0.19 C/decade)?
Hunter, The U.S. Standard Atmosphere was last updated in 1976 from an earlier version in 1962. It’s early roots were the NACA before NACA became NASA. It was useful tool for the design of aircraft and rockets in the early days of high altitude flying with jet aircraft. As the link shows, it is based on clean, dry air, i.e., no rain or storms. Calculating the MSU/AMSU weighting functions using the Standard Atmosphere would a form of tuning which does not well represent conditions over the Arctic in Winter nor the Tropics.
Regarding bdgwx’s comment, there have been some suggestions that a better TTT over the winter Arctic would be:
TTT = 1.15*TMT 0.15*TLS
Hunter further wrote:
As usual, Roy’s carefully framed response regarding sea-ice loss may not really address the question I raised. For example, Roy’s number for the rate of decline of sea-ice extent does not state whether it refers to annual or seasonal decline, nor does it say anything about changes within the total area during the melt season, roughly May thru September.
The greatest warming trend in the LT North Polar Ocean is during the winter. The Nov-March Ocean trend for the LT is 0.29 K/decade while the May-September Ocean trend is 0.20 K/decade. So, i still think that the UAH LT may be understating the summer warming because of the impact of the loss of sea-ice and surface melting over the remaining sea-ice.
bdgwx says:
”I dont know that it does. You are the one who brought it up.”
—————
LOL! You brought it up bdgwx. I didn’t say anything at all about that.
——
——
——
bdgwx says:
What makes LT = 1.538*MT 0.548*TP + 0.01*LS (+0.13 C/decade) more valid then LT = 1.25*MT 0.25*LS (+0.19 C/decade)?
—————–
Well at least you can formulate a good question and write a valid equation. . . .things that Swanson completely flopped on here.
E. Swanson says:
Regarding bdgwxs comment, there have been some suggestions that a better TTT over the winter Arctic would be:
TTT = 1.15*TMT 0.15*TLS
———————
that equation isn’t an equation but even if it were it has no relationship to the equation bdgwx was discussing.
——
——
——-
E. Swanson says:
”So, i still think that the UAH LT may be understating the summer warming because of the impact of the loss of sea-ice and surface melting over the remaining sea-ice.”
—————–
Yeah it sure messed up reporting the temperatures where I lived too.
But maybe that isn’t the intent of the satellite record to give accurate local and seasonal climate trends.
Nor is it the intent to do that for global surface records either.
The location of my official global reporting surface weather station is an airport inland in a completely different microclimate than my home.
But it is also the case that UAH isn’t computing a summer warming trend. You must be doing that and apparently botching up the effort by not going to the raw satellite data and coming up with a publishable piece of work.
But it is my impression that the arctic is generally cooler than historically (baseline 1958-2002) in the summer. So it isn’t clear from what your intuition of UAH underestimating summer warming trends derives from. UAH is reporting overall the NOPOL warming trend is nearly double that of the global trend at .25c/decade
E Swanson,
When I get a chance I’ll use TLT = 1.15*TMT – 0.15*TLS for say anything north of 60N and use the official weighting function for everything else and we’ll see what the difference is. I’m pretty busy these days, but hopefully I can get to this in the next week two. I already have the source code in place to process the UAH grids so it shouldn’t be that big of deal to combine the MT and LS grids with your suggested weightings.
Hunter, sorry the “minus” sign in the equation was lost.
But, you write:
The UAH LT annual North Polar data shows trends of:
NoPol Land Ocean
0.25 0.23 0.27
BTW, The problem of declining sea-ice isn’t limited to the UAH LT. I found similar results using the RSS data, which I presented in my 2018 AGU poster paper.
Anyway, how the hell do you expect one to work with the “raw satellite data”. Perhaps you think I’m not using the UAH LT data to calculate trends. You will notice that my results bracket the yearly results. Perhaps you haven’t heard of the “Arctic Amplification” resulting from the snow_sea-ice albedo feedback? Perhaps you don’t know as much as you think.
E. Swanson says:
Perhaps you havent heard of the Arctic Amplification resulting from the snow_sea-ice albedo feedback? Perhaps you dont know as much as you think.
——————————
Obviously UAH shows Arctic amplification due to the loss of ice. The question I asked is why you think the amplification is too low particularly you mention in the summer.
Hunter, My paper is a bit confusing at the end. The data in Figures 8a, b, c and d are the band passed filtered data, which removes the long term trend. So, what we see there is the difference in trends from the long term trend with the summer months displaying a reduced trend and the winter months an increase in trend over the long term value. But, the snow/sea-ice Arctic Amplification only applies during the melt season when the Sun is higher in the sky, not the long winter night without sunlight.
Also, we see that the largest decline in sea-ice extent is at the end of the melt season. The decline in “area” is greater because of the melt ponds and open water. HERE’s the monthly extent data from N*O*A*A:
Decadal Trend:
Jan = -2.91%
Feb = -2.68%
March = -2.46%
April = -2.59%
May = -2.63%
June = -3.91%
July = -7.29%
Aug = -10.14%
Sept = -12.32%
Oct = -9.58%
Nov = -4.86%
Dec = -3.43%
All months = -4.38%
Roy’s number for the “average” rate of decline is 5.48%/decade, which may refer to the area data, but he didn’t say. Clearly, the decline during the melt season is much greater and that corresponds to the lower trend also found in the UAH LT and RSS TLT products.
OK I understand what you are getting at.
But I have to wonder what you hope to achieve. If UAH uses the US standard atmosphere it already is a product that to some extent averages high and low latitude products into a mid latitude product.
If the US std atm isn’t sufficient wouldn’t it be better to improve it via the research that was done to produce it in the first place?
Hunter, I just ran thru some data on area. Here’s what that looks like, given a few assumptions:
Decadal Trends for Area:
Jan = -2.99%
Feb = -2.75%
March = -2.31%
April = -2.62%
May = -3.27%
June = -5.46%
July = -9.23%
Aug = -13/37%
Sept = -14.43%
Oct = -11.45%
Nov = -5.46%
Dec = -3.73%
These decline rates are larger than that for extent and reflect the presence of melt ponds and open water, which Roy agrees have some influence the UAH LT. This is not directly related to the U.S. Std Atmosphere, which you mentioned.
E Swanson,
I had enough motivation that I went ahead and did the experiment today. Note that I processed 1979/01 to 2022/03 and I think my grid area logic is slightly different than what UAH must be using because I get ever so slightly different monthly anomalies down in the 3rd decimal place. I’m not sure what the discrepancy is here since I’m using standard sine/cosine weighting on the cells.
Using 90S-90N of 1.538, -0.548, 0.010 weights I get +0.131 C/decade which confirms that my source code is working correctly.
Using 90S-90N of 1.150, 0, -0.150 weights I get +0.148 C/decade.
Using 60N-90N of 1.150, 0, -0.150 weights and 90S-60N of 1.538, -0.548, 0.010 weights I get +0.132 C/decade. There’s not much change here because 60N-90N (actually 82.5N because of the unfilled cells north of there) is only (sin(82.5) – sin(60)) / 2 = 6.2% of the surface area.
When I interpolate the cells above 82.5N and 82.5S using a simple strategy it does increase the trend by a hair, but nothing significant. There just is not much surface area in these higher latitudes to effect the averages much.
E. Swanson says:
”These decline rates are larger than that for extent and reflect the presence of melt ponds and open water, which Roy agrees have some influence the UAH LT. This is not directly related to the U.S. Std Atmosphere, which you mentioned.”
——————————–
I think you have to be aware that both open water and melt ponds were more common than they are now when ice extent was greater.
Why, thats because when the sun shines over the vast majority of the arctic sea ice in summer it all is in a melting state. The ponds disappear when extent shrinks. The extinct melt ponds just refroze come the sun dipping back over the horizon each year before extent shrinkage eliminated them. And the open water is reduced as well by virtue of having a smaller circumference of the ice extent. therefore ice extent would be a better measure especially for the summer season.
Hunter wrote:
I think that’s wrong. For the NH sea-ice, both the extent and area metrics show the least decline during the the freeze months ending with March. During the freeze season, the remaining ponds and the ocean freeze again. What has happened is that there is now more first year ice in March than before and first year ice is flatter and thus more able to exhibit melt ponds. The big change is during the summer melt season, with the largest decline at the end of the season in September.
That said, the impact of declining sea-ice on the UAH LT and RSS TLT products will be greatest during the melt season, not the freeze season. Roy’s use of a seasonal average of extent understates these effects.
bdgwx says:
”When I interpolate the cells above 82.5N and 82.5S using a simple strategy it does increase the trend by a hair, but nothing significant. There just is not much surface area in these higher latitudes to effect the averages much.”
———————–
Thats what I would expect. Total mean ice loss is less than 1/2 of one percent of the earth surface.
Even if you look at summer loss only it is about 2/3rds of one percent.
And there are complications using UAH NoPol data what area does that cover? the vast majority of ice loss has been between 70 and 80N.
It is important to use underlying datasets designed specifically for your purpose. If US std atmosphere is used it is designed to be seasonal and latitude independent best representing the mid latitudes. thus the dataset is best designed as a global dataset and making adjustments only for one wing of that dataset has to be done with a lot of caveats.
The other thing to consider is summer temperature really hasn’t changed in the arctic, if anything its slightly cooler. IMO, ice generally doesn’t melt directly due to climate change but instead indirectly due to change in ocean temperatures. Melt ponds just refreeze come winter unless the underside of the ice erodes it away and spills the pond by lowering the ice dam.
And if you accept that you have to look very carefully at how ocean currents operate. It creates some conflict about the expansion of ice that arises from stopping the Gulf Stream.
these natural processes simply cannot be viewed in simplistic terms.
E. Swanson says:
”I think you have to be aware that both open water and melt ponds were more common than they are now when ice extent was greater.”
I think thats wrong.
———————————
Wrong? Why? Winter extent further south, more sunshine, a lot more acreage, warmer climate – why would ice ponds not be more common in those circumstances as the summer arrives and hits a peak melt rate in early summer? Same with erosion of the edges as the ice breaks up along a much longer border of ice. I think you need to find a reference or mention something I didn’t consider.
———
=========
E. Swanson says:
For the NH sea-ice, both the extent and area metrics show the least decline during the the freeze months ending with March.
———————
There seems to be no argument behind your comment above, least decline in what? melt ponds being minimized at ice extent maximum? That seems consistent with my comment not yours.
———
=========
E. Swanson says:
During the freeze season, the remaining ponds and the ocean freeze again. What has happened is that there is now more first year ice in March than before and first year ice is flatter and thus more able to exhibit melt ponds. The big change is during the summer melt season, with the largest decline at the end of the season in September.
—————–
The flatter the ice the more likely the melt ponds will drain off the ice. Its like trying to fry eggs in a pan with no sides.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/181601-MeltingIce-Full.jpg
———
=========
E. Swanson says:
That said, the impact of declining sea-ice on the UAH LT and RSS TLT products will be greatest during the melt season, not the freeze season. Roys use of a seasonal average of extent understates these effects.
——————–
So what? Its primarily a non-seasonal record and as bdgwx shows it is an immaterial difference to the overall record. . . .far below the precision of the results that are reported.
Hunter, Both the UAH and RSS products report data for the North Polar area, that is 60N to 82.5N. The UAH LT trend is 0.23 K/decade and the RSS TLT trend is 0.469 K/decade, both of which are the greatest regional trend reported. The RSS data includes some scan data poleward of the nadir footprint at 82.5, whereas UAH apparently does not.
You continue to attempt to ignore these facts, claiming that global data is more important or that the area is only a small fraction of the Earth’s surface, etc. But, the surface area from 60N to 82.5N is 6.37%, not an insignificant number.
You also are confusing the question regarding the weighting functions with the effects of declining sea-ice area. And, while melt ponds may become deep enough to drain into the water below, I doubt that they overflow as you claim and of course, there are no melt ponds by the time of maximum extent and area.
So what? Your posts are just another round of your red herrings in an attempt to ignore the fact that the warming of the Arctic is a strong indicator of Changing Climate.
Swanson says:
”You continue to attempt to ignore these facts, claiming that global data is more important or that the area is only a small fraction of the Earths surface, etc. But, the surface area from 60N to 82.5N is 6.37%, not an insignificant number.”
————————–
Swanson I said melting ice is an insignificant number just as Roy demonstrated and did the math for you. And you just turn around and ignore it. Apparently you have trouble visualizing this stuff like your severe problems with understanding angular momentum equations for orbiting particles.
————
===========
Swanson says:
”You also are confusing the question regarding the weighting functions with the effects of declining sea-ice area. And, while melt ponds may become deep enough to drain into the water below, I doubt that they overflow as you claim and of course, there are no melt ponds by the time of maximum extent and area.”
————————
There are no melt ponds long before maximum, certainly by late December. Freezing of the ponds begins in September and once the light is gone from the decline of the sun they freeze over.
————————-
Swanson melt ponds form exclusively because the ice is NOT flat. If it were perfectly flat any melt will flow off the ice, of course there is no perfectly flat ice but the rougher it is the more melt ponds you get contrary to your statement. Ponds can only occur if there is an ice dam. Ponds on perfectly flat ice would need donut shaped clouds to form.
Old ice contrary to your claims have all the valleys and dams necessary to hold abundant ice ponds as seen the the photograph I provided for you.
When you have dams of ice the water that melts off the top of the dam flows into the valley to combine with melt there where it is trapped. I suppose you just believe flat ice has more ponds because you want to believe they are increasing. Your desires are not science.
Hunter, Roy’s calculations are for full year, not the peak melt season, and his comparison was for the full global area. If he had focused on the local area and timing, I
think that melting sea-ice is NOT an insignificant number. At the very least, we know the September extent has declined from about 7.5 to 4.5 million km^2. The low in 2013 was 3.57, according to the NSID*C data.
The older the sea-ice is, the more it has been deformed, thus there’s less flat area for ponding. The surface of first year ice is usually covered with some snow, which stands above the ice and impedes the drainage off ice flows. You will notice from your photo that there’s a rim of ice around the melt ponds, which would also keep the melt water in place.
FYI, HEREE’s an animation that demonstrates the loss of old ice vs. new ice.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter, Roys calculations are for full year, not the peak melt season, and his comparison was for the full global area. If he had focused on the local area and timing, I
think that melting sea-ice is NOT an insignificant number.
—————–
The only issue in the arctic of any concern Swanson is multi-year (>30year) arctic wide. So why should we be concerned with your petty 3 month limited area concerns?
—————–
================
E. Swanson says:
At the very least, we know the September extent has declined from about 7.5 to 4.5 million km^2. The low in 2013 was 3.57, according to the NSID*C data.
—————–
The only issue in the arctic of any concern Swanson is multi-year (>30year) arctic wide. So why should we be concerned with your petty 3 month limited area concerns?
—————–
================
E. Swanson says:
The older the sea-ice is, the more it has been deformed, thus theres less flat area for ponding.
————————
LMAO! I seriously believe your physics vision is so bad you would never be able to graduate from a plumbing apprenticeship.
I guess I could be wrong about how many donut shaped clouds fly above the arctic, though. LMAO!
—————–
================
E. Swanson says:
The surface of first year ice is usually covered with some snow, which stands above the ice and impedes the drainage off ice flows. You will notice from your photo that theres a rim of ice around the melt ponds, which would also keep the melt water in place.
——————
Ice flows? What we are talking about is both snow and ice melt, not ice flows. What the heck are you talking about?
Hunter, I love it the way you keep posting red herrings. The discussion was about the UAH (and RSS) data for the Arctic region. My concern was a possible flaw in that data, but you would rather to ignore that.
This is a great example:
The sea-ice tends to break up under the influence of wind stresses, forming large blocks of ice called ice floes. Like the one the MOSAIC cruise anchored to for research. Sorry, I misspelled the term.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter, I love it the way you keep posting red herrings. The discussion was about the UAH (and RSS) data for the Arctic region. My concern was a possible flaw in that data, but you would rather to ignore that.
——————
I keep asking why I shouldn’t ignore it.
It just doesn’t seem important and you have given any reason why it should be considered important. There are so many flaws in the world one has to devote ones time only to the important flaws if one wants to be helpful.
So why do you think it might be an important flaw worthy of concern?
Hunter wrote:
There have been many projections pf AGW climate change which point to a stronger warming in the Arctic when compared to the rest of the Earth. One would conclude that tracking the Arctic would provide clear evidence of such changes. If the satellite data is indeed under reporting the warming, then the result would be less public and political concern about the overall changes to the planet.
E. Swanson says:
”If the satellite data is indeed under reporting the warming, then the result would be less public and political concern about the overall changes to the planet.”
————————–
Hmmm that seems about half-baked. Analysis suggests all the warming in the arctic is in the winter not in the summer where the summers are a bit cooler than the baseline of 1958-2002.
https://tinyurl.com/2p94fc4r says that arctic warming is roughly twice the rate of the mean rate for the globe. UAH is consistent in that having it .25 vs .13 respectively.
So where is the meat Swanson? You are selling plant burgers made out of cheap soy beans here and marketing it as the real thing. Parroting radical talking points is a poor excuse for spending money on science.
Hunter, The RSS North Polar Land & Ocean trend is 0.469 K/decade, whereas their global Land & Ocean is 0.213, so, their data shows more than twice the warming of the high Arctic. My analysis indeed found that the RSS NoPolar data shows more warming in Winter than Summer, which is strange, given the serious loss of sea-ice during the melt season.
Then, you wrote:
Don’t know what you are talking about. I’m not “selling” anything, I’m retired. My reply was an answer to your previous question about why the accuracy of the data was important.
E. Swanson says:
My analysis indeed found that the RSS NoPolar data shows more warming in Winter than Summer, which is strange, given the serious loss of sea-ice during the melt season.
——————————-
Try flipping through the archived annual DMI Arctic temperature charts. https://tinyurl.com/ty5eytmy
swannie…”Dr. Spencer, you didnt answer my question. Your weighting functions are derived from theoretical calculations”.
***
Yes, Roy did answer your question and he answered it well. The problem is with your question which is, as usual with you, misguided.
If Roy is still around maybe he can correct misconceptions I have about weighting functions. I am comparing them to bandpass filters in communication.
Weighting functions cannot derived from theoretical calculations IMHO. They correspond to the microwave radiation frequencies given off by oxygen molecules at various altitudes which is related to the oxygen molecule average temperature. If you look at the peak of the channel 5 curve it corresponds to a certain altitude. What do you think it is measuring, the amount of tea in China?
There are no units along the x-axis because the curves represent a relative weighting of the microwave radiation received by different AMSU channels. As far as I can see, a weighting for one channel is relative to the reception of microwave frequency intensities relative to another channel in the AMSU unit.
There would be no point making this up based on theory if it is to be applied to real instrumentation measuring real phenomena.
You are correct. Convolution isn’t theoretical it is similar to but more advanced than traditional kriging and doesn’t suffer the data fallouts that weather stations in sparse distribution create for gridding weather data.
In fact Kriging Convolutional Networks (KCN) are being introduced into weather forecasting retaining spatial data for machine learning. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/5716/5572
I think it is fair to say that there are 5 (or more) lower layers to the atmosphere that need to be considered.
1. Tropopause. (TP)
2. Upper Troposphere. (UT)
3. Middle Troposphere. (MT)
4. Lower Troposphere. (LT)
5. Surface Boundary Layer. (SBL)
The first 4 are, as you say, monitored by AMSU channels (or combinations of them).
The 5th is the home of the 2m ground based thermometers (which only cover at max 30% of the globes surface and are point, not volume, measurements).
The channel 5 Roy mentioned is centred somewhere around 4 km but it picks up radiation to the surface as indicated by its curve. The other channels he mentioned are located higher. However, the weighting curves overlap and measure the same microwave radiation from different altitudes from O2 molecules extending to the surface.
I know you place a lot of emphasis on the SBL but it appears to me a more turbulent layer of the troposphere. I don’t see why channel 5 cannot average it.
Maybe Roy has something to say about that. He has mentioned the AMSU units don’t measure right to the surface due to spurious readings. That may have something to do with your SBL.
E. Swanson, It seems like you have looked into the UAH calculation in some detail. Would it be possible for you to explain, in laymans terms, the difference between UAH and RSS?
Gregory J, The short answer is that RSS continues to use the old UAH TLT v5 weighting based on the single MT channel data and RSS excludes scans over ares with high mountains, such as the Antarctic poleward of 70S, the Himalayas and the Andes. The original UAH TLT thru v5 was introduced to compensate for the influence of the stratosphere on the MT channel and the UAH v6 is a different approach which is also supposed to achieve this result.
The long answer requires more understanding of both the instruments and the physics. RSS has some details which might help you.
The even shorter answer is that RSS uses a vertical atmosphere model to predict the weightings instead and also adjusts the AMSU (the later instruments) to correspond to the MSU readings (the earlier instruments).
See the paper “Construction of the RSS V3.2 Lower-Tropospheric Temperature Dataset from the MSU and AMSU Microwave Sounders” that ES references.
rlh…”The even shorter answer is that RSS uses a vertical atmosphere model to predict the weightings instead and also adjusts the AMSU (the later instruments) to correspond to the MSU readings (the earlier instruments)”.
***
This is not a knock on you so try not to be overly defensive.
It makes no sense to have instruments measuring real radiation from O2 molecules at various altitudes then use a model to predict what the instruments should read. That’s what alarmists do.
It makes far more sense that the weighting functions reflect the real data retrieved by the AMSU instrumentation. Of course, the data is in a raw form and gives no correlation between altitude and temperature. That needs to be worked out using a known relationship.
Still, the predominant channel for the troposphere has been channel 5 since its receiver responds best at 4 km. There could be no vertical column theoretically relating channel 5 to the other channels since they all receive there peaks at different altitudes.
If RSS has abandoned real measurements for theorized model interpolation, as NOAA has done with surface stations, then they are playing the same fudging game as NOAA.
RSS
“TLT (TEMPERATURE LOWER TROPOSPHERE)
TLT is constructed by calculating a weighted difference between MSU2 (or AMSU5) measurements from near limb views and measurements from the same channels taken closer to nadir, as can be seen in Figure 2 for the case of MSU. This has the effect of extrapolating the MSU2 (or AMSU5) measurements lower in the troposphere, and removing most of the stratospheric influence. Because of the difference involves measurements made at different locations, and because of the large absolute values of the weights used, additional noise is added by this process, increasing the uncertainty in the final results. For more details see Mears et al., 2009b.”
Thank you E. Swanson and RLH. I appreciate it.
About what I expected given the warm oceans that existed 5-6 months ago. The oceans cooled a little starting in December 2021 which means UAH should start dropping next month.
Richard, I am curious where your “5-6 month” figure comes from. I did a quick correlation, and here is no particular correlation between global temperatures and ocean temperatures 5-6 months ago.
The correlation between current temps and past ocean temps is greatest 1 month ago, and decreases fairly consistently each month further you go back.
There is a well documented correlation between the El Nino index and the various global temperature series on the order of 5-6 months. El Nino indexes are derived from specific sea surface regional temperature contrasts, but it’s not exactly “ocean temperature”.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Thanks Mark. That makes sense. A correlation with a SPECIFIC part of the ocean, not the ocean in general.
But the correlation is between ENSO and global temperatures.
Mark B is right that ENSO is the key. As a result the effect is when El Nino or La Nina events are occurring.
My own opinion, which I’ve never checked into, is that tropical effects have a longer lag time than effects that occur elsewhere. Not too surprising given a lot of tropical energy makes its way to the polar regions.
This means polar effects have the shortest lag time.
This means that ENSO and polar variations tend to occur together. Since these are the source of the two biggest anomalies, it tends to make the satellite data more noisy.
“… the effect is when El Nino or La Nina events are occurring.”
According to NOAA (link below), negative ENSO conditions have persisted since period 5 (April/May/June) 2000. Since then, two periods of La Nina have occurred, the second of which began in Jul/Aug/Sep 2021 and continues up to the present. That’s seven, soon to be eight, continuous months of declared La Nina conditions.
Yet here we are, looking at one of the 5 warmest Aprils in the satellite record.
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
It would be nice if we had monthly measurements of the global solar energy reaching the surface. The biggest factor appears to be the amount of reflected solar energy. My guess is it would explain the temperature data pretty well.
https://www.mdpi.com/atmosphere/atmosphere-12-01297/article_deploy/html/images/atmosphere-12-01297-g003-550.jpg
The ONI (NCEP) has been negative for each of the past 24 months. The ONI for October was roughly the same as that for March, and when the April figures come it it should not be much different (based on the weekly data).
The global ocean (“Climate at a Glance”) was only 0.03C lower in March than in both September and October.
When you don’t provide a source I guess you can claim just about anything.
I’ve been using HadSST3 as my source.
2021/10 0.591
2021/11 0.579
2021/12 0.484
2022/01 0.509
2022/02 0.482
As you can see the October and November values dropped starting in December. That’s why I expect a similar drop in UAH in the next few months. Nothing complicated.
It would be interesting to compare the length of these reports with the values of the anomalies.
If something big happens, I believe I would typically say more words.
Exactly.
Willard is a dyed-in-the-wool proponent of saying a whole lot when little or nothing is happening.
Not really.
OK I concede to ‘almost’. JAlmost dyed-in-the-wool since I don’t know where else you post.
Not good enough, Bill.
Search for stoichiometry when you have time.
hmmm, maybe you could do a mathematical analysis on your own posts?
Yet more evidence from Dr. Roy that climate change is real.
For those of you following my commentaries on climate change, I’ve posted another video you might be interested in:
https://youtu.be/ZBofU2yk1oE
This one is entitled “Destroying the Volcano CO2 Myth”
What is the use in saying this? How many people in the conversation say that climate change isn’t real? The evidence that the climate does change, historically speaking and in general as a matter of course, is irrefutable. The evidence that the climate has changed in the past 100 years has always been very strong.
If Climate doesn’t change then we should start worrying.
The real worry is that a natural cooling trend of 0.001C/decade has been replaced with an artificial warming trend of 0.2C/decade.
What cooling trend EM?
My guess – the trend since the holocene climatic optimum, after climbing out of the last glacial period.
Yep I would be guessing too.
The title of the video might help answer your questions, Matt.
W
Any time a video starts with climate change denier I know we have a live one. This puts it into the Gretaesque school of who cares. I dont remember anyone on the skeptics side bringing up volcanoes. Strawman much?
More arguments center on the fact that part of the current warming results from coming out the LIA, and that the last several decades have been in the warm phase of the AMO, and the acceleration of SLR is just not living up to the hype.
But, W, I imagine you were enthralled with the little piece given your predilection.
Fernando,
You’re trying to fight against two incontrovertible points.
First, MarkS’ video has little to do with “But Climate Changes”:
https://climateball.wordpress.com/but-semantics/#change
But thanks for allowing me to add that silly line.
Second, “But Volcanoes” is truly ridiculous, even by your standards. Which is why you try to bait me with “But LIA.”
Try again. See if I will bite.
So there is meant to be an average climate that the LIA took us away from, is there? The global average temperature isn’t driven by anything but some unnamed elasticity that ‘rebounds’ after a cold event?
rebounds after a cold event
Sorta like a very long term repressed memory, except that unlike humans going through somata transformation psychotherapy, Mother earth moves back to conditions similar to those of the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm periods. We know global temperatures began warming 200 years ago, clearly prior to any effect of CO2.
I’m not sure I buy the “repressed memory” thing, Fernando.
But if you allude to your sock puppet, you might have a point.
Gee Willard do you believe this claim?
”In this video we show that the climate change deniers’ assertion that the bulk of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from volcanic activity is wrong.”
How do you know that the bulk of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from volcanic activity is wrong Willard?
Of course I do, Bill:
Would you like to know how asked that silly question?
Willard says:
”Of course I do, Bill:”
OK cough it up then!
Would you like an apple strudel with that, Bill?
Sure Willard, why not. If you think its too easy of a question to answer, cook up an apple strudel and throw it at your computer screen while you provide us with that simple answer.
Stay thirsty, sea lion.
Yep figured you were faking it . . . .again!
You are not in high school anymore, Bill.
Did it work back then?
Work to do what?
matt…”The evidence that the climate has changed in the past 100 years has always been very strong”.
***
What evidence do you have of climate change. Just curious.
Are you talking about glaciers that expanded in the mid-Little Ice Age and are now receding, or are you talking about recent climate change? Expanding and retreating glaciers are good evidence of a warmer climate but does it mean the climate in the areas affected is drastically changing?
I think it can get complex. The Mer de Glace glacier near Chamonix in France expanded enormously during the LIA but glaciers form high in mountainous regions and flow downhill. Does that mean the lower regions are necessarily suffering climate change?
Another example, there were famines in the Scottish highlands during the LIA but the Lowlands were unaffected. The Highlands are not that much higher than the Lowlands, the lower parts probably around 1000 feet. Yet that 1000 feet made the difference between a climate that could not support agriculture and one at sea level that could.
— Gordon Robertson says:
May 2, 2022 at 8:41 PM
mattThe evidence that the climate has changed in the past 100 years has always been very strong.
***
What evidence do you have of climate change. Just curious.–
Our global climate is icehouse global climate.
UN says:
–What Is Climate Change?
Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. These shifts may be natural, such as through variations in the solar cycle. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.–
UN has stupid definition of it.
UN is stupid.
I don’t think any identified shifts in temperatures and weather patterns related to CO2 levels.
NASA says,
“More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
I would say changes in heat content of the ocean, would effect our icehouse global climate.
The total heat content of our ocean is very large.
The average temperature of ocean is about 3.5 C.
And it’s been about 3.5 C for thousands of years.
NASA says more 90 percent.
It seems an important question is how much more than 90%.
Or does anyone, argue it’s less than 90%.
85% is not much difference, but 95% a big difference.
I am inclined to guess it’s about 99%
Does anyone have argue/evident/or hunch it’s less than 99%
Or does anyone think it’s 99.9% or 91%.
It seems odd to me that people could ignore more than 90% of warming, if they interested in global warming.
It seems like it’s some form of denial.
I have said that 1 C increase in heat content of ocean would be enormous effect upon global air temperature.
It’s my guess that our ocean average temperature has not been 4.5 C or warmer in last 1 million years.
But even a .5 C increase would also have large effect upon global air temperature, and it seems there widespread assumption the our ocean has been about 4 C for thousands of time in past million years. 10% of million years is 100,000 years.
I would guess less than 10% of last 1 million years has ocean which was about 4 C. But it seems more 5% of million years, has had ocean which was about 4 C, and more than 80% of the time with ocean of about 3.5 C.
It seems it’s accepted that our ocean has been as warm as 4 C {or possibly even warmer] in time periods of last million year.
And it’s accepted our ocean is currently about 3.5 C.
And not aware of any specific time period in which the ocean was 3 C or colder.
As wild guess, I would say less than 5% of the last million years had ocean heat content of 3 C or colder.
Also, in terms snowball climates [which I don’t think Earth has had] I think ocean heat content would need to be 2 C or colder.
How is one a climate change denier if they believe most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from volcanos? Where does most of the CO2 in the atmosphere come from, your video doesn’t say.
The idea that most of the climate change can be explained with volcanoes implies that it can’t be AGW, Bill.
Why do you ask silly questions?
Willard read the description of the video and his post. It talks about the source of the bulk of co2 in the atmosphere. >95% of the co2 in the atmosphere comes from a different source than the burning of fossil fuels
> read the description of the video and his post.
Good idea, Bill:
Want fries with that?
willard if ”the bulk of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from volcanic activity is wrong.”
Where did it come from? All the video goes into is what was emitted recently which is a small fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Bill,
First it was
[JAQ1] How is one a climate change denier if they believe most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from volcanos?
Then it was
[JAQ2] What is the description of the video and his post?
Now it’s
[JAQ3] Where did CO2 come from if not from volcanoes?
There you go:
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/carbon-sources-and-sinks/
It was been a pleasure to see you getting served.
Please come again!
bill…”Willard read….”
***
Come on, Bill, Willard is a dumbass troll. If you use sentences longer than two words he gets confused. And please don’t write in paragraphs, he goes right squirrely.
C’mon, Gordo.
This is an Arby’s.
Yep Willard is struggling yet again with his reading comprehension.
Pretty simple stuff the video description speculates on what the source was for the bulk of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Last I heard only about 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere had been buried for a long period of time and pumped or spewed out of the ground. So does the author know what he is talking about? Or is he like Willard challenged by English?
Yep Bill conflates inference with speculation.
Considering how he reasons, who could blame him?
Willard its hard to say if the inference you claim being made here is a red herring or a strawman.
That is because you misunderstand both concepts, Bill.
The inference you misrepresent is indeed a red herring here, since we were discussing volcanoes.
Thats all I have been discussing Willard. Asking questions about the source of the claim by Shapiro: ”the bulk of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from volcanic activity is wrong”
Are you hallucinating that I posted something else?
Sure, Bill.
Search for IPCC dot ch.
Why?
Why why?
Do you always recommend stuff without knowing why?
Hunter
Volcanic CO2 output is about 3 % of human output.
Maybe you switch to… SO2 in the stratosphere?
Bindidon you mean currently? But volcanoes have been erupting for billions of years.
Then we should be sing a steadyish growth of CO2 over billions of years?
Maybe some intrepid soul has done some research and calculated the contribution of various sources AND sinks of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Those scratching their heads could us the internet thingy to look at some actual research.
barry says:
Then we should be sing a steadyish growth of CO2 over billions of years?
————————-
Why? I thought it was a carbon ‘cycle’?
———-
=========
Barry says:
Maybe some intrepid soul has done some research and calculated the contribution of various sources AND sinks of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Those scratching their heads could us the internet thingy to look at some actual research.
————
Good advice for yourself. You have a link to where it it claims the bulk of the CO2 in the atmosphere has an anthropogenic source? Oh thats right Shapiro just gave us one, right?
I hunted up information on that years ago. There’s plenty of good research on it.
The majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not anthropogenic in origin. The growth of CO2 since 1900 is virtually all because of anthropogenic emissions. Well verified on multiple lines of evidence. This is one of the best corroborated components of AGW.
Barry,
“Hunted up information” is not very convincing. Apart from appeals to authority and other people’s research, what have you done to show the “growth of CO2 since 1900 is virtually all because of anthropogenic emissions?”
Clearly humans have contributed to the rise in CO2. Assuming atmospheric CO2 growth is even a problem at all, determining how much fossil fuel emissions contribute to the rise relative to other potential sources is of primary importance. Moving to net-zero, buying electric vehicles, controlling population growth, or any other efforts to reduce emissions should be a secondary concern until the contribution issue is resolved. Only fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.
“determining how much fossil fuel emissions contribute to the rise relative to other potential sources is of primary importance”
According to you and a teeny tiny collection of contrarians, who will never be convinced.
But the vast majority of skeptics who are also climate scientists (such as Roy), do not consider that to be a controversy of primary importance.
Nate, please stop adding nothing to a discussion.
Have you found any evidence to back up your claim that the Revelle factor causes a bottleneck in ocean uptake of CO2?
Im contributing by pointing out that your views are an extreme minority viewpoint.
Let me ask you. On science issues of importance to humans, how do we decide when to act?
Do we wait until all experts are convinced? 99.9%?
On issues like restrictions on toxic chemicals. There are always people with a vested interest, eg industry funded scientists.
See eg tobacco. Lead in gasoline.
So 99.9% is never achieved.
What then?
“On science issues of importance to humans, how do we decide when to act?”
Unfortunately, “we” are not likely to decide anything, because you bought the AGW dogma and stopped investigating the main unknowns regarding science involving the climate.
It is you and your “we decide when to act” fanatics that doubled the price of gas lately.
BTW, the planet will be fine no matter what your ilk do. It’s we the people that are literally paying the price now.
barry says:
The majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not anthropogenic in origin.
—————–
Indeed that is well known. But what was the original source of it. Shapiro claims it isn’t from volcanos. Did you find anything on that?
All I see listed as natural sources of CO2 is from volcanos and from decaying plants. But plants aren’t the source because to decay and release CO2 they must first absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.
So that leaves volcanos and we have Shapiro claiming: ”the bulk of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from volcanic activity is wrong.”
Nate says:
RE: determining how much fossil fuel emissions contribute to the rise relative to other potential sources is of primary importance.
According to you and a teeny tiny collection of contrarians, who will never be convinced.
But the vast majority of skeptics who are also climate scientists (such as Roy), do not consider that to be a controversy of primary importance.
———————
Thats a bald faced lie Nate. How much feedback comes from a wild guess estimate of how much warming CO2 will directly cause (1c degree by taking the absolute maximum figure possible) is only one third of model projected warming and Roy has said many times determining the validity of that feedback of 2c is of primary importance.
Though from my perspective what is of primary importance is first determining what amount of warming would be harmful because right now its on a 150 year old winning streak of being beneficial with no realistic end in sight.
” how much warming CO2″
Way off topic, Bill.
“stopped investigating the main unknowns regarding science involving the climate.”
You, Chic, stopped investigating the Revelle Factor and ocean chemistry and the mixed-layer bottleneck, that plenty of others have investigated, explained, published, and understood for decades.
Why? Because it doesnt help your cause to debunk anthro CO2.
If you willfully refuse to get yourself informed on this Key topic, then why should policy depend, in any way, on your uninformed opinions?
“You, Chic, stopped investigating the Revelle Factor and ocean chemistry and the mixed-layer bottleneck, that plenty of others have investigated, explained, published, and understood for decades.”
Not true, Nate. I am working on it. But how do you convince a kid there is no boogie man under the bed?
The Revelle factor simply describes the fact that roughly nine of ten CO2 molecules absorbed by the ocean become carbonates. The rate limiting step is thermodynamic, not stoichiometric.
Nate says:
Way off topic, Bill.
————————–
So why did you lie about it?
As usual, Bill, you didnt read, dont know what the discussion is about, and come to erroneous conclusions.
“The Revelle factor simply describes the fact that roughly nine of ten CO2 molecules absorbed by the ocean become carbonates. The rate limiting step is thermodynamic, not stoichiometric.”
And the implications of that were described plainly in Bolin Erickson, which you need to read and comprehend.
“This tells us that 1 percent change in the total CO2 concentration in the sea requires a 12.5 percent change in the atmospheric CO2 to maintain equilibrium. If we consider only the mixed layer of the oceans, i.e. the surface layer which contains about as much CO2 as the atmosphere, less than 10% of excess fossil CO2 in the atmosphere should have been taken up by the mixed layer. It is therefore obvious that the mixed layer acts as a bottleneck in the transport of fossil CO2 into the deep sea.”
Nate says:
Let me ask you. On science issues of importance to humans, how do we decide when to act?
—————————
We are all free to act as individual humans Nate. Nobody asked you to be somebody else’s keeper.
But what I am hearing here is ”we” is exclusive code for some gigantic collective ”we” which should never act until true harm to ‘others’ is well identified.
Fear of change and fear of the unknown should never apply. The freedom to see something better using all the minds of the culture is well managed in the marketplace with a relatively small amount of regulation. Some regulation is called for such as discharging poisons into the commons. However managing the commons needs to be done with good and transparent science within the framework of a very public process.
On the transparency of science I recall a great quote by Dr. William Happer on what constitutes quality science. I wish I could find the quote again but it went something like it is something that any freshman class of students can easily understand and explain to others.
But as we can see there isn’t even consensus among the warmists about how the greenhouse effect actually works. . . .each has simply been willing to trust their daddy’s on this in homage to a form of elitism.
What Happer’s comment does is draw a line between developing science and well-accepted science. Developing science can be very difficult to understand.
It is worthy of experimentation via well-informed volunteers.
But radical politics has judged individual freedom to be dangerous and bigoted and an involuntary experiment on others and thus the stupid masses need management by the elitists. Indeed that is just about the entire discussion around here and your quote above poses a question that most definitely needs an answer apriori to making the decision for others.
There has been CO2 in the atmosphere since the planet formed, and much more than present in prior epochs. The arrival of life, biota and animals changed the atmospheric portion of CO2, and various climate swings over geological time have changed the oceans solubility for CO2, most recently the quaternary glacial transitions, where CO2 was soaked up by global the oceans as the global temperature dropped in cold periods and outgassed as the temperature rose.
The various sinks and sources for CO2 operate on varying time scales, some with at an even pace (silicate weathering), others in fits and starts (volcanic activity, rapid biota changes), at least on geological time scales.
The most recent period of CO2 rise in the atmosphere is very clearly anthropogenic in origin. There are multiple lines of evidence, not the least of which is that human industry pumps out around twice as much CO2 as has accumulated in the atmosphere. Accounting for other sources (eg, the oceans are currently gaining CO2, not losing it to the atmosphere) indicates the origin of recent rise, which is very rapid compared to the geological record, as does the changes in isotopic ratios in atmospheric CO2, which are consistent with the burning of fossil fuels.
This issue is not in any doubt.
barry says:
The arrival of life, biota and animals changed the atmospheric portion of CO2. All life can do is sequester existing CO2 in the atmosphere as before it can rot and emit it it must first absorb it to build the biomass. So biomass is not a source of carbon in the atmosphere except in the case of mining old CO2 sequestered by life forms and burning it.
So that only leaves volcanos as an original source on NOAA’s list of sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That makes Shapiro’s claim wrong.
“Let me ask you. On science issues of importance to humans, how do we decide when to act?”
As expected from Bill, lots an lots of ranting, except for this sensible part:
“Some regulation is called for such as discharging poisons into the commons. However managing the commons needs to be done with good and transparent science within the framework of a very public process.”
Indeed
2020: Covid pandemic. US committed to fund rapid vaccine production by novel RNA methods, based on the scientific consensus.
1970s: Based on the scientific consensus (minus industry scientists and supporters) that showed Lead harmed child brain development and was building up in the environment, Lead in gasoline was banned..
1980s” Certain chlorofluorocarbons chemicals phased out, based on the scientific consensus that they were destroying the Earths ozone layer.
obviously there are many instances when we NEED to act based on available science.
But yet no answer to the question above.
How do we decide when to act? DO we need to wait until every last contrarian is convinced?
If that is the case, then none of the above examples would have ever been acted on.
Your point?
The point is clearly stated at the end, Bill.
Nate you built a strawman there and claimed no action would have ever been taken.
I answered how action should be taken. I defined a true consensus science determining harm. In fact was regulated not for lead but for the protection of catalytic converters designed to limit pollutants associated with smog that did have science behind it and done in a willing marketplace (the converters didn’t slow adoption of the technology in the marketplace because of a relatively minor cost).
Also COVID vaccines didn’t require regulation of choice. 60% sought and got the vaccination often standing in long lines without any coercion from the government and funding of it was non-controversial and its funding had no real opposition.
OTOH, the CFC regulation was possibly a mistake, advancing myth and fear mongering above science.
High solar activity is the natural regulator of ozone in the atmosphere. Now past that peak of solar activity the ozone hole has closed and we have no idea if regulation had anything to do with it. There is not a clear scientific consensus on that matter. And there isn’t even a clear scientific consensus on a direct threat of lead in gasoline but it passed because of the need to not put in new cars with catalytic converters. Econuts made a big deal about prohibiting it going into a spiritual belief system for justification but the fact was lead just wasn’t that important and not the only product or technology that reduces knock in combustion engines. Today as technology has advanced ethanol as a knock reducer is only mandated as a continuing subsidy for farmers.
So you can take your strawmen Nate and stuff them where the sun don’t shine.
No strawman that I can see, Bill.
And you stated ” good and transparent science within the framework of a very public process.” is what is needed to determine when to act.
Which is fine, but vague wrt to my question:
“How do we decide when to act? DO we need to wait until every last contrarian is convinced?”
Which was a question for Chic (not you), who aligns himself with a teeny tiny group of contrarians who don’t accept that FF carbon is mainly responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2, and he considers this an issue of “primary importance”.
And he suggested that we should not act on FF emissions until THAT issue is settled. “Only fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.” ( I assume he works for the FF industry)
Hence my question. Because among climate scientists, including the vast majority of skeptics like Roy, THAT issue is not controversial. It is settled that FF are mainly responsible for the rise in atm CO2.
“was regulated not for lead but for the protection of catalytic converters designed to limit pollutants associated with smog that did have science behind it”
The health effects of Lead DID have science behind it and it WAS acted upon by the govt with the Clean Air Act.
“https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/gasoline-and-the-environment-leaded-gasoline.php
“Health hazards associated with lead have been documented since the early 1920s. The U.S. Surgeon General set a voluntary standard for lead content in leaded gasoline. The standard was raised in the 1950s.
The U.S. Congress adopted the Clean Air Act in 1970 and created the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Clean Air Act set air quality standards that included a timetable for phasing out leaded gasoline.”
Bill Hunter says:
And you stated ”good and transparent science within the framework of a very public process.” is what is needed to determine when to act.
Which is fine, but vague wrt to my question:
”How do we decide when to act? DO we need to wait until every last contrarian is convinced?”
Which was a question for Chic (not you), who aligns himself with a teeny tiny group of contrarians who dont accept that FF carbon is mainly responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2, and he considers this an issue of ”primary importance”.
——————-
Well indeed the notion that CO2 is responsible for the bulk of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a matter of science but of politics. That doesn’t mean it isn’t responsible for the bulk of the increase; it just means its a question yet to be answered by science.
Very clearly this shortcut is so much abused by politicians they even have a name for it invented by those who want the politicians to take authoritarian positions on the assumption the masses are stupid and need to be directed. Its called Post Normal Science. So if you accept that Post Normal Science is a legitimate form of science then indeed ff emission are responsible for the bulk of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and the popularity of that notion among the elite influencers is so high few question it.
But in fact all we know for sure is that 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to ff emissions. Meanwhile the atmosphere level of CO2 is alleged to have increased by 30%. However, that also isn’t based on established science. Even the 20% shown by the Mauna Loa monitoring is not solid science as its a single sample taken in the northern hemisphere where CO2 emissions have been the highest. I don’t have a big problem with that but typically science should be based upon more than one method and I am unaware if there are any concurring records that date back to the beginning Mauna Loa record.
And Chic is not alone in this. In fact his statement has fewer conditions than many scientists that are skeptical of anthropogenic causes being 100% of the modern warming. In fact I would venture that if you took a poll that would be the majority of scientists and that position Nate would require many other conditions be met in addition to establishing the bulk of the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere was anthropogenic.
So you can claim its settled but it far from that.
Nate says:
The health effects of Lead DID have science behind it and it WAS acted upon by the govt with the Clean Air Act.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/gasoline-and-the-environment-leaded-gasoline.php
————————-
All you are doing here is parading in plain sight your ignorance on this topic.
Check out figure 1 at this link:
The EPA regulation you link to is put the regulation effective date at January 1, 1996. But that time 98% of the gas available was unleaded due to the reasons I previously stated. The 2% on the market still was primarily being used for fueling in the exempted categories (e.g. older cars, aircraft, racing cars, farm equipment, and marine engines.)
Quite simply it was accomplished with regulations to address different issues, didn’t cost a lot (most of the costs being born by those who for various reasons misfueled their engines and damaged them with the inferior fuel). Meanwhile the whole effort increased CO2 emissions by 5% and the government tried to cover that up by claiming ethanol was carbon neutral. . . .while today they refuse to recognize the greening of the planet by CO2 which is even quite apparent in the CO2 data.
“Well indeed the notion that CO2 is responsible for the bulk of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a matter of science but of politics. That doesnt mean it isnt responsible for the bulk of the increase; it just means its a question yet to be answered by science.”
Makes absolutely no sense, Bill.
“The EPA regulation you link to is put the regulation effective date at January 1, 1996. ”
I was talking about the 1970 Clean Air Act, which clearly stated that Leaded gasoline should be phased out.
Unleaded gasoline was introduced. And as a result, catalytic converters were enabled to come out in 1975 to solve the air pollution requirements. Which, yes, accelerated the use of unleaded gasoline.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9tBOAAAAIBAJ&dq=catalytic-converter&pg=6404%2C6576523
Nate,
“It is settled that FF are mainly responsible for the rise in atm CO2.”
Of course it is NOT settled and your appeals to authority and unfounded assertions are laughable.
The relative amount of FF versus non-FF emissions is of primary importance; because, if FF emissions are relatively minor, why should we risk global recession and adverse consequences on a non-problem?
I am also not troubled about rising CO2 whatever the causes, because its effect on global warming is not settled either.
Nate says:
”I was talking about the 1970 Clean Air Act, which clearly stated that Leaded gasoline should be phased out.”
Don’t you find it strange that the word ”lead” cannot be found anywhere in the 1970 Clean Air Act?
“So that only leaves volcanos as an original source”
The oceans outgassed 100ppm of CO2 over 5000 years about 16 thousand years ago, a 55% increase in total atmos CO2, far more than any volcanic eruption or sequence of eruptions for at least 20 million years prior.
Dunno what you mean by ‘original’. Atmospheric CO2 is mostly turned over about every 4 years (the residence time of an individual CO2 molecule, on average). This means that the major source of atmospheric CO2 is currently biological in origin – from decaying biota. Anthropogenic CO2 is the second most abundant source.
Relaxation time for pulses in atmospheric CO2 (like the one currently ongoing) is 500 to 1000 years, as the sinks available to take up the excess are slow sinks (oceans, silicate weathering).
I don’t know at what time in the past atmospheric CO2 was primarily volcanic in origin. Possibly the Deccan Traps formation 66 million years ago, but that was a build up over 100,000 years, which suggests to me that the majority of CO2 through that period was of plant origin.
What is it you are trying to get at?
Barry says:
Relaxation time for pulses in atmospheric CO2 (like the one currently ongoing) is 500 to 1000 years, as the sinks available to take up the excess are slow sinks (oceans, silicate weathering).
———————-
Barry 1) we don’t know how fast sinks will uptake CO2. We haven’t even figured out a way to measure it yet.
2) Relaxation time is quite quick in terms of removing the material amount of a pulse. C14 bomb uptake was nearly 90% in 15 years. Since as the amount of excess gets smaller it takes longer for each extra percentage. 500 to 1000 years is probably the projected time to get the last molecule of CO2 absorbed into the ocean. A really meaningless fact used to deceive the naive.
Are you naive?
—————
==============
Barry says:
”I dont know at what time in the past atmospheric CO2 was primarily volcanic in origin. Possibly the Deccan Traps formation 66 million years ago, but that was a build up over 100,000 years, which suggests to me that the majority of CO2 through that period was of plant origin.”
Again plants are not considered to a source for 2 reasons.
1) Plants are not considered to be a sink within the context of AGW despite the fact sequestration has a wide range from about one year to 2 thousand years or more.
2) plants are not a source because for a plant to release CO2 into the atmosphere it must first take up even more CO2 out of the atmosphere as the carbon cycle in plants causes some of the carbon absorbed out of the atmosphere is permanently embedded through the processes of petrification.
So plants are not a source of CO2. Currently because of the greening of the planet from elevated CO2 plants are a larger sink than during times with lower levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Nate, no bottleneck to be found so far.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1277882
Bill,
“500 to 1000 years is probably the projected time to get the last molecule of CO2 absorbed into the ocean. A really meaningless fact used to deceive the naive.”
I think you are exactly right about the last molecule bit. Barry is in good company with all AGW dogma followers confused about e-times and “relaxation.”
Regarding plants, the latest data I’m seeing tends to indicate that decomposition, fires, etc. are exceeding uptake by plants resulting in what could be a true net source. By true, I mean not just more emissions each year although being less than what is photosynthetically absorbed.
Bill,
Again, the EIA site clearly states:
“The U.S. Congress adopted the Clean Air Act in 1970 and created the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Clean Air Act set air quality standards that included a timetable for phasing out leaded gasoline”
They are lying, are they?
“Since as the amount of excess gets smaller it takes longer for each extra percentage. 500 to 1000 years is probably the projected time to get the last molecule of CO2 absorbed into the ocean.”
Yes, that’s what I’ve read. A long tail to being absorbed.
The origin of most CO2 in today’s atmosphere is definitely plants. Because of the annual overturn of CO2, it takes only a few years to renew all the CO2 therein. There is very little CO2 now that is of volcanic origin.
Even taking into account the millennial relaxation time, this remains the case. There has not been a significant volcanic pulse for tens of millions of years.
Of course plants are both a source and sink of CO2. The biannual respiration of CO2 that gives us the sine wave in total atmos CO2 is directly a result of the fastest large-scale carbon cycle on the planet, and is the reason why the majority of current atmospheric CO2 originates from plants. Volcanic CO2 makes up a tiny fraction of annual CO2, and is absorbed by plants, which are not fussy about what CO2 they eat.
Ocean outgassing added 100ppm CO2 (55% increase) to the atmosphere 16 thousand years ago. Depending on the time frame you choose, you could argue that this is the primary source of most CO2 in the atmosphere (ignoring recent anthro contribution).
If you want to posit volcanic outgassing is the primary source of CO2, then your time frame should probably centre on the formation of the atmosphere itself 3-4 billion years ago.
There are fast and slow processes in the carbon cycle. Fast processes are the dominant source of CO2 in the atmosphere. Your argument appears to revolve around some time scale factor, but you haven’t been particularly clear.
Chic,
”
Of course it is NOT settled and your appeals to authority and unfounded assertions are laughable.”
If you mean it is not settled for YOU because you havent yet read the relavant literature on the subject, then yes, I could agree.
But something not settled for YOU because of your lack of knowledge, does not equate to not settled for science and those who are knowledgeable.
I think you are subsituting trust of your chosen contrarian authorities, Berry and Salby, with a proper investigation of the literature.
Not a good substitute. Berry has shown that he is unfamiliar with the Revelle Factor and its bottleneck effect, but he simply feels it can be ignored.
Feelings arent facts.
No sign of a bottleneck anywhere. You will need more than appeals to authority and 60-year old unverified models to show otherwise.
If I am wrong about the carbon cycle, I’ll be glad to admit it. The science is what drives me, not being right or how I feel about it.
“No sign of a bottleneck anywhere. You will need more than appeals to authority and 60-year old unverified models to show otherwise.”
Well of the teeny tiny amount of literature youve been shown on the subject, Revelle, Bolin and Erickson, and Bern group papers the evidence is clear on the ocean chemistry, which you still don’t seem to understand, and in their successful prediction of future atm rise to unprecedented levels.
There are plenty of measurements of Earth’s carbon fluxes, eg
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-00653-5
You have yet to show that you have looked at any of it to ‘find’ any evidence of your extra natural flux, or any evidence to falsify the bottleneck effect.
“The science is what drives me, not being right or how I feel about it.”
I see little evidence of a desire on your part to learn about the large body of existing science that may contradict your preferred hypothesis.
It is bleeding obvious that a political and/or industry agenda is what drives you. Science with such an aim is generally piss-poor science.
Nate says:
Again, the EIA site clearly states:
The U.S. Congress adopted the Clean Air Act in 1970 and created the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Clean Air Act set air quality standards that included a timetable for phasing out leaded gasoline
They are lying, are they?
———————
Of course Nate! The EPA lies as much as other unaccountable agencies lie.
After all Nate the stupid populace needs to be lied to. Right?
Read the act for yourself and show me if you find anything like that.
EIA not EPA, dimwit.
Evidence that they lied?
No need.
Flat Earthers simply declare that all the pics from space are fake.
It works for them..and it works for you.
“You have yet to show that you have looked at any of it to ‘find’ any evidence of your extra natural flux, or any evidence to falsify the bottleneck effect.”
Potential sources of non-fossil fuel emissions include land-use changes, fires, permafrost melt, volcanoes, and plant decomposition. Thank you for providing a link to a study on 500 trees showing increasing rates of photosynthesis and respiration of 0.49 and 0.33 GtC/yr. I bookmarked it for later use. In the meantime, I am working on analyzing the box models, similar to B&E and Ed Berry’s, for consistency with data and proper application of physical principles.
As indicated below on this post, I found no bottleneck alleged by B&E. I will now finish updating a spreadsheet providing you evidence falsifying a bottleneck that you can check for yourself.
Chic Bowdrie says:
No sign of a bottleneck anywhere. You will need more than appeals to authority and 60-year old unverified models to show otherwise.
If I am wrong about the carbon cycle, Ill be glad to admit it. The science is what drives me, not being right or how I feel about it.
————————
One needs to define a bottleneck. CO2 is depleted in the upper ocean because of biological production. The upper oceans ability to absorb CO2 has some limitations or biological production would go off the charts with more available CO2. That is the Revelle Factor.
One need only read the IPCC mainbody reports to realize that there is no scientific consensus on the Revelle Factor having any additional impact than seen in the Bomb pulse uptake where it took only a few washes of the atmosphere (7 year wash cycle) for nearly 90% of the C14 to exit the atmosphere.
So my conversation with Barry on the source of CO2, Barry wants to make biota a source when in fact what it is is a net sink.
More CO2 exits the atmosphere via plants than gets pushed back into the atmosphere by plants. Carbon14 becomes unavailable primarily because the ocean absorbs CO2 and it mostly gets taken up by the biota and when the plant dies only some of that carbon finds it way back into the atmosphere. The Revelle Factor plays into that and creates a baseline rate of uptake.
The fact that some woody land plants absorb it and when it dies it slowly decays accounts for some of the C14 from the bomb pulse still being detectable.
Carbon14 doesn’t just disappear because it gets absorbed by a plant. Thats why we have carbon14 dating.
Thus the known bottle neck is the rate of uptake seen in the bomb pulse. There isn’t a scientific consensus that the Revelle Factor will change the carbon uptake rate previously seen with the Carbon14 bomb pulse. Only the blabbermouths out there including a number of blabbermouth scientists think so and they have no science to back up their claims but these things rise to the top of science papers because of politics. they speculate about this and that but have nothing that would be considered real science.
If it weren’t for the Revelle factor the nuclear bomb pulse wouldn’t have hung around as long as it did. The brains behind the hysteria already know that. Thats why they switched from global warming to climate change figuring that they probably couldn’t keep the facts under the hat as they slowly made in roads on emissions.
So they want you to start worrying about mining fossil fuels and having that be in the ocean. . . .though there is no science just speculation about what more carbon will cause whereever it ends up.
Bottom line is Al Gore is the inventor of the sandpile theory which is a theory that if we keep building the sandpile too high there will be a landslide. . . .and Big Al wants to tell you that you shouldn’t build sandpiles at all. And when he made VP he greened (green in the other sense) the anti-progress industry (with Bill’s help). That pretty much sums up the science behind climate change.
“One needs to define a bottleneck. CO2 is depleted in the upper ocean because of biological production. The upper oceans ability to absorb CO2 has some limitations or biological production would go off the charts with more available CO2. That is the Revelle Factor”
Bill, Revelle Factor is pure chemistry, has nothing to do with bio production.
No one need pay attention to your ignorant blather about any off this.
” Thank you for providing a link ”
Sure. There is lots to find. Maybe you will get the idea that you can search yourself, too find all that you need to falsify the bottleneck.
Bill, The bottleneck Nate and I debate concerns the ocean. Mostly nothing to do with land biota as Nate wrote. I generally turn off anyone referring to blabbermouths without naming names and citing references that can be evaluated. Nate is a blabbermouth and an obfuscator, but sometimes he stumbles on interesting papers worth analyzing. The Bolin/Eriksson paper is exemplary.
Nate, I posted a spreadsheet showing the evidence that B&E’s bottleneck claim is falsified. Have at it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1278601
Nate says:
Bill, Revelle Factor is pure chemistry, has nothing to do with bio production.
No one need pay attention to your ignorant blather about any off this.
————————–
Stop just moronically replying to my posts. I didn’t say biological production modified or was part of the Revelle Factor.
What I said was The Revelle Factor allows for biological production to make the upper oceans to have a lower CO2 content than the deeper ocean where biological production is much lower (below the photic zone of the ocean).
Without the Revelle Factor the upper ocean would not be CO2 poor because of biological production. CO2 would be replaced in the upper ocean by the atmosphere as fast as the plants absorbed it.
The bomb pulse depletion rate is the rate that mostly represents the biological production sink rate (i.e. isn’t put back due to the annual respiration cycle). One should note that actually its a bit faster because France and China continued atmospheric tests after the ban.
Chic Bowdrie says:
Bill, The bottleneck Nate and I debate concerns the ocean. Mostly nothing to do with land biota as Nate wrote.
—————————————-
I didn’t say the Revelle Factor had anything to do with land biota.
I am talking about marine biota is able to deplete CO2 in the upper ocean because of the Revelle Factor.
The Revelle Factor slows CO2 uptake by the ocean even when the atmosphere is rich with CO2. Marine biota while having an estimated biomass much smaller than land biomass goes through more CO2 per year than the land biomass goes through.
thus the Revelle factor has no more impact on ocean sequestration of carbon than it had with the bomb pulse. The IPCC has included bomb pulse decay rates of the CO2 pulse within their range of estimates and is the only one with experimental evidence showing how fast stuff gets washed out of the atmosphere.
Bill wrote, “I am talking about marine biota is able to deplete CO2 in the upper ocean because of the Revelle Factor.”
As I wrote, and I think Nate agrees, the Revelle factor is a function of seawater carbonate chemistry, not marine biota. Marine biota may affect carbonate chemistry, but does not enter into the Revelle factor calculation. In fact, marine biota may be the reason that Revelle factors are wholly conceptual as opposed to factually evident from ocean data.
Because of my interest in getting to the “bottom” of this, I would appreciate any evidence you have that “the Revelle Factor slows CO2 uptake by the ocean” under any circumstances.
Chic Bowdrie says:
Bill wrote, I am talking about marine biota is able to deplete CO2 in the upper ocean because of the Revelle Factor.
As I wrote, and I think Nate agrees, the Revelle factor is a function of seawater carbonate chemistry, not marine biota.
Marine biota may affect carbonate chemistry, but does not enter into the Revelle factor calculation.
—————-
Agreed
—————-
===============
Chic Bowdrie says:
Because of my interest in getting to the bottom of this, I would appreciate any evidence you have that the Revelle Factor slows CO2 uptake by the ocean under any circumstances.
————————-
Seems to me it does. But does it matter? Chemical carbon sequestration is just a competing process.
The point of my post was that the CO2 sequestration was originally set at 2 billion tons of carbon (per year total) and almost all of it was assumed to be chemical rather than biological.
But that was all desktop theory. The kind typically found in Post Normal Science.
Here is an interesting article that says 2 billion tons of carbon (7.33 billion tons of CO2) is being transported to the deep ocean by a biological pump (not a chemical reaction fallout). Further that 640 billion tons of carbon (2.35 trillion tons of CO2) is sequestered long term and it is not known if these concentrations resulted from biological or nonbiological processes.
https://eos.org/features/dissolved-organic-matter-in-the-ocean-carbon-cycle
The bottom line here is I see no reason to believe that the Revelle Factor will cause ocean uptake of carbon dioxide to slow more than its original limitations. The chemicals needed have a cycle of their own setting the upper limit. One might conclude that the rate can’t increase, but I haven’t seen anything that says it will decrease.
Thus there is no argument I have seen that would suggest that future increases anthropogenic emissions would not quickly return to the present if emissions were reduced to the present as seen with the bomb pulse.
Further it is not known how the biological processes mentioned in the article have affected climate change but it is suggested that it has had a role.
Neither the science is present nor the need established to take action on climate change. However, on the other side of the equation is the fact that fossil fuels were a major contributor to our prosperity and the UN recognizes that by saying we NEED TO make exceptions for the 3rd world and developing nations to increase their emissions.
Finally the article notes the findings came out of a controversy triggered by a theory that didn’t pan out. So I would like to personally thank all the warmists on this board for helping mightily to keep controversy on the table!! Good healthy open debate finds it way into the political sphere to motivate curiosity, investigation, and the accumulation of knowledge.
Nate says:
EIA not EPA, dimwit.
Evidence that they lied?
No need.
Flat Earthers simply declare that all the pics from space are fake.
It works for them..and it works for you.
———————————–
Nate the evidence they provided inaccurate information is incontrovertible! The word lead isn’t in the 1970 Act!!!!!
But you pointing out it was another agency that said it, gives cover it wasn’t a lie as you suggested it must be if the word ‘lead’ isn’t even in the act.
Ignorance is the answer. If you ever audited a government agency you would know one agency has very little idea what another agency does or why they do it. The only agencies in government that would not be true of would be the various auditing agencies such as the Office of Inspector General and the GAO and I am certain you won’t find that quote you came up with coming from them.
“So my conversation with Barry on the source of CO2, Barry wants to make biota a source when in fact what it is is a net sink.”
Th annual turnover makes the biota the primary source of CO2 even if it is a net sink over the long term.
Your POV seems to rest on some time-scale you have not enunciated.
If CO2 had an isotopic tracer that identified the reservoir that CO2 came from, you would take a volume of atmosphere today, analyse it and find that the majority of CO2 molecules came from plants. That’s a straightforward fact.
You must be thinking of some other time scale when you posit that the source of CO2 in todays atmosphere is mostly volcanic, Bill.
Barry you just don’t understand the game with the figures.
It is really quite simple. Shapiro breaks it down into two sources volcanos and anthropogenic and here you are arguing that biota is a source.
Thats the game ignore anything that isn’t deeply sourced down in the earth and then only look at what its annual contribution has been to the bulk of CO2 in the atmosphere while ignoring volcanos have been contributing for billions of years and anthropogenic for 100 years.
Now you want to include ocean outgassing by marine biota releasing carbons into the ocean through the consumption of forage and direct rotting and molting of the forage and the predators. But this outgassing is regulated. By water and atmosphere temperatures. So Shapiro decided to selectively pick on volcanos as a source and limit that source to annual land volcanos spewing CO2 into the atmosphere.
So what do you think is going on in his head calling anthropogenic emissions as making up the bulk of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Its a very complicated question and if I play the game like Shapiro is playing it I will ask how much CO2 have volcano’s released in the entire lifetime of the planet. Or if that is unreasonable, how about the entire Holocene? And how about undersea volcanos which make up the bulk of volcanos in the world? Oh gee they say that CO2 is absorbed by the ocean so we don’t want to count that. . . . .sheesh!
As they say stupid is as stupid does!!! I am just dying to see the academic paper that waves its arms over all this!
Bill, I don’t know what gam YOU’RE playing. I’m quite familiar with the sources and sinks of CO2 and the time scales on which they operate.
It’s a simple fact that because of the fast turnover of land biota in the carbon cycle, that currently the majority of CO2 in the atmos came out of decaying plants.
That’s purely down to how fast plants turn over carbon.
It doesn’t matter a whit that global biota is a net sink when determining the primary source of current CO2. The biota eats ALL varieties of CO2, whether from plants, human activity or volcanoes. So it’s not preferentially removing just the CO2 it emits.
Volcanoes put out a miniscule amount per annum compared to the amount emitted (and absorbed) by plants each year.
That annual turnover also dwarfs the annual anthropogenic input.
These are not alarmist ramblings. When you ask what the origin of CO2 in the atmosphere is, you can start at the very beginning and say that all matter on our plant was born in stars (a pretty ho-hum cliche), or you can think of an individual molecule in our current atmosphere, and know that it is likeliest to have been pumped out by a plant, because other sources don’t emit CO2 at a higher rate per annum than global plant life.
If you want to posit that some other reservoir is the source for the current CO2 in the atmosphere, then you’re going to have to explain yourself.
So far you haven’t done that.
Are you claiming that each year volcanoes emit more CO2 than plant life, and that the majority of current molecules of CO2 in the atmos were mostly belched out of the earth?
Because that’s not true.
Or are you thinking that volcanoes were the source 4 billion years ago, and that whatever sinks and sources cam after owe their reservoir to volcanic activity?
I’m having to guess your meaning, Bill, because you’re not being clear.
It doesn’t help that you prefer to lace your post with jabs at perceived alarmists than clarify the actual point you’re trying to make.
And would you care to link to ‘Shapiro’, so that you help clarify what you’re referring to with that?
Barry says:
Bill, I dont know what gam YOURE playing. Im quite familiar with the sources and sinks of CO2 and the time scales on which they operate.
Its a simple fact that because of the fast turnover of land biota in the carbon cycle, that currently the majority of CO2 in the atmos came out of decaying plants.
————————-
Yes after these previously living plants absorbed the CO2 out of the atmosphere!
Thus living plants cannot be a source for the bulk of CO2 in the atmosphere. Instead plants are a sink because some of the CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere does not again see the atmosphere for a whole variety of time scales perhaps into the billions of years.
Thus one has to look deeper for the source of CO2 into the atmosphere.
————–
————–
==============
Barry says:
Thats purely down to how fast plants turn over carbon.
It doesnt matter a whit that global biota is a net sink when determining the primary source of current CO2. The biota eats ALL varieties of CO2, whether from plants, human activity or volcanoes. So its not preferentially removing just the CO2 it emits.
————————
True (besides whether it matters or not) it matters regarding to whether biota is a sink or a source. On every time scale its a sink.
————–
————–
==============
Barry says:
Volcanoes put out a miniscule amount per annum compared to the amount emitted (and absorbed) by plants each year.
That annual turnover also dwarfs the annual anthropogenic input.
——————–
True. We need to focus on that. Include land volcanos, add in undersea volcanos, add in the amount of CO2 that is emitted from the ocean via changing climate, etc. But Shapiro wants to focus only on current land volcano eruptions. He is building fake strawman to shoot down to impugn skeptics.
The science isn’t there yet regarding the rate of variability of carbon in the ocean, particularly the outgassing of it, instead focusing on largely irrelevant Revelle factors of how fast the surface ocean converts CO2 to inorganic carbon while the big dog remains near totally unknown.
Seems to me if there weren’t other agendas and we were really concerned about how humans might affect the climate we would be putting probably a majority of our carbon cycle research dollars and huge portions of research on mitigation into learning about that. But I suggest that those spending the money really aren’t all concerned about that but instead have much different agendas on their mind.
————–
————–
==============
Barry says:
When you ask what the origin of CO2 in the atmosphere is, you can start at the very beginning and say that all matter on our plant was born in stars (a pretty ho-hum cliche), or you can think of an individual molecule in our current atmosphere, and know that it is likeliest to have been pumped out by a plant, because other sources dont emit CO2 at a higher rate per annum than global plant life.
—————
Or I could erect a strawman and posit land volcanos vs anthropogenic and ignore everything else. . . .such as how the huge stores of carbon in the ocean varies its uptake and output over decades and millennia as we know occurs for example from ENSO and ocean oscillations.
Instead we choose to rely on shabby extrapolations of what little science we have about the history of CO2 in the atmosphere and how that has varied of the course of the earth on all time scales.
————–
————–
==============
Barry says:
Are you claiming that each year volcanoes emit more CO2 than plant life, and that the majority of current molecules of CO2 in the atmos were mostly belched out of the earth?
Because thats not true.
——————-
No I am a far level of sophistication regarding possibilities than the limited issues you are speaking of.
————–
————–
==============
Barry says:
And would you care to link to Shapiro, so that you help clarify what youre referring to with that?
——————–
Sure! https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1267464
A shorter version would be:
Climate change alarmism is built on 2 myths:
1. CO2 is responsible for all the modern warming.
2. CO2 has increased in the atmosphere solely due to anthropogenic perturbation
there is enough climate science out there to declare both of those as established myths.
Shapiro comes in with an implication that it is myth that skeptics believe volcanoes are responsible for the bulk of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Volcanoes in one sense might be if you decide to limit your look to sometime after the earth was created and the present.
So lets say Shapiro doesn’t know what he was talking about and instead he meant to say what is responsible for increases in CO2 since it was first routinely monitored sometime in the 1950’s. Well its still a myth that skeptics believe that. No doubt one can find someone who believes that but hey people are convinced that UFOs are flying about our heads too.
So why imply skeptics believe that? Shapiros entire post and video is pure junk.
OK so what do we know? We know that humans are responsible for at least 16ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. No reasonable question about that.
How much was natural we don’t know and are not devoting many resources to find out.
Is CO2 responsible for all the modern warming? Again we don’t know and are not devoting many resources to find out.
Why? Only one reason. . . .unspoken agendas that the public would like to know. If anybody wants to know that the public isn’t as dumb as some people want to believe its that fact that proves they are not.
Your link goes to no study by Shapiro, Bill. This was it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1267464
I’ve been slow to realize you’re not interested in delving the issue with me, but rather in pointing out Shapiro’s apparently lacklustre performance.
“So lets say Shapiro doesn’t know what he was talking about and instead he meant to say what is responsible for increases in CO2 since it was first routinely monitored sometime in the 1950’s. Well its still a myth that skeptics believe that.”
This is so garbled I can’t make out what you are trying to say. The whole paragraph lacks a subject.
It might be clearer if you say exactly what he meant to say. Maybe.
But also I’m losing interest. Someone was wrong, huh?
barry says:
It might be clearer if you say exactly what he meant to say. Maybe.
———————-
I’m not a psychoanalyst! I assume he said what he meant to say.
Volcanic CO2 output was roughly in equilibrium with natural carbon sinks, causing CO2 levels to remain approximately constant at 270-280 ppm for thousands of years. The human input has caused sources to become greater than sinks, leading to another 130 ppm being added.
Making a statement about sources without referring to sinks is always going to (intentionally) paint a false picture.
Antonin Qwerty says:
Volcanic CO2 output was roughly in equilibrium with natural carbon sinks, causing CO2 levels to remain approximately constant at 270-280 ppm for thousands of years. The human input has caused sources to become greater than sinks, leading to another 130 ppm being added.
——————–
Gee that probably explains our prosperity! Cool Dude! Goes to show those who take the initiative can really get good stuff done!
“If I have nothing useful to say, just hit them with nonsense”.
Is that what they teach you?
You don’t seriously believe that fossil fuels didn’t contribute greatly to our prosperity do you?
Is that what you believe I said? Oh dear!
If I did would I ask the question?
To troll, Bill.
Nope Willard you are trolling.
CO2 emissions have contributed hugely to our prosperity. The UN recognizes that by giving exemptions on emissions to third world and developing nations so they too can live better. But the elite worry if too many people live as well as they do. . . .ugh!. . . .then they would no longer be elite.
It is one of the most important inconsistencies in the entire UN project and you think its trolling. . . .ROTFLMAO!
Volcanoes belong to the carbon cycle. GRRRRROWTH belongs to the economic cycle. Trolling by playing squirrels belongs to your Climateball cycle.
Willard dons his tinfoil hat and starts directing traffic. Move along folks nothing to see here.
mark…”Yet more evidence from Dr. Roy that climate change is real”.
***
If you cut all the legs off a frog and it could no longer jump when it heard a loud sound, you’d claim the frog had gone deaf.
Those predictions of sub-zero anomalies on the 1981-2020 baseline are looking more and more doubtful for this La Nina cycle. And I think the -0.2 to -0.3 anomaly on the 1991-2020 baseline prediction (https://tinyurl.com/4zt6ffay) we saw in December failed by a wide margin.
It is sinusoidal at about 0.2C (approx). It made the step-change in 2013-2014. Something natural caused this step-change. La Nina isn’t a cause. It is a result.
What caused the step change?
Natural variation combined with reduction of aerosols.
What caused the LIA?
“The Long Island Association (LIA) has been active for nearly a century we were founded in 1926 and our work has resulted in positive change.”
RLH,
> What caused the LIA?
ICMYI, in continuation of our discussion of proxy reconstructions, some candidates for the severity of the LIA and its causes. Nothing terribly conclusive.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1267503
Mann 2008 does not show much.
https://imgur.com/a/V1AurO7
Is the Long Island Association quoted much in climate?
If you run a lot of paleo series together that do not agree one with another then you get the flat portion of Mann 2009, aka the Hockey stick.
Moberg 2005
https://imgur.com/a/EAAS5pl
Mette
https://imgur.com/a/nvgPVa1
Mann 2003
https://imgur.com/a/WSVvh6f
Loehle
https://imgur.com/a/XBPi8lg
Darrigo
https://imgur.com/a/Jcg8ksl
The global reconstructions that go past 1960 all tell the same general story. Warmer now, cooler before. The only difference regarding that generality is the level of uncertainty.
The proxy series shown above (and there are others) do not show such simple conclusions.
I hit the motherlode of millennial-scale temperature recons, 92 separate reconstructions (some papers give multiple timeseries). Data goes back to 2066 BCE but prior to 1 CE the quality doesn’t look so good, so those years aren’t included in the plot.
The data aren’t anomalized to the same baseline (some give absolute temperature, some give anomalies). It turns out that all timeseries have data over 1800 to 1950 so that’s what I used. Plot shows the ensemble mean and 1-sigma standard deviation.
The handle of the hockey stick is even flatter than Mann 2009b.
Plot: https://imgur.com/gallery/mCwj2GW
Data: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/reconstructions/pcn/pcn-v100.txt
rlh…”What caused the LIA?”
***
Our galaxy went through a worm hole. There’s worm dust in there, it blocked the Sun.
RLH,
Can you name which, if any of the reconstructions, do NOT show temps a couple of decades past 1960 being warmer than temps prior? I’d like to check the source/s.
Barry:
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/shen.jpeg
Brandon: See Shen above. Where do your proxies match that series?
Plots: https://imgur.com/gallery/ZNSchmo
Data: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/reconstructions/pcn/pcn-v100.txt
barry,
It turns out that quite a few proxy series show declining temperatures after 1960, I was able to find 15 by manual inspection in the cited database. A lot of this is due to the fact that the instrumental record shows declining temperatures until the 70s-80s, and it’s not until the early 90s that no year went below the hot 40s.
As shown in the following plots, the 15 cool-running proxy studies are decidedly declining after 1960 in the mean. The other 28 studies in the database with records in the relevant period track nicely with the instrumental record, on average showing unabated warming after 1970.
Two studies were excluded for not having values over the period in question. Also note the database contains multiple reconstructions in any given study (there are 92 data series total). So as to not unduly weight studies with multiple recons, I took the average of each study first before combining the final ensemble, resulting in a total of 45 data series.
Richard,
> See Shen above. Where do your proxies match that series?
Added to my master chart:
https://imgur.com/gallery/jTles4j
Richard,
Also re: Shen; PDO is by definition a non-trending timeseries, so answering barry’s question with it is more than a bit disingenuous.
RLH,
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/shen.jpeg
From Shen 2000?
https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature'00.pdf
I’ll quote it:
“Of the 616 borehole temperature profiles we analysed, 479 show a net warming over the past five centuries. The average of the cumulative temperature change over the five-century interval is a warming of about 1.0 K (Fig. 2). In the twentieth century alone, the average surface temperature of the continents has increased by about 0.5 K, and the twentieth century has been the warmest century of the past five. This ensemble average is consistent with that derived earlier from a smaller and geographically more restricted data set of 358 boreholes from eastern North America, central Europe, southern Africa, and Australia…”
This study corroborates the many others showing that old hockey stick shape. You can check the graphs in the paper linked.
Can you name which, if any of the reconstructions, do NOT show temps a couple of decades past 1960 being warmer than temps prior? I’d like to check the source/s.
Brandon,
It turns out that quite a few proxy series show declining temperatures after 1960, I was able to find 15 by manual inspection in the cited database. A lot of this is due to the fact that the instrumental record shows declining temperatures until the 70s-80s, and its not until the early 90s that no year went below the hot 40s.
I wasn’t clear. I know that some global temp reconstructions roughly match the 20th century instrumental record with the flat or slightly declining temps from 1940 to 1970s.
I was thinking in context of the multi-century view. Far as I’m aware pretty much all global and NH reconstructions confirm the last 20th century is the warmest period in the last 500/1000/2000 years.
This is a good page for a bunch of those studies (open hand – I’ve helped add some of the studies to the list).
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/papers-on-reconstructions-of-modern-temperatures/
There’s even a section on borehole reconstructions, including the one from Shen (and Huang and Pollack) above.
* the last 20th century
the LATE 20th century…
barry,
You were clear enough, it’s Richard not being specific about why the proxy record doesn’t lead to the same conclusion. I thought he was talking about the divergence issue for treering proxies since that’s the usual dead horse.
I’m not aware of any 2 kyr reconstruction which shows temperatures higher than today and absolutely agree with you on that.
Thanks for that blog post. I’m at the point in my data project where it becomes necessary to dig into some of these papers and that list helps decide whether I should keep or lose them.
This one particularly caught my eye:
This is the exact sort of analysis I’m trying to get Richard to do with the data I’m providing and/or that he already has.
Brandon,
The website I linked to is a great resource, if you’re not familiar with it.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/index/
It’s the list of AGW and associated categories under which are filed papers pertaining. Scroll down just a little you’ll see the section titled Temperature Indicators.
The various subsections are on temperature reconstructions arranged by proxy type: so there’s individual section on temp reconstructions by leaf stomata, boreholes, dendro etc. If you include various proxy types in your interest, you should check those papers out.
You can also refer relevant papers that aren’t already listed, in the comments section beneath each sub-topic. Ari should come by eventually and add them to the list.
What causes variation (waves) in nature? God.
How does God modulate the variation (waves) in nature?
Long term natural variability related to ocean oscillations caused the step changes, They can just as easily step down the way, we have not been around long enough to observe that.
What causes ocean oscillations?
stephen p anderson asks “What causes ocean oscillations?”
The data I linked to just below seems to indicate the ocean changes may be related to cloud changes. Of course, it could be the other way around.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1269564
If it is the former, then your next question is likely, what causes the cloud changes? Changes in atmospheric circulations driven by ocean currents could be a possibility. Could be the sun.
What I wonder is since these changes may very well constitute a large portion of the climate changes we have seen, why isn’t this the most dominate area of climate research?
Maybe because it clouds the establishment’s case for AGW?
bdgwx asks “What caused the step change?”
A reduction in reflected solar energy.
https://www.mdpi.com/atmosphere/atmosphere-12-01297/article_deploy/html/images/atmosphere-12-01297-g003-550.jpg
Which just happen to correlate to the PDO going positive.
2013-10 -1.1277
2013-11 -0.5181
2013-12 -0.7854
2014-01 -0.0030
2014-02 0.0712
2014-03 0.8634
2014-04 0.9515
2014-05 1.7189
https://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/data/db/climate/pdo/pdo.txt
What caused the reduction in reflected solar energy?
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
The 2022 +0.26C April anomaly places it in the top 5 warmest Aprils in the satellite LT record. Is this unexpected, given that La Nina conditions have persisted since July/Aug/Sep 2021?
Depends on your viewpoint. For the sceptics this would be alarmingly high. For the consensus it would be as expected.
La Nina depresses global temperatures by about 0.3C.
In ENSO neutral conditions this month’s figure would be 0.26+0.3=0.56C.
That would not be the fifth highest April, it would be the fifth highest of all months since 1979.
If natural cycles line La Nina didn’t exist the world would be much warmer, according to you. But they do and it is not.
Three months ago, when the monthly anomaly was 0.0C I bet you that we would get a monthly value of 0.5C or larger by the end of 2022, partly because I expect us to tip over from Last Nina to El Nino at some point.
It is now April and we are at 0.26C, already halfway to my target.
So do you see next month as increasing or decreasing?
Pretty sure no model is forecasting an El Nino by year’s end.
Antonio Querty
As I said above, ENSO neutral would probably suffice.
RLH says:
May 2, 2022 at 4:32 PM
“So do you see next month as increasing or decreasing? ”
Unknown. That depends on short term variation.
An average increase of 0.03C/month would be enough to win my bet.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah_lt.jpg
says that 0.5C is unlikely.
EM, the ocean temperatures, which usually correlate well to UAH with a 5-6 month lag, are predicting lower temperatures for the next 3-4 months.
We haven’t had a full summer of La Nina conditions for awhile so it will be interesting to see where the UAH values go. I’m not sure the 5-6 month lag holds up as well in the NH summer.
Progress, RLH. Except for the ‘much’.
Now understand that ENSO is cyclic. What goes down must come up…soon enough.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif says at least next year.
You do know the difference between a prediction, of one model out of many, and actual data?
Predictions more than 6 months away are notoriously bad.
In any case the last two moderate La Ninas have still left us in the top 5 warmest first quarter of the year.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/
And sooner or later, it will return to a warmer phase. And the global temps will then be, again, above the long term trend.
So will you then understand that ENSO, a short term cyclic phenomena, is not going to save us from AGW?
nail…”The 2022 +0.26C April anomaly places it in the top 5 warmest Aprils in the satellite LT record”.
***
By how much, 0.003C?
Have you compared the Aprils to the Aprils in the 1930s warm phase. Of course, UAH was not around then but you could still compare them to the surface record.
I should advise you that the 1930s temps have been fudged and obfuscated by alarmists. Maybe some of the originals are still around.
If you haven’t seen the original records yourself then why are you so sure they would show warmer temperatures?
Regards the April anomaly; at +0.26C, April 2022 is tied in 4th place with April 2020. The sixth warmest April is +0.21C in 2005. So April 2022 is +0.05C warmer than the 6th warmest April by a margin that exceeds John Christy’s estimated UAH LT error margin (+0.03C).
The top 3 warmest Aprils (1998, 2016, 2019) all occurred during El Nino conditions.
You dont get any medals for 4th place.
Bindidong,s “La Nina gone by April” forecast fail update
After Bindidong predicted La Nina gone by April , April is over and instead the La Nina dipped to the lowest point since it started, Bindidongs best Mega epic forecasting failure Yet.
https://i.postimg.cc/LsPtwpHD/1nino34.png
Eben is too much a coward to publicly admit that
– I admitted long time ago my mistake due to my trust in JMA’s ENSO predictions last year
AND, ABOVE ALL, THAT
– he was 100 % sure that UAH LT’s anomaly for this April would be way way lower than his own hope, but he will never admit that.
Eben, your are such a dumb cowardly ass.
Shaddap you clowass , you don’t get to call anybody on his montly prediction when you refuse to make one yourself.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
is SO warm.
See also:
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coralwaters.jpg
Does that show sites or temperatures?
Pay no attention to Willtard’s trolling nonsense
Juxtapose the two graphs, Richard.
Willard: Why? Are you saying that the global sea surface temperatures come from just those sites? Idiot.
Why, Richard?
Because you picked a graph on Coral Reef Watch.
Compare the places where there is coral with the temperatures you pretend are SO luckwarm.
So what? Are you saying that it does not represent global sea surface temperatures?
No, dummy – I’m saying that only cranks like Eboy will pretend that your graph shows luckwarm waters.
So NOAA produces things that are not useful as they do not always show things are getting warmer.
Except that the graph indeed shows that things are getting warmer, Richard. I prefer:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/glbSSTe3Sea.html
And ones that aren’t.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Willard: P.S. Please note that 30N to 30S is 50% of the world’s surface.
So now Richard loves him some modulz.
Great success!
Animation go brrr –
https://psl.noaa.gov/map/clim/sst.anom.anim.html
I can do aminations too
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
Very good!
Now try to hold still:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/sea-surface-temp_figure1_2021.png
You mean like this?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/pdo-1.jpeg
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/shen.jpeg
No, rather like this:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature
RLH
Do you understand that the baseline for ENSO temperatures has been continually raised to match warming? A negative 1 ENSO anomaly in 2022 does not correspond to the same ocean temperature as a negative 1 ENSO anomaly in 1950.
The PDO (which is what ENSO is long term) has not changed.
Willard: So Global SST fell until 1910. What happened before 1880?
Why are you trying to bait me, Richard?
You already got your hands full with BG’s work.
RLH
You have just totally misrepresented the relationship between the PDO and ENSO.
The statement doesn’t even make sense.
Eben
I repeat, to get it clear: you never predicted anything.
All you did was to replicate NOAA’s ENSO forecasts.
Given the latest figures, who do you think was more accurate, NOAA or BOM?
I don’t remember asking you.
And as usual, in the context of your urging for intervention, your question is of no interest.
So you don’t want to admit that the BOM got it wrong in its assessment of the progress of La Nina.
Suddenly Bindidong doesn’t want to hear anything about it
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1098140
These are the current sea surface temperatures.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
Just as last year BOM got it right and NOAA got it terribly wrong.
They simply don’t have accurate WEATHER models – there is nothing else to read into it.
BOM and NOAA use different parts of the ocean to claim La Nina it seems. BOM is much more concerned with things around Aust/NZ. NOAA with that around the equator.
That climate models are inconsistent, one with another, is not a surprise to me.
You two can continue trolling me as long as you want.
What you can’t change is this:
https://i.postimg.cc/R07QLyBF/MEI-superposed-La-Ninas.png
Final point for me.
Now reduce that to 2 year (or longer) La Nina’s which is what everybody else is talking about.
Such as
https://www.climate.gov/media/14287
and
https://www.climate.gov/media/14393
But, as always, Blinny knows better than everybody else (even if he can’t understand what it is that people are talking about).
He is not the only one who doesn’t understand what you are talking about.
It is still not clear to me which side of the climate debate you are on.
On the one hand you seem to be saying temperatures are rising, and on the other hand you come up with utter nonsense.
Such as this “double-dip” La Nina being “unprecedented”, when there have in fact been seven double-dips and two triple-dips since 1950.
Or saying that the BOM is considering a different part of the ocean to NOAA when making ENSO projections. ENSO by definition occurs only in a narrow part of the tropical Pacific, and BOM refers to exactly the same ENSO regions as everyone else – 1.2, 3, 3.4 and 4.
And you feel the need to resort to childishly changing his name out of frustration at the fact that no one can understand you. Look to improving your own communication and research skills first before attacking people.
Antonin,
Richard is a cycle nut, like many other old coders before him. Pretends to be a luckwarmer, but without the usual formal chops. Likes Edmund Burke for Whig reasons.
Do NOT start him on medians, that will turn him into a Black Knight.
Is RLH the same person as “Richard”?
Yes, RLH stands for Richard Blay Linsley-Hood. The nephew of the guy who created the Class A amp.
And taught me quite about about analog filters. I learnt about DSP and digital filters all on my own much later.
“Such as this ‘double-dip’ La Nina being ‘unprecedented’, when there have in fact been seven double-dips and two triple-dips since 1950.”
I know there have been 9. See climate.gov as I reported elsewhere.
If you want to be picky it is unprecedented for this month of the year in a 2 year (or longer) La Nina.
https://imgur.com/a/or8Fmwx
AQ: You need to read things more carefully it seems.
BOM says that La Nina is declining, but the evidence says that it is not.
“”The 202122 La Nia event continues but is past its peak,” the Bureau stated”
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Apparently he is a 73 year old gamer. I’ve never met a gamer with a sense of reality.
A bit older by now.
Antonin, Willard, please stop trolling.
The Monckton pause (longest = +0.26 C/decade trend) sits at 184 months starting in 2006/11.
Yikes. The system filtered out the middle portion of my post. Let’s see if rewording can get around the content filtering.
The Moncton pause (longest trend less than or equal to 0 C/decade) sits at 91 months starting in 2014/10.
The doubled warming (longest trend greater than or equal to +0.26 C/decade) is 184 starting in 2006/11.
SC25 progress update, April sunspots at 78 average
https://i.postimg.cc/66YNy7Zk/Clipboard07.jpg
Another update:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1267076
Yup. I was wrong. And your predictions for next month are?
Eboy will continue to troll Binny.
As usual Willard has nothing to say about climate matters.
As usual, Richard refuses to opine on Monckton’s “paws,” the topic of bdgwx’ comment.
The only effect of comparing the current solar cycle SC25 to its huge Solar Maximum predecessors in the XXeth century is to hide how it compares to its immediate predecessor SC24 (daily variant, the Canadians didn’t publish the monthlies for March and April yet):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x9jsQs8XkGkj4wT9FtrWaiy-LzIPbT3s/view
Source
ftp://ftp.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/spaceweather/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt
As usual, Willard (and Monkton) thinks there are straight lines in nature.
The price paid for fitting noise.
And if there are longer cycles in play?
Predicting next month’s UAH LT anomaly is about predicting weather, not climate.
Longer cycles are all about climate, not weather.
barry is a Bindidong’s failed forecasting sidekick, he is next , I will make next Monday his turn
RLH
IPCC climate projections all assume that shorter term cycles are zeroed out, based on the knowledge that this will indeed happen over the longer term of their projections and that they are not predictable on these longer time scales.
You can base your arguments on mere definitions (or your versions of them) all you want, but your definitions don’t negate the longer term projections.
“IPCC climate projections all assume that shorter term cycles are zeroed out”
So how do they account for the current situation where we have a double dip La Nina? That will place an offset caused by short term fluctuations into the longer term.
So in this case at least short term becomes longer term.
Eben!
Sorry, what forecast did I make? You didn’t let me know last time I asked.
“Longer cycles are all about climate, not weather.”
Predicting next month’s UAH LT anomaly is about predicting weather, not climate.
RLH
My whole point was climate projections DO NOT account for one-off ENSO excursions. They can’t – it is not possible.
But they know that over many decades the sum total of ENSO excursions will be essentially zero.
AQ: These say there are long term fluctuations in the ENSO data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/pdo-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/shen.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/enso-3.4.jpeg
Likewise for the AMO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/amo.jpeg
And what do you get when you average those out over a century?
You think that a >60 years sigmoid will produce a straight line?
WTF does a sigmoid function have to do with anything here?
Are you trying to imagine some sort of cumulative distribution?
If so, why? We are AVERAGING, not summing.
A low pass filter gives a sigmoid function.
Gaussian, S-G or LOWESS. All the same thing.
Funny how your low pass filter is giving something approaching a sinusoidal function.
And a sigmoid is not a Gaussian – it is the INTEGRAL of a Gaussian.
If you see a sinusoid it is because that is what the data says is there.
Low pass filters give a -sigmoid function (gaussian in this case). If you plot that in log form (dB for instance) then it will go on to infinity instead of 0.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function#/media/File:Logistic-curve.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-pass_filter#/media/File:Butterworth_response.svg
Gaussian would mean 20dB/decade on a log graph. i.e. First order Butterworth.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Try plotting a low pass (say Butterworth) filter in linear (not log) space from ‘signal unchanged’ on the left to ‘signal completely removed’ on the right without creating an S shaped or sigmoid curve.
RLH wrote –
“Longer cycles are all about climate, not weather.
Semantics. Climate is the statistics of past weather. No predictive ability at all.
Even if one takes the longest view, that of the operation of the atmosphere since its creation (not ignoring the similarly chaotic movements of the lithosphere and aquasphere), even the statistics of the last four and a half billion years wont tell you whether it will rain tomorrow or not.
Relevance? Climate is the statistics of past weather. If you cant even predict tomorrows weather, then claiming you can predict even more distant weathers statistics in an unknowable future, makes you look delusional at best.
Guesses about the future are all we have. Sometimes we are right, sometimes wrong.
Making assumptions and hoping for the best (while preparing for the consequences if my assumptions prove to be wrong) has worked for me so far.
The future? Who knows.
The current double dip La Nina is now into unprecedented territory. Is that weather or climate?
Unprecedented-without previous existence.
It’s weather.
Unprecedented? Based on which index?
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Double dips 1974 – 75, 2008 – 09, 2011 – 12.
You also get extended la Ninas that have lasted longer than the current double dip (eg 1998 – 2001).
Others indices determine ENSO events with different metrics, and they don’t match this one.
So when you say the double-dip is unprecedented without further information it seems like a rather forced conclusion.
Climate.gov
https://www.climate.gov/media/14287
https://www.climate.gov/media/14393
Don’t see anything unprecedented in there.
And when you add last months ENSO data?
https://imgur.com/a/wJPlC4V
Nope, still not unprecedented. You are overly excited by insignificant fluctuations.
Show more months as Bindy did.
So cimate.gov is wrong then. Blinny shows all La Nina’s. Climte.gov only shows those that are longer than 2 years.
https://imgur.com/a/or8Fmwx
“So cimate.gov is wrong then.”
No, just people saying it is ‘unprecedented’.
I don’t see anything unprecedented either. I looked at a couple of different indices and there are double dips of similar magnitude and duration, and even long la Ninas that went on longer than the period of the current double dip.
Did someone at Climate.gov actually say “unprecedented”? Couldn’t se any text like that in or around the graphics.
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Nothing unprecedented here. There have also been lower values for la Nina in the past, as well as numerous double dips and long-duration events.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/ (click on MEIv2 values)
Same story here for this indices.
I’m not seeing anything “unprecedented” RLH. Not even ‘rare’.
“Happened only a few times in the last 70 years.”
Would be more accurate – re double dips.
Nate makes a bold statement that the use of words like unprecedented is only allowed to be uttered by the guys on his side as he is on record to have never ever uttered such a rebuke against his team.
Very clearly right now ONI is in unprecedented territory of the ONI 72 year record keeping. No previous double dip ONI has been this low in May after the 2nd La Nina winter. But to Nate it is heresy to utter such words if you aren’t a card carrying member of the authoritarian class.
Stop trolling Bill
BTW Swenson/Mike Flynn, I forgot to congratulate you on finally turning the corner and attacking a fellow denier here.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Literally nothing out of the ordinary is happening at all.
The current double dip La Nina is not ordinary. In fact it is unprecedented.
List of double dip La Ninas since 1950:
1954-55 & 1955-56
1970-71 & 1971-72
1983-84 & 1984-85
2007-08 & 2008-09
2010-11 & 2011-12
2016-17 & 2017-18 (though there is debate about whether the 1st one qualifies)
List of TRIPLE-dip La Ninas since 1950:
1973-74 & 1974-75 & 1975-76
1998-99 & 1999-00 & 2000-01
The strength of those in order were:
Weak-Moderate
Moderate-Weak
Weak-Weak
Strong-Weak
Strong-Moderate
Weak-Weak
Strong-Weak-Strong
Strong-Strong-Weak
And I forgot the current one:
Moderate-Moderate
The only thing unprecedented is the pair of moderates.
Climate.gov has a sequence of posts on just that.
https://www.climate.gov/media/14287
https://www.climate.gov/media/14393
Those charts show it is unprecedented.
There will be another one along soon/later this month and we will have to see what they say.
Look at the title of your link:
Evolution of ALL double-dip La Ninas.
ALL. The is one line for each double-dip La Nina.
Given that the black/purple line is sitting smack-bang in the middle of all graphs, please explain how this indicates anything “unprecedented”.
Average ONI since Jul 2021: -0.82
By comparison:
Jul 1954 – Jun 1956: -0.86
Jul 1973 – Jun 1976: -1.03 (3 years)
Jul 1998 – Jun 2000: -1.16
Jul 2010 – Jun 2012: -0.90
“please explain how this indicates anything ‘unprecedented'”
Try adding March’s data (and soon April’s) to that last chart.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Here I’ve approximated it for you
https://imgur.com/a/wJPlC4V
Yet there are still lower graphs. Do you actually understand what “unprecedented” means?
Tell me what is lower than
https://imgur.com/a/wJPlC4V
Can you seriously not see the lines below the purple line? They are right in front of your face.
Don’t tell me you are arguing based on the tiny bit of line that sticks out at the end.
The temperature effect is approximated by the area under (over) the graph.
Let me highlight the most recent data for you.
https://imgur.com/a/or8Fmwx
Unprecedented for this month of the year in a 2 year (or longer) La Nina, if you want to be picky.
A blast from Richard’s past:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-730590
In this case it is Unprecedented since Forever.
You are not that old, Richard.
Unprecedented since Forever = Unprecedented. Idiot.
RLH is hoping and dreaming of a new, unprecedented cooling trend. He latches onto any tiny scrap that feeds this dream.
Hahahaha – unprecedented for one month – hilarious!
So you are saying that the next few days will restore that line to above all the others?
Unprecedented means ‘not seen before’, one month or longer does not matter.
On that basis you would not be able to claim one day as the ‘hottest ever’ either.
Nate: I ama just reporting the facts. Inconvenient isn’t it?
– “We had 120 mil of rainfall on July 26. We’ve never had that much rainfall on July 26 before. Unprecedented!”
– “But the month of July has had average rainfall.”
– “July 26! Unprecedented!”
————————————————————
– “We had more cloud cover in February than any February before. Unprecedented!”
– “But cloud cover this Winter has been surpassed in 7 other Winters over the last 70 years. Looks like something that happens over Winter once every 10 years on average.”
– “February – Unprecedented! Something big is happening and you don’t want to admit it.”
————————————————————
– “We’re in a double-dip la Nina which is unprecedented!”
– “But we’ve had plenty of double-dip la Ninas, some of which have lasted longer and had lower values. We’ve even had la Ninas that lasted many months longer than the current double-dip and had lower values.”
– “But they didn’t have values this low in the last few days of February!”
————————————————————
Richard, stop being a nut.
barry, please stop trolling.
La Nina effect
https://youtu.be/iUYOJkGGFxc
Apparently you are not allowed to say that this is unusual.
Of course you are allowed to say it. And others are allowed to look at the data and say you’re crazy to say “unprecedented.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1274154
The first two months of this year marked the wettest for Sydney in the instrumental record. I live here. It was pretty dismal. People talked about it.
Did we say unprecedented? Nup. We’ve had wetter Summers, we’ve had wetter one-day events.
Did we connect it to climate change? Nup. We connected it to la Nina.
Does this mean this la Nina is unprecedented? Nup. The state did not achieve rainfall records – this was mostly coastal rain. The 2010-11 la Nina flooded 3/4 of Queensland, so as far as Australians are concerned, that was the la Nina with biggest impact to our country in recent times.
To be sure the rain was a bastard, caused flooding, ruined many roads. But it wasn’t hyped.
https://www.climate.gov/media/14522
barry, please stop trolling.
The T = ( J /σ )∕ ⁴ is a mistake !
Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesnt work vice-versa !
The old convincement that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law works vice-versa is based on assumption, that EM energy obeys the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT). That assumption was never verified, it was never been confirmed by experiment.
Lets see:
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law states:
J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m) EM energy flux (1)
The mathematical ability to obtain T, for a given J led to the misfortunate believe that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law formula can be used vise-versa:
T = ( J /σ ) ∕ ⁴ (K) (2) as the surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature definition.
But the
T = ( J /σ ) ∕ ⁴ (K) (2) as the irradiated surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature definition is utterly unacceptable, because it has not a physical analogue in the real world.
That is why we should consider planet effective temperature
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
as a mathematical abstraction, which doesn’t describe the real world processes.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You’re right, Christos. The relationship between EM intensity and temperature was derived from an experiment by Tyndall in which he heated a platinum filament electrically till it glowed. Based on the colours given off Stefan determined a relationship between EM intensity and temperature.
There is a good deal of controversy over Stefan’s relationship. It applies under certain conditions but the idea that any EM colour is equivalent to a certain temperature holds no water.
We can measure the temperature of a body using a thermometer and that tells us something about the state of the atoms in the body…their state of agitation, or relative heat level. There is no way to measure electromagnetic energy directly, we must first convert it to another form, usually heat, then measure the amount of heat produced.
That is EM is always expressed in terms of another form of energy. The 1st law does not apply to EM since it is neither heat nor work.
Using semiconductors, we can indicate the effect of the EM on the electrons in the semiconductor but only at certain frequencies, to which the semiconductor material responds.
Anyone who reverses the equation, must first specify the conversion form for converting EM to heat or electrical current. Furthermore, J = sigma.T^4 applies only in the range of temperatures from about 700C to 1500C related to the properties of the platinum filament.
If you try it with a tungsten filament, it won’t work in the same temperature range. There is a chart at the following link that shows an incandescent lamp’s colour spectrum in the range of 2700K – 3300K. That means the relationship may be T^4 but as you look at the colour temperatures of the other phenomena in the tabl it makes little sense.
https://www.prismtechgraphics.com/blog/science-of-colour-light/
For example, a blue sky indicates a colour temperature of 15,000K – 27,000K and we know the sky is not that hot.
The dumb part is that the colour is compared to an idealized blackbody that does not exist. If it did, the BB would be extremely hot but as we can see from the table, the colour blue from the sky, which is EM, has no relationship to temperature.
As far as climate theory is concerned, radiation from bodies like ice should be disregarded. In my opinion, so should radiation from the Earth’s surface. Its relationship to temperature is simply not there. Totally contrived.
Thank you, Gordon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“For example, a blue sky indicates a colour temperature of 15,000K – 27,000K and we know the sky is not that hot.”
Gordon, our eyes see blue sky because of the refraction/reflection properties of the molecules in the sky. The S/B equation refers to emission. The sky does NOT emit as per S/B. The “blue photons” come from Sun.
In your opinion? The same opinion which stated that the moon’s phases are caused by occlusion by the earth?
WTH is ∕ ⁴ ??
Do you believe that the inverse of raising to the power of 4 is a “division by the 4th power”?
It is ^ (1/4)
Antonin, it is ^(1/4). I do not know why the (1) doesn’t show sometimes?
Thank you.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The T = ( J /σ )∕ ⁴ is a mistake !
Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesnt work vice-versa !
The old convincement that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law works vice-versa is based on assumption, that EM energy obeys the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT). That assumption was never verified, it was never been confirmed by experiment.
Lets see:
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law states:
J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m) EM energy flux (1)
The mathematical ability to obtain T, for a given J led to the misfortunate believe that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law formula can be used vise-versa:
T = ( J /σ ) ∕ ⁴ (K) (2) as the surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature definition.
But the
T = ( J /σ ) ∕ ⁴ (K) (2) as the irradiated surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature definition is utterly unacceptable, because it has not a physical analogue in the real world.
That is why we should consider planet effective temperature
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
as a mathematical abstraction, which doesn’t describe the real world processes.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas
Have you ever used an IR thermometer to get a temperature reading at a distance? The instrument receives IR to a sensor. Based upon the temperature change of the sensor based upon a reference a calculation is made using the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship of radiant energy to temperature (taking into account emissivity). You can experimentally verify that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law works in reverse by comparing the temperture reading you get on the IR thermometer with using a conventional thermometer on the same object to see how close they match (try it with water that has a reasonable high emissivity). That a glass of water an get a reading with an IR thermometer then use a conventional thermometer on the water and see how close they match.
I am astounded you come here claiming the 1st Law does not apply to EM and has not been experimentally verified. You are drifting deep into “Crackpot” territory. Your ideas are not very good and now you are getting much worse. Get off your ego trip and start reading real physics textbooks and science magazines. You are drifting into the Gary Novak zone of stupid ideas. Please end the drift.
CV, your problem with equations may be you’re trying to copy/paste. Certain symbols and punctuation do not copy/paste well, on this platform. If your equations get botched, don’t used copy/paste.
Many of the commenters here do not understand science. So if your equations are wrong, or you don’t make yourself clear, the braindead cult idiots find it easier to criticize you.
CV: If you want ‘exotic’ symbols try https://mothereff.in/html-entities before you paste. That will sort out most of your problems I suspect.
“that EM energy obeys the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT). That assumption was never verified, it was never been confirmed by experiment.”
Darn. Now 1LOT has been demoted from a Law of Physics to just a suggestion?
I guess perpetual motion machines are back on the table!
Someone needs to edit the Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
RLH
Why? What is wrong with it?
Nothing. If 1LOT is correct. See above.
Which of course it is … in an isolated system.
I think it is fair to say that the Earth is an isolated system in this regard.
Oh really?? I think the sun will disagree with you. As will all the energy which escapes into space.
I rather suspect that energy in = energy out.
The earth is a closed system, not an isolated system.
https://psiberg.com/open-closed-and-isolated-systems-with-examples/
Closed systems allow energy to transfer across their boundaries, but not matter. Isolated systems permit neither.
Equilibrium has nothing to do with these definitions, which are purely about the mechanics.
Test
The planet effective temperature Te formula:
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ] / ⁴
Which results for Earth Te =255K
cannot be compared with the planet measured average surface temperature Tmean = 288K.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
rlh…”If you run a lot of paleo series together that do not agree one with another then you get the flat portion of Mann 2009, aka the Hockey stick”.
***
According to McIntyre and McKitrick, if you run noise through the Mann et al hockey stick algorithm, you get the same hockey stick shape.
A paper which has been debunked by statisticians as showing an utter misunderstanding of PCA/
Correct!
McKitrick’s first ‘critique’ of MBH98 even was based on his assumption that the use of PCA would be incorrect.
That ‘critique’ disappeared later and was replaced by poor dendrochronology aspects.
Today, McKitrick has no longer anything to say against PCA – especially when used by e.g. Zharkova to ‘demonstrate’ the imminence of a GSM.
If you want what Ross has to say recently, try https://www.rossmckitrick.com/
Nothing of what he (visibly) wrote on his web site did change anything to what I wrote above.
Look at what McKitrick wrongly wrote against MBH98 concerning their allegedly incorrect use of the primary component analysis.
PCA uses SD and there is a lot of doubt if SD is useful on Bimodal data where 1.5*SD covers 100% of the data.
ant…”A paper which has been debunked by statisticians as showing an utter misunderstanding of PCA”
***
You are misinformed. The US government appointed the National Academy of Science and a statistics expert, Wegman, to investigate the hockey stick. Wegman agreed completely with the assessment of MacIntyre and McKitrick and went on to charge Working Group 9 of the IPCC review of nepotism.
They (WG9) were asked by IPCC poobah Susan Solomon, to investigate the hockey stick and they ignored her. Turns out they were all buddies of Mann and as Wegman claimed, they cited only their friends as sources of information.
One paper that presumed to support Mann et al, by Amman and Wahl, was a good joke. They were both related to Mann, Wahl being a geology student and Amman in divinity studies.
From Wegman…
“Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the [NAS] panel essentially agree. We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the centering issue off the table. [Manns] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics . I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesnt matter because the answer is correct anyway.
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science”.
Worth repeating…
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.
https://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/
> Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science
C’mon, Gordo:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2011/06/effect-of-selection-in-wegman-report.html
Contrarians seldom look under the hood.
I have shown the disagreement in paleo series recently and on my website if you look. The facts are if you average them together, because they do not have any periods that show the same thing, the more you add, the more you get to a straight line.
Ammann
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/ammann.jpeg
Biondi
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/biondi.jpeg
Darrio 2001
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/darrigo2001.jpeg
Darrio 2006
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/darrigo2006.jpeg
Loehle
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/loehle.jpeg
McDonald 2005
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/macdonald2005.jpeg
Mann 2003
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/mann-2003.jpeg
Mann 2008
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/mann2008.jpeg
> if you average them together, because they do not have any periods that show the same thing, the more you add, the more you get to a straight line
Well, no, Richard; 45 proxy reconstructions (naively) aggregated together say that’s not the case at all:
https://imgur.com/GxxIRAQ
Now try that with the ones I showcased without grafting the instrument record on the end.
https://climateaudit.org/2021/11/02/the-decline-and-the-stick/
The Decline, the Stick and The Trick
This has nothing to do with what BG shows you, dummy:
“[The Auditor] provides fodder for skeptics.”
https://tinyurl.com/2p874yzb
Willard: Found any common characteristics in the proxy data I showed?
And how does the Auditor know this?
“Or that we know that it was warmer in the medieval period than at present.”
Even Loehle’s paper doesn’t support that contention.
Now in 2021 someone can get away with claiming the Medieval period was warmer than 2021, when all the reconstructions, even the skeptical ones don’t support that.
Greenland “The Medieval Warm Period was approximately 1 C warmer than present”
“In 1965 British climatologist Hubert Horace Lamb examined historical records of harvests and precipitation, along with early ice-core and tree-ring data, and concluded that the MWP was probably 12 C (1.83.6 F) warmer than early 20th-century conditions in Europe.”
In 1965 British climatologist Hubert Horace Lamb examined historical records of harvests and precipitation, along with early ice-core and tree-ring data, and concluded that the MWP was probably 1 to 2C (1.8 to 3.6F) warmer than early 20th-century conditions in Europe.
I referenced Loehle, which is a global reconstruction.
The Medieval Warm period may have been warmer then 1960 as Lamb argued in Europe, but we are discussing the globe.
Which is not just Greenland and Europe.
And when you say today in 2021, that’s what you mean, not today meaning 1960 when Lamb said it.
Speaking of Hubert’s recon:
Do you know how said that, Richard?
You have two choices.
Both are good.
bobdroege, Willard, please stop trolling.
Mette
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/mette.jpeg
Moberg 2005
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/moberg-2005.jpeg
Shen PDO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/shen.jpeg
Winkler
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/winkler.jpeg
Sorry. Wrong place. Add to the above.
Blinny,
What can you tell us about Biden’s new Ministry of Truth?
He is not an uneducated Yank.
Most of the world isn’t.
nate…”[anon]that EM energy obeys the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT). That assumption was never verified, it was never been confirmed by experiment.
[Nate]Darn. Now 1LOT has been demoted from a Law of Physics to just a suggestion?
***
The 1st law is about heat and work, not generic energy. How it ever became related to conservation of all energy is a mystery.
Clausius was involved with the creation of the 1st law, he coined the term U for internal energy.
Classically, if we have an equation in the form x + y = U, then all terms must match. In the 1st law, we have heat measured in calories, work measured in watts, therefore U should match. It does not, and Clausius explained why back in the 19th century.
Heat and work are classed as being equivalent, not equal. Clausius pointed that out in great detail and made the point clear. It had only been a couple of decades before that the scientist Joule found the equivalence of heat and work. That’s why the 1st law can be expressed using watts to represent heat.
In his explanation of internal energy, Clausius explained that it has a heat component and a work component. The work component is represented by the vibration of atoms in a solid and the heat component supplies the energy to make the atoms vibrate. The degree of vibration is directly proportional to the heat content in the solid.
That’s what the 1st law describes, the relation of external heat and work to internal heat and work. It has nothing to do with electromagnetic energy, or any other kind of energy.
Thank you, Norman, for your respond.
“…by comparing the temperature reading you get on the IR thermometer with using a conventional thermometer on the same object to see how close they match…”
You describe the IR thermometer calibration process…
What IR thermometer does is to measure surface temperature depending on the surface’s IR radiation intensity…
Well, you do not use the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law in reverse here…
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law states:
J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m) EM energy flux (1)
Norman, in your example you refer to the by surface the IR EM energy emission intensity.
The reversed Stefan-Boltzmann law is about the incident on the surface EM flux’s J ability to warm the surface in the reversed way.
Thank you, Norman, for helping to clear it out.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV, flux is W/m^2, not W/m. I wouldn’t have mentioned it, because I make typos as often as anyone, but you’ve done it twice. Again, be more careful as you’re just drawing flak from the braindead cult idiots who want to discredit anything contrary to their beliefs.
Also, the S/B equation can clearly be used “vice-versa”. One just have to understand how it applies.
The S/B equation, J = σT^4, applies at the surface of a body with emissivity = 1.
Knowing T, we can calculate J. Or, knowing J, we can calculate T. The equation works either way, at the emitting surface. What you are referring to is the “absorbing” surface. And, you’re correct, the equation is no longer valid, as incoming flux is not always absorbed and emitted.
Thank you, Clint.
La Nina effect
https://youtu.be/clN_BFLbJ5E
Don’t keep finding stories that say the world is not getting warmer.
Same bat channel, a few hours earlier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTxuJbdb8Vo
And the effects of La Nina in the USA are what?
Same channel, two days ago:
California drought brings water restrictions to millions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lshNdTR51s
H/T Eboy.
So La Nina does what you observe to the USA. Quelle surprise.
Thanks for video. Good one.
The Supreme Court leak on abortion, and how to spot a hoax. Lots more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIWbkFc90HQ
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/may/03/roe-v-wade-us-supreme-court-preliminary-vote-overturns-abortion-ruling-leaked-draft-livev-updates
“Chief Justice John Roberts said moments ago that the supreme courts marshal will investigate the source of the leak of the draft opinion on abortion, which is genuine”
For those who prefer to read texts:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473
Blinny,
Do you think it was a heroic leftist or far-right conservative who leaked the document?
It’s confidential.Whether left or right or in middle, it was criminal. But someone stupid, which is quite possible whatever political view.
But not criminal to publish.
The document does not appear newsworthy, how it was leaked and who is
it was is newsworthy.
Protecting sources, this could be valid reason for public not knowing- compelling press to give up source, doesn’t seem to be an option.
Rather it needs to be investigated internally. Or the mistake is not with the press, rather it’s system that keeps stuff confidential, which need to be fixed, not the press for reporting it. Unless press engaged in illegal activity to get it. Or how was it leaked, is a question- justice system, hacked?? Someone being careless, or whatever.
I don’t know if leaking that document was criminal, only fireable. If they lie to FBI investigators that would be criminal. If they lawyer up, you’ve found the guilty party.
“I dont know if leaking that document was criminal, only fireable.”
I think if leaked a movie, it would be theft.
It’s going to cost tax dollars, investigating it.
So, stealing from me.
It’s criminal, whether one could prosecute it, is different issue.
“Do you think it was a heroic leftist or far-right conservative who leaked the document?”
I think that this is the question that the Republican party wants everyone to dwell on.
Presumably very few of them have anything to say about the cataclysmic upheaval to privacy and the impact on women and families across the US being touted in this leaked document. Or they just don’t want people to focus on these issues.
This proposal opens the way for states to ban abortions for teenage girls who are raped. 22 states already have abortion bans that would become law if R v Wade is overturned – and these laws have no exemption for rape victims.
You can bet your bottom dollar that any Republican senator with a 14 year-old who was made pregnant would pay to send their daughter to a state where abortion is legal. Not so lucky for the poorest, who are most affected by this proposition.
If this actually happens, and it looks like it will, it’s a vile regression towards the subjugation of women, where they will be told what to do with their bodies by the state.
If men were under threat of being told that they must carry a child inside them for 9 months with no choice in the matter, there would never have been a need for R v Wade and this disgusting state of affairs.
The Republican party of the US once had something to be proud of. It has become a turgid cesspool of BS, power hunger and populism with no ethical spine whatsoever, and is a cancer on the country.
gb…The Supreme Court leak on abortion, and how to spot a hoax”.
***
It became apparent SCOTUS was politically-biased back when Scalia sided with Bush over Gore (the Florida chads). At the time, I was peed-off but having learned more about what a horse’s ass Gore turned out to be, I realize Scalia probably saw all that long before we did, and did us a favour.
I cannot fathom how I managed to dupe myself into thinking the Democrats were a good party.
I tend to think Supreme Court is pretty good, comparatively.
In terms comparing legislative or executive.
But whole Federal and State justice system, sucks as bad of rest of the government- but courts usually suck. And I am not very interested in any effort to fix it. It’s hopeless- and it follows, rather than leads {as it should]. Or any change should with rest of government.
It seems supreme courts in any country do, ok. Or tend to better than rest of the country.
Florida Supreme Court should never have gotten involved. According to the Constitution, the only one who could have corrected or changed the outcome was the Florida State Legislature. And they had to do it by a specific date.
Vail Mountain completes longest season on record with snow to spare
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/vail-mountain-completes-longest-season-on-record-with-snow-to-spare/
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
They stole Bindidong’s snow
No they didn’t, it’s visible here, at least for those having a brain
https://i.postimg.cc/28VnP1pP/Rutgers-Snow-Cover-NH-anoms-1979-2022.png
and thus are able to see that the NH snow cover is this year higher than usual (but not in most parts of the Alps: for that I unfortunately have no data available, he he).
La Nina is not an alarmist.
NASA says,
More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean.
How much more?
Lots.
CLIMATEGATE
Untangling Myth and Reality Ten Years Later
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climategate.10yearsafter.pdf
“Myth #1: The Climategate scandal arose because ‘cherrypicked’ emails were taken ‘out of context’.
Myth #2: The Climategate correspondents were ‘exonerated’ following ‘thorough’ and impartial investigations.
Myth #3: Scientific studies subsequent to Climategate have ‘confirmed’ and ‘verified’ the original Mann hockey stick.
These are only the major myths from a veritable tsunami of disinformation from the academic community. The myths are untrue and, in this article, we will explain why.”
–George Monbiot as follows:
Pretending that this isn’t a real crisis isn’t going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt
to justify the emails with technicalities. We’ll be able to get past this only by grasping
reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again–
George sure got that wrong, pretending was the pathway- due to delusion and the existing news model.
I keep on wondering when delusion will slow down- I am almost as silly as George.
McKitrick’s work is always worth the read.
Like you would have a clue about PCA.
ant…”Like you would have a clue about PCA”.
***
Don’t need to know anything about it, my good buddies McIntyre and McKitrick have already proved Mann’s hockey stick was bs. In fact, the IPCC agreed, they reworked the original to show proxies from 1850 onward and re-instituted the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. They added so many error bars to MBH98 that the graph is now called the spaghetti curve.
M&M demonstrated that adding noise to the MBH algorithm produced a hockey stick shape. I don’t know if Mann was even a good geologist.
Their who paper was based on a PCA analysis. If you don’t understand PCA then you don’t have the ability to analyse their paper for correctness.
“whole”
> Myth #3: Scientific studies subsequent to Climategate have confirmed and verified the original Mann hockey stick.
Perhaps the reason averaging together 36 reconstructions published after 1998 (excluding those by Mann himself) looks like the original Hokey Schtick is that MBH knew what the eff they were doing, Richard.
But as long as Loehle 2008 fondly reminds contrarians of Lamb 1960(ish), they are sure to adore it.
https://imgur.com/gallery/C4PKEH5
Perhaps merging the instrument record with proxy records is just plain wrong.
> Perhaps merging the instrument record with proxy records is just plain wrong.
ButSplicing is weak sauce, Richard. Especially given that that proxies and instruments overlap by necessity for calibration purposes, and that the data file shows the proxy and instrumental series separately since at least January 1999:
https://imgur.com/gallery/9aZWCed
At least two papers, Jacoby 1995 (not shown) and Briffa 1998 (published just before MBH98) both address, and show, the so-called “divergence problem” in a limited set of tree ring proxies which fail to track the warming trend in the instrumental record after 1961:
https://imgur.com/gallery/qWehSvw
The issue was also fully disclosed in both the 2001 and 2007 IPCC assessment reports.
c.f. the Auditor’s red noise trick in the data he sent to Wegman which Willard mentioned elsewhere.
The proxy records produce a flat line. The instrument record does not.
> The proxy records produce a flat line.
Most don’t, Richard. Try harder.
On their own they have wriggles which don’t correspond one with another. Average them all together and they produce a straight line.
Or the flat part of a hockey stick.
The blue curve is how Richard wants to see the world. The orange and magenta curves are how the world actually works:
https://i.imgur.com/oTILfim.png
The ensemble is composed of mette2021, loehle2008, CentralEngland, hantemirov2002. I selected these for the same reason luckwarmers like them; they all show huge temperature swings relative to how mean global temperature actually behaves.
All but loehle2008 swing so wildly because they are local, not global in scope. Mette, Barents Sea SST. Hantemirov, Yamal Peninsula (oh the irony). Central England derives from a localized ensemble of thermometer readings dating back to 1660 CE.
Loehle is composed of a couple handfuls of globally distributed proxies
cherryhand-picked by the Auditor, and oddly enough the result shows relatively higher centennial variability than virtually every other global or hemispheric reconstruction I can lay my grubby paws on.The snake oil being sold here is that if temperatures varied so wildly in the past sans human influence, it’s probably skyrocketing today due to the very same epicycles.
See also: https://climateball.wordpress.com/but-this-odd-place/
Brandon: So you claim that averaging proxies together does not produce a flat line, and then you show a hockey stick with a flat line.
Not big on irony are you.
Had5
https://imgur.com/a/92ods8T
And did you notice the behavior of the last 7 years is simply a continuation of the previous 50.
An upward quasi-linear trend with noise.
So did you also notice that there have been 2 peaks and 2 troughs in that data? Why would you assume that this pattern will not continue into the future?
Does CO2 remove all natural fluctuations?
Your definition of a flat line is nearly as curious as that of unprecedented double-dip La Ninas, Richard.
https://imgur.com/gallery/NrqDECN
The centennial-scale variability is similar over the entire Loehle 2008 record. The millennial-scale trends don’t agree so well … the ensemble *is* much “flatter” on longer timescales. That ought to tell you something.
The vast majority of proxy records reproduce 19th/20th century warming with high fidelity contrary to contrarian insistence that hidden declines dominate climate proxies.
Decadal and centennial scale variability between proxies and thermometers largely agree not only over their period of overlap but extending back in time. That also ought to tell you something.
> Why would you assume that this pattern will not continue into the future?
I can think of reasons why it wouldn’t, but that’s different from assuming it won’t. That said, to assume it will continue in the future would require identifying a driver with the periodicity you’re looking for. A good start would be finding the same cycle in all the proxy data you have stashed on your computer. I thought you were working on that.
> Does CO2 remove all natural fluctuations?
No, Richard. A thousand times no.
“So did you also notice that there have been 2 peaks and 2 troughs in that data? Why would you assume that this pattern will not continue into the future?”
So we are no longer interested in the last 7 y? Good.
I see a peak and two troughs, which are separated by ~ 60 y. The last trough was 1975.
The first trough seems associated with volcanoes. The second trough may be largely explained by mid-late 20th century peak in anthro aerosol pollution.
So no, I would not expect to see this pattern to continue, given the erratic nature of volcanic activity and the decrease in anthro pollution.
If the pattern was continuing into the future, we should have seen a peak in 1975 + 30 y = 2005, and since then we should have been headed downward to the next trough.
That does not appear to be happening.
Brandon: https://www.climate.gov/media/14522
“CLIMATEGATE
Untangling Myth and Reality Ten Years Later”
Stop getting your disinformation from denialist, blogs, RLH.
Stop thinking that the IPCC is always correct regardless of the facts.
This has nothing to do with the facts the IPCC deals with, dummy.
The IPCC still believes that the hockey stick is correct, it isn’t.
Which hockey stick, Richard, and what does it have to do with Ross’ crap?
Are you saying that the IPCC does not believe in the hockey stick?
I’m saying you can’t even follow your own squirrels, dummy.
And I say you are an idiot.
”
hockey stick is correct, it isnt.”
Evidence? Not blog posts, please.
In science, when a discovery has been reproduced, as the main features of the Hockey Stick has, many times, then it is likely correct.
Nate: So you accept that merging together of many proxy series produces the shaft of a hockey stick do you?
I accept that local proxies need to summed correctly to create a global reconstruction, which is what seems to be happening here.
Again, you use ‘hockey stick’ as if it is a dirty word– following the very much debunked claims of climate denial blogosphere.
But where is your evidence that it isnt an apt description of the many reconstructions that we now have?
None of the long term data measurements/indexes show the same flat aspects that the ‘hockey stick’ does. They all oscillate.
e.g.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/pdo-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/amo.jpeg
Not global. The rising part of stick removed!
Have to do better than that!
About time you showed your hand, Richard.
All the research in the world to look at and emails.
Myth 3 is incorrect.
Multiple millennial reconstructions of Northern Hemispheric and global temperature have corroborated MBH99 general conclusions that the late 20th century was warmer than any other period prior.
Some of the emails were certainly misunderstood or deliberately twisted by people with axes to grind. And while the vast majority showed ordinary comms and a desire to get to the truth of things, some showed the writers’ dismissiveness of opposing views and angry dsire to keep those views supressed – which never actually happened.
M&M views got into the IPCC, papers weren’t prevented from being published etc.
barry, please stop trolling.
“There is one major feature of Nerems Figure 4 that is not mentioned in the caption or the text of the paper. It is the most prominent feature of the graph and yet Nerem is silent on what it might be or what it means. He is even silent after I wrote him by email and politely asked about it. Can you pick it out?”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/03/sea-level-rise-and-fall-slowing-down-to-speed-up/
I didn’t. I thought it would have been the rate of 1940 to 1960 rise in sea level.
Gbaikie
” The global tide gauge record is quantitatively problematic, but individual records can be shown as qualitative evidence for a lack of sea level rise acceleration. ”
This is the umpteenth time people like Kip Hansen try to destroy the work of scientists who did real work, as opposed to him, who is only a journalist and NEVER, NEVER did any work about sea level evaluation.
I have written several comments since 2019 at WUWT about sea level evaluation performed by qualified people, and comparing their results.
The latest one compared e.g. Dangendorf & alii, Grant Foster, Frederikse, NOAA’s tide gauge and satellite altimetry data, to which I added my own layman’s evaluation:
https://i.postimg.cc/Gm6jDDF0/PSMSL-Dang-Fred-Fos-NOAA-Bin-Alt-1900-2021.png
Does that not look a bit too similar for so different evaluations?
Here you see a comparison of successive trends found within all that data:
https://i.postimg.cc/QNpz7G4W/PSMSL-Dang-Fred-Fos-NOAA-Bin-5-yr-dist-consec-trends-1900-2015-1995-2015-end-fixed.png
It should be evident to any experienced observer that of there was no acceleration in the sea level data, all trend plots in the chart above would be flat lines.
*
The best you can do is to inform yourself by reading e.g.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-ilhh3ov20tfb03P5ZKDHTzZuJ9rD4P8/view
regarding kip and what he said,
regarding his graphs:
“This is widely accepted as shown below:
Middle one “seqment of moberg 2005 from Grinstead 2009”
What think of this middle graph, of sea level: 1200 to 2000 AD?
[I haven’t seen it before]
And what this quote:
“Scientists estimate that if it warms by about 4 to 5 degrees Celsius (7.2 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit), which is projected to happen by the end of the century if we dont act on climate change, then all the ice will eventually melt. Thats 230 feet of sea level rise.
What I think is if ocean were to warm by .5 C then one would get 4 to 5 C rise in global temperature, but not all ice will melt.
I think if given enough time the glaciers of Canadian island could all melt.
But don’t know if Antarctica would gain or lose glacial ice.
And Greenland likewise may gain or lose ice, but tend to think Greenland would lose much more ice then what we recorded that it has lost. But certainly, not all.
I tend to think ocean were warm by 1 C it could to have chance of this happenned. But would take centuries melt if Ocean were 1 C warmer. And ocean can not warm this fast, and basically not going to happen.
ORIGIN OF THE UNPRECEDENTED MEME
https://tinyurl.com/mr3ktnv5
Willard says that it is always getting warmer. Except when it is cooling. And that 7 years is not long enough to repress any bad effects that the warming has caused and is still causing.
Engineers call that the response time of the system.
In fairness, Richard’s response time is shorter than that.
Sure, that would be fine but no-one has ever found the delay mechanism that keeps things rising even though things are actually falling.
It’s obvious, after even only 7 years, that we are in another flat trend.
C’mon, Gordo.
Wanna bet?
Step change paws step change paws step change paws
Will history stop repeating itself?
What goes up will come down.
Is that a law of physics?
Newton thought so.
Do tell me when the rising nighttime and winter temperatures mean that nights will be warmer than daytime and winters warmer than summers. After all OLS upwards trends carry on for centuries don’t they?
Continue posting things that have nothing to do with what I posted.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
I am pleased to see that the thought police have not yet succeeded in shutting down this site. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. There is nothing in that framework that says people should be protected from alternate views. It is the vigorous debate of alternate views that enforce what is more likely to be true and what is probably false.
Maybe you should move for a longer while to Russia, China or North Korea.
Then you will learn what a ‘thought police’ really is…
That is a good example of misinformation right there. Just because others have it worse does make it okay for the government and private companies to do it. Private companies can and do make their own rules, but when they enforce restrictions on ideas it is thought control. People in a free country have a right to be wrong in their ideas and then express themselves. The only legitimate counter is to post the correct information and let the reader decide.
No one can police thoughts, they can only police what is written or spoken. The Nazis got right into that circa 1933 in Germany, burning books and throwing people in concentration camps for offering opinions contrary to that of the state.
That same movement is afoot today and unless we speak up and stop it at the ballot box, while we still have a chance to vote, we are in big trouble.
Binny,
You have never actually lived in Russia, China, or North Korea, have you?
How do your form your opinions about those countries? Hopefully, not just by reading and accepting opinions of people who dislike the governments of those countries.
Maybe you can convince yourself that nobody in your country disagrees with the ruling government, or the laws they pass. That would sound completely mad, wouldn’t it? I suppose you think that people are entitled to express their opinion – and of course you will tell them what that opinion is!
I believe in unfettered free speech. I haven’t yet met anybody who agrees – I get an endless procession of people telling me why people should not be allowed to say this or that. Just look at the US, for example. There are words which certain people are not “allowed” to use in public, it seems. Oh dear, someone might take offence! What a catastrophe!
Allegations and accusations are enough to ruin lives, in some cases. Even if the allegations prove to be completely without foundation, the accuser just wanders off, looking for something else to feel “offended” about.
Possibly a world-wide phenomenon. Do the same rules apply in Russia, China, and North Korea?
If they do, I will just stay where I am, thank you. At least here, I have a fair idea of what I can and can’t say without some idiot falling about the place feeling “offended”, “insulted”, or “upset”. These same idiots don’t seem to be at all concerned that I might choose to feel “offended” etc. Outrage!
Funny old world.
Indeed – Darwin residents tend to have no filter.
A,
I don’t understand your comment, so it must be exceptionally offensive, disgusting, vile, and hateful.
To save me the effort, sue yourself, and send me the money.
[laughing]
Just a statement of fact, Mike.
You still live in Darwin, right?
Weepy Wee Willy,
A Q wrote –
“Indeed Darwin residents tend to have no filter.”
You wrote –
“Just a statement of fact, Mike.
You still live in Darwin, right?”
Maybe Mike can understand what a tendency for some to have no filter means, but I certainly don’t. Presumably, your second piece of rhetorical nonsense is based on some fantasy you believe. Why don’t you ask Mike, and who cares what you think?
Maybe someone thinks that your comments are offensive, hurtful, hateful, . . .
I don’t care what they think either. Why should I?
You are so disconnected from reality (and incompetent), that you can’t even figure out where I live.
Moron.
[laughs at delusional nitwit]
You’re still writing about yourself in the third person, silly sock puppet.
[still laughing at delusional idiot]
Swenson/Mike – You must enjoy the internet where you can pretend you know how to laugh.
[laughs at pretentious nitwit troll]
“Nitwit” … what are you … 80?
AQ,
Whining Willy is no doubt exceptionally grateful that you make even a peabrain like him appear intelligent by comparison with yourself
Maybe you should try being gratuitously offensive, or try some other pathetic attempt at diverting attention away from the fact that you are a stupid, as well as ignorant, nitwit.
How do I know you are a nitwit? Gee, let me think . . .
[still sniggering at nitwit troll]
“make it okay for the government and private companies to do it.”
“Thought control’
Here it has mostly been companies doing it, with exception of right wing efforts by certain state govts eg ‘Dont say Gay’ law., and ‘Dont discuss race’ laws.
I am not going to get trolled by that statement. I am going to assume you are more intelligent and well informed than your very dishonest statement implies. Nothing in your Adam Schiff-styled quotes is true.
It appears that for you, Tim, ‘thought control’, that agrees with your political views, is acceptable.
More trolling from someone who is most likely smart enough to know the correct answers. Across the board, political talking points usually make a person seem stupid.
“Private companies can and do make their own rules, but when they enforce restrictions on ideas it is thought control.”
WTF has this got to do with Roy’s blog?
barry, please stop trolling.
A demonstration that humanity’s contribution to the modest rise trend in average global temperature is NOT due to increasing carbon dioxide is at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Thanks for all the work on your website. A lot of nice updates.
You have an interesting theory. I would add that oil refineries sometimes produce local cloud cover on cool and humid mornings due to the cooling tower output. From two examples I am familiar with, refineries evaporate about 1 gallon of water from their cooling towers for every 2 gallons of crude processed. A typical 200,000 barrel per day refinery will consume about 3,000 gallons per minute of cooling water.
Thought I’d repost this link to the climateaudit site on the hockey stick….
https://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/
From the Wegman report….
” The debate over Dr. Manns principal components methodology has been going on for nearly three years. When we got involved, there was no evidence that a single issue was resolved or even nearing resolution. Dr. Manns RealClimate.org website said that all of the Mr. McIntyre and Dr. McKitrick claims had been discredited. UCAR had issued a news release saying that all their claims were unfounded. Mr. McIntyre replied on the ClimateAudit.org website. The climate science community seemed unable to either refute McIntyres claims or accept them. The situation was ripe for a third-party review of the types that we and Dr. Norths NRC panel have done.
While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.
Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the [NAS] panel essentially agree. We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the centering issue off the table. [Manns] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics . I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesnt matter because the answer is correct anyway.
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.
The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions.
It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper.
We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.
Overall, our committee believes that Manns assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.
[The] fact that their paper fit some policy agendas has greatly enhanced their papers visibility The hockey stick reconstruction of temperature graphic dramatically illustrated the global warming issue and was adopted by the IPCC and many governments as the poster graphic. The graphics prominence together with the fact that it is based on incorrect use of [principal components analysis] puts Dr. Mann and his co-authors in a difficult face-saving position.
We have been to Michael Manns University of Virginia website and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick
Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the [McIntyre and McKitrick] papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs. The paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis, has rallied around the [Mann] position, and has issued an extensive series of alternative assessments most of which appear to support the conclusions of MBH98/99 Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus independent studies may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.
Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on [Manns work]. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.
It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications.
Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.”
Full report….
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/07142006_wegman_report.pdf
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re touting the work of a serial plagiarist:
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2011/06/08/further_wegman/
In fact if you knew anything about this you’d realize that Ed did not really check the Auditor’s code. He had to get taken by the hand. And even then he did not see the Auditor’s trick.
You know the Auditor’s trick, right?
Wonky wee willy can’t seem to get it straight. Someone who quotes from a paper during an investigation is not committing plagiarism. The thing you should have noted is that Bradley did not complain about the assassination of his work, he complained only that he had been plagiarized. A red-herring retort that rates up there with the best.
Wegman addressed the complaint. He explained that he had cited Bradley earlier in his report and did not think a second mention warranted a citation. Personally, I don’t think he should have bothered citing Bradley in the first place since his work, along with Mann and Hughes was clearly bs.
I mean, come on, when Bradley whined about plagiarism, that revealed him as a small-minded twit.
Here are a few things you don’t get right, Gordo –
Plagiarism is about copying stuff without attribution.
Ed has been caught in worse than that: he “borrowed” material and distorted it.
Even worse than that, he tried to blame his assistants instead of owning the bad job.
And even worse than that, he was hired because he was supposed to be an expert on the matter.
Try to minimize this, asshat.
bs.
“Plagiarism is about copying stuff without attribution.”
Like this?
No, dummy.
Is Willard an idiot? Yes.
“Plagiarism is about copying stuff without attribution.”
Like this?
No. Wegman didn’t use quotes.
Idiot.
barry, please stop trolling.
https://climateaudit.org/2021/11/02/the-decline-and-the-stick/
“The Decline, the Stick and The Trick”
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/the-ghost-of-present-climateball-tm/
“The Ghost of Present Climateball”
Willard with his usual ‘ad hom’ attack rather than depute the physics.
“Depute”? Who should he depute it to?
Autocorrect failure. Should’ve been dispute.
There’s no physics in the Auditor’s hit piece, dummy.
Is it a typo too?
There is no physics in your response.
“At face value, this looks to me like quite peculiar statistical methodology As to Manns methodology, I must confess that I am unable to understand it. But in any event, if Briffa observed the above effect, then (1) Mann should have observed the effect also and his failure to observe it would diminish the value of his study; (2) if Mann observed the effect, but failed to report it, then that would equally diminish the value of his study. Either way, Id be inclined to rely on Briffas evidence as to observations and to rely on neither series as a proxy reconstruction for the obvious reasons above”
So it’s not about physics, dummy.
Here’s what’s not about physics either:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/6494856989
Remember Yamal.
Do you have a url for the Yamal data?
I thought the statistics supported the physics. My bad.
Your jabs are getting weaker than Mike Flynn’s, old man.
Willard resorts to babbling to himself.
“You know the Auditors trick, right?”
There were at least three.
The data source trick
The mining the data trick
The scaling of the y-axis trick.
There may have been more.
But they kind of make Mike’s nature trick like like wee potatos.
Bob: So you are happy with grafting one data source onto another regardless.
Regardless?
Have you never heard of calibration?
For example, the satellite sea level data since 1993 has come from sensors on four satellites;Topex, Jason-1, Jason-2 and Jason -3.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu
Standard practice is to run each satellite in tandem with its successor for a while to calibrate the new satellite against the old.
Up the road from me is the DuPont nylon plant.
One of the engineers once described their reactor temperature data to me. They started out with a mixture of bimetallic strips, mercury and spirit thermometers read by a man with a clipboard and a ladder. They have passed through several generations of sensor and now use mostly thermocouples monitored by computer.
They are quite happy to calculate fatigue lives for the reactors using all the temperature data because each generation was calibrated against the ones before.
No nonsense about “grafting one data source onto another regardless.”
Sure and you can add Tmiddle data to Tmean data without any problems.
Of course you can just call them both ‘mean’ and have no problems. They are ‘the same’ after all aren’t they?
Dow Jones does it all the time, should they be indicted?
But then you didn’t address any of my concerns with what Mic and Mac did?
So you think that climate is like the stock exchange. Boy do you need some education.
rlh…”Bob: So you are happy with grafting one data source onto another regardless”.
***
Not just grafting one data source onto another, grafting real data onto proxy data because the latter is showing declining temperatures. That’s why Mann’s trick was called ‘hide the decline’. Phil Jones of Had.crut bragged in the Climategate emails about using the trick in his data.
Is there no end to the chicanery? Jones also bragged about blocking papers from skeptics at IPCC reviews.
C’mon, Gordo.
That’s called peer review, and the publication of the paper led to the resignation of the editor of one of the journal.
There’s no end to this chicanery because contrarians keep repeating the same talking points over and over again.
Look at you. More than ten years at Roy’s and you’re still a Sky Dragon Crank.
“Not just grafting one data source onto another, grafting real data onto proxy data”
They didn’t “graft” the data, they showed data from different sources on the same graph.
“the latter is showing declining temperatures.”
Not exactly, the Briffa reconstruction show mainly flat temperatures from the 1500s to the mid 20th century with some decline at the end.
This is what the “hide the decline” is all about, not declining temperatures, but
“The tree ring results may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance.”
From one of those emails, where Mac hid the above using ellipses.
Sure you can compare that with what Mic and Mac did.
“So you think that climate is like the stock exchange. Boy do you need some education.”
Pretty stupid of you to think I think the climate is like the stock exchange, when I never said anything like that.
I was talking about graphing data.
You can make a spaghetti graph using stock market data, just like you can with climate data.
You can stop passing yourself off as an expert on statistics, it’s wearing thin.
Sure. Using ‘normal’ statistics on skewed, bimodal data is perfectly correct.
“Dow Jones does it all the time”
is not about a stock exchange.
“Dow Jones does it all the time
is not about a stock exchange.”
It’s a stock exchange index, is that something you are unaware of?
The point was that the Dow Jones changes over time as the 30 stocks that make up the index change.
Are you really ignorant or just didn’t get the part?
“Sure. Using normal statistics on skewed, bimodal data is perfectly correct.”
Yes, you use the data you have, not the data you don’t have but wish you had.
Speaking of the Dow:
https://www.dogsofthedow.com/
Not an endorsement nor advice. But if you are into this:
https://www.marketinout.com/investment/report.php?report=dobermans_of_the_dow
Survivor bias is a pain for back tests.
“Sure. Using ‘normal’ statistics on skewed, bimodal data is perfectly correct.”
The Central Limit Theorem says its just fine.
bobdroege, Willard, please stop trolling.
clint…”Gordon, our eyes see blue sky because of the refraction/reflection properties of the molecules in the sky. The S/B equation refers to emission. The sky does NOT emit as per S/B. The blue photons come from Sun”.
***
I get both of your points and it occurred to me at the time that my example was not very good. I was pretty tired and didn’t give a hoot.
I also realize that you specified a certain condition.
Back to your point, which is a good one. The blue in the sky has a source (the Sun) which has an extremely high temperature. You may be able to use S-B in reverse there since the Sun is essentially a black body. I think the point Christos is making is that S-B cannot be reversed for non-blackbody sources, like a planetary surface.
Let’s pick a better example. I am looking at my computer screen and it is giving off white light. It comes from mixing red, green and blue pixels in a certain ratio to produce white light. Those pixels are tiny LEDs set up as pixels.
If I take that white light and relate it to a black body that would produce such a colour, I’d be looking at an extremely hot temperature of 6500K to 10,500K. That’s not the case here, obviously.
If I point Norman’s IR detector at the white light it won’t even detect it. Norman doesn’t get it that the IR detector does not measure heat, it’s detector element responds to frequency and it is set up in a lab with real temperatures that would correspond to those frequencies. There is likely a generous fudge factor built in as well.
If I apply S-B to the white light produced by my computer screen, which is valid EM, I get nothing. The white light has all the frequencies of the visible spectrum and it is EM, but it cannot be applied to the S-B equation in reverse.
There is a delicious irony here. Norman’s IR detector will average the temperature of the laptop while ignoring any other EM. That’s not surprising technologically to me since I know that certain semiconductors will respond to a narrow bands of IR frequencies but to no other EM frequency.
There is simply no device that can measure EM across the full spectrum.
Switch from a white screen to a screen the colour of the blue sky. Same thing. The colours are produced by red, green and blue LEDs emitting in the right proportion to produce sky-blue light. That would likely mean turning off the red and green LEDs and desaturating the blue till it got to a lighter shade of blue.
Here we have EM that cannot be applied in reverse to the S-B equation. You like to use photons. The photons from the screen are indistinguishable from photons from any other sources.
I am not presenting myself as someone with expertise, I am merely asking questions. In a lab, how would they get a reference IR frequency for ice? Can’t see the IR, how do they measure it? Something would have to detect it, and I am sure certain semiconductors will detect it to a certain degree. Once detected, how do we relate those IR frequencies to S-B?
Can’t do it with the current S-B constant. Therefore, they must be fudging it somehow to make it fit the T^4 curve.
gordon, good points.
S/B does not apply to LEDs, or photons created unnaturally.
clint…basically, S-B only applies to black bodies or bodies whose temperatures are very hot like an electrically-heated filament that glows.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner argue that point well in their paper on falsification of the greenhouse effect.
Climate alarmists have argued that grey bodies exhibit the same response but G&T argue that is not true.
There’s nothing wrong with S/B. The problem is people don’t know how/where/when it applies.
For example, Earth can NOT be compared to an imaginary sphere.
That’s right, nothing wrong at all with the original analysis of Stefan of the Tyndall data. I have no doubt that a T^4 relationship exists. I am simply asking what it really means in an overall sense.
However, I know nothing about Stefan implying it works backwards. Or that it can be applied to two bodies of different temperatures, relating them somehow. The only thing I know for sure is that Stefan created the original equation based on EM from a heated element considered a near-blackbody.
As created by Stefan, the equation gives a proportionality between a body in a certain temperature range and the intensity of EM emitted at each temperature. The constant of proportionality applies within that temperature range. G&T argued it does not apply outside that temperature range. In fact, I saw an article once in which there was a T^5 relationship. Wish I could recall where I saw it.
My interpretation of G&T is that they tried to do too much in one paper. They tried to both teach physics and debunk the GHE nonsense. The paper ended up being over 100 pages, with references. The GHE nonsense could easily be debunked in less than 10 pages. By writing too much, and having to deal with translating into English, they left themselves open for unnecessary and unwarranted criticism.
For example, referring to the constant used in the S/B equation, they wrote: “The constant σ appearing in the T^4 law is not a universal constant of physics. It strongly
depends on the particular geometry of the problem considered.”
I’m guessing they meant something other than “geometry”, as geometry has nothing to do with the constant.
But their main points about the GHE nonsense are “right on”, such as:
+ “…the frequently mentioned difference of 33 °C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly…”
+ “…the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately…”
+ “…the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical…”
clint…”Im guessing they meant something other than geometry, as geometry has nothing to do with the constant”.
***
The native language of G&T is German and I have noticed they tend to use words in manners we might find odd. For example, they speak of glass houses rather than greenhouses. In that case, their usage of the words are better than ours.
Perhaps context might have been a better choice of words.
” photons created unnaturally. ”
The mind boggles!
Exactly Ent. Your mind gets boggled often.
That’s because you don’t understand any of this.
Gordon,
I’m reasonably certain that most scientists accepting “temperature” readings from non-contact IR thermometers don’t understand the complexities of the technology.
Modern IR thermometers can routinely have a spectral response of 1 micron – or less. Excellent, you might say, but what does the response curve look like? Do the same 3db points occur at each end? What’s the point?
How many people realise that the emissivity of steel changes with temperature? And composition? What about water – for example sea water between freezing an 35 C? When salinity varies?
What you are trying to measure, and why (and what sort of budget and time constraints you have), can make an enormous difference to what equipment you can usefully employ.
For weather (and hence climate) purposes, the liquid in glass thermometer is probably as good as anything – if you have the means of reading it regularly. It should show increasing temperatures with increasing population, urbanisation, industrialisation – and increased energy production and use generally.
No supercomputers needed.
swenson…”Im reasonably certain that most scientists accepting temperature readings from non-contact IR thermometers dont understand the complexities of the technology”.
***
That applies to some companies who produce the IR thermometers. The semiconductor technology used in IR hand scanners is very complex in itself and as you pointed out, the semiconductors only cover a certain range of IR frequencies with a drop off either side of the centre frequency.
I find it interesting that electrons in the semiconductors respond to EM in the way they do. Miraculous but highly selective little blighters.
“Modern IR thermometers can routinely have a spectral response of 1 micron or less. Excellent, you might say, but what does the response curve look like? Do the same 3db points occur at each end? Whats the point?”
With ignorant declarations like this, Im reasonably certain that Swenson doesnt understand the complexities of the technology and is just making up BS.
Nate,
Do you wish to dispute a matter presented as fact?
No?
Gee, why am I not surprised that a dimwit like you can’t even say what he is is disagreeing about?
Try disagreeing with the Earth having cooled to its present temperature. That should be pretty easy for a GHE believer, shouldn’t it?
Or maybe not.
Curves are often measured by how quickly they fall off to a 3 dB point, which is a half-power point. If you are measuring IR intensity versus frequency, a 3 dB point would be apt.
For example, in amplifier measurements, for frequency response (response curve), the signal intensity is plotted against the frequency in a range from 20 hz to 20Khz. The bandwidth of the curve is determined by plotting the 3 dB points on both slopes descending from the peak and drawing a line between them.
If you applied the same to a bandpass filter, you’d want to know how sharp its response might be. If it was centred at 1 Khz, how much of the frequencies either side of 1 Khz would it pass and how much would each be attenuated? It has been established in electronics that a line drawn between points on the curve where the response is 3 dB below the peak response is the bandwidth of the filter.
I am interpreting Swenson as wondering how many IR frequencies will be detected either side of 1 micron, which is a valid question. I think some get the impression that a handheld can detect all IR and it can’t.
The Fluke 572-2 infrared thermometer claims a measurement range of -30C to 900C (-22F to 1652F). But how are they measuring it? They are obviously not using S-B since it would need EM intensity and their instrument cannot measure EM intensity.
The fact that Fluke does not supply a frequency response chart as indicated by Swenson, is telling.
At the following link, Fluke tells us how they detect IR on a thermal imaging camera.
https://www.fluke.com/en-ca/learn/blog/thermal-imaging/how-infrared-cameras-work
“Each pixel in the sensor array reacts to the infrared energy focused on it and produces an electronic signal. The camera processor takes the signal from each pixel and applies a mathematical calculation to it to create a color map of the apparent temperature of the object”.
Note the reference to ‘apparent temperature’ and that each pixel converts IR to an electronic signal..
IR thermometers are not detecting individual IR frequencies, measurement is dependent on the frequency response of a semiconductor device used as the detector. I am guessing they set the semiconductors up in a lab and test their response to known heat sources and see what kind of electrical current is produced. Then they calibrate circuitry to measure relative temperatures.
In the explanation above, Fluke claims to apply the signal received from each pixel on a receiver to a ‘mathematical calculation’. In other words, they have a means of receiving a range of IR frequencies and separating them according to a set point. They don’t separate the IR frequencies received, they take the response of the pixel to the IR and work with the signal mathematically in bulk.
Here what the math probably involves, Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier-transform_infrared_spectroscopy
There is no way they are applying S-B and as far as I am concerned there is no way S-B would work in the infrared range without adjusting the proportionality constant, or finding a different relationship.
ps. the post above was address to Nate.
Gordon Robertson
There are some IR thermometers that have two wave bands that are collected and analyzed to determine a temperature.
Others use a thermopile.
Here is one example and they definitely use Stefan-Boltzmann law in the calculation to get a temperature reading.
https://www.eetimes.com/measure-temperature-precisely-with-an-infrared-thermometer/
Also your link to (FTIR) has NOTHING at all to do with getting a temperature reading!! It is about getting an IR spectrum of some material to try and figure out what the material is from the IR spectrum. It is a Chemistry analysis tool.
Most the time it is quite clear you don’t know any real science and use some crackpot ideas you find on the internet. All garbage all the time. Too bad for you.
[rlh]I think it is fair to say that the Earth is an isolated system in this regard.
[Antonin Qwerty] says:
Oh really?? I think the sun will disagree with you. As will all the energy which escapes into space”.
***
There is a technicality here that must be observed. An isolated system refers to a thermodynamics system, and that applies to heat transfer, not energy transfer per se.
There is no heat or mass transferred into and/or out of the Earth. Heat is produced locally by conversion of solar EM to heat and is dissipated locally as heat is converted to EM.
Theoretically, an isolated system would have to be a closed container with insulated walls that prevented heat from entering or leaving the container.
On the other hand, Einstein would argue, based on E = mc^2, that EM entering and leaving the Earth transfers mass. I think Albert was full of it but I’ll leave that for another post.
I think you’re full of ‘it’.
Ken…”I think youre full of it”.
***
Yes, Ken, but you cannot explain why.
It is adequately addressed by our peers on this thread.
Ken…Still no explanation as to why you disagree and feel the need to fling ad homs and insults.
None of the peers have explained how heat gets transferred into and out of the Earth. Maybe you have an explanation.
Robertson read this and stop being so (expletive deleted) obtuse: https://ddears.com/2021/01/12/dr-happer-explains-effects-of-co2/
Isolated System: “a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither mass nor energy can pass”.
You are confused with a CLOSED system, which indeed allows energy to pass.
Does it even occur to you to CHECK before posting garbage?
Add that to your explanation of the moon’s phases.
ant…”Isolated System: a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither mass nor energy can pass.
You are confused with a CLOSED system, which indeed allows energy to pass.
Does it even occur to you to CHECK before posting garbage?”
***
Yet another idiotic reply.
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ENERGY PER SE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ***HEAT***!!!!! Heat is thermal energy and no other energy applies to an isolated system.
An isolated system is about HEAT.
There is no transfer of heat into or out of the Earth. Heat does not flow through space, either from the Sun to the Earth or from Earth to space. It must be converted from and to EM first, and EM has none of the properties of heat, and vice-versa.
I don’t need to check, I have studied thermodynamics as part of my engineering studies.
If the earth gain/loses energy then it gain/loses heat.
It makes no difference whether or not you define heat as something which flows, the net effect of energy gain or loss on heat content is the same.
AQ,
More semantics. Thermometers are used to measure “degrees of hotness”, no more, no less.
But even this is meaningless without further explanation. For example, the white sparks coming off a grinding wheel may exceed 1500 C, but can bounce off your skin without harm.
On the other hand, a couple of litres of boiling water can do you significant damage – even kill you!
As regards the Earth, it has cooled since it was created. Due to lost heat, lost energy, makes no difference, does it? CO2 adds no heat or energy to the Earth. None. Neither do the finest insulators known to man – just in case someone agrees with Raymond Pierrehumbert that ” . . . CO2 is just planetary insulation.”
No GHE. A myth which its believers cannot even describe.
The semantics came from Gordon. I’ll wait for his reply – at least he engages.
AQ,
And it is important that the semantics came from this one or that one because . . . ?
You may wait for whom you wish. It makes no difference to the fact that the GHE cannot even be satisfactorily described by its most ardent supporters.
Feel free to try. I’ll help you out – start off by saying “The GHE is a phenomenon which may be observed . . . “. How hard can It be?
Only joking. Too hard for an ignorant troll like you, obviously.
Go to bed angry, wake up angry .. it must be a sad, lonely life.
AQ,
Why do you go to bed angry and wake up angry? Do you suffer from a particular mental defect, or do you just enjoy the feeling?
Are you angry because you support a GHE that you can’t describe, or are you just sad and angry because your trolling efforts are not applauded?
Off you go now, work on your trolling skills. Remember that you are impotent and anonymous, and that nobody at all cares for your stupid opinions, and take it from there.
You don’t need to thank me.
ant…”If the earth gain/loses energy then it gain/loses heat.
It makes no difference whether or not you define heat as something which flows, the net effect of energy gain or loss on heat content is the same”.
***
Again, an isolated system is not about energy per se, it is a thermodynamic system hence is about heat and mass. Heat must escape the system and heat does not escape the Earth. First, it is converted to EM, and EM escapes the Earth, but EM is not heat and does not apply to an isolated system.
I have gone over this on other posts. There is a tendency today to lump all forms of energy into a generic energy. No one knows what energy is, it’s still a mystery. We can observe the effects of energy but we cannot explain what it is. The term kinetic energy is not a reference to a specific energy, it is a reference to any energy in motion.
Energy takes different forms. Electromagnetic energy has the form of an electrical wave perpendicular to a magnetic wave. It also has a frequency but no mass. Heat is dependent on mass, it is the kinetic energy of atoms, meaning essentially the energy of atoms in motion in a solid. Of course, you can apply that definition to gases and liquids as well providing you address the energy causing the motion, which is heat.
In order that heat leave the planet it must do so as mass, as atoms or molecules. Same if it enters the planet. The solar wind is composed of particles, electrons and protons, and as long as it moves as a cohesive plasma, it should have a temperature, hence it contains heat.
That’s not possible on Earth since air molecules lose heat as heated air rises. As the pressure drops with altitude, the temperature drops. Mass can escape to space but it likely has no temperature by that point since it has no pressure.
“There is no heat …. transferred into and/or out of the Earth”
Back to the ‘EMR is not heat’ argument I see. Idiot.
richard, I am puzzled as to why someone with a masters degree has to carry on like an adolescent hooligan. Do you suffer from Aspergers?
EM is not heat, Repeat till it sinks in. The two forms of energy have nothing in common. Heat is common to mass, EM has no mass.
Gordon Robertson
You should look up the physics definition of “heat” for yourself.
RLH is quite correct and using the proper definition.
What you claim “heat” is, is actually internal energy.
Heat is the amount of energy that is transferred when objects have different temperatures. EMR is heat energy when it flows from a hot object to a colder one and caused a temperature change.
Read for yourself.
https://www.thermal-engineering.org/what-is-heat-in-physics-heat-definition/
EMR is the way heat is transferred though a vacuum.
–NASA Administrator Bill Nelson appeared before a US Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Tuesday to discuss NASA’s budget request for the upcoming fiscal year. Then, quite unexpectedly, he dropped a bombshell.
After his opening remarks, Nelson was asked what, in his opinion, was the biggest threat to NASA’s goal of landing humans on the Moon by 2025. Nelson responded that the agency needed competition in its program to develop a Human Landing System. In other words, he wanted Congress to support NASA’s request for funding to develop a second lander alongside SpaceX’s Starship vehicle.–
That why I liked, Bill Nelson.
Someone who can drop bombshells.
Continuing:
–“I believe that that is the plan that can bring us all the value of competition,” Nelson said of fixed-price contracts. “You get it done with that competitive spirit. You get it done cheaper, and that allows us to move away from what has been a plague on us in the past, which is a cost-plus contract, and move to an existing contractual price.”–
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/05/nasa-chief-says-cost-plus-contracts-are-a-plague-on-the-space-agency/
Anyhow, it gives me some hope, that might get to moon within 5 years.
But it’s basically: “Congress, let me do my job.”
–Ned Nikolov says:
May 3, 2022 at 3:56 pm
What Roy Spencer wrote in 2010 about the role of clouds is conceptually correct. However, he seems to have abandoned this line of thought recently. Roy has increasingly been pushing the false greenhouse theory and insisting that adding CO2 to the atmosphere via industrial emissions would measurably warm the planet.
We should be asking, why is he dismissing the evidence accumulated since 2010 that observed changes in absorbed solar radiation by Earth is sufficient to explain the entire recent climate change and that there is no evidence for the so-called CO2 radiative forcing?–
From comment section of:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022/05/02/ned-nikolov-karl-zeller-exact-calculations-of-climate-sensitivities-reveal-the-true-cause-of-recent-warming/#comments
I think at most rising CO2 level have caused most about .2 C but I would not say it has caused .2 C of warming.
As said before, Earth has naturally warmed and cooled, it seems the warming has recovering from cooler periods of Little Ice Age.
No one makes argument the past few thousands years of warming of centuries of cooling or warming were caused by changing CO2 levels.
Plus we had about 5000 years gradual cooling, again not considered to have been related to CO2 levels.
Having an average global surface air temperature of 15 C is a globally cold air temperature. It’s an average air temperature one would only have in an Icehouse global climate, which called the late
Cenozoic Ice Age. Which has happening for about 34 million, and most of 34 million year has had higher average temperature than 15 C.
Or 15 C global average temperature is a cold temperature for any Ice Age.
I wish it was warmer, but we don’t always get what you wish for.
Anyhow, Ned Nikolov nor Cargo cult explain why we in an Ice Age, nor when we could hope we will leave the Ice Age. But it seems more sensible people imagine it will not happen, within a million years.
Within another 10 million years, might be overly optimistic.
But what regard as interesting or vaguely important is if Ned or anyone could predict what Venus average temperature would be, if Venus was at 1 AU distance from the Sun.
> I think at most rising CO2 level have caused most about .2 C but I would not say it has caused .2 C of warming.
If you ever wonder why nobody responds to you, bg, that’d be a prfct illustration.
Is Willard, nobody?
“He’s a real nowhere man
Sitting in his nowhere land
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody
Doesn’t have a point of view
Knows not where he’s going to
Isn’t he a bit like you and me?”
Don’t lick our tick:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rbg4gtSED0
Scott going to pick a panel- he might do it.
I listen to it later.
Don’t waste your time.
Scott needs sycophants, Chic.
Let gb be.
Chic
It was roughly a waste of time.
Fortunately, I always listen at double speed so
it only 1/2 as much of waste of time
{but it was over hour rather being less 50 mins}
Scott said there might be patriotic reason for leaking it.
I don’t have opinion of the whys or wherefore of it,
but for patriotic reasons seems to me to be rather warped
even for an Adams.
Besides being off topic here, there is nothing redeeming about killing ill-conceived and unwanted babies. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Amnesty has a great pie chart about the reasons why women have abortions, Chic.
The first part, in yellow, is called “none of your business.”
The second part, in black, is called “none of your business, but in black.”
I can’t find it, but here are some facts:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-facts/
Not bothering to read your link, I can only offer my opinion in black and white. I hope you have not and never will procreate.
Your loss, Chic, for your edification is more your business that deciding if women can have abortions.
Gordon Robertson
You’ll find the supplementary information for Mann, Bradley Hughes 1998 here.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/research/res_pages/MANNETAL98/mbh98.html
Sorry, Gordon.
I haven’t used this for years and hadn’t realised it was no longer active.
The supplementary material and a corrigendum are still available from Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/33859
The actual article is here
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf
The relevant chapter is here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Reading it might help Richard understand that science moved on since his younger days.
Some of us have actually read it and understand what perception bias is all about.
“There is evidence that although people believe they are making impartial judgements, in fact, they are influenced by perception biases unconsciously.”
Of course you haven’t RTFR, Richard.
Does this forum have rules about perception bias?
Why do you keep asking silly questions, dummy?
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Why do you keep asking silly questions, dummy?”
Why do you keep asking such silly, not to say pointless, questions, moron?
If you are trying to look clever, it doesn’t seem to be working.
Carry on regardless.
Oh, Mike.
You clown.
Willard: Because they are the only ones that idiots lie you can answer.
*lie = like
I swear I just heard an old contrarian pretend he is not playing Climateball, Richard.
Would you know him by any chance?
Willard, please stop trolling.
This might be more relevant:
https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/recipe-for-a-hiatus/
That should put Gordo’s “always worth the read” comment into perspective.
You’ll be telling me next that mean and standard deviation are completely relevant on skewed, bimodal data. By using normal distributions to support your arguments.
Next you’re going to believe that you’ll make me work for your squirrels, dummy.
So you accept that the statistics you use are not relevant to daily and yearly temperatures.
You’re too old to rope-a-dope, Richard.
Why are you bringing this on yourself?
Weary Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Youre too old to rope-a-dope, Richard.
Why are you bringing this on yourself?”
Maybe you think that making pathetic incomprehensible attempts at trolling will endear you to fellow climate cranks.
Don’t forget, the approbation of morons is not normally highly regarded.
Hence I’m not looking for your approbation, Mike.
So Willard does accept that the statistics he uses are not relevant to daily and yearly temperatures.
Why are you starting a food fight in the blog you try to defend, Richard?
Why don’t you own up to the fact that you don’t want to apply the correct statistics to the data. You only want to use ‘normal’ statistics that don’t apply to skewed, bimodal data.
Look, dummy.
I told you at least ten times already that, as far as I’m concerned, you could show both statistics. In fact the more the merrier. But you’re confusing this position with two other ones I have –
First, you have *not* established that the median was the more “correct” estimator.
Second, in all your meandering you only established hat you have a very rudimentary grasp of these concepts.
But that’s secondary to the point I’m making right now, which is that you are poisoning your own damn well.
So not only you have little Climateball descriptive knowledge (Sierra Jim and Ross’ crap being the latest examples), you have no procedural knowledge of how to play Climateball properly.
Everybody can see this. The Internet is forever. Don’t you really think I care if you’re trying to provoke me or call me names?
No, it does not. Not at all. It helps me move carry my ball forward.
Were you doing your damn job properly, I would not be here.
Median is preferred over mean for skewed normal data. Fact.
Median is preferred over mean for bimodal, skewed data. Fact.
Neither mean nor median (nor standard deviation) is a ‘great’ representative statistic of bimodal data. Fact.
That is what statistic sources say.
You rattle on as though you can find anything that disputes those claims. You can’t.
All you have is your ClimateBall invention. As though that actually meant something. It doesn’t.
You don’t like Roy’s interpretation of climate and the reasons for it.
Why are you here?
I am here to teach you Climateball, Richard.
Count the number of *median* on that page:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skew_normal_distribution
Willard, please stop trolling.
The Big 5 Natural Causes of Global Warming – part 1: Varying Atlantic Water Transport
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQbSplM6o9Y
The Big 5 Natural Causes of Climate Change: part 2 Jet Streams and Extreme Weather
https://youtu.be/I4_DjeCsgWk
Part 3 to follow.
from https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/
RLH,
The only cause of hotter thermometers – more heat.
No GHE.
Unless, of course, you believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface makes the thermometer hotter.
But that would be perfectly ridiculous, wouldn’t it?
Accept reality – you might even enjoy it.
Swenson: Idiot.
“A wavy jet stream generates its own weather.”
Does CO2 create a wavy jet stream. How?
“Some of the observed global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is due to the ITCZs and jet stream’s northward migration from its much more southward location 200 years ago.”
Did CO2 cause this?
“the jet stream dove deep into the southern United States between February 12th-19th, in 2021. …. Global warming was unlikely to have had an effect as that cold snap resembled the cold snap of 1899”
So CO2 didn’t cause that.
“Just 4 months later around the 2021 summer solstice, a wavy jet stream created a heat wave over western north America, causing Lytton British Columbia to experience record-breaking heat from June 27th to 29th.”
That has been blamed on rising CO2. Magic both hot and cold caused by CO2.
“British Columbias previous heat record that happened in 1941 was also set in Lytton, giving the town the nick name of ‘Canadas hot spot'”
1941 is well before CO2 started rising.
“A recent 2022 peer reviewed study shows this region has been cooling for the past 30 years.”
So much for CO2.
“The majority of the warming since the mid-20th century is due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. While the global average temperature has warmed with statistical significance, there are a few places that have bucked the trend for a few decades, and even one part of the Atlantic that has cooled over a hundred years. These are due to changing weather patterns that have almost certainly been brought on by global warming.”
So much for ABC.
barry, please stop trolling.
Like a Boss:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/like-a-boss/
How Gaia and coral reefs regulate ocean pH
Posted on October 13, 2016
So recent. Like most of Willard’s ‘information’.
There are idiots….and then there are idiots.
[RICHARD] So recent.
[ALSO RICHARD] What happened before 1880?
Willard keeps up to date as usual and apparently doesn’t think there was climate before 1880.
[RICHARD] So recent.
[ALSO RICHARD] “The Decline, the Stick and The Trick”
The IPCC keeps the stick up to date. Not me.
What was the year of MBH, dummy?
Wayward Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“What was the year of MBH, dummy?”
Who cares? Do you?
Keep up the trolling efforts. I suppose that’s the only way you think you can get attention. Have you tried sticking a needle in your eye and screaming in pain?
Or do people just not care – as usual?
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Who cares?”
The guy who said –
“So recent.”
You know how that is?
Of course not, silly sock puppet.
Once again you butt in an exchange without having read it!
Whacky Willard,
Who cares what you think, moron?
Are you powerful and important (apart from in your own imagination)?
Ill butt in where I like, and say what I wish, when I wish.
And there is nothing at all you can do about it, so you might as well get used to it and accept reality.
You really are a pretentious moron, arent you? Thats a rhetorical question, of course. You dont need to answer.
How is your Mike Flynn obsession going? Getting value, are you? I notice that paranoia is characterised by fear and anxiety. Why are you fearful or anxious about Mike Flynn? Or is it just unrequited love – maybe Mike Flynn is an avowed heterosexual, and doesnt return your unwanted advances.
You could always pretend you were joking, I suppose.
Mike, Mike,
You asked a silly question.
You got served.
Enjoy your afternoon.
How old are they Willard?
More Climateball, Richard?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Your link says everything anyone needs to know about your world view. I expected better.
And I expected you stop using a sock puppet, Fernando.
Willard the Wanker,
Pee in one hand, expect in the other – see which fills up first.
You obviously have a mental defect which leads you to think that someone, somewhere, cares what you “expect”.
Have you any evidence to the contrary? If you haven’t, just make some up. As usual.
Carry on trying to troll. You might even get good at it, if you try really, really, hard.
Mike,
Fernando said “I expected better.”
I said I expected him to drop the sock puppet.
What is that hard for you to understand?
Whacky Wee Willy,
As I said, pee in one hand, “expect” in the other – see which fills up first.
Why do you think anybody, anywhere, cares what you expect?
Why do you think I care whether you think I understand your pathetic attempts at trolling or not?
Who would care for the opinion of someone who persists in believing their fantasy is more real than reality? I had to laugh at your response to Mike Flynn briefly commenting here recently.
As I recollect, you claimed Mike Flynn was not really commenting, that it wasn’t Mike Flynn, that it wasn’t me either, but rather some devious character pretending to be Mike Flynn just to annoy you!
Delusional? An awesome demonstration of the ability of the paranoid individual to justify their delusional belief system, when facts indicate otherwise.
Keep at it. Maybe you can somebody to indicate support for your attempts to impose your reality on the world, but. I doubt it.
Mike Flynn,
TL;DR.
Willard, please stop trolling.
New research reports on satellite evidence that the water cycle is speeding up. This is one of the expected results from the warming of the planet because warmer temperatures cause water to evaporate faster.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10265-1
The water cycle is the process by which water first evaporates from the Earth, rises into the atmosphere to form clouds and then falls again as rain or snow. Climate models have predicted that the water cycle could intensify by as much as seven percent for every degree Celsius of global warming.
“upper-ocean salinity stratification studies were only initiated in recent years”
So of course, we know for a fact that any trends that we find are not just recent and have never occurred before in the record.
TM,
You wrote –
“Climate models have predicted that the water cycle could intensify by as much as seven percent for every degree Celsius of global warming.”
And on the other hand, the “models” might be completely ineffective at foretelling the future.
In light of the fact that the IPCC wrote that it is not possible to predict future climate states, why do you think that the IPCC conclusion is wrong? Or do you just think that your imaginary “water cycle” is “speeding up”?
The authors admit that they are just speculating – “However, there is still some controversy as to whether the salinity is changing at the same rate as the water cycle does, as the impact of the changes in EP fluxes, meltwater runoff, and ocean warming on the salinity is not completely understood.”
E-P fluxes? No wonder nobody completely understands, At least the authors realise that Argo data is often completely useless -” Moreover, far from the coast and the poles, the ocean currents drive the locations of the floats, and, thus, the locations of the Argo acquisitions. Over wide oceanic areas, as that comprised between 60S and 60N, the averaged salinity at the Argo locations in a 9-day window evolves with time and it is very different from the temporal evolution of the mean salinity in the entire region, . . . “.
Nobody of note reads these rubbish papers, anyway, so their impact is about the same as your accumulated opinions on the matter. Zero, I assume.
maguff…”New research reports on satellite evidence that the water cycle is speeding up. This is one of the expected results from the warming of the planet because warmer temperatures cause water to evaporate faster”.
***
I invite you over to Vancouver, Canada for a dip in the ocean. In fact, I’ll drive you over to the west coast of Vancouver island so you can dip in the Pacific. If you get past dipping up to your ankles and survive the chill that will envelope your brain, you might dive straight in. If your heart is good you might survive for a few minutes, maybe even ten, but I guarantee you’ll be blue in colour by the time you emerge.
And that’s in the summer.
Gordon Robertson
How much colder is the water at Vancouver as compared to Long Beach in Washington State? I was in that water about an hour. It was cold but the crashing waves were fun.
I went in and stayed in for 20 minutes but when I first stepped in the water it felt really cold and sent a chill to my head. It was uncomfortably cold just standing in it. It was raining that day, which helped pre cool the body.
The following article claims the coastal water temperature off Vancouver Island is 9.8C. They don’t distinguish between inland water and the Pacific Ocean side. I have found the ocean to be significantly colder.
https://seatemperature.info/vancouver-island-water-temperature.html
Gordon Robertson
It looks about the same water temperature in summer months (when I went).
https://www.surf-forecast.com/breaks/Long-Beach-Peninsula/seatemp
There’s this new invention, it’s called a wetsuit. You should try it.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
La nina effect – the movie
https://youtu.be/DKvomHafAEw
But the BOM says La Nina is fading so not a problem, right?
NOAA
“There are roughly equal odds of La Nina and ENSO-neutral during the Northern Hemisphere summer, with La Nina favored for the fall and early winter 2022-23.”
Also NOAA
“The CFS.v2 ensemble mean (black dashed line) predicts La Nina to continue through the end of the year.”
BoM
“Sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean have warmed slightly over the last fortnight with the NINO3.4 and NINO3 indices both now being at neutral levels. The atmospheric signal of La Nina remains strong. Most model outlooks forecast a return to neutral El NinoSouthern Oscillation (ENSO) by early [S. Hem] winter.”
JMA
“In conclusion, the La Nina conditions are more likely to continue (60%) until the end of boreal spring than not to continue (40%), and transfer to ENSO-neutral in boreal summer (70%).
After series of epic forecasting failures Bindidongs sidekick barry is back at it
Both Eben and RLH are determined to incessantly troll people on hoped for events that they have not happened yet, may not happen, and in any case have no bearing on long-term term climate change.
Weird.
I’m “back at” quoting current forecasts from a variety of institutes that monitor ENSO, as I’ve done many times in response to people posting their personal view or selecting only from one source.
Somehow Eben thinks this is a bad thing!?
Who is the fuckwit now
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-726374
You’ve linked to me saying I don’t care if we get la Nina or not, I just report what the experts say, a variety of opinion from various groups monitoring and forecasting ENSO.
You have a problem with me referring to a variety of expert opinion?
Are you annoyed that I don’t make ENSO forecasts?
Or did you get so badly stung when I called you a fuckwit that you’ve been gnawing over the slight for a year, you’ve bookmarked the insult, and you continue to lash out like a sullen 13 year-old
with nonsensical posts addressed to me?
Eben, you’re just confirming the epithet. Loosen your grip.
https://co2coalition.org/2022/03/03/attributing-global-warming-to-humans/
“Attributing global warming to humans”
“Gillett, et al. comment that: The assumption is usually made that a models TCR [transient climate response] is proportional to its GHG-induced warming trend over the historical period. GISS-E2-H especially appears to violate this assumption, but, to a lesser extent most of the models violate it, which concerns Gillett, and colleagues. The models predict about the same warming, but very different TCR values, suggesting something is not quite right in the models. They observe that since the desired result is a multi-model estimate of climate sensitivity, the models violation of the assumption should be investigated. Thus, they admit that the connection between GHGs and warming is explicitly assumed, but the model results are not consistent with the assumption. They dont say it, but it is also possible the models are not accurate.”
If you actually read Gillette the study purports a slightly lower TCR than the IPCC range. The IPCC range is of course garnered from many papers, which report both higher and lower values than the IPCC range.
Gillette apply a principal component analysis (PCA) in their study.
I’m not up to date with ‘skeptic’ lore. Is PCA ok or not?
barry, please stop trolling.
Willard bring up a topic, why doesn’t anyone predict what Venus temperature would be, at Earth distance from the Sun?
Also what I would regard as much easier to give an answer, if Mars was completely covered with H20 snow. would the Mars surface be warmer or colder? And a little bit or a lot.
It seems to me, CO2 might cause a little bit of warmer.
And it seems anyone not hawking for money tends to agree.
Even IPCC agrees [which is hawking for money].
And snow covered Mars could also be just a little bit of warming.
Oh, I forgot, I have new question.
What was average global air temperature for last 34 million years.
I say, it’s warmer than 15 C.
It seems everyone also agree, if knew anything about the Ice Age we been in. Or if paid any attention in elemental school. Or tended to watch PBS shows. {for non-US that is government funded TV station- which over run with Lefties.
Why do you say it’s warmer? The ice ages are longer than the interglacials, aren’t they?
Because glaciation or periods which not interglacial are a lot longer but coldest time of glaciation is not a long period.
For example look at graphs, here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Overall_view
While there, look temperature over last 34 million years.
40 million to 6 million is quite warm or 34 million to 6 million quite warm, and that is an icehouse global climate, also known as Ice Age or specifically called, The Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
Or
“Throughout Earth’s climate history (Paleoclimate) its climate has fluctuated between two primary states: greenhouse and icehouse Earth. Both climate states last for millions of years and should not be confused with glacial and interglacial periods, which occur as alternate phases within an icehouse period and tend to last less than 1 million years. There are five known Icehouse periods in Earth’s climate history, which are known as the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Late Paleozoic, and Late Cenozoic glaciations.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
Or here graph of last 500,000 years:
https://a.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2001Q1/211/Group_projects/group_D_F00/index.html
It wasn’t graph I wanted, but it shows a lot glaciation not a cold as 20,000 years ago. Or you peak cold and peak warm.
And one keep in mind, our Holocene was roughly 8000 years ago- when had Sahara Desert was mostly grasslands with lakes and rivers and forests and Arctic ocean was ice free in terms of polar sea ice.
Or in terms of holocene interglacial period, we have past our peak- all the high spikes in that 500,000 graph.
Also it’s only last 2 million years where Greenland ice sheet was permanent. Or before 2 million years, the Greenland ice sheet would melt or would only form in coldest parts of glaciation periods.
Or last 2 million years have coldest period period- as is said, as in indicated in ice cores and all other proxy temperatures records.
So I don’t a have number, but it’s obvious the average was more than 15 C. So ask the question. What was it.
One could ask what was average for first 10 million year of the 33.9 million year period, and next 10 million, and next 10 million, and finally last 3.9 million.
I would think in last 3.9 million the average was higher than 15 C,
but last 2 million was the coldest- that is agreed by everyone.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275280922_Phanerozoic_Global_Temperature_Curve
Pleistocene temperatures.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS800katoFutureTemps01.jpg
Holocene temperatures.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
Oh look. Hockey sticks.
See, Richard?
*That* is Climateball.
Eman is actually Bill Nye The Science Guy.
— Entropic man says:
May 5, 2022 at 2:04 AM
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275280922_Phanerozoic_Global_Temperature_Curve —
Curious cartoon, has Impact winter as coldest period
Wiki:
“An impact winter is a hypothesized period of prolonged cold weather due to the impact of a large asteroid or comet on the Earth’s surface.”
“Although the asteroids and comets that impact the Earth hit with many times the explosive force of a volcano, the mechanisms of an impact winter are similar to those that occur after a mega-volcanic eruption-induced volcanic winter. In this scenario massive amounts of debris injected into the atmosphere would block some of the sun’s radiation for an extended period of time and lower the mean global temperature by as much as 20 C after a year.”
…
“In a study conducted by Curt Covey et al., it was found that an asteroid about 10 km (6.2 mi) in diameter with the explosive force of about 108 MT could send upward of about 2.5×10^15 kg of 1 m sized aerosol particles into the atmosphere. ….
“After the first 20 days, the land temperature might drop quickly, by about 13 C. After about a year, the temperature could rebound by about 6 C, but by this time about one-third of the Northern Hemisphere might be covered in ice.”
So global air temperature, at this time, according to this cartoon was about 22 C.
If global air temperature was 22 C, what would the global ocean surface temperature be, and global land temperature be?
forgot to give the wiki link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_winter
According to cartoon this dinosaur impact was during a global greenhouse climate, which means that instead having cold ocean of 3.5 C, it had warm ocean, but since it only had average global air temperature of 22 C, the ocean wasn’t very warm, so let’s say it was 10 C [though maybe warmer]. And say surface ocean temperature in polar region averaged about 10 C.
And tropical ocean surface like ours which averages about 26 C and 60% of rest of ocean being 18 C {ours is presently about 11 C}:
40 = 26
60 = 18
1040 + 1080 = 2120 /100 = 21.2 C
So, need a warmer land to give 22C
Or a higher ocean surface average temperature than guess above.
Or less land area. If we had 10 C ocean our sea level would be much higher, could be 100 meters higher then our present level.
Oh, well say average land around 23 C.
Just for reference, Brazil is 26 C. 1/2 land about 24 C and other half averages about 22 C. And Antarctica in different location is about 20 C {3 C cooler than Hawaii]
Anyhow land cools by 13 C, or average land is 10 C. Which is our average land temperature. How much does the average ocean surface temperature of 21 C cool by?
Tropics ocean surface with 26 C might cool to 20 C, the 18 C if rest of ocean might cool to 10 C.
So it is cooler than us, but this coolest it gets, or only has few months of it, so the year average could warmer than we are.
And average global air temperature is measure over some say, 17 years. Or fairly small volcanic eruption such as one that started Little Ice Age could cause lower less than 1 year drop in global air temperature
Also regarding cartoon, it say pre industrial was 13.8 C.
Was this the average temperature of pre industrial- if so what was coldest 30 year period, or some century long average temperature.
And our latest century long average is around 14.5 C
Wiki, Last Glacial Maximum: “Ice sheets covered much of North America, Northern Europe, and Asia and profoundly affected Earth’s climate by causing drought, desertification, and a large drop in sea levels.[1] According to Clark et al., growth of ice sheets commenced 33,000 years ago and maximum coverage was between 26,500 years and 1920,000 years ago, when deglaciation commenced,,”
So less time than the Holocene, and cartoon says it was 12.4 C-
average or coldest, not clear.
> regarding cartoon
Here’s the cartoon to which I was referring:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/187831869869
There’s no numbers attached to it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> Willard bring up a topic
How about gramer, gb.
“Even IPCC agrees” with wut?
Lacking a cogent reply, Willard resorts to ad homs and insults.
‘What are social media trolls? Theyre people who deliberately provoke others online. By saying inflammatory and offensive things. They live to make people upset and angry’.
That’s an example of plagiarism, Willard. I did not cite the source. Wegman did cite Bradley once and thought it sufficient. I agree, I would not even have bothered citing him.
C’mon, Gordo.
Quit trying to make me upset and angry.
It won’t work.
C’mon Willard,
Quit telling people what to do.
You know you are powerless to make anybody do anything.
[chortle]
Is this irony, silly sock puppet?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Surely you read the IPCC reports, and know, understand, and accept their contents?
So tell me, what does the IPCC not agree with?
It certainly agrees with the utter impossibility of forecasting future climate states.
It certainly agrees that climate is only the statistics of past weather.
The IPCC certainly seems to agree with me that it has produced nothing of use to anybody relating to future weather or climate.
Keep on trying to troll. Is “wut” just another of your attempts to appear clever, or are you really semi-literate?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“So tell me, what does the IPCC not agree with?”
You will need to ask gb about that one.
Only gb knows what he’s talking about.
Aw diddums!
Whacky Willard,
So you don’t even know what the IPCC agrees with?
Or don’t you like the reality that the IPCC supports me, is that it?
You idiot, trying to wriggle your way out of your pathetic attempt at trolling doesn’t exactly make you look clever.
Time for another attempt at diversion for you, I guess.
I find your pointless “Mike Flynn” obsession quite diverting – but maybe not in the sense you might think. I don’t know what Mike Flynn might think. I don’t blame him for not commenting. When he does, you refuse to believe it’s him – or me, for that matter!
Carry on.
Why do you keep playing dumb, silly sock puppet?
Because it’s easy for you?
Still, it makes you look silly.
C’mon Willard,
Can’t you wriggle any better than that, moron?
Your transparent attempts to avoid accepting reality are pathetic. What happened to the Mike Flynn diversion – nobody interested?
Keep trying to troll – maybe you can get good at it.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn everyone!
*The crowd throws roars and throws rotten tomatoes.*
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard are worried, I do bad “gramer” on purpose- as kind of mocking behavior?
I assure you I spell and type badly, naturally- it’s not act to demean others.
Nah, gb. In your case, it’s more a schizoid disorder.
Willard, please stop trolling.
From Willard’s link at https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/recipe-for-a-hiatus/ which he uses to snidely comment…”That should put Gordos always worth the read comment into perspective”.
I had commented that Ross McKitrick is always worth the read but in reference to McKitrick’s analysis of the hiatus, the author claims…
***
“Fake climate sceptics love the hiatus, the period since the strong El Nio in 1998 where global mean temperature has not increased according to their simplistic notions of global warming. The longer the hiatus, the more they can deny that climate change will be a problem this century. This gives an incentive for developing methods that report the longest possible hiatus, ideally without obviously cherry-picking the start date”.
***
I might point out to the imbecilic author, that the ‘fake climate skeptics’ at the IPCC announced the hiatus from 1998 – 2012. The hiatus was announced by the IPCC in AR5, circa 2013. That’s when NOAA rushed to fudge the SST retroactively to produce a trend where the IPCC had seen none. Ironically, till 2013, the NOAA series showed the hiatus as well.
Actually, it’s not a hiatus at all. There is no proof that the warming will continue and is not a phase in the natural variability continuum.
So, I repeat, Ross McKitrick is always worth the read. Ross tells it like it is, not obfuscation climate science like climate alarmists.
> the imbecilic author
C’mon, Gordo.
Richard Telford taught Craig Loehle.
Ross is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration, and a talking head of the Fraser Institute:
C’mon Willard,
What are you really trying to say?
Do you think anybody, anywhere, cares?
C’mon, Mike –
Which part of “Richard Telford taught Craig Loehle” you do not get?
Do you know why I mentioned these names?
No?
That’s what I thought.
Cmon Willard,
I dont know why you mention any names – Dick, Roy, Warnie, Mike, . . .
Maybe you are just a stupid troll trying to appear intelligent.
Of course you don’t, silly sock puppet.
Maybe you just butt in without reading anything.
Like you, you mean?
Not only I read the crap you promote, dummy, but I read it before you were playing Climateball.
I don’t play at climate or ClimateBall. You do. Idiot.
Of course you do, dummy.
Willard, please stop trolling.
norman…”You should look up the physics definition of heat for yourself.
RLH is quite correct and using the proper definition.
What you claim heat is, is actually internal energy”.
***
Clausius, an expert on heat, who derived the U for internal energy in the 1st law, created the 2nd law, and derived entropy as a mathematical measure for the 2nd law, defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms.
He also explained, that internal energy, U, in the 1st law, is part heat and part mechanical energy expressed as work. He was referring to the vibration of atoms caused by heat as energy.
**********************
“Heat is the amount of energy that is transferred when objects have different temperatures. EMR is heat energy when it flows from a hot object to a colder one and caused a temperature change”.
***
What kind of energy is being transferred, Norman? Is it electromagnetic energy, electrical energy, mechanical energy, chemical, energy, or nuclear energy. Nope. it is thermal energy, aka heat.
So, you are claiming that heat is the amount of heat transferred when objects have different temperatures.
Modernists are confusing temperature, which is a measure of relative heat levels, with heat, which is a form of energy. They are confused by the statistical definition of temperature as the average kinetic energy in a gas. That’s bs. Heat is the average kinetic energy of a gas and temperature is a human invention to measure it.
Summary…temperature, as a human invention, is a measure of heat, and heat is energy.
note: EM is not heat energy. Heat and EM have nothing in common, they are entirely different forms of energy.
Gordon Robertson
You can live in your own world with your own definitions but that is not how “heat” is defined. And temperature IS NOT a human invention, the scale is the invention not the characteristic. That is why you can use different temperature scales (the human invention) but the temperature is a property of a substance. Even if you don’t have a human scale to measure it you can still tell the difference by touching the materials. Sorry you are wrong in your philosophical understanding of reality. What is human and what is not. Time is NOT a human invention, the scale we use (seconds, minutes, hours) is a human invention. Time (rate of change) would still exist regardless if anyone measured it or not.
You are so confused in your understanding of reality. You won’t accept the current definition of what heat is (and yes EM can be heat if there is a flow from hot to cold).
You can make the claim RLH is wrong with your concept of heat but he is not wrong with the standard accepted definition of the term. Heat is the amount of energy that is transferred from a hot object to a colder one until they reach the same temperature. Energy continues to transfer but no heat does.
Minor problem, Norman.
You wrote –
“Heat is the amount of energy that is transferred from a hot object to a colder one until they reach the same temperature. Energy continues to transfer but no heat does.”
All well and good, (even if somewhat nonsensical – two imaginary objects in an imaginary infinite space would merely continue to lose energy, as their temperature dropped to absolute zero), but how do you justify your assumption that “energy continues to transfer”?
I agree with Richard Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
So what experiment supports your speculation? I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m just curious as I can’t think of any experiment which you could perform which wouldn’t change the energy exchange, because you would have to upset any thermal equilibrium with the measuring instrumentation.
Imaginary experiments do not count, of course. You might care to read up on Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, in relation to measurement or observation affecting the phenomenon under observation, before you respond.
Thanks.
Swenson
Are you seriously wanting an answer or are you trolling?
Norman,
I’m pretty sure you can’t devise an actual experiment, as I indicated.
The fact that you haven’t presented any has justified my assumption. If you don’t want to answer, I understand.
Rather like someone showing that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer results in the thermometer getting hotter!
Easy to claim, not so easy to demonstrate by experiment.
I couldn’t do it, and I don’t believe you can, either.
norman…”You can live in your own world with your own definitions but that is not how heat is defined”.
***
I offered the definition of a renowned expert and authority on heat, Clausius. I accept it because it makes eminent sense compared to modern definitions which are contradictory and plain silly.
As I explained to you, your definition suggests that heat is a transfer of itself. You are confusing heat with a generic energy that has no existence.
Gordon Robertson
I am not confusing anything. The current accepted definition of heat has been given to you. Words are arbitrary inventions by humans. What they represent are not. The word “water” is a human invention to allow communication of a substance the word refers to.
You are confused to think that you use of the word “heat” is for some reason better than the rigid use of the word in modern science.
It is not “my” definition of “heat”. It is the accepted definition of the word as used in science so that when used in physics papers the other scientists know what is being discussed.
Robertson Read this and stop being so (expletive deleted) obtuse: https://ddears.com/2021/01/12/dr-happer-explains-effects-of-co2/
If you want to participate in discussion about climate you must have a firm grasp on the material Happer is presenting.
ken…I am deliberating on EM because I have studied it in depth as the basis of electronic/electrical theory. I learned to be precise about its application and I expect precision from scientists talking about it.
I have nothing against Happer per se, I regard him as being a skeptic of catastrophic warming/climate change and that’s good enough for me. I just disagree with his manner of presenting the science. Normally, I would agree to disagree but you are pushing Happer so hard I feel compelled to respond to some of your authority figure’s claims. Again!!!
several points of disgreement…
1)”At the mean distance of Earth from the Sun, sunlight carries an energy flux of about 1,360 Watts per square meter (Wm-2). We are familiar with this flux, part of which warms us when we sunbathe at the beach on a cloud-free summer day”.
***
This statement is in error. We need to be precise, it’s not a generic energy flux, it’s an electromagnetic energy flux. Even at that, what is meant by flux. Newton used it initially as the derivative of an equation representing a quantity. That makes it the instantaneous change of a field or whatever at a particular time.
Just found this on wiki….
“If electromagnetic energy is not gained from or lost to other forms of energy within some region (e.g., mechanical energy, or heat), then electromagnetic energy is locally conserved within that region, yielding a continuity equation as a special case of Poynting’s theorem:
grad.S = -du.dt
where u is the energy density of the electromagnetic field. That’s what I have been trying to say, EM acts like potential energy unless it is being produced by matter or absorbed by it.
EM flux cannot be measured in w/m^2 since the watt is a definition of mechanical energy and is related to kinetic energy. In fact 746 watts = 1 horsepower, a rate of doing work. They use watts to measure heat because Joule discovered an equivalence between mechanical work, measured in joules and heat measured in calories. When you see heat defined in watts/m^2 it is a value equivalent to mechanical energy.
The reason Happer’s statement is wrong is because EM cannot contribute to any warming before it is absorbed by a mass. The watts/m^2 is a reference to the heat produced in a metre of surface area by the EM but the process of creating the heat involves electrons and their orbital properties in atoms, not the EM per se. The EM acts to excite the electron forcing it to a higher energy level. It is the change of kinetic energy that represents the heat.
EM is lost during the conversion and heat is produced as kinetic energy.
Claiming that solar EM has a heat of so many watts/m^2 is simply wrong. It can produce a different form of energy measured in w/m^2 but as a field, it does not have that property.
Therefore, it’s not the EM that heats your skin, it’s the conversion of EM to heat by electrons in atoms, by exciting electrons in your skin, that causes the heating.
***VERY important point****
Solar flux is absorbed because human skin is much cooler than the source. If the same human skin is exposed to the IR of ice, nothing happens because the IR is not absorbed. 2nd law. Therefore EM can contact mass and cause no heating, so what happens to its alleged w/m^2?
Small point re the EM, but unless it is clearly understood the error leads to larger mistakes later.
******************************
2)”The representative decrease of clear-sky thermal radiation to space from doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, 3 Wm-2, is an important number to remember”.
***
a)Happer is using the term ‘thermal radiation’, which is an oxymoron. It suggests a radiation of heat, which is impossible. Call it what it is, electromagnetic energy, a phenomenon made up of an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field and having no mass. Without mass, as in a pure vacuum, there can be no heat.
b)Again, you cannot measure EM in watts or w/m^2. Happer is referencing heat. He is somehow referencing the rate of heat loss at the surface.
There is simply no way to measure the amounts he is referencing unless you have a means of equating the rate of heat loss to a trace gas. Seems Happer has bought into that mythical theory.
3)”The emission rate of thermal radiation by cloud tops or by land and ocean surfaces is proportional to T4, the fourth power of the absolute temperature T”.
***
That’s an assumption and it’s wrong. Gerlich and Tscheuschner, two expert in thermodynamics, give a good explanation why. Basically the constant of proportionality, sigma, is not a universal constant. It applies only to the original Tyndall experiment in which he electrically heated a platinum filament between about 600C and 1500C.
Stefan’s equation, the basis of S-B, would not have been possible had the colours produced in Tyndall’s filament not change with increasing temperature. He could never have gotten the relationship using invisible IR. In fact, in the day of Stefan, scientists believed heat could flow through the atmosphere as rays.
************************
“Quantitatively, one finds that for temperate latitudes, greenhouse gases decrease the radiation flux to space by a factor of about 0.70. Because of the 𝑇^4 law for thermal emission by black surfaces, one could get the same decrease of flux by removing all greenhouse gases….”
***
Not a shred of evidence to support this claim. The graphs he uses are pseudo-graphs in the sense they are not measured by real instruments. That is obvious since the CO2 spectrum is overlaid by the water vapour spectrum and there is no way to measure the effect of CO2 directly.
If you read on, Happer uses models and a reference to a Schwarzchild identity. Schwarschild was a looney who promoted Einstein relativity to the point of the ridiculous.
************
This is enough to get my point across, if indeed it gets across, which I doubt. Happer has obviously bought into the GHE/AGW theory but he is minimizing the catastrophic effects claimed. Other than that he’d make a good alarmist.
sorry…typo…
grad.S = -du.dt should be grad.S = -du/dt
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Thats an assumption and its wrong. Gerlach and Tscheuschner, two expert in thermodynamics, give a good explanation why. Basically the constant of proportionality, sigma, is not a universal constant.”
What support do you have that either of these two are experts in thermodynamics. Gerlich is a teaches mathematical physics. Why does that make him an expert in thermodynamics? Are you just making things up to support your ideas or do you have a document that shows thermodynamics was his chosen field of study?
Also you say they have a good explanation that sigma is not a universal constant. They come up with a graph and do not explain much on how it was derived or what the units mean. Can you elaborate on this, I have not been able to grasp how they are proving the constant is not universal. They have units CGS on the Y-axis. What is that referring to? They give a couple equations that does not explain much. You are certain they proved sigma is not universal. I do not think it is clear enough to follow.
Norman
Robertson is a persistent liar who distorts everything until it fits his egomaniac narrative – regardless what he is ‘talk’ing about (lunar spin, time, relativity, Clausius, etc etc etc).
The most typical example of his manipulations is R.G. Wood, an eminent specialist in visible and near-visible light (UV and nearest IR), who suddenly became a century later an ’eminent specialist in IR’ – and even in CO2, look look !!
Wood did nothing else than to write a 1.5 (in words: ONE AND A HALF) page long report about his trial to contradict Arrhenius, published in 1909 in the The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (under paywall).
Here is the text:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MeAr0BeiFDwoknith1mb-rzvnYsoDvpM/view
No one knows how it is possible to give any credit to such a short, private opinion, above all one ending with:
” I do not pretent [original 1909 text] to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar. ”
If Arrhenius or one of his successors had ever written such a short, superficial ‘report’ about CO2’s effect, Robertson would have been the very first one to endlessly denigrate it.
*
Moreover, many people, among them Dr Roy Spencer and Stanford’s Computer Science Emeritus Vaughan Pratt (woefully discredited on this blog by the same Robertson) have shown that Wood was wrong.
The one and only person who presented results similar to Wood’s experiment was Nasif Nahle.
Whether or not Spencer or Pratt or anyone else did in turn contradict Nahle is not known to me.
Norman, since you’re into “support” this morning, did you ever fine any science support for your nonsense that:
1) Earth has a “real 255 K surface”, and
2) Two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325 K
Remember, you claimed that you ALWAYS support your claims.
Thanks.
Buzz off Clint; you have no clue.
Ken, you have NOTHING.
Until you can contribute some actual science, you’re just another worthless troll.
Perhaps if you don’t like the article for laymen, you’d prefer the original. Please check the maths for errors and let us know:
https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/files/2021/03/WPotency.pdf?x45936
Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean its wrong.
Interesting.
So, there is some hope of warming Earth.
ken…”Please check the maths for errors and let us know:”
***
The first error came near the beginning of the paper under section 3 – Line Intensities…
Note that the argument is purely mathematical with nothing to relate CO2 to warming. At that, they have gotten the math wrong, and the concept of a Bohr frequency as they use it is applied incorrectly. This mathematical argument presumes an absorp-tion of EM, which they do not state and that it is subject to the 2nd law.
They say, “Fig. 2 illustrates the greenhouse gas lines considered in this work. The Bohr frequency ful for a radiative transition from a lower level l of energy El to an upper level u of energy Eu of the same molecule is denoted by
ful = Eul/hc
where the energy of a resonant photon is Eul, h is Plancks constant and c is the speed of light”.
***Note that I have taken the liberty of writing the frequency, nu, with f so it will be accepted by WordPress formatting.
Bohr’s formula for an electronic transition, WITHIN AN ATOM…NOT A MOLECULE…is E = hf. Note that I have taken the liberty of writing the frequency, nu, with f.
There is no c involved for the simple reason that Bohr’s transitions take place without a time element. The electron during the transitions has no speed, based on c or anything else. It’s a quantum condition stipulated by Bohr to make sense of the electron orbital, so it won’t lose momentum.
I know you don’t want to hear this but it relegates Happer and his co-author to the hacker role. This error is an egregious error indicating they know nothing about Bohr or basic quantum theory created by Bohr for a single electron orbiting a nucleus (hydrogen).
Meantime, circa 1909, R. W. Wood, who was a world renowned expert on gases like CO2, and who was consulted by Bohr on sodium vapour, wrote a brief paper in which he claimed he could not see how atmospheric CO2 could affect atmospheric temperature.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160408103736/https://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Note_on_the_Theory_of_the_Greenhouse.pdf
“Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere?
The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable condition”.
Hate to tell you Gordon, but Bohr’s work on the hydrogen atom has been extended to molecules with the discovery of molecular orbitals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_orbital_theory#:~:text=Molecular%20orbital%20theory%20was%20developed,called%20the%20Hund%2DMulliken%20theory.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“If the same human skin is exposed to the IR of ice, nothing happens because the IR is not absorbed. “
So … if you are surrounded by walls at 30 C (a warm room) or 0 C (ice) or -78 C (dry ice) or -196 (liquid nitrogen temperature), are you truly claiming your bare skin would feel just as warm in all these settings. We can assume you are standing in air at 20 C in all cases.
I guarantee you will feel rather warm in the first case, and rather cold in the last. The net loss from your skin is about
* 40 W/m^2 in the warm room
* 200 W/m^2 in the ice room
* 400 W/m^2 in the dry ice room
The ONLY difference is the IR from the cooler surroundings. If “nothing happens”, then all of these would feel equally as warm.
Folkerts, tell us about how you can boil water with ice cubes.
That’s when it really gets funny.
tim…if your bare skin is in an ambient temperature of 20C and you are exposed to ice or dry ice, your skin will not warm. That’s what I am saying. If anything, it will cool.
— Tim Folkerts says:
May 5, 2022 at 11:17 AM
If the same human skin is exposed to the IR of ice, nothing happens because the IR is not absorbed.
So if you are surrounded by walls at 30 C (a warm room) or 0 C (ice) or -78 C (dry ice) or -196 (liquid nitrogen temperature), are you truly claiming your bare skin would feel just as warm in all these settings. We can assume you are standing in air at 20 C in all cases. —
This is correct.
A human body controls it’s temperature with evaporation heat loss- with human what matters is how dry the air is.
Using human is bad idea.
But a brick’s temperature will also controlled by the air temperature.
“Using human is bad idea.”
For those not aware of the intuitively obvious, your skin has a built-in thermometer. It signals your brain so that when you go into a cold room, you will want to put a coat on and when it is 40 C outside, you will want to strip down to your birthday suit.
“Specialized sensory receptors called thermoreceptors are responsible for temperature sensitivity. These thermoreceptors are located in the dermis of the skin. A cold environment results to lesser blood flow near the surface of the skin. Thus, the body feels colder. The opposite occurs when a person is in a hot environment or when a fever breaks.”
Clint says,
“Folkerts, tell us about how you can boil water with ice cubes.”
Except Folkerts has never said this. And has said no to thee idea.
Who, apart from Clint, has actually ever said this?
It’s just Clint, isn’t it?
barry, please stop trolling.
gbaikie says: A human body controls its temperature with evaporation heat loss- with human what matters is how dry the air is.”
A human body ATTEMPTS to control its temperature. I assure you that skin can and does cool below 37 C depending on external conditions.
And one of those external conditions is radiative heat loss/gain.
“But a bricks temperature will also controlled by the air temperature.”
No. It is controlled by ALL the factors related to heat loss/gain.
If the brick is in a bubble of 20 C air, but exposed to direct sunlight, it will get much warmer than 20 C. Similarly, if the brick is in a bubble of 20 C air inside a -30 C freezer, the brick will be cooler than 20C.
Gordon says: “If anything, it will cool.”
Yes!
Exposed to 20 C, the skin will be warm.
Exposed to 0 C, the skin will be cooler.
Exposed to -80 C, the skin will be cooler yet.
Or in reverse, if you start with -80 C all around, the skin will be cool. When you add the radiation from 0 C ice, ths skin warms up a bit. When you add the radiation from the 20 C room, the skin warms up even more. That is because radiation is absorbed by the skin, even when your skin is above 20 C and the sources of radiation are less than 20 C!
Tim, please stop trolling.
“Basically the constant of proportionality, sigma, is not a universal constant.”
Bullshit.
Sigma is proportional to Boltzmann’s constant to the fourth power and inversely proportional to the speed of light squared and Planck’s constant to the third power.
Thus, as of the 2019 definitions of the SI base units, it is known exactly.
bob d…you have been hanging out in the field with the sheep again, haven’t you? The S-B proportionality constant is based on the temperature range in which Tyndall’s experiment was based. That was 525C – 1200C.
Only an idiot would presume the T^4 derivation over that range would apply outside the range. Or, someone who spent far too much time in a field with sheep.
sorry…meant to include a link explaining how Stefan worked it out…
http://www.applet-magic.com/stefanlaw.htm
Gordon, you must be smoking crack again.
Look what I found in your source!
“Stefan’s conjecture happened to be correct and in 1884 Ludwig Boltzmann published a derivation of the fourth power law”
You understand the difference between theoretical evidence and experimental evidence?
Read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Welcome the the 21st Century.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Only an idiot would presume the T^4 derivation over that range would apply outside the range. ”
More likely only and idiot would think that no further experiments and tests were done on the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship over the next 143 years since it was derived.
Gordon you really sound stupid when you gab on about things you know nothing about and pretend to be the expert. If you continue on this mindless path you might end up as dumb as the bot that goes by Clint R. You may lie a lot and believe any lie you find on the Internet but so far you do not see quite as stupid as Clint R. But you will be that dense soon if you keep believing your own nonsense without question. You might even start believing fluxes can’t add nor can energy be absorbed by a hotter object. You might even believe the Moon does not rotate and that Moon phases are caused by the Earth shadow. You might think Putin has justification to kill, maim, torture innocent civilians in pursuit of some non-existent NAZI’s that exist in Putin imagination.
Norman, no matter how severe your meltdown is, or how much you’re exposed as a phony, you always are thinking about me. That’s exactly how it should be.
If you ever settle down, did you find any science support for your nonsense that:
1) Earth has a “real 255 K surface”, and
2) Two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325 K
Remember, you claimed that you ALWAYS support your claims.
But you’re a phony that can’t cut it.
Clint R
A very stupid poster calling me a phony. A poster so stupid they cannot understand anything but have a bunch of idiot responses (like “meltdown”, “link you don’t understand”)
I have already addressed your points. You are so stupid you can’t understand the points and keep bringing them up like a braindead bot.
If you are a human act like one. Show a little sign of thinking ability and learning. You show nothing but seem to have an insult routine you use to annoy people and attempt to elicit responses. Weak AI programming. Highly repetitious.
As stated you are either a very stupid human or a weakly programmed bot (too repetitive). Ken said it best “Buzz off Clint; you have no clue.”
Norman, I’ve enjoyed your meltdowns. But now that you’ve proven yourself to be such a phony, they’re even more enjoyable.
Bob already told you of his policy not to chew his cabbage twice, Pup.
What are you doing in his subthread?
Willard, please stop trolling.
We have discovered the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states: Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
The discovery has explained the origin of the formerly observed the planets’ average surface temperatures comparison discrepancies.
Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon and because Earths surface is covered with water.
What we do in our research is to compare the satellite measured planetary temperatures. We call it “The Planets’ Surface Temperatures Comparison Method”.
A faster rotating planet accumulates much more solar energy, than a slower rotating one.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Again ….
1) The general impact of rotation and heat capacity has long been known:
The faster the rotation, the more uniform the temperature.
The more uniform the temperature, the higher the average temperature.
The higher the heat capacity, the more uniform the temperature.
The more uniform the temperature, the higher the average temperature.
2) The “16th root” is an empirical result, with no theoretical basis. In particular:
* a non-rotating planet (N=0) would have a predicted temperature of 0 K
* a rapidly rotating would have unphysically high temperatures. For example a small asteroid with the same cp and a as earth but spinning 1 rev per second would be more than 2x as hot as earth. Well over 550 K (275 C; 550 F)
So you have a questionable fit to a well-known phenomenon.
Folkerts, got a valid reference for your 315 W/m^2 fluxes raising a surface to 325 K?
That’s like two ice cubes heating something to 125F. With enough ice, you could boil water.
” Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon… ”
What? The Moon rotates? That can’t be, that’s heresy, that’s definitely the way to the stake.
Please, Binny.
How many times do you think I could have answered
“Please, Willard.”
to comments you made that I thought were irrelevant or superfluous?
Irrelevance and superfluity are the lesser of my concerns here, my dear Binny.
What will happen if your baiting works?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Binny STILL can’t understand the simple motion of Moon.
CV is talking about a lunar day as compared to an Earth day.
It’s not hard to follow, unless one is braindead.
” CV is talking about a lunar day as compared to an Earth day. ”
Yes he does!
But… Vournas write ‘rotates‘ and not ‘orbits’. Why?
Oh Noes!
A bit below you read the same heresy, but formulated even a bit more clearly!
” Earth is on average warmer than Moon not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational spin. ”
Oh poor Vournas! Now, he is definitely ready for Inquisition…
I’m horrified.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Yes the stake, while listening to Chartmaster turned up to 11 I say.
… and looking at some nice pictures like this, hu?
https://c8.alamy.com/compde/c463c5/folter-unter-den-augen-der-inquisition-c463c5.jpg
bobdroege, Bindidon, please stop trolling.
… says a major troll of this blog.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
binny…”But Vournas write rotates and not orbits. Why?”
***
Christos did not indicate what the Moon was rotating about. He certainly did not claim it was rotating about a local axis. Clint has it right, Christos is comparing lunar days to Earth days. The former is caused by the Moon performing curvilinear translation without local rotation while the Earth actually rotates on a local axis.
What else but lies should we expect from a guy who keeps sucking Putin’s cock, and invents Nazis in Ukraine but closes his eyes about Nazis in Germany, Hungary, the whole America (including Canada of course) ???
I repeat Vournas’ words:
” Earth is on average warmer than Moon not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational SPIN. ”
You are not only a cowardly liar, you are also completely dense, Robertson.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
It seems unimaginable, sitting here today, that this paper was met with a lot of skepticism more than sixty years ago.
TM, what do you believe is controversial about it?
Did you not understand the atmosphere has different temperatures, typically decreasing with altitude?
In other words, the author has disqualified CO2 as having no significance.
Thank you, Tim, for your respond.
“So you have a questionable fit to a well-known phenomenon.”
Let’s demonstrate the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon on the:
Earth’s /Moon’s example
Earth is on average warmer 68C than Moon.
Earth and Moon are at the same distance from the sun. But Moon receives 28% more solar energy than Earth, because Moon’s average surface Albedo is significantly lower (Moons Albedo a =0,11 vs Earths Albedo a =0,306).
Yet Earth is on average warmer 68C than Moon.
The average surface temperature difference of 68C can be explained only by the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
The 4th root powers twice is an observed the Rotational Warming (N*cp) in sixteenth root power phenomenon when planet mean surface temperatures comparison ratios with the coefficients is compared.
Please visit the page Earth/Mars 288K/210K
The entire thread there is devoted to the planets mean surface temperatures comparison. And every time for the compared planets the (N*cp) in sixteenth root is necessarily present.
I would like your opinion on that.
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445868922
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths sidereal rotation spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
Earth is on average warmer than Moon not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational spin.
Earth also has a five (5) times higher average surface specific heat (for Earth cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean; and for Moon cp.moon = 0,19cal/gr*oC its soil is a dry regolith).
Earth is warmer than Moon not because of Earth’s very thin atmosphere trace greenhouse gasses content. Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moons surface.
Earth(N*cp) /Moon(N*cp) = (29,53/1)*(1/0,19) = 155,42
If Moon had Earth’s albedo (a=0,306), Moon’s mean surface temperature would have been 210K.
As we know, Earth’s mean surface temperature is 288K (15C). Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moons surface.
Let’s compare the Earth’s and Moon’s (for equal average Albedo) the mean surface temperatures:
Tmean.earth /Tmean.moon = 288K /210K = 1,3714
and the Earth’s and Moon’s (N*cp) products sixteenth root:
[ Earth(N*cp) /Moon(N*cp) ]^1/16 = (155,42)^1/16 = 1,3709
The results (1,3714) and (1,3709) are almost identical!
It is a demonstration of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon:
Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I have made my proxy ensemble plotting tool available on Goggle Sheets at the following link (v0.9.0):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16EG0SuYIhGMOtA-b6IW8-iWMnSFG7asEhavjQaOAw90/edit?usp=sharing
You will need a Google account to create a copy that you can edit yourself.
Alternatively you can download an .xlxs or .ods file and open it locally with the spreadsheet app of your choice, with or without a Google account. This breaks the plots on my computer (I’m running Ubuntu Linux and neither Gnumeric nor Libre Office Calc translate the charts properly.) Genuwine Microshaft Windoze products may yield better results, for my edification let me know if that is the case.
If there is sufficient interest I will share future versions containing additional features, data and better documentation. I will also happily take requests for same.
Have fun!
Biondi PDO 1999
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/biondi.jpeg
NOAA PDO Current
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/pdo-1.jpeg
Shen PDO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/shen.jpeg
You tell me which looks more ‘correct’ and why.
You want details of other, checkout https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/
I forgot
MacDonald PDO 2005
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/macdonald2005.jpeg
Richard,
All of these except ERSST PDO are already included as well as most/all the others you mention further up in comments. (I have what you call Biondi 1999 as 2001 as that’s how the citation reads in the data file.) Look under the Indices tab. Let me know if I missed any and I’ll be happy to add them to the next release.
Alternatively you can add them yourself to the Indices tab. Simply copy an entire existing column and fill it with the new data. (Adding temperature data is a little more involved as you need to copy formulae and data in two separate tabs, positioned in the exact same columns, but it’s not too difficult.)
Richard,
https://imgur.com/gallery/NI5sngS
Shen 2006 has the best correlation to instrumental data and to my 45-member temperature ensemble so it would be my pick.
Mine too.
I have Biondi as
https://imgur.com/a/Qzxe60W
Biondi, F., A. Gershunov, and D.R. Cayan, 2001,
North Pacific decadal climate variability since AD 1661,
Journal of Climate, Volume 14, Number 1, January 2001.
I should note that the majority of your series are Northern Hemisphere or PDO related yet you mostly compare then to global data. Though to be fair, you also include NH only instrument data as well as global so this treatment overall has a NH bias.
Have you found any correspondence (other than Shen) between your other PDO series and instrument or NOAA data?
Shen 2006 on my website
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/shen.jpeg
Biondi on my website
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/biondi.jpeg
NOAA PDO on my website
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/pdo-1.jpeg
RLH
Is that not a bit brazen to compare your trivial schoolboy plots with the immense work done by Brandon R. Gates?
You have an explanation why a ‘trivial’ 15 year low pass shows up cycles that his PDO plots of proxies don’t?
Remember, that is any cycle of 15 years or greater as that is what low pass filters show.
I chose PDO because that is available in both proxy and current forms.
I have most of the other on my site too. None of them show any cycles in the proxy series that other temperature series that overlap them do. Why is that?
RLH
Try to replicate and to criticize Gates’ job, instead of hand waving with your trivial low pass stuff.
You do NOTHING else than downloading data and posting uploads of charts containing nothing else than that data together with your low pass filters.
Stop claiming what you guess is wrong in Gates’ work, and start proving it’s wrong by doing OWN work!
*
You just need to download his xlsx file and to produce your own view of all what Gates has shown.
And THEN we will see what you really were able to do.
So low pass is trivial is it? Strange how it shows up things that people wish to bury.
Like the fact that adding together proxy series produces a hockey stick that fails to replicate what other temperature series clearly show.
You do nothing other than downloading data and posting uploads of excel charts of them.
“You just need to download his xlsx file and to produce your own view of all what Gates has shown.”
Would I replicate what he has done? Simply adding together proxy series, as he has done, is the wrong way to go. All it will do is cover up any cyclicity in those series and produce a straight line. Just as he has done.
It doesn’t match with contemporary non proxy series but who cares about verification if a hockey stick is the result?
Oh noes, Richard is not playing Climateball again!
Richard,
I make no representation that taking the simple unweighted mean of a bunch of proxies is a “correct” method with any “scientific” validity or purpose. This project started as a what would happen if venture. I personally gained some interesting information: big error bars but a composite that does indeed look like Mannian recons.
I think that should tell you something about the fidelity of Mann’s work to reality, but I recognize the rules of this game preclude you from doing so.
“I make no representation that taking the simple unweighted mean of a bunch of proxies is a ‘correct’ method with any ‘scientific’ validity or purpose”
I am not surprised. Leaving in the weather and annual noise like Mann just means that it becomes overwhelming in the final result and just, as I have said before, creates a hockey stick.
Simple low pass filtering (you can use LOWESS if you prefer) removes the noise and leaves the signal exposed. I chose 15 years as the corner frequency for 2 main reasons.
1. There is a sweet spot in the frequency band where little energy is present.
2. It is far enough away from 30 years (often used as a reference period) to not suppress anything of interest there.
I chose gaussian and S-G as the best low pass filters around with minimal side effects that there are in engineering. LOWESS is the realm of statistics but essentially does the same thing.
What it does expose is the fact that there is no commonality between the proxy series you have chosen which should tell you something. They don’t even match the accepted temperature series in their overlap portions.
This is about understanding what is deficient in the previous work, not championing something else just for the sake of it.
Willard: Only you thinks that ‘ClimateBall’ is relevant to anything.
Your charades are silly, Richard. Your posturing is also silly. You might be able to know how to drown a signal in some cycle nuttery stuff, but for everything else you are no better than most contrarians here. So get off your high horse.
Welcome to Climateball!
Willard: How you get a low pass to ‘drown out’ a long term signal is not explained. Ever. Idiot.
Have you worked out yet how many of the quoted proxy series are PDO and how many are NH only?
Richard says that a filter does not filter.
Willard does not understand how low pass filters work.
Mind you. Willard probably thinks that LOWESS is ok because it is ‘stats’.
Richard believes that no climate scientists ever used low-pass filters:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.173.2002&rep=rep1&type=pdf
So its OK for Mann (40 year low pass) but not OK for me (15 low pass)?
Willard is an idiot for sure.
P.S. I use S-G of the same corner frequencies to overcome most boundary conditions, as is common elsewhere in engineering. Pity that Mann did not apparently study that discipline.
Richard believes that to smooth data is to reveal its secrets.
And the secret of all the secrets, according to him, is cycles all the way down.
It’s all sinusoidal, so it’s beautiful, it’s true, it’s real.
Science like the good ol’ days, when what was above was like Saul Below.
I believe that what is left after low pass filters should correspond one with another if the data in 2 series is coincidental or is caused by the same overall drivers. That is what happens in the real world. It is called verification.
Willard does not understand that pure cycles have nothing to do with it. The combination of all cycles below a given frequency is like a fingerprint. It is either there, in which case the series show the same characteristics, or it isn’t, in which case they don’t.
Ever wondered why RSS and UAH show the same patterns after treatment with a 7 year low pass or GISS and Had5 show the same patterns after a 5 year low pass? Coincidence? Give me a break.
….after a 15 year low pass….
https://imgur.com/a/kBWkgNf
for all 4
Has Richard ever wondered that comments that start with “Has X ever wondered” might not be the best way to convince anyone but himself that he’s not playing Climateball?
So why is it that what I said is true?
Why is Playing Questions Richard’s main Climateball strategy?
Connoisseurs might appreciate the beauty of asking a rhetorical question while begging another one!
Why is it that Willard is an idiot?
“[W]e employ a Matlab routine which uses a 10 point Butterworth lowpass filter of specified cutoff (half-power) frequency f0 for time series smoothing.”
Others use a gaussian or S-G function which achieves the same thing.
Why does Richard fail to admit that scientists are not as dumb as he pretends they are?
Because he’s playing Climateball, that’s why!
Why is Willard as dumb as he is? Because he is an idiot.
Amazing job. Thank you for that!
Maybe you’ll have some time for a description.
You should publish the link such that it is free for modification, otherwise Google Docs probably will send you automatically emails from interested people – with their real address! And not with a virtual address hiding them.
I experienced that last year in Google Drive, as I forgot to make a png file visible for everybody: I really obtained an email from a commenter who tried to open the link I posted!
For Linux users, I think the best is to use Chrome instead of Firefox.
You don’t do irony do you? Yet another hockey stick that does not show cycles that other temperature series do (even GISS).
https://imgur.com/a/rMC9Nhs
And Had5
https://imgur.com/a/92ods8T
> Yet another hockey stick that does not show cycles that other temperature series do (even GISS).
We’ll do this one again, Richard, except cleaner and more zoomed in since you didn’t seem to get the memo previously:
https://imgur.com/gallery/832sUn3
Coefficient of determination (R^2) = 0.66, and Pearson’s correlation coefficient = 0.81, which ain’t too shabby. Just eyeballing it, your low pass filters would also probably give good agreement. You should try it *and post them in the same plot* so we can actually compare them.
See above. If the proxy series don’t match one with another, what is the point of adding them together?
Why don’t you remove 1/3 of the proxy series randomly until they do or do not match the temperature series and see what you are left with. You will need to do multiple runs to do that of course.
That way you will find those proxy series that best agree with other non proxy series.
Richard,
https://imgur.com/gallery/JoYmEWK
The data: https://tinyurl.com/yp6rhmtm
I am mostly interested in proxies which can be matched to instrument data during their period of overlap. When treated with a low pass filter, say 15 years, they should all show the same broad characteristics regardless if they are proxies or instrument based.
Those that do not are to be considered rejected or reasons given as to why they differ.
Richard,
> I am mostly interested in proxies which can be matched to instrument data during their period of overlap.
You have the data, I suggest you do your own rankings if you don’t like mine.
The blog keeps eating my longer comments so I have prepared a note which includes various plots inline with the text.
https://tinyurl.com/3y9pmayk
Can you match your proxies to these?
https://imgur.com/a/kBWkgNf
P.S. Instrument data does not occur before the 1800s.
“I suggest you do your own rankings if you dont like mine.”
OK. Anything that does not match to Had5 and/or GISS in their overlap period is out.
That means that most of your PDO proxies are out. See my website for details.
That also means that a lot of your other proxies are out too. See my website for details.
Note differences between RSS/UAH and Had5/GISS over the peaks in their datasets.
Look in particular at the peaks at 1998-1999, 2016-2017, 2020-2021 on both sets. Why are there significant differences in values between those peaks between satellite and ground?
It would seem that Had5/GISS has a higher trend than RSS/UAH over that period.
RSS and UAH have a differential between 2002-2008, mainly down to the satellites chosen by each as Roy has mentioned before.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/to:2002/plot/rss/to:2002/offset:-0.22/plot/uah6/from:2008/plot/rss/from:2008/offset:-0.45/plot/uah6/from:2002/to:2008.1
Richard,
The blog doesn’t like something in my response to you and is again eating my replies. Go to my open notebook on this thread and jump to Jump to “Update 5/6/2022 6:15 PM” for the relevant images and comments:
https://tinyurl.com/3y9pmayk
Brandon: Try this as a response from some of my earliest work on just this subject.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/first-post/
This has 2 figures that are worth consideration in this respect Fig8 and Fig9.
https://imgur.com/a/UgGr7Cj
These are the individual plots of the series mentioned in them. Note how your ‘ensemble mean’ turns Fig9 into a hockey stick. Just as I claimed.
As you will appreciate this was done in 2014, so the data is only up to then.
Are you prepared to plot your series without the ensemble mean to verify my data? From 1800 onwards of course.
Richard,
I want to respond to this comment upthread down here:
> Leaving in the weather and annual noise like Mann just means that it becomes overwhelming in the final result and just, as I have said before, creates a hockey stick.
Except that isn’t happening, nor would I expect it to, in the type of averaging I’m doing. Rather it’s the exact opposite of what you claim. The high frequency noise is cancelling out leaving behind longer period signal.
Now, it may very well be that Mann’s methods of doing reconstructions in the first place suppresses long-term signal that it should not, and indeed there is debate in literature about just that. Notably, he and Anders Moberg have disagreements about each others’ methods and results but the reasons aren’t down to taking unweighted means of a bunch of different proxy series as I am doing.
“> Can you match your proxies to these?
There aren’t enough studies overlapping the satellite series to make it worth my time doing.”
See above.
“> Anything that does not match to Had5 and/or GISS in their overlap period is out.
You need to define with quantification “does not match” — no two different observational records will match exactly *by definition*. All such choices ultimately contain some arbitrary subjectivity but that doesn’t obviate the need to be specific about your own choices and requirements.”
Broad agreement with a 15 year low pass of the data in the series. As shown above.
“> That means that most of your PDO proxies are out.
I wish you would stop conflating PDO with mean global temperature, they are decidedly NOT the same thing.”
That is rather rich, given that at least 5 of your own proxies are PDO based.
“I have done as you asked for HAD5 and GISTEMP. For each instrumental record I selected the 17 proxy series with the lowest RMSE over their entire period of overlap. (This differs from what I did last time as my scoring also included RMSE to the proxy ensemble mean.)”
Now do the individual plots as I requested. Not the ensemble mean.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/first-post/
This has 2 figures that are worth consideration in this respect Fig8 and Fig9.
https://imgur.com/a/UgGr7Cj
These are the individual plots of the series mentioned in them. Note how your ensemble mean turns Fig9 into a hockey stick. Just as I claimed.
“The blog doesnt like something in my response to you”
Use Had5 rather than what you tried.
Richard,
https://imgur.com/gallery/TeFa8Og
I don’t have Anderson 2013 so I gave you Moberg 2005 instead. 30 year moving averages applied to all series except HAD5 and Loehle, which is smooth enough already.
Yes I know an SMA is a terrible low-pass filter but I don’t have time right now to reinstall R and do a proper job of it.
Now I’ve more than done your homework assignments. May I pretty please see some power density plots for your favorite proxy series vs. instrumental? Thanks.
So replicate my Fig9 as I asked then as best you can.
I chose a gaussian and S-G for a reason. They do the job very well with little to no added distortions.
Restrict your plot to 1800 onwards as it does. Plot away. It will be the same as I got (series included aside).
A quick paint.net job gives me
https://imgur.com/a/UEi60lN
Yours will be the same.
A one to one comparison. Broadly the same.
https://imgur.com/a/N42Jub8
Brandon: Got any reasons why 3 out of the 4 proxy series fail to follow the rise of Had5?
Brandon,
This blog rejects words containing the letters d and c when adjacent to each other in that order. Specifically, anytime you refer to Had*crut without the asterisk.
Brandon comes up with a new term. Hide the fail to incline in 3 out of 4 of his proxy series.
Seen here in red.
https://imgur.com/a/8vap58I
Richard,
> Got any reasons why 3 out of the 4 proxy series fail to follow the rise of Had5?
Yep. Smoothing artifacts from the 30-year simple moving average at the tail end of those proxies. Removing that low-pass filter removes those artifacts and thus the seeming discrepancies go away.
https://imgur.com/gallery/LMA3w1l
Low pass filters reduce the length of a data series, not increase them.
Any ‘artifacts’ from a 30 year low pass can be reduced by using a 15 year low pass as I do.
An SMA reduces the length of a data series if the output is at the center by length/2 or the output is shifted by the length/2 if the output is at one end. Which is it?
Binny, thanks for the compliments, I appreciate them. I deliberately give only myself modification privileges because I want any interested users to get the file in “pristine” working condition as of time of release. Also, with open modification if multiple users are in the document at the same time the edit collisions can create quite a mess.
You’re right that a description document telling what the tool’s intent and capabilities are as well as instructions not already in the cell notes would be good. I think one page would suffice. I’ll try to get to that in the next few days.
Yes, Chrome gives the best performance. It works in Firefox just fine but for this much data it becomes noticeably draggy compared to Chrome.
I do like to use Firefox for its built-in screenshot functionality. It’s the only way I’ve found to generate high resolution plots — the download .png feature native to Google Sheets outputs very low-resolution plots with the layout all screwed up. But what do you want for free?
binny…”Is that not a bit brazen to compare your trivial schoolboy plots with the immense work done by Brandon R. Gates?”
***
This is why I call you an idiot. You seem to have a penchant for data presented by rank amateurs over the likes of UAH.
I’d trust anything by Richard regarding statistics over any propaganda put our by you or Gates.
Robertson
” Id trust anything by Richard regarding statistics… ”
Of course you do!
But… you trust him only because he perfectly shares your trivial views about climate affairs.
If, using the same trivial statistic tools, he would show warming, you would endlessly discredit him.
*
Similarly, you trust UAH ONLY because its data matches your trivial expectations.
If UAH had not decided to switch from rev 5.6 to rev 6.0, it would be currently at 0.18 C / decade instead of 0.13, and you would endlessly discredit this team.
This is why I’m very happy that you call me an idiot, Robertson: you are such a desperately simple-minded boaster.
binny…”But you trust him only because he perfectly shares your trivial views about climate affairs”.
***
Not just that, I took a year’s course on engineering probability and statistics and what he claims strikes me as being true. I don’t recall a lot of the theory because the course load was immense and students like me had to pick and choose which subjects to focus on.
Although Richard and I take shots at each other, from my end, it’s more tongue in cheek than anything. I wish you’d lighten up a bit so we could laugh over the bs.
As it stands, I get a kick out of your attacks on me. Learned a long time ago that ego is a burden and not something worth defending. Not only that, what one is defending is an imaginary construct.
Richard may be a contrarian, Gordo, but you are a Sky Dragon Crank.
Also, there is such thing as a year-long curriculum in engineering, probability, and statistics.
Think.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Robertson
Stop talking about all your alleged ‘a years course on engineering probability and statistics’.
You never learned anything you claim about: that is all your vita invention.
No engineer would write permanent nonsense like you do.
No engineer would ever speak about ‘faked Excel graphs based on fudged data’: s/he would prove the graphs wrong by posting more correct alternatives.
You are so incredibly inexperienced that you aren’t even able to produce the simplest Excel chart.
Only journalists, bad teachers and similar people are like you, Robertson.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson 5/4 at 6:19 PM
“I invite you over to Vancouver, Canada for a dip in the ocean. In fact, I’ll drive you over to the west coast of Vancouver island so you can dip in the Pacific. If you get past dipping up to your ankles and survive the chill that will envelope your brain, you might dive straight in. If your heart is good you might survive for a few minutes, maybe even ten, but I guarantee you’ll be blue in colour by the time you emerge.
And that’s in the summer.
This ones for you GR; you dont get out much, do you?
https://youtu.be/x8SGB3R-T7c
Try this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNmY_EAoXnU
bobdroege
That swim was pretty amazing!
Duh!!! Did you not notice the surfers are wearing wet suits?
I think Gordo is part Russian. I wouldn’t challenge him to swim in cold water.
stephen…never mind my level of of sanity, have you never heard of the US swimmer Lynn Cox. She swam from Alaska to Russia across the Bering Sea, and swam in Antarctic waters that were around 0C.
She’s a better man than me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Cox
Water temperature on west coast Vancouver Island is ~10C all year.
Survival time is about an hour (depending on your size and blubber), less if you don’t have a life jacket.
ken…I was egging maguff on a bit. I stayed in the Pacific over half an hour without a wet suit. It was raining that day off Long Beach and when I surfaced, the rain felt warm on my head. I was making the point that the ocean is still damned cold in places.
I was trying to learn how to surf, rather unsuccessfully. There were good waves of at least 10 feet and a smarter person would have remained ashore. Never did get much of a ride but I sure spent a lot of time under each wave as I fell down the face. Scared the crap out of me on the first one, not realizing I’d be down there so long as the wave passed over, then seeing the board shoot out of the water near me as it surfaced. Could have been knocked out.
I went to a place that is colder that where I live.
How is this possible when global warming?
barry, please stop trolling.
Terraforming: why the Moon is a better target than Mars
The first world that humans should inhabit beyond the Earth is the Moon, not Mars. Here’s why terraforming our lunar neighbor is so appealing.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/terraforming-moon-mars/
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
Let’s look up definition of terraforming, wiki:
Terraforming or terraformation (literally, “Earth-shaping”) is the hypothetical process of deliberately modifying the atmosphere, temperature, surface topography or ecology of a planet, moon, or other body to be similar to the environment of Earth to make it habitable by Earth-like life.
The concept of terraforming developed from both science fiction and actual science. Carl Sagan, an astronomer, proposed the planetary engineering of Venus in 1961, which is considered one of the first accounts of the concept.”
I didn’t know Carl Sagan proposed terraforming Venus.
“Sagan proposed injecting photosynthetic bacteria into the Venus atmosphere, which would convert the carbon dioxide into reduced carbon in organic form, thus reducing the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”
…
“Here’s the fatal flaw: In 1961, I thought the atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus was a few bars … We now know it to be 90 bars, so if the scheme worked, the result would be a surface buried in hundreds of meters of fine graphite, and an atmosphere made of 65 bars of almost pure molecular oxygen. Whether we would first implode under the atmospheric pressure or spontaneously burst into flames in all that oxygen is open to question. However, long before so much oxygen could build up, the graphite would spontaneously burn back into CO2, short-circuiting the process.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Venus
Lunar Soil has the Potential to Generate Oxygen and Fuel
2 hours ago
Charles Rotter
Peer-Reviewed Publication
CELL PRESS
“Soil on the moon contains active compounds that can convert carbon dioxide into oxygen and fuels, scientists in China report May 5 in the journal Joule. They are now exploring whether lunar resources can be used to facilitate human exploration on the moon or beyond.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/05/lunar-soil-has-the-potential-to-generate-oxygen-and-fuel/
It seems weird and different.
I give it whirl of why Moon isn’t better for settlements.
With teleoperation people don’t have to live on the Moon.
Or most people working on the Moon, could be living on Earth.
The first place to explore, should be the Moon and second place to explore should be Mars, though one could instead explore one or both of Mars moons, before exploring Mars surface.
In terms of exploring the Moon, it seems only place of interest is the lunar polar regions, and question is just one, where in lunar polar regions is there mineable lunar water.
What could do with the Moon if there isn’t mineable water?
Ship earth water to Earth/Moon L-1/L-2
Can you ship Earth water to L-1 and sell it for $500 per kg?
Generally launch cost to just low Earth orbit is around $2000 per kg
and that cost would be higher to reach L-1, Falcon-9 does as much 22,800 kg to LEO
And Falcon heavy does 63,800 kg to LEO
22,800 x $500 = 11.4 million and 63,800 x $500 = 31.9 million dollar
so, can’t even do such price to LEO.
Starship does about 100,000 kg to LEO, times $500 = 50 million
Crazy Musk says cost will be 2 million per launch, so “in theory” one do it to LEO, but Earth/Moon L-1 requires about 3.9 km/sec of more delta-v. And refueled Starship can do 6.9 km/sec of delta-v.
And fulled fueled Starship takes 1200 tons of fuel.
So, somewhat close, but need Musk magic.
Musk claims he can put 100 ton on lunar surface with fully fuel Starship, so could sell Earth water on the Moon for $1000 per kg.
But Starship isn’t coming back [unless refueled] or one say isn’t much use putting a Starship on lunar surface {a starship is make to re-entry atmosphere] so could replace starship with something not designed to re-entry an atmosphere. Or Starship’s raptor engines and attached to tank with water in it. Starship mass is 120 ton, engine and tank could be 100,000 kg tank with 12 tons of engines.
And say you want tanks, and would pay $500 per kg for tanks brought
to Moon: 100,000 times $500 = $50 million.
You could same with L-1, but from L-1 you could return the Starship to Earth for re-use.
So if buy the “starship” on lunar surface for $50 million and pay 50 million for water. Or say buy starship for $50 million and get water for free at L-1- or say 25 million for water.
But compare to say $1000 per kg for water at lunar surface and $500 kg in L-1, which better.
My view has “always been”, is if sell mined lunar water for $500 per kg, lunar water is mineable, but at same time I claim lunar water is worth more in lunar low orbit, and worth more at L-1.
which better.
But also part of this, the the company that can do this has more value than water sold, because future worth of a lunar mining company. So question does company that buys Earth water and make rocket fuel and sells it, some kind future value also.
It seems a station which make rocket fuel from water, is sort of in space hotel business. Which kind of related to people wanting some place to stay. And I said people don’t need to live on the Moon.
And Mars would more connected to needing/requiring people staying.
Anyhow in L-1 don’t dust, have more solar energy, and cheaper to ship solar panels from Earth.
But tend to a hotel business might do better in Venus orbit and related to people going to Mars.
But it could start in L-1, and move it to Venus.
norman…”You are confused to think that you use of the word heat is for some reason better than the rigid use of the word in modern science.
It is not my definition of heat. It is the accepted definition of the word as used in science so that when used in physics papers the other scientists know what is being discussed”.
***
Physicist David Bohm…and I think Feynman said something similar…claimed that an equation that does not describe the physical reality is garbage. I claim the same about heat, if the definition does not fit the reality, then it is garbage.
Your definition does not fit the reality, nor does any definition that claims heat is not energy but a measure of or a transfer of a generic energy. Such a definition is plain silly. Using the word energy as a generic term when the specific energy in question needs to be stated is ingenuous. Not only that, it leads to a gross misunderstanding of the physical reality.
Alarmists use the word energy in a generic sense to get around the 2nd law. They are fully aware that heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface but they try to get around it by inventing a ‘balance of energy’. If that mysterious energy is positive, then the 2nd law is claimed to be satisfied, even though heat is being transferred cold to hot.
Hogwash, claimed G&T. They pointed out, quite rightly, that the 2nd law applies only to heat, therefore any balance of energy must apply to heat only. Alarmists like Eli Rabbett fail to get that, they think they can sum heat with EM to get a balance of energy.
When G&T pointed out to Rabbett (Halpern et al) that heat can only be transferred hot to cold, by its own means, Eli astoundingly claimed that would mean two bodies of different temperature would have one body not radiating. Duh!!! No, Eli, it means the hotter body does not absorb the EM radiated by the cooler body.
Why are so many scientists with Ph.Ds in physics so ill-informed about quantum theory? Ken’s authority figure, Happer, is just as bad. He could not write the Bohr equation for electron transition correctly. He included the speed of light which has no business in the quantum atmosphere of an atom.
You have described heat as a transfer of energy but you have not described the energy being transferred. If heat is to be used to describe a transfer of energy then that energy can only be thermal energy, aka heat.
That is blatantly obvious, yet modernists continue to spew the propaganda, that heat is a transfer of heat, or a measure of heat. Is it not obvious to you that the energy you claimed is being transferred or measured is heat?
Clausius was correct, heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. Temperature is a measure of relative heat levels and entropy is a measure (of sorts) of heat transfer. I say, ‘of sorts’ because entropy can only be zero or positive, Still, Clausius devised it to measure relative levels of heat transfer. It has nothing to do with measuring disorder, disorder being a byproduct of an irreversible process, for which entropy must be positive.
The positive stipulation is there because heat cannot be transferred cold to hot by its own means. Entropy was invented by Clausius and defined as the sum of infinitesimal changes of heat over a process at a given temperature. If more heat is transferred by different irreversible processes then they can be more positive, but never negative.
Gordon Robertson
Once again it is NOT my definition of heat. An no not all forms of energy transfer are considered heat.
In the link it clearly states the type of energy transfer that constitutes heat. Conduction and radiant energy. Those forms of energy transfer are what are explained as heat transfer.
Please read the article attached.
https://www.thermal-engineering.org/what-is-heat-in-physics-heat-definition/
You do make unsupported claims “No, Eli, it means the hotter body does not absorb the EM radiated by the cooler body.”
This can be easily experimentally verified to be a wrong conclusion.
I don’t have a vacuum assembly or I could show you. But it would not matter if I did, you do not believe experimental evidence at all. Roy Spencer has already done experiments proving you are wrong as has E. Swanson (who had a vacuum assembly and pump).
Here is where Roy experimentally demonstrates you wrong. G&T can make any claims they want, they have no experimental evidence. When it comes to science and truth I will always side with the evidence.
Roy proves you wrong. Like I stated no experimental evidence alters your wrong thinking. I guess your ego is too big to admit being wrong.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
Gordon Robertson
In the Roy Spencer link you have numerous comments I saw. Roy Spencer answered them for you. You should go back an read what he told you back then. You still say the same wrong things without hesitation. It is not as if an attempt to correct your errors has not been attempted.
As I stated you do not seem as stupid arrogant as the bot who goes by Clint R. But you truly seem to have zero learning ability. You just repeat the same flawed points over and over and cling to a couple fringe writers and repeat their flawed ideas. Over an over without change. If you were the genius you claim you are, you should auto-correct your flawed thinking, or at least think about what people tell you.
Norman, I see you still can’t support your bogus claims.
If you really want to understand Spencer’s experiment you and Ball4 keep linking to, I will be happy to explain it to you. But, you will have to agree to 90 days without commenting here.
Not that again, Pup.
Really?
Clint R
Buzz off dumb one. Your opinions are noted and they are quite stupid. You need to stop commenting. Your opinions are really stupid and expose how dumb you are.
Norman, there’s really no reason to get mad at me. Your incompetence is your own fault. I just expose it.
Thanks for noticing.
“When G&T pointed out to Rabbett (Halpern et al) that heat can only be transferred hot to cold, by its own means, Eli astoundingly claimed that would mean two bodies of different temperature would have one body not radiating. Duh!!! No, Eli, it means the hotter body does not absorb the EM radiated by the cooler body. ”
But also a less hot body absorbs less heat from a hotter body as compared to, if less hot was much cooler
But the Sun is very hot and Earth is cold.
If Earth was 1/2 as hot as sun, Earth would absorb less energy from the Sun.
Or the inner surface furnace wall which is hot, doesn’t lose a much heat [acts as insulation] though one tends to think of as heat gradient or the heat gradient [thickness of brick] is the insulation.
G&T share Gordon Robertson’s delusion that photons emitted by a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer object.
This turns out not to be the case.
Once again, in simple words.
Two adjacent objects at different temperatures.
The warmer object emits photons towards the cooler object, which it absorbs. These carry x Joules.
The cooler object emits photons towards the warmer object, which it absorbs. These carry y joules.
The net amount of energy transferred from the warmer object to the cooler object is x-y Joules.
The correct formulation of 1LOT is not
“Heat cannot flow from a cooler object to a warmer object by its own means.”
The correct formulation is
“There cannot be a NET flow of heat from a cooler to a warmer object by its own means.”
That’s all wrong, Ent.
Photon absorp.tion is based on wavelength compatiblity. That means photon absorp.tion is affected by temperature.
And, you’re confusing 1LoT with 2LoT.
You don’t understand any of this.
Clint R
Does it make you happy to expose your ignorance? You again have no clue. If an object can emit a photon it will also be able to absorb it.
The reality is you do not understand any physics at all. You are a blowhard troll.
Entropic man physics is correct. Yours not so much (not that it is physics or science at all, it is just your own opinions).
Norman, I enjoy your meltdowns. But now that you’ve proven yourself to be such a phony, they’re even more enjoyable.
Norman,
Eman says you’re not allowed to make ad hominem attacks in his name.
Clint R
“Photon absorp.tion is based on wavelength compatiblity. ”
Thermal radiation is emitted and absorbed across a number of wavelengths forming a normal distribution(?) plot of intensity versus wavelength.
Under terrestrial conditions this is centred in the IR and wavelength compatibility is not a problem.
“youre confusing 1LoT with 2LoT. ”
Yes, I do that a lot. 🙂
This is another example of how the cult works together to pervert science.
Ent makes a long comment, trying to support “cold” warming “hot”. He knows so little about science that he confused the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. I corrected him, and then Norman jumps into with his ad homs to me, and support for Ent.
Then Ent returns, totally oblivious to my comment.
That’s how they keep their cult going.
Clint R
Perhaps you missed my reply. Just in case, here it is again.
Entropic man says:
May 6, 2022 at 9:57 AM
Clint R
Photon absorp.tion is based on wavelength compatiblity.
Thermal radiation is emitted and absorbed across a number of wavelengths forming a normal distribution(?) plot of intensity versus wavelength.
Under terrestrial conditions this is centred in the IR and wavelength compatibility is not a problem.
youre confusing 1LoT with 2LoT.
Yes, I do that a lot.
Ent, that’s called “doing the same thing over again, hoping for different results”, aka “doubling down on stupidity”.
Well done.
“Photon absorp.tion is based on wavelength compatiblity. That means photon absorp.tion is affected by temperature.”
Not much for typical grey bodies like ocean or land.
Clint is confusing the strong T dependence of the Planck emission spectrum with emissivity which has weak T dependence.
And as Norman noted, emissivity matches abs*orb*tivity, by Kirchhoffs law.
So the notion that warm grey bodies cannot abs*orb radiation emitted by cooler grey bodies is unsupported by the facts, and absurd.
Now Clint will have no sensible response but will have insults.
Nate, that’s just the same nonsense Ent was peddling.
You can’t get over “Photon absorp.tion is based on wavelength compatiblity. That means photon absorp.tion is affected by temperature.”
Do you have NO real-life experiences? Have you ever been around a campfire? Do coals glow when they’re hot?
I can’t teach reality to people that have never left their basements. And, that’s NOT an insult, it’s reality.
Clint R
I was right both times. If I was in error you should be able to produce evidence to show it. But you have nothing.
“Do you have NO real-life experiences? Have you ever been around a campfire? Do coals glow when theyre hot?”
Yes,
Indeed the BB emission spectrum shifts and brightens with increasing temperature.
The ability of a material to emit or abs.orb that radiation (emissivity) does NOT. It is not affected much at all by its temperature!
Thus you are confirming exactly what I said:
“Clint is confusing the strong T dependence of the Planck EMISSION spectrum with emissivity which has weak T dependence.”
“I cant teach reality to people” that actually understand physics and reality’ is what you are saying.
Ent was WRONG both times but now just claims he was right!
That’s why he can’t learn. He can’t face reality. To him, passenger jets fly backwards, so that becomes his reality.
And Nate admits that the absorp.tion spectrum changes with temperature, but he doesn’t understand that means the photons absorbed change. He doesn’t realize the spectrum is caused by photons!
You just can’t make this stuff up….
“And Nate admits that the absorp.tion spectrum changes with temperature, but he doesnt understand that means the photons absorbed change.”
Nope, not what I said, liar-troll.
A cast iron plate will abs.orb 10 micron photons just as well when it is hot or cold.
If you think it wont, show us data, or evidence of any kind. I won’t hold my breath.
Heat is excitement, the cold can’t excite. {what is already more excited than the cold}.
The basic problem is you have understand what surface is warmed.
On Earth the primary surface which is warmed is the ocean surface.
On Venus what is warmed up at the level of it’s thick clouds.
Oh, the Earth ocean isn’t warmed at skin surface of ocean rather it’s top couple meter of surface waters, but warmest water tends to end up at the skin surface, and this warms the entire of Earth by convective heat process [which is evaporated heat loss]. Venus atmosphere higher atmosphere also has elements which do have evaporate heat loss, also.
But most say the acid clouds of Venus have warming effect- the cult calls something increases average air temperature as a “greenhouse gas” which is rather mixed up as ocean liquid surface heats the atmosphere and it’s liquid rather than gas, but what is evaporated is a gas.
Anyhow Venus being heated occurs in upper atmosphere and Earth surface heat is largely done at sea level.
One could say what controls atmosphere temperature of Earth is the ocean temperature, and likewise say what controls Venus atmosphere is it’s rocky surface temperature.
The Venus rocky surface is not heated directly from Sunlight, but sunlight reaches rocky surface it doesn’t warm it.
And the rocky surface of Venus is mostly dim or no sunlight. What can heat the rocky surface is the internal heat generated within the planet, but this probably is not a lot energy involved, and where heating from the Sun occurs is in the cooler upper atmosphere where the sunlight is far more intense.
Anyways, with Earth climate one needs to determine what warms and cools the entire ocean.
Or more than 90% of Earth recent warming [last 50 years which ocean has somewhat measured] is warming the entire ocean.
Our ocean is cold, average of about 3.5 C. Since ocean is cold and has cold for millions of years, Earth has been in Ice Age for millions of years.
And what cools the ocean is cold denser ocean water falling.
The Ocean can warm with denser warmer salty water falling. The ocean can also be warmed by mechanically mixing of warmer and cooler water.
And the geothermal heat of ocean floor can warm the ocean.
So a part of our Ice Age is due the Antarctica continent being at south pole and it’s location mixes colder ocean water.
So we in what called icehouse global climate, in greenhouse global climate one has more mixing warm water with entire ocean. What do that could be shallow warm salty ocean seas. Or plate tectonic or roughly geological processes would cause this.
Eman,
The GHE is 33K?
Stephen,
Last time I checked the average OLR emitted from the Earth to space was 240W. Plug that into the Stefan-Boltzman equation and you get a brightness temperature of 255K.
Measure surface temperature directly and you get a global average of 288K.
In my view the 33K difference is due to the greenhouse effect and its secondary effects.
If you have a credible coherent, consistent and consilient alternative hypothesis, please present it and show your working so that I can check it for myself.
“Last time I checked the average OLR emitted from the Earth to space was 240W.”
Ent, OLR does NOT have units of “W”.
And, there is no way you can check “the average OLR emitted from the Earth”.
You don’t understand ANY of this.
Your hypothesis would need to explain why Earth’s surface is emitting 390W/m^2 according to the SB equation, but only 240W/m^2 escapes to space.
You need to explain where the remaining 150W/m^2 goes, what it warms and what mechanism is involved.
Clint R
You are very good at spotting my sloppy use of units, but completely useless at falsifying my science. I suggest that you remain silent until you have something useful to contribute.
That “240 W/m^2” is associated with the bogus “real 255 K surface”. Neither is reality. The calculations are for an imaginary sphere. There is NO relation to Earth.
You don’t understand any of this. You just make stuff up to fit your cult beliefs — like your nonsense about passenger jets flying backwards.
You’re just another braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
entropic…”In my view the 33K difference is due to the greenhouse effect and its secondary effects…”
***
Either that or the two are not related. It is coincidental that an incorrect calculation based on S-B is 33 C lower than a measured average. If the S-B calculation is wrong then the comparison is a moot point.
Also, remember that the S-B calculation is done without oceans, only Earth as a dry rock.
Entropic and Norman….quote from Entropic…
“The correct formulation is
There cannot be a NET flow of heat from a cooler to a warmer object by its own means.”
***
Read Clausius on it, he invented the 2nd law. He says nothing about ‘NET’. There is a reason for that, Clausius developed the law based on the PVT (pressure-volume-temperature) relationships in a heat engine. They are irreversible and do not apply in both directions.
About 50 years later, Bohr provided another good reason. He theorized, based on Planck’s quanta, that electrons could exist only in discrete energy states around an atomic nucleus. He was led to that insight when a colleague reminded him of hydrogen atomic spectra, wherein hydrogen absorbs and emits only at discrete frequencies. There is no continuum of frequencies in the spectra, they are so discrete they are called lines.
He wondered why, then it came to him. The lines were being caused by the sole electron in the hydrogen atom jumping back and forth between excited orbital states. When an electron in the ground state (non-excited) receives a quantum of EM that can excite it, the electron jumps to a higher energy state. When it jumps back to ground state, it emits a quantum of EM that corresponds exactly to the electrons frequency of rotation in the higher orbital and the potential energy difference between orbital states.
If the higher energy state is Eh and the lower energy state is El then (Eh – El) = E = hf.
That’s your relationship and it applies to both emitted EM and absorbed EM. If that relationship is not met, or exceeded, the electron simply wont react to it. Therefore incoming EM must have a specific intensity, E, and frequency, f. If that EM is from a cooler body it cannot provide the required E or f, therefore it is ignored.
Now think about what you are both claiming. If EM energy is going both ways, how does the electron respond to both? I know Norman thinks electron transitions only apply in certain instances, but that is wacko. What else is there in an atom or a molecule that can process EM? Nothing in atomic nucleii can process it and the only other particle is the electron.
Not just that, EM has an electric field and a magnetic field. What else in an atom has an electric field and a magnetic field? The electron. A proton may have an electric field but it has no magnetic field and it cannot jump back and forth between orbital states. Therefore E = hf does not apply to protons, neutrons, or any other sub-atomic particle.
There you have it, nothing else in an atom or a molecule can absorb or radiate EM. As I have claimed multiple times, a molecule is just a fancy name for two or more atomic nucleii bonded by electrons. So, even though it can vibrate and rotate, the molecules absorp.tion and emission is caused by electrons.
It is electron bonds that vibrate and rotate.
Quantum theory destroys the argument of both of you. Bodies of different temperatures cannot exchange heat. The heat can be transferred only from the hotter body to the colder body, whether by conduction, convection, or radiation. Clausius even states that re radiation, that it must obey the 2nd law and that’s his law, with no NET transfer.
“And, there is no way you can check ‘the average OLR emitted from the Earth’.”
False. OLR regularly checked by satellite measurements, like from CERES. And simple math is used to find the average emitted from the Earth.
Clint’s tactics are always the same.
Deny observable facts. Toss ad-hom grenades.
Nobody buys this nonsense.
Nate doesn’t understand that flux decreases with distance. Because Earth’s surface is believed to average about 390 W/m^2, some place in space will then measure 240 W/m^2. But Earth is emitting 390 W/m^2, NOT 240 W/m^2.
If their imaginary sphere were the size of Earth, and emitting 390 W/m^2, the flux would be 240 W/m^2 at an altitude of about 1000 miles.
They don’t understand any of this.
Clint: Please distinguish between spherical and infinite planar fields of radiation/fluxes. One is 1/d^2. The other is linear.
Very close to the surface of a spherical body, such as in the atmosphere on Earth, we are much more in the second than the first.
“Earth as a dry rock.”
Yes, maybe also painted dry rock.
The Moon is worse than any painted dry rock.
God is far more devious than any painter.
“Nate doesnt understand that flux decreases with distance. Because Earths surface is believed to average about 390 W/m^2, some place in space will then measure 240 W/m^2. But Earth is emitting 390 W/m^2, NOT 240 W/m^2.”
And nobody doing the satellite measurements understands this, nor knows how to do the simple math required?
Tee hee hee.
gb…”Or the inner surface furnace wall which is hot, doesnt lose a much heat [acts as insulation] though one tends to think of as heat gradient or the heat gradient [thickness of brick] is the insulation”.
***
If you had a real furnace with walls made of bricks, each brick would have a heat gradient. The inside would be very hot, the outside not as hot, and each atomic space in between would exhibit a temperature gradient from the hot inner brick toward the cooler outer brick.
There is no such heat gradient between the Sun and Earth. There is no heat between them to create such a gradient. The heat exists only at the Sun and only at the Earth, the only two solid bodies involved. In other words, the Sun is the source of the heat, which is the kinetic energy of hydrogen atom mainly, and some of it gets converted to EM, which has no heat.
Over the 93 million miles the EM travels, it has no heat. When it reaches Earth, a cooler mass, that EM is absorbed and converted locally to heat, however, the heat is a product of the increased kinetic energy of electrons in whatever they are found.
It’s the same thing as pushing a large boulder off a 100 foot cliff. All the way to the ground, the boulder has no additional heat, but when it strikes the ground, heat is created through a transfer of the boulder’s kinetic energy to heat. The impact affects the electrons in the ground mass and excites them to a higher level of KE, which is heat.
“some of it gets converted to EM, which has no heat”
EM is the way that heat gets transferred between bodies in a vacuum.
“There is no such heat gradient between the Sun and Earth. ”
Right just vast distance in which same heat/energy is spread over a greater area of sphere.
Or if focus to make sunlight into smaller area, it same intensity as near the sun.
If Sun was chemical fire, chemical fires have much lower heat/energy, and it same size as Sun, it’s sunlight would be very dim, and it can
only be magnified to the temperature of this relatively cool chemical fire.
Of course stars are not chemical fires. And Stars are rather complicated.
Norman says:
G&T can make any claims they want, they have no experimental evidence. When it comes to science and truth I will always side with the evidence.
——————————-
This just shows how inculcated you are. G&T’s claim was there is no evidence to show the greenhouse effect works as advertised.
In the English translation of the their paper’s title it is suggested that G&T was attempting to prove that the GHE didn’t exist. I am unfamiliar with their native language so I will not comment on if it was an accurate translation or not.
Of course they weren’t! Science isn’t equipped for proving non-existence. The non-existence of God for example.
And that fact can be shown in their rather complete work of demonstrating that no known physics can explain the multi-layered greenhouse effect and even challenged the advocates of the effect to offer up a valid blueprint of the effect which could be examined via the laws of physics.
Of course this has never been done. So the attempted shift of the burden of proof is the only defense the GHE has. Though I can recognize that if you properly cut through the apple and oranges argument there is a climate effect, but perhaps not regarding mean global near surface temperatures.
Warm water from the western Pacific during La Nia needs a great deal of solar energy to move eastward as the current carries it toward Antarctica.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/LaNina.png/669px-LaNina.png
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
The stratospheric polar vortex to the south is strong.
https://i.ibb.co/pngy19S/S-daily-extent-hires.png
Hey, Ren, how’s it going?
Hi Gordon, I am starting the garden season.
Dr Spencer does it again! A great demonstration of the old adage “if you can’t explain it simply you don’t understand it well enough.”
Your comment here perfectly summarizes progress made over the last 60 years in atmospheric profile inversion techniques of satellite temperature sounding (imho).
It is also a fitting testament to the interconnected web of science: inversion techniques developed in Geophysics for the study of subsurface data were adapted to atmospheric studies.
T.y.
The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. Truth values have to be redistributed over some of our statements. Re-evaluation of some statements entails re-evaluation of others, because of their logical interconnections – the logical laws being in turn simply certain further statements of the system, certain further elements of the field. Having re-evaluated one statement we must re-evaluate some others, whether they be statements logically connected with the first or whether they be the statements of logical connections themselves. But the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole.
Epistemology
Science is a multiply connected web. If you make any statement about the real world you had better, from the beginning, be consistent and logical. It is possible without experiment or observation to rule out a scientific theory simply because it is inconsistent.
True enough, Tyson, but consider how, according to teh Van, nothing is set in stone, including the Laws of Logic.
Which means there’s still hope for Gordo!
TM,
You wrote –
“It is possible without experiment or observation to rule out a scientific theory simply because it is inconsistent.”
Garbage. Try and name such a scientific theory. Fantasy “theories”, such as Willard’s Greenhouse Theory, Greenhouse Effect Theory, Insulation Effect Theory, and Insulation Theory, do not count.
So go on – rule out a valid scientific theory, based on observation, simply because it is inconsistent.
Poser.
> rule out a valid scientific theory, based on observation, simply because it is inconsistent.
Valididity goes hand in hand with consistency, Mike:
https://sites.oxy.edu/traiger/logic/primer/chapter6/consistency-and-completeness.html
Wee Willy Wanker,
So, you cant name a scientific theory which can be ruled out (whatever that means) simply because it is inconsistent, either?
As I thought. Your sense of self importance with nothing at all to back it up except endless attempts to get people to accept that you are so clever that reality is unimportant, just indicates how detached from reality you are.
Ill repeat the words of Richard Feynman – “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
Ill add – logic and intuition are completely valueless if they disagree with experiment.
I know you dont like having Feynman tossed in your face again and again, but what you like or dislike is irrelevant to me or reality.
Keep rejecting reality, and convince yourself that you are powerful, wise, and respected – have you any facts to support your fantasy?
I thought so. Carry on.
Mike, Mike,
For each theory I give you, you stop commenting for a month.
Deal?
Wayward Wee Willy,
Another “deal”? You really do have an exaggerated sense of your own self-importance, don’t you?
I suppose you believe that continuously calling me Mike Mike or Mike Flynn Mike Flynn will make onlookers think you are intelligent, rather than laughing at your pointless silliness.
What is your point?
As to theory, your fantasies are not theories. There is no Greenhouse Theory, nor Greenhouse Effect Theory, nor any of the other nonsensical “Theories” you mention.
Why are you seemingly so frightened of comments? Are you feeling insecure? Who cares about comments from me, or Mike Flynn, for that matter? I have abundant self-esteem, so feel free to comment as copiously and witlessly as you choose. Do you think anybody values your opinion sufficiently to care whether you comment or not? I certainly don’t!
Got any more pointless “deals” or “offers”?
Moron.
“So go on rule out a valid scientific theory, based on observation, simply because it is inconsistent”
My point exactly. Thx!
TM,
You can’t actually name one scientific theory that you can rule out because you think it is inconsistent with something you can’t actually describe, can you?
Keep wriggling.
Fool.
Thanks again for consistently making my point.
Mike, Mike,
If you do not put any skin in the little game you have been playing at Roys for more than a decade, why would I play?
As you yourself say, you have an inflated sense of importance!
Cheers.
Willard,
You dribbled –
“Mike, Mike,
If you do not put any skin in the little game you have been playing at Roys for more than a decade, why would I play?
As you yourself say, you have an inflated sense of importance!
Cheers.”
Why?
Mike,
You write –
“Willard,
You dribbled
Mike, Mike,
If you do not put any skin in the little game you have been playing at Roys for more than a decade, why would I play?
As you yourself say, you have an inflated sense of importance!
Cheers.
Why?”
Why?
Tyson, Willard, please stop trolling.
Anyone heard about Summit Camp shutting down?
There’s no activity up there, and their instruments haven’t worked for over a month. There’s nothing happening with the SMB.
Maybe they all went home due to the extreme boredom?
It’s easier to model the physical reality from the comfort of a chair in front of a computer. Besides, it’s easier to fudge the data in a model to show warming that isn’t there.
Tim Folkerts says:
May 5, 2022 at 10:03 AM
“Again .
1) The general impact of rotation and heat capacity has long been known:
The faster the rotation, the more uniform the temperature.
The more uniform the temperature, the higher the average temperature.
The higher the heat capacity, the more uniform the temperature.
The more uniform the temperature, the higher the average temperature.
2) The 16th root is an empirical result, with no theoretical basis. In particular:
* a non-rotating planet (N=0) would have a predicted temperature of 0 K
* a rapidly rotating would have unphysically high temperatures. For example a small asteroid with the same cp and a as earth but spinning 1 rev per second would be more than 2x as hot as earth. Well over 550 K (275 C; 550 F)
So you have a questionable fit to a well-known phenomenon.”
But the fit is perfect!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Venus rocky surface [or roughly all of it’s mass] is slowest rotating known body in the universe and it’s average distance from the Sun is
108.21 million km or .723 AU
If Venus were to continue this rotational speed but be at Earth distance or 1 AU, what temperature would it be?
Thank you, gbaikie, for your respond.
“If Venus were to continue this rotational speed but be at Earth distance or 1 AU, what temperature would it be?”
Venus has mean surface temperature (measured)
Tmean =735K.
If we assume everything else is the same (Albedo, Φ, speed of Venusian winds, atmosphere density and atmosphere gases content) we should use the distance from the sun reverse square law…
The temperature of Venus will be then
Tmean =625K
For more detailed, please visit the page in my site:
“Venus’ Tmean 735 K”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Currently, Venus has 1 atm at about 50,000 meter elevation.
And Venus air at around 70 C.
At what elevation would 1 atm of pressure and what temperature would it be at 1 atm if Venus was at Earth distance?
Or, I agree that Venus has runaway effect.
Are you taking that in account somehow?
Or do you think that Venus doesn’t have runaway effect?
Or Venus has slow rotation, but upper atmosphere [around 1 atm]
rotates every 4 to 5 days.
I think at Earth distance it would be effectively a slower rotation than 4 to 5 days.
And that one aspect of runaway effect- hotter it is faster the atmosphere rotates. And if cooler, it’s much slower
“Or, I agree that Venus has runaway effect.
Are you taking that in account somehow?
Or do you think that Venus doesnt have runaway effect?”
Yes, there is a strong greenhouse runaway effect on Venus.
> “At what elevation would 1 atm. of pressure and what temperature would it be at 1 atm. if Venus was at Earth distance?”
I cannot estimate the elevation of 1 atm. at Earth distance. If everything else equals, the temperature at 1 atm. at Earth distance would be the same – at around 70 C.
Yes, I am taking the runaway effect in account. For more detailed, please visit the page in my site:
Venus Tmean 735 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correction:
Instead of “the temperature at 1 atm. at Earth distance would be the same at around 70 C.”
It should be:
the temperature at 1 atm. at Earth distance (everything else equals) would be around 292K or 19 C.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“I cannot estimate the elevation of 1 atm. at Earth distance. If everything else equals, the temperature at 1 atm. at Earth distance would be the same at around 70 C.”
As very rough guess, I would the 50 km elevation would 12 km lower based upon your temperature.**
Or cooler average/zero elevation air would be denser, or having more atmospheric mass at lower elevation.
At Venus distance at 1 atm you should twice as much as Earth surface at 1 atm or around 2000 watts or more vs 1120 watts sunlight when sun at zenith. Or fry pan at Venus distance is too hot to fry eggs, whereas on earth people try to cook eggs on the sidewalk- but not hot enough. Or heat surface to 70 C is barely possible but never get air at 70 C. Anyhow I would tend to think about 30 C {or less]
Or it would take a long time to cool Venus, if it “pop into earth distance”, but if at 1 atm of spaceship in sunlight, everything should cool down pretty fast. Not as sudden as solar ellipse, but say within a hour or so. Hours to cool, but months/years to sink.
And seems wind speed which at Venus is around 100 m/s [232 mph] and blinked to Earth distance would slow down before sinking.
**
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-temperature-pressure-density-d_771.html
That chart is earth air, 68.95 atm and 37.8 C vs 148.9 C
per cubic meter: 78.49 kg vs 57.83 kg
Oh, missed correction of 19 C.
That is probably closer than my 30 C
On Earth the CO2 is dissolved in oceanic waters. That is why there is not a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth surface.
The closer to sun Venus couldn’t have liquid water. The water vapor vanished in space, since it is a lighter gas.
As a result on Venus the entire CO2 is in atmosphere – thus the very strong runaway greenhouse effect.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
gbaikie,
if you are interested, I have the gaseous planets at 1 bar level the satellite measured temperatures comparison in relation to the gaseous planets’ rotational spins.
Gaseous planets have similar atmospheric gases content. The more close the content is the better the satellite measured temperatures relate in accordance to the Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445559910
“On Earth the CO2 is dissolved in oceanic waters. That is why there is not a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth surface.”
Earth’s ocean is cold, but Earth’s ocean has been a lot warmer.
Our cold ocean still makes Earth warm.
A significant aspect of why Earth has ocean is because Earth has plate tectonic activity. But Earth has cold ocean due to plate tectonic activity. Earth’s landscape/geological has constantly been changing over 100 million year chunks of time.
We don’t know much about Earth- and far less about Venus.
There is a lot of Oxygen in our solar system. 40% of mass of Lunar surface is oxygen. Same goes for Mars. Same goes for Earth’s rocky surface. Venus has vast amount oxygen which is CO2.
There a lot water in our solar system- the universe has a lot hydrogen- H2O abundant because their a lot of H and a lot of O. And there is fair amount of carbon in this universe.
I tend to think Venus was once a gas giant- and it shrunk. Or Venus once had Methane. And there are oceans of methane in our solar system, CH4.
We know little about formation of our solar system. We need to explore the Moon- and have more telescopes and watch solar systems form.
Earlier, Entropic Man wrote –
“Your hypothesis would need to explain why Earths surface is emitting 390W/m^2 according to the SB equation, but only 240W/m^2 escapes to space.”
Nonsense. Nobody knows what the Earth’s surface is emitting, SB equation or no. Nobody can or has measured the temperature of the surface, nor has anybody ever measured the continuously varying emissive properties of the surface.
The fact that the whole of the surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, and around half does so each winter, not to say every night, appears not to have penetrated his fantasy.
How does his description of the mythical GHE explain reality?
He probably can’t even describe the GHE. No wonder.
An interesting little paper:
http://webspace.pugetsound.edu/facultypages/jcevans/Pictet's%20experiment.pdf
The bit about how experiments led to interpretations we might find a little weird nowadays is worth mentioning. Goes on to show that Sky Dragon Cranks had more successful predecessors.
Wee Willy Willard talks about Sky Dragon Cranks, non-existent theories, Climateball and other products of his fantasies.
One of the signs of paranoia can be an inflated sense of ones own importance. More pronounced in cases of delusional psychosis – for example Michael Mann claiming to be a Nobel Laureate.
Wee Willys obsession with Mike Flynn, apparently based on nothing more than a strange fixation, is just another reason to think that Wee Willy may be barking mad, and quite irrational in his thinking.
Wee Willy, presenting a paper which points out that “cold rays dont actually exist, and that hotter bodies do not absorb heat from colder ones, just reinforces the irrational nature of his actions!
If Wee Willy imagines he is a poster child for GHE true believers, well and good. GHE true believers may not be flocking to his banner though. It is interesting to note how much support he gets here.
I have no doubt he will continue trolling, to the general amusement of people who are not barking mad like Wee Willy and others.
[MIKE FLYNN] non-existent theories
[ALSO MIKE FLYNN, QUOTING THE SKY DRAGON CRANK BOOK] “This is the world’s first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory”
Strange Willard,
I don’t believe Mike Flynn ever quoted the words you put in his mouth, but who knows?
In your fantasy, Sky Dragon Crank Book Greenhouse Gas Theory exists!
Not in reality as far as I know, but of course your imaginary paranoid conversations with yourself may convince you otherwise.
You are obviously deranged!
Carry on.
Have you noticed how an inconsistency is hard to dodge, silly sock puppet?
Do continue to play dumb.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Interesting. Didnt read the interpretations, but the experiment works and makes sense in terms of radiant heat transfer.
The interpretations are only interesting insofar as they show how hard it is to come up with an explanation of something you see for the first time. For philosophers of science, they are gold. Hasok Chang has a very cool paper on this:
doi:10.1007/S00016-002-8362-8
I rediscovered it because a Sky Dragon Crank is arguing on Reddit that Pictets experiment disproves Tyndall gases.
I kid you not.
In fairness, arguing might be a tad too strong, as they only handwave to a paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338611709_Trapping_Radiant_Cold_Via_Mirrors
You got to hand it to cranks – they are *way* more imaginative than luckwarmers such as Richard!
Willard = idiot.
Compare and contrast:
[SKY DRAGON CRANK] Look, the atmosphere works like this:
https://character-stats-and-profiles.fandom.com/wiki/Breath_Attack
[RICHARD] Brandon comes up with a new term. “Hide the fail to incline”
Even Richard got to admit that the first line of argument is more imaginative!
Even Willard has to admit he is an idiot.
And so Richard admits that he’s PSTing, like Kiddo did.
No Climateball there. Nuh-uh.
Willard continues on with being self obsessed with ClimateBall that no-one else is interested in. At all.
Richard continue his mind probe while dissing Climateball, the concept that is meant to encompass routine behaviors like mind probing and dissing.
Willard never produces any facts or graphs or observations but instead is convinced that ClimateBall is the most important or only thing in climate.
On one hand he says that low pass filters are bad or useless, but then says that Mann using them is perfectly correct.
> On one hand he says that low pass filters are bad or useless
Did I?
Here, dummy:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3sappendix-3-a.html
No wonder you keep misrepresenting people!
You have on many occasion said that my use of low pass filters was bad or useless.
S-G is much more powerful in dealing with end effects with lots of support and research in industry. LOWESS is the statistics alternative. Why is it that ‘climate’ is unable to use what others have already researched and instead comes up with its own ‘roll your own’ solutions?
On matters of filters I only said two things, Richard –
They filter.
You are not their King, in fact you are using them to find the lowest limits justified disingenuousness can buy.
I have no idea why you believe I say things I cannot support. Contrarians can afford that. Not ninjas.
I use low pass filters to uncover similarities in series and to remove things that are less than 15 years long (and in some cases 12 months) to make things clearer. Why would you object to that?
“Why would you object to that?”
I object when you ask us to pay attention to noise on time scales much much shorter than 15 years, as if it is significant. Then tell us all that needs to be filtered out as if it is insignificant.
Meant to post this down here, something went wrong. If it appears elsewhere, sorry about that.
Entropic and Norman….quote from Entropic…
“The correct formulation is
There cannot be a NET flow of heat from a cooler to a warmer object by its own means.”
***
Read Clausius on it, he invented the 2nd law. He says nothing about ‘NET’. There is a reason for that, Clausius developed the law based on the PVT (pressure-volume-temperature) relationships in a heat engine. They are irreversible and do not apply in both directions.
About 50 years later, Bohr provided another good reason. He theorized, based on Planck’s quanta, that electrons could exist only in discrete energy states around an atomic nucleus. He was led to that insight when a colleague reminded him of hydrogen atomic spectra, wherein hydrogen absorbs and emits only at discrete frequencies. There is no continuum of frequencies in the spectra, they are so discrete they are called lines.
He wondered why, then it came to him. The lines were being caused by the sole electron in the hydrogen atom jumping back and forth between excited orbital states. When an electron in the ground state (non-excited) receives a quantum of EM that can excite it, the electron jumps to a higher energy state. When it jumps back to ground state, it emits a quantum of EM that corresponds exactly to the electrons frequency of rotation in the higher orbital and the potential energy difference between orbital states.
If the higher energy state is Eh and the lower energy state is El then (Eh – El) = E = hf.
That’s your relationship and it applies to both emitted EM and absorbed EM. If that relationship is not met, or exceeded, the electron simply wont react to it. Therefore incoming EM must have a specific intensity, E, and frequency, f. If that EM is from a cooler body it cannot provide the required E or f, therefore it is ignored.
Now think about what you are both claiming. If EM energy is going both ways, how does the electron respond to both? I know Norman thinks electron transitions only apply in certain instances, but that is wacko. What else is there in an atom or a molecule that can process EM? Nothing in atomic nucleii can process it and the only other particle is the electron.
Not just that, EM has an electric field and a magnetic field. What else in an atom has an electric field and a magnetic field? The electron. A proton may have an electric field but it has no magnetic field and it cannot jump back and forth between orbital states. Therefore E = hf does not apply to protons, neutrons, or any other sub-atomic particle.
There you have it, nothing else in an atom or a molecule can absorb or radiate EM. As I have claimed multiple times, a molecule is just a fancy name for two or more atomic nucleii bonded by electrons. So, even though it can vibrate and rotate, the molecules absorp.tion and emission is caused by electrons.
It is electron bonds that vibrate and rotate.
Quantum theory destroys the argument of both of you. Bodies of different temperatures cannot exchange heat. The heat can be transferred only from the hotter body to the colder body, whether by conduction, convection, or radiation. Clausius even states that re radiation, that it must obey the 2nd law and that’s his law, with no NET transfer.
The temperatures that Hydrogen can achieve is not solely bounded by the electron orbits around it.
A Hydrogen molecule can achieve all temperatures from absolute 0 to plasma.
Gordon,
” When it jumps back to ground state, it emits a quantum of EM that corresponds exactly to the electrons frequency of rotation in the higher orbital and the potential energy difference between orbital states.”
So which is it?
The electron’s frequency of rotation in the higher orbital?
Or the potential energy difference between the orbital states?
It’s a rhetorical question, it’s actually neither.
Look up your Bohr model again.
“Clausius developed the law based on the PVT (pressure-volume-temperature) relationships in a heat engine. They are irreversible and do not apply in both directions. ”
Then why do you think it applies to reversible processes such as the exchange of radiation between objects?
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “I know Norman thinks electron transitions only apply in certain instances, but that is wacko. What else is there in an atom or a molecule that can process EM? Nothing in atomic nucleii can process it and the only other particle is the electron.”
I have explained this to you many times and given you countless links on the topic to learn about it.
The atomic nucleus has a positive charge. An electromagnetic wave is generated when a charge field changes. A proton accelerating will produce EMR.
http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys222core/modules/m6/production_of_em_waves.html
The reason that N2 NS O2 do not generate IR is because there is no dipolar element to the molecule. No oscillating charges. In a polar molecule you have oscillating charges so you will produce EMR at certain frequencies corresponding directly to the nature of the oscillation.
Since you are an engineer and have taken advanced math why not show us what electron transition in an atom is small enough in energy to produce mid-range IR? Calculate it out, what electron jumps are causing this radiant energy?
Even your expert Linus Pauling clearly explained molecular vibrations. I do not know why you are not able to understand an oscillating electric field in a polar molecule generating an EM wave.
wonky willie wanker is still confused about Sky Dragons. Slaying the Sky Dragon is the title of a book that talks about slaying the sky dragon of AGW theory.
Proof…an intro for the book….
“Even before publication Slaying the Sky Dragon was destined to be the benchmark for future generations of climate researchers. This is the world’s first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming”.
https://www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/slaying-the-sky-dragon-death/9780956722133-item.html
Ironically, the book is still available but the site has been censored, likely by the same neo-Nazis holding out in the steel factory at Mariupol.
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/03/18/bombing-mariupol-theater-ukrainian-azov-nato-intervention/
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/06/robert-parry-when-us-house-saw-ukraines-neo-nazis/
> This is the world’s first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory
A refutation of a theory Mike Flynn claims does not exist, no less.
The confusion is all our most feisty sock puppet – Sky Dragon Cranks pretend they slayed the Greenhouse Theory when they did no such thing.
Aw diddums!
Whacky Wee Willy,
There is no Greenhouse Theory, Greenhouse Effect Theory, or Greenhouse Gas Theory. These are all figments of your paranoid fantasies.
Likewise, Sky Dragon Cranks are another figment of your twisted fantasy, just like Climateball (whatever that is supposed to be), and your pointless fixation on Mike Flynn (whoever that is).
Keep inventing nonsense. I am interested in seeing just how far you go, as you are unlikely to realise how deranged your utterances are!
> There is no Greenhouse Theory, Greenhouse Effect Theory, or Greenhouse Gas Theory.
So you say, Mike.
Yet here’s what you quoted:
You can’t refute something that does not exist. See? That’s consistency!
Cheers.
Wonky Willard,
As you say, Mike can’t refute something that doesn’t exist!
Are you trying to claim that Gordon Robertson is also really Mike Flynn?
Gordon Robertson made the quote, but you keep insisting it was Mike Flynn!
How many people do you claim Mike Flynn is pretending to be, and why? You really are a paranoid dimwit, aren’t you?
It’s hard to follow who you accuse of being whom – and why. Being obscure and cryptic just reinforces the picture of you being an insecure and ineffective troll, and blaming your difficulties on Mike Flynn.
Any time I get bored watching reruns of Abbot and Costello for the 1,376th time, I tune in to Willard. His material is better.
Mike,
If you cannot refute something that does not exist, how come Sky Dragon Cranks refute it in their magnum opus? As a Sky Dragon Crank yourself, that ought to raise some consistency issues. Not that you ever showed any care for consistency, mind you.
Have you ever opened what should be your Bible? I am sure you could find in it what you kept asking for a decade on this blog!
Long live and prosper.
Wanking Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike,
If you cannot refute something that does not exist, how come Sky Dragon Cranks refute it in their magnum opus?”
Why should Mike respond to something addressed to me? Are you quite delusional and devoid of common courtesy? If you choose to use incomprehensible nonsense like “Sky Dragon Cranks” and “their magnum opus”, you must expect to be regarded as some sort of strange lunatic, terrified of non-existent phantoms!
As to myself, there is no Greenhouse Theory, nor any Greenhouse Effect Theory, if that is what you are trying to imply in your usual obscure fashion. If you claim imaginary people are “refuting” imaginary “Theories”, why would you imagine that I would be interested at all?
Maybe you have an inflated sense of your own importance, and are obsessed with the thought that Mike Flynn is pursuing you by pretending to be others! Paranoia, but of course the sufferer believes their fantasy world is reality.
Tell me, what benefit do you think you get by insisting that Mike Flynn is myself or Gordon Robertson?
[chortle]
Mike Flynn,
The book you just quoted and cited.
With “Sky Dragon” in its title.
Written by cranks like you.
Having slain nothing.
The only book they wrote.
That book.
Sky Dragon Crank magnum opus.
Hope this helps you being less silly, silly sock puppet.
Willard you dimwit.
If you believe I am Gordon Robertson (who mentioned a book called Slaying the Sky Dragon”), as well as myself and Mike Flynn, you are definitely off with the fairies!
I don’t believe I have ever referred to that book. As to Mike Flynn, I cannot say.
I certainly didn’t write that book, and I have never read it. Presumably you disagree with its content, but you won’t achieve much complaining to me.
Do the authors describe a Greenhouse Theory? Is it the same as the one you claim to have?
Maybe you should let the authors know that their non-existent Greenhouse Theory is inferior to your non-existent Greenhouse Theory, and you could refute away at each other as much as you like!
Nothing to do with me (or Mike Flynn, I guess).
You really are an oddball, with your imaginary theories, games, offers, deals, and all the rest.
Keep trying.
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Why should Mike respond to something addressed to me?”
Because you’re Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 545.4 km/sec
density: 4.77 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 64
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.55×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.8% High
Not doing much for Solar Max
In terms space GCR bad time to go to Mars,
continues- and I am guessing it will continue for next week,
But maybe I will pick up in couple weeks.
Sunspot number: 66
today: 14.5110^10 W Neutral
today: +6.5% High
Still bad time to go to Mars
Maybe better in couple weeks
Solar wind
speed: 292.4 km/sec
density: 11.17 protons/cm3
[[X-CLASS SOLAR FLARE: Earth-orbiting satellites have just detected an X1.5-class solar flare (May 10th @ 1355 UT). The source is “mixed-up” sunspot AR3006, described below. Radiation from the flare ionized the top of Earth’s atmosphere, causing a shortwave radio blackout over the Atlantic Ocean.]]
Sunspot number: 71
[looks to me like number going go lower, within day or two.]
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.48×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.5% High
48-hr change: -0.9%
Solar wind
speed: 296.7 km/sec
density: 12.86 protons/cm3
[X-CLASS SOLAR FLARE: “Mixed-up” sunspot AR3006 exploded on May 10th (1355 UT), producing an intense X1.5-class solar flare. NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory recorded the extreme ultraviolet flash:]]
What does extreme ultraviolet flash do “climate/weather wise?
Sunspot number: 62
{only went to 62- I thought it would be lower. but anyhow, seems to me pause/dip in the solar max}
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.32×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +6.2% High
48-hr change: +0.3%
Continues to seem to me to be poor time to be traveling to Mars, of course doesn’t matter in terms going to the Moon, and who knows when we going to Moon, let alone, Mars.
Solar wind
speed: 324.3 km/sec
density: 8.68 protons/cm3
[THE FIRST SUNQUAKE OF SOLAR CYCLE 25
I wonder how big wave are }
Sunspot number: 120
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.10×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +6.3% High
48-hr change: -0.3%
Getting back up there
norman…”More likely only and idiot would think that no further experiments and tests were done on the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship over the next 143 years since it was derived”.
***
If you know of any tests that confirm that a grey body like the Earth’s surface, with an average temperature of 15C, meets the S-B equation requirements could you link to them?
With regard to the evil Putin, he claims to be hunting Nazis who are harming Russians, in the Donbas region. He has one of that group surrounded in Mariupol, the Azov battalion, and it looks like lights out for them since they won’t surrender.
Why do you suppose they won’t surrender, Norman? Could it be they have been torturing Ukrainian citizen’s in Mariupol, killing them, shooting captured Russian soldiers in the legs, and holding Ukrainians hostage in the steel mill? Could it be they have blown up buildings, claiming they were full of children, then blaming it on Russian bombs?
Here’s evidence for you, Normie.
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/03/18/bombing-mariupol-theater-ukrainian-azov-nato-intervention/
Gordon Robertson
I investigated the source of your “evidence”. The website Grayzone was founded by Max Blumenthal who contributes to both Sputnik and RT. I would not consider this site to be a valid unbiased reporting site. This is a pro=Russian website and anti-west. Probably gets money from Russia directly to run this blog.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Blumenthal
As for the S-B experiments I have already linked you them. It does not matter with you. You reject it any way so why do you ask for it?
http://www.jbgilmer.com/LabManual/LabReportsManualAppJEx4.pdf
https://stuff.lanowen.com/Physics/Labs/Phys%20260L/P260L-Experiment%204%20-%20S13.pdf
These are just a few that exist on the web. I am sure you could go to a library and find them in science journals. College students do experiments in classes to verify the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. If you want to believe crackpots like Gary Novak (who of course does zero experiments on anything, he does offer his opinions on everything).
Gordon the difference between types like Clint R and Gary Novak and scientists it that scientists have evidence for their ideas. Like Roy Spencer’s experiment I linked you to or the ones in this post. Gary Novak and Clint R are arrogant opinionated people who just babble about things they do not understand.
Case of point, above Clint R tries to pretend he has found something no scientist thought about, the Inverse Square Law for measuring OLR from the Earth system. I did show his error and stupid opinion. It did not matter he posts it again. I do not think there is a human behind that poster. I think it is a bot, shows zero sign of human intellect and very repetitive just like a bot would be.
Norman, I see you’re still obsessed with me. I’m flattered.
Your false accusations and bogus claims only prove that you have NOTHING. Most enjoyable, please continue.
https://youtu.be/XTfnldWBi00
TM, Houston will be hot and humid from May through October.
Now you can find something useful to do with your time.
And this is different from a typical La Nina how?
Can It always be abnormally hot and humid?
Hot in some areas at some times. Cold/wet in others. Do you disagree?
I believe that “abnormally hot and humid” means it’s abnormally hot and humid, Richard.
What about you?
Do you agree that La Nina causes both hot/dry and cold/wet areas to appear in the USA?
When confronted with a very simple observation, i.e. that “abnormally hot and humid” means abnormally hot and humid, Richard returns to a Climateball fan favorite – leading questions.
Willard agrees that La Nina causes both hot/dry and cold/wet areas to appear in the USA.
Richard agrees that he’s playing Climateball when he’s writing comments that start with “X agrees.”
Willard thinks that ClimateBall is more important than everything else. To him it might be. To everybody else, not at all.
Richard thinks that mind probing is not Climateball but part of the scientific process and rational argumentation.
Willard is just an idiot.
Whickering Willard,
“Richard thinks that mind probing is not Climateball but part of the scientific process and rational argumentation.”
Mind probing? Climateball?
Added mind reading to your list of your imaginary powers, have you?
Try throwing in a few facts, if you can figure out what a fact is.
Mike Flynn,
Mind probing:
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Mind_probe_(Force_power)
Climateball:
https://climateball.net
Do continue to play dumb, and please, very please, do ask me what “playing dumb” means!
Whacky Wee Willy,
You drooled –
“Do continue to play dumb, and please, very please, do ask me what “playing dumb” means!”
You cloth-eared fool, obviously your paranoid inflated sense of your own self importance has infected your brain.
“Please, very please” is the sort of English expression more suited to a very small child, someone afflicted with a learning disability or someone like you.
In any case, justifying your silliness with one link apparently referring to a fantasy, and another link to what is clearly a fantasy, demonstrates to onlookers the state of your mind. Deranged.
Carry on.
Thank you, Mike.
I will.
My pleasure. You don’t need to thank me.
I have a duty to help those less fortunate than myself. I seek no reward.
Carry on.
Thank you, Mike.
You don’t need to thank Mike, either, but I realise you can’t overcome your OCD.
Carry on.
Thanks again, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Brandon comes up with a new term. ‘Hide the fail to incline’ in 3 out of 4 of his proxy series.
Seen here in red.
https://imgur.com/a/8vap58I
Richard comes up with a new Climateball move – putting words into his the mouth of those who put him to work!
So what is your explanation for that observation? Oh, I forgot, you don’t do explanations.
You are surely not saying that that observation is not there.
P.S. There are pictures attached to those words.
Richard is certainly not rejecting the idea that arguing by double negatives is part of a well-rounded Climateball kit.
Willard being an idiot is definitely part of CimateBall that he created.
*ClimateBall
Richard discovered the secret square:
https://climateball.net/but-climateball
There’s no secret that escapes him.
Willard is definitely an idiot.
He has no explanation of why proxies do not follow Had5 either.
Richard will just peddle his current pet topic in every subthread, as if anybody but him and RG followed that discussion.
Peddling is an important Climateball trick:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/peddling/
In my Manual, there will be a character called The Peddler.
Willard will but in and yet never actually address anything. Other than his very own ClimateBall of course.
*butt
When you’ll stop I will, dummy.
For now I’m making sure you understand that everybody can see that your Pure Scientist act is mere posturing.
Welcome to Climateball!
And I, in turn, will make sure that everybody knows that you are an idiot.
And that just adding proxies together does not quite work as people expect. Especially when referencing things against instrument records.
If you think that saying “idiot” amounts to show that I am one, dummy, then I think it’s safe to say that you’re not very good at Climateball.
But do continue to pretend you know more and better ways to process time series than scientists while displaying total ignorance of basic formal concepts.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/first-post/
see Fig9.
Was that as long ago as 2014? Apparently.
Willard doesn’t like verification. Especially if it doesn’t show what he expects.
Richard’s first post was based on work by GregG, whom had to rework his stuff because Vaughan stepped in. But then Richard might not even have noticed I commented on that thread at Judy’s at that time.
We really need better contrarians.
Willard: So it turns out that Mann used low pass filters but for some reason didn’t use S-G which is well known in industry instead of trying to ‘improve’ his own Butterworth version.
AFAIK he didn’t give a reason for using 40 years as a corner frequency but I have valid reasons for choosing 15 years as I have mentioned before.
Willard doesnt like verification.
Here is Richard:
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/first-post/
Here is Vaughan:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/#comment-417213
I’ll let Richard find out who’s the elephant in this exchange.
Willard fails to mention that I always used VPs figures for my CTRMs. The use of S-G came later when I found out the numbers that meant that it matched the gaussian CTRM.
> And that just adding proxies together does not quite work as people expect. Especially when referencing things against instrument records.
Why do 38 non-global proxy series do so well against the instrumental record, Richard?
https://i.imgur.com/evIzu7N.png
(The high variability beginning in the late-90s is due to the number of ensemble member falling from 38 to below ten.)
“Why do 38 non-global proxy series do so well against the instrumental record”
They do not match very well if you plot them individually. They do not match very well if the add them all together against the instrument record either.
https://i.imgur.com/aIMDF9Z.png
In fact GISS and Had do not match very well between 1900 and 1980 for that matter.
https://i.imgur.com/KXMDx0B.png
> They do not match very well if you plot them individually. They do not match very well if the add them all together against the instrument record either.
> https://i.imgur.com/aIMDF9Z.png
That same plot you’ve been showing doesn’t address my question.
*This* is what you should be looking at: a 34-member ensemble of *local* proxies in good agreement with HAD5:
https://imgur.com/gallery/nQlBSWY
> In fact GISS and Had do not match very well
Caught pulling a fast one, Richard changes the subject.
My whole point is that ensembles are a very bad way of doing things. What it does is reduce to nothing the differences between individual proxies.
I’m not changing the subject. I am informing people that GISS and Had do not agree well, one with another, over quite a large chunk of their record. Are you saying that the maths is wrong or just inconvenient?
> Caught pulling a fast one, Richard changes the subject.
Richard is a natural at Climateball.
I did not change the subject. I observed that Had and GISS do not agree. one with the other, over a large range of the times they both cover.
Willard: Do you also believe that adding a low pass filter, say a simple running mean, reduces or increases the length of the data record?
Here’s what I believe, Richard:
1. In your post, you epilogue on the sad state of the understanding of signal processing techniques in climate science while promoting Greg’s work.
2. What you call Vaughan’s “input” was a bit more than valuable, as Greg basically stole his filter from him.
3. According to Vaughan, Greg has very a rudimentary idea of what he’s doing, in fact Greg fails to get that “The triple running mean also approximates gaussian,” as Pekka succinctly put it in a comment.
4. That means your epilogue is beyond ridiculous.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You really believe that anybody cares about your delusional belief that anyone willingly indulges your Climateball fantasy, do you?
About as delusional as Mike Mann claiming a Nobel prize!
How are you going with your imaginary Greenhouse Theory? It seems like you could incorporate it into your imaginary Climateball (whatever that is), or your Sky Dragon Cranks (whoever they are) fantasy.
Oh, and have you decided who else Mike Flynn is pretending to be, in addition to me and Gordon Robertson? Warnie, Pup, Troglodyte?
Time for you to thrust your hand into your trousers again, and vigorously massage whatever lies within. That will take your mind off whatever is bothering you – if only briefly.
Dimwit.
Mike Flynn,
My “here’s what I believe” was in response to Richard’s sentence that starts with “do you believe.”
You really are not very good at this.
Try again!
So Willard doesn’t (or doesn’t want to) know the answer. Just posts other stuff instead.
So Richard deflects from his own deflection.
He’s that good a Climateball player!
Weepy Wee Willy,
You dribbled –
“You really are not very good at this.”
And I am supposed to value your opinion because . . . ?
Try learning how to troll properly, moron.
Thrusting your other into your trousers won’t help. It will overload your brain, affect your balance, you will fall off your chair, and quite possibly break something you don’t want broken.
Actually, go for it. If you do yourself an injury, don’t expect sympathy. You did it to yourself.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Maniacal Flair.
Willard,
Reduced to idiocy, now?
Just continuously repeating the name Mike Flynn doesnt seem to be achieving much, does it?
Maybe your paranoia tells you that repeatedly naming the thing you fear will lessen its power over you!
Here, I’ll help – Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn . . . .
Feel free to repeat as many times as you wish. It won’t help, you know. I realise your OCD overtones won’t let you stop. Oh well.
Carry on.
Don’t you ever get tired of writing the same comment every day, Mike?
I hope you don’t.
For I never miss a chance to skip it!
Play dumb again.
C’mon Silly Willy,
Writing cryptic nonsense like “Don’t you ever get tired of writing the same comment every day, Mike” just makes you look like the ineffective incompetent troll that you are.
Is your OCD making your fantasy repeat itself?
Accept reality, moron.
When is playing dumb turning into gaslighting, Mike?
Same pitch. Find another one.
Wayward Wee Willy,
You lurched into another fit of incomprehensibility, and wrote –
“When is playing dumb turning into gaslighting, Mike?
Same pitch. Find another one.”
What are you dribbling about, and why would Mike (or I) take any notice of instructions emanating from a paranoid retard like you?
Your paranoia about “Mike” definitely seems to be associated with an inflated sense of your own importance. As I said, the fact that no rational person (or maybe anybody, except for your mother), would be prepared to hand over one cent in exchange for every opinion you have ever had in your life, shows how important you are in reality.
Time to plunge your hand back into your trousers, and seek some digital relief from your paranoid fear of Mike Mike Mike Flynn Mike Flynn. Sounds silly, doesn’t it?
That’s because you are.
Still playing dumb, Mike.
Still won’t work.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Richard,
> Brandon comes up with a new term. Hide the fail to incline in 3 out of 4 of his proxy series.
The issue is smoothing artifacts from the 30-year moving average at the tail end of those proxies. Removing the low-pass filter removes the artifacts and thus the seeming discrepancies.
Nice try but no decline in these proxies.
https://imgur.com/gallery/LMA3w1l
See inside the red circle on your own graph
https://imgur.com/a/kQBb4Dh
I did not say a decline, I said a failure to incline in line with Had5 as that clearly shows.
I can’t help it if you publish stuff with errors in it. Care to redo it with 15 year instead of 30 year which will reduce any end effects?
P.S. I use a 15 year gaussian or S-G in my work.
P.P.S. I am not sure how you get a shorter data series by removing a low pass filter. An SRM for instance gives a shorter data series when it is applied, not a longer one, it the output is at half way point. A CTRM is even shorter being 3 SRMs in series. That is the reason I added an S-G projection to my work which produces output out to the ends of the data.
e.g. https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/amo.jpeg
So you are saying effectively that https://i.imgur.com/aIMDF9Z.png does not produce a flat line to the left hand side and that the proxies all individually match with Had5 and GISS before 1980?
> So you are saying
Richard will never tire of the tired trick.
https://i.imgur.com/aIMDF9Z.png produces a flat line to the left hand side and the proxies listed in it do not individually match with Had5 and/or GISS before 1980.
If you prefer.
Indeed I do, Richard. It might even tempt me to make a technical comment –
As far as proxies is concerned, it’s the left hand that matters most. For the right side, we have data.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“It might even tempt me to make a technical comment ”
Why do you think anybody cares whether you feel “tempted”?
Maybe the horde of admiring devotees just waiting for the next pearl of wisdom to fall from your lips exists only in your imagination?
At least you admit that your comments to date have been pure trolling, devoid of anything that could be construed as factual.
Off you go now. Convince yourself that anyone can be bothered “tempting” you to do anything in particular. What could I do to “tempt” you into poking yourself in the eye with a hot needle, while I laugh?
Nothing? Why am I not surprised?
[snigger]
Mike,
I was responding to Richard’s “If you prefer.”
Keep asking silly questions, silly sock puppet!
So Willard, having got that far, do you accept that producing an average of all of the proxies will create a straight(ish) line near the center of them?
Do you agree that as far as proxies is concerned, it’s the left hand that matters most because for the right side, we have data, Richard?
Willard Waffler,
You wrote –
“I was responding to Richards “If you prefer.””
And you think I care, because . . . ?
I really don’t care why you do what you do. You may call me Mike, or Gordo, or whatever you wish. Like me, you can comment as you wish, when you wish. You can even troll your little cloaca out to your heart’s content.
Actually! It is fascinating to see two people throwing gotchas at each other.
“Do you accept . . . ” countered with “Do you agree . . .” – the battle of nonsensical and pointless analysis and examination of vague and uncertain history.
You might well be delusional enough to believe that the future can be seen by intense examination of the past (or a bowl of chicken entrails), or you might just be trolling, hoping someone, somewhere, agrees that fantasy turns into fact if presented in a sufficiently obscure and cryptic fashion.
Or maybe descend into the depths of stupidity, and believe that climate changes weather!
Other morons do.
Carry on.
Silly sock puppet,
You deny the existence of a theory your fellow Sky Dragon Cranks fantasize having refuted.
You deny being Mike Flynn.
Keep denying, silly sock puppet!
Wonky Willard,
You refer to some imaginary theory that you can’t actually produce, do you?
Why should I deny anything? Facts are facts. You are a paranoid delusional psychotic, mired in some bizarre fantasy, babbling about non-existent theories, games, mind probes, and God knows what other nonsensical diversions.
Your paranoid fixation with a person you call Mike Flynn, is apparently so frightening that you have transferred your fixation to me. You are so incompetent and powerless that I am not concerned for my safety. If you were brighter and better, I would no doubt report your deranged fixation to the relevant authorities.
Luckily for me, ineffectual attempts by morons to be annoying, generate laughter, rather than concern.
Go away, little Willy. Play with yourself for a while. You’ll feel better – but still no brighter.
Mike,
You ask –
“Why should I keep denying?”
Lots of theories on that.
Attention-seeking.
Sadism.
The list goes on an on.
Cheers.
And?
Moron.
Mike,
I also forgot –
Loneliness.
Nitwit Wee Willy,
You have added a “loneliness theory” to your list of non-existent theories, have you?
Maybe you could append it to your others. How about “Loneliness Greenhouse Effect Theory., or “Loneliness Insulation Effect Theory”. The possibilities are endless.
Cranking your gibberish generator to 11 won’t make you any smarter.
But if you are trying to say that idiots that believe that CO2 can heat anything, or that the average of weather (climate) can predict anything at all, are just lonely, attention-seeking sadists, then I might partially agree with you.
On the other hand, anyone who believes in a Greenhouse Effect that they can’t even describe, is more likely to be of low intelligence, ignorant, or just delusional.
Moron.
“Do you agree that as far as proxies is concerned, its the left hand that matters most because for the right side, we have data”
As that is what we have been talking about, of course. How well does the part where they overlap (the center) mean that one represents the other?
The overlap is of little importance if the variability on the left part does not recoup the warming we can observe on the right part. Everything else is quite academic.
But tell me, Richard. I was under the impression that averages tended to average. Why do you think that would be truer in the middle than for the sides?
“The overlap is of little importance”
So how close the proxies are to the measurements when we can actually compared them is of little concern according to you.
Willard:
“the variability on the left part”
Have you looked at the spread in variability on the left part of Brandon’s spreadsheet? The 1σ level covers more that the rise on the right!
It only matters to those who disregard error bars, and those who play Climateball auditors. Everyone else can accept that we are living warmer times, unexplainable by natural cycles.
You can add more natural swings during medieval times all you want, it will only increase climate sensitivity and spell doom on the main trump luckwarmers claim to have.
You have not answered my question: what’s so special about averaging out the middle compared to averaging out the extremes?
So now Willard claims that SD does not matter.
“Everyone else can accept that we are living warmer times, unexplainable by natural cycles.”
If you suppress what natural cycles exist as the IPCC do then everything is always getting warmer, even if it has been actually getting colder for the last 7 years.
“whats so special about averaging out the middle compared to averaging out the extremes”
Averaging tells you very little unless you know what spread to the data there is.
https://mathwords.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/sigumakukan-300×166.png
One of the things I learned in statistics is that by looking carefully at what is presented you can often show what they are trying to hide and what they are trying to promote.
https://imgur.com/a/PbUJ3Zg
One thing I learned when dealing with Climateball rookies who keep bragging about their statistical skills is that they constantly do what they accuse scientists of doing.
You still haven’t answered my question.
So you question wasn’t
whats so special about averaging out the middle compared to averaging out the extremes
which I answered as
Averaging tells you very little unless you know what spread to the data there is.
and then followed up with
https://imgur.com/a/PbUJ3Zg
In any case, the observation was that proxies on their own and instruments on their own have no reference between them except when they overlap in time.
> what they are trying to hide
If I really wanted to hide anything, why would I have made my data and code freely available to all, Richard.
Think.
I know what you responded, Richard. It does not answer the question. But your posting of a normal distribution diagram leads to another one –
Are you suggesting that the MWP should be higher because a normal distribution has its mode in the middle?
That would be very peculiar!
> Have you looked at the spread in variability on the left part of Brandons spreadsheet? The 1σ level covers more that the rise on the right!
Have you looked at how the number of proxies shrinks to one on the left, Richard?
Have you considered why global/hemispheric reconstructions stop well short of the longest single *local* proxy available in this database?
https://imgur.com/gallery/M78bvtF
Brandon: So you agree that even at 1 * multiples of standard deviation the spread of your proxies covers
https://imgur.com/a/PbUJ3Zg
Care to given the values for 2 * multiples of standard deviation or state what ratio you think is fair?
Willard: I thought you liked unimodal diagrams even though they don’t apply to seasonal temperatures.
I can’t find a diagram for bimodal standard deviations, do you have one?
“If I really wanted to hide anything, why would I have made my data and code freely available to all”
Why did your graph make the standard deviation spread so hard to see and is the ensemble mean so bold? Why limit it to just a one times spread? Why not give the quartiles and the range?
Thank you for these unresponsive answers, Richard.
Perhaps Richard needs a reminder from first-year stats.
https://tinyurl.com/2p85n5dt
Willard: Thanks for being an idiot. Found that reference for SD on bimodal data yet?
Brandon: I know what SD is. I have an outstanding question as to if it useful on bimodal data where 1.5 * SD could easily cover 100% of the data.
> I know what SD is.
Then you should know it is not the measure of uncertainty you imply it is, Richard.
Good morning.
SD is a measure of the spread of the data around the mean. Large SD means a wide spread. Small SD means a narrow spread.
What is the distance between 1 SD above and below on your graph (which I highlighted for you). How does it compare to the instrument rise at the end?
https://www.middleprofessor.com/files/applied-biostatistics_bookdown/_book/variability-and-uncertainty-standard-deviations-standard-errors-confidence-intervals.html
“Uncertainty is measured with a variance or its square root, which is a standard deviation”
“For variables that are approximately normally distributed, we can map the standard deviation to the quantiles of the distribution. For example, 68% of the values are within one standard deviation of the mean, 95% of the values are within two standard deviations, and 99% of the values are within three standard deviations.”
Nothing is said about bimodal distributions.
Richard,
Your source goes on to say:
Your source is correct in describing how I personally use the terms “standard deviation” and “standard error”.
I reiterate the key point: the latter is always smaller than the former. In this case the standard error of the mean is much smaller than the sample standard deviation over periods covered by a relatively large number of proxies. As the number of proxies dramatically decreases the further back in time one goes, the apparent uncertainty skyrockets. For this reason no sane honest person would take the central estimate nor the uncertainty bounds seriously, and thus *not use them* to make any conclusions.
Contrarians are of course not bounded by consistency or reasonableness. Do carry on.
Care to plot those proxies (with an filter of 15 years smoothing) that run up to 1980 (that way you can skip the satellites) so that we can see how well they do against Had 5 (and GISS if you can find it) during their period of overlap?
I have already published mine. https://imgur.com/aIMDF9Z
RLH, I don’t know when you started using Loehle 2007, but you should understand that Loehle screwed up so badly that the paper required an immediate correction in the form of Loehle 2008. The 2007 paper later became the first reference in that long list of papers circulated by the denialist camp.
Notice the “Thank you” at the end of the commentary.
2014 as the graph says.
My apologies, that should have said 2008.
See https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/mcculloch.2/AGW/Loehle/ from which https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/mcculloch.2/AGW/Loehle/LoehleMcC.txt comes which is the source of the data.
See https://imgur.com/a/XBPi8lg
Sorry 2014 is the date of the article in which the graph is Fig9.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/first-post/
RLH, Well, Loehle 2008 is not much improvement over 2007. In fact, L2008 is an entirely different analysis, not just a correction. I took some time to look at L2008, having worked with the data from L2007, and sent in a letter to the Editor of E&E, which was published in September.
If you want to read the whole thing with the attached graph, send me an e-mail and I will e-mail a pre-print copy back to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVhujvQ7OXU
Scott’s excited about helicopter rotor being 3 d printed.
Well:
Ann R. Thryft | Aug 19, 2014
May 24 – Day 1 – PLC Overview: Ladder Logic Program: Hello World July 30, 2021
“3D printing for rocket engines is making a lot of headlines lately. In the last few weeks, we’ve told you about Aerojet Rocketdyne building and hot-firing a 3D-printed rocket engine and NASA’s 3D-printed rocket engine injectors that perform better than welded ones. Now SpaceX has revealed details about its use of 3D printing in the SuperDraco thruster engine for the Dragon Spacecraft, as well as in one of the Falcon 9 rocket’s engines.”
https://www.designnews.com/design-hardware-software/spacex-reveals-3d-printed-rocket-engine-parts
So, rocket engines, there are guys doing whole rocket with 3 d.
But a problem is it uses a lot energy, though no doubt will be improvement in lowering the energy cost.
Or was very high energy cost, and it already lowered, and with future expectation of further lower energy costs.
Or it following pattern, aluminum used to very high energy cost, and more recently, with titanium getting closer to price of high quality steel.
So, it’s possible 3 d will even use less energy, but it seem at moment it’s mostly saving time- build lots Raptor rocket engines, insanely fast.
So, we in short pause and it looks like going to continue for a while.
Or the .3 C rise we suppose spend trillions dollars to stop is not going to happen.
We shouldn’t spend trillion to stop a .3 C rise even if it was going to happen, nor trillions dollars to stop a 1 C rise if it were going to happen.
Governments can’t stop the global temperature from rising, and seems to me that government have done anything it’s been to cause some small amounts of more CO2 emission.
No one can provide evidence of government ever trying to reduce CO2 and actually reducing CO2.
Now, UK government is claiming they going make nuclear reactors
Or UK government is going to allow this to be done. If done, this will reduce CO2, but they have opposed to nuclear reactor in the past. And there is good chance that will fail to do, as they say they going to do. Or the record of doing what they say they going about anything, is long string utter failure. This doesn’t mean I am predict UK will not add any nuclear power within say 10 years, rather point is they saying it will make difference. If say they going to solve poverty, if government hand out some money- that is not doing anything. That merely lying.
But if UK allows nuclear reactors to made and nuclear reactor and enough nuclear reactor are made, then the company will has done has achieved something. Don’t other government continuing to do the wrong thing, they would somehow didn’t continue to do the wrong thing. We like it when government stops being such a idiot- it not really a government doing anything particularly when everyone has known the nuclear power would reduce, and been claiming and failing to reduce CO2, and fonally decide to allow nuclear power plants to built.
If it’s blocked and excessive harassed AND whoever doing is a bumbling idiot and there certain amount luck and it successful which means UK vbecome world leader in it making thousands of them year, which competition, which push it in this direction- then UK would done something about CO2 emission [which they should done 3 decade ago, but but better late then never. An it would an unicorn, cause no government never did such thing before, about lowering CO2.
But mostly likely it would something like SLS, which after decades billion per year thrown at has never launched and it will very expensive to actually use if it ever given a test launch.
Ironically, the same idiots who spread fear about catastrophic warming/climate change are also spreading fear of nuclear reactors.
The greatest danger of a nuclear reactor is a runaway fission reaction that produces tremendous amounts of heat. If the heat breaks down the containment facilities then radiation becomes an issue. There is also the issue of nuclear waste disposal which is also being opposed by eco-loonies.
There are methods today that can control fission, and burying a reactor deep enough, covering it with concrete domes, and supplying cooling towers, make them relatively safe.
The two main reactor disasters in Chernobyl and Japan were due to faulty design. If the reactors are built properly there is essentially no danger to human life. In the US, 20% of it’s power demand comes from nuclear power.
The fact that we are not building them en masse is due to eco-idiots.
nate…”OLR regularly checked by satellite measurements, like from CERES. And simple math is used to find the average emitted from the Earth”.
***
That’s a real good trick, Nate, can you share the simple math with us?
CERES instrumentation is based on ERBE, which uses thermistor bolometers.
A thermistor is a resistive device that will change resistance with temperature. Thermistors don’t respond to EM as a heating device unless the heat source has a significantly high temperature. If you hooked a thermistor up in a circuit, in a shaded room at 20C, as a resistance, and laid it in the Sun, it would change its resistance.
Using a thermistor in a satellite to detect infrared energy from the Earth’s surface is not going to work. Over the distance to the satellite traveled, the IR would be far too weak to be detectable with a thermistor. I am sure they are using a semiconductor device they are calling a thermistor to give an indication of the average IR signal received then using Fourier analysis to synthesize a spectrum.
In other words, they are not detecting IR directly as a variable intensity, but synthesizing (modeling) a spectrum.
Since this is related to NASA, I am wondering if Gavin Schmidt was involved with his blarney specialist Pierrehumbert.
Gordon Robertson
You are just lying again and making up nonsense from the top of your head! It is sad you have to lie all the time. I have linked you many times to different sites showing you are totally wrong! You ignore the evidence and keep lying.
That is why you trust Russian media over Western sources. You only believe people who lie. Those who tell the truth are the ones you accuse of lying. The liars you love with zeal. Putin, most evil, you love based upon his horrendous lies.
Nothing can penetrate your world of lies and deception. Experiments, evidence, data mean nothing to you.
You live in a fabricated world held together by multiple lies from master liars like Putin, Lanka, Gary Novak. If they lie you love them.
willard…once again…
What do dragons breathe out…fire. What does the greenhouse claim CO2 breathes out….fire.
Get it, a Sky Dragon is a metaphor for CO2 warming, and the theory is called the greenhouse theory, or CO2 warming theory.
The dragon slayers are slaying the dragon…the fire-breathing CO2 warming theory. Please have the foresight to refer to us by our proper names…Sky Dragon Slayers.
You are the Sky Dragon.
You’re built way too close to the ground, goes right over your head. No wonder you have so much trouble with physics.
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re a crank who denies basic physics. Those who wrote the Sky Dragon book slayed nothing. In fact, according to Mike Flynn, they can’t.
Since you read the book, why don’t you quote the theory they refute?
Mike Flynn hasn’t been around here for years. Are you delusional? You may be referring to Swenson who has claimed there is no greenhouse theory and I agree. The Dragon Slayers slew the GHE theory supported by Sky Dragons like you.
C’mon, Gordo.
One does not simply refute a non-existent theory.
Mike Flynn used many sock puppets since the last time he signed his comments using “Mike Flynn,” including “Amazed.”
Think.
Cmon Willard,
What happened to all your dribbling about Sky Dragon Cranks, and non-existent refutations of mythical theories?
Back to the equally irrelevant and pointless Mike Flynn and sock puppet diversions, is it?
You cant even manage to insult anybody.
Youll have to try harder, wont you?
Moron.
Mike, Mike,
You’re trying too hard.
Sky Dragon Cranks can’t pretend to refute a non-existent theory.
Even you can get that one.
You can still deny!
Play dumb for me once more.
What fresh nonsense i# this, Silly Willy?
Mike, Mike? One not enough? Three too many?
You are clearly deranged – off with the fairies!
Have you tried learning English?
It might help if you could actually say something relevant, rather than dribbling bizarre attempts at trolling.
Carry on, anyway. You are perfectly entitled to lok as silly as you do.
I don’t mind. Neither does Mike, Mike, I guess.
And now you returned to playing dumb, Mike.
To be refuted, a theory needs to exist.
Yea or nay?
Yea or nay.
I hope you get Tyson’s point now, Mike.
No need to respond.
Ta.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard,
Oh dear. Your attempt at trolling fell rather flat, I fear.
Care to try again, moron?
[snigger]
Fear all you want, silly sock puppet.
Nah. Not even a good try, Willard.
Call yourself a troll?
Try again – with feeling, this time.
[derisive laughter]
You’re the troll here, Mike.
Ten years and you don’t even have three pitches.
Whining Willard,
You wrote –
“Ten years and you dont even have three pitches.”
Obscure, cryptic, incomprehensible – you’re getting there.
If all else fails, just write “Mike Flynn Mike Flynn”. That will demonstrate how powerful and erudite you are. Toss in a few claims that you have a Greenhouse Theory and an Insulation Effect Theory, and Im sure that people will keep thinking you’re the same delusional dummy as usual.
Here’s a thought – see if anyone gives a toss whether you comment or not. If someone expresses an opinion, see if they are prepared to back their opinion with cash, or if they are just taunting you for fun.
Or just keep posting pointless nonsense. Nothing to stop you, is there? Nobody cares – not even Roy Spencer, by the look of it.
Still playing dumb, Mike?
That’s one pitch.
What else do you got?
“What else do you got?”
Learn some English, dummy. Or show a little less sloppiness.
Keep posting pointless nonsense if you wish.
Presumably you think it demonstrates your intelligence. You’re right, unfortunately for you.
Moron.
And now we have Mike the Drill Sargent, your second pitch.
Anything else?
Woolly Wee Willy,
I see you wish to continue posting pointless nonsense.
By the way, do you mean “Sergeant” rather than “Sargent”, or are you trying to appear clever by being stupid and ignorant?
Are you still pretending you have a Greenhouse Theory or a Greenhouse Effect Theory?
Feel free to lie as much as you like.
[laughs at lying moron]
So, Mike –
As I was telling you, you have two pitches –
The Mike who plays dumb.
And Drill Sargent Mike.
That’s about it.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
maguff…”HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) The heat is on this weekend, and it will be so abnormally hot and humid for early May that the National Weather Service has issued a Heat Advisory for Saturday from noon to 7 p.m”.
***
And the cause is…ta da…La Nina. That is, natural variability. La Nina produces wet conditions in the Pacific Northwest and drought conditions in the Houston area.
We are encountering one of the wettest, coolest springs in recent memory in the Pacific NW. It has been forecast that most of May will be rain.
Heck, La Nina parked a heat dome over us in the Pacific NW last June. That’s real natural variability. Heat dome in summer and floods in November.
Some idiots have blamed it on climate change.
GR… It’s not often you hear a denialist admitting that the “abnormally hot” signal of global warming is so strong now that it has risen above the noise of “real natural variability,” and become easily detectable.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
–A crewed Mars mission could happen sooner than you think.
Astronauts will likely make it to the Red Planet’s surface before the end of the 2020s, SpaceX President and Chief Operating Officer Gwynne Shotwell told CNBC’s Shepard Smith recently.–
https://www.space.com/humanity-mars-2020s-spacex-president-shotwell
She probably doesn’t want to say it will later- considering her boss is Musk. But if this is the case there would 2 different launch windows:
2026 Dec 15 for simple hohmann- which wouldn’t be done as it takes too long. So guess instead it be beginning 2027 which after peak of solar cycle 25, and probably lower radiation levels.
The next other one is 2029 Jan 3 {for simple hohmann} which will radiation levels as bad or worst than right now and when arriving at Mars getting worse and more worst for few years after arrival. And then it could be possible one at the start a grand minimum. Do want crew on Mars surface when in Grand Minimum {if, it happens?}
Excellent article by a Ukrainian author who reveals Zelensky as a dictator along the lines of Putin. Excellent explanation of the situation in the Ukraine.
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/28/zelensky-celebrity-populist-pinochet-neoliberal/
Just for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmNPXqG6ovg
Thanks, Ken, the guitar came across in sub-titles. Do you have one where you can actually hear the guitar? Her fret-work looks impressive.
ps…Ken…did you read the part where Zelensky has confiscated land, had judges fired, shut down media outlets, and appointed foreigners to cabinet positions. Next, we’ll see Charo as Minister of Defense.
Worse still, the fascist Nationalists have him in their back pocket. Great democracy, where armed militias run around threatening people, including politicians.
How would you feel if our Deputy PM, Chrystia Freeland, was actually from the Ukraine and spoke no English? Or Posh Spice was our Health Minister here in BC? Say, that might no be so bad. Major step-up from Adrian Dix.
C’mon, Gordo. That’s not an excellent article. Here’s an excellent article –
https://www.illiberalism.org/unexpected-friendships-cooperation-of-ukrainian-ultra-nationalists-with-russian-and-pro-kremlin-actors/#Summary
Missed the mark, wacky wee willard. Zelensky is a liar, posing on the world stage as a poor Ukrainian, needy actor.
“Zelensky is a liar”
IYHO of course. Which is worth very little on here.
Awww, that’s a bit harsh.
Zelensky is an actor, just like Ronald Reagan was.
As to lying, how do you know if a politician is lying? His lips are moving!
Zelensky is a politician, just like Ronald Reagan was.
All opinions are equal – and equally valueless, if unsupported by fact.
You’re a fast reader, Gordo.
Have some more:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-06/video-fiona-hill-draws-line-from-u-s-insurrection-to-russia-s-war-on-ukraine
Desperate, much?
An ex-civil servant is sure that something which did not happen would have happened if if something else which did not happen did happen.
Strange appeal to authority, moron.
You don’t have to accept reality, of course.
Not an ex-civil servant, Mike.
A senior director for European and Russian affairs on the U.S. National Security Council under teh Donald.
Notice the difference?
Willard,
As I said, an ex civil servant.
What is a “teh Donald”? I assume you are referring to her ex employer, the US President at the time.
Oh dear, a disgruntled ex employee complaining about her ex boss?
You appeal to some strange authorities!
Thank you for playing dumb once again, Mike.
You’ll never guess to whom “teh Donald” refers.
What should you do about it?
Love,
Weary Willard,
Nah. Not interested in guessing the meaning of what semi-literate retards write.
Why should I?
You’re asking questions on stuff you’re not interested in, Mike.
Whacky Wee Willy,
I’ll add that comment to the vast number of other irrelevant and nonsensical utterances you come up with – generally addressed to Mike, Mike Mike, or Mike Flynn Mike Flynn.
What part of the LGBTQI (and all the rest) + community do you identify with?
Your protestations of love and admiration for Mike Flynn, accompanied by your strange little new-age cryptic love symbols, do seem odd for a normal heterosexual male. Obviously, any sexual preferences you express are your own business, and your desire for anonymity shows that you are quite aware that some may not be as tolerant as myself about your predilections.
But what do I know? Maybe Mike Flynn is a kindred soul to you, and would like nothing more than to join you in your previously solo self-abuse activities. What do you think?
Carry on.
Mike, Mike,
You asked what is teh Donald. I asked you how you will answer that question for yourself. You said you did not care.
Why should anyone answer your questions if you do not care for answering them?
Srsly.
Willard,
You idiot.
Anybody can see for themselves your bizarre attempt to weasel out of admitting that appealing to the authority of remarks made by a disgruntled ex-employee is not the smartest thing to do.
Think next time.
The link I gave, Mike.
No need to click on it. Just read it.
It must be fun in your house when you do not find your socks!
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LReUnYTtV1c
Long range weather forecasts fight, one with the other. European v USA.
Very cold air from the north will reach the west coast of the US.
https://i.ibb.co/cc15ZqT/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
It seems some people here think that the ab.sorp.tivity of a substance is strongly dependent on its temperature.
That’s not so. Ab.sorp.tivity of a body depends little on its own temperature, but much on the temperature of the source object.
Ab.sorp.tion depends on the condition of the receiving surface – its colour, the molecular make up of the material, the ‘roughness’ of its surface.
Glass absorbs infrared light quite strongly, but not visible light. Change the temperature of the glass and this will not change.
Whether the glass is hotter or cooler than the visible light source emitting to it, it will remain almost entirely transparent.
A dark surface at the exact same temperature as the glass will absorb visible light. This is so whether the dark surface is warmer or cooler than the visible light source.
It is the physical make up of the absorbing material that determines its ab.sorp.tivity, not its temperature.
Cooler objects absorb radiation from warmer objects. Warmer objects absorb radiation from cooler objects. Heat always flows from hot to cold. Radiation is a two-way transaction, with the NET result in line with the 2nd Law – cooler objects never impart more radiation to warmer objects more than they receive from them.
That last sentence is practically a quote from Rudolf Clausius, father of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It seems that some people want to believe that warmer objects simply reflect all radiation from cooler objects. No reputable physics text supports this notion. But it appears they want to believe it because then they can claim that upwelling radiation from the surface of the Earth cannot be absorbed by the cooler atmosphere.
Having provided references already for the ab.sorp.tion of cooler body radiation by warmer bodies…
I challenge anyone who believes warm objects simply reflect all the radiation of cooler objects to provide one reputable physics source clearly saying that.
Wasted effort.
Denialist don’t do data.
“But it appears they want to believe it because then they can claim that upwelling radiation from the surface of the Earth cannot be absorbed by the cooler atmosphere.”
Are you confused? Of course heat flows from hotter to cooler. If the surface is hotter than the atmosphere, the the atmosphere will heat as the surface cools.
Maybe you meant to say that you believe that a cooler atmosphere can make a hotter surface hotter, which is complete nonsense, only believed by people with a mental defect which causes them to reject reality.
You are also confused by the difference between the energy in a single photon, and the total energy contained in matter. People who try to generate photovoltaic power by using high density IR discover that the laws of physics don’t care about their determination, intelligence or higher degrees.
Try to define the GHE, you’ll find you can’t. Try to make water warmer using a vast amount of concentrated emitted radiation from ice. You can’t. So where do the photons emitted by ice go?
When you can answer that, and explain your answer to a reasonably intelligent 12 year old child , you might be on the way to accepting reality, and realising why the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, and why the surface cools each night, during winter, and so on.
Give it a try, if you wish.
Swenson,
We both agree that heat flows from hot to cold. As I said in my post.
But I’m talking about radiative transfer.
Do you think warmer objects are somehow blocked from absorbing electromagnetic radiation from cooler objects?
You said something about “certain people” refusing to believe that heat flows from hot to cold. Who are these idiots? Are they the fools that believe heat flows from cold to hot? Dimwits who believe that a warmer surface can be heated by a colder atmosphere!
As you indicate, this is purely and simply ridiculous!
You say you are talking about “radiative transfer” without saying what you think you mean. I don’t believe you have the faintest idea what you are banging on about, nor do the idiots who just blindly copy the misleading nonsense on Wikipedia.
What I believe is irrelevant. I have views based on facts. When the facts change, so do my views. I repeat Richard Feynman’s words – “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Of course, you have no experiment to demonstrate that a transparent medium like glass does not allow photons with energies corresponding to visible light to simply pass through without attenuation. Or that water, for example, absorbs energy from ice.
Asking stupid gotchas won’t help you look any smarter. What do you mean by ” . . . somehow blocked from absorbing radiation . . .”? By “cooler”, do you mean “emitting photons with lower energies than those emitted by the warmer”?
You see – you have no clue, do you? You don’t seem to know that the exclusion principle does not apply to photons (and the obvious implications), nor that the interaction between photons and matter does not involve little ping pong balls bouncing off somewhat larger “atoms”.
You don’t need to believe me. Try to get a warmer object to absorb energy from a cooler one. How would you know if it did? How would you measure it? Once you have figured all that out, go away and try it. You don’t need to come back and admit you couldn’t do it, in a hundred years – I doubt I’ll be around to listen to your admission of defeat.
Barry,
Heat transfer occurs through convection, conduction, or radiation. Heat flows from an object at a higher temperature to a colder object. There is no heat flow the other way. A colder atmosphere doesn’t warm a warmer planet.
One could say, most of atmosphere heating is done by evaporation.
And Earth has very little evaporation heat lose to space.
At one time people imagined Earth was over populated and Earth was losing a lot of it’s atmosphere.
One could say such fads are ending.
Earth mostly has cold atmosphere, which not keeping people warm.
Earth is in an Ice Age and has cold average surface temperature of about 15 C. And at times fairly recently it may have been as cool as 13.5 C, which a bit colder and it’s maybe moving to more warm world which more land area which habitable.
But I tend to think living land is a bit old fashion, I think everyone should have “beachfront” property by making cheap breakwater [out of titanium, which does corrode at all] and have ocean settlements in the warmer parts of the world. Warmer in terms higher night time temperature, but cooler in terms daytime temperature, but warm enough not require wet suit to surf.
Of course average land temperature where people live is about 10 C rather than 15 C. And land temperature have increased more ocean temperature.
I happen to live where land temperature is around 15 C and could be about 13.5 C in an earlier time, and before there was fiberglass insulation, and despite having fairly efficient house, I use fair amount energy keeping warm enough, though despite night getting down to 4 C at night, I don’t need heating, or very little, now. Because live in house. And when gets hot, I will used some air conditioning, but yearly heating exceeds the cooling costs. I suppose if live in smaller house or an apartment within large apartments building [the thermal mass] I would use less energy. But old buildings and bad buildings and in colder average temperature area one using more energy because it’s a colder world.
Or part of why we live in world which lack as much energy as the space environment has, is because it’s cold world.
Or if did not in an Ice Age or if we live in ocean settlements we would in world enough energy for thousands of years or perhaps “forever”.
One could say if government were not dumb governments and could make the world colder, we would be using more energy.
Also a problem in terms of energy is govt cause more waste of energy. They are very dumb and evil- and changing that, in comparison make star travel look easy. {Star travel is not something we going to do anytime soon, but while on topic we had an NASA administer decades ago saying NASA should plan to star travel within next 25 years. Couldn’t get to Moon and guy wanted to talk about star travel. Such inspiration!!!}.
So, what wanted to get to is maybe we deluded people who imagine we in a Greenhouse global Climate. And imagine governments that can solve problems[rather causing endless unnecessary problems} and maybe that world, wind mills and solar panels, could work.
barry, it’s all worked out in the photon absorb.tion process.
As you hate to admit, ice cubes can NOT boil water.
barry, that’s a lot of blah-blah trying to pervert physics.
Photon absorp.tion is based on wavelength compatibility.
There, easy to understand.
barry made a similar effort to pervert physics last month, but got caught.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1263978
He’ll probably try again next month. His cult is in meltdown, and he’s desperate.
“Photon absorp.tion is based on wavelength compatibility.”
That’s right. But it doesn’t answer the question. People seem reluctant to give a straightforward answer.
Here it is again even simpler.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1275298
barry, your question was answered below.
Here’s a question for you:
If your beliefs are true and valid, why do you have to pervert reality?
Not one person has actually answered the question. It’s pretty simple. And it has nothing to do with heat or ice cubes.
EM radiation from cooler objects can be absorbed by warmer objects.
Yes or no?
Objects retain heat. And one could say thinner the object the less in retains heat. So one might ask at what depth into an object does EM radiation reach.
So with liquid water, Long wave IR radiation doesn’t penetrate much depth, whereas shortwave IR most of radiation is absorbed within top 1 meter of sea water.
So, I think matters what meant by absorbed. Or one have some objects which are transparent or could be absorb at some depth in regard to longwave IR.
Now, sunlight is absorbed better by water than then by say sand or rock- because energy of sunlight reaches a deeper depth.
barry,
Seriously, define “absorbed”.
If you are asking if the energy radiated from a colder object results in the temperature of the warmer being raised, then the answer is obviously no.
If you claim that no rise in temperature results, how would you establish that the internal energy of the warmer had increased without a resultant rise in temperature?
You can’t, in reality. Your imagination is not reality.
Arguments are not reality. Computer models are not reality. And so on.
Point to a reproducible experiment which supports your contention, or keep pretending your fantasy is fact.
barry, the answer is “no”, in general, since we know that photon absorp.tion is determined by wavelengths. And the mean wavelengths from a cold object are longer than those from a hot object.
You’re still trying to boil water with ice cubes, while admiring that ice cubes can’t boil water.
You’ve chosen an interesting, but futile, belief system.
barry…”EM radiation from cooler objects can be absorbed by warmer objects.
Yes or no?”
***
No. Quantum theory says so.
Gordon Robertson
Roy Spencer experiment as well as all engineering heat transfer dealing with radiant heat say you are completely wrong. Quantum theory does not make such a claim, only your fantasy version of this branch of physics would make such a claim.
Yes of course they can.
Anybody have experimental evidence they can’t?
b,
Presumably (laugh) you can’t provide experimental support for your completely foolish claim that you can even make water warmer with ice, let alone boil it!
What a witless donkey you are!
So I took a pot of water and put it on the stove, so it was heated just below boiling.
I took the lid for the pot and made a plastic mold of the lid.
Then with the plastic mold filled with water and frozen to make lid out of ice.
I put the ice lid on the near simmering pot and guess what?
The water started boiling.
There, I caused water to boil using ice.
You guys have no idea!
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Thanks, Clint and Gordon for answering the question.
You others did not. You answered a question about heat that I didn’t ask.
Clint, Gordon, I have provided links saying that radiation is exchanged between warmer and cooler objects.
Rudolf Clausius:
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
SECTION XII
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
“… as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog/page/n317/mode/2up
P. 295
Calusius identifies that radiation is received by both the cooler and warmer body, with the NET result that the cooler body receives more radiation from the warmer on than it imparts to it.
I also provided a link to MIT showing calculations for this ‘simultaneous double heat exchange’ between surfaces of different temperature.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
The 2nd Law is not broken here. Radiative energy is not heat. Heat flows from hot to cold. Radiation flows both ways.
Clausius is not wrong. Neither is MIT.
“the mean wavelengths from a cold object are longer than those from a hot object.”
It’s good that you included the word “mean” here, Clint. Obviously you realize that all objects emit and therefore absorb at a wide range of frequencies, not just the peak frequency emitted/received.
I assume we are all familiar with the Planck curve of emission spectra?
An object at 10C emits EM radiation at 15um wavelength, so does an object at -10C. They both also emit at 5, 10 and 20um and so on. The difference is that the dominant or ‘peak’ frequency is slightly different for each body at each temperature.
Here is a visualisation of the Planck curve for three different blackbody temperatures:
https://tinyurl.com/y2mkhpy7
A warmer body can certainly absorb radiation from a cooler body, because both bodies absorb and emit at a range of frequencies.
Here is an online calculator where you can set parameters to display the emission curve of a blackbody at a given temperature. I did so for 288K, and the emission curve was very broad, with significant intensity at wavelengths well beyond the peak.
https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
I sometimes think that some people here imagine that a body at a specific temperature can only emit radiation at ONE wavelength, and then reason that a body at any other temperature cannot absorb that radiation. We need to lose the idea that bodies radiate at a single wavelength, even if a particular frequency is dominant (peak).
If the temperature of an object determined its ab.sorp.tivity, glass would cease to be transparent to visible light from a source that was…. what? Hotter than the glass? Cooler than it?
No, glass will be transparent to visible light regardless if the light source is cooler than the glass or warmer than it. The physical characteristics of the glass determine absorp.tivity/transmission/reflectivity, not its temperature.
Would a mirror cooler than the light source hitting it absorb the the radiation? Of course not. It is the physical properties of the material that determines its response to visible radiation, regardless of the temperature of the visible light source.
There are plastics designed to be transparent to IR but not visible light, used commonly for ‘windows’ over TV remote control sensors, motion monitors, cameras and the like. These devices change temperature with use, and the optical properties of the plastic material is unaffected.
https://wittenburggroup.com/products/infra-red-transparent-witcom-compounds/
“Quantum theory…”
States that the curve of the emission spectrum is actually quantised. Rather than an infinite gradation of wavelength, emission/ab.sorp.tion occurs in discrete packets. An analogy is a piano that plays only in certain frequencies of sound. There are many frequencies available, and harmonics to these for each note, but not a blizzard of frequencies when the A note is struck, only the peak frequency and its harmonics.
“Although quantization may seem to be an unfamiliar concept, we encounter it frequently. For example, US money is integral multiples of pennies. Similarly, musical instruments like a piano or a trumpet can produce only certain musical notes, such as C or F sharp. Because these instruments cannot produce a continuous range of frequencies, their frequencies are quantized. Even electrical charge is quantized: an ion may have a charge of −1 or −2 but not −1.33 electron charges.”
https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/University_of_Missouri/MU%3A__1330H_(Keller)/06._Electronic_Structure_of_Atoms/6.2%3A_Quantized_Energy_and_Photons
——————————————————-
I have now provided numerous links and references, as well as a valid rationale why warm objects can absorb radiation from cooler objects, not the least of which is that cooler objects emit and absorb at a range of frequencies above and below the peak frequency of the warmer object, especially so when there is a small difference in temperature. The Planck curves are very similar for objects in all the ranges of temperatures we experience on our planet, for example.
The challenge remains open for anyone to provide a link from a reputable source that clearly states warmer objects cannot absorb EM radiation from cooler objects.
This reference has been singularly missing from the people who propose such a strange notion. It has been missing from this debate for a couple of years at least.
Where is the physics text that corroborates this position?
It is not an obscure or difficult proposition. “Radiation from cooler objects cannot be absorbed by warmer ones,” should be something readily advanced in a formal physics text, and therefore easy enough to reference here.
Someone please provide a reference for this notion.
The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord. As to whether that radiation is absorbed, or reflected, who cares? The ultimate answer is, it does not make the warmer object warmer still…
…and yes, that still applies when the warmer object has a constant heat source. There is always a heat source, otherwise the two objects in question would be close to Absolute Zero, and there would be virtually no exchange of radiation occurring between them. The presence of the heat source is not the bypass for the “of its own accord” clause.
Do you know the famous Pictet experiment, Kiddo?
“The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord.”
‘of its own accord’ is the key phrase here that makes this a strawman in reference to the GHE or the GPE.
In neither case is radiation of a cold object to a warm object happening in isolation. In both cases there is a heat source present, heating the warm object.
The radiation from the cold object to the warm object is simply impeding the loss of heat from the warm object that is provided from the heat source.
Thus the warm object warms!
However since ‘of its own accord’ is not applicable here, the Second Law is not violated.
The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord. As to whether that radiation is absorbed, or reflected, who cares? The ultimate answer is, it does not make the warmer object warmer still…
…and yes, that still applies when the warmer object has a constant heat source. There is always a heat source, otherwise the two objects in question would be close to Absolute Zero, and there would be virtually no exchange of radiation occurring between them. The presence of the heat source is not the bypass for the “of its own accord” clause.
“The presence of the heat source is not the bypass for the ‘of its own accord’ clause.”
If the object warms with the assistance of a heat source, then it is clearly not happening ‘of its own accord’.
Only in the reality distortion field of the TEAM of Morons do words like these no longer have their obvious meanings. Literally anything goes.
The second law simply means that heat must flow from hot to cold.
And it does both the GPE and GHE.
So sorry, no 2LOT violations today.
“There is always a heat source, otherwise the two objects in question would be close to Absolute Zero”
Ugggh…
Two objects are sitting in a room, both are in equilibrium and at room temperature.
There is clearly no heat source heating them. And they are clearly not at absolute zero!
Regular readers will no doubt already be aware that I do not directly respond to Nate, and will be amused by the dishonesty he displays in trying to use that fact to his advantage. For instance, here, a worthless response from Willard prompted me to simply repeat my original comment…but Nate acts like I am responding to him, and also treats the repeat of my original comment as if I was saying something different than I was the first time!
☺️
Any new readers, just be on the look out for continued interventions from Nate as I try to discuss this with barry, and barry alone, going forward. Just always be aware that I will not respond to him directly, and watch how he tries to use that fact to his own advantage.
“already be aware that I do not directly respond to Nate”
Readers are quite aware that DREMT adopts this dismiss the messenger approach, whenever he has no answers.
It is a tell.
I am simply responding to the very tired denier argument that the 2LOT somehow rules out the GHE or the related GPE.
It doesnt.
See what I mean?
“The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord.”
It’s not of its own accord, as there is heat transfer from hot to cold.
Try the Lord Kelvin statement of the second law.
That one works too.
bob tries to pretend my second paragraph doesn’t exist.
CHartmaster,
You second paragraph shows you still don’t understand heat, the second law, and a whole nother burritos worth of science.
Sure, sure.
Bailing out of the argument Chartmaster?
That’s what you always do, run away till the next time it comes around on the guitar.
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
The some other change is the heat transfer from hot to cold.
No, the "some other change" is work being done, e.g. refrigerators, air-conditioners.
“The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord.”
The 2nd Law would be broken if the cooler object lost heat to the warmer object. That would mean the flow of heat was cold to hot.
The 2nd Law would not be broken if both objects warmed up. Then the heat flow would not be flowing from cold to hot. As Clausius says:
“…in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it…”
The green plate experiment does not violate this statement from Clausius. At all times the cooler body is receiving more radiation from the warmer object than it imparts to the warmer object. The colder object never loses heat. It GAINS heat. Therefore it cannot be losing heat to the warmer object.
“As to whether that radiation is absorbed, or reflected, who cares?”
Apparently not you. However, it is a pivotal point in the general discussion. I’ve said why above.
2 years have gone by since I first read here this strange notion that warm objects cannot absorb radiation from cold objects.
2 years and no proponent of the idea has been able to provide a formal reference for it.
Because it’s wrong and there is no reference in any physics text corroborating that view. Clausius himself contradicts it.
These people conflate energy with heat. That is their error. That’s why so many of the responses to my question purely about radiative transfer talked about heat. They don’t understand the difference.
Try again, barry…
The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord. As to whether that radiation is absorbed, or reflected, who cares? The ultimate answer is, it does not make the warmer object warmer still…
…and yes, that still applies when the warmer object has a constant heat source. There is always a heat source, otherwise the two objects in question would be close to Absolute Zero, and there would be virtually no exchange of radiation occurring between them. The presence of the heat source is not the bypass for the “of its own accord” clause.
This time, maybe provide a reference that states the presence of a heat source bypasses the “of its own accord” clause, if you wish to contradict me.
“The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord.”
No, that has been shown to be wrong by experiments reported on this blog.
Radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object making the warmer object warmer still increases universe entropy so is consistent with the 2nd law.
Funny how they can never agree amongst themselves.
“The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord.”
I completely agree. In this case the cooler object would have to lose heat to the warmer object. This breaks the second law.
Of course, this is not what is happening with the GPE. The cooler object never loses its heat to the warmer object. It GAINS heat from the warmer object. In fact, it gains more heat from the warmer object than it imparts to it.
As Clausius says:
“…in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it…”
Clausius tells us that both bodies exchange heat, but the colder one gets more from the warmer one than the other way around.
Thus the net flow of heat is from hot to cold. The 2nd Law is intact in the GPE. So says Clausius.
barry, you can’t talk your way around physical laws. You need a reference that states the presence of a heat source bypasses the “of its own accord” clause.
Hilarious,
While DREMT can simply assert that the ordinary meaning of ‘of its own accord’ has changed, Barry needs to prove that it hasn’t.
Somehow ‘with the assistance of an external heat source’ satisfies ‘of its own accord’ in DREMTS weird weird brain.
“you cant talk your way around physical laws.”
I don’t need to talk anything. Clausius does that for us:
“…in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it…”
Let’s first deal with the fact that Clausius reveals that a warmer body absorbs radiation from a cooler body. The exchange of ‘heat’ is mutual.
So if anyone from her on in wants to claim otherwise, they’ll have to contend with Clausius. I’m just quoting him.
In the GPE, at no time does more radiation get passed from the cooler object to the warmer object than is passed from the warmer object to the cooler object.
At no time is the flow of heat from cold to hot.
Th cooler object warms more than the warmer one. The second law is intact.
Why do they warm up? Because adding the GP mans the blue plate cools less efficiently. It’s getting radiation from the sun AND the GP. And we know this is true because Clausius says radiation is exchanged between warm and cool objects. He says it more than once in all his works:
“… as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter…”
“Simultaneous double heat exchange.”
Th blue plate does not act as a mirror to the green plate. They exchange radiation with each other. So says Clausius.
If the blue plate is losing heat less efficiently because it is receiving more radiation, then it must heat up until it reaches equilibrium with the total irradiance it is receiving.
The green plate can never be at the same temperature as the blue plate. It is receiving radiation only from the blue plate, which shields the green plat from the sun. The blue is irradiated by both the sun and the green plate. Clausius tells us that the warmer object receives radiation from the cooler one.
And anyone who has ever seen a Planck emission curve knows full well that objects radiate at frequencies above and below their peak frequency. Many of the wavelengths mitted by the cooler object can be absorbed by the warmer one.
Th introduction of the green plate certainly doesn’t warm the blue plate “of its own accord.”
The sun warms this system. That is the source of all the energy and heat, not the green plate.
All the green plate does is slow the rate of heat loss from the BP/GP system.
On a Winter’s day a sweater is colder than the body that dons it. The sweater doesn’t cause the wearer’s skin to feel warmer “of its own accord.” The body’s internal heat is the source of the warmth. All the sweater does is to slow the escape of heat from the skin.
Close the window on a heated room and the room gets warmer. The window can be near the temperature of the frigid air outside, but changing the dynamics of the system results in a warmer room, even when the object introduced is cooler than the object warming up. The window doesn’t provide the heat, it just slows the heat loss.
A car with a faulty engine can overheat more readily on a hot day than a cold one. The engine is always hotter than the ambient temperature. A warmer day, even though cooler than the engine, slows the rate of heat loss from the engine. Anyone who has owned an older car knows this.
In none of these examples is the 2nd Law broken, even though a warm object gets warmer still after a cool object is introduced to the system. The cooler object doesn’t provide the heat – heat cannot flow from cold to hot. But the cooler object can slow the heat loss from the warmer object. There are myriad examples of this. The GP is just one of many.
barry, you can waffle on with the best of them, but it looks like what you can’t do is provide a reference to support the idea that the presence of a heat source bypasses the “of its own accord” clause. You have already agreed that “the Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord.”
As usual, you try to get around this by implying that it is not happening “of its own accord”, there is a heat source present…but what I have never seen, in all my years of debating this, is a reference stating that the presence of a heat source is sufficient to bypass the “of its own accord” clause. It appears to be something that you guys have just asserted so many times, that you believe it needs no support…
…and it makes no sense, really, because as I have already explained, there is always a heat source present. If nothing else, there is always the Sun. If you think even of two objects sitting in a room at “room temperature”…the room didn’t get to be 20 degrees C with no heat source. Either the Sun, or central heating, or both, at some point played a role in getting the room to that temperature. The Second Law itself would have been discovered under conditions in which there was a heat source.
So it seems like madness to suggest that the presence of a heat source means that the cooler object can make the warmer object warmer still…but please, prove me wrong. Link to that reference.
Why is it so difficult to understand that if you have a heat source heating an object and you insulate that object, it will become warmer.
You can’t bake a cake with the oven door open, but close the door and presto, fat free sugar free calorie free goodness.
bob’s up next, with more straw, and also no reference.
Not doing your homework for you DREMPTY.
I don’t need a reference to correct you on your misunderstanding of the second law.
Yes heat doesn’t transfer from cold to hot without something else happening at the same time, namely, that something else is the transfer of heat from hot to cold.
They can’t support their nonsense. It’s just a lie that’s been repeated a hundred thousand times. Still doesn’t make it true.
DREMT,
You are working under the false impression that the flow of heat is from GP to BP.
Any way you run the math on the thermodynamic relationship between BP and GP, you will not be able to establish that the heat flow is from cold to hot.
But you are welcome to try to argue that the flow of heat is from the cooler GP to the warmer BP.
That’s going to be though, when the GP heats up 220K from 0, and the BP only heats up by 18K (in the original GPE). As the GP gets all its heat directly from the BP (which is supplied entirely by the sun), then the BP is definitely giving more heat to the GP than the GP is giving to the BP in the “simultaneous double heat exchange” that Clausius tells us is going on during the “ordinary radiation of heat”.
But please demonstrate with some even simple math how the flow of heat is cold to hot in the GPE. It’s impossible to do so with the classic definition of heat. You will have to resort to either a colloquial definition of heat that is different to Clauius Carnot and Kelvin, and that is not the classic definition, or you will have to us some other rhetoric that goes well away from classic thermo.
There is no heat flow from GP to BP, only radiative transfer between each and an external power source.
Your premise is false, therefore there is no need to contend with the challenge that rests on it.
As for the presence of cooler objects causing warmer objects to become warmer… you seriously need a link to explain to you how insulation works??
Ok.
https://www.knaufinsulation.com.au/science-of-insulation-explained
Yes, Virginia, cooler objects like windows, sweaters, and home insulation can make the object that is being heated even warmer.
In none of these everyday examples is heat flowing from cold to hot. Yet, the introduction of these cooler objects makes the warmer object even warmer. How? By slowing the heat loss of the warmer object.
Now please show the math proving heat is flowing from GP to BP.
barry, you are not paying attention to what I am asking you to support.
Let’s keep it as simple as possible. The exception to 2LoT is when work is done, e.g. refrigerators, air-conditioners. The exception to 2LoT is not “when there is a heat source present”. That wouldn’t even make sense, because there is always a heat source present. See my previous comments. If you believe that the exception to 2LoT is “when there is a heat source present”, then support it with a reference. That is what I have been asking you to support, over and over again. It appears you cannot, which is no surprise.
All I really need to do is repeat my 9:19 AM comment. Until you provide that reference, you are not contradicting me, you are just inventing positions for me and then attacking them.
> However you run the math
You are talking to Kiddo, Barry.
All I really need to do is repeat my 9:19 AM comment. Until you provide that reference, you are not contradicting me, you are just inventing positions for me and then attacking them.
DREMT,
I am contradicting you. Read again.
Your argument rests on the belief that heat is flowing from the green plate to the blue plate.
2nd Law broken, you reckon.
I’m saying that heat is not flowing from GP to BP.
I’m asking you to prove otherwise. In the terms of classic thermo, not loose rhetoric. In the terms upon which the 2nd Law was written.
Germane to the point, do you agree with Clausius that warmer objects can absorb the radiation of cooler objects? I’d like to clear that up rather than dismiss it.
(If you agree that heat is NOT flowing from GP to BP, then you’re right, I’m not contradicting you. Let me know…)
barry, you’re not getting it.
I said:
"The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord."
and you responded:
"I completely agree…"
You then later said:
"Th[e] introduction of the green plate certainly doesn’t warm the blue plate “of its own accord.”
The sun warms this system. That is the source of all the energy and heat…"
So here, you are clearly arguing that the exception to the 2LoT (where "of its own accord" does not apply) is when a heat source is present. I have been asking you to support that. Again and again and again. You are obviously aware that you have no support for your own argument, so you keep desperately trying to change the subject. I will not let you.
It’s quite simple, barry. If you can’t provide the support, you lose the argument. If your next comment doesn’t have a link to the reference supporting your position, I’m calling it.
Do you agree with Clausius that warmer objects can absorb the radiation of cooler objects, Kiddo?
I completely agree that heat cannot flow from a cool object to a warm object without some engine operating on the system.
This law doesn’t change with the external heat source of the sun. The flow of heat must still be from hot to cold.
We agree on both these points. And that is a direct response to your challenge.
So where is the disagreement?
The disagreement is that you think heat is flowing from the cool GP to the warmer BP.
That is simply not true. Not if you define heat in the same way it is formulated for the 2nd Law – classic thermo.
The premise of your challenge is wrong. Heat is not flowing from cold to hot.
It is not flowing from cold to hot re sweaters, blankets, insulation and the GP. They all slow the loss of heat, and the flow is still hot to cold.
You need to demonstrate the heat is flowing from the cooler GP to the warmer BP.
And could you now answer the question whether you think warmer objects can absorb radiation from cooler ones, please. It’s germane to the issue at hand.
…you would first have to show where Clausius said that the radiation from cooler bodies is absorbed by warmer bodies. He said that radiation is exchanged between the bodies, sure, but where did he specifically say that the cooler body radiation is “absorbed” by the warmer? He didn’t, as far as I’m aware.
Another comment without the reference I requested.
My last comment was directed to Willard. I will now respond to barry…
“This law doesn’t change with the external heat source of the sun.”
barry continues to argue with himself. His comments have been self-contradictory throughout, e.g. “the BP is definitely giving more heat to the GP than the GP is giving to the BP in the “simultaneous double heat exchange” that Clausius tells us is going on during the “ordinary radiation of heat”” followed almost immediately by “there is no heat flow from GP to BP”!
Now he is pretending that he did not say that:
"Th[e] introduction of the green plate certainly doesn’t warm the blue plate “of its own accord.”
The sun warms this system. That is the source of all the energy and heat…"
thus arguing that the exception to the 2LoT (where "of its own accord" does not apply) is when a heat source is present! All to try to get out of the fact that he cannot support his beliefs. There was no reference in your last comment, barry, so I’m calling it. You lose the argument.
What is dQ, again?
You lose the argument.
I had the impression you knew to what dQ was referring but simply forgot, Kiddo.
My mistake.
#2
You lose the argument.
You might like:
https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius1865.pdf
#3
You lose the argument.
I could outflank or bulldoze that puerile moat, Kiddo.
Which one would you prefer?
Another time. Barry did everything right.
#4
You lose the argument.
I am not Barry, Kiddo, and I adore how you ignore that I met your request.
Please never change.
#5
You lose the argument.
barry, as DREMT points out, you do have some logic issues to clear up.
At 8:01 am barry writes: “DREMT, I am contradicting you.”
Previously barry had written the opposite at 6:25 pm about DREMT’s writing: “I completely agree.”
The discussion illustrates how using the “heat” term can provoke arguments and confusion. The “heat” term is NEVER necessary in thermodynamics; dropping “heat” from comments always leads to clarity. A remedy would be for barry to at least use Clausius defn. of “heat”*; better yet just quote Clausius word for word without adding any of barry’s words.
—–
DREMT: the reference you seek is Clausius’ “Mechanical Theory of Heat” latest edition.
*NB: Using Clausius heat defn. will teach many that heat does not exist in any real object, heat is imaginary as Joule proved by experiment, thus heat cannot transfer out of any real object.
Here’s Ball4, to argue against barry saying “this law doesn’t change with the external heat source of the sun”. Ball4 instead suggests that the reference which states that the exception to 2LoT is the presence of a heat source is written by Clausius himself! Of course, he hasn’t said where Clausius makes this claim that contradicts barry’s statement (even though barry was contradicting himself anyway). A jumbled mess of contradictory nonsense from the GHE Defense Team.
As usual.
Click on the link, B4, and try not to be an ass.
Barry is quoting Clausius, so leave your prejudices at the door.
Then show a quote from Clausius (or Joule) that contradicts what I have written, Willard.
I’ve already extensively quoted both around here. There are experiments on the atm. reported on this blog for Willard’s reference also showing Clausius’ principles in action. To be accurate in the field of thermodynamics, Willard needs to use Clausius’ defn. of “heat” when using the term or for clarity avoid the term as should any commenter.
I just cited it, B4. Click on the link.
I am afraid that I cannot find in Clausius the reason why now is not the time to inject your pet topic. This is more a question of social skill acquisition.
What I note here is that barry is in a seriously sticky situation after my 9:41 AM comment. I have no idea how he is going to try to wriggle his way out of that one…but what is interesting to see is how, when one of them gets into trouble, two more immediately pop up to try to change the subject and obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate. You cannot ever just have a discussion with one of them.
I will note that Kiddo ignores my response to his Sami he request, and will commit this interesting paper on various formulations of the laws, by Clausius and others, some equivalent and some inequivalent:
https://www.scielo.br/j/rbef/a/JjZnwmmkVxyrDP6p3FbMxJw/?format=pdf&lang=en
And will leave Kiddo to his spamming.
Kiddo might appreciate an instance of many formulations of an equivalent theory, but that discussion will happen elsewhere.
Enjoy your day, good sirs.
Willard never specified what he believes his earlier link demonstrates, but it was most certainly not the reference I had repeatedly asked barry for.
DREMT,
What you don’t understand is something very simple.
Th 2nd Law refers to the NET flow of heat from one or object or system to another.
Clausius explains this:
“…in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it…”
In the GPE, the blue plate never receives more heat from the green plate than it imparts to it.
Clausius’ own description of how the 2nd Law works is satisfied by the net exchange of heat in the GPE.
If T1 – T2 > 0 then heat flows from T1 – T2.
BP – GP > 0
Put on a sweater, DREMT. It will make you warmer. And the 2nd Law will not be broken, because in classic thermo the net flow of heat will be DREMT –> Sweater –> Cold air.
Put a GP behind a BP. It will make the BP warmer. And the 2nd Law will not be broken, because in classic thermo the net flow of heat will be SUN –> BP –> GP –> The Universe.
Informal use of terminology doesn’t break the 2nd Law, either. But that is what you are trying to accomplish here, DREMT.
barry, in my 9:41 AM comment I spelled out very clearly two self-contradictions in your recent comments. You have not addressed either of these at all. The second of the self-contradictions is kind of pivotal to this entire discussion, really. The first one relates to your ongoing confusion about the difference between heat and energy.
About the pivotal self-contradiction…you cannot say you agree with me that “this law [2LoT] doesn’t change with the external heat source of the sun” when you have already argued that it does!
DREMT,
I’ve addressed all your concerns, while you have addressed none of my (Clausius’) points.
“…in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it…”
1. The 2nd Law is concerned with the NET flow of heat, according to Clausius
2. Two bodies at different temperature exchange heat exchange heat, according to Clausius
3. The 2nd Law is not broken if “the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.”
Th GPE satisfies these conditions. The NET flow of heat is from hot to cold.
You have responded to precisely none of this.
The presence of an external heat source to a system does not invalidate the 2nd Law. We agree on this, therefore I don’t have to provide a link saying the opposite, do I?
But you have to dal with what Clausius has said above: that the warmer body “receives heat” from the cooler body, and the NET flow of heat in this “mutual double heat exchange” is from the warmer body to the cooler one.
Just like the GPE
I keep quoting Clausius and you keep on ignoring him. I haven’t contradicted myslf at all. I’ve usd th language and the formulation exactly as Clausius does. That’s why I kepo q
Where is that reference from a standard physics text, by the way, that corroborates warmer body can’t absorb radiation from cooler bodies.
I’ve been waiting 2 years for that link.
Slipped and posted before I’d finished:
I’ve used the language and the formulation exactly as Clausius does. Thats why I keep quoting him.
You keep on ignoring what he says.
And you still haven’t provided a reference corroborating that warm objects can’t absorb radiation from cooler ones.
2 years. Still waiting for that link from anyone who believes this nonsense.
Condensing the point of difference and leaving this as a marker.
Clausius considers the NET flow of heat exchanged between a warmer and cooler body.
DREMT’s argument consists of ignoring the heat transfer from the warmer body to the cooler one, and only looking at the transfer in one direction. He’s looking at only half the equation.
DREMT’s failure is to ignore Clausius’ formulation of the 2nd Law as NET heat transfer between two bodies in a “mutual double heat exchange”.
Unless DREMT deals with this, the conversation is repetitive and pointless. If he finally deals with this point, I’ll reply.
I predict he won’t, but will blather on about contradictions and the need for links to prove something I don’t agree with.
Test.
“The presence of an external heat source to a system does not invalidate the 2nd Law. We agree on this, therefore I don’t have to provide a link saying the opposite, do I?”
You are contradicting yourself again. As I already explained, I said to you:
"The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord."
and you responded:
"I completely agree…"
You then later said:
"Th[e] introduction of the green plate certainly doesn’t warm the blue plate “of its own accord.”
The sun warms this system. That is the source of all the energy and heat…"
So there, you were arguing that the exception to the 2LoT (where "of its own accord" does not apply) is when a heat source is present. You cannot now argue that the presence of a heat source does not effect 2LoT!
I would also like you to address the other self-contradiction of yours I mentioned in my 9:41 AM comment.
“DREMT’s argument consists of ignoring the heat transfer from the warmer body to the cooler one, and only looking at the transfer in one direction. He’s looking at only half the equation.”
Well barry, there is only heat transfer from hot to cold, unless work is done (e.g. refrigerators, air-conditioners).
“DREMT’s failure is to ignore Clausius’ formulation of the 2nd Law as NET heat transfer between two bodies in a “mutual double heat exchange”.”
…and yet barry said earlier, “there is no heat flow from GP to BP”! He can’t seem to make up his mind what he believes. He is very happy making up positions for me, to attack, however.
“The exception to 2LoT is not ‘when there is a heat source present. That wouldnt even make sense, because there is always a heat source present.”
First of all that is false, thoroughly dumb, assertion. Heat sources are not present for a. isolated objects, or b. in equilibrium.
Second of all, when there IS a heat source present, that can heat a warm object, and it is getting warmer, then it makes ABSOLUTELY no sense to assume that the heat warming the object is coming from a nearby colder object.
Obviously it can be coming from the heat source!
Only in the minds of the deranged does heat need to flowing from cold to hot here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1277613
and yet barry said earlier, “there is no heat flow from GP to BP”
Indeed I did. Whenever I speak of the flow of heat, I am talking about the NET transfer of heat in the “simultaneous double heat exchange.”
It’s the point I have been making over and over that you refuse to deal with.
Heat is exchanged between warmer and colder bodies, in Clausius own words, but the NET flow of heat is hot to cold. My position is with Clausius.
You’re still not dealing with this, DREMT.
You’ve also avoided for some time now the question of if you think warmer objects can’t absorb the radiation from cooler objects.
Are you going to contradict Clausius on that? Or keep on ignoring that point, too?
Re whether radiation from cooler bodies is absorbed by warmer bodies, as I already told you: it doesn’t matter. As I said, and you agreed, barry, "the Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord". Since you have now decided that the presence of a heat source makes no difference to the "of its own accord", you must surely agree that the radiation received by the BP from the GP will not make the BP warmer still, whether it’s absorbed or not. So I guess that’s that.
Willard 11:19 am: “I just cited it, B4. Click on the link.”
I wrote “show a quote from Clausius (or Joule) that contradicts what I have written, Willard.”
Willard then cites a link from an unknown author which is not what I wrote.
Clausius’ Second Law is NOT broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object makes the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord because universe entropy is increased in such a process as demonstrated by atm. experiments reported on this blog.
Once again…funny how they can never agree amongst themselves.
The commenters that agree with proper experimental results, win.
Show your proper & replicable experimental results DREMT & join the winners.
“Since you have now decided that the presence of a heat source makes no difference to the “of its own accord”…”
Nope, you just made that up. What I said was:
“I completely agree that heat cannot flow from a cool object to a warm object without some engine operating on the system.
This law doesnt change with the external heat source of the sun. The flow of heat must still be from hot to cold.”
You’re desperately trying to lace together a gotcha because you can’t deal head on with the points Clausius made about the 2nd Law being based on the NET flow of heat between objects.
“…in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it…”
GPE satisfies this.
You just can’t face Clausius’ quote here on NET flow and 2nd Law. It’s amusing watching you dodge his point with each successive comment.
Let’s deal with your frankly unbelievable twisting and turning. Here is the statement I made, which you agreed with, again:
"The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord".
The key phrase is obviously "of its own accord". You keep flip-flopping on whether you think the presence of a heat source means that the "of its own accord" no longer applies. You know that if you directly argue that it does mean that, then I will ask you to back that up with a reference, which you know that you cannot provide. So you try to argue that it doesn’t, without accepting that this would mean the Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, even with the heat source present. So let’s try to make it even clearer for you:
1) The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, without the presence of a heat source.
2) The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, even if there is a heat source present.
Now, barry, which statement, 1) or 2), are you going to back? If you agree with 2), you agree there is no Green Plate Effect. If you agree with 1), you are going to need to back it up with the reference I have been asking you for throughout.
#1 implies a heat transfer from cold to hot. 2LOT violation.
#2 no heat need flow from cold to hot here, the heat is supplied by the heat source. No 2LOT violatons.
Anyone claiming #2 is a 2LOT violation needs to prove that HEAT has flowed from cold to hot.
If they cannot explicitly show that, then theyre done, and should stop trolling.
Now seems like a good time to remind people that barry has been continuously arguing that heat goes from cold to hot. He is arguing that there is a double heat exchange, that heat goes from cold to hot, and that heat goes from hot to cold, but the net flow of heat is from hot to cold. I know…you couldn’t make it up. But that’s what he’s been saying.
“barry has been continuously arguing that heat goes from cold to hot.”
Nope he never did. You are a liar and a troll.
barry: Indeed I did. Whenever I speak of the flow of heat, I am talking about the NET transfer of heat in the “simultaneous double heat exchange.”
It’s the point I have been making over and over that you refuse to deal with.
Heat is exchanged between warmer and colder bodies, in Clausius own words, but the NET flow of heat is hot to cold. My position is with Clausius.
Correction. He explicitly quoted Clausius using language that is no longer used today.
The double exchange of radiant energy is what is stated today to describe the net exchange of energy from hot to cold, which is defined today as HEAT.
As ever DREMT is focussing on words rather than what is actually happening, and exploiting the change in how the word heat has been defined in 1850 vs today.
‘Im with Clausius’
Regardless of the change in usage of the word heat, Clausius was correct about the 2LOT being violated when the NET energy exchange is from cold to hot.
So again anyone claiming #2 is a 2LOT violation needs to prove that there is a net exchange of energy (heat in todays lingo).
If they cannot theyre done and should stop trolling.
Come to think of it, I think barry is just focusing on words rather than what is actually happening, and exploiting the change in how the word heat has been defined in 1850 vs. today. He can’t really get around the challenge I have set for him, however. If he picks 2), as some of his previous comments would suggest he should, then he agrees there is no Green Plate Effect. If he picks 1), as some of his other self-contradictory comments suggest he should, then he has to support it with a reference that states the presence of a heat source bypasses the “of its own accord” clause. Which he can’t do, because no such reference exists. So I guess either way, I’ve won this argument.
Nope. Unless you have proven a net flow of energy from cold to hot, which all agree is what must happen to have a 2LOT violation, then YOU have not demonstrated a 2LOT violation in #2.
You didnt. So you lose.
No surprise that you cannot prove this very tired sky dragon myth.
Either way, I’ve won this argument.
“You keep flip-flopping on whether you think the presence of a heat source means that the “of its own accord” no longer applies.”
Nope, you keep using language that I refuse to adopt. You’re playing a semantic game.
You want me to say that the cooler object is warming the warmer one. Then you can claim bingo. All you’re doing is trying to force that to happen and getting frustrated that I won’t play.
I’ve confined myself to Clausius’ view of the NET exchange of heat. I’m content to use his language in saying that both cold and hot objects receive each other’s radiation in a “simultaneous double heat exchange.”
And you daren’t contradict Clausius, so you won’t deal with his clarification that the 2nd Law is about NET heat flow. You’ve serially ignored this point over a more than a dozen comments.
You daren’t contradict Clausius, so you refuse to admit what we well know – you believe warmer bodies can’t absorb the radiation of colder ones.
Look at the contortion of your effort to make me buy in to your semantics.
…the presence of a heat source makes no difference to the “of its own accord”
I agree that heat can’t flow from cold to hot. I agree that this doesn’t change with the presence of an external heat source. The NET flow remains hot to cold.
But you want me to ignore the NET exchange. You’re pushing and pressing language on me that I simply reject, while I use Clauisus’.
“…in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it…”
I know you can’t let go of the semantic game, but how about also actually acknowledging what’s being said by Clauius here. You’ve ignored it for our entire conversation.
You’re going to ignore Clauisus’ point again, aren’t you?
barry, I won the argument at 11:07 AM. There is nothing more that needs to be said. You are an expert wriggler, but even you could not get yourself out of that one.
Nate,
Yes, Clausius use of the term ‘heat’ when speaking of the mutual double exchange is different to how the term is used in classical thermodynamics these days (where formal usage nowadays axiomatically refers to the NET transfer from one body/system to another). He is of course referring to thermal radiation, and throughout his works he mentions that this is exchanged by bodies at different temperatures. There are more than just the two quotes I’ve referenced in this discussion. Eg,
“In order for one body to impart heat to another by conduction or radiation (in the case of radiation, wherein mutual communication of heat takes place, it is to be understood that we speak here of a body which gives out more heat than it receives), the body which parts with heat must be warmer that the body which takes up heat; and hence the passage of heat between two bodies of different temperature can take place in one direction only, and not in the contrary direction.”
http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Clausius.html#anchor_156
6th Memoir, point 4.
(Here again Clausius clarifies that the direction of the passage of heat from one body to another is the comprised of their NET exchange)
While I’m quoting Clausius in discussion with DREMT, I’ll use his language.
You lost the argument, barry, so there will be no further discussion unless you acknowledge that.
“I won the argument”
Of course you did, snookums. You didn’t respond to any of the points raised but you told that old barry that he was wriggly and that’s all it takes for our little champion to get the wreath.
Sleep well and dream of your victory, dear.
Just a reminder, for barry, of that moment he lost the discussion:
"1) The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, without the presence of a heat source.
2) The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, even if there is a heat source present.
Now, barry, which statement, 1) or 2), are you going to back? If you agree with 2), you agree there is no Green Plate Effect. If you agree with 1), you are going to need to back it up with the reference I have been asking you for throughout."
Let’s take a little dive into the semantics at play here.
Quoting:
1) The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, without the presence of a heat source.
2) The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, even if there is a heat source present.
You want to ignore the NET heat exchange that Clausius argues determines the integrity of the 2LoT. You are trying to shut Clauius up and pretend that the flow of heat only refers to thermal exchange in one direction.
So let me fix that for you, deferring to Clauisus’ conception of the 2nd Law as quoted many times above.
1) The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object was greater than the radiation received by the cooler object from the warmer object, without the presence of a heat source.
True!
2) The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object was greater than the radiation received by the cooler object from the warmer object, even if there is a heat source present.
True!
As soon as we invoke 2nd Law, we need to talk about the NET transfer of heat. That’s how Clauisus perceives it.
What we don’t have to do is to defer to the 2nd Law in the way DREMT perceives it, which ignores half the equation.
barry is now trying to pretend he did not already agree with the following statement:
“The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord.”
…as if he cannot see the similarity between that and my 1) and 2). As if he is not fully aware of the point I’m making.
This is how these discussions go:
A) The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord.
B) But it isn’t of its own accord. There is a heat source.
A) That’s not what the “of its own accord” is about. That clause relates to whether work is being done or not, not the presence of a heat source.
B) No, it’s about the presence of a heat source.
A) Prove it. Provide a reference that supports you.
B) Errrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmm…no, you are not getting it. It’s all about the net flow of heat…
“It’s all about the net flow of heat”
Correct.
“…in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it…”
R Clauius, 4th Memoir
http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Clausius.html#anchor_152
In the GPE, does the BP receive more heat from the GP than it imparts to it?
DREMT says:
We’re only going to look at what happens from GP to BP.
barry skips past the point and returns to his confusion about the difference between heat and energy…
I agree with you Barry that DREMT, as always, is playing a silly semantic game. That means he is not focused at all on the facts of the matter. Rather, he is trying, as ever, to humiliate people with word games.
He never will actually gives direct answers to your questions because that would be honest debate and would expose his flawed logic.
And the way this game is played, no matter what happens in the argument, he will declare himself the winner at the end. What a loser!
He has not demonstrated anywhere that there is a 2LOT violation. Can he point out to all to the place in the debate where he did that? No, he just declares the ‘truth’ of it.
Readers can see that is he actually a loser, again. And his behavior at the end is that of someone with a narcissistic disorder.
For neutral readers lets be very clear what the argument was about, so they can judge who is making sense and who is not.
Very basic heat transfer principles are at work here.
We have a heat source (hot object 1) supplying a constant flow of heat Q12 to a warm object (2) who is in turn supplying heat, Q23 to a cold object (3).
T1 > T2 > T3 for 2LOT to be satisfied.
In steady state with constant T2 the heat flow into and out of object 2, must be equal, Q12 = Q23, by 1LOT.
In all forms of heat transfer, Newton showed that the heat flow rate Q is proportional to the difference in temperature.
If we increase the temperature of the cold object, T3, then T2-T3 is reduced and the heat flow Q23 is reduced.
Now object 2 has a net input of heat because Q12 > Q23. It must warm!
T2 rises, because the heat flow into it from the heat source is steady, but the heat flow out from it dropped.
Its added heat obviously came from the heat source (1).
At no time was there a net transfer of heat from the cold object (3) to the warm object (1).
No 2LOTs were violated.
And just to be clear, these basic principles apply no matter whether the heat transfer is by conduction, radiation, or convection.
Aarggh.
Correction:
At no time was there a net transfer of heat from the cold object (3) to the warm object (2).
Let’s be clear: there is no such thing as a net flow of heat. Heat does not go both ways between a warmer and cooler body. Energy does, but not heat. barry has been consistently and repeatedly playing a silly semantic game, where he abuses the fact that Clausius referred to heat in a different way than the word is used today. I’m confident that readers can see through that.
barry agreed that the Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord. They want you to think that because there is a heat source present, it is no longer happening “of its own accord”. As I have explained, the “of its own accord” clause relates to whether work is being done or not. It does not relate to the presence or absence of a heat source. So, that, as they say, is that.
That IS that in that DREMT loses the debate yet again.
DREMT carefully avoids showing a proper, replicable experiment or observation supporting comment assertions. Experimental results on the atm. reported right on this blog show a cooler object can make a warmer object warmer still.
Pity DREMT isn’t educated in thermodynamics & doesn’t understand how the measured earthen GHE works on a climate blog.
Ball4 shows up, as expected.
… with proper, replicable experimental evidence showing that DREMT is wrong about climate related thermodynamics.
grammie pups long ago admitted that he didn’t do math. He refuses to recognize the long settled physics of radiation “heat” transfer. He still can’t explain the results from my Green Plate demo or from my Ice Plate demo.
As he has often noted, he’s just having fun trolling along, poking people in the intellect with his lunatic delusions.
Remember the old internet saying: “Don’t feed the trolls”.
Good advice: I will not feed Ball4 and Swanson.
Part of the silly game is that DREMT keeps repeating the same false, unproven assertions over over, word for word, as if that would change the outcome or convince anyone who wasnt convinced before.
Insanity?
Again, he ignores the most basic heat transfer principles, which have been long established by making countless observations of what nature does.
Nature doesnt care one whit how many times DREMT declares things that nature simply does not do. Nature dosent care if DREMT declares victory.
It will not make an iota of difference to what nature does do.
Oh DREMT.
Let’s be clear: there is no such thing as a net flow of heat. Heat does not go both ways between a warmer and cooler body. Energy does, but not heat. barry has been consistently and repeatedly playing a silly semantic game, where he abuses the fact that Clausius referred to heat in a different way than the word is used today. I’m confident that readers can see through that.
I made the point yesterday that Clausius uses the term ‘heat differently to how it is used today in classic thermo:
“Clausius use of the term ‘heat’ when speaking of the mutual double exchange is different to how the term is used in classical thermodynamics these days (where formal usage nowadays axiomatically refers to the NET transfer from one body/system to another). He is of course referring to thermal radiation, and throughout his works he mentions that this is exchanged by bodies at different temperatures.”
I wasn’t abusing his terminology, I was remaining faithful to it.
Readers paying attention would have noticed in my <a href=https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1274467post that began this long thread:
“Cooler objects absorb radiation from warmer objects. Warmer objects absorb radiation from cooler objects. Heat always flows from hot to cold. Radiation is a two-way transaction, with the NET result in line with the 2nd Law cooler objects never impart more radiation to warmer objects more than they receive from them.”
As I later quoted Clauius I deferred to his language, so that no one could accuse me of paraphrasing the great man.
Apparently you didn’t make the jump, DREMT.
In Clausius own words, heat is exchanged two ways, via radiation, and what determines the integrity of the 2LoT is the NET exchange.
In modern usage, the 2-way flow is thermal radiation, and the net exchange is called simply ‘heat.’ In formal physics today you wouldn’t speak of a 2-way exchange of ‘heat’.
Attentive readers wouldn’t have needed reminding of this, DREMT.
Once we expose your semantic quibbles, you really don’t have anything left.
At all times in the GPE, the flow of heat is hot to cold. it is never cold to hot – unless you pull a DREMT and decide to ignore the thermal radiation going from the BP to the GP.
Clauisus makes abundantly clear the NET exchange of radiation must be accounted to determine the direction of heat flow.
DREMT says:
We’re not going to look at the net exchange.
Also DREMT:
Your words are wrong!
We’re done here, DREMT.
Yes, we’re done here barry. I think readers can see through your sophistry. As I said, you agreed that the Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord. You want people to think that because there is a heat source present, the GP would not hypothetically be warming the BP “of its own accord”. You want people to think that the presence of a heat source is what makes the difference, and enables the GP to warm the BP.
As I have explained, the “of its own accord” clause relates to whether work is being done or not. It does not relate to the presence or absence of a heat source. So, that, as they say, is that. The addition of the GP can not warm the BP, whether or not the radiation from the GP is absorbed by the BP. It really is that simple.
” You want people to think that because there is a heat source present, the GP would not hypothetically be warming the BP ‘of its own accord’. You want people to think that the presence of a heat source is what makes the difference, and enables the GP to warm the BP.”
Whereas DREMT wants people to be misled into thinking that the heat source makes no difference at all. He wants people to think that it supplies no heat!
Which is ludicrous.
Of course it supplies heat! And that makes ALL the difference.
This obliterates his claim that the heat must be supplied by the cold object to the warm object.
#2
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1277613
At least he’s consistent.
Readers are quite aware that DREMT adopts this dismiss the messenger approach, whenever he has no answers.
He clearly has no answers here.
See what I mean?
Nope, nobody appears to care.
#2
See what I mean?
Had Mariupol been a Russian city, it would not have been buried along with tens of thousands of civilians of the “brotherly people” of Ukraine.
ren…Mariupol was being defended by the neo-Nazi Azov battalion. They are descendants and followers of Stepan Bandera, who committed atrocities against Poles, Jews, and Russians in WW II.
You should inform yourself as to what these SOBs did to your fellow Polish countrymen in WW II and before.
Azov is now surrounded by the Russians in the Mariupol steel factory. Sorry, I have no sympathy for them. Azov has committed atrocities against its own people in the Ukraine.
Ukraine, Gordo.
Not the Ukraine.
Ukraine.
Gordon, WWII was ~ 80 years ago. The people involved are all dead.
It is simplistic to attribute what people are doing today to the people alive in WWII and the groups they represented.
Much has changed in between. Communism is done in Russia and Eastern Europe. The current leaders of Russia and some Eastern European countries are more like far-right-wing white-nationalists. They are autocrats and supported by oligarks. They are more like the Fascists of the 1930s and 40s.
In fact, many of todays extreme-right-wing nationalists, white supremacists, anti-immigrants, anti-Leftists, anti-liberalists, the people that used to be called neo-Nazis, are in fact allied with Putin, because they think Putin is preserving the White race, is anti-liberalism, and upholding traditional values.
Whereas anti-Fascists, AntiFa are Leftists and oppose the extreme-right-wing white nationalists, anti-immigrant, white supremacists.
Which one are you?
More light reading, this time relating to extreme weather.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58073295
Here’s another side of the problem:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/05/india-and-pakistans-brutal-heat-wave-poised-to-resurge/
Where’s the mention that temperatures have actually been falling for the last 7 years? Does extreme weather remember that far back?
RLH, when will you quit cherry picking data? Starting 7 years ago began the trend line with the 2016 El Nino, which has not been repeated lately, thus the resulting calculation appears as a cooling.
The decrease in galactic radiation since early 2022 indicates a slow increase in the strength of the solar wind magnetic field in 25th solar cykle.
https://i.ibb.co/VJnqnRC/onlinequery.gif
Arctic air flows into western North America now.
https://i.ibb.co/0KGbCZw/gfs-toz-NA-f048.png
starting in 1998 to 2006 would good time to travel to Mars.
And 2010 to 2016 would been ok.
In few weeks might begin to be ok to go Mars for period of few years.
Could be unlikely to have low radiation levels for several decades.
Or NASA should design for 3 months or less travel time to Mars, due to radiation levels and reducing microgravity effects on Crew.
Also for Mars should consider artificial gravity station and fuel depot at Venus distance. For emergency way to leave Mars, and to increase launch window to Mars [go from 2.1 years to 1 a year on average] and reduce microgravity and radiation effect of getting to Mars and back. Venus has much shorter Hohmann travel distance to Mars than compared Earth to Mars.
Three objects, A, B and C.
A is warmest, C is coolest.
A emits a photon a towards B.
C emits a photon c towards B.
Both photons have identical wavelength/enery.
How would object B know that it must reflect photon c but may absorb photon a?
EM,
Run an experiment. Record the results.
Only joking – you don’t know what you are talking about, do you?
I’ll help you out. Buy a chunk of amorphous selenium. Now figure out why some photons pass through, some are absorbed, some are reflected. Does the energy of the photon make a difference? Is the energy of a photon related to the nominal temperature of the emitter?
Is any of the above relevant to the fact that you can’t you can’t concentrate the infrared light from ice to raise the temperature of even the smallest amount of water?
None of the fools who promote the GHE have the faintest idea what they are talking about.
Ent, photon absorb.tion is based on wavelength compatibility with the surface.
You don’t understand any of this.
I certainly don’t understand your hypothesis.
It requires objects receiving photons to know the temperature of the object which emitted the photons.
So how does this happen?
Exactly Ent, you don’t understand any of this.
Photon absorp.tion is determined by wavelength compatibility. If the photon’s wavelength is too long (too “cold”), it will be reflected. If it is too short (too “hot”), it will be transmitted. If the wavelength is compatible, the photon will be absorbed.
You still won’t be able to understand. You reject reality.
> If it is too short (too hot), it will be transmitted.
A new level of absurdity: Sky Dragon Cranks do not cast shadows when standing in sunlight!
Yes that is a new level of absurdity for you, Brandon. Thanks.
Wavelengths that get reflected from visible solids are why the solids are visible.
Brandon,
You wrote –
“A new level of absurdity: Sky Dragon Cranks do not cast shadows when standing in sunlight!”
Really? Why is that?
Only joking. You don’t seem to accept that to a physicist, light covers all wavelengths between zero and infinity.
You may have noticed that some materials are transparent in varying degrees to light of varying frequencies. For example, the human body may reflect much visible light, but be transparent to very short waves of X-rays, in various degrees.
Does your body cast a shadow when standing in the almost infinite light of radio frequencies from ELF to SHF, or does your body cast no shadow at all?
What sort of shadow does optically clear glass cast in sunlight?
Does amorphous selenium cast a shadow when subjected to IR light?
You don’t really have a clue, do you? You are as deranged as Wee Willy, who also talks about Sky Dragon Cranks, in an attempt to appear clever.
“Photon absorp.tion is determined by wavelength compatibility. If the photons wavelength is too long (too ‘cold’), it will be reflected. If it is too short (too ‘hot’), it will be transmitted. If the wavelength is compatible, the photon will be absorbed.”
Really? A Goldilocks photon fairy tale?
Not sure how ‘too short’ too ‘hot’ photons will be transmitted through a cast-iron plate.
Clearly trolls don’t need to adhere to reality or even make sense!
Troll Nate, a cast iron plate would not be a good example of “wavelength compatibility” to visible wavelengths.
You don’t understand ANY of this.
“You dont understand ANY of this.”
That’s because it’s bullshit.
Take a cast iron skillet and go outside in the Sun.
You will find the skillet absorbs almost all the radiation from the sun, reflects almost none of it, it’s black, not reflective, and transmits none of it, you can’t see through it, and if you had UV detectors, or IR detectors they would also show no transmitting.
You are making shit up.
That’s not Science.
BUSTED
“a cast iron plate would not be a good example”
Yep, your nonsense wont work in the real world.
Dimwitted bobdroege points out that opaque objects are not transparent.
He doesn’t want to acknowledge that transparent objects are, well, transparent – not opaque.
Nothing to do with the non-existent GHE, or the supposed magical powers of CO2, because the GHE doesn’t exist, and CO2 Has no magical powers.
Now dimwits like bobdroege are prone to plaintively ask “But where do the photons emitted by ice go, if water doesn’t absorb them?”.
A fair question, and anybody with access to the internet can find a wide variety of speculation – almost all of it wrong. Most of the information on the internet to do with the interaction between photons and matter in general is simply nonsense.
So pick your preferred nonsensical explanation, and stick to it fiercely.
Start with something simple like “What happens to the photons when you turn off the light?”
Then, just for fun, try “What happens to photons emitted by ice?”
Surprise! Surprise! Not a lot of support for the insane speculation that ice can be used to heat water.
And yet, the march of the morons continues. Long may they shamble mindlessly along.
“Dimwitted bobdroege points out that opaque objects are not transparent.”
Actually he simply pointed out that opaque objects falsify the dimwitted notions of Clint:
“If the photons wavelength is too long (too cold), it will be reflected. If it is too short (too hot), it will be transmitted.”
How long have you been asking this stupid question in here
https://www.google.com/search?q=are+all+photons+the+same
Eben
I know that except for wavelength/energy and polarisation all photons are identical.
You know that except for wavelength/energy and polarisation all photons are identical.
Gordon Robertson and Clint R disagree and their hypothesis requires that photons have an additional property. This gives information about the temperature of their source and prevents absor*btion if the destination is at a higher temperature than the origin.
I’ll keep asking them about it until they produce a sensible answer.
Ent, the fact that you have to misrepresent me indicates you have NOTHING. You’re just a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
How would you devise an experiment to back up your thinking?
I don’t believe you can, but feel free to try. You probably don’t think matters such as the uncertainty principle and quantum superposition are relevant, and you don’t have to believe me when I try to assure you they are.
You are not the first to assert something must be so, because you think it should be.
Try to define the GHE in such a way that it takes into account terrestrial cooling each night, in winter, failure to warm polar regions which receive 6 months of continuous sunlight, and the obvious cooling of the surface over the past four and a half billion years or so. You can’t even do that, can you?
Maybe that’s why you divert into sciency sounding nonsense about quantum electrodynamics – a field that you demonstrably know nothing about. Cutting and pasting some of the rubbish on Wikipedia won’t help, either.
entropic…”Gordon Robertson and Clint R disagree and their hypothesis requires that photons have an additional property. This gives information about the temperature of their source and prevents absor*btion if the destination is at a higher temperature than the origin”.
***
Basic quantum theory. E = hf. In cooler bodies, the orbital energy levels (E) and the electron angular frequency representing the electrons in the cooler atoms will be lower than in hotter bodies (less kinetic energy, which is heat).
If an electron in a cooler body has a lower E value, it’s frequency will be lower as well since the frequency of the electron is related to its orbital energy level. If that lower energy and frequency is presented to an electron in a hotter body, where E and f are at higher levels, the cooler EM will be ignored.
Nothing to do with the EM knowing about the temperature of the source, that is indicated in the EM by its E value and its frequency. In other words, the EM carries the information related to the temperature of the emitting body.
Eman,
Based on your theory, you should be able to construct a perpetual motion machine.
“How long have you been asking this stupid question in here”:
–All photons (if they carry the same energy within them) are identical to all other photons of that energy. Protons are identical to other protons, and neutrons are identical to other neutrons. All of these particles are distinguished from each other by their mass, electric charge, and a property called their spin. —
–Are all photons the same? – Quora
https://www.quora.com Are-all-photons-the-same
Jun 16, 2016 Most photons are not identical. That’s because a photon generally has a character determined by the source. If the sources are different, then it is likely that …–
—
If all photons have the same speed (the speed of light) and the …
https://astronomy.com magazine ask-astro 2013/05
May 28, 2013 According to this equation, photons don’t have energy at all because their masses are zero, but this equation doesn’t really apply to light. The …–
It generally assumed photon have same mass and/or we wonder if they have a mass.
I roughly assume that light is still a mystery- as is gravity, and Magnetism. And roughly, everything probably unknowable. Which just makes it rather interesting.
But pretty sure we living in what is called an ice house climate, or I am going it, the great ice age, which might become ever greater.
And I know 15 C is cold.
entropic…”Three objects, A, B and C.
A is warmest, C is coolest.
A emits a photon a towards B.
C emits a photon c towards B.
Both photons have identical wavelength/enery.
How would object B know that it must reflect photon c but may absorb photon a?”
***
EM knows nothing about heat. When EM is emitted from an atom, its intensity, E, and its frequency, f, is derived from the emitting electron. The electron knows about heat since it has a kinetic energy related to heat and it passes that info onto the EM quantum.
You need to understand that EM is produced by the electric and magnetic fields of an electron in an atom. The properties of that electric and magnetic field of the electron, which lives at an orbital energy level directly related to temperature, is simply passed on. Therefore the EM from a colder body has the signature of a colder body wrt electrons in a hotter body.
If an electron drops from orbital energy level E2 to level E1, the emitted EM has an intensity, E, equal to the difference in quantum levels. It also has the frequency of the electron at level E2.
Since those levels and frequencies define the heat/temperature of the emitting body, it is carried with the EM as intensity and frequency.
If that EM encounters an electron in a hotter body, the electron’s E level will be higher and its frequency will be higher. Therefore, the EM will not provide the required energy intensity and frequency to excite the electron in the hotter body.
Clint expressed it as wavelength which is closely related to frequency. I prefer frequency because I worked with it more in the electronics field and I can visualize it better.
“If an electron drops from orbital energy level E2 to level E1, the emitted EM has an intensity, E, equal to the difference in quantum levels. It also has the frequency of the electron at level E2.”
No. The emitted photon has an ENERGY (not “intensity”) equal to the difference in quantum ENERGY levels (E2-E1). The photon has the frequency related to this energy difference. f = (E2-E1)/h.
Your supposition “has the frequency of the electron at level E2” is obviously false if you know anything about hydrogen atoms. An electron in the E=4 energy level can drop to
* E3 and emit 1875 nm
* E2 and emit 486 nm
* E1 and emit 97 nm.
The CHANGE in energy determines energy and wavelength and frequency of the emitted photons. NOT the ‘frequency’ of the higher energy level.
tim…” The emitted photon has an ENERGY (not intensity) equal to the difference in quantum ENERGY levels (E2-E1). The photon has the frequency related to this energy difference. f = (E2-E1)/h”.
***
‘h’ is a constant. How do you derive a frequency by dividing a voltage (in eV) by a constant?
‘h’ is a proportionality constant that relates the energy level to the frequency as in E = hf. That’s akin to claiming KE increases with E, which means the electron’s velocity increases, making it orbit faster and increasing the angular frequency.
The equation states that E is proportional to f and to make them equal, you need h as a multiplier of f. So, where does f come from?
At each energy level, prograssing outward from the nucleus, the electron has a higher kinetic energy, hence a different velocity. KE = 1/2mv^2. The higher velocities translate to highert angular frequencies per orbit. If an electron has frequency f2 at E2 at higher level, and it drops a level to E1, it has to give up KE therefore the velocity will be lower and the angular frequency will be lower.
You stated it using wavelengths, but it’s ultimately the same thing.
However, the electron has lost KE to the quantum of energy emitted and the lost energy has the frequency of the higher energy level since the jump is quantum. That is, there is no time element. It’s literally in the higher orbit then it’s in the lower orbit, having given up E2 – E1 energy in eV.
I liken this to an antenna transmitting EM. The EM is generated when an electron moves up and down the antenna at a very high frequency. The emitted EM has the same frequency as the electron frequency and I think the emitted EM from an electron has the same frequency of the electron at the E2 level.
I would seriously like to know what impels the electron to change energy levels upward when it absorbs EM. Then again, if I knew, I’d have a Nobel. In fact, if I knew how an electron behaved in an atom I’d have a Nobel.
Gordon,
“h is a constant. How do you derive a frequency by dividing a voltage (in eV) by a constant?”
An electron volt is a unit of energy, not voltage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt
No wonder that you are so confused.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“However, the electron has lost KE to the quantum of energy emitted and the lost energy has the frequency of the higher energy level since the jump is quantum. “
Again, no.
The quantum of energy emitted (ie the photon) has the frequency of the DIFFERENCE in energies of the two levels.
A photon emitted from hydrogen in the n=4 level can have 3 different energies, ie 3 different frequencies, ie 3 different wavelengths. One is IR; one is visible; one is UV.
Experimentally and theoretically, this has been known for decades — well before either of us were born.
Folkerts, were you ever able to find a valid technical reference for your “ice cubes warming to 325K” nonsense?
Maybe there isn’t one?
IR is not about the change in energy levels of electrons.
spa,
Try convincing the average physics professor of that basic fact. Or some of the Wikipedia editors.
Tim Folkerts can’t even accept that rapidly compressing a mixture of atmospheric gases from 25 C to 500 C creates photons whose properties don’t depend on the proportions or chemical properties of the gases involved, and possess far higher energies than those emitted by those same gases at 25 C.
Gorgeous gobbledygook.
“Tim Folkerts cant even accept that rapidly compressing a mixture of atmospheric gases from 25 C to 500 C creates photons whose properties dont depend on the proportions or chemical properties of the gases involved, and possess far higher energies than those emitted by those same gases at 25 C.”
What? Do you think all gases behave identically, like an ideal black body?
Different gases absolutely DO create photons whose properties depend on the gases involved. For example, if you looked at the spectrum of gases at 500 C, you would see emissions of photons near the follow wavelengths (micrometers)
Strong Emission:
* CO2: 2.7, 4.3, 15
* H2O: 1.4, 1.9, 2.8, 6
* CH4: 2.4, 3.4, 8
Very Weak Emission:
* N2: 2.2, 4.4
* O2: 6.5
****************************************
I *do* agree that all of these intensities are higher at 500 C than 25 C for any given gas.
So …
The first half is wrong, but you think it you are right.
The second half is correct, but you think I am wrong.
Willard, Tim, please stop trolling.
What effect do constant circulation systems have on temperature, especially from fall to spring?
https://i.ibb.co/5Fq2SwX/Screenshot-1.png
This to commemorate the rare occasion of deniers admitting that the “abnormally hot” signal of global warming is so strong now that it has risen above the noise of “real natural variability,” and become easily detectable.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1274248
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1273474
Is La Nina global warming?
It could/should be, warming entire ocean, more.
Also, a colder tropical ocean surface, caused by upwelling , should have less energy being dumped into space and should have less clouds in tropics.
RLH says: Is La Nina global warming?
ohcQuarterlyAnomaly.png
Mark B., have you ever done the calculations to show how trivial that nonsense is.
And, trivial nonsense is just NONSENSE.
And your sampling rate for the whole ocean for each one of those bars is how many measurements per cubic mile? Given that it is 139 million square miles in surface and an average of 2.3 miles deep = ~320 million cubic miles.
Got any error bars for that measurement?
Mark B,
Given that oceans, like ice caps, are heated from the bottom, what do you think causes increased heat to travel through the crust under the oceans?
Is this compensated for by less heat dissipation through the land?
Unless you have some reasonable speculation or guess, your graph is just colourful nonsense.
Mike,
Given that none of what you said addresses anything MarkB said, why have you responded to him, silly sock puppet?
Swoon,
Weird Wee Willy,
Graph. Nonsense.
Moron.
<3
Willard, please stop trolling.
It is too cold to grow bananas in Canada. If it weren’t for the lack of warming, Canada’d be the proverbial banana republic.
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/canada-is-not-a-banana-republic/
Oh, we have a lot of bananas here in Canada. They are generally bipodal and walk upright.
And, no Willard. I am not one of them. Even Ken’s not a banana. Our leaders tend to be bananas.
Come on, Gordo.
You are still a bit like Milton Friedman –
You can spell banana but you do not know when to stop.
Come on Willard,
You are still a bit like a drooling retard.
Or maybe a lot like a drooling retard.
Maybe you are a drooling retard.
Carry on drooling, retard.
You’re a sock puppet, Mike.
If you say so, Wee Willy Wanker, if you say so.
You say all sorts of weird stuff.
I more than said so, Mike.
I showed evidence you were a sock puppet.
Willard, please stop trolling.
maguff…”This to commemorate the rare occasion of deniers admitting that the abnormally hot signal of global warming is so strong now that it has risen above the noise of real natural variability, and become easily detectable”.
***
What’s this ‘abnormally hot’ signal. Turn your thermostat down (in colder weather) so the environment is 15C. Now turn it up till it reads 16C, allowing time for the warming to stabilize and see if you notice the difference.
Ask yourself, is this enough to cause any kind of climate change, given that the 1C is just an average where virtually no warming has occurred in the tropics?
And what is this ‘noise’?
Then ask yourself, what is causing this need to spread propaganda in light of scientific proof showing you are wrong.
GR… you obviously haven’t looked at the graph at the top of this page. The global average temperature time series consists of a [clear] warming signal as well as seasonal, cyclical, and residual variability.
Most of us come to this page for the data. What’s your goal in coming here?
Tyson, please stop trolling.
6. Ios (Jupiters satellite) Mean Surface Temperature Calculation
Tmean.io
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Ios albedo: aio = 0,63
Io is a rocky planet without atmosphere heavy cratered, Ios surface irradiation accepting factor Φio = 1
Most of Io’s surface is composed of sulfur and sulfur dioxide frost.
Cp.sulfur = 0,17 cal/gr.oC, Cp.sulfur.dioxide = 0,12 cal/gr.oC
cp.io = 0,17 cal/gr.oC *0,5 + 0,12 cal/gr.oC *0,5 =
cp.io = 0,145 cal/gr.oC
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal it is the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
1/R = 1/5,2044^2 = 0,0369 times lesser is the solar irradiation on Jupiter than that on Earth, the same on its satellite Io.
Ios orbital period is 1,799 days. Ios sidereal rotation period is synchronous.
N = 1/1,799 rotations/per day
IO’S MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION Tmean.io is:
Tmean.io = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R^2) (β*N*cp)^1/4 /4σ ]^1/4
Τmean.io = { 1*(1-0,63)1.361 W/m^2 *0.0369*[150*(1/1,799)*0,145]∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K⁴ }∕ ⁴ = 111,55 K
Tmean.io = 111,55 K is the calculated
And the satellite measured is almost identical
Tsat.mean.io = 110 K (- 163 oC)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Is the FAA delaying the NASA lunar exploration program, a “good thing”?
One might say the less NASA explores the Moon in short term, results in more exploration of the Moon being done.
I think NASA is exploring the Moon in the wrong way.
I would have focused on putting more robotic mission on the lunar surface first. And FAA is delaying the manned part of the lunar program.
My “old way” of doing it, would have been to for NASA to work on getting operational fuel depot in LEO, and using depot to refuel robotic missions in LEO.
Musk has different way of refueling in LEO- though I can’t say I really get the details of how this is going to be done.
What is “happenning” recently is having private space station in LEO- and it could be more talk than doing anything, but who knows.
Related to that, is idea of Musk doing cheap artificial gravity station. That idea was really about making space station as much as testing out how one operates artificial gravity station.
Or simply having say two Dragon capsules attached with rope and having the two spin, could a more obvious way doing this.
And why we haven’t done that already is a bit of mystery to me. But I was thinking doing something more than that, being perhaps, cheaper. And it was it making space station. Or space station is not designed to re-enter the atmosphere. For capsule to re-enter, it needs heat shield and structural strength to re-enter, which require less volume of living area.
So, thinking this space station could do a lot things, but using to safely re-enter an atmosphere wasn’t what it could do, and it might used for short period of time- so one call it a disposal space station. But could also could have the option of after some use in LEO, it put into higher orbit, which would involve re-fueling it.
It primary purpose was getting practice with operating an artificial station, in way similar to practicing riding a bicycle.
But it’s not capsule is sense getting crew into orbit, nor getting crew back to Earth surface. And highest cost of “station program” is getting crew to it, and then returning crew earth [the number crew trips to it- which might be one crew trips or more dozen crew trips.
Or it’s more disposal thing, if just use one crew trip to it. And it could be cheaper with just one crew trip, as compared to two dragon capsules with rope attached. But with spinning station which can operated one also has way to refuel spacecraft- fuel depot.
But a way NASA screwing it up, could be better, is we get more time to do robotic lunar exploration.
Also what is happen the faster of building spacecraft {satellites], Musk making two a day, and everyone else is getting towards having faster build times, and would be resulting much cheaper robotic spacecraft. Or while NASA fiddles, the world is making cheaper and cheaper spacecraft.
There’s a problem with spin gravity space stations.
Unless they are very large and slow spinning they cause nausea due to vestibular disturbance.
Try riding a roundabout or driving a car in a tight circle at speed, while nodding and shaking your head. You quickly feel motion sickness.
NASA testing short spin distance in terms humans being able adjust
to it, but what I am talking about is 10 meter radius and up to 1/3rd
of Earth gravity or artificial gravity of Mars. But also 1/6th of Moon one start with, and see how goes. But not 1 gee, though station could take such loads, but don’t really need for Mars crew exploration.
But if 10 meters does not work, use rope the Dragon crew spacecraft and do up to say, 50 meter radius. So one get idea of tall the stick artificial gravity station need to be. Btw, second stage Starship is 50 meters tall, with 2 got 50 meter radius
{Not using starships, but rather adding about 10 meters to 10 meter second stage falcon 9 rocket and added 10 meter has floors and the living areas- and lot water to allow some control spin and give radiation shielding}
La Nina effect
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/bad-news-canadians-la-ni-153200973.html
Getting 4 C nights
Probably should bring my dwarf lemon tree.
Probably would not kill it, but probably it doesn’t
like it
And non reliable long range forecast has cooler summers for me
[in southern California- and also not much rain so far- but the east coast could get a fair amount of Hurricanes].
Just sent an email to Environment Canada, urging them to get away from the propaganda of the IPCC and get back to science. They used to have a page explaining La Nina but I wrote to them pointing out their page confirmed the flooding from a La Nina last November and they seem to have ditched the page.
A new twist on ‘hide the decline’…’hide the truth’.
“Trump has a lefty brain.”
Interesting point, said here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ogx1XjogSkY
Obviously I said, as others, that Trump was New York Dem {because he was/is}, but that isn’t exactly the same as a lefty.
{it seems to me, it’s quite complimentary to the Left, not that members of left would think so, but Trump isn’t not a stupid Lefty. Nor evil Lefty- though being The Destructor might strongly suggest he is an evil lefty. But Trump is can be a bit annoying, and seems quite egoistical- just, a little bit:)}.
Mike Cernovich.
Srsly?
Srsly!
It was: “Streamed live on May 14, 2019”
It was not news.
But then again, news has no serious for many years.
I hope it might improve.
But if it improves, the downside is that I might watch it.
It’s the sun stupid
New Space weather course by Dr. Tamitha The Space Weather Woman
https://youtu.be/rulSvXeSGhU
She saying starlink satellites are going fall out sky when 400 km elevation.
I don’t think so.
barry…”Ab.sorp.tivity of a body depends little on its own temperature, but much on the temperature of the source object.
Ab.sorp.tion depends on the condition of the receiving surface its colour, the molecular make up of the material, the roughness of its surface”.
***
Barry…you’re thinking on too large a scale. Absorp.tion and emission happens at an atomic level, with even molecules being too large a scale. Also, you are thinking about ideal black bodies, which don’t exist.
Think of an electromagnetic quantum, made up of an electric and a magnetic field, and consider where they come from. An electron in an atom has an electric field and when it moves it generates a magnetic field.
If an electron is at an excited orbital level and drops to a lower level, it must shed energy and it does it by releasing kinetic energy in the form of a related electric and magnetic quantum of energy.
Now try reversing that. In order to excite an electron back to a higher orbital energy state, the absorbed EM must provide the required energy to the electron to increase its kinetic energy thus raising it to a higher energy level.
The energy required for excitation is at least the difference between energy levels and the frequency of the absorbed EM must resonate with the electron’s frequency at the higher energy level.
EM from a cooler body does not have the proper intensity or frequency to excite an electron at a higher level.
None of this makes sense at an intuitive level since it was theorized by Bohr to account for electron momentum that did not dissipate. It does work mathematically (Schrodinger) based on the momentum of the electron and electrostatic charges between it and the protons in the nucleus. It also explains why hydrogen absorbs and emits only at discrete frequencies.
Quantum theory explains the 2nd law but black body theory does not. Personally, I think they should scrap black body theory since it serves no real purpose.
Gordon Robertson
Enough of your garbage! Time to “man” up. You have this claim to have studied higher level engineering and science plus math. Now it is you time to shine.
You keep making the false claim mid-level IR is caused by an electron transition.
Visible red light needs energy of 1770 millielectronvolt to get an electron to transit. 15 micron IR requires just 82 millielectronvolts. What electron transition can you calculate that produces that little of energy.
I am waiting for your reply but you won’t have one because you can’t calculate this and it is a bad line of thought. You keep lying and lying. Are you trying to be a Putin and Lanka, a master liar to con the unsuspecting and gaining power over them? What is the agenda to constant lies? What does lying and making up false ideas get you?
norman…”You keep making the false claim mid-level IR is caused by an electron transition”.
***
I have asked several times in the past what else there is in an atom/molecule that could possibly absorb/emit EM, including IR, other than an electron?
You seem to think there’s a magical black box in the atom/molecule to absorb/emit EM. You are not alone, scientists who should know better are stuck with the same notion, that a molecule has some kind of magical device for absorbing/emitting EM.
It’s all about electron bonds, Norman, that’s what holds the atomic nucleii in molecules together.
Looking through the online literature it is pathetic that so many people writing on this subject don’t understand the physical reality. One article claimed that molecules are atoms connected by chemical bonds but that is an electron bond. Without electrons there can be no bonds, since the positive charges of protons in the nuclei would repel each other. Therefore chemical bonds MUST be electron bonds.
Reminds me of a guy in an electrical engineering class at our university who had learned about amplifiers via differential equations. A basic parameter in such an equation is L, for inductance. He was astounded to learn in lab class that the L was actually represented physically by wire coiled around a core, an inductor.
The problem as I see it is this. People learn quantum theory from a mathematical differential equation produced initially by Schrodinger. The orbitals representing electron bonds when the atom join into molecules become eigenvalues with no physical reality. However, Schrodinger knew that his equations were based on the mass of the electron and the electrostatic forces between the nucleus and the electron. It seems many modernists are oblivious to that reality.
I am aware of it because I studied electronics from a perspective of the physical electron. I also studied some organic chemistry, again from the perspective of bonds created by electrons (covalent bonds) or charges produced by electrons (ionic bonds).
Once again, here’s the layout for CO2…
O=====C=====O
The dashed lines represent double bonds, meaning carbon and oxygen share 2 electrons either side of the carbon nucleus. Any vibrations involves a shortening/lengthening of the bonds either symmetrically or asymmetrically. In other words, the bonds get longer and shorter. The bonds also vibrate up and down to a slight degree.
Why? What can vary to cause the bonds to change length or bond angle with the x-axis? The protons in each atom are fixed and tend to repel each other. The opposite negative charge on the electron somehow holds them together. That alone can cause vibration but it needs to be noted that only the electron can move in the bond. Obviously, the oxygen atoms at the ends of the bonds can move as well to a slight degree but they have nothing to do with bonding.
However, it is the bond length itself which must change in either case. Again, that can be explained by the tugging back and forth between a positive charged body and a negatively charged body. But how does the vibration increase or decrease with temperature, often by absorbing a quantum of EM?
Is it not obvious to you that it can happen if the electron absorbs or radiates energy? EM energy. If an electron in a bond absorbs EM it transitions and excites. That could shorten one side of the double bond and cause an oxygen atoms to move up the way. Or the electron could emit EM and cause the bond to lengthen.
With an atom, the electron orbitals surround only one nucleus. With a simple molecule, of two atoms, some of the electron orbitals are extended (shared) to orbitals that surround both atomic nucleii. The electrons are still subject to the same rules.
That’s an explanation that makes sense to me based on years studying electron theory and applying it. If you have a better explanation, let’s hear it. Otherwise, give up your alarmist ways and join us here as skeptics.
Gordon.
This is the one thing that as a chemist that I don’t understand about how the AGW theory based on a Covalent Molecule has been created.
Blackbodies which they use as an argument, in nature are found only in metallic structures where the energy levels are so close together to be thought as almost continuous.
In non metals where covalent bonding is present which is predominantly the earths surface and the atmosphere components only finite discrete energy quanta can be absorbed and emitted. The energy emitted by a CO2 molecule will undoubtedly be the wrong frequency to absorbed by most other molecules.
A simple example of this is place a non metal and a metal in sunlight.
The metal will get hotter as it is able to absorb a wider range of incoming frequencies of electromagnetic radiation.
The non metal will be cooler as it is able to absorb less.
“Blackbodies which they use as an argument, in nature are found only in metallic structures where the energy levels are so close together to be thought as almost continuous.”
You seem to have that backwards, Mark.
Metals, with their free electrons and high conductivity, tend to be highly reflective, not black bodies.
“Again, that can be explained by the tugging back and forth between a positive charged body and a negatively charged body. But how does the vibration increase or decrease with temperature, often by absorbing a quantum of EM?
Is it not obvious to you that it can happen if the electron absorbs or radiates energy? EM energy.”
Not quite. There are both positive and negative charges that are separated in a CO2 molecule. This is a dipole.
With vibration of a CO2, the positive and negative charges move toward or away from each other. The dipole increases or decreases in size.
This is analogous to what happens in a radio antenna which charges positive on one end and negative on the other. And the polarity oscillates.
Similarly to the radio antenna, molecular dipolar oscillation emits radiation.
The amplitude of oscillation is quantized, and decreases by one quantum with emission of a photon.
In N2 and O2 molecules, with two identical atoms, there is no charge separation, no dipole, and no radiation.
Soon is telling us its the sun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qyggw-x4K9I
Soon prediction of Solar cycle 25 seems interesting.
I would like see better graphic than in that video.
Soon should be aware, that we are in Ice Age.
Whether or not we in a glaciation period or when going to
enter glaciation is an open question.
I, of course say, it’s the ocean, stupid, though solar cycle
have and will effect the weather.
It seems to me, that presently, the ocean is not cooling, but
weather is not warming. And I am pretty cold, this morning.
But I rather interested in solar cycle 26.
Soon prediction of Solar cycle 25 seems interesting.
I would like see better graphic than in that video.
Soon should be aware, that we are in Ice Age.
Whether or not we in a glaciation period or when going to
enter glaciation is an open question.
I, of course say, it’s the ocean, stupid, though solar cycles
have and will effect the weather.
It seems to me, that presently, the ocean is not cooling, but
weather is not warming. And I am pretty cold, this morning.
But I am rather interested in solar cycle 26.
Professor John Mearsheimer, a US citizen…”The US will fight Russia till the last Ukrainian”.
Gordon,
If the US says it is right beyond you, it probably is.
You need to keep looking behind you, just in case the US has packed up, gone home, and abandoned you, while you weren’t looking.
You will probably get the bill later.
You don’t want Uncle Sam to put your name at the top of his list!
https://youtu.be/VShngtWv298
Brought to you courtesy of the red white and blue
“Theres a lot of men dead”
Join the US Army.
Travel abroad, meet interesting new people and kill them.
Gen. Mattis’ message to Iraqi leaders following the invasion.
Willie knows what he’s talking about.
C’mon, Gordo –
I always do.
Srsly?
Srlsy!
we’ll Soon see.
gb…at that altitude they likely have a significant atmospheric drag. Don’t see the point in launching so many sats for Internet access. I have read Musk will launch 40,000+ satellites, a ridiculous number.
At 200 km with cross section of 50 kg per square meter, in solar min, orbit decays in 1.65 days, at max 1.03 days
400 km 552 days at min and 77.4 days at max.
That is unpowered.
Starlink has ion engines, which don’t much thrust in a day, but in 10 days, a fair amount.
Musk probably should not launch them as low as 220 km, but if get to 400 km they shouldn’t any problem from Atmospheric drag {as long as ion engine can still run}
gb…main problem with ion thruster engines as I see it is the reliance on electrical power via a battery. They can use solar energy to charge the batteries but eventually the solar panels and the batteries will fail, leaving them no means of correcting the sat orbits.
This technology and its application is too new to be taking such chances with so many satellites. Same with vehicles without drivers.
Well, satellite need power to send signal {the whole reason they are there- so battery would mostly be used for sending a signal. To save the spacecraft, you might not send a signal. But I would think ion engines would used in sunlight, which a satellite gets 60% of the time [40% night]. Though lower orbit get a bit less percentage of sunlight per orbit- 400 km gives at least 60%.
40,000 satellites would put at least one satellite within 100km of any spot on Earth’s surface.
You know the technology better. Could you deliver planetwide wi-fi at that density?
It takes a while for launched satellites to be operating, something like 2000 are operating and it already provides a good service, it seems the 40,000 satellites will exceed what is available now, but we are constantly improving, so whether 40,000 are better than anything else in future, is a different matter.
Also Starlink has competition and SpaceX agreed to help the competition with there launch, which Russia stop providing- because Russia thinks war is good idea.
Also, we are probably going to have millions of satellites in LEO.
And live for another 20 years, I will probably own 1 -or maybe dozen.
I think LEO as an Earth orbit is over rated.
The purpose of it, is to have a rocket fuel depot. And 20 years we won’t actually need a rocket fuel depot in LEO, and once that is true, NASA will build one in LEO.
entropic…not too conversant with wifi re the deep technology. As it stands, it’s a fairly local phenomenon. When you try to reach an access point, the range is limited to a city block or so. In other words, what you see on the list is usually your immediate neighbours for connections.
Once you log on to an access point, which is hopefully on your own router, the signal is carried by cable or fibre to the cable or telco system (Internet). I guess it’s possible to replace that cable/fibre with a satellite link but that would require extra equipment to be rented from Elon, or whomever.
With a sat, you’d be using a satellite as the access point and I don’t know if current wifi technology has such a range. As I said, it’s only designed for a 100 metres or so.
As I understand it, Musk is aiming the sats at remote areas and I don’t know if he has plans compete with cable/fibre. I do know Russia is annoyed with him for allowing the Ukrainian army to gain Internet access via Starlink. He Tweeted recently that he may not live much longer. Hope he was joking.
I’m going to start wearing my hard hat when I’m outside. Come to think of it, I’d better keep it on indoors in case space debris comes through the roof.
https://xkcd.com/2599/
!!
Entropic…your link points to a situation before Musk put 40,000 sats in the sky, many of them following relatively closely to each other in the same orbit.
No need for that Gordon
So Brandon thinks that adding a low pass filter to a set of data increases the length of that data and adds ‘artifacts’ to it at the ends.
Even a simple running mean, the coarsest of all low pass filters with lots of added distortions, does not do that. That does assume that you place the output of the SRM at the center to keep things all aligned of course. You then reduce the data series by length/2 at each end. Cascaded triple running means, CTRMs, reduce the length by (L1+L2+L3)/2 as yo would expect.
Other simple low pass filters do exactly the same thing, reduce not increase the data series.
This can be seen quite clearly by the graphs on my site, https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/, with graphs such as
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/shen.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/soi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/pdo-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/amo.jpeg
I added S-G (LOWESS is the statistical alternative) to the mix to try and overcome this limitation and extend the projections right up to the end of the data.
> I added S-G (LOWESS is the statistical alternative) to the mix to try and overcome this limitation and extend the projections right up to the end of the data.
SG filters may not be the gold-standard of smoothing algorithms you think they are, Richard.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsmeasuresciau.1c00054
Exactly the same criticisms could be leveled at LOWESS for the same reasons. It too uses short span OLS fits to local ranges of the data.
I am on record about warning that S-G (and LOWESS) are prone to ‘whip about’ with adding of new data as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter#/media/File:Lissage_sg3_anim.gif
clearly shows.
> I am on record about warning that S-G (and LOWESS) are prone to whip about with adding of new data
Yet you still use them right up to the end of data.
See below. I use them as an estimate, not a certainty. Much better than using an OLS trend to predict the future.
…. a full OLS trend ….
“Like LOWESS, S-G will whip around on new data like a caterpillar searching for a new leaf. It is likely that it will follow some similar trajectory but this is an estimate, not a certainty.”
P.S. Publication Date:February 17, 2022. Thank you for that.
You’re quite welcome!
It can be quite difficult, when not in an education institution, to keep up with all the recent papers that are published.
I now need to decide which, if any, of the suggested alternatives I should use for filters with a corner frequency of 15 years and then further convert that to C#.
I note that Brandon does not refute the claim about shorting/lengthening data series by using low pass filters.
> I note that Brandon does not refute the claim about shorting/lengthening data series by using low pass filters.
For the record I did not make that claim, Richard, you made it for me. For moving averages of window size n periods, I generally follow the rule to stop within n/2 periods of each end of the series. This insures that each running mean contains the full n samples. Due to me incorrectly computing the SMA I erroneously overran the end of the series and thus extended the average n/2 periods past the end of the data.
I have fixed my mistake and replotted, using the same underlying data series as previously, with the same window size (n=30 years).
I have also for the first time ever developed a weighted moving average in a spreadsheet software, and made a second plot using that filter, same number of periods.
https://imgur.com/gallery/tvLbeMf
The analysis you want to do is hampered by the fact that few global proxy reconstructions extend very far into the post-1970s warming trend.
Some of your proxies go on until the 2000s. Why do not include those too?
Why is it that the proxies that you do include do not track either each other or the instrument sources over their overlap periods?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/winkler.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/shen.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/moberg-2005.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/mette.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/mann2008.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/mann-2003.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/macdonald2005.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/loehle.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/darrigo2006.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/darrigo2001.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/biondi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/ammann.jpeg
I’ll do all the others that you use when I get round to it.
> Why choose 30 years? I typically use 15 years
Because 30 years is considered by many to be the shortest climatically-relevant window. But you’re right, we should compare apples to apples, same plots as above with 15 year smoothing. I also included a plot with no smoothing for comparison.
https://imgur.com/gallery/qXaHdj4
> Some of your proxies go on until the 2000s. Why do not include those too?
If you recall, the proxies in this series of plots were chosen by you, with the exception of Moberg 2005 which I subbed for Anderson 2013 since I don’t have the latter.
> Why is it that the proxies that
you do include[I chose for my own reasons] do not track either each other or the instrument sources over their overlap periods?I’m sure you have your theories, Richard.
What were your criteria for “broad agreement” again? Did I miss that answer?
So we can rule out those proxies that do no agree well with the instrument record over the overlap period.
So when compared to
https://imgur.com/a/UgGr7Cj
that includes
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/mann-2003.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/loehle.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/ammann.jpeg
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/mann2008.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/moberg-2005.jpeg
As clearly seen by
https://imgur.com/aIMDF9Z
“What were your criteria for ‘broad agreement’ again?”
Following the rise and fall of the instrument data during their period of overlap.
None of them do. As shown in Fig9.
“Because 30 years is considered by many to be the shortest climatically-relevant window”
Which is precisely why you should use 15 years as a corner low pass frequency.
“Due to me incorrectly computing the SMA I erroneously overran the end of the series and thus extended the average n/2 periods past the end of the data.”
I did wonder if that was the case. You should be more careful and double check things, but not all proxies end before 1980.
Also, why do you think that individual proxies do not match, one with another?
P.S. Why choose 30 years? I typically use 15 years for the reason that it contains very little energy on a sweep of the data.
I note that Richard is still wriggling.
I note that Willard is an idiot.
So Willard, do you think that adding a low pass filter increases or decreases data length?
[CLOV] So Hamm thinks that adding a low pass filter to a set of data increases the length of that data and adds “artifacts” to it at the ends.
[HAMM] Here is a recent paper in which we can read “SG filtering near the boundaries of the data range is prone to artifacts”
[CLOV] Thank you for that. It can be quite difficult, when not in an education institution, to keep up with all the recent papers that are published.
[HAMM] You’re welcome!
[CLOV] I am on record about warning that S-G (and LOWESS) are prone to whip about with adding of new data. I use them as an estimate, not a certainty.
[HAMM] …
[CLOV] I note that Clov does not refute the claim about shorting/lengthening data series by using low pass filters.
So beautiful. So true.
Willard is unable to distinguish between SRMs and S-G. He is most obviously an idiot.
Willard is unable to answer if adding a low pass filter (aka an SRM in this case) increases or decreases data length?
[BLACK KNIGHT] ‘Tis but a scratch.
‘Tis but an idiot you mean (i.e. you).
[HAMM] For the record I did not make that claim, you made it for me. I corrected my mistake.
[CLOV] I did wonder if you made a mistake. But I preferred to put words in your mouth instead of asking.
Art.
Willard prefers to be an idiot because he is well practiced at being one.
Oh, Richard. You buffoon.
I’m not sure whether Witless Willard is capable of exercising a preference. He is in the grip of some sort of paranoid fantasy, in which he imagines me as an object of his homosexual desires, referring to me as Mike (and various derivatives), and seems to believe that he operates this blog.
He claims to possess copies of the mythical Greenhouse Theory, the Greenhouse Effect Theory, and others. Of course, he is lying, but his delusional state does not allow him to accept this reality.
He believes he is powerful, wise, and respected, in spite of the facts that he is powerless, idiotic, and an object of derision.
Watch him lapse into fantasies where he talks to himself through his fantasy creations. He may have been dropped on his head when he was small, or maybe he suffers from some unfortunate congenital mental defect.
What an idiot he is (or should that be moron?)!
Question: Is Willard an idiot.
Answer: Yes.
And so Richard replaces Kiddo.
Life is beautiful.
Willard is still an idiot, regardless.
One day I’ll make a list of contrarians who are reduced to insults after having faced me on the Climateball field.
Richard is in good company!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 312.7 km/sec
density: 10.87 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 89
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.48×10^10 W Neutral
Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×10^10 W Cold (02/2009)
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.9% High
48-hr change: -0.1%
Max: +11.7% Very High (12/2009)
Min: -32.1% Very Low (06/1991)
https://solen.info/solar/images/cycle24.png
Cycle 24-25 progress (May 1, 2022)
https://www.solen.info/solar/
So a +1 week “pause”??
And looks spots are going rotate out view
So continuation of pause
I did say it take 2 weeks, so +1 week it could
pick up or maybe 2 weeks, more.
Or maybe this will be a weak one
So Richard observes –
Two questions spring to mind:
Q1. What is a proxy a proxy of?
Q2. Would we need proxies if that observation was true?
As the Auditor was wont to say, so many questions, so little time.
As I said earlier, the key to linking proxies to other temperature data is calibration.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018217305072
In the end you have to relate that calibration to an instrument.
“For P. candei crenata, live organisms were collected at 15-day intervals for nearly one year (between 2011 and 2012) from the rocky-intertidal coast of SE Tenerife along with sea surface temperatures (SST) and seawater δ18O values.”
Both the later will have been measured by instruments.
Actually, Richard, you need two instruments.
But you still need instruments.
I use both Had and GISS as my instrument based data sources, does that qualify as 2?
Proxies are also obtain with instruments, dummy.
I bet you do not even realize that thermometers use proxies too!
But the proxies are calibrated against other instruments, including thermometers. Otherwise how would you know what was warm or cold?
Willard still fails to acknowledge that Bimodal means 2 modes.
[LUCKY] As I said earlier, the key to linking proxies to other temperature data is calibration.
[VLAD] In the end you have to relate that calibration to an instrument.
[ESTR] Actually, Vlad, you need two instruments.
[VLAD] You still need instruments.
[ESTR] Proxies are also obtain[ed] with instruments, Vlad.
[VLAD] But the proxies are calibrated against other instruments!
This is so wonderful.
Question: Is Willard an idiot.
Answer: Yes.
Did you know that thermometers were calibrated and that satellites were not thermometers, Richard?
Willard seeks to distract with things that are not relevant. Like Bimodal being not Unimodal.
Your strawman is not even relevant here, dummy.
Willard still seeks to distract with things that are not relevant. Calls them strawmen if he fails to do that.
You are the ones who mentioned instruments, dummy.
But now that you are once again caught pants down, you throw an irrelevant straw man.
If you don not play Climateball with honour, you are no better than Sky Dragon Cranks.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The real question is how do you verify proxies if there are no instruments to verify them against? I suppose if they match AGW would be one choice.
The real question is why you would make what you call an observation if you have not answered the question you just asked, Richard.
Assuming you really ask, which is a stretch.
Question: Is Willard an idiot.
Answer: Yes.
I think Chihuahua is starving for attention, and if it means being an idiot, OK.
FYEO, Troglodyte:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibration
Two measurements. Measurements are obtained with instruments. So two instruments.
I am making fairly basic points. That’s why Richard has only weak jabs left.
I suppose an idiot would attempt to muddy the water by presenting an irrelevant Wikipedia quote.
An idiot like Wonky Willard, who lies about having a Greenhouse Theory, or a Greenhouse Effect Theory, or some similar non-existent theory, furiously attempts to divert attention elsewhere.
Some might call him a moron, but that is being too complimentary. He needs to do a great deal of extra work to get to moron standard.
Question: Is Willard still an idiot.
Answer: Yes.
The official definition of calibration might not distract us from discussing calibration, Mike.
At the end of the day, this matters more than whatever misconception you and Richard try to peddle.
You peddle idiocies all the time.
I quoted the god damn official convention, dummy.
Willard, please stop trolling.
For oxygen isotopes ratios in ice cores you can compare calculated and measured ratios in evaporated seawater in the lab.
You can do the same for evaporation from the ocean surface and correalate them with the ratios in precipitation on the ice caps.
Assuming that the laws of physics do not change over time you can then extend the same correlation back in time before the instruments were available.
But you need to calibrate them against current temperature and oxygen isotopes ratios otherwise you do not know what is warm or cold in the past.
entropic…”For oxygen isotopes ratios in ice cores you can compare calculated and measured ratios in evaporated seawater in the lab”.
***
I think for anyone familiar with basic chemistry, the notion of extracting CO2 or O2 from ice cores and making an inference is fraught with difficulty. Some people seem to think it’s an exact science but it’s far from that.
It was found that the ice cores used by the IPCC to claim a 270 ppmv concentration for CO2 in the pre Industrial Era were so variable they read up to 2000 ppmv not far from the area where the cores were extracted. The IPCC cherry-picked a convenient value.
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re in my thread.
Go peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere.
C’mon Whining Willy!
It’s not your thread. Your opinion of your self importance may be based on you paranoid fantasy.
Go peddle your nonsense trolling elsewhere.
[chortle]
Your sociopathy does not destroy social.conventions, Mike.
Sorry.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Lindzen was right 11 years ago. He’s still right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvVephTIHU
“We still don’t have a handle on Ice Ages’
Glaciation periods or Ice Ages?
I am going to assume he saying Glaciation periods.
I assume or have assumed that our ocean needs to cool by some amount- or say cool to 3 C.
So, ocean have go from about 3.5 average to about 3 C.
Though not sure how close our ocean is to average of 3.5 C which is said to be the average temperature of ocean.
But if our average temperature of ocean our is close to 3.5 C, it’s possible it doesn’t need to by .5 C to have a glaciation period, and as said we could already left the Holocene interglacial period.
And the only feature of interglacial period I am aware is peak temperatures which were over 5000 years ago. And then only thing that counts as glaciation period is having ice sheet on North America [and or other continent] Though we don’t have them on South America or Africa continent, leaving Europe, and Asia, but it seems to me mostly North America continent. And that starts withi Canada. And Canada at the moment is cold enough- it just need enough snowfall.
A wonder how warm Canada was during the thermal optimum- could it have been colder than 0 C. And all of Canada average was as warm as 0 C, it still form glacial ice sheet. Not only could start in the colder part of Canada, but even start in coldest seasons.
Though I have crazy idea that snow is warming effect. Which I guess means it has to be cold enough to overwhelm this imagined warming effect form have the warming effect of snow:)
So, I knew there was reason for question, how warm would Mars get if it was completely covered by snow?
I just know not going cool as some imagine, but might only add couple of degrees. Or don’t know if it would make Mars, say 10 C warmer.
I guess there is possibility that snow on Canada could have warming effect of 10 C or more.
That would make things simpler. And actually it fit into what people say {which is even weirder].
So, my idea of how get rid of all that ice on Canada, is having a warm ocean, which when one adds the tilt and etc, gets rid of it.
And other folks seem to think you don’t need a warm ocean.
Or I guess they think dirty snow has really big warming effect. Whereas I think snow whether clean or dirty has warming effect- though I agree that dirty is more [or at least some amount dirt can help a lot].
You get permanent ice sheets where snow falls during the Winter and fails to thaw during the Summer. Over years the thickness builds up and the snow compacts into ice.
If there is a gradient the ice flows downhill and you get glaciers. If there is no gradient it just sits there and you get an ice sheet.
Under current conditions that only happens in the Arctic, in Antarctica and at high altitudes.
In the last glacial period it happened down to 50N latitude in the UK, and into Winsconcin and Montana in the US.
In Northern Ireland I live surrounded by drumlins and eskers formed under an ice sheet. Their uneroded state shows that they are geologically recent.
What about the leprechauns?
They keep warm in front of a turf fire.
https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/others/open-fire-ireland-irish-turf
Haven’t seen any.
How about Canada freezes and rivers don’t flow into the ocean?
Or Canada is dry and cold.
Glaciers are controlled water vapor.
The problem is how do make Canada wet.
Or it’s already cold enough.
Polar Sea ice already reaches Newfoundland
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/23/sea-ice-off-newfoundland-thickest-ever-yet-another-polar-bear-comes-ashore/
So that you could walk to Newfoundland all year around from Quebec does not seem a lot colder. Nor does growth of glaciers in Quebec
require much change.
So, Little Ice age got to it’s coldest, and say it didn’t warm back, but roughly stayed as cold for another 500 years. Or global temperature of about 13 C. Arctic polar sea ice, gains year after year for 500 years. Quebec grows bigger glaciers for 500 years.
No water flows from Canada into arctic ocean or Atlantic ocean.
And all the Great lakes are frozen. Though one could say most rivers in BC still work though could freeze in the winter.
Labradorians might not appreciate you call them Quebecers, gb.
No one would.
Newfoundland and Labrador
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/newfoundland-and-labrador
With average yearly temperature just above 0 C
And +100 years ago about -2 C
I would not, gb, so beware your next move.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The video shows the reason alarmist Gavin Schmidt ran for the hills rather than debate Lindzen. Lindzen would have eaten him and exposed his chicanery.
Lindzen makes a good point re tidal gauges. Is the sea level rising or is the land upon which the gauges stand sinking? He claimed that in many cases it’s the land sinking.
I think it’s been about 7″ per century sea level rise and about a 1/3 of 7″ is from ocean thermal expansion, but doubt there be as much as 7″ in coming 100 years.
Though I don’t think if we had 1 meter per century it would be a problem.
Of course it will go up or down, and I would prefer up to going down.
Also think we can make go up, and there shouldn’t a be any reason against it, going up.
I don’t think we should make ocean settlements to avoid sea rise “problems”. But ocean settlements would solve the problem, if it was a problem.
It seems will get ocean settlements if we explore the Moon and then Mars. But if don’t do this, we will do ocean settlement at some future time. I think I would picked Hong Kong as likely country to do it, but China has screw up Hong Kong.
It would nice have some country like Hong Kong used to be.
Anyhow as Lindzen says, climate changes.
But there not going changes in terms of being in global icehouse climate. But your peak Holocene thermal Max is long gone, and don’t see how we could get a double peak in our Holocene interglacial period.
But if we become spacefaring, people might like Earth to in a glaciation period.
It seems if you were going plan the appearance of Mars, I think Christmas motif would be nice.
There are persons who think rising CO2 levels is causing more warming than most people think, because Earth would have cooled without higher CO2 levels.
Of course there other people who don’t think we have increased by about 1 C over the last 100 years- which means to me, that they don’t think the Little Ice Age was colder [or we didn’t recover from the Little Ice Age].
In a sense, these “opposing views” agree.
And both agree that earth could get colder. Or both “agree” we heading towards a glaciation period.
Since we are in an ice house climate {have a cold ocean] we could have lowering of CO2 level. The dog chasing the car, could catch the car.
For instance, I think China is at Peak Coal. And I think due to China’s bad governing, it economy is going to slow down and could have much greater depression than Japan’s economy had, and still trying to recover from. And it seems to me Japan governs a lot better than China does.
So I think even if China were to ever increase it’s CO2 level, we could still get global CO2 levels lowering, but it would happen quicker if China basically disappears as the new superpower {and worse than Japan disappeared as new super power.
And I don’t think any country “does well” being a superpower.
Mainly due to my lack faith in any government “working”. EU is not working. But strangely I do think an United Africa could do better, btw.
Plus, I think we going to mine a lot more natural gas, globally. Which a lot more efficient than Coal.
So don’t think we could ever double CO2 lowers, and doing stuff [like running out coal and other stuff] which have less CO2 emission- plus the there possibility we do a lot more nuclear power, globally.
Viewpoint: Nuclear energy is critical to Africa’s agenda for sustainable development
06 January 2022
“Nuclear communications in Africa are not well established. It is a subject matter that is still controversial in our communities and few professionals are trained in the subject. This makes the process of reaching many people a bit difficult. However, as a nuclear communications specialist, I am always looking for opportunities to collaborate and partner with others who are well versed in the dynamics on the continent to develop communication strategies whose messaging would put more emphasis on demystifying nuclear technology through public education and raising awareness in order to change perceptions towards nuclear energy. These communication strategies are not developed in isolation, but speak to the goals of African Agenda 2063 for sustainable development by located nuclear energy as a driving force toward Africa’s prosperity.”
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Viewpoint-Nuclear-energy-is-critical-to-Africas-ag
” Is the sea level rising or is the land upon which the gauges stand sinking? ”
It’s both.
Modern tide gauge stations are equipped with GPS. They measure both sea level change and vertical land movements.
Some Norwegian tide guage stations are measuring negligible sea level change because both land and sea level are rising at about 4mm/year.
Some East Coast USA stations are recording changes of +10mm/year as 5mm of sea rise is added to 5mm of land sinkage.
I give Lindzen a porkie pie rating of 8 out of 10.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Chartmaster gets a porkie pie rating of 10 of 10.
Please lookup what trolling is.
Please remove the beam from your own eye before you ask me to remove the splinter from my own eye.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Anyone notice that posts made to a particular thread end up at the end of all posts? May be Firefox. In their zeal to make FF safe for the average dweeb, Mozilla has completely screwed the browser.
Only if you cause it , like by reloading the page, or misfiring a post and then going back , that sort of things
Its probably a PEBKAC issue.
Is that like an ISK problem?
It’s Monday again and looks like the La Nina might be half way through.
I wonder if the Clown of the board Bindidong can see it now ,
or does he still miss it
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-709017
La Nina effect,
with third winter La Nina on the horizon,
That one is still so far ahead for Bindidong’s comprehension to even argue against it.
https://youtu.be/QygU9kopC3c
At the start of the video and then skip to
https://youtu.be/QygU9kopC3c?t=663
It was la nina last year; Vancouver Island had warm dry weather from early April till September.
Its la nina this year too, but this year its been wet and cool from early April … the snow pillow is showing snow still accumulating.
So how does la nina affect weather? why is it different every year with the same ocean conditions?
wait for the third one , then you will have two similar out of three
Ken,
La Nina is a name for a pattern of observed weather statistics.
It controls nothing but the strange perturbations of the Warmist mind.
It’s related to ocean currents in the South Pacific between Australia and South America and the way they affect atmospheric wind current, especially the jet stream.
ENSO is only one of several ocean oscillations, however, the trend toward the proportion of EN to LN is affected by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. According to Tsonis et al, the oscillations have different phases and depending on how the phases align, the world warms or cools. Makes more sense to me than AGW.
We may be seeing a phase change in the PDO right now. Unfortunately, the PDO was not discovered till the 1990s and not much is known about it yet. It’s precursor, The Great Pacific Climate Shift circa 1977, caused the global average to increase by 0.5C. There was a movement to erase the 0.5C as a mistake but persistence led to the PDO.
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm
The following links shows diagrams of the difference of wind patterns between PDO phases. You can imagine the mess with a LN acting in conjunction with it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040301155825/http://www.jisao.washington.edu:80/pdo/
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_on_The_Great_Pacific_Climate_Shift_and_the_Relationship_of_Oceans_on_Global_Temperatures.pdf
–Elon Musk has responded after Dmitry Rogozin, the head of Russia’s federal space agency Roscosmos, sent a message to Russian media accusing him of supporting “fascist forces” in Ukraine.–
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Roscosmos_boss_calls_to_hold_Elon_Musk_accountable_for_supporting_Ukraine_fascists_999.html
maguff…”GR you obviously havent looked at the graph at the top of this page. The global average temperature time series consists of a [clear] warming signal as well as seasonal, cyclical, and residual variability”.
***
I have no problem with a warming signal, I am simply skeptical of the popular cause presumed by many (AGW). I think it is about natural variability and that at some time in the future will convert to a cooling trend. Maybe not in our lifetime.
Meantime, ignorant politicians will screw the planet by interfering with atmospheric CO2. Not only that, they will kill a lot of people by depriving them of fossil fuels and make life miserable for the rest. Of course, unless they turn the democratic countries into dictatorships, they will be voted out of office long before that happens.
Man hasn’t nor ever will have control over CO2, but nature is a different matter.
It’s scary that human are willing to interfere with something they don’t understand. One eco-weenie, the CEO of a bank in Europe, proposed dumping barge-loads of dry ice in the Arctic to cool it. Others have suggested build giant array of reflectors to cut down on the solar energy absorbed. Other weenies have suggested dumping barge loads of iron filings in the ocean, presumably to bury CO2.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/18/iron-sea-carbon
My idea is to push warm tropical water deep under water.
Or make a La Nina effect, which has short term cooling but actually
makes Earth warmer.
And this will reduce Earth’s Tropical heat engine therefore make places like Canada colder.
There could other ways to make cold Europe, colder, also.
Though freezing the arctic ocean also does this.
GR… Your problem is you’re looking at a physics problem from the silo of politics.
Suit yourself, but one cannot argue against AGW without contradicting the truth of Physical Chemistry, and thus the truth of the Quantum Theory of atoms and the whole web of fundamental physics.
TM,
If a thermometer shows an increase in temperature, there is a reason. More heat.
If you choose to deny reality, go your hardest.
Maybe you confuse physics with fantasy. CO2 does not make thermometers hotter. In fact, as John Tyndall showed by experiment, the exact opposite.
The truth? Obviously, you cant handle the truth.
As far as denying reality is concerned, we all should bow to Mike Flynn.
Here is a photo of the tube John used:
https://www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/collection/john-tyndalls-radiant-heat-apparatus
A pity Mike will not see it.
You won’t have water vapor without water droplets- and evaporating water droplets require heat.
Words,of wisdom, gb.
Words of wisdom.
Willard, please stop trolling.
While out for a walk tonight, keeping a wary eye out for Elon’s Starlink sats, I began to think about the relationship of electrons to the atomic nucleus. The simplest example is hydrogen, with one proton in the nucleus and 1 electron allegedly orbiting it like a small planet.
The question arose as to why this happens. How did it all begin, where did electrons and protons come from, and how did the electron get up to such an incredible speed to orbit the hydrogen nucleii at such a high angular velocity?
If Bohr is right, and the electron absorbs the right quantum of EM, the electron suddenly gains a higher kinetic energy jumping to a higher orbital level, where its velocity must increase.
A limitation of the human mind is thinking there always has to be a beginning. My mind has the same problem and I want to know where these tiny particles came from and how they could possibly materialize. How did they come to form the entire universe and create all the visible light in the universe.
The notion that the particles have always been there for no known reason does not compute. There needs to be a creator, an intelligence behind it.
There has to be something about the universe we don’t yet understand. Something major.
The notion that the creator has always been there for no known reason does not compute. There needs to be a creator’s creator, an intelligence behind the creator.
The notion that the creator’s creator has always been there for no known reason does not compute. There needs to be a creator’s creator’s creator, an intelligence behind the creator’s creator.
Etcetera ad infinitum.
EM,
Dont compute it then.
Compute why the exclusion principle does not apply to photons , but the uncertainty principle does. You might compute up a universal field theory while youre at it. Oh, and a Greenhouse Theory to go along with it.
Mike,
Not enough gobbledygook.
More, please.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
If you have missed the latest postings of Joseph postma you might find them interesting.
Regards, djm
Invite Gordo over there, Duncan. He’d be a great fit.
And say hi to Joe for me!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
Move on to Heisenberg and his uncertainty principle, that says you can not know the momentum of an electron or any other particle to an arbitrary amount of precision.
That means that one can not say that the electron is orbiting the nucleus, you can just say it’s there.
Electron orbits are not the same as planetary orbits.
No shit Sherlock.
By the way, electrons don’t orbit the nucleus.
bobdroege,
The concept of an electron orbiting a nucleus is a model, and therefore wrong.
A moments thought will lead you to the conclusion that predicting future states of the atmosphere is impossible, due to the application of the uncertainty principle to the interaction between photons and electrons.
You may wish to argue, because GHE believers seem quite sure that the they can predict the effect of CO2 on thermometers with great precision, and the consequent effect on weather, and its average – climate.
Dimwitted and ignorant fools – all of them.
Swenson,
In your own terms, tell me what a “climate state” is.
And by the way, the uncertainty principle is not about the interaction of photons and electrons.
Moron.
If only contrarians knew the luck to have you here, Bob.
In return:
https://youtu.be/B2RyoRG2vs8
That’s nice Willard,
Here is something for you
It’s not Wynona and her big brown beaver, and this kind of fusion isn’t supposed to work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGVr8ytaXT0
But check it out
It’s ******* great to be alive at this point in history
Willard, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Gordon
You think that IR light is ab*sorbed by electrons.
Assume this is correct.
From the IR spectra we know that two atomic molecules such as N2 and O2 do not ab*sorb IR, but two atomic molecules such as CO or NO are strong ab*sorbers.
Can you explain these ob*servations using your thinking?
S,
Complete nonsense that N2 and O2 do not absorb IR.
They both absorb and emit IR. All matter above absolute zero emits IR – continuously.
All matter absorbs IR to a greater or lesser degree. The only perfectly transparent material is no material at all – a vacuum.
As a matter of fact, when John Tyndall calculated the IR ab*sorbtion of CO2 and other gases, he used the absorb*tion of dry, CO2 free air – mainly N2 and O2 – as his basis, giving it an absorb*tion factor of 1.
You simply have no clue what you are talking about.
How would you measure the temperature of dry, CO2 free air if it did not radiate IR? How would you heat it with sunlight if it did not absorb IR?
By magic, perhaps?
The Tyndall story again. And more gobbledygook. Great!
“It is known that symmetrical diatomic molecules like nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen, do not absorb infrared radiation, even though their vibrational frequencies are in the infrared region”
RLH, your source hasn’t properly done their homework. As reported by Crawford et al. [1949], atm. collision-induced absorbing leads to weak absorbing features of N2 and O2 in the infrared (e.g., Hartmann et al., 2008).
Also, Gordon is wrong as usual, Sibbele, in that molecular electrons do not have the mass to absorb the inherent linear and angular momentum of light – the entire molecular structure is required.
Whatever explanation Gordon’s “thinking” offers, that explanation will be wrong.
Weak in this case means insignificant I think.
… as opposed to “do not absorb”. Globally, as of 2012, atm. abundant N2,O2 absorbing reduces OLR by around 15% of atm. CH4 absorbing to put a number on “weak”.
As a proportion of the total absorbed.
“How would you measure the temperature of dry, CO2 free air if it did not radiate IR?”
A thermometer.
“How would you heat it with sunlight if it did not absorb IR?”
Conduction. From heated surfaces and water molecules.
Why Swenson Mikey Flynsonn do you keep polluting this web site with your misdirection and inaccurate science?
“They both absorb and emit IR. All matter above absolute zero emits IR continuously.”
Nope, not continuous, everything is quantized. And only possible if there are transitions to lower energy states available, and in the case of really cold things, those transitions may be lower in energy than the infrared range.
“All matter absorbs IR to a greater or lesser degree. The only perfectly transparent material is no material at all a vacuum.”
And no, even a perfect vacuum is not perfectly transparent. Try googling pair production for further enlightenment.
bobdroege,
You are babbling nonsense, yet again. Continuous. Try and stop matter emitting IR. You can’t.
That energy is emitted in discrete quanta is irrelevant. As you mentioned before, the uncertainty principle means that you cannot ever support your speculation by experiment.
On the other hand, the uncertainty principle has been confirmed experimentally. Nobody has ever managed to show it is wrong.
I think you may be confused about lower energy states. When an electron emits a photon, the result might be that an atom or molecule slows down – for example the average velocity of the molecules in a gas drops as it loses energy by emitting photons. And increases when it absorbs photons of sufficient energy. No, you cannot heat gas at room temperature by exposing it to the photons emitted by ice.
Nothing to do with electron orbitals.
As to infrared. All radiation below the frequency which first produces visible light is infrared by definition. If you want to define particular infrared frequencies, go ahead.
Pair production? Reread what you found. Try and understand. Come back and convince anybody of the relevance to photons propagating through a vacuum without attenuation.
Dimwit.
Swenson,
You are too stupid to win an argument with me.
Yes I can stop matter from emitting Infrared, you have to get close to absolute zero, then the radiation emitted will be of longer wavelengths than IR.
You lose this one.
“As to infrared. All radiation below the frequency which first produces visible light is infrared by definition. If you want to define particular infrared frequencies, go ahead.”
You are making up your shit again!
“Infrared radiation (IR), sometimes referred to simply as infrared, is a region of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum where wavelengths range from about 700 nanometers (nm) to 1 millimeter (mm). Infrared waves are longer than those of visible light, but shorter than those of radio waves.”
Longer wavelengths become radio waves etc.
Go back to school
Bob, if you open your mind a bit, you might learn something from Swenson.
BTW, IR’s longer wavelengths have lower frequencies (i.e., below) compared to visible light. Same as what Swenson wrote.
Chic, if your mind weren’t closed and you were listening you might learn something, but not from Swenson.
He’s wrong and you should be able to figure that out.
The canard, everything above absolute zero emits IR is wrong.
It’s correct to say everything above absolute zero emits radiation is the correct way to express the science.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“You simply have no clue what you are talking about.”
It is clear that Swenson has no clue about the very good reasons that N2 and O2 do not abs.orb IR.
What to do?
‘Facts be gone’ he declares! And poof, they vanish…in his fantasy universe.
Nate,
Maybe you have heard of the phrase “hot air”? You certainly emit quite a lot.
Air can be heated – even by sunlight, which is more than 50% IR!
For example, in an electric dry sauna, the air can reach quite high temperatures, using outside air. As Tyndall demonstrated, even air with CO2 and H20 removed can be heated by IR radiation.
A common hairdryer will demonstrate the principle. If you resort to 19th century terms such as conduction, convection and so on, and talk about atoms and molecules bumping into each other, you will have demonstrated your level of understanding of physics.
Feynman summed it up neatly. Just photons interacting with electrons. Explains every physical process in the universe, with the exception of gravity and nuclear processes.
Throw in a few experimentally supported facts, and I will listen. When facts change, so do my views.
sibelle….here’s proof that nitrogen radiates in the IR band. I’ll get to your question near the end. First, I need to address the myth that N2/O2 don’t absorb/emit IR.
Thanks to the chiefio site…
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1945ApJ…101…39S&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
Also, in this article by chiefio, there is a good picture of the nitrogen radiation spectrum from NCAR, who push the catastrophic AGW meme, showing that it does radiate well in the infrared range.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/nitrogen-active-in-the-ir-a-ghg/
We don’t know that N2/O2 don’t both absorb IR, that’s what we are told. They likely don’t absorb as much as a molecule like CO2 or WV, but they likely absorb some IR, especially the more intense IR from the Sun. Considering that N2/O2 make up 99% of the atmosphere, the sheer quantity would make a little absorp-tion/emission significant.
The original Tyndall experiment was an excellent experiment but the sources of IR used were primitive. In one experiment he used an open flame and in another he used a piece of heated copper. He did not indicate the IR spectral range of either because, like most scientists of his time, he believed heat was transferred directly through air as rays of heat.
Basically, he directed IR from a flame or heated copper block through a device like a telescope, which could be filled with gases at different pressures. On the end away from the heat source, he placed a thermopyle, which can detect heated air, but not IR vry well, as far as I know. The IR from the source passed through special material, not glass, so Tyndall should have perhaps guessed there was a reason why.
Again, Tyndall presumed it was rays of heat flowing through the telescope device, through end windows in the device, and on to the detecting thermopyle, where ‘HEAT’ warmed the thermopyle. He took another sample of the heat directly from the heat source, as a reference level, ran it through a thermopyle and connected each thermopyle to a galvanometer. The galvanometer is a voltmeter with the needle centred so that unequal voltages will move the needle either side of centre. Tyndall presumed to get a relative deflection of the needle based on what he thought was heat passing through his telescope device.
Therefore, when Tyndall claimed that molecules like CO2 absorbed IR while other did not, he was not very specific about the spectrum and intensity of IR being applied. There is no denying that devices like infrared lamps can cause warming in surfaces but they are driven by power sources that can supply significant current (power). A candle flame, or a heated block of copper, could hardly be felt by the human hand at 12 inches distance. If the hand can’t detect the IR then I don’t think a primitive thermopyle from the 1850s era could do much better.
A thermopyle in not intended to detect IR radiation, rather it is meant to detect heated air directly from a flame. Modern thermopyles are very sensitive but they use many thermopyle devices in series to generate a voltage when exposed to IR, based on the Seeback effect.
These voltages are tiny and rely on IR being focussed by a lens on a small area of the sensor material. A typical device like the Hammamatsu T15770, only outputs a voltage in the range of 10^-4 to 10^-2 volts for an energy input of 10^-4 to 10^-2 w/cm^2. That’s 100 microvolts to 10 millivolts.
I cannot imagine an older thermopyle device, as would be used by Tyndall, producing enough of a voltage to move the needle significantly on a galvanometer of that day. If he heated one thermopyle directly with the flame source, it’s voltage output would swamp the output of the other thermopyle.
Obviously I cannot speak for or against Tyndall because I wasn’t there with my current knowledge of electrical devices. I would like to know more of what he did.
Remember, modern devices use lenses to focus the IR and they use filters to filter out unwanted IR frequencies. Tyndall had none of that, as far as I know.
I am not doubting Tyndall, I think he provided important information. I do think we need to revisit his experiment and perform it with modern equipment and materials to see if gases like nitrogen and oxygen do transmit and absorb IR energy. Obviously someone has done that and maybe Google does not rate the information highly therefore hides it or suppresses it.
Based on the electron theory I have presented, there is no reason why electrons should differentiate between absorbing/emitting IR based on a particular atom. What matters is the orbital arrangement of electrons in shells around an atom.
With molecules, it is a bit different. If you have two atoms, each with their own set of electrons, and they are brought together to form a molecule, certain electrons in the outer shells can be shared between atoms, to form a bond. I don’t know how that sharing takes place because electron locations are based on a probability of finding an electron in a certain location. However, if you look at the molecular probability arrangements, it suggests that shared electrons re-form their orbits right around each nucleus.
The science is seriously vague because it is based on differential equation theory and the notion of quantum energy levels. No one knows if that is correct just as no one knows whether photons exist or not. No one really knows how EM is absorbed or emitted but Bohr hypothesized it was related to electron transitions and the entire theory is now based on that idea. The theory has certainly been modified to account for differences between single electron/proton pairs like hydrogen and more complex atoms with multiple electrons and protons.
It won’t be the first time a mathematical model was presented to explain phenomena and been totally wrong. As is stands, we have to go with that theory because we have nothing else, and based on that theory, the only particle capable of absorbing/emitting EM is the electrons. According to the Bohr models, EM absorp-tion/emission is related to electrons transitioning between different orbital energy levels.
To answer your question, based on Bohr’s theory that certain transitions produce certain EM of certain discrete frequencies, it stands to reason that N2 and O2 can radiate away thermal energy.
For example, hydrogen is not supposed to emit or absorb IR but it has a definite line spectra at 650 nm, right by the infrared. That corresponds to an electron transition for level 3 down to level 2. At the chiefio link above, nitrogen shows strong lines in the infrared spectrum. Infrared would obviously have to affect transitions between ground state and level 1.
Excellent explanation of electron transition calculations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxqrj14Wduc&ab_channel=MicheleBerkey
The Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Interacting-Emitting Universal Law is based on a simple thought.
It is based on the thought, that physical phenomenon which distracts the “black body” surfaces from the instant emitting the absorbed solar radiative energy back to space, warms the “black body” surfaces up.
In our case those distracting physical phenomena are the planets sidereal rotation, N rotations/day, and the planets surface specific heat, cp cal/gr oC.
What we have discovered is the ROTATING PLANET SURFACE SOLAR IRRADIATION INTERACTING-EMITTING UNIVERSAL LAW:
Jemit = 4πr^2σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)^1/4 (W)
Planet Energy Budget:
Jnot.reflected = Jemit
πr^2*Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr^2*σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)^1/4 (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)^1/4 /4σ ]^1/4 (K)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Our Sky Dragon Crank brigade might appreciate:
https://physicsworld.com/a/energy-can-move-from-a-colder-region-to-a-hotter-one-but-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-is-safe/
(h/t Jack)
Are these people raving idiots? They claim electrical energy can run in the opposite direction to heat and claim the 2nd law is not contradicted. The 2nd law is about heat, not electrical energy.
I have warned against using the word energy out of context. The 2nd law does not reference a generalized energy, it reference heat only. The idiots in the paper seem to think electrical energy is covered by the 2nd law.
Come on, Gordo.
The point I am making is to echo the one Richard made by citing CliveB,
You have no business here. Why are you not at Joes?
Willard gets confused as always.
Dumbie Flynnson one more time writes pure robertsonian nonsense showing the immeasurable level of his scientific ignorance.
Of course do N2 and O2 absorb IR, even the terrestrial one.
But… how much compared with e.g. H2O and CO2?
*
Let’s have a quick look at Spectral Calc’s HITRAN2016 database.
There, we compare the intensities of absorp-tivity and emissivity, measured in cm^-1/cm, of N2/O2 with the H2O/CO2 pair, of course under consideration of these gases’ respective atmospheric abundance, in the terrestrial IR wavelengths 5-100 mu (adding near IR doesn’t change anything).
1. O2 + N2
https://i.postimg.cc/XqnW8PV4/Hitran-O2-N2-5-100mu.png
2. N2 alone
https://i.postimg.cc/9QmvnT5t/Hitran-N2-5-100mu.png
3. H2O + CO2
https://i.postimg.cc/C5t0bsx4/Hitran-H2-O-CO2-5-100mu.png
4. CO2 alone
https://i.postimg.cc/g0rfH61S/Hitran-CO2-5-100mu.png
Now, we compare the intensity ratios
H2O / O2: over 600,000
H2O / N2: over 8 * 10^9
CO2 / O2: near 4,000
CO2 / N2: 5 * 10^7
*
Yeah, that’s Flynnson & some others, beginning with Putin’s sucker Robertson, probably paid by the Russian FSB – like are so many people in Europe, the US and elsewhere.
All they manage to do is to divert, dissimulate, misrepresent, distort, confuse, discredit, denigrate and… lie.
dumbo binny fails to grasp that N2 and O2 are both warmed by the more intense solar radiation in the UV range.
Of course, N2/O2 are warmed by the Earth’s surface after it absorbs solar radiation.
There may be truth in what Swenson claims. Electrons absorb EM of all frequencies and there’s no reason why electrons in N2/O2 should be any different than electrons in CO2 and WV. The problem seems to be that no one has done the research. Alarmists have this fetish about being totally reliant on 19th century scientists for their info.
Gordon says (without a hint of irony):
“… Clausius explained why back in the 19th century.”
“Clausius, an expert on heat, who derived the U for internal energy in the 1st law, created the 2nd law, and derived entropy as a mathematical measure for the 2nd law, defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms.”
“Based on the colours given off Stefan determined a relationship between EM intensity and temperature.”
“The S-B proportionality constant is based on the temperature range in which Tyndalls experiment was based. That was 525C 1200C.
Only an idiot would presume the T^4 derivation over that range would apply outside the range. ”
“They use watts to measure heat because Joule discovered …”
“I think Albert [Einstein] was full of it but Ill leave that for another post.”
Tim, please stop trolling.
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=10264
“Nights warm faster than days.”
“This reduces the diurnal temperature difference by warming minimum temperatures faster than maximum temperatures”
That cannot continue on indefinitely of course, else nighttime would be warmer than daytime and Winter warmer than Summer.
Yes, we get same or more snow for skiing. But should get less powdered snow- some skier will only ski, powder snow [cause it’s obviously better]
But when does trend end? Never?
Skiing will available if we in a Greenhouse global climate.
So, yes, never.
Though it will require one get more adventurous, in terms of finding great powder snow.
Take electric powered helicopter- if they work by then.
So eventually nights will be warmer than days?
Well, first one has have warm ice house global climate, which could take millions of years, and then you could get cool greenhouse global climate, which take millions of years.
I don’t predict things much beyond a century, but due to weather effect in this strange new world, maybe.
> If an increased greenhouse effect was causing warming, we would expect nights to warm faster than days. This is because the greenhouse effect operates day and night. Conversely, if global warming was caused by the sun, we would expect the warming trend to be greatest in daytime temperatures. What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days (Alexander 2006). This is consistent with greenhouse warming.
https://skepticalscience.com/human_fingerprint_warmer_nights.shtml
So how long do you expect this to continue? OLS says forever until nights are warmer than days.
I expect that contrarians will move up in the Matrix:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/
Since Sky Dragon Cranks occupy only one sentence in it, the process might take a while.
Willard, as usual, fails to answer any question but persists in promoting his own invention. Introverted or what?
“An introvert is a person with qualities of a personality type known as introversion, which means that they feel more comfortable focusing on their inner thoughts and ideas, rather than what’s happening externally”
Richard, as usual, expects room service when he never answers questions that otters ask him.
And he expects room service by asking questions he never answers himself.
And most of the times they are silly questions.
Questions that deflect from what is being said and done.
Which appears to be the true purpose of these questions.
Another silly food fighting which Richard will fail basic pragmatic again.
And again.
And again.
Not unlike Sky Dragon Cranks do, when you think of it.
Contrarians have little else than trying to create the impression they can stall.
They cannot.
Willard continues on with being an idiot.
willard…”Not unlike Sky Dragon Cranks do, when you think of it”.
***
Willard is referencing himself again and his fellow alarmist Sky Dragon cranks.
The answer is, of course, that nights (in general) can never be warmer than days.
Of course it cannot, dummy.
So it was a rhetorical question.
Do you have a point?
So the OLS trend that shows that will happen cannot be correct.
The OLS of what, dummy?
You really should take heed of that introversion bit you quoted.
You will have to work a bit more than that, Richard:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15336
The OLS trend that has nights heating up faster than days. Idiot.
By your logic, dummy, nothing accelerates unless it can accelerate forever.
Sometimes I really wonder why you try.
By your logic, things accelerate forever with no end in sight.
By my logic, functions have domains.
willard’s source…skeoticalscience, lead by a cartoonist trying to pass himself off as a solar physicist. About willard’s speed.
Come on, Gordo. You fool.
You are reading the thread from the bottom.
You are fighting something scientists noticed for years.
Even CliveB had to concede it.
Think.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Vintage 2020-10:
> The climate crisis is heating up nights faster than days in many parts of the world, according to the first worldwide assessment of how global heating is differently affecting days and nights.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/01/global-heating-warming-up-nights-faster-than-days
So how long do you expect this to continue? OLS says forever until nights are warmer than days.
You go first, dummy.
Why? You never answer any questions anyway.
Because you are the one who asked, dummy.
Why should I care to answer it if you do not?
Because you are not prepared to admit the answer. If you have one that is.
The trend must stop sometime? It cannot go on forever.
Say it, dummy.
Own your own damn pints.
Do not make me work for your own talking points.
Climateball ought to be simple.
If you played with honour, things would be simpler for you.
So the OLS trend is incorrect.
Which one:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15336
The one heating up nights faster than days.
LOL.
Really, Richard?
I’m starting to miss Kiddo.
Enjoy talking to yourself. No-one else cares.
Is that a promise, dummy?
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=10264
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1277663
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1277911
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1277939
Another bogus study. They admit to using the fudged NOAA gridded system data which is derived from interpolating, hence synthesizing data, using climate models. They claim to use hourly data, which is a major lie.
They need to idiot-proof these studies by weeding out idiots before allowing them into universities. Unfortunately, there’s nothing can be done about Willard’s lack of intelligence in reporting this chicanery.
Come on, Gordo.
You are just saying stuff once again.
Return to the Ideal Gas law.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Vintage 2020-10:
> The climate crisis is heating up nights faster than days in many parts of the world, according to the first worldwide assessment of how global heating is differently affecting days and nights.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/01/global-heating-warming-up-nights-faster-than-days
willard…would you mind explaining how that works, how nights warm faster than days.
Pay me and I will, Gordo.
Alternatively, donate to the Red Cross to alleviate the sufferings your ZZs inflict.
When will this trend stop? It cannot go on forever.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1277903
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1277939
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1277981
A simple observation that nights cannot continuously warm faster than days has you all in a tis? Just shows you are an idiot.
Oh, an observation.
When have you observed it, dummy?
Just recently on here. Idiot.
Do you often observe impossibilities, Richard?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ah, well.
I might as well add this:
> Nights on average are heating up faster than days in most parts of the United States a trend caused by climate change, according to the 2018 National Climate Assessment Report, newly cited by the New York Times.
https://www.axios.com/2021/07/09/nights-warming-us-climate-change
2018. Time flies.
When will this trend stop? It cannot go on forever.
Nights warming faster than days is consistent with increased greenhouse effect which is consistent with increased water vapor. WV has been increasing 1.44% per decade for as long as it has been accurately measured worldwide.
Almost, Dan:
> Precipitation changes showed a widespread and significant increase, but the changes are much less spatially coherent compared with temperature change.
https://www.knmi.nl/kennis-en-datacentrum/publicatie/global-observed-changes-in-daily-climate-extremes-of-temperature-and-precipitation
Nice try.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1277939
God you’re dumb.
A simple observation that nights cannot continuously warm faster than days has you all in a tis? Just shows you are an idiot.
No, dummy, it is not a simple observation.
It is you running around all the recent sub threads to spam your silly charade, looking for a food fight.
Why are you acting like Mike Flynn?
“it is not a simple observation”
It’s not? How complicated can it be?
For starters, Richard, you’d need a time machine or something. But even if it was right in front of you it’d be an inferential matter, not an observational one. And finally, impossible situations are particularly hard to observe.
You seem to be presuming that functions should work on unrestricted domains. If that’s the case, then it is little wonder that teh stoopid modulz are triggering you so much.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wil: What part of what I posted did you not grasp?
“significant decrease in the annual occurrence of cold nights and a significant increase in the annual occurrence of warm nights. Some regions experienced a more than doubling of these indices. This implies a positive shift in the distribution of daily minimum temperature throughout the globe. Daily maximum temperature indices showed similar changes but with smaller magnitudes.”
What they discovered is consistent with increased greenhouse effect.
The part where you make sense of the fact that “precipitation changes showed a widespread and significant increase, but the changes are much less spatially coherent compared with temperature change” with your pet theory, Dan.
Wil, Try again. I only address global average conditions and do not address local precipitation.
La Nina effect
Models disagree
https://youtu.be/Gmt2_YKdevM
Like proxies disagree one with the other? So do models it seems.
Remind me not to drink the water in Las Vegas.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61385811
… and to always believe in what interested people tell you:
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-61351342
–This lake is likely to have a record of the entire history of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, its initiation over 34 million years ago, as well as its growth and evolution across glacial cycles since then, said polar expert Don Blankenship, one of the papers authors and a senior research scientist at The University of Texas at Austins Institute for Geophysics. Our observations also suggest that the ice sheet changed significantly about 10,000 years ago, although we have no idea why.–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/10/newly-discovered-lake-may-hold-secret-to-antarctic-ice-sheets-rise-and-fall/
How about some real climate science?
There are three distinct kinds of people you can observe when they look at GHCN daily data for CONUS.
*
1. Those who tell you
” It’s the Sun, stoopid. ”
and show a sort of the highest absolute temperatures since 1895:
1936 7 32.86 (Celsius)
1934 7 32.75
1980 7 32.68
1901 7 32.61
1931 7 32.53
1930 7 32.40
1937 8 32.23
1917 7 32.13
1910 7 32.11
1954 7 32.10
*
2. Those who tell you nothing, but show a sort of CONUS’ highest temperature departures (anomalies) wrt e.g. the mean of 1981-2010 since 1895:
2015 12 3.66 (Celsius)
2021 12 3.28
2012 3 3.07
2006 1 2.95
2017 2 2.83
2020 1 2.44
2014 12 2.44
2020 3 2.40
1957 2 2.37
1990 1 2.29
*
3. Last not least, you have the geniuses who show nothing but tell you, when looking at the anomalies you show:
” As you can see, the most recent years are somewhat poorly represented in the anomaly list. ”
Yeah. Category 3 is the cleverest one :- )
Last month Nate laid down the gauntlet claiming a Revelle factor bottleneck for CO2 uptake by the ocean, [Bolin and Eriksson] then summarize its implications, after their eqn 9, on p. 133, which might be a good place for you to start.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1264970
I made a spreadsheet to account for the projected accumulation of CO2 in the mixed layer assuming Bolin and Erikssons 12.5 Revelle factor applied following Eqn 9 in their 1958 paper. The Mauna Loa data gives us (delta pCO2)/pCO2 from 1959 to the present. Assuming 2.15 mM DIC in 1959 and dividing (delta pCO2)/pCO2 by 12.5, I calculated (delta DIC)/DIC. From that I got delta DIC by multiplying by 2.15. The sum of delta pCO2 and delta DIC “should” give the total CO2 introduced by human emissions each year. I continued this calculation up to 2018 for the known Mauna LOA and FF emission data.
In the first year, B&Es calculation is correct that less than 10 percent of the excess fossil CO2 in the atmosphere should have been taken up by the mixed layer. However, continuing the accumulation through 2018 fails to match the known emissions by an increasing amount up to a 2/5ths deficit. Only when the Eqn 9 factor is around 1.0 do the airborne fractions, the mixed layer uptake, and the fossil fuel estimates match the known Mauna Loa and FF emissions data.
I checked B&Es math and found no mistakes in their calculus. They may have made an error in the choice of equations used to calculate the 12.5 factor. Intuitively, it never seemed right to me in the first place. As new CO2 enters the atmosphere and some is absorbed by the ocean, most of what is absorbed is converted to carbonates. So, although Henrys Law favors pCO2 versus aqueous H2CO3, carbonate equilibrium neutralizes the advantage.
Bottom line, there is no bottleneck for CO2 being taken up by seawater. Claiming the bottleneck is from the mixed layer to the deep ocean only exacerbates your problem. Im moving on now to evaluate B&Es model to verify that.
“the first year, B&Es calculation is correct that less than 10 percent of the excess fossil CO2 in the atmosphere should have been taken up by the mixed layer. However, continuing the accumulation through 2018 fails to match the known emissions by an increasing amount up to a 2/5ths deficit. Only when the Eqn 9 factor is”
I really dont know what you are doing here but clearly it does not agree with the prediction of BE that in EQUILIBRIUM only 10% is taken up, not just in the first year!
In fact if you look at current carbon flow diagrams, they show that ML has a fractinal increased above its early level by about 10% of the factional increase of the atmosphere.
Correction. Present diagrams show that the amount of increase in total carbon the mixed layer is about 10% of the atm increase.
Such as here:
https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/co2-reservoir/
You will notice that over a century much has been transported to the deep ocean.
This is because the small fractional increase in the ML still enables a small amount eachvyear to be transported to the deep ocean and this eventually adds up.
The continuity equation takes that into account. The d(CO2)/dT= Input-Output takes all that into account within e-time. The solution is independent of the Revelle Factor.
So the data seem to suggest.
OK, I originally included only the mixed layer without allowing for any transfer into the deep ocean. Notice that B&E wrote, “If we consider only the ‘mixed layer’ of the oceans….” That totally ignores how much is going deep. Obfuscation was alive and well way back then, too, it seems.
When I modified the spreadsheet to transfer realistic amounts/year from mixed layer to the deep based on your not so “current carbon flow diagrams,” my previous statement still holds; when B&E’s Eqn 9 factor is around 1.0, the airborne fractions, the mixed layer uptake, and the fossil fuel estimates match the known Mauna Loa and FF emissions data. The mixed layer concentration doesn’t increase much because the amount transferred to the deep is about nine times the absolute increase in mixed layer CO2.
No sign of a bottleneck anywhere.
If you don’t understand what I’m doing here, it’s because you have no model and no data. You assert without evidence and can only appeal to authority. Sad, but true.
Chic,
Have you linked your modified spreadsheet? Have you shared it with Berry?
I’ll post a spreadsheet here after checking it against AR6 numbers. I have not yet read Dr. Berry’s latest paper, but I suspect his model is more comprehensive. I ignored the land CO2 while testing Nate’s claim of a bottleneck in the ocean. One domino at a time.
” I have not yet read Dr. Berrys latest paper, but I suspect his model is more comprehensive.”
Again, we can see your deep biases at work, Chic.
The a-priori assumption that the word of contrarians must be right!
While the word of mainstream science is, a-priori, assumed to be wrong!
Stephen and Nate,
Here is a link to a spreadsheet allowing you to vary the Revelle factor, starting amounts of CO2 in the mixed layer, and a rate constant for transferring CO2 to the deep ocean. Try to match the values in red with IPCC estimates.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hrix4hf11p4t95f/Bolin-Eriksson-Revelle.xlsx?dl=0
Thank you. Ill take a look at it.
I looked at it. Interesting.
Your column F is DIC over time in ML?
It is decreasing over time. That doesnt make sense. I think the reason is because you have a fraction of it going to the DO every year, but nothing returning from the DO to the ML.
In the real world there is upwelling that returns carbon from the DO to the ML, and you can see this in diagrams.
The point is that if the ML had nothing added to it from the atmosphere, it should stay roughly constant at equilibium. But it wont unless you have equal amounts leaving and returning from the DO.
“[DIC over time in ML] is decreasing over time.”
Yes! But you can reduce the rate constant to correct that. And, yes, you can expand the spreadsheet to include inputs from the deep and to the atmosphere from the mixed layer as well. I am inserting B&E’s equations from their 5-box model to cover all those possibilities. One step at a time.
In the real world, a lot of stuff happens and you can imagine all kinds of scenarios. But if you want to be taken seriously as anything other than a shill for AGW cultists, you should start working on your own model that explains the known data.
” I am inserting B&Es equations from their 5-box model to cover all those possibilities. One step at a time.”
Sounds good.
Clearly your announcement of no bottleneck was premature.
When behind the eight ball, the King of Obfuscation resorts to …. obfuscation. What else?
No obfuscation. Just a simple fact.
“That totally ignores how much is going deep. Obfuscation was alive and well way back then, too, it seems.”
Not at all, ignoramus. You havent read the paper, but dismiss it anyway!
“You havent read the paper….”
And you call me ignoramous?
“When I modified the spreadsheet to transfer realistic amounts/year from mixed layer to the deep based on your not so current carbon flow diagrams, my previous statement still holds”
Great. But how are any of us supposed to know that you are correctly applying BE equations?
For example, BE show that in equilibrium, 10% of added atm carbon ends up in the ML, regardless of the deep ocean.
If you are finding that in equilibrium more than 10% of the added atm carbon ends up in ML, then you are not doing it correctly.
“For example, BE show that in equilibrium, 10% of added atm carbon ends up in the ML, regardless of the deep ocean.”
B&E don’t show any data, Nate. I am applying their equations word for word. I will post the spreadsheet for you to see. BTW, nature doesn’t have to follow anyone’s equations. It is the other way around.
Of course they show data!
They show the results of their eqns which show a buildup of atm CO2 over the next decades.
Much more difficult then reproducing data that we already got.
Depends on what your definition of data is.
Without real data from anyone, the King of Obfuscation resorts to …. obfuscation. What else?
“The continuity equation takes that into account. The d(CO2)/dT= Input-Output takes all that into account within e-time. The solution is independent of the Revelle Factor.”
Stephen, that is simply ignorant, and argument by assertion.
You assume the claims of your heroes like Salby and Berry are direct from God. But Salby is proven fraud. And Berry made it absolutely clear that he has little interest in, or understanding of the Revelle Factor and its key implications, and he simply ignores it without any science rationale.
I cannot speak for Stephen nor presume to know what Dr. Berry thinks about the Revelle factor implications, but I am inclined to agree with the validity of ignoring it. I don’t find any bottleneck due to the Revelle factor. It seems to be simply the result of mixed layer depletion of CO2 into the deep ocean making it appear to verify the factor values.
You are going to have to come up with more than appeals to other people’s papers and baseless libelous accusations. I do not assume any claims of Drs. Salby or Berry. On the contrary, I am working out the details from first principles, which support their claims so far.
In contrast, you are guilty of hypocrisy. You assume what “others have investigated, explained, published, and understood for decades,” it seems, without any investigation of your own.
“I dont find any bottleneck due to the Revelle factor.”
But Bolin and Ericson DID, as well as many follow up papers. And they explain with math and logic. The logic is sound.
How do you explain the difference?
My reply when to the bottom.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1278862
Salby is a proven fraud? What do you mean?
Berry understands mathematics. He solved the differential equation. The differential equation is all-encompassing. The Revelle Factor and all other mitigating factors are taken into account in the solution to the differential equation. He understood that the Revelle Factor is a red herring, nothing more. Nate, you’ll need to explain what terms other than Emission and Absorp.tion (inputs and Outputs) would affect CO2 level with respect to time. Then you’ll need to call all the authors of all atmospheric physics texts, including Salby, and tell them they’re wrong.
The University he was working for fired him for cause.
Including fraud.
May not have been due to his views on climate change.
“Berry understands mathematics. He solved the differential equation.”
Sure he does. But the question is whether that particular generic equation is a good model for Earth system.
60 y of literature on the Carbon cycle show that it is not for several reasons.
“The Revelle Factor and all other mitigating factors are taken into account in the solution to the differential equation. He understood that the Revelle Factor is a red herring”
No it is not. I discussed it with him until I got banned, and it was clear that he was not familiar with the literature on the subject and why it matters, such as the Bolin and Ericson paper being discussed with Chic.
That paper showed 60y ago that the Revelle factor (ocean chemistry) discoreved the year before by Revelle, produces a bottleneck. And therefore anthro carbon does not get removed quickly from the atmosphere to the ocean. And they accurately predicted the rise in atm CO2 that would come in the next decades, due only to fossil fuel emissions.
Prior to that paper, people thought like Berry, then learned they were wrong. He still hasnt.
“That paper showed 60y ago that the Revelle factor (ocean chemistry) discoreved the year before by Revelle, produces a bottleneck.”
That is a lie. Their paper predicted a bottleneck without any proof. My analysis of actual data shows Bolin and Eriksson’s bottleneck prediction cannot be true. No bottleneck has been produced. If if had been, Nate, you have had plenty of opportunity to find something more recent than a 60-year old paper to show otherwise.
“…due only to fossil fuel emissions.”
Another lie.
“Prior to that paper, people thought like Berry, then learned they were wrong. He still hasnt.”
Arguably wrong and probably baseless speculation amounting to typical Nate obfuscation.
Having no data or model or scientific analysis of his own, Nate continues to lie, obfuscate, libel, bloviate, and generally make a fool of himself.
“That is a lie. Their paper predicted a bottleneck without any proof. My analysis of actual data shows Bolin and Erikssons bottleneck prediction cannot be true. No bottleneck has been produced. ”
C’mpn, your analysis had a serious mistake in it, as you acknowledged. So you cannot continue to claim that showed anything.
“due only to fossil fuel emissions.”
Another lie.”
Slander. Did you even read the paper? Thats exactly what it did!
“Prior to that paper, people thought like Berry, then learned they were wrong. He still hasnt.”
Arguably wrong and probably baseless speculation amounting to typical Nate obfuscation.”
Absolutely true. Prior to Revelle and Seuss and BE, many people thought, like Berry, the ocean should take up emitted CO2 rather quickly.
https://history.aip.org/climate/Revelle.htm
“In the mid 1950s, not many scientists were concerned that humanity was adding carbon dioxide gas (CO2) to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. The suggestion that this would change the climate had been abandoned decades earlier by nearly everyone. A particularly simple and powerful argument was that the added gas would not linger in the air. Most of the CO2 on the surface of the planet was not in the tenuous atmosphere, but dissolved in the huge mass of water in the oceans. Obviously, no matter how much more gas human activities might pour into the atmosphere, nearly all of it would wind up safely buried in the ocean depths.”
You are still lying.
I only acknowledged omitting to account for mixed layer transfer to the deep ocean, which then made the DIC amounts in line with the mixed layer data. It was not a mistake having anything to do with yours and B&E’s failure to show any evidence of a bottleneck.
You are so far deeply dug into your hole, the dirt is falling back in on you. You obviously have a mental problem with this. I am here for you, if you want help.
The appropriate word would be libel, not slander, if you had any evidence that what I wrote is wrong. But I wasn’t.
You wrote, “And they accurately predicted the rise in atm CO2 that would come in the next decades, due only to fossil fuel emissions.”
What they predicted was a rise in CO2 between a range which was correct, but hardly accurate. And they had no evidence what portion of any of the predicted range was due to other than fossil fuel emissions. That was the subject of the previous top post, btw.
You are in a hole. Stop digging.
“Prior to that paper, people thought like Berry, then learned they were wrong. He still hasnt.”
As for your and Weart’s interpretation of what people thought more than 60 years ago, it is still likely that nearly all of the fossil fuel emissions will “wind up safely buried in the ocean depths.” That is what Dr. Berry’s papers and my work are trying to show.
What you are doing here by appealing to authority and making assertions without any data or model or investigating research of your own is “arguably wrong and probably baseless speculation” on your part.
Stop digging.
I applaud your efforts to make sense of the BE model with your spreadsheet. You showed it to me. I took the time to check it. I tried to be polite and pointed out a problem with it. The problem is real and makes a big difference. You acknowledged the problem.
But now you are just being a tool and appear frustrated that the model is not producing your desired outcome.
The logic of the bottleneck is sound IMO.
The ordinary exchange between the ML and DO are about 100 Gt/year and the ML contains about 1000 GT. Lets assume the usual first-order kinetics applies between them. So the e-time would be ~ 10 y for anything added to the ML, creating an imbalance, to return to equil with the DO.
The BE equation 9 shows that in equilibrium, with an additional x % increase in atm CO2, there will be ~ x/10 % increase in the ML carbon.
With an imbalance in the ML of x/10 % the flow from the ML to DO will be dM/dt = x/10/etime = x/100.
Thus for the atmospheric concentration x, to be removed to the DO would be 100 y.
Now the eqn is based on established chemical equilibrium principles. The rest is based on first-order kinetics principles, which you guys accept.
“But now you are just being a tool and appear frustrated that the model is not producing your desired outcome.”
That’s a big laugh. Your lies are increasing exponentially now.
“The logic of the bottleneck is sound IMO.”
That is unsurprisingly worthless information. Your opinion and $4 couldn’t buy a gallon of gas just about anywhere in the US today.
Your back of the envelope calculations are worth less than your opinion. Take a break from digging your hole, get out my spreadsheet and try to come up with numbers that can support your claims.
According to B&E, the rate constant of removal (the inverse of e-time) from the ML into the DO is 0.087/year or 87 GtC/year using your mass for the ML. An imbalance of X% will increase that to (87 + 0.87 * X) GtC/year for an increase in removal rate of X%, but NO change in the e-time of less than 12 years using B&E’s outdated unverified numbers.
You don’t understand any of this, do you?
What hole am I supposed to be digging?
Weird.
“Thats a big laugh. Your lies are increasing exponentially now.”
What lies? More lashing out with ad-homs just exemplifies your frustration.
“According to B&E, the rate constant of removal (the inverse of e-time) from the ML into the DO is 0.087/year or 87 GtC/year using your mass for the ML.”
Ok, I got 0.1, close enough.
“An imbalance of X% will increase that to (87 + 0.87 * X) GtC/year for an increase in removal rate of X%, but NO change in the e-time of less than 12 years using B&Es outdated unverified numbers.”
Why are you suddenly ignoring the Revelle Factor, here? Current estimates are that it is about 10.
What I did was x% in the atmosphere, produces x/10 % in the ML. Out of this 1/10 will be removed per year, or with your number .087.
That means x/10*0.087 % per year. That means x *0.0087 % per year of atm carbon is drained to the DO.
That implies an e-time of 115 y.
This is absolutely straight forward application of the BE logic.
First of all, me pointing out your lies is not calling you a liar. One just has to deduce that from the evidence. I won’t waste blog space documenting your lies above again. I do challenge to prove your opinion is anything but worthless, especially regarding the B&E bottleneck which you still cannot demonstrate. That is the hole you dug and continue to dig.
“Why are you suddenly ignoring the Revelle Factor, here?”
Because, as I have explained and demonstrated several times now, it does not cause a bottleneck. Revelle factor is simply an expression of how the growth of atm CO2 compares to the growth in DIC in the ML. B&E’s own model predicts over 5% increase in DIC for every 10% increase in atm CO2. The actual data is more like 1.4% for every 10% as my spreadsheet shows. The reason for that discrepancy between their model and reality and the reason there is no bottleneck is because the deep ocean is sucking up more CO2 than you or B&E imagine. Reality trumps yours and B&E’s logic.
“Because, as I have explained and demonstrated several times now, it does not cause a bottleneck.”
So before, in your spreadsheet model you seemed to be trying to see what the BE model would produce. And you admitted that it needed work to use their full equations. You included a Revelle Factor. Now you are inexplicably removing it. Then you no longer are testing BE model as you claimed to be doing.
“Revelle factor is simply an expression of how the growth of atm CO2 compares to the growth in DIC in the ML.”
Yes, it is simply an expression of well understood chemical equilibrium.
“B&Es own model predicts over 5% increase in DIC for every 10% increase in atm CO2. The actual data is more like 1.4% for every 10% as my spreadsheet shows. The reason for that discrepancy between their model and reality and the reason there is no bottleneck is because the deep ocean is sucking up more CO2 than you or B&E imagine. Reality trumps yours and B&Es logic.”
No! That is because your spreadsheet is not using the correct differential equation.
Your spreadsheet formulas need to be designed to prevent the DIC from increasing beyond what chemical equilibrium with the atmosphere would allow. Which is x in the atmosphere and x/R in the ML, where R is Revlle Factor
The diff equation has to have the form da/dt = (R*m -a)/etime, where a = %change in atmosphere carbon from its original value, and m is %change in ML carbon from its original value.
You can see that da/dt = 0 when R*m = a then equilibrium is reached. Then m = a/R.
“And you admitted that [the spreadsheet] needed work to use their full equations.”
I did this already. Their model predicts the increase in atm CO2, but not the other reservoirs. This is understandable, because they didn’t have access to 60 years’ data we now have.
“You included a Revelle Factor. Now you are inexplicably removing it.”
Not true. Why do you state facts not in evidence? This is your typical MO. Either you don’t know what you are talking about or you intentionally obfuscate. With the posted spreadsheet model, I put in rate constants that fit the data. In another spreadsheet, I use B&E’s rate constants and observe that their model doesn’t fit the data. Understandable as I just explained. Now my work ahead is to tease their comprehensive model with either different rate constants or initial reservoir quantities. This will be a rabbit hole unless I proceed wisely. Trial and error will be prohibitively time consuming.
“…your spreadsheet is not using the correct differential equation.”
You are, well, let’s just say wrong, lest I write what I really think. There are two types of equations. Those that explain the data and those that don’t. You are welcome to make your own model and try to match the data with whatever equations you like. Have at it.
“Your spreadsheet formulas need to be designed to prevent the DIC from increasing beyond…”
Stop right there. The correct finish should be, “what the actual data shows.” That’s what I have done.
“…what chemical equilibrium with the atmosphere would allow.”
Again, can’t you get it into your head that nature determines what the equations should be, not you or B&E. If a model doesn’t match “experiment,” it’s wrong!
Please post the results of how your equations match actual data. Enough of your vacuous assertions.
“‘Your spreadsheet formulas need to be designed to prevent the DIC from increasing beyond’
Stop right there. The correct finish should be, ‘what the actual data shows.’ Thats what I have done.”
Uhh, no. The ‘ends justify the means’ here is being abused. Your model needs to obey laws of physics and chemistry.
‘what chemical equilibrium with the atmosphere would allow.’
“Again, cant you get it into your head that nature determines what the equations should be, not you or B&E. If a model doesnt match ‘experiment,’ its wrong!”
Nor does your ‘spreadsheet’ determine what nature should do.
In science, we observe nature repeatedly and establish what its rules are. One of those established rules is chemical equilibrium. A correct model must adhere to these rules.
In this case the ocean reaches chemical equilibrium with the atmosphere, when xatm = xml/R.
When equilibrium is reached there is no longer any chemical driving force to push more CO2 from the atmosphere into the mixed layer. It must stop.
But in your spreadsheet model, it appears that you allow it to continue to be pushed into the ocean from the atmosphere, when the driving force should be in the other direction!
Listen to yourself, “Your model needs to…it doesn’t determine what nature should do…we establish what its rules are…model must adhere to these rules….”
In your attempt to avoid admitting that you dug yourself into a hole, you are babbling nonsense. You found an obscure sentence written 64 years ago in a theoretical paper that you have, at best, misinterpreted the meaning of bottleneck. You lied about my spreadsheet and continue to lie about it now.
Listen to me and learn: My spreadsheet doesn’t dictate what nature should do. My spreadsheet doesn’t abuse physical or chemical laws. My spreadsheet simply allows one to test the application of proposed hypothetical scenarios against the known data. You have no model or data of your own and can only appeal to the work of others. You assert what they claim without proof. You imagine yourself an expert having never played a game in the sport. Pitiful.
“One of those established rules is chemical equilibrium.”
Equilibrium is not a rule. It is simply the observation that, with any exchange between two or more states, the opposing changes are equal. The atmosphere is never in equilibrium. At best you could say a pseudo-equilibrium existed prior to human population growth where the changes were unable to be detected. The Mauna Loa and FF emissions data are clear evidence there is no equilibrium.
“…it appears that you allow [CO2] to continue to be pushed into the ocean from the atmosphere, when the driving force should be in the other direction!”
Yes, [fill in any applicable ad hominem], that’s what happens when an equilibrium is perturbed. Le Chatelier’s principle? So, no, the driving force will continue to push CO2 into the ocean in an ongoing attempt to restore a pseudo equilibrium. No bottleneck, only nature doing its thing.
“‘it appears that you allow [CO2] to continue to be pushed into the ocean from the atmosphere, when the driving force should be in the other direction!’
Yes, [fill in any applicable ad hominem], thats what happens when an equilibrium is perturbed. Le Chateliers principle? So, no, the driving force will continue to push CO2 into the ocean in an ongoing attempt to restore a pseudo equilibrium. No bottleneck, only nature doing its thing.”
You think that the flow will continue in the same direction right on past the point of balance between the reservoirs?
You are saying very weird things.
My answer to you went down to bottom
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1283544
As long as emissions continue to grow, there is no balance. Nature does what it does. You are missing the fun spending all your time living in the past. Stop digging and move on.
So you are saying the normal kinetics governing return to equilibrium, the very kind of eqn that Berry uses, do not apply here?
Pffft..
No, I wrote nothing of the kind. You are obfuscating as usual dodging any opportunity for understanding. Why not do something constructive, like find some evidence of a bottleneck slowing the uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere, which has been progressing unabated for as long as anyone has been measuring it?
“dodging any opportunity for understanding.”
Exactly what you have been doing the last few days.
Ive given you facts (that you agreed to), math, simple logic, and you refuse to apply a rational thought to it.
“As long as emissions continue to grow, there is no balance.”
Emissions are growing but that does not change the validity of the differential equations describing chemical kinetics, which include a return to equilibrium or balance. Emissions are a factor in the eqn.
“Nature does what it does.”
Seriously? Then why are you trying to model it?
So we are not allowed to use previously observed patterns in nature, the laws of chemistry and physics, to model new ones? Because nature just does what it does?
Nate says:
Yes, [fill in any applicable ad hominem], thats what happens when an equilibrium is perturbed. Le Chateliers principle?
———————
Nate your argument is based upon a false premise that any equilibrium ever existed. Change is normal.
What you need to establish is evidence that something is afoot that will reverse the great boon to mankind that the industrial revolution has brought us and not just speculate on that.
We all have a romantic interest in the world of our youth but we can’t let that be a ”I have mine and want to keep it so you can’t have yours” form of philosophy. That runs contrary to the real happiness of mankind as a whole. As Chic says you must first establish an undesirable trend in replicable science rather than pontificate or parrot pontifications of such trends by whoever influences you.
“rather than pontificate”
Direct from our chief pontificator.
Nate denies that people are better off today than 150 years ago. It has been mostly steady progress except when the socialists begin to deny the scientific method and start lying ro people.
Nate,
Accusing me of dodging is another of your libelous lies. You have only contributed assertions that you cannot back up with data. Logic is worthless if you can’t make your model fit the data. Go away and come back when you understand this stuff.
“Emissions are growing but that does not change the validity of the differential equations describing chemical kinetics, which include a return to equilibrium or balance. Emissions are a factor in the eqn.”
That is total bloviation and meaningless assertions. Meanwhile, all I do is try to match B&E’s equations to rectify their
model against the data nature provides and you ask why after I already explained that nature determines the equations, not the other way around.
Nate says:
”The ordinary exchange between the ML and DO are about 100 Gt/year and the ML contains about 1000 GT. Lets assume the usual first-order kinetics applies between them. So the e-time would be ~ 10 y for anything added to the ML, creating an imbalance, to return to equil with the DO.”
and
”That paper showed 60y ago that the Revelle factor (ocean chemistry) discoreved the year before by Revelle, produces a bottleneck. And therefore anthro carbon does not get removed quickly from the atmosphere to the ocean. And they accurately predicted the rise in atm CO2 that would come in the next decades, due only to fossil fuel emissions.”
——————————-
I agree that the Revelle factor produces some sort of bottleneck in chemically depositing carbon from the ML to the DO. I also agree that one can correctly predict the rise in carbon in the atmosphere via looking at the rates of temperature change. Making it fit the human emissions rate is a simple matter of assuming that rate of increase observed and used for prediction
is from human emissions rather than ocean warming.
Unfortunately from the audit perspective we are all the way back to square one. Direct chemical deposition is but one method of sequestering carbon because those chemicals sink.
One can BS is a large circle (and jerk too if that is what you are into Nate) but it doesn’t mean shit. Bottom line is all this is meaningless when one looks at the bomb pulse uptake.
That uptake required absorbing at least 90% of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere and completely breaking them down so they were either in the DO or swimming around in longlived ocean species whose periods of sequestration of that carbon resulted in an equivalent of sending it to the bottom of the ocean. Bottom of the ocean happens to be the fate of most dead fish (should it not be reconsumed by another biological specie). Do dead fish and fish shit sink? Maybe you ought to check a textbook on that Nate!
One can basically shove all the propaganda about time running out as nothing more than the usual fear mongering one sees when one has a political objective to find excuses to shake down the public.
So Nate while you are full on in blather mode about a segment of the natural processes that eroded the bomb pulse. . . .here is a decent article from the Washington Post arising from the work of scientists looking for ways to ground truth all those new equations for projecting allegedly catastrophic climate change.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/14/some-good-news-about-global-warming-for-once-plants-are-speeding-up-their-use-of-carbon/
Earlier, the bizarrely ignorant troll, Willard, appealed to the authority of a piece of nonsense presented as fact, trying to annoy another commenter.
As usual, Willard demonstrated his utter gullibility. Here’s a quote from the “facts” he relied on –
“In their work, they achieved this by coupling each end of a hypothetical sample with so-called quantum Hall bar geometry to two thermal reservoirs at different temperatures and simulating what happened using a computer model.”
An imaginary experiment using a non-existent sample, measured with a non-existent instrument.
Typical GHE believer garbage.
Wait, Mike –
Are you saying I MADE YOU LOOK?
\o/
You made you look idiotic though.
You insufferable twat.
Here’s to what Mike refers:
You’re the one who’s supposed to clean this mess.
Just too dumb to do it.
I was talking about all your ‘contributions’ on here. Which in total make you look like an idiot.
Sure, dummy.
Said the idiot.
So be it, Richard.
Said Willard the idiot.
You cannot say I did not give any chance to make amends, Richard.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Yeah, that would be the delusional speculation where Whinnying Willy got caught out, backed up by a big nothingburger.
Idiot troll Willard doesn’t even know that a “hypothetical sample” really means non-existent, and “simulating what happened” to something that didn’t actually exist required a “computer model” to produce an imaginary irrelevant result.
Just like dimwitted GHE proponents. Just like Willard Peabrain, they are too stupid to realise that claiming they have things like a Greenhouse Theory means that they look like fools when they get caught lying.
At least most don’t get so carried away with their own self importance as Michael Mann (faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat), who claimed he had a Nobel Prize – even concocting a certificate on his computer to “prove” it!
How’s that for computer modelling?
Your incredulity is duly noted, silly sock puppet.
Wee Willy Liar,
What? Still expecting people to believe you have a Greenhouse Theory? How about a Greenhouse Effect Theory?
Moron. Keep telling God how dumb he is!
Wut wut, Mike?
Incredulity:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/incredulity
Whickering Www Willy,
More stupid diversion, is it?
No Greenhouse Theory to be found, so you provide irrelevant links trying to convince people you are clever because you know your alphabet.
Well done, dimwit.
Now back to the fact that you lied when you claimed you had a Greenhouse Theory.
Moron.
Mike, Mike,
You said –
What?
I answered.
And now you bark about diversion?
Cheers.
Weaseling Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Wut wut, Mike?
Incredulity:
Incomprehensible nonsense, as usual.
So still lying about having a Greenhouse Theory, are you?
Try some other avoidance tactic to reject reality. No GHE, no Greenhouse Theory, no Greenhouse Effect Theory, and you are such an ineffective troll you cant even annoy anybody!
Thats reality, even though you may be incredulous.
Your fantasy beliefs are no substitute for fact, except in your own mind. Thats why all you have is credulity based on – nothing!
Try using English. Then at least, people might think that you are less stupid than you are.
Mike, Mike,
The topic was related to the Second Law. No, not the one where you decide that what you talk about is the topic. But if you want the greenhouse theory, you might wish to buy the Sky Dragon Cranks magnum opus. That should get you started.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Whacko Wee Willy wrote –
“God youre dumb.”
I suppose that Willard Almighty thinks God will take notice of Willard’s pompous assertion.
Nobody else does. Why should God be different?
You suppose wrong, silly sock puppet, and you’re pulling me in, which means that your “nobody else does” is false.
Do better.
Wee Willy Wanker,
“Pulling me in”? You wish. Sorry, not interested in sly homosexual hints.
Try them elsewhere.
Mike, Mike,
**The Godfather** was not gay smut.
Wistful Wee Willard,
What are you babbling about?
Caught out lying about having a Greenhouse Theory, so you start dribbling about The Godfather?
Are you quite mad, peabrain?
Mike Flynn,
We know you have no decency, but have you no culture?
Try this:
https://media.giphy.com/media/iHCi2sYO2rP4Q/giphy.gif
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“We know you have no decency, but have you no culture?
Try this: . . .
– followed by some irrelevant link.
Maybe you think you have God-like powers to establish acceptable standards of decency and culture, but who would accept standards set by a loony who runs around with his hand down his trousers going Oh! Oh! Oh!?
As to US culture in general, Mahatma Ghandi was once asked what he thought of American culture. He thought for a moment, and then replied I think it would be a good idea.
Im not accusing you of American, of course. I dont know, and I dont care.
Very good, Mike.
Feeling better?
Willard,
Still trying to avoid admitting that are lying about having a Greenhouse Theory?
Not even a good try.
A good try at what, Mike?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Strong contender for most bizarre gotcha of the year.
“So eventually nights will be warmer than days?”
I guess it’s possible that a climate crackpot might be stupid enough to believe the “logic” that led him to ask that question, and think that others would applaud his cleverness.
There are those who observe that nights are warming faster than days without considering that it must come to an end soon(ish).
dan p…”Nights warming faster than days is consistent with increased greenhouse effect which is consistent with increased water vapor. WV has been increasing 1.44% per decade for as long as it has been accurately measured worldwide”.
***
Dan, I realize WV is your thing and each to his own. However, you need to take in the physical reality. Even if WV is increasing it is still a trace gas that accounts for no more than 0.3% of the atmosphere.
What do you mean by greenhouse effect? Are you claiming, in a real greenhouse, that if all the WV and CO2 was removed, the greenhouse would not warm to the same extent?
More physical reality….look up the Environment Canada temperatures for anywhere in Canada during the past year. I doubt that you’ll find a situation where any night was warmer than any day.
Here’s an hourly forecast for Vancouver, Canada. It goes from its present temperature of 10C at 9PM, reaching a low of 7C during night and back up to 8C in the morning.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/hourly-weather-forecast/british-columbia/vancouver
How the heck would it warm during the night with no solar input? The idiots who wrote the article are claiming an even more trace gas, CO2, is warming the planet during solar absence.
This is out and out pseudo-science.
I think Dan’s theory is more plausible than CO2 greenhouse theory. My issue is that it will still imply an unstable climate. We wouldn’t be here if the system were unstable.
Our inner neighbour, Venus, has a surface temperature of 730K.
Our outer neighbour, Mars, has a surface temperature of 218K.
Over the last 600 million years Earth has varied between 278K and 298K, a range of only 20K.
The consensus view is that this is due to the silicate weathering feedback.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012825220303445#
This postulates that the rate of input of CO2 to the atmosphere from volcanoes is stable in the long term, but the rate of removal of CO2 by silicate weathering is temperature dependant.
When something causes the temperature to drop below equilibrium, weathering decreases and CO2 accumulates. When the temperature rises above the equilibrium point weathering increases and CO2 concentration drops.
If course, this only works if you accept that changes in CO2 concentration can modulate global temperature. If you do not, perhaps you can suggest an alternative feedback mechanism.
Ent, you don’t know “the last 600 million years Earth has varied between 278K and 298K.
“Consensus” is not science.
“Postulates” are not “proof”.
If you believe that increases in CO2 concentration can raise global temperature, you need to learn some of the basics — ice cubes can not boil water and passenger jets do not fly backwards.
You’ve got a lot to learn.
Pup,
This line:
https://climateball.net/but-consensus
is silly. This other line could be fine:
https://climateball.net/but-science
But you are too silly to use it properly.
For starters, proofs belong to maths and liquor.
Also Ent, nonsense from children in your cult only shows how little you really have to offer.
Weird Wee Willy,
Still trying avoid admitting you are lying about having a Greenhouse Theory?
Maybe you could try convincing people you have designed a wonderful globally admired game called Climateball. Unfortunately, just another lie.
Moron (of the lying variety).
[sardonic laughter]
Mike Flynn,
Mountain of Flatulences.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
“The idiots who wrote the article are claiming an even more trace gas, CO2, is warming the planet during solar absence. ”
Perhaps a change of vocabulary. You use warming as though extra energy were being pumped into the surface at night. In fact greenhouse gases are reducing the rate of heat loss to space.
Perhaps a better phrasing would be:-
“The idiots who wrote the article are claiming an even more trace gas, CO2, is insulating the planet during solar absence.”
Em,
If you like.
However, insulation does not make a cooling body hotter. Hot soup in a vacuum flask cools – it doesnt get hotter in spite of the nearly 100% back radiation” within the flask.
Nor does the Earth, no matter how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere.
This is why the Earth cools at night, in winter, over the last four and a half billion years, etc.
Maybe you live in an alternative reality, or maybe you just dont accept the one that most of us inhabit.
You like it too, Mike, for you said the same EM did not too long ago. Do you know where I could find the theory behind that insulation effect by any chance?
Thanks in advance!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Phantom Space places order for more than 200 Ursa Major rocket engines
by Staff Writers
Tucson AZ (SPX) May 10, 2022
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Phantom_Space_places_order_for_more_than_200_Ursa_Major_rocket_engines_999.html
I was wondering if such engines could used to land on lunar surface:
https://www.ursamajor.com/engines
“Hadley 5,000 lbf
Thrust, Sea Level
Lox / Kerosene
Ripley 50,000 lbf
Thrust, Sea Level
Lox / Kerosene
On the way
Multiple Thrust Classes
Cryogenic & Storable
It doesn’t seem one would want to use Kerosene for lunar surface
landing, but planning on making others.
Anyways this kind of stuff could make robotic lunar landers cheaper- but, not quite there, yet {apparently}.
I believe we’ve reached a point in technology where we won’t see any gains for a long time, a peak. I think this includes computers, phones, space exploration, medicine, etc. We will be pretty stagnant for the next couple of centuries.
It wasn’t too long ago that rocket engines were 200 million dollars- and probably still been sold for that. And they are about 2 million now, and should cost less than 1 million at some point.
Rockets that reach orbit could get so cheap, that we back to non useable rockets- wouldn’t be surprised if it’s new fad, particularly with smaller rockets.
But satellites used cost more than the rocket that put them into orbit- those seem like they are just going to get cheaper and cheaper.
Correction/Update:
“It wasnt too long ago that rocket engines were 200 million dollars- and probably still been sold for that.”
Here has current engine cost, particularly regarding second stage Centaur:
https://www.mcnallyinstitute.com/how-much-is-centaur-engine/
“How Much Does The Rl10 Cost?
As a result, these engines, manufactured by Aerojet Rocketdyne, have a high cost of entry. According to Artemis, NASA bought seven RL-10 engines for its maiden Exploration Upper Stage vehicle for an average price of $17 million.”
So a lot cheaper than seems to be, say a decade ago.
I always like these Centaur but they had expensive {and very good engines]. I think are worth 17 million, but even cheaper would better:) Also there:
“How Much Does A Spacex Merlin Cost?
It costs less than $1 million to build a SpaceX Merlin engine. With better manufacturing technology at SpaceX, more efficient engines will be built for the Raptor for a cheaper price than comparable engines produced at Merlin. An estimated $2.24 million is the market value of todays Raptors.”
And Youtube about Boeing CST-100 Starliner which doing demo launch
soon, hopeful. Using 2 Rl10 engines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OislF7OG_BI
Of course with merlin 8 of 9 are reused, and with Raptors for Starship, all engine of first and second stage will evenually be reused. And Rl10 wouldn’t be reused, unless rocket fuel is made on the Moon
It is notoriously hard to predict innovations.
In certain areas we have plateaued, like aerospace. We didnt get everything in the movie 2001 a Space Odyssey, by 2022.
But in others, totally unpredicted rapid innovation has happened.
We now can locate ourselves on the planet with pinpoint accuracy, not dreamed of a few decades ago.
Drones that hardly existed 20 y ago, are now everywhere.
We now have personal access to much of the world’s information in our pocket. Not predicted just 20 years ago.
Speaking of predictions, Are you going to give us an update on
that La Nina early exit ???
Don’t leave us hanging
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1130926
No.
But I will predict that you wont stop your inane victory parade over your teeny tiny victory about April nino3.4.
Can someone kindly clarify ‘rate of warming’ for me, please? We are told (only by pressure groups, it appears) that there is a climate ‘crisis’ or ’emergency’. My understanding of the English language tells me then that the rate of warming must have changed. In order for something that has been growing to be suddenly classed as a crisis or emergency, the rate of growth must have changed*. As far as I can see, UAH has a rate of warming that is 0.13 deg c per decade, and RSS has it as 0.18. But I cannot see any change in that rate, significant or otherwise.
*or its state must have reached a point that is irretrievable from an ideal.
” My understanding of the English language tells me then that the rate of warming must have changed. ”
The rate of warming has changed from 50 years ago, when it was close to 0.
Not sure why you need acceleration of warming?
The idea is that at the present rate of warming, certain thresholds of T rise (like 2 degrees C) will soon be crossed, so-called tipping points. Beyond which irreversible changes will then be unstoppable, such as melting of glaciers and ice caps, flooding of some cities and desertification of some regions.
We can already see by the record low lake levels in western US, some of the predictions appear to have been correct.
Things change.
What do do call a government which trying to stop change.
I like a government to be progressive, not one trying to turn back the clock- or trying to stop change.
Foster, FYI the latest RSS TLT global trend is 0.213 K/decade. Neither the RSS nor UAH data represent surface conditions which may be warming faster. The sat LT data have peak weighting at about 1/3 the way thru the column of air.
UAH TLT trends are as noted at the top of the page
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land)”
The MAU/AMSU data does not represent what’s going on at the surface. Your continued infatuation with the UAH data is noted.
The surface temperature within the SBL at 2m does not directly represent the bulk air temperature around/above it. That depends on a lot of other things.
And that leaves aside the uncertainty with point samples against volume data.
“The MAU/AMSU data does not represent whats going on at the surface. ”
RSS uses AMU/AMSU data yet you quote it.
….MSU/AMSU data….
RLH, Sorry for the typing error. I was also pointing out that Foster’s data for the RSS TLT was incorrect.
Yes, I point to RSS as another data point to consider. You may not like the 2 meter data, but most people don’t live at 650 hpa (~3600meters elevation) where the LT peaks (calculated using the RSS weights).
Most of the atmosphere, which we are supposed to be measuring, does not ‘live’ at 2m either.
UAH (and RSS) makes some assumptions about what is happening at the surface in the same way that 2m measurements makes some assumptions about what is happening above them (and between them), each looking from different sides of the SBL.
“Most of the atmosphere, which we are supposed to be measuring, does not live at 2m either.”
Yep thats why weather balloons have been important in meteorology. Thats why reanalysis which determines the whole atmosphere properties from available measurements and weather models, is now used and useful.
BTW, reanalysis finds similar trends to the surface records.
Weather balloon data is used to confirm that UAH is accurate. It is one of the ways in which satellite and ground based measurements are cross calibrated.
The vertical profile that they show, quite different for day and night close to the surface, is part of the assumptions that are made for above and below the Surface Boundary Layer.
“is part of the assumptions that are made for above and below the Surface Boundary Layer.”
Again, if it makes no difference in the measured trends, then this is a non-issue.
RLH, You really need to get back to reality. For example, HERE’s some news from Africa.
“Starting in mid-December, South Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, and Uganda are likely to suffer from below average rainfall as a result of a strong La Nia, which could result in millions more people going hungry in 2021.”
11 Dec 2020
How do you think this will progress now we are on the verge of a 3 year La Nina?
https://www.climate.gov/media/14287
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
P.S. Rainfall does not start at 2m.
RLH, Yeah, but ~2 meters is where it ends up. Hope you enjoyed the opening video. You did watch it, right?
Summer time in the US too. But, but, but, meteorological Summer doesn’t start until 1 June…
RLH, Here’s some late breaking news with video links:
Violent storms blast Upper Midwest with hurricane-force winds, dust
I’d bet you all don’t see stuff like that over there.
The SBL is a much studied area. Measurements taken inside it and above it will differ over 24 hours.
Rate of warming is always changing.
For example UAH ‘rate of warming’ since 1998 is effectively zero.
You can look at longer records such as Central England Temperature Anomaly which shows several periods of warming and cooling.
There is much palaver about ~1C warming since 1850 which marks the end of the mini-ice age.
Or you can look at the ice core data that shows most of the Holocene was warmer than now.
Once you’ve digested the data you can then conclude the climate change claptrap isn’t about climate.
Here you go:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/02/17/only-connect/
You could also observe that for the last 7 years the global air temperature figures have been trending downwards on all major temperature series.
e.g.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah.jpeg
You could observe that Richard is spamming his elevator trick again:
https://skepticalscience.com/escalator
You could observe that Willard is an idiot, and leave it at that.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/pdo-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/amo.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/soi.jpeg
You could observe that Richard is looking for a fight. Considering that he is wrong about most technical concepts he himself introduces, it is rather charming.
Perhaps I should compile them.
Your distorted view of things just shows your distortions.
If you want to pontificate like Pup, dummy, you need CAPS LOCK.
Only idiots like yourself do that.
That’s where you’re WRONG, dummy.
See what I mean?
Thank you, Richard:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1277881
Willard: You were the one with caps lock. Not me.
That is the POINT, dummy.
That you are an idiot who uses caps lock?
No, dummy.
I am showing you the ropes to sound like Pup.
You know the drill.
REALITY.
CULT.
BRAIN DEAD.
You almost got it.
You just need to SHOUT it.
Willard,
It doesn’t matter how many caps you use.
You still claim to have a Greenhouse Theory, which makes you a lying idiot. Not having a Greenhouse Theory makes you a liar, and denying it makes you an idiot.
Carry on trying to troll. Maybe you can find people who choose to be annoyed by a lying idiot.
Good luck.
Still here, Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Lets be very clear, the troll currently calling himself Swenson has been claiming for YEARS that no one has a Greenhouse Theory, even though it has been given/shown to him countless times, and he has been exposed to countless discussions of its details.
If by now he still has no idea what it is then that is entirely due to his own mental incapacity.
RLH, arguing with a bore that knows nothing isn’t a productive use of time or effort. Drags you down to their level too.
I disagree, Kennui.
Richard should be arguing more with Mike Flynn.
No-one could be dragged down to Willards level.
Ken,
The pathetic wannabe troll issues instructions trying to get people to argue with each other. He might yet realise that nobody at all values the opinion of a fact-free, impotent, retarded fool.
On the other hand, he might be so divorced from reality he doesn’t know the difference between fact and fantasy.
Facts don’t care what Willard the Wanker desires. Nor do I.
Mike, Mike,
You are playing dumb again.
Kennui is the who tried to issue instructions to our wannabe Hall Monitor.
I simply reminded him that you were the troll here.
Long live and prosper.
I simply reminded everybody that Willard is an idiot.
RLH, we already know about Willard. We don’t need you filling the thread with eternal reminders. Its just more boring BS that we really don’t need.
RLH, we already know about Willard. We don’t need you filling the thread with endless and eternal reminders. Its just more boring BS that we really don’t need.
Lying Wee Willy,
“Kennui is the who tried to issue instructions to our wannabe Hall Monitor.
I simply reminded him that you were the troll here.
More incomprehensible gibberish.
Still trying divert attention away from the fact that you were lying about having a Greenhouse Theory are you?
Accept reality. Take your hand out of your trousers.
Still playing dumb, silly sock puppet?
Stop lying about having a Greenhouse Theory.
Nobody who is not severely regarded believes you. You just emphasise what a lying idiot you are.
Who would value the opinion of a lying idiot?
Not me, that’s for sure!
You know my terms, silly sock puppet.
But I already gave you a free hint:
Look into the Sky Dragon Crank magnum opus.
What do you have to lose?
Wasted Willard,
You wrote –
“You know my terms, silly sock puppet.
But I already gave you a free hint:”
Oh dear – you must think you are somehow important. Your “terms” mean as much to me as a sneeze means to a hurricane – well, less actually.
As to your “free hint”, you don’t really think anyone would pay you for a “hint”, do you?
I wouldn’t even pay you to poke yourself in the eye with a hot needle. Can you do it for “free”, while I laugh at a dimwit?
Moron.
I am important enough for you to keep biting my ankles, Mike Flynn.
I also am important enough to abide by my principles.
If you had any, you would not what that means.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The disaster to worry about appears to be periodic and has nothing to do with climate: https://www.longdom.org/open-access/four-periodical-natural-big-disasters-of-the-planet-earth-during-each-precession-cycle-caused-by-its-motion-new-theory-2167-0587.1000102.pdf
Ken
Please beware of some Serbian sources, and accept only those which show sufficient citations.
This country manifestly hosts a lot of people specialized in producing contrarian studies.
It started in 1919 with Nikola Tesla and his pseudo theory concerning the lunar spin (gullibly believed by Robertson and his altar boys, of course).
Then you have Pavle Savić
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE ROTATION OF CELESTIAL BODIES (1976)
elib.mi.sanu.ac.rs/files/journals/pda/6/broj6_clanak1.pdf
Aleksandar Tomić
THE LUNAR ORBIT PARADOX (2013)
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/1450-5584/2013/1450-55841301135T.pdf
and above all, the leader of all these people (who who ruled his institute with an iron fist, together with his feared wife)
Vujičić
He was brazen enough to redefine Earth’s gravity radius
Modification of earth’s gravity sphere (2013)
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/ft.aspx?id=1450-55841301121V
These people all lived in a closed sphere, without any scientific contradiction.
Bindidon, are you still confused about lunar motion?
It’s as easy to understand as a ball on a string.
You need to get out of your “closed sphere”. You don’t want to be a braindead cult idiot all your life, do you?
Maybe this will help….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo-aQIX9ois
binny…it becomes more apparent from your links that early astronomers and mathematicians were confused about Newton II. They did not read the fine print in Principia, if they, in fact, read it at all.
Newton precedes Newton II with a condition. He claims, ‘IF a force can move a mass, then….’. He makes it clear that Newton II does not apply unless a force can accelerate a mass. If it cannot, the mass does not move, even when a force is applied.
You can test that for yourself right now, find a sturdy wall and push on it. If the displacement is zero, then no acceleration took place.
All of the early work done on the Moon’s alleged rotation was purely mathematical and incorrectly based on Newton II. All of them referred to the F in F = mg as if that gravitational force was actually moving the Earth or the Moon. Obviously, neither Earth’s gravitational force acting on the Moon, nor the Moon’s gravitational force acting on the Earth, has the strength to move either body.
As it stands, the F of Earth can only hold the Moon, thus redirecting it’s linear momentum into an orbit.
Therefore, Newton II does not apply. Newton’s law regarding gravity does apply in the sense that F = G.m1.m2/r^2 applies. There is that much gravitational attraction between both bodies mutually. We know the Moon’s gravity can raise our oceans about a metre toward it and the solid surface about a centimetre. But the force is not strong enough to move the Earth toward the Moon to cause an acceleration.
By the same token, that rules out a barycentre. The Earth and the Moon are not orbiting each other, each follows it’s own orbital path based on its angular momentum. There is no deviation from either orbital path since that would required stronger gravitational forces.
Tesla was right, the Moon cannot rotate about its own axis since there is no angular momentum about the axis. That is obvious since the Moon always has the same face pointing at the Earth. He was correct in claiming the theory did not meet the demands of the reality.
F1 in one direction against F2 in the opposite direction leaves a NET force of 0 if both are the same.
Not quite the same as saying that F1 and F2 do not exist.
If F1 and F2 are different, then the net force is F1 – F2 (or vice versa).
That creates a barycenter regardless.
You could also observe that for the last 7 years the global air temperature figures have been trending downwards on all major temperature series.
e.g.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah.jpeg
On your graph 2020 was as warm as 2016 in most series. Some series showed that 2020 was warmer than 2016.
For example the GISS figures for 2016 and 2020 tied at anomaly 1.02C
Shouldn’t you be claiming that:-
“for the last 2 years the global air temperature figures have been trending downwards on all major temperature series.”
Nope.
https://imgur.com/a/wHbC9NM5
Had is the largest decline since 2015!
Oops – try
https://imgur.com/e4wEYJb
7 years! Dooood. Your info is like waayy out of date.
It’s been getting warmer over the last 12 months!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2021.2/to:2022.2/plot/uah6/from:2021.2/to:2022.2/trend
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/us-climate-summary-april-2022
“The average temperature of the contiguous U.S. in April was 50.7F, which is 0.4F below average”
And the USA has the lowest anomalies on the planet.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2022/05/april-global-surface-templs-down-015.html
“The TempLS mesh anomaly (1961-90 base) was 0.693C in April, down from 0.843C in March. That brings it back to the level of February, undoing the sudden rise to March. The NCEP/NCAR reanalysis base index fell by a very similar 0.163C.”
“ranking in the middle third of the 128-year record.”
Yesterday was pretty warm for Autumn where I live.
It’s funny to look at comments endlessly showing us this or last year’s slight cooling, but which deliberately ignore what happened just a few years before.
I downloaded CONUS’ monthly data
https://tinyurl.com/yr3x38up
from NOAA’s Climate at a Glance (absolute values and anomalies wrt the mean of 1991-2020, all in Fahrenheit).
Here is an ascending sort for the April months since 1979 (there are way colder ones before, shifting 2022 from 13th down to 50th place):
1983 04 47.01 -4.84
1997 04 47.91 -3.94
1982 04 48.63 -3.22
2018 04 49.03 -2.82
1995 04 49.41 -2.44
1984 04 49.60 -2.25
2013 04 49.68 -2.17
1993 04 49.91 -1.94
1979 04 50.14 -1.71
2008 04 50.40 -1.45
2007 04 50.54 -1.31
1996 04 50.65 -1.20
2022 04 50.68 -1.17
*
But they keep pretty silent about CONUS’ March data, because it doesn’t fit their narrative: it’s not cool enough to be mentioned.
And when you show something really unusually warm like currently in India, you are ‘an alarmist’.
Weiter so, Kinder.
binny…”Its funny to look at comments endlessly showing us this or last years slight cooling, but which deliberately ignore what happened just a few years before”.
***
Are you talking about the 18 year flat trend from 1998 – 2015, followed by a brief warming, which seems to be settling back to a flat trend?
What paws, Gordo?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Global_warming_hiatus.gif
You really are a retarded pathetic attempt at a troll, aren’t you?
How are your sly homosexual innuendoes going, Wobbly Wee Willy?
Deflecting attention from your lying claims of having a Greenhouse Theory?
Good luck with that.
By the way, if you mean “pause”, why not just say pause? Is saying “paws” some secret gay form of communication?
Mike Flynn,
By homosexual innuendoes, you are referring to a Godfather meme.
Do you often have fantasies about the mafia world?
Many thanks!
Lying Wee Willy,
Still lying about having a Greenhouse Theory?
Maybe you should try diverting by telling people what they are referring to – implying you have awesome mindreading powers.
You havent. You are just a poor liar, with an inflated sense of your own importance.
Carry on.
Silly sock puppet,
Glad you walk back your homophobic crap.
Have you bought the Sky Dragon Crank magnum opus yet?
If you are too cheap, ask Gordo for his copy.
Winking Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Glad you walk back your homophobic crap”
What are you babbling about, moron? More sly attempts to advance your homosexual agenda?Do you think people are supposed to admire a lying moron like you, just because you might be homosexual? That’s stooping a bit low, but you might be used to that.
Whether a lying moron like you is “glad” or not is none of my business. It makes no difference to me.
Maybe you have an inflated sense of your own importance.
Oh well, that’s your affair, I suppose.
By the way what is a “Sky Dragon Crank Magnum opus?” Is that another non-existent figment of your imagination like the Greenhouse Theory that you lie about having?
Carry on lying. You can run, but you can’t hide!
Moron.
Ask me again about the theory you could find in the Sky Dragon Crank book you have not read, Mike.
Witless Willard,
You wrote –
“Ask me again about the theory you could find in the Sky Dragon Crank book you have not read, Mike.”
What are you babbling about, fool?
Playing dumb again, silly sock puppet?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Will that curve continue upwards forever?
RLH,
Dont be impertinent! Disaster is just around the corner. Tipping point. Seas will boil dry, and as Christine Lagarde pointed out, we will all be boiled, grilled, roasted and toasted – unless we do precisely as that faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann ordered.
The Earth seems to have cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and a few kilometres of ice seems to have accumulated on the previously fertile continent called Antarctica.
I am not panicking just yet.
Would you prefer cycles all the way down, Richard?
Weepy Wee Willy,
RLH asked a question which you obviously can’t answer.
You try to justify your ignorance by asking another pointless gotcha.
Why would anybody bother responding to a lying idiot like you, who claims to have a Greenhouse Theory?
All you have is your hand working furiously in your trousers.
Keep at it.
Mike, Mike,
I already answered that silly question from Richard.
Even if we both know it is not a question.
Keep butting in without reading!
Willard Lying Idiot,
More “butting”? All the homosexual innuendoes arent helping you.
Still pretending you have a Greenhouse Theory, idiot?
Found any brain dead nitwit who believes you? Ho! Ho! Ho!
Gone back to Mike Mike, have you? Told him you love him recently?
[snigger]
Mike, Mike,
You are becoming such a beautiful buttmunch.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Do you think that flouncing around, proudly waving homosexuality like a banner, will divert from the fact that you are a lying fool, claiming you have a non-existent Greenhouse Theory?
Good luck with that.
Willard thinks that the curve will go on forever, until it is almost vertical with a doubling or tripling (or worse) every year. We shall see.
Richard believes that mind probing thoughts I already contradicted is not playing Climateball.
Willard by his responses thinks that the curve will go on upwards forever.
Richard would think by his responses would that make sense.
If Willard thinks the curve will not go upwards forever he should be able to say when he expects it to stop. Otherwise his reluctance means that he thinks that its rise is infinite.
Here, dummy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1278793
You know what’s the domain of a function, right?
“The domain of a function is the set of all possible inputs for the function”
So are all the inputs of the function all trending in such a way as to make the output trend towards infinity? Or will some limit to one or more inputs apply before that happens? If so, when?
I already answered that silly question, dummy. I even corrected your claim that you could observe an impossibility.
Since you pretend to be a coder, you should know how useful restricting a domain can be. Mister Null might demur, but forget about him.
“I already answered that silly question”
No you didn’t.
And when I ask if the domain is limiting before infinity you claim it is not.
I already cited the relevant sub thread, you insufferable twat, and you keep baiting me with rhetorical questions and by putting words in my mouth.
Make your damn point.
Only then will you have to answer when to expect nights being as warm as days, and if you humans will be here to feel it.
No you did not. You just tried to deflect a perfectly reasonable question about how long an upward trend would continue.
Here, dummy:
A few comments above the one I just cited, dummy.
So, do you think that a question about what looks like an impossibility (at least until the Sun stops warming us or that no warmth escapes from the Earth) is reasonable, dummy?
Willard, please stop trolling.
wonky willie…I am talking about the flat trend announced by the IPCC in AR5 between 1998 and 2012. That was announced in 2013 but the flat trend remained till 2015 according to UAH data.
I don’t regard it as a pause, I see it as natural variability. Sometimes it warms, sometimes it cools, and at other times it does neither.
Gordo,
I was talking about that silly square:
https://climateball.net/but-da-paws/
However you see da paws, you still mentioned a flat trend, which means you are still playing a silly move.
Not that silly if we consider your other denials, but still.
Think.
Willard,
You weren’t talking.
You were dribbling irrelevant crap, hoping someone would not realise you are an ignorant idiot, claiming you have a non-existent Greenhouse Theory.
Ignorant, because you believe someone, somewhere, values your stupid opinions.
Maybe you even believe you have the power to make people feel annoyed. I suppose some people might choose to feel annoyed by your idiotic nonsense. Who knows?
Mike, Mike,
I was echoing Gordo.
You missed it because you butt in without reading.
Aw diddums!
Weird Wee Willy,
Homosexual Freudian slip, much?
“Butt in”? Whose butt are you referring to?
You are still dribbling nonsense. “Echoing Gordo”? What are trying to be now – Little Mr Echo?
Which liar are you echoing when you claim you have a non-existent Greenhouse Theory? Michael Mann? Some other idiotic liar, claiming greenhouses stay “toasty warm” in the depths of a frozen winter?
You might as well carry on lying – you’re not much use as a troll.
Mike, Mike,
“Butt in”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/butt%20in
You are becoming the butt of the joke.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You can link all you like to definitions of words with homosexual innuendoes, and pretend how innocent you are. Someone might believe you are not a lying idiot, when you claim you have a non-existent Greenhouse Effect.
Go on, provide links to definitions of “lying” and “idiot”, if you like.
[chortle]
Thank you for allowing me to continue to link to definitions, silly sock puppet from bumfuck nowhere in Australia.
Wee Willy Idiot,
You wrote –
“Thank you for allowing me to continue to link to definitions, silly sock puppet from bumfuck nowhere in Australia.”
Says it all, really.
How are you going showing you are not lying about having a Greenhouse Theory?
You could always resort to obscenities with homosexual innuendoes – oh wait, you did already.
Carry on, lying obscene dimwit.
And what does it say, Mike Butthead Flynn?
Willard, please stop trolling.
ken…”Once youve digested the data you can then conclude the climate change claptrap isnt about climate”.
***
The so-called Green policies of the BC government and the federal liberals are not about science. In fact, a few years ago, a Liberal MP claimed it doesn’t matter if the AGW science is wrong, they are doing the right thing by following policies that combat CO2 emission.
Climate modelers Stphen Schneider mused about the efficacy of scientists lying to people to get the AGW message across. It’s no longer idle musing, we are being lied to constantly about important issues, presumably for our own good. If you weren’t such a thick Islander you’d get it that were being lied to about the Ukraine-Russian war.
I think these eco-weenies are trying to push an agenda fostered by the UN to covertly steer the world into global government. We have seen the effect of that in Europe with the European Union. I think the best thing for the UK was to get out of that madness and regain their autonomy.
In the Ukraine, they have taken it one step farther. They have foreigners running important parliamentary departments like the Ministry of Finance. I don’t want unelected foreigners running Canada or BC. That’s what will happen with world government, where the International Monetary Fund will be calling the shots financially.
C’mon, Gordo.
Not the Ukraine.
Ukraine.
How do you feel about China’s support for Ukraine, and their idea that this includes Crimea and Donbass:
https://twitter.com/Flash43191300/status/1524484859342770180
C’mon Willard,
How do you feel about Chinas support for Ukraine, and their idea that this includes Crimea and Donbass?
Convince me that anybody cares what you think.
Why would I try to convince you of anything, Mike?
Because you are a lying idiot who thinks my name is Mike?
That. Does. Not. Make. Any. Sense. Mike.
Good night.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Binny,
Months is not about climate.
Years is not climate.
Climate is the statistics of past weather – often over a 30 year period.
Weather changes constantly. Always has, always will.
Weiter so Junge.
Someone previously mentioned a reservation about the sensitivity of 19th century instrumentation.
Here’s a short extract from a US NIST paper of 1907 –
“For example, it may be possible at certain hours of the day to read a bolometer-galvanometer deflection to 0.1 mm. and thus detect a rise in temperature of, say, one ten-millionth degree, but for an instrument that is useful at all hours a fair estimate of the sensitiveness attained by various observers is about one-tenth to one-twentieth this value.”
The galvanometers built by Tyndall were certainly sensitive enough to detect the IR emitted by the gas from a single human exhalation 30 feet away, and Tyndall recorded readings of this type when calibrating and demonstrating his instrument. In fact, readings needed to be taken using a telescope, as the IR from the observer swamped that from the sample being investigated.
Even 1907, the US NIST was pointing out that commercial instruments of this type generally inflated their sensitivity, and that serious researchers should build their own – as Tyndall and others did.
The “climate scientists” of today build nothing, and as a consequence, don’t know much more than that.
Just blather and unsupported assertion – supported by nothing more than their own inflated sense of self importance.
Here’s an old measurement, 2006 or so –
“A new measurement resolves cyclotron and spin levels for a single-electron quantum cyclotron to obtain an electron magnetic moment, given by g/2 = 1.00115965218085(76)[0.76 ppt]. The uncertainty is nearly 6 times lower than in the past, and g is shifted downward by 1.7 standard deviations. The new g, with a quantum electrodynamics (QED) calculation, determines the fine structure constant with a 0.7 ppb uncertainty10 times smaller than for atom-recoil determinations.”
Climate science measurements? You’ve got to be joking. Amateur hour, start to finish.
swenson…”In fact, readings needed to be taken using a telescope, as the IR from the observer swamped that from the sample being investigated”.
***
Interesting. Never occurred to me that IR from a human body would influence the readings. That also raises the question as to whether a thermopyle in those days had the sensitivity to pick up IR going through the device Tyndall used. In today’s micro-thermopyles, they use lenses to amplify the IR by focusing it on a tiny location.
The thermocouple was actually devised to measure heat directly, not via conversion from IR. The principle is that two dissimilar metals produce a voltage at their joint proportional to a temperature difference applied to each metal. To detect IR, the IR would need an intensity high enough to warm the metal, which is something you might expect from a high temperature source like a furnace.
Seebeck effect…
https://www.britannica.com/science/Peltier-effect
Note the link to thermocouple in this link.
I think Tyndall used a thermopyle, which is several thermocouples in series. I don’t see how he could measure IR directly since there is no way with a thermopyle to heat it with IR from a flame at a distance. As I said, scientists in his day thought they were measuring heat moving through the air as heat rays.
I don’t think his intention was to measure the intensity of IR, it was to measure the lack of it, since absorbing gases were dissipating it. What I am questioning is the possibility he was measuring something else.
I’ll need to play with this one day to see how sensitive a thermocouple is to IR at various distances. I fully accept the result of Tyndall’s experiment, that gases like CO2 can absorb and block it partially. I just don’t think the 0.04% in the atmosphere makes any difference to the humungous amount of IR generated by the surface.
As R.W. Wood pointed out, surface IR is so weak as to be of no warming use after a few feet. That does not mean it cannot be seen by a satellites flying several hundred miles about the surface, it’s simply not doing anything. You can see a car’s headlight miles away but they won’t light anything in your vicinity.
Gordon,
Here’s the title of a section of a 1907 NIST publication “INSTRUMENTS AND METHODS USED IN RADIOMETRY.
By W. W. Coblentz.”
You might find it interesting, or not, as the case may be.
As to Tyndall, “Heat A Mode of Motion” describes his experiments, and a whole lot of related stuff. You can get a copy of the sixth edition on the internet. He covers the construction and calibration of instruments like the thermopile, the galvanometer, and many others.
The footnotes making corrections to earlier editions, as Tyndall became aware of new facts, seem odd at times. I think corrections were added as footnotes on occasion to avoid the cost of resetting large slabs of text, but it’s only a guess.
Good luck.
So good you said it twice.
Richard is getting to the bottom of it.
Wee Willy Wanker,
More sly homosexual innuendoes?
“Richard is getting to the bottom of it.”
Accompanied by another witless attempt to convince people you can read minds.
Geez, how stupid can one Willard be?
Mike, Mike,
Bottom of the thread.
Love.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Oh yes, try to weasel out of your homosexual innuendoes, then tell “Mike Mike” you love him.
A lying idiot like yourself would probably claim he was only trolling, or joking, or something!
Jeez, Willy. Keep trying to pretend that you are not lying about having a Greenhouse Theory. You can run, but you can’t hide.
Lying moron.
Mike Flynn,
Silly sock puppet.
Weary Willard,
Delusional liar.
Wants to believe I am really someone else.
Claims he has a Greenhouse Theory.
What a moron you are!
Sky Dragon Cranks also believe the greenhouse theory exists, silly sock puppet.
They claim to have slain it!
Are they liars too?
Oups!
The Sky Dragon Slayers (which is actually a very specific group of people, not all of those who recognize there is no GHE class themselves as “Slayers”) made the argument that there are many different versions of the supposed “GHE theory” in circulation, and set out to refute all of them. There is not one hard and fast version of what the “GHE theory” is supposed to be. Kind of strange for something supposedly so important and fundamental.
More than that, Kiddo – most Sky Dragon Cranks don’t agree with one another!
…and since there is not one hard and fast version of what the “GHE theory” is supposed to be, Swenson is completely justified in continuing to ask for one. There should be one, but there isn’t.
The word you are looking for is canonical, Kiddo. That Sky Dragon Cranks could not find any can also mean they suck at researching. What are their citations?
Also, if you could acknowledge that Mike Flynn is wrong, that would be great.
Swenson is correct, and you are wrong, as usual.
Mike Flynn claims there is no greenhouse theory.
You claim there are many.
Only in Dragon Cranks universes is zero contained in many.
If there are many alternative versions of a “theory” then there is not one single version of the theory, as there should be.
There can be an infinity of equivalent formulations of a theory, Kiddo. All that matters is that they cover the same range of phenomena. And to repeat, that Sky Dragon Cranks cannot find a proper version of it shows more about their research skills than anything.
But you still have not acknowledged a very simple point:
Is zero contained in many, yes or no?
Nay not worry, I will not copy-paste the same comment or declare victory just because you act like the Kiddo we know and love.
Glad to see you back. Did you have a good time irl?
They’re not equivalent, Willard. They are alternative versions of the supposed “GHE theory”. They argue different things in different ways. Refute one version, and up pops something different.
I am speaking in general term under what conditions two theories can be said equivalent, Kiddo. You seem to be talking about specific formulations.
Which ones are you opining about, and why do you keep dodging the fact that the existence of many formulations of a theory implies its existence?
Why can you not understand that by Swenson asking you for a GHE theory he might simply be making the point that there is not one single, coherent theory? Rather there is a multitude of ideas thrown about which each change and evolve into something different, when challenged.
Chartmaster,
You should understand Mikey is arguing that there is no greenhouse theory, not that there are multiple greenhouse theories.
It’s like the second law, there are multiple equivalent statements of the second law in the English language.
It seems Mikey doesn’t know what a theory is.
Here is an example of a theory
“The generally accepted greenhouse theory is that the sun’s rays, mostly visible light, pierce the earth’s atmosphere and strike the surface. When the rays are reflected they are transformed into invisible heatcarrying infrared rays. But carbon dioxide in the atmosphere holds them in, keeping the planet comfortable.”
A well flawed example, but even with the errors, it’s still a theory even if it’s wrong in some of the details.
By serendipity, Bob:
https://www.scielo.br/j/rbef/a/JjZnwmmkVxyrDP6p3FbMxJw/?format=pdf&lang=en
This confirms your claim that there are many versions of the fundamental laws, some equivalent, others not.
I would quote if I was not on my tablet, but I try to stay away from the computer, the markets crashing and all.
So your belief is that Swenson has genuinely never seen anything like what you have quoted, and actually believes that there has never been an attempt by anyone to express what the GHE theory supposedly is? I find that unlikely, bob. I find it more likely that the point Swenson is making is that there is not one single, coherent theory presented. There are all sorts of different versions.
Oh, and Kiddo –
Arguing that a theory cannot be knocked down because it always is a moving target is not the same thing as arguing that it can or has been refuted.
The two arguments are in fact incompatible.
All versions of the GHE have been refuted. However, during a discussion, when one version gets knocked down, the GHE proponent will simply switch to another of the versions, until the other person loses the will to live. At which point the GHE proponent declares victory and is congratulated by various other GHE proponents, who would all argue amongst themselves about which version of the GHE is correct, if left to their own devices.
[KIDDO] All versions of the GHE have been refuted.
[MIKE FLYNN] There is no Greenhouse Theory, nor Greenhouse Effect Theory, nor any of the other nonsensical Theories you mention.
Which Sky Dragon crank should we trust?
Neither, I say!
Swenson is correct. There is no one, single, coherent theory. It’s instead just a mish-mash of ideas that change from one to another as you attack them.
Kiddo does not always refute a theory, but when he does it does not need to exist.
There is no one, single, coherent theory. Its instead just a mish-mash of ideas that change from one to another as you attack them.
Kiddo does not always refute all versions of a theory, but when he does they always keep changing.
The life of Sky Dragon Cranks must get tiring, having to entertain two contrary stances before supper time.
As I said, all versions of the GHE have been refuted. However, during a discussion, when one version gets knocked down, the GHE proponent will simply switch to another of the versions, until the other person loses the will to live. At which point the GHE proponent declares victory and is congratulated by various other GHE proponents, who would all argue amongst themselves about which version of the GHE is correct, if left to their own devices.
As Kiddo said, all versions of the greenhouse theory that does no exist have been refuted.
Perhaps he could find two versions that Sky Dragon Cranks refuted in their magnum opus?
Preferably two versions that would not exist, for he would not want to contradict Mike Flynn, would he?
DREMT
There really is only one science version of GHE. The others are all misunderstanding promoted by contrarian skeptics.
The real one has been explained to you.
The atmosphere allows a large portion of the solar energy to move through it to the surface. There it is absorbed. The energy heats the surface and emits IR which is reduced from surface emission to space. These are all measured values so you can argue it you want but you are certainly not intelligent to argue at that point.
The atmosphere acts as a radiant barrier to IR and insulator so that the amount of incoming solar radiant energy is able to warm the surface to a higher temperature.
The other versions are not correct.
Chartmaster,
I am not going to put words or ideas into Swenson Mikey Flynns mouth or brain.
I will go by what he says and posts.
“So your belief is that Swenson has genuinely never seen anything like what you have quoted, and actually believes that there has never been an attempt by anyone to express what the GHE theory supposedly is? I find that unlikely, bob. I find it more likely that the point Swenson is making is that there is not one single, coherent theory presented. There are all sorts of different versions.”
That’s what Swenson says, he says there is no greenhouse theory.
I don’t know what Swenson has read or seen, but I can go by what he posts.
I don’t know what he actually believes, but a lot of things he says are countered by observation.
I believe you are both full of shit but his is more solid and stays in one place, whereas you are all over the place like runny diarrhea.
Then there is the Casino version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which hasn’t been refuted either.
Over time, the house always wins, and you can get lunch at the Casino, but it’s not free.
The first part can be show to be equivalent to the Clausius statement and the second to the Kelvin statement.
Both of which are not violated by the Greenhouse effect theory.
Sorry to al the deniers and cranks.
Norman says he has the one true version of the GHE, and the others are all invented by “contrarian skeptics”! How funny. Willard repeats his own misunderstandings, and bob spouts his usual juvenile obscenity. Nothing to write home about.
In a way, Bob, Climateball is only an extension to a famous theorem by Ginsberg.
Is that weak ass tea all you got Chartmaster?
Still no refutation of the greenhouse effect due to a lack of understanding of the laws of thermodynamics.
I did not enter this particular discussion to refute the GHE, bob. That has already happened, years ago. I am simply here to correct Willard on his misunderstanding over Swenson’s comments.
Wrong again Chartmaster,
Why are you always wrong?
Kiddo entered the discussion by misunderstanding what Mike Flynn claims, and when caught pants down he tried to argue his way out by appealing to the many versions of the theory.
And when he finally realized that this too did not cohere with what the Sky Dragon Cranks purported to do in their magnum opus, he had to once again adapt his story.
Yet here is, pretending that all versions are false, without citing or quoting anything.
A small vacation from the blog did him good.
Willard gets everything wrong.
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Role_of_GHE-EaE.pdf
“A book entitled ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ attempts to address the matter.10 Alan Siddons compiled 19 definitions/descriptions of the ‘greenhouse effect’ presented by various Government Agencies, Universities, Scientific Institutes and others and prefaced the compilation with the caveat: ‘Please note: none of what is described below actually occurs in reality’.11 Gerlich and Tscheuschner, in their article, ‘Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics’, conveyed a similar observation based on the fundamental laws of Physics.12 This study examines the various definitions of the greenhouse effect for compatibility with the laws of physics.”
Kiddo has yet to present two versions and their refutations.
That is the least he could do, as a Sky Dragon White Knight himself.
I just linked to a paper discussing six versions, and arguments against them.
Kiddo does not get it once again.
Does that make 19 or 25 versions? Are these the same as the one presented in the magnum opus? Which ones are incompatible with one another? In what way can we say they each version is connected to a scientific theory? Are there official sources? Are the arguments against each of these versions coherent? Which ones does he endorse?
If he lets me pick, it will be too easy. I pick blankets and it is a free win. If he makes me work, there is also a cost.
He should take a free shot.
Willard is a peculiarly dishonest character. He knows full well that even one of his own heroes, Vaughan Pratt, recently “disowned” the back-radiation version of the GHE, on this very blog. He knows that Vaughan put forward a different version of the GHE, in its place. So he knows full well that there are different versions of the GHE floating around, and that they are even disputed and debated within the GHE Defense Team. So what exactly is his problem?
I’m certainly not discussing the content of the paper. I linked to it for one reason only. It proves that this:
“Kiddo entered the discussion by misunderstanding what Mike Flynn claims, and when caught pants down he tried to argue his way out by appealing to the many versions of the theory.
And when he finally realized that this too did not cohere with what the Sky Dragon Cranks purported to do in their magnum opus, he had to once again adapt his story.”
was all incorrect.
Chartmaster,
Is that weak ass tea from Principia all you got.
Pick one, I’ll tell you what’s wrong with the supposed debunking.
I see Willard already took the blanket one.
The point of linking to the paper was only that it proves Willard wrong, bob. Siddons and Hertzberg are two of the original authors of the "Slayer" book. They went on to author this paper, which mentions that there are many different versions of the GHE out there. So, like I said, the "Slayers" have argued that there are lots of different versions of the GHE.
Do you not agree that there are many different versions of the GHE out there? Or are you going to pretend that there is only one true version, like Norman?
Chartmaster,
I want my cake and I want to eat it too.
Yes, I agree with Norman, there is only one true Greenhouse theory.
But there are a number of different analogies trying to explain it to people who lack the scientific chops to understand it.
Might have to make a video showing how I can cause water to boil using ice.
“Yes, I agree with Norman, there is only one true Greenhouse theory.”
Which is!? (See, this is why Swenson has to keep asking)
Kiddo is one of the three Sky Dragon Cranks that have been trolling this blog for years. If the other two are Lulzy and Bully, he is Slimy. This sub thread is a good example as to why.
However, he chose the only argument worth noting. Woods, Blankets, Blackbodies, Atmospheres are sillier, and the last one is barely comprehensible armwaving. His recollection of the comments by Vaughan are faulty, so we could revisit them when needed.
Until later,
Willard lies, falsely accuses, and insults some more. Never any point talking to him, it was a mistake to try again. Just another huge waste of time.
Kiddo has not recalled what Vaughan said:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-669859
Once upon a time, Vaughan expressed the following idea at Judys – contrarians have the same empirical acumen as everyone, but they sorely lack logic skills. I think the idea has merit, but there is a more crucial lack: pragmatics. Contrarians simply cannot make explicit claims they would support with evidence from which they would draw reasonable conclusions with caveats.
In other words, contrarians lack epistemic humility.
So we got eternal Climateball instead.
Oh, you want the Swenson version, OK, Chartmaster.
Putting moar CO2 gas between a thermometer and the Sun makes the thermometer hotter moar bester.
Then there’s the Clint version:
I can make water hotter using ice.
Thank you for linking to the comments, Willard, that proves that I remembered correctly about what Vaughan Pratt said.
Kiddo will not read the rest of the comment, of course.
What a delightful scoundrel, our Kiddo!
Yes, I read all of the comment, Willard, including where he outlines what he thinks is the correct version of the GHE, thus further confirming that my recollection of what he said was correct. I also read his additional comments, including one in which he said that the Wikipedia back-radiation GHE explanation is wrong, and should be changed.
Geez.
There is no Greenhouse Effect.
There is no Greenhouse Theory.
Willard is a mindless cultist, trying to turn his lies into reality.
What a moron he is.
Mike Flynn!
Where have you been?
You should read the comment I quoted, a BIG SURPRISE is awaiting you!
\o/
A pity the slimiest of you three trolls won’t quote it here tho.
I have no idea what you want me to quote, assuming you are referring to me with your usual insults. Perhaps it would be easier if you just quoted it yourself rather than expecting me to read your mind.
The ” mish-mash of ideas” is in the minds of GHE deniers, who make hash out of 1LOT, 2LOT, heat transfer, and radiative heat transfer principles.
In the fields meteorology and climate science there is no mish-mash.
The GHE is incorporated into numerical weather models that produce accurate forecasts daily. There is no ambiguity in how the GHE fits into these coded equations.
GHE in numerical weather models? Do you mean like the ones Berry wrote his dissertation and has spent his whole life developing for the NWS? You know, the guy you called a crank. His models on cloud droplet formation don’t have much GHE in them. More of your BS.
> I have no idea what you want me to quote
The rest of Vaughan’s comment, Kiddo.
Vacations gave you energy, but you’re a bit out of shape.
> Do you mean like the ones Berry wrote his dissertation
No, Troglodyte. That’s just a cloud module.
“His models on cloud droplet formation”
OK.
But has nothing to do with heat flow and conservation of energy in numerical weather models. The GHE does.
You need to stop with the appeals to authorities, Stephen, and start making real science arguments.
Post it yourself. I just tried, it would not allow it through for some reason. Bizarrely, considering it has been posted here once already.
I won’t, Kiddo, for I made a promise to Mike Flynn.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
Let me ask you this – do you think I would not notice how you munched up Vaughan’s point with your “including where he outlines what he thinks” handwaving crap?
You should not call people liars with all the silly games you’re playing, little sock puppet.
What are you talking about? I said, "he knows full well that even one of his own heroes, Vaughan Pratt, recently “disowned” the back-radiation version of the GHE, on this very blog. He knows that Vaughan put forward a different version of the GHE, in its place. So he knows full well that there are different versions of the GHE floating around, and that they are even disputed and debated within the GHE Defense Team. So what exactly is his problem?"
What is wrong with any of that? He did indeed "disown" the back-radiation version of the GHE (even going on to say in a later comment that the Wikipedia entry on the GHE should be changed), and he did put forward a different version of the GHE, that which he quoted from the IPCC report. One that doesn’t mention back-radiation.
So now you claim that weather models are accurate because they include GHE theory? Show your evidence. At least a couple of PhDs from NWS have written on Berry’s webpage that GHE is essentially a scam. You’re blowing smoke up your ass.
> What are you talking about?
Vaughan’s comment, Kiddo, and your misrepresentation of it.
You know that Vaughan did not say that Seim and Olsen refuted the Greenhouse Theory. In fact he said the opposite:
You should leave playing dumb to Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet.
"You know that Vaughan did not say that Seim and Olsen refuted the Greenhouse Theory. In fact he said the opposite"
Yes, indeed. I completely agree.
Then you must also agree with the fact that Vaughan quoted the IPCC on the greenhouse effect, and noted that their description did not appeal to back radiation.
So we know a few things right there.
(K1) The IPCC offers a description of the greenhouse effect.
(K2) This description talks about “infrared radiative effect of all infrared-absorbing constituents in the atmosphere.”
(K3) You know both K1 and K2.
Then why would you still pretend that the Greenhouse Theory does not exist, if not to troll, silly sock puppet?
I’m not trolling, Willard. I’ve explained it quite a few times, already. There is not one hard and fast version of what the GHE "theory" is supposed to be. Suppose we go with that IPCC definition, and then that’s attacked. What will it morph to next? Who can say. We already had years of people mentioning back-radiation as the cause of warming. Now, some people want to distance themselves from that concept. Meanwhile, up-thread, a whole bunch of people are continuing to try to defend it!
Of course you are trolling, Kiddo.
You butted in this exchange by plugging an old article and equivocating on the scope of what you purported to show with it. You even quoted their mention of their book, and we now see that you had no idea if it was representative of what their book was meant to establish.
Then you tried to run with a point made by Vaughan against a purely radiative account of the atmosphere, and FOR the theory that explains the greenhouse effect!
And now you are playing dumb.
No wonder you cannot tell what dQ stands for, little sock puppet fool of a tool.
"You butted in this exchange by plugging an old article and equivocating on the scope of what you purported to show with it. You even quoted their mention of their book, and we now see that you had no idea if it was representative of what their book was meant to establish."
It has absolutely nothing to do with the book. I have no idea why you cannot get this through your thick head. The "Slayers" wrote the paper. Therefore my statement, "the Sky Dragon Slayers (which is actually a very specific group of people, not all of those who recognize there is no GHE class themselves as “Slayers”) made the argument that there are many different versions of the supposed “GHE theory” in circulation, and set out to refute all of them" is correct. Regardless of whatever is in the book.
"Then you tried to run with a point made by Vaughan against a purely radiative account of the atmosphere, and FOR the theory that explains the greenhouse effect!"
No, I pointed out that Vaughan Pratt disputes the back-radiation account of the Greenhouse Effect, and instead supports a version of the GHE which does not mention back-radiation. Meanwhile others here are very avid defenders of the back-radiation account of the GHE.
[KIDDO] It has absolutely nothing to do with the book.
[ALSO KIDDO] “A book entitled ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ attempts to address the matter. Alan Siddons compiled 19 definitions/descriptions of the ‘greenhouse effect’
His emphasis, no less.
Imagine. If Kiddo is so audacious as to pull that kind of stunts on an interface that documents everything, what is it to argue with him in real life? At least his vids shows he can be likeable.
"A book entitled ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ attempts to address the matter.10 Alan Siddons compiled 19 definitions/descriptions of the ‘greenhouse effect’ presented by various Government Agencies, Universities, Scientific Institutes and others and prefaced the compilation with the caveat: ‘Please note: none of what is described below actually occurs in reality’.11"
The numbers, 10 and 11, are references, Willard. The bit I highlighted refers to reference 11, which is not the book you’re so obsessed with. The opening sentence, about the book, is irrelevant to the point I was making. It was only included in my quote because I quickly copied and pasted the entire paragraph. If I’d realized you were going to freak out so much about the book, I never would have included it. You accuse me of so much, over so little.
> The bit I highlighted refers to reference 11
Reference 11 is (the basis of) chapter 8, Kiddo. “Please note: none of what is described below actually occurs in reality” is still in there. Check page 64.
And the preceding sentence referred to the magnum opus.
Still have not found the book yet?
If the mention of the various different GHE descriptions is in the book, anyway, then it makes even less sense that you are claiming elsewhere that I misrepresented the book. I just can’t work out what your actual problem is. Other than that I have said something, therefore you must attack it in some way.
Look, Kiddo.
You quoted authors of the Sky Dragon Cranks magnum opus.
You insisted they were authors of that book.
You offered a quote where they mention he book.
That quote also contains a mention to what is now part of one of its chapter.
You clarified that you were referring to that chapter, but that you did not know it was a chapter.
But nothing you said was about the book.
Which is what we were talking about in the first place, me and Mike.
You have not found the book.
You did not say if you will read the book.
You will not verify if the book mentions a theory you deny exists.
A theory Sky Dragon Cranks advertise having slain.
And you are not trolling.
I sincerely hope you will never have to face a judge in your life.
I linked to something that proved what I said was correct: the “Slayers” have argued that there are multiple definitions of the GHE out there.
What you claim is correct is only correct in a world where relevance does not matter, Kiddo.
Nobody cares about what Sky Dragon Cranks do in a paper if that does not reflect anything about what is currently discussed, and when you present claims, people expect them to be relevant.
Hence why the idea that one could refute all possible versions of a theory that does not exist is so weird as to be disingenuous.
You are trolling me to do the work for you. You will learn the hard way that you need to do the work yourself.
As I said at the beginning, if there are many alternative versions of a “theory” then there is not one single version of the theory, as there should be. Thus Swenson is justified to keep asking for his GHE theory. We can keep going around in circles for days, if you like.
That is not what you said at the beginning, Kiddo, but something tells me you will be mind blown when you will learn about the concept of equivalnece, which I did mention at the beginning.
Willard’s denial continues.
Thank you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1281114
#2
Willard’s denial continues.
this post got lost as the site format seemed to change…
binny…it becomes more apparent from your links that early astronomers and mathematicians were confused about Newton II. They did not read the fine print in Principia, if they, in fact, read it at all.
Newton precedes Newton II with a condition. He claims, ‘IF a force can move a mass, then….’. He makes it clear that Newton II does not apply unless a force can accelerate a mass. If it cannot, the mass does not move, even when a force is applied.
You can test that for yourself right now, find a sturdy wall and push on it. If the displacement is zero, then no acceleration took place.
All of the early work done on the Moon’s alleged rotation was purely mathematical and incorrectly based on Newton II. All of them referred to the F in F = mg as if that gravitational force was actually moving the Earth or the Moon. Obviously, neither Earth’s gravitational force acting on the Moon, nor the Moon’s gravitational force acting on the Earth, has the strength to move either body.
As it stands, the F of Earth can only hold the Moon, thus redirecting it’s linear momentum into an orbit.
Therefore, Newton II does not apply. Newton’s law regarding gravity does apply in the sense that F = G.m1.m2/r^2 applies. There is that much gravitational attraction between both bodies mutually. We know the Moon’s gravity can raise our oceans about a metre toward it and the solid surface about a centimetre. But the force is not strong enough to move the Earth toward the Moon to cause an acceleration.
By the same token, that rules out a barycentre. The Earth and the Moon are not orbiting each other, each follows it’s own orbital path based on its angular momentum. There is no deviation from either orbital path since that would required stronger gravitational forces.
Tesla was right, the Moon cannot rotate about its own axis since there is no angular momentum about the axis. That is obvious since the Moon always has the same face pointing at the Earth. He was correct in claiming the theory did not meet the demands of the reality.
Robertson
You are and keep a completely, thoroughly dumb and pretentious ignoramus, able only to ‘think’ about completely trivial matter.
Only idiots like you and your altar boys can imagine that
– Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace centuries ago
– the Russian astronomer Habibullin around 1965
– several people having evaluated Lunar Laser Ranging since 1975
all have computed Moon’s spin period about its polar axis, using completely different
– observation tools
and
– observation data processing methods
and came to the same value.
You are a such a childish, gullible sucker of contrarian nonsense.
Ooops?!
I wrote the opposite of what I thought…
Should read ” Only idiots like you and your altar boys can deny that… “
Your problem is you can’t think. You’re braindead.
Thanks for another good example.
Bindidon, what your astrologers are observing is Moon’s orbital period. If Moon were actually rotating on its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth, just as all sides of a bicycle pedal would be visible from its hub.
And “lunar laser ranging” refers to “ranging”, or Moon’s distance from Earth. LLR has NOTHING to do with axial rotation.
You don’t understand any of this, and you can’t learn. You hold on to your cult beliefs, totally rejecting reality. That’s why this issue is so important. It demonstrates the power a cult has over the sheep. So, thanks for bringing it up again.
We are unable to see all side of the Moon because it rotates on its axis once per orbit of the Earth.
RLH, this has all been explained to you numerous times. You can’t understand it. You’re braindead. The ball-on-a-string is a simple analogy of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. You can’t understand that simple analogy. You keep trying to confuse it. You keep trying to refute it by claiming a ball is not Moon. That’s just your attempt to negate the simple analogy. The simple analogy is ONLY demonstrating “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
You have NOTHING.
Thanks for being another good example of a braindead cult idiot.
“The ball-on-a-string is a simple analogy of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation'”
No it isn’t and no it doesn’t.
A ball-on-a-string is a perfect analogy of a stick rotating about one end.
Clint R
You never read any paper related to LLR and how it is used to calculate Moon’s spin period.
Sorry: you are the one who can’t learn… and and who is imprisoned in his ignorance and will remain.
No problem for me.
No Bindidon, it IS a problem for you. You’re obsessed with trying to defend long-dead astrologers. That’s why you keep bringing up the issue that has long been debunked. And then, you must resort to false accusations.
Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. You ignore the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string to continue with your false beliefs.
And LLR in NO way indicates axial rotation. You are confused about all science. Here’s a deal for you — link to your best “paper” that you believe shows LLR indicates axial rotation, and I’ll quickly debunk it for you. No charge.
Put up or shut up.
Moon is rotating about its axis. Fact.
“You can test that for yourself right now, find a sturdy wall and push on it. If the displacement is zero, then no acceleration took place.”
The wall does not move because the NET FORCE is zero. The foundation is there to provide and equal force in the opposite direction. But put that section of the wall on wheels and you could move it quite easily.
There is no ‘foundation’ to provide such an opposing force on the moon.
“Obviously, neither Earths gravitational force acting on the Moon, nor the Moons gravitational force acting on the Earth, has the strength to move either body.”
The earth applies a force of about 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 N. Seems like a mighty big force to me. Just how big of force do you reckon it would take to “move” the moon? Do we need to add 1 more zero? 3 more zeros?
Inquiring minds what to know what that cut-off is! What is the ‘minimum force’ needed to ‘move’ the moon (or to ‘move’ a generic object of mass m)?
The Earth/Moon barycenter exists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hMfCCqSdFc
Equal and opposite gravitational attractions require that to be so.
Even schoolchildren are taught how to calculate the position.
https://www.education.com/science-fair/article/barycenter-balancing-point/
rlh…”The Earth/Moon barycenter exists”.
***
I am not arguing that a barycentre does not exist, I am arguing that nothing is rotating about it. A barycentre is nothing more than a calculated centre of mass between two masses. In astronomy, if you have a perfectly proportioned dumbbell, the COM/barycentre should be in the middle of the shaft. However, if the dumbbell is sitting on a table and not rotating, there is no rotation about the barycentre.
Furthermore, the concept applies only in astronomy to describe a COM about which two bodies rotate. The first time I learned of a barycentre was in an astronomy class as applied to a binary star system. These stars apparently do rotate about a barycentre. It’s not possible for the Earth and Moon to rotate about a barycentre because their is no angular momentum involved about that barycentre.
Applying this concept to the Earth-Moon system is ingenuous.
The only extent of motion related to Earth and Moon is a nearly 1 metre bulge in the ocean and less than a centimetre on the land. I don’t think anyone has measured a similar bulge on the Moon. Other than that there is no evidence of motion in either orbital path that would suggest an interactions related to motion about a barycentre.
Objects ORBIT around a barycenter, not rotate.
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/
Objects ROTATE about their own axis.
Exactly.
Bindidon is responsible for starting up the moon discussions once again.
No, B&E did not find a bottleneck. They only claimed there SHOULD be one based on their derived equation. Their logic was based on their equations, but they provided no evidence to support the validity of their equation. If the equation doesn’t apply, the logic is irrelevant.
As I have explained already and proved by showing numbers that match the FF and Mauna Loa data, about half the amount of new emissions are taken up by the mixed layer and converted to carbonates. About the same amount that would have resulted in a commensurate increase in DIC gets transferred to the deep ocean. That explanation matches all scientific principles, Henry’s Law, the observed airborne fraction, and IPCC estimates of reservoir fluxes and content changes.
You’ve been milking this bottleneck con long enough. It’s time to put up or shut up.
It’s like measuring the velocity of cars with a radar gun, and Nate says, well, you didn’t consider the tires’ friction. B&E’s study shows tire friction affects the velocity of cars. Yes, tire friction affects the speed of cars. It has nothing to do with your measurements. The friction of the tires was taken into account by the radar gun’s measurement. It’s just a red herring.
> If the equation doesn’t apply, the logic is irrelevant.
Big if.
Perhaps Chic could identify exactly what would not apply:
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/bolin.1958.carbon_uptake.pdf
Dave left some notes on his copy that could help him.
Or he could ask Troglodyte, whom I believe claimed a few times he was kinda chemistry buff.
Fossil fuel consumption has RETURNED considerable amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere in the last 100 years.
And other than make plastic what other good things have humans done for planet Earth?
Is there anything Earth needs from it’s top predator?
It seems in field of entertainment, humans have been quite wacky- and that could be most important thing.
But if Earth could thought as a parent, then maybe leaving would be good.
If there are space aliens, are they doing anything, useful?
now mind the pea …
> Fossil fuel consumption has RETURNED
Making Carbon is not something humans have been able to do. Changing it from caron sources into CO2 is something humans have been doing for a few centuries. We are quite good at recycling it it seems.
> Making carbon is not something humans have been able to do
They actually can:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process
Taking one element and turning it into another element being my line of work, it is possible to make Carbon from other elements.
Carbon 14 is a byproduct of the manufacturing of Xofigo, a drug used to extend life for those in the late stages of prostate cancer.
“Yes, tire friction affects the speed of cars. It has nothing to do with your measurements.”
Berrys theory is not a measurement. So this example is a red herring.
The point is there are many diff eqns in science. You have to use the one that fits the physical system involved.
In this instance, the Revelle Factor must be included in the diff eqn. And it is in the one Chic is trying to solve.
Wrong. Conservation of mass of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t need the Revelle Factor. Berry’s hypothesis is that outflow is proportional to the level. Berry shows in his paper that C14 data fits that hypothesis. He also describes how the Ideal Gas Law and Henry’s Law support that hypothesis. Of course, you didn’t accept my analogy because it demonstrates you’re nothing but a leftist propagandist. Chic doesn’t concede that the Revelle Factor needs to be considered. He’s only showing that the Revelle Factor isn’t relevant.
Exactly.
” Berrys hypothesis is that outflow is proportional to the level.”
Well that’s wrong, but go ahead with your delusions.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Shithead,
What you are doing is the very definition of trolling.
Why don’t you fucking stop?
#2
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Stephen’s tire friction analogy is weird, but not entirely inappropriate. As car speed increases, its tire friction doesn’t increase making it more and more difficult to go faster.
The resistance to CO2 being absorbed by seawater is thermodynamic. Henry’s law and carbonate equilibria do not change as CO2 in air increases. The only possibility of a bottleneck would result from saturation of dissolved inorganic carbon end products, carbonate and bicarbonate. That’s not happening due to the biological pump and carbon transfers to the deep ocean. No bottleneck.
“Berrys theory is not a measurement. So this example is a red herring.”
Measurement was a component of Stephen’s analogy. So your comment is obfuscation.
The Revelle factor is included in the rate coefficient which simply describes what the data says. Why the data and equations are in conflict has yet to be explained. I encourage you to join in answering that question. Or, carry on worshiping the AGW dogma.
“As I have explained already and proved by showing numbers that match the FF and Mauna Loa data, about half the amount of new emissions are taken up by the mixed layer and converted to carbonates.”
Then what you ‘proved’ (how?) does not agree with standard chemical equilbrium.
Are you arguing that the BE eqn 9, which is a statement of chemical equilibrium, is wrong? Why? Based on what evidence?
Remember Revelle factors have been measured all over the world.
“Are you arguing that the BE eqn 9, which is a statement of chemical equilibrium, is wrong?”
B&E derive equations using several assumptions. There is no evidence from their paper showing that Eqn 9 is correct. It may or may not be. What I will continue to argue is that their claim of a bottleneck does not square with the data. I have explained why and showed you the evidence with a spreadsheet that conforms to all the known data.
Measuring Revelle factors only means that about a 10% change in pCO2 in air results in about a 1% change in DIC depending on where in the world you are. Let me know whether or not you understand that those are observations and not just calculations based on Eqn 9. Also, notice that Eqn 9 is simply a model that describes the observations as a “factor.” The factor doesn’t dictate the observations.
Let me propose some assumptions and give you some homework to illustrate my view of what happens when an amount A of CO2 is added to an atmosphere containing an equal amount of CO2 that is in the ML = DIC. Use B&E’s equation (1) DIC = 162 * [CO2]aq and Henry’s constant K = pCO2/[CO2]aq. Notice that K = 162 when pCO2 = DIC which is the case when the ML and atmosphere contain the same amount of CO2. At equilibrium, X amount of CO2 will go into the ML leaving a net of A – X added to the original pCO2. The air will now contain (pCO2 + A – X) and the ML will now be (DIC + X). Do the algebra yourself using K equal to the ratio of the new quantities to verify that X = A/2. IOW, exactly what the Mauna Loa and emission data show that about half the new emissions are being sinked annually.
“Measuring Revelle factors only means that about a 10% change in pCO2 in air results in about a 1% change in DIC depending on where in the world you are.”
Yes. This is an obersrvation that agrees with the standard rules of of chemical equilibrium between the atmosphere and ocean. If you understand that, then you understand that is what nature is doing.
When equilibrium is reached, there is no more chemical DRIVING FORCE to drive CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean, it MUST STOP.
If your model doesnt reproduce this, then it is wrong.
Now as a result of this, ‘10% change in pCO2 in air results in about a 1% change in DIC’
Exactly as I said above when atm is x, the ML will be x/10.
The differential eqn that enforces this law, is one like this:
da/dt = (m*R -a)/etime, where a and r are the amounts added to atm and ML, and R is Revelle Factor.
The main result of this is that if the ML only increases by x/10 then the driving force pushing C to the deep ocean is reduced by a factor of 10!
Then the flux to the DO is reduced by a factor of 10. And this means the effective e-time is increased by a factor of 10.
This are the simple facts and logic behind the bottleneck.
Now address this simple logic please.
“Yes. This is an obersrvation that agrees with the standard rules of of chemical equilibrium between the atmosphere and ocean.”
No, RF is assumed to come from measurements from all over the planet varying from 8 to 15. I’m beginning to wonder about that since the data doesn’t seem to agree with the formula.
.
“When equilibrium is reached….”
THERE IS NO EQUILIBRIUM! Stop making stuff up.
“The main result of this is that if the ML only increases by x/10 then the driving force pushing C to the deep ocean is reduced by a factor of 10!”
No. Driving forces are what they are. CO2 is “pushed” into the deep by several mechanisms, diffusion, overturning, and the biological pump most of all.
“Then the flux to the DO is reduced by a factor of 10. And this means the effective e-time is increased by a factor of 10.”
Only in your closed mind. The driving forces between the atm and ML are Henry’s Law and carbonate equilibria. The driving forces between ML and DO are diffusion, overturning, and the biological pump. The reciprocal relationship you imagine does not exist.
Your simple facts, logic, and bottleneck are figments of your imagination. Where is your model and data to prove otherwise?
Ok no youve just given trying to make sense. Just trolling.
Too bad.
Ok no youve just given trying to make sense. Just trolling.
Too bad.
” which is the case when the ML and atmosphere contain the same amount of CO2.”
They dont have the same amount of CO2. Far from it. The TOTAL carbon in the ML is about the same as the total carbon in the atmosphere. That means the CO2 portion in the ML is ~ 1% of what is in the atm.
That is probably the mistake you are making that gives you the erroneous result of 50% sunk.
“That is probably the mistake you are making that gives you the erroneous result of 50% sunk.”
There is no mistake. I just wrote “CO2” instead of “C” for total carbon in each reservoir. CO2 gas in the atmosphere and DIC in the ML.
If you had any interest in open-mindedly resolving the bottleneck issue, you would have recognized my intent. Instead your objective is to find a way to justify your indefensible opinion and avoid admitting your are wrong about claiming a bottleneck. This is what you do. Obfuscate. It is tiresome.
Meanwhile, I am advancing my model work and enjoying you digging even deeper into your hole.
And your still frustrated.
“There is no mistake.”
Then there still is another error. Because chemical equilibrium is a law of nature, that you cannot violate.
Just give it a rest. You must be tired from all that digging.
Non sequitur. If anyone has dug themselves a hole its you.
You are living in a fantasy world where made-up numbers you put into a spreadsheet are considered infallible, not subject to critique, and ‘prove’ things.
The real world obeys the GIGO principle.
At least you stopped digging. Now you just bloviate, obfuscate, and make up silly stuff. A no model, no data, no credibility hypocrite.
At least you stopped digging. Now you just bloviate, obfuscate, and make up silly stuff. A no model, no data, no credibility hypocrite.
BS.
Its like a switch with you, troll-off, discuss the science. When a discussion doesnt go your way, its troll-on.
Its predictable, and boring.
It’s more like when nate advocates a position supportive of government climate action and can’t bring forth a complete science case in support of it its quite appropriate to point out nate is just a tool of the establishment that wants to restrict freedoms. That’s not trolling that’s just calling a spade a spade in the most literal of the sense of the word.
I’m pretty sure Nate is paid to troll here.
Yep and none of these are science arguments. Just pontifications.
Nate says:
”Yep and none of these are science arguments. Just pontifications”
———–
It is not a pontification to point out that no complete physical theory has been offered up that can cause absorbed energy in the atmosphere to return through multiple layers of the atmosphere to warm the surface. There is only speculation that that could occur.
“no complete physical theory has been offered up” that Bill is aware of…
yet another pontification that can be safely ignored.
No pontification Nate. Its a statement that if such a complete physical theory that had any empirical basis could be offered up and you were aware of it. . . .you wouldn’t have to resort to ad hominems to counter the claim. A slam dunk for you!
but you have shown yourself repeatedly of missing that easy bucket that you claim you can make.
What rot.
Will not follow you down yet another rabbit hole full of red herrings and ideological pontification.
It is no redherring to call you on that which you can produce no support of.
You claim there is a complete theory but you can’t find it? What happened is your desk messy?
You claimed there is no complete theory. Proof? Evidence? Anything but blather?
Nate proof is that you haven’t offered up one which you obviously would do if you knew one existed.
So essentially I am saying we can completely ignore your claims.
“Nate proof is that you havent offered up one which you obviously would do if you knew one existed.”
I discussed theory with you many times. Each involved wading thru vast red herring mine fields.
Go bait other willing victims.
Its pretty sad Nate. You offer theory as truth and now you admit all you are doing is speculating. You did the same thing for a year trying to support the spinning moon model and never ever found a shred of support for your theory. The non-spinners pulled out endless support and yet you persisted.
Whatever u bait Bill.
I was wondering if having more cosmic rays {GCR} reaching Earth has caused more cloud formation [or affected climate in any way].
It seems the sun activity has effected Earth’s weather, but I am unable to explain how.
But I don’t don’t regard weather as having much to do with global climate, or I think global climate is about the ocean. And no one has suggested how sun’s activity could effect the ocean.
The only thing close would relate difference of UV levels, but I not seen anything compelling regarding this.
So, I was looking a little bit:
“”During the next solar cycle, we could see cosmic ray dose rates increase by as much as 75 percent,” said lead author Fatemeh Rahmanifard of the University of New Hampshires Space Science Center.”
Cosmic rays increase remarkably as solar activity shows persistent decline, resembles Dalton minimum of 1790 1830
Wednesday, August 12, 2020
https://watchers.news/2020/08/12/cosmic-rays-increase-remarkably-as-solar-activity-shows-persistent-decline-resembles-dalton-minimum-of-1790-1830/
I don’t think we did. But seems in regime with higher cosmic ray, but I guess it’s 25% to 50% more, though not sure. Maybe if say the amount lessen during Solar Max is dramatically less or something.
“No matter how much a spacecraft is shielded, it cannot stop the most energetic particles. This leaves astronauts exposed to danger whenever they leave the Earth-Moon system.”
This not true, a meter of water would stop a significant amount, but providing 1 meter water shielding, would be “a challenge”. And 2 meters water, blocks more, and “even more of a challenge”.
Also just having a large spacecraft, such as Starship could help a lot. Just a hundred human bodies would stop a lot:) but could also lower crew size to less a dozen and bring more water and have other kinds of shielding. Also Musk wants send fleets of ships, a fleet could stop a fair amount. Unless making towns, you don’t many people traveling, you want small crew and lots of cargo {Cargo can = shielding]
There appears to be a remarkable match between
https://www.climate.gov/media/14516
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/amo.jpeg
Suggesting more hurricanes come with warmer water.
Not what the IPCC predicts.
“This phenomenon was originally known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. But it has more recently come to be referred to in the climate science community as Atlantic Multidecadal Variability (AMV), recognizing that it is not a pure oscillation.”
That does not alter the fact that it oscillates between high and low values. Both graphs are subject to 15 year low pass filters.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet…Bill S.
Climate.gov has updated its current ENSO observations with
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/may-2022-enso-update-piece-cake
“May 2022 ENSO update: piece of cake”
https://www.climate.gov/media/14522
which shows the last 2 months have been in ‘unprecedented’ territory.
“In the context of repeat La Nia events, the April average anomaly was noticeably stronger than any of the other 8 second-year La Nias.”
and which also shows
https://www.climate.gov/media/14523
as being the USA projections for later this year.
“Another reason to care about the ENSO forecast is La Nia’s influence on the Atlantic hurricane season. La Nia conditions decrease the vertical wind shearthe difference between near-surface and upper-level windsover the tropical Atlantic. Shear makes it harder for hurricanes to develop, so La Nias reduced shear can contribute to a more active hurricane season. NOAA’s official Atlantic hurricane seasonal outlook will be released on May 24th.
Last, but definitely not least, La Nia’s northward-shifted jet stream is associated with less rain and snow over large regions of the western and southern US (compare the seasons here). This can cause and exacerbate drought conditions.”
CFSv2 has all of Aprils data now
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Which if you add that in makes the above more like https://imgur.com/a/McCe7Rj
Now confirmed.
https://www.climate.gov/media/14522
I’m waiting for Bindidong to ask me again where the superdeveloping La Nina is. He can’t see it
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-936851
There is no cooling I tell you!
I still ask you where this ‘superdeveloping’ la Nina is, when put in comparison with earlier La Ninas:
This current La Nina episode has been going on for quite a while now, that indeed is impressing.
But to claim about ‘superdeveloping’: that is done by people for whom the past starts yesterday, and hence ignore or deliberately dissimulate what happened between 2010 and 2012 for example, with Nina indices well below -2.0.
*
We will see how this develops:
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_620_original_image/public/2022-05/3Year_Evolution_1.png?itok=xU63Ld_B
MEI V2’s April data is now online: -1.6.
That’s a lot. The last time the index went below -1.5 was over ten years ago, in the middle of the 2010-2012 episode.
https://i.postimg.cc/Jzr88YzK/MEI-superposed-La-Ninas.png
But, as we can read in the ENSO blog:
” One final note about the forecast were still within the spring predictability barrier, when ENSO forecasts are generally less accurate than forecasts made at other times of the year. Well start to clear this barrier next month. ”
We’ll see how Nino1+2 behaves during the next months:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino12Mon.gif
because it is one of the major sources for changes in Nino3+4.
The science is only as good as the ability to predict the future results, which in your case that is zero.
Your endless dissecting of past temperatures is as useless as last week weather forecast.
” The science is only as good as the ability to predict the future results, which in your case that is zero. ”
Written by a person able only to endlessly paste NOAA’s forecasts, and to post links to youtube videos containing unproven blah blah.
You are such a brazen boy…
You would be a perfect forecaster – on the Bizarro Planet – for predicting past instead the future , and getting all forecast exactly backwards
climate.gov is not good enough for Blinny.
It’s real funny to go back and see how sure he always was with himself when he made those predictions
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-747886
Well Nino1+2 is currently like
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
which seems pretty cold to me.
On the topic of “climate science” and doing something important.
Who has done something important.
I think having fairly accurate measurement of global air temperature
has been important.
And as mentioned above, checking out that lake in Antarctica could be
useful.
It seems we could have better satellites measuring global temperatures.
And satellites in general doing more.
Also it seems exploring the ocean more could be useful.
It seems the Argo buoys have useful, though I am not getting as much information from it, as I would like. But seemed like it was important project. Kind of reminds me of when astronomers [star gazers] organized to find potential dangerous impactors.
Kind interesting comparing effectiveness of these two groups.
It seems the Argo float guys were more successful, politically, but star gazers kept better records.
It has been mentioned many times here that the only existence reason for the detrended AMO
https://www.psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/amon.us.long.data
is to show AMO’s cyclic behavior.
When comparing AMO with weather or climate patterns, one should therefore use AMO’s undetrended variant:
https://www.psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/amon.us.long.mean.data
Here you see the difference:
https://tinyurl.com/yjnezxjk
(I’m still waiting for the tinyURL conversion of a link containing d-c to a link also containing this sequence, he he…)
The drawback here of course is that for comparisons with anomaly-based series, this AMO variant first must be converted from absolute data into anomalies by using the 1951-1980 climatology at the document’s bottom.
A merely small piece of work, however.
The comparison was to https://www.climate.gov/media/14516 i.e. storms. On that basis no temperature rise for trended AMO data is observed, in fact it matches the detrended AMO better.
I suppose you could argue for a temperature fall if you were so minded.
P.S. The AMO data goes back to 1856, not 1900 as you observe.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/amo.jpeg
Here’s the trended version of AMO
https://imgur.com/kD6bAqL
https://www.psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/amon.us.long.mean.data
Was that not clear enough for you?
1856 19.137 18.625 18.675 19.017 19.936 21.177 22.420 23.124 23.082 22.142 21.057 20.050
Old
https://imgur.com/kD6bAqL
New
https://imgur.com/a/UwKPlMf
This uses that. (The previous data source was all that was in error, the actual graph is fine) Idiot.
P.S. https://tinyurl.com/yjnezxjk only goes back to 1900.
….a related temperature fall….
Weird
“SpinLaunch has a completely different approach. It plans to put a small rocket into a massive centrifuge that will whip it around to drum up most of the speed it will need to get to orbit. Then, the rocket would fly out of the centrifuge, gain thousands of feet in altitude and light up a small engine to continue its journey to drop a satellite off in space. ”
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/tech/spinlaunch-test-launch-footage-scn/
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
I would say important aspect is related to gravity loss.
Earth has a lot of gravity loss- whereas the Moon and Mars doesn’t.
One reduces gravity if you can start faster, and spinning thing is starting something faster.
My idea of pipelauncher is to start rockets, faster. And so mostly about reducing gravity loss. Something like the impossible of having anti-gravity. Or if had anti-gravity an important aspect would to zero out, gravity loss. Important for Earth [large planets in general] but rather insignificant in regards to Mars and the Moon.
Or one could say, Moon and Mars “has” anti-gravity and Earth doesn’t, yet.
reading more:
“SpinLaunch says that this method could use just one quarter of the fuel that vertically launched rockets require, and it could be ten times cheaper. The company said the first test launch, conducted last year, “validated” key parts of the company’s technology.”
Well actually it’s more than 1/4 and even larger percentage if talking about sub-orbitial stuff.
Oh, I was reading that wrong- 3/4 from spin and 1/4 rocket fuel.
It seem more likely if doing sub-orbital. What else:
“The test system, which stands at about 165 feet tall and is perched near a private spaceport in rural New Mexico, is about a third the size of the planned orbital launch system, according to the company. It can spin a vehicle up to 5,000 miles per hour, or just over six times the speed of sound. And payloads would have to be able to withstand the extreme G-forces inherent to being spun that fast.”
Well 5000 mph is total of 28080 kph [17409.6 mph] for Low earth orbital. And you have oberth effects and Earth’s spin. Seems it only do that for sub-orbital, plus you got all though gees to deal with.
Or 5000 mph = 2.2352 km/sec. Which is sub-orbtial, though could further distance traveled which requires more, and got re-enter account for. Or first stage rocket does about 2.2 km/sec delta-v and first stage rockets use most of rocket fuel.
I doubt it will work. Velocity must reach (or exceed) that orbital velocity of 28080 kph [17409.6 mph] in the direction parallel to the surface. Getting there is going to be a difficult feat, given the reality of air drag as they are going to launch nearly vertically. That’s the reason most meteors don’t make it to the ground, as they burn up along the way. Then too, there’s the g-force while on the centrifuge.
“In Project HARP, a 1960s joint United States and Canada defence project, a U.S. Navy 410 mm (16 in) 100 caliber gun was used to fire a 180 kg (400 lb) projectile at 3,600 m/s (12,960 km/h; 8,050 mph), reaching an apogee of 180 km (110 mi), hence performing a suborbital spaceflight. However, a space gun has never been successfully used to launch an object into orbit or out of Earth’s gravitational pull.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_gun
So, it was fired at 8,050 mph. 5000 mph is less of problem.
Spinning seems problematic. I never heard of it before- and all I got is news article [rather than something trying to a paper on the topic].
Firing a projectile nearly vertical would quickly move above the atmosphere. At 5 km, it’s half way thru, 10 km it’s 3/4’s, etc. But, where would the necessary horizontal velocity come from?
With rockets one has atmospheric losses, steering losses, and gravity drag [or losses]. The greatest loss is gravity and depends upon rocket design. Next is generally is steering losses, which is change changing from vertical to horizontal which is somewhere around 150 m/s.
Rocket take off vertical and when still at relatively slow velocity, it slowly tilts off vertical. If waited until rocket was going faster, it would have greater “steering losses”.
A cannon doesn’t have this advantage
Oh, I looked video.
There would be forces involved with rotor letting go of a mass.
A lot of force upon the rotor.
It’s such short time period, I would imagine it would a explosive force upon the rotor.
Hmm, maybe reason to make it bigger is to extend the time of release- give more time
How it is released and how is the weight balanced.
The rotor has to be balanced to spin.
The “artificial gravity of projectile” is high. One needs to quickly balance the rotor at the release time.
So simple is have projectile mass balanced with equal mass, and both released at same time.
Of course this is problem. So instead you could move a mass which is of part of rotor further out, to equal the loss mass of projectile. The problem is how fast do you have move mass more outward. And what is the mass- water, gas, or what? I would tend to pick a gas.
Need fast valve. So use fast explosives. Or not a reusable valve.
And something similar to release the projectile.
Does “climate science” have good data, re, Scott
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mazF9q_2e-I
It seems Central England temperature is good enough data.
Though not good enough data to detect the warming from CO2 emission.
This problem with Scott talking Keller {or whatever his name is}.
We don’t have good enough data to determine any warming effect from
CO2. Or in terms of short term effects, it’s immeasurable. And short term is about 50 years.
Or now, most people assume and say it’s a small effect- unless you talking long term effect {1000 years].
And other problem is people just don’t know what is warming effect.
What is warming or cooling effect in terms global climate is related to average temperature of the ocean.
Which is not measure well enough to know short terms effects, but is about 3.5 C
I would like to try some very simple logic with this very esteemed group of scientists and science nerds, who never argue amongst themselves (smile). There are several early-season big fires that are making the news. We hear cries that Climate Change is to blame. Maybe it is something more simple. What if the increasing fire risk is due to faster plant growth from greening of the planet? Is that a good thing for the folks who want us to go to a plant-based diet or not? What do the green people say?
“Anthropogenic climate change is partially responsible for driving increased wildfire severity in California. For instance, background warming has led to weather and vegetation conditions more favorable for wildfire activity even at night, which has typically been a period of reduced activity that allows crews to intensify efforts to suppress fires.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_California_wildfires
Anthropogenic climate change nor climate climate is not partially or slightly responsible for driving increased wildfire severity in California.
It about the same as saying Anthropogenic climate change is partially responsible for crime. Or California govt is focused Anthropogenic climate change and govt is limited in what it can focus on.
{it should be noted, that Californian focus on climate change is wrong. First wind mills and solar panels don’t work. Second wind mills and solar panels make forest fires a worse problem. And generally destroy the environment [on all levels of looking at it].
Or proper placement of nuclear power plants would be best solution.
Another solution is natural gas powerplants.
What isn’t a good idea is depending on other states to provide California electrical power- unless it’s hydro power out of state- which is unlikely unless getting it from Canada {which Canadian greens are opposed to- they must hate Californians [for many good reasons- but they lack global interests which they claims they favor]}. And of course California is highly dependent on other States and Californians spend a large amount insulting other States.
tim s…big fires in California are a predictable, annual event. Every year fires burn up tinder dry brush and no one does anything about implementing fire breaks or fire control.
California has suffered droughts for nearly two centuries, at least. Droughts bring fires.
“Throughout history, California has experienced many droughts, such as 1841, 1864, 1924, 19281935, 19471950, 19591960, 19761977, 19861992, 20062010, 20112017, 2018 and 2020-[1][2] 2021. Precipitation in California is limited to a single, fairly short wet season, with the vast majority of rain and snowfall occurring in the winter months across the state”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_in_California
But Wiki can’t leave it at that, they go on to relate it to climate change. The first reported year above is 1841, before the end of the Little Ice Age. How can climate change as claimed by alarmists as being caused by increasing CO2 level, possibly span nearly 180 years?
Search for Just Asking Questions and Hippie Punching, TimS.
For everything else, there is:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
Willard, please stop trolling.
I would say weakening Russia is bad idea.
I also think weakening German is bad idea.
And even worst than both, is weakening the US.
I don’t know why I need to explain this. So, let’s talk about climate:
A Weakening Warming Trend Of The Last 40 Years Is Apparent, Says German Expert
“Dear ladies and gentlemen,
During the energy crisis that has become visible in Germany and Europe over the past few months, things have gotten quieter about the supposedly imminent climate emergency. On the one hand, energy prices and security of supply have pushed the climate issue into the background. On the other hand, a weakening of the warming trend of the last 40 years is apparent.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/12/a-weakening-warming-trend-of-the-last-40-years-is-apparent-says-german-expert/
“The temperature curve of the satellite-based measurements of the University of Alabama UAH has been oscillating between -0.2 and 0.4 degrees for 20 years and seems to have remained stable since 2015, as shown in the next graph in the enlargement.”
So, did Germany’s idea of making lots of solar panels and wind mills
help Germany?
It certainly did nothing in terms global CO2 emission.
Did it make Germans happier? Cause if did, maybe it was worth doing something stupid, like solar panels in country that gets the least amount of solar energy. But in terms of being solar capital of world, objectively, I think we can call that an utter failure.
I don’t much about Germany, are they still burning their low quality coal? Did ever do the fashionable burning burning things in any significant amount? Are doing other useless “biofuel” burning stuff?
I don’t think they ever got excited the “hydrogen solution” thing which US, UK, and Australia tend to hype.
Recently heard a bit, again, about helium airships to carrying a lot cargo.
Also was reading India and potential for methane Hydrates offshore near India- and US/japan partnership working on it. And something about surprising low ocean depth of some of it??
It seems more of this near India should done. And can’t recall anything in terms of this kind of thing near Africa. Or hardly anywhere in world. What about Germany?
I had some point, and I forgot it. Oh, yeah article above:
“CO2 concentrations in the air have continued to rise unabated. It is true that global annual CO2 emissions have been more or less constant for some years now, at 40 billion tons of CO2. Slightly more than half is absorbed by the oceans and plants, so that currently each year the equivalent of about 2.5 ppm CO2 is added to the air concentration. In 2015, there were 401 ppm of CO2 in the air; in 2021, there were 416 ppm. At this rate, by the way, we would never reach the IPCCs scary scenarios of 800 to 1000 ppm in 2100.”
As I said, I don’t think 560 ppm is going to come soon, if ever.
And of course this has nothing to do with the trillions of dollars wasted by world govts, failing to reduce CO2 levels. Unless you count starting pandemic as govt effort to lower CO2 levels- which did a tiny amount for short period of time.
My typing annoys me, more:
“ever do the fashionable burning burning things in any significant amount”
“ever do the fashionable burning of wood or burning things in any significant amount”
Anyhow, back to space hobby horse. They were talking about using space to lower global CO2 emission. I would say it’s dependent on Lunar exploration. Which seems also to be dropping off radar.
Will Starship launch in June?
And what else could be important? Or more important?
Well only thing I know about is my idea of Musk making artificial gravity “test” station. Which could be done quickly, but is not being done. What being done? In terms in month or two.
“May 19 Atlas 5 CST-100 Starliner Orbital Flight Test 2”
Hmm. That would nice to get a successful test.
June 3Soyuz Progress 81P
That would good if war didn’t interfere with it.
3rd Quarter Falcon 9 IM-1
Launch time: TBD
Launch site: LC-39A, Kennedy Space Center, Florida
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch the IM-1 mission with the Nova-C lander built and owned by Intuitive Machines. The IM-1 mission will attempt to deliver a suite of science payloads to the surface of the moon for NASAs Commercial Lunar Payload Services program. [March 25]
Wow, I was wondering- though could be delayed, again, but US might getting lunar robotic mission on the Moon, this year.
Bindidon says:
January 23, 2022 at 2:58 PM
“And here is something maybe maybe youll enjoy to laugh about in a few months”
Is is time to start laughing now ???
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1140964
Blinny wasn’t wrong. He just chose the wrong predictor.
Here is another one of Bindidongs keepers ,
he is laughing so much about those La Nina predictions
Ha Ha Ha
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-719083
The models are always correct. If you chose the ‘correct’ models.
La Nina effect
How will a 3rd year La Nina affect the 2022 Atlantic Hurricane Season?
https://youtu.be/7Ck0YiU8PaA
Climate.gov says that storms in the North Atlantic are governed more by the detrended AMO (AMV) than by temperature it seems.
https://www.climate.gov/media/14516
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/amo.jpeg
I was talking lunar vs Mars dirt [somewhere??} it seemed recently.
Anyhow article on growing plants in lunar dirt [regolith]:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03334-8
Very long. But lunar dirt can difference [apparently] depending
Apollo sites samples taken from. Some sites may be harmful but no sites were helpful, or all stunted growth from plants selected vs
lunar simulant {earth material made to be “like” lunar material}.
“Germination readily occurred on all samples between 48 and 60 hours after planting, and all lunar seedlings exhibited normal stems and cotyledons (Fig. 2a), indicating that nothing derived from the full contact with the hydrated regolith interfered with the complex set of signaling events required for early aerial development. Between days 6 and 8, each of the plantings was thinned to leave a single plant per well. The roots of the plants thinned from lunar samples were stunted compared to the plants thinned from JSC-1A (Fig. 2b), indicating relative inhibition of root growth in lunar regolith. Aerial growth and development beyond 8 days became slower and more variable in the lunar samples compared to JSC-1A (Fig. 2c). Although there was variability among the individual plant replicates for each of the lunar regolith sites, there were lunar site-specific trends in the development of the plants (Fig. 3a). The rate of development for all plants was monitored daily, and the expansion of the leaf canopy was quantified from top-view photographs (Supplementary Fig. 4). There was almost no variability in the growth rates or morphology among the sixteen JSC-1A replicates (Supplementary Fig. 2). Compared to the JSC-1A replicates, all lunar plants took longer to develop expanded leaves, were smaller in rosette diameter over time, and some were severely stunted and deeply pigmented, a typical indicator of plant stress. Only a few plants developed nearly as well on lunar regolith as those on JSC-1A “
That was linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
And there, Rand Simberg asks:
“The question is if theres some way to beneficiate it and mitigate whatever the issues are.”
To which I would say, we need more lunar dirt.
Hundred of tonnes of lunar dirt on Earth and at very low price- less per oz than Earth silver.
So around $20 per Oz and 50 grams per Oz so $.4 per gram [40 cents]
times a million is $.4 million per tonne or $40 million per 100 tonnes.
That’s a bit unrealistic for first 100 tons. Say at least $4 million per ton or 10 times price of silver.
Which would be really cheap and bought up really fast. You could sell 10 times silver to educational institutions {elementary schools] and
10 times that to collectors. Open market, 100 times silver. 1/2 goes to the open market. {and should be able to tax write off- if govt was sane]
gb…why don’t you start a space program? You don’t need money, all you do is present your ideas and a plan of action, and interested investors may invest in your project.
Look at Musk. He did not have enough money to buy Twitter. He likely did but it would have meant putting his finances in peril. When he presented his plan to the financial community, he soon came up with 40 billion dollars.
Ok, so you’re not Musk, but you do have an interest in extra-terrestrial exploration and entrepreneurship. Put your ideas to work and get some action going.
Speaking gold. Lunar material is unique, or hard counterfeit, therefore lunar dust can used to mark dollar bills.
World currencies can use tiny amount of lunar dust for somewhere [places on Moon have “different dust” as another fraud prevention measure for paper money.
Or it’s one more market lunar material and could used in similar way anything to prevent counterfeit. You probably find fast way to scan it and also more time consuming ways finding the fraud.
–gbwhy dont you start a space program? You dont need money, all you do is present your ideas and a plan of action, and interested investors may invest in your project. —
If Moon was covered gold bricks, it would cost more to bring back to Earth.
Hence why lunar water is worth so much. If had lunar rocket selling for $2000 per kg, you bring back the gold to Earth.
But you wouldn’t bring back the gold to Earth, you have gold reserve on the Moon. Or you have Lunar bankers with very secure vault.
No one can mine any lunar water, unless the Moon is explored.
Though if launch price lower, NASA will bypassed, because it will be cheap enough to privately fund lunar exploration.
BUT it would be a lot better if NASA would stop delaying, and explore the Moon AND then explore Mars.
Before Musk puts towns on Mars- and if people want to take this kind risks [people have in past taken far high risks going to the New World] then that could happening- Musk is saying lots of people will die with Mars settlements. I am for a more cautious approach of say 10 years or more of Mars exploration- first.
“Look at Musk. He did not have enough money to buy Twitter. He likely did but it would have meant putting his finances in peril. When he presented his plan to the financial community, he soon came up with 40 billion dollars.”
There Martian nuts and lunatics. All have strange ideas.
I am space rock nut.
But once was discovered there could be water on the Moon, I become interested in the Moon.
Because with space rocks, you want to mine water. And Moon could easier to mine water, and lunar surface is better place to start a market for water.
And though Martian tend to ignore Mars water, having mineable water on Mars [for making food [not rocket fuel] is critical to Mars settlements. Well, also Mars water is also important for nuclear power generation {and other things}- and Mars only has slight better solar energy than Earth- solar might be used, but solar not much better on Mars than on Earth.
But my point is, Musk should interested in the Moon. But he is Mars nut, and argued endlessly with Mars nuts [they are as hopeless as the cargo cult].
I used to be a Mars bar nut. How do they get Mars bars from Mars?
I used get Mars bars, but I give up.
What was the first Moon rock called?
Armalcolite-Armstrong, Aldren, and Collins
tim f…” [GR]Obviously, neither Earths gravitational force acting on the Moon, nor the Moons gravitational force acting on the Earth, has the strength to move either body.
[Tim]The earth applies a force of about 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 N. Seems like a mighty big force to me. Just how big of force do you reckon it would take to move the moon? Do we need to add 1 more zero? 3 more zeros?
***
Compare that force to the considerable mass of the Moon.
If there was motion, the Moon would have an acceleration toward Earth along a radial line. That means, the Moon would have to move closer to Earth since you cannot have an acceleration without a displacement.
We were pushing on a wall and it was not moving. We both agree that is a problem in statics along the line of a bridge resting on concrete piers. In the same sense, the Earth and Moon are in static equilibrium along a radial line.
Let’s replace the wall with a 10 ton concrete block. We connect it via a large hook and chain to the back of a truck capable of moving it. We touch the accelerator peddle in the truck very lightly and the block still holds. The force supplied by the truck is not enough yet to move the block. We gradually apply the accelerator peddle till the block starts to move. Now we have acceleration. The block will move through a certain displacement.
At some pint, the truck will lack the force to keep the block accelerating, at which time the block will have a constant velocity. That describes the condition of the Moon’s motion tangential to the radial line along which Earth’s gravity acts. The exception is the Moon has no resistance to slow it down and there are no forces acting on it tangentially to slow it down or speed it up.
We can notate displacement and equate it to acceleration with the equation:
s = 1/2at^2
Remember, a comes from F = ma, therefore acceleration is related to force and mass. Newton stipulated that f = ma applies only if a force can move a mass. We saw that when the truck’s accelerator peddle was not depressed enough to move the block. It was applying force yet there was no displacement of the block hence no acceleration.
Therefore, f = ma is not universally true. There is a stipulation that f must be great enough to move m. That’s the case when you push on a wall and the wall does not give. It’s also the case with Earth’s gravitational field acting on the Moon. It’s strong enough to hold in in an orbital path but not strong enough to move it radially.
In reality, the wall likely gives an imperceptible amount, especially if it is wood frame. Can we call that an acceleration, and if not, when is motion considered acceleration?
Free advice: don’t bore us with topics of which your knowledge is badly flawed.
ken…you mean topics you are far too ignorant to understand.
You are on the wrong board, go over-there and troll them
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/
ken…since my analysis is based on Newton’s stipulation, that a force must be able to move a mass, in order that Newton II apply, you are suggesting that the work of Newton is flawed as well.
That is pretty ignorant.
You’re analysis is badly flawed in that you assume the moon is not in motion. It is in motion around the sun. It is rotating on its axis with respect to the sun once every 29 earth days, or about 12 times every orbit around the sun. No force, which would imply acceleration, except gravitational pull between sun earth moon is involved.
You can sit there poking away with incomplete understanding of Newtons laws rejecting the basic observational facts all you like; it doesn’t alter the reality. Just don’t do it here please.
The lunatics engaging in the moon discussion are requested to go over to DREMTs channel. Whatever that is.
The advantage of the Moon discussion is it reveals those that prefer their cult religion over science and reality.
The simple ball-on-a-string makes the cult idiots go bonkers. That’s when we get such nonsense as your “sinusoidal lunar orbit”, and Ent’s “passenger jets flying backwards”.
Idiots.
Newton was correct and you are wrong. Simple.
–[Tim]The earth applies a force of about 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 N. Seems like a mighty big force to me. Just how big of force do you reckon it would take to move the moon? Do we need to add 1 more zero? 3 more zeros?
***
Compare that force to the considerable mass of the Moon.–
And to Earth. Earth is 81 times more massive than Moon or Moon is 1/81th of Earth
5.97 x 10^24 kg {Earth}
0.073 x10^24 kg [Moon}
Or 73,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg
Knock off 18 zeroes, N 200 vs 73,000 kg
And same force attracting Earth mass
5.97 x 10^6 or 200 N vs 5.97 million kg.
“the Moon would have an acceleration toward Earth along a radial line”
It does. When added to the radial velocity that the Moon has, then you get the Moon’s orbit that you see.
The Moon is always ‘falling’ towards Earth, it just never hits it. See Newton.
binny…”all have computed Moons spin period about its polar axis, using completely different
observation tools
and
observation data processing methods
and came to the same value”.
***
And their calculations were wrong because they applied Newton’s 2nd law incorrectly. Mistakes happen, especially when mathematicians and astrologers get involved with physics they don’t understand.
I have a great respect for mathematicians in general but they should stick to what they are good at…manipulating data, etc. When they start messing with physics they clearly don’t understand, and manipulate mathematical equations to draw a conclusion, like the Moon rotates on it axis, based on an observation that it changes its orientation through 360 degrees per orbit, they are failing to grasp other explanations that make more sense.
The most obvious reason the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the Earth is curvilinear translation. Newton noticed that and that’s why I cannot accept that he thought the Moon rotated on a local axis. It simply makes no sense that he stated the Moon’s motion was curvilinear and in the same breath claimed it rotated once per orbit.
Curvilinear motion is rectilinear motion along a curve. If a bus moved past us in a straight line perpendicular to us, we’d have not problem understanding why it kept the same face pointing at us. Yet if we bend that straight line into a circle around us a circle, the same bus is suddenly rotating about a local axis.
This is illogical thought, and the fact that all the alarmists agree with it suggests strongly they are mistaken about AGW as well because they are unable to think logically.
Obvious typo above…one too many circles.
You misunderstand what Newton said and proved.
Robertson
” And their calculations were wrong because they applied Newtons 2nd law incorrectly. ”
Again and again: you are a dumb, ignorant and pretentious person.
Neither did all these people applied Newtons 2nd law at any time, nor did you ever read what they wrote, let alone would you ever understand it.
I perfectly recall your incredibly stoopid and ignorant remarks about Lagrange’s and Mayer’s work: you read 10 lines of over 100 pages and think you understand what they did.
You are such a dumb ass, Robertson.
If this blog had any scientific moderation, you’d have been banned out of it since years.
And this is exactly the reason why you endlessly post your bullshit here, and nowhere else.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Railroad guerillas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VABNR3oBqA
Must see TV. Just starting watching at point of just beginning talk about Biden, get the popcorn.
If I know Biden’s involved, I turn it off.
It’s Russia TV talking about Biden involvement with US taking or buying Ukraine grain.
Lefty projection, Russia is “reported” to be stealing Ukraine grain and farm equipment. It’s said US John Deere “locked up” the farm equipment [though I don’t how effective that would be]. But imagine GEO locating them would be easy/routine/simple if they were turned on.
Weirdo Willard, supported by his ragtag band of mindless morons, now lies that he has nineteen or so Greenhouse Theories, or Greenhouse Effect Theories, or something of that nature.
I point out that mad speculations, or fantasies about some non-existent and totally indescribable Greenhouse Effect, are “theories” only in the imaginations of GHE cultists.
These peabrains have no concept of the scientific method, and figure if a lie is repeated often and loudly, it will be accepted as fact by the ignorant. This works well enough in politics and journalism (neither requiring any actual capacity for rational thinking), but doesn’t stop Boeing aircraft from falling out of the air because somebody thought lying was preferable to telling the truth,, or people from freezing in the dark because some idiot lied about the benefits of wind or solar electricity generation.
So far, Willard cannot produce even one Greenhouse Theory. All he can do is claim that others have them, and Willard is the victim of some conspiracy preventing him from passing them on. Big Oil, perhaps?
In the meantime, I repeat Feynman’s words –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Woeful Willard can’t even provide an actual theory! The contents of his tortuous fantasy cannot even be expressed in words, apparently. What a mindless fool he is!
He can run, wriggle, and squirm all he likes – but he can’t hide.
Mike, Mike,
I’m right here!
Is there something you’d like to ask me?
Go ahead, I’m all ears.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
Still in love with Mike Mike? Got any more secret gay innuendoes to address to him?
Why would I ask a lying moron like you, anything at all? All right then, why dont you stick a hot needle in your eye, and tell me how it feels, so I can laugh at you?
You claim you have a Greenhouse Theory, when you havent. Thats a lie. You think nobody will realise that you are a liar. That makes you a moron.
Off you go now – play with yourself as much as you like. See if anybody cares.
You can run, but you cant hide.
I can’t hide, Mike?
The answer is hiding in plain sight!
Only you can miss it!
Silly sock puppet.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You can run, but you can’t hide.
You can lie about having a Greenhouse Theory all you like.
You haven’t got one, because such a thing doesn’t exist.
You are just another lying moron. Ignorant, stupid, and powerless, like every other GHE cultist!
Carry on.
Poor little sock puppet.
Kiddo could help him, but he won’t.
Sadz.
Willard, please stop trolling.
bobdroege, one of the braindead cultists who prefers lies to truth, wrote –
“Yes, I agree with Norman, there is only one true Greenhouse theory.”
What a stupid statement. Someone might ask him to produce the “one true Greenhouse theory”, and of course bobdroege would have to resort to spouting obscene nonsense to weasel out of admitting he has no Greenhouse theory at all!
Just another mindless lying moron.
Run, bob, run.
Wriggle, bob, wriggle.
Lie, bob, lie.
[laughing]
> Someone might ask him
That someone should be you, silly sock puppet!
Are you afraid to speak to Bob?
You can also ask Kiddo, he knows where to look.
He’s a bit shy to produce the quote tho.
Alternatively, there is always the Sky Dragon Cranks magnum opus, which he misrepresents.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Ive asked you before to produce a Greenhouse Theory. You just keep lying, and say you have one. Of course, you havent.
Then you spout nonsense –
“Are you afraid to speak to Bob?
You can also ask Kiddo, he knows where to look.
Hes a bit shy to produce the quote tho.
Alternatively, there is always the Sky Dragon Cranks magnum opus, which he misrepresents.”
In other words, you are still lying about having a Greenhouse Theory, and trying to divert attention away from your lies.
You claim you have a Greenhouse Theory. You havent. You are lying.
That makes you a lying moron – a moron because you think you can get any with the lie.
Carry on lying, moron. Or carry on, lying moron.
I know you did ask me, Mike. You know my terms. But you won’t put any skin in the game.
Not that this would matter if you clicked on links. The answer to your decade-old quest is hanging right in front of your nose. Kiddo could help you, but solidarity is low amongst Dragon Cranks.
Ask Bob. Perhaps he could find back the comment where you were explaining the greenhouse effect to him.
Silly sock puppet.
Willard Weasel,
Oh, I see. You arent going to let anyone see your non-existent Greenhouse Theory unless they agree to your “terms”! You peabrain, you don’t have a Greenhouse Theory!
Lying about it is not going to help you in the long run, Is it? You are insane – demanding that people click on “links” just makes you look like what you are – a lying moron.
Waffling about Dragon Cranks (whatever you suppose they are), and directing me to ask this one or that one, won’t help you. You can run, but you can’t hide.
You don’t have to admit you are a lying moron. Facts don’t care whether you agree with them or not, you fool.
Keep lying if you think it will make reality go away.
You are free to see the greenhouse effect theory all by yourself, Mike.
For that you would need to click on links.
Are you ready to do that?
Silly sock puppet.
I did not misrepresent the “Slayer” book, as I never even mentioned it, let alone described what was in it. I simply pointed out what “Slayers” themselves have argued re multiple GHE descriptions present in the literature. As there are multiple descriptions, there appears not to be one coherent “theory” (so Swenson is correct). Instead it is a moving target of different, vaguely expressed ideas.
When the GHE “theory” is not incoherent, it is vague. When it is not vague, it violates the laws of physics.
The first statement, from years ago, claimed that the sky could heat the surface. This is the “fluxes add” and “ice cubes can boil water” nonsense. The major violations of physical laws then led to the second statement, which is the “CO2 keeps the planet warmer than it would otherwise be” nonsense. The problem with that is CO2 emits to space, while 99% of the atmosphere “traps” heat.
The cult’s nonsense is collapsing like a house of cards.
The problem is that when CO2 emits to space, it also emits downward at the same rate, so no, Clint R, CO2 doesn’t cool the atmosphere.
And I will bet you 10,000 US dollars I can cause water to boil using only ice.
If you could only figure out how fluxes add.
All WRONG, braindead bob.
But then, you are braindead….
Are you willing to bet 10,000 dollars Clint R?
If not,
Shut the fuck up.
Clint R, this is bob’s proposal for using ice to boil water:
"So I took a pot of water and put it on the stove, so it was heated just below boiling.
I took the lid for the pot and made a plastic mold of the lid.
Then with the plastic mold filled with water and frozen to make lid out of ice.
I put the ice lid on the near simmering pot and guess what?
The water started boiling.
There, I caused water to boil using ice.
You guys have no idea!"
In other words, it would have absolutely nothing to do with fluxes!
What poor braindead bob doesn’t understand is that all his “work” beltes his claim of “using only ice”.
He has NO understanding of thermodynamics or science. He believes he’s smart, as he attempts to pervert reality. But, that just makes him an idiot.
And, he wouldn’t pay up anyway….
Of course I wouldn’t pay, as I wouldn’t lose the bet.
I am not the one who doesn’t understand the physics.
And instead of attacking my arguments, you clowns attack me.
same ole same ole
Clint R and Chartmaster are losers
I did not attack you, bob. I simply pointed out that your proposed experiment would have nothing to do with radiation.
Chartmaster,
It was Clint R who attacked me, as he can not attack my arguments because he doesn’t understand them.
The claim was that I can use ice to cause water to boil, that I can do.
Your claim that my method has nothing to do with fluxes is wrong, because heat transfer by convection can also be measured with the same unit used to measure flux.
See, it all goes back to your lack of understanding of the science.
Just more sophistry from bob.
Oh, so now you are attacking me!
So very scientific!
OK, bob.
Chartmaster admits defeat again.
I just get bored with you, very quickly.
I don’t believe you are bored with me, what with the repeated please stop trolling comments.
You could spend some time with some science textbooks.
But then that would be a productive use of your time.
So you are just a bored loser.
Definitely bored.
You actually did misrepresent the Sky Dragon Cranks magnum opus, Kiddo, right here:
They made a stronger argument than that.
Have you read the book?
No misrepresentation of the book, Willard, because I did not say that they made the point about many different versions of the GHE in the book. I just said that the “Slayers” made the point about many different versions of the GHE. Which they did. I linked to the paper. Paper, not book. I was not discussing the book, so I could not possibly have misrepresented it.
> Paper, not book.
Either what they did in the paper represents what they did in the book or it does not. If it does not, then your paper is unrepresentative of what Sky Dragon Cranks hold, said, did, etc.
Which is it, Kiddo?
Can’t have both.
And you still have not said if you read the book.
You’re obsessed with the book. I cannot have misrepresented the book when I was not discussing the book. It’s as simple as that.
I’m making a fairly simple point, Kiddo. Your claim is about what Sky Dragon Cranks hold. Either the scope of your claim is restricted to what they said in that specific paper, or it applies more generally. If what you said only applies to the paper, then you are acting like the disingenuous scoundrel we all know and love. So you need to get out of your motte and own the bailey you erected.
You and your silly quantifier tricks.
Have you read the book, yes or no?
The paper is written by three of the people who wrote the original book. So of course the paper represents what "Slayers" hold/said/did. The paper is written by "Slayers"! Once again, wtf is your problem?
It’s not restricted to this paper, though. There is similar mention of how the GHE has many varied descriptions in the G & T paper. I have seen the point raised at various blogs over the years.
I have not read the book. Another reason why I couldn’t possibly be misrepresenting it.
The paper only covers one aspect of the book, Kiddo. Had you read it, you would have realized that a long time ago.
Is there an overlap between the five analogies or explanations (the sixth one must be an Easter egg) they botched in their paper and the 19 other ones they (Alan, in fact) pretend to have found in their (mostly Alan’s, in fact) magnum opus?
I’m sure you can find the book and answer that yourself, silly sock puppet.
I didn’t misrepresent the book, Willard, since I was not discussing it. I haven’t even read it. Perhaps you could at least just admit that you were wrong about that?
You indeed did, Kiddo –
You emphasized what the authors said they did in their book.
They did more than that.
Lying is more about intending to deceive than to state untruths.
So why are you lying about me misrepresenting the book?
That is where you are begging the wrong question, Kiddo.
The more appropriate one is why you would cite a paper that is not representative of a book when you quoted the bit that mentions the book while butting in an exchange where we were discussing the Sky Dragon Cranks official position.
Next you gonna argue that Sky Dragon Cranks do not have one!
"…you quoted the bit that mentions the book…"
It was just the opening sentence of the paragraph, and I quoted the entire paragraph. I didn’t mean for anyone to place any relevance on the part mentioning the book. The rest of the paragraph, after that sentence, is what I was intending to show. If I had known you would go so completely ga-ga over the book, I would never have included that sentence. It was just a quick copy and paste of a paragraph.
Glad to clear that one up, Kiddo.
You cited a paper that you did not intend to be representative of the Sky Dragon Cranks thesis, a thesis you could easily recognize by reading out loud the title.
You also cited a citation that leads to a version of the chapter of that book. You did not know that. You have not read a book that is available online freely.
So you quoted a bit where the authors mentioned their book, but you did not read the book.
All is well.
Oh, I forgot to ask – do you still hold that Sky Dragon Cranks only wanted to refute any possible version of a theory that does not exist?
"You cited a paper that you did not intend to be representative of the Sky Dragon Cranks thesis, a thesis you could easily recognize by reading out loud the title."
It’s not that I intended or didn’t intend it to be representative of the book. It’s that I wasn’t thinking about the book at all, because I haven’t read it.
"You also cited a citation that leads to a version of the chapter of that book. You did not know that. You have not read a book that is available online freely."
That’s right, I haven’t read the book. I haven’t read every single thing that is available online freely.
"So you quoted a bit where the authors mentioned their book, but you did not read the book."
As I said, it was just because it happened to be the opening line of a paragraph I copied and pasted in its entirety.
"All is well."
If this is your way of saying you finally understand that I did not misrepresent the book, then great.
"Oh, I forgot to ask – do you still hold that Sky Dragon Cranks only wanted to refute any possible version of a theory that does not exist?"
If there is not one single, coherent, theory, then there is no theory.
In other words, it would have absolutely nothing to do with flux!. If I’d realized you were going to freak out so much about the book, I never would have included it. You accuse me of so much, over so little.
Either you still hold that Sky Dragon Cranks have refuted all possible versions of a theory that does not exist or you changed your mind, Kiddo.
Which is it?
That you misrepresent a book or not has nothing to do with the fact that you have read it or not, BTW. You quoted two references to it, but you did not know one of them. And your quote was not about the book. You absolutely were not talking about the book. None of this is about the book. You certainly will not read a free book stating the official position you white knight online each day since a few years.
OK.
The “Slayers” don’t speak for me. I arrived to the conclusion that there is no GHE on my own. I don’t feel the need to read the book. I would no doubt be familiar with most of the ideas presented already, anyway.
The “Slayers” are just a small group of people. Those that recognize there is no GHE are a much larger group.
Nobody talks for anyone but themselves, Kiddo. As I already told you most of the crap Sky Dragon Cranks spout is incoherent anyway. But the same applies to scientists like Vaughan, whom you are trying to exploit without owning that what he says corroborates the existence of a theory you deny.
Denial is first and foremost a trick trolls use to make people work for them. When that happens they lulz so hard it could be heard through the screen. The best solution as I see it is to make trolls work. Same with contrarians, really.
Climateball is all about creating a fairer division of epistemic labor.
No, what Pratt says confirms once again that there are multiple versions of the GHE. You are in denial of that fact.
There are also multiple versions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so what the fuck is your point anyway.
You don’t have a clue with respect to the science, that’s what we get.
Calm down, bob.
Chill, Bob.
Everyone knows that there can be many versions of a theory that does not exist.
And that this theory can be refuted.
Ask Kiddo. He looked nowhere, found nothing, and can safely say –
Gimme a sammich.
Willard’s denial continues. Fun to watch.
Willard, I am always chill.
Chartmaster, you need a clue. WTF is your point anyway?
Swenson needs to reverse his cranial rectal inversion with cardiac complications.
Clint R needs to find the laboratory and do some experiments.
bob’s denial continues.
Forget what I said, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1281138
Richard will never be able to replace you!
I’m glad your sociopathy and sadism provides you such amusement.
Please stop confusing me with Pup and MF, Kiddo.
May you remind that other lesson next time you want to act like the Machiavellian asshat you have been for too long on this website.
Stop deflecting, and just take on board the criticism of you that I am making.
That is where you are wrong, Kiddo –
This is not about me, this is all for you.
Silly sock puppet.
More deflection.
Chartmaster,
I am not denying anything.
You are the greenhouse effect or greenhouse theory denier who doesn’t understand the physics or science involved.
I could discuss why you are wrong about that, Kiddo.
I will not.
Speaking of deflections, how long do you think you will succeed in refusing to clarify what you mean by a *version* of a theory?
Sure, bob. Whatever you say.
Wrong again, Kiddo.
It is about what *you* say. You deny the existence of the greenhouse effect. You deny the existence of Greenhouse Theory.
Silly sock puppet.
There are plenty of descriptions of what purports to be a Greenhouse Effect theory available online. I do not deny the existence of them. I just recognize that a theory should not have multiple different physical explanations.
The 2LOT theory also has multiple different physical explanations.
So now blankets are a *version* of the Greenhouse Theory because they *explain* the greenhouse effect.
That’s just great.
OK Ball4 and Willard.
B4,
Recall that Kiddo emphasized that Alan compiled 19 definitions/descriptions of the “greenhouse effect”.
Take a look at these “definitions/descriptions.”
This is all so Very Scientific.
OK, Willard.
Willard 10:31 am, contents: 355+ pages of rhetoric and not one experiment or instrumental observation in support of that rhetoric is not worth any time. At all.
Ball4 loves his experiments. Except when he used to talk to Konrad. Then experiments were suddenly not so important to Ball4/Trick.
I thought you said “OK,” Kiddo.
Yes, I did…and I am OK. Thank you.
“Year round greenhouses, or even those used for season extension, face the challenge of extreme temperature swings. A greenhouse structure can collect excessive amounts of heat during the day when the sun is out, causing them to easily overheat. However, they quickly lose this heat at night due to a lack of insulation, resulting in overcooling or possibly freezing.
Many growers turn to heating and cooling to maintain a stable temperature ventilating during the day and heating the greenhouse at night. While reliable, these strategies can be costly and unsustainable. Thermal mass materials can present a natural alternative to evening out temperature swings, maintaining a suitable growing environment without fossil-fuel heating/cooling (in specific applications).
Thermal mass materials are dense materials which store heat. They absorb thermal energy during the day, either from direct light or the heat of the greenhouse, and re-radiate this heat back into the greenhouse when the temperatures drop at night.
Water is the most commonly used thermal mass in greenhouses for two reasons: it has the highest heat capacity per volume of any of readily available material, and it is cheap. The only needed component is a storage container abundant commodities in our plastic-laden society.
By stacking several large drums of water in a greenhouse, a grower can create a water wall a large and low-cost thermal battery for the greenhouse. The disadvantage with this low-cost climate control strategy is primarily that water takes up considerable space in the greenhouse, which could otherwise be used for growing. Incorporating water walls often requires building a bigger greenhouse or taking up some of your existing growing room. Thus, water walls are most commonly used only in large backyard greenhouses structures large enough to accommodate the extra space easily, and that do not need to maximize every allowable space for growing. ”
https://ceresgs.com/tips-on-using-water-barrels-in-a-solar-greenhouse/
The greenhouse effect theory involves Earth’s oceans which cover 70% of the Earth surface.
I don’t think anyone disagrees.
“One way that the worlds ocean affects weather and climate is by playing an important role in keeping our planet warm. The majority of radiation from the sun is absorbed by the ocean, particularly in tropical waters around the equator, where the ocean acts like a massive, heat-retaining solar panel. Land areas also absorb some sunlight, and the atmosphere helps to retain heat that would otherwise quickly radiate into space after sunset.”
https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/climate.html
China has been doing solar greenhouses forever
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-structure-diagram-of-the-Chinese-solar-greenhouse_fig2_338359854
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNJnwCbnFX4
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/12/reinventing-the-greenhouse.html
etc.
These don’t usually involve water tanks.
” . . . it turned out to be impossible to cultivate plants without extra heating during the winter.”
So much for some idiot at NASA saying greenhouses stay “warm and toasty during winter.”
Maybe in Florida or Louisiana. Minnesota not so much.
Solar greenhouses do.
https://www.ideassonline.org/public/pdf/PassiveSolarGreenhousesChina-ENG.pdf
“using only the energy of the sun, without auxiliary heating during the winter.”
https://www.plantgrower.org/uploads/6/5/5/4/65545169/cold-climate-greenhouse-resource.pdf
RLH,
From your first link –
“To improve heating and CO2 production, . . .”. Ah, heating needs improvement, I see. Not “warm and toasty” enough, I suppose.
From your second –
“Keeping utility bills low for winter greenhouses is the key to their viability; the operating cost to maintain optimal temperatures for growing even the hardiest of vegetables in climates similar to those found in Minnesota during the dead of winter would surpass profits. In these greenhouses, there are typically two different reasons for heating: one for the plants, which tends to manifest as heat storage and recovery methods, focused on heating the soil; and a heating system such as a wood stove or forced air heater that is used for the comfort of people working inside of the greenhouse during the cold winter months.”
Not quite “warm and toasty”.
Try reading what you link to.
Both links also contain greenhouses that do not use external heat sources as well. Try reading harder.
Bricks are good. They could also be cheaper- which would make them
better to use.
Bricks last a long time.
China been building bricks for very long time.
What are you doing here, gb?
Oh how nice,
To be called out by a moron who has explained the greenhouse effect to me, and where it can be observed.
Remember Swenson, it’s in the difference between the dry adiabatic lapse rate and the moist adiabatic lapse rate.
But here is wiki with the theory of the greenhouse effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
But who cares, Swenson, you seem to have no clue as to what a “Theory” is.
Here is one
“The Moon is made of cream cheese”
It may be wrong, but it’s still a theory.
Maybe we have enough information to determine who is a lying sack of shit and who is not?
Bob quoted the Wiki entry, Kiddo.
Now’s your chance to quote Vaughan’s comment!
“The greenhouse effect is a process that occurs when energy from a planet’s sun goes through its atmosphere and warms the planet’s surface, but the atmosphere prevents the heat from returning directly to space, resulting in a warmer planet.”
The ocean surface also prevents the heat from returning directly to space. 2.5 meter ocean depth per 1 C warms as whole atmosphere warms per 1 C. And entire ocean depth prevents 1000 times more than Atmosphere- per 1 C.
We in ice house because we have cold ocean, but our cold ocean still holds a lot of heat, and warms the Earth surface.
“The warmed surface then radiates heat, which is absorbed by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.”
The warmed tropical ocean surface, most evaporates and heats the entire world, with it’s tropical ocean heat engine. And lot heated ocean surface water in transported poleward, and because of this Europe [for example] is about 10 C warmer as compared to, if this tropical ocean heat wasn’t transported poleward.
Convection is main way of the warmed surface heating the atmosphere.
Gordon thanks for your lengthy reply, however you did not address the issue. Please note the correct spelling of my name.
Apparently my comment was not sufficiently clear for some readers of this blog and probably too short as well.
IR spectra (spectral range 4000 to 400 cm-1) are caused by ab*sorbing IR released by changing vibrational and rotational energy levels of molecules. I trust this is well known from textbooks on spectroscopy.
Over the years I have measured IR spectra of many chemicals including those of two atomic gases. I noted that it is straightforward to measure IR spectra of some diatomic gases such as CO and NO even at low concentration using standard IR spectrophotometers This is also well known from literature.
Other diatomic gases such as N2 and O2 are hardly IR active and IR spectra are undetectable using standard IR spectrophotometers. Thanks to Bindidon and some others for emphasizing this.
The issue is why are there such large differences in IR sensitivity between N2 and O2 on the one side and CO and NO on the other side? Can these differences be explained by assuming that electrons are responsible for the transitions between different vibrational and rotational energy levels?
S,
The spectroscopic properties of gases are completely irrelevant, if you are claiming that increasing the amount of any gas between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.
You may not be aware that the temperature drops at night, in the winter, under clouds and so on.
Maybe you could have a stab at explaining how O2 and N2 manage to cool without emitting IR.
Do you think your vast experience of using standard IR spectrophotometers might help you?
Only joking. You haven’t got a clue, have you?
“explaining how O2 and N2 manage to cool without emitting IR”
Collisions between them and molecules that DO emit IR?
RLH,
How stupid would that be – only O2 and N2, nothing else. Nothing to “collide” with, which is nonsense anyway. Molecules aren’t little ping-pong balls.
Grow up, laddie, try thinking, instead of trying to be clever.
You’re not very good at trying to be clever.
“Although all the used materials are atomically flat, some are flatter than others. Helium atoms are then like tiny ping-pong balls bouncing through a pipe, and depending on whether the pipe surface is bumpy or smooth, the ball comes out of the other end slower or faster”
Professor Sir Andre Geim
RLH,
As I have said, even highly qualified professors are guilty of “telling lies for children”.
Helium atoms are not like tiny ping pong balls – this is a simile used for people whom he believes can’t handle the truth. Or he may just be ignorant of reality.
By the way, does the phrase “atomically flat” also apply to “tiny ping pong balls”?
I’m sure you know better than Professor Sir Andre Geim.
RLH,
Of course I do.
Thanks for confirming I am right.
I suppose one hint was him saying “Although all the used materials are atomically flat, some are flatter than others.”
The problem is you associate the vibrational energy levels as the ones normally seen in the IR range. This is an arbitary definition a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. they are active in other regions and can emit the energy in those regions.
Climate modellers make the assumption that it is just the IR region of the spectrum that is heat, however all the electromagnetic waves carry energy and can heat up objects. Microwaves are very good at heating up materials containing O-H bonds, although they are significantly lower in energy than IR waves.
Sibbele Hietkamp
You have no chance of convincing any one of these ignoramuses of anything – regardless what it is about: IR absorp-tion, lunar spin, relativity, viruses, Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and so on.
They are only interested in showing off with stuff they pick up in contrarian blogs.
And it’s getting worse. The rational sceptics with whom one could have a sensible discussion don’t come here any more.
I wonder why.
It’s as if Sky Dragon Cranks took their places.
EM,
I suppose a “rational sceptic” is one who believes you are wise and respected?
Bindidon and Ent are vexed because they have been exposed.
Bindidon is all talk and no show — https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1279513
Ent is merely another braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll. He values his beliefs more than reality.
Entropic man gets called out by rational sceptics as someone who can’t be taken seriously and he wonders why they don’t come here.
Binny,
Obviously, you are unable to explain how O2 and N2 can cool without emitting IR.
So you whine about anything else.
Typical.
Find out how things cool. Learn something. Don’t blame me because you are ignorant.
“Climate modellers make the assumption that it is just the IR region of the spectrum that is heat, however all the electromagnetic waves carry energy and can heat up objects”
Radiating that EMR from those objects will cause them to cool down also.
“… you are unable to explain how O2 and N2 can cool without emitting IR. ”
Why should O2 and N2 cool (if they do anyway) only when emitting IR?
What’s that for an utter nonsense, Flynnson?
You are even dumber than Robertson.
Et ce n’est pas peu dire.
Vinny,
You can’t answer, so you resort to babbling.
Not very clever.
Try explaining how O2 and N2 (or for that matter, any matter at all) can cool without emitting IR radiation.
Richard Feynman said that this phenomenon can be explained in terms of the following actions –
A photon moves from place to place.
An electron moves from place to place.
An electron absorbs and emits a photon. (Yes, I know, I left out the time component.)
I agree with Richard Feynman. If you don’t, and can provide a better explanation which can be supported by experiment, I will agree with you.
Off you go. Give it a try.
Mr. Hietkamp, Gordon is but one of several “hijackers” on this blog. The usual troublemakers are:
Amazed
Clint R
DREMT
Emergency Moderation Team
Emily Dobson
Gordon Robertson
Mike Flynn
[Bb]indidon
Swenson
RLH
Go Fish
They change their names slightly on occasion to evade filtering. There are a few more that like to generate noise, but they are not nearly as abusive as the list above.
Geek, why are you hijacking this blog with your attacks?
It’s most revealing that you’ve omitted the child “Willard”. Is he in your keyboard school?
Perhaps Wiz can distinguish ninjas from contrarian trolls, Pup.
Just a thought.
Don’t worry. My job here is mostly done.
Don’t link me in with the rest of the group.
You forgot to add the magic word, Richard.
Willard is an idiot? Is that too mnay?
*many
You found the magic word on your first try, Richard!
Congratulations!
Willard is an idiot.
Willard’s a chihuahua. Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap….
MayPosts.png
Thanks for the reminder, Mark – 1:2.57 is not good enough, I need to slow down a bit.
Once I’ll get to 1:3, I’ll shoot for 1:4.
Thanks Mark for the work.
Now do a word count as well.
RLH says: Now do a word count as well.
Are you familiar with “Shannon information content“?
“The Shannon information can be interpreted as quantifying the level of ‘surprise’ of a particular outcome.”
But some people post things that are 1000s of words long. Others can do the same (or more) with 10s instead.
Why not go for Kolmogorov instead? Not sure a Richard bot is more complex than a Gordo bot. My bet would be on gb, which I would approximate to a random generator.
A Willard bot is just idiotic.
Haven’t heard that name for a long time.
I used to use the Kolomogorov-Smirnoff test for goodness-of-fit in analysis of biological experimental data.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov%E2%80%93Smirnov_test
Andrey might be one of the last giants. I have not thrown the towel on Terence yet.
Andre the Giant was kinda big too.
Kolmogorov is sensitive to outliers, just like mean and SD.
None of them are recommended for skewed, bimodal distributions.
Wizgeek
Why do arrogant persons like you decide who is a hijacker on this blog?
Is that not the job of Mr Spencer and his team?
What team?
binny…”Why do arrogant persons like you decide who is a hijacker on this blog?
Is that not the job of Mr Spencer and his team?”
***
Do you mean Dr. Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team?
No I don’t mean the ridiculous pseudomoderator.
I mean the blog’s owner, Robertson.
The man you never would have the balls to ask what he means about your stoopid, reckless, unscientific thoughts about lunar spin, viruses, Einstein, relativity, absorp-tion/emission by gases, GHE and so on.
But above all: the man you claim to have respect for but in fact DO NOT RESPECT AT ALL.
No one who respects a Dr Roy Spencer would be brazen and disgusting enough to help Russia in manipulating the world with its alleged ‘denazification’ of the invaded and destroyed Ukraine, sucking Putin’s cock and posting his lies on this blog.
Yes, Gordon, he definitely meant me!
sibbele…see response at May 13, 2022 at 7:07 PM.
Gbaikie
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-61434295
A discussion you might like to join.
The Chinese are thinking along similar lines.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/17/asia/china-moon-seed-dead-intl/index.html
If I had to bet, I would expect the first permanent lunar colonists to be Chinese. The US might be first to return to the Moon, but I can’t see them staying.
The Chinese aren’t moving as fast, but they are in it for the long haul.
Test
Site doesn’t want to post, my post.
But briefly, I would say the good thing about the Moon is you don’t need to stay/live on the Moon. Moon can use tele-operation from Earth.
For lunar telepresence from Earth the three second transmission time-lag between giving an instruction and seeing the result might be a problem. Imagine driving a car with no windows and screens showing the driver the view three seconds ago.
One suggestion to minimise this problem was to control lunar surface machinery by telepresence from Gateway to reduce the time-lag.
I notice that they are already using a telepresence robot on the ISS.
https://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/r2/pages/iss-mission.html
Well Moon could similar to ISS, some people going there 3 months or 6 months- or 2 weeks. And probably more “tourists” on Moon than going to ISS.
So could have lunar hotel which near location of water mining and making rocket fuel. And tourists could drive or though probably hop around the lunar surface.
A major thing could be radio telescope, but also maybe lots of other kinds of telescopes. What could rather interesting is finding lava tubes and seeing how deep they go under the surface.
Both Mars and Moon could have big and deep caves. Or there limit with Earth, Or 10 km deep cave is possible either or both places.
But if there is a lot caves on Moon, it seems one get more tourist going to Moon. It’s also possible to have much lower velocity rocks hitting the Moon- there could be almost anything on the Moon. Though Mars has in some ways chance even lower velocity impactors- if they are small, due the thin atmosphere.
Nice article. Thanks for giving the information. I earn from qualifying purchases. Please read our disclosure for more info.
please check Out.
Rain Captions
La Nina effect
https://youtu.be/-6DqI90L0kQ?t=35
The Big 5 Natural Causes of Climate Change Part 3: How La Nina Warms the World
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/13/the-big-5-natural-causes-of-climate-change-pt-3-how-la-nina-warms-the-world/
…
–Welcome everyone
Today in part 3 of the big 5 natural causes of climate change, I want to demonstrate how more frequent La Ninas have warmed the world
La Ninas promote clear skies over the eastern pacific increasing solar heating. As a result, the eastern Pacific absorbs over 100 watts per meter squared more solar energy than it releases back to space. A similar but smaller energy imbalance occurs in the eastern Atlantic during Atlantic Ninas–
Or on YouTube if you like.
Or from Jim Steele’s website
https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2022/05/how-la-nina-warms-world-pt3-big-5.html
“Up next: part 4 of the big 5 natural causes of climate change: landscape changes”
Weepy Wee Willy wrote earlier-
“You are free to see the greenhouse effect theory all by yourself, Mike.
For that you would need to click on links.”
Oh dear. Willard still claims he has a greenhouse effect theory, but it is somewhere elsewhere, as usual.
Complete nonsense. There is no Greenhouse Effect Theory. Witless Wee Willy is annoyed that I choose not to follow his irrelevant links.
He has no trouble cutting and pasting slabs of text quoting Mike Flynn from time to time, but claims his Greenhouse Effect Theory is so mystical it can’t be provided in text form.
Sounds like pseudo-scientific claptrap to me.
Even some people at NOAA don’t appreciate the distinction between an hypothesis and a theory –
From teaching material supplied by NOAA “This hypothesis, or theory, that the enhanced greenhouse effect will cause Earth to heat up is called “global warming.””
Nope. Just pseudoscientific word salad. These incompetent bumblers need to learn effective English expression after they look up the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory.
And what would be the distinction, silly sock puppet?
Witless Willard,
If you don’t know the difference between a theory and an hypothesis, what form of insanity makes you think anyone would value your opinion on matters of science?
Ignorant moron.
Mike Flynn,
I know the difference between the two. In fact I know why NASA would say “his hypothesis, or theory.”
What I do not know is if you know the difference.
Silly sock puppet.
Woefully Witless Witless,
You wrote –
“What I do not know is if you know the difference.”
And I am supposed to care what a person who thinks I am his homosexual object of desire, knows or does not know?
You don’t have a Greenhouse Theory, do you?
You can run, but you can’t hide, lying moron.
Indeed I do have what you are looking for, MF.
You know what I want.
Do continue to fumble basic concepts from K12 resources.
Silly sock puppet.
Wobbly Willard,
I’m not looking for anything, dolt.
You are delusional. You don’t have a Greenhouse Theory, so you just lie about having one.
Why would you think I care what you want? Pretending you have a Greenhouse Theory makes you a liar. Thinking you can get away with it makes you are a moron!
You can run but you can’t hide.
Lying moron.
Mike, Mike,
You are looking for at least two things –
A fight, and the Greenhouse Theory.
Can you do better than a Teaching Activity by the NOAA, silly sock puppet?
Willard, please stop trolling.
KIDDO RETURNS FROM VACATIONS – I
[R] So good you said it twice.
[W] R is getting to the bottom of it.
[MF] More sly homosexual innuendoes?
[W] MF, MF – Bottom of the thread.
[MF] Keep trying to pretend that you are not lying about having a Greenhouse Theory. You can run, but you can’t hide.
[W] MF, Silly sock puppet.
[MF] Claims he has a Greenhouse Theory.
[W] Sky Dragon Cranks also believe the greenhouse theory exists, silly sock puppet. They claim to have slain it! Are they liars too? Oups!
[K] The Sky Dragon Slayers Cranks made the argument that there are many different versions of the supposed “GHE theory” in circulation, and set out to refute all of them. There is not one hard and fast version of what the “GHE theory” is supposed to be.
[W] More than that, Kiddo – most Sky Dragon Cranks dont agree with one another!
[K] …and since there is not one hard and fast version of what the “GHE theory” is supposed to be, MF is completely justified in continuing to ask for one. There should be one, but there isnt.
[W] The word you are looking for is canonical, K. That Sky Dragon Cranks could not find any can also mean they suck at researching. What are their citations?
[K] MF is correct, and you are wrong, as usual.
[W] MF claims there is no greenhouse theory. You claim there are many. Only in Dragon Cranks universes is zero contained in many.
[K] If there are many alternative versions of a “theory” then there is not one single version of the theory, as there should be.
[W] There can be an infinity of equivalent formulations of a theory, K. All that matters is that they cover the same range of phenomena. And to repeat, that Sky Dragon Cranks cannot find a proper version of it shows more about their research skills than anything.
[K] They’re not equivalent, W. They are alternative versions of the supposed “GHE theory”. They argue different things in different ways.
[W] I am speaking in general term under what conditions two theories can be said equivalent, K. You seem to be talking about specific formulations. Which ones are you opining about, and why do you keep dodging the fact that the existence of many formulations of a theory implies its existence?
[K] Why can you not understand that by MF asking you for a GHE theory he might simply be making the point that there is not one single, coherent theory? Rather there is a multitude of ideas thrown about which each change and evolve into something different, when challenged.
[B] You should understand MF is arguing that there is no greenhouse theory, not that there are multiple greenhouse theories.
[K] So your belief is that MF has genuinely never seen anything like what you have quoted, and actually believes that there has never been an attempt by anyone to express what the GHE theory supposedly is? I find that unlikely, B. I find it more likely that the point MF is making is that there is not one single, coherent theory presented. There are all sorts of different versions.
[W] Oh, and K – arguing that a theory cannot be knocked down because it always is a moving target is not the same thing as arguing that it can or has been refuted. The two arguments are in fact incompatible.
[K] All versions of the GHE have been refuted. However, during a discussion, when one version gets knocked down, the GHE proponent will simply switch to another of the versions, until the other person loses the will to live.
[W] Here is K: “All versions of the GHE have been refuted.” Here is MF: “There is no Greenhouse Theory, nor Greenhouse Effect Theory, nor any of the other nonsensical Theories you mention.”
[K] There is no one, single, coherent theory. Its instead just a mish-mash of ideas that change from one to another as you attack them.
[W] K does not always refute a theory, but when he does it does not need to exist.
[K] There is no one, single, coherent theory. Its instead just a mish-mash of ideas that change from one to another as you attack them.
[W] K does not always refute all versions of a theory, but when he does they always keep changing.
[K] As I said [repeats what he said].
[W] As K said, all versions of the greenhouse theory that does no exist have been refuted. Perhaps he could find two versions that Sky Dragon Cranks refuted in their magnum opus? Preferably two versions that would not exist, for he would not want to contradict MF, would he?
[N] There really is only one science version of GHE. The others are all misunderstanding promoted by contrarians. The real one has been explained to you. [Repeats it.]
[B] K, I am not going to put words or ideas into MF’s mouth or brain. I will go by what he says and posts. Then there is the Casino version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which hasn’t been refuted either.
[W] In a way, B, Climateball is only an extension to a famous theorem by Ginsberg.
[K] N says he has the one true version of the GHE, and the others are all invented by contrarians!
[B] Is that weak ass tea all you got K? Still no refutation of the greenhouse effect due to a lack of understanding of the laws of thermodynamics.
[K] I did not enter this particular discussion to refute the GHE, B. That has already happened, years ago. I am simply here to correct W on his misunderstanding over MF’s comments.
[W] K entered the discussion by misunderstanding what MF claims, and when caught pants down he tried to argue his way out by appealing to the many versions of the theory. And when he finally realized that this too did not cohere with what the Sky Dragon Cranks purported to do in their magnum opus, he had to once again adapt his story. Yet here is, pretending that all versions are false, without citing or quoting anything. A small vacation from the blog did him good.
[K] W gets everything wrong.
***
That’s when Kiddo quoted authors of the Sky Dragon Cranks magnum opus where they mentioned their magnum opus and cited work that became a chapter of their magnum opus.
But of course he was not talking about the magnum opus. In fact he has not read the magnum opus.
Get a life, for crying out loud.
Welcome back, silly sock puppet!
I’m sorry I bothered trying to talk to you. Always a waste of time.
Please stop botching your quantifiers, Kiddo.
???
Kiddo wasted a day debating a question involving an existential quantifier yet he does not know what is a quantifier.
This is sillier than citing a book unknowingly!
Wasted Wee Willy wrote –
“Kiddo wasted a day debating a question involving an existential quantifier yet he does not know what is a quantifier.”
Willard just makes another attempt to avoid admitting that he is lying about having a Greenhouse Theory.
What a lying moron he is!
Kiddo spent a day trying to defend Mike Flynn. Here is how he repays him.
Silly sock puppet.
Wily Wee Willy (not) –
“Kiddo spent a day trying to defend Mike Flynn. Here is how he repays him.”
You are really, really, stupid. What insane fantasy leads you to think I care what some anonymous commenter (you can’t even identify him by pseudonym) writes?
And vice versa, I suppose. Your amateur trolling attempts fall flat.
Keep lying and trying to convince the mentally retarded that you have a Greenhouse Theory!
Carry on.
Willard, I was just quoting from a paper written by “Slayers” that mentions there are multiple different descriptions of the GHE available in the literature, and arguing against some of those different descriptions. A theory, if it exists, should be easy enough to describe. With the GHE, everybody (even “climate scientists”) seems to have conflicting ideas of what it actually is. Some mention “back-radiation”, whilst others mention the “effective radiating level”, and so on. This is unusual, to say the least. If this point was also made in the book, then it was also made in the book. So what?
Kicking up such a fuss, like you do, only draws more attention to these ideas. So I guess I should be thanking you. I would, if you weren’t such an unnecessarily rude and argumentative jerk.
You did more than that, Kiddo –
You tried to argue that is possible to refute all the versions of a theory that does not exist.
A theory Sky Dragon Cranks having refuted in their magnum opus.
Silly sock puppet.
Willard cannot understand even the simplest arguments.
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that everybody can see that his dfense of MF was silly.
What is a *version* of a theory, silly sock puppet?
In answer to your question: my point exactly. A theory should not have different versions.
Enter this string into google search: second law of thermodynamics
Over 17mln hits! According to DREMT’s logic then 2LOT is disproved since as DREMT erroneously writes: “A theory should not have different versions.”
That is not an answer to my question, silly sock puppet.
And you are wrong anyway, for instance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
But you do not say if by *version* you mean interpretation.
You have never studied and it shows.
Since I did not say the GHE is disproved because there are multiple versions, that is not my logic.
That is not what I am saying eithe, Kiddo.
I am saying that scientific theories have many interpretations all the time.
You are just stalling because you will not clarify what you mean by *version* of a theory.
I know that because you cited a paper that mentioned definitions.
In what way is Blankets a *version* of the Greenhouse Theory?
As I see it, it is only an analogy.
I was responding to Ball4, idiot, and I am just going to ignore you.
There is only one theory Chartmaster, but English is not a scientific language, so there are many analogies used to explain it to rocks like you, Clint R, and others who lack the scientific chops to deal with it.
You are in denial that there is a Greenhouse Effect anyway.
There have been various physically different mechanisms proposed for what the GHE supposedly is, bob. Yes, there are also various different extremely flawed analogies made.
Name two mechanisms, Kiddo.
Help yourself by reading the paper you cited.
Yes Chartmaster,
You made your point that there are bad explanations of the greenhouse effect.
I made that same point a long time ago with respect to the back radiation idea, it’s not the best explanation, but there is still downward IR from the atmosphere that causes the surface to be warmer than it would be without that downward radiation.
Doesn’t mean there is no greenhouse effect theory or that the theory is wrong.
“There have been various physically different mechanisms proposed for what the GHE supposedly is, bob.”
Do tell Chartmaster and I will tell you which one is correct.
bob, try to pay attention to what I’ve already said.
"Some mention “back-radiation”, whilst others mention the “effective radiating level”, and so on."
That’s two different physical mechanisms for the GHE right there.
Have they been mentioned in the paper from the Sky Dragon Cranks you cited, silly sock puppet?
Chartmaster,
“Some mention back-radiation, whilst others mention the effective radiating level, and so on.”
You are mistaking mechanisms for observations.
The only mechanism is the catching and releasing of specific IR wavelengths by the IR active gases, you know CO2, water vapor, and the rest.
The mechanism causes two different observations.
You don’t understand the difference.
The effective radiating level or effective emission height explanation is a completely different account of the GHE than the old-fashioned back-radiation explanation.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/effective-emission-height/
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. Here’s a pro-tip: when you search of an explanation, spot causal words. Allow me to help:
You might also need to read back Pekka’s comment that motivated the post, and the discussion in the comment thread. While you does so, I will simply remind you of SoD’s intervention:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/effective-emission-height/#comment-16759
Silly sock puppet.
Chartmaster,
“The effective radiating level or effective emission height explanation is a completely different account of the GHE than the old-fashioned back-radiation explanation.”
Are either of those wrong?
Isn’t one a result of the other?
Both are happening at the same time, so no, they are not completely different.
It’s not a simple theory, you have to have the chops to understand it.
Sure, bob. It’s basic physics, but complicated.
Bob,
Would you say that dQ is basic yet complex?
It is no doubt complex for Kiddo, for he always end up dodging its interpretation. Witness his trolling of Barry.
Silly sock puppet.
Chartmaster admits defeat
“Sure, bob. Its basic physics, but complicated.”
Willard,
As for dQ, an astute student soon realizes that they have been working with differential equations for like 10 years before they take that course.
I admit victory.
And so Kiddo soldiers on, having met defeat on every single point he tried to put forward since his impromptu return.
That is how we recognize a true Climateball winner.
Sure, sure.
As usual, Chartmaster calls an own goal victory.
OK, bob.
KIDDO RETURNS FROM VACATIONS II
[MF] B wrote “Yes, I agree with N, there is only one true Greenhouse theory.” What a stupid statement. Someone might ask him to produce the “one true Greenhouse theory”.
[W] That someone should be you, silly sock puppet! Are you afraid to speak to B? You can also ask K, he knows where to look. He’s a bit shy to produce the quote tho. Alternatively, there is always the Sky Dragon Cranks magnum opus, which he misrepresents.
[K] I did not misrepresent the Sky Dragon Cranks magnum opus, as I never even mentioned it, let alone described what was in it. I simply pointed out [repeats what he said].
[W] You actually did misrepresent the Sky Dragon Cranks magnum opus, K, right here: “The Sky Dragon Cranks made the argument that there are many different versions of the supposed “GHE theory” in circulation, and set out to refute all of them.” They made a stronger argument than that.
[K] No misrepresentation of the book, W, because I did not say that they made the point about many different versions of the GHE in the book. I linked to the paper. Paper, not book. I was not discussing the book, so I could not possibly have misrepresented it.
[W] Either what they did in the paper represents what they did in the book or it does not. If it does not, then your paper is unrepresentative of what Sky Dragon Cranks hold, said, did, etc. Which is it, K? Cannot have both. And you still have not said if you read the book.
[K] You’re obsessed with the book. I cannot have misrepresented the book when I was not discussing the book. Its as simple as that.
[W] I’m making a fairly simple point, K. Your claim is about what Sky Dragon Cranks hold. Either the scope of your claim is restricted to what they said in that specific paper, or it applies more generally. If what you said only applies to the paper, then you are acting like the disingenuous scoundrel we all know and love. So you need to get out of your motte and own the bailey you erected. You and your silly quantifier tricks. Have you read the book, yes or no?
[K] The paper is written by three of the people who wrote the original book. So of course the paper represents what they hold/said/did. The paper is written by Sky Dragon Cranks! Once again, wtf is your problem? It’s not restricted to this paper, though. There is similar mention of how the GHE has many varied descriptions in the G & T paper. I have seen the point raised at various blogs over the years. I have not read the book. Another reason why I could not possibly be misrepresenting it.
[W] The paper only covers one aspect of the book, K. Had you read it, you would have realized that a long time ago. Is there an overlap between the five analogies or explanations (the sixth one must be an Easter egg) they botched in their paper and the 19 other ones they (A, in fact) pretend to have found in their (mostly by A, in fact) magnum opus?
[K] I did not misrepresent the book, W, since I was not discussing it. I have not even read it. Perhaps you could at least just admit that you were wrong about that?
[W] You indeed did, K. You emphasized what the authors said they did in their book. They did more than that. Lying is more about intending to deceive than to state untruths. I am sure you can find the book and answer that yourself, silly sock puppet.
[K] So why are you lying about me misrepresenting the book?
[W] That is where you are begging the wrong question, K. The more appropriate one is why you would cite a paper that is not representative of a book when you quoted the bit that mentions the book while butting in an exchange where we were discussing the Sky Dragon Cranks official position.
[K] It was just the opening sentence of the paragraph, and I quoted the entire paragraph. I didn’t mean for anyone to place any relevance on the part mentioning the book. The rest of the paragraph, after that sentence, is what I was intending to show.
[W] Glad to clear that one up, K. You cited a paper that you did not intend to be representative of the Sky Dragon Cranks thesis, a thesis you could easily recognize by reading out loud the title. You also cited a citation that leads to a version of the chapter of that book. You did not know that. You have not read a book that is available online freely. So you quoted a bit where the authors mentioned their book, but you did not read the book.
All is well.
Oh, I forgot to ask do you still hold that Sky Dragon Cranks only wanted to refute any possible version of a theory that does not exist?
[K] It is not that I intended or did not intend it to be representative of the book. It is that I was not thinking about the book at all, because I have not read it. If there is not one single, coherent, theory, then there is no theory.
[W] You quoted two references to it, but you did not know one of them. And your quote was not about the book. You absolutely were not talking about the book. None of this is about the book. You certainly will not read a free book stating the official position you white knight online each day since a few years.
OK.
[K] The Sky Dragon Cranks do nott speak for me. I arrived to the conclusion that there is no GHE on my own. I do not feel the need to read the book. I would no doubt be familiar with most of the ideas presented already, anyway. They are just a small group of people. Those that recognize there is no GHE are a much larger group.
[W] Nobody talks for anyone but themselves, K. As I already told you most of the crap Sky Dragon Cranks spout is incoherent anyway. But the same applies to scientists like V, whom you are trying to exploit without owning that what he says corroborates the existence of a theory you deny.
Denial is first and foremost a trick trolls use to make people work for them. When that happens they lulz so hard it could be heard through the screen. The best solution as I see it is to make trolls work. Same with contrarians, really.
Climateball is all about creating a fairer division of epistemic labor.
[K] No, what V says confirms once again that there are multiple versions of the GHE. You are in denial of that fact.
[B] There are also multiple versions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so what the fuck is your point anyway. You dont have a clue with respect to the science, thats what we get.
[K] Calm down, B.
[W] Chill, B. Everyone knows that there can be many versions of a theory that does not exist. And that this theory can be refuted. Ask K. He looked nowhere, found nothing, and can safely say: Gimme a sammich.
[K] The denial of W continues. Fun to watch.
[W] K, you need a clue. WTF is your point anyway? MF needs to reverse his cranial rectal inversion with cardiac complications. Pup needs to find the laboratory and do some experiments.
[K] The denial of B continues.
Get a life, for crying out loud.
DREMPT,
Life and reality are wasted on Wayward Willard. Leave him to his imaginary colloquy.
Or ask him for his Greenhouse Theory. You can have a laugh when he lays down “conditions” before he will let you look at it!
He definitely has a paranoid sense of his own importance, based on his “conditions”, “offers”, “tests”, and so on. His paranoid fantasy extends to insisting I am Mike Flynn, for no reason at all. I must admit that I am tempted to post as Mike Flynn from time to time, but that would be taunting the peabrain just for the sake of taunting.
Have fun!
Not to worry, Dremt, Wacky Wilie has dropped off the deep end and is not conversing with himself on a blog. He is likely manipulating his lips with his fingers to produce lip burbles.
dremt…I think Binny was referencing you at May 13, 2022 at 2:12 PM.
He mentioned Dr. Spencer and his team.
According to Willard, I misrepresented the “Slayers” book, by correctly and accurately repeating an argument raised in one of the chapters of the book.
That is where you are wrong, Kiddo. You did not accurately and correctly repeated the argument of the chapter! And the argument in that chapter does not represent, even when correctly portrayed, does not represent the thesis of the book.
Oh, I forgot – do you think that comparing the atmosphere to a blanket is a *definition* of the greenhouse effect?
I misrepresented nothing, clown.
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that he clearly implied that his portrayal of the argument Sky Dragon Cranks made in one of their papers reflected the thesis by which we know them.
And he is about to discover that his *version* trick leads to interesting epistemological questions.
No, I implied no such thing.
Indeed you did, Kiddo.
If you cannot say that *all* Sky Dragon Cranks did was to refute versions of the Greenhouse Theory, then your intervention was utterly irrelevant.
You also claimed that *all* versions of the theory have been refuted. How many different do you know, and how exactly do they differ one from the other?
As usual, Willard invents his own twisted logic that makes no sense to anyone but himself. “Slayers” have argued many things, and one of the things they argued was pertinent to your disagreement with Swenson. So I brought it up. Get over it.
As usual, Kiddo soldiers on, stuck with the fact that now he has to hold the weird idea that it is possible to have many versions of a theory that does not exist.
He is also stalling the process that will help me clarify what the hell he means by *version*.
Wish him luck!
Yes, you often need help with the meaning of well known words.
So Kiddo soldiers on, content with his claims that the Greenhouse Theory does not exist, that it has many *versions* and that *versions* could mean just about anything we could find under * version* in a dictionary.
Silly sock puppet.
A vague concept known as the Greenhouse Effect theory certainly exists, and most people certainly seem to think they know what it is…until they delve into the details. Then it starts to become clear that there is not one single physical explanation, there are different ones. So can it really be said to be a theory?
Yes, of course, when properly experimentally generally proven, since the 2LOT theory also has multiple different physical explanations.
Sky Dragon Cranks believes that the concept of *version* is rock solid. Until they delve into the details. Will Kiddo ever do that?
Stay tuned for this breathtaking episode of Climateball!
OK Ball4 and Willard.
B4,
Here is the first “definition” Alan found:
https://imgur.com/a/zYhmMhX
No idea where Kiddo can find a problem with that, but there you go.
OK, Willard.
Willard the Mass Debater (or should it be masturbator?) conducts bizarre conversation with himself, with his hand down his trousers for encouragement.
The poor witless fool still cannot provide the Greenhouse Theory that he claims to have.
He now seems obsessed with a “magnum opus”, mentioning it no less than five times in the last two sentences of his odd, incomprehensible, comment.
Of course, he still cannot produce the Greenhouse Theory, apparently claiming that there are many versions of either the Greenhouse Effect, or the Greenhouse Theory – or something equally mythical, but these are hidden from mortal sight, so Weary Willard cannot actually provide even one of them here.
As Kevin Trenberth said about his mythical “missing heat” – “It’s a travesty”.
Sure is. The mystery of the ages – the GHE, which cannot even be observed, measured or documented, leading to an hypothesis which can’t be put into words, so experimentation is impossible, leading to an equally imaginary Greenhouse Theory!
Wandering Willard can run, or more likely shamble aimlessly in various random directions, but he can’t hide. Still no GHE.
swenson…”Willard the Mass Debater (or should it be masturbator?)…”
***
Or master baiter???
Gordon,
Dang me, dang me, they oughta take a rope and hang me!
How did I miss that? Temporary insanity due to excessive laughter?
Anyway, I’m sure Willard would be delighted to be classed as a master baiter, rather than a pathetic excuse for a troll, and an object of derision.
I did use several question marks. Don’t see Willard as a master at anything except maybe your second offering.
Heres the trick: if you give losers your attention, you instantly become one of them.
There is no them, Kennui. It is just me. A modest ninja.
Dragon cranks do not own this blog.
Willard,
There you go again – off with the fairies.
A ninja? If your definition of a ninja is “a lying moron”, then you might be right.
As to dragon cranks, inventing incomprehensible and meaningless terms is about as stupid as claiming you have invented a game called Climateball!
Or as idiotic as claiming you have a Greenhouse Theory!
You can try to run, but you cant hide, you lying moron.
Silly sock puppet.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike, Mike,
R is Richard.
W is me.
B is Bob.
K is Kiddo.
MF is you, silly sock puppet.
Whacky Wee Willard,
Who cares?
Produce a Greenhouse Theory, and I might care.
Until then, you are a lying moron.
You do not care to know that it is not a conversation with myself, Mike? Alright. Continue to lie if you want.
Silly sock puppet.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Still cant produce a Greenhouse Theory?
That would make you a lying moron.
No wonder you have to talk to yourself.
You can run but you cant hide.
Indeed I can, silly sock puppet.
Can you find something better than this:
https://gml.noaa.gov/education/lesson_plans/The%20Greenhouse%20Effect-%20Fact%20of%20Theory.pdf
Witless Wee Willy,
Thats a link, fool.
You arent terribly bright. I posted a quote from that piece of nonsense previously.
You keep linking to stuff that supports me.
Standard for attempts by a lying moron to pretend he has a Greenhouse Theory, when he hasnt.
So, you nitwit, am I Mike Flynn pretending to be Swenson pretending to be Mike Flynn, or am I Swenson pretending to be Mike Flynn pretending to be Swenson pretending to be Mike Flynn?
Dont know?
Cant work it out?
Thats because lying morons eventually dig themselves a hole that they cant get out of.
You havent got a Greenhouse Theory, and lying about wont make one magically appear.
You can run but you cant hide!
That is more than a link, silly sock puppet – it is the link of the resource you quoted.
After ten years of looking for the Greenhouse Theory, all you could find is a teaching activity for kids?
Silly sock puppet.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Idiot is Willard.
Heres the trick: if you give losers your attention, you instantly become one of them.
Willard takes a 1000 words to say nothing. As Usual. Idiot.
I have not written most of these words, dummy.
So all your posts are written by someone else?
Richard is an idiot.
Willard, please stop trolling.
sibbele…”IR spectra (spectral range 4000 to 400 cm-1) are caused by ab*sorbing IR released by changing vibrational and rotational energy levels of molecules. I trust this is well known from textbooks on spectroscopy”.
***
I did address your question and I explained why I needed to clarify some issues first.
Your statement above is far too general. You have failed to answer what it is in a molecule that absorbs/emits IR. What causes the vibrational and rotational states to change? That’s what seems to be the approach on the Net, grossly generalizing molecular properties, none of which can be attributed to a molecule per se. The work is done by the atomic nucleii and electrons that constitute the molecule.
I have gone into that in-depth in many posts. The only element in a molecule that can change the vibrational state is the electron bonds. Different electronegativities between nucleii, like with the water molecule, can cause the bond angles to change but vibration is obviously a product of electron bonds.
Since you have studied in the field, I presume you understand that the word molecule is often used incorrectly, some people referring to atoms as molecules. A molecule is nothing more than a name for two or more atomic nucleii connected by electron bonds. In organic chemistry, they use the word molecule to differentiate between different shapes of the nucleii/bonds but in the end, even the most complex molecule is nothing more than an aggregation of atomic nucleii connected by electron bonds.
That’s how I see all molecules, as aggregations of atomic nucleii and electron bonds.
For example, CO2…
O=====C=====O
The Os and the C reference the nucleus of oxygen and carbon atoms while the dashed lines reference double electron bonds. It is the bonds that change length and angle that causes the vibration.
Ask yourself this question. What is in the CO2 molecule arrangement of nucleii/bonds that can emit and absorb IR? IR = EM = electromagnetic energy, an electric field with a perpendicular magnetic field, varying at a certain frequency. What has an electric field with an accompanying magnetic field…the electron.
In communications, EM is produced when electrons are forced to move up and down the antenna at a high frequency. That is a basic principle in the electronics/electrical field, that electrons moving in a conductor create a magnetic field around the conductor. If the frequency of the electron current/charge flow is high enough, the motion produces an EM field around the conductor that can radiate for long distances.
Why would anyone not think an electron moving in an orbit around an atomic nucleus would not produce the same EM?
There is nothing else in a molecule that can absorb or emit EM(IR). Even if molecules collide, or atoms, each nucleus is surround by electrons. It is the electrons which will interact first and given their strong negative electric field, I doubt if anything will get through it to the nucleus. So, it will be electrons colliding with electrons and repelling each other.
***************************************
“Other diatomic gases such as N2 and O2 are hardly IR active and IR spectra are undetectable using standard IR spectrophotometers. Thanks to Bindidon and some others for emphasizing this”.
***
Bindidon is not regarded around here as an authority on anything. He rushes off to the Net to quote others, and often incorrectly. The ‘others’ are likely climate alarmists like Binny, who will staunchly defend any pseudo-science related to climate alarm.
What do you mean by ‘hardly’? It’s not a scientific term. I posted a link to a chiefio article in which he included a UCAR graphic which showed strong radiation in the infrared. At the bottom right corner you can see NCAR/Mao. She works for UCAR which is associated with NCAR.
Look under ‘A Graph Of Nitrogen Spectral Lines’ about 1/3rd way down page.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/nitrogen-active-in-the-ir-a-ghg/
There is a link near the top of the page titled, ‘Nitrogen Has Back Radiation in the Infrared’. The article at the link is about strong IR radiation from nitrogen in the night sky.
**************************
“The issue is why are there such large differences in IR sensitivity between N2 and O2 on the one side and CO and NO on the other side? Can these differences be explained by assuming that electrons are responsible for the transitions between different vibrational and rotational energy levels?”
***
I don’t have the answer to that but it seems obvious to me that molecules like CO2 have electrons in the ground state that are excited by EM frequencies in the IR spectrum to jump up to the 1st energy level, and back. That’s not so surprising since hydrogen emits at 656 nm, which is just above the IR region in the red spectrum (look up Balmer lines).
The link to chiefio shows several spectral lines in the N2 spectrum in the IR band. This where it gets fuzzy and answers are hard to come by. When the surface emits IR, all elements in the surface are emitting IR. That belies the theory that only IR sensitive gases like CO2 can absorb/emit IR. Even water in the oceans emits IR.
Whereas it is claimed CO2 has a broad spectrum, that seems to be a gross exaggeration. It absorbs mainly at 4.3 um in a very narrow band. The question arises as to the spectrum of surface IR radiation. There is no reason why all surface material should radiate in that narrow IR band.
Quartz is likely the most abundant material on the surface. Try finding its IR radiation spectrum and all you get is bafflegab. Same with water. You get all sorts of retuuns for water vapour, but not water, which makes up 70% of Earth’s surface area.
I have checked radiation theory extensively on the Net and all I find is major bs. from alarmists or those who have bought into the propaganda. I have learned that CO2 is capable of absorbing no more than 5% of surface radiation but alarmists make it appear as if it acts like a blanket covering the surface.
Gordon,
Some misleading nonsense from Brittanica on the internet –
“As a consequence, glass cannot glow red because it cannot absorb red.”
Glass needs to be heated to a red heat before it can be blown. Even NASA has pictures of glass glowing red.
From Wikipedia “. . . the glass emits enough heat to appear almost white hot.”
Maybe Brittanica has confused transparency with something else. Trying to see through white hot glass is pointless. Seeing through glass which is below read heat is easy. It’s transparent to visible light.
Most people, even physics professors, are confused about radiation due to temperature, and radiation filtered through a substance, or emitted as a result of excitation, and so on.
Gordo,
Rotational, vibrational, and translational energies are quantized. These quantized energies correspond to certain IR bands. They have nothing to do with electrons. It is the way God designed. There’s nothing more to say.
A molecule with a dipole moment will have a rotational, translational, or vibrational state. When it encounters the right IR band, it will go to another state. These differences in energy state (energy packets) are quantized and correspond to certain IR bands.
Also, these molecules can give up their energy through emissions or collisions with other molecules. They always want to achieve their lowest energy level.
stephen…”When it encounters the right IR band…”
***
What is ‘it’? You need to drop down a level. Most people talking about molecules on the Net have no idea what is meant by molecule. Take it down to the atomic level.
Look up ‘Lewis structures’. They describe how to form molecular diagrams using the number of electrons in an atom.
I have been simplifying this far too much and have claimed things that are not true in general. For example, I claimed that molecules are formed by atomic nucleii bonded by electrons. That’s true for hydrogen but as the number of electron shells increase, obviously the nucleii being bonded are full atoms with electron shells. Only the outer shell electrons are used for bonds.
This stuff I had down cold at one time but rust has set in.
spa,
A photon can have any energy at all.
A photon emitted by an electron can have any energy at all.
All matter above absolute zero emits photons. As matter cools, it emits photons of progressively less energy. There are no discrete jumps in the frequency or energy of photons emitted.
Conversely, gases may be heated by rapid compression to any desired temperature, and will emit photons commensurate with that temperature. No steps.
An electron may absorb all the energy of a photon, and emit a photon of lesser energy, the retained energy being evidenced by increased momentum of the atom affected. Thus, the average velocity of a gas increases, as shown by increased temperature. Etc.
All gets a bit complicated. Not as simple as Wikipedia and various “experts” would like you to believe. And of course, relativistic effects complicate things even further. Im glad Im not an expert.
“I’m glad I’m not an expert”
You aren’t.
RLH,
Do you have a particular reason for agreeing with me?
Or do you just accept that I am correct in my assessment, and then attempt to look clever by association?
Feynman said “Science is belief in the ignorance of experts.” I agree. What about you?
“Do you have a particular reason for agreeing with me?”
Yes. I agree that you are not an expert.
“He meant, and explained that ‘science – a.k.a. research – is in the making, belongs to the (unknown, yet to be discovered) future, while expertise is based on the past, with in-built obsolescence'”.
stephen…there is nothing else in a molecule but electrons, protons, neutrons, and sub-atomic particles. Where do you suppose the vibrations come from? I have claimed they are caused by movement in the bonds and all bonds are formed by electrons or charges produced by electrons.
I am not talking through my hat. I have studied this in depth for years.
And still get it totally wrong.
Bending, twisting, and stretching of the bond lengths and angles.
” I have studied this in depth for years. ”
Pure lie.
Robertson NEVER die study anything, let alone in depth.
All he thinks to know comes from contrarian blogs.
Gordo,
But it isn’t due to electrons’ change in energy state. It is due to changes in rotational, translational, and vibrational energy states. For instance, metal atoms absorb and emit visible spectra, and the electrons change their energy state. The energy packets (quantized) correspond to certain visible bands.
“It is due to changes in rotational, translational, and vibrational energy states.”
Which are energy states of the electrons involved in the bonding.
ball4…”Gordon is wrong as usual, Sibbele, in that molecular electrons do not have the mass to absorb the inherent linear and angular momentum of light the entire molecular structure is required”.
***
This is the same duffo who thinks heat has no physical existence, that it is a measure of energy transfer. Has not clued in yet that the energy being transferred is heat therefore heat is a transfer of heat, according to Bally. Bally has not heard of temperature, which is a measure of heat.
There is no such thing as a molecular electron. The electron belongs to the atoms that when aggregated make up a molecule. A molecule is just a name that describes such an aggregation.
Mass has nothing to do with an electron absorbing EM, or light. The relationship governing it’s ability to absorb EM is E = hf. Therefore, it is the electron’s frequency, which is dependent on its orbital energy level, that is the criterion.
I don’t see an ‘m’ for mass in E = hf.
Energy is not momentum, Gordon. Temperature is not heat. Clausius’ heat is only a measure of total thermodynamic internal energy. Measures have no existence in nature.
Ball4,
There is no GHE and you cant warm water using the photons emitted by ice.
Except experiments reported right on this blog use added photons emitted by ice to warm water!
Swenson just doesn’t know what Swenson is writing about.
Swenson failures of thermodynamics are almost as totally funny as Clint R’s. Swenson still hasn’t even found a decent defn. of the GHE just like banned commenter Mike Flynn never did find one! What a coincidence.
The devil made me do it. Will Willards head explode?
ball4…”Clausius heat is only a measure of total thermodynamic internal energy”.
***
Clausius went into that in-depth in his treatise on work and heat. He claimed internal energy is a mix of heat and work. Heat supplies the energy and the resultant atomic vibration is the work.
He should know, he efined the U in the 1st law.
You are hung up on the use of a generic energy as internal energy. No such generic energy exists, it’s heat and work.
Heat and work do not exist in any object, Gordon. Deal with it. Plenty of thermodynmic internal (thermal) energy exist in an object and the measure of it can even increase AND decrease at all times and temperatures.
Gordon should try going into a lab and learn by experiment what Joule, Tyndall & Clausius learned about thermal energy instead of just making stuff up.
“I dont see an m for mass in E = hf.”
You have to look closer!
The units for Planck’s constant are?
Test question Gordo!
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
wizgeek…aka wizdork…”They change their names slightly on occasion to evade filtering”.
***
Or to post anonymous garbage like you insist on posting.
C’mon, Gordo –
Glad you agree that Pup, Kiddo, and MF are posting anonymous garbage!
Cmon Willy,
Glad to see you agree that you are a lying moron, who hasnt really got a Greenhouse Theory!
You can run, but you cant hide!
MF, silly sock puppet.
Willard, please stop trolling.
mark wapples…”Climate modellers make the assumption that it is just the IR region of the spectrum that is heat, however all the electromagnetic waves carry energy and can heat up objects. Microwaves are very good at heating up materials containing O-H bonds, although they are significantly lower in energy than IR waves”.
***
The egregious error IMHO is their insistence that IR is heat. I am currently reading through Tyndall’s book, ‘Heat. A Mode of Motion’, as suggested by Swenson, and it has become even more apparent to me that scientists of that era believed firmly that IR was heat flowing through an aether. They can be excused that error since it would not be established for another 50 years+ that IR is electromagnetic energy and has nothing to do with heat.
Modern alarmists have not only stolen the ideas of Tyndall on CO2 circa 1860, they have also adopted his error of regarding IR as heat in motion through space. That has led to egregious misinterpretations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, not only among alarmist, but among some skeptics, like Fred Singer. Even Anthony Watts at WUWT is so confused about it I have heard he has banned posters for defending it.
Re microwaves and water…we know microwaves cannot cause a molecule to vibrate per se, since there is essentially nothing there to vibrate. A water molecule looks like a shallow V with a bond angle of about 105 degrees, a little more than a right angle. Although the molecule is shown with dotted lines between the O atom at the pointy part of the V and H atoms at the ends of the V, there is no joint there between the nucleii. There are electrostatic bonds produced by electrons which are apparently orbiting at fantastic speeds, holding the atomic nucleii together.
We do know that microwaves in a magnetron or klystron can excite free electrons to oscillate at fantastic rates (Ghz) in a cavity and each microwave oven has a magnetron in it. So, the magnetron excites electrons till they produce microwaves which radiate into the water.
Something in the water has to absorb them, or be affected by them. It is claimed the microwaves cause the dipoles in the water molecule to vibrate, but what is a dipole? It’s caused in the water molecule by the higher electronegativity of the oxygen atoms to the less electronegative hydrogen atom. The shared electrons tend toward the more electronegative O atom forming a dipole that is negative and less negative. In electronics theory, a charge that is less negative than another is considered relatively positive.
Still what causes the vibration? Microwaves are EM and as such have an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field. The field are both changing at rate of frequency in the Ghz range. I am guessing the rapidly changing EM fields in the microwaves react electrostatically with the dipole electronegntive difference in the water molecule, causing it to vibrate back and forth.
Therefore, it comes down to electrons and not about molecules per se. Heating by microwaves does come from the vibrating water molecules bashing against each other, but only electrons can produce that heat.
Heat is one form of energy. Energy can be transferred by EMR, including IR. Therefore heat can be transferred by EMR and IR.
Flood risk getting bad due to cold spring weather.
Snow pack throughout the province of BC ranges from 83 to 413% of normal.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/water/river-forecast/2022_may1.pdf
Yes Ken.
Northern America seems to experience cooling since a few years.
But to my own surprise, separating the snow cover data for Northern America from the Hemisphere around it does not confirm the impression very much.
1. Weekly overlay of recent years wrt the 1981-2010 mean – NH
https://tinyurl.com/497fdsd9
2. Same for NAm
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19NnDzG5DgaB3Pn5X0lJO40v0qxQKvPwo/view
3. Anomaly based superposition for NH and NAm
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s502-K8lEDVpMelObKeHawZdKR2p-sJf/view
*
Here in Northern Germoney, we have cool spring weather.
Earlier we had cold winters and warm springs; now we have warming winters and cooling springs.
We enjoyed the warming winters, but the price to pay for them (excessive westerly winds in April and May) is a bit high.
“now we have warming winters and cooling springs”
How long do you expect this trend to continue?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1267076
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1267589
Why should one of the worldwide most renowned forecasters ask a poor layman?
So you don’t have an opinion. Just a feeling that things will get warmer. Continuously.
Earlier Bindidon wrote –
“No one who respects a Dr Roy Spencer would be brazen and disgusting enough to help Russia in manipulating the world with its alleged ‘denazification’ of the invaded and destroyed Ukraine, sucking Putins cock and posting his lies on this blog.”
Really?
Maybe Binny thinks someone values his opinion. Probably not Vladimir Putin, Im guessing. I’m also guessing that Binny is not terribly keen to rush off and volunteer his services to the Ukrainian nation.
Neither would I.
As usual: one more of Flynnson’s stupid, irrelevant answers whose goal is to divert and confuse.
I never mentioned being ‘terribly keen to rush off and volunteer his services to the Ukrainian nation’.
I just mentioned Robertson’s disgusting discourse which reminds me what we endlessly read in the comments sections in online British, French and German newspapers.
Binny,
You think a someones discourse is “disgusting”.
I think you are a sadistic dimwit.
Who takes notice of what either of us think?
Someone linked to the latest version of the GHE “theory” nonsense at wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
What’s interesting is this latest version combines the original version (that violates 2LoT), with the “blanket” version (atmosphere keeps Earth warmer than it would otherwise be).
But, they no longer use the phrase “back-radiation”. Here’s how they try to deceive now: Radiant heat going downwards further increases the surface temperature, adding to energy going up into the atmosphere. It’s no longer “back-radiation”, now it’s “Radiant heat going downwards”! Same violation of 2LoT, however. They’re still trying to boil water with ice cubes.
And, they believe they’re clever.
Clint R,
From the link –
“Most of the atmosphere is transparent to infrared, but a tiny proportion of greenhouse gases makes it almost completely opaque to wavelengths emitted by the surface.”
This makes no sense at all. Infrared emitted by the surface is used to produce photographic images from satellites. Maybe magic climatological IR, undetectable by normal scientific instruments is involved.
It’s all complete nonsense. These dimwits simply refuse to believe that the surface cools at night, in winter etc., demonstrating that more energy is leaving the surface than is being received!
Lucky for us, the atmosphere prevents us from literally boiling to death during the day, or freezing to death at night. No GHE – just normal physics at work.
Reality may be starting to chip away at the GHE fantasy. From the link –
The “greenhouse effect” of the atmosphere is named by analogy to greenhouses which become warmer in sunlight. However, a greenhouse is not primarily warmed by the “greenhouse effect”. “Greenhouse effect” is actually a misnomer since heating in the usual greenhouse is due to the reduction of convection, while the “greenhouse effect” works by preventing absorbed heat from leaving the structure through radiative transfer.”
Greenhouses become warmer in sunlight? Who’da thought?
clint R
You just lack the necessary logic, rational thought and science background to understand the GHE. You are hopelessly lost in deluded blog physics and suffer from an extreme case of Dunning Kruger effect (have an extremely elevated sense of your physics knowledge where in reality it is nonexistent).
Again with the ice cubes boiling water. Only an idiot with irrational thinking would come to the conclusion that a radiant insulator on a warming object is like saying ice cubes boil water.
Your idiotic posts are noted and rejected. I know you will respond in any intelligent way but I do want any people on this blog knowing you are a really stupid poster that is totally clueless and has no apparent thinking ability. Not sure which of the two is dumber, you or Swenson. It is close though.
Norman, your childish and incompetent flak lets us know weve hit the target.
Thanks.
Clint R
You are just an idiot. You make a fool of yourself but are too dumb to see it. Thanks for the entertainment. Your stupid posts are painful to read. It shows how dumb a lot of people are in science and the skill of logical thought. Since you won’t read textbooks maybe play some Sudoku to gain a little logical thinking skills. It can’t hurt. At this time you have about zero logical thought ability, anything would be better. Scratch that, I think you might be on the negative side of logical thought, less than zero and in the highly illogical thought process.
Only an irrational and illogical thinker could conclude that a radiant barrier (acting similar to a normal insulating material) would mean that ice cubes will boil water. The way you form conclusions demonstrates a very illogical thinker in your head (provided you are even a human and not a programmed bot)
Norman, your directionless rambling only further reveals your incompetence. You’ve got NOTHING.
Add that to your childish insults, false accusations, and attempts to back away from your cult, and the result makes your meltdown that much more enjoyable.
As Swenson would say, “Carry on”. Please.
Clint R
Now you are just back to being a brainless bot. I gave you a good suggestion. Play Sudoku you need far better logic skills if you want anyone to consider you posts.
What you claim is that insulation (a heated object that is wrapped in insulation can reach a higher steady state then an non-insulated object) violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If you have logic how do you arrive at this conclusion. Also you state that if an object (Earth’s surface) can be insulated (from deep space) that means ice cubes can boil water.
What is your logic to conclude fluxes can’t add. You say it all the time but you have never given an explanation of why you believe this nonsense.
I guess I should not expect much from a non-thinking program. You will spew out some pre-programmed response that is not very intelligent.
The meltdown ensues.
Norman has NOTHING, so he has to make stuff up.
All very predictable….
That someone was Bob, Pup.
Some back reading, pun intended:
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/back-radiation/
For those who ask for the theoretical background of the GHE, there’s a reference to the book:
Atmospheric Radiation_Theoretical Basis, Goody&Yung, 1964
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ji0vfj4MMH0C&dq=atmospheric+radiation+theoretical+basis
Perhaps grammie pups or Swenson/Flynn might actually attempt to learn the science, but I’m not holding my breath.
Thanks, ES.
It is available on b ok dot cc, so Kiddo has no excuse!
Not that I would suggest that anyone go get the book there, tsk tsk.
Willard Jr, your cult book doesn’t even get past the first few pages before “assuming Earth is a black body”.
Science is NOT about making up nonsense.
Y U NO QUOTE, PUP?
grammie pups wrote:
So, when are YOU going to STOP “making up nonsense”?
FYI, Norman Grody designed the MSU which we all know and love. It’s based on the same theoretical foundation as the Green House Effect. Not that you would care.
Correct Junior. Science is NOT about making up nonsense.
Thanks for quoting me exactly.
Then does grammie pups agree that Grody’s work is NOT NONSENSE, but is science?
Then does Junior agree that he’s willing to pervert both science and reality to support his cult beliefs?
Cult Leader grammie pups can’t admit the reality that Grody’s work was NOT NONSENSE, as he claimed.
The lunatic cult’s diversions continue.
Aw Junior, did your attempt at a gotcha question blow up in your face?
It’s not easy perverting reality, huh?
Maybe grammie has finally learned that its not easy perverting reality. But, he soldiers on, ignoring all evidence which proves him wrong.
You nailed it, Junior.
That’s exactly what you do.
Someone mentioned the MSU.
Is this the MSU which has
“KEY LIMITATIONS:
Long-term trends depend on adjustments for changing local measurement times; errors in these adjustments could lead to long-term uncertainty
Not useful for absolute temperature measurements”
Trends depend on adjustments?
Cant actually measure absolute temperatures?
Is this supposed to be the basis of the GHE?
Must be climatological “science”.
grammie pups demands over and over that people answer his questions, while refusing to answer a question himself about one of his outlandish claims.
Then does grammie pups agree that Grodys work is NOT NONSENSE, but is real science?
ES,
Who is Grody? Do you mean Goody?
Yeah Swenson, I noticed Junior’s mistake when he attempted his “gotcha”. I was content to just let him keep going with it, and he did — making the same mistake 4 times!
It’s another example of the cult idiots finding something on the Internet they don’t understand. Junior had probably never heard of Goody.
And, like Norman and the rest, he got caught.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Cult Leader grammie pup, My poor editing doesn’t change my question. Yes, I think that answering it either way and you will find yourself in a logical bind.
I met Dr. Norman Groody back in 2003, attending the same conference I first met Roy and John.
It’s not only your poor editing, Junior. Your general incompetence, immaturity, and aversion to reality has you in a “logical bind”.
Have you noticed how you and Mike have not quoted the same part of the textbook, Pup?
Cule Leader grammie pup et al. failed to catch my real mistake. I was confused by the name similarity between “Goody” (the author) and “Grody” (who built the MSU). Flynnson almost caught my error, but apparently was unaware of the history, so didn’t expound on the flaw.
swannie…part of the pseudo-science of Goody and Yung is revealed in this Gerlich & Tscheuschner response to Halpern et al.
Look on page 26 of 41 section 4.2.3. G&Y misrepresent the relative levels of solar incoming and IR outgoing, making them appear to be equal.
The thing I noticed was how the water vapour spectrum completely blocks out the CO2 spectrum, hence rendering it impossible to observe the effect of CO2 on surface radiation.
In section 4.2.8, G&T respond with the proper ‘normalized. graph.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf
Gordo, did you read the caption for Goody’s figure?
Given that the Earth’s surface area is 4 times the area of it’s disk, I see no reason to dispute that choice.
Clint R,
Violation of the second law of thermodynamics?
Please explain.
While you think about how you will do that, I’m going to go cause some water to boil using a big round ice cube.
bondroege,
So? I can start a fire using a lens made of ice.
Try making a teaspoon of water warmer using the radiation from ice. You cant – you will be just like the wannabe illusionist Tim Folkerts, and you will be using a hidden heat source of over 100 C.
You are a nitwit, desperately trying to appear clever.
Maybe you could waste your time trying to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and the thermometer. You are just that stupid, arent you?
I suppose you could always resort to obscene attempts at insults, and show us how many filthy words you can spell. Do you think that make others think you are wise and powerful, rather than ignorant and impotent?
I doubt it.
Carry on.
Trying to make a teaspoon of water warmer experimentally using the radiation from ice has already been done successfully & data reported on this blog proving Swenson wrong.
Swenson humorously just doesn’t know what Swenson is writing about & is amusing to read.
Ball4,
You are insane. Reality is not your friend.
Ignoring experimental results as does Swenson leads to such humorous comments. Dr. Feynman pointed that out some time ago.
Ball4,
You dont have any experimental results showing you can make a teaspoon of water warmer using the radiation from ice, you peanut.
You can only make water colder by putting ice in it, not warmer.
Except in your delusional fantasies, of course.
The experimental results showing how to make a teaspoon of water warmer using the radiation from ice are reported with data on this blog Swenson, and of course, Swenson isn’t capable of finding them as Swenson admittedly can’t even find the simple GHE theory.
Humorous situation.
Ball4,
I suppose someone sufficiently retarded might believe your fantasy.
Others prefer facts. They might believe you are deranged.
No matter.
As to the non-existent GHE Theory, there is no such thing. Like the water heating abilities of ice, it exists only in your bubbling imagination.
Carry on.
Not a non~existent theory, Mike.
The non-existent theory you consider non-sense.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“… and you will be using a hidden heat source of over 100 C.”
Not hidden at all! Always explicitly stated! Like ‘the cool atmosphere PLUS the hot sun warms the surface more than the hot sun would by itself.” Or ‘a 315 W/m^2 flux (irradiance) from 273 C ice PLUS a 315 W/m^2 flux from a light bulb will warm a surface will provide 630 W/m^2, and warm as surface to 325 K.’
I can’t believe how hard this strawman is to kill!
Folkerts, are you STILL trying to peddle that nonsense? Where’s your technical support for your false belief? You have NOTHING.
Your nonsense would lead to 4 ice cubes boiling water.
You have no clue about radiative physics or thermodynamics. Nor does anyone in your cult.
Silly sock puppet.
“Your nonsense would lead to 4 ice cubes boiling water.”
No. It takes way more ice than that as demonstrated by experiments reported on this blog.
Ball4 says: “No. It takes way more ice than [4 ice cubes] as demonstrated by experiments reported on this blog.”
Ice — by itself — will never boil water. [Not without something silly like supersonic ice cubes smashing into water]. Not 1 cube. Not 4 cubes. Not 1,000,000 cubes. You claim is misleading at best.
I don’t know the precise experiment you are referencing, but I assume it is something like:
* an object is surrounded by VERY cold walls (eg dry ice @ ~ -79 C providing ~80 W/m^2 of thermal radiation)
* a bright light from a small hot source shines on the object (eg sunlight or a few incandescent lightbulbs providing 900 W/m^2)
* the net flux (eg around 1000 W/m^2 in this case) is short of providing enough flux to warm the object to 100 C (which would take about 1100 W/m^2).
** Then replace the VERY cold walls with only SORT OF cold walls (eg ice at 273 K emitting ~ 315 W/m^2)
** The new net flux (over 1200 W/m^2 is plenty to warm the surface above 373 K (eg to ‘boil water’).
But it is not the ice that ‘boils water’. It is the ice PLUS the hot intense source. Without the hot source, the ice cannot boil ice! Your statement makes it seem like you think enough ice — by itself — will ‘boil water’ (or warm it to any temperature above 0 C)!
Now Folkerts attempts more deception.
His original nonsense involved two 315 W/m^2 fluxes heating a surface to 325 K. That’s, of course, bogus. Now he is using one 315 W/m^2 flux and one 900 W/m^2 flux.
And the other cult idiots, like Norman, will fall for the ruse quicker than a duck on a June bug.
(The funny part is, his two fluxes STILL won’t add to 1215 W/m^2. He still couldn’t boil water! But we’ll leave that part for another discussion. The issue here is his inability to support his original nonsense.)
tim…”Like the cool atmosphere PLUS the hot sun warms the surface more than the hot sun would by itself.”
***
Not a shred of scientific evidence to back that statement. The claim of heat being transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface contradicts the 2nd law. Furthermore, it represents perpetual motion since heat is being created at the surface and recycled through the atmosphere and back to the surface while increasing temperature at the surface.
That’s a heat amplifier which has not yet been invented.
“It is the ice PLUS the hot intense source.”
There is no “hot intense source” needed, Tim. All that is needed is an increase in thermodynamic internal energy in the surface water at ~1bar initially very near to boiling. The needed temperature increase can be achieved in 1bar surface water when icy cirrus replace the much colder view of deep space as experiments on this blog demonstrated in Alabama summer overnight.
——
“it represents perpetual motion”
Wrong, Gordon. It will only last as long as there is sunshine which has finite life.
“The claim of heat being transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface contradicts the 2nd law. “
So it is a good thing I am not making such a claim!
Heat is transferred FROM the hot sun TO the warm surface of the earth.
Heat is transferred FROM the warm surface TO the cool atmosphere.
But the temperature of the cool atmosphere has a roll in the temperature of the surface.
As an analogy, I own two identical coffee pots. If I plug them in, heat flows FROM the heating element TO the coffee, and heat flows FROM the coffee to the surrounding air. If one coffee pot is inside my house (20 C) and one is outside my house in the winter (-20 C), the coffee inside will be warmer! Even though absolutely no heat flows from the air to the coffee.
Cooler surroundings do matter! Whether talking about the surface of the earth or the surface of the coffee pot. And no violation of the 2nd Law in either case!
Watch Folkerts pervert.
See Folkerts distort.
See Folkerts twist his cult’s GHE nonsense to a pot of coffee.
(That’s why this is so much fun.)
Ball4 says: “There is no ‘hot intense source’ needed, Tim. … icy cirrus replace the much colder view of deep space “
I guarantee some other source of heat is needed. Water near 100 C with ONLY colder surroundings will cool. Period. If cirrus clouds replace deep space, it will cooler slower, but it will still cool.
Now, if there is a source that keeps the water JUST BELOW 100 C when the water ‘views deep space’ that changes things. The initial source could in principle be sufficient to raise the temperature above 100 C if the heat loss is reduced — in this case by ‘viewing cirrus clouds.
Find the link to the experiments you remember. Either the ‘icy cirrus clouds’ simply SLOW the cooling or they combine with some other source to raise/maintain the temperature.
Tim, the water in view of the nighttime cirrus was slightly higher temperature than the water not in view of the added cirrus at a depth of several inches measured by thermometer.
Sure, both Alabama summer water tubs were cooling all night but one could be boiling and the other not boiling due that temperature difference thus proving added ice can boil water. If this could not happen, the earthen GHE could not exist which was the main point of the experiments – to show how the GHE works to increase water temperature even with normal evaporation allowed.
Generally meteorology has high clouds warming the surface, low clouds cooling the surface globally over multiannual periods, which the experiment confirmed.
This site declines to post even its own links at times, but you can find the many past posts with the blog search engine by entering one word: experiment
Swenson,
Come on dumbass, the downwelling IR that is causing the greenhouse effect is not from ice.
It’s from CO2 at all temperatures encountered in the atmosphere.
Why are you too stupid to understand that, and think it’s heating from ice????????????????????????????????????
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
–And, they believe theyre clever.–
One could hope. But they could believe anything.
The beginning of the cargo cult was related to what caused ice ages.
Or one could frame it, why are we here in this Ice Age.
The simple answer which most agree is due to geological changes.
And the father of the cult was not aware of these geological changes.
Since humans on their starship are eventually going to return to glaciation period- which are called ice ages by most people- we can revisit the question, what causes glaciation periods.
Non interglacial periods could called glaciation periods.
Or interglacial periods are global warming. Global warming is when there is large amount of sea level rise and rapid increase in global temperature. And this occurred more 10,000 years ago, and it’s claim or broadly assumed that we still in an interglacial period that is called the Holocene interglacial period.
Now a glaciation period involves having a huge ice sheet in Canada, and we don’t have that, yet.
It’s what caused the huge ice sheet in Canada and then the ice sheet disappearance which was wondered about centuries ago.
And apparently we still don’t know much about it.
More then century ago, the Little Ice Age, caused some to wonder whether a huge ice sheet was going to form in Canada. Or if we were going enter an Ice Age.
Pretty hard enter Ice Age when you have been in one for 34 million years, but this “Ice Age” was referring to the growth of ice sheet in Canada and/or elsewhere in the world.
So, they were wrong. But if they had said, are leaving the Holocene interglacial period it would have been a less dramatic thing to say- and maybe they wouldn’t have been so wrong.
Anyhow a “Father” of cargo cult was preaching the good news that rising CO2 levels would cause global warming.
And we spent a lot time, arguing about how much warming is caused by increased CO2 levels.
But main problem as I see it, is humans are still living on land, and rather ice sheets it seems polar sea ice is what is connected to the extremes of vast ice sheet vs global warming of rapid melting of these vast ice sheets and rapid increase in global sea levels.
Or since we only live on land, we are quite concerned about vast ice sheet happening on the land.
I not sure what causes these vast ice sheets on land, but we could say it’s the Canadian’s problem.
It’d be Mexico’s problem. All of us freezed-out Canucks would be going over the wall.
Ken,
Sounds like you could do with a spot of global warming. Or create lots of local CO2 by building fires, or burning fossil fuels in power stations.
The increased CO2 should keep you warm.
When you respond to Freedom Fighters rants, Kennui, that makes you no better than them.
When you spout incomprehensible gibberish, and lie about having a Greenhouse Theory, that makes you no better than a gibberish spouting lying moron.
When you play dumb so often, chances are you’re Mike Flynn’s silly sock puppet.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The Planet Mean Surface Temperature New equation
Here it is the planet 1LOT energy balance analysis related New equation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
The New equation is based both, on precise radiative energy in estimation and on the Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
We are capable now for the THEORETICAL ESTIMATION of the planetary mean surface temperatures.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Climate researchers have been capable for the THEORETICAL ESTIMATION of the planetary mean surface temperatures for at least 50 years. Even doing so with a substantial atm. in place – a case which continues to elude Christos.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation: Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths sidereal rotation spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC) ∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correction:
Instead of W/m it should be W/m^2
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2 K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m^2 (So is the Solar constant)
Ball4 says:
May 14, 2022 at 8:36 AM
Climate researchers have been capable for the THEORETICAL ESTIMATION of the planetary mean surface temperatures for at least 50 years. Even doing so with a substantial atm. in place a case which continues to elude Christos.
We are half way through second La Nina , time to check how the predictions panned out
From Bin&Barry Failed forecasts predictions folder.
Their forecast was perfectly correct, it’s the stupid climate that changed
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-726996
https://i.postimg.cc/1X3dmJ5C/nino34-Mon150322.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/X7Z2sZZC/nino34-Mon140522.gif
Certains animaux peuvent attendre des mois sans rien manger.
Mentalement, j’en fais partie.
Why don’t you give us update on your own La Nina gone by April forecast you Clown Ass
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
There is only own dumb clown here, Eben: you were not even able to understand what I wrote.
One day, this la Nina will come to an end, and… all what you dumbass will be able to do will be to wait for the next la Nina…
… because in your brain, there is no place for anything else.
Obviously it’s you who can’t see anything, You didn’t see the first one , you didn’t see the second one , and you will not see the next one ,
For one thing you don’t know absolutely anything about how climate works ,
but first of all, you are eternally stuck on stupid.
“One day, this la Nina will come to an end”
This year or next year?
He doesn’t know but when it does he will claim he knew it was gonna end and it did and we are all stupid
Do you yourself know when, Eboy, or are you just pulling the leg of Binny?
Willard, please stop trolling.
— Gordon Robertson says:
May 12, 2022 at 6:00 PM
gbwhy dont you start a space program? You dont need money,…–
Would be important if in the future, 100,000 people were living on Mars?
It seems it’s importance would related to how soon.
It seems we could have 100,000 people living on Mars within 3 decades.
Which would be quite different if it was 3 centuries.
What has been stopping “within 3 decades” recently is small government bureaucracy called the FAA.
So, a problem of starting a space program is governments in general.
Anyone with any sense would know this. And since people know this, they made NASA.
But NASA is like any other bureaucracy- it doesn’t know why it exists. But one could say that bureaucracies have the natural tendency to protect their turf. But apparently NASA is not warlike enough.
So we got military space and we got civilian space which is NASA.
And could argue military space does more for US civilians, than NASA does. Though US military is in the habit of protecting US civilians,
and NASA charter is about mankind, rather strict focus on US civilians.
So, back to question if there was 100,000 people living on Mars within 3 decades, would be important for humankind? Or all creatures on planet Earth.
Zubrin {a Mars fan} suggested that having Mars settlements, could safeguard against human extinction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zubrin
I tend to think all life on planet Earth, but a sole focus on Mars is unrealistic.
Or first we don’t know if humans can even live on Mars.
Also I think Martian need to use Venus orbit. And it seems likely to me, most people we live in Venus orbit- assuming humans can live in artificial gravity environments.
Also if you people on Mars, one will have people doing stuff on our Moon. Lunatics tend to say the Moon is gateway to our solar system.
But if manage to have people on Mars, Mars would also be gateway to our solar system.
But I can make this simple, Mars, Moon, and/or Venus is about lowering Earth launch costs. It seems a Mars fan, Elon Musk has already lowered launch costs to get to Mars, and has plans to lower them, much lower. But even Musk wild hopes of extremely low launch costs- is not enough or end of story. Or Mars, Moon, and Venus would make it much lower than this.
And Moon could have lower launch cost [from Moon] in shortest time period- which is important to Earth, if Space Power Satellites are important to Earth.
Anyhow FAA has been delaying Starship and maybe Starship launches next month, and we need NASA or some government agency to help resolve problems caused by many politicians and all the government bureaucracies of the world.
Or need reasonable laws, and the laws followed.
Plus we actually need reasonable laws regarding the use of ocean.
I would like laws which allow {or you can encourage] ocean settlements. And would say to make laws, we need to try out laws, improve them. So small scale experiments. One could say experiments cost money. I would say ocean wind mills, are already doing this- though terms money, they very costly experiments in the direction of eventually getting ocean settlements.
Or to talk like a hippie, we need a more holistic approach.
Or just the corporate oceanic wind farms.
Of course, I think wind farms are dumb, I am just saying they could lead somewhere in terms of some kind of legal framework.
” Of course, I think wind farms are dumb… ”
When you will have one day computed the total costs of using nuclear energy for electricity production, namely not only what we all have paid until now for
– (1) plant build and maintenance
– (2) nuclear fuel mining, enrichment, reprocessing and temporary storage
but also what our children and grand-children will inevitably have to pay for
– (3) plant dismantling
– (4) final processing and long range storage of the waste coming from
— (4.1) used fuel rods currently stored near each plant
— (4.2) the dismantling of
— (4.2.1) the highly contaminated plants’ kernels and primary cooling systems
— (4.2.2) the enrichment and reprocessing units
then come back to us, gbaikie.
If nothing better can do done, ship all of it to the Moon.
But Earth is a nuclear reactor, there is enormous amounts
of natural nuclear waste.
BUT I am not a big fan of using nuclear energy on Earth.
Are you opposed to Martians using nuclear power, because
I tend to think that is necessary- at least in the short term- say
first 50 years. And seems kind of crazy to oppose Nuclear energy
used on the Moon- unless you find a water table on the Moon.
So, it seems if had to pick worse place in our solar system to nuclear power plants, Earth is it.
What would favor is using ocean methane hydrates- and progress
on doing that has been slow. Japan seems to be pushing above it’s weight in that regard, though Japan could be seen as getting most gain from it, if they can make it work.
But I don’t think CO2 emission is a problem. But if it is a problem
nuclear energy is less of a problem than wind wills and solar panels.
Australia could be best place for solar energy, but solar energy is not vaguely working in Australia. And idea that it worked in Germany is insanity. German is a very bad place for solar energy. So is Canada.
If I were to push coal or nuclear energy in Africa, I would continue coal around same levels and add lots of nuclear power. And Africans
should get assistance from South Korea. It doesn’t appear the US helped India very much.
So, I am fan of ocean settlements and exploring Moon quickly, and then exploring Mars.
Put the spent fuel rods in giant rockets and shoot them at the Sun. No need to store it here.
And what happens when one fails to reach orbit? Do you really want to spread spent fuel across the landscape?
And… don’t think, like so many do, that 4G nuclear plants would ever be able to ‘burn’ current nuclear waste – that is one of the dumbest lies (all ‘waste’ that could have been burnt was extracted during reprocessing long time ago).
*
And… don’t think moreover, like even more do, that nuclear fusion would become soon the ‘clean alternative’ to nuclear fission.
Because, for physical and technical reasons, the only way to achieve nuclear fusion is the so-called D+T path, i.e. that one based on deuterium and tritium (and not, like even many more think, on H+H, i.e. hydrogen and hydrogen, like in the Sun).
And while deuterium is fairly abundant on Earth, tritium is almost non-existent and therefore has to be grown from lithium, exactly like plutonium is obtained from U238, or U233 out of thorium.
No one knows today how to store tritium, as it is the most volatile element on Earth: it easy bypasses most steel alloys.
And, cerise sur le gâteau, the D+T path has the wonderful property of producing the most energetic neutrons of all fusion isotope pairs, whose consequences for the reactor materials have not even been foreseen up to now.
*
Thus, yes yes yes: keep on burning coal, oil and gas!
“Bindidon says:
May 14, 2022 at 1:06 PM
And dont think, like so many do, that 4G nuclear plants would ever be able to burn current nuclear waste that is one of the dumbest lies (all waste that could have been burnt was extracted during reprocessing long time ago).”
I thought France was only country reprocessing nuclear waste. It’s roughly outlawed in US, I think.
What other countries are reprocessing nuclear waste?
Or some 4 G was about designing reactors not to need reprocessing or
lessen the “need” of it.
“And dont think moreover, like even more do, that nuclear fusion would become soon the clean alternative to nuclear fission.”
Fusion is elusive, just as amount warming from CO2.
I think both need more people involved, if hundreds millions of people were part of it, there greater chance getting a result.
Crowdsourcing, AI, govt prizes are things which cause more progress.
Currently, plants in Europe are reprocessing spent fuel from utilities in Europe and Japan. Reprocessing of spent commercial-reactor nuclear fuel is currently not permitted in the United States due to the perceived danger of nuclear proliferation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle
Generation IV reactor
The most developed Gen IV reactor design, the sodium fast reactor, has received the greatest share of funding over the years with a number of demonstration facilities operated, as well as two commercial reactors, operating in Russia. One of these has been in commercial operation since 1981. The principal Gen IV aspect of the design relates to the development of a sustainable closed fuel cycle for the reactor. The molten-salt reactor, a less developed technology, is considered as potentially having the greatest inherent safety of the six models.
The very-high-temperature reactor designs operate at much higher temperatures. This allows for high temperature electrolysis or for sulfuriodine cycle for the efficient production of hydrogen and the synthesis of carbon-neutral fuels.
The first commercial plants are not expected before 2040-2050, although the World Nuclear Association suggests that some might enter commercial operation before 2030.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
So, I when discuss nuclear powerplants, I generally mean tested and proven Gen III, unless I say otherwise. Or roughly UK is doing Gen III type stuff, I think.
And 2040 could be Mars towns.
” The most developed Gen IV reactor design, the sodium fast reactor… ”
I recommend you to read all information available to you concerning the 100 % failure of Superphenix (France)
– stopped in 1997 due to eternal leakage problems within the liquid sodium cooling system
– start of the dismantling in 2007 (cost evaluation in 1987: 300 million french francs i.e. 50 million euro; reevaluation in 2007: 1.5 billion euro); end forecast in 2007 for 2027; end forecast revision in 2017 not before 2040; end costs unknown, the 1.5 billion have been spent long time ago).
Molten salt? Are you kidding us, gbaikie? This idea is 70 years old, but not ONE WORKING plant was ever built using it till 2010.
Good luck.
Blinny: Modern molten salt reactors may not be that far off.
“The Kairos Power fluoride salt-cooled high temperature reactor (KP-FHR) is a novel advanced reactor technology that aims to be cost competitive with natural gas in the U.S. electricity market and to provide a long-term reduction in cost.”
https://kairospower.com/
That is but one of many in recent research with them being looked into in Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States all within the last decade and some as recent as last year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
The idea of molten salt reactors has been around as long as fusion reactors. I will believe it when I see it.
https://www.powermag.com/tva-kairos-partner-to-deploy-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-demonstration/
2021
Not Gen IV.
Gen III
Quote:
“Generation II reactors are typified by the present US and French fleets and most in operation elsewhere. So-called Generation III (and III+) are the advanced reactors discussed in this paper, though the distinction from Generation II is arbitrary.””
…
“So-called third-generation reactors have:
A more standardised design for each type to expedite licensing, reduce capital cost and reduce construction time.
A simpler and more rugged design, making them easier to operate and less vulnerable to operational upsets.
Higher availability and longer operating life typically 60 years.
Further reduced possibility of core melt accidents.*
Substantial grace period, so that following shutdown the plant requires no active intervention for (typically) 72 hours.
Stronger reinforcement against aircraft impact than earlier designs, to resist radiological release.
Higher burn-up to use fuel more fully and efficiently, and reduce the amount of waste.
Greater use of burnable absorbers (‘poisons’) to extend fuel life.”
So, wouldn’t need all the above. But made recently [obviously] and as say “further reduced possibility of core melt accidents”.
But I am not recommending how nuclear reactors, all I am saying is NOT Gen IV.
Which doesn’t mean I am against testing Gen IV, rather just saying I don’t advise it.
But I do think small nuclear reactors, could be ok or better but something which roughly belong in Gen III “type” rather than Gen IV “type”.
Such as UK is making small nuclear reactors:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/rolls-royce-expecting-uk-approval-mini-nuclear-reactor-by-mid-2024-2022-04-19/
I don’t know much about them, nor whether this project goes anywhere, but I do like the general idea of them.
Or I like idea making them in a factory rather each reactor being unique. Cheaper and more reliable.
I mean in successful commercial practice.
I said soon, not current.
Binny,
You wrote –
“No one knows today how to store tritium, as it is the most volatile element on Earth: it easy bypasses most steel alloys.”
I think you are talking nonsense, but maybe you meant to say something else.
ITER, which operates the worlds largest Tokamak, begs to differ –
‘Tritium can be safely stored as metal hydride (tritide). At room temperature certain metals take up hydrogen isotopes like a sponge, forming a stable metal hydride. When heated to elevated temperatures, the metal hydride is decomposed, thus making it a fully reversible storage medium.”
I believe a Chinese tokamak has sustained a fusion reaction for over 17 minutes, so maybe fusion power is not that far away.
In the meantime, I agree with you when you say “Thus, yes yes yes: keep on burning coal, oil and gas!”
Flynnson
You are such an ignorant, gullible useful idiot.
I need no more than to type ‘stockage du tritium’ in Google’s search field to obtain a huge amount of such ‘information’.
How many ignorant, gullible, useful idiots of your kind do you think worked in French ministries in the 1970's and believed in the rubbish produced by the "specialists" at the Commissariat à l'énergie atomique telling them about the wonderful idea told to grow plutonium from uranium 238 in 4G reactors "safely" cooled with liquid sodium?
Twenty years and ten billion dollar later, all these gullible politicians had to see in what for a giant blind-alley they were driven by the “specialists” (who by the way still believe they did everything ‘right’).
” … so maybe fusion power is not that far away. ”
Tokamak people tell us that since… 1960.
Binny,
Maybe you should use English when you search Google. You might have found this, from the US Government –
“DOE HANDBOOK
TRITIUM HANDLING AND SAFE STORAGE”
I won’t bother quoting the section relating to low pressure tritium (stored like any other gas), or the storage of tritium in metal tritide beds.
You don’t believe anyone, except others who share your delusional thinking.
Still no GHE. Still a figment of a collective delusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02NXhpEBql4
Clinton/Dem run BlackLivesMatter corporation
40 billion to take Russia “out”
War regarding Arctic
Scott doesn’t appear [nor others] how long this war is
going to take. He also wonders if we have some intel guy
telling us that russia will not use nukes.
First don’t trust intel. Second we were involved doing
something regarding Soviet nuclear program- or spent
billions of tax dollars per year related to ensuring
safety issues related to it. So I imagine US intel all
over that- or don’t need anyone close to Putin, as we
probably know more about it than Russia leadership- or
our leadership is not well informed and Russia leadership is probably
worse. Or average of Trump and Biden probably knew more
than Putin- which amounts to very little.
Anyhow, I am suppose to know something Arctic in regards to potential
future war.
What about tossing 40 billion billions at NASA, say +3 billion
per year over next 10 years, to do Moon and Mars?
And it seems we going to spend more 40 billion on Ukraine over next
10 years, it’s more like 1 trillion dollars which won’t do much good.
Not mention all the horror regarding it.
Speaking arctic, why not get freshwater from Greenland. That could cost less than 40 billion dollars.
And what is Canada doing about potential war in Arctic?
Does anyone else see, anti-development as a way which will eventually and predictable lead to war?
How about Intel agencies causing wars.
Governmental corruption causing wars.
Governments in general causing wars and global misery in general?
Earlier, E Swanson, in a fit of unwarranted enthusiasm, wrote –
“For those who ask for the theoretical background of the GHE, theres a reference to the book:
Atmospheric Radiation_Theoretical Basis, Goody&Yung, 1964”
Unfortunately, this statement assumes that the GHE is an a scientific effect which can observed, measured and documented. It’s a delusional concept.
As to the book, it states “The ground temperature 6g is always greater than it would be if the atmosphere were transparent (T, = 0). This elevation of surface temperature is known as the greenhouse effect.”, which is complete and measurable nonsense.
The moon has no perceptible atmosphere, and reaches far higher temperatures than the Earth. Even John Tyndall measured the increase in black ball thermometer temperature with increasing altitude, as did others.
Maybe people like E Swanson should read what they link to, and bear in mind Feynman’s words – “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
No use claiming your theory is so amazing no experiment can be performed, either.
The mindless morons continue their erratic shambling, with no clue where they are going, or why.
Willard,
Who am I?
Heres the trick: if you give losers your attention, you instantly become one of them.
Awww, wheres the fun in letting the inmates run the asylum?
That would be as stupid as putting a country in the hands of the winners of a beauty contest, or electing prisoners to run jails.
To each his own.
A silly sock puppet, silly sock puppet.
Cmon Willard,
You are making no sense at all!
Am I Mike Flynn pretending to be Mike Flynn, or Swenson pretending to be Mike Flynn – just to annoy you?
Which form of paranoia do you prefer?
You still have no Greenhouse Theory, so it makes no difference.
You can run, but you cant hide.
Maybe Weak and Weary Willard could spew some more obscene filth.
What do you think?
Your own paranoia is fine with me, Mike.
Have you had the time to parse the kid activity from the NOAA, and when will you start looking for scientific sources on the Greenhouse Theory?
I believe in you, silly sock puppet.
Whiffling Wee Willy,
You still cant produce the Greenhouse Theory you claim to have, can you?
That means you are a liar. Thinking you can convince people that you have a Greenhouse Theory means you are a moron.
Calling Mike Flynn a silly sock puppet (presumably operated by Mike Flynn), after calling me the same thing, just shows you dont seem to able to distinguish fact from fantasy.
You really have a fixation with the name Mike Flynn, dont you?
Stupid, paranoid fool.
Go away and play some of your “silly semantic games”, if you like. Or thrust your hand into your trousers, and just play with yourself.
Off you go, now.
Mike, Mike,
You can spell Goody, but have you looked into his book to see if there was any Greenhouse Theory in it?
Silly sock puppet.
C’mon lying moron,
You can’t produce a Greenhouse Theory, so you just keep lying.
You wrote-
“You can spell Goody, but have you looked into his book to see if there was any Greenhouse Theory in it?”
What are you babbling about, you demented idiot?
There is no Greenhouse Theory. Keep diverting, peabrain!
[laughing]
It would be easy for me to produce he Greenhouse Theory, Mike.
You know why? I already did! Many times!
Silly sock puppet.
C’mon Willy,
You wrote –
“It would be easy for me to produce he Greenhouse Theory, Mike.
You know why? I already did! Many times!
Silly sock puppet.”
Only in your dreams, Wistful Willy, only in your dreams!
You don’t even believe Mike Flynn exists any more! In your paranoid state, you refer to him as a “sock puppet” – maybe controlled by Big Oil?
No Greenhouse Theory to be found. Maybe you wore it out, producing it so many times, do you think?
What a lying moron you are!
Calm down, Mike. That just shows I am right and you have NOTHING.
Open Goody if you dare, ask ES for help if you need.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Calm down, Mike. That just shows I am right and you have NOTHING.
Open Goody if you dare, ask ES for help if you need.”
Ive quoted from Goody and Yung already, you idiot. You need to get a refund on your Jumping to Conclusions course. You still cant produce a Greenhouse Theory, can you?
You claim that you are willing to sell something that doesnt exist, claiming that you have plagiarised it from some unknown source. That would make you an unethical scoundrel, as well as a lying moron. Not good form, Willard, not good form.
You claim you are right. That would be that you are a lying moron, right?
Jeez, Willard you really are delusional, arent you? You make a good object of derision.
Carry on.
Mike, Mike,
Was your quote a formulation of the Greenhouse Theory by any chance?
That would be hard for you to deny that it does not exist, then!
Please confirm, silly sock puppet.
Witless Willard,
You have been quoting me at length, I believe.
Maybe you can dig up a quote and answer your own silly gotcha.
You really are a dim incompetent troll, arent you?
Carry on.
Maybe you could accept that what you consider nonsense exists, Mike.
Silly sock puppet.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You need to see 2000 Mules.
https://2000mules.com/
Pretty interesting. It shows how the Democrats stole the election. They used non-profits and mules. The mules picked up the ballots at the non-profits and stuffed the boxes. This was all done because the various election officials allowed voting integrity to be compromised due to COVID. COVID was their avenue to do this.
https://judithcurry.com/2022/05/14/week-in-review-climate-edition-2/#more-28648
The 60-year old scientific screwup that helped Covid kill [link]
https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/
Quite long.
rlh…”Heat is one form of energy. Energy can be transferred by EMR, including IR. Therefore heat can be transferred by EMR and IR”.
***
Richard, EM is energy, it does not transfer energy, it is a form of energy that has an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and has a specific frequency. Heat has none of those properties and EM has no heat.
Furthermore, heat is related to mass and EM has no mass (not to be confused with Roberto Duran).
Heat cannot be transferred by EM. We can transfer information over distances by modulating EM at a specific high frequency (carrier wave), but you are suggesting it is carrying audio or video energy. It is not, the conversion from audio/video to a modulated EM signal is done inside an amplifier where information representing the audio/video is ‘electrically’ modulated onto the EM carrier. At all times, the EM is signal is an electric/magnetic field.
Heat can be converted to EM and carry information about the source heat level, but that information is not heat. The intensity of the EM wave, E = hf, is related to the heat in the mass by electron KE intensity and its frequency.
During the conversion, the heat is lost. If a mass absorbs the EM, the information in the EM is used to elevate an electron to a higher energy level, and the kinetic energy of the corresponding higher energy level is heat.
That increase in energy is heat but it is produced locally. Therefore, the solar heat that produced the EM has nothing to do physically with the heat produced in the Earth’s surface by the solar EM.
I know you won’t get this, which is sad, because it is very interesting stuff.
“EM is energy, it does not transfer energy”
EMR is created at one spot. It is ab.sorbed at another. Tat is a transfer regardless of how you word it.
stephen…”But it isnt due to electrons change in energy state. It is due to changes in rotational, translational, and vibrational energy states. For instance, metal atoms absorb and emit visible spectra, and the electrons change their energy state. The energy packets (quantized) correspond to certain visible bands”.
***
Stephen…again, what are rotational, translational, or vibrational energy states? A change in transitional state must be an electron transition in the context in which we are talking. There is nothing else to make such a transition in a molecule or atom than an electron.
Look at CO2
O=====C=====O
Carbon has 4 electrons in its outer (valence) band to share. All the atoms in this row of the periodic table have 8 electrons required to fill the outer shell. When its filled the atom is stable. Oxygen has 6 electrons and needs 2 electrons to fill its outer shell. Carbon has 4 electrons in outer shell and needs 4 electrons to fill its outer shell.
If we lay out the oxygen atom with dots representing the electrons, we get a pair of electrons top and bottom and a single electron on each side. We want to leave the pairs on top and bottom alone and share the two remaining electrons with the carbon atom.
Both oxygen atoms have 4 electrons to share and carbon needs 4. Happy marriage, and they lived happily ever after, both now having full outer shells.
Just don’t ask me…yet…how this is done physically. I just want to emphasize that the carbon atom is bonded to two oxygen atoms by shared electrons.
That’s what any molecule is about, shared electrons in the outer shells. As I acknowledged, the only time bare nucleii are bonded by electrons is in the hydrogen atom.
About vibration, it takes place via those bonds. So, what would cause vibration? One thing might be the electrostatic dipole action between each oxygen atom and the carbon atom. That’s because the O atoms have a higher negative charge, therefore there is a kind of tugging between action between them producing vibration.
What would cause the vibration to change? One thing might be increasing the negative charge intensity in either atom. That could be done by heating the CO2 externally but it could also be done if any of the electrons in the bonds absorbed EM. Either way, it is increased energy in th electrons that affect vibration.
I am sure it’s the same with rotation. It is EM emitted by electrons in the rotating atoms that produce any EM from the molecule.
Look up Lewis structures for CO2.
ps. this statement is from a book on valence by Coulsen…
“It is clear that the intimate description of a chemical bond of which we have spoken, must be essentially electronic. It is the behaviour and distribution of the electrons around the nucleus that gives the fundamental character of an atom: it must be the same for molecules. In one sense, therefore, the description of the bonds in any molecule is simply the description of the electron distribution in it”.
Couldn’t have said it better. Molecules are about electrons and depend on them. The nucleus is obviously important since it gives the physical properties of an atom, but it is electron bonding that makes a molecule.
A CubeSat is Flying to the Moon to Make Sure Lunar Gateways Orbit is Actually Stable
https://www.universetoday.com/155842/a-cubesat-is-flying-to-the-moon-to-make-sure-lunar-gateways-orbit-is-actually-stable-1/
“The Gateway will have what is known in orbital mechanics as a near rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO), meaning it will orbit the Moon from pole to pole. To test the long-term stability of this orbit, NASA will be sending the Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology Operations and Navigation Experiment (CAPSTONE) to the Moon by the end of May. This nine-month CubeSat mission will be the first spacecraft to test this orbit and demonstrate its benefits for the Gateway.”
go,
Luckily, when NASA finally get there, they will be able to get around easily, courtesy of China.
“Beijing researchers say they have developed and tested the technology to build a highway on the moon.
“I have often dreamed of building a road on the moon,” said Zhou Siqi, lead author of a paper on the project, published in the peer-reviewed China Journal of Highway and Transport.”
A highway?
There must be something lost in translation.
Maybe it’s the silk road.
gb,
Maybe its the stairway to Heaven?
— Swenson says:
May 13, 2022 at 5:36 PM
Even some people at NOAA dont appreciate the distinction between an hypothesis and a theory
From teaching material supplied by NOAA This hypothesis, or theory, that the enhanced greenhouse effect will cause Earth to heat up is called global warming.
Nope. Just pseudoscientific word salad–
Yeah, but NOAA like NASA is bureaucracy and these people know nothing.
A group of people don’t give hypothesis or theories.
“This hypothesis, or theory, that the enhanced greenhouse effect will cause Earth to heat up is called “global warming”. The best evidence to support this idea comes from studies of temperature and atmospheric gas concentrations in the past from ice core samples taken in Antarctica and Greenland.”
That’s Al Gore, the guy the failed his class and is an idiot.
We hope NASA or NOAA don’t listen to Al Gore.
What I want is Joe Biden explaining global warming.
Could I find it. I got to try.
“When I think about climate change, the word I think of is jobs, Biden said in a July campaign speech announcing his $2 trillion climate plan.”
https://www.vox.com/22242572/biden-climate-change-plan-explained
I imagine, Al thinks about all money he made from it.
–The U.S. pledged billions to fight climate change. Then came the Ukraine war
By Rebecca Hersher | NPRMay 14, 2022
The United States owes billions of dollars in climate funding to developing countries. But the war in Ukraine is delaying payments and slowing down U.S. progress to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that has leaders in low-lying and less wealthy nations feeling frustrated and forgotten.–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/14/npr-joe-biden-paused-his-climate-promises-because-of-ukraine/
Must be jobs in other countries.
But Biden’s war is more important.
Gotta love those freedom loving Ukrainians, imposing censorship, banning EU journalists who took photos showing the reality of what happens when things go bang.
But its all fine, any journalist who doesnt praise the valiant efforts of the mighty Ukrainian army highly enough will apparently be arrested for espionage.
It seems those rotten Russkies dont realise they have been defeated, according to the Ukrainian Secret Service (SBU). All their aircraft have been shot down, all their tanks have been blown up, all their generals have been killed, and all their soldiers have mutinied (or something along those lines).
A Ukrainian leftwing blogger in Spain was arrested on charges of treason brought by the SBU, but unfortunately a Spanish judge let him go. No problem, Ukraines President Zelensky has outlawed all opposition political parties, for the sake of national unity.
Ah well, it will be interesting to see what the future holds. Maybe the valiant Ukrainians will indeed defeat Russia by August, topple the Russian government, and incorporate Russia into Greater Ukraine, banning the speaking of Russian, abolishing the Russian Orthodox Church, and imprisoning anyone who doesnt agree. Same old same old.
In the meantime, the price of food and fuel around the globe will result in widespread poverty, starvation and general misery.
But hey, someone has to pay the price of freedom, dont they?
Only joking – I hope.
It would good news if war is actually over by August.
But it’s more likely the rating will lower and the corporate news
will just say it’s over- or not say, anything, as is typical.
Flynnson
You and Robertson are really the worst, dumbest, most disgusting morons on this blog.
Who did start the war invasion on Feb 24? Was that Ukraine… or Russia?
What, do you stupid moron think, would happen to you if you were a Russian in Moscow and would suddenly cry around that the ‘special operation’ started by Putin and his Russian army was in fact a war against Ukraine, like happened years before not only against Ukraine but also against Georgia and Chechnya?
The FSB immediately puts you in prison.
*
Did you ever hear about this little detail?
” On October 23, 2002, a popular musical production was the target of a terrorist attack in Russia. 40 Chechen fighters stormed the performance of “Nord-Ost” in Moscow’s Dubrovka Theater and took more than 800 spectators hostage. At least 130 people died during the liberation action three days later. ”
Was that Zelensky too, you Flynnson dumbass?
Binny,
I am anti war. However, I accept reality.
Neither side will get a donation from me, I assure you – not that I care what you think!
You may be right – Russia you may be arrested by the FSB. In Ukraine, it’s the SBU.
As I pointed out, the SBU will have you arrested in Spain! Just like the USA, who refuses to join the International Criminal Court (amongst other organisations), because their overseas operatives would be considered criminals under international law.
You may support the gloriously freedom-loving Ukrainians if you wish. If you don’t wish to risk your person by actually going to Ukraine, send money. If you haven’t got any money to spare, borrow lots – just like the US, Australia, Britain and all the other peace loving country.
Keep the fighting grinding along. Make sure 30% of the world’s wheat output can’t be harvested or distributed. Force up natural gas prices so Europeans can experience the “cost of freedom” first hand!
Keep the killing going!
I dont agree, but you must do as you wish.
Its called False Equivalence Fallacy.
Two things are bad, they must be EQUALLY bad.
Nothing bad that Ukraine has done is equivalent to:
Invading someone else’s country, destroying their cities, targeting and killing 10s of thousands of innocent civilians.
Gordon Robertson
This is on your conscience.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61452958
EM,
Excellent. Nobody else needs to feel any responsibility at all, then.
Well done.
How did you manage to get Gordon’s conscience to accept your opinion?
Mine wouldn’t, but it’s a shrivelled little thing, totally disinterested in what anonymous idiots think.
EM is a walking-talking hate crime. Worst of all, he hates reality. He must pervert reality, no matter what it takes.
Clint R,
Maybe he just doesnt know the difference between fact and fantasy.
Exactly. He’s confused by his cult teachings — completely indoctrinated.
Silly sock puppets.
Willard, please stop trolling.
This may have been put up already, but it is an odd one.
“How La Nina warms the world”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/13/the-big-5-natural-causes-of-climate-change-pt-3-how-la-nina-warms-the-world/
It has. See
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7XNHEz2QCJ_Phf2mvDFk0Q/videos
or Jim’s website at https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/
I’m a bit puzzled.
All the sceptics here have been working on the assumption that a La Nina reduces the rate of global warming. Now suddenly WUWT is telling us that La Nina has a warming effect.
Which of these two contradictory sceptic memes do you regard as correct?
Our global climate is ice house global climate, due to Earth having a cold ocean.
More than 90% “global warming” is warming the entire ocean, La Nina warms entire ocean more than El Nino, but La Nina causes lower global air temperature. El Nino is releases more oceanic heat into atmosphere, or warms atmosphere more than La Nina.
We should have a lot hurricanes, because of La Nina. News will talk hurricane as proof of global warming. And during El Nino talk about high air temperatures proof global warming.
But another thing, is that during La Nina, Earth absorbed more energy from the sun and emits less to space, though a hurricane dumps a lot oceanic energy into atmosphere- but it’s a smaller global effect- seasonal/regional.
Ent, you’re puzzled because you don’t understand any of the science, and you can’t learn. You’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
Let us know if anything changes.
EM: I think you are confusing air temperatures and temperatures elsewhere in the Earth’s system.
You should note that this is all a balancing act. If the global air temperatures go up, then temperatures elsewhere must go down. If the global air temperatures go down, then temperatures elsewhere must go up. (That does require a constant input of course)
That is what is being observed here. No contradiction is required.
See Jims website at https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/ for a transcript of the video which may help you further.
P.S. The same applies to ocean surface temperatures.
I’m happy with the concept that ENSO varies the relative flow of incoming energy to ocean bulk and surface.
El Nino reduces flow into the ocean bulk and increases surface uptake. Global average temperatures peak about 0.2C above the long term trend.
La Nina maximises flow into the ocean bulk and global average temperatures go through a minimum, about 0.3C below the long term trend.
My problem is that both you and Eben have been pushing the meme that the extended La Nina period has produced your claimed cooling trend. Not just a temporary decrease, but a change in direction of the long term trend.
If you look at the ENSO ocean surface temperatures over the last 2 years, it has been below average. How you want to interpret that is up to you.
I interpret the cooling as a temporary decrease due to La Nina.
I do not see it as making any difference to the long term . There’s no physical change in forcing which would change the trend.
“The uncertainty of the cooling effects by evaporation alone, or latent heat, is + or 10 watts, overwhelming the estimate of a CO2 driven energy imbalance.”
Climate.gov says that storms in the North Atlantic are governed more by the detrended AMO (AMV if you insist) than by global temperature it seems.
https://www.climate.gov/media/14516
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/amo.jpeg
How big is the error in the CO2 driven ‘increase’ overall.
Interesting, full of both facts and nonsense. Particularly the notion that ENSO just keeps on heating, never cooling..weird.
And the very misleading stuff about the skin effect, implying that IR abs*orbed by the ocean makes no difference, as if 1LOT does not apply!
Have you any objections to the other 2 parts also? https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/
The other 2 will follow later.
The ‘always rising’ part may well be just part of a cycle.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/amo.jpeg
“IR abs*orbed by the ocean makes no difference”
To anything deeper than a millimeter. That’s physics.
RLH,
And to anyone who points out that sunlight penetrates deeper than 1mm, it m makes no difference. The heated water rises to the surface, and radiates its heat to space during the night.
The cooler water falls, to be replaced by warmer water. Repeat.
Any sufficiently deep body of water will eventually have the densest (not necessarily coldest) water at the bottom.
As you say, quite rightly, thats physics.
See in the article for visible light penetration.
Swenson reveals his ignorance of the physics of oceanography. For fresh (pure) water, the density is greatest at around 4 C. For ocean waters, the high salt content results in maximum density at freezing, the result being that most sinking occurs at polar latitudes in winter, that sinking being the source of the very cold deep waters even in the tropics. The top layers above the thermocline are well mixed with limited overturning of deeper layers due to wind forcing.
ES,
With all that diversion, you haven’t contradicted anything I said.
You are probably stupid enough to believe that water cools at the poles, and somehow magically makes it way around a more or less spherical object by magic, up hill, down dale, creating currents at different depths at 180 to each other.
Even NOAA agrees with me –
“The deepest zone of the ocean, the hadalpelagic zone extends from 19,700 feet (6,000 meters) to the very bottom at 36,070 feet (10,994 meters) in the Mariana Trench off the coast of Japan.
The temperature is constant at just above freezing. The weight of all the water over head in the Mariana Trench is over 8 tons per square inch.”
You must be a brain dead GHE cultist, making stuff up as you go along.
“To anything deeper than a millimeter. That’s physics.”
Assertions don’t cut it. Several years ago, in Alabama summer, passing high cirrus clouds overnight were detected by Dr. Spencer’s thermometer placed several inches deep in a small insulated tub of ambient surface water.
RLH (and “Jim”) should also read up on Dr. Peter Minnett’s M-AERI decades old in-situ ocean skin layer experiments to get their facts straight.
Braindead4 makes unsubstantiated claims, over and over, hoping to pervert reality.
It hasn’t worked for him yet….
Ball4: Note the differences between IR and visible light mentioned in the article.
Spectrum is well covered in the oceanic shipborne M-AERI experiments,RLH. Small amount visible light in the summer nighttime Alabama sky but enough added high cirrus ice IR to register on Dr. Spencer’s thermometer several inches deep in surface ambient tap water.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Penetration-depth-d-p-as-a-function-of-wavenumber-in-the-IR-spectrum-For-the_fig2_51654166
Note this is in um.
You can do better than that, RLH. More informative to use actual ocean water & natural sunlight illumination as well as nightime sky illumination as did Dr. Minnett.
https://www.fondriest.com/environmental-measurements/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/par_light-depth.jpg
Note that IR is to the right hand edge of this graph.
“The uncertainty of the cooling effects by evaporation alone, or latent heat, is + or – 10 watts, overwhelming the estimate of a CO2 driven energy imbalance.”
Dr. Spencer guessed it could be high cirrus clouds, and I would say a good guess.
But I mention, clouds are bigger than they “look” and high cirrus cloud would be even bigger than they look.
Also high cirrus clouds have more daylight and a lake or something reflect sunlight to them.
They could be falling and one has issue the latent heat.
One might say cirrus clouds cause global cooling but doesn’t make they can’t slight warm the surface.
And unlikely it was Longwave IR.
Plus cooled water falls, so surface could cooled by a breeze, and result in slight warming due mixing.
gb,
You wrote –
“One might say cirrus clouds cause global cooling but doesnt make they cant slight warm the surface.”
Yes it does. The reason clouds slow down the cooling of the surface is that clouds reflect light to a greater or lesser degree. IR is light, and quite capable of being reflected, even if you can’t see it.
Anyone who has travelled in an aircraft above a cloud layer, with the sun abeam and reasonably low, will pull down their windowshade pretty smartly. The visible light is blinding, the IR is hot.
Or notice the reflected light approaching a city – you can’t see the reflected IR, but it’s there.
Just basic physics. No need for a mystical abd thoroughly non-existent GHE!
“‘IR abs*orbed by the ocean makes no difference’
To anything deeper than a millimeter. Thats physics.”
Yes, and that matters why? The energy is not going away.
The physics is that the ocean surface has net heat-loss to space and the troposphere by IR radiation. The so-called back radiation from the GHG is simply REDUCING the ocean’s heat loss, keeping it warmer than it would otherwise be.
Nate,
Nope. At night the ocean loses all the heat it received during the day. Same as any matter on the face of the Earth.
No net heat gain.
That’s why liquid water exists, the deepest water is above freezing, and the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
The oceans are warmed from below.
That’s physics, peabrain.
Less clouds means that there will be higher Solar radiation into the oceans. Which is precisely what La Nina does. See above.
As was also pointed out
“The uncertainty of the cooling effects by evaporation alone, or latent heat, is + or 10 watts, overwhelming the estimate of a CO2 driven energy imbalance”
“Nope. At night the ocean loses all the heat it received during the day. Same as any matter on the face of the Earth. No net heat gain.”
Not really. The heat could well end up stored for awhile and released later at a different place. Eg what happens in ENSO.
And irrelevant to the discussion.
“Thats why liquid water exists, the deepest water is above freezing, and the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.”
And that is just so Mike Flynn….but, yeah, we know, you’re not him..
“Less clouds means that there will be higher Solar radiation into the oceans. Which is precisely what La Nina does. See above.”
Also means less IR radiated direct to space.
“The uncertainty of the cooling effects by evaporation alone, or latent heat, is + or 10 watts, overwhelming the estimate of a CO2 driven energy imbalance”
Makes no sense. What uncertainty, where?
Nate says:
”Less clouds means that there will be higher Solar radiation into the oceans. Which is precisely what La Nina does. See above.”
Also means less IR radiated direct to space.
—————–
Huh? Clouds are higher than surface, cooler than the surface, and are less efficient at emitting IR. The ocean surface will emit far more IR direct to space.
Ooops…thanks.
MORE IR radiated to space, a cooling effect.
Interesting so at the top of the tropsphere clouds contribute to the greenhouse effect. where is that figured in AGW theory?
Go read about it. Come back and give us your report.
Nate again vaguely refers to a study he can’t find on his desk.
What study? Did I say I had one, troll?
LMAO!!
Yet to you its settled science?
Master Baiter Bill seeks attention.
Climate.gov says that storms in the North Atlantic are governed more by the detrended AMO (AMV if you insist) than by global temperature it seems.
https://www.climate.gov/media/14516
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/amo.jpeg
So much for warmer temperatures causing more storms.
P.S. The diagram comes from
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/can-we-detect-change-atlantic-hurricanes-today-due-human-caused
Graphing your data (with suitable low pass filters I would suggest) tells you a lot more about the data than just simple mean, SD, r^2 and OLS does.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WLQ4GLqMVpw
“Statistics lesson everyone should know”
Is there an elephant in YOUR room?
This is how stuck on stupid alarmistas make their predictions , picking snippets of convenient data and drawing straight lines through it extended into the future, without any concerns or understanding how climate actually works,
Bindidong is a great example of it
This is how he predicted no second La Nina, then 6 month later the end of La Nina he predicted wasn’t gonna happen in the first place
https://i.postimg.cc/6Q5ngJb2/bdw2nino34-Mon.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/rs8kCjwk/bdnb23nino34-Mon.gif
And April says
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Eben
You are an idiot and an absolute liar.
I never made such predictions; I solely reported JMA’s forecatss and that’s all.
So do you think that JMA or CSFv2 forecasts are more accurate and why?
Yeah, and I’m solely reporting that all your reporting is wrong
Ja Ja Ja
And I repeat: look at the difference between
https://i.postimg.cc/X7Z2sZZC/nino34-Mon140522.gif
and
https://i.postimg.cc/1X3dmJ5C/nino34-Mon150322.gif
Or are you both blind on the ‘right’ eye?
So you are saying that all model predictions are wrong or at least suspect.
” So you are saying that all model predictions are wrong or at least suspect. ”
Will you one day be able to correctly react on neutral information?
I am not saying anything the like, and you know that. But you manifestly are unable to avoid your ridiculous polemic.
Why cant you admit simplest evidence, namely that
– the forecasts in mid March and mid May differ by a lot
and hence that
– mid May shows much more of a return to ENSO normal than did mid March?
Is that so difficult for you?
So the forecasts in March and those in May do not agree, One with another. Thus the predictive power between March and May is low. Which is what I said.
Same is true for JMA too.
There is nothing to see there, who would expect the prediction chart will be exactly the same from two month apart, it is still La Nina and it still keeps going.
It is just his idiotic attempt to divert from his own epic failed La Nina gone by April prediction which went in the exact opposite direction since he made it.
https://i.postimg.cc/rs8kCjwk/bdnb23nino34-Mon.gif
Well, at least Bindidong finally admits he doesn’t understand anything about climate and cannot predict absolutely anything, and all his posting is just brainless copy/pasta/reposta of things he doesn’t understand,
as I have been saying all along
Gordon,
“EM from a cooler body does not have the proper intensity or frequency to excite an electron at a higher level.”
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. This is disastrously wrong.
Real life objects radiate at a wide range of frequencies.
You ever seen a Planck curve?
https://tinyurl.com/y2mkhpy7
Intensity simply refers to the percentage of EM radiation given off at a certain frequency. The peak of the radiation curve is the highest intensity. At higher temperatures the peak radiation band is at shorter and short wavelengths, but the body also emits radiation at a wide rang of frequencies either side of the peak.
EM radiation is absorbed according to the compatibility of the absorbing molecules with the frequency of the emission. The receiving surface has no way of telling the temperature of the origin, nor which is the most intensely radiated frequency from the origin.
The absorbing body has molecules that will resonate with the correct frequency radiation arriving and absorb it. It doesn’t matter if this radiation is not the peak radiation band emitted by the source.
A CO2 molecule absorbs most efficiently in the 15 um band, right?
We all agree on this, right? It’s neither skeptic nor alarmist lore – it’s the result of empirical measurements by spectroscopy.
A CO2 molecule absorbs 15 um radiation whether the source is -10 or +10 C. A gas molecule does not care if the radiation source has a peak frequency at 2um or 30 um. It will absorb radiation in the frequency in which it is mechanically able to absorb.
It does not matter if the CO2 molecule is bathed in atmosphere at -10 or +10 C. It’s principle ab.sorp.tion band will remain 15 um.
The temperature of the receiving body has almost no impact on what it will absorb. Unless, of course the change in temperature changes the molecular make-up of the body.
Clauisus himself said that radiation is absorbed by warmer bodies from cooler and by cooler bodies from warmer, with the NET result that the warmer body imparts more radiation to thee cool body than it receives from the cool body.
Here is the quote:
“In the first place, the principle [2nd Law of thermodynamics] implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it”
R. Clauius – 4th Memoir
http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Clausius.html#anchor_152
He again says that radiation ( he calls it ‘heat’) is exchanged between warmer and cooler objects:
“Again, as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog/page/n317/mode/2up
MIT echo this in their online course material:
“We want a general expression for energy interchange between two surfaces at different temperatures.”
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
And here they give the equations for that, BASED on the energy being absorbed by both the warmer and cooler body:
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
There – 4 links corroborating that warmer bodies receive radiation from cooler bodies.
Gordon,
I’ve been asking for this reference for 2 years now, and no one has ever been able to provide it.
Please provide a reputable source corroborating your view that objects are unable to absorb radiation from cooler objects.
barry, you’re good at twisting reality.
A hot object could absorb certain photons from a colder object, but it would NOT be enough to raise the temperature of the hot object. The “average” of the photons coming from the colder object is “colder” than the hot object. You’re still trying to boil water with ice cubes.
Use your head to seek truth rather than trying to support your false religion.
Silly sock puppet says the same silly things over and over again.
Clint R
You really should follow your own advice!
YOU: “Use your head to seek truth rather than trying to support your false religion.”
You are the one who has fallen for the “false religion”. Worse you can’t even find one shred of support for yours.
The hot object can absorb all the photons from a colder object and still will not raise its temperature because the hot object is emitting more than it absorbs.
You are just too illogical. You can’t understand the difference between a hot object and a hot heated object. I think in your limited view they are the same.
Roy Spencer proved your ideas are false but you can’t accept experimental evidence. You are just too illogical and stupid to process data. Just a mindless bot annoying people as programmed.
That’s all wrong Norman, as usual.
Clint R
No it really isn’t. You are quite illogical. Nothing you say makes logical sense. It actually is anti-reality and anti-science.
No stupid point you post is supported by anything at all. You just mindlessly post with zero thought or logic.
It is impossible to convince you of your errors. You will make them continuously with each post. But what does one expect from a mindless bot, you only post what you have been programmed to post.
Still all wrong, Norman. Sorry.
See, your problem is you don’t understand the science. So in your frustration, all you can do is insult and make up false accusations. You have NOTHING.
That’s not all bad, as I enjoy your ongoing meltdown. I also enjoy watching you making claims you can’t support. Please continue.
Clint R
Again you show total lack of logical thought.
I am not wrong in the least.
I do understand science and logic. Things beyond you level of abilities.
Sorry you are so stupid. I think you are a bot so you don’t have analysis routine to monitor the level of stupid posts you make.
Idiot conclusions like if you increased the temperature of a heated object with a form of insulating material then in your logic it would mean ice cubes can boil water. If you had intelligence you could see how stupid the conclusion is and how devoid of logic one has to be to make such a foolish claim.
Another good example of why you’re such a phony, Norman.
You’re making up that nonsense about some “conclusion” of mine involving insulating material, ice cubes and boiling water. Support where I ever mentioned such nonsense.
You can’t.
You’re a complete phony.
Please continue.
What are you blabbering about, Pup?
What Clint said is precisely right. A cooler body cannot warm a warmer body.
Clint R
All negative traits you see in others are your own. You think others are the flawed ones while you are the one with the problem. You just can’t see yourself at all.
So you call me a phony.
YOU: “Another good example of why youre such a phony, Norman.
Youre making up that nonsense about some conclusion of mine involving insulating material, ice cubes and boiling water. Support where I ever mentioned such nonsense.
You cant.”
I guess I can you did it on this same thread.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1278379
And your point about CO2 cooling the atmosphere with increased emission is correct, it cools the upper part of the atmosphere but it causes a higher surface temperature with the same solar input.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
Wrong Norman, your link does NOT address your false accusation: Idiot conclusions like if you increased the temperature of a heated object with a form of insulating material then in your logic it would mean ice cubes can boil water.”
Where did I ever mention such nonsense?
You have no evidence. That’s why you’re a complete phony.
Clint R
Your post I linked to actually does say what I claim.
YOU: “If you believe that increases in CO2 concentration can raise global temperature, you need to learn some of the basics ice cubes can not boil water and passenger jets do not fly backwards.”
ME: “Idiot conclusions like if you increased the temperature of a heated object with a form of insulating material then in your logic it would mean ice cubes can boil water.
Fact: The Earth’s surface is a heated object (solar energy continuously heats some parts of the surface).
Fact: CO2 is a radiant barrier to some bands of IR emitted by the surface.
Then you form the conclusion that if more CO2 (radiant barrier, a form of radiant insulation) is added to the atmosphere then an increase in temperature is equivalent to ice boiling water.
Yup you basically said what I said you said.
— barry says:
May 15, 2022 at 9:07 AM
Gordon,
EM from a cooler body does not have the proper intensity or frequency to excite an electron at a higher level.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. This is disastrously wrong.
Real life objects radiate at a wide range of frequencies.–
The surface of object radiate at wide range of frequencies though
varies depending the kind of surface- an ideal blackbody surface
radiate all of Planck curve. Though ideal is ideal- and also texture
of surface matters, a ideal surface “should” include best texture to emit most amount energy from the object’s temperature.
Though gas [not including Plasma gas] doesn’t have surface and gas temperature is related to velocity and density within a given volume.
Higher density gas can transfer heat by convection heat transfer, low density gas has “no temperature” in terms of it’s ability transfering heat to objects.
Solar wind is very, very low density and extremely high velocity and doesn’t warm any objects. Though it’s actually plasma, I think, but it doesn’t have a surface.
–A CO2 molecule absorbs 15 um radiation whether the source is -10 or +10 C. A gas molecule does not care if the radiation source has a peak frequency at 2um or 30 um. It will absorb radiation in the frequency in which it is mechanically able to absorb.–
CO2 molecule could absorb and emit radiation from whatever source is
warm enough to emit or reflect 15 um. But it’s absorbing and emitting
within very short time period. One can this re-radiates which similar to reflecting.
It would interest me, how definitionally it differs, but similar seems to correct way to describe it.
Or the light of lightning bolt is suppose to re-radiate a rainbow of color {as dimly recall- normal example of re-radiate, but re-radiate
as term is not commonly used, unless I guess, one talking about lightening.
A question is does actually increase velocity- as that is air temperature. Or are talking insulation radiant effects. Or both and also where and etc. But whatever it is, it’s a small effect.
But with real greenhouse [say it’s very large one] weak or strong greenhouse gases do not cause measurable warming effects. And CO2 is claimed to be a weak greenhouse gas. Or no one will say it’s medium or strong.
“A hot object could absorb certain photons from a colder object”
Thanks, Clint.
There’s a straight answer to that question.
barry, that is reality. Don’t pervert it. It does NOT mean “cold” can warm “hot”.
I know you’re tempted to support your cult nonsense, but see if you can refrain, just once.
“CO2 molecule could absorb and emit radiation from whatever source is warm enough to emit or reflect 15 um”
Thanks, gbakie. As this refers to any natural object on the face of the Earth, I’ll take it as read you do not contend that warm objects can’t absorb thermal radiation from cool objects.
That leaves Gordon, who disagrees, and DREMT, who refuses to answer the question.
(Something for you to think about, gbakie – how much does it matter what temperature a mirror is to reflect visible light, even from a cold LED? Then, how much does it matter what the temperature is of those objects that reflect 15 um radiation?)
(barry, that question just shows you don’t understand photon absorp.tion. A mirror is NOT compatible with visible wavelengths.)
Question if you could vote for Michael Shellenberger, for State Governor, would you vote for him.
He is lefty, more left than Bernie Sanders [though he can do math and etc].
He favors using nuclear power, and also has lots of issues, he wrote a book or several books {I don’t know, and I have read any of them}.
He engages with everyone, he written articles on Watt’s up With That.
He wants to lower CO2 levels.
But most don’t he has a good chance of winning as not really part of the California political Machine. Nor Green Party. And running as Independent {which I don’t know what that is, other then they don’t win elections in California, or less than Green Party or Republican
Party.
Anyhow Scott was talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FO_zqzCXSA
Anyhow, I am looking for why people here wouldn’t vote for him.
My objection would be, that politicians, are “useful” cause they
could get things done, and I would tend to predict that Shellenberger probably can’t do much. But that is not a big issue for me. That the left is going to rip this guts out, would be more a bigger potential problem. But he could claim things down, also, and California could be more civilized. What do you have to lose?
As Trump would say. I guess, Shellenberger derangement Syndrome is possible.
What global CO2 level is needed to stop from entering a “glaciation period”?
Without allowing human innovation or if humans blinked out of existence, when will global CO2 level fall to 250 ppm.
Say give it, 500 years. Human gone and 500 years later.
I don’t know.
But it’s possible human will Earth within 500 years.
But tend that would related to humans being spacefaring.
But also possible without having the ability to leave Earth.
China is in middle of process of disappearing.
And I as claim China is at peak coal. But with or without
peak Coal, China is disappearing. One could say some Chinese
have fled. But at some point, a lot Chinese get out of there.
Now, I think becoming spacefaring will or has to lead to ocean settlement. But ocean settlements could start without becoming spacefaring. An ocean settlement could be an place to flee to.
Most of Earth high population is due to humans living longer.
Though the +7 billion people are mostly about children not dying.
Though if there enough food, then people could have more children
and more than 1/2 die from various causes.
But space environment “could” be better place for older people. Or it seems the space environment will be about younger people, but it’s possible that is simply wrong.
One could say more certainty, ocean settlements might more about where old people would live, as in older people tend go to Florida- though maybe they just like having hurricanes.
Now I think it’s quite possible that CO2 levels continue to rise and after 100 years, global temperature starts to cool, significantly like getting to Little Ice Age type coolness. And not really even including stuff like volcanic activity. With volcanic activity it could be within couple decades.
Or I think we have recovered from the Little Ice Age- it’s possible it goes flat, but more likely to bounce around for couple decades. And then we continue our +5000 year trend of cooling.
If the CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled, a process that will take two hundred years, there would be a further reduction in direct thermal radiation to space of 3Wm-2 (aka greenhouse effect). 3Wm-2 is too small to affect climate. There is no reason to diminish CO2 emissions. CO2 will not stop end of interglacial period.
Yes, CO2 levels probably would not have anything to do with stopping the an interglacial period, but average ocean temperature would stop the ending an interglacial period.
And seems to me, the ocean has warmed a little in last century or more and we currently having a longish La Nino.
But when interglacial period ends, what is the average temperature of
the ocean.
I guessed it was about 3 C.
But it’s just wild ass guess.
I am space cadet, or not too interested in climate stuff- unless
it has to with other planets:)
The only way the atmosphere loses energy to space is from the emission of radiative gases.
So adding more radiative gases to the atmosphere causes more energy loss to space.
That assume molecular collision causes loss of kinetic energy via radiation.
Or that CO2 is not an ideal gas.
H20 is generally not regarded as ideal gas, because it’s condensable gas.
But Mars has more CO2 than Earth does, what is cooling effect of CO2
in regards to Mars?
[On Mars CO2 is actually condensable gas. It snows a lot CO2 [and some H2O] on Mars.
I tend to think Mars snowing is warming effect.
No assumptions necessary, and I don’t do Mars. I have enough trouble keeping people in reality right here on Earth.
Sorry.
Ok, keep to Earth. Surface suppose to 40 watts directly to space.
It’s probably wrong.
Tropics can cool a lot directly to space by bringing water vapor to high elevation. And this mechanism is not just confined to 23.5 N and S latitude.
I suppose surface radiates more, indirectly. And clouds liquid/solid radiate lot to space.
I don’t just air +5 km high radiates much, CO2 is simply re-radiating light. If didn’t absorb it, it would continue on to outer space.
But radiates in random direction, and most direction is not up or down, but mostly sideways. But in terms of direction if not in sunlight [most Earth not in sunlight] most coming from surface [from various angles {or not directly from the surface directly below it].
Or to simplify I don’t think upper atmosphere cools Earth atmopshere, it’s more of it last place energy leaves the system.
gbaikie, do purposely leave out words that your comments a puzzle?
gbaikie, you purposely leave words so your become?
gbaikie, do you leave out that your become a puzzle?
gbaikie, do you purposely leave out words so that your comments become a puzzle?
[[I dont just air +5 km high radiates much,]]
I dont think air at +5 km high radiates much,
[[If didnt absorb it, it would continue on to outer space.]]
If a CO2 molecule didnt absorb it, it [radiant energy] would continue on to outer space.
[[But radiates in random direction, and most direction is not up or down, but mostly sideways.]]
A molecule in atmosphere radiating, does so in a spherical random direction. A sphere with marked N and S pole and North pole faces vertical to ground, has about 5% going down and South has 5% towards space. And 90% of vectors going “sideways”. Though in terms close to horizontal, more like 50%.
Same applies from level surface, but it is a hemisphere rather than sphere- about 5% goes straight up.
[[its more of it last place energy leaves the system.]]
its more of a matter of it, being last place that energy leaves the system.
Everyone claims they can mind read. But if I omit about 1/2 words, they can’t.
A warming effect on polar region or at night.
Or I mean causes a more uniform global temperature. Or polar region
would be colder without it.
Though the loss of atmospheric mass [condenses out] lowers total energy of atmosphere.
But using term “warming effect” jargon- in terms making more uniform global air- though global air on Mars doesn’t warm or cool much of anything. Or I am following the cargo cult language.
I guess argued against myself as far using Mars as comparison.
How about Venus?
Venus radiates roughly around 160 watts averaged globally [apparently] what part of Venus atmosphere radiates the most into space.
I would say the thick acid clouds, would be about 100 of the 160 watts.
Clint R,
“So adding more radiative gases to the atmosphere causes more energy loss to space.”
No it doesn’t.
The Earth can only lose what it gets from the Sun, if it lost more due to more CO2 and other greenhouse gases and cooled, then the Sun would heat the Earth back up.
Too bad you don’t understand this, it’s one of the laws of Physics.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
barry….”You ever seen a Planck curve?
https://tinyurl.com/y2mkhpy7
Intensity simply refers to the percentage of EM radiation given off at a certain frequency. The peak of the radiation curve is the highest intensity”.
***
Those are not a Planck curves, looks more like Wein displacement curves. Wein postulated that the peaks on Planck’s curves would shift toward the shorter wavelength as temperature increases.
Note on the following diagram that classical theory, based on E = hf, produced a curve that approached infinity as frequency increased. That was called the ultraviolet catastrophe and Planck set out to investigate. He admitted to fudging the math till he got a curve that better fit the reality.
In other words, no one knows what the quantum factor, h, invented by Planck means. We don’t know if quanta exist, but right now, they fit the model. Same with electrons. We apply the theory every day but we still have no idea what they are or how they operate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law#/media/File:Black_body.svg
What he came up with was actually a probability curve that showed the probability of finding each frequency in the spectrum. In other words frequencies of EM at either end of his curve were less likely to be found in blackbody emissions.
That does not mean frequencies at the curve peak are more intense in power than those at the UV end, although that’s often the way it is interpreted. We know that UV and beyond can only be generated by very high temperature sources and the higher the frequency the higher the energy of the EM frequency. UV at the upper end is so intense it can cause skin cancer. Xrays and gamma rays are even more dangerous.
The vertical axis on Planck’s curve is marked spectral radiance but that seems to be a reference to how it is received by the human eye and not its emissive power. Note the exponential in the denominator that has wavelength and temperature as its exponents. That’s designed as a probability function to force blackbody radiation into a curve that better suits how we detect it on Earth from a near-blackbody source, like the Sun.
For the first 20 years after producing the curve, Planck admitted to feeling like a fraud because he had fudged math to make it fit the reality. He did not know if the reality would support it and to this day we still don’t know. Experiments have verified his equation/curve is correct but what is going on under the hood is still a mystery.
As Feynman said about quantum theory, it works, but no one knows why. That’s because the theory has been worked to fit a reality we cannot see or measure. It works, but no one knows why. Ergo, it may be completely wrong, just like Einsteinian relativity, which is based on time, which humans invented and which has no reality. Yet it is claimed to dilate.
I am not questioning the basic relativity theory, which is similar to Newtonian relativity theory, I am questioning the wacky inferences that time can dilate when there is no such thing as time. Also, the Twin Paradox claims one of a set of twins leaving Earth on a spacecraft flying at the speed of light would return to find his twin old and him still young.
At first sight, without thinking and simply accepting, this seems reasonable. However, a cursory examination of the facts shows that humans age through biological cell degeneration which has nothing to do with time. We can measure the approximate rate of degeneration of cells and their lifetime but it’s the interactions in the cells that cause aging, not time. In other words, someone traveling at the speed of light would age at the same rate as anyone else.
If a spaceman traveling at the speed of light took a rusty old alarm clock along, it would continue to tick at the same rate. It is driven by springs that have nothing to do with time. A rapid acceleration to the speed of light might affect the springs during the acceleration, but once the velocity was reached, it should have no effect traveling that fast. The springs and bearings might be affected by zero-gravity, but again, nothing to do with time.
barry…continued…”EM radiation is absorbed according to the compatibility of the absorbing molecules with the frequency of the emission. The receiving surface has no way of telling the temperature of the origin, nor which is the most intensely radiated frequency from the origin”.
***
I don’t know how to get this through to those of you who insist on speaking in terms of molecules rather than atoms. Talking about molecules wrt to EM absorp-tion obfuscates the problem. It makes it appear as if the molecule has some magical property to deal with EM that the atoms making up the molecule don’t have.
It is implied that vibration and rotation can absorb and emit EM but no one explains how. Vibration in the atoms of a mass, or in the bonds of molecules, is produced by electrostatic forces. It is a difference in attraction between +/- charges and repulsion between +/+ and -/- charges that produce vibration. One scientists stated there is no such thing as a static relationship between such charges, they all vibrate.
But how does the vibration increase or decrease? The atoms have to absorb or emit heat, which is in the form of kinetic energy. The only particle in an atom that can absorb EM is an electron. Nothing to do with magical properties of molecules.
I just posted a long reply to Stephen explaining my take on it. I quoted from a book by Coulsen on valence, a reference to valence electrons in atoms that form the bonds between atoms to create a molecule. He insisted that electrons are the essential factor in atoms that create inter-atomic bonds that are molecules.
The receiving surface does not need information about the temperature of the EM source. That information is included in the EM as its intensity and frequency. If that intensity and frequency does not match the requirements of an absorbing electron, it simply wont respond to the EM. EM from a cooler source has EM intensity and frequency too low to affect the electrons in a hotter mass.
With regard to your MIT link, the inference of a mutual heat transfer is based on blackbody theory and it is wrong. Blackbody theory applies only at thermal equilibrium, as laid down by Kircheoff, and the course material is extrapolating the equilibrium conditions to non-equilibrium
conditions. Just as S-B does not apply in reverse in a general sense, one cannot simply extrapolate blackbody theory because it makes mathematical sense.
As I have pointed out in the past, in the textbooks offering such pseudo-science they never produce an example problem showing a physical reality. When they include radiative transfer in a problem, they always include it with conduction and/or convection. I have yet to see a real physical example of a two way transfer of heat by radiation, and for obvious reasons. It cannot be measured.
They are obviously offering a totally hypothetical situation and supplying nonsense with it. Remember, textbooks are written by one or two authors who have expertise in certain areas of the presented subject and literally none in other areas.
It is physically impossible to measure a change of temperature in two bodies of different temperature due to an exchange of radiation.
Gordon,
“It makes it appear as if the molecule has some magical property to deal with EM that the atoms making up the molecule dont have.”
But that is the absolute truth and it’s nothing to do with magic.
O3 absorbs certain spectra of radiation that O2 doesn’t. In fact, their optical properties are very different.
Same atoms, different configuration.
CO and CO2 have very different emission profiles. Same atoms, different molecules.
How do you not know this?
And you haven’t answered the point.
All objects emit over a wide range of frequencies.
When that radiation hits a surface, there is no way for that surface to know the temperature of the source or its peak mission band.
CO2 will absorb 15 um radiation no matter the temperature of the source. CO will not absorb radiation the same way as CO2, despite being comprised of the same atoms.
I have provided references, and especially from Clausius, corroborating that warm objects receive radiation from cooler objects.
Please provide a reference from a reputable source saying the opposite. It’s high time someone provided substantiation for this opinion which has been uncorroborated for some years on this board.
Link, please, Gordon.
“I have provided references, and especially from Clausius, corroborating that warm objects receive radiation from cooler objects.”
…and “receive” does not necessarily mean “absorb”.
Yes it does.
“Simultaneous double heat exchange”
Clausius is saying both objects transmit and receive – that’s what exchange means.
“in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it”
This is also the language of exchange.
Warmer body never receives more heat than it imparts to the colder body.
Yes, in Clausius own words, both bodies transmit and absorb ‘heat’ (energy) to and from each other, with the net exchange necessarily from the warm to the cold on.
Th language is quite clear. Both bodies have the same experience, but one has more of it than another in the exchange.
No, it does not, barry.
definition: exchange
noun: an act of giving one thing and receiving another (especially of the same kind) in return
verb: give something and receive something of the same kind in return
Don’t think I’ve seen anyone deny English in these discussions, but I guess nothing is beyond those infected with terminal cognitive dissonance.
But at last we have a better idea of what YOU think regarding the issue, DREMT.
Looks like you would agree with Gordon, that objects can’t absorb radiation from cooler objects.
Which would mean that a pane of glass heated to 110C would not allow LED light to pass through at all, but reflect it instead (LEDs operate between 60-100C at room temperature).
People believe the strangest things.
barry, you are the one denying English. I said that “receive” does not necessarily mean “absorb”, and I am obviously correct. Radiation that is received can be absorbed, transmitted or reflected. So “receive” does not necessarily mean “absorb”. If you are trying to argue that Clausius stated radiation from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer body, you will need to show where he used the word “absorbed”. Until then, the words of Clausius remain ambiguous.
A “simultaneous double heat exchange” is not ambiguous once you understand that Clausius is speaking of radiation (and conduction). I had thought that was obvious.
Taken together the two statements reinforce each other on the notion that radiation (he calls it heat) is absorbed by both bodies.
This is Clauisus’ description of the 2nd Law – that the net result of the heat (radiation) exchange results in the warmer body transferring more radiation to the cooler body than the other way around.
This is a clarification on the 2LoT he makes before going on to talk about Carnot and heat engines, by the way. This is “as regards the ordinary radiation of heat,” not a special condition.
It’s not hard – radiation is absorbed by all objects. The interchange is constant and widespread on every surface, and all we need to observe is that warmer objects shed more radiation to cold objects than the other way around absent a heat engine.
And that is what we observe, with sweaters, insulation and green plates.
barry says:
”A ‘simultaneous double heat exchange’ is not ambiguous once you understand that Clausius is speaking of radiation (and conduction). I had thought that was obvious.”
————————
Some one above said that Clausius recommended thinking it as simply a one way flow. That seems to be excellent advice because considering it to be a two way flow can only lead to unsupported conclusions that are not supported by logic or science.
If it were an attractor flow science is not aware in any shape or form how that would change anything about anything we do know. If it did then science would be saying that the attractor model had been proven incorrect and it has not said that. All it has said is they have not found evidence of such photons flowing across an essentially invisible medium could regulate itself as does electricity via potential (voltage) and produce exactly the 2 directional flow of photons that is the popular theory.
Six days later, barry!?
barry, the way you see it is indeed “not hard” to understand. Doesn’t mean it’s right, though.
barry…”But that is the absolute truth and its nothing to do with magic.
O3 absorbs certain spectra of radiation that O2 doesnt. In fact, their optical properties are very different”.
***
How does O3 or O2 absorb EM? What is it in the molecule that can absorb EM? The absorp-tion takes place in the bonds and the bonds are comprised of outer shell electrons. In the case of O3, ozone, one of the bonds is weaker and is affected by UV more than the bonds in a the straight O2 molecule.
Bonds can be broken if the bond electrons absorb enough energy, whether that energy is EM, heat, or whatever. Before they break, they can stretch in a rectilinear direction or move in a lateral direction. According to Coulsen, on valence, when the vibration is mid-swing, that represents the lowest form of energy in the bond. Stephen referred to that phenomenon, that molecules try to reach the lowest state of energy, but that means in its bonds.
Energy need to be absorbed to stretch and break bonds and we know heat is one such energy. In a copper block, the Cu atoms are joined by covalent electron bonds. As the block is heated, the bonds absorb heat and increases the kinetic energy in the bond. It is electrons absorbing the heat, which they also pass electron to electron. That’s how heat is transmitted through a copper block.
If surface atoms are exposed to EM, the electrons in the bonds will absorb it provided the conditions are right. If absorbed, the EM is converted to heat and increases the atomic vibrations. The same applies in molecular bonds.
Remember, molecules are no different than copper atoms bonded in a copper block as far as basic covalent bonds are concerned.
You keep asking for proof of my claim that EM from a colder body cannot be absorbed by a hotter body. This is part of basic quantum theory and if you ventured into that theory it would soon become apparent. I doubt if you will find a statement addressing my claim since it is not of interest to authors writing on quantum theory.
There are basic books on quantum theory that explain the E = hf relationship between electrons in an atom and the absorp-tion/emission of EM. Atoms emit/absorb EM at very specific frequencies. When an electron drops from energy level E2 to energy level E1, a quantum of EM is emitted that has a specific frequency based on the relationship E2 – E1 = hf.
The intensity of the E value is proportional to the temperature of atomic mass containing the electrons, therefore the frequency is specific too. That means EM emitted from a cooler body will have lower E values hence lower frequencies.
That’s your proof right there. If you cannot accept it, you need to crack a book on quantum theory and verify it. There are free downloads on the Net of Bohr’s original theory. I suggest looking up Coulsen’s book on valence.
Another reason you likely won’t find such a definitive statement is that visualization of atoms as a nucleus with electrons orbiting it would be repulsive to many theorists. You and I can talk about photons and individual electrons, but to theoretical physics that would be verboten.
The closest anyone has come is Schrodinger’s wave equations but it is based on a differential equation based on parameters of the electron and nucleus based on mass, angular momentum, etc. That produces a large set for orbital energy levels, many of which are meaningless. Those which have meaning have been confirmed by experiment.
When I talk about an electron absorbing a quantum of energy I know I am talking rubbish because no one knows exactly how it is done. No on has ever witnessed an electron absorbing or emitting a quantum of energy.
I urge you not to waste time and energy arguing with me, but finding a book on basic quantum theory and learning it for yourself. Won’t take you long and then you’ll have math to throw back at me. ☺ ☺
Gordon,
You are drowning in Chemistry.
Try the Lewis structures for Ozone, you have to draw all possible ones, then you will see that the bonds are equal.
Copper doesn’t have covalent bonds.
Metals are usually crystal structures of ions with the excess electrons floating around, that’s why metals are good conductors of electrical current.
Molecules have been observed to absorb radiation, actually that’s part of what I do as a chemist, when I am not making antimatter.
Gordon,
“That means EM emitted from a cooler body will have lower E values hence lower frequencies.”
Completely wrong. Bodies emit EM radiation across a broad range of frequencies, with wavelengths short and longer than the peak emission wavelength.
A body at -10C will emit a spectrum of radiation that greatly overlaps with a body emitting at 10C.
Bodies that have temps within a few hundred K of each other have a lot of overlap regarding the frequencies at which they emit.
Here are the blackbody emission curves for objects within a few hundred K of each other.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeff-Owrutsky/publication/235111139/figure/fig4/AS:669448113496080@1536620276925/Calculated-blackbody-curves-for-300-K-500-K-and-700-K.png
All objects between the surface of the earth and the stratosphere are within a 200K temperature difference – a huge overlap in the range of frequencies emitted.
Colder objects are not prevented from emitting at wavelengths well within the emission/absorbance spectra of warmer objects.
The intensity makes zero difference to the ability to absorb.
I’ll need links to reputable sources – not blather – if you want to contradict this. I’ve done so. It’s up to you to demonstrate that your view has any foundation in standard physics texts.
Because if you can’t, then obviously you’re making it up.
” I doubt if you will find a statement addressing my claim since it is not of interest to authors writing on quantum theory.”
Hee haw!
barry…continued…re quotes from Clausius…
In the first place, the principle [2nd Law of thermodynamics] implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it
“Again, as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.
***
I explained a while back that in the day of Clausius, Tyndall, Planck, et al, scientists believed heat flowed through an aether that is distinguishable from air. In a vacuum, the heat rays, as they were known, flowed through an aether, which is undefined.
They had no idea as yet, of electrons, discovered in the 1890s or quantum theory, as described by Bohr, in which electromagnetic energy was converted by electrons into kinetic energy of orbital energy levels, or emitted by electrons.
Therefore, your quotes must be taken in that context. I regard Clausius as a brilliant scientist based on his impeccable presentation of the math related to thermodynamics and his subjective explanations of heat and work. He must be forgiven a misunderstanding about radiative energy because he lacked the information about electrons and EM we now take for granted.
The part you omitted from your quotes is what Clausius stated about radiation, that it must obey the 2nd law. That makes it clear that he did not think heat could be transferred by radiation from a colder source to a hotter body. Even though he tried to justify the phenomena by offering an explanation, the explanation being clearly wrong.
****************************
“He again says that radiation ( he calls it heat) is exchanged between warmer and cooler objects:”
***
Clausius did not call EM heat, he referred to EM as heat ‘rays’. As I said above, the thought heat moved through the air as rays of heat. At no time did he state what form that heat took. He said that hot bodies radiate to cold bodies, and vice-versa, and the result of such a ‘double heat exchange’ produces an increase of heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter body. He says nothing about heat flowing from the colder body to the hotter body and raising its temperature.
The entire statement is cloudy because Clausius could not have known the real situation, that heat as kinetic energy is converted by electrons to EM at both hotter and colder surfaces. In either case, the heat is lost as it is converted to EM. If the heat is lost it cannot be transferred.
The truth is that heat loss and gain is done locally. Heat can never be transferred through a vacuum, we know that. The reason is that heat is a property of mass, when mass is absent, there is no heat.
Gordon,
“How does O3 or O2 absorb EM?”
Diatoms only have a vibrational mode of the atoms moving apart and together. They absorb a limited range of wavelengths with any efficiency, usually just one frequency band.
Triatomic molecules have more vibrational modes. The 2 atoms can ‘wag’ or ‘wave’, or the central molecule can oscillate between the other two. They can absorb a broader range of frequencies more efficiently.
Here is a brief description with graphics, of diatomic and triatomic molecules.
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/atmosphere/molecular-vibration-modes
If you don’t believe me, just check out the database of ab.sorp.tion spectra for various gases. I pulled up CO and CO2. Same variety of atom for each molecule, but different spectra for absorbing EM.
CO – https://i.imgur.com/1tGG0HI.png
CO2 – https://i.imgur.com/TtKDRtO.png
These are empirical results – measured by spectroscope in this database.
https://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/
If absorbance was purely dependent on the atoms present and not on the structure of the molecules, all molecules with the same variety of atoms would have the same ab.sorp.tion spectra.
The temperature of the molecules makes no difference to their ability to absorb.
Please provide a reputable reference for the view that objects cannot absorb radiation from cooler objects.
“I explained a while back that in the day of Clausius, Tyndall, Planck, et al, scientists believed heat flowed through an aether that is distinguishable from air. In a vacuum, the heat rays, as they were known, flowed through an aether, which is undefined.”
This is immaterial.
Clausius says that the two-way transfer of energy (he calls it ‘heat’ in his memoirs) occurs with conduction as well as radiation – there is no ether present between solids in contact.
And it doesn’t matter for radiation, either, because Clauius is clear that radiation carries ‘heat’ between two objects, not the aether.
Nor does he invoke the aether in his work on thermodynamics.
This point is a red herring.
Gordon,
I have asked you and others again and again for a reputable source corroborating the view that objects cannot absorb radiation from cooler objects.
At least 2 years of asking and no source supplied.
Will you please do so now?
Because I’ve looked and can’t find it. And if no one else supplies it – after 2 years! – I think we’ll have to agree that the proposition is bullshit.
I’ve substantiated the opposite view with references.
Link, please.
barry, please stop trolling.
“Listen to me and learn: My spreadsheet doesnt dictate what nature should do.”
Correct. It is just filling numbers into equations. The equations
“My spreadsheet doesnt abuse physical or chemical laws. My spreadsheet simply allows one to test the application of proposed hypothetical scenarios against the known data.”
Ok, as with all science of this type, it can be done correctly or incorrectly. I think it is incorrect in several ways. You have already admitted that it is not a complete representation of the BE equations.
“[DIC over time in ML] is decreasing over time.
Yes! But you can reduce the rate constant to correct that. And, yes, you can expand the spreadsheet to include inputs from the deep and to the atmosphere from the mixed layer as well. I am inserting B&Es equations from their 5-box model to cover all those possibilities. One step at a time.”
“You have no model or data of your own and can only appeal to the work of others. You assert what they claim without proof. You imagine yourself an expert having never played a game in the sport. Pitiful.”
False. I showed you equations based on known facts that you already agreed to. I showed you using basic algebra, what those equations produce, a bottleneck.
Here are two facts that you and I already agreed to.
1. “Measuring Revelle factors only means that about a 10% change in pCO2 in air results in about a 1% change in DIC depending on where in the world you are.”
2. “According to B&E, the rate constant of removal (the inverse of e-time) from the ML into the DO is 0.087/year or 87 GtC/year using your mass for the ML. An imbalance of X% will increase that to (87 + 0.87 * X) GtC/year for an increase in removal rate of X%, but NO change in the e-time of less than 12 years using B&Es outdated unverified numbers.”
So I assigned x to the atmosphere, while here you are assigning x to the ML. Obfuscation??
Using your definition of x, it is the ML imbalance, you and I agree about the removal rate from the ML to the DO. 0.87*x GT/year.
Now let us simply examine what happens when we put these two agreed upon facts together.
A 10% change in atm pCO2 produces x = 1% imbalance in the ML. The removal rate to the DO is 0.87 x = 0.87 *1%
= 0.87 Gt/year.
A 10% change in atm pCO2 from 1959 is 0.1*670 Gt = 67 Gt. So the e-time for removal of the extra ATM CO2 to the deep ocean is 67/0.87 = 77years.
I understand that you dont like that result, because it doesnt fit your pre-existing beliefs.
“False. I showed you equations based on known facts that you already agreed to. I showed you using basic algebra, what those equations produce, a bottleneck.”
You can show me all the equations in the world, but you can’t show any data that validates them. You showed me one 64-year old paper mentioning a bottleneck that you failed to substantiate with data. All talk, no walk. That’s what you do.
“So I assigned x to the atmosphere, while here you are assigning x to the ML. Obfuscation??”
I could have used Y instead. You are grasping at straws trying to look like you know what you are doing. But you are only doing your thing, obfuscating, bloviating, asserting without evidence, appealing to authority, and generally acting like a [fill in an appropriate ad hominem].
“A 10% change in atm pCO2 produces x = 1% imbalance in the ML.”
Produces is not the word I would use. That is the B&E claim which I am suspect of as I wrote earlier. Where is your data to support their claim?
“The removal rate to the DO is 0.87 x = 0.87 *1% = 0.87 Gt/year.”
No, the IPCC data indicates about 90 GtC/year. Increasing that by 1% won’t change it much. You are confusing a % increase with the absolute amount. I swear you don’t know what you are talking about, because you are blinded by your AGW religion. Let it go.
No change in e-time, no bottleneck. I couldn’t care less about existing beliefs. I seek reality and understanding of what is actually happening. So sad and sorry that you don’t.
As expected.
If you agree to things, then it is shown to you that those things you agreed to, plus BASIC logic, lead to a result that disagrees with your beliefs. Then, you must disavow those things, hedge, move goal posts, whatver is needed.
Those are the rules of the game.
Still doing your thing, obfuscating, bloviating, asserting without evidence, appealing to authority, and generally acting like a spoiled child.
Your logic and AGW belief system are flawed. The rules are physically and chemically compliant models that fit the data. I have them, you don’t. Case should be closed.
Then, you must disavow those things, hedge, move goal posts, whatever is needed.
And last but not least, thrown many ad-hom grenades. The last resort of losers.
The King of Obfuscation doth protest too much, methinks.
So you have no answers, toss red herrings, chaff, ad-homs, declare victory anyway.
You are starting to adopt DREMTs approach.
There is no victory. The work continues with or without you. I answer all you questions and you respond with hypocrisy. Sad, but true.
“The work continues with or without you.”
Tried to work with you, politely pointing out problems..and it didnt go well.
Nate says:
The work continues with or without you.
Tried to work with you, politely pointing out problems..and it didnt go well.
————————
It will never go well until you fully explain your theory and why Chics beliefs are a problem for it that apparently you can’t explain yourself.
” until you fully explain”
Bill, I see no evidence you have been following the details of the science in this lengthy discussion between Chic and me. Thus your generic claims that I havent explained things are based on your ignorance of the discussion…
A complete theory that doesn’t include biotic consumption changes that are occurring is not a complete theory. Plants have different pH preferences there probably isn’t a plant in the ocean that is optimized at its current pH level. This prohibits a theory that can reliably explain limitations on ocean take up even if there is a slight limitation to take up due to increased CO2 in the environment. But its a nothing burger as CO2 has been much higher before without any sign of destroying the world.
“A complete theory that doesnt include biotic consumption changes that are occurring is not a complete theory.”
Ok why dont you go research that and come back when you have something useful to report.
Nate says:
”Billsaid A complete theory that doesnt include biotic consumption changes that are occurring is not a complete theory.”
”Ok why dont you go research that and come back when you have something useful to report.”
——————————
Nate I am not taking a position on the matter. What I have seen comes from aquaculture experiments and CO2 enhanced environments where these environments cause fish to grow faster and larger. The argument about ocean acidification hasn’t been established but remains an untested theory or at least I haven’t seen one.
You come in here arguing with Chic on the basis of some purified test tube experiment and find a minor reaction, issues about that Chic is debating but I am not. I am talking about the test tube environment it isn’t a natural environment. Elements in the ocean are absorbed by biota and biota increases in the presence of excess CO2 in the water and presumably includes all the chemical reactions going in the test tube. To claim reduced ocean takeup of CO2 you first have to find what its fate is in a natural environment. . . .not a test tube. If you understood anything at all about biological sciences that would be the first question to come to mind and till you answer that question all you are doing is blabbering about some ‘what if’. That seems to be the modus operandi of climate science to talk about disparate effects and make wild predictions about them and never ever test them in the natural world.
“What I have seen comes from aquaculture experiments and CO2 enhanced environments where these environments cause fish to grow faster and larger.”
Great. So you have seen off-topic things that are anecdotal, not quantitative, and thus not relevant for this discussion.
Its 100% relevant to the discussion of slowing ocean uptake of CO2 as there has never ever been any demonstration of slowing of ocean uptake of CO2. Its a hole in the science one could float the entire US Navy through.
“No, the IPCC data indicates about 90 GtC/year. Increasing that by 1% wont change it much. You are confusing a % increase with the absolute amount. ”
Perfect example. This make absolutely no sense, and completely contradicts your statement #2.
“According to B&E, the rate constant of removal (the inverse of e-time) from the ML into the DO is 0.087/year or 87 GtC/year using your mass for the ML. An imbalance of X% will increase that to (87 + 0.87 * X) GtC/year for an increase in removal rate of X%”
Your dedication to AGW religion prevents you from seeing the forest for the trees.
Rate constants (more properly rate coefficients, since they change with temperature, etc.) determine amount per time going from one state to another based on level. B&E’s rate constant estimate for ML to DO is Kmd = Kdm * Nd/Nm or 0.002 * 37,000/850 = 0.087/year, which is 74 GtC/year using B&E ML mass, 87 GtC/year using your mass, and 113 GtC/year for the ML to DO using IPCC numbers. Increasing any of those rates by 1% won’t amount to much. No change in rate constant or bottleneck, because the rate coefficient is relative constant while the transfer rate increases 74, 87, 113 GtC/year depending on the level.
Perhaps you are conflating removal/year as in turnover with removal of added emissions. I can’t read your mind and you don’t have any model or data that you could use to straighten yourself out.
“Rate constants (more properly rate coefficients, since they change with temperature, etc.) determine amount per time going from one state to another based on level. B&Es rate constant estimate for ML to DO is Kmd = Kdm * Nd/Nm or 0.002 * 37,000/850 = 0.087/year, which is 74 GtC/year using B&E ML mass, 87 GtC/year using your mass, and 113 GtC/year for the ML to DO using IPCC numbers.”
This is YOU trying to use chemical kinetic principles.
These are quite similar to things Ive already stated, and you have dismissed as obfuscation.
” Increasing any of those rates by 1% wont amount to much. No change in rate constant or bottleneck, because the rate coefficient is relative constant while the transfer rate increases 74, 87, 113 GtC/year depending on the level.
Perhaps you are conflating removal/year as in turnover with removal of added emissions. I cant read your mind and you dont have any model or data that you could use to straighten yourself out.”
As you noted: “An imbalance of X% will increase that to (87 + 0.87 * X) GtC/year for an increase in removal rate of X%”
But again, you should not ignore the return flow from DO to ML, found in all carbon cycle diagrams, which will also be ~ 87 Gt/year. With this there is NO NET sinking of carbon to the DO.
Again, if the added anthro input produces a 10% rise in atm carbon, then it produces a 1% rise in ML carbon, as you agreed.
There is now an imbalance of 1% in the ML, what you call x%. There will now be a net transport of carbon to the DO.
Then net result is a sinking of 0.87*x% = 0.87 Gt/y, which as I noted will require 77 years to remove the 10% added the atmosphere.
“These are quite similar to things Ive already stated, and you have dismissed as obfuscation.”
Those are the formulas from B&E’s paper which I have been using to see if their model fits the data since their paper was written since 1958. Instead of doing that work yourself, you obfuscate, dodge, assert without evidence, and generally make a fool of yourself. Let us know when you are tired of playing the fool.
“With [return flow] there is NO NET sinking of carbon to the DO.”
Obfuscation. I already mentioned somewhere a return flow not as much as ML to DO. You only say this as a gotcha. You can’t fool me. You are the fool.
“Then net result is a sinking of 0.87*x% = 0.87 Gt/y, which as I noted will require 77 years to remove the 10% added the atmosphere.”
This is where you are confused. The net sink does not determine the e-time, the turnover rate does. The imbalance is not the same as a net sinking. The imbalance only causes the sinking. So whatever the imbalance is, the net sinking will be the differance between the amount transfered to the DO minus the return flow. Check the spreadsheet. It only records the net, while the full B&E model includes the full transfer amounts.
And to be perfectly clear, the turnover rate coefficients and corresponding e-times will not change much regardless of the magnitude of the imbalance.
“The IPCC says the removal rate is 90 GT/year” from the ML to the deep ocean, AND there is a return flow of ~ 90 Gt/year from the DO to the ML.
So a change of 1% in the downward flow results in a 0.9 GT/year net removal from the ML.
That would be correct if you assume no change in return flow from the DO to the ML.
And you would assume a cancelling change?
The flimsy excuses never end, do they?
I am not assuming anything. You are doing all the assuming here. I am simply pointing out that an increase in the level of ML likely results in some return response in keeping with nature’s attempts to restore equilibrium. If you understood the physics and chemistry involved here, you wouldn’t have made such a dumb response.
Your idea of a flimsy excuse is just one of your patented obfuscations. I am on to you and am not the only one, I suspect.
No, Chic, you are not the only one. I have observed that anybody that talks to him for a long enough period of time comes to the same conclusions about him. Eventually, I stopped responding to him altogether…and yet he still, even now, will not butt out of discussions I am having with other people. Just a sort of relentless, malevolent force.
“I am not assuming anything. You are doing all the assuming here. I am simply pointing out that an increase in the level of ML likely results in some return response in keeping with natures attempts to restore equilibrium.”
OK, you are not assuming, but you are asserting something that has no logic or evidence, because you just want it to happen.
Just stop.
The evidence is in the B&E paper, you know, the one with all the equations you keep referring to while failing to show that they support your bottleneck claim with data. The reason you don’t understand the logic is because you don’t understand any of this.
“That would be correct if you assume no change in return flow from the DO to the ML.”
At least you acknowledge here what the math is showing. That in the absence of some cancelling change in return flow, we can clearly see that the amount of carbon sunk to the deep ocean annually is ~ 1/77 or less, of the amount of CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere.
This is a bottleneck.
And the cognitive dissonance this brings about gives you great discomfort, and agitation, and causes to seek out ways to rationalize away the contradiction between these facts and your long held beliefs.
Hence the various efforts to try to make these facts and logic go away.
“I am simply pointing out that an increase in the level of ML likely results in some return response in keeping with natures attempts to restore equilibrium.”
Have we any evidence of a cancelling of this small increase in the downward flux with a similar increase in the upward flux? The DO carbon content is relatively stable, and I know of no evidence that the upwelling flux has slowed.
But be careful what you wish for..this would reduce the sinking of carbon to the deep ocean, making the bottleneck effect even STRONGER.
(In the future Revelle Factors are predicted to increase, making the bottleneck stronger)
“At least you acknowledge here what the math is showing. That in the absence of some cancelling change in return flow, we can clearly see that the amount of carbon sunk to the deep ocean annually is ~ 1/77 or less, of the amount of CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere. This is a bottleneck.”
No one following this discussion knows what math you are talking about. You don’t even know yourself. Your numbers mean nothing, because you don’t put them into context of a model that matches data. You pull equations and hypotheticals out of the air. How about coming up with comprehensive evidence of a bottleneck. You know, some data? Otherwise its just your same ol same ol assertions and obfuscations.
“And the cognitive dissonance this brings about gives you great discomfort, and agitation, and causes to seek out ways to rationalize away the contradiction between these facts and your long held beliefs.”
You are delusional. Your attempts to fabricate a bottleneck and do this obfuscation dance only makes me wonder how you sleep at night. Go see a shrink.
“But be careful what you wish for..this would reduce the sinking of carbon to the deep ocean, making the bottleneck effect even STRONGER.”
I am not wishing for anything other than for you to actually get a model and work out the details like I have done and try to understand this stuff. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.
“(In the future Revelle Factors are predicted to increase, making the bottleneck stronger)”
That is what your AGW fellow cultists say. Where are the measurements required to show the theoretical factors are actually correct and that they are increasing with time?
“No one following this discussion knows what math you are talking about. You dont even know yourself. ”
Well I was directly quoting you agreeing with math I showed you. So now you dont recall what you were agreeing with?
“Your numbers mean nothing, because you dont put them into context of a model that matches data. You pull equations and hypotheticals out of the air. How about coming up with comprehensive evidence of a bottleneck. You know, some data? Otherwise its just your same ol same ol assertions and obfuscations.”
Well you offer many numbers in your spreadsheet, which you admit are not based on a comprehensive theory. Which I agree, would be nice to have.
But my point in this whole discussion is to illustrate that the basis for the bottleneck effect can be understood with very simple math and logic. And I think that is what people here are looking for.
It is so simple that BE, after deriving the main effect of the Revelle Factor, (eq 9) could confidently state that “It is therefore obvious that the mixed layer acts as a bottleneck for transport of fossil CO2 to the deep sea”
Clearly they assumed that scientifically literate readers would find it obvious, and I certainly do.
In any case they went on to derive a full set of model equations to futher make the comprehensive case.
“But my point in this whole discussion is to illustrate that the basis for the bottleneck effect can be understood with very simple math and logic. And I think that is what people here are looking for.”
If it was simple, even you would be able to understand it. Obviously not so easy for you. I pay no attention to what people are looking for, especially what you, the obfuscator behind the curtain is selling them.
“It is so simple that BE, after deriving the main effect of the Revelle Factor, (eq 9) could confidently state that ‘It is therefore obvious that the mixed layer acts as a bottleneck for transport of fossil CO2 to the deep sea.’ Clearly they assumed that scientifically literate readers would find it obvious, and I certainly do.”
They assumed an equation and asserted without evidence of its applicability. If it was obvious, you could have demonstrated it with loads of data. Instead you showed zilch, nada, nothing. You have bloviated, obfuscated, and jerked around anyone paying attention. You drink the Kool-Aid, because it conforms nicely to your AGW dogma.
“In any case they went on to derive a full set of model equations to futher make the comprehensive case.”
Their model only projects what they think will happen using rough estimates of reservoir levels and rate constants from the data available at that time (1958). So far I am unable to verify their results.
“If it was simple, even you would be able to understand it. Obviously not so easy for you.”
I do understand it. And have even explained it to you. Several times.
Quite simple. Unless one’s mind is closed up tight.
“They assumed an equation and asserted without evidence of its applicability. If it was obvious, you could have demonstrated it with loads of data.”
They derived the equation from well known chemistry. Why would it not be applicable?
So you are saying if eqn 9 is definitely applicable, you would then understand and agree that there is a bottleneck?
” If it was obvious, you could have demonstrated it with loads of data. Instead you showed zilch, nada, nothing. You have bloviated, obfuscated, and jerked around anyone paying attention.”
No data is required to apply logic. No data is required to determine the implications of eqn 9. That is why BE are able to say that the bottleneck is obvious. That is why many readers of the paper since 1958, including myself, have been able to see the reason for the bottleneck.
Of course they then go on to look at data, and a more comprehensive model.
“They derived the equation from well known chemistry. Why would it not be applicable?”
They made assumptions. Seawater is complicated and not as simple as an equation. For example, each equilibrium coefficient is temperature dependent. If the assumptions made to derive the equation are invalid, the equation is invalid.
“So you are saying if eqn 9 is definitely applicable, you would then understand and agree that there is a bottleneck?”
No. The factor has to change with time meaning that more CO2 is accumulating in air due to the additional inflow of new emissions. Kapish?
“No data is required to apply logic.”
Well, you are entitled to your own logic, but not to your own data. Here is my logic. I take the Henry’s law equilibrium and the equilibrium relationship for aqueous carbonates. A pulse of CO2 shifts the equilibrium towards increasing carbonates (H2CO3 -> HCO3- and CO3=). If those calculations, which ballpark results in a 50/50 air/sea ratio, don’t agree with data, then I hypothesize what could be the reason. If the biological pump removes “excess” carbon, that could account for the discrepancy. Only data and an adequate model will resolve the issue.
The Revelle factor argues for a 90/10 ratio. I have yet to see the data supporting that result. And my logic wonders what prevents the equilibrium to shift “right” so to speak, even without help from the pump.
I have the B&E spreadsheet done. I am trying to figure out why I can’t reproduce their predicted curve. If you ask politely, I will post their model as I see it. But you must promise not to comment for a month.
“But you must promise not to comment for a month.”
Just kidding.
“If those calculations, which ballpark results in a 50/50 air/sea ratio, dont agree with data, then I hypothesize what could be the reason.”
Pls do show us your calculation that gives such a different result from literally everyone else ever. What are your assumptions?
“They made assumptions. Seawater is complicated and not as simple as an equation. For example, each equilibrium coefficient is temperature dependent. If the assumptions made to derive the equation are invalid, the equation is invalid.”
This is once again, your rule that goal posts must be constantly moving. T change (1C) make enough differernce? Show us.
So you are saying if eqn 9 is definitely applicable, you would then understand and agree that there is a bottleneck?
“No. The factor has to change with time meaning that more CO2 is accumulating in air due to the additional inflow of new emissions. Kapish?”
No I dont Kapish. The change over time of the Revelle Factor is predicted for the future. The bottleneck effect is happening regardless of a changing Revelle Factor! Kapish?
So this yet more desperate attempts to move the goal post.
“The Revelle factor argues for a 90/10 ratio. I have yet to see the data supporting that result. And my logic wonders what prevents the equilibrium to shift ‘right’ so to speak, even without help from the pump.
I have the B&E spreadsheet done. I am trying to figure out why I cant reproduce their predicted curve.”
Good, maybe youve learned to double check results before going public with them. And triple check when overturning an established paradigm!
“Pls do show us your calculation that gives such a different result from literally everyone else ever.”
(1) I already showed you. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1281223 Try to keep up.
(2) I am still looking for data showing evidence that any Revelle factors have increased over time. Nothing so far. How about you?
“This is once again, your rule that goal posts must be constantly moving. T change (1C) make enough differernce? Show us.”
Goal-post-move claims is your obfuscational MO, because you can’t refute my data analysis. Ocean temperature ranges from 4 degC to 25 or so with depth. More than 1 degC changes are observed seasonally and geographically. But this is not my concern. It has always been that RF is a statement of a buffer capacity that does not result in any bottleneck. The sinks continue to absorb half of new emissions. No sign of any bottleneck.
“No I dont Kapish.”
Why am I not surprised? And there’s no need to capitalize kapish unless it begins a sentence.
“The change over time of the Revelle Factor is predicted for the future. The bottleneck effect is happening regardless of a changing Revelle Factor!”
So you keep asserting without evidence. Predictions are not data. Show me the bottleneck data. That’s the goal post and it hasn’t changed. The only changes are how you dodge to avoid showing any evidence of a bottleneck and how much deeper you dug your hole.
“Good, maybe youve learned to double check results before going public with them. And triple check when overturning an established paradigm!”
You are so busy obfuscating that you can no longer kapish. I haven’t gone public with anything wrong. At least not that you would recognize, because you don’t understand any of this. You aren’t doing any work yourself. You only buy hook, line, and sinker what your AGW cult employer tells you.
Using B&E’s model, I am unable as yet to verify their results. It could be an error in my spreadsheet or one of their parameters. Either way, their model does not a bottleneck paradigm make. You would kapish, but you don’t kapish any of this. Keep digging.
You referred me to your earlier calculation. I already pointed out a problem and you yelled at me.
“Notice that K = 162 when pCO2 = DIC which is the case when the ML and atmosphere contain the same amount of CO2.”
That is a false assumption. The atm and ML do NOT contain the same amount of CO2. They contain ~ the same total carbon.
This appears to be the problem.
“…you yelled at me.”
Oooh, I’m so sorry. Not.
IIRC, I chastised you for not being able to realize I was talking about total carbon, because you referenced the ML and atm carbon equivalency previously. If it makes you feel better, I admit I mis-wrote CO2 instead of carbon.
How is that evidence for a bottleneck coming?
“Use B&Es equation (1) DIC = 162 * [CO2]aq and Henrys constant K = pCO2/[CO2]aq. Notice that K = 162 when pCO2 = DIC which is the case when the ML and atmosphere contain the same amount of CO2. At equilibrium, X amount of CO2 will go into the ML leaving a net of A X added to the original pCO2. The air will now contain (pCO2 + A X) and the ML will now be (DIC + X). Do the algebra yourself using K equal to the ratio of the new quantities to verify that X = A/2.”
Not just the word CO2 that is incorrect, it appears that the CALCULATION is also incorrect.
You ASSUME erroneously that pCO2 = DIC. Then sure enough at the end you find the same amount of carbon in the atm and ML (X=A/2)
This is simply circular logic! And wrong. Sorry.
pCO2 = DIC is the case when the ML and atmosphere contain the same amount of CO2. That was B&E’s assumption and you have used the same assumption at the blog in the past. Denying that would only reinforce your reputation for obfuscation.
That assumption can be off by quite a bit before it would compromise the correctness of my calculation.
Circular logic has nothing to do with it. You just can’t help but obfuscate, can you?
How is that evidence for a bottleneck coming?
So first you said you made an error. Now you are saying that it wasnt an error?
Huh?
“pCO2 = DIC is the case when the ML and atmosphere contain the same amount of CO2. That was B&Es assumption and you have used the same assumption at the blog in the past.”
Nope. Totally wrong.
You may be confused because BE use the term ‘sum(CO2)’ in their eqn 1. to represent the sum of all carbonate species concentrations in the ocean.
pCO2(atm) is just a bit higher than aqueous concentration of CO2 on a moles/liter basis (See Henrys law constant for CO2)
The DIC concentration is, as you noted, 260 times larger than CO2 concentration in the water according to BE and others.
So it is impossible for atm pCO2 = DIC!
But the effective volume of the atmosphere is much much larger than the volume of the ML.
That is why all the carbon cycle diagrams show that the total C content of the ML and atmosphere are ~ the same.
In section 2, BE say “the different components of CO2 present in the sea are” then list the carbonate species. This is confusing terminology.
Then later they say the mixed later “the surface layer that contains about as much CO2 as the atmosphere” they mean, contains about as much carbon in all it forms.
Again the concentration of DIC is much higher then the concentration of CO2 in the sea, or in the atmosphere. But the volume difference makes the total amount ~ the same.
“That is why all the carbon cycle diagrams show that the total C content of the ML and atmosphere are ~ the same.”
That is what I meant. I made the same mistake again and not on purpose. The last thing I want is to obfuscate. You do enough of that for the two of us.
Have you made any progress on finding any evidence of the bottleneck?
Lest you be tempted to claim otherwise, the mistake was leaving it written as CO2 instead of carbon when I copied and pasted to compose my comment. I made no error in the calculation.
“The last thing I want is to obfuscate. ”
Good. Thank you for that.
Now need to revise your conclusion from this calculation that 50% of atm CO2 ends up in ML.
IOW, the intent of the calculation is that GtC represented by pCO2 = GtC represented by DIC.
” I made no error in the calculation.”
Still wrong, because the CO2 error was central to your calculation.
Try again. The calculation is correct. You are afflicted by AGW derangement. Seriously, you need help.
“Try again. The calculation is correct. You are afflicted by AGW derangement. Seriously, you need help.”
Uhh not an answer just more ad homs..as usual.
This is just like the no bottleneck claim. Errors are pointed out, you say they dont matter and the conclusions remain regardless.
If you expect anyone to believe it, show the complete calculation, with correct assumptions, correct terminology and no errors.
I hope none of your students are watching you make a fool of yourself.
GtCarbon in atm = Ca = GtCarbon in ML = DIC * Vs with Vs being the volume of the ML. Cs = [CO2]aq * Vs. B&E’s equation (1) becomes DIC = 162 * Cs/Vs and Henrys constant K’ = (Ca/Va)/(Cs/Vs). Notice that K’ = 162 * Vs/Va because Ca = 162 * Cs. After adding A to the atm, X amount of CO2 will go into the ML leaving a net of A – X added to the original Ca. The air will now contain (Ca + A – X) and the ML will now be (DIC + X/Vs) = (Ca + X)/Vs. K’ will now be equal to [(Ca + A – X)/Va]/[(Ca + X)/(162*Vs)]. The equivalence of both K’ at equilibrium gives Ca + A – X = Ca + X which reduces to X = A/2.
Try spending less time finding fault and more time looking for your missing bottleneck.
Your algebra now looks ok, if awkward.
But the problem now is that you ignore the chemistry. The buffering effect that keeps the pH nearly constant.
In BE it is equations 5-7 that you are ignoring.
Eqn 8 agrees with you, shows that CO2 in the atm and ocean increase in the same proportion.
But the other equations, and the fact that alkalinity is ~ constant, show that the DIC does not increase in the same proportion as you would have it. You simply ignore them and their chemistry. I think they lead to your factor of 162 not being a constant.
And that leads to eq 9, the Revelle Factor.
By your calculation, Revelle Factor must be 1!
So you seem to think that all of the measurements of it being ~ 10 must be wrong! And only YOU have done this simple algebra to find this out?
I just don’t understand why you think you would be likely to have found a simple flaw that all the professional chemists and oceanographers have missed!
First of all, your bloviating is very annoying. I ignore nothing. I checked the calculus on B&E equations (5) & (6) and verified Eq (9). Meanwhile, you make up stuff like pH and alkalinity nearly constant and peculate about the 162 factor. You don’t know what you are babbling about, because all you know to do is quote from the AGW handbook and obfuscate.
“By your calculation, Revelle Factor must be 1!”
That is wrong. As I wrote and posted previously already, B&E’s Eq (9) is correct using their numbers for the dissociation constant and pH values. The factor of 162 varies with temperature and salinity which explains why a range of values are reported in various places. But the calculation is just a calculation which may or may not conform to measurements, because I have seen no data showing actual measurements.
B&E set the change in alkalinity to zero in Eq (6) to derive Eq (9). Their own Eq (2) shows alkalinity greater than DIC. How can a change in DIC not also cause a commensurate change in DIC?
Will you ever present any evidence of a bottleneck or just continue as a useless troll?
“By your calculation, Revelle Factor must be 1!
That is wrong. ”
How can you say that?
You got 50/50 atm/ocean (R=1), while BE and literally every other chemist looks at the same chemistry and finds ~ 90:10 (R ~ 10).
You found R=1, because you forced that to be the case from the start!
Then you try to rationalize it away, but that fact is you have completely ignored the known buffering effect.
So you decided to continue as a useless troll.
“…literally every other chemist looks at the same chemistry….”
That would be hard to prove. I’ll just chalk that up as another obfuscation from a bloviating troll. However, it is typical of your MO. Just accept the AGW dogma and continue promoting the propaganda without looking into it. Where is the evidence that Revelle factors were measured? I am sure someone did, but I have looked to no avail. Can you provide any of that data?
Your function here seems to be to object to any efforts on my part to explain why the data seems to suggest there is no bottleneck inhibiting CO2 uptake by the ocean. 50 % of the added emissions are being absorbed as my back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests. I reviewed the calculus B&E used to derive the R factor and find no discrepancy unless the zero change in alkalinity assumption is invalid. I searched fruitlessly for experimental results verifying the RF calculation.
Meanwhile, you continue your relentless useless trolling falsely claiming I “forced” R = 1 and ignore the buffering effect.
Why not do something useful and find some evidence of your bottleneck?
“Your function here seems to be to object to any efforts on my part”
Ive been trying to discuss the science with you. I brought up BE and explained its signficance to you.
Now you get frustrated that I disagree with your analysis and conclusions. Oh well! Debate is what this blog is all about!
Like DREMT you only try to make it all about the messenger when the messenger is pointing out your errors and invalid conclusions.
This is quite simple. The equations that BE present describing the buffering effect in the ocean are correct chemistry. There are many papers reviewing this effect
I already showed you papers describing measurements of Revelle Factor around the world. You quoted measurements of it. You didnt doubt before that Revelle Factor is a thing.
Now apparently you regard the established, observable chemistry, the buffering effect of the ocean as unproven opinion!
But you offer no evidence and cite no source that shows a flaw in the chemistry. You simply ignore it.
No one will take you seriously if you just keep rejecting established science facts when they are inconvenient or undesirable. You need to show evidence, have a rationale.
“…the messenger is pointing out your errors and invalid conclusions.”
So far you pointed out one typo and no invalid conclusions. You may have disagreed with my conclusions, but you haven’t shown anything to be invalid. You would need data for that. Just quoting someone in a paper you read doesn’t cut it.
This is simple. You are confused about the significance of the Revelle factor. The buffering capacity of the ocean has never been an issue for me.
Here’s the deal. There is a resistance to CO2 molecules entering seawater and reacting to form H2CO3 compared to O2 or N2 which don’t react. Despite this “delay,” the equilibrium represented by Henry’s Law is not compromised. Once H2CO3 forms it dissociates to form bicarbonate. This is essentially immediate and nearly quantitative so that the [H2CO3] remains small to allow “space” for more CO2 uptake. No bottleneck. As my rough calculation shows, about half of any CO2 added to the atmosphere will go into the ocean just as the data clearly indicates and all agree with.
The Revelle factor is one measure of buffer capacity. It characterizes the tendency for a change. Using pH as an analogy, the effectiveness of a buffer is expressed in terms of the change in pH when adding an infinitesimal amount of acid or base. On average, the oceans have about as good a buffering capacity as it gets. This is good since we don’t want large changes in pH. It doesn’t mean there can’t be large changes in DIC. The biological pump is one reason they are as small as they are.
Humanity is not adding infinitesimal amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere to see how good our ocean buffer capacity is. What everyone should be interested in is how fast and how much is going where. My spreadsheet models allow me to evaluate the claims being made and counter arguments that don’t measure up to the data. I appreciate that you brought B&E to the table, but I regret that you got sidetracked by this bottleneck business.
BTW, I am not frustrated, and I don’t know why you keep projecting your feelings on me. I don’t care how people take me. And if you care to be known as anything but an obfuscator, you should provide some evidence to back up your bottleneck obsession or move on.
“Heres the deal…..No bottleneck.”
That is all a handwaving obfuscation, that uses no math or chemistry equations.
The problem remains that you IGNORE the chemistry and MATH that leads to equation 9, which leads to a bottleneck.
Then there should be no surprise that you get a result that does not agree with eqn 9!
You have not found a flaw in the chemistry, that somehow all chemists have missed for 60 y.
If you ignore basic science and mathematical facts, you get a different, erroneous result.
Then what have you proved?
At this point, this is just straight up science denialism, and quite sadly, self-delusion.
Lie #1: “That is all a handwaving obfuscation, that uses no math or chemistry equations.”
I was just summarizing known chemistry and math which you previously agreed with. If my statements are incorrect, explain why.
Lie #2: “The problem remains that you IGNORE the chemistry and MATH that leads to equation 9, which leads to a bottleneck.”
I verified the math and wrote that twice, IIRC. I explained the chemistry of buffers. Obviously, Eqn 9 is a buffer capacity statement that does not prevent half of new atm CO2 being absorbed for over a century. No bottleneck. The reason you don’t get this is either you are too proud or too stupid to admit it or you are a shill who dares not violate AGW talking points.
Obfuscation #1: “Then there should be no surprise that you get a result that does not agree with eqn 9!”
I am not competing with Eqn 9. It describes buffer capacity, not the quantitative transfer of CO2 from the atm to ocean.
Your only true statement: “You have not found a flaw in the chemistry, that somehow all chemists have missed for 60 y.”
Eqn 9 is mathematically correct. Whether or not the assumption of no change in alkalinity is valid may be another story. Nevertheless, my model accurately describes the data for CO2 transfer from the atm to ocean and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise.
Obfuscation #2: The rest of your last comment.
You are showing yourself to be nothing but a useless troll. You have dug so big a hole; you cannot see your way out. I don’t mind, in fact I relish, the debate on the science. But you gave that up a long time ago. Your only arguments now are claiming I don’t know the science and the appeal to the authority of Bolin and Eriksson who never demonstrated any bottleneck in the first place.
“Eqn 9 is mathematically correct.”
Good. It shows that if c(CO2,aq) changes by 12.5%, the DIC changes by 1%.
Your algebra here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1290836
shows something very different!
It shows “DIC = 162 * Cs/Vs” So that means DIC is 162*c(CO2,aq) IOW 162*the aqueous concentration of CO2.
At the end you have atm and DIC increasing by equal amount, and equal percentage.
But the atm % increase and c(CO2,aq) % increase must be the same. Eqn 8 and Your eqn “Ca = 162 * Cs.”
Thus you have all 3, atm, c(CO2,aq), and DIC increasing by the same percentage!
Which contradicts eq 9.
I replied on a new thread below.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1293534
‘A 10% change in atm pCO2 produces x = 1% imbalance in the ML.’
Produces is not the word I would use. That is the B&E claim which I am suspect of as I wrote earlier. Where is your data to support their claim?”
Uhhh…. the data on measurements of Revelle Factor all over the world are out there and youve already agreed to that.
In any case the WHOLE point of this discussion, and your spreadsheet, has been about whether the Revelle Factor and BE analysis would produce a bottleneck.
You claimed it doesnt, but it clearly does.
I thought the whole point of the discussion was whether the Revelle Factor invalidates Berry’s hypothesis? It doesn’t.
I see no science argument here, Stephen, just continuing deferral to an authority. There are many more authorities who disagree with Berry. Many are climate skeptics.
Someone earlier introduced us to the prominent climate skeptic organization, https://co2coalition.org/.
This group has many well known climate skeptics like Lindzen, Happer, Gould, Heller, Idso, and Roy Spencer.
They present many ‘Climate Facts’ to support their agenda, such as the many benefits of extra atmospheric CO2.
None of these ‘Climate Facts’ try to argue that the rise of atm CO2 is mostly natural.
“None of these Climate Facts try to argue that the rise of atm CO2 is mostly natural.”
Typical Nate obfuscation.
“Have you been to the border yet?”
Kamala Harris, “Well, no and I haven’t been to France, either, chuckle, chuckle.”
At least Dr. Spencer can say he has been working on it.
“Uhhh. the data on measurements of Revelle Factor all over the world are out there and youve already agreed to that.”
This is my problem (and it would be yours too if you had any interest in anything other than defending the AGW dogma and camouflaging the fact that you don’t understand any of this). To measure a Revelle factor, one would have to measure the pCO2 and DIC at some early date and return years later to measure again and calculate the factors from the data. I haven’t seen that data yet. I wrongly just assumed that and have added it to my todo list. I welcome you helping with it.
I agree with this discussion being about RF producing a bottleneck and yours and B&E’s unverified claim that it does. For me, the bigger issue is what the truth is, what the data says, i.e. reality.
> For me, the bigger issue is what the truth is, what the data says, i.e. reality.
Funny you, Chic!
“This is my problem” yes, it is YOURS, but not science’s problem.
You have quoted the measurements all over the world of Revelle Factor, which is simply a measurement of chemical concentrations and applying the known relationships. Go learn how its done before doubting that it can be done.
“I agree with this discussion being about RF producing a bottleneck and yours and B&Es unverified claim that it does.”
Great, back to reality then.
“For me, the bigger issue is what the truth is, what the data says, i.e. reality.”
You have no corner on that market.
No, Nate, you are not back to reality. You have never shown any evidence of a bottleneck or data showing the Revelle factor is anything but a theoretical derivation. No data, no model, just bloviation and vacuous assertions.
You get some credit for no recent appeals to authority.
Chic Bowdrie says:
No, Nate, you are not back to reality. You have never shown any evidence of a bottleneck or data showing the Revelle factor is anything but a theoretical derivation. No data, no model, just bloviation and vacuous assertions.
You get some credit for no recent appeals to authority.
———————–
What has been established is something is a bottle neck to the extent that it did take a few decades to completely reverse the bomb pulse effect rather than having it happen instantaneously.
the bomb pulse decay rate remains as the only established quantification of the bottle neck effect.
“You have never shown any evidence of a bottleneck or data showing the Revelle factor is anything but a theoretical derivation. No data, no model, just bloviation and vacuous assertions.”
Revelle factor is not just theoretical, it a measurable quantity that has real effects on the division of carbon between the atmosphere and the ML, that you have acknowledged:
“Revelle factor is simply an expression of how the growth of atm CO2 compares to the growth in DIC in the ML.”
“Measuring Revelle factors only means that about a 10% change in pCO2 in air results in about a 1% change in DIC depending on where in the world you are. ”
I get it. You seek rationalization to back away from facts you already agreed to, because they cause you great discomfort, cognitive dissonance between them and your prior beliefs.
Well thats only an incomplete claim of a narrowing bottleneck.
But 1% would have insignificant changes to the bomb pulse takeup. Even if we added another 30% carbon to the atmosphere the return of the anthropogenic pulse would take about 20 years. And more importantly the last 30% addition from the early 60’s over 62 years has only shown positive signs for mankind. Less starvation being the most obvious.
Gobbldegook.
Nate wrote, “Revelle factor is not just theoretical, it a measurable quantity…”
Yes, it is theoretical, but needs to be confirmed by actual measurements. Where are they?
“…that has real effects on the division of carbon between the atmosphere and the ML,”
It is not yet clear what the real effects are. The ocean continues to remove CO2 from the atmosphere without evidence of a bottleneck. The biological pump may be responsible for removing carbon from the ML thus explaining the appearance of a Revelle factor.
I am acknowledging nothing until I have proof of the Revelle factor measurements and my spreadsheet can account for all the manifest data.
You aren’t getting anything. Your failure to show evidence of a bottleneck is making you imagine things about me that are happening to you. It is called projection. Look it up and get some help.
“It is not yet clear what the real effects are. The ocean continues to remove CO2 from the atmosphere without evidence of a bottleneck. The biological pump may be responsible for removing carbon from the ML thus explaining the appearance of a Revelle factor.
I am acknowledging nothing until I have proof of the Revelle factor measurements and my spreadsheet can account for all the manifest data.”
I understand. The goal post must always be moving just out of reach. Those are the rules of the game.
The biological pump will now conveniently step up to fill the needs of your theory, regardless of any quantitative data on it.
What fraction of the carbon is removed by the biological pump?
If I tell you, will you promise not to comment for one month?
Nate says:
The biological pump will now conveniently step up to fill the needs of your theory, regardless of any quantitative data on it.
What fraction of the carbon is removed by the biological pump?
—————–
Practically all of it Nate. Haven’t you bothered to look?
You seem to make a career on speculating on small brained test tube results over the brillance of mother nature.
I don’t know a lot about the Revelle Factor but as I understand it, it represents a resistance to ocean uptake of a gas via Henry’s law.
So you come forth and say if there is a 10% increase in CO2 the resistance goes up by 1%. But if the difference between the atmosphere and the ocean is say doubled by the atmosphere doubling its CO2 doesn’t the hydrostatic pressure for CO2 equalization also double? So uptake forcing would increase by 100% less 10% more resistance per the Revelle factor? And CO2 would be absorbed into the ocean an record rates. Bottom line is CO2 in the ocean would increase dramatically and the biological pump will be working overtime. Wow can you imagine that!!
Sounds like the basis of an awesome experiment to completely end starvation in the world. It may though require some iron dusting on the ocean to mitigate for all the lined water channels mankind has built on land that previously washed copious amounts of iron into the ocean supporting biological production.
“Practically all of it Nate. Havent you bothered to look?”
More unsubstantiated BS from Bill. As a result, no one takes your posts seriously, Bill.
“I dont know a lot about the Revelle Factor but as I understand it, it represents a resistance to ocean uptake of a gas via Henrys law.”
Ignorance of a topic is, for most people, a good reason not to post.
FYI carbon cycle diagrams. Notice bio is a small fraction of total sinking into deep ocean. Oh well!
https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/media/images/carbon_cycle_diagram_ipcc_900x543.jpg
http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp_carbon_cycle/
“Notice bio is a small fraction of total sinking into deep ocean.”
Recent results indicate those diagrams might be out of date by a factor of two. IOW, the biological pump sends twice as much to the deep as was previously thought. Also, calling the effect small depends on what your definition of small is. The rest of the exchange between the ML and DO probably doesn’t affect the carbonate chemistry as much. But why do I bother explaining this to someone who only believes what the AGW doctrine tells him?
” as was previously thought. Also, calling the effect small depends on what your definition of small is. The rest of the exchange between the ML and DO probably doesnt affect the carbonate chemistry as much”
Hand waving peculation is not evidence. Apply some of your famous skepticism to yourself!
Why don’t you stop obfuscating and hypocritically peculating and look for some evidence of a bottleneck?
Nate says:
”A 10% change in atm pCO2 produces x = 1% imbalance in the ML. The removal rate to the DO is 0.87 x = 0.87 *1%
= 0.87 Gt/year.”
———————–
I am not going to get into the theoretical modeling estimates that produce that 1% as no data seems available to validate the model. And I suspect no data will be forthcoming because we know from study after study increased CO2 in the atmosphere is spurring biological production. Spur biological production by 1% say and what happens to the overall sequestration rate of carbon?
Fact is in the foreseeable future the answer to that will be difficult to ascertain to any level of accuracy. Thus you are like a 4×4 truck in the mud up to above its axles and you are going nowhere with this argument.
Looking at the so-called ocean acidification argument. Any gardener knows that certain plants favor more acidic environments than others. Climate change which is constant is always favoring one organism over another. One only need to visit the La Brea tar pits and see a small window on how ecology has changed in Southern California over the last 15,000 years. It is mind boggling. Yet we were here then and we are here now.
We are a species so ignorant that we despite huge investment cannot explain what causes cancer. And here we are asking questions orders of magnitude more difficult and trying to sell action/vaccines/cures for climate change like a wild west medicine show.
I accept the idea that our emissions of CO2 from the fueling of our economy from fossil fuels will have impacts on nature. And I have seen how dirty fossil fuels emitting pollutions have worked to reduce the massive increases in value we could have experienced in our standard of living.
But as we learn more about the compounds we emit and effectively find ways to reduce those negative aspects of our emissions I am reluctant to start making changes to stuff we don’t yet possess sufficient knowledge to condemn them. It is like some idiots decided fossil fuels are evil and should never be burnt. Or maybe at the other extreme they see fossil fuels as blessed cows that should never be perturbed. Thats not science at all that is nothing more than bizarre religious belief. One opposed to progress and the increase of the standard of living. I can understand it coming from a native American who romantically is attached to a world of the past of low survival and a brutal life where there was no higher honor than surviving it. Kind of an ultra Darwinistic/religious hybrid of an idea of what playing fair consists of. One has to respect that but one should not be bound to live by that.
“I am not going to get into the theoretical modeling estimates that produce that 1% ”
Then your post is not relevant to the discussion.
Nate says:
”Then your post is not relevant to the discussion.”
———————-
You can run but you can’t hide Nate. You claimed that this process which has to go on for a period of time to get test tube results are in fact going to be realized. So it is relevant and you can’t hide from that fact.
Living organisms take up these acidic chemicals and use them to build the very cellular structures that some less than thorough scientists claim they will break down. Thats just a bogus claim to advance a political narrative. I am not going to get into the test tube details simply because no relevancy of that has been established. The more typical course of action which is done daily in aquaculture experiments will establish if there is any need to have done the test tube work in regards to their claimed effects on natural systems.
“You claimed that this process which has to go on for a period of time to get test tube results are in fact going to be realized.”
I said what??? WTF you takin bout?
try paying attention Nate.
Someone wrote –
“The hot object can absorb all the photons from a colder object and still will not raise its temperature because the hot object is emitting more than it absorbs.”
Excellent! The the hotter surface which receives photons from the colder atmosphere does not raise its temperature.
Then Global Warming really means Global-Nothing-is-Happening-No-Rise-In-Temperature.
Maybe at least one previously brain dead cultist is showing the first signs of accepting reality.
I wonder who it could be?
Mike Flynn,
Here is a wild guess –
Someone who believes that the Greenhouse Theory exists.
What do you say, silly sock puppet?
And?
Just shows that you do not understand science, Mike.
Have you noticed that you read a thing with one sock and quoted from it with the other?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
What are you dribbling about?
I quoted from a comment. I chose not to embarrass the commenter. Are you saying someone else also read the comment?
How surprising. Someone read a comment.
Go away and keep being stupid.
Still no Greenhouse Theory, is there? You are still a lying moron.
I stated two facts, Mike.
Here’s evidence for the most relevant one here:
“Ive quoted from Goody and Yung already”
Notice who said that.
Notice who quoted from Good and Yung already.
Silly sock puppet.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Mike Flynn quoted from Goody and Yung, and you are so sloppy you can’t even get the names right!
I quoted from Norman’s comment.
Can’t you get anything right, dummy?
You might as well keep lying about having a Greenhouse Theory, moron.
You could not even pull off your ventriloquist act properly, Mike.
Silly sock puppet!
Whacky Wee Willy,
You dribbled –
“You could not even pull off your ventriloquist act properly, Mike.
Silly sock puppet!”
Do you really think anybody comprehends your idiocy?
In the meantime lying about having a Greenhouse Theory, and thinking that anyone will believe you, makes you a liar first, and a moron, second.
Carry on lying, moron.
[snigger]
When sock puppets rant like Mike, it gets really funny.
Willard please stop trolling!
Which version of the GHE might this person believe in, I wonder?
That depends what you mean by *version*, Kiddo.
U sure you want another round of this?
Well, I won every other round, so why not?
Because you can’t barely hold your shit together, Kiddo.
Conceptual analysis is hard, you know.
Tell me more on the kind of “version” you have in mind, I have 18 more “versions” in the back burner.
If this is Norman we are talking about, then he believes in this version of the GHE:
“The atmosphere allows a large portion of the solar energy to move through it to the surface. There it is absorbed. The energy heats the surface and emits IR which is reduced from surface emission to space. These are all measured values so you can argue it you want but you are certainly not intelligent to argue at that point.
The atmosphere acts as a radiant barrier to IR and insulator so that the amount of incoming solar radiant energy is able to warm the surface to a higher temperature.
The other versions are not correct.”
So Norman acknowledges there are other versions, but to him those are not correct. No mention of effective emission height in Norman’s description, notice. Presumably that version of the GHE is “not correct”.
Here’s where you are wrong, Kiddo –
Norma does not acknowledge anything. He’s saying that whatever other version you can think of, it it does not capture what he’s saying right now, it’s wrong.
And the fact that there may be other “versions” of the Greenhouse Theory means little if there’s no Greenhouse Theory to start with, which is MF’s fantasy you tried to white knight.
I have no problem with the possibility that a theory might have many interpretations. If you knew anything about my avatar, you’d know why. That’s just another of your fantasmagory that a theory needs to be canonical.
You keep misreading people. From now on, that’s on you.
You don’t speak for Norman, if there are multiple different ideas of what a theory is meant to be then perhaps there really is no theory at all, and we are not talking about “interpretations”. We are talking about physically different mechanisms.
OK, for those too stupid to search themselves, it was Norman who wrote –
“The hot object can absorb all the photons from a colder object and still will not raise its temperature because the hot object is emitting more than it absorbs”
Norman states that the photons from a colder object will not raise the temperature of the warmer. As in there is no heating of the surface by the colder atmosphere. As in there is no GHE, and no Global Warming due to heating of the hotter surface by a colder atmosphere.
Of course, ignorant lying morons like Willard wont accept reality, and he keeps trying to insist that he not only can describe the GHE, but also has a Greenhouse Theory, which of course he hasnt.
He might even claim he has multiple versions of the Greenhouse Effect, and even more versions of the Greenhouse Theory, the Greenhouse Effect Theory and so on. Of course, a completely braindead cultist would demand that all his imaginary “Theories” be refuted!
What an idiot Willard is! He probably believes in unicorns, and Michael( fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat) Manns Nobel Prize. Luckily, Willard is unable to name one person who value this opinion.
Maybe one day he will learn how to become an efficient and effective troll. Who knows?
You are a complete phony, Mike.
You said absolutely nothing in the span of five paragraphs.
> if there are multiple different ideas
Are you suggesting that *versions* mean “ideas,” Kiddo? That would great progress if you had replaced the concept of version with a more precise one. Alas you did not.
Your implication is ludicrous, BTW.
When should I break the news to you that a theory, strictly speaking, is simply a set of equations?
Nothing of any substance to respond to.
Wise choice, Kiddo.
Yes, you made a wise choice not to offer anything of substance to respond to.
You don’t know what to respond, Kiddo, because you’re an ignoramus who keeps harping about “mechanisms” and “versions” but can’t read an equation properly.
In fact you still can’t even grok that if theory T has many versions V, T needs to exist.
No, it is more like deliberately vague concept D has many versions V, so D exists. T for Theory does not enter into the equation.
A set of equations ain’t no vague concept D, Kiddo.
ES gave them to you. MF barfed on them. What will you do?
Silly sock puppets.
DREMT
The point I was making was about the GHE not necessarily AGW. The presence of GHG in an atmosphere that are transparent to visible light but not so much to IR EMR will cause a surface to reach an higher average temperature than a similar surface without GHG present.
Again this is not my theory or interpretation. It is the one with actual measured values to support it.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6281ab7c1a8d3.png
The incoming solar energy in a 24 hour cycle is not enough to support the surface emission without GHG Downwelling IR.
The surface is still losing energy even with DWIR it just loses quite a bit less. If you suddenly removed the atmosphere the surface would emit around 600 W/m^2 to space. With GHG present it loses about 200 W/m^2. Because of that reality (measurement based) the solar input will be able to sustain a higher surface temperature (average) than it could without such gases.
Norman, the Keeper of the One True Version of the GHE, hath spoken.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“When should I break the news to you that a theory, strictly speaking, is simply a set of equations?”
When should I break to you that you are lying moron, who claims to have Greenhouse Theory, but does not even know what a theory is!
Tell me, what set of equations in the mythical “Greenhouse Theory” predicted the rate of cooling of the Earth over the past four and a half billion years or so?
Maybe you can provide a set of equations for the Theory of Evolution?
Heres the first description of a theory that I came across –
“A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.”
No “set of equations”, you blockhead!
Carry on.
When Norman starts making up physics, it really gets funny.
“If you suddenly removed the atmosphere the surface would emit around 600 W/m^2 to space.”
NO Norman! The surface would emit based on its temperature and emissivity. Emission has NOTHING to do with what the surface is emitting to.
Norman,
You wrote that a colder object cannot raise the temperature of a warmer –
The hot object can absorb all the photons from a colder object and still will not raise its temperature because the hot object is emitting more than it absorbs
You confused the issue by saying –
“The point I was making was about the GHE not necessarily AGW.”
In other words, the GHE (which you state cannot raise surface temperature), may actually result in warming (AGW). Obviously, you are one of those brain dead cultists who believes that slow cooling results in raised temperatures!
Maybe you could clarify. Under what circumstances does a process which you state cannot raise temperatures, result in raised temperatures?
Don’t be stupid , Norman. You almost accepted reality for a moment.
Why keep rejecting reality? You will lose in the long run.
norman…”The incoming solar energy in a 24 hour cycle is not enough to support the surface emission without GHG Downwelling IR”.
***
According to Lindzen, if there was no convection, the planet’s surface temperature would rise to 70C. Appears GHE or AGW has nothing to do with it and that convection mediates the surface temperature.
Clint R
Your inability to think and use logic is duly noted. You can’t understand what I wrote so you have to post something stupid. You think it is funny, I think it is sad you are so dumb but in your mind you think there is some intelligence.
I can explain it to your irrational stupid mind but you can’t understand what is stated. It is impossible for you to think, you just post stupid points over and over. Nothing will stop this behavior.
With a GHG atmosphere the surface emits around 600 W/m^2 but NOT to space. A large amount of energy is absorbed by the atmosphere. All but a small window is emitted to space. The Heat loss is the amount of energy the surface emits minus what it absorbs from the atmosphere. With GHG the heat loss from the surface is now around 200 W/m^2. You don’t understand it since you have never studied physics. You rant and babble like a drunk fool (which you probably are…you get drunk and come here with stupid ideas of a drunk dummy).
Anyway nothing matters with you. You are a drunken fool with nothing of value to contribute. The best would be if you sober up and read some science books. Won’t happen so you will continue to stink up this blog with foolish and meaningless points. Over and over same thing different day.
I wish I had the skills of Mark B I would write a program to find how many times you have said “boil water with ice cubes” no one cares about your stupid points.
Gordon, convection is mostly nil above the tropopause. The stratosphere is not mostly 70C.
I see you are asking for a set of equations, silly sock puppet.
Perhaps you should ask Mike – he said he opened Goody.
He even quoted what comes right after a few of them.
Silly sock puppet.
Wandering Wee Willy,
This question? –
“Tell me, what set of equations in the mythical Greenhouse Theory predicted the rate of cooling of the Earth over the past four and a half billion years or so?”
Is that the question you don’t like? You claim to have a Greenhouse Theory – just a set of equations, you say.
Complete nonsense spewed out by a lying moron!
And here’s your pathetic attempt at diversion –
“I see you are asking for a set of equations, silly sock puppet.
Perhaps you should ask Mike he said he opened Goody.
He even quoted what comes right after a few of them.
Silly sock puppet.”
You can run, but you can’t hide. Still can’t produce a Greenhouse Theory, can you?
Thanks Norman for another example of your incompetence.
Even your cult claims Earth’s surface emits 390 W/m^2.
–Gordon Robertson says:
May 15, 2022 at 8:51 PM
normanThe incoming solar energy in a 24 hour cycle is not enough to support the surface emission without GHG Downwelling IR.
***
According to Lindzen, if there was no convection, the planets surface temperature would rise to 70C. Appears GHE or AGW has nothing to do with it and that convection mediates the surface temperature. —
Well I recall him saying something like that.
I would say I don’t agree with him.
But hard imagine Earth with no convection, particularly considering
Earth with 70% surface being ocean.
So, I would say Earth surface air temperature is controlled by Ocean average surface of about 17 C.
Controlled in sense of warming and controlled in sense of cooling.
Or land air temperature in morning is caused by average global air temperature made by ocean surface air temperature.
Or Earth without warm ocean surface temperature has lower average temperature.
But planet without ocean could have higher average temperature- but it seems complicated.
And also Earth earth ground surface temperature when sun is at zenith
is around 70 C. Or it does now rise to 70 C, but all the world does have the sun at zenith and you night and day.
So, don’t agree or get what he means.
Mike, Mike,
Have you opened Goody & Yung, yes or no?
If you did, you would have noticed equations.
Hope this helps!
Weepy Wee Willy,
What are you babbling about? I have read many books. So have many other people.
What’s it to you?
For example, some authors of books about the atmosphere don’t believe the Earth was created with a hot surface or interior. I hope you would question any equations from authors who believed that the Earth was created at absolute zero, and subsequently warmed by sunlight.
Or maybe you prefer the equations used by Lord Kelvin to prove that the Earth was no more than twenty million years old.
Or what about the equations Sir Isaac Newton used, to calculate the size of Heaven’s New Jerusalem?
You really are a delusional lying moron, arent you? No chance of producing your Greenhouse Theory, Is there? That’s because a figment of your imagination, peabrain!
Carry on.
Gordon Robertson
Do you have a link to the Lindzen paper with this claim? I am looking at various papers he wrote on GHE but I could not find this one. Need it for context.
He may have claimed that the GHE is so powerful it would raise the Earth’s surface by 70 K rather than 33 K if not for the other heat transfer mechanisms such as convection and evaporation. Not sure, I would have to read the context to the comment he made. I am not sure you are forming a correct conclusion.
Clint R
Are you seriously that stupid? How is it possible to be so dumb?
YOU: “Thanks Norman for another example of your incompetence.
Even your cult claims Earths surface emits 390 W/m^2.”
That would be the average energy emitted by the Earth’s surface not a specific location. You can’t follow anything can you?
My post, if you had reasoning ability (which you don’t), was concerning a specific measured value in a specific location. It is not a global average emission. Put the dunce cap on and sit in the corner.
How much did you drink tonight? Your level of poor reasoning is a little worse than normal. Just how drunk are you?
Exactly, Mike. Your mind gets boggled often.
Swenson
YOU: “Maybe you could clarify. Under what circumstances does a process which you state cannot raise temperatures, result in raised temperatures?”
The difference would be in a heated vs non-heated state.
A hot object can and does absorb some photons from a cooler object. This process will not increase the temperature of the hot object as it loses energy at a faster rate than if gains it from the cold object. If the hotter object is heated (gaining energy) then the energy from the cold object will cause the warmer object to reach a higher temperature.
It is based upon this and experimentally verified by Roy himself as well as engineering involving radiant heat transfer.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Look at the Net Radiation Loss Rate. The temperature of the cold object will affect the radiant heat loss of the hotter object.
If the hotter object is heated it will lose less heat to warmer surroundings and will then reach a higher temperature than if the surroundings were colder and the Net Radiant heat loss were increased.
Norman,
You wrote –
“The difference would be in a heated vs non-heated state.”
You idiot. Anything above absolute zero has been “heated”!
Do you think matter heats itself?
Put a bowl of ice in the summer Sun. It is heated by the Sun. It melts, and becomes liquid water. Use the photons from as much ice as you like, and try to warm the water further.
Do you think it would make a difference if you beg the water to get hotter? You dimwit, you are letting your imagination run away with you. Step outside at night, and convince yourself that CO2 is preventing the surface from radiating directly to space.
You definitely live in a world of your own, Norman. Good for you!
Swenson
First CO2 contribution to the GHE is small (maybe 10%) but cooling at night does not negate the GHE. You are almost as ignorant of science as Clint R. It seems you are in competition who can be the most illogical unscientific poster.
Also no one can explain things to you (similar to Clint R). You do not have enough knowledge of science. If you had logical thought some form of interactive communication may be possible.
Roy Spencer already went over this you can read it again and try to understand what is being said.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/
Now idiot back to you. If you keep heating your bowl of ice then water the temperature goes up. If you insulate it but keep heating it it goes up more. Now how stupid are you?
Sorry Norman, but you can’t deny your own words: “With a GHG atmosphere the surface emits around 600 W/m^2 but NOT to space.”
There was NO mention of a “specific location”. You were referring to the entire system. You are so obsessed with attacking me that you can’t get anything right. Your own cult claims Earth’s average emission is 390 W/m^2, NOT 600 W/m^2.
Now, please continue making a fool of yourself. Probably no one enjoys your meltdowns more than me.
Space is not exactly a location, Pup.
It is *the* place tho.
Willard, please stop trolling.
La Nina – the movie
https://youtu.be/OUzKxZO7jSI
Above, Willard the Idiot wrote –
“And the fact that there may be other versions of the Greenhouse Theory means little if theres no Greenhouse Theory to start with, which is MFs fantasy you tried to white knight.”
Hes right. The plain fact that there is no Greenhouse Theory, means that any purported “versions” are the product of braindead cultists.
So maybe Willard is not the complete idiot he strives so valiantly to be.
Just a lying moron claiming to have a Greenhouse Theory, and thinking nobody will call him out.
Mike, Mike,
You are torturing a very simple presupposition. Since you cannot even track properly when you or your sock puppet is doing the talking, you should give yourself a chance.
If there was no theory, there would not be any *version* of it. Since there are versions of it, it must exist. To talk of versions of a theory presupposes its existence.
Ask Kiddo about the meaning of *version*. I have no idea what he is trying to convey.
Waffling Wee Willy,
There is no Greenhouse Theory, you donkey.
Therefore, no “versions” of the non-existent Greenhouse Theory.
You can make any number of stupid claims that other people claim a Greenhouse Theory exists. It doesn’t.
There are no “versions” of the Greenhouse Theory. You might be confused, and believe that many different fantasies claiming that a Greenhouse Theory exists, are fact, rather than fantasy.
Or you might appeal to the authority of anonymous commenters who claim that a Greenhouse Theory exists!
You can run but you can’t hide. You don’t have a Greenhouse Theory, any more than you have a pet unicorn. Neither exists. Keep lying, moron.
Mike, your denial only shows you know nothing about the greenhouse effect.
Have you finished parsing the student activity you found?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
There is no Greenhouse Effect in any scientific context.
Wikipedia claims that the “Greenhouse Effect” is a “a process that occurs when energy from a planet’s sun goes through its atmosphere and warms the planet’s surface, . . . ”
Gee, sunlight makes things warmer. How novel.
Wikipedia goes on go on to state –
“Greenhouse effect” is actually a misnomer since heating in the usual greenhouse is due to the reduction of convection, while the “greenhouse effect” works by preventing absorbed heat from leaving the structure through radiative transfer.”
So the “Greenhouse Effect” is a misnomer, which doesn’t apply to reality, and the “Greenhouse Effect” only applies to imaginary non-existent structures.
Still claiming you have a Greenhouse Theory? Of course you do. You’re a delusional lying moron!
Thanks Mike for another example of your incompetence.
Is your “misnomer” bit another of your silly semantic games?
Worrisome Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Thanks Mike for another example of your incompetence.
Is your misnomer bit another of your silly semantic games?.
You don’t need to thank me (or Mike) because you make a fool of yourself.
I quoted Wikipedia, as I clearly stated.
I could have quoted the American Meteorological Society, I suppose, but you probably don’t know what meteorolgy is.
You could always submerge your head in ice-water for 10 minutes or so. Your peabrain seems to have become overheated, and making you more delusional than usual.
Oh, wait! Some other peabrains claim ice makes water boil. Ahh, do it anyway. Why not?
Silly sock puppet.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Silly sock puppet.”
Cmon, Willard, at least produce your Greenhouse Theory.
Otherwise people might think you are just another lying moron!
By the way, why do you think Mike Flynn isnt commenting? Maybe he is terrified that you will call him a “silly sock puppet” again?
I doubt it, but you never know, I suppose.
[chortle]
Ask Mike Flynn for the Greenhouse Theory, silly sock puppet.
He pretends to have read about it.
If you ask him nicely, you might borrow the book from him.
You are a genuine dimwit, Willard.
Doubling down with additional lies makes you look even more stupid.
You havent got a Greenhouse Theory. Nor has anybody else. It doesnt exist.
Wriggle and squirm, you delusional worm.
Yo can run, but you cant hide.
Mike Flynn, no matter how severe your meltdown is, or how much you are exposed as a phony, you always are thinking about me. That is exactly how it should be.
“Oh, wait! Some other peabrains claim ice makes water boil. Ahh, do it anyway. Why not?”
That’s too funny.
I will be demonstrating how ice can cause water to boil.
Tickets for this event are 10,000 dollars US currency, and include overnight accommodations, dinner, and a show.
Non-refundable
Satisfaction not guaranteed.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bobdroege says:
I will be demonstrating how ice can cause water to boil.
Tickets for this event are 10,000 dollars US currency, and include overnight accommodations, dinner, and a show.
Non-refundable
Satisfaction not guaranteed.
———————–
Bob proves he is full of shit! If he could do that he could make a whole lot more money filming it on a youtube channel and cutting a deal with a guy that has the creds to make money on youtube simply by demonstrating it to him in a private session.
How much revenue has your current stupid offer generated Bob?
LMAO!
Bill,
A competent person would realize that my demonstration would be trivial.
Have you heard Chef Ramsey say the water is not going to boil unless the lid is on the pot.
It’s value is only to take money from the idiots on this thread who think it can’t be done.
Are you one of those idiots.
I would need over 2 million views to make that amount of money.
I am only interested in taking money from climate change deniers anyway.
#2
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
BOM model summary page has been updated yesterday, now from July to October, so have fun and scroll through them.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/#region=NINO34&tabs=Pacific-Ocean
Eben
Do you agree with the recent WUWT article “How Is Ninawarms the World” .
Or are you still pushing your subtext that La Nina has a cooling effect on global average temperature?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/13/the-big-5-natural-causes-of-climate-change-pt-3-how-la-nina-warms-the-world/
So we can expect La Nina conditions in June and and ENSO neutral conditions thereafter.
EM: Not according to CFSv2.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
Worth remembering that BoM’s criteria for a la Nina/elNino is different from NOAA, which is different from JMA, which is different from the MEI index, etc.
For example, BoM’s definition relies on NINO3.4 temps being 0.3 C cooler/warmer than NOAA’s.
There are slight differences in current forecasts:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
Which is not unusual. There is also greater uncertainty projecting 6 months to a year ahead before NH Spring is over.
(Also remember that the seasonal outlook at BoM (top link) is based on SH seasons)
A tale in two quotes.
I point at this:
and I point at this:
That is all.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Gee. It appears that both Mike Flynn and I (and presumably thousands of others – not you, of course), have read the same book. Wow!
Hardly surprising, when somebody appeals to the authority of a publication of exceptionally dubious authority.
You can’t produce a Greenhouse Theory, in spite of your lying claims to have one.
That makes both a liar, and a moron for thinking anyone would believe your lie.
Another tale in two quotes by our silliest sock puppet.
First:
May 15, 2022 at 9:59 PM
[…]
What are you babbling about? I have read many books. So have many other people.
Second:
That is all.
Wondering Wee Willy loses the plot totally.
Unable to produce the Greenhouse Theory he claims to have (thereby painting himself into the lying moron corner), he tries to play the “silly sock puppet card” – he seems amazed that people comment at different times. I wonder if he advised the US government on how easy it would be to succeed in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on. His mind reading and analytical abilities arent all that good.
I wonder if Witless Willard thinks that people will think he is super clever, avoiding admitting he doesnt have a Greenhouse Theory!
Oh dear, Willard achieves new standards of idiotic avoidance. Maybe he really is as stupid as he seems.
You have already been served, silly sock puppet.
Keep asking.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard wacko…”The ground temperature 6g is always greater than it would be if the atmosphere were transparent …”
***
No proof, only conjecture.
Come on, Gordo.
It is a quote.
Read.
Come on, Willard. of course its a quote – from an author who doesnt know what he is talking about!
You do choose some really odd “authorities” for your appeals!
Do you have to put a lot of effort into being a deranged fool?
Why do you lie about having a non-existent Greenhouse Theory? Do you think anyone will believe you?
You can run, but you cant hide.
Carry on.
> from an author who doesnt know what he is talking about!
Quite a powerful argument you got there, Mike.
Go on.
Weak Wee Willy,
You obviously either didnt read the book, or you are too stupid to understand physics.
Too bad.
Ask Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet.
He said he read Goody.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Willard wrote the following full comment (apparently apropos of nothing at all) –
“Exactly, Mike. Your mind gets boggled often.”
It is hard to know from this strangely bizarre utterance, who Wonky Wee Willy is addressing. Willard is one extremely confused individual. He has accused both Mike Flynn and myself of being “sock puppets”, presumably manipulated by some third party.
He also claims to have not only a Greenhouse Theory, and a Greenhouse Effect Theory, but 18 or so “versions” of them!
Strange lad, even for a delusional lying moron.
Still all wrong, Mike. Sorry.
Silly sock puppet.
Hang on there just a moment, pardner!
It wasnt you who called Mike Flynn “a silly sock puppet”?
Must have been some other lying moron called Willard then!
Another “sock puppet” do you think Willard?
Maybe you could produce the Greenhouse Theory that you claim to have (or one of your other 18 “versions” of something that doesnt exist.
You can run, but you cant hide.
Best you just call everyone a “silly sock puppet”, and claim everybody is against you because you are so powerful and wise.
[derisive snorts]
> one of your other 18 “versions”
Pay attention, Mike.
19 “versions.”
Not mine, but Alan’s.
Ask Kiddo about that one, silly sock puppet.
Enjoy your afternoon, silly sock puppet.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote (attempting to divert attention away from your lies) –
“Pay attention, Mike.
19 versions.
Not mine, but Alans.
Ask Kiddo about that one, silly sock puppet.”
You dont have a Greenhouse Theory of any sort, let alone 19 “versions”.
You can run, but you cant hide. Calling everybody who calls you out a “silly sock puppet” just shows how bereft of facts you are! Obviously, reality is not your friend. No GHE. No magical CO2 warming.
Oh, and by the way, Michael (faker, fraud, scofflaw, and deadbeat) Mann wont support you. He had to rush off to print himself a Nobel Prize certificate. That particular lying moron has abandoned you, dummy.
Carry on.
Ask Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet.
He said he read Goody.
God grief, Willard?
Are you actually admitting to not having a Greenhouse Theory?
You keep telling me to ask this one and that one, so you obviously don’t have a clue yourself!
So – not only a lying moron, but a stupid lying moron for admitting you are actually a lying moron.
You can run, but you can’t hide.
Playing dumb again, Mike?
Read back the two stories in which you cannot keep track of your own puppeteering.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Playing dumb again, Mike?
Read back the two stories in which you cannot keep track of your own puppeteering.”
So you are doubling down on being an idiotic lying moron, are you?
You don’t have a Greenhouse Theory. Trying pointless diversionary nonsense won’t create one!
You can run, try to evade as much as you like, but you can’t hide.
Mike, Mike, Mike,
Pray tell about the time you explained the greenhouse effect to Bob.
That’s when it really gets funny.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“Mike, Mike, Mike,
Pray tell about the time you explained the greenhouse effect to Bob.
Thats when it really gets funny.”
There is no Greenhouse Effect, I don’t know who Bob is, nor am I “Mike, Mike, Mike”.
Apart from that, you are just dribbling nonsense, trying to avoid demonstrating that you are a stupid lying moron, claiming you have a Greenhouse Theory, which is just as non-existent as a Greenhouse Effect.
Carry on being a fool. It suits you.
Mike Flynn,
Your general incompetence, immaturity, and aversion to reality has you in a logical bind.
Willard says:
Mike Flynn,
Your general incompetence, immaturity, and aversion to reality has you in a logical bind.
———————–
I assume you are referring to the reality that you can’t explain?
Please stop assuming, Bill.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Yep Willard will troll rather than explain the reality he alludes to.
norman…have so many papers by Lindzen it’s hard to find the exact quote. I’ll keep looking. Meantime, a lecture by Lindzen…
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/10/Lindzen-2018-GWPF-Lecture.pdf
“The following description of the climate system contains nothing that is in the least controversial, and I expect that anyone with a scientific background will readily follow the description.”
Yeah. But that we in Ice Age is also not controversial.
But I suppose bring up being in Ice Age, makes it complicated
to explain it.
But, it’s also true, we are in no danger of governments lowering CO2 levels.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
I notice some say how high CO2 levels are. One can see it’s reaching a crest, and which will drop down, and then rise again.
Growth rate:
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html
Is decrease related to La Nina?
Spikes seem to be related to El Nino.
Oh, maybe upwelling of ocean nutrients?
Though again, what are nutrients other than CO2?
Things like iron, sodium, potassium and phosphorous are important.
Continental shelves are fertile because of nutrients washed of the land. You also get upwelling where the seabed configuration of Ekman pumping bring deep water to the surface.
Most of the deep ocean is a biological desert due to low nutrient levels as dead organisms sink to the bottom and the nutrients they take down are not easily replaced.
There is a proposal to encourage algae growth and take up CO2 by seeding the ocean surface with iron, but the effect would be temporary at best.
Did you look at your graph.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html
It does not show concentration, it shows rate of change.
2.5ppm/year is close to the decadal average for 2011-2020 and well within the noise level of the longer term increase in rate of change of rate of change
I would love to agree with you that a rate of change of “only” 2.5mm/year is a signal that attempts to reduce CO2 emissions are working, but it’s a considerable stretch.
So, after decades of governments failing to reduce CO2 emission, you want more of it?
I’m sure that those who hope for a Global Cooling will enjoy the current Arctic sea ice extent:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
We’ll see in a couple of weeks whether 2022 manages to bypass 2012 and… possibly even the 1981-2010 mean, who knows?
Binny,
You realise that the Arctic is not the globe, and that climate is the statistics of past weather over an arbitrary period, I hope.
You might not realise that the continent of Antarctica used to be fertile, and not covered by several kilometres of ice. Maybe it will warm up again, but I wouldnt hold my breath while I was waiting.
In the meantime, I hope you have borrowed some money to send to Ukraine, to prolong the fighting there. With any luck at all, you can disrupt both the planting and harvesting of around 30% of the worlds wheat supply.
That will no doubt teach everyone an excellent lesson about those foul and rotten Russkies, do you think?
Only joking. You dont really want to keep the fighting going, do you?
As usual: a dumb, arrogant and useless reply.
The best is to simply skip and ignore it.
binny,
If you say so, binny, if you say so.
Im sure that you think that others will find your opinion valuable. Maybe you could name one?
[chortle]
Hooray! Global warming has ended!
/sarcoff
There’s more to Arctic sea ice than extent.
Consider age.
http://nsid*c.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2022/05/Figure4.jpg
Remove * before linking.
“With the onset of spring, it is time again for a check-in on sea ice agethe number of years that a parcel of ice has survived summer melt. As noted in previous posts, ice age provides a qualitative assessment of thickness, as older ice has more chances to thicken through ridging, rafting, and bottom ice growth (accretion) during winter. The coverage of the old, thick ice has a significant control on how much total ice survives the summer melt seasonthe first-year ice that grows thermodynamically over winter is more easily melted away during summer. That which survives through the summer melt season grows in age by one year. The extent of old ice declines through the winter when it drifts out of the Arctic through the Fram or Nares Strait. At the end of last summer, the extent of the oldest ice (greater than 4 years old) tied with 2012 for the lowest in the satellite record. This spring, we continue to see a dominance of first-year ice (Figure 4). The percentage of the greater than 4-year-old ice, which once comprised over 30 percent of the Arctic Ocean, now makes up only 3.1 percent of the ice cover. “
” Theres more to Arctic sea ice than extent. ”
Of course there is.
The extent is what is most known.
Sea ice age records are not that simple to obtain elsewhere than in NetCDF files. I’m too lazy to process any of them.
*
In addition to the extent, NSID-C also offers in the G02135 corner the so-called area, i.e. that part of the sea ice consisting of 100% pack ice.
I posted graphs with it years ago but it didn’t seem to interest anybody on this blog.
Here is a chart comparing extent and area for the Arctic:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17RBeTrCw6bTcvnUOI3Sxvr_-jXx81VvS/view
The same data exists of course for the Antarctic.
Btw, I posted in earlier times info about sea ice thickness, but DMI gave it up, and the PIOMAS data was imo too ‘alarmistic’.
Polarportal has such data too
http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/
but I forgot to download it.
Some of us just report what the data is saying, both currently and in the past.
Another nameless, fudged plot from Binny’s fertile imagination.
Robertson
All people who are able to process data know that you are
– this blog’s most ignorant and arrogant poster
and above all
– unable to process anything.
All you are able to is to
– repost contrarian nonsense
– invent all what fits your stoopid narrative
– discredit, denigrate and lie.
binny…I’m beginning to think you don’t like me, and I can’t understand that because I’m one hell of a guy.
This “ice cubes boiling water” nonsense is doing better than I could have expected. Several of the cult idiots are 100% onboard with the concept that ice cubes can boil water — such as Ball4 and bobdroege, Ken, and coturnix. Others support it without admitting it, such as Folkerts, barry, and Norman. Others likely support it, but keep quiet on the subject, such as Nate, Bindidon, Entropic man, Willard, and Wizgeek. Their silence, on such an easily debunked issue, is tantamount to acceptance.
The “ice cubes boiling water” nonsense is a perfect example of the cult’s willingness to pervert both science and reality.
You want to bet that I can boil water with an ice cube?
Any amount any time.
Otherwise you can shut the fuck up.
Oh, I know you can pervert the issue, bob. That’s what you do.
But you can not longer get away with it. Hence your frustration.
What are you really trying to say, Pup?
Do you think anybody, anywhere, cares?
Clint R,
What am I not getting away with?
Clint R, you are a chicken and a pervert.
Put your money where your mouth is.
b,
You havent got $10,000 cash, have you?
Mike,
It should be
“You havent got $10,000 cash” under your name.
Silly sock puppet.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Put your own words in your own mouth, peabrain.
He hasn’t got $10,000 cash.
Neither have you.
You don’t have a Greenhouse Theory either – which makes you a lying moron. Who would value the opinion of a lying moron reduced to characterising people as “silly sock puppets” in an attempt to avoid facing realty?
Only brain dead cultists, or possibly severely retarded cockroaches.
Carry on babbling.
The theory is right under your nose, silly Mike.
But do sock puppets have noses?
Ha!
Whacky Wee Willy,
You don’t have a Greenhouse Theory, because no such thing exists.
Your efforts to avoid facing reality just make you look like a stupid lying moron.
Maybe you could try playing some of your “silly semantic games” accompanied by the odd obscenity or two. Some of the more regarded brain dead cultists might applaud.
Carry on.
You sound like an entitled customer, Mike.
Except that you have not paid for anything.
How much did your iPad cost?
Witless Wandering Willard,
You wrote –
“You sound like an entitled customer, Mike.
Except that you have not paid for anything.
How much did your iPad cost?”
A remarkably silly attempt to avoid acknowledging that you are a stupid lying moron, who doesn’t have the Greenhouse Theory which you claim to have.
You can run, but you can’t hide. Trying pointless diversions won’t disguise the fact that you are a stupid lying moron, who hasn’t got a Greenhouse Theory at all!
Mike, Mike,
Until you can contribute some actual science, you are just another worthless silly sock puppet.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike, Mike,
Until you can contribute some actual science, you are just another worthless silly sock puppet.”
So you still can’t produce the Greenhouse Theory you say you have? Sad, really. That means you are a stupid lying moron, doesn’t it?
You can’t even decide who is a sock puppet (whatever that is). Is it me, or Mike Mike?
You dimwit.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn is in full meltdown because he cannot understand he already has been given the Greenhouse Theory.
What a hoot!
Swenson,
“b,
You havent got $10,000 cash, have you?”
No, but there are these places called banks, where they keep cash.
If I lost the bet, I could also pay you with electrons.
But then, I am not a gambler, I don’t make bets that I could lose.
Willard, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
clint…”The ice cubes boiling water nonsense is a perfect example of the cults willingness to pervert both science and reality”.
***
They know you are right, bob d has resorted to foul language, disrespecting our host, Roy. Bob has to know he’d be banned for using such language on most blogs. However, there’s a deeper point, he has become frustrated, knowing he cannot prove his point.
Only an idiot would think water could be boiled by exposing it to ice. If you sat a pot of water in the Arctic, in winter, in an igloo, it would freeze solid. Even if you did it in summer, the ice would all melt in a day, no matter how much you laid down.
The only way you could possibly boil water with radiation would be to sit a container of it next to an opening in a blast furnace. Even at that, you’d be hard pressed to isolate the radiation from the super-heated air coming out the same port. If radiation was that intense, men shoveling coal into a blast furnace or tending it, would have been burned to a crisp.
Basic (and practical) Wilderness survival skill: How to make fire from ice. https://youtu.be/thbSSuo1Z00
You simply turn the chunk of ice into a convex lens which converges all light going parallel into it to a single focal point. All of the sunlight is concentrated at that one point, so it burns.
Gordon,
You are guilty of using foul language on this blog too, so shut the fuck up.
Anyway, I’ll bet you 10,000 US dollars I can cause water to boil using ice.
You are a disgrace to all students of chemistry with your attempts to explain chemistry on this blog.
b,
So can I. Use an ice lens and sunlight, or cast a parabolic mirror from ice, and face it with aluminium. I can even melt iron with my ice – what about you?
You really are a stupid idiot, aren’t you?
You haven’t even got $10,000 in cash. I have.
How stupid and ignorant do you want to look?
Swenson,
“How stupid and ignorant do you want to look?”
Well I won’t look as stupid as you.
Tell me why it’s colder on the Moon at night then it is on Earth.
You are looking pretty stupid with your insane conversation with Willard.
No Greenhouse effect theory, really, what a maroon.
b,
How are you managing to melt lead with your ice? It can be done quite easily, and I won’t charge you anything for describing the process.
Why should I tell you anything? Learn some physics, then ask me for assistance after admitting you can’t work out the answer for yourself, even after making strenuous efforts.
You don’t have a Greenhouse Theory, either do you? No use asking Weepy Willard, neither does he.
Maybe you can be like Willard, and lie about having a Greenhouse Theory. Then there would be at least two stupid lying morons making comments.
You can run, but you can’t hide. You dont have a Greenhouse Theory, so that makes you a stupid lying moron, if you claim you have.
Swenson,
I have already posted a link to the greenhouse effect theory, what’s the matter?
Do you know how to do research on the internet?
Can you read?
Do you know what a theory is?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Water will/can boil even if the ice is not present.
Dang, I forgot about RLH and TM. I’d put them in the “likely support it, but keep quiet” group. Neither knows enough physics to understand it. Like braindead bob, who can’t even state the exact issue but claims he wants to bet on it!
Clueless.
I know enough about physics that any statement about temperature also requires an inclusion about pressure else it is sort of irrelevant. i.e. what is the boiling point temperature of water in a vacuum?
Whut?
The exact issue is that I can cause water that is not boiling to boil by just adding ice.
Are you really that clueless that you don’t understand how I am going to do that, even after I have explained it on this blog.
I am going with just clueless.
Sorry bob, your “ice lid” technique shows you are clueless about the issue.
For example, how did the water get to “near boiling”?
You’re braindead.
Clint R,
That don’t confront me, who cares how the water got to near boiling, it’s not boiling and doesn’t start boiling until I add the ice.
Still chicken shit and don’t want to bet.
I see.
Where’s that physics textbook with the wrapper still sealed?
You still said you can’t boil water with ice, even though that has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
You know the CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not at the temperature of ice, don’t you, so your assertion that you can’t boil water with ice is meaningless with respect to the Greenhouse effect theory.
You lost it with your unscientific ranting and raving.
15u CO2 is below freezing.
b,
Just like that other dimwit Tim Folkerts, you will have a hidden heat source of unspecified capacity, and having a temperature of over 100 C.
You will of course start bleating about semantics.
What part of “You cannot warm any quantity of water using the radiation from ice”, do you not understand? Ice, water, nothing else. No hidden heat sources.
It doesn’t matter, because you don’t have $10,000 anyway!
You are just another dim-witted brain-dead cultist, trying to appear clever by playing with words, preferably obscenities.
Off you go now, join Willard the Wanker in his favourite exercise.
H/T Kiddo, Troglodyte:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/effective-emission-height/#comment-16693
In fairness, the second words already loses you.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Linking to the severely deranged Ken Rice, are you?
Is he the arbiter of things ethical, or do you assume that role due to your inflated sense of your own importance?
I might suggest that someone like yourself who wants to sell a Greenhouse Theory which doesn’t exist is not behaving ethically. More the behaviour of an unethical, amoral, lying scoundrel – moronic and stupid to boot!
You can run, but you can’t hide, peabrain.
Stephan P Anderson,
“15u CO2 is below freezing.”
What do you even mean by that?
CO2 emits 15u no matter the temperature.
The CO2 you breath out emits 15u radiation.
Swenson,
“What part of You cannot warm any quantity of water using the radiation from ice,”
That’s not the strawman from Clint R I was arguing against.
He said you couldn’t heat water with ice.
I can heat water with ice by preventing the convection from a hot sample of water from escaping the container it’s in.
Just like the greenhouse effect, except it’s the prevention of heat loss from convection causing the water to heat up, instead of preventing heat loss by radiation, like the greenhouse effect does when it causes Earth’s surface to heat up when you add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
You lack of understanding of a number of topics don’t confront me.
braindead bob is in full meltdown because he can’t understand the simple issue.
What a hoot!
Clint R,
Have you come up with that second law violation in the greenhouse effect yet.
I am patiently waiting.
b,
There is no greenhouse effect. If there was, you would be able to state where it might be reliably observed, measured, and documented – like any real scientific effect!
You are an idiot.
In the Mike Flynn Universe, the center of the Earth does not exist.
Silly sock puppet.
The 15u vibrational band for CO2 occurs at 193K.
Willard is caught out being a stupid lying moron, claiming to have a Greenhouse Theory. He doesn’t.
Here’s his clever response to me, Swenson –
“In the Mike Flynn Universe, the center of the Earth does not exist.
Silly sock puppet.”
He’s also called Mike Flynn a “silly sock puppet” previously!
Willard is deranged, paranoid, and losing his grip on reality.
He probably deserves compassion rather than condemnation, but the milk of human kindness runneth not in my veins. I snigger at his witless foolishness, and who would blame me?
Whining Willard can run, but he can’t hide. No Greenhouse Theory.
Mike, Mike,
I know you are tempted to support your crank nonsense, but see if you can refrain, just once.
Willard is a stupid lying moron who cannot produce the Greenhouse Theory that he claims exists.
So he attempts more idiotic diversion –
“Mike, Mike,
I know you are tempted to support your crank nonsense, but see if you can refrain, just once.”
Willard can run, dodge, twist, or evade – he is still a stupid lying moron, refusing to accept reality.
What a wanker he is!
Mike Flynn cannot understand that he already has been given the Greenhouse Theory.
And he cannot learn.
Swenson,
“There is no greenhouse effect. If there was, you would be able to state where it might be reliably observed, measured, and documented like any real scientific effect!”
You have already told us where it can be observed, remember?
Or are you too stupid to remember what you have posted.
Stephan P Anderson,
“The 15u vibrational band for CO2 occurs at 193K.”
It’s observed at other temperatures.
You are making the mistake of assuming CO2 acts as a blackbody.
Clint R,
It shows that you can increase the temperature of water using ice.
Doesn’t matter how the water got to near boiling.
The initial conditions are a pot of water at close to boiling at a steady state condition.
Those are scientific terms, you wouldn’t understand them.
Sorry you are such an example of a wasted education.
stephen p anderson says: “The 15u vibrational band for CO2 occurs at 193K.”
No. This faulty, conflated thinking need to die a fast and thorough death!
The 15u band is an intrinsic property of all CO2 molecules. The band ‘occurs’ at 50 K and 193 K and 273 K and 1000 K.
You seem to be confusing this fact with Wein’s Law, which states that radiation from a *blackbody* radiator at 193 K is strongest at 15u. This is COMPLETELY different from what you are trying to claim.
Tim Folkerts says:
The 15u band is an intrinsic property of all CO2 molecules. The band occurs at 50 K and 193 K and 273 K and 1000 K.
You seem to be confusing this fact with Weins Law, which states that radiation from a *blackbody* radiator at 193 K is strongest at 15u. This is COMPLETELY different from what you are trying to claim.
——————–
Not sure where this is going Tim. But explain to me why the middle of the deepest CO2 ban there is a spike viewed from space where a warmer signal is seen. But in the upward looking spectrum the spike is missing.
What it suggests to me is that the claim that the greenhouse effect varies due to CO2 increases in the midtroposphere which is an absolute necessity for hotspot theory and thus the CO2 driven greenhouse theory is false. i.e. if the spike is missing it seems that its likely the upward view is controlled by another element like water or water vapor.
I suspect that CO2 in the mesosphere has enough oomph to maintain a lapse rate in that layer of the atmosphere. It fails in the stratosphere because of a trace ozone gas would seem to override the CO2 effect. These layers in the atmosphere and M&W theory requires the effect to exist inside the troposphere low enough to not be effected by changes in altitude of the tropopause so that the M&W forcing parameters aren’t compromised.
But the spectral view difference between downlooking IR measurements and the uplooking measurement strongly suggests that that most of the CO2 effect is in the mesosphere. Thats a big problem because M&W theory would fail on that.
It appears to me that the CO2 effect is nearly fully saturated as far as the surface is concerned. And that failure would seem to be most likely attributable to water vapor or possibly condensed water which largely becomes extinct in the stratosphere.
What I am keying into here is not that CO2 absorbs energy in the atmosphere but that there needs to be a mechanism that moves warming high in the atmosphere down to the surface. M&W doesn’t speak much about the details of that mechanism but instead back computes them as necessary to realize the greenhouse effect.
M&Ws theory mandates that the greenhouse effect is created by a resistance to convection. And such a resistance needs to reside within the troposphere as there is no lapse rate in the tropopause or the stratosphere.
So have you given any of this any thought?
> Not sure where this is going Tim. But explain to me
See, Bill?
*That* is a sammich request.
“So have you given my off-topic-stream-of-consciousness any thought”
Doubtful.
Obviously Nate and Willard can’t explain it and have given up.
Obviously Bill cannot make himself a sammich.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Yep Willard is still trolling rather than explaining.
Clint, you lying dog.
I have never supported the notion that radiation from ice can boil water.
I have expressly said it is impossible. Recently, in fact, in a conversation with YOU.
I would recommend you cease lying about this in order to preserve your integrity, but unfortunately that ship sailed a long time ago.
In an environment where all we have is words to weigh things by, lying is the most disgusting sin.
barry,
Do you support the notion that a colder atmosphere can heat a warmer surface – say, at night?
Or would this miracle only occur in bright sunlight?
Moron.
Swenson,
Which is warmer, the nighttime temperature on the Moon or the nighttime temperature on Earth?
I’ll let you draw any conclusion you want, if you get it wrong, I’ll tell you.
b,
You idiot. Don’t you know the answer?
It just how how brain dead you are.
Carry on. Maybe you can compose a gotcha – if someone tells you how.
Swenson,
It’s warmer on Earth at night than on the Moon, perhaps you can explain why without the greenhouse effect?
bobdroege says:
”Which is warmer, the nighttime temperature on the Moon or the nighttime temperature on Earth?”
No one denies the greenhouse effect Bob! But recognizing that there is a greenhouse effect falls way short of proving how it varies.
the fact that you offered it up as an argument just shows how bankrupts your claim that you know how it varies.
Bill,
“No one denies the greenhouse effect Bob! But recognizing that there is a greenhouse effect falls way short of proving how it varies.”
Really?
You seem to be lacking in reading comprehension.
There are several greenhouse effect deniers posting on this thread.
Do you want nom-de-plumes?
My opinion is what they are arguing against is your view of the GHE. Which is defined by the IPCC as an effect resulting from the increase in anthropogenic emissions.
The first thing before assuming somebody is denying something you need to find out what they are denying. We saw such a process in reverse with the trash study that 97% of scientists believe the IPCC that all modern warming is attributable to humans and Roy and other lukewarmers were included in that 97%.
Playing with definitions is like right out of the Alinsky playbook.
Bill,
“Which is defined by the IPCC as an effect resulting from the increase in anthropogenic emissions.”
I am afraid not.
I guess it does not occur to you that I was familiar with the Greenhouse effect long before I was aware of the IPCC.
[BILL] No one denies the greenhouse effect Bob!
[MIKE FLYNN] There is no GHE, anyway. I’m certain.
Depends upon if you are using the IPCC dictionary or the gardener dictionary Willard. You should know that.
That bait-and-switch won’t work, Bill.
For starters, what you call the “definition” has already been mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
Ask Kiddo for details.
thats good news Willard. Which one did they pick?
Ask Kiddo for details, Bill.
He presumably read a paper on that question.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Exactly barry. You support it without admitting it, just as I indicated.
Now, if you want to change your mind, I will accept your reversal. All you have to do is admit that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface can NOT heat it to 325 K. If you can’t admit that, then you are believing 4 such fluxes could boil water.
Of course you can’t admit that because you would be violating your cult’s beliefs.
So, you only resort is to call everyone not in your cult a “liar”. That’s how cults do. Cults can be fanatically vicious.
You continue to lie.
You are filth.
“You support it without admitting it”
Nope, never supported it.
“Now, if you want to change your mind”
Nope, never supported it.
“315 W/m^2…”
Can never be the flux of an ice cube arriving at a surface. That is the flux emitted by the ice cube.
You are a dolt, as well as a liar.
But being a liar is far worse than being an ignoramus.
barry, you know you’ve lost this. That’s why you’re filled with rage and animosity. Your cult has misled you again, and you’re trying to take it out on me.
If you’re serious about trying to understand this, stop with the obfuscation. Admit that it is possible to impose a flux of 315 W/m^2 on a surface. Then, admit it is possible to impose a separate 315 W/m^2 on the same surface.
Now you’re faced with the reality that those two separate fluxes can NOT raise the surface to 325 K.
Will you face reality, or will you go for more obfuscation and insults?
(I bet I know the answer.)
Barry, I don’t actually think Clint is “lying” — I think he simply doesn’t understand the distinction you are tying to clarify between “radiosity” [flux emitted] verses “irradiance” [flux arriving].
It is pretty clear when he says “All you have to do is admit that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface can NOT heat it to 325 K.” And
I am pretty sure that you and I (and most others in this discussion) ‘admit’ that 2 separate radiosities of 315 W/m^2 from two pieces of ice can never add to anything more than an irradiance of 315 W/m^2, and consequently, that those radiosities cannot warm a surface any higher than 273 K.
What *Clint* needs to ‘admit’ is that two separate i>irradiances of 315 W/m^2 (for example, from 2 lightbulbs, or from 1 dome of ice and 1 small sun beam) can and do add to an irradiance of 630 W/m^2, and consequently can warm a surface to 325 K.
Folkerts, the only ones confused by a flux “arriving a surface”, or “imposed on a surface” are you cult idiots.
Must just be a coincidence….
As expected, Clint avoids any actual discussion.
“Admit that it is possible to impose a flux of 315 W/m^2 on a surface. ”
Again, what is it precisely that you want someone to ‘admit’?
Do you mean a radiosity of 315 W/m^2 coming from some distant surface (like ice at 273 K) can be ‘imposed’ on a surface — at any irradiance between 0 – 315 W/m^2 depending on the configuration of the ice? Or do you mean an irradiance of 315 W/m^2 can be ‘imposed’ on a surface — which could be coming from any source with a radiosity of at least 315 W/m^2, or a temperature of at least 273 K.
I am willing to ‘admit’ both of these. Both are true. But these are related but distinct ideas. And understanding both in required before you can take a next step!
Or you can bluster again, and reveal even more clearly that the basic physics of thermal radiation — information available in any text book or even wikipedia — is beyond you.
Oh good Folkerts, you’re joining your cult’s meltdown, and leading off with a false accusation.
Then you continue with your ongoing attempt to obfuscate. You learned a new term, “radiosity”, so now you hope to spin your way out of the mess you’ve made. You’re the only one trying to confuse the issue. I’m clearly talking about the flux arriving at the surface — called “irradiance”. There is NO need to mention radiosity, unless you’re trying to distract from your ignorance.
And since you’re desperate enough to make this nonsense claim… “Or you can bluster again, and reveal even more clearly that the basic physics of thermal radiation — information available in any text book or even wikipedia — is beyond you.”
…I will point out that just upthread you were trying to fake a knowledge of Wien’s Displacement Law, but you couldn’t even spell it. I’ve had to correct Norman on exactly the same thing. Did all you cult idiots go to the same keyboard school?
No, Tim, Clint is lying when he says I contend that radiation from 2 (or even a million) ice cubes can boil water.
I’ve said precisely the opposite. To HIM. He is a lying dog.
At the same time he really doesn’t understand what he’s talking about.
In an environment where words are all we have, lying becomes the worst sin. When someone lies about what I’ve said, when they know better, I will correct the record quite explicitly.
It also happens that I loathe intellectual dishonesty in general. In this case it throws dirt my way. Not having it.
Pup can run, dodge, twist, or evade.
He is still a silly sock puppet, refusing to accept reality.
barry, your meltdown is music to my ears. I especially like the “intellectual dishonesty” combined with “lying dog”! Even Norman couldn’t come up with that.
I understand that physics is not your area, so this is just for others.
Folkerts’ nonsense that, two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325 K, comes from his erroneous “adding fluxes”. He adds the two fluxes to get 630 W/m^2, then assumes the surface is perfectly insulated on the back so that it emits 630 W/m^2. That calculates to the 325K.
Now, if that nonsense were true, another 315 W/m^2 would result in 945 W/m^2. And another 315 W/m^2 would result in 1260 W/m^2. An emitted flux of 1260 W/m^2 then calculates to 386 K, or 113C, or 235F. Certainly enough to boil water.
That’s why I ridiculed by stating Folkerts was boiling water with 4 ice cubes. Instead of your cult realizing how ridiculous that is, they tried several ways to defend it, claiming an ice cube could not deliver all of the 315 W/m^2 to the surface. Except Ball4, who never batted an eye. He claimed that ice cubes could boil water. And he repeated his cult nonsense over and over.
One ice cube could not deliver all 315 W/m^2 to a surface. There would be a reduction in flux. That’s why I stated they could use all the ice they needed, since in their beliefs, fluxes add.
Heck, with enough ice cubes the idiots could melt iron!
Clint,
I just demonstrated that you have been lying. I don’t want you to miss it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1286251
The fact that you get pleasure from annoying other people is also clear demonstration that you are a troll. That IS the definition of an internet troll after all.
“In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.), a newsgroup, forum, chat room, online video game, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating others’ perception. This is typically for the troll’s amusement”
“barry, your meltdown is music to my ears”
You feel good being a lying troll and manipulating people.
It’s important to be clear about these things.
(Sorry to derail the discussion, Tim, but enough is enough. But also, why waste your time any more?)
That’s what’s fun about you intellectually dishonest people. You believe if you just keep typing you can change reality.
I knew you couldn’t understand the physics, so let me dumb it down for you:
If you believe two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325 K, then you believe ice can boil water.
Oh dear, all Pup can do is blubber irrelevant nonsense. Who would value the opinions of a lying, idiotic, moron like him?
Not me, but others may think he is wise, powerful and respected – even if he does whine about physicists. Lack of self esteem, I guess.
Willard says:
Oh dear, all Pup can do is blubber irrelevant nonsense. Who would value the opinions of a lying, idiotic, moron like him?
——-
why is it irrelevant nonsense Willard. You haven’t disclosed your theory so there is no way to determine why you would think it to be irrelevant. You are just jabbering like an insane man who overly abused drugs.
You idiot. Don’t you know the answer, Bill? It just how how brain dead you are.
Carry on. Maybe you can compose a gotcha – if someone tells you how.
Nope. . . .no way am I writing any solid gotchas. Need to keep you around as a punching bag.
For that you would need to stop rope-a-doping and start to punch, Bill.
Willard, Ali didn’t become the ‘greatest’ by knocking guys out in round one. He became the ‘greatest’ by doing it in a more entertaining manner.
After Galileo, now you’re Ali, Bill?
How very humble of you!
Willard, please stop trolling.
I was talking to Clint 2 weeks ago and said on multiple occasions that radiative flux from ice cubs can’t boil water.
April 25, 2022 at 4:16 PM
“And he is asking me to find a link about a specific radiative flux from ice cubes boiling water??!! That’s a false premise to begin with, and nothing I ever contended.”
April 26, 2022 at 4:24 PM
barry – “Clint asked me to provide a link showing that flux from 2 ice cubes will boil water. Why would I look for a link when I never contended this dumb idea and don’t agree with it?”
May 1, 2022 at 4:39 PM
barry – “2 ice cubes that you get out of a tray couldn’t possibly supply 315 W/m2 to any surface. The surface would have to have a unity view factor with the ice.”
May 4, 2022 at 5:41 AM
barry – “We are both agreed ice cubes cannot boil water. No need to lean on that straw man any more”
May 4, 2022 at 6:26 AM
barry – “Ice cubes can’t boil water. Period.”
————
Clint and even acknowledged my view in typical fashion after I had posted it multiple times.
May 2, 2022 at 11:10 AM
Clint R – “barry, you FINALLY got something right! Yes, an ice cube can NOT raise a surface to a higher temperature than the ice.”
When anyone disagreed with Clint about radiative transfer, he immediately claimed thy held this dumb idea about ice cubes. It was a cheap, lazy, lame and dishonest tactic. But the dishonesty outranked the other sins. Time to call it out.
————
I went to the effort above to clearly demonstrate that Clint is a filthy liar.
In as environment where words are all we have to go on, it’s important to be clear and loud about this kind of behaviour.
You just can’t trust Clint.
So barry, do you now admit that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can NOT heat a surface to 325 K?
barry refuses to answer the simple question. He’s trapped himself. He can’t admit reality, yet he calls me a “filthy liar” and a “lying dog”.
The cult is in full meltdown.
That’s why this is so much fun.
One big problem is that everyone seems to have different, unstated assumptions.
Three of the key unstated assumptions are:
* Are the fluxes mentioned ‘irradiance’ or ‘radiosity’?
* Is ice the ONLY source of thermal radiation, or are there others?
* Are there *other* sources energy besides thermal radiation?
If you are clever, you can usually imagine which unstated assumptions people have in mind.
Learn the difference between “unstated assumptions” and “obfuscations”.
Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/uah.jpeg
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/uah-tropics.jpeg
Northern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/uah-northern-hemi.jpeg
Northern ExTropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/uah-northern-ex.jpeg
Northern Polar
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/uah-north-pole.jpeg
Southern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/uah-southern-hemi.jpeg
Southern ExTropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/uah-southern-ex.jpeg
Southern Polar
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/uah-south-pole-1.jpeg
UAH Trends
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/uah-1.jpeg
Residuals
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/uah-residuals.jpeg
Month on month a year before
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
LS
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/uah_ls.jpg
TP
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/uah_tp.jpg
MT
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/uah_mt.jpg
LT
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/uah_lt.jpg
AMO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/amo-trended.jpeg
AMO Detrended
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/amo.jpeg
PDO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/pdo.jpeg
SOI
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/soi.jpeg
La Nina effect , with some interesting cooling charts
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/16/la-nina-is-not-going-away-what-does-this-mean-for-this-summers-weather/
Sun still weakening strongly!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x9jsQs8XkGkj4wT9FtrWaiy-LzIPbT3s/view
Source
https://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/forecast-prevision/solar-solaire/solarflux/sx-5-mavg-en.php
I thought the solar cycle was 11 years, not 10.
It’s 11 years on average.
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/sun-space-weather/sunspot-cycle
Yup, on average:
“The Length of the Solar Cycle
“Most people think of the solar cycle as having a fixed length of 11 years. This is not strictly true as cycles vary considerably in length from as little as 9 years to almost 14 years.”
https://www.sws.bom.gov.au/Educational/2/3/7
I thought years had 12 months, not 13.
The demand for 2000mules is increasing. It is going to be released in 400 independent theaters this Friday.
Anything that is promoted by Trump is bound to be a lie.
Trump had nothing to do with the production. You’ll need to watch it and point out the lies.
Trump is promoting it as it supports his agenda that the last election was stolen.
Everybody else does not believe that, including a lot of Republicans.
It is fiction, not fact.
Watch the film and falsify his assertions.
That’s easy. There were no mules.
It is pretty ingenious how the Democrats did it. They are very good criminals. They have perfected the art of election stealing. I’ll bet in the upcoming elections; that the mules won’t have cell phones. It is sad their agenda is more important than a free Republic.
Ballot stuffing has been used since Tammany Hall. In Chicago, ballot stuffing has been going on since the 1930s. It is how the Democrats have taken over states like California and New York, where they hold seventy percent “majorities.” They’ve expanded it to a national scale. Easy peasy. They are masterminds. Their utopian agenda is much more important than some silly concept of democracy.
Stephen, I have some Flat Earther and Free Energy From Water videos that you may enjoy. I think they are from the same producers.
” They are masterminds.”
Hee haw!
“Im not a member of any organized political party, Im a Democrat”
Will Rogers
Masterminds are the leftist elite. They have no use for the free market, nature, or the voter. They can’t allow the voter to determine the course of things. They know better.
Yes Will Rogers remained a democrat for most of his life particularly from the late nineteenth century through the early 20th century when democrats were leading the way on segregation.
Wisely though in his latter years Rogers became a conservative saying for example about the Roosevelt administration: ”Lord, the money we do spend on Government and it’s not one bit better than the government we got for one-third the money twenty years ago.”
“Masterminds are the leftist elite.”
The common factor defining the far right today is FEAR.
Fear of conspiracies that masterminds are controlling events in the world.
Fear of anyone different from themselves.
Fear of inevitable change.
Thus the great replacement theory.
Never mind that the entire history of the US has been a series of immigrant waves.
Of course the Native Americans experienced the first great replacement by Whites from Spain and England.
Then the Spanish Catholics were replaced by English and Dutch Protestants.
Then blacks were imported involuntarily.
Then came the more Catholic Irish and Italians.
Then came the Jews.
Then came the East Asians.
Then came the South Asians.
Then came the Latinos.
Etc.
But with each immigrant wave, the existing population was fearful and resisted. Each time, the existing population thought WE are the only ones entitled to be American, and should not be REPLACED.
But in the end none of the waves of immigration destroyed America, and often added to prosperity of the country.
Fear isn’t the right word. Its clear what illegal immigration does. It creates black markets, a propensity toward crime by those who have already violated the law several times and only find rewards for doing so.
bringing up America’s managed immigration history is like comparing apples and oranges and there is no doubt it did have huge impacts on hard working Americans so its obvious even that immigration was fought tooth and nail using whatever was at hand. Like you do for climate change and a spinner moon. So understand I am not a republican. I left the democrat party about 18 years ago and remain undeclared. I recognize both parties still have huge blemishes but only one of them is improving while the other has been steadily moving towards authoritarianism, destroying the middle class, concentrating power in the elite class, and harming wages, spurring inflation out of its desire for centralized power by expanding government. A fundamental strategy of the democrats is keeping a huge portion of the population of people dependent upon the government then using that power to control everything else.
“Its clear what illegal immigration does. It creates black markets, a propensity toward crime”
Evidence that illegal immigrants commit more crime than legal residents?
The great replacement theory is about white people of European decent being replaced by brown people from the third world, legal or not.
Sure Nate they start out by violating 3 laws. All of them cross the border illegally
8 U.S.C. 1325.
All of them violate the law by establishing residency. 8 U.S.C. 1302
Most of them violate the law by taking an under the table job.
Most of them do that by obtaining illegal identification. At that point an attitude has been established that laws are negotiable.
And some states are aiding and abetting it by providing drivers licenses, IDs, failing to report illegals. Control of the borders is a duty allocated to the federal government to the Constitution and you have a number of states essentially succeeding from that agreement.
Other laws that most of them violate include:
18 U.S.C. 911
18 U.S.C. 1001
42 U.S.C. 408
And this list of laws is almost exclusively violated by illegal immigrants.
18 U.S.C. 758
8 U.S.C. 1323
8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B) & (C)(i)
8 U.S.C. 1326
8 U.S.C. 1253
8 U.S.C. 1324d
8 U.S.C. 1253(b)
8 U.S.C. 1324
8 U.S.C. 1327
18. U.S.C. 371
8 U.S.C. 1229c(d)
18 U.S.C. 911
18 U.S.C. 1001
8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) and 1227(a)(3)(D)
18 U.S.C. 1546
8 U.S.C. 1324c
42 U.S.C. 408
18 U.S.C. 1028A
26 U.S.C. 7203
18 U.S.C. 1423
18 U.S.C. 1425
18 U.S.C. 1426
18 U.S.C. 1427
18 U.S.C. 1015
18 U.S.C. 1028
18 U.S.C. 1002
18 U.S.C. 1542
18 U.S.C. 1543
18 U.S.C. 1544
18 U.S.C. 611
And then you could assume many more illegals violate IRS and State tax rules and steal from the other citizens of the US both by not paying taxes and by undercutting wages via those monies as well.
And none of that include violations of individual state laws of a similar nature.
All in all illegal immigration is very costly to Americans and unfair to both citizens and those who are non-citizens but legally residing here.
“a propensity toward crime”
So you have no data then? Not needed to make your claim.
Good…it’s time someone explored the chicanery that won the Democrats the last election.
Only the delusional think that the last election was ‘stolen’.
Luckily, all the “stolen election” lies endlessly repeated by the Trumping dumbass didn’t stand a chance, because even in the US there are incorruptible administrations, courts and… judges.
He was stupid enough to think that once Barrett ended up in the Supreme with his help, she would become his willing servant, ha ha.
*
Of course, these lies will have a strong effect on the midterm votes.
But many presidents lived with Congress and Senate working against them.
Dinesh D’Souza’s 2000 Mules Is a Hilarious Mockumentary.
A tour de force exploring the limits of how many suckers there are willing to pay for fantasy.
https://www.thebulwark.com/dinesh-dsouzas-2000-mules-is-a-hilarious-mockumentary/
TM, a responsible adult might wait to see the movie before opining.
A braindead cult idiot would just find something on the Internet, that agrees with his pre-set opinions, and link to it.
Not surprising that these brain-dead cultists deny voter fraud. They don’t look at that evidence the same way they don’t look at climate data. Just a bunch of pigs following pied pipers over the cliff. No pun intended.
Scary deal Chic. Seems to have happened 3/4s of a century ago to Germans.
Show me a single case of election fraud supported by court rulings and/or US intelligence agencies and I will gladly pay to see this muckumentary. Otherwise just shut up about it already!
As much as it hurts your pride to admit it, you’re exactly the kind of fool the grifters are counting on to pay to see this trash.
Wow, the same people who constantly demand more evidence, more data, to support AGW, protesting that without MUCH MORE of that, it shouldnt be believed, are surprisingly unskeptical of claims of voter fraud, backed by NO properly vetted evidence or data.
The fact that countless courts and investigations in all the states have produced no legitimate findings of significant voter fraud, is of no consequence to them.
The fact that a President demanded from state election officials that more votes for him needed to be ‘found’, is of no consequence to them.
That fact that a President demanded that the Vice President and Congress refuse to validate his election defeat is, astonishingly, of no consequence to them.
That fact that we had a violent attempt to prevent the validation of the election defeat of the President, with the encouragement of the President is, amazingly, of no consequence to them.
The endless effort by people on the right to sew doubt about the integrity of the US election system, the core of a healthy democracy, should really trouble people on ALL SIDES.
Why doesnt it?
Nate both parties claim voter fraud when they lose.
Hillary in losing to Trump
Stacey Abramms in the Georgia governor race
are but two of the more known examples.
You claim court cases and investigations. But governments have broad immunity from suits. Transparency of government has improved over the decades but it is still far away from what would be desirable. And as we well know to get an good investigation you have to appeal politically to the appointment of an independent prosecutor. How many of those were appointed Nate?
“Hillary in losing to Trump”
She conceded the election immediately upon getting the results. Just stop with the BS.
” But governments have broad immunity from suits.”
Super red herring!
Nate conceding an election has absolutely nothing to do with election fraud.
Here is a report from the Washington Post:
”Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an illegitimate president and suggested that he knows that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday.”
That is a claim of election fraud Nate. It doesn’t become not a claim of election fraud because you waited a day to concede the election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-il
But I get it Nate. For you truth is dependent upon whether your intentions are honorable or not. right?
voter fraud? No doubt. More than usual? No doubt. How much undecided by worthy of investigation if for no other reason than to prevent it in the future.
You are now in my bailiwick. Part and parcel of an auditor opining on the condition of a company and its books is providing an opinion on the safety and security of the firm’s assets.
Auditors spend tremendous hours investigating and understanding what is called internal controls. After documentation tests are run to determine compliance with the controls.
The 2020 election involved a tremendous amount of reduction of controls from handing out ballots and receiving ballots. Yet if you ask for a review of what risks of fraud were enabled by this you are labeled as insane or some tool of the Nazis, which of course is exactly what an a Nazi would label you as.
“Yet if you ask for a review of what risks of fraud were enabled by this”
So ongoing declarations that there definitely WAS fraud and the election WAS stolen and Biden IS illegitimate and its 1776 again,
is just asking for a ‘review of what risks’.
No not at all Nate. Auditors review the controls and point out the weaknesses in the controls. Ensuring those vulnerabilities are fixed is the responsibility of the executives in charge.
If you have power and you want to defraud the voters you do something very similar to what the democrats did. You fail to control the ballots, you fail to control the gathering of the ballots to ensure they are being received from legitimate voters, and you organize teams to take advantage of those vulnerabilities.
Did the democrats do that? I don’t know. Only an independent prosecutor investigation could possibly find out. And you didn’t answer that one. Did a single state hire one? We do know election procedures were changed without controls, something that voters should never allow, unless of course they don’t care if there vote will count when somebody else, they may not favor, does the same thing.
Solar wind
speed: 488.2 km/sec
density: 6.67 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 129
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.36×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.6% High
48-hr change: -0.6%
Thermosphere is regaining and seems to
me that Oulu Neutron Counts could drop down
4% within a week
“TOTAL ECLIPSE OF THE MOON: Last night, the full Moon passed through the shadow of Earth, producing a total lunar eclipse. “It was really dark,” says Robbie Merrill, who photographed totality from Columbia, Missouri
…
“The darkness is probably a sign of volcanic ash. Earlier this year, an undersea volcano erupted near Tonga, hurling 400 million kilograms of ash and fumes deep into the stratosphere.”
Solar wind
speed: 550.1 km/sec
density: 8.55 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 173
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.54×10^10 W Neutral
Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.8% High
48-hr change: +0.1%
Solar wind
speed: 487.9 km/sec
density: 7.02 protons/cm
Sunspot number: 147
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.83×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.8% High
48-hr change: -0.1%
It seems if sunspots continue to be around 150 for
next several days, which seems very likely.
the Oulu Neutral Counts will lower significantly-
reach 4 % or less. And more obviously the 14.83×10^10 W
will get to 15 or more.
Or get Solar Max conditions related to GCR and a higher density
in LEO.
Or Starlink satellite should be launched at high elevation to lower
risk of them deorbiting. So, 50 km or higher.
But right now GCR is too high for long crewed trips to Mars. Or I would guess one want it to be 3% or less. Which is not the best but could low enough.
I am not see evidence about the hypothesis that the higher Neutron Counts would cause cloud formation. Has it been disproven?
Solar wind
speed: 532.5 km/sec
density: 9.17 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 154
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 19 May 2022
{{same day}}
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.06×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.3% High
48-hr change: -0.5%
{maybe a couple days}
Below 4%
Solar wind
speed: 500.3 km/sec
density: 5.32 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 109
{looks like a lot sunspots but only 109}
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.06×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +3.8% Elevated
48-hr change: -1.8%
{why do they say, Elevated?, big drop and
got below 4%, quicker than I thought,
But I thinking want more than say 80% of
time, below 3% for low enough GRC. Or so doesn’t need a
lot of shielding or 3 months or less of travel time to Mars to reduce lifetime radiation levels for crew. Though I am just guessing and wonder how much time during Solar Max do get at low or moderate amounts of GRC.
Solar wind
speed: 524.5 km/sec
density: 9.92 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 110
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 22 May 2022
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.43×10^10 W Neutral
Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +3.4% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.3%
It seems we get to 3% within a 3 or 4 days
It might around time one could take chance launching
to Mars [but not a launch window to do it] in terms
a radiation levels for 6 month trip to mars. Though
possible it will go above 4% in next 6 month.
Or there planned launch in next 2 days or week, I would say
it’s still a go. Though just pretending I know anything about
such expected flare. Though in terms solar flare, better to be +5 days. But get into LEO orbit, and few days or more, start to go to Mars- but really as no where near Earth to Mars window, which is 8th month of this year, for simple, and I don’t when for 6 month travel time- but seems in would 9 month or more of this year:
http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/EMa.htm
2022 AugNov Rosalind Franklin rover
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Mars
It’s cancelled/delayed due to Russian wars
But planned window was August to November which looks
like plan about 7 month trip time if around November.
And 6 months {no one has yet, but Starship apparently can do it]
would be closer to Dec.
Of course starship not fueled in orbit could launch in august to november in 2022, as some weird test launch, which no one has said
it will do. Assuming it does test launch in June.
Solar wind
speed: 506.9 km/sec
density: 7.54 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 138
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 22 May 2022
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.65×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +4.2% Elevated
rlh…”I know enough about physics that any statement about temperature also requires an inclusion about pressure else it is sort of irrelevant. i.e. what is the boiling point temperature of water in a vacuum?”
***
I get your point but this is moving the goalposts. The argument is about heat, not boiling point per se. It is whether IR from ice can create heat in water. You can’t except ‘maybe’ for boundary conditions around 0C, where there is a phase change from water to ice.
On this blog, as far as discussion on climate are concerned we are talking about the boiling point of water at STP. Of course, if you mess with the pressure and lower it enough, water will begin to boil on its own, but it won’t be hot.
That’s a problem they have near the top of Mount Everest. The pressure is 1/3 pressure at sea level and it boils at about 68C…too cool for a decent cup of coffee. They can’t cook anything that requires boiling water because the water won’t get hot enough.
In your example, if you place a container of water in a high vacuum, it would begin to boil immediately at about room temperature. However, as the water boiled to gas, the gas would fill the vacuum chamber and it would no longer be a vacuum. If the volume was small enough, the boiled off vapour would like increase the pressure enough so that the water would stop boiling.
So, temperature is dependent on other factors besides pressure, like volume and the number of molecules of a gas, for example. The relationship for a gas is:
PV = nRT…the Ideal Gas Law.
If you made the volume of the vacuum chamber so large that the boiling water could not change its pressure from zero, the water would all evapourate. Apparently the same would happen in space if you through a container of water from a spacecraft. The water would boil off the liquid then freeze.
“I get your point but this is moving the goalposts”
Partially stating the conditions is not physics. It is propaganda.
“Apparently the same would happen in space if you through a container of water from a spacecraft. The water would boil off the liquid then freeze”
As spacemen have proved.
bob d…”Gordon,
You are guilty of using foul language on this blog too, so shut the fuck up.
Anyway, Ill bet you 10,000 US dollars I can cause water to boil using ice.
You are a disgrace to all students of chemistry with your attempts to explain chemistry on this blog”.
***
Bob, I have known all along that you had a lack of class, and that’s OK, I have none myself. The difference between you and me is that I had class at one time and know the difference. That’s why, on Roy’s blog, I try to show respect for Roy and tone down my language.
There are no doubt factions out there who would love to shut Roy’s site down, and foul language may be the justification they are looking for. Wise up, will you, this is not about you and me.
With regard to my attempts to explain chemistry, and your objection to my explanations, that only reveals your abysmal ignorance of the subject. From what I have read from you, the closest you have come to a chemistry lab is as a night janitor.
Gordon,
“From what I have read from you, the closest you have come to a chemistry lab is as a night janitor.”
How would you know?
Gordon,
The company I work for is number 14 on the S&P 500, they operate 30 some chemistry labs in the US, and I am one of a few employees that has been to all 30 some labs, and no they don’t pay me for janitorial services.
The janitors work the day shift, cause we make the drugs on third shift due to the 12 hour shelf life.
You want to buy some antimatter?
I can get you some, cheap!
thats damn vague Bob! Ok I can believe your aren’t the janitor. Janitors generally only move building to building and not campus to campus.
But the only folks other than top level execs that move campus to campus are salesmen and logistic personnel which would fit right into the bailiwick of selling some antimatter without knowing really much at all about antimatter other than that some might be available.
We only have the one place we call a campus, I’ve been there once, it’s the corporate headquarters, I avoid that place.
I am not in sales.
What I do mostly is set up and test equipment used to detect antimatter, impurities, and the drugs themselves.
I know enough about antimatter.
Why do you always have to put someone down, just because you disagree with them when you are wrong?
I wasn’t putting anybody down Bob. Your job description fits precisely into the area of logistical support. All I did was note that if you are moving lab to lab it typically has something to do with sales or logistical support. That’s just a fact.
Bill,
This was a putdown.
“without knowing really much at all about antimatter”
You have no idea about how much or how little I know about antimatter.
How much do you need to know about anti-matter to calibrate instruments? One can be a calibrator of surveyor equipment without knowing anything about surveying. You do need to know something about the equipment though.
Bill,
You have not a clue.
Guess what?
I don’t calibrate instruments, I validate them.
You might want to ask how I know it’s antimatter I am dealing with.
I might not give you the answer you want me to.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bobdroege says:
Bill,
You have not a clue.
Guess what?
I dont calibrate instruments, I validate them.
———————-
Oh they have to bring somebody else in to calibrate them? You just determine if they need calibration?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9ad1nFRc1I
Has an interesting Russia news, clip.
The second one, first one, weird.
Sweden clip is also interesting
–More than 260 Ukrainian fighters were evacuated from the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol, Ukrainian officials said. The troops have sheltered under the plant for weeks, fighting off a Russian siege. Russia said it had agreed to the evacuation of wounded Ukrainian fighters from the plant. Reuters reported buses carried Ukrainian fighters out of Mariupol and cited a witness as seeing evacuees arrive in Novoazovsk, an area controlled by Russia-backed separatists. Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister Hanna Maliar said that the soldiers would come home as part of a prisoner exchange. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a video message that international organizations helped negotiate their release and that “Ukraine needs its heroes alive.” —
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/16/1099221443/russia-ukraine-war-what-happened-today-may-16
gb,
If they were “evacuated” as “enemy combatants”, rather than prisoners of war, no doubt the Russians will ask the US for advice on torture, detention without trial, “rendition”, “enhanced interrogation”, and all the rest.
I suppose “evacuees” sounds better than fighters who gave up when faced with inevitable defeat.
Spin vs spin. Propaganda vs propaganda. All pretty stupid in the long run.
Oh well, we’ll all wind up paying for “the cost of freedom”, but I’d rather let someone like Bindidon pay my share. He seems more keen on prolonging pointless nonsense than I.
I think the Red Cross did a good job.
gb…I guess the soldiers who agreed to be evacuated were not the hard.core neo-Nazis. Ideologies are great until it’s time to die for one. It’s a Nazi battalion in the steel plant, the Azov battalion. They were a prime target of the Russians since they had been brutalizing anyone in the Mariupol region who were pro-Russian. When they cap.tured Russians they shot them in the legs and left them to suffer.
I am wondering if the Russians will be satisfied wiping out these SOBs and tone things down. I hope so. Maybe they’ll stick around and supervise for a bit to make sure the other fascist SOBs get the message.
I don’t see the rest of the Ukrainian army in Mariupol trying to bail the Azovs out. Zelensky will be hiding far away in Lvov, posing for photo-ops.
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/28/zelensky-celebrity-populist-pinochet-neoliberal/
C’mon, Gordo. You don’t need to say you’re guessing. That’s all you do.
Have some satellite images of bodies in Bucha, courtesy of the ZZs you fear and bootlick:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/twb2ez/satellite_images_show_bodies_lay_in_bucha_for_at/
Gordon Robertson
The Grayzone is a horrible source of real information. It is pure Russian propaganda. Why don’t you question your sources? You believe the Western Media is complete false but you blindly believe any other source? Why? Why not question this Grayzone and consider it total garbage?
You do know that Finland and Sweden are joining NATO. They live there and know how evil Putin is. You believe lies and will only believe a source that feeds you lies. Why are you against the Truth?
barry…”Gordon,
I have asked you and others again and again for a reputable source corroborating the view that objects cannot absorb radiation from cooler objects.
At least 2 years of asking and no source supplied.
Will you please do so now?
Because Ive looked and cant find it. And if no one else supplies it after 2 years! I think well have to agree that the proposition is bullshit”.
***
I have studied in the fields of electronics, the electrical field, and the computer field, mostly hardware but a decent amount of software. What you are asking me is the equivalent of describing the shape of an electron and the path it follows around a nucleus, if in fact, it does. You are asking me to supply a source proving it.
When you work in such fields, you don’t need to know most of that phenomenological stuff you rely on whether it works or not. By the same token, no one can demonstrate that EM from colder objects cannot be absorbed by hotter objects, you have to go on what is known about energy in general and what the Bohr model claims.
Also, there is no way to measure it. Even though the MIT textbook claims EM flows both ways while transferring heat both ways, there is absolutely no way for them to prove it. As I pointed out, in none of the textbooks do they offer a concrete example of it. Therefore, it has to be reasoned based on what is known about energy and heat transfer.
I have already gone into the theory of why EM from a colder body cannot be absorbed by a hotter body. Obviously, you have no interest in checking out the theory I offered, although it is in plain sight on the Net. Norman has challenged me on that as well, as well as Ball4, claiming electron transitions don’t apply in the IR band.
Yet, neither have offered an explanation of what absorbs and emits IR in that band. Vibration is not a satisfactory answer. Microwaves produce vibration in water molecules but even microwaves, at a lower frequency than IR, are produced by electrons forced to move in tiny circles in the cavities of magnetrons or klystrons.
If you look closely at any EM source, there will be electrons involved. It’s possible that protons can produce EM, I don’t know. It’s a moot point because the arrangement of atoms makes it so.
It is well known in the electrical/electronics field that electron current in a conductor produces an electromagnetic field around it. Since the electrons are changing direction at a slow frequency, typically 60 hz, the EM field produced stays local and is called near-field EM. If you increase the frequency high enough, the generated EM can travel great distances through the air. That’s exactly the same EM produced by the Sun or any other light source.
That’s proof-positive that electrons produce EM. Alternately, if you expose a conductor to a varying magnetic or electromagnetic field, or if you move the conductor inside a magnetic field, perpendicular to the field, it will cause free electrons to flow in the conductor.
I am trying to get across that an electron in motion, even in free air, carries a magnetic field with it. The electron also carries an electric field due to its negative charge. None of this surprises me in the least, although it has driven some of you to denial. Therefore, Bohr’s hypothesis that an electron orbiting an atom, when changing down a level, can emit a quantum of EM, has been accepted, as a good model.
It’s not necessary to prove that EM from a colder source cannot be absorbed by a hotter body, it is only necessary to describe how energy behaves in general. Energy never moves, by its own mans from a lower potential level to a higher potential level. That’s true of water, mass in general, electrons in a battery or other generator, chemical reactions, etc.
Then we have the 2nd law. Clausius made it clear, despite what else he wrote about radiative transfer, that EM radiation must obey the 2nd law with regard to heat transfer. I am sure, that if Clausius were here now, and knew what we now take for granted, that he’d withdraw the other statements he made about mutual heat transfer in two second.
As Bohr discovered in 1913, based on the discrete absorp-tion and emission lines in hydrogen, there is a direct connection between electron transitions and EM absorp-tion/emission. Emission lines or absor-tion lines are totally related to electron transitions within an atom.
There is nothing else in a molecule can explain that.
It has nothing to do with what he postulated about a mutual transfer of heat. As it turned out, no heat left the hotter body and traveled to the colder body. The same is true for the alleged reverse transfer from cold to hot.
BTW…I want to be clear that I am not putting Clausius down. I admire the guy deeply for what he accomplished with what he had at his disposal. His theory about internal energy related to atomic vibration and heat was outstanding considering he had no knowledge of electrons or atomic structure. In fact, I feel sad that he did not have the information we have now.
You have it wrong, Barry, heat does not flow between bodies of different temperatures. Only EM can flow between them. However, there can only be an ‘apparent’ heat transfer from hot to cold. Heat is converted to EM at a hotter body and lost. That heat is gone…disappeared. Another form of energy, EM, flows to a cooler body, and because it has the correct attributes it is converted by electrons back to heat.
If EM from a cooler body flows to a hotter body, it lacks the attributes to excite electrons in the hotter body. Clausius got that part right and I am sure he claimed that by intuition. He knew from his study of heat transfer in a heat engine that had to be the case.
The theory I have offered satisfies the 2nd law, the theory you read about in a textbook from MIT does not. The fact they claimed heat is transferred body to body is a lie, indicating they don’t understand the basics of quantum theory.
I am not claiming for an instant that all scientists at MIT are that ignorant of quantum theory, but the person writing the book certainly is.
A long way of saying that you think the Newton got it wrong.
RLH,
Presumably you are talking about Newtons Law of Cooling. Heres something from Wikipedia –
” . . .his final simplest version of the law, given by Newton himself, was partly due to confusion in Newton’s time between the concepts of heat and temperature, which would not be fully disentangled until much later.”
Newton may have gotten several things “wrong”, depending on how you define “wrong”.
You are just trolling, arent you?
“Newton’s law of cooling states that the rate at which an object cools is proportional to the difference in temperature between the object and the objects surroundings. Simply put, a glass of hot water will cool down faster in a cold room than in a hot room.”
“Newton’s law of cooling applies to convective heat transfer; it does not apply to thermal radiation.”
You think Newton was able to turn-off thermal radiation?
His law applies to any type of heat transfer.
There is a deviation from it for very large T differences because of T^4.
https://www.carolina.com/teacher-resources/Interactive/newtons-law-of-cooling/tr36401.tr
RLH,
Your authority has no clue, obviously. He believes that objects in a vacuum do not cool.
What an idiot.
No, I was referring to Gordon’s frequent assertions that the 3 laws don’t apply in certain situations.
“If EM from a cooler body flows to a hotter body, it lacks the attributes to excite electrons in the hotter body.”
This is easy to dispatch. IR thermometers detect T colder than the sensor.
QED
So, you think you’ve falsified the 2nd Law? You should submit that to the Nobel committee.
So really? Are you saying IR T sensors don’t work, Stephen??
How bout IR cameras?
Yes, I’m saying a colder object doesn’t warm an IRT sensor or camera. And, I know satellites are very cold. I know thermal imaging sensors in the military are colder than the objects they are imaging.
I’m talking about passive sensors. Active sensors provide an energy source.
Nate doesn’t understand how IR thermometers work, or 2LoT.
And, he can’t learn.
I’ve challenged Clint several times to explain his ‘theory’ of how they work and he has never ever been able to do it.
Cuz his Fizuks is just for yuks.
Wrong troll Nate. I’ve explained it several times. Go back and look.
I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.
Nate
You are correct on Clint R. He is stupid, makes things up and supports nothing. He can’t think logically at all and thinks people on this blog want his opinions.
I would prefer the science. When stating something back it up with some evidence.
You are correct on the IR thermometers. The hand-full of unscientific on this blog do not understand 2nd Law at all and they are too illogical to understand that an energy transfer from a cold body to a hot one is not the same as a heat transfer.
The Heat transfer is from HOT to COLD. The hot object will cool down (if not heated) and the cool one will warm up.
The confusion with most is they are not able to logically think when a hot object is heated and how that works. A heated object will reach some steady state temperature with the surroundings but that temperature is conditional based upon the surroundings.
You will not convince Gordon Robertson or Clint R. I am sad about stephen p anderson. He claims he took advanced Chemistry but he posts like Clint R. That is really sad. He has a science background and falls for the stupid right-wing conspiracies concerning science. The other two, what can you expect. From a person who took higher level science and he can’t understand the GHE. That is most sad to see. Makes the whole goal of science, seeking truth, seem hopeless.
Nice meltdown, Norman. Long, rambling, and filled with insults and false accusations. One of your best.
Did you ever find any verifiable technical reference to support your bogus “real 255 K surface”? Or, your bogus 315 W/m^2 fluxes warming a surface to 325 K?
I didn’t think so….
Do not blame Norma if you choose to feel insulted, or feel that you have been the subject of false accusations, Pup.
If you had any backbone, you would do something about your feelings.
But of course, you will just whine and whinge, because you are a stupid lying moron, who is still lying about the Greenhouse Theory, stupid because you think think people will not challenge your lie, and a moron because.. well, because you are a moron!
Carry on.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
NO MIT is not lying or ignorant of quantum theory. YOU ARE!
The equation for Net Radiant heat transfer was not just a fabrication, it was verified by multiple experiments over long periods of time and is so well established it is used by Engineers. If you actually took any engineering classes you should know this fact and not peddle your false misleading lies that confuse the ignorant (like Clint R and Swenson). Scientist know you are lying and peddling false information. Non-scientists are confused.
I linked you to a Roy Spencer experiment that proves you do not know what you are talking about and that you are just lying.
Norman, your “Net Radiation heat transfer” equation is not applicable to reality. As usual, you have no clue what you’re talking about.
Now you can your usual flame rant….
Norman,
I’ll give him a break, he just discovered Lewis structures, maybe by 2050 he will get there.
Clint R
Have I told you lately how stupid you are? You are the stupid that can’t stop. When you don’t know what you are talking about why do you feel a compulsion to post.
Here you demonstrate complete lack of knowledge or reasoning ability: Net Radiation heat transfer equation is not applicable to reality”
Yes it is applicable to reality and used in engineering of heat transfer. Please just stop posting until you learn something about science. As it stands you are lower than an “F” student. You don’t even understand basic physics.
But you are so stupid you won’t stop posting and blabbing on about things you know nothing about. Your opinion is not anything anyone of intelligence wants to here.
“here” should be “hear”
That’s correct Norman. The equation is not applicable to reality.
Clint R
You are wrong and also stupid. Your opinions are those of an idiot.
Unable to support your bogus claims, huh Norman?
Clint R
Unable to believe how stupid you are. I have already supported it.
Sorry Norman. You didn’t support your bogus “real 255 K surface”. You made up more nonsense. You found an infrared image of Earth! An infrared image is NOT a “real surface”.
The reality is Earth does NOT have a “real 255 K surface”. That was more made-up nonsense that came from Ball4, and you ignorantly swallowed it whole.
You don’t know anything about the science. That’s why you have to call people “stupid” all the time, like a 10 year-old brat would do.
Now, continue with your meltdown. I predicted it, so it’s fun letting you prove me right.
Clint R
Idiot! I said it was a radiating surface and I wasted time explaining this to you who would be a blithering idiot.
Correct Norman. You couldn’t find a real surface.
Just like you can’t find any verifiable technical reference that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325 K.
You can’t support anything you make up. Funny how that works, huh?
Clint R
I only call people like you stupid because you really are. You have no reasoning ability. You cannot form logical conclusions and you have no knowledge of any science. Yes you are a stupid person.
Here are some “logical conclusions” for you, Norman.
You couldn’t find a real surface.
Just like you can’t find any verifiable technical reference that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325 K.
You can’t support anything you make up.
The “logical conclusion” is you’re a braindead cult idiot and a complete phony.
Logical enough for you?
Gordon,
Please provide a reference from a standard physics text corroborating that EM radiation from a body cannot be absorbed by a warmer body.
That’s all you have to do, not write reams of blather.
This should not be difficult.
Link please – 2 years later and still asking…
barry…”Please provide a reference from a standard physics text corroborating that EM radiation from a body cannot be absorbed by a warmer body”.
***
Please provide a reference from a standard physics text that shows how time can dilate. Please provide a reference from any text that shows how an electron orbits a nucleus.
There are phenomena that cannot be demonstrated, their proof follows from science. It is not possible to demonstrate that electrons exist yet we use the theory daily as if they do. The mass has been determined for a particle of some kind with a charge but no one has ever seen it or measured it as an individual entity.
No one has ever seen an electron orbiting a nucleus and Bohr’s suggesting that electrons are confined to certain quantum levels is pretty far out there. It is accepted only because Schrodinger managed to equate electrons to energy orbitals using a differential equation applied to the properties of electrons and protons in an atom.
You are being naive, Barry, and appealing to authority, rather than applying known science. I provided the known science and you ignored it, preferring to squawk like a parrot about a reference.
1)no known energy can act, by its own means, from a lower potential to a higher potential. EM is known energy.
2)the 2nd law requires that heat always be transferred, by its own means, from a hotter body to a colder body. The 2nd law is not about net heat transfer as some have claimed, it is about transfer one way, from hot to cold.
3)heat is not physically transferred between bodies by radiation, it is converted to EM at one body and converted back to heat in another body, IF it is absorbed. In between bodies, no heat exists in the EM. There is potential for heat but none can exist till the EM is absorbed by a cooler body than the source.
4)E = hf governs the absorp-tion/emission of EM from electrons in an atom. If that equation describes the intensity and frequency of radiation released when an electron drops from E1 to E1, then any EM that can raise it back from E1 to E2 must have the same intensity and frequency.
EM from a colder body cannot provide that intensity or frequency.
It’s all there for you Barry, no need to rush off to authority figures. Just use your brain.
However, molecules which have electron being shared between two or more atoms can also emit and absorb EM.
The electrons are shared and are no longer in atomic orbitals, but are now in molecular orbitals and can absorb and emit EM based on those molecular orbital energy levels.
Consider Benzene.
Gordon,
You just need to demonstrate that your claim is backed by physics.
I’ve done that. I’ve even referenced the person who WROTE the 2nd Law.
If you can’t provide corroboration for what should be an easily referrable claim – the posit itself is not complex or arcane – then we can only conclude that it has no basis in physics.
It is a simple matter to quote a sound reference for the axiom that heat cannot flow a cool to a warm object without an engine/heat pump to reverse the natural flow.
Radiation is not heat, and every source I’ve looked at that comments on the matter either says directly or infers that radiation is exchanged between objects of different temperatures, and that the primary factor in absorbance is the physical properties of the receiving surface (colour, roughness, molecular structure).
We already know from daily experience that sunlight falling on different coloured surfaces will be absorbed and reflected to different degrees. This has NOTHING to do with the temperature of the receiving body, so it should be intuitively understood that the temp of the receiving body is not the primary factor.
I need a reference from you. I’m definitely not going to appeal to YOUR authority. Let’s have an outside expert adjudicate the matter, thanks.
barry…”We already know from daily experience that sunlight falling on different coloured surfaces will be absorbed and reflected to different degrees. This has NOTHING to do with the temperature of the receiving body…”
***
Of course it does, the Sun is several thousand degrees hotter than anywhere on the Earth’s surface. It’s EM will have the proper intensity and frequency to excite electrons in any surface material, even human skin.
Each atom/molecule absorbs and emits at different frequencies.
Note, however, the selectivity re reflection. It is the upper frequency spectrum in the UV range that burns skin. The shorter UV wavelengths interfere with cells and DNA. Also, colour is the EM frequencies reflected from an object and converted by the retina to an equivalent colour.
This proves certain EM frequencies are absorbed while others are reflected, even when the source is hotter.
“Each atom/molecule absorbs and emits at different frequencies.”
So now it is not ‘magic’ that molecules absorb at different frequencies? Good.
“This proves certain EM frequencies are absorbed while others are reflected, even when the source is hotter”
You missed the point!
The receiving surfaces could all b the same temperature, the sun shines on them equally with its own temperature, but there are differences in the absorbance/reflection due to colour (and properties of the surface, like roughness).
The point is that the absorbance of these surfaces is NOT dependent on their temperature!
If you shine an LED light source at 70C on a pane of glass heated to 100C, the pane of glass will not become a mirror. It will still be transparent to the LED light.
If absorbance were dependent on temperature of the surface being cooler than the source, the LED light would NOT pass through the glass.
Answer THAT, Gordon.
the answer is you cannot create any different outcome from a one way energy transfer system that at one time proposed aether as the medium and the current popular but unestablished photon model.
As Einstein so aptly pointed out that energy transfer is really hard to understand and that the proponents of a particle theory of photons was widely adopted by every Tom, Dick, and Harry but that they were all wrong in doing that.
Always is a good time to say we know nothing, Bill. Don’t you stop now.
Bill,
“the answer is you cannot create any different outcome from a one way energy transfer system that at one time proposed aether as the medium and the current popular but unestablished photon model.”
It is sobering to learn that energy transfer systems can propose anything, much less that aether is the medium through which light propagates.
Telling people they know nothing is ever so much more convincing when you are coherent.
Bill,
“As Einstein so aptly pointed out that energy transfer is really hard to understand and that the proponents of a particle theory of photons was widely adopted by every Tom, Dick, and Harry but that they were all wrong in doing that.”
This job I got, is based on the particle nature of photons, it may be all wrong, but it works.
barry says:
”the answer is you cannot create any different outcome from a one way energy transfer system that at one time proposed aether as the medium and the current popular but unestablished photon model.”
It is sobering to learn that energy transfer systems can propose anything, much less that aether is the medium through which light propagates.
————–
I didn’t say that Barry. All I said was Einstein recognized that the wave/particle behavior of light remains unresolved where the wave nature suggests a medium.
That doesn’t mean established particle theories aren’t good science it only cautions about extrapolations. Fact is the heat transfered doesn’t change with either model. It only would avoid the bunny trails of talking about warm objects absorbing photons from cold objects which is a bunny trail that produces no results.
barry says:
”Always is a good time to say we know nothing, Bill. Dont you stop now.”
I agree!
Warmists though love to question what becomes of the photons arriving from the cold object and then they suggest they cause the warm object to get warmer. So I am in completely agreement with your comment that warmists should stop doing that precisely because we do know nothing.
“unestablished photon model.”
Bill and Gordon are stuck in 1915.
Photons exist, are observed often. Many devices work because of them. And in 1922, Compton showed that they are absolutely required to understand his Compton Effect.
And in 1923, Compton showed
Yep idiots believe Comptons work proves that photons are massless particles (which is really an oxymoron).
Gordon,
“If EM from a cooler body flows to a hotter body, it lacks the attributes to excite electrons in the hotter body.”
Not true, the EM doesn’t carry the information relating to the temperature of the emitting body.
All EM carries is the direction it’s going and the amount of energy it carries.
All it needs to be able to excite the electrons in the hotter body is the correct amount of energy.
The energy transitions available in the vibrational modes are lower than the electronic transitions that produce the spectra of atomic hydrogen and other atomic spectra.
That’s one way chemists identify chemicals, by their spectra.
bob d…”the EM doesnt carry the information relating to the temperature of the emitting body.
All EM carries is the direction its going and the amount of energy it carries.
All it needs to be able to excite the electrons in the hotter body is the correct amount of energy”.
***
Bingo!!! The correct amount of energy, E = hf. It’s all there in the EM frequency and intensity.
You have it wrong, Bob. Electron energy levels are directly related to heat. Electrons emitting in a cooler body lacks the intensity and frequency to excite electrons in a hotter body.
Gordon,
You are getting closer, but you have to research what intensity is.
It’s not what you think it is.
“Electrons emitting in a cooler body lacks the intensity and frequency to excite electrons in a hotter body.”
Yeah they do, remember that the emission from a body is not one single energy or wavelength, look at a blackbody curve, it’s not all from the peak.
A cool body can emit photons that are higher than the cool bodies peak and can be absorbed by a warm body at less than the warm odies peak.
And heat is kinetic plus internal energy, not just internal energy as you seem to be claiming.
“Electrons emitting in a cooler body lacks the intensity and frequency to excite electrons in a hotter body.”
Im still waiting for Gordon to explain how an IR T sensor, can determine the T of an object colder than itself.
After all it is an electronic device. Yet clearly the IR emitted from the colder surface cause an electronic response in the device.
How?
A related question. The second law 2LOT requires heat to flow from hot to cold.
In order to obey the law, objects in a vacuum that can only transfer heat by radiation, need to know whether other objects are colder than them.
How do they KNOW? Are they intelligent?
Nate says:
”Im still waiting for Gordon to explain how an IR T sensor, can determine the T of an object colder than itself.”
Thats a non-starter. All it does is show you don’t understand that the sensors in modern electronics and both add and subtract. I won’t go beyond that because there are many designs of sensors.
Older passive sensors could only add and had to be iced to read cool objects.
“All it does is show you dont understand”
Hee haw!
How does it show that??
bill because even now you are not realizing that what an IR dectector is detecting from a sensor. It is first a loss of energy from the sensor and that can be detected by various technologies. Then it is another technology used in more advanced cameras that can detect reflection of sensor emissions to determine other characteristics of the target.
we can’t say they are measuring photons because we don’t even know what photons are. All we know is the results are the same without referring to cold photons. the medium (or the net flow in terms of Clausius’ advice) should be well taken. So talking about cold photons is just a bunny trail that unless very carefully discussed can lead to confusion and wrong conclusions.
None of that shows I dont understand. You lied, Bill.
“It is first a loss of energy from the sensor and that can be detected by various technologies.”
Sure, but there is no physics in that statement.
The loss of energy depends on the T of the colder object.
That was precisely my point to Gordon.
How does the sensor detect the T of the colder object in order to determine the loss of energy that it is supposed to have?
Nate you should google it up.
I wondered about that years ago and did some research but didn’t retain it so I can’t remember the specifics except that there are multiple technologies being used for different purposes.
It is silly to suggest that any absolute warming occurs using photons already lost to the warm object. Sorry but indeed it is silly and for some reason that is reasoning that invokes denial in warmists.
Warming is only statistically possible by using say a mean temperature. People need to be aware of the fact that the sun doesn’t shine all the time and that does create absolute changes. But once one goes to the 341watts/m2 and looks at it as a uniform warming. . . .the pooch is screwed because all the absolute warming is now being prohibited and one then wants to start designing a stupid greenhouse effect. But its all BS because all the dynamics of the system has been eliminated by averaging and so they feel the need to invent something to deal with that.
This is what we are dealing with folks:
“People need to be aware of the fact that the sun doesnt shine all the time and that does create absolute changes.”
That’s certainly news to me.
What? Bob you don’t live in a windowless offices pouring over a computer all day do you like those climate modelers do you?
That’s right Bill, I don’t spend much time in an office.
I am not assigned to an office nor to a cubical.
Tell me, when does the sun stop shining?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bobdroege says:
Gordon,
If EM from a cooler body flows to a hotter body, it lacks the attributes to excite electrons in the hotter body.
Not true, the EM doesnt carry the information relating to the temperature of the emitting body.
All EM carries is the direction its going and the amount of energy it carries.
All it needs to be able to excite the electrons in the hotter body is the correct amount of energy.
———-
Complete BS. Everything vibrates. Low vibrations in the presence of high vibrations result in something in between in terms of vibrations. That is the case every where low vibrations meet high vibrations.
What that means is cooling for the high vibrational object and warming by the low vibrational object. Its not the other way around.
Bill Hunter,
“Everything vibrates.”
Bullshit, most molecules exist in the non-vibrating ground state. Especially smaller molecules, larger molecules, say like DNA will likely have some bonds vibrating, but not all of them.
Anyway, that’s not was I was talking about, I was talking about the 3 pieces of information that a photon carries.
If you take 315 W/m2 that is only 0.0315 W/cm2. Compared to the intensity of an FTIR 25W point source this is nothing.
“The theory I have offered satisfies the 2nd law, the theory you read about in a textbook from MIT does not. The fact they claimed heat is transferred body to body is a lie, indicating they dont understand the basics of quantum theory.”
They don’t call it heat, they call it energy.
So you didn’t read the source. Here you go again,
“We want a general expression for energy interchange between two surfaces at different temperatures”
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
And the math for it:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
It was Clausius that used the term ‘heat’, and he was clearly speaking of EM radiation. He’s not talking about heat engines either.
“Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
That’s his description of the 2nd Law. Here is the reference.
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog/page/n317/mode/2up (p. 295)
He says it again in his 4th memoir:
“In the first place, the principle implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it”
http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Clausius.html#anchor_152
“interchange of heat… by radiation” – Clausius means thermal radiation – energy.
I bolded the word ‘interchange’ as MIT and Clausius have that term in common.
I can supply more references clearly inferring the interchange of radiation between bodies of different temperature.
But I need a reference from you (or DREMT) first.
2 years and nothing but blather. Not even one reference from a reputable source. Where is the expert corroboration?
There is none.
barry…the title of the MIT article is “Radiation Heat Transfer Between Black Surfaces of Arbitrary Geometry”. They call it radiation heat, which is bs.
As far as the rest of your reply, you are ignoring my comments and carrying on with your meme. I have tried to explain that scientists in the era of Clausius mistakenly thought heat was transferred through air by rays. They even called them heat rays as late as Planck. Therefore you can’t quote Clausius on radiation and claim accuracy.
I have tried to explain the quantum theory behind my claims and you refuse to acknowledge me let alone try to refute them. All you are doing is trying to defend an indefensible position.
I have responded to you already on the aether. It is immaterial.
Clausius also mentions two-way energy transfer via conduction in the same paragraph. No radiation or aether involved there.
He knows that heat is the NET transfer of energy between hot and cold bodies. He says this again and again.
The issue is that people like you, who cannot allow any inconvenient science to interfere with their rejection of GH theory, end up having to reject radiative transfer science.
And when asked for formal references for your ideas, there are none. So you just keep talking and not substantiating.
You guys don’t know the difference between heat (in the classic sense) and energy/radiation. You think because heat goes hot to cold, that therefore energy and radiation also has to.
Of course you can have a 2-way flow of radiation – it happens constantly around us – and the 2nd Law is not broken as long as the NET transfer is hot to cold.
Your explanation of how EM radiation is absorbed at the molecular/atomic level is wrong. I provided a link to demonstrate that absorbance is dependent on molecular structure. It is very clearly explained.
I showed you were wrong by showing the empirically measured absorbance profiles of CO and CO2. If it was only the atoms that determined absorbance, then these two molecules should have the same absorbance profile.
They don’t.
They absorb efficiently at different wavelengths. This is not ‘magic’ as you put it. This is because the molecules vibrate at different frequencies due to their structure.
YOU did not acknowledge my response, that I provided links for.
The onus is still on you to furnish corroboration that objects cannot absorb radiation from cooler objects.
I’ve substantiated with links for all my points to reputable science sources.
All you’ve done is talk. You’ve said don’t appeal to authority, and yet you want me to accept YOUR ‘authority’ over experts in the field of radiative transfer and Clausius himself.
As long as you keep talking without referencing any science for your view on on-way radiative transfer, then it remains purely your own erroneous ideas, and not those of reputable physics.
You can
1 – explain why there are different empirically measured emission/absorbance profiles for molecules that contain the same variety of atoms but are of different structure (ie, CO and CO2)
2 – Provide a formal reference corroborating the notion that EM radiation cannot be absorbed by surfaces warmer than the source.
Also, MIT math shows that the NET transfer of energy results in the heat going from hot to cold. That is consistent with their title, which you appear to have read nor further than.
And you complain that I do not respond to points.
Barry says: Also, MIT math shows that the NET transfer of energy results in the heat going from hot to cold. That is consistent with their title, which you appear to have read nor further than.
——————–
Yes that is correct Barry. But such transfers never create any absolute increase in temperature of the warmer object.
It only can do so in statistical analysis of say mean temperature. But the only temperatures experienced by living organisms are absolute temperatures.
Indeed we have a few species of plants that require a wide range of temperatures to complete their life cycle. They have evolved to take advantage of a wide range of temperatures that indeed within limits greenhouse gases provide. But the fact they can provide that doesn’t mean they are responsible for climate change as that those effects aren’t already saturated as far as CO2 is concerned. I actually don’t think that is true for water though as water vapor has a very wide range of presence and is not uniformly distributed like CO2.
Changes in water in the atmosphere may be the primary means of climate change. We see drastic changes during ENSO and there is no reason to believe that longer termed periods of La Nina or El Nino dominance cannot go well beyond what we have seen for individual short termed ENSO cycles of almost 1 deg C.
> Yes that is correct Barry. But
Troller, obfuscator, disrupter!
“Yes that is correct Barry. But such transfers never create any absolute increase in temperature of the warmer object.”
Yes, you accept that radiation is exchanged by objects at warmer and colder temperatures, but there is no way that the warm object can gain temperature at the expense of the cooler object.
Because that would be heat running cold to hot. Not allowed.
We measure heat as the NET transfer of energy from a body at a higher temperature to a lower temperature body.
As long as the direction of that flow remains hot to cold, we don’t break the 2nd Law.
The experiment with the 2 plates and the solar source doesn’t break the flow of heat from hot to cold. Never at any time does a quantity of energy get transported from the cooler to the warmer object occur without a simultaneous greater transport of energy from warm to cold object.
At all times, whether you add the sun to the 2-plate system, or add a plate to a sun/plate system, that direction of general exchange never falters from being from the hot to the cold object.
2nd Law intact, no physics harmed in the making of these paragraphs.
If you mistake EM radiation for heat, you get everything wrong from that point.
You also get everything wrong if you fail to account for NET energy transfer. That’s exactly what Clauisus and MIT advise you do.
Heat goes one way, EM radiation is exchanged.
This shouldn’t be controversial.
thats correct and consistent with the claim by Gordon.
There is no reason to believe excitation is occuring because the object is losing excitation. Gain of excitation is only an artifact of not following Clauisus and MIT advice. Warming can only occur statistically not actually.
Bill,
After gazing at my navel,
“Warming can only occur statistically not actually.”
That’s kookoo for cocoa puffs
“Yes, you accept that radiation is exchanged by objects at warmer and colder temperatures, but there is no way that the warm object can gain temperature at the expense of the cooler object.
Because that would be heat running cold to hot. Not allowed.”
So, the radiation from the green plate cannot warm the blue plate. You agreed with the following statement, further up-thread:
"The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord."
So you should agree that the proposed Green Plate Effect breaks the Second Law. If not, why not? Because there is a heat source present? The exception to the Second Law is not “when a heat source is present”. The exception to the Second Law is when work is being done, e.g. refrigerators, air-conditioners. So there is no way out for you there.
Just remember, barry, those defending the GPE agree that when pressed together, the plates would both be 244 K. Separate them by even one millimeter, and they argue the BP will increase in temperature to 262 K, and the GP temperature will drop to 220 K! Certainly seems like the proposed increase in the BP temperature is “at the expense of the cooler object”.
He is just a sort of relentless, malevolent force.
After having this falsified by Barry and me a countless times, he
continues trying to MISLEAD people into thinking that the heat source makes no difference at all.
He wants people to think that it supplies no heat! Which is ludicrous.
Of course it supplies heat! TO the blue plate. And that makes ALL the difference.
This obliterates his claim that the heat must be supplied by the cold green plate to the warm blue plate, which would violate 2LOT.
“thats correct and consistent with the claim by Gordon.”
Nope, Gordon has spent a lot of words trying to argue that EM radiation from cool objects cannot be absorbed by warmer objects.
At all.
Which is patently absurd.
He confuses radiative energy with the classic notion of ‘heat’ (as in the 2LoT).
“He confuses radiative energy with the classic notion of ‘heat’ (as in the 2LoT).”
You guys and your straw men.
“but there is no way that the warm object can gain temperature at the expense of the cooler object.”
Sure there is.
The blue plate gains temperature but it’s not because of heat transfer from the green plate, because that would be disallowed by the 2nd law.
Must be something else.
Must be something preventing the blue plate from cooling as fast as it was before the green plate came into the picture.
Maybe it’s time for a course in thermodynamics.
bob, who originally wrote this:
“…but there is no way that the warm object can gain temperature at the expense of the cooler object”
I’ll give you a hint: it wasn’t me or Bill.
B4 might have been onto something apropos of the possible conflation between radiative energy and the classic notion of “heat.”
True, barry does tend to conflate the two.
Not really.
He conflated the two repeatedly in the previous discussion.
Of course thats coming from Willard. . . .the non-spinner who thinks he is a spinner!
Bill, Kiddo, please stop giving me free points by showing off your silly semantic games.
Sorry Willard but you can continue to think you are a spinner. I know I can’t change that because one cannot fix stupid.
“He conflated the two repeatedly in the previous discussion.”
Not really.
I quoted Clausius and stuck with his convention after first explaining the difference between radiation and heat.
Later on I remarked on it again, specifically saying that Clausius sometimes used the word ‘heat’ instead of radiation when clarifying the 2nd Law.
The point he is making is that radiation is not confined to the directionality that heat is, and that the NET result of radiative exchange aligns with the flow of heat per 2LoT.
We all saw what you did, barry. No point you trying to wriggle your way out of it now. The irony of it is you actually need radiation to function as heat in order for the blue plate to warm. Unfortunately for you, it does not.
barry says:
Later on I remarked on it again, specifically saying that Clausius sometimes used the word heat instead of radiation when clarifying the 2nd Law.
The point he is making is that radiation is not confined to the directionality that heat is, and that the NET result of radiative exchange aligns with the flow of heat per 2LoT.
——————————-
LOL! You mean you assume incorrectly that he is making that point.
A more intuitive interpretation is the point he is making is in fact that for all intents and purposes you can ignore how it (radiation) is said to work because the results are always exactly the same.
“The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord.”
That’s correct. The green plate does not make the blue plate warmer of its own accord, because that would mean that the green plate would be losing energy (heat) to the blue plate.
At no time does the green plate lose energy.
It gains energy.
From the blue plate.
Heat flows from hot to cold.
At all times during the GPE.
How can this be, if green plate is transferring energy to the blue plate and the blue plate gets hotter?
Because the blue plate is also getting thermal energy from the sun.
It’s not getting heat from the green plate, because heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a hotter on at the expense of the cooler body (Clausius says this). And this simply doesn’t happen in the GPE. Th GP never has a loss of energy. It GAINS energy. From the BP. And it gains more energy from the BP than it ever gives to the BP via radiation. The NET transfer is what is classically known as ‘heat’.
The only possible way you could try to argue that heat is flowing from cold to hot is to completely ignore the greater transfer of energy from the warm to the cold object in the GPE. But nobody with a functioning brain would fail to see this childish ruse, would they DREMT?
“How can this be, if green plate is transferring energy to the blue plate and the blue plate gets hotter?
Because the blue plate is also getting thermal energy from the sun.”
So your argument is, the presence of a heat source is what makes the difference. However, as I already explained, the exception to the Second Law is not “when a heat source is present”. The exception to the Second Law is when work is being done, e.g. refrigerators, air-conditioners. So there is no way out for you there. That’s not to say the presence of a heat source makes no difference. Nobody is saying that. Without the presence of a heat source, the BP and GP would both be close to 0 K. So that’s a considerable difference. However, the presence of a heat source does not get you around the Second Law.
You stated “…there is no way that the warm object can gain temperature at the expense of the cooler object. Because that would be heat running cold to hot. Not allowed.”
Plates pressed together, both are 244 K. Plates separated by 1mm, the BP supposedly rises in temperature to 262 K, whilst the GP drops in temperature to 220 K. How is that not the warm object gaining temperature at the expense of the cooler object?
“So your argument is, the presence of a heat source is what makes the difference. However, as I already explained, the exception to the Second Law is not ‘when a heat source is present'”
There is no NEED for any ‘exception to the second law’ if you are not doing the one thing that would violate the law: transferring heat from cold to hot!
Yet he keeps relentlessly posting this bright red herring.
“Plates pressed together, both are 244 K. Plates separated by 1mm, the BP supposedly rises in temperature to 262 K, whilst the GP drops in temperature to 220 K. How is that not the warm object gaining temperature at the expense of the cooler object?”
Sounds more like a medium T object being split in two, one part getting heat from a heat source and warming, and the other part no longer getting heat from the heat source and cooling, but now providing radiative shielding to the other part.
IOW a completely different heat transfer problem.
Sorry charlie,
In the Green Plate effect there is no 2nd law violation.
“So your argument is, the presence of a heat source is what makes the difference. However, as I already explained, the exception to the Second Law is not when a heat source is present. The exception to the Second Law is when work is being done, e.g. refrigerators, air-conditioners’
So an exception to the second law is not necessary.
It’s just normal heat transfer hot to cold.
“So your argument is, the presence of a heat source is what makes the difference.”
Difference to what?
With a heat source the flow of heat from BP to GP is hot to cold.
Without a heat source the flow of heat from BP to GP is hot to cold.
More radiation is always going to the GP than the other way. Always.
“Plates pressed together”
Would have their heat transfer determined by conduction.
“both are 244 K”
Then there is only one plate. It is impossible for them both to be at the same temperature. The GP should be cooler, as it is not getting the direct energy of the sun that the BP is.
While we’re on conduction, what happens to the BP when you stick a 1 inch thick GP on the back of it?
Conduction does the same thing radiation does – slow the rate of cooling of the BP.
“Difference to what?”
barry, please stop playing dumb. The statement you agreed with was “the Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord.” So clearly you must be arguing that the presence of a heat source means it is not happening “of its own accord”, since you mentioned that the BP is also “getting thermal energy from the sun”. However, the “of its own accord” clause relates to whether work is being done or not. Which it is not.
“Without a heat source the flow of heat from BP to GP is hot to cold.”
Without a heat source, both BP and GP are close to 0 K. No heat flow.
“Would have their heat transfer determined by conduction.”
Obviously.
“Then there is only one plate. It is impossible for them both to be at the same temperature. The GP should be cooler, as it is not getting the direct energy of the sun that the BP is.”
barry, this has all been discussed many times before. It was agreed by both sides of the argument that with the plates pushed together, they would both be 244 K. The plates are assumed to be perfect conductors, you see. Those on your side of the argument think that when separated, by even a millimeter, the BP increases in temperature to 262 K, and the GP decreases in temperature to 220 K. So, this is clearly the warm object gaining temperature at the expense of the cooler object. Which you agreed is impossible.
There at least two techniques always used by trolls here to keep arguments going FOREVER.
“Those on your side of the argument think…”
1. Try to turn FACT things into OPINION things.
Some topics are FACT things. Like ‘Is 11 > 9?’. Not subject to debate.
Other things are OPINION things, like ‘Does human life begin at conception?’
The temperature of objects is a FACT thing. The solutions to basic textbook heat transfer problems are FACT things. The laws and equations applied have been tested countless times. These are FACTS, not OPINIONS. What temperature does in a basic problem like the GPE is easily determined by solving standard equations.
Some people here seem to think that BASIC physics they don’t understand and havent learned is open for debate. And if they never bother to check or learn those basic FACTS, they can continue forever maintaining the illusion that these are merely OPINIONS.
“The statement you agreed with was ‘the Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord.’ So clearly you must be arguing that…”
2. Try to change an argument about what is actually happening in nature (temperatures and heat flows), into an argument about what people SAID. And taking what people said and twisting it into things they NEVER SAID, in an effort to humiliate them and score imaginary ‘points’.
The facts of the matter can then be ignored, and once again the argument can be renewed indefinitely.
Of course this is merely trolling and should not be fed.
“It’s just normal heat transfer hot to cold.”
So the colder green plate does not warm the warmer blue plate. Good to know, bob.
> So clearly you must be arguing that the presence of a heat source means it is not happening “of its own accord”
Here we go again.
Indeed we do go again, when barry says things like:
“Yes, you accept that radiation is exchanged by objects at warmer and colder temperatures, but there is no way that the warm object can gain temperature at the expense of the cooler object.
Because that would be heat running cold to hot. Not allowed.”
oblivious to the fact Green Plate Effect Defenders believe that when you separate the two plates, by even a millimeter, the blue plate rises in temperature to 262 K and the green plate drops in temperature to 220 K. That is clearly a warm object gaining temperature at the expense of the cooler object. barry should say “no way” to that, if he were to be consistent with his own words.
Chartmaster,
Yes the blue plate warms the green plate and does a better job of it when the two plates are in contact, and less well when they are separated.
…and, oddly, this warming of the GP by the BP that happens “less well” when the plates are separated results in the BP getting warmer!
Chartmaster,
Well yes, since the blue plate can cool less well with the presence of the green plate, of course it increases in temperature.
What part of this do you not understand?
Try using the appropriate equations and calculate the temperatures.
Whut, you don’t do math?
I can’t believe the blue plate increased in temperature, I only separated the green plate from the blue plate by a millimeter.
Try doing it by separating the plates by a nanometer.
bobdroege says:
Chartmaster,
Well yes, since the blue plate can cool less well with the presence of the green plate, of course it increases in temperature.
What part of this do you not understand?
==============================
This is just a case of bad experimental design and failing to see the reality of the situation.
Lets say the icebox, green plate, and blue plate is in an otherwise empty room with the temperature at 5.5C. That would mean the envelope of the room would be radiating 341w/m2 on to the experiment. The ice box is say 0C. The warmest the blueplate could get would 5.5c as it would be warmed by the room not the green plate.
“Well yes, since the blue plate can cool less well with the presence of the green plate, of course it increases in temperature.”
…but only when the plates are separated! Lol.
“oblivious to the fact Green Plate Effect Defenders believe that when you separate the two plates, by even a millimeter, the blue plate rises in temperature to 262 K and the green plate drops in temperature to 220 K.”
Some people suggest that their own incredulity about what nature does is somehow an argument that nature cannot do this thing.
They think that if they dont understand why nature does what it does, then it can’t happen!
That is rather silly.
“when you separate the two plates, by even a millimeter, the blue plate rises in temperature to 262 K and the green plate drops in temperature to 220 K.”
First of all this is what happens. This is what the standard solution to this super BASIC heat transfer problem shows. SO clearly it is violating no laws of physics. Not 1LOT nor 2LOT.
“That is clearly a warm object gaining temperature at the expense of the cooler object. ”
This is someone’s feeling about the CAUSE of what happens.
They feel that the CAUSE of the the warming is a transfer of heat to the warm object from the cold object, which is already a violation of 2LOT.
But in order to assign the CAUSE of the warming to heat flowing from the cold object they would need to eliminate all other causes.
Like the obvious one: the heat source providing heat to the warm object!
Have they shown anywhere that heat is NOT provided by the heat source?
No.
And of course that would be absurd.
Why do they keep making such a patently absurd argument?
Are they delusional? Liars? Fraudsters? Trolls? Relentlessly malevolent?
Readers, you make the call.
Nate says:
”That is clearly a warm object gaining temperature at the expense of the cooler object.”
This is someones feeling about the CAUSE of what happens.
They feel that the CAUSE of the the warming is a transfer of heat to the warm object from the cold object, which is already a violation of 2LOT.
But in order to assign the CAUSE of the warming to heat flowing from the cold object they would need to eliminate all other causes.
Like the obvious one: the heat source providing heat to the warm object!
Have they shown anywhere that heat is NOT provided by the heat source?
No.
And of course that would be absurd.
————————–
Well at least Nate isn’t claiming that it is photons from the green plate exciting the blue plate like some of these other guys!!
Which of course brings us to the conclusion.
That in a 5.5c room (which effectively the earth is within) and is the heat source for this experiment, photons from the walls of that room are limited to warming the blue plate to 5.5C which is more than the capability of the green plate but not enough to provide a greenhouse effect.
This fact makes the BP/GP experiment a sham! A myth clung to by the ignorant masses who cling to the belief that if you shield the surface via a cold shield it will warm to a higher mean temperature than the mean temperature of the environment. Dr. Woods proved this wrong over a 100 years ago.
“That in a 5.5c room (which effectively the earth is within) and is the heat source for this experiment, photons from the walls of that room are limited to warming the blue plate to 5.5C which is more than the capability of the green plate but not enough to provide a greenhouse effect.
This fact makes the BP/GP experiment a sham!”
Your ‘look a squirrel’ has little in common with the BP/GP situation, thus it is a ruby red herring!
Why do deniers keep trying this BS tactic?
If you dont address the ACTUAL SAME conditions of the BP/GP, nobody cares!
Nate says:
”Your ‘look a squirrel’ has little in common with the BP/GP situation, thus it is a ruby red herring!
Why do deniers keep trying this BS tactic?
If you dont address the ACTUAL SAME conditions of the BP/GP, nobody cares!
—————————-
LMAO! Nate goes on a rant and his only claim is I pointed out a real squirrel in the experiment!! ROTFLMAO!!!
Amazingly Nate had just finished saying that the the blue plate wasn’t gaining heat at the expense of the greenplate because that would be a violation of the ‘2LOT’.
Then he argued that the heat came from: ”Like the obvious one: the heat source providing heat to the warm object!”
Which in a typical greenplate experiment I just described as a 5.5C room. If its a 10C room then the limit would be 10C.
All I am pointing out is that the blue plate cannot get warmer than the 5.5C room at the expense of the room just like it can’t get warmer at the expense of the green plate.
Thats the ponzi scheme of the greenhouse theory sold to the gullible. Yeah the plate can’t do it so it must be the room. . . .ignoring that the room has limits and the same laws of thermodynamics as the green plate of what it can do also.
Anybody with a shred of common sense should be able to detect the fraud here. And fraud it is, unless you are stupid enough to believe it and you republish it out of ignorance. And no you won’t find it in any peer reviewed science either so its not scientific fraud either. It is just plain stupid. Sure some who fancy themselves as scientists might believe it. And Nate? I am not sure which category he is trying to fit himself in to . . . .fraudster or nutcase seems like 2 possibilities. So Nate which is it. Are you a conman or are you just conned too?
“The plates are assumed to be perfect conductors, you see.”
Ok, then GP offers no resistance to BP’s heat loss. Got it.
“Those on your side of the argument think that when separated, by even a millimeter, the BP increases in temperature”
When ‘separated’ it suddenly offers resistance to BP’s heat loss by emitting EM radiation to BP. GP is now in the shade of the sun where apparently it received the sun’s full power to begin with.
Before ‘separation’ heat flow is:
Sun –> BP/GP
After separation heat flow is:
Sun –> BP –> GP
As quoted multiple times above, Clauius tells us that the NET transfer determines the direction of heat flow.
At no time does the BP receive more radiation from the GP than it gives to the GP.
Mind you, we don’t even need to consider that last point, because classical thermo doesn’t consider time-specific processes, only beginning and end states.
To help your point a bit – GP could offer some limited thermal resistance when pressed to BP, as it would in RL, but not as much as when the plates separate. So now you may try to argue that the change from conductive to radiative resistance to heat loss ’caused’ the BP to get warmer – greenhouse radiation theory breaks 2nd Law! But of course that is merely a consequence of different efficiencies of preventing BP heat loss. You could keep the plates pressed together but use different, less thermally conductive materials for GP and the BP will still get warmer without 2LoT being broken.
Same point applies for your challenge. GP goes from providing zero thermal resistance to BP heat loss to then providing resistance to BP heat loss.
A good analogy for what you are describing:
Among the objects in a room heated by an oil heater is a pane of wood, 1 meter square. The pane of wood is the same temperature as the rest of the room. It’s on the floor.
You slot the piece of wood across the 1 meter square window that is letting some of the heat in the room out.
The piece of wood gets colder, the room gets warmer.
Do you think that the heat flowed from the cold wood to the warm room when the wood lost heat and the room gained it?
Nope, the wood slowed the heat loss from the room – convectively.
Heater –> room/wood
Heater –> room –> wood
‘Separating’ the plates changes the dynamics of energy transfer just like plugging the hole in the window.
Remember
1) Radiation is not heat
2) Heat is the NET transfer of energy
“The piece of wood gets colder, the room gets warmer.”
The side of the piece of wood facing the room gets warmer, equilibrating with the temperature of the air in the room, which will rise. The side of the piece of wood facing the outside gets colder, equilibrating with the temperature of the air outside. So your analogy does not work. In any case, the air temperature of a room is an exceptionally poor comparison to the temperature of a plate in a vacuum.
What fails in the rest of your explanation is the implicit idea that back-conduction cannot warm, but back-radiation can. You could try to argue that there would be no back-conduction with perfectly conducting materials, but you would then have to connect the amount of thermal resistance offered by a material to the amount of energy that gets transferred by back-conduction, which would be nonsensical. Either back-conduction exists, and energy gets transferred both ways by conduction whilst heat flows in only one direction, or back-conduction does not exist.
Bill,
Even DREMT understands that your example has little to do with the GP/BP experiment. It is a red herring.
“In any case, the air temperature of a room is an exceptionally poor comparison to the temperature of a plate in a vacuum.”
” the implicit idea that back-conduction cannot warm, but back-radiation can. ”
IDK what this means. In the real world there is a T gradient for conduction, radiation, convection dominated heat transfer.
A gradient is required to drive heat flow.
In the BP/GP the T gradient is due to radiative shielding. The T is highest from the heat source (sun), medium at the BP, low at the GP, and lowest in space, in the direction of heat flow.
Anyone thinking there is no T gradient simply has no understanding of basic heat transfer.
“Which in a typical greenplate experiment I just described as a 5.5C room. If its a 10C room then the limit would be 10C.”
You are not describing the BP/GP experiment.
“All I am pointing out is that the blue plate cannot get warmer than the 5.5C room at the expense of the room just like it cant get warmer at the expense of the green plate.
Thats the ponzi scheme of the greenhouse theory”
In the actual experiment, the BP is heated by the sun, which is much hotter than the plate. The plate never warms to the T of the sun.
If you change the problem, you get a different result, which is irrelevant to the original problem, Bill.
Nate says:
Bill,
Even DREMT understands that your example has little to do with the GP/BP experiment. It is a red herring.
”In any case, the air temperature of a room is an exceptionally poor comparison to the temperature of a plate in a vacuum.”
————————-
Nate stop obfuscating!!
In the classic BP/GP experiment, which is the classic experiment you can conduct in an afternoon with some rudimentary temperature measuring tools. You have an ice box and 2 plates (blue and green) in a kitchen. The ice box is cold and the blue plate when held in the door of the ice box is cooler than the kitchen and warmer than the ice box.
You insert the green plate between the blue plate and the ice box and it cools while the blue plate warms.
You said: ”They feel that the CAUSE of the warming is a transfer of heat to the warm object from the cold object, which is already a violation of 2LOT.”
Your observation is correct! And what ‘they feel’ is wrong.
The blue plate didn’t warm from the green plate it warmed from the ambient temperature in the kitchen as it has been shielded from the ice box by the green plate and thus is no longer transferring heat from it (and the kitchen) into the ice box but is instead now transferring heat to a plate that is warmer than the icebox so less heat is being transferred. Which makes perfect sense.
But no magic is occurring here. The limit to which the blue plate can warm is to an equilibrium with the room.
The deception is in claiming the greenhouse effect can warm objects to greater than their equilibrium value. It can’t! And since science knows that to be the case they needed to find a different explanation. So they came up with one that cannot be proven. Its a great piece of literature that rivals the Book of Genesis. But science it is not! Science requires more than a piece of literature and even the scientists know that too. That why we have been spending billions of peoples hard earned money going into weaving other stories around the sacred text and just about everybody on the face of the planet believes they understand it. And why are we doing that? There the answer is simple. The money that is poured into energy is massive and has created our standard of living and there are those who want the levers of power over it. End of story.
Fact is Nate the academic community has proven to be faithless on many occasions. Nazi Racial Theories and Eugenics. Soviet Lamarckism. Mao and his Einsteinianism where all truth is subjective and partial. (e.g. you can punish anybody not towing the official line). Thats what we are looking at a complete abandonment of traditional science to serve another master where the government money is spent in service of the government itself and the scientific method becomes a something required to prove otherwise. It sets science upon its head in homage to those in power and science and regulation becomes by fiat.
Then we come to you Nate. Whether its the moon spinning or the greenhouse effect, all you need to know is that you are on the side of the official line of thinking. To you that is sacrosanct. Total homage to authority. No proof required and as an extension of it we have your long history here of defending the 3rd grade greenhouse model and now the green plate experiment even though you know it is total bullshit and you have now gone total in denial of the limits of this radiative theory clinging to some unspoken, untested, undescribed truth that is the summation of those writing the checks.
“The blue plate didnt warm from the green plate it warmed from the ambient temperature in the kitchen as it has been shielded from the ice box by the green plate and thus is no longer transferring heat from it (and the kitchen) into the ice box but is instead now transferring heat to a plate that is warmer than the icebox so less heat is being transferred. Which makes perfect sense.”
Wow, this is very sensible, Bill.
Hopefully DREMT will pay attention.
"The deception is in claiming the greenhouse effect can warm objects to greater than their equilibrium value."
Absolutely, Bill. The Green Plate Effect thought experiment takes place in a vacuum. With air present, the equilibrium temperature of the blue plate will be lower because as well as radiative losses from the plate, the plate can now also lose heat via conduction and convection. Block the flow of heat from the blue plate through blocking those latter methods of heat transfer and the temperature of the blue plate will increase towards the higher equilibrium value it would be in a vacuum, however it cannot exceed that value unless the green plate is reflective (which it typically is not)!
Their error in the thought experiment is in thinking that even in a vacuum, adding the green plate will cause the blue plate to increase in temperature. The green plate in the thought experiment is as far from being an insulator as it is possible to be, it is a perfectly conducting blackbody plate. If the green plate were a perfect reflector, instead, you could increase the blue plate temperature up to a maximum possible 290 K. With the green plate as a blackbody plate, however, the maximum possible temperature for the blue plate is 244 K.
If back-radiation could increase the temperature of the blue plate in a vacuum with the plates separated then back-conduction could increase the temperature of the blue plate in a vacuum with the plates pushed together. Yet with the plates pushed together they agree the blue plate temperature would be 244 K. Their logic is not self-consistent. Back-radiation seems to have magical warming properties that back-conduction does not!
The fact is certain that a radiation model in compliance with the known laws of radiation has no mechanism to create a greenhouse effect. That was proven over a hundred years ago by Dr. Woods.
Yet these ridiculous models continue to be bandied about and the models will not even change in the face of observation that shows they are wrong.
Indeed with enough smoke and mirrors you can convince a crowd to start throwing down wood alcohol by the gallon to cure any problem.
Nate says:
Bill,
Even DREMT understands that your example has little to do with the GP/BP experiment. It is a red herring.
———————
Nate is always getting it wrong!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1292030
there are several different GP/BP experiments both physical a mental in nature. what they all share is a lack of respect for the principles of physics. I will exempt Swanson for the moment until he documents the one he claims to have performed. . . .but I doubt it will remain an exception. . . .he no doubt missed something. People have been trying to establish this for a century and a half and nobody has succeeded.
“What fails in the rest of your explanation is the implicit idea that back-conduction cannot warm, but back-radiation can.”
Ahem
“While we’re on conduction, what happens to the BP when you stick a 1 inch thick GP on the back of it?
Conduction does the same thing radiation does slow the rate of cooling of the BP.”
The wood in the window analogy is quit apt. Make it a very thin, perfectly conducting plate. Its total temperature is cooler than the room, warmer than the air outside.
Did it give up its heat to the room when we picked it up off the floor and fastened it across the open window?
Nope, it reduced the heat loss from the room, where before it was the same temperature as the room.
You could make the same analogy with a sweater. But at first you have to start with it flush against your skin, and providing no resistance to your body’s heat loss.
Gap the contact by a millimetre, and as we all know the sweater starts to slow the heat loss of your body.
Has heat flowed from cold to hot when the sweater cooled and your skin warmed?
Nope.
Whether by conduction, convection or radiation, it is possible in all sorts of configurations to slow the heat loss from a body receiving continuous energy. The examples long provided here are some we all live with regularly, easy to comprehend.
barry, you skipped the point I made completely. Please don’t ignore my response to Bill, either. Plates pressed together, the Green Plate Effect Defenders accept that back-conduction from the green plate does not make the blue plate warmer. Separate the plates, and they think back-radiation from the green plate makes the blue plate warmer. They ascribe magical warming properties to back-radiation that they do not ascribe to back-conduction…and no, you do not address back-conduction by referring to thermal resistance as you have been. Thermal resistance does not equal “amount of back-conduction”.
“You could make the same analogy with a sweater. But at first you have to start with it flush against your skin, and providing no resistance to your body’s heat loss.”
Firstly, a sweater still insulates to an extent even when flush against the skin, and secondly, the GPE takes place in a vacuum so when you separate the plates there is no “dead” air trapped which provides most of the insulation effect of the sweater. So your sweater analogy is even worse than the room analogy.
“Plates pressed together, the Green Plate Effect Defenders accept that back-conduction from the green plate does not make the blue plate warmer.”
If that’s the imaginary scenario you want to agree upon, fine.
But allowing the plates to be perfect conductors for the purposes of whatever thought experiment you were detailing at the time does not imply in any way that ‘back-conduction’ doesn’t happen in real life. Of course it does. Which is why I said so upthread, lest you have any confusion about what I am ‘implying’.
“Please don’t ignore my response to Bill, either.”
I don’t have time to rad every comment.
“Firstly, a sweater still insulates to an extent even when flush against the skin”
So does a GP when flush against a BP – unless you imagine a scenario where the sweater/GP is a perfect conductor.
“secondly, the GPE takes place in a vacuum so when you separate the plates there is no “dead” air trapped which provides most of the insulation effect of the sweater. So your sweater analogy is even worse than the room analogy.”
So your argument is that heat loss can be slowed by convection and conduction but not by radiation?
Why is radiation devoid of this property?
“So your argument is that heat loss can be slowed by convection and conduction but not by radiation?”
No. Read my comment to Bill. Radiative insulation works via reflectivity. The plates in the thought experiment are blackbodies!
“If that’s the imaginary scenario you want to agree upon, fine.
But allowing the plates to be perfect conductors for the purposes of whatever thought experiment you were detailing at the time does not imply in any way that ‘back-conduction’ doesn’t happen in real life. Of course it does. Which is why I said so upthread, lest you have any confusion about what I am ‘implying’.”
barry, in how many ways and how many different times am I going to have to tell you that “perfect conductors” does not mean “no back-conduction”!? Once again, you do not address this back-conduction issue by referring to thermal resistance as you have been. Thermal resistance does not equal “amount of back-conduction”. It is not the case that there is no back-conduction with perfectly conducting plates, and then you get increasing amounts of back-conduction with increasingly thermally resistant plates. Back-conduction happens regardless.
“it has been shielded from the ice box by the green plate and thus is no longer transferring heat from it (and the kitchen) into the ice box but is instead now transferring heat to a plate that is warmer than the icebox so less heat is being transferred. ”
I noticed some people here seem to feel that the above heat transfer principles that Bill clearly explained are somehow not valid when the heat transfer is by radiation, but offer no science rationale for that feeling.
The shielding effect of the GP is very real in vacuum or not, with conduction, convection or radiation.
When the ice box (or space) is blocked by the GP, the BP is no longer exposed to the deep cold of the ice box (or space). Then Bill is absolutely correct that “less heat is being transferred” from the blue plate to the ice box (space).
Thus the BP warms. It warms because it has the SAME heat input from the heat source, and LESS heat output.
This is basic common-sense, and agrees with most people’s experience of being exposed to the cold inside of the freezer, and losing heat from their skin to it, and feeling cold. Then closing the freezer door and no longer losing heat to it, and their skin warms.
Some people here seem to have lost the ability to use common-sense.
This common-sense effect happens even when the heat is transferred only by radiation. The rad heat transfer law applicable here is Heat Flow = sigma(Th^4 – Tc^4). If Tc is increased, there is less heat flow!
So physics agrees with common sense.
DREMT,
“It is not the case that there is no back-conduction with perfectly conducting plates”
You wrote way upthread.
“It was agreed by both sides of the argument that with the plates pushed together, they would both be 244 K. The plates are assumed to be perfect conductors, you see.”
Assuming by ‘back-conduction’ you mean the thermal resistance supplied by conduction, the BP is experiencing no resistance to heat loss if both plates are the same temperature.
If ‘back-conduction’ was happening as in RL the BP would be a higher temperature. A point I already made a few posts up. The construct here – no insulation because perfect conduction – is the same as if there was only one plate, as I said. GP doesn’t thermally exist in this set up. That’s why I cam up with the analogy of the room and the pan of wood – the wood starts in thermal equilibrium with the room, but loses heat once secured over the window.
Does the wood give the room its heat? Nope, that heat goes to the cold air beyond.
Does the GP give its heat to the BP upon ‘separation’? Nope, it gives its heat to space, because it is now getting less energy, the BP is now losing radiation less efficiently, and because it is constantly supplied by the sun, it must heat up in order to shed more energy.
If we are agreeing that ‘back-conduction’ works as an insulator IRL against heat loss then fine.
“Radiative insulation works via reflectivity. The plates in the thought experiment are blackbodies!”
It doesn’t matter if the radiation is reflected or emitted, that radiation is absorbed by the BP. The BP is not a mirror, it’s a perfect blackbody, as you say, and absorbs all incident radiation. It can’t NOT absorb GP radiation. Energy can’t be destroyed or created, so…
(Side note: it’s called a blackbody for a reason – the colour refers to its capacity to absorb radiation, not its temperature, or it would be called a coldbody)
“Assuming by ‘back-conduction’ you mean the thermal resistance supplied by conduction, the BP is experiencing no resistance to heat loss if both plates are the same temperature.”
I couldn’t have made it clearer, that “back-conduction” and “thermal resistance” are not the same thing. Thermal resistance is a heat property and a measurement of a temperature difference by which an object or material resists a heat flow. It is simply a property of a specific material. Some materials have more thermal resistance than others. With “perfect conductors” there is no thermal resistance. “Back-conduction” on the other hand, is like “back-radiation” – it provides no resistance to heat flow. It is just the energy moving from the GP to the BP via conduction when they are pressed together. Energy goes both ways, heat only flows one way.
So you still have to explain why you believe “back-conduction” has no ability to warm the BP, but “back-radiation” does.
“If we are agreeing that ‘back-conduction’ works as an insulator IRL against heat loss then fine.”
We do not agree. Thermal resistance is the measure of how much a particular material works as an insulator IRL, whilst back-conduction on the other hand, like back-radiation, does not insulate. Do not continue to conflate thermal resistance with back-conduction.
“It doesn’t matter if the radiation is reflected or emitted…”
Wrong again, barry. Radiative insulation works via reflectivity. See here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Heat flow is an inevitable consequence of contact between objects of different temperature. 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.”
So BB plates are not radiative insulators.
“Wrong again, barry. Radiative insulation works via reflectivity”
Hmmm, if it plate is not reflective, then it doesnt do anything to radiation? The radiative heat flow just passes right thru it???
Or, perhaps, does a plate’s OPACITY matter?
“opacity
the condition of lacking transparency or translucence; opaqueness.”
What is the effect of an opaque plate placed between a warm object and a very cold freezer or very cold space?
Does it do NOTHING to the radiant heat flow from the warm object to the very cold place?
Some people here, oddly, think it so.
From the description of multi-layer-insulation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
Apparently opaque, non-reflective (emissivity =1) layers do reduce radiant heat transfer.
“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.”
“So you still have to explain why you believe “back-conduction” has no ability to warm the BP, but “back-radiation” does.”
I believe that two plates pressed together in the scenario would ordinarily slow the heat loss from the BP and produce a temperature gradient with BP warmer than GP.
But you and others have agreed that the plates are perfect conductors, and because of this, the GP has the same temperature as the BP, despite not getting direct sunlight as the BP does.
The agreement you made axiomatically removes any capacity for the GP to slow the heat loss of the BP through conduction.
And you want me to explain why I believe “back-conduction” has no ability to warm?
And then fret when the separated GP suddenly acquires the ability to slow BP’s energy loss because it is not transparent?
barry, you just keep side-stepping the issues:
1) How come back-conduction has no capacity to warm the blue plate, but you believe back-radiation does? Your answer cannot involve thermal resistance, as explained. So if you mention that the plates are considered to be perfect conductors again, that is a dodge, and I will just keep repeating the question. You cannot get around it that way.
2) How can a BB plate radiatively insulate, when radiative insulation works via reflectivity?
3) “The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord”. You agree with that statement. So why do you believe the GP warming the BP via radiation is not a violation of the Second Law?
4) You wrote this: “…there is no way that the warm object can gain temperature at the expense of the cooler object. Because that would be heat running cold to hot. Not allowed.” So how come you don’t see that the BP rising in temperature on separation of the plates, whilst the GP lowers in temperature, is the warm object gaining temperature at the expense of the cooler object?
“1) How come back-conduction has no capacity to warm the blue plate, but you believe back-radiation does?”
I have no idea what you mean by back-conduction, if it is not the conductive transfer of energy between plates.
I believe ‘back-conduction’ in this case would slow the loss of the BP and it would warm up, if the plates had any real physics to them, instead of an idealised notion.
However, you have decided to make an agreement to nullify this natural effect. That is the result of the plates being ‘perfect conductors’.
It’s like me telling you I’ve made an agreement with some participants you may know that the GP can only radiate on one side… and then asking you why you believe objects only radiate on one side.
I don’t believe objects radiate on one side, but I’ll take the idea for a spin as long as there is some actually interesting insight to glean from doing so.
You are simply not getting it, barry. You cannot seem to shake this notion that the plates being “perfect conductors” means there is no back-conduction. Provide me with a link that supports this idea. Provide a reference that ties thermal resistance of an object to the amount of back-conduction there will be. You will not find one…because the two concepts are not related. Even though the plates are “perfect conductors”, energy is still flowing from the GP to the BP via back-conduction. You just accept that this energy transfer does not result in a temperature increase of the BP. Whereas with back-radiation, you think there will be a temperature increase.
You can’t justify this difference, so you keep dodging the issue.
DREMT,
Wow, this is a long thread.
Although they are conceptually related, I view back-conduction different from back-radiation because you can measure back-radiation by placing a detector between objects at different temperatures. How would anyone measure back-conduction? You can only measure the thermal gradient.
With perfect conductors, back and forth conduction must be equal by definition, right?
Chic, if you believe the amount of back-conduction is connected to the amount of thermal resistance, please provide a reference to support that. As far as I am concerned back-conduction and thermal resistance are two unrelated concepts. The way I see it, back-conduction is like back-radiation, it provides no resistance to heat flow. Whereas thermal resistance is to conductive heat transfer what reflectivity is to radiative heat transfer, that is where any insulation effect comes into play.
“How would anyone measure back-conduction? You can only measure the thermal gradient.”
Good point. Whereas back radiation is something regularly measured by meterologists.
Thermal gradients and heat flows are measured to determine thermal conductance or resistance.
Ive never heard the term back-conduction before. I cant find it anywhere but here.
Seems to be yet another semantic rabbit hole.
I have no idea what hair you are splitting, DREMT.
I cannot fathom what you mean by ‘back-conduction’ other than what I have described – plates simply exchange energy via conduction in both directions – ‘back-radiation’ seems to be a term entirely constructed (by you?) to speak of the energy being conducted in only one direction – GP to BP.
You have set up an imaginary scenario where what would normally happen doesn’t happen, and then asked me why I believe in the physics of the imaginary scenario.
“Back-conduction”, as far as I can make out what you mean, actually DOES occur.
But you’ve deliberately set up a situation (on agreement) where its normal effects DON’T occur and then asked me why they don’t!
I have to agree with Nat that we are going on another semantic quibble. The conversation isn’t making any sense. It’s not dodginess on my part, mate, it’s confusion.
The BP absorbs all radiation. That’s the definition of a blackbody. It absorbs GP’s radiation. The GPE is a thought exercise with simple math to exemplify the greenhouse effect.
This descent into ‘back-conduction’ isn’t really impacting on these simple truths.
‘Back-radiation’ is an unusual term, too. It’s all just radiation being emitted and absorbed between objects at various temperatures.
Nate says:
Or, perhaps, does a plates OPACITY matter?
—————–
Nope! Already shown false by experiment.
2) How can a BB plate radiatively insulate, when radiative insulation works via reflectivity?
Radiative insulation works most efficiently in that configuration when the surface is reflective. Reemitted radiation will still be absorbed.
The GP is not as efficient as a perfect mirror. It only sends 50% of the radiation back that it receives.
3) “The Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord”. You agree with that statement. So why do you believe the GP warming the BP via radiation is not a violation of the Second Law?
Firstly because the GP isn’t warming anything “of its own accord.” It owes its energy to the sun, via the BP.
Secondly and more importantly, the 2nd Law refers to the NET transfer of energy. I’ve quoted Clausius on this a dozen times. You only ever look at the energy going GP –> BP and claim that this violates the 2nd Law. You NEVER consider the energy going BP –> GP, which at all times is greater than the energy coming the other way.
I don’t know how to get you to concede the NET exchange is the defining parameter for the direction of the flow of heat. You never acknowledge this concept even to deny it. You are utterly silent on it and it is key to our dispute.
4) You wrote this: “there is no way that the warm object can gain temperature at the expense of the cooler object. Because that would be heat running cold to hot. Not allowed.” So how come you don’t see that the BP rising in temperature on separation of the plates, whilst the GP lowers in temperature, is the warm object gaining temperature at the expense of the cooler object?
Firstly, the GP is suddenly gets 50% less energy. That is the cause of it cooling, not BP sucking heat from it.
Secondly, by the parameters agreed on for the thought experiment, the GP is not slowing the heat loss of BP by conduction.
That’s not what I “believe” happens IRL, that’s just a simplification so that in the original experiment there was no need to complicate what was happening radiatively.
When the plates ‘separate’ GP becomes radiatively active in the direction of BP, the energy it provides slows the heat loss from BP. BP must warm up in order to equilibrate with all absorbed radiation.
And no, this is not heat flowing from cold to hot, because that ignores the NET exchange.
Radiation is not heat. GP can send any amount of radiation to BP, as long as it doesn’t exceed the amount of radiation BP sends to GP. If ever that happens AND the GP loses heat, we have broken the 2nd Law, because the NET exchange is now in the law-breaking direction.
You are pinning your argument on colloquial usage of the word ‘heat’, via the word ‘warming’.
If you can get people to agree that the GP ‘warms’ the BP, then you think you can claim 2LoT is broken.
You can certainly say the GP makes the BP warmer in casual speech.
But 2LoT is no more broken than if I tell you that your sweater makes you warmer.
This is colloquial usage, not strict physics.
But it is this colloquial usage that your argument relies on.
At all times the NET exchange of energy is hot to cold in the GPE, and also with the thought experiment of perfect conductors splitting.
You don’t want to talk about the NET flow. You don’t even want to rebut it. It seems to slip right by your mind.
“In the first place, the principle [2nd Law of thermodynamics] implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.”
Listen to what Clausius says here. By ‘heat’ he means radiative energy. Apply that to our thought experiments, DREMT. At no time is this axiom broken. And this is the axiom for the 2nd Law, not casual use of language.
2) “Radiative insulation works most efficiently in that configuration when the surface is reflective.”
No, radiative insulation works via reflectivity, barry. “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“. If you disagree, please edit the Wikipedia article. A BB plate is not a radiative insulator.
3) “Firstly because the GP isn’t warming anything “of its own accord.” It owes its energy to the sun, via the BP.”
How many times have I told you that the “of its own accord” clause refers to whether work is being done or not, and does not refer to whether a heat source is present or not. If you believe that this clause in the 2nd Law relates to the presence or absence of a heat source, please support it with a reference.
“Secondly and more importantly, the 2nd Law refers to the NET transfer of energy. I’ve quoted Clausius on this a dozen times. You only ever look at the energy going GP –> BP and claim that this violates the 2nd Law.”
No, barry, the energy going GP to BP does not violate the 2nd Law. That you suggest it warms the BP is what violates the 2nd Law.
4) “Firstly, the GP is suddenly gets 50% less energy. That is the cause of it cooling, not BP sucking heat from it.”
False, barry. The BP is providing exactly the same amount of energy to the GP via conduction before separation as it does to the GP after separation via radiation.
“Secondly, by the parameters agreed on for the thought experiment, the GP is not slowing the heat loss of BP by conduction.”
Yes, you correctly believe back-conduction provides no resistance to heat loss, but you erroneously believe back-radiation provides resistance to heat loss. A strange position that you have yet to explain.
“You can certainly say the GP makes the BP warmer in casual speech. But 2LoT is no more broken than if I tell you that your sweater makes you warmer.”
Yes, you want to claim that back-radiation warming is just insulation. However, a BB plate is not a radiative insulator. If you believe it is, change the Wikipedia article.
“Nope! Already shown false by experiment.”
WTF u takin bout, Bill?
I cant imagine any experiment showing EM radiation passing thru an opaque plate.
“you erroneously believe back-radiation provides resistance to heat loss. A strange position that you have yet to explain.”
Why would anyone in their right mind think it strange that an opaque object doesnt pass light thru it?
Why would anyone in their right mind think it strange that a shaded object should be cooler than one in direct sunlight?
Some people with no integrity quote Wikipedia as a source, while ignoring other Wikipedia articles that explicitly explain how opaque plates act as less efficient radiative insulation, cutting heat flow in half, as Barry did explain!
DREMT,
“Multi-layer insulation (MLI) is thermal insulation composed of multiple layers of thin sheets and is often used on spacecraft and cryogenics. Also referred to as superinsulation, MLI is one of the main items of the spacecraft thermal design, primarily intended to reduce heat loss by thermal radiation….
The principle behind MLI is radiation balance. To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the StefanBoltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space. The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W. So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.
More layers can be added to reduce the loss further. The blanket can be further improved by making the outside surfaces highly reflective to thermal radiation, which reduces both ab.sorp.tion and emission.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
Emissivity of 1 = blackbody. This article is talking about radiative insulation per blackbody surfaces.
Matches what I said, too.
“The GP is not as efficient as a perfect mirror. It only sends 50% of the radiation back that it receives.”
The article also corroborates that blackbodies and reflectors can perform the same function, but reflectors do it more efficiently.
And so Clausius, MIT and now this wiki article agree that the warmer object absorbs radiation from the cooler object.
The above article is a near match for the GPE, except that it holds the temperature of the ‘BP’ fixed.
Radiation is radiation, whether reflected, emitted or transmitted.
It is absorbed by warmer objects from cold, but less so than the other way around.
“How many times have I told you that the “of its own accord” clause refers to whether work is being done or not, and does not refer to whether a heat source is present or not.”
Work does not even feature in the GPE. It’s a non-mechanical system. Not even pressure to deal with. There is no Carnot cycle No heat engine.
Why on Earth are you bringing ‘work’ into the equation?
Now, look at how you dodge Clausius on NET energy, as ever.
barry: “Secondly and more importantly, the 2nd Law refers to the NET transfer of energy. I’ve quoted Clausius on this a dozen times. You only ever look at the energy going GP > BP and claim that this violates the 2nd Law.”
What does DREMT do?
DREMT: “No, barry, the energy going GP to BP does not violate the 2nd Law. That you suggest it warms the BP is what violates the 2nd Law.”
Did you see that? You completely ignored, for the 50th time, NET exchange, which Clausius defines as the direction of heat flow.
As I said, it slips by your mind.
You just void it from the conversation.
You shut your eyes to it.
Won’t acknowledge it.
Not even to deny it.
You are unable acknowledge Clauius’ definition of heat being the NET exchange of energy between 2 objects of different temperature.
“In the first place, the principle [2nd Law of thermodynamics] implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.”
Are you going to ignore this forever, DREMT? It is key to our dispute.
Nate, Dr RW Woods showed that the IR opaqueness of a greenhouse had no effect on the equilibrium temperature in a greenhouse.
Then another that showed the greenhouse effect to be mostly (super majority) smoke and mirrors was the 2 compartment box model experiment that was widely discussed in this forum I think maybe a couple years ago. You know the one that you and bdgwx both thought something was wrong with it but couldn’t put your finger on what it was.
That would be a discussion worth reviving.
“This article is talking about radiative insulation per blackbody surfaces…the article also corroborates that blackbodies and reflectors can perform the same function, but reflectors do it more efficiently.”
It does indeed talk about it, but:
1) The reality is that MLI, in practice, uses reflective surfaces. Whether it would work with BB surfaces is not something we can ever know, for certain, as BB surfaces do not exist in reality.
2) Nowhere do they say, or even imply, that the temperature of the “BP” layer could be made to increase by the addition of the extra BB layers (if it was not fixed in temperature, of course).
3) The existence of this article does not somehow “trump” or remove from existence the article I quoted, which states that radiative insulation works via reflectivity. You cannot magic that away, I’m afraid. It still exists. You haven’t even acknowledged that it exists, so far.
“Work does not even feature in the GPE. It’s a non-mechanical system. Not even pressure to deal with. There is no Carnot cycle No heat engine.”
Exactly. That’s the point, barry. So the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object would have to be making the warmer object warmer still “of its own accord”. Which violates the Second Law. Again, if you think that it is not happening “of its own accord” because of the presence of a heat source, please find that reference I have been asking you for throughout.
“Are you going to ignore this forever, DREMT? It is key to our dispute.”
Not really, barry. I acknowledge that Clausius said what he said. I acknowledge that energy radiates both ways…and I think the “plates together 244 K…244 K, plates separated 262 K…220 K”, with no change in the overall energy input to, and output from, the 2-plate system, shows as clearly as possible the violation of that Second Law he discovered. However, I don’t think we will ever agree on that. Which is fine, I guess.
Nate says:
Nope! Already shown false by experiment.
WTF u takin bout, Bill?
I cant imagine any experiment showing EM radiation passing thru an opaque plate.
————————
thats only because in your piecemeal way of thinking there is a difference between ‘through’ and ‘out of’.
For the record, back-conduction is a term one can use to describe the occasional few molecules on the right that have more kinetic energy than those on the left in a solid as heat moves left to right from hot to cold. Statistically the total kinetic energy is always more to the left than to the right at any point along the direction of flow.
It’s the same for conduction in a gas and liquid, but convection confuses the issue.
“Nate, Dr RW Woods showed that the IR opaqueness of a greenhouse had no effect on the equilibrium temperature in a greenhouse.”
Bill, again, relevance? Who cares what dr woods found in a completely different exeriment under completely different conditions?
It has nothing to do with the undeniable fact that opaque black plates in VACUUM block radiation.
Plates in vacuum exposed to direct sunlight are warmer than those in the shade produced by another plate.
Are you going to deny these straightforward truths?
And furthermore dr woods experiment involved convection! None of which is found in vacuum!
”
The reality is that MLI, in practice, uses reflective surfaces. Whether it would work with BB surfaces is not something we can ever know, for certain, as BB surfaces do not exist in reality.”
The article explains that it does work and the physics principles behind it. It explains the result one would get for any emisivity, doesnt need to be a perfect black body.
So this is simply a lie.
Oh well, DREMT has no integrity again. No surprise.
Nate says:
And furthermore dr woods experiment involved convection! None of which is found in vacuum!
—————————-
LMAO! And CO2 is also not found in a vacuum so where exactly do you think Dr. Woods should have performed his experiment?
“3) The existence of this article does not somehow ‘trump’ or remove from existence the article I quoted, which states that radiative insulation works via reflectivity.”
Know where I got my wiki article from? Clicking on a link in YOUR wiki article.
You’re just in constant denial, mate. Blackbodies, greybodies and any real life object emit radiation, and that radiation is absorbed by other objects of temperatures higher or lower. The warmer objects impart more radiation to cool objects than the reverse – that’s the 2nd Law – the NET exchange.
They all do the same job that a reflecting body does re insulation, but just less efficiently. Your article does not gainsay that. The articles are NOT in contradiction.
“BB surfaces do not exist in reality”
Neither do perfect conductors. You really want to go down this road and undermine your own argument?
“You haven’t even acknowledged that it exists, so far.”
Of course I have:
“Radiative insulation works most efficiently in that configuration when the surface is reflective. Reemitted radiation will still be absorbed.”
and
“The GP is not as efficient as a perfect mirror. It only sends 50% of the radiation back that it receives”
Your grasp of the conversation gets wobblier as you hold ever tighter to the mantra of ignoring the NET exchange and focus solely on the one direction of energy.
Obviously heat is flowing from GP to BP if there’s no energy coming back from the BP. That seems to be what you are trying to get us to imagine without actually saying it.
“So the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object would have to be making the warmer object warmer still ‘of its own accord'”.
It’s not warming anything “of its own accord.” You are arguing from a false premise.
I have already provided you with a link on how a cooler object can ’cause’ a warmer object to get warmer when I linked you to the page on insulation.
But put on a sweater, DREMT! You don’t need fancy links to observe what is common knowledge.
If the heat loss of a body receiving constant energy is reduced in some way, the object must warm up to compensate.
This is the case for conduction, convection and radiation.
You seem to think that radiation is a special case that doesn’t share this property with the other modes of energy transfer.
I don’t know why, other than you don’t like AGW.
To round off, you ar using “is warming” GP “warms” BP in a colloquial sense – the same way we say a sweater makes you warm.
You are not talking about heat in any formal way when you do this, and this is the basis for your argument – ignore NET energy exchange, and ignore the classical meaning of the word ‘heat’ in favour of colloquial usage.
My seater made me warmer. Therefor 2LoT is busted.
That’s your argument boiled down to brass tacks.
If you apply classical thermo to the GPE, heat always flows from hot to cold.
The sweat didn’t make me warmer, under classical thermo – it slowed my heat loss.
That’s what the GP does.
If you reject classical thermo terms, go right ahead and say the GP made the BP warmer.
BUT – you can’t invoke the 2LoT with colloquial language. You have to abide by classical thermo definitions.
“LMAO! And CO2 is also not found in a vacuum so where exactly do you think Dr. Woods should have performed his experiment?”
Bill proves that he has absolutely no idea what this discussion is about!
We can safely ignore Bill’s posts.
I removed all the false accusations, misrepresentations, and condescension from your comment, barry. Here’s what was left:
“ “.
The two Wikipedia articles do contradict each other. One says:
“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“.
Which would suggest that a BB plate cannot be a radiative insulator, as it does not reflect. Whereas the MLI article suggests that hypothetically, it could be…however in reality MLI actually uses reflective surfaces anyway. You, of course, take the unproven hypothesis from the MLI article as gospel, and pretend that the Wikipedia article with the most basic, fundamental statement on insulation does not contradict it. Well, it does. “Reflected rather than absorbed”. Couldn’t be clearer.
You keep attacking this straw man that I am arguing against insulation. I am not. I just disagree that a BB surface can radiatively insulate. Certainly I disagree that it can insulate to the point that it makes another surface warmer. Your MLI article never suggests or even implies that the original “BP” layer could actually be warmed by the addition of the extra BB layers, if it were not fixed in temperature.
Surely you agree that if the GP is not insulating the BP, then the addition of the GP resulting in an increase in temperature of the BP would be a violation of the Second Law?
“You, of course, take the unproven hypothesis”
And, as expected, the doubling down on lies rears its ugly head.
If DREMT reads in Wikipedia that a technolgy uses x to accomplish a task y, then he infers a universal ‘truth’ that ONLY x can accomplish task y.
Then when another Wikipedia article clearly shows how z can also accomplish task y, but less efficiently, then he infers that the 2nd Wikipedia article must be wrong!
Even though z uses physics that has been tested countless times, DREMT lies and declares that z is an ‘unproven hylothesis’.
grammie pup’s continued rants just repeating his proof by assertion that the GPE violates the 2nd Law. He objects to the differences in two Wikipedia articles, in which one features man made reflective insulation which intentionally uses reflective surface(s) vs the more general case including a high emissivity surface as a radiation shield.
Science and established engineering show that the high emissivity surface does provide some reduction in energy flow. grammie pup can’t accept that fact, so he insists on blasting away, like the Russians with their artillery, trying to obliterate the opposition by posting overwhelming piles of BS like this gem of stupidity:
Its worth pointing out that even the Blue Plate, by itself, is acting as a radiative shield.
The sun is radiating 400 W/m^2 of radiant flux onto the BP. And all of us agree that the BP warms to 244K, and radiates 200 W/m^2 in both directions.
Any objects in its shadow are blocked from direct sunlight and are receiving only half of its radiant flux, 200 W/m^2.
Thus the BP is acting as a radiant shield, passing on only half of what it received, just as described in the Wikipedia article on MLI.
Extending this pattern to the GP tells us that it will also act as a radiant shield, passing on only half of what it receives from the BP.
But in order to maintain steady temps the BP/GP combo must radiate a total of 400 W/m^2, to satisfy 1LOT.
Thus it turns out that the the BP must radiate 267 W/m^2 and warm to 262 K. It is free to do so.
And the GP will radiate 133 W/m^2 and cool to 220 K.
The combo NET output is 267 W/m^2 to the left and 133 W/m^2 to the right = 400 W/m^2 = Input from the sun.
The combo of two plates is more effective at reducing the heat flow. It is a better insulator.
DREMT, you do realize, don’t you, that every object in the known universe both reflects and absorbs, right?
“thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed”
There’s no such thing as either/or here, the article is referring to surfaces that are more reflective.
Reflected radiation has higher intensity (if it comes from a warmer source) than re-emitted radiation, which loses energy to the cooler object.
But the re-mitted radiation still is absorbed by the warmer object.
Clauius says that
MIT says that
The wiki article on insulating spacecraft says that
Physics says that
It’s the same effect as reflected radiation, just less efficiently.
You’re just denying all these sources.
BP absorbs radiation from GP.
That’s true whether its a blackbody or just an ordinary sheet of dull metal.
The rest is as laid out.
GP adds more radiation to the incoming for BP.
BP must shed the same amount of energy it acquires to be in equilibrium with it (the GPE configuration is a steady state). It must heat up to do so.
At no time does GP yield more radiation to BP than it receives from BP.
2LoT not broken.
“In the first place, the principle [2nd Law of thermodynamics] implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.”
Quick, we need more Green Plate Effect Defenders to argue by insult! Call in Swanson, as well…HELP! Everybody rain down their collective hatred and pent-up frustrations for all their failings in life on this one poor guy…QUICK!
‘When all the tactics from chapters 1-8 fail, play the victim card’
Troll Hanbook, Chapter 9.
barry’s latest comment has even less substantive content than the previous one. He seems to have ramped up his rhetoric to the max. Oh well, these four words sink the hopes of all the Green Plate Effect Defenders: "…reflected rather than absorbed".
I’m sure the cyber-bullying will continue, but "…reflected rather than absorbed" is the issue-settler, regardless. That’s that.
“reflected rather than absorbed”. Its as if no one else made any argument at all. Thats what dishonest debate by DREMT is all about.
barry says:
2LoT not broken.
”In the first place, the principle [2nd Law of thermodynamics] implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.”
————————————-
this is so typical of those heavy inculcated by their education. A day does not go by where the educated learn the hard way that what they learned in school was a set of tools, that if used in a journeyman way will aid their development as professionals. Of course the process of gaining experience is a process of learning the limits of the tools that have been imparted to them in their education.
Here Barry, and the others here in this argument, try to fit together two contradictory facts by using definitions rather than science.
Yes in education you learn that photons are different than heat. But in the real world you can’t start inventing new laws of science based upon those differences because in effect there is no difference there are only differences in expression of the same thing. Like colors we have labels for them blue, yellow, red and combinations of those colors have their own labels. But they all are light. Likewise heat and work are labels for expressions of energy, one cannot use an expression to avoid a law of energy.
Yet it seems we have built a huge issue out of nothing even remotely related to science and it is held up by tricky linguistics. We saw the same thing at work on the moon spinning on its own axis issue.
Regarding photons. Its merely a convenient way to express that all surfaces of an object has the potential of imparting the objects heat onto another object. But that potential might be zero and we are left with radiating photons that do absolutely nothing that can be established by science.
The reason it does nothing is because the photon model which only has a 50% chance of being true as opposed to a model of differences in potential like electromagnetic electricity.
These issues will not be solved until people can devise ingenious experiments that establish the fate of these cold photons (namely finding where in fact they will be expressed as heat. I figure where its expressed is on the cold object.
While happily emitting photons at the precise rate they are being received; warmists would like us to believe that nothing changes for the cold object in the presence of a warm object. That the warm object warms one minute and not the other and who knows what other shenigans the warm object is going to do with these wayward cold photons. Its silly beyond silly.
So if Barry wants to make this argument the first proof he must provide is to locate with certainty these ‘cold’ photons he has based his entire argument upon.
I see this all the time in my profession where professionals and people who should know better monkey with the definitions of things that go beyond science and or the clear intent of law to convince themselves they have found a way to ignore the law. Top level guys in private enterprise are in prison over doing that. And sometimes even they get wrongly convicted because of court/jury bias that chooses to not entertain the idea that the ambiguity in the law, if such an ambiguity exists, doesn’t exist.
So both sides of the argument have a chance of be wrong on an issue such as this; but both sides should recognize they have equal arguments. And it is an incredible waste of time hashing it over and over.
but in this case since the warmists want the skeptics to cough up bucks and forego opportunity. . . .the burden of proof has to be on the warmists to establish something in science to implement their authoritarianism over others.
But we always get that the scientists have no evil intent, they don’t profit from all this. Of course we do know they do profit from extracting money from taxpayers over an over hyped issue. So that argument is a non-starter. And of course we have history to. We have the Pope’s scientists propping up Ptolemy Theory. We have Hitlers scientists propping up Racial Science. We have Stalin’s scientists propping up lamarckism and sending contrary scientists to Siberia or executing them. We have Mao’s Scientists propping up Einsteanianism and doing anything they want in the name of relativity.
Hopefully a free nation can resist those tides.
Your point is a little unclear, Bill.
I’ve been asking for 2 years for someone to provide reference that radiation from objects cannot be absorbed by warmer objects.
Because that is the crux of the matter, not the semantic games played out upthread.
Because if warmer objects absorb radiation from cooler objects then the GPE works fine, whether you call it insulation, back-radiation, “GP warms BP” or whatever language you choose, be it vernacular or rooted in classical physics.
“warmists would like us to believe that nothing changes for the cold object in the presence of a warm object.”
Firstly, this is absolutely wrong. The cooler object is provided energy by the warmer. Wherever you got this idea from it wasn’t from these discussions.
Secondly, I reject the ‘warmist’ label. Shall I call you a ‘denier’ to balance the books?
In classical physics, EM radiation (energy) and heat are distinct terms with different meanings. Clausius used them interchangably in his memoirs, but said the same thing as I’m saying – radiation is absorbed in both directions.
Can you sum up your objection concisely and provide a reputable reference to corroborate it? I’ve provided plenty.
“but in this case since the warmists want the skeptics to cough up bucks and forego opportunity”
The burden of proof doesn’t rest on pecuniary interest, FFS. Regardless, I’ve referenced the father of the second law himself, MIT and other university’s physics texts.
It’s well past time that critics of the greenhouse effect and the GPE provided references. 2 years past time.
barry says:
Your point is a little unclear, Bill.
Ive been asking for 2 years for someone to provide reference that radiation from objects cannot be absorbed by warmer objects.
————————–
barry you just didn’t read it slowly enough to comprehend what I was saying.
In short since it is the position of those who believe as you do that regulation of fossil fuels is necessary; the burden on you is to show that warm objects absorb radiation from cold objects. . . .but everybody that trys to prove that is foiled.
————
==============
barry says:
Because if warmer objects absorb radiation from cooler objects then the GPE works fine, whether you call it insulation, back-radiation, GP warms BP or whatever language you choose, be it vernacular or rooted in classical physics.
——————-
thats true only if your assumption is correct that warm objects absorb electromagnetic radiation from cold objects as opposed to operating on the basis of a differential of potentials where instead the cold object would warm sufficiently to be passing all the radiation absorbed from the warm object off into space.
Since that hasn’t been established and it is as likely as not science cannot make a law that it so (in good faith at least).
You just assume it is a done deal. But why bother with all fingerprinting and huge workforces to spread this assumption to the ignorant masses when all they would need to do is prove that the photon model works as believed.
The photon model indeed shows a contradiction that isn’t explained by what I call the 3rd grade radiation model that you ascribe too. that would be what they teach 3rd graders.
And that contradiction is the topic of this subthread. Is there back radiation or is there not! If so then what does the receiving object do with the excess radiation coming from the cold object? Well your side on one day says it warms the warm object further. Then somebody throws a flag for 2LOT foul. Then the story becomes something else warms it but the fate of the absorbed radiation has not yet been explained.
Also there is no evidence that the alternative insulation model works either.
If you have a pane of glass separating the cold outside from the warm inside. Since the glass is rated as having very little insulating value the heat passes quickly through the glass without any slowing and both the inside and outside surfaces of the glass are very similar in temperature.
But if you have an R-19 wall then the inside of the wall is going to be very close to the inside temperature and the outside wall is going to be very close to the outside temperature.
Further you have Roy’s sky temperature experiments. When clouds pass over the sky temperature shoots up real fast and when the leave it drops real fast. Clouds are a bigger variable than greenhouse gases.
And temperature profiles are in concert with gas laws and not some estimated insulation value. Further CO2 can’t override water and it can’t even override a trace of ozone in the stratosphere. There is no indicator I am aware of other than an unproven theory it controls anything.
All this is the same reason that a white line in a black parking lot is cooler to walk on than the black pavement.
The white line reflects a lot of light so it warms more slowly thus allowing conduction and convection to be more efficient at cooling it.
In a space environment the white line would be much nearer to the same temperature as the black pavement. But white works great for space ships because it slows the transmittal of heat from the outside of the spaceship to the inside so that the inside cooling system can be much smaller.
Now I could claim possibly that the contradiction of the 2LOT and the fate of cold radiation absorbed by warm objects problem favors a differential of potential photoelectric effect. The reason I won’t is my Grandfather, an accomplished engineer of the early 20th century, used to always say to me in his shop as he was trying to fix something and his first attempt wasn’t working out, he would always blurt out ‘there is more than one way to skin a cat’. But on this topic I will wait around for some brilliant outside of the box thinker to come up with a Theory of Everything to solve the problem. Einstein aspired to be that guy but fell short.
——————
==================
barry says:
Secondly, I reject the warmist label. Shall I call you a denier to balance the books?
———————-
No. Warmist isn’t insulting. Denier is. Roy doesn’t mind being called a ‘luke warmer’. He does because he believes that the climate is much less sensitive possibly even negative feedback.
If you ascribe to 3 degrees per doubling you are a warmist. If you ascribe to a greenhouse gas effect of significantly less than that you are ‘luke warmer’. Myself I ascribe to something that could be regarded as luke warm but i generally believe the greenhouse effect is much more robustly affected by a myriad of processes in the atmosphere than believed by warmists, and remain neutral on the details of the photoelectric effect but I remain very curious about the explanation of the fate of photons that are prohibited from warming a warm object with a cold object.
————–
=================
Barry says:
In classical physics, EM radiation (energy) and heat are distinct terms with different meanings. Clausius used them interchangably in his memoirs, but said the same thing as Im saying radiation is absorbed in both directions.
————————
Somebody saying radiation is absorbed in both directions isn’t evidence Barry. The photo theory just as the spinner theory of the moon is a handy tool that provides units that describes stuff known by science. But Clausius was wise enough to suggest you use a one way tranferrence of energy to avoid not derailing yourself.
‘Can you sum up your objection concisely and provide a reputable reference to corroborate it? Ive provided plenty.’
Science isn’t popularity contest Barry.
——————-
===================
Barry says:
The burden of proof doesnt rest on pecuniary interest.
Its well past time that critics of the greenhouse effect and the GPE provided references. 2 years past time.
——————
==================
Why should it rest on pecuniary interests? Are you opposed to people making your life better. You can choose to not buy fossil fuels but you don’t speak for everybody else and it shouldn’t be subject to a popularity contest either, though it will be because democracy isn’t perfect. Its just more perfect than other systems so far invented.
One cannot produce a science reference until one shows definite observations that one theory is better than the other.
Bill,
“Somebody saying radiation is absorbed in both directions isn’t evidence Barry.”
It’s not ‘somebody’ it’s the guy who wrote the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Rudolph Clausius.
I’ve gone to the utmost source on the 2LoT, who describes how the 2LoT works.
“In the first place, the principle [2nd Law of thermodynamics] implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.”
Clausius is speaking of NET radiative exchange.
I’ve backed this view up with formal physics texts from universities.
The response is always waffle, never some substantiating reference demonstrating the opposite.
This isn’t a popularity contest, Bill. It’s one guy corroborating his argument and other guys not corroborating their counter.
For 2 years now.
You going to corroborate for the other guys or just keep waffling?
I note that barry has, throughout this discussion, been increasingly trying to make it about whether or not the warmer object absorbs the radiation from the cooler object. I have already made it clear to him that whether or not the radiation is absorbed, the Second Law would be broken if the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object made the warmer object warmer still, of its own accord.
Now barry agrees with that statement, but apparently thinks that because there is a heat source present, the hypothetical warming would not be “of its own accord”. I point out that the “of its own accord” clause relates to whether work is being done or not, and not the presence or absence of a heat source, and that without a heat source both BP and GP would be around 3 K, and barry deflects to insulation.
I then point out that a BB surface cannot radiatively insulate, because it cannot reflect, and remind him of those four magic words, “reflected rather than absorbed”, and he brings up MLI, which uses reflective surfaces in any case and about which it was never claimed that additional BB surfaces would make the original “BP” layer warmer.
I could also mention the 3-plate scenario, in which a central, powered blue plate is supposedly warmed by 46 K merely by the addition of two green plates, one to the left of it and one to the right. Press the three plates together and the temperatures are 244 K…244 K…244 K. Separate them by even a mm and the temperatures are supposedly now 244 K…290 K…244 K! All whilst the input and output energy to the system remains the same! A clearer violation of thermodynamic laws would be hard to find.
“I point out that the ‘of its own accord’ clause relates to whether work is being done or not, and not the presence or absence of a heat source”
And I point out that the presence of an external source of power is the reason “of its own accord” is wrong, and that there is no ‘work’ being done in the GPE.
Nothing is being ignored. DREMT thinks that his assertions amount to a train of logic.
IRL, a continuously powered plate will get warmer if 2 plates are pressed against either side of it, reducing the rate of heat loss to the vacuum.
But apparently DREMT and some cohorts have agreed to remove the effects of conduction from whatever thought experiment they were running, and now DREMT is arguing as if that is what would actually happen.
DREMT also casually dismisses information that comes from the same source he references if it doesn’t fit in with his view. He just cherry-picks the bits that fit and writes off the bits that don’t conform to his argument.
It’s a great strategy for never being wrong.
It’s also a good strategy for never being right.
Started a new thread below.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1297926
This one’s too long.
“And I point out that the presence of an external source of power is the reason “of its own accord” is wrong, and that there is no ‘work’ being done in the GPE.”
Yes, barry, that there is no work being done in the GPE is why the radiation received by the warmer object from the cooler object would have to be making the warmer object warmer still “of its own accord”. The presence or absence of a heat source is not what the “of its own accord” clause in the Second Law is about. It is about whether work is being done, or not. If you think it is about the presence or absence of a heat source, support that with the reference I have been asking you for.
“DREMT also casually dismisses information that comes from the same source he references if it doesn’t fit in with his view. He just cherry-picks the bits that fit and writes off the bits that don’t conform to his argument.”
Projection from barry. barry doesn’t like the reality of the “reflected rather than absorbed” so he writes that bit off.
I will just repeat:
“I could also mention the 3-plate scenario, in which a central, powered blue plate is supposedly warmed by 46 K merely by the addition of two green plates, one to the left of it and one to the right. Press the three plates together and the temperatures are 244 K…244 K…244 K. Separate them by even a mm and the temperatures are supposedly now 244 K…290 K…244 K! All whilst the input and output energy to the system remains the same! A clearer violation of thermodynamic laws would be hard to find.”
As barry did not deal with that at all, he just dodged it again by focussing on conduction and by tossing out a few false accusations. I wonder at what point barry would ever start to question his beliefs. If you add more green plates to the equation, the blue plate just keeps on getting warmer…would he question his beliefs at over 100 K warming of the blue plate? Because I think that is supposedly reached by just a couple more green plates placed either side of the others.
barry says:
Its not somebody its the guy who wrote the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Rudolph Clausius. Ive gone to the utmost source on the 2LoT, who describes how the 2LoT works.
Ive backed this view up with formal physics texts from universities.
The response is always waffle, never some substantiating reference demonstrating the opposite.
———————–
The words of Clausius are not the word of God. Dremt and I have both pointed out a contradiction in the belief system of Clausius that has NOT been scientifically resolved.
And NOT knowing if the two views are actually compatible at this level of detail has a great source backing it up. A somebody who isn’t anybody.
”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
Note how Einstein stubbornly refused to use the word ‘photon’ and continued to use the words he used in his Nobel prize winning ‘photoelectric effect’. Note the root electric in there.
Contradictions in the current photon model is what led Einstein to say that. But the mathematicians want to chalk up the inconsistencies due to statistics and just plow past the issue as if it were resolved.
I have expressed this view several times in the past and you guys just waffle and ignore it repeating the contradictory viewpoint. DREMT does an excellent job describing that contradiction and you have zero answer for it. Clausius has never expressed an answer for it either if just went on believing what he believed. . . .like you. . . .treating the ‘accepted’ body of science as sacrosanct and beyond question. . . .apparently by nearly every Tom, Dick, and Harry excluding Alfred.
Rote learners abound without striving to fully understand the implications of what they believe. So they appeal to Great Gods of their world who never strived to resolve those contradictions. But there is hope still Barry there is a huge cash prize available to that person that does solve this riddle.
Your appeal to authority need not apply for winning the prize.
But Its a great strategy for never being wrong.
Its also a good strategy for never being right.
Here are more references that these issue remain unsolved:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
And of course Clausius was long dead before the question even arose or a photon was ever named. So your source is archaic like the earth is 6000 years old.
And of course we should not ignore that when Clausius was claiming warm objects absorbed light from cold objects, physics at that time believed in the wave theory of light. And thus under wave theory ‘cancellation’ of those waves was thought to be well understood.
Yet we have folks quoting such archaic stuff as facts and claiming that they are the only facts that have been presented.
“please find that reference I have been asking you for throughout.”
Passing heat from cold to hot without work input is a 2lot violation.
If there is no heat transfer from cold to hot happening, then there is NO need to find an excuse for that.
This has been explained many times now. Why are people so clueless that they are still demanding this totally uneccesary excuse?
“For the record, back-conduction is a term one can use to describe the occasional few molecules on the right that have more kinetic energy than those on the left in a solid as heat moves left to right from hot to cold. Statistically the total kinetic energy is always more to the left than to the right at any point along the direction of flow.”
…and back-conduction, like back-radiation, has no capacity to warm.
Back conduction is a made up, vague, undefined term. Very useful for obfuscation.
Nate the pot calls the kettle black.
…and back-conduction, like back-radiation, has no capacity to warm.
Yes, but it does contribute to resistance. No back conduction might be a good definition of a perfect conductor.
“Yes”
That’ll do. I don’t agree that back-conduction has anything to do with thermal resistance, but I can’t be bothered to keep on arguing that point.
Googled ‘back conduction’ and ‘thermal back conduction’. Cannot be found.
…but I can’t be bothered to keep on arguing that point.
Nate has gone full obfuscation mode.
Oh dear. A global warming and green power enthusiast accidentally acknowledges reality –
“After the sun sets and the day darkens, Professor Ekins-Daukes says the potential for solar energy well and truly remains.
“We get energy from the sun it arrives, it warms up the Earth but then the Earth actually radiates the exact same amount of energy back out into space,” he says.”
The Earth radiates the exact same amount of energy back out into space, that it receives from the sun. Of course it does!
No heat trapping or accumulation. Just physics at work.
“exact same amount”
Oh. I didnt realize that every day the Earth has the exact same amount of clouds.. exact same amount of snow cover too…exact same amount of trees with leaves..
Deniers say the darndest things.
Don’t forget the amount of evaporation that takes place everyday either.
Nate,
Elkins-Daukes is a GHE believer, and leading renewable energy researcher.
However, if the Earth didn’t actually lose more energy than it gets from the Sun, it wouldn’t have cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
As Baron Fourier (Fourier transforms etc) pointed out in 1824, and Lord Kelvin and others agreed, the Earth has cooled.
Any man made warming is ephemeral, and doesn’t last.
No GHE.
However, the Earth has warmed since the last glaciation, and it has warmed since the so called little ice age, and it has warmed since the Medieval warm period.
b,
You idiot.
Nobody knows the temperature of the Medieval Warm Period – not even a fantasist like you.
Give it a go – what was the peak temperature of the Earth during the Medieval Warm Period?
Don’t complain that the dog ate your temperature. Willard has already used that excuse.
Maybe you could nip out and measure it again with one of your imaginary treemometers or something.
Swenson,
That’s a bullshit question.
Who the fuck cares, I was talking about the average temperature, not the peak temperature.
Can you try to get a clue.
b,
OK, then. Setting aside your obscenity, what was the average temperature of the Medieval Warm Period?
How about the average temperature right now?
You are right in one respect. No one really cares what an ignorant peabrain like you thinks.
Of course, you might be able to name one person who believes that you know the average temperature of the Medieval Warm Period, or the current average. You could always try lying, I suppose, and join your peabrained mate, Willard.
Then there would be two lying, idiotic morons.
Two dimwits spewing obscenities thinking it makes them look clever.
Oh well.
Swenson,
Are you trying to be clever.
What kind of sandwich do you want with your average medieval warm period temperature?
Moberg et al (2005), says it was about 1 C cooler than today.
I am referring to anomalies, not the specific average temperature, because there is more uncertainty in that specific measurement.
But you would know that, if you had a clue.
which you don’t
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“The Earth radiates the exact same amount of energy back out into space, that it receives from the sun. Of course it does!”
“However, if the Earth didnt actually lose more energy than it gets from the Sun, it wouldnt have cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.”
So Flynnson can’t get his story straight!
“As Baron Fourier (Fourier transforms etc) pointed out in 1824, and Lord Kelvin and others agreed, the Earth has cooled.”
Yes, this is the calculation that the Earth must be young (a few millions of years old), that Lord Kelvin famously got wrong!
Go look into it.
You will find that due to radioactive decay of elements in the Earth, its heat has been maintained for billions of years.
One more of these ‘lovers of the 2nd Amendment’ …
https://i.f1g.fr/media/cms/531x299_crop/2022/05/16/729831fa338c1e3ac4e921bebe94e6d5a2fc1e60c0729cf92420996e82528354.jpg
Too bad the German Jews didn’t have the 2nd Amendment in the 1930’s.
Yeah. Then they would have had tanks and artillery and bombers too.
Oh wait…
Oh, wait, so the Resistance had tanks, planes, and bombers?
No they didnt. And it did go well. See eg the Warsaw ghetto uprising.
That’s how cults do. Agenda over reality.
We see the same thing right here.
If you say so, Pup, if you say so.
I am sure that you think that others will find your opinion valuable. Maybe you could name one?
Well, you’re certainly enthralled by me, stalker Willard.
That’s why you never miss a chance to sniff my butt.
You dimwit.
Carry on.
Binny,
Maybe you could specify the lies that were told, and back up your allegations with fact rather than fantasy?
Wrong door, Mike.
Silly Billy Willy,
What are you babbling about?
Are you insinuating that Binny cannot read?
He certainly seems a bit light in the thinking department, and unable to specify what “lies” he refers, but he seems capable of reading to a degree.
I suppose that just makes him a stupid moron, unlike you being a lying stupid moron for claiming to have non-existent Greenhouse Theory!
Don’t you understand, dimwit, that I comment when, where, and as I like? And of course, there is precisely nothing you can do about it, because you are completely powerless!
As well as being a stupid lying moron, of course. Others my think differently, and as usual, I don’t care.
[chortle]
Long, rambling, and filled with insults and false accusations.
One of your best, silly sock puppet.
Willard,
” . . . filled with insults and false accusations.”
Don’t blame me if you choose to feel insulted, or feel that you have been the subject of false accusations.
If you had any backbone, you would do something about your “feelings”.
But of course, you’ll just whine and whinge, because you are a stupid lying moron, who is still lying about having a Greenhouse Theory, stupid because you think think people won’t challenge your lie, and a moron because . . . well, because you’re a moron!
Carry on.
Well, you are certainly enthralled by me, silly sock puppet.
That is why you never miss a chance to sniff my butt.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“That is why you never miss a chance to sniff my butt.”
Nah. I am happy to leave the butt sniffing to you. It seems to occupy your mind.
Oh good Flynn, you’re joining your cult’s meltdown, and leading off with a false accusation. Then you continue with your ongoing attempt to obfuscate. You learned a new term, “butt sniffing”, so now you hope to spin your way out of the mess you’ve made. You’re the only one trying to confuse the issue.
Woeful Willard,
What are you blathering about, fool?
Still cant produce a Greenhouse Theory, but dont want to admit it?
That would make you a lying, idiotic, moron.
You can run, but you cant hide. You can try throwing out more homosexual innuendoes, telling “Mike Mike” how much you love him, and how he makes you swoon, and insert strange gay symbols into your comments, but your sexual preferences do not concern me.
Why should they? Doing you believe homosexuality should be made compulsory? I dont.
Moron.
You do not know anything about the science, Mike. That is why you have to call people “moron” all the time, like a 10 year-old brat would do.
Silly sock puppet.
Whacky Willard,
You can run but you cant hide, fool.
Maybe you should just admit that you were lying about having a Greenhouse Theory.
That would at least get rid of the idiot tag.
If you keep lying that you have a Greenhouse Theory, you remain an idiotic, lying , moron.
Mind you, you are also delusional. Or maybe just trying to be gratuitously stupid and offensive by refusing to use my name.
Oh well, what else should be expected from a lying, idiotic, delusional moron.
Carry on.
Mike, your meltdown is music to my ears. I especially like the “gratuitously stupid and offensive” combined with “you are also delusional”! Even Pup could not come up with that.
Silly sock puppet.
Willard,
I am glad you accepted the truth, when I wrote “Mind you, you are also delusional. Or maybe just trying to be gratuitously stupid and offensive by refusing to use my name.”
In the meantime, are you still lying about having a Greenhouse Theory?
That would make you a lying, idiotic, moron – as well as a pathetic excuse for a delusional troll who cant even offend or annoy anyone.
Carry on trying to become an effective troll.
Your question was answered below, silly sock puppet.
Here is a question for you. If your beliefs are true and valid, why do you have to pervert reality?
Willard,
You wrote “Your question was answered below, silly sock puppet”
I asked if you were still lying about having a Greenhouse Theory.
You confirmed you were, so I wonder why you would boast about being a lying, idiotic, moron. It doesn’t seem to be the best way to convince people how clever you are. Maybe that’s because you are a lying, idiotic moron who claims he has a non-existent Greenhouse Theory!
Mike,
As usual, you have no clue what you’re talking about.
Now you can your usual flame rant…
Willard, please stop trolling.
One person out of 330 million. You had a few in Germany not that long ago. Now they are in the Ukraine.
C’mon, Gordo.
They indeed are, but not on the side you are rooting for:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army
Think.
willard…try to get your feeble mind around this…
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/members-of-neo-nazi-azov-battalion-surrender-in-mariupol-russian-media/articleshow/91614901.cms
C’mon, Gordo.
There’s nothing in that piece of crap.
Here’s what the ZZ “liberation” looks like:
https://www.rferl.org/a/mariupol-ruins-drone-ukraine/31766973.html
Think.
Willard,
ZZ “liberation” looks like an irrelevant link? Really?
Maybe you could take some English lessons, and learn to express your thoughts.
I wouldnt dare to ask you to think. That would be a waste of my time, wouldnt it?
A responsible adult might wait to click on the link before opining, Mike.
Weepy Willard,
Why would I bother clicking one a link you provide?
I guarantee it contains no mention of “ZZ ‘liberation”” at all.
A lying, idiotic moron who claims he has a non-existent Greenhouse Theory is likely to lie about other things as well. That would be you.
Wrong troll Mike. I have explained it several times. Go back and look.
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
If you claim your link contains a reference to “ZZ liberation”, do you really think anyone is going to believe a lying, idiotic, moron like you?
You can’t help lying, can you?
You don’t need to explain. You just can’t help yourself – facts don’t seem to have much 8 pact on you. You even claim to have a Greenhouse Theory, and then keep lying when people point out that you haven’t!
Carry on.
Facts only comes in a 6 pact, Mike.
Over to you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The gubernment is ganging up on me
https://youtu.be/xCd1GuWf2Zs
The Annual Global temperature has not dropped below average for 448 consecutive months. It probably won’t for the remainder of human history.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/1/4/1880-2022
Except the fact that global temperatures have ben going down for the last 7 years.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2015/trend
We have had a double dip La Nina RLH and lower Solar irradiance so you are not really telling the whole story. But just to clarify when the temp inevitably rises again above the 2015 level you will immediately plot a graph showing temps have actually been going up just to show there is no bias in your evaluation?
I will, as always, report exactly what happens. Now and in the future.
No, you are cherry picking data points to arrive at a conclusion. Beginning with 2015 puts a strong upward tick from El Nino at the beginning of the trend calculation, producing your conclusion. Of course, there are natural cycles, such as the external solar sunspot or magnetic reversal cycles which have periods longer than 7 years, so you can not make a claim that your trend has any validity over the long term.
Your cherry picking is a repeat of the denialist disinformation before 2015 in which they calculate trends beginning with 1996, another strong El Nino year, resulting in another period of little apparent warming.
ES,
Here you go then. No cherry picking at all – original surface of the Earth – completely molten. Now – not molten in general. Longest period there is.
The Earth has cooled.
Feel free to cherry pick some other period if you like.
Flynnson posts his usual straw man. The Earth has been in a period of repeated cycles of Ice Age conditions for some 3.3 million years. During that time, the evidence suggests that we humans first appeared and most of human civilization appeared since about 10,000 BP during a warm period. About half humanity’s emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels occurred since 1990.
Picking the dates RLH did understates the facts found in the record. For example:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2011
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1982/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1982/plot/none
Of course, you already know all that.
ES: Tell me what has happened to this graph since 1980.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/amo.jpeg
IIRC 95% confidence limits for GISTEMP are +/-0.06C.
I’ve added them to your graph.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2015/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2015/trend/offset:0.06/plot/gistemp/from:2015/trend/offset:-0.06
Would you care to comment on the statistical significance of your cooling trend?
Are you saying that the GISS temperature instruments are that uncertain, or that GISS is that uncertain about the actual global that those figures represent. The 2 are different.
That is the uncertainty in the monthly and global annual averages, the 95% confidence limits of their sample means.
If you want to check, there’s a discussion of the uncertainties on their website somewhere.
I’ve done the same for Had. Any comments on that?
https://imgur.com/a/YdqFjBY
That doesn’t answer the question. Are the instruments that uncertain or is the global temperature figure given that uncertain.
RLH,
You posed a relevant question “Are the instruments that uncertain or is the global temperature figure given that uncertain.”
It doesn’t matter. It’s all irrelevant. There is no GHE, anyway.
I’m certain.
RLH
Don’t be such a disingenuous arsehole. You know as well as I do that a statistically significant OLS trend has endpoints at least four SD apart and your claimed seven year downward trend comes nowhere near that standard.
Where did you get the idea that SD applies to skewed, bimodal data?
Typically 1.5 SD applies to 100% of the data.
RLH says: Where did you get the idea that SD applies to skewed, bimodal data?
Temperature anomalies do not have a bimodal probability distribution.
RLH says: Typically 1.5 SD applies to 100% of the data.
Even if this point were relevant to trend line uncertainty, the “typically 1.5 SD” rule of thumb appears to be contradicted by the first two station data statistics I had at hand. The Utqiagvik station raw data is one of the most dramatic examples of bimodal raw temperature distribution in the USCRN set.
uscrnIthacaAnomalyByFFT0.png
uscrnUtqiagvikAnomalyByFFT0.png
Plots on left hand show raw hourly station data temperature (top) and histogram (bottom).
Plots on right show the same for anomaly data. Anomaly baseline is the Fourier Transform components for the zeroth, annual, and daily period.
The trend since 2015 is 0.05 C/decade (+/- 0.61)
Definitely not statistically significant, and no way of distinguishing if there is a trend or random noise with that much uncertainty.
The uncertainty, of course, refers to the statistical uncertainty, not structural.
Large sample sizes and long periods reduce statistical AND structural uncertainty.
You can’t say much at all with global temp data over a period less than 20 years. That is because of the variability range in the data.
You have to be able to defend your selection choices with reasons better than it gives you the answer that interests you.
you’re a funny little man!
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Once again, OLS-based linear trends are used to show some cooling despite being dismissed as useless by the usual all-time know-it-all.
I thought you liked OLS trends. Are you saying that they are wrong?
Here is GISS over all of its time period.
https://imgur.com/RaruKpw
1. No. I don’t like OLS trends. They are a tool among many others.
2. No. YOU were saying in many comments on this blog that they are wrong. Did you forget your own ‘statements’? Alzheimer?
I was using OLS trends to show to others who do like OLS trends that the temperatures have decreased over the last 7 years. I can do it with the data also if you like.
https://imgur.com/a/sFdPSoG
I can see it still. Can you?
Please calculate the uncertainty in your OLS trend and tell me it’s not an order of magnitude higher than the trend.
b,
Why should anyone calculate anything for you, or tell you anything at all?
Do you think you are wise, powerful, and respected? Maybe you are actually stupid, powerless and an object of derision to any rational person. Just another idiot troll who thinks spewing obscenities is a sign of intelligence.
Maybe you could lie about having a non-existent Greenhouse Theory, like that stupid lying moron Willard. He’s a peabrain like you – two peabrains in a pod, so to speak.
Off you go now – find an excuse for not finding your Greenhouse Theory.
Maybe the dog ate it.
Swenson,
What’s a theory?
Do you know?
That will tell us who is lying and who is telling the truth.
Got any money you want to bet with?
b,
You wrote –
“Swenson,
Whats a theory?
Do you know?
That will tell us who is lying and who is telling the truth.
Got any money you want to bet with?”
Why do you bother asking me? You obviously have multiple personalities, otherwise you would not be talking about “us”. Am I talking with Dumb,or Dumber? Or do you call your multiple personalities Idiot 1, Idiot2, Idiot3, and so on?
I have more money than you, and I dont wager with idiots with split personalities.
Carry on.
“Please calculate the uncertainty in your OLS trend”
Uncertainty of what? The global temperature that it is supposed to represent or the accuracy of the instruments it uses.
Please note that I included Had in my graph. https://imgur.com/a/sFdPSoG Which is more ‘accurate’, Had or GISS. (or for that matter RSS or UAH).
https://imgur.com/i8bcAmS
Here are all 4 together from 2016.
https://imgur.com/3GTYu2P
Here they are without the offsets.
This is the Had*CRUT4 seven year trend including their +/- 0.1 confidence limits.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had*crut4gl/from:2015/every/trend/plot/had*crut4gl/from:2015/every/trend/offset:0.1/plot/had*crut4gl/from:2015/every/trend/offset:-0.1
Remove * before linking.
As you can see, the trend is not statistically significant.
Now add both GISS and Had4 together on the same chart and see what you get. Both are uncertain/accurate. Both are representing the same global temperatures.
Swenson,
you ask me
“Why do you bother asking me?”
Because you have claimed there is no Greenhouse Theory.
Obviously you may not understand what a theory is, because there certainly is such a theory.
Who gives a fuck who has more money, I have a sufficient stash for my purposes.
One thing is certain, I am smarter than you, better trained in the sciences than you, and better looking.
Make that two things, the other being there is a greenhouse effect and the associated theory.
And evidence that shows it’s causing the world to warm up, see the graph at the top of this page.
RLH:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1286306
So you admit that temperatures have declined for the last 7 years and have the opinion that this decline will not continue going forward but are unable to determine when this expected change to a rise will happen.
RLH, You continue to suggest that your cherry picked 7 year period has some long term meaning. If the ENSO oscillation continues, I would expect to see another El Nino, which would bump up the near end of the trend line, though I have no way to forecast it’s arrival or strength.
“If the ENSO oscillation continues, I would expect to see another El Nino, which would bump up the near end of the trend line, though I have no way to forecast its arrival or strength.”
You would have said that for this year also, and would have been wrong in that.
After all, that’s what Blinny suggested.
“I was using OLS trends to show to others who do like OLS trends that the temperatures have decreased over the last 7 years.”
“Like”?
Investigating trends by talking about what people like. Doncha just love science?
barry, please stop trolling.
Ah, yes, the old fudged NOAA surface record where they have reduced the surface coverage globally to less than 1500 stations, by their own admission.
NOAA no longer uses surface thermometers to record global temps they use a few for reference, all in warmer areas, then fill in the gaps using interpolation and homogenization in a climate model.
Look at 2014 in the list. They declared it the hottest year ever but failed to mention it was a guess, based on a 48% probability. NASA GISS put the probability at 38%.
Cheaters and fudgers.
Ah, yes, Putin’s boot slicker and cock sucker is here again, with his endlessly repeated lies.
The greatest cheater and fudger, that’s you, Robertson.
You are such a dumb liar that only even dumber people like Clint R, Flynnson and Anderson still can believe your trash.
Binny,
Hang on there!
How are you measuring cheating and fudging? Are you setting yourself as a world authority on cheating and fudging? I’m not surprised.
You can’t even cheat and fudge a Greenhouse Theory into existence. That’s pretty pathetic.
Next thing, you’ll be trying to pretend you can predict the future by looking at the past!
That’s not cheating and fudging – that’s just complete and utter delusion!
I’m not donating money to Putin or Zelensky. If you are donating to one or the other, put my name on your donation as well. Saves me the effort. I trust your judgement.
binny…you prove your abject ignorance by the foul language you use on Roy’s blog.
GR, you’re as funny as RLH except more unhinged!
p.s.: you two are the king and queen of the non sequitur replies.
So is the global temperature going to go down this year as the CFSv2 and La Nina suggests or is it going to go up?
To help you stay on point I reiterate: “The Annual Global temperature has not dropped below average for 448 consecutive months. It probably wont for the remainder of human history.”
Capeesh?
So you are saying that the average global temperature will go up this year then.
Do you accept that global temperatures are a sum of different period sine waves? At what point does the average of a sine wave go below the average of that sine wave?
RLH, Are those “sine waves” real, or artifacts of your analysis? Some climate events, such as volcanic eruptions in 1984 and 1991, are not “sine waves”, but impulses followed by exponential decay. The “cycles” of sunspots do not exhibit fixed periodicity. The climate system, specifically, the oceans’ temperatures, smooth the effects of these giving the appearance of cyclic behavior. Applying a smoothing algorithm to the data will further distort the picture.
Low pass filters do not emphasize any particular frequencies.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/soi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/amo.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/pdo-1.jpeg
P.S. DSP, wavelets, etc. are based on sine waves.
A fundamental issue with “global warming” would be, is having higher CO2 levels, dangerous.
Since we live in an Ice Age, warming is not dangerous.
Actually coolness of Ice Age kills far more people.
It could be partially due to colder conditions are more common.
Or could be various factors of why this is the case, and hard to know if it was warmer, they would less death or less health problems.
A better argument is that people will choose to be warmer, and of course also animals choose to be warmer- they migrate to warmer locations.
Of course another aspect of this, is the the lie, that global warming equals hotter days, whereas what global warming is, is more uniform temperatures. And less severe cold and hot. And less severe weather, rather than the Lie that it cause more severe storms.
” Since we live in an Ice Age, warming is not dangerous. ”
This is sheer naivety.
We have something of an Achilles’ heel: the Thermohaline Circulation, which at its end in the North Atlantic can be very strongly influenced by the salinity at the water surface.
American oceanographers investigated this 30 years ago (unfortunately I lost the report on it).
By examining Greenland ice cores, they demonstrated that there may be a strong correlation between vanishing salinity and extremely rapid cooling affecting North America and western Europe alike, as occurred in the Young Dryas within a few years.
So I would be a little careful with such statements…
Younger Dryas follow a period where there was ice sheets in North America.
Or sequence is form huge ice sheet and what followed that was Younger Dryas.
First part of forming huge sheets, would be the first “problem”, than after that [which isn’t now] you could get something like Younger Dryas
“Young Dryas”
“Younger Dryas, also called Younger Dryas stadial, cool period between roughly 12,900 and 11,600 years ago”
Young Dryas was quite different then now.
“The rate of sea level rise slowed between 14,000 and 12,000 years ago during the Younger Dryas cold period and was succeeded by another surge, “meltwater pulse 1B”, 11,500-11,000 years ago, when sea level may have jumped by 28 m according to Fairbanks, although subsequent studies indicate it may have been much less.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015PA002847
After Young Dryas we got the Holocene Optimum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum#/media/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Note graphs:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1407229111
Note words:
“Marine and terrestrial proxy records suggest global cooling during the Late Holocene, following the peak warming of the Holocene Thermal Maximum (∼10 to 6 ka) until the rapid warming induced by increasing anthropogenic greenhouses gases. However, the physical mechanism responsible for this global cooling has remained elusive.”
You point to mystery. But I believe everyone would agree this colder time followed by warmer time then all of it which was Holocene Optimum.
Now some might argue Holocene Optimum isn’t as warm as the present, but they don’t argue that Younger Dryas stadial was “ever” warmer than the Holocene Optimum.
But, I think get what wanted to say, and that is that warming would melt Greenland and/or Antarctica ice sheet?
And pointing to a ice sheet melting [as example??] of weird stuff happening with climate?
Though I would call this the Al Gore argument.
And I would like someone more credible than AL Gore making the argument.
But if Greenhouse ice sheet suddenly fell into the ocean, it be problem.
Even mountain in ocean falling over, would be problem.
If Guam flip over, it would bad for people on the island but also cause a big wave.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tipping-point/
gbaikie
What about writing less and reading more?
Read this, and search for similar documents:
https://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/examples.shtml
“Although many of the stories accurately captured the pathos of the human tragedy resulting from South Africas floods, they all mispresented the facts: human-caused climate change did not cause the recent floods. [bold, links added]
History shows that floods regularly occur in South Africa because of its topography and regional ocean circulation patterns. ”
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022/05/17/medias-favorite-bogeyman-falsely-blamed-for-s-africas-tragic-floods/
In southern California it doesn’t rain, it pours. Or we have problem with floods, and we live in a desert. Deserts have floods.
If Southern California was not desert, had twice as much yearly rainfall, we would have less floods. More water, less floods.
What nice about Southern California is there is less cloudy weather- or there is argument for living in deserts- less cloudy weather. Solar panels work better. And of course the modern world has less problem with floods, or our technological allows us to manage floods, better. Whether politician manage this well, is different issue.
Also with satellites, we can predict weather. Whether anyone heeds these predictions is also another matter.
Are you drunk or what?
Maybe next time you manage to read what people reply before you write such a nonsense?
Binny,
More vague allegations again?
Could you be more specific about “such a nonsense”?
Or are you just trolling?
Oh, it seems I might not watch enough movies:
Could Climate Change Shut Down the Gulf Stream?
“The 2004 disaster movie The Day After Tomorrow depicted the cataclysmic effectssuperstorms, tornadoes and deep freezes resulting from the impacts of climate change. In the movie, global warming had accelerated the melting of polar ice, which disrupted circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean, triggering violent changes in the weather. Scientists pooh-poohed the dire scenarios in the movie, but affirmed that climate change could indeed affect ocean circulationcould it shut down the Gulf Stream?”
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/06/06/could-climate-change-shut-down-the-gulf-stream/
Article says, no.
Michael Mann the alarmist says,
From above article:
“Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State University, one of the studys authors, noted that if the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation were to totally collapse over the next few decades, it would change ocean circulation patterns, influence the food chain, and negatively impact fish populations. We would not return to very cold conditions, however, because the oceans have taken up so much heat.”
If totally collapse, but it doesn’t.
But if global climate were colder, according Mann, if would be different issue.
If we much larger arctic sea ice, then maybe even all the alarmists would agree, it could shut it down.
I wonder.
gb,
And if Michael Mann (faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat) had actually been awarded a Nobel Prize, he would have been a Nobel Prize winner.
But, alas, he wasn’t.
If he has been demonstrably delusional in the past, anyone who believes his assessment of the future should be believed, is exceptionally gullible.
Unable to support your bogus claims, huh silly sock puppet?
Witless Wee Willy,
What bogus claims would those be?
Moron.
Why should anyone substantiate anything for you, or tell you anything at all, Mike Flynn?
Do you think you are wise, powerful, and respected? Maybe you are actually stupid, powerless and an object of derision to any rational person. Just another idiot troll who thinks spewing obscenities is a sign of intelligence.
Willard,
Good for you!
You recognise quality, when you have to plagiarise. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, even if I am being flattered by a lying, idiotic, moron – who believes he can get away with lying about having a Greenhouse Theory.
You can run, attempt to divert, dodge around corners, fly off at a tangent – but you can’t hide.
There is no GHE, fool.
Carry on.
You only resort to call everyone who is not a Sky Dragon Crank a liar. That is how sock puppets do. Sock puppets can be fanatically vicious.
Tut, tut, wayward Willard.
You wrote –
“You only resort to call everyone who is not a Sky Dragon Crank a liar.”
Maybe you have been taking English lessons from Binny?
No, I call anybody who continually pretends to have a Greenhouse Theory, a liar. Anyone who thinks they can get away with such lying nonsense is idiotic. In your case, you are also a moron, so that is why I call you an idiotic lying moron.
Whether you a flagrant foot-stamping, limp wristed prancing homosexual or not, has nothing to do with it. Feel free to disagree, if you wish.
Mike, Mike,
You ask –
“Maybe you have been taking English lessons from Binny?”
No, from teh Pup.
Silly sock puppet.
Weary Wee Willy,
You wrote that you were taking English lessons “. . . from teh Pup.”
Lessons in how to be totally incomprehensible, no doubt.
I dont know what “teh Pup” is. Another product of your imagination? Like lulz, modulz, lichurchur, and all the rest of the silly nonsense you spout.
Maybe you could take “finding” lessons from”teh Pup”, do you think? Then you might find the Greenhouse Theory you claim to have, and I would have no reason to call you an idiotic lying moron, would I?
Up to you, of course.
Carry on.
Watch Flynn pervert.
See Flynn distort.
See Flynn twist his cult’s Sky Dragon Crank nonsense to a pot of coffee.
(That is why this is so much fun.)
Watchable Wee Willy,
Watch Wee Willy lying about having a Greenhouse Theory.
Watch Wee Willy trying to dodge.
Watch Wee Willy trying to divert.
Watch Wee Willy trying to avoid admitting that he is a lying, idiotic, moron.
Watch Wee Willy writing incomprehensible nonsense like “See Flynn twist his cults Sky Dragon Crank nonsense to a pot of coffee.”
And so on.
Watch Wee Willy stamp his little foot, and whine about being insulted.
Poor Wee Willy. He shouldnt lie – he should emulate George Washington and the cherry tree.
Off you go now, Wee Willy. Watch how you go, mind.
The meltdown ensues.
Mike Flynn has NOTHING, so he has to make stuff up.
All very predictable.
And Wicked Wee Willy still cant find his Greenhouse Theory, can he?
Oh dear, all he can do is blubber irrelevant nonsense.
Who would value the opinions of a lying, idiotic, moron like Willard?
Not me, but others may think he is wise, powerful and respected – even if he does whine about homophobes. Lack of self esteem, I guess.
That is how cults do. Agenda over reality. We see the same thing right here with Mike Flynn and his fellow Sky Dragon Cranks.
Willard one has to always wonder about the agenda of a person how complains about debate and never is willing to adopt a position in the debate. Kind of like sounds like you think some people shouldn’t be in the mix. What is your plan for these people? Slaves, graves, or a knave to be tolerated and not listened to?
Bill has not searched for the word *agenda* on this page and it shows.
Silly Bill.
More nonsense from the lying moron pretending to have a Greenhouse Theory –
“Bill has not searched for the word *agenda* on this page and it shows.”
I suppose Willard thinks that someone cares for his opinion.
Hes delusional, as usual.
Willard we know your agenda isn’t genuine debate as you have not adopted a proposition which is essential for both sides of a debate.
Thus that leaves you as a troller, obfuscator, disrupter. If you have no position to defend that makes you a lot less than a guerilla who sheds all physical positions without shedding an ideological position.
It seems your only ideological position is restricted to being a tool of the establishment whose agenda is actually quite undisclosed also.
Bill we know you do not speak for us.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
Who is “us”? Do you suffer from multiple deranged personas, like your comrade in stupidity, bobdroege?
In your case, maybe you call them liar1, liar2, and so on. It doesn’t matter how many liars say they have a Greenhouse Theory, you still don’t have one, do you?
You could always say you were mistaken. You might even get some respect. Or you could just keep lying, and claim you have a Greenhouse Theory.
Maybe you might convince someone that you are not an idiotic, lying, moron, but unless you can produce the non-existent Greenhouse Theory, I doubt it.
Feel free to try, anyway.
bill…re willard…”Thus that leaves you as a troller, obfuscator, disrupter”.
***
It’s obvious Willard is a fifth columnist representing alarmist idiots like skepticalscience, desmogblog, realclimate, etc. His MO is to disrupt. The only reason I reply to him is to offer another view to third party people who may be lurking.
Alarmists are good at offering meaningless information to the unwitting as valid science.
Mike Flynn,
Us refers to us. Us all. Everyone here.
Including you. Do you think Bill speaks for you? No. You do not even speak for yourself!
Silly sock puppet.
Silly Willard’s attempt to speak for the whole world –
“Mike Flynn,
Us refers to us. Us all. Everyone here.
Including you. Do you think Bill speaks for you? No. You do not even speak for yourself!
Silly sock puppet.”
Witless Willard believes he decides what is fact, and what is not. Unfortunately, Willard is a stupid liar, and Willard deciding that he has a non-existent Greenhouse Theory, shows how delusional he is.
What a moron!
Mike Flynn still fails to realize that he could make elementary deductions like the one that leads me to conclude that Bill does not speak for everyone here.
Silly sock puppet.
Wonky Wee Willy’s paranoia increases.
He now believes Mike Flynn is a sock puppet, or maybe a sock tucker, or even a socket spanner!
Quite reasonable, I suppose, for an idiotic liar who claims to have a Greenhouse Theory.
An elementary deduction.
Mike, Mike,
When you’ll write *all* your comments using your name, I’ll revise my judgment.
For now, it’s sock puppets all the way down.
Willard please stop trolling
Swenson,
“You could always say you were mistaken. You might even get some respect. Or you could just keep lying, and claim you have a Greenhouse Theory.”
Since you called me out on this sub-thread.
I have a copy of the Greenhouse effect theory.
For Sale
50,000 US dollars, special price for you.
bob if you find any takers could you send them my way afterwards. I have a great bridge connecting Manhattan to Brooklyn they might be interested in buying.
For Willard, Ken, rlh, and the other non-believers…
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/members-of-neo-nazi-azov-battalion-surrender-in-mariupol-russian-media/articleshow/91614901.cms
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/wagners-rusich-neo-nazi-attack-unit-hints-its-going-back-into-ukraine-undercover
Keep denying the obvious.
Cmon Willard. The battle of opposing scribblers?
Surely you have something that will make a difference to someone, somewhere, sometime.
Like the Greenhouse Theory, that you claim to have!
In the meantime, you can just continue being an idiotic, lying, moron.
If its all too much for you, just thrust your hand back into your trousers. At least you will be satisfied, if nobody else.
Here are some “logical conclusions” for you, mike.
You could not find the Greenhouse Theory even when having been spoonfed by ES.
Silly sock puppet.
Weepy Weak Willard,
You are still lying about having a Greenhouse Theory, arent you?
That would make you a lying, idiotic, moron, wouldnt it.
Trying to imply its really somewhere else (maybe somebody stole it from you, did they?), wont help. You havent got a Greenhouse Theory, which makes lying about it quite silly. You just look like a lying idiotic moron.
Calling me “mike” is unlikely to help. It just indicates you are delusional, as well as being a liar.
You could always admit that you dont actually have a Greenhouse Theory. You would only be. moronic troll, then.
Carry on.
Mike, Mike,
There is really no reason to get mad at me. Your incompetence is your own fault. I just expose it.
Thanks for noticing.
Whacky Willard,
Calling me “Mike, Mike” wont make you any less of an idiotic, lying moron, will it?
You still havent got a Greenhouse Theory, have you?
You can run, but you cant hide.
Mike, Mike,
What you are doing is called “doing the same thing over again, hoping for different results,” aka “doubling down on stupidity.”
Well done.
Swenson says:
”You could always admit that you dont actually have a Greenhouse Theory. You would only be. moronic troll, then.”
Oooh Willard has had the glove slapped against his face! Lets see if he has a greenhouse theory or he slinks away fearing cowardly to engage in the duel!
About time you notice, Bill.
Wrong!
I noticed like a few minutes after Swenson slap! But age entered into the equation and being slower it took me about 5 minutes to wonder and post if you would rise to the challenge or cowardly slink away from the challenge.
Hey dude you are 100% responsible for your own legacy. No way I can effect it.
Mike Flynn has been huffing and puffing for more than a decade, Bill.
Do you not recall his constant sammich requests?
Perhaps you were too focused on your own.
Quite possible.
Oh.
I see what you are doing here!
Silly Bill.
Latest nonsense from Willard, trying to avoid admitting he doesnt have a Greenhouse Theory –
“Mike, Mike,
What you are doing is called doing the same thing over again, hoping for different results, aka doubling down on stupidity.”
Witless Willard might have accidentally stumbled upon something useful. Indeed, I am doubling down on the stupidity of an idiot who thinks he can ge any with claiming he has a non-existent Greenhouse Theory.
Presumably Willard thinks that “Mike, Mike” is some sort of magic avoidance mantra, which will make others disregard the fact that Willard is actually an idiotic, lying, moron. Im guessing that Willard is attempting to be a “troll”, one definition of which is “to intentionally do or say something annoying or offensive in order to upset someone, or to get attention or cause trouble.”
The trouble for Willard is that he is unable to be annoying or offensive, or to upset anybody. He cant cause trouble, but certainly gets attention – although constantly being described as an idiot, a liar, a moron, and a masturbator doesnt seem like the attention most people crave. Nor, I suppose, would being laughed at for being a witless fool.
At least Willard provides amusement for all and sundry with his capering cavorting, as he tries to avoid the consequences of his silly insistence that he has a Greenhouse Theory.
What an idiotic lying dimwit he is!
Really Willard?
You think that blabbering –
“Mike Flynn has been huffing and puffing for more than a decade, Bill.
Do you not recall his constant sammich requests?
Perhaps you were too focused on your own.
Quite possible.
Oh.
I see what you are doing here!
Silly Bill.”, will annoy, upset, or offend anybody at all?
More likely people will laugh at a donkey who talks about “sammiches”, whatever figment of your imagination they are supposed to be.
You are still just a lying, idiotic, moron, pretending to have a non-existent Greenhouse Theory. Maybe you can find someone you can manage to annoy, offend, or upset someone, but I doubt it.
Can you name someone who doesnt just laugh at you?
Willard says:
Mike Flynn has been huffing and puffing for more than a decade, Bill.
Do you not recall his constant sammich requests?
—————-
Aha Willard. Perhaps he asks too much! But asking what your position is, is in fact the first requirement of having a debate. So it seems for you anything is too much of a sammich request.
that being true by virtue of you non-response provides prima-facie evidence your only motivation of participating is by trolling and spreading FUD. Any competent debate judge would simply throw you off the stage.
It rather means you overestimate the ad hominem mode, Bill.
Have you ever studied the greenhouse effect?
Whacky Wee Willy,
There is no greenhouse effect.
Are you still lying about having a Greenhouse Theory?
That would make you a lying idiot, if you thought you could get a away with such a lie.
Carry on with your pointless attempts at diversion.
You can run, but you can’t hide.
Moron.
That’s what’s fun about you intellectually dishonest people, Mike. You believe if you just keep typing you can change reality.
W
You seem a little testy. Almost like your gift card for an hour at the spa was rejected.
What makes you think I’m beside myself, Fernando –
Is it my new voice?
bill…”Any competent debate judge would simply throw you off the stage”.
***
There’s an idea.
Come on, Gordo.
Luckily for me, ineffectual attempts by Sky Dragon Cranks to be annoying, generate laughter, rather than concern.
C’mon Willard,
Saying things like –
“Luckily for me, ineffectual attempts by Sky Dragon Cranks to be annoying, generate laughter, rather than concern.”, generates even more laughter.
But an ever better source for ongoing amusement at your expense, is your bizarre idiotic lying about having a Greenhouse Theory.
Keep us all laughing.
This is another example of how Sky Dragon Cranks work together to pervert science.
Mike make long comments, trying to support NOTHING. He knows so little about science that he cannot respond to anything Bob tells him. I corrected him, and then Bill jumps into with his ad homs to me, and support for Gordo.
Then Mike returns, totally oblivious to my comment.
That is how they keep their cult going.
Willard you are a Thus that leaves you as a troller, obfuscator, disrupter.
You have been slapped in the face with a glove to show the post in any one of your posts here that doesn’t have you trolling, obfuscating, or disrupting. . . .and yet your only response has been to continue to troll, obfuscate, and disrupt.
I have two questions for you, Bill –
Mike has been trying to bait me for months now. We have evidence he did it here for years on this blog. Same silly requests. Same empty denials of the greenhouse effect.
Are you only noticing now? If you are, that would explain why you claimed nobody was denying the greenhouse effect!
Also, Mike has been spoonfed so many times, at least three in this thread alone. It is only fair that Mike pays for the extra room service his sorry act requires. So he should put money where his mouth is and bet. I offered him a bet, with the same terms Pup offered to almost everyone here dozens of times over the years.
Do you think your silly appeal to pride will work? For a guy who keeps requesting sammiches, your insistence on commitments will turn against you quite fast. Defending a silly troll who disregards what you think might not be worth it.
Please acknowledge that Mike denies the greenhouse effect.
Bill,
A competent debate judge would say “asked and answered, move on Swenson”
Willard mainstream science denied that the planet’s temperature had anything to do with a greenhouse many years ago. they kept the name and just wanted to stop having proof shoved in their face that the greenhouse effect had nothing to do with radiation.
Next you gonna argue that Gordo is our next Galileo, Bill.
Willard says:
”Mike has been trying to bait me for months now. We have evidence he did it here for years on this blog. Same silly requests. Same empty denials of the greenhouse effect.”
Seriously? You have been on this blog for years. . . .never offered anything, never learned anything, and constantly trolled!!
Strike me dumbfounded!!! Did you ever think of taking up a useful hobby?
Willard says:
Next you gonna argue that Gordo is our next Galileo, Bill.
=======================
Wow you are really impressed by Gordo Willard!
willard…the first thing that strikes me while researching Rusich is the lack of reliable information. It’s all presented as ‘believed to be’ or ‘sources said’. They can’t even tell you where they are based for certain.
On the other hand, fascist groups in the Ukraine are well documented, dating back to 1929. Ukrainian Stepan Bandera is a known fascist who worked for the Nazi Abwehr during WW II and was wanted for war crimes at Nuremberg, after WW II. Yet this war criminal, wanted for atrocities against Poles and Jews, is regarded as a hero by certain factions in modern Ukraine. They hold torchlight parades celebrating the creep, and there are thousands of them participating.
That would never be allowed in any decent democracy.
Andriy Biletsky, an admitted Bandera advocate, who formed the Azov battalion, who just surrendered to the Russians, is on record promoting white supremacy. This is not a racism of white against black, it’s a racism of white against Jew, white against Polish people, and white against Russian, all of whom are white. In other words, it’s based on pure hatred.
The leader of the Svoboda Party, Oleh Tyagnibok, in the Ukraine parliament, related to the fascist Right Sektor, has openly applauded Ukrainians in WW II who fought Jews and other scum. There were no Jewish combatants per se unless they were part of Allied forces. So, what he is applauding is Ukrainians who fought with the Nazis, helping them exterminate Jews. Either that, or he thinks the Allies were led by Jews, in which case, ‘other scum’ is a reference to the Polish people and the Russians who were our allies. The latter makes little sense, Tyagnibok was applauding Nazi supporters from WW II.
The Ukrainians who fought with the Nazis in WW II targeted Jews, Poles, and Russians. Even before WW II, there was bad blood between Ukrainians and Poles in the western regions of Ukraine where the areas intersected with southern Poland.
Again, one cannot claim all Ukrainians felt that way, but there were enough of them to create serious problems for minority group in the region. That bad blood has extended to the present era and descendants of this crowd is still operating in modern Ukraine as armed militia.
You could never get away with that in the US or Canada, the army would be all over it. However, the Ukraine is so corrupt that heads of police in certain cities are part of the fascist belief system and the police forces are manned by them.
When armed militia participated in the 2014 coup in the Ukraine, neither the Ukrainian army nor the police did anything to intervene.
You’d have to be pretty brain-dead, Willard, to ignore such corruption, yet apparently the international media are pretty brain dead. Or maybe just as corrupt.
How do you expect to understand the situation in Ukraine when you’ve got your head up your ass regarding non-existent nazis?
Nazi Germany 1930s is not the same as Ukraine today. There is no comparison to make.
Have you always been in such deep denial, Ken? Is it maybe something in the water on the Island? Or maybe you are a secret admirer of neo-Nazis.
Does it make no difference to you that members of the Azov battalion wore swastikas and the double SS insignia of the Nazi SS on their helmets and that they have openly admitted respect for WW II Nazis? The insignia was photographed by a Norwegian camera man.
The US Congress voted to stop funding them due to their neo-Nazi links.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/380483-congress-bans-arms-to-controversial-ukrainian-militia-linked-to-neo-nazis/
“White supremacy and neo-Nazism are unacceptable and have no place in our world, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), an outspoken critic of providing lethal aid to Ukraine…”.
A statement from 2018.
“The Azov Battalion was founded in 2014, and its first commander was Andriy Biletsky, who previously headed the neo-Nazi group Patriot of Ukraine. Several members of the militia, which has been integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard, are self-avowed neo-Nazis”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism
“Neo-Nazism comprises the postWorld War II militant, social, and political movements that seek to revive and reinstate Nazi ideology. Neo-Nazis employ their ideology to promote hatred and white supremacy, attack racial and ethnic minorities…”.
According to Ken, neo-Naziism is all a myth. Worse still, maybe it’s all OK with Ken. Well, it’s not OK with me. I have read extensively on these SOBs and I don’t want them introducing their brain-dead beliefs into democratic societies. If it’s OK with the Ukrainians, that’s their problem, and they are paying for it mightily right now.
I feel deeply saddened for the poor souls in the Ukraine who want nothing to do with such belief systems. These Nazi SOBs need to be stopped and the free world needs to get out of its denial that it exists.
C’mon, Gordo –
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00396338.2020.1739960?journalCode=tsur20
Think.
C’mon Willy,
What does your gobbledegook mean? Undermine? Actors? Wooing?
Maybe you think armed conflict is a romance movie. Good for you.
I suppose some people might value the opinions of an idiotic liar, who insists he has a Greenhouse a theory! On the other hand, the number of people more retarded than you is not likely to be significant.
Blabber on.
Thank you for playing dumb, Mike.
The little boy who cried Nazi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnrvDS7yvS0
The topic you are mistaking with Ukraine and Nazis is the discussion about ‘Ten Stages of Genocide’ which actually applies here in Canada and not in Ukraine.
Presentation about genocide is by a teenager who has more political acumen than you: https://rumble.com/v14t3tj-genocide-no-aiden-a4c-may-2022.html
Weepy Willard,
You wrote –
“Thank you for playing dumb, Mike.” If you are trying to be offensive or annoying by offering insincere thanks, you might need to go back to Troll school.
As an idiotic liar who claims to have a Greenhouse Theory, you obviously need a lot of training if you are trying to be annoying.
[snigger]
Why don’t you try answering the points I have made rather than acting like an idiot?
C’mon, Gordo. Your silly talking points have been met a few dozens of times already. You keep repeating them. I’d rather adduce evidence instead of repeating myself too much.
For instance, here is evidence of ethnic cleansing in Kherson:
https://twitter.com/josephstash/status/1524676024461631489
This undermines your suggestion that the ZZs are trying to save Ukrainians against themselves.
Think.
Hmmmm, Willard finally comes up with a good source. Illegal immigration and state officials who want to encourage it? Pretty nasty stuff indeed Willard!!!
Please stop trolling, Bill.
Willard didn’t you just call that ethnic cleansing?
Why have you still not acknowledged that you were wrong about Mike Flynn’s denial of the greenhouse effect, Bill?
Willard just called state sponsorship of illegal immigration being ethnic cleansing. And now for some strange reason he is trying to change the topic.
Bill just admitted he did not know that Gordo, Kiddo, Pup, Troglodyte, Chic, Christos, and Mike Flynn denied the greenhouse effect.
Bill is that good of a reader.
Willard isn’t aware that there are at least two very different greenhouse effects. One that has been tested and does work the other never tested and unconfirmed it works. Which one do you think the IPCC relies upon Willard? Which one did those folks deny?
Gordon Robertson says:
“The Ukrainians who fought with the Nazis…”
_______________________________________
First off all, the Ukrainians fought together with Russians against Nazi-Germany.
And they experienced even more Nazi-violence than the Russians.
Now they are attacked by Russia under the pretext to clean Ukraine from Nazis…
Thats a bloody lie.
Its not about Nazis.
Putin just wants to reastablish a huge russian empire. He is destroying Ukraine completely. Infrastructure and culture. And murdering Ukrainians. No matter if man or woman, old or young.
Its more cruel than anyone of us can imagine.
If we dont stand together now, we all will to have a very big price, and the world will be another one.
So please dont tell any stupid Putin-Propaganda about Nazis…
You’re an idiot Fritz (is that you, Binny?). It was the Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine who fought with the Russians, and eastern Ukraine has remained pro-Russian.
The western Ukrainians, especially around Galacia, fought with the Nazis. In fact, the German Nazis let them form SS Galacia, a Ukrainian SS division. They committed war crimes in the area against Jews and Poles, along with Stepan Bandera, both being now recognized as Ukrainian heroes.
Voting in the Ukraine has always been split down the middle between east and east. In 2010, a vote, sanctioned by international observers, installed a pro-Russian president in the Ukraine. Two years later, he was ousted in a coup led by Ukrainian nationalists who are known anti-Russian fascists and supporters of Hitler’s national socialism.
That started a civil war when factions in eastern Ukraine objected to their choice for president being run off. There was also an issue of western supporters trying to suppress their native Russian language. That’s when Russia became involved, at the request of pro-Russian Ukrainians.
Naturally, the west, led by the Obama administration supported the western Ukraine factions, and things began to turn ugly. Under Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, was in the Ukraine, fanning the flames of revolt, while helping select a replacement for the democratically-elected president, while he was still in office. The European Parliament were involved as well.
You need to understand that the Ukraine was rated the most corrupt government in Europe in 2021 since it separated from Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine
That includes Zelensky, the current president. He has been butt-kissing the international community for help even though he has behaved like a tyrant during his presidency.
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/28/zelensky-celebrity-populist-pinochet-neoliberal/
We in the West are backing the wrong horse, putting us in peril of a nuclear war, all over a load of losers.
C’mon, Gordo.
Not that crap again:
https://en.respublica.lt/signs-of-neo-nazi-ideology-amongst-russian-mercenaries
Willard says:
Cmon, Gordo.
Not that crap again:
https://en.respublica.lt/signs-of-neo-nazi-ideology-amongst-russian-mercenaries
————————
Exactly Willard! What is going on in Ukraine is a big battle between fascist tribes. This one could probably be defined as Red Fascism vs White Fascism. (the red and white apparently has no racial differentiation its more a language and culture gap.
Today they are identified as Ukranian and Russian with more Russians living in eastern part of the country and Crimea than Ukrainians.
Hostilities resumed in 2014 when a CIA supported coup overthrew the elected Russian President. the Eastern states succeeded and a civil war started. we have been aiding the white fascists (and fascists they are because they don’t respect democracy) and Russia has been aiding the red fascists.
And you called the state sponsored actions of the Russians inviting Ukrainians to jobs in Russia and replacing them with illegal immigrants as ethnic cleansing.
Polls prior to 2014 showed that 70% of Ukrainians did not want to align with either the West or Russia so the White Ukrainians took the struggle to the violent non-democratic level and overthrew the elected President with our help. Biden was in there as Vice President threatening to withhold military aid unless they fired the remaining Russians in power. Probably had nothing to do with his son but hey that presented a carpet bagger opportunity for our leader so why not.
Russia invaded to prevent the Ukrainian puppet President from signing an agreement with NATO that would have obligated us to send troops to Ukraine to forcibly keep the Russians out and isolate the minority Russian community in Ukraine putting them at the mercy of the white fascists. Frankly there is little to differentiate this from our stepping in to aid the Taliban in their battle with the Soviets over almost the exact same situation. . . .except there it was red fascists vs Muslim fascists (Caliphate).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism
https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/fascist-caliphate-how-islamic-state-mirrored-fascist-political-tactics-through-appealing
“Hostilities resumed in 2014 when a CIA supported coup overthrew the elected Russian President.”
Evidence? Not from a Russian-State-Propaganda source, please.
Funny Freudian slip here. ‘elected Russian President’ of Ukraine. Yep
Nate the two major ethnic groups residing in Ukraine are Ukrainians and Russians. When I said a russian President I meant ethnicly he was a Russian and supported by The majority Party of Regions that were primarily representative of the areas of more ethnic Russians.
It has been proven one should not be a tool and just believe what the government tells you is so. And that should apply across the board for all parties.
The russian ethnic President got overthrown because he refused to sign an agreement with the EU. It sparked some riots in the street and supposedly the government responded by using snipers to shoot some of the protestors. If you believe that you are indeed a fool. Why would a government use snipers to control a mob when they control the police, the military, and all the security apparatus of the state?
Was it a false flag operation or was it ultra-nationalist Russians? It seems obvious the coup was well organized and Obama’s representatives were involved.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
It is just russian troll. Makes no sense to feed it. It could be bot.
Would Earth be a better planet if Arctic ocean was huge freshwater lake?
It seems there is agreement that the Arctic ocean was once a large lake a long time ago. But what if it made into a freshwater lake, what kinds of problems would it cause?
“The Arctic Ocean was once a huge freshwater lake, but its since become a salty ocean we now know how.”
https://www.zmescience.com/science/geology/arctic-ocean-salt-06062017/
–February 3, 2021
The Arctic Ocean was covered by a shelf ice and filled with freshwater
by Alfred Wegener Institute
The Arctic Ocean was covered by up to 900-meter-thick shelf ice and was filled entirely with freshwater at least twice in the last 150,000 years. This surprising finding, reported in the latest issue of the journal Nature, is the result of long-term research by scientists from the Alfred Wegener Institute and the MARUM.–
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-arctic-ocean-shelf-ice-freshwater.html
Also, if the mentally handicapped guy is owning you, what does that say about you?
Posted at 11:11 pm by Glenn Reynolds
https://instapundit.com/
Graphing your data (with suitable low pass filters I would suggest) tells you a lot more about the data than just simple mean, SD, r^2 and OLS does. youtube.com/shorts/WLQ4GLqMVpw ‘Statistics lesson everyone should know’
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WLQ4GLqMVpw for those who require links to be clickable
There are tests to determine goodness of fit.
Eg, The Akaike information criterion (AIC)
“…is an estimator of prediction error and thereby relative quality of statistical models for a given set of data. Given a collection of models for the data, AIC estimates the quality of each model, relative to each of the other models. Thus, AIC provides a means for model selection.
AIC is founded on information theory. When a statistical model is used to represent the process that generated the data, the representation will almost never be exact; so some information will be lost by using the model to represent the process. AIC estimates the relative amount of information lost by a given model: the less information a model loses, the higher the quality of that model.”
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WLQ4GLqMVpw for those who require links to be clickable
Your seven year cooling trend has ended.
UAH has gone up by a significant 0.26C this year alone.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2022/every/plot/uah6/from:2022/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:2022/every/trend/offset:0.1/plot/uah6/from:2022/every/trend/offset:-0.1
So what do you think will happen this month then?
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2022-05-17.gif
Strange that it does not appear so.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend
Or, if you prefer
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:2016/offset:-0.1/trend/plot/uah6/from:2016/offset:0.1/trend
Now perhaps you understand how absurd I find your claims.
The level of absurdity is best explained by showing this:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend
No offsets needed here…
… and this:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend
Neither of those cover the last 7 years. Blinny as usual.
As I have said, the claim is only over the last 7 years. The full last 7 years.
The bad elementary teacher again tries to discredit other persons, without understanding how wrong it is to publish the trend of a small part of a temperature series… when starting at its highest value since beginning!
What could this trend do but decline?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2014/trend/plot/uah6/from:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:2017/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend
RLH, you become more and more boring.
Especially since you are the one who has discredited the OLS trends the most over the last few months.
Maybe you forgot that?
Blinny gets it wrong as usual. I said 7 years. Not less. Not more.
The fact that you think OLS trends are nonsense too, amuses me.
1. ” I said 7 years. Not less. Not more. ”
Sorry RLH, you started your trend with… 2016.
I.e., the year with the highest anomaly since December 1978.
Thus, your trend since 2016 never could be positive.
*
2. ” The fact that you think OLS trends are nonsense too, amuses me. ”
I never thought they are nonsense, and never wrote that. You are, as so often, inventing what I allegedly wrote.
YOU are the one who discredited OLS trends since many months on this blog.
Did you forget your own comments about that?
Do you think it would be impossible to retrieve your comments from the blog’s history?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1287444
The only data that matters is the modest warming observed in our climate since 1850.
The fact of it having gone up 0.26C this year is just absurd discussion.
You still haven’t figured out what is causing the warming to occur.
(Its the sun)
Could easily be natural variability over the long term. Let’s hope it doesn’t cool off anytime soon.
So is next month going up or down?
Yes, unless it stays the same.
Only 95% confidence level, of course.
Either or. Not both.
OK, I’ll suckered in. It will be down about 0.1C.
I going say down to .1 C
Ken
This .26C has nothing to do with “the modest warming observed in our climate since 1850.”
It is no more than the difference between
– (1) the absolute temperature averaged for April 2022 from many satellite sources
and
– (2) the absolute temperature averaged for all April months between 1991 and 2020, from many satellite sources, but not necessarily the same as in (1).
P.S. Any thoughts on how accurate the H2O evaporation estimate is over that time, given that latent heat is so much bigger than sensible heat.
For a few hours I thought the circular ass debate in here has stopped, what a silly me
There are those who still think that sine like waves only occur at yearly and daily intervals. Even when they see that it is not so.
La Nina effect forecast for the upcoming hurricane season – kindergarten level
https://youtu.be/X165mAQMNxA
Mean, SD, r^2 and OLS are the only way to go in statistics. Except when they aren’t.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WLQ4GLqMVpw
Oh! Recently, your absolute idol was the median.
Has it suddenly felt bad? My sympathies!
Still is. See the link.
You might like to set it in the context of a 5 figure summary.
As anybody can see, I’m not fixed on (Tmin+Tmax)/2, nor on median, nor on mean:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BhgrAn-eVrX9JZUhr_y4ceVWAKsXtqml/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MZlIa_a-SKRxA72v1UOB7HrNpEr9EGqO/view
simply because the diffrence between them is too tiny.
Since you did not manage to give a proof of it until now, I hope you have understood in between that the difference between USCRN’s hourly and subhourly source processing cannot affect the end result above 0.001 C.
Processing Meteostat’s worldwide data (about 10,000 stations) shows the same, I’ll post about it soon.
True median on its own is not that informative. It is much better in a 5 figure summary. But using mean and SD should only apply to normal distributions, which global temperatures most certainly is not.
You are the one using USCRN daily from hourly (rounded to 0.1c), not me. I just use USCRN daily that they accurately calculate themselves instead.
” True median on its own is not that informative. ”
Sorry: you were the one who claimed last year that
– (Tmin+Tmax)/2 would not be adequate and would lead to major errors in temperature series
and that
– the median should be used instead.
Thus I computed (Tmin+Tmax)/2, median and true 24h average out of hourly data (because USCRN does NOT compute the median in their daily data), and compared the three together.
The result shows perfectly that your allegation about (Tmin+Tmax)/2 being far worse than median and true average is plain wrong.
The opposite is the case: from 2002 to 2021, both linear and quadratic fits of the USCRN time series generated for the three different averaging types show that the median is further away from the 24-hour average than (Tmin+Tmax)/2.
But you’ll never admit that, let alone make a fair comparison.
*
” You are the one using USCRN daily from hourly (rounded to 0.1c), not me. ”
You still did not manage to accept that this 0.1 C rounding cannot affect the averages into (1) grid cells, then into (2) latitude bands, and lastly into (3) full months upon latitude weighting; and you still did not manage to give us a proof that it could affect the end result very well.
My guess: you will never present this proof, but will endlessly continue to insist on the 0.1 C rounding instead. How dishonest.
*
Anyway: this is a discussion about the sex of angels, because the major goal was from the beginning to do the comparison for the worldwide Meteostat station set, which has no subhourly data.
This USCRN game was a complete distraction as its lifespan is far too short for this analysis.
With Meteostat I’m doing the same job for about 10,000 stations worldwide, starting in 1942, the first year with sufficient data.
You will never be able to do that job.
I said, and stand by, the fact that median is better than a true mean (and a lot better than a middle) on skewed, bimodal data.
Setting it in the context of a 5 figure layout just serves to underline that point.
P.S. USCRN is a LOT more accurate for individual stations than Meteostat is. Do you take that into account? Of course not.
It doesn’t matter if the data are ‘wrong’. If you use the same data in bulk you can still test whether it makes much of a difference to use mean or hourly for regional or global scale temperature evolution and trend analysis.
You could entirely fabricate hourly data for a thousand stations and still competently test the difference.
There could easily be significant differences in individual stations, or even clusters of them in certain areas, but these differences even out with larger area and sample size.
According to Bindidon and Tim Folkerts, who have processed the data to check, there is a tiny difference at global and regional (North America, eg) scales.
That was what I expected would be the case. Was it a surprise to you, RLH?
barry says:
You could entirely fabricate hourly data for a thousand stations and still competently test the difference.
——————–
That would be true if they were the same stations, same instruments, and the instruments were situated in the same environments over time. But they are not.
Worse the records get modified by a large herd of cats each cat looking for his pet peeve anomaly. . . .no fraud intended. . . .simply the way bias works subconsciously. It wouldn’t be a big deal if we weren’t looking for fractions of a degree differences in the mean output. But we are.
“That would be true if they were the same stations, same instruments, and the instruments were situated in the same environments over time. But they are not.”
It’s still true if they are the same stations. The errors are the same and the proposition can still be tested.
I think that Bindidon (at least) has done this.
One can test anything they want. But that doesn’t mean the test reveals anything.
barry says: Its still true if they are the same stations. The errors are the same and the proposition can still be tested.
I think that Bindidon (at least) has done this.
Reposting link to trend data for all USCRN stations using daily mean (Tmax+Tmin)/2, median, and arithmetic average:
uscrnSummaryTable.html
I should add trend significance estimates to this table, but there is no notable difference in the trend estimate resulting from the different base metric.
Note that I’ve also developed an approach that takes anomalies on hourly data at the hour level with similar results. e.g.
uscrnIthacaAnomalyByFFT0.png
Thank you for that, Mark B, quite helpful reminder of what was computed and posted last year already, though in a different form.
Mark B: Removing the bimodality of the data by removing the yearly and daily signal does not remove it, just hides it from view.
Given that histograms of the average daily profiles of USCRN stations produces skewed, bimodal data do you have any comment on that?
re:
Swenson says:
May 13, 2022 at 5:36 PM
Even some people at NOAA dont appreciate the distinction between an hypothesis and a theory –
I was wondering if I had hypothesis and/or theory.
Does anyone have hypothesis and/or theory.
Regarding what temperature would Venus have at Earth orbit, Christos Vournas sort of has hypothesis:
“The temperature of Venus will be then
Tmean =625K”
Because his system predicts it, only problem is Venus will not be Earth orbit. Though some time in future humans make solar shade for Venus, with shade only allow same amount sunlight reaching Venus as Earth does. But that could take ago, probably more than 2 decades.
The greenhouse theories likewise don’t have hypothesis.
Now, I think our ocean average temperature was about 4 C before and during the Holocene optimum .
Of course if this was known, it would not be hypothesis. But it’s sort of “effectively a hypothesis because I know no one who has determined or stated the ocean temperature during the Holocene optimum. So it’s unknown to me, and I am predicting it.
Btw, I guess Venus surface temperature at Earth distance from the Sun, would less than 350 K. But not hypothesis because it’s not connected “something” other than Venus absorbs very little sunlight.
Our Moon at Venus distance from the Sun should absorb more sunlight.
Though it’s known slow rotation should absorb less.
Venus is said to be slowest known rotating planet. But in terms of climate, Venus atmosphere rotates roughly every 4 to 5 days. Or Venus large atmosphere and that absorb most of sun’s energy in the upper atmosphere and none at slow rotating rocky surface.
So guess Venus would less than 350 K {350 K = about 77 C] and I think it would be quite possible to be much colder. I’ll change it, less than 300 K- don’t think it likely would be a lot colder than this.
But since Venus is hot and will take a long time to cool, I would within 100 years it cool by more than 50 K. Or more than .5 C per year on average.
Theories, I think Venus was probably gas giant or used to have a lot hydrogen, helium and methane. I think used think that before found gas giants near stars. So, if that true, one would think it should have had a lot water. Hmm. So have to change it, Venus has a lot of water in in rocks crust/mantle, and never had plate tectonics.
Not much theory. What about faint sun paradox?
Does even apply if Moon formed by impacting Earth. Or premise can wrong, so since there is doubt it, it’s not much of paradox.
Or assuming Earth wasn’t hit by Mars size, rock…. we have paradox- which roughly making argue for Mars size rock hitting a proto Earth.
So, it seems I don’t recall at the moment any theories that I have had.
Here’s something from today’s news, relating to Government building standards to cope with floods, bushfires, cyclones, etc.
“The thing most of these measures have in common is that they’re based on the historical record.
David Karoly, one of Australia’s leading climate scientists, said the impact of climate change meant these measures were now “essentially worthless”.”
Maybe people like Bindidon know better than “one of Australia’s leading climate scientists”. It’s probably not that hard, but even a leading climate scientist supports my opinion that past weather records predict precisely nothing.
Even the climate nutter Willard cannot provide anything remotely scientific to show that increasing the amount of insulation (as defined by another climate scientist, Raymond Pierrehumbert) between the sun and a thermometer, makes the thermometer hotter.
No GHE. Complete nonsense.
One could say [incorrectly] that my saying the average ocean temperature, controls global climate is a theory.
But I think it’s merely a summary of what has been said- ie that we in ice house global climate. And icehouses and greenhouse global climates caused the ocean temperature.
The only thing different that could make it a theory, is I think we focus too much on land conditions, and should focus on the Ocean which determines global temperature. This is also known.
In terms of theory I would say a planet covered entirely by a Ocean
would be warmer than our present world, but might not be warmer than a greenhouse global climate.
And having salt water allows a greenhouse global climate to have much warmer ocean.
I don’t think anyone has said salt water is a warming effect for a greenhouse global climate and a cooling effect for our ice house global climate.
And this right now is first time I put all it together as a theory.
But before this, I would say just a summary.
And I would say the cargo cult greenhouse theory is likewise a summary rather than a theory and/or that it does involves a hypothesis. But it also a bad summary. And suffers due to lack knowledge, and in particular, the tectonic plate theory not yet developed.
barry…”We measure heat as the NET transfer of energy from a body at a higher temperature to a lower temperature body”.
As long as the direction of that flow remains hot to cold, we dont break the 2nd Law”.
***
There was no mention of net heat transfer in the original definition of the 2nd law laid down by Clausius. He made it clear that heat can NEVER be transferred, BY ITS OWN MEANS, from a colder object to a hotter object.
If you read through his analysis of a heat engine cycle, that led to his statement of the 2nd law, you will see what led him to the law. The heat engine cycle is performed by holding P, V and T alternately constant while the other two vary. After the cycle, it cannot be reversed because heat has been lost that cannot be regained by reversing the cycle.
That’s the difference between a reversible and an irreversible process, heat being lost in the latter. With regard to entropy, if the process can be reversed, entropy = 0. If it cannot be reversed, and heat is lost, entropy is +ve.
The 2nd law was the response of Clausius to the claim of Carnot that heat was not lost in a heat engine cycle. Clausius proved that wrong and wrote it up as the 2nd law.
***********************************
“The experiment with the 2 plates and the solar source doesnt break the flow of heat from hot to cold. Never at any time does a quantity of energy get transported from the cooler to the warmer object occur without a simultaneous greater transport of energy from warm to cold object”.
***
Swannie’s double plate experiment is based on Eli Rabbett’s pseudo-science of a two way transfer of heat via radiation. I applauded Swannie’s effort in putting the experiment together and lamented that he’d reached the wrong conclusion.
If you recall, he set up one plate, the blue plate, as a rigid body that could be heated through the glass of an evacuated chamber by the Sun. He measured the temperature of the BP. Then he raised another plate, the green plate, in front of the blue plate and observed the temperature of the BP. It rose, so Swannie concluded the GP was radiating energy from a cooler source to the BP, transferring heat that warmed it.
What in fact was happening was the green plate interfered with the radiation form one side of the BP, blocking off half it’s ability to dissipate heat. Therefore it warmed.
What Swannie failed to acknowledge is that prior to raising the GP, the BP had reached an equilibrium temperature between heat produced by solar energy and heat dissipated via radiation in the vacuum. In other words, if you cut off its ability to radiate, its only means of cooling, the temperature of the BP would be higher. When the GP was raised, it cut off half the radiation of the BP forcing the BP to that higher temperature.
That’s why the 2nd law was not contradicted, it had nothing to do with it. No heat was transferred from the GP to the BP, the only effect of the GP was to block heat dissipation due to radiation.
“There was no mention of net heat transfer in the original definition of the 2nd law laid down by Clausius.”
Yes there was.
“In the first place, the principle [2nd Law of thermodynamics] implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it”
http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Clausius.html#anchor_152
IOW, the NET exchange of radiation results in heat flowing from hot to cold.
(Clausius uses the term ‘heat’ for radiative energy here – I think we can forgive the maker of the 2nd Law for using the language as it was used in his time)
He refers to the NET transfer more than once:
“Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog/page/n317/mode/2up
That is the definition of NET transfer – 2-way exchange, with the direction of heat flow being the NET exchange.
“we can forgive the maker of the 2nd Law”
barry 8:41 pm, that’s not needed. You are inserting your (or another) definition of heat for Clausius’ actual definition of the term “heat”. Once you insert Clausius’ accurate def. of heat in your quote clip there is no forgiveness needed. Clausius’ wording is correct.
barry, please stop trolling.
Gordo wrote:
Your description still doesn’t explain the heating of the Blue Plate observed in my Green Plate Demos.
The Green Plate doesn’t “cut off half the radiation”. The Green Plate absorbs that radiation, which is the reason the Green Plate begins to warm when lifted at 22:05. As the Green Plate warms, it emits thermal IR radiation, both toward the Blue Plate and also toward the enclosing glass of the bell jar. The Blue Plate absorbs the IR radiation from the Green Plate and it’s temperature must increase to achieve a new balance.
Notice that the Blue Plate’s temperature only slowly increases after the lifting of the Green Plate at 22:05, it does not show a fast response to your postulated “cutoff” in it’s emissions. Compare this slow rise with how fast the Blue Plate warmed after the vacuum pump was switched on at 20:40, which rapidly removed convection cooling from the Blue Plate. The Blue Plate’s slow rise is a direct result of the time for the Green Plate’s emissions to increase as it’s temperature increased.
It’s the “back radiation” from the cooler Green Plate which causes the Blue Plate to warm.
ES,
One problem is that you start off like this –
” All solids and fluids emit infrared radiation as a function of their temperature and the rate of emission is a function of the fourth power of absolute temperature. For gases, this emission only occurs in discrete frequency bands and the upward and downward emissions in these bands for the various gases within the atmosphere result in the poorly named Green House Effect.”
All matter above above absolute zero emits IR radiation. You are confusing radiation due to temperature with spectroscopy and possibly excitation.
Or maybe you are simply delusional.
Looks like you and Bill need to have a talk, Mike Flynn:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1286371
Wonky Wee Willy,
I dont care what an idiotic liar who claims to have a Greenhouse Theory thinks.
Why should I? Particularly one who repeats obvious nonsense like “No one denies the greenhouse effect Bob!”
You are not just slightly dim, are you?
Press on. Im certainly chortling, and maybe others are also.
You do not care about that Bill denies your denial, Mike?
Fine with me.
Keep denying, silly sock puppet.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Why should I care who disagrees with me? The facts don’t change, do they?
And, of course, whether something is fine with you (or not) concerns me not in the slightest.
Why would anyone be concerned about the opinion of a lying idiot who claims to have a Greenhouse Theory?
It’s pretty idiotic to tell me to “Keep denying”, isn’t it? Deny what, and what madness suggests that I would have the slightest inclination to do anything you commanded?
Moron.
Why should anyone believe you care about anything except denial, Mike?
You you still have work to do for Bill has yet to get the memo.
Keep denying, silly sock puppet!
Willard please stop trolling.
Junior, your “experiment” makes the same mistakes as your cult. Strange coincidence, that.
Your blue plate warms because the green plate is “radiative insulation”. It is NOT heating the blue plate. To claim such means you don’t understand radiative physics and thermodynamics.
Don’t feel bad. No one in your cult understand physics either. Heck, some even claim ice can boil water. You’re not that braindead, are you?
Clint R,
These dimwits dont realise that heat make things hotter. Thermometers, plates of any colour, and everything else.
They dont seem to realise that nothing can be made hotter than the hottest object heating them.
They also cant seem to comprehend how a remote IR thermometer can nominally read down to -50 C or so, while the sensor within is at ambient temperature. They may be simply ignorant, rather than stupid or completely brain dead.
“They dont seem to realise that nothing can be made hotter than the hottest object heating them.”
This related to not understanding the surface air temperature of Venus. Or the mystery of Venus.
Swenson,
Why do you say such stupid things?
“They dont seem to realise that nothing can be made hotter than the hottest object heating them.”
This is worse than Gordon’s claim that the bonds in metals are covalent.
I could tell you why, but you wouldn’t understand.
Clint R
Excellent. You are finally seeing how the actual GHE for the Earth’s surface works. The Earth’s atmosphere with GHG acts like a radiant barrier (“radiative insulation”) which allows the solar heating to establish a higher average temperature for the Earth’s surface (warmer than without GHG present).
It took a long time for you to see this. But better late than never.
Wrong again, Norman. It’s completely different for the atmosphere. Radiative gases emit energy to space. It’s the NON-radiative gases that act as a “blanket”. About 99% of the atmosphere is O2 and N2, which moderate temperature, but even the non-radiative gases cannot raise surface temperatures. It takes real heat to raise temperature.
You don’t understand any of this. You’re just another braindead cult idiot that can’t learn. Did you find your bogus “real 255 K surface” yet?
A non-radiative blanket keeps us warm.
Sky Dragon Cranks say the darnedest things.
Willard please stop trolling.
Clint R
O2 and N2 would do nothing to stop IR emitted from the surface going straight to space cooling the surface at a greater rate. More likely they are cooling mechanisms cooling the heated surface by convection.
The surface emits IR energy. Most of this is absorbed by the atmosphere converting into random heat which acts to heat the atmosphere. This warmed air, with GHG does emit but in all directions. Some back to the surface. This downwelling IR reduces the surface heat loss via radiant energy.
Yes indeed I do understand it requires solar input to raise temperature. I have already said this multiple times.
But the surface reaches a higher temperature with GHG than it would without them no different than a heated pipe getting warmer if wrapped in insulation vs the same heated pipe with no insulation (both in much colder surroundings than the pipe temperature).
Cult Leader grammie pup, Yes, the Green Plate acts as an IR radiation shield. Care to discuss the physical process by which this happens? The mechanism is widely recognized in engineering as “back radiation” from the cooler plate to the warmer plate. What’s your reason?
Junior, you need to understand the difference between “emission” and “reflection”. Can you stand in front of a mirror to warm yourself? Why not?
You don’t understand ANY of this, and can’t learn.
> Can you stand in front of a mirror to warm yourself? Why not?
Have you ever heard of Pictet’s experiment, Pup? Here:
https://youtu.be/mW4T0ZaiGno
Thank me later.
Not only have I heard of Pictet’s experiment, I understand it The concept puts another nail in the coffin for the GHE nonsense. Cold makes things colder, not warmer.
Braindead cult idiots and worthless trolls can’t understand such simple concepts.
Of course you do, Pup.
Please remind me of the first part of the experiment,
First part: Hot makes hotter.
Second part: Cold makes colder.
Braindead cult idiots and worthless trolls can’t understand such simple concepts.
Cult Leader grammie pup fails again. He can’t explain my experimental results, so he tosses out a straw man instead.
IR radiation shields work even with high emissivity surfaces. Of course, they work better with low emissivity, high reflectivity surfaces, such as used for multi-layer insulation in space applications. In either case, it’s the “back radiation” which causes the warming.
> First part: Hot makes hotter.
So you could stand in front of a mirror to warm yourself, Pup.
Why are you trolling?
Willard and Willard Jr, thanks for being such great examples of braindead cult idiots.
Hot makes things hotter, and cold makes things colder, but cold does NOT make things hotter.
Thanks again.
Space is colder than the atmosphere, Clint.
Yes Brandon. Don’t forget to take your sweater.
Cult Leader grammie pup refuses to admit that his straw man proves nothing. He mentions using a “mirror” to warm oneself, said mirror typically being a back silvered sheet of glass. But, glass is a strong absorber of IR radiation, so there won’t be much reflection of that IR radiation.
Maybe grammie would investigate the use of aluminized mylar or other IR transmitting plastics, such as those used in those emergency “space” blankets.
And just exactly how will a cold sweater keep my body warm, Clint?
Willard Jr, a mirror both reflects and emits.
You really don’t understand any of this.
******
Brandon, if your sweater isn’t enough, just move closer to Sun. Maybe you’ve heard the expression, “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
> Its the Sun, stupid
The vulnerability of his bailey exposed, Clint retreats to the motte.
The only thing I’ve exposed here Brandon is that you have NOTHING, and you’re so vapid that you actually admire worthless Willard. You’re like Norman is to Ball4 — someone with no science gaga over someone else with no science.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Unable to reconcile his Dragon Crank orthodoxy with the every day experience of non-electric blankets keeping him warmer than he’d be without them, Clint is reduced to spitting on his keyboard.
False accusations won’t help you, Brandon. Unless you’re content with being a braindead cult idiot, having NOTHING.
But you trying to sound like your worthless Willard just adds to the fun.
Clint: NON-radiative gases act as a “blanket”
Also Clint: non-radiative gases cannot raise surface temperatures
Conclusion: blankets do not keep Dragon Cranks warm on cold evenings
I couldn’t make this up.
I kinda suspected it before.
Why would anyone want to emulate worthless Willard? Even Norman and Bindidon see Willard for what he is. And, that’s the clincher — the only one impressed with Willard is Willard! “Brandon” is Willard!
I wish I was, Pup.
But that means I’d have to be a San Jose Sharks fan, and that’s a no.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Willard wrote to Mike –
“Mike make long comments,”, to which my response, (on Mike’s behalf), is “Willard make big lies”.
He claims he has a Greenhouse Theory. He doesn’t. He’s a jackass, whining about “Sky Dragon Cranks” ganging up on him! Paranoia, much?
Poor Whining Wee Willy.
More sammich requests, Mike?
Bill does it better than you!
Willard please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop attempting to troll.
Silly sock puppet,
Do continue.
Willard,
Please stop attempting to troll.
I kinda suspected it before.
Why would anyone want to emulate Kiddo? Even Richard and Norma see Kiddo for who he is. And, that is the clincher – the only one impressed with Kiddo is Bill! Mike Flynn is Bill!
Willard, please stop attempting to troll.
swannie…”Your description still doesnt explain the heating of the Blue Plate observed in my Green Plate Demos”.
***
I just explained it in detail.
Let’s dumb it down. Take an ordinary resistor, insulate it heavily to minimize any conduction to air molecules or convection of the heat surrounding the resistor. Now wrap it in a metal foil to cut of radiation. Connect it to a power supply.
The resistor is insulated to a near ideal state so little or no heat can escape. If the power supply is turned on, presuming a resistor selection that can handle a decent current that will warm the resistor, it will gradually warm to an optimal temperature related only to the current through it. Call that To (not Toronto).
So we know the resistor will rise to To when it is fully insulated so no heat can escape. Now, we take off all the insulation, fire it up and measure the temperature. It will be significantly lower than To because heat is now being lost through dissipation. Call that temperature T2.
Now we wrap the resistor with only the insulation, no metal shield. Measure it again, and it has warmed. Swannie, this is basic stuff in the electronics field, we used heat sinks to lower the temperature of a device so we can run more current through it.
Remove the heat sink and the device may warm uncontrollably to destruction. What caused the warming there? There is no external warming supplied, the resistor simply rises to a temperature which is natural for it when totally insulated.
If we put the same resistor in your vacuum tank with leads extending outside so we can connect it to a power supply, we get the same thing, with the exception that the device cannot cool via conduction to air molecules or by convection carrying warmed air away. If we can surround the resistor with metal foil without shorting it out, it should rise to To.
Take all insulation off and run it bare in the vacuum tank and the temperature should be significantly lower than To. If you cover half the resistor on one side with foil, it should cut it’s heat dissipation in half and the resistor will warm toward To.
That’s in a perfect world. In the real world, heat will escape along the leads and outside the vacuum chamber.
The warming has nothing to do with heat being transferred from the metallic shield to the resistor, it’s all about messing with its ability to dissipate heat.
Gordo wrote stuff, including:
Gordo has no clue about heat transfer. If his resistor is perfectly insulated (including the leads), it can’t cool and it’s temperature will increase to the temperature point that it self destructs.
I assume that Gordo actually has come resistors available to test his hypothesis. If not, an old incandescent light bulb would work as well. Pack it in about 6 inches of fiberglass, including the base and wire, and let-er-rip. We await your experimental results.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Willard the Wanker wrote to me, Swenson,
“Mike, Mike,
When youll write *all* your comments using your name, Ill revise my judgment.
For now, its sock puppets all the way down.”
Wandering Wee Willy calls “Mike, Mike” and myself “sock puppets”, for some strange reason. He apparently thinks that someone cares about his “judgement”! What a strange person – does he expect all and sundry to chant “Here come da judge! Here come da judge!” as Wee Willy minces into view?
Who cares what a lying idiot who claims to have a non-existent Greenhouse Theory wants to revise? Certainly not me.
Willard is one strange delusional laddie, with an inflated opinion of his own importance.
More drivel, Mike?
Gordo does it better than you!
Willard please stop trolling.
Why is it that much more energy is going into sensible heat (heating the air) rather than into latent heat (evaporation of water) in climate? aka ‘The evaporation paradox’.
You should be asking why so much heat is going into latent heat melting ice. That is probably the second largest heat sink behind ocean heat content.
Melting ice just serves to cool the ocean bottom.
I was thinking about thermodynamics. It’s above my pay grade but some energy flows have lower entropy and tend to be favoured.
For example, in the Arctic the Winter surface and air temperatures are well below freezing.
In Summer temperatures stabilise just above 0C. Heat coming in from wind or sunlight mostly goes into melting ice and ends up as latent heat rather than warming air or water.
The facts are that in the winter, when sea ice is formed, then brine is formed also. That moves to the bottom of the oceans and drives the whole ocean overturning thing and deep ocean currents.
In summer that same sea ice melts and creates a cold fresh water top to the salt oceans underneath. That helps to hold the cold below the surface.
Overall sea ice is a movement of cold to the bottom of the oceans.
“For example, in the Arctic the Winter surface and air temperatures are well below freezing.”
Yes. And the temperature profile remains much the same all year round, being much the same in tropic, temperate, and Arctic latitudes.
Interesting, isn’t it?
Just for fun, look at the temperature profile for the Marianas Trench, and see how well that fits with the “cold water flows from the Poles” speculation, if you wish.
https://30a.com/ten-facts-about-mariana-trench/
“You might expect the waters of the Mariana Trench to be frigid since no sunlight can reach it. And youd be right. The water there tends to range between 34 to 39 degrees Fahrenheit”
More at that link:
”But whats surprising is how hot the water can get, too. There are hydrothermal vents throughout the trench. The water that comes out of those vents would be enough to scald anyone at 700 degrees Fahrenheit”
that gives rise to questions about how volcanic activity varies at the bottom of the world. We know less about this than we know about the surface of Mars.
That cold briny water that goes down to the bottom at the poles is below zero C as it is being squeezed out of freezing seawater that doesn’t freeze until -2C. So by the time it gets to the Mariannas Trench it has according to the above source risen by 3 to 6C.
If we had a better understanding of these processes as ice cover retreats and advances over decadal/centennial/millennial scales of time we would know more about the natural climate change of a couple of degrees c or so that can be seen in the ice core records.
Likely something to do with the fact that the atmosphere is directly in contact with the surface, allowing a warmer surface, in many places, to transfer heat directly to the atmosphere by conduction. At the same time, the atmospheric pressure at the surface limits evapouration.
Very good design by a designer who obviously has no interest in alarmist climate science.
It’s the Sun stupid
https://youtu.be/0Xg6CKxOK1U
Air temperatures going down but CO2 going up. Who would have thought it?
A data analyst who cannot distinguish signal from noise. Who would have thought it?
Define signal. Define noise.
entropic…you still have not explained the meaning of noise in a temperature data series. Are you claiming part of the data is in error due to a noise signal being injected?
In the electronics field, noise is an unwanted signal along for the ride. Shot noise comes from electrons moving in a conductor. EMI is interference due to electrical devices inducing unwanted signals in communications signals.
Definition of
Noise–variation that RLH tends to filter out to better see the signal.
He knows or should know that the theoretical signal of AGW is a long-term slow T rise.
The notion that observed short-term variation somehow falsifies the theory is a silly silly strawman.
Nate says:
He knows or should know that the theoretical signal of AGW is a long-term slow T rise.
——————————
LOL! The signal one should receive form a long term slow T rise. . . .is its getting warmer. All the other stuff is pure imagination.
Bill feels like saying something, but has nothing to say…posts anyway.
Sorry Nate but I can’t say anything about how your radiant system can get warmer than the house it resides in. Perhaps if you ever worked with radiant energy you would realize that instead of just sitting in front of your computer imagining it. But as I pointed out to Willard, I can’t fix stupid. I will have as much success as convincing the man who thinks he sees little green men running around his bedroom that everything is fine.
“Air temperatures going down but CO2 going up. Who would have thought it?”
Me. We were heading into Winter but then we got a week warmer than the last. But weather is not climate and I know that Winter is still coming. It’s physics.
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2503/
Please explain why temperatures are increasing while solar activity is decreasing.
Please explain why temperature is increasing but evaporation is decreasing.
Please explain why storms are not linked to temperature in the long term.
Evaporation decreasing? Yet water vapor in the atm increasing. Who thot of that one?
Ever notice what a pot of water does when you turn off the heat?
According to this guy, Canada did a lot of the work developing Wuhan Flu Bioweapon.
https://rumble.com/v153ybt-dr.-david-e-martin-gives-explosive-jaw-dropping-information-in-canadian-zoo.html
If what he is saying is true, that UBC developed nano-particle technology they licensed to Moderna that was used in the covid vaccine, and did it while a moratorium was in effect against such research, then a few heads should roll. Unfortunately, the good doctor is calling it murder and terrorism and I don’t think that will sell to a gullible public or the courts.
It’s interesting what he has to say about the development of remdesivir, used as an antiviral against covid. It has been known since the days of HIV that the antivirals developed to allegedly combat HIV, including remdesivir, posed a great danger to humans. The drug companies developing the drugs offered a disclaimer that the drugs could not cure HIV. The horrendous part was their revelation that the drugs, like HAART, caused fatal blood disorders as well as fatal liver and kidney disorders.
Possibly the most blatant side effect from the manufacturers was IRS, an acronym representing drug-induced AIDS. Furthermore, when the drugs were stored in a warehouse, they were marked with the skull and crossbones representing poison. The MSDS sheets recommend not handling the drugs without proper PPI. When the drugs are delivered to patients all the information about poison has been removed. It’s apparently not OK for handlers to touch the drugs directly but it is OK for patients to ingest them for life.
The first HIV antiviral, AZT, was so toxic it was discontinued as a chemotherapy agent for cancer. Yet people testing positive for HIV were put on it for life. As expert David Rasnick revealed, if a cancer specialist put a cancer patient on chemo for life he’d lose his license, yet if a doctor treating an HIV patient does it, it’s OK.
I know of one guy who has been vaccinated for covid and now has serious liver complications. He has no history of alcohol abuse or hepatitis, his problems began following covid vaccinations. A recent Swedish study suggests the covid vaccine accumulates in the liver shortly after injection and is altering DNA in liver cells.
We live in Draconian times where governments can experiment on people without the slightest science to back their dark experiments while pushing their poisons as beneficial. At the same time, they push on us sci-fi about global warming/climate change. The sad part is most people being so gullible as to accept the chicanery.
I heard it was the Americans. So many villains to choose from…
The LIA was a long negative feedback response period.
The Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.
It is true that the sea ice has a higher reflecting ability. It happens because ice and snow have higher albedo.
But at very high latitudes, where the sea ice covers the ocean there is a very poor insolation absorp-tion.
Thus the sea ice’s higher reflecting ability doesn’t cool significantly the Earth’s surface.
On the other hand there is a physical phenomenon which has a strong influence in the cooling of Earth’s surface.
This phenomenon is the differences in emissivity.
The open sea waters have emissivity ε = 0,95.
The ice has emissivity ε = 0,97.
On the other hand, the snow has a much lower emissivity ε = 0,8.
And the sea ice is a snow covered sea ice with emissivity ε = 0,8.
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table
Also we should have under consideration the physical phenomenon of the sea waters freezing-melting behavior.
Sea waters freeze at – 2,3 oC.
Sea ice melts at 0 oC.
The difference between the melting and the freezing temperatures creates a seasonal time delay in covering the arctic waters with ice sheets.
When formatting the sea ice gets thicker from the colder water’s side.
When melting the sea ice gets thinner from the warmer atmosphere’s side.
This time delay enhances the arctic waters IR emissivity and heat losses towards the space because of the open waters’ higher emissivity ε = 0,95, compared with the snow covered ice ε = 0,8.
Needs to be mentioned that Earth’s surface emits IR radiation 24/7 all year around.
And the Arctic region insolation absorp-tion is very poor even in the summer.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That is why Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.
On the other hand it is the open Arctic sea waters that have the cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.
Feedback refers to the modification of a process by changes resulting from the process itself. Positive feedbacks accelerate the process, while negative feedbacks slow it down.
The Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance. It is a negative feedback.
The melting Arctic sea ice, by opening the waters, slows down the Global Warming trend.
This process appears to be a negative feedback.
The LIA was a long negative feedback response period.
The general trend was then and is now a continuous orbital forced global warming.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes, that seems to be correct.
No. He’s got it backwards.
Say, it forward.
Eman,
Sit down and be quiet. You might learn something.
“The Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance. It is a negative feedback.
The melting Arctic sea ice, by opening the waters, slows down the Global Warming trend. ”
Vournas is saying that decreased Arctic sea ice and increased Arctic Ocean open water slow global warming.
We are seeing decreasing Arctic sea ice, increasing Arctic open water and no sign that global warming is slowing.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ocean-heat/
The evidence falsifies Vournas’ hypothesis.
You are both correct.
More open arctic ocean heats air- and cools the ocean- and it takes long time to cool ocean by .1 C
Thin and new ice can make very cold water. Thick and old ice prevents ocean from warming air and doesn’t create much cold water falling.
The most significant cooling effect is southern polar region- the wind roars around and cold ocean water mixes.
This can freeze and ocean can warm a lot.
It’s the glaciation of Antarctica which marked the beginning of our Ice Age. And glaciation of Greenland which marked the latter part of our Ice Age.
And And And now, the hurricane forecast from the the Climatist in chief
https://youtu.be/3Tsf0StUQ3s
Anybody see superdeveloping La Nina ?
Bidendong doesn’t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RquUQgF-4MA
Drier is less water vapor.
Water vapor is most significant greenhouse gas.
We in an Ice Age.
Ice Ages are drier and cold. 15 C is cold. One not set your thermostat as cold as 15 C. Though it might save energy during winter, many people die from being too cold.
Ice Ages have more extreme weather which is both hot and cold. You could know we in Ice Age as 1/3 of all land area is deserts.
If world was warmer, we would have more water vapor, less dry conditions. And more uniform day and night air temperature and less cold winters.
“If world was warmer, we would have more water vapor”
The evaporation paradox
(https://www.engr.colostate.edu/~ramirez/ce_old/classes/ce520_ramirez/CIVE520_Class_PanParadox_new.pdf)
says that is not the case.
US is small land region, and kind of in the middle.
One could argue it’s dust bowl had a small global effect.
It’s cooled by Canada. It’s sort of like India, but India is warmer.
Africa is more affected and driver of global climate- and much bigger.
It’s very interesting to see how credible NOAA’s data suddenly seem when signaling a cooldown.
When NOAA reports warming, it always reports wrong matter based on fudged data.
*
Moreover, looking at the youtube output coming from the ‘Philosophical (!) Investigations’ is interesting as well.
The title of their last production is
” NOAA and Valentina Zharkova predict a GSM… “.
Wow. You ask yourself ‘Did I miss something?’ and quickly start searching for hints on this surprising information you might have overlooked.
All you find however is something you know since quite long a time:
” Their press releases surely wont admit it, but NOAAs PREDICTED SUNSPOT NUMBER AND RADIO FLUX data appears to show a full-blown Grand Solar Minimum running from the late-2020s to at least the 2040s. ”
to be found in the Electroverse blog, known as the major replicator of a Future Global Cooling:
https://electroverse.net/noaa-confirms-a-full-blown-grand-solar-minimum/
*
But then you continue reading the Philosophers’ stuff, and see, well reassured:
” The latest NOAA and TSI data show a strong correlation with the GSM predicted by Valentina Zharkova. ”
Aha.
A previous thought of these Philosophers is interesting too:
” New NOOA data projects Southern Hemisphere Average Temperature continuing a Dramatic negative trend. ”
Again you understand that only negative trends are allowed to be ‘dramatic’; positive trends are always ‘alarmistic’.
What a wonderful, funny world.
Here is something less ‘dramatic’ and ‘alarmistic’:
A Grand Solar Minimum? Or a normal sun?
https://earthsky.org/sun/whats-a-grand-solar-minimum/
binny…”Its very interesting to see how credible NOAAs data suddenly seem when signaling a cooldown”.
***
I don’t even look at NOAA data, I know it is fudged. If they are showing cooling it’s only because it is so blatantly obvious it would embarrass them not to reveal it.
Gordon, you are a classic for straight up preferring whatever data set is cooler.
barry… “UAH trend for the US is much warmer than GHCN.”
Gordon… “Maybe, just maybe, the Trump government has managed to straighten NOAA out. Wouldn’t that be something?”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/in-defense-of-the-term-greenouse-effect/#comment-303110
No need for any analysis, you’ll take NOAA if it runs cooler, pure and simple.
barry, please stop trolling.
Science News
May 18, 2022 / 1:56 PM
SpaceX successfully launches rocket carrying 53 Starlink satellites
“SpaceX has launched 21 missions so far in 2022, with 14 of them dedicated Starlink flights, including Wednesday’s launch.”
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2022/05/18/spacex-launches-rocket-53-starlink-satellites/3641652894462/
From: https://instapundit.com/
It seems they going have pick it up a bit if they get 60 in year,
but 21 in 5 months used to be a lot, for a year.
And it’s possible we get a Starship launch or two before the end of
year. But then again, the first test launch may lead to discovering a lot of things that need to be improve.
And apparently starlink will be launch on test launch of Starship- I would guess not a lot of them, but maybe more then 53 of them, and wants to launch hundreds from a Starship
Entropic man says:
May 2, 2022 at 4:23 PM
Three months ago, when the monthly anomaly was 0.0C I bet you that we would get a monthly value of 0.5C or larger by the end of 2022, partly because I expect us to tip over from Last Nina to El Nino at some point.
It is now April and we are at 0.26C, already halfway to my target.
————————————————————-
Low Entropy man believes this La Nina will warm the planet to +.5C or larger by the end of the year.
I’m definitely saving this one
No doubt he expects next month to be warmer than this one.
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2022-05-18.gif
That’s not the bet.
2000mules premieres tonight in over 400 locations. Investigations have begun based on information in the documentary.
If I remember correctly, Barry and a couple of others were arguing just after the election that there was no proof the democrats stole the election. Barry wanted to see the evidence. Barry, have you watched the movie? What do you think?
That lies do not make a truth. No matter the medium on which it is written.
Which lies? Specifically?
I challenge you to watch the movie and tell me what lies. Or, are you another lying leftist coward?
By the way, if the Movie had no merit, you’d hear nothing from the Washing Post or the NY Times.
Another question for you, a hypothetical. What if you knew for a fact that the Democrats did steal the election? Would that be OK with you?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/even-geolocation-maps-2000-mules-are-misleading/
“not only does the film completely fail to provide any evidence of that being the case, even DSouza admits that he didnt have the evidence that would have been required to prove it”
“If we zoom in on the map, though, something seems off. The drop-box site shown in the overlaid photo is one that elsewhere in the movie is described as being in Gwinnett County. But the accompanying map depicts a river running through the city, which doesnt exist in Atlanta. So whats this showing?
A group of Internet sleuths tracked it down. Simply flip the image
… and it becomes clear. Thats not Atlanta; its a stock photo of a different capital.
Moscow.”
Not even on the same continent!
Linking Phillip Bump is your reply? If you look at his argument about the location of the drop boxes in Atlanta, he pulls a map of the drop-box locations. It doesn’t look exactly like the one used in the film, but it looks pretty close. It would put the mule within 100 ft of the drop boxes instead of at the drop box. Which map depiction is correct? It doesn’t matter. Why was the mule within 100 ft of 10 drop boxes? And, you have a video of the mule dropping ballots in some of the drop boxes. So whose map is more correct? Again, it doesn’t matter. You have geotracking evidence of the mule in the vicinity of the drop boxes and then you have the video. How can this be explained? Also, he wasn’t trying to show any evidence with the Moscow photo.
How many failures to prove a stolen election until you give up, stephen?
There have ben a pile of recounts. No fraud.
There were 60 lawsuits. No fraud, and some thrown out for the evidence being purely speculative.
Republican lection officials said no fraud in jurisdictions that other Repubs said were stolen.
Trump on tape asking Georgia’s Secretary of State to help him find over 10 thousand votes: “I just want to find 11,780 votes.”
Th Trump-appointed US attorney General, the government departments tasked with overseeing election security, all agreed no foul.
The pro-Trump Arizona recount that found MORE votes for Biden.
The list of failed claims is huge. It includes efforts by Republicans and pro-Trumpers.
But all those failures slide right by people who take Trump as gospel. Whether or not it even penetrates their minds, they are impervious to all these failures, because the stolen election is a matter of faith to them.
Bman,
The recounts also counted the illegal ballots. They didn’t have any of this evidence in the initial court filings. Law enforcement didn’t investigate. Now, they will.
Why didn’t True the Vote hand over their documents for investigation, and why did thy refuse to give names (ie, of the mules and witness). Why did they have to get subpoenaed for it? And what does it mean to you that the Republican-led investigation of the data once they got it revealed no wrong-doing, after thy tracked down some of the alleged mules and found they’d voted for their family all at once (legal in Georgia)?
Looks like you and the rest of the Trumpists have ben suckered by a slick production.
I hope the law does a full investigation, if only to shut you idiots up.
But even if that happened you would still swallow the next slick con job that told you different.
UAH 6.0 LT trends, in °C/decade
2015-now: -0.05 ± 0.62
2016: -0.26 ± 0.74
2017: -0.05 ± 0.90
2018: +0.06 ± 1.28
2019: -0.72 ± 1.65
2000-now: +0.15 ± 0.12
1990: +0.14 ± 0.08
All linear trends with a SE greater than the trend itself, are completely useless (except for Warming or Cooling Alarmists, of course).
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/uah_lt.jpg
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2022-05-18.gif
We shall see won’t we.
While your linked charts are correct, they don’t contradict even a syllable of what I wrote.
Linear trends (OLS for instance) on anything that has ripples or cycles in it is worse than useless. What is the trend in a sine wave?
The only one trying to steal the election was the Trumping boy himself.
He (yes, he: Trump, who always voted by mail in 2016 and before) did everything in 2020 to discredit mail voting.
Because he was fully aware that while many Democratic voters would prefer absentee ballots due to COVID19, very few of his Republican supporters would vote by mail.
All would appear in person at the polling stations.
So the Trumping boy’s trick was quite simple: all he had to do was denounce absentee voting as a scam!
But fortunately, all of his attempts to discredit Biden’s legitimate, valid absentee ballot have failed in all courts.
The Trumping Boy was and is a dumb, bad loser.
Blinny,
Why do you blow smoke out of your ass all the time?
And why do you dumb 2nd Amendment ass insult others all the time, instead of credibly refuting their arguments?
We saw the result of mail in votes, they could be easily manipulated through computer fraud. The companies hired to run the computers already had histories in banana republics of fixing elections.
When Republicans tried to scrutineer the votes, especially in key states, they were blocked. Covid was an excuse for not allowing the scrutineers near to the vote counters to see what they were doing.
Totally scammed vote count. Hopefully that will never be allowed to happen again. If computers are going to be used, they must be totally offline and have no access to anyone, including maintenance personnel. If a computer breaks down, there should be observers from both parties avaialbe to question the technicians doing the repairs and to make sure he doesn’t mess with the software.
By offline, I mean the computer doing the voting is offline and not available to any hacker. That can be accomplished by using separate computers to handle offline business but anything entered into the voting computer must be logged and observed by both parties.
Personally, after much experience with computers I’d prefer they were not accessible at all. There are too many covert ways to manipulate them. In one case during the last election, an ex-military observer complained that someone showed up with a bag of USB drives and started uploading them into the computer. No action was taken re his complaint.
As things turned out, things are backfiring on the scammers. The Democrats have revealed themselves as major scumbags wrt democratic rights. Children are being booted out of school for failing to use the correct pronouns while referencing perverts.
“That can be accomplished by using separate computers to handle offline business…”
Should read ‘online business’.
BTW…that is the safest way for home users as well. Use one computer for your online business and keep another for offline. You can use USB drives to transfer pertinent information to the offline computer after it has been verified. That way, no one can ever hack you, unless you are dumb enough to d/l infected apps.
You are an absolutely gullible Trump bootlicker.
Simply because even today, you still did not manage to understand that if you were right, the Trumping boy would have denigrated mail votes in 2016 as well, and even long time before.
But… he couldn’t, because he was a life long too lazy to go to the polling station next to him.
Once more: The longer your posts, the less they contain.
Your blathering posts only make sense to you. They echo around in your head like bells in a belltower.
“The companies hired to run the computers already had histories in banana republics of fixing elections.”
This was just one of many easily debunked falsehoods you’ve swallowed hook line and sinker.
The Durham probe has indeed debunked the whole Trump-Russia collusion narrative. Whether or not Sussman gets convicted (he has a very sympathetic jury), it is evident it was a scheme of the Hillary campaign and was aided by Obama’s administration and the sycophant media. 2000mules has illuminated how the Democrats stole the 2020 election. They used non-profits and mules in crucial swing states like Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. We will find out a lot more information in the coming months, like who was behind this election rigging scheme. It is pretty apparent, though, who it was.
stephen, please stop being a Republican party talking-points bulletin.
It’s amazing to see that people who usually discredit models – and models are in heavy use in temperature series reanalysis – suddenly agree to a model-based reanalysis tool like CFSR, just because CFSR, like do most reanalysis tools, shows trends lower than those of its own data sources.
How exactly do you always manage to pick the worst model of all ? whats your secret ?
So you are saying that models (and things based on them) are not reality? And that we should not expect them to be able to predict the future?
” So you are saying ” this and that…
Typical RLH insinuation which serves no other purpose than throwing sand in the eyes and deliberately perverting the discussion.
*
I never wrote anything against models. Nowhere.
I wrote against all the people woefully discrediting models – except when the models happen to fit their egocentric narrative.
“agree to a model-based reanalysis tool like CFSR, just because CFSR, like do most reanalysis tools, shows trends lower than those of its own data sources”
So the model based reanalysis tool like CFSR do not show trends that conform to their own data sources. Like I said you said.
” Like I said you said. ”
No. I didn’t.
You turn everything others say until it fits what you want them to have said.
Bad attitude.
“agree to a model-based reanalysis tool like CFSR, just because CFSR, like do most reanalysis tools, shows trends lower than those of its own data sources”
are precisely your words. Are the trends lower than those of its own data sources or not?
This is the favorite Bindidong’s model he keeps posting , but he is too stupid to screncap it when he posts it and links to actual website which changes every month as the time moves on ,
so when you look it up after three month it shows something totally different than at the time of posting.
This is what his best site did, watch the April predictions , and they only changed April to 100% La Nina retroactively on 12 May
https://i.postimg.cc/MKJrHnNm/jmacomp1.jpg
And he claims they do best work
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1098140
Who, do you think, puts JMA’s wrong predictions into the Wayback Machine, you stoopid, impolite baby?
Apparently nobody , since there are only two captures within the whole last 12 months one on Nov 21 and one on 14 Feb 22 so if you are not saving it yourself you can’t get.
Now try again and see if you can type something that makes sense for a change
Not you for sure as there are only 2 entries for this year, one on 14th Feb and 1 today and I just submitted that one.
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html
Half way through May and it sure looks cold in 4, 3.4, 3, 1+2,
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
so will that graph show another 20% decline as reality approaches?
You have it wrong, as usual, Binny. We are not knocking models in general, only unvalidated models, especially those programmed with bs.
I would use PSpice modeling any day for electrons because the modeling can be tested and verified.
I am not promoting pspice but this page representing the product explains what it does. Note that it includes libraries of actually circuits and devices proved to work through testing.
https://www.pspice.com/
There are very valuable models out there, unfortunately that cannot be claimed for climate models. They are programmed using two egregiously incorrect concepts. One of them is the warming factor for CO2, which has never been proved in the atmosphere and is based on a 19th century guess.
The other is positive feedback in the atmosphere, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect, which is impossible. Positive feedback of that type requires an amplifier and the formula for it is well known…
G = A/(1 – AB)
G = overall gain
A = amplifier gain
B = feedback
If B is negative, then the sign in 1 – AB becomes positive and and the denominator is always > 1. Therefore, A is reduced and overall gain G is reduced.
If B is positive, as for positive feedback, the sign remains negative and 1 – AB is always < 1. Therefore during each cycle, A increases as does G. There are ways to control this using circuit design in electronics, but uncontrolled, the process will run toward infinity, and very quickly.
The point is, there is no way of amplifying heat in the atmosphere because there is no amplifier. Even if there was, how do you amplify heat? If you had a device where a small amount of heat was amplified into a larger amount of heat, that would be cool. There is nothing in the atmosphere can do that, ergo, the term positive feedback cannot be applied in the atmosphere.
There is a type of positive feedback that is based on sign only, as in servo motor systems. However, there is no amplification involved, just sign.
Once more: The longer your posts, the less they contain.
Your thoughts about how models work couldn’t be more stoopid, Robertson.
Simply because you are not at all interested in learning how things work.
You are only interested in telling how you guess they do.
Don’t be an idiot, Fritz, my background is in electronics and computers. I also have a very strong background with positive feedback.
The telling thing in your response is that you could not critique what I was saying because you actually have no idea how they work.
“You have it wrong, as usual, Binny. We are not knocking models in general, only unvalidated models, especially those programmed with bs.”
Pshaw! You wouldn’t know the first thing about ‘validating’ the various models referred to here.
A validated model for you, Robertson, is any that fit the narrative you prefer.
It is no more complicated than that.
barry, please stop trolling.
Willard can’t produce a scientific theory of how the greenhouse effect allegedly work.
Snicker!!!
Willard’s a loser.
You are early, Gordo.
Wanna bet?
Whacky Wee Willy,
The typical response from a lying idiot claiming he has a Greenhouse Theory, when he has no such thing.
You are just like that idiot bobdroege. You don’t have any money, anyway.
You would be just like that faker fraud scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann – he sued, he lost, and made sure he did it in a foreign country so he could flee without complying with the court decision.
Who would bet with such an amoral and unethical slimeball?
So yes, I would bet you can’t produce a valid Greenhouse Theory, as soon as you demonstrate that you have deposited your share of the wager in escrow, accompanied by the contract which clearly sets out your contractual obligations, and I have agreed to same.
Of course you won’t, because you are a spineless coward.
Carry on.
Let’s start with the definition of a theory.
Is the following a theory?
Swenson doesn’t know what the greenhouse effect is because his head is full of cream cheese.
Yes or no?
And I didn’t notice, but you are trying to change the bet.
This is not the bet offered.
“So yes, I would bet you cant produce a valid Greenhouse Theory”
And it’s also not what you were claiming.
You were claiming we didn’t have a greenhouse effect theory, which is not what you just offered to bet.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-016-1732-y
Do you still want to bet?
Braindead bob, in real science a theory can NOT violate the laws of physics.
Theories do not always violate the laws of physics, but when they do they do NOT exist.
You are a genius, Pup.
Clint R,
Do tell how what I posted violates any laws of physics?
It’s just the same old garbage, braindead. They’re trying to compare Earth to an imaginary sphere:
“Scholars within the science community may also have somewhat different ideas about what is involved in the GHE. Here, the GHE will, for all intents and purposes, be defined as the set of conditions that are responsible for discrepancy between the observed global mean surface temperature of a planet and that predicted based on the energy flux received from the sun, rather than being restricted to a mere radiative balance.”
That ain’t science.
b,
Yes indeed. Just put your mythical $10,000 into escrow, accompanied by a contract specifying in detail the scientific requirements for the Greenhouse Theory, then obtain my agreement to the contract should your specification be acceptable.
Then produce your Greenhouse Theory. Should the escrow holder adjudge that the terms of the contract have been fulfilled, I will pay you $10,000. [snigger]
You lying idiot, you dont have a Greenhouse Theory! You are just as stupid as that moron Willard!
You should go and play with other, or just play with yourself if you think Willard is too much of a slimeball for you.
Off you go now.
False accusations will not help you, Mike. Unless you are content with being a silly sock puppet, having NOTHING.
Swenson,
Never mind that, I already produced the greenhouse effect theory as published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology.
Free of charge as I am a nice guy.
Swenson,
I’ll play your game, should be good for a few laughs.
“Yes indeed. Just put your mythical $10,000 into escrow, accompanied by a contract specifying in detail the scientific requirements for the Greenhouse Theory, then obtain my agreement to the contract should your specification be acceptable.”
What scientific requirements for the Greenhouse effect do you require?
How about more carbonic acid gas between the sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer more better hotter on average over a period of 30 years.
Clint R,
That’s not the answer to the question I asked.
And comparison to a imaginary sphere does not violate any laws of physics.
How do we know Mt Everest is 29,032 feet tall or the Marianas trench is 36,037 feet deep.
Clint R,
One more thing,
You do know the surface of the Earth is not a sphere?
bob d …”I already produced the greenhouse effect theory as published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology”.
***
Please do quote to us from your work of fiction so we too can be entertained.
braindead bob provides a link to his best GHE “theory” definition, then promptly runs from it.
That’s why this is so much fun.
b,
You donkey. There is no Greenhouse Theory. You are just like that other idiotic liar Willard. Go on, pretend you are prepared to bet that there is a Greenhouse Theory.
You are as silly as Willard. You can’t even provide a scientific description of the Greenhouse Effect that stands up.
Even the cultists on Wikipedia now claim the supposed Greenhouse Effect is a “process” whereby sunlight heats objects, which then cool at night. I suppose you disagree?
Wikipedia also states “Greenhouse effect” is actually a misnomer”, much to the lying idiot Willard’s chagrin.
So give it a try – bet all your imaginary money that you can produce an imaginary Greenhouse Theory.
How hard can it be, moron?
Where were you on May 14, 2022 at 9:00 AM, Mike?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Please stop trying to troll, Willard.
Mike, Mike,
Please search for “May 14, 2022 at 9:00 AM” on this page.
Please stop trying to troll, Willard.
Stick to lying about having a Greenhouse Theory.
Search for “May 14, 2022 at 9:00 AM” on this page, silly sock puppet.
bob d…from your link that you seem to claim is proof of the greenhouse theory…
“An old conceptual model for the greenhouse effect is revisited and presented as a useful resource in climate change communication. It is validated against state-of-the-art data, and nontraditional diagnostics show a physically consistent picture. The earths climate is constrained by well-known and elementary physical principles, such as energy balance, flow, and conservation. Greenhouse gases affect the atmospheric optical depth for infrared radiation, and increased opacity implies higher altitude from which earths equivalent bulk heat loss takes place. “.
***
1)the GHE is an old, conceptual model.
2)It is validated against state-of-the-art data….
which data, how does that data validate the theory?
3)The earths climate is constrained by well-known and elementary physical principles, such as energy balance, flow, and conservation.
Not a shred of scientific proof.
4)Greenhouse gases affect the atmospheric optical depth for infrared radiation, and increased opacity implies higher altitude from which earths equivalent bulk heat loss takes place….
Still no scientific proof of how that works, just opinion, apparently based on consensus.
Delusional Willard’s comment, in full –
“Search for May 14, 2022 at 9:00 AM on this page, silly sock puppet”
Yeah. Right.
And then Bill wonders why nobody takes sammich requests from our silliest sock puppet srsly.
You drag a horse to water and he asks for scientific proof.
Proofs are for Mathematics, alcohol distillation, and bread baking.
“bob dfrom your link that you seem to claim is proof of the greenhouse theory”
Gordon, did you think I was offering a proof? I was not asked for a proof, only a description, I provide that and more, like evidence, which science is about, not proof.
Here’s a quote, someone asked for a quote
“which suggests that old knowledge has been forgotten”
Have you guys forgotten anything?
And who says I am running?
Calling me a donkey doesn’t win the bet.
–Conclusions
The GHE is a result of a vertical distance between a planets surface, where energy from the sun is deposited, and higher aloft, where its heat loss back to space takes place. The vertical distance itself, however, is determined by GHGs–
Obviously this is wrong.
Ozone is warming effect and has nothing to do surface temperature.
The mass of atmosphere determines this height.
The ocean surface is warmer than land surface.
The average ocean temperature determines everything- and it related to geography.
Isn’t there more talent writers which could write about it?
CO2 has tiny warming effect which no one has measure, and no one has correctly modeled.
What will the warming effects of present levels of CO2 be for next two decades.
If we assume CO2 levels will not rise much more in next two decades- and this something which can roughly assume will be the case.
Or as some cargo cultist have said, it’s already too late.
And does anyone disagree with statement, more than 90% of global warming has occurred, warming the entire ocean.
Or over next two decades, it seems global temperature will roughly be flat, the concern is in two decades, global air will increase by .3 C, would one say it’s going to significantly more than this?
Or are we looking at around .13 C per decade [though possibly a bit less or bit more].
And can agree that China is emitting the most CO2, and that China will eventually run out of coal. And coal burning is why China emits the most CO2 in the world?
Swenson,
“Wikipedia also states Greenhouse effect is actually a misnomer, much to the lying idiot Willards chagrin.”
Yes, it’s a misnomer.
So what, it’s still a theory.
And it’s still like a greenhouse, except the mechanism is blocking cooling by blocking radiation instead of blocking cooling by blocking convection.
braindead bob, a radiative gas does not “block cooling”. A gas that absorbs photons is not “blocking cooling”. Like the other idiots, you don’t understand any of the science.
Sorry CLint R,
That it doesn’t block cooling only works in your fantasy land.
In the real world it blocks cooling such that when the atmosphere is full of water vapor, ie humidity, it does not cool as fast at night.
Ask Flynn, he knows it better than you.
You don’t understand any of this.
Now you’re changing your chant by adding “ifs” and “whens”.
Keep changing, you’ve got a long way to go. Currently, you’re braindead.
Clint R,
Now you are demonstrating that you can’t read.
I didn’t post any ifs only one when.
When are you going to learn to read?
I told you to ask Flynn, maybe he can help, or ask Swenson, same guy.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Brandon Gates is trying the old “coat” analogy.
His gotcha –
“And just exactly how will a cold sweater keep my body warm, Clint?”
A cold sweater does not keep your body warm. Your internal heat production keeps your body warm. Brandon needs to learn some physics, and then learn the definition of insulation.
If Brandon thinks putting a cold sweater on a corpse will keep it warm, he is mistaken. As a matter of fact, putting a cold sweater on a cold corpse will actually keep it cooler, if exposed to a warmer heat source.
An example of Brandon’s stupidity and ignorance is demonstrated by the fact that firefighters wear heavily insulated clothing to prevent them getting too hot when fighting fires.
Just another ignorant and stupid climate crank trying to appear clever, is Brandon!
I guess you missed the fact that Brandon is not a corpse.
You are brilliant Swenson.
Let’s go Brandon!
?
Very funny, gb.
You may or may not recall that I ran through Flynn’s repertoire before he was banned at Judy’s.
I thought so.
A bad argument for Joe Biden is, that he is not a corpse.
A harmless, old white man, would be better.
I do not follow Flynn, but he does seem to have sense of humor.
But I tend to imagine, that I have a better sense of humor.
I just checked and bob d. was around for some of those threads too. What a happy reunion!
Brandon,
And gb is supposed to a care for your comment because . . . ?
You sound as silly as Willard, who lies about having a Greenhouse Theory!
It’s a good thing Mike Flynn is not banned here. As gb says, he does seem to have a sense of humour. Somewhat like mine, on occasion.
You still don’t accept that insulation is used to keep firefighters cool, and that once your internal heat production stops (indicating that you are a corpse), all the cold sweaters in the world will not warm you one iota.
That’s because you are both ignorant and stupid.
Testing
Trying again
Third time
\o/
Uh oh!
The attack of the Mike Flynns.
Probably Witless Willard’s latest lame attempt at trolling. I wonder if Dr Spencer cares whether Mike Flynn posts comments or not? Recent history indicates not, but who knows?
Maybe Wee Willy Wanker is being too clever by half?
Oh dear.
Time will tell.
Silly sock puppet.
Please stop attempting to troll, Willard.
That’s better, Mike.
Sit down and be quiet. You might learn something.
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
Mike, Mike,
Please search for “May 14, 2022 at 9:00 AM” on this page.
Please stop trying to troll.
You might as well just keep lying about having a Greenhouse Theory.
Search for “May 14, 2022 at 9:00 AM” on this page, silly sock puppet.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Give up your lame attempts at diversion.
Keep on being a lying idiot, claiming you have a Greenhouse Theory, when you have no such ting.
Moron.
Silly sock puppet, please stop gaslighting.
Willard please stop trolling
Heatwaves Getting Worse In India? More BBC Lies
By Paul Homewood
The BBC says heatwaves are getting more intense in India:
….
Except that the facts dont support this, in Delhi at least:
….
So, explain why global warming causes less heatwave?
{This quiz question, and Igive the answer after I get some answers.
It’s quite simple.}
Oh, the link:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/16/heatwaves-getting-worse-in-india-more-bbc-lies/
Not that help with quiz
And as far as India average temperature in last 100 year [since 1920 AD, India average temperature has increased by, almost 1 C.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/india
And that should help.
The record for heat waves, by far, in the US, occurred during the 1930s.
A mental picture of the greenhouse effect
“The popular picture of the greenhouse effect emphasises the radiation transfer but fails to explain the observed climate change.”
That is correct.
And the radiant transfer is not important because we are in an Ice Age.
The Ice Age is called, Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
One might ask, in terms of public policy, is there anything we should do regarding the fact that we are in an Ice Age.
It seems to me that if we are spacfaring, it won’t matter much if we enter another glaciation period.
And we should perhaps define what is the beginning of a glaciation period, is because we might be entering one.
Some think we need a reserve of fossil fuels because we might be entering a glaciation period.
I don’t agree.
In an earlier post I defended the view that the 2020 election in the US was rigged. I based that on computer fraud but I had not realized at the time the real reason. The US allows mail-in ballots that can be delivered like real mail to a voting collection box which is not secure.
The following video reveals a brilliant method used to track cheaters who stuffed those ballot boxes. It was worked out in association with a professional who has investigated this election fraud all over the world. It leaves no doubt that the Democrats cheated in a major way.
https://ugetube.com/watch/2000-mules-full-hd-documentary_DABaYnnHRrxiww4.html
They have actual footage of the stuffers on legit cameras and they tracked them using cell phone signals that are collected by data harvesters. The harvesters have 10 trillion bytes of data covering the entire US which they investigators used to track down criminals being paid to stuff ballot boxes.
This video should serve as a lesson to anyone using a cell phone, especially one loaded with apps. You can be tracked anywhere and you are likely being tracked right now.
ps. youtube, aka Google, and the popular media are tripping over themselves trying to censor this video.
And probably will be fired.
It doesn’t make any corporation look good.
No corporations are good.
But they do need to look good.
And firing the idiots will help a corporation, look good.
But they will probably end up saying,
we were just following orders.
They don’t know history.
And so, they become history.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1288737
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/even-geolocation-maps-2000-mules-are-misleading/
not only does the film completely fail to provide any evidence of that being the case, even D’Souza admits that he didn’t have the evidence that would have been required to prove it
“If we zoom in on the map, though, something seems off. The drop-box site shown in the overlaid photo is one that elsewhere in the movie is described as being in Gwinnett County. But the accompanying map depicts a river running through the city, which doesn’t exist in Atlanta. So what’s this showing?
A group of Internet sleuths tracked it down. Simply flip the image
and it becomes clear. That’s not Atlanta; its a stock photo of a different capital.
Moscow.
Not even on the same continent! Ever felt like a fool?
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planets solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet.Tmean.Tsat.mean
Mercury..325,83 K..340 K
Earth.287,74 K..288 K
Moon223,35 Κ..220 Κ
Mars..213,21 K..210 K
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earths mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correction:
The
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
should read
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2 K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
–
The
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planets solar flux. For Earth S = So
should read
So = 1.361 W/m^2 (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m^2) is the planets solar flux. For Earth S = So
–
The
S*Φ*π*r(1-a)
should read
S*Φ*π*r^2(1-a)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So what emphasis should we place on global stilling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_terrestrial_stilling) and global dimming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming), how are they caused and how does those 2 observations effect the rise in global air temperatures?
One just needs to read the following article (I repeat: READ):
Discussing the gaps in ‘2000 Mules’ with Dinesh DSouza
Analysis by Philip Bump
National correspondent
May 17, 2022 at 4:27 p.m. EDT
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/17/discussing-gaps-2000-mules-with-dinesh-dsouza/
and immediately understands how utterly stupid this 2000 Mules movie stuff is and above all what a brazen, lying boaster this D’Souza is.
People who believe such an incredible trash should not have the civilian right to vote.
Why are you repeating things I have already posted?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1289054
Similar things I suppose, not exactly the same. Just the same source.
What the heck could be the reason for me to care about you and what you write or don’t write?
Who are you, bad elementary school teacher? A nobody, like all of us.
Blinny, as usual, thinks he has discovered something that everybody else has already known.
Sorted out if models do or do not align with the data series they contain yet?
Binny,
Am I correct in thinking that you believe you should determine who is allowed to vote?
All hail Binny the Omnipotent! (Or should that be Binny the Impotent?).
Or should the decision be left to Philip Bump – a journalist?
Maybe you over-estimate your own importance.
Swenson: Do you believe that Moscow is in the USA as the film claims?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1289054
RLH,
What are you babbling about? There is a Moscow, Idaho, In the USA. I don’t follow links unless I wish to, and I don’t care what a “film” claims.
That’s about stupid as caring when some nitwit says “science says”! A movie, like a book, “claims” nothing. People make claims. Scientists say things.
Reality doesn’t care what people claim, or what scientists say. Facts are facts. Your witless gotchas achieve nothing, (except possibly making you look like a dimwitted troll), and change nothing.
Keep it up.
They used a depiction of a city in the movie to show how tracking can pinpoint locations. The city was Moscow. It had nothing to do with the evidence in the movie. It was just depicting how geotracking works. Somehow RLH thinks this debunks the movie. He hasn’t explained how this debunks the movie yet, only stated it.
> It was just depicting how geotracking works.
And they couldn’t demonstrate that with the alleged “evidence” specifically used to substantiate their accusations?
Sometimes contrarians are too gullible for words.
Why is it that the trended AMO (AMV) shows such similarity to both GISS and Had5, all having nearly the same early periodicity before 1980?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/giss.jpeg
https://imgur.com/EBGUqEX
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/amo-trended.jpeg
Comparing UAH LT and AMO since 1980 shows
https://imgur.com/a/jtDg4ir
One theory is that the AMO is simply an alias for global temps, rather than influencing them.
I’ve not seen it done, but a test for lag between them on various time scales might be revealing. Wish I could do it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vj0EcrzurM
Scott video has Youtube explaining Global warming in blue space below it.
I had a look years ago at AMO compared to Had-CRUT4 and HadSST3.
Putting the undetrended AMO, GISS V4 and Had-CRUT5 series on the same graph, baselined wrt the same period (this time, 1991-2020) gives today similar results.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1alycZI-rbKOXsiBKiRDpwI3L1T2LIoPb/view
*
Adding UAH6.0 LT gives a nice comparison for more recent times:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iwpr93SyDEb7OWC18JU3cu8AyHphGoLJ/view
One more time, it is funny to detect with the help of the running means that
– the low UAH trend (compared with e.g. GISS and Had) is due to about 50 % to the fact that its anomalies were a lot higher than those of the surface between 1979 and 1996
and that similarly,
– the UAH pause from 1998 till 2015 is also due to about 50 % to the fact that its anomalies raised much stronger than those at the surface around 1998, due to the much stronger ENSO response by LT.
Comparing trended AMO and UAH since 1980 gets
https://imgur.com/a/jtDg4ir
Comparing trended AMO and GISS and Had5 before 1980 gets exactly the same periodicity as mentioned above.
” Comparing trended AMO and UAH since 1980 gets… ”
… of course what everybody expects, best: the correlation between UAH 6.0 LT and ocean temperatures is suspicious to say the least, and the undetrended AMO is to the global ocean what CET is to global land temperatures.
Thus, except the REAL periodicity of AMO (which we can observe at the end), no wonder that AMO and UAH give such a good fit.
You seem to be the only one who feels the need to insist on this well-known evidence.
*
” Comparing trended AMO and GISS and Had5 before 1980 gets exactly the same periodicity as mentioned above. ”
Of course it doesn’t:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1alycZI-rbKOXsiBKiRDpwI3L1T2LIoPb/view
The periodicity you mention is no more than your own invention.
A correlation however is quite visible, but… no doubt that you are, as usual, ‘plain right’. I leave you now alone with your bossiness.
P.S. Got an answer yet for
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1288734
“the correlation between UAH 6.0 LT and ocean temperatures is suspicious to say the least”
But it IS there as the graph shows. The 12 month series of up and down on both sets aligns quite well it seems. There are differences of course but that is to be expected.
“The periodicity you mention is no more than your own invention”
Take the 3 series before 1980 and prove it for yourself. Here it is the 15 year periods of up and down that align quite well. You may not like a 15 year S-G low pass but a comparable LOWESS will show the same results.
You can come up with any explanation you like, but what you cannot say is that the alignments are not there.
….The 12 month low pass series of up and down….
….the 15 year low pass periods of up and down….
To give a better idea of what is periodic and what is less (or not at all, depending of what you understand by ‘period’), here is a graph comparing AMO_U, GISS V4 and Had-CRUT5 for the same period, but now based on percentages of anomalies rather than on the anomalies themselves:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VRA4G4xYROWVvatda61eGJ-htXePJkOB/view
No further comment, except that here, the Had-CRUT series, whose anomalies were nearly identical to those of GISS, suddenly keeps well below GISS when the anomalies are converted to %ages.
See below.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1289711
And, last not least: a hint for those who are not familiar with the difference between detrended and undetrended (i.e. original) AMO:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tAqV_qCzlMDpoqwGyVg9X-2og3OQ8zBI/view
While the detrended variant is meaningful to enhance AMO’s cyclic behavior, using it together with (not detrended) temperature series is a simple-minded manipulation.
Yet another example of what is acknowledged to be very poor 180 month running means. At least have the decency to use a proper low distortion low pass filter, either Gaussian, S-G or LOWESS.
Low pass filters, even running means, do not prefer any particular frequencies or periods below the corner. If you can see a sine wave or periodic wave or something similar then that is because it is what is there.
If you reduce the lumps in the center and at the left hand end to make the AMO actually line up with GISS and Had, then you will see that after 1980 the rise at the right hand end does not match.
Alternatively you can make the rise after 1980 match, as you show, in which case, as you can see, the periods before then do not agree at all.
Had and GISS have differences in their earlier periods as
https://imgur.com/a/fF0sZmq
clearly shows. (unfortunately this graph only goes up to 2013 but we are not interested in later data)
Let’s do those properly
Detrended
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/amo.jpeg
Trended
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/amo-trended.jpeg
What happens if you run the data through Fourier Analysis?
I know what Fourier Analysis does but I don’t know how to do the math.
Any DSP, like a Fourier Analysis, is just a way of decomposing things into a series of sine (or cos) waves.
“Fourier analysis is a type of mathematical analysis that attempts to identify patterns or cycles in a time series data set which has already been normalized. In particular, it seeks to simplify complex or noisy data by decomposing it into a series of trigonometric or exponential functions, such as sine waves. Each of these sine waves would have a specific cycle length, amplitude, and phase relationship with the other sine waves, which then could be added back together to reconstruct the observed data.”
The point about low pass filters is that they pass ALL frequencies that are below the corner frequency, so are much better for looking at natural, i.e. not highly tuned, frequency sets.
The latest way of doing these things are wavelets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morlet_wavelet), but they too are based on sin (cos) waves.
Using high quality low pass filters so as not to add any distortions is, in my opinion, the best way of doing such analysis.
RLH,
Performing. Fourier analysis on a chaotic output will produce what it is supposed to, but the output is useless for practical, despite being mathematically sound.
An outstanding example is applying Fourier analysis to stock or futures prices, and extracting “cycles”, which turn out to be completely useless as future predictors.
All that can be derived from a chaotic series is what has happened in the past, not what will happen in the future. The IPCC states that the atmosphere is a chaotic system. It also states that it is impossible to predict future climate states.
Many commenters here obviously do not accept the reality of the IPCC statements.
“Chaos” may not mean what you wish it to, Mike.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor
B,
Chaos means exactly what it means – and the IPCC agrees. It means that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
Maybe you need to read the article to which you have linked, more closely.
Swenson,
What’s a climate state?
Maybe you should read the sentence after the one you’re quoting, Mike. And compare it to “an attractor is a set of states toward which a system tends to evolve”.
If it weren’t for weather noise, contrarians would have very few arguments.
B,
Heres what the IPPC wrote –
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
You may read the sentence following as hard as you like. Nothing to do with the “attractor” you mentioned.
A strange attractor is just that. Strange. It keeps changing. Not predictable, whether you agree or not.
No argument – just fact.
Swenson,
You still have trouble grasping what the IPCC quote means, because you lack the understanding of what a climate state is.
Poor Mike still can’t bring himself to quote the following sentence. Contrarian ability to ignore what they don’t want to see is indeed powerful!
bobdroege says:
Swenson,
You still have trouble grasping what the IPCC quote means, because you lack the understanding of what a climate state is.
—————————-
The IPCC disavows predicting anything Bob. After all they are scientists and want to keep the backdoor open.
But hey most of the conversation here on future climate states and by the IPCC is on what temperature it will be. So lets stick with that and realize that even the scientists know they can’t predict it. It only becomes a prediction in the politically-edited “Summary for Policy Makers” written by the ‘nations’ and wannabee seers to advance their political agendas.
Bill Hunter,
Would you consider this a prediction?
“The report projects that in the coming decades climate changes will increase in all regions. For 1.5C of global warming, there will be increasing heat waves, longer warm seasons and shorter cold seasons. At 2C of global warming, heat extremes would more often reach critical tolerance thresholds for agriculture and health, the report shows.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/#:~:text=The%20report%20shows%20that%20emissions,1.5%C2%B0C%20of%20warming.
Looks like a prediction, sounds like a prediction, smells like a prediction, tastes like a prediction…
You don’t want to step into it.
Maybe it is only a projection, so we can ignore it.
bobdroege says:
Bill Hunter,
Would you consider this a prediction?
The report projects that in the coming decades climate changes will increase in all regions. For 1.5C of global warming, there will be increasing heat waves, longer warm seasons and shorter cold seasons. At 2C of global warming, heat extremes would more often reach critical tolerance thresholds for agriculture and health, the report shows.
Looks like a prediction, sounds like a prediction, smells like a prediction, tastes like a prediction
You dont want to step into it.
Maybe it is only a projection, so we can ignore it.
—————————–
Well if you don’t know the answer you should definitely ignore it. A projection is not a prediction. A prediction implies you know enough to predict.
A projection though doesn’t in any way imply the person preparing the projection knows enough to accurately project an outcome.
Instead it is a possible outcome if and only if the underlying assumptions and hypotheses are correct.
So if you don’t fully understand what those underlying assumptions and hypotheses are you should definitely ignore it.
The exception would be is if you specifically sought out and contracted for an expert who is bound to you by professional or fiduciary responsibilities to prepare a projection in your interest. So such a legally-bound professional (Doctors, Lawyers Accountants, and Engineers all follow carefully promulgated standards of their work product.
In fact in a fascist arena not only would you have no recourse against intentionally wrong projections they even might start up something like a ‘Truth Ministry’ to protect those claims from criticism in order to prevent your harm being known by others . . .Like Russia is doing right now to war protestors.
So by far the best advice is never believe what the government or its contracted advisors tells you. You may not ever understand fully why unless you have been in the trenches trying to get money to do something for the government for the purpose of advancing knowledge.
> So if you dont fully understand what those underlying assumptions and hypotheses are you should definitely ignore it.
The underlying assumptions for every emissions pathway are published, Bill. Further, if you don’t know how an irreplaceable mission-critical system will behave when its input parameters are forced into unprecedented territory, you should probably stop doing that.
I’m sometimes surprised contrarians survive into old age given their terrible risk-management instincts.
Brandon R. Gates says:
> So if you dont fully understand what those underlying assumptions and hypotheses are you should definitely ignore it.
The underlying assumptions for every emissions pathway are published, Bill. Further, if you dont know how an irreplaceable mission-critical system will behave when its input parameters are forced into unprecedented territory, you should probably stop doing that.
Im sometimes surprised contrarians survive into old age given their terrible risk-management instincts.
—————————-
Brandon I can only imagine how assured you feel reading the link and noting: ”IPCC Working Group I report, Climate Change 2021: the Physical Science Basis, approved on Friday by 195 member governments of the IPCC, through a virtual approval session that was held over two weeks starting on July 26.” That must be as convincing to you as it is to Greta Thunberg.
If you think you actually understand it then you should be able to step in for Nate (whose argument degraded into ad hominems) and explain how the green plate experiment explains everything starting here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1290152
> explain how the green plate experiment explains everything
Explain why you’re changing the subject, Bill.
Brandon R. Gates says:
> explain how the green plate experiment explains everything
Explain why youre changing the subject, Bill.
—————————–
I am not changing the subject Brandon. The green plate experiment and the 3rd grade-level greenhouse experiments offered up by Vaughn Pratt, RW Woods, and Roy here have all failed to show a ‘radiant’ based greenhouse effect that elevates temperatures of an object above that of the equilibrium of its environment.
The Blueplate/Greenplate experiment shows warming due to radiation but it isn’t warming more than what it should.
The greenhouse experiments show warming but again not more than can be explained by the restriction of convection. Adding a radiant barrier does nothing to increase the warming beyond that equilibrium point.
If there were an experiment that worked it would be all over the internet and folks wouldn’t have to bloviate about it working, nor do fancy statistical fingerprinting studies, or have a modeling network worth billions of dollars all unsucessfully trying to predict future warming.
Hunter wrote:
Well, my Green Plate Demo still hasn’t been falsified. Gordo’s repeated claims are easily debunked.
Where’s your physics based analysis?
Swanson your green plate experiment isn’t falsified. What is false is the claim that your green plate experiment demonstrates that radiation can warm something warmer than to an equilibrium of the environment around it. It clearly does not do that.
You’re OT for this thread, Bill, which is about whether or not climate is in any way predictable or not.
But since we’re discussing that elsewhere as well, I’ll humor you: if blocking convection retards heat loss, thereby causing a constantly-powered system to reach a higher temperature than it would otherwise, there’s no reason why impeding radiative loss won’t do the same.
There is in fact an experiment on the Interwebs demonstrating this. On a contrarian website no less. I’d be surprised if you actually missed it.
Hunter wrote:
FYI, At the start of my demo, the bell jar, BP and GP are all at the same temperature, about 20C, which is the temperature of the surround room and concrete slab floor. As the work light is switched on, the temperatures of all three begin to increase, with the BP rising fastest due to the illumination and IR radiation it received. Obviously, as the temperatures increase, the plates are not in equilibrium.
Once equilibrium is established, the vacuum pump is switched on and convection inside the bell jar is minimized, thus the temperatures for the BP and GP begin to increase again. At the point where a new equilibrium is reached, the GP was raised into position next to the BP. After that time, the temperatures of both the GP and BP again increase, reaching a new equilibrium considerably above the external ambient temperature.
These final equilibrium temperatures are solely due to the different configuration of the GP and BP. I see no other explanation for this result, other than the back radiation from the GP to the BP. You (and Gordo) have not provided any alternate physical mechanism for this result, indeed, Gordo’s explanation is clearly false, as I demonstrated.
I expect that you also have nothing to support your claim and await your reply.
Temperature is only one variable in a climate state.
So the IPCC was silent on whether temperature can be predicted when it made that statement you guys continue to take out of context.
Swanson says:
FYI, At the start of my demo, the bell jar, BP and GP are all at the same temperature, about 20C, which is the temperature of the surround room and concrete slab floor.
————————————
Hold on right there Swanson. What the heck are you talking about? Are these items sitting on a table next to each other? You need to blueprint out your experiment, where you are measuring temperatures, how you are introducing other energy into the system etc.
Brandon says:
”if blocking convection retards heat loss, thereby causing a constantly-powered system to reach a higher temperature than it would otherwise, theres no reason why impeding radiative loss wont do the same.”
Well I will give you credit for a good question. And at least a partial answer.
The primary consideration is convection is not an electromagnetic heat transfer system in obedience to thermodynamic laws. It is instead a heat conveyor belt that operates within the body of physics of the gas laws.
Dr. Woods experiment demonstrates that unless you block convection you can’t retard the movement of hot molecules up into the sky and that no additional effect is achieved by blocking the IR in a way that provides for equal conductive heat loss.
Violating that last condition explains why some think they have found a modest effect. Other false positives like in the GP/BP experiment are achieved by not exceeding the ambient temperature of the experiment at all.
Bottom line is impending radiation loss does not restrict the free movement of molecules within a gas so one cannot claim that equivolency with convection.
> The primary consideration is convection is not an electromagnetic heat transfer system in obedience to thermodynamic laws.
If all physical systems do not follow all the laws of thermodynamics there can be no rational discussion of this topic, Bill.
Hunter asks:
Hunter, I answered those questions in the Green Plate Demo document. Look at the photos and read the description. I did move the setup outdoors to take the photos, but the same setup was used for the actual runs, where it was placed on the concrete floor of a super insulated, 2 story structure.
We remember that Hunter wrote:
As expected, Hunter side stepped the basic question and presented no scientific explanation for the warming of the BP after the GP was lifted into position. And, he failed to take notice that the environment of the room, which exhibited a temperature of 19.7 C, well below the final temperatures of either the BP or the GP.
Perhaps he has never bothered to read the document in the almost 4 years since it was posted. Too bad, so sad, another loser.
Swanson the Green Plate Experiment I was referring to is one I saw on the internet about 14 or 15 years ago that failed to warm anything above the room temperature that was warming the blue plate. I noted that the plate was colder than room temperature when held facing the door of the ice box and it warmed when a green plate was placed between the blue plate and the inside of the ice box.
But the blue plate only warmed up to about the room temperature and no greenhouse effect was established. Its a piss poor experiment to claim a greenhouse effect from because quite simply the blue plate was heated by the kitchen.
If you repeated that experiment its kind of like plagiarism to call it your own.
Hunter wrote:
Yeah, sure, another misdirection to a mysterious experiment without a reference, so nobody can verify your claim. And, you admit that you haven’t read my Green Plate Demo. So, Mr Troll, when you wrote:
you had no reason to discredit my Green Plate Demo’s results. Maybe you were thinking of my Ice Plate Demo from 3 years ago, but several of the cases I presented demonstrated warming due to IR “back radiation”.
You (and Gordo) lost the debate. Better luck next time.
E. Swanson says:
May 23, 2022 at 7:12 AM
Hunter wrote:
the Green Plate Experiment I was referring to is one I saw on the internet about 14 or 15 years ago
Yeah, sure, another misdirection to a mysterious experiment without a reference, so nobody can verify your claim. And, you admit that you havent read my Green Plate Demo. So, Mr Troll, when you wrote:
What is false is the claim that your green plate experiment demonstrates that radiation can warm something warmer than to an equilibrium of the environment around it.
——————-
You are the one creating the confusion by stealing the name of somebody else’s experiment.
Hunter is such a funny guy. He claimed that:
Since Hunter has not provided evidence that there actually was another “Green Plate Demo” some 14 or 15 years ago, it’s impossible for him to claim that I somehow managed to steal the name. As those of us who have been interested in climate change for many years may recall, Eli Rabbit introduced the term “Green Plate Effect” on his blog back in 2017, long after the date range claimed by the Hunter troll.
Hunter guy still hasn’t bothered to read my “Green Plate Demo” and thus has no reply, so he throws up something at the wall to see if it will stick. Another day, another diversion.
Swanson I am not going to play your infantile games. I don’t know who first did it, I can’t remember. Eli could have done the first one I saw and didn’t publish it or republished it until 2017 on the particular blog you read. Its been around for a long time and I am not going to try to run down the first person that did it.
Was Eli’s a kitchen experiment with an icebox?
And no way I can comment on your so-called version of it as I have no idea where it is published.
Hunter waffles around once again. He claims that he hasn’t seen my Green Plate Demo, even though I’ve posted a link to it numerous times, including these just this month:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1281825
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1287516
To my knowledge, Eli didn’t perform an experimental verification of his Green Plate Effect, only the mathematical description to which I linked. But, that doesn’t matter, you made am initial claim without any supporting information, a claim which appears to be bogus. Besides, did Eli copyright the words “Green Plate”? Wouldn’t adding the word “Demo” represent a new name which could have qualified for copyright? Are you one of those so obsessed with “Stop the Steal” that you can’t see the truth?
E. Swanson says:
Hunter waffles around once again. He claims that he hasnt seen my Green Plate Demo, even though Ive posted a link to it numerous times, including these just this month:
To my knowledge, Eli didnt perform an experimental verification of his Green Plate Effect, only the mathematical description to which I linked. But, that doesnt matter, you made am initial claim without any supporting information, a claim which appears to be bogus.
Besides, did Eli copyright the words Green Plate? Wouldnt adding the word Demo represent a new name which could have qualified for copyright? Are you one of those so obsessed with Stop the Steal that you cant see the truth?
————————————-
Why would I need support for a claim to have looked at various green plate/blue plate experiments purporting to establish the greenhouse effect. If I make the effort to find them would it convince you of anything? After all it seems you are once again fully ensconced in a deceptive world of your own making.
Even Roy did an experiment in here a few years ago with a box of ice that technically could be termed a green plate/blue plate experiment (but I don’t think he called it that or at least I don’t recall). Where all these experiments go wrong and I am certain yours also is they fail to account for all the sources of power and or magnification of a single source of power. Roys as I recall had a light in additon to the room’s ambient heat that theoretically is equivalent to another source of power and worse his results were totally unconvincing. If the GHE worked as advertised the results would be easily seen. After all most of them completely block IR when CO2 only blocks about 8 to 12 percent of IR and 33 degrees C of GHE is claimed for it. It should be easy to show huge greenhouse effects.
Its laughable. I recall one guy quantified it correctly in saying if true you could cook a chicken in a microwave without plugging the microwave in.
In general GP/BP experiments claim the heat is generated by the icebox via backradiation when in fact the plate is warming due to the environment. It is the most common delusion in greenhouse theory. The bankruptcy of climate science in general is revealed by the fact they let that nonsense stand even when they know it is wrong because it creates a deception that reinforces their own deception. Thats why Vaughn Pratt left his flawed experiment up on the internet when he knew it was flawed and purportedly fixed the problem and refused to replace the flawed one he was happy to leave up to deceive morons.
I will try to find time to read your Greenhouse theory experiment and make comments on it sometime in the future but considering the other work you do around here I will have a hard time convincing myself its worth the effort.
Hunter again refuses to face reality. There have been other experiments attempting to validate the CO2/Greenhouse effect, but the Green Plate/Blue Plate ones are different in that both Eli’s model and my demo are based on a vacuum, which negates the effects of convection. He also ignores the text books which describe radiation heat transfer, which likely reflect the results of numerous experiments as well.
As one might expect, his trolling continues, throwing up more general objections without references or analysis. In the end, he still can’t be bothered to actually read my report, and that’s after complaining that I had not provided a link to the paper. Of course, he finishes with another snide ad hominem attack, disparaging my efforts before he’s even seen them.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter again refuses to face reality. There have been other experiments attempting to validate the CO2/Greenhouse effect, but the Green Plate/Blue Plate ones are different in that both Elis model and my demo are based on a vacuum, which negates the effects of convection.
———————-
Its kind of hard developing a CO2 greenhouse theory out of that don’t you think Swanson?
Fact is you can build a greenhouse shell out of glass with say 90% openings in it to let convection pass, do you think then you could generate a greenhouse effect?
Obviously not as the RW Woods experiment shows even if you entirely block the convection you still can’t generate a radiation based greenhouse effect within the atmosphere and CO2 allows all the convection to pass and 90% of the IR also.
And if you can’t do that there is practically no hope of creating a greenhouse effect at TOA with a multi-layered model to attribute all the warming seen. A single layered model mathematically is over saturated and thus was rejected even by those that recognize the Woods model shows a problem for the 3rd grade radiation model bandied about this forum as fact.
Those should be clues that there is something very wrong with current greenhouse theory. (always is when you hear people who should know better resorting to deception)
But I suppose clues blow past your ears due to the empty and or entirely inculcated space between them.
Hunter, If you had made any attempt to follow the debate over the past several years, you might appreciate the term “back radiation” as applied to green house gas theory. The standard denialist complaint is that a colder body (or, air mass) can not transfer energy to a warmer one by way of IR radiation. The GPE model is just standard radiation heat transfer theory, but people like you, Gordo, grammie pup and Flynnson, can’t seem to understand what’s going on.
The point is that the GPE does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermo. My Green Plate Demo just provided an experimental example which refutes these claims. It was not intended as a model of the way the energy moves thru the atmosphere to deep space, as you imply, since the physics involves solid bodies, not gasses.
You claim that:
The Woods experiment did not block convection on the outside of the transparent materials used. For “back radiation” to have an effect, that material must be free respond to the IR radiation from inside, that is to say, it’s temperature must be independent of the convection with the external air. With my Green Plate Demo, the GPE appears after the GP is warmed a significant amount.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter, If you had made any attempt to follow the debate over the past several years, you might appreciate the term back radiation as applied to green house gas theory. The standard denialist complaint is that a colder body (or, air mass) can not transfer energy to a warmer one by way of IR radiation. The GPE model is just standard radiation heat transfer theory, but people like you, Gordo, grammie pup and Flynnson, cant seem to understand whats going on.
————————
Hmmmm, that seems rather devious. So cold objects send energy to warm objects and exactly what does the warm object do with the energy? I thought radiation theory said if you radiate an object you heat an object right down to being able to estimate how warm the object will get. Was that a lie? Or are you lying.
Hunter accuses me of lying after quoting my post on a different subject. Of course, in doing so, he is ignoring his earlier posts regarding some mythical experiment with a freezer and cover plates in which he claimed that:
For the R. W. Wood type experiment, the temperature of the cover plate is going to be limited by convection with the outside air. If the plate’s temperature is thus constrained, there would be little change in “back radiation” due to the plate’s temperature, thus little incremental effect on the heated receiving area inside the box.
Just another ad hominem outburst to divert the discussion away from my Green Plate Demo, which is a reply to his repeated comments like this:
I’ve given my answers to such comments long ago. Hunter continues to ignore this, apparently thinking he can just sail along in blissful ignorance of science. He should at least show some evidence that he did his homework.
Swanson’s lips are forever sealed on the fate of the energy purported to be absorbed by warm objects from cold objects. Never to speak to again.
Good idea Swanson! You always look the fool when you do.
The troll Hunter hasn’t done his homework, so he accuses me of not replying to his idiotic questions. Perhaps, one of these years, he will get around to reading my Green Plate Demo, where I show that the IR radiation from the GP is absorbed by the BP, leading to an increase in temperature of the BP. That’s because the BP now has more energy input, which can only be lost via the IR radiation path.
Swanson fancies himself winning the Nobel Prize. Nothing wrong with that. Its good being motivated. When are you going to get it peer reviewed and published?
The troll Hunter asks:
I don’t consider the work worth publishing, given the limits of the experimental setup. As an engineer who took a course in radiation heat transfer almost 50 years ago, I think the results are the obvious, just a demonstration of standard engineering technology. Besides, it would cost money to publish in a reputable journal and I wouldn’t want to waste the time or money, just to satisfy a small group of airhead cult members that nobody listens to.
If you don’t like my results, you are free to give your reasons, based on physics. Gordo tried and failed. Your turn troll, cut the crap.
But its not standard known physics principles Swanson its engineering dogma for all the physicists and engineers except for the ones working on such projects! Even there they uniformly conform to DREMTs sources and consider reflection to have certain insulating properties. Yet you blow right by that and claim to essentially having solved a problem that simply has not been solved.
You should send it to peer review if for no other reason than getting it rejected and learning some more complexities about the issue you are purporting to demonstrate. You don’t want me peer reviewing it if for no other reason than you will simply handwave away any criticisms I come up with. And at best you end up with a Nobel Prize if the experiment is shown to establish that which has not been established experimentally.
The troll Hunter refuses to provide a reply with his comments on my Green Plate Demo, claiming that:
Do you include NASA engineers as those who work on “such projects”?
and:
https://www.nasa.gov/content/space-technology-ball-team-up-for-integrated-multi-layer-insulation-test-on-green-propellant/
https://aerospacefab.com/products/multilayer-insulation/
How about the folks who have been using triple layers of glass in windows for cold climates?
https://www.pellabranch.com/blog/global-blogs/are-triple-glazed-windows-worth-it/
https://www.neuffer-windows.com/glazing.php
Your BS is starting to get really deep.
Has anyone tried FA to see what regular cycles might exist.
Everything else in the solar system, moon, tides, planet orbits, solar cycles; all of these run like clockwork … so why not cycles in our climate? Even as the climate appears too chaotic.
Ken,
No they dont. For example – tides. From NOAA –
“As an example of how to interpret the RMS statistics, reference is made to Eastport, ME in the table below. At Eastport, ME the observed and predicted times of high water are within 0.11 hours of each other on average. Observed and predicted times of low water are within 0.12 hours on average. On average, the heights of observed and predicted high waters are within 0.147m (0.48 ft.); low waters are within 0.135m (0.44ft.); and hourly heights are within 0.143m (0.47ft.).”
Like clockwork, but only if your clock runs randomly slow or fast, and randomly varies the number of seconds in a minute, minutes in an hour, and hours in a day. If you see what I mean.
Chaos has no regular cycles. It is chaotic. Even the orbits are chaotic and unpredictable to any desired level of precision. Close enough for Government work, but thats about all.
The atmosphere, like any fluid, is chaotic. You may believe otherwise, and good luck to you.
Reality does not care what you or I believe.
Please search for chaos determinism, Mike.
Yep I am quite familiar with that. What it says is if the physics is so complicated and prone to chaos such that as noted above the IPCC felt it necessary to say: ”The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
And then they moved on to: A butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil will probably with a high level of certainty cause a tornado in Texas”
Anti-science? Nope! Within the realm of scientific possibility. The ‘high level of certainty’ part though was quite a bit over the top but thought justified in view of the risks it posed. . . .you know full value risk insurance against Armeggedon. . . .especially considered where the plan was to send a large part of the insurance premiums in the meantime.
> And then they moved on to: A butterfly flapping its wings
That isn’t what they said next sentence, Bill. Perhaps some day you’ll be honest enough to quote the full context.
Next sentence in what Brandon? I was talking about ”deterministic chaos theory” for which there is only philosophical speculation. One may as well be saying: ”I am sure it works this way but its too complicated to show how it works.”
> Next sentence in what
In the paragraph you’re quoting, Bill. You know there’s more to it than typically quotemined by contrarian outlets, and it isn’t about Lorenzian butterflies.
Or do you really think the IPCC authors are actually dumb enough to say climate is completely unpredictable in a document full of climate predictions.
Brandon R. Gates says:
Or do you really think the IPCC authors are actually dumb enough to say climate is completely unpredictable in a document full of climate predictions.
————————–
You need to learn the correct language here Brandon. The IPCC doesn’t predict. . . .it ‘projects’ from certain assumptions and hypotheses. When they have a good and statistically measurable level of skill in such predictions, they move up and start forecasting.
Currently they do some Long-range climatological forecasts. But they are limited to 8 to 14 days out.
Of course for projections you don’t need evidence of skill all you need are some assumptions and hypotheses. And certainly they wouldn’t say they can’t do that. If they did the checks would stop coming.
C’mon, Gordo.
Sometimes the IPCC predicts, sometimes it projects.
Read. Then think.
Willard you are in the wrong thread here.
I was responding to your comment, Bill.
Gordo always makes that silly point, but then he never reads anything,
You still haven’t addressed the sentence following where contrarians always stop reading, Bill. Dare to break the mold — what are you afraid of?
I already answered your question Brandon, pointing out that the government does do some Long-range climatological forecasts. But they are limited to 8 to 14 days out.
So what do you want from me? To explain how they got from there to a 100 year projection? I already explained how they did that.
They adopted some assumptions and hypotheses by fiat and then built models to project what the outcome of those assumptions and hypotheses would result in if and only if they were true.
That is called ‘projections’ and when you see a ‘projection’ offered up you better damn well understand what is being assumed to be true.
But rest assured its not the projections that prove anything. To prove anything using a projection as a null hypothesis you have to experiment. You have to have control over variables and you need to be able to manipulate the experimental variable at will. So in effect the government seizing control over fossil fuels is the experiment. And I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck cause if the experiment doesn’t work the government will try to do anything possible to cover up why. Been there too many times, for you neophytes just keep in mind. Fool you once shame on them. Fool you twice shame on you.
> So what do you want from me?
None are so blind as those who do not want to see, Bill. Not only can you not read the sentence after the one you’re quoting, you can’t even read my words telling exactly that I want to you do so.
So you still don’t understand the difference between a prediction and a projection?
> So you still dont understand the difference between a prediction and a projection?
What ever gives you that idea, dear Bill. If anyone is blurring the distinction between the two, it is you. I wonder why.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1290992
I am not blurring the distinction. The IPCC says they are not predicting anything. Someone else provided the like to the IPCC report that says that.
What they do at the IPCC is publish modeled projections.
As with any projection, the projection assumes certain hypotheses or assumptions are true. If a projection is prepared by a CPA the CPA will carefully disclose all those hypotheses and assumptions and disavow knowing if those are true or not.
The IPCC is considerably less disciplined than your local CPA. They have no standard under which to operate and offer projections. We can give them credit for not claiming they are predictions but thats about it. Dr. Curry has taken them extensively to task for overrating certainty. . . .which in the land of CPAs would fall considerably short of their standards.
Rest assured you can have a lot more confidence in your 401K than you can have in an IPCC report.
> I am not blurring the distinction.
Not only will you not read what the IPCC says just after your favorite quotemine, you struggle reading what you yourself write:
Bill: The IPCC disavows predicting anything
Also Bill: most of the conversation […] by the IPCC is on what temperature it will be
As a bonus neither statement is true. Please don’t ever change.
Brandon R. Gates says:
Not only will you not read what the IPCC says just after your favorite quotemine, you struggle reading what you yourself write:
Bill: The IPCC disavows predicting anything
Also Bill: most of the conversation [] by the IPCC is on what temperature it will be
———————
Gordon I think provided the link to the IPCC TAR that states they do not predict anything. IPCC AR5 also labels their work as projections. So I have no idea what you are complaining about.
False on both counts, Bill.
And you are also wrong about who came up with the green plate experiment.
Ask Kiddo.
> I have no idea what you are complaining about.
You don’t read, Bill — even when asked — so you wouldn’t.
First, the IPCC doesn’t say they don’t ever make predictions in the quotemined passage.
Second, in the part contrarians always leave out (and ignore when pointed out) they tell what is possible to predict.
Third, since at least the dawn of sedentary agriculture — and without the aid of modern instruments and computer models informed by them — humans have successfully predicted that summer is warmer than winter and when is the best time to plant crops.
Finally, I defy you to produce a contrarian who would not predict global cooling if solar output fell to Maunder Minimum levels for a sustained period.
Brandon there is a simple solution to all this. Show me where the IPCC labels one of the temperature projections as being a prediction.
Certainly you don’t expect me to force you read everything the IPCC ever wrote in order to prove they don’t make predictions do you?
I just went by the link to the TAR that was provided and being a professional who works in such areas noted to you that ‘projection’ is the correct way to characterize what the IPCC does regarding global mean temperature.
> Show me where the IPCC labels one of the temperature projections as being a prediction.
Do you even logic, Bill?
> Certainly you dont expect me to force you read everything the IPCC ever wrote in order to prove they dont make predictions do you?
You’ve already been fed that sammich (not by me) elsewhere.
> I just went by the link to the TAR that was provided
… and predictably didn’t read the sentence about what is predictable. Again.
Wow Brandon fell flat on his face on that one. He has no idea of how to respond after making all those claims!
Except I did respond, Bill. And every word is true. Only your own intransigence prevents you from seeing it.
Do you even logic, Brandon?
Yet another example of what is acknowledged to be very poor 180 month running means. At least have the decency to use a proper low distortion low pass filter, either Gaussian, S-G or LOWESS.
Low pass filters, even running means, do not ‘prefer’ any particular frequencies or periods below the ‘corner’. If you can see a sine wave or periodic wave or something similar then that is because it is what is there.
If you reduce the ‘lumps’ in the center and at the left hand end to make the AMO actually line up with GISS and Had, then you will see that after 1980 the rise at the right hand end does not match.
Alternatively you can make the rise after 1980 match, as you show, in which case, as you can see, the periods before then do not agree at all.
Had and GISS have differences in their earlier periods as
https://imgur.com/a/fF0sZmq
clearly shows. (unfortunately this graph only goes up to 2013 but we are not interested in later data)
Some light reading for Troglodyte:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/05/20/world-atmospheric-co2
Now tell me about global dimming and global stilling.
One has to be very *dim* to *still* be asking me to make their own sammich, Richard.
So no opinions, just smart words.
Thank you.
If you want to share your own opinions, feel free to express them!
I was asking for your observations or opinions but you don’t have any and are just an idiotic troll.
Richard,
You were not asking, but demanding.
You did not express your own opinions on the matter, so it is a silly gotcha.
And this has nothing to do with my post.
So NO U.
Willard, please stop trolling!
BUT RICHARD STARTED IT WITH HIS SILLY SAMMICH REQUEST, MIKE1!,!1!!!
Willard, kindly stop trolling.
Pretty please, enlighten me about global dimming and global stilling.
Richard, please make your own sammiches.
Do you have anything productive to add to that?
But of course!
https://youtu.be/tvDazrJuSdA?t=18
https://youtu.be/s719ppUCM4s
Don’t forget dee Sweeedish qwizeene!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lOP5sNnvBA
Thats a good summation of everything they have to add.
Bill and Richard are having a conversation:
https://youtu.be/C5P5eQiKNQs
Willard, please stop trolling.
Global warming is over.
In many ways. Should we count the ways?
Global warming is when Earth is covered in ice, warms up a lot,
causing massive sea level rise.
In comparison the Little Ice Age had not a lot of ice and sea level was not much lower than at the present time.
No one really know why the Little Ice Age was colder, but it’s said the average global temperature become as cold as around 13 C.
Global temperatures go up and down over centuries of time, but about 20,000 years ago Earth global temperature was around 8 C, and warmed fairly quickly up to about 16 C or more and sea level rose more than 100 meters to a time called the Holocene Climate Optimal. Before the Climate Optimal the Sahara Desert was much like our present Sahara Desert, but during warmest time of Holocene, Sahara became mostly grasslands, with rivers and forests and lakes and many people lived in the Sahara Desert when it was in this humid climate. Wiki:
African humid period:
“The African humid period (also known by other names) is a climate period in Africa during the late Pleistocene and Holocene geologic epochs, when northern Africa was wetter than today. The covering of much of the Sahara desert by grasses, trees and lakes was caused by changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun; changes in vegetation and dust in the Sahara which strengthened the African monsoon; and increased greenhouse gases.
During the preceding last glacial maximum, the Sahara contained extensive dune fields and was mostly uninhabited. It was much larger than today, but its lakes and rivers such as Lake Victoria and the White Nile were either dry or at low levels. The humid period began about 14,60014,500 years ago at the end of Heinrich event 1, simultaneously to the BllingAllerd warming. Rivers and lakes such as Lake Chad formed or expanded, glaciers grew on Mount Kilimanjaro and the Sahara retreated. Two major dry fluctuations occurred; during the Younger Dryas and the short 8.2 kiloyear event. The African humid period ended 6,0005,000 years ago during the Piora Oscillation cold period. While some evidence points to an end 5,500 years ago, in the Sahel, Arabia and East Africa the period appears to have taken place in several steps such as the 4.2-kiloyear event.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period
It is said the water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas.
But greenhouse gas are defined radiant “warming effect” and most significant effect of vapor are ignored. Water vapor is light air molecule with very high average velocity. It also can condense in atmosphere into liquid water and ice particles and changes state have lot energy in terms latent heat. And these properties create energy of hurricanes and violent thunderclouds.
One aspect of global warming is the uniformity of global temperature, in terms night time, daytime, seasonal variation in air temperature,
The tropics which about 80% tropical ocean, has more uniform yearly temperatures. Lacks winter and summer variation and it’s seasons instead and wet and dry seasons. And tropical ocean has 40,000 ppm of water vapor whereas average of the rest of world averages around 3000 ppm. Or if round it off, tropical zone is 3 to 4% and rest of world is 0%. Or whole Earth has about 3%.
The high velocity of H20 gas, is part of reason the Earth tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world. Another reason is tropical ocean receives more than 1/2 the sunlight which warms the Earth surface. The tropical ocean has a high average temperature and always has a high average temperature, with thick slabs of warm water- warm enough to create a hurricane, but most of time lack weather effect of wind shear which is needed form hurricanes. But tropical ocean has other ways dumping heat into space which involve creating towering thunderstorms type clouds which found in the tropics.
Putin Wants to Keep Fighting. Who Will Fill the Ranks?
Moscow has to figure out how to replenish unprecedented losses in just under three months of fighting.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/20/putin-russia-war-troop-movement-ukraine/
from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
What the hell is that compared to the thousands of apartment buildings with the tens of thousands of apartments that his army indiscriminately bombed during the alleged ‘denazification’ of Ukraine?
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are homeless, many injured and some even dead.
In between, at least five millions Ukrainians left their own country because they didn’t want to either get shot dead by Ramsan Kadyrow’s 3,000 Chechen terrorists, or get ‘liberated’ by the ‘official Russian army, and transferred to some corner in Russia.
They were all NAZIS, yes! I tell you: ALL NAZIS.
No less frightening is that since February 24 in Russia, parents searching for their sons who died in Ukraine are risking their own heads if they ask too specifically.
The war in Ukraine does NOT exist.
It is only a necessary
спецоперация
Oh, this is how Russia [which still imagines it’s superpower- but actually away before it got this delusion, does war]. You are European, yes? this has always been problem Europe has had with Russia. Meanwhile we have Joe Biden. This what it looks like without any US leadership. Joe and Obama.
gb…”Moscow has to figure out how to replenish unprecedented losses in just under three months of fighting”.
***
Where do they get the propaganda that the losses are unprecedented? Has no one heard of the Battle of Stalingrad? It’s estimated the Red Army lost 1.1 millions soldiers. German losses were estimated at 800,000.
Far too much propaganda coming out of this minor skirmish in the Ukraine. They are creating a mountain out of a molehill. I mean no disrespect to the people on both side who have died, been wounded, or lost their homes and livelihood. Still, this so-called war pales in comparison to battles in WW II, Korea, or Vietnam. Let’s not mention WW I.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDmvueW0Pws
This video shows Russia, at moment, are “winning”,
I wouldn’t call this minor skirmish, or big skirmish. This is a war, and even if Ukraine “starts to lose more” it would be fortunate if only last a few more months.
And it seems this has too much of chance of turning into a nuclear war, at some point.
I doesn’t seem we have anything that amounts to global leadership from anywhere.
Thanks for link gb. It’s hard to take in that people are dying on both sides and for what? The following article, although from an unknown source, in the sense, I know nothing about the people behind it, reveals a more objective view of what is going on. In the article, there is a quote from the UK Daily Mail…
“….one of these opinions is the ridiculous cartoon idea that Russia is like Mordor in Lord Of The Rings, an utterly evil country ruled by a Dark Monster. And that Ukraine, its current enemy, is by contrast a shining Utopia, pluckily defending itself against the orc-like hordes of Moscow…”.
This is the point. We are being led down the garden path about the real situation. It’s actually about armed fascists trying to covertly take control of the Ukraine under the guise of democracy. They are so convincing with their bs that Ken is in utter denial about it. He’s not alone, the bs is so thick that most people have fallen for it.
The Russians are the only country willing to do anything about it and they are paying a steep price for it. We in the West should be utterly ashamed of ourselves.
https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/index/6/21533/Ukraines-Neo-Nazis
The entire Daily Maill article…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10530885/PETER-HITCHENS-Granny-gets-gun-bunch-shameless-neo-Nazis.html
Ah Peter Hitchens. The little Englander guy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10831007/PETER-HITCHENS-England-leave-UK-embrace-golden-future.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens
England is allied with US and Canada {also it has commonwealth of nations}.
One might asked what Ireland will do- as it also has connections to US.
If Hong Kong a small island did well under English law, much larger England should be able to do even better.
England has been useful to US in terms of politically dealing with Europe. US could gain Ireland and Scotland helping US deal with Europe. Also get more UN members. What is down side. UK just becomes 3 United State which more independent than US’s 50 states. US has federal government mainly to deal as one in regards to other nations in the world- mostly in terms of treaties and military issues. Ireland and Scotland don’t need to have unified aspect in regards to treaties or military matter. Nor really do the 50 US states, or it did made sense 200 years ago.
And why change it is only real reason.
It’s mainly matter of continuing a tradition.
So, it in direction of less of Great Britain, but by maintaining their Monarchy [if they can] and the Monarchy is useful in regards to it’s commonwealth of nations. It’s stabilizing effect and diplomat organization [far superior as compared to UN}.
Earlier bobdroege made this comment –
“Swenson,
Wikipedia also states Greenhouse effect is actually a misnomer, much to the lying idiot Willards chagrin.
Yes, its a misnomer.
So what, its still a theory.
And its still like a greenhouse, except the mechanism is blocking cooling by blocking radiation instead of blocking cooling by blocking convection.”
No, bob, it’s not a theory. Even Wikipedia states that the Greenhouse Effect is not an effect. If it were a theory, it would be called a theory. And unfortunately, as Willard refuses to admit, there is no “Greenhouse Theory”.
Cooling is cooling, not heating. Slow cooling of an insulated body is still cooling, not heating.
You may not want to accept reality, but slow cooling at night is not heating
Feel free to curse, swear, and spew some filthy obscenities, if you think it will help to convert a fall in temperature into heating. Moron.
Mike, please stop misreading a simple entry and play silly semantic games.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
Let me know when you are not comatose.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
Copying Chartmaster, do you think that makes you look intelligent?
Mike is Smartcharter.
Willard please stop trolling
Bob please stop trolling
Let me know when you trolls, sock-puppets, and useless human beings figure out what a theory is.
Bob a theory is an explanation of how a group of scientists believes how something works.
A famous example is The Ptolemy theory of the solar system
Bill Hunter,
That is incorrect, you have a bad word in there that destroys your definition.
Try again.
Bob I could really give a shit.
Bill,
Now you are throwing in the obscenities, as well as have no clue as to what a theory is.
So predictable.
Do you want to be taken seriously or not?
Bob please stop trolling.
What’s just frightening about these constantly lecturing people like RLH aka Richard Blay Linsley-Hood is that you have to spend lots and lots of time contradicting their arrogant claims that you’re supposedly wrong.
The 'teacher' feels the need to teach me about which way to use in order to make visible the differences between time series:
" Yet another example of what is acknowledged to be very poor 180 month running means. At least have the decency to use a proper low distortion low pass filter, either Gaussian, S-G or LOWESS. "
but shows, incredible but true, as example a graph created in… 2014 out of the data available at that time:
" Had and GISS have differences in their earlier periods as
https://imgur.com/a/fF0sZmq
clearly shows. (unfortunately this graph only goes up to 2013 but we are not interested in later data) "
*
WOW! We are indeed interested in… earlier data!
We are now in 2022, using GISS V4 and Had-CRUT5 (CRUTEM5, HadSST4).
In 2013, we had
– GISS V3 (in that year possibly still based on GHCN V2 adjusted)
– Had-CRUT4.1, based on the beta of CRUTEM4.1 and HadSST3.
As we all know, newer data does by no means affect newer periods only, as historic data is added, and newer processing techniques (weighting, infilling, UHI effect reduction, Monte-Carlo ensemble distributions and the like) modify earlier parts of time series as well.
*
So I would recommend the 'teacher' to use actually valid data instead:
– GISS V4
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
– Had-CRUT5 yearly
https://tinyurl.com/yckunfmf
and to add to the 15 year centred running means for the two yearly series, the results of a good ol' LOWESS filter I have no longer access to in my spreadsheet calculator currently in use, so we all can finally see the differences he never presented until now.
I would never dispute the differences as I know they exist. But how do they affect this discussion? That’s what matters here.
*
Here is what I generated (of course wrt the same reference period as in the 2014 graph made out of the totally deprecated data):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JBjfOGPRS6klZTbZH9a20Y0KZWCMKE5s/view
Yeah, that's 9 years later. Lots of things changed, didn't they?
“We are indeed interested in earlier data!”
As the comparison was for the period before 1980, we are not interested in data after 1980.
“Yeah, that’s 9 years later. Lots of things changed, didn’t they?”
Not really. Are you trying to say that that the graph I did in 2013 about data before 1980
https://imgur.com/a/fF0sZmq
which in detail is
https://imgur.com/a/cMZxJoA
is somehow wrong? Prove it. That data is aligned all series one with another over the entire period of their overlap.
Yet again – 15 year running means. Have you no interest in accuracy at all? Do you know how bad simple running means are? What distortions they bring to the table. Why no-one in any other discipline would consider using them for time-series data. Even statisticians use LOWESS, which to all intents and purposes is the same as S-G.
Mind you, as usual, no-one but Blinny knows anything at all. Even his own words are not sufficient to keep him to the truth.
Just to put this in context
https://imgur.com/a/WwkYtr9
https://imgur.com/a/2p1M1nI
I’ll do the proper ones later.
The Best opportunities To Earn $62,000/Month. Stay at home safe and sound avoiding corona virus but do not sit idol work online and make full use of this hostage period and raise extra money to over come daily financial difficulties…
Visit this web ……. https://coinworks53.blogspot.com/
People like the Flynnson troll are really funny:
” Slow cooling of an insulated body is still cooling, not heating. ”
Thus, when you collect, similarly like did Prof. Christy recently
– from 1895 till now and for thousands of weather stations,
the year in which they reported their highest day temperature resp. their lowest night temperature
https://i.postimg.cc/3R5wzmrK/GHCN-daily-Globe-maxima-minima-grid-percentiles-1895-2020.png
– a graph showing over the Globe a fall of the number of lowest night temperature records over the years means only ‘less cooling’;
and when
– the same graph shows over the Globe an increase of the number of highest night temperature records over the years, this means only ‘less cooling’ as well.
Oh that’s perfect! No GHE!
Maintenant, j’ai enfin compris.
binny…” Slow cooling of an insulated body is still cooling, not heating.
***
Well stated, by Swenson. An insulator can only slow the rate of cooling, not produce heating.
binny,
Not at all, dimwit! Heat is required to make thermometers hotter.
You may choose to deny the reality that in the last hundred and twenty years, total world population has increased by 500%, and per capita energy production has increased by at least 1500%.
All energy production produces heat, which eventually flees to outer space. No exceptions.
To believe that producing around 7500% more heat in 2020 than 1900 has no impact at all on surface thermometers is just denying physical reality. Because the effect is masked during daylight hours by heat from the sun, the increase will be noted by examining nighttime minima, which will show an increase as energy production and use does not cease during nighttime.
For a number of reasons, trying to calculate the increased temperatures in specific places at specific times is an impossible task, but is one of the few times where “averages” are justified.
If you prefer to account for higher observed temperatures with a magical GHE which you cant even describe, go ahead. I prefer the hypothesis that thermometers respond to heat.
You may believe as you wish, by why prefer a GHE which cannot be described, to ordinary physical laws?
Bindidon is displaying his ignorance of science, again. Upthread, braindead bob used the phrase “block cooling”, trying to describe his false GHE beliefs. They should form a comedy team.
One of the many flaws in the GHE nonsense is the belief that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere can raise surface temperatures. The cult idiots don’t understand radiative physics or thermodynamics. Heck, they can’t even understand simple analogies like a ball-on-a-string. So this is just for responsible adults:
The only way energy can leave the atmosphere and move to space is via photons. For an analogy, consider a large building where the only way people can leave is via one door. Only one person can pass through the door at the same time.
If a second door is added then twice the number of people can leave the building. The more doors, the more people can leave.
Radiative gases in the atmosphere are like “doors”. Add more radiative gases and there is more emission of photons to space.
Now watch the cult twist, spin, and deny this simple analogy. As usual, it will be fun.
No Clint R no,
More radiative gases is like more people in the lobby trying to get out, only so many can leave at one time, more people in the lobby means the temperature of the lobby increases.
Give me another bad analogy.
b,
Forget about analogies. Accept reality. The temperature drops at night. It has also dropped over the last four and a half billion years, whether you want to believe it or not.
Its called cooling.
Sometimes it warms at night.
Temperature can drop suddenly, about 10C during an eclipse. Why should thy not drop at night?
Wrong braindead bob. The “radiative gases” are not the “people”, they’re the “doors”. The photons are the people.
As I mentioned, you can’t even understand the simplest analogies. That’s because you’re braindead.
What the fuck Clint R,
You don’t even understand your own analogies.
Same as the ball on a string.
Call me when you are up to “braindead”
You are less than that now.
bob,
Resorting to more obscenities, hoping it will make you look wise and respected?
Moron.
bob d…if the rest of us can make our points without resorting to overtly foul language, what is your problem???
I grew up in atmospheres where foul language was the norm. I’m no prude and I can swear with the best of them. However, there is a time and a place for foul language and this in not the place.
Grab a brain,will ya?
Gordo and Mike, please stop pretending you are well behaved.
Willard please stop trolling.
braindead bob can’t understand the simple analogy, even when it’s explained to him.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Gordon,
You are a lying “butt kisser.”
That’s still foul language and it’s you that I am quoting.
bob please stop trolling.
Bill Hunter is copying Chartmaster, isn’t that charming?
Bill is Charmtaster.
Bob please stop trolling #2
Swenson,
“bob,
Resorting to more obscenities, hoping it will make you look wise and respected?
Moron.”
Just like you, posting what I want when I want etc.
I feel free to use obscenities when I am insulted.
No insults no obscenities, deal or no deal?
b,
You wrote –
“I feel free to use obscenities when I am insulted.
No insults no obscenities, deal or no deal?”
You are perfectly free to feel as insulted, offended or upset as you like. This is the refuge of the precious petal without self esteem, who then throws out obscenities in response.
Dont blame me for your inability to control your emotions.
You are just as much an idiot as that preeminent dimwit, Willard, with your “deal or no deal?”
Why would I need to “deal” with idiots like you or Willard?
Go on – feel insulted, and spew some more obscenities, if you like. Poke yourself in the eye with a chopstick, and see if I care.
Moron.
Swenson,
You are the poor wittle flower petal whining about obscenities.
Is your self-esteem so low you have to resort to insults on blogs?
Bob he has a good point. Go back and read your posts.
Bill,
I am sure you believe that he has a good point.
For various values of good.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Running means yet again. No accuracy needed, just something that can be done simply with Excel it seems. No need to take notice of what has been said by Vaughan Pratt about how all this should be done (even with Excel) or what others have done with S-G and LOWESS. Outside of Blinny’s expertise so don’t bother with it.
Yet again, I ask quite simply, how long does that trend in minimum temperatures compared to maximum temperatures continue? Until nights are warmer than days?
Or Winters warmer than Summers?
You’re getting as bad as Gordon.
Are you just being sarcastic or are so thick as to believe that a decrease in the difference between Winter and Summer (or night and day) average temperatures would continue until they reverse.
Sometimes you make sensible arguments.Sometimes you are an eejit. This is one of those times.
The above graphs show that the trends in lower temperatures are rising faster than the high temperatures. Fact. No limit is given as to when this will naturally stop. Fact. Nothing is said about other factors that might effect both low and high temperatures. Fact.
That is not sarcasm, those are facts.
The rest might well be sarcasm. I’ll let you decide.
“No limit is given as to when this will naturally stop. Fact. Nothing is said about other factors that might effect both low and high temperatures. Fact. ”
The limits are set by the physics involved. There are sound thermodynamic reasons why global warming is raising minima faster than maxima, and sound thermodynamic reasons why the gap between minima and maxima will never completely disappear.
You mean these linear trends are self limiting? Who would have though that? /sarc
….thought that? /sarc
> Who would have thought that?
Probably everyone whose minds you haven’t probed, Richard.
Teh Wiki article on Venus has this fun fact:
So the sammich you’re looking for is asymptotic in at least one direction, and possibly two (as in a logistic function).
Entropic man says:
The limits are set by the physics involved. There are sound thermodynamic reasons why global warming is raising minima faster than maxima, and sound thermodynamic reasons why the gap between minima and maxima will never completely disappear.
———————–
Gee didn’t somebody just post an article that says The surface of Venus is effectively isothermal?
” Running means yet again. No accuracy needed, just something that can be done simply with Excel it seems. ”
The usual dumb, arrogant stuff, written by a person who
– while permanently discrediting running means, always carefully avoided to plot them in one and the same chart together with low-pass filters, in such a way that we then can compare them.
*
” Yet again, I ask quite simply, how long does that trend in minimum temperatures compared to maximum temperatures continue? Until nights are warmer than days? ”
The usual dumb, arrogant stuff, written by a person who never and never managed to collect and represent similar data, simply because he is absolutely unable to do the same job.
And you poor guy name me an idiot…
Your fixation on
– filters destroying high deviations
and on
– an alleged cooling
reminds me Clint R’s ball-on-a-string.
How did my former professor say decades ago?
” Who is unable to scientifically contradict soon starts to politically discredit. ”
Me thinks he perfectly anticipated your behavior, Linsley-Hood.
“always carefully avoided to plot them in one and the same chart together with low-pass filters, in such a way that we then can compare them”
Blinny is wrong as usual.
All of my usual global UAH series have both running means (called here by their alternative name of box car) and Gaussian (CTRM – Cascaded Triple Running Mean) e.g.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/uah.jpeg light green.
Note the difference between the dark and light green traces.
Me thinks it is you who are stupid.
swannie…”Gordo has no clue about heat transfer. If his resistor is perfectly insulated (including the leads), it cant cool and its temperature will increase to the temperature point that it self destructs”.
***
Your understanding of resistance and current is primitive. If I have a 10 watts resistor and run 1 ma current through it, it doesn’t matter if it is completely insulated, the current would barely warm it but won’t destroy it. I could run a much higher current through it and it still won’t be destroyed. Destruction comes only when the current is high enough to destroy the atomic structure in the resistor, by causing the atoms to vibrate to destruction.
**********************************
“I assume that Gordo actually has come resistors available to test his hypothesis. If not, an old incandescent light bulb would work as well. Pack it in about 6 inches of fiberglass, including the base and wire, and let-er-rip. We await your experimental results”.
***
I have a real good resistor with a heat sink that can dissipate 50 watts. The reason an incandescent lamp would blow is if the wattage was high enough to produce so much heat that the glass was compromised. I seriously doubt if a tungsten filament, that can withstand 3000C would be all that affected. Unfortunately, if the glass broke, the vacuum would be lost and the tungsten would rapidly oxidize, burning it up.
Resistance is related to heat through the relationship of I^2R, also known as Joule heating, also I^2R loss since it is a loss of power via heat loss.
The question is, as you pose it, can the complete blocking of heat dissipation cause a device to be destroyed. I think it definitely could be the case if the current was high enough but if it was sufficiently low as to produce a heating effect the temperature would level off at a certain level.
The notion of completely cutting off heat dissipation is highly hypothetical. It’s not necessary to cut it off completely, only to a significant level. The point of my example re insulating a resistor was to illustrate that a maximal temperature would be reached and that the maximal temperature would be reduced if the insulation was all or partially removed. Your BP heated because half its radiation was suppressed.
You are claiming the resistor would be destroyed under such conditions but that would be true only under extreme conditions. Consider your blue plate, made of metal, in a vacuum. Are you suggesting the metal would be destroyed if its ability to radiate away the solar energy was eliminated? Don’t think so. It takes several hundred degrees to melt metal and the Sun can only deliver so many watts to the BP.
As you noted, blocking half its radiation only caused it to warm a few degrees.
At a quantum level, solar radiation from the Sun will cause the electrons in the atoms of the blue plate to rise to an excited state. Once they reach that state, additional solar EM will not cause them to rise to a higher level. In other words, the degree to which the temperature can rise is limited by the electron arrangement of the atoms in the BP.
With heating due to an electrical current moving through a conductor, it’s a different matter. It does not involve electron transitions but only the valence electrons in the atoms of the conductor. The electrons in the valence band are also used for bonding the atoms together. If too much current is run through those bonds, it will break the bonds, causing the metal to disintegrate.
Gordo responded to my challenge with a red herring:
So how long would your resistor last without the heat sink providing enhanced convective cooling? and, of course, melting the glass of the light bulb would qualify as a destruction of the carefully designed incandescent device.
Gordo then jumps back to discussing my Green Plate demo, writing:
Look at the data again. When the Green Plate was hoisted into position, the temperature of the Blue Plate was 106.6 C (379.8 K) and at the end of the run it had increased to 116.6 C (389.8 K).
When the GP was hoisted, the BP was emitting 1180 w/m^2 and, at the end, it was 1309 w/m^2 from both sides. So, assuming the plates are 1 m^2, what would happen if your scenario were the correct explanation? If true, the BP would be emitting all that energy from one side, thus it would be emitting 1180 x 2 = 2360 w/m^2 from that one emitting side. As a result, the BP’s temperature would have necessarily increased to 451.7 K or 178.5 C.
Obviously, the BP’s temperature never reached that level. And, of course, the GP’s temperature also increased, which could not have occurred if your scenario were correct. The conclusion must be that the BP’s temperature increased as the result of “back emissions” from the GP.
swannie…”When the Green Plate was hoisted into position, the temperature of the Blue Plate was 106.6 C (379.8 K) and at the end of the run it had increased to 116.6 C (389.8 K)”.
***
If you had insulated the BP to prevent radiation, it would have warmed to that temperature and beyond, without the GP.
Gordo, Switching to a different conceptual case where the BP is “insulated…to prevent radiation” does not change the factual results from my experiment.
The issue is what happens with the GP vs. without it. You have claimed that the GP would “block” or “cutoff half the radiation” from the BP’s emissions toward the GP when the GP is lifted, but this obviously did not occur.
Your hypothesis is falsified. You are wrong. The BP was warmed as the result of “back radiation” from the GP.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
The naysayers and apologists are already cherry-picking the 2000 Mules video which supplies an astounding amount of proof that the 2020 election in the US was fixed.
In one part of the video, a guy rides up to a ballot box (drop box) on a bike, early in the morning, stuffs several ballots into the box and rode away. Then he turned around with disgust and photographs the ballot box.
Why would anyone take a shot of a ballot box? Turns out these mules are paid by the number of ballot boxes they stuff and they need proof that they were there and delivered the ballots.
Someone from a major media outlet, questioning the author of 2000 Mules, rather than being shocked by the revelation, wanted to know if they had proof the guy on the bike was illegally stuffing a ballot box. If the goof had watched the rest of the movie he would have noted, had he half a brain, that the mules were being tracked by their cell phones as they moved drop box to drop box.
It does not matter whether one guy on a bike was a legitimate cheater, there were thousands of people moving between ballot boxes repeatedly on the night before the final count took place, mainly in the early hours of the morning. Many of them caught on camera by legitimate video cams were wearing disposable gloves, a practice that took hold after the FBI caught someone stuffing ballot boxes through their finger prints.
There is no doubt, whatsoever that hundreds of thousands of votes were illegally harvested and stuffed into ballot boxes.
“an astounding amount of proof”
That a map of Moscow, Russia, was used to detail ballot box locations in the USA.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/even-geolocation-maps-2000-mules-are-misleading/
No, it wasn’t. You’re disseminating a lie. Now you’ve become a lying propagandist.
The Washington Post makes a good case.
The film is lying to you.
WaPo is known to be heavily slanted to the left. Entropic man is known to pervert reality to protect his cult beliefs.
WaPo and Ent are NOT good sources for truth.
WaPo is only left in the mind of Freedom Fighters such as Dinesh, and Dinesh is a known felon and troll:
https://www.vox.com/2014/10/8/6936717/dinesh-dsouza-explained
Worthless Willard is the biggest troll here and now he’s accusing someone else of being a troll.
That’s a hoot!
Perhaps you would prefer the times Dinesh did little anti-semite things, Pup:
https://forward.com/fast-forward/402155/4-times-dinesh-dsouza-should-have-kept-quiet-about-the-jews/
No wonder you like him!
Chihuahua is a paid for propagandist. It is pointless having a discourse with whatever it is.
That supposed
A felon pardoned by teh Donald takes a Very Objective look at an election teh Donald lost:
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/413901-dinesh-dsouza-celebrates-that-he-can-vote-despite-felony-because-trump/
Troglodytes say the darnedest things.
RLH,
Maybe you should check the information yourself before you start referencing Phillip Bump. He will take you down the toilet with him.
The leftists are great criminals. They did it exactly the way they needed to stay under the radar. Also, after the FBI sting in Yuma, Arizona, on December 22nd, the day of the indictment, all the mules started wearing latex gloves while handling the ballots.
Maybe you should check your maps before you rely on them to plot ballot locations.
“That supposed Map of Moscow isn’t used for anything”
Other than con people into believing ‘facts’ are what they say they are.
Freedom Fighter troll condemned for election fraud entertains conspiracy theories about election fraud:
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/newyork/news/press-releases/dinesh-dsouza-sentenced-in-manhattan-federal-court-to-five-years-of-probation-for-campaign-finance-fraud
Troglodyte likes that guy.
Yes I like the guy he makes sense.
If you have a 401k you can rest assured your assets are a lot better protected than you vote was in 2020.
An audit firm confronted with amount of systematic changes that occurred in the 2020 election in an annual audit would budget a very large investigative budget to test whether your assets are safe.
Obviously democrats don’t want a secure vote or they would be asking for exactly what D’sousa is attempting to accomplish.
But no! No way do you care if the election was honest. All you care about is the outcome. So who is the bad guy here?
Bill please stop being a confirmation bias machine.
clint…”WaPo is known to be heavily slanted to the left”.
***
Not only that they are blatant liars. One of their reporters thought wearing Nazi insignia on their helmets by the Azov battalion in the Ukraine was romantic. That’s the battalion that just surrendered to the Russians in Mariupol.
“When we superimpose that map on the one shown in the movie, it becomes clear that Angry Fleas is correct. The orange dots are not drop-box locations.”
“The drop-box site shown in the overlaid photo is one that elsewhere in the movie is described as being in Gwinnett County. But the accompanying map depicts a river running through the city, which doesnt exist in Atlanta. So whats this showing?
A group of Internet sleuths tracked it down. Simply flip the image
and it becomes clear. Thats not Atlanta; its a stock photo of a different capital.
Moscow” Russia.
67 of the 248 mules in Atlanta were on the ACLA database identifying them as part of the geotracking database of violent protestors in Atlanta. Mules in Detroit were near over 100 drop boxes and over 50 drop boxes in the Philadelphia area.
‘Near’ as in they were in Moscow, Russia.
OK, got it. So it is OK to troll about election fraud against Trump. BAMN is OK with you. Free Republics be damned. Your agenda is more critical. Now I know where you are. You’re gonna get us back for the whole revolt in 1776. Even though we saved your ass in 1917 and 1941.
Facts don’t lie. See below.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1290685
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/05/05/fact-checking-2000-mules-the-movie-alleging-ballot-fraud/
“CLAIM: At least 2,000 mules were paid to illegally collect ballots and deliver them to drop boxes in key swing states ahead of the 2020 presidential election.
THE FACTS: True the Vote didnt prove this. The finding is based on false assumptions about the precision of cellphone tracking data and the reasons that someone might drop off multiple ballots, according to experts.”
“CLAIM: In Philadelphia alone, True the Vote identified 1,155 mules who illegally collected and dropped off ballots for money.
THE FACTS: No, it didnt. The group hasnt offered any evidence of any sort of paid ballot harvesting scheme in Philadelphia. And True the Vote did not get surveillance footage of drop boxes in Philadelphia, so the group based this claim solely on cellphone location data, its researcher Gregg Phillips said in March in testimony to Pennsylvania state senators.
Pennsylvania state Sen. Sharif Street, who was there for the groups testimony in March, told the AP he was confident he was counted as several of the groups 1,155 anonymous mules, even though he didnt deposit anything into a drop box in that time period.”
“CLAIM: Some of the mules True the Vote identified in Georgia were also geolocated at violent antifa riots in Atlanta in the summer of 2020, showing they were violent far left actors.
THE FACTS: Setting aside the fact that the film doesnt prove these individuals were collecting ballots at all, it also cant prove their political affiliations.”
“CLAIM: Alleged ballot harvesters were captured on surveillance video wearing gloves because they didnt want to leave their fingerprints on the ballots.
THE FACTS: This is pure speculation. It ignores far more likely reasons for glove-wearing in the fall and winter of 2020 cold weather or COVID-19.”
“CLAIM: If it werent for this ballot collection scheme, former President Donald Trump would have had enough votes to win the 2020 election.
THE FACTS: This alleged scheme has not been proven, nor do these researchers have any way of knowing whether any ballots that were collected contained votes for Trump or for Biden.”
Other resources:-
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/05/05/fact-check-gaping-holes-in-election-fraud-claims-of-2000-mules-movie/
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/georgia/articles/2022-05-17/georgia-election-officials-dispute-films-voter-fraud-claims
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/may/04/faulty-premise-2000-mules-trailer-about-voting-mai/
https://windobi.com/fact-checking-2000-mules-the-film-about-vote-fraud/
THE FACTS: True the Vote didnt prove this. The finding is based on false assumptions about the precision of cellphone tracking data and the reasons that someone might drop off multiple ballots, according to experts.
They only tracked mules who visited more than 10 drop box locations. What reason could anyone possibly have to visit 10 drop boxes?
THE FACTS: No, it didnt. The group hasnt offered any evidence of any sort of paid ballot harvesting scheme in Philadelphia. And True the Vote did not get surveillance footage of drop boxes in Philadelphia, so the group based this claim solely on cellphone location data, its researcher Gregg Phillips said in March in testimony to Pennsylvania state senators.
Pennsylvania state Sen. Sharif Street, who was there for the groups testimony in March, told the AP he was confident he was counted as several of the groups 1,155 anonymous mules, even though he didnt deposit anything into a drop box in that time period.
TTV claimed over 1100 mules in the Philadelphia area were in the vicinity of at least 10 drop boxes and also visit non profits. Maybe they all have legitimate excuses like Senator Street. We will see if Street’s excuse holds.
THE FACTS: Setting aside the fact that the film doesnt prove these individuals were collecting ballots at all, it also cant prove their political affiliations.
No, it only claims that some of the mules were also geolocated in the crowds during the Atlanta riots who were predominatly Antifa and BLM types.
THE FACTS: This is pure speculation. It ignores far more likely reasons for glove-wearing in the fall and winter of 2020 cold weather or COVID-19.
Yes it is speculation. The gloves appeared during the Georgia recount on December 23 after the Yuma AZ FBI sting. I guess only coincidence. Also, why would all the mules remove their gloves and throw them in trashcans immediately after depositing the ballots?
THE FACTS: This alleged scheme has not been proven, nor do these researchers have any way of knowing whether any ballots that were collected contained votes for Trump or for Biden.
This statement was made after a simple mathematical exercise. It demonstrates mathematically how this scheme could have turned the election. We will find out after LE investigates.
This is how LE does investigations. They make inferences. A collection of inferences is all they need. For instance, if they’re interviewing a suspect, they will ask him if he has an alibi for a specific time when a crime occurred. If he doesn’t have an alibi, this doesn’t prove he committed the crime, but most non-criminals have alibis. LE will ask the mules if they can provide a reason for visiting 10 drop box locations. They will ask them why they stuffed ballots in different boxes. They will need alibis. Then they will get subpoenas, check bank transactions, and ask them more questions. We all know criminals. They will turn on each other for a deal.
Detectives making inferences.
BURN THEM!
Usually in the US, people have the right to come and go as they please, the mules need not provide a reason to pass by a number of drop boxes.
If they committed no crime, they need no alibi.
“Then they will get subpoenas, check bank transactions, and ask them more questions.”
Not without probable cause that they committed a crime, we don’t have that at this time, so they won’t get their search warrants nor will they get to subpenas.
The State has to prove their guilt.
But you claim they are witches and you want to burn them.
Do you know what country this happened in?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1290688
Don’t those refer back to Bump? Nothing new.
The only one different is the supposed Georgia investigation. They interviewed one of the mules who claimed they were family members. Why did he visit 10 different boxes? Can he provide testimony from these family members? Doesn’t appear to be an actual investigation.
Nope.
“The 2020 presidential election was secure and evidence from state and federal officials and courts shows no indication of widespread fraud. While authorities identified isolated cases of voter fraud, these instances were in such small numbers it would not have changed the elections outcome.
A documentary by Dinesh DSouza, a far-right commentator, furthers the myth that something sinister occurred with mail ballots during the 2020 election. DSouza told Fox News that ‘mules’ delivered 400,000 illegal votes. Experts say the evidence D’Souza points to is inherently flawed.
Many states have laws allowing people to return completed mail ballots on behalf of others, such as family members. Ballot drop boxes are more secure than standard mail boxes”
Ballot harvesting is legal in some states. Ballot trafficking is permitted in no states.
2000 mules visiting 10 or more ballot boxes would not fall under the ballot harvesting category. 50,000 mules visiting 5 or more ballot boxes would not fit either.
Lies and distortions do not make a truth.
No, they don’t, no many how many times you repeat a lie.
You and D’Souza are the ones lying.
RLH says:
”The 2020 presidential election was secure and evidence from state and federal officials and courts shows no indication of widespread fraud. While authorities identified isolated cases of voter fraud, these instances were in such small numbers it would not have changed the elections outcome.”
——————————
What standard of investigation was followed to arrive at that conclusion RLH? Oh yeah its called the wannabee standard! LMAO!
Local paper reporting on the Georgia investigation on some of the alleged ‘mules’.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220521012549/https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-investigation-dispels-allegations-highlighted-in-2000-mules/DREWO27XXBF7PB4DGTBXWGQYV4/
“Surveillance video showed a man pull up in a white SUV and insert five absentee ballots into a Gwinnett County drop box, leading to allegations of ballot harvesting promoted by the movie 2000 Mules.
An investigation revealed he was delivering ballots for his family, which is allowed under Georgia law.
The State Election Board voted unanimously Tuesday to dismiss that case and two similar claims that voters had illegally returned absentee ballots. An investigator told the board that in each case, he tracked license plate numbers, interviewed voters and confirmed that ballots belonged to family members in the same household.
Just because something looks compelling doesnt mean its accurate, said Matt Mashburn, the Republican chairman of the State Election Board. We wanted to reassure the public that yes, we have seen the videos, we are taking them very seriously, were tracking every one of them down, and well report back to you what we find.
Apparently with broad access to surveillance video – 4 million hours worth – the video makers decided never to show any “mule” depositing envelopes in a ballot box more than once.
That would have been the killer blow, some actual evidence instead of one single, unnamed witness who ‘assumes’ payments were made to ‘mules’, ginned up graphics of drop box location that aren’t actually the locations (film-makers said the graphics were not “literal interpretations” of the data), failure to actually match tracking data to any of the vidoed ‘mules’, failure to acknowledge that it is legal in some states to post ballots on behalf of family or invalids, and using Moscow, Russia in a graphic meant to represent Atlanta.
True the Vote, who supplied the information in the film, refused to give any names to investigators, were subpoenaed for their information, and the Republican-led inquiry found their claims lacked merit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Mules
But the kicker for me is that they never show even one mule making two or more drops.
Assuming the film makers are not complete morons, this is a pretty savage indictment on the plausibility of the film’s basic claim.
So the graphics were fake, they refused to cooperate with investigators to expos the crimes they allege, and some of the people in the video were discovered to have legitimately cast votes for their family.
This track is all too familiar.
The film-makers will make money, contributing negatively to America’s parlous state by keeping the big lie alive.
” There is no doubt, whatsoever that hundreds of thousands of votes were illegally harvested and stuffed into ballot boxes. ”
That indeed did very well happen!
But… the really harvesting and stuffing culprits weren’t those so “smartly” {/sarc} pointed out, but rather stone-cold supporters of the Trumping boy, the greatest political crook America has ever known, who only won the 2016 election with the help of brute force manipulation by his Russian friends in the Internet, who had no political interest in any Dem president.
Obviously you have Trump derangement syndrome. I advise sticking to things you think you know something about.
Remind me, was this the same Trump who ordered the Georgia Secretary of State to “find” 11,800 votes?
Whatever did he mean?
with all the reports of suitcases of ballots being stashed here and there what do you think it means?
The mind boggles!
Do American political parties really keep tens of thousands of forged ballots on hand ready to drop into the count?
It is very clear to any outside observer that the American political system is corrupt, but isn’t that going a bit far?
And remember my baseline for comparison.
I live in Northern Ireland.The electoral system is more carefully managed to avoid bias nowadays, but back in the day people were encouraged to vote early and often, the dead rose up to vote and the unionists raised gerrymandering to a fine art.
I don’t know anything about N. Ireland, but it sounds like a lot of US liberal Democrats came from there.
No offense to Bill O’Reilly intended.
Historically, Republics don’t last. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are so unique that people can’t exist to those standards. We have the right to free speech, religion, assembly, bear arms, habeas corpus, trial by jury, speedy trial, etc. No other people on the planet have these rights, and it isn’t good enough, it isn’t treasured. Staggers the imagination.
The only thing that does make sense:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1291019
“We have the right to free speech, religion, assembly, bear arms, habeas corpus, trial by jury, speedy trial, etc.”
A lot of other nations have that too, apart from the ‘bear arms’ bit that is.
RLH says:
”We have the right to free speech, religion, assembly, bear arms, habeas corpus, trial by jury, speedy trial, etc.”
A lot of other nations have that too, apart from the bear arms bit that is.
——————————–
A toothless public represents a toothless ability to retain those rights. Should we rely exclusively upon the good intentions of those we elevate to power? Trust, but verify, and retain an ability to enforce. The more one looks like a lamb the more someone wants to shear you.
Democracies have elections to decide what politicians we have. That doesn’t make us toothless.
It makes you toothless if they fool with the ballot boxes. . . .and who is in charge of ensuring nobody fools with the ballot boxes?
You must have Trump derangement syndrome too. I advise sticking to things you think you know something about.
Oh, wait. That leaves you not a whole lot. How about some predictions on CO2 from permafrost?
Bowdrie
I know a lot more about your Trumping boy than you imagine.
And no: I don’t suffer under any have Trump derangement syndrome.
Limke many many people outside of the US, I simply look at what people like you intentionally, ideologically overlook.
And what would many many people outside of the US look at what people like me intentionally, ideologically overlook?
Blinny is a German. They supported Nazism and murdered their own citizens.
Troglodyte is a Murican. They supported Nazism and murdered their own citizens.
One thing that a Nazi is for sure is somebody who adminstrates an election and refuses to audit it for its procedures being secure.
Where were you on the eve of the election bore boy?
An audit wouldn’t work. Law enforcement has to investigate the geotracking and video evidence. Once the ballot envelopes are opened, they can’t be determined who cast a vote.
I can play the audit game –
> Chasing proof of vote-rigging conspiracy theories, Republican officials and activists in eight U.S. locales have plotted to gain illegal access to balloting systems, undermining the security of elections they claim to protect.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-breaches/
stephen p anderson says:
An audit wouldnt work. Law enforcement has to investigate the geotracking and video evidence. Once the ballot envelopes are opened, they cant be determined who cast a vote.
———————-
Not accurate. An audit may or may not be able to determine if an election was wrongly decided. But in both cases and audit is designed to identify whether control were in place to greatly increase the chances an election in the future will be correctly decided.
So why are you avoiding that? You can’t just wave your hand and say it won’t make any difference because that is complete BS.
Willard says:
I can play the audit game
> Chasing proof of vote-rigging conspiracy theories, Republican officials and activists in eight U.S. locales have plotted to gain illegal access to balloting systems, undermining the security of elections they claim to protect.
—————————-
LOL! I don’t suspect they will find any democrats trying to determine if the election was secure. They have an unethical motivation to not do that.
And as far as the claim of ‘illegal access’ none of your sources said there had been any prosecution, it seems they were only referred for investigation.
Trying to do an audit because of the government being irresponsible in assuring the public that elections were secure would seem to be an honorable effort, certainly more honorable than resisting an audit, as long as indeed you don’t violate laws in the process.
But hey we got weeks of entertainment on the news throughout 2019 and 2020 of people violating laws supposedly for good motivations and I haven’t heard a peep out of you about that. Do you believe that makes you a ‘good’ person?
Please stop lulzing, Bill.
Willard isn’t sure how to answer the question.
Bill believes that his leading question distracts from the fact that GOP officials are already in trouble by following his auditing fancy.
Willard rejects the notion of innocence until proven otherwise. Or at least he will until its him who is the accused.
Bill denies that teh Donald made some phone calls –
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/georgia-grand-jury-trump-investigation-1.6430045
Bill,
They need a LE investigation. They don’t need another audit. Or a court filing.
We have better than a LE investigation, Troglodyte:
https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/myth-voter-fraud
Considering that teh Donald is being trialed as we speak, your obfuscation is quite ordinary.
stephen p anderson says:
Bill,
They need a LE investigation. They dont need another audit. Or a court filing.
——————————-
I don’t know what law enforcment investigations need to be done. What I do know is the voting process needs internal controls that ensures audit trails exist in the handling of ballots from being received from a legitimate voter to counting of the ballots and the subsequent storage of the ballots. Since we also want to preserve for security reasons the anonymity of the voter, that means even better documented and verified controls should be in place throughout the process to ensure the ballot comes from an authorized voter, that authorized voters vote only once, that the ballot being counted came from an authorized voter. Early in my profession that was an area I did that sort of work. It is something best done in advance, but with new clients often we would find it had not been done. They you want all that documentation to fix the problem and ensure it never happens again.
As to violations of the law, you need to first know that the ballots that got counted all should have been counted and that all ballots cast got counted. To know that you need a very well designed system of controls and documentation such that the Governor of Georgia would be able to send off say an inspector general team, respond to Trump saying I looked and this is what I found. Trump would be completely intune with that because he is a business man and knows how it should work as his auditors hold him to that standard. Asking the Governor to do his job is what one should expect from the CEO.
As I see it. I watched the returns come in for the lagging states and there was an amazing shift to Biden in the late counted ballots. No question about that. So what would I do. I would identify which pricincts those ballots came from, interview the ballot handlers (hopefully that was documented) and if necessary poll the pricincts to see if such a shift might have been expected and why.
It may well be I would uncover nothing of significance but I would then understand what the issues were and would probably have a long list of recommendations to improve the election process to avoid late counting and ensure that the ballots cast meet the standards I mentioned above. I am aware some new laws have already been passed to make such improvements. Voter ID? LMAO! Who would ever imagine you could have an honest election without it?
For all those folks who feel they have been oppressed in the vote. . . .I would think voter ID would be absolutely the best solution to ensure it wouldn’t continue to happen in the future.
Another measure that would be helpful would be making a ballot that offers you the option of submitting an anonymous ballot or actually identifying yourself on the ballot. That way folks who really want to put themself behind their vote could do so and stand strong against those who would try to defraud your personal vote and make it far more difficult to commit the fraud. Shoot I would gladly stamp my ballot as mine and mine alone. How about you?
“Blinny is a German. They supported Nazism and murdered their own citizens.”
Stephen is a Tennessean. They supported segregation, secession, and slavery.
See how well that works, Stephen?
Nate proves he is as good at history as physics!
Bill is very good at non-sequiturs.
Nate when doesn’t recognize ones own ignorance in one area you can expect it to occur in another. Thats inductive logic. So its hardly a non-sequitur in this forum. Its the only thing that relevant in here.
binny…”But the really harvesting and stuffing culprits werent those so smartly {/sarc} pointed out, but rather stone-cold supporters of the Trumping boy…”
***
Are you still in denial about Trump being framed by the Democrats when they alleged he had connections in Russia? He was proved innocent. Now you are falling for the same bs about stuffing ballot boxes.
There was no good reason given for why the vote counting was suspended for the night in key states in which Trump was winning by a landslide. Overnight, his massive lead was suddenly gone. Meantime, evidence emerges that crooks were busily stuffing ballot boxes overnight.
Wasn’t this poor Ken weeping himself a while ago about the supposedly dictatorship-like COVID conditions in Canada?
*
From the French ‘Le Monde’, today:
” Covid-19: Thousands of Beijing residents forcibly placed in quarantine
The capital is facing its biggest outbreak of contamination since the start of the pandemic. The Omicron variant has infected more than 1,300 people since the end of April, leading to the indefinite closure of restaurants, schools and tourist sites. ”
And further:
” On Chinese social networks, some evoke scenes of evacuation reminiscent of the war. Thousands of Beijing residents 21 million people were forcibly sent into quarantine overnight from Friday May 20 to Saturday May 21, after 26 cases of Covid-19 were discovered in their residence, according to images and an official opinion widely shared on social networks.
More than 13,000 residents of the Nanxinyuan residential complex in the southeast of the capital, although tested negative for the virus, were transported overnight to isolation hotels and threatened with reprisals if they resisted. ”
*
That, Ken, isn’t simply ‘dictatorship-like’.
It IS dictatorship.
You aren’t even allowed to say that there.
Just because its worse there doesn’t mean it isn’t true here.
That, Ken, is fundamentally dishonest.
You compare a fly with a scorpion.
I’d as soon swat a fly as crush a scorpion.
Freedom is Freedom. When its not Freedom its dystopian authoritarian and despicable. The line is crossed. Casus Belli.
People’s freedoms are curtailed in every country. It’s called ‘the law’.
Freedom is in reality a sliding scale, and for conservatives that which ‘crosses the line’ is not based on any lasting principle, but on political lines.
Thus, it is fine for many conservatives to imprison a woman in her pregnancy, removing her freedom of privacy and hr freedom to choose.
It was fine for many conservatives to deny marriage for people of the same gender.
Conservatives used to talk more about responsibility to the community, to the law. Now they sound more and more like teenagers who don’t like being told what to do.
barry…”It was fine for many conservatives to deny marriage for people of the same gender”.
***
I’m not a Conservative but I agree that same-sex marriages should never have been allowed.
barry…”Peoples freedoms are curtailed in every country. Its called the law”.
***
Red-herring. Canada signed the Nuremberg Code, and the first point goes as follows:
“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision”.
This is about experimenting on human beings. The covid vaccines are not vaccines at all, but gene modification based on nano-particle technology. This kind of experimentation on humans is specifically forbidden unless the above criteria are met.
None of it was met, we were lied to in a major way and someone has to be held responsible. There are currently lawsuits under way.
Information is just beginning to arrive re possible serious adverse effects of the gene therapy. A Swedish study is suggesting the mRNA from the vaccine collects in the liver within minutes of injection and it is modifying the DNA in liver cells. We were assured that would not happen but it is happening.
Freedom is about the right to live your life in peace with human dignity regardless of race, creed, or vaccine status.
Marriage is a tradition that results from tens of thousands of years where the society is best suited for survival when man is married to woman.
Same goes for abortion: We as a society have failed when a woman gets pregnant and needs an abortion. We have failed to teach about the value of marriage. We have failed in giving a good sex education including proper use of prophylactics. Once a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, all we should be doing as a society is making it safe for the woman to get an abortion.
The Judeo Christian values are about responsibility and community.
Doing whatever you want whenever you want without regards to the consequences isn’t freedom. When laws are written to give permission for immoral behavior we aren’t making good decisions as a society.
> The Judeo Christian values are about responsibility and community.
And community means one gets vaccinated unless one can prove medical counterindications.
Do you think Jesus was a right winger like you?
Willard says:
And community means one gets vaccinated unless one can prove medical counterindications.
——————————-
You mean your idea of community that everybody do what you ignorantly think is the best idea.
No reason for it.
Fact is post vaccination/infection COVID is no more dangerous than the flu.
Once the vaccinations became available all special COVID restrictions should have ended. One might argue that masks and social distancing should be maintained in medical settings but not just for COVID. Before COVID death rates in hospitals have been high due to infections obtained in that medical setting. Its even worse in nursing homes.
COVID deaths to date for 0-17 age group has averaged 501 deaths per year from April 2020-May 2022, covering both vaccinated and unvaccinated periods.
Flu deaths for the 0-17 age group for 2019-2020 was 486.
What about back in the day, when you weren’t allowed to marry outside your race.
Bill, please stop being such a troglodyte.
Willard you are the one whose only response is a grunt.
I know you are, Bill, but what am I?
Kennui needs to make peace with the tradition he venerates, and this tradition has been instigated by a socialist zombie.
bobdroege says:
What about back in the day, when you werent allowed to marry outside your race.
——————————–
good point Bob! There you have a sordid history of bogus Racial Theories promoted by scientists with government favor. Fortunately those who cared prevailed by remaining skeptical and working against such evil theories. Heck lobotomies, castrations, isolation were considered the cure. . . .carried out by doctors with degrees in science.
At least to the credit of about 12 states there never were no laws prohibiting interracial marriage, including 5 of the original colonies. And the last such law fell with a Supreme Court decision overriding State laws several years after the last state was admitted to the Union.
So YES buckle up and fight against bogus science theories. They are the most dangerous theories around simply because of how many will just accept them without any critical thinking.
Correction. 12 States never had a law that prohibited interracial marriages. (fix the double negative)
And right on cue the justifications for restrictions roll in, proving the point. Never mind that these opinions are a minority view in Western countries, these ideologies should prevail over liberty for everyone, including the people who disagree that women should not have the right to choose, or who disagree that people of the same gender shouldn’t marry.
A real liberty lover would hold that they are totally against abortion, but it is not for them to decide what others should do, specially something so personal and private to the lives of the people concerned.
But the conservative ideologues know what freedoms are more equal than others.
Banning same sex marriage? It’s got NOTHING to do with you. You can hat homosexuality in general, but if you love liberty, keep government out of the bedroom, and keep government out of matters of the heart of two consenting adults. And if you have a constitution like Amrica, keep the government and religion separate.
This outrage-faced defence of liberty is completely unconvincing if it’s only ever invoked when you yourself feel the injustice.
Bill Hunter,
Got any evidence these laws against interracial marriage were
“promoted by scientists with government favor.”
Here’s a quote, can you identify the speaker?
“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people”
Then you can tell me that was a quote from a scientist.
bobdroege says:
Got any evidence these laws against interracial marriage were
”promoted by scientists with government favor.”
———————————
Endless Bob. It even exists today: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/disturbing-resilience-scientific-racism-180972243/
And its not confined to a single race.
===========================
bobdroege says:
Heres a quote, can you identify the speaker?
I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people
Then you can tell me that was a quote from a scientist.
——————————
Sure its Abraham Lincoln. Anybody with a good k to 12 education should know that.
What it speaks to is how mob mentality spreads when they become convinced by those they respect and want to emulate because there is no class of persons better suited to decide what is good for yourself beyond yourself. Sure take advice from those you trust, those you personally contract for faithful and professional services and beware of everything else.
Bill Hunter,
You got a chicken or the egg thing going there.
Yeah, you can find some scientists trying to prove their innate cultural racism through science.
Bill,
And you missed the point, that Abe wasn’t a scientist.
Study: Warming temperatures are eroding our ability to sleep.
Climate change is keeping us up at night in more ways than one.
Findings of the largest study ever conducted on the relationship between ambient temperature and sleep, published in the science journal One Earth, don’t bode well for humans’ sleep outlook in a climate-changed world.
By working with an enormous data set – 10 billion sleep observations pulled from 7 million sleep records from 47,000 individuals across 68 countries – and comparing that data to meteorological and climate data, the researchers found that warming temperatures have already eroded 45 hours of sleep per person per year by influencing people to fall asleep later and wake up earlier. That’s roughly 10 or 11 additional nights of poor sleep annually. The effects of climate change on sleep start at surprisingly low temperatures, at around 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and grow more severe as temperatures rise.
The study shows that people in low-income countries, the elderly, and women are experiencing bigger sleep impacts from climate change. Reduced access to cooling technology like air conditioning could be a factor in why people in lower-income countries are three times more impacted by higher nighttime temperatures than people in higher-income nations.
For the elderly, sleep quality is twice as impacted per degree of warming. That could be because thermal sensitivity increases with age.
For women, core body temperature decreases earlier in the night than it does for men, which means they go to sleep earlier on average and may be exposed to higher temperatures as they’re preparing for bed.
The study was likely skewed toward relatively wealthy people (that’s who wears fancy wristbands) so it may underestimate the impact of heat on sleep.
https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(22)00209-3?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2590332222002093%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
No doubt they controlled for a multitude of confounding variables.
/sark off.
Horsesh*t trying to masquerade as science.
Climate Change Claptrap is keeping me awake.
Province of BC and City of Campbell River are promoting heat pumps, using my tax dollars to fund rebates, as a remedy to carbon dioxide emissions.
The noise from my neighbor’s new heat pump is audible in habitable rooms in my home and is a nuisance.
Ken
” The noise from my neighbors new heat pump is audible in habitable rooms in my home and is a nuisance. ”
I fully understand you.
And hence I strongly recommend you not to spend any week at e.g. the French Côte d'Azur during the summer, because the noise from all your neighbors’ air conditioners is likely to be way, way worse than all what you experience at home right now.
Phew, that was a close one. Thanks.
Heat pumps are great, Kennui. Also, you do not pay taxes since a while, and taxes do not pay for rebates.
Weak Wee Willy,
Quite apart from being an idiotic liar who claims to have a non-existent Greenhouse Theory, you also seem to have difficulties with understanding English, ” . . . you do not pay taxes since a while, . . . “, and also problems with understanding the operation of heat pumps.
Not just you, though. Governments think they can pass laws to overcome the physical laws of thermodynamics, and even Elon Musk is discovering that software programs cannot overcome the laws of thermodynamics.
Keep on being an idiot – it obviously suits you.
Heat pumps, taxes.
Please start paying attention, Mike.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Repeating “heat pumps, taxes” is about as useful as repeating “Mike Flynn”.
You obviously know little about heat pumps, or taxes.
Maybe you could try lying about your knowledge – just like you do about having a Greenhouse Theory. I dont know why you think anyone values your opinion. Would you take any notice of a proven liar?
Oh, wait. Of course you would. Michael Mann (fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat) lied about being a Nobel Prize winner.
Maybe you could spew some more obscenities, hoping to change the subject?
What do you think?
Mike Flynn, Meek Fencer.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
The eco-weenies are desperate for funding and peer-review is corrupt, so papers like this get passed. The paper should never have gotten past peer review.
On the other hand, by wasting less hours sleeping, people might be more productive. They could do more violin practice, for example.
And when temperatures are 50 F, obviously waking up early encourages lazy individuals to get up and do some vigorous exercise to keep warm!
All joking aside, it seems that all the subjects had smartphones. Maybe the FOMO obsession results in people sleeping less, constantly checking their devices to see if they are still liked by total strangers.
Its been said climate change makes your turds longer too.
Hubble’s “magnum opus”: most precise measurement of universe’s expansion
NASA has released a huge new report that astronomers are calling Hubble’s magnum opus. Analyzing 30 years of data from the famous space telescope, the new study makes the most precise measurement yet of how fast the universe is expanding.
For the new study, a team of scientists has now gathered and analyzed the most comprehensive catalog of these objects so far, to make the most precise measurement of the Hubble constant yet. This was done by studying 42 galaxies that contained both Cepheids and Type Ia supernovae, as imaged by the Hubble telescope over the last 30 years.
Poetic that Hubble’s greatest achievement should be measurement of the expansion of the universe, the discovery of which is perhaps its namesake’s greatest achievement.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.04510.pdf
Has it resolved the Hubble tension, the difference between the Bubble constant as measured from Cepheids and the CMB?
Apparently not.
The abstract ends:-
“We find a 5 sigma difference with the prediction of No from Planck CMB … with no indication that the discrepancy arises from measurement uncertainties of analysis variations considered to date.
The source of this now long-standing difference between the direct and cosmological routes to determining the Bubble constant remains unknown.”
Now that shows promise. There’s new science to be found.
Attaboy EM for answering your own question.
Are they actually measuring expansion of the Universe, or seeing inaccuracy in Hubble’s Constant?
Astrology ain’t science.
Anyone who thinks the current amount of mass in the Universe appeared suddenly out of nothing in a Big Bang is clearly not dealing with a full deck.
Much of this is based on Einstein’s hypothesis that energy can be converted to mass as in E = mc^2. Mass can certainly be converted to energy but transposing and claiming m = E/c^2 doesn’t cut it due to some serious difficulties.
For one, no one knows what energy is, or which energy is being referenced in the equation. For another, when Einstein declared the equation in 1905, no one knew the relationship between energy and atoms. It was not till 1913 that Bohr laid out his hypothesis that related EM energy to electrons in mass and that hypothesis did not address the conversion of EM to mass, as Einstein had implied, in fact, it disproved it.
When an electron absorbs EM, it’s mass does not increase, ergo, Einstein was wrong. So, why are we still hearing this pseudo-science about Big Bangs?
Some have claimed E = mc^2 was proved by atomic bombs but they do not convert mass to energy. They release energy that was already there, as heat, light, and mechanical energy. That energy bound the nucleus of the atoms together.
A fission reaction begins when neutron are intentionally fired into Uranium or Plutonium atoms, splitting them in two. That releases the binding energy and if done correctly, it fires more neutrons into adjacent material, setting off a chain reaction. It is the cumulative binding energy being released that produces the explosion.
After the explosion, all the original mass as elements is still there, albeit radioactive.
No mass is converted to energy, rather, binding energy is released en masse.
I believe the claim is when use energy from fission bomb to make fusion bomb. In fusion explosion, mass is converted into energy.
And the Sun is suppose to losing mass due to it’s fusion explosions.
gb…”In fusion explosion, mass is converted into energy.
And the Sun is suppose to losing mass due to its fusion explosions”.
***
With the Sun, mass is ejected as the solar wind but no proof exists that mass is converted to energy. It is theorized that 2 hydrogen atoms combine to produce 1 helium atom, and in the process a good amount of energy is released. However hydrogen has no neutrons and helium has two. Where do the neutrons come from?
As far as I am concerned, we are still working very much in the dark regarding nuclear physics. The fact that they have not developed a viable nuclear fusion device is testament to that.
In a star, this fusion is a natural process, but how does it get started and why does fusion produce so much energy? No one knows, and I fear Einstein’s E = mc^2 will sooner or later be exposed as rubbish.
Gordon,
“Where do the neutrons come from?”
They come from the initial reaction where 2 protons fuse to form
an atom Deuterium, a positron, and a neutrino.
“In a star, this fusion is a natural process, but how does it get started and why does fusion produce so much energy? No one knows,”
Just because you don’t know, doesn’t mean I don’t know.
The mass of 4 hydrogen atoms is greater than the mass of one Helium atom, and that excess mass is converted to energy in the stellar nuclear synthesis reactions.
Gorson,
In fission, the mass of the daughter nuclei and released neutrons is less than the mass of the uranium or plutonium atom.
Mass is converted to energy.
Pseudo-science. They are desperate to justify the cost of putting Hubble in space.
Australia delivered a stinging defeat to the country’s ruling conservative coalition on Saturday in what amounted to a personal rebuke of Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s abrasive brand of leadership.
The result paves the way for opposition leader Anthony Albanese to become the next prime minister. But it was unclear whether his center-left Labor Party would win an outright majority or be forced to negotiate with a handful of independent and Greens candidates elected on platforms of combating climate change.
Exit polling suggested climate change was on many voters’ minds.
Zali Steggall, an independent who retained her seat on Sydney’s north shore, said a failure to address climate change had hurt both major parties.
Scott Morrison famously brought a lump of coal into Australia’s Parliament, prior to becoming Prime Minister: https://youtu.be/ea5bOaPkZpc
Is there a point to this post?
Bindidon
Did this affect you?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61533713
Entropic man
No it did not at all, we live near Berlin, 150 km east of all that.
We had really strong wind with 7 beaufort (much for us, we aren’t at sea after all), but zero damage.
*
What disturbs me to say the least, is the alarmistic tone behind what happened.
Not because three tornadoes would in my opinion be harmless, of course!
But because what they caused was far far less significant than the horror caused by the huge rainfall over the Ahr valley last year, with about 200 persons dead and immensely higher damage, evaluated at 10-15 G.
But today, everybody was suddenly talking/writing about climate change, as if last year was forgotten in between.
*
To be clear: these tornadoes aren’t the first ones, but are very rare in Germoney. To blame the actual climate change for these tornadoes is strange.
Climate change actually means for us above all
– warmer winters, cololer springs, shorter summers
– increasing westerly winds (so that joung trees are now beginning to lean west instead of east).
*
Nice to head about global stilling and dimming, he he, but wind and solar radiation increase here locally since quite a while: I use factor 50 sunscreen for children, even though I’m over 70…
Read of course evaluated at 10-15 G€, damnd blog’s scanner!
Global stilling
“Global terrestrial stilling is the decrease of wind speed observed near the Earth’s surface (~10-meter height) over the last three decades (mainly since the 1980s), originally termed ‘stilling'”
“with a global average reduction of −0.140 m s−1 dec−1 (meters per second per decade) or between 5 and 15% over the past 50 years.”
Global dimming
“worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 420% reduction.”
And again and again and again, the bad elementary school teacher Linsley-Hood urges in repeatedly boasting his Wiki knowledge, instead of starting to prove his various claims, e.g. about medians
(1) allegedly being better than the historical (Tmin+Tmax)/2
and
(2) suddenly – hear hear – even better than the true 24h average.
And that is claimed by the one who wrote some months ago:
” Forget the medians “.
If we were allowed to download whole comment sections from the archives with wget or so, I could show you the place, Linsley-Hood…
Ah well, ah well, Flynnson would say.
Go study 5 number summaries
(https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/edu/power-pouvoir/ch12/5214877-eng.htm)
and box plots
(https://www.simplypsychology.org/boxplots.html)
which are much more applicable to skewed, bimodal data than mean and SD ever are.
The middle, (min+max)/2, is not used in any form of statistics for good reason. It tells you nothing about the distribution of the data in the range.
As usual, you post your typical bad teacher blah blah instead of technically contradicting my results.
Simply because you aren’t able to do that.
I still await your contradiction of the simplest of these results obtained from processing USCRN:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MZlIa_a-SKRxA72v1UOB7HrNpEr9EGqO/view
This shows, in accordance with all other statistics I obtained out of monthly averages of hourly data, that the median is farer away from the true 24h average than is the (Tmin+Tmax)/2 value.
Yes, yes, forget the medians! You said recently.
And what will you say now? Forget the true 24h average?
You are such a bad loser, Linsley-Hood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violin_plot
and
https://towardsdatascience.com/violin-plots-explained-fb1d115e023d
Violin plots if you want all things at once.
“This is of interest, especially when dealing with multimodal data, i.e., a distribution with more than one peak.” i.e. Bimodal data.
“instead of technically contradicting my results”
Statisticians contradicting your results, not me.
The middle, (min+max)/2, is not used in any form of statistics for good reason. It tells you nothing about the distribution of the data in the range.
Now do a box plot (and a violin plot) of
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MZlIa_a-SKRxA72v1UOB7HrNpEr9EGqO/view
https://machinelearningmastery.com/how-to-calculate-the-5-number-summary-for-your-data-in-python/
“The mean and standard deviation are used to summarize data with a Gaussian distribution, but may not be meaningful, or could even be misleading, if your data sample has a non-Gaussian distribution”
“It is sometimes called the Tukey 5-number summary because it was recommended by John Tukey. It can be used to describe the distribution of data samples for data with any distribution.”
The problem with Blinny, like GR, is that they stopped learning new things years ago.
Quartiles are quite normal in climate with Winter, Spring, Summer and Autumn being in common use but beyond that, using them is beyond their comprehension according to Blinny.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tukey
“John Wilder Tukey was an American mathematician and statistician, best known for the development of the fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm and box plot. The Tukey range test, the Tukey lambda distribution, the Tukey test of additivity, and the TeichmllerTukey lemma all bear his name. He is also credited with coining the term ‘bit’ and the first published use of the word software.”
> The middle, (min+max)/2, is not used in any form of statistics for good reason.
And what do you suggest we use when all we got are min and max, dummy?
Continue onto today using just min and max if that is all you have. Not the meaningless middle which tells you nothing of any use.
P.S. I note you do not dispute that no other discipline would consider using the middle in any form of statistics.
Please stop forcing an open door to deflect from the fact that you will never have what you are looking for, Richard.
Willard, please stop being a idiot.
Willard says:
Please stop forcing an open door to deflect from the fact that you will never have what you are looking for, Richard.
————————
Cracking through that thick skull of yours? Sound advice Willard.
Global dimming
worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 420% reduction.
Sounds like bad news. Do you have figures in W/m^2 ?
Ah, found it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming#/media/File%3AClimate_Change_Attribution.png
0.3C cooling, equivalent to about 1.2W/m^2.
And it is bad news.
Since 1900 the global averabe temperature has risen by 1.2C.
That is 1.5C warming due to CO2 etc less 0.3C cooling due to global dimming from the aerosols released..
It means that if we reduce fossil fuel burn to reduce warming due to CO2 we also reduce global dimming.
I think Gavin Schmidt called this the “Faustian bargain”. A no-win situation in which we have trapped ourselves; in which we get increased temperatures whatever we do.
Entropic man
You might start e.g. here
Global dimming: a review of the evidence for a widespread and significant reduction in global radiation with discussion of its probable causes and possible agricultural consequences
Gerald Stanhill, Shabtai Cohen
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168192300002410
behind paywall, however.
From the abstract
” A number of studies show that significant reductions in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface have occurred during the past 50 years.
This review analyzes the most accurate measurements, those made with thermopile pyranometers, and concludes that the reduction has globally averaged
0.51 +- 0.05 W/m^2
per year, equivalent to a reduction of 2.7% per decade, and now totals 20 W/m^2, seven times the errors of measurement.
Now do explain the ‘evaporation paradox’.
-20W is 5C of cooling.
That would mean that the 1.2C warming to date has been caused by 6.2C of CO2 warming minus 5C of global dimming.
That would make the warming per doubling of CO2 6.2*10/4=15.5C which sounds far too high.
I think my -1.2W/m2 is much more likely than the -20W you quote.
Bindidon, “thermopile pyranometer”?? Really?
You don’t have any clue about this, like your mirror image Norman. He finds links he can’t understand either.
And, fluxes don’t add, and they don’t add over time.
You idiots don’t understand any of this.
The evaporation paradox seems to be a measurement error.
https://www.nature.com/articles/23845
“Since 1900 the global average temperature has risen by 1.2C”
Since 1980, which is where the majority of the rise is, the global average temperature as measured by satellites has followed the trended AMO. The global average temperature as measured by thermometers (GISS and Had) has not followed it though before 1980 they followed it quite well.
“The evaporation paradox seems to be a measurement error”
Tell that to the Chinese.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247278
and
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095633915301234
Like many other climate related matters, there seems to be debate about the evaporation paradox. I’m not much interested either way. Why not discuss it with Dan Pangburn? He’s the evaporation enthusiast.
Let me know when you’ve decided whether it is real and what significance it has for climate change.
Link to full paper Bindidon suggested to E-man.
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/S0168-1923(00)00241-0
Global dimming: a review of the evidence for a widespread and significant reduction in global radiation with discussion of its probable causes and possible agricultural consequences
Clint R
Your endless unsupported opinions don’t make science. You are a Cult leader of one. I think you find yourself agreeing with you endless opinions.
Over and over the same old ground. You get no wiser but you do like to insult.
Yes fluxes add. You can’t understand this.
Barry: That doesn’t resolve. Try
https://ftp.forest.sr.unh.edu/Ollinger/PapersforFranklin/GlobalDimming.pdf
The fact that it is strongly based on models and other and statistical modeling approaches is noted in the paper.
“Based on current knowledge, the most probable is that increases in man made aerosols and other air pollutants have changed the
optical properties of the atmosphere, in particular those of clouds.”
Please stop finding papers that would make Eboy sad if he could read, Richard.
“the most probable”
So the science is not settled, it is just a guess.
Some guesses are better informed than others, Richard, and just because we do not know everything that does not mean we not nothing.
For instance, your But Settled is known to be silly.
Clint R,
You could download an app on your phone and see if fluxes do add or not.
With two flashlights and a phone, you could finally find out how wrong you are.
But that would be science, something you are blissfully unaware of.
My link works fine for me, RLH.
“The fact that it is strongly based on models and other and statistical modeling approaches is noted in the paper.”
And also noted in many papers you’ve linked to including one just a few posts upthread.
But you have never ben interested in mentioning this whenever it applies to a paper you cite.
I find that interesting, don’t you?
Richard refuses to peruse a source he finds illegal, Barry.
He has the ability to turn mundane stuff into a charade.
Barry: I am on record as saying that models are not a very reliable source. Backed up by some who support CAGW.
“Richard refuses to peruse a source he finds illegal”
No. I use the information provided to find a source that can be accessed by those not in an educational institution.
“Some guesses are better informed than others”
None of yours are.
“I am on record as saying that models are not a very reliable source.”
Did you miss the bit where I said you happily reference research that uses models when it suits your argument?
Such as here, here (and 3 posts directly beneath), and here, for example. And that’s just on this web page.
You also regularly post the CFSv2 ENSO forecasts. CFSv2 is a land/ocean/atmosphere climate model.
You are now on record being a hypocrite.
….it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4–20% reduction”
Damn parser.
Richard, please stop parsing.
Willard, lease stop being an idiot.
*please
Tony Heller fired up his yootoob again
https://youtu.be/sFyyU6LMauU
https://youtu.be/5xBAxDOCLZ8
They have only increased global CO2 levels rather than reduce it.
And China will soon run out of Coal, or world governments no longer have a way to increase CO2 levels.
The new hockey stick re energy prices, which have declined till the 2020 election then suddenly escalated.
Come on, Gordo –
https://www.efginternational.com/insights/2022/oil-prices-and-why-2022-is-not-the-new-1974.html
Think.
Come on, Willard.
Why would you expect anyone to value the opinion of some lying idiot who claims they have a Greenhouse Theory, when they haven’t at all?
That lying idiot is you, of course.
Please stop asking that silly question after any comment I make if you cannot search for the comment by ES on May 14, 2022 at 9:00 yourself, dear Mike Flynn.
I could ask you to stop trolling, but as it is the only thing you can contribute do continue, silly sock puppet.
Worthless Willard, is that where Junior got confused about Goody’s name?
If you idiots are going to try to pervert science, at least know the names of your fellow cult idiots.
Come on, Willard.
Why would anybody value the opinion of a lying idiot like you who claims to have a Greenhouse Theory, when you don’t have one at all?
All you can do is tell me to search for a comment made by some other idiot who probably claims he has a Greenhouse Theory, when he doesn’t have one either!
Well, no, Witless Wee Willy. I don’t care what you ask me to do. Why should I? You have no power over anyone. You are powerless, as well as stupid. I am free to comment when, where, and as I wish, and there’s precisely nothing you can do about it. It’s not your blog, in case you hadn’t noticed.
You can hammer rusty nails into your head, if you like. Nothing to do with me.
Carry on.
Since you like typos, Pup, have you noticed all the ones I kept from the copypastas I served Mike?
That one about name calling being the last resort of a little boy was superb!
Mike, Mike,
You could have been a fun clown. We have to suffer a malignant, petty, and pompous asshat instead. I have no idea why you would think this will help you promote Sky Dragon Crap. A simpler hypothesis is that you are just satisfying deep desires to tame your inner demons by releasing them into this world, which is so ugly it can fit a few more.
Please, never stop trolling.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You just keep lying about having a Greenhouse Theory. You don’t have one at all. You are such an idiot that you think diverting to another idiot who links to a book which also doesnt mention a Greenhouse Theory, will make people think that you are not an idiotic liar.
Bad luck.
No Greenhouse Theory. No Greenhouse Effect Theory. No Greenhouse Effect.
As much as you try to deny, divert, and confuse, you cannot make your fantasy become fact.
Maybe you could insist that more commenters here should call themselves Mike Flynn! Do you think that might make people think that you are intelligent, rather than a stupid liar claiming to have a non-existent Greenhouse Theory?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Gordo made a silly remark about energy prices.
Anyone can realize how silly it is by looking at the historical chart.
What are you doing in this sub thread?
Diverting Willard,
You can try to deny, divert, and confuse all you want.
You are stil an idiotic liar, pretending you have a Greenhouse Theory, when you don’t have a Greenhouse Theory at all – because such a thing does not exist!
Why would anybody think you are not lying about anything else? Who would value the opinion of a proven liar?
If you claim someone makes silly remarks, why do you think anybody values your opinion? You are just another deranged climate crackpot, prepared to lie, and hoping nobody will call you out.
Go on, thrust your hand back into your trousers. Manipulate away. Seek the happy ending you so desire – you won’t get it pretending you have a Greenhouse Theory.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Major Failure,
To divert is when you ask for a sammich in a sub-thread that is not related to it. To deny is when you deny that your request has been met. There is nothing confusing about what you’re doing.
Silly sock puppet.
Whining Wee Willy,
Sammich? What are you babbling about, fool?
Maybe you haven’t realised that no rational person cares for the opinion of a lying idiot l8ke yourself, claiming you have a Greenhouse Theory, when you have no such thing!
I don’t care for your opinion. I comment where, when, and as I like, and you can do nothing about it at all – except whine like the petulant child you are.
Suck it up, princess.
W
Your link above talked about how the percentage increases in the 1970s on the nominal price of oil were greater than we are experiencing now. It doesnt take much of an increase to be significant when oil is $1.84 per barrel. Also, your link said oil has to be $184 per barrel to reach those % increases. What makes you think we are done with the increases. Misguided policies by misguided politicians know no limits in how to screw things up.
Please stop being shy away from agreeing with me, Fernando.
You know I am right.
Willard, please stop being an idiot.
He doesn’t care if Florida under meters of water.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/21/hsbc-senior-banker-spanked-after-dissing-the-climate-crisis/
[And he doesn’t know anything ocean settlements or other stuff]
No Hurricanes, yet:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
And my weather is cool until June.
This is not much of Hurricane season- what is the reason?
Isn’t the hurricane season from June to November?
It’s a bit early to be complaining about a lack of hurricanes.
It not normal year, it’s La Nino. June the normal start, is a week away. Nothing forming.
In 2 weeks, is going to a different story?
Are not going to start forming closer to Africa, instead start forming in Gulf of Mexico make landfall in less than a week?
Is normal in La Nino to start later than June, like after July and and get a lot in July to August- and more likely go past Nov?
So, 2021:
“This seasons storm activity started early and quickly ramped up, as it was the seventh consecutive year with a named storm forming before the official start to the season on June 1, and held the earliest fifth named storm on record. As to why, Matthew Rosencrans, lead seasonal hurricane forecaster at NOAAs Climate Prediction Center says, Climate factors, which include La Nia, above-normal sea surface temperatures earlier in the season, and above-average West African Monsoon rainfall were the primary contributors for this above-average hurricane season.
https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/active-2021-atlantic-hurricane-season-officially-ends
You’ve another nine days before the season officially starts.
Are you hoping an early hurricane appears so that you can claim that the season is getting longer or hoping that no early hurricanes appear so that you can claim that it is not?
No hopes about it either way.
I mean, hurricanes are not a lot fun and etc.
But I was 1/2 expecting that some hurricanes to be forming.
I didn’t look to see if there was any kind forecast in regards to the hurricane season. It seems that is done, normally. I just wondering if anyone had anything to say about it. Or seems people have been saying it will strong hurricane season, but I didn’t know if this was official forecast
I went to Wiki:
On December 9, 2021, CSU issued an extended range forecast for the 2022 hurricane season, predicting slightly above-average activity with 1316 named storms, 68 hurricanes, 23 major hurricanes, and an ACE index of about 124 units.TSR also issued an extended range forecast on December 10, 2021. It predicted overall near-average tropical activity with its ACE index, however, anticipating 18 tropical storms, 8 hurricanes and 3 intense hurricanes to form during the season. One of their factors was the expectation of a neutral El Nio-Southern Oscillation condition by the third quarter of 2022. However, they said that this outlook had “large uncertainties”. On April 7, 2022, CSU issued their first extended range seasonal forecast for the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season, predicting well above-average activity, with 19 named storms, 9 hurricanes, 4 major hurricanes and an ACE index of 160 units. Their factors supporting an active hurricane season included above average-sea surface temperatures in the subtropical Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea, and a cool neutral ENSO or weak La Nia pattern, corresponding to a low chance of an El Nio. On April 14, 2022, University of Arizona (UA) issued its seasonal prediction for a slightly above-average hurricane season, with 14 named storms, seven hurricanes, three major hurricanes, and an ACE index of 129 units. North Carolina State University (NCSU) made its prediction for the season on April 20, calling for an above-average season with 17 to 21 named storms, 7 to 9 hurricanes, and 3 to 5 major hurricanes.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Atlantic_hurricane_season
Finally getting some Spring weather in Vancouver, Canada. Got up to 20C today.
I think I might read Washington Post more often:
” Meanwhile, sanctions against Russia have caused the countrys transport and shipping logistics to be practically broken, Russias transport minister said Saturday, a rare admission of problems.
But its defense minister asserted that its military had destroyed a large number of weapons that were supplied to Ukraine by the United States and European countries. A Pentagon spokesperson told The Washington Post that the United States had no comment on Russias claim.
Russia also stepped up its political campaign, permanently banning nearly 1,000 Americans, including President Biden and Vice President Harris, from entering the country. The list of those banned included a wide range of officials and citizens, including lawmakers who have died and actor Morgan Freeman. ”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-tries-to-rebound-in-ukraine-as-prospects-for-victory-fade/ar-AAXxIk5?ocid=BingNews
gb…” Meanwhile, sanctions against Russia have caused the countrys transport and shipping logistics to be practically broken…”
***
Maybe Wapo can explain why the Russians are currently systematically surrounding Ukrainian forces in the Donbas region and shutting them down.
Reminds me of the US-Iraq war. Some wacko told me the Iraqis would kick the US’s butt. I told him it would be over in about a week since the Iraqis had no experience fighting conventional wars and the US was loaded with experience.
Same with the Ukraine. They simply lack the experience the Russians have accumulated over major wars. The war has lasted this long because the Russians had no intention of winning an all out war, but were focused on a limited war contained to the Donbas region.
They took the time to move 100,000 Ukrainian civilians out of the Donbas region before attacking seriously.
We saw what happened in Afghanistan when the US fought a seriously limited war against the Taliban. They could not win because their own government wanted to protect Afghani civilians and get them onside. The Taliban hid amongst the civilians.
The same thing is going on in the Ukraine. If the Russians were this big, bad monster they would have bombed the crap out of Kyiv, Lvov, and every major Ukrainian city and subdued them with a war of shock and attrition. As it stands, they cleared out a lot of civilians and went after the Ukrainian army in the Donbas region. No contest, even with all the munitions on loan from the West.
Mariupol was flattened because the Azov battalion was stationed there and thought they were good enough to take on the Russian army. Now they are gone…surrendered.
All the Ukraine has left is Zelensky’s big mouth and all the hot air that emanates from him.
Sure. The war in Ukraine is not Russia’s fault at all. They are not bombing civilians, or raping, shooting them with their hands tied behind their backs or any of the many other breaches of civilized conduct that is happening right now. Idiot.
Gordon Robertson, cheerleader for dictators and thugs.
Nate, useless troll.
Have you found evidence of a bottleneck yet?
He’s a propagandist, Chic. The truth isn’t in his wheelhouse.
No doubt he will refer the question to Biden’s ‘Ministry of Truth’ in a heartbeat.
[GORDO] If the Russians were this big, bad monster they would have bombed the crap out of Kyiv, Lvov, and every major Ukrainian city and subdued them with a war of shock and attrition.
[REALITY] Russian airstrikes target Mykolaiv and Donbas regions.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/may/22/russia-ukraine-war-zelenskiy-says-only-diplomacy-can-end-war-polish-president-to-address-ukraine-parliament-in-kyiv-live
So you guys are also backing dictators and thugs?
Or just defending those cheering for dictators and thugs?
Hard to tell..
Nate says:
So you guys are also backing dictators and thugs?
Or just defending those cheering for dictators and thugs?
Hard to tell..
—————————-
Nope I wasn’t backing Biden!
Bill is unhappy with the current President, and he can publicly say it, then vote him out of office.
See the difference?
barry…”Apparently with broad access to surveillance video 4 million hours worth the video makers decided never to show any mule depositing envelopes in a ballot box more than once.
That would have been the killer blow, some actual evidence instead of one single, unnamed witness who assumes payments were made to mules…”
***
Barry the videos have nothing to do with the investigators in 2000 Mules. They are from genuine government surveillance cameras.
The cell phone tracking was done by purchasing data from companies who track cell phones for marketing purposes. They had 10 trillion bytes of data to sift through and they noticed while analyzing the data that certain cell phone carriers were visiting ballot drop boxes many times at odd hours.
They limited their analysis to cell phones of the same ID that visited at least 10 drop boxes. Based on that analysis in key states, presuming the mules deposited 10 ballots each, they calculated that alone would have given the victory to Trump.
The question is, why were drop boxes visited so many times at odd hours early in the morning?
On top of all that, they had evidence from whistleblowers that such ballot harvesting was going on. People were going door to door in poor Hispanic communities asking outright for their ballots. In some cases, they threatened the people who did not cooperate.
There is enough evidence here for the FBI to investigate at least. Hopefully they are investigating.
“presuming the mules deposited 10 ballots each”
with no evidence that is what actually happened. Every investigation into the election has said that it was done fairly.
Which investigations are those? You’ll need to remind me.
“in Georgia, Secretary of State Brad Raffenspergers office investigated one of the surveillance videos featured in the film and said it found the man was dropping off ballots for himself and his family.”
Every investigation into the election has said that it was done fairly..
in Georgia, Secretary of State Brad Raffenspergers office investigated one of the surveillance videos featured in the film and said it found the man was dropping off ballots for himself and his family.
Aw right a voter ID check!! You think maybe the sample size is a little small?
In the minds of conspiratorial thinkers, a lack of evidence is just more evidence of the conspiracy.
Thus their theories can never be disproven!
What theory Nate. Its well established that a lack of controls over ballots was the hallmark of the last election. I don’t know it that means the election was stolen. I just strongly support the public letting those in office know that we absolutely will not tolerate incompetence!
“There is enough evidence here for the FBI to investigate at least. Hopefully they are investigating.”
There is a growing belief that all Federal law enforcement agencies are corrupt. FBI, DEA, and ATF head the list. Serious damage was done under Clinton and Obama administrations. Bush and Trump were unable to make needed repairs. I doubt any serious investigation of voting fraud will be forthcoming.
I doubt any serious investigation of voting fraud is necessary.
It won’t be done by the Justice Department. They are The Deep State. It will have to be the states. Some rogue FBI agents might do some investigations, but you can’t count on it.
What will happen is as this economy trundles on down and collapses, the people will demand investigations. There will be citizens with pitchforks in the streets demanding Biden’s impeachment.
“There is a growing belief that all Federal law enforcement agencies are corrupt.”
Could this “growing belief” be among people who will never disbelieve that the 2020 US election was stolen?
When inconvenient information coms along, just cast the conspiracy net ever wider.
It wasn’t enough that pro-Trump supporters instigated a massive recount of the Arizona vote and found more votes for Biden.
Nope, that had to be called into question, too.
And on and on and on. Whenever the information counters the narrative, keep finding excuses.
And the proved information has always countered the stolen vote narrative, while allegations to the contrary are never proven. Over and over and over.
That should be a strong indicator for any rational person.
An example of one in an election is a strong indicator? Wow! You are easily persuaded.
barry says:
No, Bill. Not an example of one.
60+ law cases dismissed for lack of merit, or tried and found unsubstantiated.
————————–
How many were tried?
I had heard that most were dismissed for lack of standing. . . .which has nothing to do with merit or substantiation. It means you have no legal claim, are not a citizen of a state or a directly harmed individual.
I am not one that thinks sufficient evidence exists to determine if or if not an election was wrongly decided. And thats what I worry about. Guard rails need to be in place. The push for no voter ID is a push to teardown existing guard rails. Why would anybody want to do that? I can understand why the Democrats being the party of worry warts and authoritarians would want no guard rails erected around anonymous voting for more than one reason.
No, Bill. Not an example of one.
60+ law cases – dismissed for lack of merit, or tried and found unsubstantiated.
More than 60 lawsuits challenging the election results in various ways. Half of these were presided over by Republican appointed judges. Some of them were heard by Trump appointed judges.
Numerous recounts, and particularly in the close states of Pennsylvania, Georgie, Arizona etc – verified the result.
Auditing of ballot machines and ballot papers – no fraud, no widespread errors.
The Trump-appointed US attorney-general verified free and fair elections.
Several government bodies with expertise confirmed a fair election after investigation.
There are many more examples of trials and investigations that debunked claims of fraud, or simply verified the results.
Not just one.
Th other side is littered with failed accusations, claims, and bizarre conspiracy theories, even invoking the deceased Hugo Chavez.
The story is really very simple, but also quite shocking.
Trump complained that the election would be rigged in 2016. He won.
He simply pulled the same stunt in 2020. Well before the election happened he was claiming it would be fraudulent, over and over.
He was asked if he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he lost. He never answered the question. Losing is not an option for him, and he will do and say nearly anything – truth be damned – to wrest a victory.
His followers took up his false claims with gusto. Thy simply believed him.
He is on phone record, recorded, trying to get secretaries of state to produce votes out of thin air, or to send ‘alternate’ groups of electors.
Trump was willing to lie and cheat to win the election, and his followers threw themselves into the task of coming up with anything at all to prove what he had claimed with no proof.
They bought the big lie, and set about shoring it up for him. Gossip was treated by them as fact. There was no rigour whatsoever. I’ve seen a few of the court submissions. They are embarrassingly thin.
The irony is that Trump was the king of the election fraudsters, fabricating claims of fraud out of whole cloth, and trying to get high-level Republicans in the battleground states to jimmy the system on his behalf.
They refused, thank God, or I’d give the US no hope at all.
“The question is, why were drop boxes visited so many times at odd hours early in the morning?”
This is far from established in the film. Cell phone GPS tracking isn’t guaranteed to ne any better than 100 feet, for one. We don’t know if they actually went up to the drop boxes, assuming this information on travel routs is correct in the first place.
As for who might do this – election workers, delivery people, taxis etc.
Election boxes are put where traffic is higher, right? With trillions of bytes of data from who knows how many cell phones – a million? more? – they are going to find some people that even by chance went by a bunch of postal boxes.
Th Republican led Georgia election authority has already subpoenaed the information from True the Vote (because thy wouldn’t share the evidence for some reason) and were able to identify some of the ‘mules’, and discovered that thy were posting multiple votes legitimately.
The film is full of speculation, but no direct evidence. Even True the Vote and the film makers say they don’t have direct evidence.
How would it be if there WAS box-stuffing and it was done by Republicans? There have already been convictions against Republican voters for fraud in the 2020 Federal election. And even som Republican elction officials broke the law.
barry says:
Cell phone GPS tracking isnt guaranteed to ne any better than 100 feet, for one.
————————-
I seriously doubt anybody is warranting cellphone gps. Cellphone GPS mean accuracy is about 16ft.
Cellphone GPS mean accuracy is a lot worse than that. I know, I was responsible for collecting just that data. You get a lot of pseudo accuracy by using an underlying map with constrictions to be just on a road/path. Can often show you are on a different street!
Bullshit! Inaccuracy is just lousy data collection to plot stuff on maps. The math used in these plotters is spot on. The accuracy is only affected by atmospheric conditions in a minor way.
The guy plotting the road on a map is most likely the problem when you think the GPS is telling you that you are on a different road. There also is the issue of battery life so if you are travelling 70mph the time between between samples can let you get off track too for a short period of time.
I have taught navigation as a amateur volunteer rest assured its human error virtually everytime. Of course the satellites drift so over time the program that plots your position on the map gets a little out of date, an issue a professional stays up to date on and keeps his plotter up to date. A good navigator can handle all those anomalies by staying on top of his game.
It is believed that the precision artillery being used in Ukraine is a combination of laser guided weapons (target must be in line of sight of operator so he can illuminate the target) and satellite based observation and GPS systems where it not required to have an observer in the line of sight but that tech is still classified.
“After decades of catastrophic man-made global warming, Earths temperature is right at the 1979-2000 mean, and Arctic sea ice extent is just below the 1981-2010 median”.
https://realclimatescience.com/2022/05/time-to-end-the-denial/
“The average maximum temperature in the US so far this year has been well below average.”
“The average minimum temperature has been close to record cold.”
“The percent of days above 60F has been close to a record low.”
“The percent of nights below 20F has been second highest on record.”
“Well below average temperatures forecast for the rest of the month.”
Yes.
Except for Antarctica the USA has the coldest anomalies on the planet.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2022/05/giss-april-global-temperature-down-by.html
So Climate Reanalyzer is not about climate. Must remember that. /sarc
Wrong place. Sorry.
So Very Cold:
https://imgur.com/a/pcAlUnc
Agreed.
https://imgur.com/a/oPyGoB4
SO VERY COLD
https://imgur.com/a/dXenwuu
It was 28C here yesterday, dummy.
So you resort to weather.
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2022-05-21.gif
In the beautiful mind of Richard, North America is climate, but the East Coast is weather.
So Climate Reanalyzer is not about climate. Must remember that. /sarc
Teh Goddard is all about Climateball, Richard.
And so are you.
You are all about being an idiot. And it shows.
https://imgur.com/a/OtKFP1C
For the past six years I have been concerned about global warming. As an engineer, I could not accept that such a small proportion of the atmosphere (CO2 0.04 %) of greenhouse gas should have the enormous importance for the climate attributed to it.
This finding, namely that carbon dioxide is in too small a quantity so as not to cause any effect on the climate, has been concluded by thousands of thinking scientists, but also non-scientists.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Of course, it doesn’t.
Christos Vournas
I think maybe your engineering mind can’t understand the scientific thought process. You see no effect from what you deem as small quantities. You claim such small quantity has no cause on climate.
That is a very odd conclusion. How different would the climate be with no plants. The “small” quantity of CO2 in the air is responsible for the entire mass of plant product on the Earth.
Where you guys come up with these ideas is incredible. I guess engineering is different from science as you need to provide evidence for ideas and claims.
Here you can try it yourself.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
In this model put use Standard Atmosphere. Click looking up and put 0 for the altitude. Set the CO2 to 0 and look at the result.
You should get the value 237.886 W/m2.
Now use the same model and put 400 in the CO2 box and you will get 269.004 W/m2.
The difference is 31 W/m^2. That is not an insignificant amount. It is about 10% of the GHE that keeps the planet warm.
What kind of engineering are you involved in?
Norman,
You’re odd. Christos isn’t odd.
Not an insignificant amount? It is 0.0031W/cm^2 or 0.02W/in^2. That is insignificant. It is 1250 times less than the source of an FTIR machine which isn’t very much.
16 times less than an LED Christmas bulb. This assumes an LED Christmas bulb is a square cm. It isn’t.
stephen p anderson
Of all the skeptic posters you are the most disappointing. The others just post opinions and nonsense. Your claim is that you have taken advanced science and yet you still post what you did?
The difference is enough to change the global temperture by 6C which would be the difference between an ice age or our current state. I wish you could think in a scientific way but I think you are far more a useless political hack than anything resembling a scientific mind. Really sad how the right-wing destroys thinking ability and replaces it with blind emotional reaction.
I had thought you to be more intelligent than the others. I am sad I was wrong.
You no longer a thinking human just another number in a big political chess match. You on the Right, others on the Left. Zero intelligence and no thought. Only desire of either tribe is a false sense that they are the “Good Guys” and have all the answers and the other guys are bad and dumb. Sad to the max.
We all know Clint R is an opinionated idiot. You seem to be an idiot right-wing nut that lost the ability to think and now believes any BS conspiracy theory that someone makes up as long as they are from the right-wing mentality.
But it isn’t enough to change the global temperature by 6C. CO2 follows temperature. It always has.
It never rains in California, but stephen don’t they warn ya, it pours man it pours.
Yeah CO2 follows temperature except when it leads and your data source is only for the poles.
CO2 lags temperature in both short and long time scales.
You have CO2 absorbing 15u IR all over the place and CO2 leading temperature. That’s only in your fairy tale world.
Except when it doesn’t. Do you know how stupid that sounds? FF CO2 is different than natural CO2. Is that what you’re saying?
stephen p anderson
I am not sure you can conclude either CO2 drives temperature or temperature drives CO2. It is possible they have effects on each other. But I do not think there is a clear enough evidence to form either conclusion as an absolute.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Carbon-dioxide-ppm-levels-and-temperature-C-for-the-past-400-kY_fig2_345243698
The two variables seem coupled but that is about all you can reasonably concluded by the available evidence.
I was just pointing out that sometimes CO2 increases before temperature increases, as evidenced in the geologic record.
Some people just study more before jumping to conclusions.
Pointing out that this is not true.
“CO2 follows temperature. It always has.”
No, it doesn’t always follow.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Then why are we warming?
The climate system is warming by 10^22 Joules/year, mostly as increasing ocean heat content.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ocean-heat/
Where is the extra heat coming from and what mechanism is causing it to accumulate?
“The climate system is warming by 10^22 Joules/year”
So the Sun is apparently warming up the very cold ocean that comes from below and sea ice. How far does that have to go before it gets back to ‘normal’?
” How far does that have to go before it gets back to normal?”
What is normal?
What global temperature is normal?
How much heat do you need to add to the ocean heat content to reach normal?
And how do you know?
You could also just observe that the cold water, deposited a long time ago, is absorbing the heat.
The cold water is absorbing heat because it is one of the two most effective heat sinks in the planet.
The real problem is that heat is entering the climate system to be absorbed.
After 10,000 years of relative stability the planet is absorbing heat faster than it loses it, at a time when naturally it should be cooling.
Ent rambles: “After 10,000 years of relative stability the planet is absorbing heat faster than it loses it, at a time when naturally it should be cooling.”
Ent, you don’t know if thet is true. There’s no way of knowing what temperatures were “10,000 years” ago. And you don’t know if Earth should “naturally be cooling”.
You’re must making stuff up again, like your “passenger jets flying backwards”. Prefer your cult beliefs over science and reality.
Science teacher his whole life and knows nothing about it.
“Ent, you dont know if thet is true. Theres no way of knowing what temperatures were 10,000 years ago. ”
We have good clue, the Sahara desert was green with humans living where they living, and fishing was a thing. And lot of different animals.
We also know the arctic wetter and warmer. Or Earth’s largest forest was larger.
“heat is entering the climate system to be absorbed”
by cold water that was created decades or even centuries ago.
According to the ice cores CO2 and temperature have been stabile for the last 10,000 years.
Is that long enough to stabilise the ocean heat content, or do you think that the ocean still warming from the last glacial period?
How long ago do you think that the cold water than is now being warmed was created? Now for 3 years. Do you not think that this might all be part of a much longer natural sequence?
The Holocene sea level shows a sigmoid curve. That is the signature of a pro was which has gone to completion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Holocene_sea_level_rise#/media/File%3APost-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
From that we can infer that the changes which forced the sea level rise stabilised when the sea level stabilised when sea level stabilised 6000 years ago.
That is how long ocean heat content has been in equilibrium.
I asked about the ocean heating cycle, not the sea level one. How long dopes it take for the ice cold brine to get from the deeps at the poles to the surface at the equator?
….How long does it take….
Ent, you keep using that “10^22 Joules/yr” figure like it means something. I’ve explained to you before that the Greenland ice sheet emits that magnitude of energy, all by itself — 1.48 !0^22 Joules/yr.
You don’t even know if your figure is correct. You’re just trying to find things to scare yourself.
Boo!
Goddard aka Heller should also show what is interesting to see, namely how 2012 looked like during its growing phase, compared with this year:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
In 2012, we were at the end of the previous ‘superdeveloping’ la Nina. Will this one really enter a third year? We’ll see…
*
Interesting as well that such people don’t show you how the Antarctic sea ice behaves at the same time
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
Maybe because you then see that
– 2012 was during the whole year above the 1981-2010 mean
and moreover that
– last year, the sea ice extent there was way higher than this year, and for long time above the aforementioned mean as well.
*
Now, to show us how cold it is currently in the US: that is really nothing new.
But… the US aren’t more than 6 % of the land surfaces.
Maybe Goddard shows one day how it looks like in Europe? Or in Siberia?
But that would not perfectly fit his narrative, would it? So what!
Sorted out who John Tukey was and why he is important?
Still stalking, bad elementary school teacher?
Did you finally manage to really, technically contradict what I did, instead of endlessly dodging, and telling one day that the median is better, than that we should forget it, then that we should consider it again?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EL4wGgk7iIVc9QCu2fwjwcieeXj-691V/view
I hope you understand why the US Meteostat averages are higher than those obtained from USCRN data.
As John Tukey showed, the median along with the other quartiles are very important for non-normal i.e. skewed, bimodal distributions. Dispute that if you dare.
US Meteostat is less accurate than USCRN, station for station.
> Dispute that if you dare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skew_normal_distribution
Global air temperatures are NOT a normal distribution. They are a skewed, bimodal distribution.
Willard: “The mean and standard deviation are used to summarize data with a Gaussian {normal} distribution, but may not be meaningful, or could even be misleading, if your data sample has a non-Gaussian distribution
It is sometimes called the Tukey 5-number summary because it was recommended by John Tukey. It can be used to describe the distribution of data samples for data with any distribution.
There are skewed normal distributions, Richard, so your id est was incorrect.
You asked for a challenge. It was accepted. It has been met.
No need to rehash why you always forget that for historical data we cannot do better that max-min/2 and that compatibility trumps robustness.
“There are skewed normal distributions”
They are just not global air temperatures.
“compatibility trumps robustness”
No. Consistency trumps everything. So use just min and max right up to today.
RLH says: Global air temperatures are NOT a normal distribution. They are a skewed, bimodal distribution.
Station temperature anomalies are (still) not bimodal.
uscrnUtqiagvikAnomalyByFFT0.png
Absolutes are
https://i.stack.imgur.com/uBnmt.png
Anomalies first remove that bimodal signature, as you note, which is the majority of the data. So Anomalies are derivatives, not originals. All things that contain a sinusoid like pattern are, by definition, bimodal.
Here is the absolute data for Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow)
https://imgur.com/a/cqZlou8
To speak here of bimodal, skewed data in our discussion context is either incompetent, or dishonest, or both.
Hourly data averages are typical examples for a simple, trivial value distribution.
How really skewed data does look like you see in this document:
http://media.news.health.ufl.edu/misc/bolt/Intro/PHC6050-6052/Unit1/0105-Transcript-Describing-Distributions.pdf
For skewed distributions (like for example, the income in a country), it is clear that the median is the best choice.
*
Slowly but surely, I get sad with your arrogant trials to discredit things your were yourself until now absolutely unable to reproduce.
Generate three time series for (Tmin+Tmax)/2, median and 24h average, like I did
– for USCRN
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BhgrAn-eVrX9JZUhr_y4ceVWAKsXtqml/view
– for Meteostat US
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bruTDZUy96CneiLTkELUofJASpl74RUB/view
and come back here when you have all the stuff.
*
” Your graph for median seems a bit off (it seems too low). ”
WOW. Aha.
Maybe you compare it with the time series… those you were unable to generate until now.
Your poor, simple average of USCRN data is, in comparison with what I did, simply ridiculous.
YOU are the one who should do the same work as I did, not the inverse.
Until you finally manage to technically contradict me, you keep what you are, Linsley-Hood: an arrogant boaster who changes his mind each time he sees he was wrong with his last one.
“To speak here of bimodal, skewed data in our discussion context is either incompetent, or dishonest, or both”
So https://i.stack.imgur.com/uBnmt.png is not correct?
And https://imgur.com/a/cqZlou8 is not correct either.
You know better, it seems, than Abraham Savitzky, Marcel Golay, John Tukey and Vaughan Pratt. It used to be just USCRN, you are obviously improving.
Try these also
https://imgur.com/a/XedaQqx
Do you want more? I have 138 of them.
Still no skewed data, neither for single USCRN stations nor for the average of all of them:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFosZhWOev-Xv4DyHx0j5C3XSOffWizw/view
*
” You know better, it seems, than Abraham Savitzky, Marcel Golay, John Tukey and Vaughan Pratt. ”
Your woeful trial to let me appear as a person doubting about the scientific qualification of such highly qualified persons shows us here how disgusting you behave, Linsley-Hood.
*
But… why is Vaughan Pratt in the list?
It seems that you do not exactly understand what was the central point in his dissertation supervised by Donald Knuth…
*
I can only repeat what I wrote above:
Who is unable to scientifically contradict soon starts to politically discredit.
Of that you are the perfect example.
Lacking the ability to generate absolute (let alone anomaly-based), area and latitude weighted time series out of USCRN, METEOSTAT or any other source, you have only the possibility to keep polemic.
I can live with that.
> Consistency trumps everything. So use just min and max right up to today.
That’s not what compatibility means, dummy. When people study historical data, they indeed try to compare apples to apples. There’s only one guy who’s frustrated with this predicament. You.
> That’s not what compatibility
Erratum – that’s *exactly* what compatibility means.
Unless you address MarkB’s points, Richard, you’ll remain a patzer.
“single USCRN stations”
The graphs I gave were for single USCRN stations and they were skewed, bimodal, absolute temperatures. Idiot.
“why is Vaughan Pratt in the list”
Because he created the CTRM values that I use.
“When people study historical data, they indeed try to compare apples to apples”
So compare min with min and max with max. Not middle which means (pun) nothing statistical at all.
> Not middle which means (pun) nothing statistical at all.
Midrange is a statistical concept, dear Richard:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2235891
Tis just a flesh wound.
“Midrange is a statistical concept”
Name me anyone who uses it to analyze distributions.
Has your uncle never mentioned the word “midrange” to you, Richard?
Yes he did. But he did not use it to describe distributions.
I wonder why 5 figure summaries are not 6 figure ones with middle being part of them. Idiot.
Acoustics deals with distributions all the time, and finding the midrange can be useful:
https://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.2000750
I suppose one could even use the midrange of the midrange, just like Tukey spoke of the median of the median.
Willard: You do realize that if you already have the min and the max then the middle is redundant information?
Willard: You do also realize that from min and max you can get the middle but the reverse is not true. So in fact by using the middle only you are actually reducing the information present.
P.S. Your graph for median seems a bit off (it seems to low). Do the other quartiles as I suggested via a box plot and see if you are indeed correct.
….it seems too low….
Bindidon, FYI, the U.S. Lower 48 covers only a small fraction of the total area of the Earth, 3,536,342 sq miles out of 196,935,000 sq miles, or 1.79% of the total. The Arctic Ocean is about 5,440,000 sq miles, or about half again the size of the entire U.S. Lower 48.
Thanks a lot, but I know that.
” But the US arent more than 6 % of the land surfaces. ”
I was comparing land with land.
OK, But the high latitude NH land areas appear to be warming faster than the ocean areas, which makes your comparison with sea-ice data a bit off base.
” But the high latitude NH land areas appear to be warming faster than the ocean areas ”
This is absolutely correct.
But… what role do both play in the global average?
I’m sure you know that to compute global averages, we have to perform latitude weighting over all latitude bands, by computing the sum of the weighted latitudes divided by the sum of the weighting factors.
Thus, discussing about the Arctic alone without looking at its real influence on the global average after weighting is, I think, not the right way.
Actually we have to weight things by the number of items per unit area which if we are dealing with, say, 2.5 degree latitude cells then that requires latitude weighting.
If instead we have many more items in a particular latitude band then that requires first to be reduced to 2.5 degree cells before weighting is then applied.
If we have no items in a particular cell then we need to make things up.
Richard,
> If we have no items in a particular cell then we need to make things up.
If you don’t explicitly interpolate missing values, then you’re implicitly assigning the global mean to those missing cells.
Guess which method is more accurate.
Guess how far apart these 2 USCRN stations are
https://imgur.com/a/XedaQqx
An example comparison between USCRN paired sites and their Siting Effects.
Paired site, Sep(km), Elev(m), Tmax(C), Tmin(C)
Kingston, 1.5, 4.8, 0.07±0.02, -0.48±0.01
Stillwater, 2.5, 0.3, -0.28±0.01, -0.85±0.03
Durham, 7.2, 17.4, 0.16±0.01, -0.37±0.02
Asheville, 10.0, 30.0, -0.18±0.02, 1.12±0.03
Newton, 13.7, 1.2, 0.15±0.02, 0.72±0.03
Wolf Point, 21.7, 169.8, 1.63±0.04, -2.78±0.11
Lincoln, 29.9, 63.0, 0.47±0.03, -0.64±0.04
Any interpolation at 2.5 degrees needs to take into account at least that spread and uncertainty over the much longer distances required.
Just down the block, Richard. Try a better cherry orchard.
https://imgur.com/gallery/dt1e5Ig
> Paired site, Sep(km), Elev(m), Tmax(C), Tmin(C)
> […]
> Wolf Point, 21.7, 169.8, 1.630.04, -2.780.11
Are you srsly comparing absolute temperatures when you should be working in anomalies again, Richard?
Are you seriously claiming that abnormals do not contain normals (usually constructed over 30 years) as part of their calculation?
And that those normals will contain the bimodal portion, being the larger part of the calculation.
Any interpolation at 2.5 degrees needs to take into account at least that spread shown above and uncertainty over the much longer distances required.
Paired site, Sep(km), Elev(m), Tmax(C), Tmin(C)
Wolf Point, 21.7, 169.8, 1.63±0.04, -2.78±0.11
So that is 1.67 to -2.89 deviation over just around 20km. More that 3C!
Richard,
It is clear you simply don’t understand that anomalized temperature series reduce the uncertainty on which you’re fixated. More to my point, which you continue to ignore, is that explicit infilling reduces the uncertainty introduced by distance from grid cells containing observations.
Why that is the case should become clear if you would only think.
You obviously don’t understand that Anomalies are in fact 2 series. One, the normals series, which you subtract from the absolutes to get the second series, which is the abnormals.
The skewed, bimodal data is in the normals. The dispersion about that is the abnormals.
I am happy to concede that the abnormals are unimodal about the normals but that is hardly the point.
abnormals = anomalies in case you wondered.
“the uncertainty introduced by distance from grid cells containing observations”
without including what the data shows is at least 3C uncertainty over just a few Km.
Thanks for the “Well see” prediction
You’re welcome, Eboy, even if you aren’t able to grasp that neither you let alone I myself ever predicted anything: we both only pasted other people’s predictions.
Your people’s predictions were better than my people’s, that’s all.
You seem to have a mental problem with that.
I don’t.
Speak for yourself , you can’t predict zshit, go back to reposting temperatures from 2012
I repeat, until you Eboy dumbie understand: you never and never predicted ANYTHING.
You simply pasted the work done by others.
Can you finally grasp that? Or are you too dense?
Blinny rattles on with how he is brilliant and everybody else is either dumb or incompetent or both.
Suddenly, Bindidong never predicted nothing
https://i.postimg.cc/Bn8bBtQy/Baghdadidong.jpg
Looks like my prediction is already confirmed:
[R] Yup. I was wrong. And your predictions for next month are?
[W] Eboy will continue to troll Binny.
The only way this will not be true next month is if Eboy stops trolling Binny.
The only way that Willard will stop being an idiot is…. Never going to happen.
“Your peoples predictions were better than my peoples”
Like your stats are worse than other people’s stats.
… what of course the arrogant boaster named Linsley-Hood is absolutely unable to prove, because he is absolutely unable to generate any stat technically comparable with those I generated.
Richard just discovered Tukey, Binny.
Give him a break.
Blinny is unable to confound what Tukey said.
Willard: I have not just found Tukey. I was asked to provide evidence that median was useful.
You had more than a year now to mention John’s name, Richard. A boaster like you would have done so a long while ago. Or at least his five points statistics.
This is not a thread about you, nor about your silly quest. But since Binny was right about his claim that you have yet to prove anything, like MarkB did. And we both know you barely understand the encyclopedic entries you keep citing as if it replaced empirical work.
In a way, you’re no better than Mike Flynn.
” But since Binny was right about his claim that you have yet to prove anything, like MarkB did. ”
And we both know you barely understand the encyclopedic entries you keep citing as if it replaced empirical work. ”
Thanks Willard: that is the point here.
I think it’s definitely time for me to stop answering Linsley-Hood, even if he will endlessly continue to stalk me. “
Words of wisdom, Binny. Words of wisdom.
Make sure you also don’t mention him or his idees fixes and you should get less ankle biting from him.
Willard: Before I was observing that the median was better than a mean on skewed distributions. Now I am observing that a 5 figure summary is better than a mean and SD on skewed, bimodal distributions.
I note you don’t refute either of those claims.
You keep right on believing that you know stats. You are just an idiot.
Blinny: If you know stats as well as you say, then I look forward to your detailed refutation of the claims I made.
1. That median is better than mean on a skewed distribution.
2. A 5 figure summary is better than mean and SD on a skewed, Binomial distribution.
I know that you won’t be able to do that but will instead just claim that your graphs ‘look right’ or ‘don’t differ that much’.
….skewed bimodal distributions….
Dam autocorrect.
Not dealing with anomalies would be anomalous for a serious researcher, Richard.
For contrarian cycle nuts, it is only par for their Climateball course.
Not recognizing that normals contain the skewed, bimodal signal and trying to treat anomalies all on their own would be quite sensible for you.
Willard: I note you dont refute either of the claims above.
No need to refute what has not been supported, Richard.
I thought you were a bigger Hitchens fan than I.
1. That median is better than mean on a skewed distribution.
“The median is usually preferred to other measures of central tendency when your data set is skewed (i.e., forms a skewed distribution)”
2. A 5 figure summary is better than mean and SD on a skewed, Binomial distribution.
“The statistics in the 5 number summary are more robust than the mean and standard deviation”
“The mean and standard deviation are used to summarize data with a Gaussian distribution, but may not be meaningful, or could even be misleading, if your data sample has a non-Gaussian distribution.”
….on a skewed, bimodal distribution….
That’ll teach me to copy/paste.
binny…”Goddard aka Heller should also show what is interesting to see, namely how 2012 looked like during its growing phase, compared with this year:”
***
Goddard/Heller is an expert on quality control by means of analyzing data. At Intel, he was the go-to guy for finding errors in data related to the development of the Intel i7 processor. Again, his forte is finding problems with data that most people miss.
He has brought this expertise to analyzing climate data and he has found many problems with it. I am sure he missed nothing in 2012.
Ha. Dunno how many times Robertson has complained of an appeal to authority whenever you cite an expert.
Heller is neither an expert in the things he talks about on his climate blog, nor an authority. He has a clear agenda and truth is an ever-overlooked inconvenience.
I used to debunk his nonsense for fun. It’s gotten boring.
Well Heller is certainly not an expert on the triple point of water.
But that’s ancient interwebs history
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
The lunar polar regions may have mineable water and CO2, plus other volatiles. If lunar water can mined and be sold for about $500 per kg, then one make cheap lunar rocket fuel. Cheap lunar rocket is about $2000 per kg. Or would liquid oxygen at about $1000 per kg and Liquid Hydrogen at about $4000 per kg.
For rocket fuel one need 6 kg of LOX and 1 kg of LH2.
And from 9 kg of water, you get 8 kg of oxygen and 1 kg of hydrogen.
And if have CO2, one make Methane, and could be economic advantages to make methane from CO2 and H2, rather making liquid Hydrogen. Or require a lot energy make Liquid Hydrogen from gaseous H2.
But with LOX and LH2, 6 parts LOX at $1000 per kg is $6000 plus 1 part LH2 at $4000 is $10000 for 7 kg of rocket fuel. Or 10,000 / 7 =
$1428.57 per kg of rocket fuel.
Or what important is the cost of Oxygen- you mostly splitting water to get the Oxygen for rocket fuel.
Or it’s different reason than we split water on Earth- to get the hydrogen. Or more 1/2 the value of splitting lunar water is the oxygen made.
Now, with Earth’s oceanic Methane Clathrate, I am wondering mining the freshwater of Methane Clathrate could be adding value. Or instead just getting the Methane, one is also getting the freshwater.
Wiki:
“and 1 m^3 of methane hydrate upon dissociation yields about 164 m^3 of methane and 0.87 m^3 of freshwater.”
Or, from 1 cubic meter of “ore” you get .87 cubic meter of
freshwater.
Or ocean settlements you need freshwater, and cost money and energy to make freshwater from sea water.
With lunar water mining one digging up 1 cubic meter or about 2000 kg
of lunar material and hoping to get say, 100 kg of water, 50 kg of CO2, and/or 50 kg of other volatiles, and maybe 100 to 200 kg iron.
And be left with 1600 kg lunar material without iron and volatiles.
You want the volatiles, but you also have sorted out iron which could be used, and 1600 kg without iron, could be further processed by water mining operation or some other party making something else.
The lunar surface is generally iron poor, but pile sorted iron, is iron rich terms natural Earth iron ore.
With lunar water mining one needs to get to mining 1000 tons of water per year, in start up phase, it might be just 100 tons of water per year, and after 5 years one might doing 5000 tons of water per year, and in decades or more doing +10,000 tons of water. And in region size Oregon there could more than 1 million tons of water which is mineable. But by year 5, one might be making Lunar iron/steel.
Lunar iron might sell for $100 per kg, or $100,000 per ton.
And one probably be 3 D printing the iron or metals, though making pure silicon from 1600 kg pile that to be further sorted.
Such lunar mining will mostly operated from Earth and similar to how one mines ocean floor for Methane and freshwater, and maybe other stuff.
Moon vs Mars
The Moon is not the place for settlements/town.
The amount of useful real estate on the Moon is small,
and water is expensive. Lunar water might get as cheap as $1 per
kg- if making 100,000 tons of water per year, maybe 50 year after starting lunar water mining. And Moon doesn’t need settlements because it’s close to planet with 7 billion people living on it.
The Moon is like Hong Kong- Hong Kong was near China.
Mars is like the New World- it’s Americas, with more land area.
Where are the best area of Mars. No one knows. It could be the polar regions. Mars polar regions are only vaguely similar to Earth’s polar region, and different because Mars polar region have more solar energy than Earth’s tropics. And it might snow more in Mars polar regions. Mars snowing could be a good and useful thing.
On Earth we mine our sky. On Mars, Martians will mine there sky, but using snow, could be cheaper way to mine Mars sky.
Mars has more CO2 and more water than the Moon. One needs lots of water and CO2 to grow plants/crops.
Lunar CO2 could be worth more than $100 per kg, Mars CO2 would worth less than $1 per kg. Mars CO2 could be cheaper than Earth CO2.
But it seems to me, that Mars water must be about $1 per kg or less.
Or when starting out with a Mars town, one needs to mine more than 100,000 tons of water in a year. Probably should be closer to 1 million tons of water in a year. And selling a lot real estate, that real estate needs access to around 1 billion ton of water for the future Mars town. Or about 1 million tons per person available for decades of living. Or I think people should live near and/or in a lake on Mars.
No…it keeps the same face pointed at Earth, and since it does not rotate on its axis, it would get very hot when that face was opposite the Sun. 14 days days of daylight followed by 14 days of night.
Maybe if you lived underground like the Martians.
One could live under a lake on both Mars and Moon.
Venus L-1, always in Sun with twice as much sunlight as zenith lunar sun, seems like it would better. And you of course would have swimming pools in orbit. And pool would be in microgravity so would different earthling swimming pools. Or if put swimming pool in artificial gravity, it’s lot mass to structurally support. You could small pool, but have big one at the hub.
And just like that, Suddenly, Bindidong never predicted nothing
https://bit.ly/3MPXUyM
Thank you Eboy for showing us all once again that you think and write as if you were at best 10 years old…
Speaking of predictions , here is one I made
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-736483
Now you behave as a liar.
Again: you did not predict anything by your own, even in your ‘comment-736483’.
You simply replicated what Officials wrote.
Please stop.
Or what ???
He’ll get wery, wery cross.
I did not now that Elmer Fudd is German.
Do you spell Bindidon “sour Kraut”, or “sauerkraut”?
He seems to have all the intellectual acuity of a cabbage, and a nasty disposition to go with it.
Bitter, just like his namesake.
GR: That would be vewy vewy cross.
Dutch Parliament is doing a screening of 2000mules and discussing worldwide implications of election fraud.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ap-facts-donald-trump-georgia-united-states-b2070955.html
“FACT FOCUS: Gaping holes in the claim of 2K ballot ‘mules'”
LOL. Did you even register and read the article? You link an article that has an incorrect fact in the headline. It debuted in over 400 theaters, not 280. You know immediately it is nothing but propaganda. It is very important for you that this documentary is wrong. It MUST be wrong.
And for you you it must be ‘correct’. Even if it has a stupid distorted map of Moscow, Russia saying it was in the USA.
Moscow, Moscow, Moscow, Moscow…… Do you just repeat the leftist talking points?
Are you saying that map is not of Moscow, Russia?
I don’t know. I haven’t looked at it, but it wasn’t used as evidence. It was just some film editor slapping a photo into the film. Dinesh probably should have been more careful, but the objective evidence is the actual geotracking data and the videos.
He wasn’t trying to depict Gwinnett County. The film editor probably thought it looked good with all the little red dots grouped. But, I don’t concede it is Moscow. I don’t know.
“He wasnt trying to depict Gwinnett County”
The film says he was and others found that one of the maps used to identify ballot boxes was in fact Moscow, Russia, but reversed in order to hide that fact.
“If we zoom in on the map, though, something seems off. The drop-box site shown in the overlaid photo is one that elsewhere in the movie is described as being in Gwinnett County. But the accompanying map depicts a river running through the city, which doesn’t exist in Atlanta. So what’s this showing?
A group of Internet sleuths tracked it down. Simply flip the image
and it becomes clear. That’s not Atlanta; its a stock photo of a different capital.
Moscow.” Russia.
“A film debuting in over 270 theaters across the United States this week uses a flawed analysis of cellphone location data and ballot drop box surveillance footage to cast doubt on the results of the 2020 presidential election nearly 18 months after it ended”
“based on faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts and improper analysis of cellphone location data, which is not precise enough to confirm that somebody deposited a ballot into a drop box.”
“in Georgia, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office investigated one of the surveillance videos featured in the film and said it found the man was dropping off ballots for himself and his family.”
Of course, since there’s no way of proving the mule in Georgia was dropping off votes for his family, we have to take his word for it.
However, maybe he could explain why he was wearing rubber gloves and taking photos of his drop. And why he visited several other drop boxes the same night.
RLH,
That’s a very odd in Georgia. Echoing what Gordo said, when does an investigator take someone’s word unless there is corroboration. Do you know what corroboration he had from the citizen in question? And, like Gordo said, why did he visit so many drop boxes? Were the other ones full?
Well Secretary of State Brad Raffenspergers office was prepared to accept that what he said was true and he is a Republican.
He’s a Bush Republican.
“Raffensperger rose to national attention in the aftermath of the November 2020 U.S. presidential election. President Donald Trump lost the election, and lost Georgia, to challenger Joe Biden. After his loss, Trump refused to accept defeat and made false claims of fraud. Trump launched a protracted campaign to overturn the election results and keep himself in power, but was ultimately unsuccessful. As part of this campaign, Trump made a recorded phone call on January 2, 2021, in which he attempted to persuade Raffensperger to change the vote count in Georgia in Trump’s favor. He resisted pressure from Trump, and claimed that the outgoing president’s claims were based on falsehoods.”
Richard believes any authority figure that suits him. Thinking for himself is foreign to Richard.
C’mon, Gordo –
I have yet to see one conspiracy you did not fall for.
Next you’re gonna tell us you’re convinced that Dinesh helped solved a murder by contacting authorities two months after they made arrests.
C!mon Willard –
I have yet to see the Greenhouse Theory you claim you have.
Next thing you’re gonna tell us that you really do have a Greenhouse Theory, but you won’t let anybody see it without them complying with your “conditions”, or doing a “deal”.
Just another idiotic liar, aren’t you, Willard?
No Greenhouse Theory, just lame attempts to insult, annoy or upset people. You can’t even do that, can you? Nobody takes much notice of the opinions of a liar, do they?
Carry on anyway.
Not sure about you, little sock puppet, but Mike Flynn quoted from a book where there’s such a Greenhouse Theory.
In this very thread.
Where were you, little sock puppet?
C’mon Willard,
You just continue with your idiotic lie that you have a Greenhouse Theory, don’t you?
That’s why you are reduced to idiotic lies about a “book” where there is a “Greenhouse Theory”. Don’t be silly, Willard. There is no “Greenhouse Theory”, and you are too stupid or ignorant to realise it.
You can’t actually produce a Greenhouse Theory? Why am I not surprised? Maybe some other retarded climate cultists will believe you – some of them will believe anything, by the look of it.
Off you go now – try and sound convincing.
Please keep playing dumb, Mike.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Still pretending you have a Greenhouse Theory, or are you reduced to claiming someone else has one?
Sounds like the actions of an idiotic liar to me, but severely regarded cultists may believe you have a Greenhouse Theory that you are keeping secret from unbelievers!
Maybe you could keep saying “Please keep playing dumb, Mike.”, which doesn’t make a lot of sense, considering that you have previously called “Mike” a “sock puppet”!
Are all the objects of your paranoid persecution complex “sock puppets”? Who is the mastermind controlling the army of “sock puppets” making you look stupid?
C’mon, Willard, your fantasies are not facts. If you imagine that people are calling you a lying idiot, it’s because they are. Because you are an idiot who keeps lying!
No Greenhouse Theory. No Greenhouse Effect.
Carry on.
Kindly keep playing dumb, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
GR is just an idiot.
entropic…”Where is the extra heat coming from and what mechanism is causing it to accumulate?”
***
Who said it’s extra heat? NASA GISS??? The Mother of All Climate Alarmists???
Once again, we had 400+ years of cooling that ended circa 1850. The planet has been re-warming and according to geophysicist, Syun Akasofu, the re-warming should occur at about 0.5C/century. We don’t know the extent of the cooling during the Little Ice Age.
There is a lot of cooled ocean to rewarm at what, 250 W/m^2? There are huge glaciers to melt, Antarctic ice caps, and Arctic ice to melt. Not easy when each year the ice re-appears due to a lack of solar input several months of the year.
The coming blackouts. Do NOT say you were not warned
https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/05/21/the-coming-blackouts-do-not-say-you-were-not-warned-n471055
–For regular readers of this site, todays news will likely not come as a surprise, but much of the nation seems to remain unaware of it. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) has released its latest reliability assessment for the summer of 2022 and, to put it mildly, the news is not good. In far too many states, the power grid is already nearly at full capacity, and in the next few months, that capacity will be exceeded. This isnt a question of if or really even when. —
…
–NERC, a regulating authority that oversees the health of the nations electrical infrastructure, says in its 2022 Summer Reliability Assessment that extreme temperatures and ongoing drought could cause the power grid to buckle. High temperatures, the agency warns, will cause the demand for electricity to rise. Meanwhile, drought conditions will lower the amount of power available to meet that demand.–
Makes wonder about reservoir level.
Yeah, they are lower:
https://cdec.water.ca.gov/resapp/RescondMain
“As we discussed last week, this wont just impact California and Texas. A minimum of 14 states will be hit by this in a rolling sequence. As water levels fall, you eventually reach the point where your ability to produce hydroelectric electricity from dams diminishes. Meanwhile, there are 40 coal-fired power plants scheduled to be taken offline in the name of fighting climate change. No replacement sources for all of that juice have been proposed, to say nothing of having them come online.”
Well it’s all quite stupid, considering we live in an Ice Age.
Anyhow, I will not using my air conditioner, at least according 10 day weather forecasts. But don’t want to run out water, because the Governor is an idiot.
norman…”Christos Vournas
I think maybe your engineering mind cant understand the scientific thought process. You see no effect from what you deem as small quantities. You claim such small quantity has no cause on climate”.
***
That’s the way we learn to think in engineering, Norman, scientifically. Here’s an example. As Lady Godiva rode through Coventry naked, it was an engineer who noticed she rode a horse. Everyone else missed that important scientific point.
It’s even captured in poesy.
Godiva was a lady
Who through Coventry did ride,
To show the local villagers,
Her lovely bare, white hide,
The most observant fellow there,
An engineer of course,
Was the only one who noticed,
That Godiva rode a horse.
You see, Norman, we learn to observe scientifically in engineering. If we don’t, buildings and bridges will fall, power stations will blow up, dams will fail, and so on.
To an engineering mind, the idea that 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere could warm it catastrophically seems not right, somehow. So, we investigate objectively.
Any gas in any container must have a relationship between its pressure, its volume, its temperature, and the number of molecules of the gases making up the gas. That is summarized in the Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT.
It’s not an exact exercise applying the IGL to the atmosphere because the atmosphere is dynamic and under the influence of gravity. The atmospheric gases are not in a container but the effect of gravity produces the same effect. Still, we can get a ballpark idea of how the gas should react in a dynamic environment by stopping all dynamic activity and seeing what would happen in static conditions.
That’s a standard practice in engineering, to freeze a moving system and observe it during an instant.
The first thing we can observe is that the atmosphere is a constant volume. The next thing is it has essentially a constant number of molecules. Then we might observe that it has a pressure gradient, stronger at the surface and weakening with altitude. We can get around the latter, and possible the dynamic issue, by breaking the atmosphere into layers thin enough where they are insignificant.
It’s called an ‘ideal’ gas law because it applies to an ideal gas. However, the R value can be adjusted for different real gases. With mixed gases, we need to compensate the R value, but it’s doable with some complex analysis. In fact, it’s all doable, to get an approximate effect of a trace gas as part of a larger gas mix.
With V, n and R as constant, that reduces our problem to the relationship between pressure and temperature. But wait, we have at least 5 gases in the mix.
Dalton to the rescue. His law about partial pressures is part of the IGL. Dalton said that the total pressure of a gas mix is the sum of it’s constituent gas pressures.
We have just established that temperature is directly proportional to pressure, therefore if Dalton’s law holds for partial pressures, why should the temperatures of those partial pressures not be directly proportional to the partial pressures.
No reason. Furthermore, partial pressure is directly related to partial mass, or mass percent. Therefore the temperature of each partial gas should be proportional to its mass percent. Since the mass percent is 0.04% roughly and nitrogen/oxygen is about 99%, it’s blatantly obvious that N2/O2 produces 99% of atmospheric heat while CO2 is capable of no more than 0.04% of the heat.
Of course, I have omitted WV but it amounts to about the same as CO2, an insignificant amount of heat.
Also, roughly 1/2 atmosphere is below 5 km, if imagine CO2 higher than 5 km is doing warming it’s smaller fraction of whole atmosphere.
I would guess most warming effect of CO2 is mostly in first 1 km elevation.
I would think Ozone layer is different beast, but cargo cult calls it a greenhouse gas. And also might clouds, greenhouse gases.
Anyhow I think Ozone is bigger factor of doubling CO2 levels.
But also none these warming effect increase daytime high temperatures, and drier air will make hotter daytime air temperature- or lack of most significant greenhouse gas causing higher daytime temperatures.
> To an engineering mind, the idea that 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere could warm it catastrophically seems not right, somehow.
An actual engineer might realize that 99% of the atmosphere isn’t active in the thermal IR spectrum, Gordo. A diligent one might even look into why water vapor at about 1% of the atmosphere only accounts for half of the greenhouse effect while CO2 at 400 ppm punches well above its weight at 20%.
B,
CO2 warms nothing at all. Blathering about “thermal IR” just makes you look like the ignorant nitwit you are.
For your information, all matter above absolute zero both emits and absorbs infrared radiation.
People who carry on about certain matter only absorbing and emitting certain wavelengths are simply ignorant, confused or purposely misleading. Spectroscopy and excitation are irrelevant, and won’t help you at all.
Displacing air from a sealed container, and replacing it with CO2 changes the temperature not at all. You may twitter all you like about greenhouses, blocking, overcoats or crowds of people, but it doesn’t change a single physical law involved.
You might as well go and play with Willard the Wanker, or just play with yourself if the find Witless Wee Willy too odious.
Off you go now.
It’s almost like you don’t understand that there are differences in emission spectra, Mike. What a doofus.
B,
Yes, you are definitely confused. You are confused enough to believe that saying “emission spectra” makes you sound scientific.
Go on, tell me you can determine whether a dark room is filled with CO2, air, or hydrogen cyanide vapour, by reading the “emission spectra”.
You idiot.
For years astronomers have been determining composition of stars by their emission spectrum, Mike. Your dedication to ignorance beggars belief.
Swenson,
I would need to shine a light through your dark room, but yes, that’s one of the things analytical chemists do, shine light through things to determine what they are.
brandon…”An actual engineer might realize that 99% of the atmosphere isnt active in the thermal IR spectrum…”
***
Let me tell you what an engineer thinks. The 99% that is N2/O2 picks up heat directly from the surface and transports it high into the atmosphere. At terrestrial temperatures, heat transfer by radiation is inefficient and insignificant. Not only that, because N2/O2 are poor radiators of IR, the N2/O2 retains the heat for a significant period of time. That’s your so-called greenhouse effect.
Furthermore, as the N2/O2 transports heat from the surface, that heat dissipates naturally as the air rises and expands. As the pressure reduces with altitude, the heat simply disappears.
The notion that radiation is a significant means of surface heat dissipation is naive. It ignores the more complex science that Christos has been trying to reveal. The Earth’s rotational speed has a lot to do with the current global average. The Sun has taken a long time to raise the global average and now that it has reached an optimal level, all that is required is maintenance solar radiation.
It is simply not required that heat in = heat out and radiative dissipation is a minor player.
> The 99% that is N2/O2 picks up heat directly from the surface and transports it high into the atmosphere.
That much is true, Gordo. But since those diatomic gasses are relatively poor emitters of thermal IR, it is difficult to fathom how “heat dissipates naturally”, as you so specifically put it, once it gets there. That job overwhelmingly falls to species which are relatively more efficient at radiating to space, i.e. GHGs.
Had there been no GHGs near the surface in the first place, the atmosphere would not have needed to do all that work. And last I checked, convection moves much more slowly than the speed of light.
> The notion that radiation is a significant means of surface heat dissipation is naive.
You have a funny definition of insignificant. Outbound surface radiation is 400 w/m2 on average, compared to 20 for convection and 80 for evaporation.
> It is simply not required that heat in = heat out
It is for a steady state to remain steady. You even allude to this in your hilarious statement about “optimal” levels of radiative solar input.
I wouldn’t ride a bicycle you had a hand in engineering.
Gordon Robertson
What it seems to me that you are saying is the atmosphere temperature is sustained by N2 and O2. I think most agree with that point. That is not the issue here. What is discussed is not atmosphere but Earth surface. The CO2 has enough molecules in vertical column to absorb the IR emitted by the Earth surface.
The CO2 is not warming the atmosphere as Clint R points out. One these points I agree. GHG will absorb energy but they will also emit it.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/77/2/jas-d-18-0347.1.xml
I do not think the warming in itself is catastrophic. A few degrees C. The concern is how this affects ecosystems and weather patterns.
So far I think a lot of the “catastrophic” claims are not science but agenda driven to illicit a behavior to achieve some result.
I keep the mind open but nearly all bad weather events are claimed to be because of “climate change” or global warming. Not so much goes into a detailed analysis of why this is true but it is said so often by so many media outlets that no one really brings up questions but skeptics. Some knowledgeable like Cliff Mass.
I am skeptical of the claims that all the bad weather is climate change. Many media outlets were making the connection with the bad Kentucky Tornado.
> I keep the mind open but
Exactly, Norma.
More unfathomable nonsense from an idiotic liar who claims to have a Greenhouse Theory, but hasn’t.
Who would give his nonsense credence?
Someone even more retarded than a lying idiot, I suppose.
Please keep supposing, silly sock puppet.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Still can’t find the Greenhouse Theory that you claim to have?
That would make you a liar, and an idiot for supposing that anyone except retarded cultists is likely to believe you.
You could try trolling, but you would have to learn how to annoy, upset, or offend people. That might be a bit beyond you, I suppose.
Try if you wish.
Ask Mike Flynn about the Greenhouse Theory, silly sock puppet.
If you ask kindly, he may also tell you about his Insulation Effect.
Come on, Willard,
Why would anyone dance to the discordant jangling of a lying idiot like you?
You don’t have a Greenhouse Effect, nor does Mike Flynn. There is no such thing.
Oh dear. Have you found anyone who believes that you have a Greenhouse Theory? No? Colour me unsurprised.
Moron.
Found your Insulation Theory, Mike?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote “Found your Insulation Theory, Mike?”.
Is this another attempt to claim that a “sock puppet” has one of the imaginary”theories” that you claim to have?
There is no “Insulation Theory”, nor is there a Greenhouse Theory, which you claim to have. You havent, of course, but that doesnt stop you from lying about it, and claiming you have.
In you the fantasy and paranoia strong is.
Carry on.
Please don’t tell me you don’t have your insulation theory, Mike.
How about the Entropy Theory of climate change, according to which the globe is warming because the universe is cooling down?
Whning Willard,
Why should I tell a lying idiot like you, anything at all?
There is no Greenhouse Theory, and you claiming to have one won’t create one, no matter how much you lie about it.
There is no Insulation Theory, either. As to your Entropy Theory, what are you babbling about? Another figment of your retarded thinking?
Warming through cooling? Sounds like a climate crank piece of nonsense to me.
Moron.
Notice the gap in your demonstration, Mike:
(P) The Earth is cooling since the dawn of times.
(C) The Earth has been warming for over a century.
Never noticed it during the decade you snorted on climate blogs?
“The Earth has been warming for over a century”
but mostly since 1980.
“But”
mostly since 1980.
Willie the Weirdo
I agree with the bulk of the posters that you are an idiot, I think Clint R is one of the dumbest and I put you in the same class only on the opposite side of the fence. Two idiots spewing nonsense on what could be a decent science blog. Go back to you Climate Ball. No one here is interested in anything you post.
norman…”The CO2 has enough molecules in vertical column to absorb the IR emitted by the Earth surface”.
…
According to a graph you have posted numerous times, with the notch is the IR spectrum allegedly absorbed by CO2, it can absorb no more than about 5% of surface radiation.
Problem is, as G&T pointed out, radiation does not work in the atmosphere as if it was a vector, The action is so complicated no one could describe it without using Feynman diagrams. Even then, it would be hypothetical.
Diagrams like the Kiehle-Trenberth radiation budget are seriously naive. They show radiation as a vector quantity and infer it is heat transfer. Then they point a vector quantity down the way and imply it transfers heat to the surface from trace gases with a quantity that exceeds incoming radiation.
No, a trace gas like CO2 does not have sufficient quantity to make any more than a tiny dent in absorbing surface radiation. About 95% goes straight past it and while doing so, the radiation;s intensity dissipates rapidly within a few feet, according to R. W. Wood, an expert on radiation from gases like CO2.
Gordon,
It’s Dalton’s law of partial pressure, not Dalton’s law of partial temperature.
The CO2 can absorb energy from IR, even if it’s only 5%, and transmit that energy to the O2 and N2.
The O2 and N2 can not absorb energy from IR, but they can transmit energy to the CO2 which can then emit.
Brandon, bobdroege, Willard, please stop trolling.
–After years of dithering here in Australia, we have finally chosen a government that will act on climate change. So said Penny Wong as she welcomed the new prime minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, to the stage last night. I would argue it is mass delusion to suggest that we can change the climate but the political desire for climate action has been gathering for perhaps four decades and last night it was realized.–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/22/australia-has-finally-caught-the-net-zero-bus/
Well actually it’s easy to change global climate, just say those old people were all wrong, we live in Ice Age and the new thing we want to be warmer.
Isn’t what pols have always said- that was like 20 years ago, ancient history, everyone is so much enlightened those days.
It seems to me the cargo cult is already old and worn, and becoming stupider and stupider. It’s older and dumber than Joe Biden.
The rhetorical sleights of hand are always moronic.
“we have finally chosen a government that will act on climate change. So said Penny Wong…
…I would argue it is mass delusion to suggest that we can change the climate.
But that’s not what she said.
Moron.
Scientists Think They Know What Causes Mars’s Planet-Encompassing Dust Storms
MATT WILLIAMS, UNIVERSE TODAY
22 MAY 2022
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-think-they-know-what-causes-mars-s-planet-encompassing-dust-storms
…
“For the sake of their study, the team combined observations from multiple missions like the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS), the Curiosity rover, and the InSight lander.
This allowed them to model Mars’ climate and estimate the amount of energy it emitted globally as a function of season, including periods with a global dust storm.
“One of the most interesting findings is that energy excess more energy being absorbed than produced could be one of the generating mechanisms of dust storms on Mars,” said Creecy.”
….
“The paper that describes their findings, “Mars’ emitted energy and seasonal energy imbalance,” recently appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[[ https://presspage-production-content.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/1906/pnas202121084-proof.pdf?10000 ]]
This article was originally published by Universe Today. Read the original article.
Anyhow, long and complicated. But I would be nice to know what causes Mars global dust storms – and stop them.
And I think it’s argument to put early Mars base in Hellas Basin.
One reason I like Hellas Basin is because I thought one get more and better solar energy due to the topography. Another reason is it suppose to have seasonal higher amounts water vapor.
But I think it’s a high priority to be able to control Mars global dust storms, if one were to have Mars settlements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyyuouPSNEA
How the sun affects temperatures on Earth (w/ Valentina Zharkova, Northumbria University)
145,797 views
Oct 10, 2019
I don’t recall seeing this before it’s Oct 10, 2019.
But I was wondering when listening to it, if Mars global dust storm might related to sun’s activity. Also reading GCR radiation and those guys also think heading into Solar grand minimum.
But as said before, I think it’s going effect weather [global weather] and if it’s as short as she has been saying it will be, than not much effect upon our ice house global climate.
Of course volcanic activity could be making a bigger difference, maybe.
It seems my weather has been affected, already.
And could get more it of over next decade or so.
But it seems if true then we going to need to adjust the future Mars exploration, plans to allow for it.
This is roughly what I thinking. We reach 150 spot range in couple months, then peaks at around 190 last until up to 2025 and 2025 and 6 month gets to 150 spot range and shortly after 2026 we back where are now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qbk-_J_doQ
Hmm so launch in late 2026 [starting Nov 15 departure to Mars] would having too much radiation.
Though could leave Venus and arrive at Mars 2026 Nov. And have abort to Earth Or stuck on Mars for quite awhile unless will accept risk of higher radiation level. And/or if not shielded enough on Mars surface there lots radiation over the years of time, you stuck. But one could get cargo resupplies, of course.
But not realistic we get trip to Mars before 2026.
So could high radiation past 2040- if get this grand solar min.
Though I guess one can just have lot’s shielding with Starship and not worry about it. But no other NASA type planned crew trip to Mars could have have so much shielding.
Since Gordo and MF appreciate obscenities:
> Just like Gavins conceptual knob, which regulates global temperatures. Twiddling his real knob might serve to increase his breathing rate, but not much more.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/santer-takes-on-pruitt-the-global-warming-pause-and-the-devolution-of-climate-science/#comment-2482
Time flies like an arrow, sock puppets like a banana.
Willard, you are wasting your time here. Dispensing your wisdom upon us is like casting pearls before swine.
You should stop hiding your light under this bushel of a website and create your own.
Just think about how the teeming masses will come to your website hoping to benefit from your all-knowing wisdom. The world will never be the same.
Or not, but that is a risk I urge you to take.
Willard,
Are you trying to imply that twiddling Gavin’s knob would actually increase your breathing rate, instead?
Tut, tut. Pull your hand out of your trousers, and stop thinking with your little head – it’s the smarter one in your case, so maybe you should just stop banging away at your keyboard.
Characterising everyone as a “sock puppet” doesn’t make anyone think you are not at least slightly paranoid. You obviously believe differently.
Carry on.
You have more than a passing interest in men and sexuality. I know you were not born with that preference, what happened?
C’mon, Gordo.
It’s all your skinny jeans fault.
Something tells me you never clicked on my name, Kennui.
Witless Wee Willy,
Why would anybody click on anything at your request? Are you too scared to provide useful information, instead of trying to pretend you have anything of use to anyone, but you have to link to it?
You are powerless and stupid, and a liar to boot. No links necessary to come to that conclusion.
Mike, Mike,
Kennui said I should have a website.
I have two.
Found the Insulation Theory yet?
Since you have two websites how is it that you have time to squander here? The masses so clearly need your love, don’t spend another moment here.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Desperate for attention, are you? I wonder why nobody cae be bothered going to your website. Maybe its because a website operated by an idiotic liar (who claims to have a Greenhouse Theory, but obviously hasnt), is very unlikely to have anything of use to any rational person.
Why bother wasting time?
As Ken said, why do you waste your time here? Trying to get people to click on your worthless links?
I havent come across anybody who cares about “Willards Website”. No wonder, if even you consider it so unimportant that you attempt to troll on this site.
[derisive snort]
Mike Flynn please stop snorting.
And if I don’t?
Please tell you’ll torment a small animal until it screams in pain! See if I care for your silliness.
[another derisive snort]
Keep snorting, Mike.
I insist.
[KENNUI] You should stop hiding your light under this bushel of a website and create your own.
[ALSO KENNUI] Since you have two websites how is it that you have time to squander here?
Something tells me it’s not about the website.
Never change, cranks.
Willard,
You wrote –
“Something tells me its not about the website.”
That would no doubt be the voices in your head, would it?
Paranoid delusions writ loud!
Logic, Mike.
Logic.
Willard, please stop trolling.
— Some worry that shifting more to commercial mechanisms, and shifting work from the agency to companies, could lead to an erosion of expertise within the agency. NASA is going towards a direction where its a customer, which is awesome, but after a while you lose the skill to know for sure what is going on, said Kirk Shireman, a former NASA ISS program manager who is now vice president of Lockheed Martins lunar exploration campaign.
How do you maintain that skill? he asked. Thats a tough problem, I think, for NASA. —
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4386/1
Yes. it is, but it’s always been a problem. I would say have NASA personnel embedded in companies which NASA has monetary interest. So obviously companies have “trade secrets” so they have to have very strict confidential relationship, but they can know what going on.
So have spies, but spies which do no harm to companies they are “spying on”. So job is not spill secrets but know secrets and everything which going, and then they network with other “spies” and get the whole picture.
“One example, she said, is where there is risk of market failure, such as when technology development takes too long or is too high-risk. Commercial entities tend to underestimate the complexity of technology development and sometimes exaggerate the market size and revenue potential, she said, citing the brief rise and faster fall of asteroid mining companies several years ago. In situ resource utilization will almost certainly be required for any sustainable human presence of humanity in space. However, the trillionaires arent coming for a while. ”
I remember that but they seemed pretty clueless- they may had some idea they talking about, but they said, gave me no confidence- was not serious.
[I use embedded in sense of reporters being embedded in war with the military.]
And generally NASA needs to focus more information.
There was old lunar orbiter which had data and it completely ignore and non NASA people recovered this data. NASA needs a really good archive system, which doesn’t have.
FIVE electric double decker buses have exploded at the Potters Bar Bus Garage near London, reports the Daily Express.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022/05/22/london-bus-explosion-five-electric-buses-go-up-in-a-fireball-smoke-seen-for-miles/
This becoming quite common
Roll on Lithium/Sulphur which do exhibit runaway thermals.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-022-00626-2
….do not exhibit….
Why not just start with these Lithium/Sulphur ones?
Published: 10 February 2022.
Early days yet.
“Deputy chief fire officer, Andy Hopcraft, said that four diesel-powered and two electric hybrid buses were affected.”
BBC
Does anyone have any explanation as to why the trended AMO (AMV) (the red line) matches so well the global air temperatures since 1980 on a Gaussian filtered 12 month basis (i.e. a more accurate moving average)?
https://imgur.com/a/jtDg4ir
Temperature changes cause the AMO?
Well there is the observation that the AMO matches GISS/Had before 1980 and UAH afterwards to consider also.
Of course, there is the possibility that the AMO does not exist.
https://weather.com/news/news/2021-03-08-atlantic-multideca
What you are seeing is a pseudocycle as Atlantic ocean surface temperatures respond the same short term variations that drive short term temperature variations.
You may indeed decide that it should be the AMV rather than the AMO but that doesn’t explain the correlation.
Remember your logic lessons.
When you see a correalation between A and B in science the three most likely relationships are:-
A causes B
B causes A
A and B are caused by C
It takes considerable further research to identify the mechanisms involved and decide which of the possible causation patterns actually applies.
Your subtext is that AMO causes UAH.
What evidence do you have to support your case? Seminar protocols please. You present your hypothesis and supporting evidence. I then get my turn to critique it.
My subtext is that there is a correlation between AMO (AMV) and UAH after 1980.
A further subtext is that there is NO correlation between AMO (AMV) and GISS/Had after 1980.
Beware your wishes, Richard.
Making me work comes at a price.
Why would making an idiot work come at a price?
If the AMO matches UAH at the start (1980), it cannot match GISS/Had at the end (2022).
https://imgur.com/a/4Z24uG2
What is this trended AMO Frankenstein youve created? And why should we care about it?
AMO is measured from a portion of the NH ocean, with the background global trend removed. So of course it does have some correlation to NH, because it is a significant part of it!
Its correlation to SH is much much smaller.
I didn’t create it, NOAA did. See the graph for the data source.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/amo-trended.jpeg
Then take the portion after 1980 to get the correlation I showed.
I rather suspect that this is like the CET being a proxy for NH temperatures as been already suggested by some.
“The CET consists of multiple weather stations located both in urban and rural areas of England, which is considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures – not perfect, but decent.”
What you are talking about is the DETRENDED AMO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/amo.jpeg
also from NOAA.
“To remove the climate change signal from the AMO index, users typically detrend the SST data at each gridpoint or detrend the spatially averaged timeseries.”
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/atlantic-multi-decadal-oscillation-amo
Do you know the difference between trended and detrended?
Indeed I do, Richard –
Users who study climate science typically detrend.
Cycle nuts who play Climateball usually don’t.
Blame Blinny who constantly says that trended is the more important series.
In fact the distinction between trended and detrended is not that important for data after 1980.
Try it and you will see.
Binny does not make you hint that your favorite time sries must be the truest ones, Richard.
I will get the same result if I use trended or detrended AMO data. Just the ratios change slightly with the start and the end being in the same place. You really have not done much of this have you?
On the contrary, Richard – I have had my fair share of cycle nuts for whom means bias all time series, and surface temperatures cannot capture what is a few feet above them, however a small triangle in the UK is a rough but fair proxy for the Northern Hemisphere.
They even claim not playing Climateball at all.
Who isn’t using small proxies Willard? Yet you seem to be part of the ‘team’. Am I wrong?
To detrend or not?
Here is the test. AMO is portion of the North Atlantic. If it is a DRIVER of global temp, then its variation must be significantly larger than the correlated variation in Global temp, just as ENSO is significantly larger than the correlated part of Global T.
Removing the Global Trend from AMO, therefore, should not remove whatever variation is intrinsic to AMO, at worst it will fractionally reduce it.
Nate says:
To detrend or not?
Here is the test. AMO is portion of the North Atlantic. If it is a DRIVER of global temp, then its variation must be significantly larger than the correlated variation in Global temp, just as ENSO is significantly larger than the correlated part of Global T.
Removing the Global Trend from AMO, therefore, should not remove whatever variation is intrinsic to AMO, at worst it will fractionally reduce it.
——————–
Thats flawed logic Nate. If the AMO is a driver of global temps it does not need to be larger. Thats because if the AMO is a driver of global temps it would be doing it by entraining water vapor and thus clouds into the system and the effect could actually be less at the scene of the crime than elsewhere after the skies clear all that is left is the humidity.
Sort of like how warmists entrain heat into the upper atmosphere via gases to create the greenhouse effect and ignore everything else that entrains heat in the upper atmosphere like clouds entraining sunlight energy into the upper atmosphere system and convection entraining latent heat into the upper atmosphere.
Warmists want to pretend that nothing does it but CO2. Its the most absurd scientific theory in the history of mankind!
When it comes to entrainment of heat into the atmosphere system is there anything more powerful than oceans? Where do you think water vapor comes from?
In general the oceans are heavily cloud covered wrt land masses. Here clouds are entraining huge amounts of energy into the upper atmosphere while shielding the surface from direct sunlight and reducing the lapse rate at the same time. Only after precipitation mostly over land do you end up with clear skies and less upper atmosphere entrainment of energy.
The entire populized GH theory is about CO2 entraining energy into the upper atmosphere at a pittance of a rate compared to clouds which do it a lot better in both directions despite only 50% cloud cover.
You cannot just wave your hand and start declaring how the atmosphere works when you don’t have a clue. Thats how this ridiculous theory got repopularized in the 1970’s when some astronmer who knew nothing about climate determined we must be on track to become Venus to the chagrin of all the top climate scientists of the day, combined with executives spreading moola all over the place into the hands of newly minted scientists willing to do anything to make a name for themselves.
“If the AMO is a driver of global temps it does not need to be larger.”
Evidence for this weirdness? Any climate drivers you know of behave that way?
Or is it yet another ‘whatever the opposite of what Nate sez’ by troll Bill that will turn out to be totally unsupportable.
Nate says:
”If the AMO is a driver of global temps it does not need to be larger.”
Evidence for this weirdness? Any climate drivers you know of behave that way?
Or is it yet another whatever the opposite of what Nate sez by troll Bill that will turn out to be totally unsupportable.
———————-
How about 280 parts per million of a trace gas warming the oceans by 3 degrees?
Entropic man 5/22 at 6:45 AM
“The climate system is warming by 10^22 Joules/year…”
Our fossil-fuel energized civilization is already committed to global warming of 2.3 C (see here).
Now consider that in 2020 the average annual per capita energy supply of about 40 percent of the world’s population (3.1 billion people, which includes nearly all people in sub- Saharan Africa) was no higher than the rate achieved in both Germany and France in 1860. In order to approach the threshold of a dignified standard of living, those 3.1 billion people will need at least to double – but preferably triple – their per-capita energy use, and in doing so multiply their electricity supply, boost their food production, and build essential infrastructures. Long story short, [much] more warming.
p.s.:IMO by 2050 the US will not be able to grow enough red winter wheat and I predict that it will have “annexed” Canada’s southern Alta., Sask., and Man. for their amber fields of grain. An armored brigade rolling across the border and up Highway 75 supported by a squadron of fighter jets taking off from a base in Minot, North Dakota will be the point of the spear. I suspect this operation will take no more than a week to ten days since most of their transportation, military bases, factories, and population are located within 100 miles [160 km] or so of the border.
The war of 1812 was an excuse to invade Canada. I wonder what the excuse will be this time.
Q: Where does an 800-pound gorilla sleep at night?
A: Anywhere it damn well pleases; it is an 800-pound gorilla!
As a military power the US has always been noted for their firepower.
Not their subtle mastery of strategy and tactics.
An 800lb gorilla is an embarrassingly apt apt analogy.
You must read context and not just look for key words.
That explains why there is no gorilla in Nam.
Imagine having to protect the Canadian border, Tyson.
Tyson
I understand the context, but I tend to retreat from unpleasant realities into gallows humour.
For example I used to fly and the response to a friend’s death was jokes like this.
You are flying in a Tiger Moth with the Duke of Edinburgh and he falls out during a loop. What do you do?
Retrim.
Let’s see. We kicked your ass in War for Independence, War of 1812, saved your ass in 1917 and 1941. What’s your strategy?
We burned down your Capitol, Troglodyte.
Your turn.
What’s this ‘we’?
These “we” –
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/war-of-1812
You seem to forget that ‘Americans’ stole their ‘country’ from the natives.
Canadians, both French and British, were no better.
The subtext is when teh Donald accused Canucks to have burned down Washington, dummy.
The true history is that the whole of America was stolen from the natives. Regardless of who said what.
That is not exactly true, Richard, but it is totally irrelevant here.
“That is not exactly true”
Ask the (Red) Indians.
Indigenous, dummy.
And yeah, I asked. Search for treaties.
Russia has tried that tactic in Ukraine. Isn’t going well for them.
Stolen from the Natives? That’s the history of man. One group owns it until another group takes it from them.
Modern man has only been around for about 12,000 years. That’s when the aliens dropped us off.
Does help if you claim that the others did not own it because they had no written documents to prove it.
No worries, mate! That won’t happen until after the Middle States of America have seceded from the U.S.A. and formed a new country. Then the white Christian Nationalist in Canada could voluntarily join, forming an alliance to capture the World Grain Market by feeding the hungry in Third World nations (and the remnants of the old U.S. and EU) at exorbitant prices.
Sort of like OPEC+ before Putin screwed up. Oh, wait, if Putin wins in Ukraine, he gets all their grain and oil seed production to add to that from Russia. Modern agriculture depends on fertilizer and other chemicals made from Nat Gas and diesel for tractors and Russia has lots of both, so he could undercut the cartel prices from Mid-America.
It would be a classic Food Fight for sure.
“the Middle States of America have seceded from the U.S.A. and formed a new country”
Sounds like you have been watching too much Handmaids Tale.
RLH, No, never seen the movie, I just grew up in Atlanta and have experienced Southern politics for more than 60 years. When I was in high school, we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Civil War. The Battle of Peachtree Creek took place a few miles south of my house.
Given that recent polls show that the Republican Party is infested with people who believe the 2020 election was “stolen” from Trumpy and that many think that only a “revolution” can fix things, what would you expect going forward?
Is a TV series, soon to have a 5th series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid%27s_Tale_(TV_series)
“…what would you expect going forward?”
Republicans probably win more elections, but still have not made the election process more transparent and thereby giving confidence in elections- so problem will continue as it has been for centuries.
Or there not much difference among politicians- most of them are crap, and if there power is not checked, they get worse than one can imagine.
It seems reason Trump was in republican party, he could be in rep party. Or he was New York dem, who could win in Dem party as it’s too rigged. Rep party was less rigged.
Trump was greatest President. Because he was the destructor. His shaking the box, will have lasting effect. Thereby fitting definition of great.
Or the greatest Presidents Republican have had, were dems. And dems HATE dems working against them.
The Left eats it’s own.
RLH, Like I said, I haven’t seen it. I don’t watch much TV these days, especially streaming services which charge money. That said, the plot line sounds sort of plausible. I’m glad I haven’t seen it, it would make me even more cynical and depressed.
My prediction is before this is all over, the USA will break up into at least three separate states.
The last time that the USA tried to split into just 2, let alone 3, did not end well.
Yeah, it would be difficult to hold together an East Coast plus a West Coast “nation”, especially given that there appears to be the largest chance of the middle of the country, along with the Southeast, being the most rebellious prospect. The divide is another example of city vs. country differences.
I like ‘Friday’ by Robert A Heinlein.
His projections include:
Republic of California
Nevada Free State
Illinois Imperium
Texas
British North America
Quebec
New England
Confederacy
So more than 3.
I doubt we’ll get the third world up to equality with the 1st world.
We don’t have the resources, the mechanisms to evenly distribute them or the global dictatorship necessary to enforce it.
My own view is that our global systems will collapse into wars for resources and living space long before then.
Well, the good news is we could not afford a global dictatorship.
Sure one could various people pretending they controlled the world- but it would be like ancient China leaders living in dirt poverty {but have more food and primitive toys then everyone they ruled] who imagined they ruled the whole world {but who clueless about the whole world]. And this same time there was far more tribal leaders who knew even less of world, who thought they ruled the world.
The reality is Earth lacks energy. Whereas our solar system has endless amounts of available energy, which support trillions of people in imaginable wealth. But again unlikely to have solar system dicatorship, or if managed to get one, everyone would become poor as dirt.
I claim ownership of the Sun. I’ll only charge each citizen $0.01 per day to use my energy.
The Sun’s mine. You owe me.
A pox on your house.
That’s probably a lot of money to some folks. Better make it $0.001. $8MM per day is enough.
It’s all mine, I tell you.
Also:
“I doubt well get the third world up to equality with the 1st world.”
What/how we were getting third world up to equality?
You don’t mean governments like US and/or EU and/or UN do you?
Russian/Soviet Union stopping screwing with the third world and/or imagine Russia/Soviet Union was “helping” third world.
It could be argued “private efforts” were helping. Though it seems
capitalism in general did the most.
One could say China involvement could be harming more than helping.
But let’s talk about something specific, India.
India GDP:
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/gdp-growth-rate
So, recently fell off the cliff, but generally around 5 % growth
Another country, Indonesia, gdp:
But at that page was Vietnam, similar to India but more growth
Eqypt about same, with less of crash in latest year
Bangladesh has been best so far with +6% growth, but same last year crash.
Pakistan the is worse so far, lately about 4% and also big crash
Search Australia: about same as Pakistan. Search US:
About same Pakistan and Australia. Finally Indonesia:
More stable [controlled] but again about the same as US and etc.
How Nigeria. It bigger scale, steps by 10%, but better than last few.
Latin America probably bad, due to cartel and such, but check it:
Nicaragua, about same and also 10% steps, hard see it
Venezuela. If average it it doesn’t look bad, but there huge up and down swings, which I count as bad/instable economy.
Anyhow I noticed product buy can be wide range of countries, though it might have something to do with some Americans who don’t want to buy anything from China. And China is laundering/out sourcing them thru different countries. And/or just everyone fleeing from China.
What factor is NOT part of the effective temperature formula that so dramatically affects the actual temperature of the moon?
Why is the actual mean temperature of the moon so much lower than the effective temperature?
NASA lists the effective temperature of the moon at 270.6 kelvin. The mean temperature of the moon at the equator is 220 kelvin.
With no atmospheric effects, why is the surface temperature so much lower than the effective temperature predicts?
What factor is NOT part of the effective temperature formula that so dramatically affects the actual temperature of the moon?
I’ll tell you what it is:
It is the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor. For smooth surface Moon Φ= 0,47.
Te.correct.moon = [ Φ (1-a) So /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (1-0,11) 1.362 W/m /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (0,89) 1.362 W/m /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = [ 2.510.168.871,25 ]∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = 223,83 Κ
This simple example clearly demonstrates the CORRECTNESS of the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor.
For smooth surface planets, like Moon, Φ= 0,47.
Conclusion:
From now on, for every smooth surface planet and moon, we should take in consideration instead of the planet blackbody effective temperature Te , the corrected VALUES of the planet blackbody effective temperature – the Te.corrected.
Table of results for Te and Te.corrected compared to Tsat and to Rotations/day for smooth surface planets and moons with Φ=0,47
Planet.. Te…. Te.corrected..TsatRot/day
Mercury..440 K.364 K…340 K0,00568
Moon.270 K.224 K…220 K.0,0339
Earth255 K.210 K…288 K…1
Mars.210 K.174 K..210 K..0,9747
Europa.95,2 K…78,8 K.102 K…0,2816
Ganymede..107,1 K…..88,6 K110 K.0,1398
Notice:
The number 0,47 for smooth surface in a parallel fluid flow is taken from the well measured and long ago known Drag Coefficient Data, where Cd =0,47 is for sphere. It is the portion of incident on sphere energy which should be resisted by sphere to remain in balance.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“NASA lists the effective temperature of the moon at 270.6 kelvin. The mean temperature of the moon at the equator is 220 kelvin.”
Hmm.
Well, first you are saying of moon and saying moon at equator.
But you could have just misspoke.
I googled effective temperature of the Moon, and didn’t get number but Moon fact sheet says:
Black-body temperature (K) 270.4 K {Moon} and compared to Earth: 254.0 K
And wiki says:
“….This calculation gives us an effective temperature of the Earth of 252 K (−21 C). The average temperature of the Earth is 288 K (15 C). One reason for the difference between the two values is due to the greenhouse effect, which increases the average temperature of the Earth’s surface.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature
Note: “One reason for the difference…”. Rather than: The reason….
I tend to summarize “all this” as, it’s a cargo cult.
But my first thought was the Moon temperature 1 meter below the surface is warmer than the average surface temperature, but warmer not in the sense it’s close to 270 K [or -3 C]. But I would give wild guess it’s around 240 K.
Now I might agree that Moon equator average is around 220 K but I tend to think Moon’s global average surface temperature is around 200 K.
But there is no scientific interest in this- no one getting paid, no real interest. Or cargo cult is the “money” of it. Only priests get money for their silly ideas.
But I would say Moon is cold and Mercury is cold, both for same reason. But Mercury is really hot, everyone thinks Mercury is suppose to be hot.
There is no Earth out there without an atmosphere, cult likes to imagine Earth without atmosphere. They are too stupid or just lying.
Not to mention the fact that Earth has been pretty cold, lately, I mean, in last few million years. I mean, we are in an Ice Age. And I mean, 15 C is cold air. And 15 C water is also cold water.
But the average temperature of entire ocean is about 3.5 C, which is even colder.
China average temperature is about 8 C. If we were objective or clueless space aliens might imagine we being unfair to China asking them to support idea wasting globs of money trying to make Earth colder. Colder which would have to mean, drier. Or we are on a water planet, cold means drier.
But I wander off topic.
Scott Adams declares war is over and Russia lost:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h30k9gTga5E
Sure, why not. Our Media going to say it at some point, anyhow. And when they do [and they simply do it, by making something else the story] the Media will not be as correct as Scott is.
But this war will continue, as has continued since 2014. Or they still fighting and dying in Afghanistan. We just left it. We didn’t care much when in it, and care just about as much after we left it.
Though that people are starving in Afghanistan when we were there, would be bigger story as compared to now.
We get less news, in this more connected world.
Are Chinese still locked into their homes? I don’t know. What happening in Cuba or Venezuela? Iran making it’s nuclear weapons, with Israel taking whatever action they doing.
What seems kind of important is price of Coal. Big coal is making lots of money. Some US coal workers have been on strike for more than a year. And can men have babies seems to be debatable. Or corporate news is still spewing ads and losing money. And “reporters” are over paid and saying nothing important.
The only shortage of coal in the world is in China. China can’t import enough coal {it never could- there no enough ships in the World, there not big enough ports in the world, you simply can’t import enough Coal if using the most amount coal in the world and US is one lower volume coal exporters in the world {doesn’t have the ports and if did have more, would be blocked from using them, but some Coal maker are exporting a small amount, at 3 or 4 times costs.
So Dem supported Big Coal are making lots of money. Of course Big Oil is also making a lot of money- not the workers, mind you.
If money can buy elections, Dems are sitting pretty. But then again why waste that pile of cash.
US is year long recession, has high inflation, but some making a lot money off this situation {which is completely normal in depressions and inflation going thru the roof}.
But don’t worry about US, it’s rest of world, which probably in trouble. China is in trouble. Australia [though making money exporting coal] is not doing well. And Canada has mad dictator.
But probably [though I have no news] Africa is probably doing quite well. It seems Chinese billionaires have to put their money somewhere. Or actually the world’s billionaires have put their money somewhere.
Anyhow, world has always been falling apart and picking up after the wreckage.
I wish war in Ukraine was really over, but might just be getting started.
But seems the story of Miss Turd is now a wrap.
It seems the world is getting better, but don’t know if FAA going to allow Starship test. It is said they finished something, which seems sign for some optimism {but 50% chance it’s Lucy and football, again].
> And Canada has mad dictator
https://media.giphy.com/media/lnxYcPOEaocfVUYFwf/giphy.gif
FWIW, the S&P is down almost 20%, NASDAQ lost almost 50%, whereas the TSX is doing quite alright. In fact if we exclude the last decade the USA was not the best place where to invest, it was Canada and Australia.
Muricans might need to drop the condescending act for a change.
Would Canadians prefer Joe Biden to their mad dictator?
The ZZs invasion might not the best of times to call Justin to a dictator, gb.
Just saying Canadians could have worse than mad dictators- and it’s not like the 50 states don’t have any mad dictators. Our current California Governor, for example.
Hopefully, he will be gone soon.
I know what you are saying, gb. For once I do.
You keep using that word, it might not mean what you make it mean.
gb…”Scott Adams declares war is over and Russia lost:”
***
Scott is on something. The Russians are currently encircling Ukrainian troops in the Donbas region, threatening to cut them off. If they do, it’s lights out for much of the Ukrainian army.
The Ukrainians had 8 years to fix the problem with the civil war and did nothing. That’s why the Russians invaded, to protect Russian-speaking Ukrainians in western Ukraine.
Come on, Gordo.
Western Ukraine?
At least you dropped the the.
Come on Willard,
Are you still claiming g that you have a non-existent Greenhouse Theory? That would make you a liar. Still believing you can get away with such an obvious lie?
That would make you an idiot as well. An idiotic liar.
Have you managed to upset, annoy, or offend anybody of sound mind yet? If you havent you are a disgrace to the trolling community.
I wont even ask you to stop trolling. I might give offence to real trolls.
Carry on being ineffective, impotent and puerile.
Still here, Mike?
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
Stick to lying about having a Greenhouse Theory.
Keep on requesting that silly sammich, Mike.
See how that works for you.
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
Keep lying about having a Greenhouse Theory.
It has been a pleasure serving you a sammich you still deny having received.
Please come again, silly sock puppet!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Give you that one, Willard, I meant eastern Ukraine.
Good. In return, here is the resignation of a Russian diplomat who claims never have been so ashamed of his country:
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russian-diplomat-geneva-resigns-war-ukraine-84907875
You should send an application letter.
A diplomat??? Someone doing a gratuitous job offered to him to get him out of everybody’s hair.
He’s kissing butt to the West, obviously having bought into the fiction about what Russia is doing.
GR knows more about Russia than the Russians do.
Take the GREEN challenge!
We’re planning a short visit to another town this weekend. Round trip will be about 250 miles. Gasoline used will be about 12 gallons. Gasoline contributes about 20 pounds CO2 to the atmosphere per gallon. So our contribution will be about 240 pounds of nutritious plant food for the hungry plants.
What are you doing to GREEN the planet?
I’m peeing on my dandelions. Greening.
Should that not be the roses?
https://housetipster.com/housetips/722/why-you-should-pee-on-your-plants
So you agree there is an issue. Will you now pls stop flaming me every time I take issue?
Your cosmetic fix didnt help, but I wont call it lipstick on a pig.:)
The issue is fundamental. The relationship between the aqueous conc of Co2 and the total carbon DIC conc is nonlinear. Their ratio is not a constant, as you assume, due to the buffering.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/676 see second figure
The BE eqns 5-8 take this into account to arrive at eqn 9, which you agree is correct.
Sorry that BE is correct after all. There is ~ 10/1 ratio between the increase in total C in atm and mixed layer in equilibrium. This gives the bottleneck.
Not quite as inexpensive as it used to be.
Continued from https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1293176
I made a couple mistakes in writing that paragraph. I had Cs instead of Co. Same result though. Third times the charm I hope:
GtCarbon in atm = Ca = GtCarbon in ML = DIC * Vs with Vs being the volume of the ML. Cs = [CO2]aq * Vs. B&Es equation (1) becomes DIC = 162 * Co/Vs (where Co is the GtC in [CO2]aq) and Henrys constant K = (Ca/Va)/(Co/Vs). Notice that K = 162 * Vs/Va because Ca = 162 * Co. After adding A to the atm, X amount of CO2 will go into the ML leaving a net of A X added to the original Ca. The air will now contain (Ca + A X) and the ML will now be (DIC + X/Vs) = (Ca + X)/Vs. K will now be equal to [(Ca + A X)/Va]/ [(Cs + X)/(162*Vs)]. The equivalence of both K at equilibrium gives Ca + A X = Ca + X which reduces to X = A/2.
“Thus you have all 3, atm, c(CO2,aq), and DIC increasing by the same percentage!”
You may be on to something there. The uptake would not increase [CO2]aq and the other carbonate moieties by the same percentage. That will take some effort to sort out. Stay tuned.
Meanwhile, CO2 uptake continues to keep pace with emission growth for over two centuries. No sign of a bottleneck.
https://escholarship.org/content/qt8r14828w/qt8r14828w.pdf
Darn. In the second line, Co = [CO2]aq * Vs.
On the 7th line, (DIC + X/Vs) = (Cs + X)/Vs. Makes no difference because of the Ca = Cs assumption.
There are several instances of A X which should be A – X.
From above your post.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1293667
“So you agree there is an issue.”
Yes, as there has been from the beginning, although probably not what you think it is.
“The issue is fundamental. The relationship between the aqueous conc of Co2 and the total carbon DIC conc is nonlinear. Their ratio is not a constant, as you assume, due to the buffering.”
That’s correct, but I don’t think that will turn out to change much. I could be wrong. I’ll let you know when I finish those calculations after I find my textbooks explaining how to do that.
Your linked Figure 2 has nothing to do with B&E’s Eqn 9. That diagram only shows the changes in the relative concentrations of [CO2]aq and the carbonates (whose sum equals the total DIC) as a function of pH. B&E Eqn 9 was never incorrect as derived, but they and you have not shown how it translates into a bottleneck. The historical data bears this out. Would you allow a surgeon to operate on you who only knows the textbook description of the operation versus a surgeon who has successfully done the operation hundreds of times?
“The issue is fundamental. The relationship between the aqueous conc of Co2 and the total carbon DIC conc is nonlinear. Their ratio is not a constant, as you assume, due to the buffering.’
Thats correct, but I dont think that will turn out to change much.”
Eqn 9 finds a Revelle Factor much much greater than 1, precisely because of the strong nonlinearity. Your calculation finds Revelle ~ 1 because you erroneously assume linearity.
Your calculation is just plain wrong, by a LOT. You are making a concerted effort to remain clueless about what’s happening here.
And your other conclusions, about the bottleneck, are similarly based on erroneous thinking.
Not sure how that paper is helping. It shows that 50% of anthro CO2 has remained in the atm, agreeing with the IPCC and carbon cycle paradigm.
Look again. The ordinate axis reads “Atm. CO2 uptake rate (PgC/yr)” not % of anthro CO2 remaining. Notice how your AGW dogma has you brainwashed?
The chart’s data is consistent with what I have argued from the beginning, no bottleneck. If there was a bottleneck, you would expect the uptake curve to diverge from the atmospheric growth rate.
It states clearly that the uptake agrees with IPCC estimates…
So are you now agreeing that IPCC estimates are correct???
IPCC estimates are not at issue here. Stop obfuscating and drop your AGW bias. The carry-over issue from last main post is what portion of all emissions is natural. Estimates of how much of those new emissions goes into the ML and ocean are not beyond question, but I will probably never be in a position to measure those details for myself. I stay in my lane. Like Dr. Berry, I just challenge the “all the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic” meme. We use the IPCC estimates to compare with our model results.
People without data and models would be advised to avoid looking foolish by asking dumb questions. At least until they come up with evidence of their missing bottleneck.
Actually, I benefit from your dumb questions, because it helps prepare me for taking my act on the road, so to speak.
“he ordinate axis reads ‘Atm. CO2 uptake rate (PgC/yr)’ not % of anthro CO2 remaining. Notice how your AGW dogma”
Look again. The atmosphere amount is shown also its growth matches quantitatively to the stored amount of anthro emissions. That means 50% stored and 50% remaining in the atmosphere.
Sorry this contradicts Berry and your claim that most of the anthro carbon has been removed.
This is your AGW bias talking points. There is no assumption that the uptake is only anthropogenic. You can’t prove that. You only assume it. That is what Dr. Berry and I show with our data and models. You, OTOH, have no data or models. Only handwaving, bloviating, and obfuscation.
And you miss the whole point. There is no bottleneck. If there was a bottleneck, wouldn’t the uptake gradually slow down?
If traffic increases but no one shows up late for work, there is no bottleneck.
”
And you miss the whole point. There is no bottleneck.”
The paper is not showing that. It is showing cum emissions of ~ 360 Pg fig 2, including land.
It shows the measured amount stored in the ocean is 120 Pg. So that is 33%. And the atm has 210 Pg or 58%.
It shows the amount sunk to the ocean per year is 2.3 Pg/y. This is 1.1% of the atm excess per year, giving a 90 y e-time.
That is a bottleneck!
The findings are close to what BE predict for the bottleneck. In table 1 they estimate y2000 cum emissions 53% of original atm C, and extra amount stored in atmosphere ~ 25%. Fig 5. So about half remains.
“If there was a bottleneck, wouldnt the uptake gradually slow down?”
Why? The fractional uptake is slow, and continues to be slow as expected.
How do you account for these stored amonts? Given that the atm and ocean are net sinks, as measured. And the land is a small net source.
That comment is so full of obfuscation, I’ll have to correct every sentence.
“It is showing cum emissions of ~ 360 Pg fig 2, including land.”
No, the right side ordinate axis is clearly labeled ‘atmospheric CO2 mixing ratio used for the inversion (red dashed line).’ It is simply Mauna Loa data extrapolated back to 1775. Divide by 0.469 to convert it to GtC (= 1 PgC) in the atmosphere.
“It shows the measured amount stored in the ocean is 120 Pg.”
The paper clearly states in the abstract that the inventory of anthro emissions is 140 PgC which is more like 40% of the total industrial anthro emissions to date. You don’t know how much of that remains in the atm, because you only rely on what the AGW cult tells you. You can assume all new emissions are FF and you would be wrong.
“It shows the amount sunk to the ocean per year is 2.3 Pg/y. This is 1.1% of the atm excess per year, …”
The atmosphere grew 5 PgC that year (2008) and the ocean sunk 50% prior and has continued to sink 50% ever since.
“giving a 90 y e-time.”
Only God knows how you made that up.
“The findings are close to what BE predict for the bottleneck. In table 1 they estimate y2000 cum emissions 53% of original atm C, and extra amount stored in atmosphere ~ 25%. Fig 5. So about half remains.”
B&E never showed how their bottleneck prediction factored in to their model. I checked their model and it doesn’t work with any 12.5:1 bottleneck. This you will never understand because you have no model. The 50% is what I have been saying and what the data shows, that 50% of new emissions, regardless of source, is being sinked each year and this has been happening from the beginning of the growth in atm CO2 at the start of the industrial era. There is no bottleneck other than the normal hesitancy for a CO2 molecule to be absorbed. No bottleneck. Nothing to do with the Revelle factor which measures normal ocean buffer capacity which is about as good as it will ever get.
“Why [would the uptake gradually slow down]? The fractional uptake is slow, and continues to be slow as expected.”
As I explained, a bottleneck is when traffic causes you to be late for work. If your definition of bottleneck is business as usual, then our whole discussion was a waste. You are not interested in the science, but rather only in defending your AGW dogma.
“How do you account for these stored amounts? Given that the atm and ocean are net sinks, as measured. And the land is a small net source.”
I account for the stored amounts with a model, as does Dr. Berry and as B&E did as well. The amounts of CO2 being added to the atmosphere from the sources are distributed among the reservoirs. You should concentrate on understanding the science instead of finding fault with anyone who disagrees with you.
“As I explained, a bottleneck is when traffic causes you to be late for work. If your definition of bottleneck is business as usual, then our whole discussion was a waste. You are not interested in the science, but rather only in defending your AGW dogma.”
Your idea of a bottleneck is clearly different from BEs, mine and everyone elses.
The bottleneck in this context, is obviously meant to explain the very slow uptake of excess atm C into the ocean.
As I showed, the paper shows a sink rate into the ocean of ” 2.3 Pg/y.
And “the atm has 210 Pg” of excess carbon.
This is indeed a very slow uptake. As I noted, “This is 1.1% of the atm excess per year” “giving a 90 y e-time.”
Only the intentionally clueless would claim “God knows how you made that up.”
“The paper is not showing that. It is showing cum emissions of ~ 360 Pg fig 2”
Sorry, meant figure 3 here.
Id still like to know your alternative explanation for these observations.
The usual Berry claim is that Outflow = Level/etime, and etime = 4 y.
At present the Level in the atmosphere is now 50% higher. Is it your claim that Outflow is now 50% larger than before?
and additional 210 Pg/4 y = 52 Pg/y is flowing out? For what reason? Evidence?
The paper shows that the amount being stored per year in the ocean is only 2.3 Pg/year. This suggests that natural INFLOW must have increased 50 Pg/y.
From where is this massive extra influx coming?
Given that the paper shows that ocean is Net sink for C, and the land is minor source of C, where o where can we find this extra 50 Pg/y?
And where is your evidence for it?
“Your idea of a bottleneck is clearly different from BEs, mine and everyone elses.”
Assertion without evidence = opinion and, in this case, a useless one.
“The bottleneck in this context, is obviously meant to explain the very slow uptake of excess atm C into the ocean.”
CO2 uptake is determined by thermodynamic process of dissolving CO2 in seawater. B&E do not mention any change in Henry’s constant for uptake of CO2 by seawater. They only refer to the Revelle factor as indicating the “low buffering capacity of the sea.” They are incorrect. The sea has near maximum buffer capacity. B&E provide no evidence that the Revelle factor contributes to very slow uptake of CO2 by the ocean. It has been taking up 50% of new emissions since day one. Your excess CO2 is an AGW dogma diversionary tactic.
“…sink rate into the ocean of 2.3 Pg/y…the atm has 210 Pg of excess carbon…This is 1.1% of the atm excess per year giving a 90 y e-time.”
Nonsense obfuscation and blatant misuse of accepted science. The 2.3 PgC/yr is NET sink rate, having nothing to do with rate coefficients governing the sinking processes. Excess is not how level is used in determining e-times. 1.1% of 210 PgC is 2.3 PgC, not 2.3 PgC/yr. In your mind, fast uptake of 50% would be 105 PgC/yr. The correct e-time stated by everyone except losers like you is 5 years. At least now we know how you intentionally cluelessly made up a 90-year e-time.
“Is it your claim that Outflow is now 50% larger than before?”
Yes.
“and additional 210 Pg/4 y = 52 Pg/y is flowing out?”
No, not additional. The total output now is 224 PgC/yr (105 ppm/yr) or 50% more than the preindustrial 280/4 = 70 ppm/yr.
“For what reason? Evidence?”
It is what it is. Get a model and see for yourself. There is no bottleneck and that is why the net sink rate is 50% and the e-time remains 4 to 5 years depending on who you ask.
“From where is this [suggested 50 PgC/yr] massive extra influx coming?”
From your butt. You are just making stuff up like the King of Obfuscation makes a habit of. In your AGW brainwashed closed mind, a bottleneck exists. It doesn’t. In all this time, you provided no evidence of it.
“…where o where can we find this extra 50 Pg/y?”
Look under the bed and ask your imaginary friends. Or maybe Willard’s friends can help.
“‘The bottleneck in this context, is obviously meant to explain the very slow uptake of excess atm C into the ocean.’
“CO2 uptake is determined by thermodynamic process of dissolving CO2 in seawater. B&E do not mention any change in Henrys constant for uptake of CO2 by seawater. They only refer to the Revelle factor as indicating the ‘low buffering capacity of the sea.’ They are incorrect.
Assertion without evidence. This is happening more and more often.
You just havent made any coherent convincing arguments on this.
“B&E provide no evidence that the Revelle factor contributes to very slow uptake of CO2 by the ocean.”
You clearly still dont understand anything in the paper or what is meant by the bottleneck here.
“It has been taking up 50% of new emissions since day one.”
First of all, no. It is 25-33% depending on source.
BE predicted exactly that! So it is not inconsistent with a bottleneck.
As BE explained and I explained already, the ML never exceeds its equilibrium level with the atmosphere, which means it never exceeds ~ 10% of atmospheres % increase.
Meanwhile the ML is still leaking small amounts to the DO, 1% of atmospheric excess per year currently, which must be replaced.
Thus the amount going from the atm to ML must be greater than 10% of new emissions.
‘Is it your claim that Outflow is now 50% larger than before?’
Yes.”
“and additional 210 Pg/4 y = 52 Pg/y is flowing out?”
No, not additional. The total output now is 224 PgC/yr (105 ppm/yr) or 50% more than the preindustrial 280/4 = 70 ppm/yr.”
Why not, the 210 is what has been added since preindustrial. You dont want to treat it differently do you?
210/4 is 52 Pg/y additional.
‘For what reason? Evidence?’
“It is what it is. Get a model and see for yourself.”
So your evidence is the model??? You realize that is NOT evidence? You dont require evidence?
“From where is this [suggested 50 PgC/yr] massive extra influx coming?”
“From your butt.”
Ok so you have no answer. Thats telling. You are not concerned that you have no evidence or even a rationale for this massive increase in influx?
Where from? What mechanism? Why the change now?
That you have no answers should bother you. Why doesnt it?
“Assertion without evidence. This is happening more and more often.”
In your dreams.
“Thus, the buffering capacity of the ocean, or its ability to resist a change in pH, is actually quite large. In general, the ocean contains around 38,000 gigatons (or 38 billion tons) of bicarbonate, carbonate, and carbonic acid. This means that the entire ocean can absorb a lot of CO2 without becoming too acidic.”
https://timescavengers.blog/climate-change/ocean-chemistry-ocean-acidification/
“You just havent made any coherent convincing arguments on this.”
I shouldn’t have to make too convincing an argument for a Chem 1 lesson from someone claiming knowledge of chemistry. You showing less of that knowledge is happening more and more often.
“You clearly still dont understand anything in the paper or what is meant by the bottleneck here.”
Assertion without evidence. This is happening more and more often.
“First of all, no. It is 25-33% depending on source.”
You are assuming the ocean is the only sink and that only anthro CO2
is being sinked. There is so much that you don’t get because you have no data and no model and comment like a brain-dead AGW apologist instead of trying to understand. I can explain this stuff to you, but I can’t understand it for you. H/T Clint R.
“BE predicted exactly that! So it is not inconsistent with a bottleneck.”
That is the second time you tried that lie. There is no bottleneck incorporated in their model. Try building a spreadsheet with their parameters and see if you can show any bottleneck. Their parameters are exactly what I use and there is no way a 12.5 factor works in the model.
“As BE explained and I explained already, the ML never exceeds its equilibrium level with the atmosphere, which means it never exceeds ~ 10% of atmospheres % increase.”
That is because the excess is continually removed to the DO. Please show where B&E explain this in any way different from me and where you have explained it as they do.
“Meanwhile the ML is still leaking small amounts to the DO, 1% of atmospheric excess per year currently, which must be replaced.”
You don’t know what you are saying. 1% of what excess must be replaced? If the ML is only increasing by 10% of the atm increase, then 2 to 5 times that is going to the DO. Where else would the sinked amount go? Think, man.
“Thus the amount going from the atm to ML must be greater than 10% of new emissions.”
Yaay, you stumbled on to the truth finally. It will be 25 to 50% depending on whether you use the reported values or the more likely model values which account for all the carbon.
“Why not, the 210 is what has been added since preindustrial. You dont want to treat it differently do you?”
I misunderstood and read that as 210/yr not 210/4yr. Depending on what year you use as reference, 52 GtC/yr could be the additional outflow. It is more like 75 GtC/yr additional inflow now compared to preindustrial.
“So your evidence is the model??? You realize that is NOT evidence? You dont require evidence?”
The evidence is the IPCC estimates which are in the neighborhood of 200 GtC/yr in and out of the sources and sinks. The model allows putting realistic physical rate coefficient parameters to those estimates just as B&S’s model does. A 75 GtC/yr extra influx is not so massive when you consider the preindustrial influx may have been only 150 GtC/yr.
“Where from? What mechanism? Why the change now? That you have no answers should bother you. Why doesnt it?”
As I have postulated several times now, there are probable increases from land use change, fires, volcanoes, rising temperature, etc. I have a model that doesn’t match IPCC estimates without these additional influxes or gross changes in physical rate coefficients. You don’t have any data or model and, therefore, aren’t in a position to challenge my arguments with anything other than assertions and handwaving.
You remain King of Obfuscation and always will. Come back with evidence of a bottleneck. Or not.
Dude, you need to dial it back a few notches, and come back down to reality, and stop making it all about the messenger.
So you are claiming that both the influx and outflow of Carbon from the atmosphere has increased 50% since pre-industrial times. That is a HUGE increase.
But you have offer no evidence.
“The evidence is the IPCC estimates of which are in the neighborhood of 200 Gt/y in and out of the sources and sinks. The model allows”
“A 75 GtC/y extra influx is not so massive”
The present values (IPCC) are not evidence of any such change. A model is not evidence. It is false to say that numbers YOU adjusted and put into a model are evidence of anything!
You keep implying that the bottleneck idea is somehow all mine and all obfuscation, when the reality it was proposed before I was born, been corroborated, and has lots of evidence to back it up.
I don’t know why I need to keep showing you this BE statement:
“This tells us that 1 percent change in the total CO2 concentration in the sea requires a 12.5 percent change in the atmospheric CO2 to maintain equilibrium. If we consider only the mixed layer of the oceans, i.e. the surface layer which contains about as much CO2 as the atmosphere, less than 10% of excess fossil CO2 in the atmosphere should have been taken up by the mixed layer. It is therefore obvious that the mixed layer acts as a bottleneck in the transport of fossil CO2 into the deep sea.”
Revelle Factors are measurable. You have not shown a flaw in the chemistry in BE, which has been corroborated by many since then.
You keep saying that 50% sinking rate is proof there is no bottleneck.
But this is a strawman!
The sinking rate to the ocean is what we are talking about, and it is 25-33% of NEW emissions.
This is not inconsistent with BE statement above. Their bottleneck statement is referring to the relationship between a change in atm concentration and q change in ML concentration, in equilibrium. Thats all.
The 25-33% going to the ML to ‘try’ to achieve balance between Pco2 in the atm and c(co2) in the ML. There is an imbalance because there is:
a. the increase in PCo2 in the atm with new emissions.
b. the decrease in c(CO2) in the ML due to small leakage to the DO.
Both are happening and were predicted in BE. (If you dont read it I cant help you).
So there is NO requirement that the % of NEW emissions be < 10%.
The whole point of BE and all later papers was to show that the small increase in influx of C into the atmosphere will take a long time to be removed to the DO, and thus will build up. This is a bottleneck, and it has happened.
And it has built up by 50 %. And the sinking rate of this excess is currently ~ 1% of the excess per year. That is the bottleneck.
The observations are completely consistent with this 'bottleneck'.
Nate is always trying to reverse the burden of proof when there is a handy and easy mathematical methodology for a rough estimate of an answer to the question.
Gather information as to dates of percent of fossil fuel carbon in the atmosphere.
Gather information on the history of burning fossil fuels with a zero at the beginning of the industrial revolution, amount emitted at the following date before and after.
Select a date within the bomb pulse decay for which data exists regarding the decay rate.
And mathematically estimate if the carbon turnover rate is decreasing or remaining roughly the same on the two sides of the date selected.
When you want to make an alarmist claim one should be prepared to back it up with some quantification of the facts rather than just howling at the moon like a dog that just got abandoned.
“The present values (IPCC) are not evidence of any such change.”
Do you have IPCC AR5 Fig. 6.1? The red arrows indicate + 17.7 GtC additional inflow from oceans and 11.6 GtC additional input from land compared to pre-industrial estimates. Those additions are too modest, IMO, but they show evidence of emission growth.
1) These are estimates. No one was out measuring inflows and outflows back in 1750.
2) The estimates are a decade or so outdated.
3) Those numbers don’t fit the Mauna Loa data with any physically realistic model.
“A model is not evidence.”
By that reasoning you invalidate half of your argument by claiming B&E’s model is accurate. Ironically, using their model with my parameters, extra inflow, and no RF bottleneck gives results matching Mauna Loa data.
“the bottleneck idea…has lots of evidence to back it up.”
You have had weeks of opportunity to present that evidence, but you never have.
“I dont know why I need to keep showing you [the] BE statement.”
The reason is because it is the only argument you have, assertion without evidence. You cannot demonstrate with data that any bottleneck exits. I would be thrilled if you could define what a bottleneck would look like and then present the empirical evidence to back it up. Neither you or B&E did that.
“The sinking rate to the ocean is what we are talking about, and it is 25-33% of NEW emissions.”
That would be correct as long as you acknowledge that 15% to 25% of new emissions are going into land. Because the total is 50% sinked. That is undeniable. You have yet to show that the % going into the ocean has decreased, which would indicate evidence of a bottleneck.
What seems to be your definition of bottleneck is when the ocean doesn’t absorb CO2 at a sufficient rate to maintain equilibrium. That would require either no increase in emissions or immediate air/sea equilibrium and no thermodynamic barrier at the air/sea interface. It doesn’t work that way. The uptake delay is caused by the dissolution of CO2 into seawater, not by any carbonate equilibria which is immediate. Also, the “leakage” into the DO is not small.
Look at it this way. If air/sea equilibrium is the goal, then the ML should contain 50% more than 600 GtC, ie 900 GtC. If 600 corresponds to 2mM preindustrial (it’s probably less) and it’s now 2.2mM, add the 155 GtC IPCC estimate for amount transferred to DO and that makes 600 + 60 + 155 = 815 GtC. That is not that far off from 900 GtC. Nature is simply doing what it does, only a bit slower than you AGW cultists want.
B&E did not show any effect of the Revelle factor on uptake of CO2 by the ocean. There may be a slight effect due to pH changes, but you will find this to be minor if you ever venture to make the calculation. I won’t hold my breath.
Emissions would not take a long time to be removed if they would stop. Fortunately, or hopefully, depending on how you look at it, emissions will never end. That would be the end of civilization. As long as new emissions continue, there will be a build-up of atm CO2. This may be the way you interpret a bottleneck. It is not the bottleneck as B&E defined it.
“So there is NO requirement that the % of NEW emissions be < 10%."
I have no idea what that means.
You remain King of Obfuscation as long as you continue to post comments void of data and evidence that defends your handwaving arguments and appeals to authority and the like. Until you stop spewing AGW propaganda, I will continue to challenge the messenger.
“You have yet to show that the % going into the ocean has decreased, which would indicate evidence of a bottleneck.”
Not a requirement. You keep misunderstanding the bottleneck concept. Again BE saw it as an obvious result of the Revelle Factor. They thought intelligent readers would think it obvious. I think its obvious. And I explained it to you several times
It is not obfuscation. It is just normal kinetics.
In normal kinetics the driving force to return to equilibrium is proportional to the imbalance. That is what gives exponential decay of the imbalance.
Due to the Revelle Factor, the imbalance in the ML relative to the DO is small compared to the imbalance in the atmosphere relative to the ML. Thus the driving force driving the imbalance toward equilibrium in the ML is small. 10 x smaller. Thats the bottleneck concept.
“In normal kinetics the driving force to return to equilibrium is proportional to the imbalance.”
That’s wrong. Show me where that applies. delC/dt is proportional to level, not imbalance.
The sinking rate to the ocean is what we are talking about, and it is 25-33% of NEW emissions.
That would be correct as long as you acknowledge that 15% to 25% of new emissions are going into land.”
Yes but all agree that in the long term all the excess must go into the ocean. We have millenia prior to now with Co2 levels near 275 ppm. It is expected to return to that by sinking to the ocean.
“What seems to be your definition of bottleneck is when the ocean doesnt absorb CO2 at a sufficient rate to maintain equilibrium. That would require either no increase in emissions or immediate air/sea equilibrium and no thermodynamic barrier at the air/sea interface. It doesnt work that way.”
As explained, prior to Revelle the thinking by many was that the ocean would sink anthro quickly. But after Revelle it was realized that the ML bottlenck will cause sinking to require a century or so, allowing emissions to build up.
“The uptake delay is caused by the dissolution of CO2 into seawater, not by any carbonate equilibria which is immediate.”
Yes but that delay is short and not the cause of the bottleneck.
“Also, the ‘leakage’ into the DO is not small.”
It is according to your paper less than 2.3 Pg/y, 1% of the atm imbalance.
This is about expected, based on a ML imbalance of 10% of the atm imbalance. And a 10 y exchange time ML with DO.
“Thats wrong. Show me where that applies. delC/dt is proportional to level, not imbalance.”
This is the Berry mantra. But is ignoring the other reservoir or assuming its lvel is 0.
Analogy to two barrels connected by a tube. If water levels in the barrels are unequal, there is flow from the higher to the lower. The flow rate is proprtional to level difference, the imbalance. It will have exponential decay to balance.
“You keep misunderstanding the bottleneck concept.”
I understand your concept of the bottleneck. It is based on your faith in B&E’s derivation of a buffer factor. But, it has no bearing on how much CO2 enters the ocean. The resistance is due to the dissolution of CO2 in seawater. Once dissolved and converted to H2CO2 there is an immediate conversion to the other carbon moieties, mostly bicarbonate. More gradually, but certainly not rate limiting, the increase in DIC goes into the deep. Your concept of bottleneck has little to do with a Revelle factor. You need to provide some evidence other than “everybody agrees with me” because, if they do, they also need to come up with empirical data backing you up. Quoting someone’s opinion is not empirical evidence.
“It is just normal kinetics.”
Show me where.
“Due to the Revelle Factor, the imbalance in the ML relative to the DO is small compared to the imbalance in the atmosphere relative to the ML. Thus the driving force driving the imbalance toward equilibrium in the ML is small. 10 x smaller. Thats the bottleneck concept.”
That is a classic handwaving argument. You are good at that. Now to prove you aren’t a foolish AGW shill, show me the data.
“This is the Berry mantra.”
Yea, and it is also classic kinetics. You probably knew that, but it doesn’t fit your AGW mantra and you thought you could obfuscate anyway.
“But [it] is ignoring the other reservoir or assuming its [level] is 0.”
Neither Dr. Ed Berry or I ignore any reservoirs. Stop obfuscating and show us the data, equations, models, etc.
“Analogy to two barrels connected by a tube.”
OK, we are reduced to stupid analogies. The reservoirs aren’t barrels. They don’t work that way. Do oceans stop degassing and absorbing CO2 at pseudo-equilibrium? Do plants stop absorbing CO2 when their inflow and outflow is balanced?
Nate says:
”You have yet to show that the % going into the ocean has decreased, which would indicate evidence of a bottleneck.”
Not a requirement. You keep misunderstanding the bottleneck concept. Again BE saw it as an obvious result of the Revelle Factor. They thought intelligent readers would think it obvious. I think its obvious.
———————-
Nate it would only be obvious if you could show a progression of reduced uptake of CO2 by the oceans over time. I even suggested a quick and dirty reasonable test that could be used to estimate if further invesment in research was warranted.
Models are one thing. Validating models requires observation. there are no exceptions in a free world. The sort of nonsense, science by fiat, is only the preferred modus operandi for a dictatorial government. It has a rich history of abuse by dictators. Thats why there is a scientific method and its not limited to simple supposition. Even its founder found it not convincing but he did believe when he came up with it that maybe some work would be done to validate it some time in the future.
Now what you considered to be obvious in 1957 when Dr. Revelle came up with theory, the audience wants to know what we have learned in the 65 intervening years. If you can’t deliver on that perhaps you should lobby for some funds to get it calculated by 2087.
“OK, we are reduced to stupid analogies. The reservoirs arent barrels. They dont work that way. Do oceans stop degassing and absorbing CO2 at pseudo-equilibrium? Do plants stop absorbing CO2 when their inflow and outflow is balanced?”
You asked for an example. I gave it. You dont like it, so you lose your mind again.
The barrels are a perfect analogy for two reservoirs containing a partial pressure of some gas.
It is only the pressure DIFFERENCE that is the driving force for movement of gas from one to the other.
Indeed for the atm-ocean mixed layer, the Pco2 and the c(co2) try to achieve balance via Henry’s law. If there is an imbalance between them (pco2 – k c(co2)) there will be a flux of gas between them.
This very basic. It is very odd that you want to argue about this.
“It is only the pressure DIFFERENCE that is the driving force for movement of gas from one to the other.”
More clear:
“It is only the pressure DIFFERENCE that is the driving force for NET movement of gas from one to the other.”
This is not me obfuscating. Look at BE equations 14-16.
These are differential equations describing the flux between reservoirs, equating those to the differences in concentrations between reservoirs. Atm, ML, and DO,
Eqn 17 shows that Revelle factor is implicitly in the eqns 16.
It matters.
As I recall, you were planning to apply these eqns in your spreadsheet model.
“If there is an imbalance between them (pco2 k c(co2)) there will be a flux of gas between them.”
Unlike barrels of water, there will never be an equilibrium between reservoirs of CO2. There is always an imbalance as long as pCO2/[CO2]aq does not equal the experimental Henry’s constant for an equilibrium at a given T, P, and salinity (alkalinity?) conditions. That was true even in pre-industrial times. The best equation describing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is d(pCO2)/dt = alpha * pCO2 where alpha is partially a function of the ratio of the dissolution and the outgassing thermodynamic. There is a land complement as well.
“It is very odd that you want to argue about this.”
It is only odd to you, because you keep substituting AGW dogma for normal science and classic kinetics.
“It is only the pressure DIFFERENCE that is the driving force for NET movement of gas from one to the other.”
Again, that is incorrect because of “only” but also because it causes you to formulate an equation differing from d(pCO2)/dt = alpha * pCO2. Try running an experiment to determine what actually determines the driving force. Try finding data that shows how your handwaving driving force argument has been demonstrated to be correct.
“Look at BE equations 14-16.”
Yes, those equations support your flawed concept of first order kinetics. This is a fundamental error you have uncovered in B&E. It may be the genesis of all the flawed papers on ocean uptake you AGW cultists have been peddling.
There is one problem with all carbon cycle models. Only the atmosphere/ML/DO exchanges are truly first order. The rate coefficients for the land (biosphere and humus) can only be assumed first-order until shown otherwise.
‘If there is an imbalance between them (pco2 -k c(co2)) there will be a flux of gas between them.’
Unlike barrels of water, there will never be an equilibrium between reservoirs of CO2. There is always an imbalance as long as pCO2/[CO2]aq does not equal the experimental Henrys constant for an equilibrium at a given T, P, and salinity (alkalinity?) ”
So only if pCO2/[CO2]aq not = K ? IOW when pco2 not= k[CO2]aq. IOW when pco2-k[CO2] is not = 0? Iow when there is an imbalance in these quantities?
“The best equation describing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is d(pCO2)/dt = alpha * pCO2 where alpha is partially a function of the ratio of the dissolution and the outgassing thermodynamic.”
Except that contradicts what you said above. Because when there pco2-k[CO2] = 0, there in no imbalance, ther is equilibrium, and there is NO FLOW.
And then d(pCO2)/dt = 0.
Your equation d(pCO2)/dt = alpha * pCO2 FAILS to accomplish that!
‘Look at BE equations 14-16.’
“Yes, those equations support your flawed concept of first order kinetics.”
They support normal first-order kinetics that everyone uses.
“This is a fundamental error you have uncovered in B&E. It may be the genesis of all the flawed papers on ocean uptake you AGW cultists have been peddling.”
Wow. You have lost your mind, dude. Sad.
“Except that contradicts what you said above.”
No, only someone trying to obfuscate and avoid reality would say that. Dealing with imbalance correctly requires my equation not your crowd. Regardless of imbalance or not, flow amounting to a 4 or 5 year e-time will occur. I am trying to avoid calling you an appropriate ad hominem. Let’s just leave it at useless troll and shill for the AGW cult.
“They support normal first-order kinetics that everyone uses.”
Wrong, stupid. Prove it with experimental data. Or even a standard text book.
“There is always an imbalance as long as pCO2/[CO2]aq does not equal the experimental Henrys constant”
And what happens when pCO2/[CO2]aq DOES EQUAL Henry’s constant???
That is equilibrium my friend. And NET movement of mass between the reservoirs must stop.
“Unlike barrels of water, there will never be an equilibrium between reservoirs of CO2.”
Why? Saying this never happens makes absolutely no sense.
The net movement of mass being equal ended when more emissions were continually produced than sinked. Those days are gone. But even preindustrial, net exchange being equal was theoretically possible only at the transitions between seasons. Like a broken clock being accurate twice a day.
So your term of endearment, my friend, requires an in kind apology for calling you stupid. Although I can’t rule out hard-headed and persistent.
“The net movement of mass being equal ended when more emissions were continually produced than sinked.”
Grasping at straws..
That does not change the principle at work here, nor the equations that apply here.
“The best equation describing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is d(pCO2)/dt = alpha * pCO2”
This equation, if it had a minus sign, would describe a reservoir with outflow but no inflow.
The inflow comes from the ML which adds a term k*[CO2] to the equation.
If there are emissions, E, then the equation becomes
d(pco2)/dt = Beta*[Co2]aq -alpha* pCo2 + E
which is the first equation in BE eq 16.
Correction
‘The inflow comes from the ML which adds a term beta*[CO2]aq
My alpha was described as “partially a function of the ratio of the dissolution and the outgassing thermodynamic.” Which was sloppily stated and inadvertently incorrect on my part. You have written it correctly! Welcome to reality.
“which is the first equation in BE eq 16.”
No, “n” in B&E’s equations (1) “indicate the deviations from the equilibrium values give above.” This is where they go wrong. First-order kinetics are not based on deviations from equilibrium as I explained above [delC/dt is proportional to level, not imbalance]. First order is based on the values themselves, not their deviations from equilibrium.
This is the crux of the model differences between the Salby camp and all the AGW cultists. Unfortunately, it won’t resolve the bottleneck issue, because the bottleneck is mostly kinetics and has little to do with carbonate equilibria.
Before moving on to another issue, are you now agreeing that
d(pco2)/dt = Beta*[Co2]aq -alpha* pCo2 + E is correct, more or less, and that
it is the pressure DIFFERENCE that is the driving force for NET movement of gas from one to the other, as this equation indicates?
The equation d(pCO2)/dt = beta * [CO2]aq – alpha * pCO2 + E only describes flows into the atmosphere from the ocean. Inflows to the atmosphere from other reservoirs need an additional term. In this form, alpha summarizes all uptake processes regardless of which reservoirs. So, the equation is mathematically correct, but physically incomplete. Modifying the B&E equations to describe changes in total reservoir content, rather than just imbalances, would be closer to a physically accurate model.
As I explained previously, the incidence of equilibrium is rare and limited to seasonal and geographical differences. So generally, yes, the deviations from a theoretical Henry’s Law constant will produce a flow in or outflow from the atmosphere. The driving force is proportional to the bulk reservoir concentrations, not their imbalances.
Ok so moving on to “Modifying the B&E equations to describe changes in total reservoir content, rather than just imbalances, would be closer to a physically accurate model.”
BE indeed define na, nm etc as deviations from the pre-industrial equilibrium vales, Na and Nm. The current totals are Na + na and Nm + nm.
So we could add replace na and nm in equation 16 with Na + na and Nm +nm.
So the net change to the right side of the equation is kma *Nm -kam *Na, which just adds 0, since these were the equilibrium values.
And on the left side we could replace dna/dt with d(Na +ma)/dt, but that makes no change since Na is a constant.
Mathematically, that looks correct. But it is physically wrong. The CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t know what its concentration was back in 1750 or 1880. IOW, those molecules don’t know what the imbalance is. Think about it.
I’m still working on comparing models using both approaches. Stay tuned.
“Mathematically, that looks correct. But it is physically wrong.”
You havent shown me anything ‘physically’ wrong with it.
It is mathematically convenient to work with changes, because, the Revelle Factor operates on % changes.
LOL. I don’t have to show you anything. Be grateful I continue to explain the proper science to you. Where are your textbook references showing driving force proportional to imbalance? I would ask again for data, but that is above your pay grade.
While you are at it, justify how mathematical convenience trumps reality. Specifically, how does a Revelle factor figure into the observed 50% and climbing airborne fraction removed?
For over a month now, you provided no evidence of how an RF is measured and no data showing it caused, let alone causes, a bottleneck.
“Where are your textbook references showing driving force proportional to imbalance”
You already with this, and with the equation that showed it.
“So generally, yes, the deviations from a theoretical Henrys Law constant will produce a flow in or outflow from the atmosphere”
Translation: the flow is proprtional to imbalance (deviation from Henrys law concentration)
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1303714
This Monday Superdeveloping Triple La Nina update brought to you by NY Prepper
https://youtu.be/iH3M0xdOQJs
Looks like the PDO may be shifting phase if that’s the case.
Current data
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
PDO pattern
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/pdo.jpeg
Neutrality is coming.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
When?
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
1-2 months
See last figure.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/ElNino-LaNina/
Well I think it would take long time to double 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
Now, wondering if we ever reach 450 ppm.
April 2022: 420.23 ppm
and will lower and rise over next year.
US CO2 has been lowering for over 20 year
China has increasing for over 20 years prior 2010 it rising at rate
almost million ton per year- about 800 million tons.
US prior to 2000 was rising about 100 million
And India rising in last few decades at around 100
China after 2010 rose at about 200 million for few year then added
about 100 million per year and roughly stop increase around 2015
and India still adding about 100 million per year
Ukraine already loss about 1/2 million ton and will lose probably 100 million from war- loss of population.
And probably other nation add some, world CO2 emission have flat for
about 7 years:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/
So, China increase per year dwarfed any increase and now it’s flat.
But moment price coal is very high, and starting getting high 6 months ago, and last 3 month peaked over $400 per US ton and is currently at over $400 per ton:
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal
And China is large importer of Coal, and will continue to be large importer of Coal and will set world price of Coal at high price.
Until China’s economy crashes or they find alternative to Coal, World Coal will be expensive.
Russia make lots of Coal, but Russia want much money as it get for it’s coal. And of course Russia has lots of gas, and would prefer to sell natural gas [it’s cheaper or more profitable even if Coal is $400 per ton. But Russia would rather sell coal to Europe.
Anyhow China simply can’t import enough coal, and it’s costs are high to product coal. China force world price of Coal to be high- it will buy as much as you ship it, but can’t get enough shipped it- it has mine most of it.
Wood was worse than Coal, but Coal is worse than natural gas.
But wood and coal have high transportational cost. Liquid and gas can piped and simply has more energy per ton and makes water vapor rather CO2 when burned compared to coal or wood.
China apparently has lots of natural gas, but for whatever reason, isn’t mining much. And imports a lot natural gas. Unlike coal, China could import no limit to natural gas via pipeline.
But got all these coal plants. And transforming coal to gas powerplant, is not anything I know about, and never heard of it.
Google:
“To remain competitive and increase efficiency, many coal-fired operations are switching plants to natural gas. Between 2011 and 2019, 103 coal-fired plants were converted to, or replaced by, natural gas-fired plants. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts coal to gas conversions will continue.
In most cases, when a plant switches from coal to become a gas-fired plant, its equipment is either converted to burn natural gas or it adopts new technologies to become a natural gas-fired combined-cycle plant.
Natural gas combined cycle power plants can reach 60% efficient power generation by utilizing both gas turbines and a special type of boiler called a heat recovery steam generator. In a gas turbine, a continuous blast of hot gasses is mixed with air in a combustion chamber to drive turbine blades. The heat recovery steam generator repurposes waste heat from burning natural gas to heat water and operates a steam turbine, boosting the plants total output. ”
So has some costs to it, but does China want to burn it’s expensive domestic coal or import large amount of Natural gas.
It seems since China has been making new coal plant- but maybe easier to convert, but I don’t know- it seems they decided to burn up all their coal- which might take 15 years.
And add to natural gas mining and nuclear powerplants over next decade.
And in 20 years their population will decline.
Reading a book of essays on crime situations in North America. One of the recent essays was on eco-terrorism and featured Chelsea Gerlach who revealed…”Gerlach has previously pleaded guilty to 18 counts of arson in other attacks, saying she was motivated by “a deep sense of despair and anger at the deteriorating state of the global environment,” but adding that she has “since realized the firebombings did more harm than good.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Backfire_(FBI)
This sounds a lot like the old guard at a Texas penitentiary on death row, He claimed most turn to religion, claiming they have seen the light and are converted. Although Gerlach claims a form of conversion she still goes deeply into philosophy that tries to justify her terrorism without coming right out and saying so.
These are the kinds of idiots who are the basic driving forces for global warming propaganda. Gerlach was serving 9 years at the time the book was printed because she ratted on her co-conspirators. Although they swore an oath never to do that, most caved. Some got 30+ years.
Gerlach does not strike me as being remorseful, even though she tries to wax philosophical about it. I don’t think she really gets it. She is quoted as the essay ends as follows…”And then, at the end of the process, perhaps deciding that the most compassionate thing in the world is to light their buildings on fire”.
This is a woman raised by hippies to believe that the environment is more important than anything. So important that you can justify burning down people’s property to make a statement, hoping others will rebel in a similar manner. She did not consider herself an arsonist but a crusader for the environment.
That’s what we are up against, deluded people who live in a personal reality totally separate from the real environment. And now the deluded are running our countries.
During the last glaciation, CO2 change followed temperature change. Since 1850 or so, CO2 has been increasing substantially while temperature has barely changed. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C1zOIE0po0IzFrjCW4eajDVTjEgCErS1/view?usp=sharing What works for both of these conditions is that CO2 does not drive temperature change.
Since it has been accurately measured worldwide, water vapor has been increasing. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rhkRLFLMTH4VCs0RSf-9ePkOZTq-74BV/view?usp=sharing At ground level there are about 10000/420 ≈ 24 times as many WV molecules as CO2 molecules and each WV molecule is more effective at absorbing IR
All of the warming attributable to humanity can be accounted for by the increase in WV. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Berkley Earth disagrees with you.
Why do you make stuff up? Berkeley Earth does not even acknowledge measured water vapor.
Without CO2 GHE, water vapor condenses. Then what? Cooling. Iceball Earth.
That is misinformation derived from faulty GCMs.
In your opinion..
But Modtran clearly shows that CO2 has a significant GHE forcing, and unlike water is non condensible.
Correction: Modtran hypothesizes that CO2 which has an ablility to absorb a narrow part of the IR band will result in meager forcing.
Modtran calculates it with known optical and thermal properties of the atmosphere, not known by Bill.
Nate obfuscates and tells everybody to just move along as there is nothing to see in his possession to validate what he just claimed.
Nate, we know GCMs are faulty because they run hot. They calculate initial WV increase based on temperature rise from CO2. No CO2, no temperature rise, no WV increase. But WV always exists because of measured saturation vapor pressure of water (Fig 4 in . https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com ) And, WV has been increasing as a result of irrigation increase since well before the industrial revolution started to add to CO2. As we all know, the ‘natural’ WV comes mostly, if not all, from the warm tropical water, with most of the vast ocean area contributing little if any WV. Irrigation water is shallow, with lots of solar heating so it is warm and contributes significantly to WV increase. WV increase has been measured at 1.44% per decade since Jan 1988.
The 'notch' in MODTRAN TOA graphs of flux vs wavenumber e.g. Fig 10 in (same link) results because of what happens a lot between wavenumbers 400 to 600 at altitude 2 to 6 km. Here, outward directed radiation from WV molecules can make it all the way to space while outward directed radiation from CO2 molecules runs into other CO2 molecules. The relatively cool WV molecules that have just emitted a photon acquire energy from surrounding molecules which includes the CO2 molecules. End result is energy is extracted from the 600 to 740 wavenumber range creating the notch. The steep population decline of WV with altitude actually augments this process. The redirection of energy is wrt wavenumber, not geometric space.
bob d…”Gordon,
Its Daltons law of partial pressure, not Daltons law of partial temperature”
***
Granted. However, if it’s fair to claim, as did Dalton, that the partial pressure of each gas in a mix can be summed to the total pressure of the gas, then I claim it’s fair to claim, with temperature being directly proportional to pressure, that each partial gas with each partial pressure must have a partial temperature.
You need to let go of the statistical definition of gas temperature, that temperature is the average kinetic energy of the total gas. If each contributing gas in a mix differs in the kinetic energy associated with it, it’s not right to think of the gas as a whole having an average kinetic energy. Each gas has it’s own kinetic energy which can be summed to the average of the entire gas.
Call it Gordo’s law of partial temperatures. Feel free to nominate me for a Nobel but please do refrain from cursing at the awards ceremony.
Can I laugh instead?
What’s to stop the heat transfer between the different gases in the atmosphere?
You don’t get to make up physics, especially when the experimental evidence goes the other way.
Carry on, however, it’s good for laughs.
Yes, I am laughing at you, not cursing at you.
But that’s only because you didn’t insult anyone in this last post.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Self-cleaning spacecraft surfaces to combat microbes
by Staff Writers
Paris (ESA) May 24, 2022
“Astronauts live and work in orbit along with teeming populations of microorganisms, which could present a serious threat to health – and even the structural integrity of spacecraft. To help combat such invisible stowaways, an ESA-led project is developing microbe-killing coatings suitable for use within spacecraft cabins.”
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Self_cleaning_spacecraft_surfaces_to_combat_microbes_999.html
————-
Fungi observed on the ISS, growing on a panel of the Russian Zarya Module where exercise clothes were hung to dry.
Yuck.
Biden just admitted that the high gas prices are related to his Green policy.
Bye, bye, Brandon. Even with your cheating on election day you won’t get in, there will be too many people voting against you and the cheating Dems.
rlh…”Roll on Lithium/Sulphur which do exhibit runaway thermals.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-022-00626-2
***
From your link…
“Through electrochemical characterization and post-mortem spectroscopy/ microscopy studies on cycled cells, we demonstrate an altered redox mechanism in our cells that reversibly converts monoclinic sulfur to Li2S…”
Li2 = dilithium. If they had watched Star Trek they’d have known dilithium crystals are hard to find.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilithium_(Star_Trek)
***
From Star Trek script…
Kirk…Scottie have you got that warp drive going yet?
Scottie…No, Surrrr…wae hae nane o’ thame dilithium crystals.
Kirk…damn!!! They must be using them for double-decker buses. They overheat, you know?
Spock…that’s illogical…to have electric double-decker buses. Something like the silly theory humans had about catastrophic climate change in 2022.
Kirk…Mr. Spock, I think the even more ridiculous theory was that the Moon rotates on its own axis. Skeptics proved it on Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog and no one would believe them.
ie. the skeptics proved the Moon does not rotate on its axis, Kirk.
Kirk…that’s what I said, Gordo.
The Moon rotates on its axis one per orbit of he Earth.
While keeping the same side facing the Earth. Only possible way to do that is performing curvilinear translation, without local rotation.
Take a year of engineering, Richard, you go through all that in detail in first year. Or watch some Star Trek, Kirk knows that.
“While keeping the same side facing the Earth”
Which is exactly what the Moon rotating once on its axis one per orbit of the Earth would achieve.
RLH was never able to understand the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. That simple analogy demonstrates “orbital motion without axial rotation”. The ball is obviously NOT rotating about its axis, or the string would wrap around it.
“Orbital motion WITH axial rotation” is demonstrated by a bicycle pedal. The pedal is rotating in sync with it’s revolution around the hub so that one side always faces a distant star, as it presents different sides to the hub (center of orbit).
Since the cult idiots like links, here’s one that explains it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo-aQIX9ois
The ball is obviously NOT rotating about its axis wrt the central observer, or the string would wrap around it.
Here is a better demonstration;
https://www.tomorrowtides.com/the-moon-does-not-spin.html
Where is the one showing you doing the Pole Dance Experiment, Pup?
W salivates about this pole dance
file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/eb/11/FAF030B0-E018-4A6B-891E-9B0276BFDBAF/IMG_1692.jpeg
Why are you stripping your phone, Fernando?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQsjAbZDx-4
“The ball is obviously NOT rotating about its axis wrt the central observer, or the string would wrap around it”
Only if the string is attached to the surface.
“the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string”
demonstrates the action of a stick rotating about one end.
I can’t stop hoping.
https://i.postimg.cc/Pr17qLhG/nino34-Mon260422.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/QdpfjvQj/nino34-Mon240522.gif
*
But… a French saying is still present in my mind:
Attention! Un train peut en cacher un autre.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
Looks like Nino 1+2, 3, 3.4 and 4 are all going to be colder than expected. Below what is even forecast by CFSv2 at present.
Up to date CFSbv2 data
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino12Mon.gif
Is the bad elementary school teacher so busy with teaching that he didn’t even see that the first of my links is the one ‘up to date’?
Manifestly, he also does not understand the difference between a one day spot and the complex data machinery used to compute ENSO’s present data and forecasts.
So why post an image when a link is available? Why only post one up to date image?
Blinny:
First image 26-04-22
Second image 24-05-22
All my urls
24-05-22
Looks like Nino 1+2, 3, 3.4 and 4 are all going to be colder than expected. Below what is even forecast by CFSv2 at present.
Tell us what kind of voodoo you are performing to make La Nina go away
He is trying to show that CFSv2 is also subject to errors in prediction. As though that means that the BOM is somehow more accurate.
Pray tell Richard why you call Binny “Blinny,” Eboy.
Pray tell me why Willard is an idiot. Oh, don’t bother.
The original word is блин, dummy.
Willard is just an idiot.
He cant stop hoping now ,
but wait when The La Nina actually disappears ,
He will not stop zshitting himself then
Blinny:
First image 26-04-22
Second image 24-05-22
All my urls
24-05-22
And of course, the super-sighted Linsley-Hood is so urging on playing primus inter pares that he didn’t understand why I’ve posted April 26 TOGETHER with May 25.
It’s so pathetic that you lose interest in responding to his comments.
*
Feel free to name call me ‘Blinny’ or ‘idiot’, Linsley-Hood.
You are not doing yourself any favors by doing so – unless you consider it advantageous that dumbies like Robertson exceptionally agree with you in this case.
I did not see you had switched from predicting the future to just observing the past.
observing the past is easy,
making Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future!
Not that hard to predict that you’ll continue to troll Binny, Eboy.
Willard say nothing of interest as usual.
Looks like Nino 1+2, 3, 3.4 and 4 are all going to be colder than expected. Below what is even forecast by CFSv2 at present.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja6ZRgntPsg
The Big 5 Natural Causes of Climate Change: part 4 Landscape Changes
Transcript
https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2022_02_07_archive.html
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1294814
That reflects back to here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1294933
Which reflects to back here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1294867
Willard, as usual, says nothing of value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eddO6RVZ2CM
HEAT WAVES ARE 100% NATURAL- PART 5: HOW PRESSURE SYSTEMS CONTROL CLIMATE
Transcript
https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2022_02_07_archive.html
Transcript for The Big 5 Natural Causes of Climate Change: part 4 Landscape Changes is at https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/
Key points:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves
Poor land use is 100% natural.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1294799
Thank you:
https://climateball.wordpress.com/but-this-odd-place/#dust-bowl
“56.6 Celsius or 134 Fahrenheit measured in Death Valley located in the sub-tropics at 36 degrees north on July 10, 1913.”
“Africa’s record maximum is 55 degrees Celsius or 131 Fahrenheit on July 7, 1931, in Tunisia at 32 degrees north.”
“Asia’s record maximum of 54 degrees Celsius or 129.2 Fahrenheit happened in Israel on June 21, 1942, at 32 degrees north.”
“Europe’s record maximum happened in Athens Greece on July 1977”
“Australia’s record of 50.7 Celsius or 123.3 Fahrenheit happened in January 1960 in Oodnadatta Australia”
“The record temperature of 18.3 Celsius or 64.9 Fahrenheit for Antarctic happened on February 6, 2020,
much to the delight of the co2 climate crisis crowd. But this record was caused by a foehn wind”
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhGtKED3BHXo_6iTG7uENTvrjzHaG85dFOGnBkUfVERaQJXHrT9sRTo7wdOSA8RWlb94dRggRMwJuVWrB_n8C5WBe-1XmQdY_NfoULn_xr8TvSv_1ksArV-0P4GJfOYmJ8lomHkY5ZhjMOjIV950uDqqaxckrnA0_xoP3CixSwn2nXR1-93aXYLlNUuRA=s1046
“While the researchers did not detect a growing trend in the number of winter melt days per year across the ice shelf over the past decade, they expect that the impact of foehn winds is likely to increase with future climate change.”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/foehn-winds-causing-antarcticas-larsen-c-ice-shelf-to-melt-in-winter/
“Heat waves are occurring more often than they used to in major cities across the United States” doesn’t mean every heat wave breaks a record, Richard.
Willard: Everything is like to get worse in the CAGW scenario.
“doesnt mean every heat wave breaks a record”
But global air temperatures are constantly getting hotter.
“But CAGW” is the central square of the Climateball Bingo, Richard:
https://climateball.wordpress.com/but-cagw/
So NO U.
If you can’t even own that Sierra Jim’s “100% Natural” is utterly silly, there’s nothing to expect from you.
Everything is still likely to get worse in the CAGW scenario.
There is no CAGW scenario except in the windmills of your contrarian mind, dummy.
You post about it all the time though.
CAGW is a contrarian meme, dummy.
I don’t do contrarian memes.
You talk about AGW all the time and claim that without immediate action it will become catastrophic. CAGW.
Richard please stop putting that word into my mouth.
C’mon Willard,
If you didn’t keep lying about having a Greenhouse Theory, making an idiotic liar of yourself, you might only seem like an ordinary climate crackpot.
No wonder you have to claim to have two websites – obviously nobody cares enough about one.
Maybe you should start another dozen or so. Then you could be ignored even more widely!
You are not just an idiotic liar, you are a moron as well.
Carry on.
You have already been served that sammich, Good Sir.
Silly sock puppets.
C’mon Willard,
Gibbering about “sammiches” (whatever perversion of the English language you are attempting), won’t change the fact that you are a lying moron.
Lying because you are claiming to have a Greenhouse Theory, which you know doesn’t exist. A moron, because you babble about nonsensical things like “sammiches”, hoping that people will ignore the fact that you are a liar!
Calling all and sundry “silly sock puppets” wont’t change that fact that you are a lying moron, either. Facts are facts, dummy.
Carry on.
I see you keep denying having received your sammich, Mike.
We still have the receipt of the transaction.
We still have the camera footage of you receiving the sammich.
Would you like to lodge a complaint to the manager?
> But global air temperatures are constantly getting hotter.
Yes they are, Richard. If you can’t figure out how that is a statistical possibility, there’s no helping you.
“Yes they are, Richard. If you cant figure out how that is a statistical possibility, theres no helping you”
Wait and see. Wait and see.
By the way, using incorrect statistics that are purely meant for gaussian normal distributions on skewed, bimodal distributions, such as global air temperature with its sinusoidal patterns, just makes you ignorant, not correct.
willard…” Heat waves are occurring more often…”
***
The record for heat waves in the US is still in the 1930s. What caused all the heat back then?
Read the exchange, Gordo. Your deflection has already been answered.
Why do heat waves occur more often?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Some confusion remains about which comes first, CO2 increase or temperature increase. The answer is easy.
We know temperature increase causes CO2 outgassing, and we know CO2 cannot increase temperatures. So temperature increase comes first and CO2 increase follows.
The sun heats the surface of the waters and from the surface the atmosphere is warmed.
The radiant energy from the Sun heats surface, and our ocean is mostly a very transparent surface, the sunlight illuminates and warms tens of meter of ocean depth, and heats the first couple meter of ocean surface the most.
About half of sunlight is visible light and 1/2 shortwave infrared light, the infrared sunlight mostly heats the top 1 meter of the ocean.
Most of the sunlight reaching the Earth surface, heats the tropical ocean. The tropical ocean heats the entire world by circulation of Earth’s atmosphere and circulation of the ocean.
The ocean surface has higher average temperature than the land and surface ocean temperature controls the average temperature of the atmosphere.
And the average temperature of the ocean is about 3.5 C which cause Earth to be ice house global climate. Ice house global climates are called Ice Ages.
The Ice Age we are in is called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, which began when there was a “permanent” ice sheet on Antarctica
continent, permanent is sense of lasting for years rather than melting away within a season and lasting decades and centuries.
The Late Cenozoic Ice Age began 33.9 million years ago. 33.9 million year ago, Earth was much warmer than it is now, and we now living in the coldest time of the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
Btw, one could say we have a global climate because we have a deep ocean.
Without our deep ocean, we would just have weather.
“Without our deep ocean” we would just have land.
No we could have ocean couple hundred meters deep [on average].
The Antarctica “permanent” ice sheet is not more permanent because ocean changes over thousands of years of time.
We have cooling for about 5000 years. Or our ocean has cooling for about 5000 years.
Our ocean has 1000 times more heat content than our atmosphere.
Our ocean average depth is about 3.7 km
3700 / 200 = 18.5
1000 / 18.5 = 54.05
So 200 meter deep ocean is has only 54 times amount of heat as our
atmosphere. Still a significant factor, but we would have completely different world. And it would be more about weather.
Well if drain the ocean to 200 meter average, we would have a lot more land. But it seems reasonable to say the mass of ocean has effected Earth’s rocky surface topography.
So I meant ocean still covering about 70% of planet surface area and having average ocean depth of 200 meters.
If kept our topography and lower sea level by +2000 meter, it give a lot more land, and it might interesting to model- and I would say, hard to model, but it wasn’t what I meant.
Without our oceans we would just have land
If the oceans were only 200ft deep then they would probably be very cold right under the surface. Brine and melting ice would still be present, with latent heat being much more important than sensible heat any day.
Sorry, 200 meters.
“If the oceans were only 200ft deep then …”
If Mars had ocean with average depth of 200 meter, there would be
a lot ocean around 200 ft [61 meter] deep.
With Earth gravity water pressure at 60 meters 6 atm + 1 atm of Atmosphere. On Mars with roughly 1/3 of Earth gravity 60 meter is
2 atm of pressure. The sunlight at 60 meter at Mars would similar to sunlight at 100 meter under ocean on Earth.
You still need to think about the difference between latent and sensible heat. There is always going to be sea ice at the poles.
RLH,
Perhaps you should rephrase this
“There is always going to be sea ice at the poles.”
Unless you are trying to lose an argument with gbaikie.
–RLH says:
May 24, 2022 at 11:59 AM
You still need to think about the difference between latent and sensible heat. There is always going to be sea ice at the poles.–
I would guess 1/2 of our 33.9 million year Ice Age didn’t any polar sea ice in any polar region during the summer.
And more than 1/4 of time, also not in the winter.
I am probably low balling the quess, a more reasonable quess is more 75% of time summer ice free, and more 50% during winter.
But do you the low ball is wild and crazy?
Or we just talk latest time period of last 2 million years.
Or just focus the last interglacial period, Eemian
The number thousand of years of ice free in just summer and also in winter.
When there is no Sun for a sizeable portion of the year, then keeping temperatures above freezing is very hard. Especially if you add in elevation such as at the South Pole (though there it is likely to be just ice and snow).
–RLH says:
May 24, 2022 at 12:48 PM
When there is no Sun for a sizeable portion of the year, then keeping temperatures above freezing is very hard. Especially if you add in elevation such as at the South Pole (though there it is likely to be just ice and snow).–
I am not talking about glacial ice on land, or glacial ice from land which invades the ocean. Just the sea ice.
Now, do have some lack sea ice during winter, now. And fast forms varies, how much melts until sept varies, and how quickly forms varies. In terms arctic, has a lot to with gulf stream transporting “warm” water. This warm water is not very warm in terms after Sept.
It also piles up and other endless variables.
And marine effect of open water around Greenland has big effect for people near coastal water of Greenland. And animals living in arctic with open water because of “strong currents”. Or if currents slow down or stop, they are dead. Or just very cold weather or whatever- winds moving the ice.
To make simple is ocean average temperature was 5 C, there would be very little or no polar sea ice in the winter. But depending ocean circulation, make ocean of 4.5 or 4 C would affect polar sea ice in winter. 4 C ocean will cause ice free summer. People say if had ice free summer, it leads to ice free winter [I don’t agree, but I could be wrong].
“I am not talking about glacial ice on land, or glacial ice from land which invades the ocean. Just the sea ice”
So the North Pole only then. In winter I think there was always sea ice there, even when the Earth was much hotter than it is right now.
–RLH says:
May 24, 2022 at 3:49 PM
I am not talking about glacial ice on land, or glacial ice from land which invades the ocean. Just the sea ice
So the North Pole only then. In winter I think there was always sea ice there, even when the Earth was much hotter than it is right now.–
Well southern polar sea ice is roughly ice free in summer, now and in last century or more.
Ice free polar sea in southern winter, seems requires warmer ocean temperature {5 C}, like Winter arctic sea ice needs in order to be ice free.
The thing about Southern pole is ice shelves from land of Antarctica- as said that different issue. One “might” need a 5 C ocean for thousands of years to significantly lessen glaciation ice flowing into ocean. Or it seems what happens is it flows faster and not added to enough to replace it, so it shorten or ice shelves break off faster.
If more and warmer snow falls. And weather patterns might a major part of it
rlh…”When there is no Sun for a sizeable portion of the year, then keeping temperatures above freezing is very hard. Especially if you add in elevation such as at the South Pole (though there it is likely to be just ice and snow)”.
***
You won’t see lineups to get to the peak of Mt. Vinson like you see on Everest. Vinson is only half the height but it’s hard to get porters in Antarctica and even Sherpas avoid the place.
Heck, even climate scientists avoid the mainland, they hang around the top of the peninsula, closer to the tip of South America.
https://www.adventureconsultants.com/expeditions/seven-summits/mount-vinson/
“Well southern polar sea ice is roughly ice free in summer”
I am not talking about summer, but about winter.
The cold at the bottom of the ocean, regardless of it is full depth or just 200m, is caused by ice freezing and then melting. i.e. the latent heat of ice, not the sensible heat of it.
I am thinking about waste of decades of time doing the cargo cult modeling and wondering how sunlight reaches below say 50 meter of ocean depth. Obviously it’s insignificant amount, but cargo cult has worrying about insignificant amounts.
One could say they ignore the big stuff, like say clouds. Clouds are hard.
And whole focus has been on the immeasurable amount warming from increase in a trace gas. Though any other trace gas which can related to humans doing something, is also something to waste a lot time doing.
And I am wondering {and “always” wondered} what some cargo cultist said which was something like “energy lost to the ocean”. It seem kind of obvious {and very funny}, but now wondering if what was meant tiny amount such as sunlight reaching below ocean depth of say 50 meter [or 20 meter or something]. Which would be more sad, than funny.
are you alright, man? did you fall and hit your head?
Well, I only had 1/2 cup of coffee, so far.
What am dazed and confused about?
Are we not in an Ice Age?
Maybe you missed this part:
“The ocean absorbs excess heat from Earths system, acting to balance the excess heat from rising global temperatures. Scientists have determined that the ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of the excess heat, which is attributed to greenhouse gas emissions. The greater OHC coincides with increases in global average land and sea surface temperatures.”
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/ocean-heat-content-rises
So, +90%
Could be 91% for instance, or 95%
Main point is, don’t know, but can safely say, more than 90%.
Could be 90.5%.
Losing heat to ocean could be another way to say, “ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of the excess heat”
But I would say all heat lost to ocean, is global warming.
It’s “lost”in terms of weather. But weather is not global warming- weather temperature bounces all over the place, to measure global temperature, you can measure air temperature and average it over 30 years. Or you precisely measure the ocean heat content- and no there no need to average it, at all. And that not going to happen- it too hard to do, instead measure some parts of ocean, and average it.
gbaikie, your link is about the latest scam (now about 5 years old) that Entropic man keeps using. The link links to
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-020-9283-7
A quick look at the authors should be revealing: Lijing Cheng, John Abraham, Jiang Zhu, Kevin E. Trenberth, John Fasullo, Tim Boyer, Ricardo Locarnini, Bin Zhang, Fujiang Yu, Liying Wan, Xingrong Chen, Xiangzhou Song, Yulong Liu & Michael E. Mann. (Bold my emphasis.)
Each of those people is earning money by finding evidence that CO2 heats the planet. Their problem is CO2 can NOT heat the planet. But that doesn’t stop them.
This OHC nonsense is hard to debunk, because no one knows the true value. It’s all based on assumptions, estimates, guesses, and opinions mixed in with scant actual measurements to make it appear “sciency”.
Not much actual science happening. It’s all agenda driven. But, let’s play along and assume their figures are somewhat close to being correct.
The graph indicates an increase in OHC of about 10 Zetajoules annually, over about the last 25 years. Sound scary? It’s supposed to.
Their problem is the Greenland ice sheet emits all that much energy, plus 50% more, each year. The Greenland ice sheet emits more energy annually than their supposed increase in OHC.
Is it funny yet?
gbaikie at 12:28 PM
“What am dazed and confused about?”
It’s hard to pick one single item since you’re all over the map, so to speak.
It is well known, by those who know it well, that the earth is in a 1 W/m^2 annual radiative forcing imbalance. If we could direct all of the annual surplus into the ocean, it would raise its temperature by 1 C to a depth of 11 m. Or put another way, if we could direct all of the annual surplus into the entire volume of the ocean it would raise its temperature by 0.0027 C per year.
The ocean takes about 1,000 times more energy than the atmosphere to heat it up by the same amount.
You are funny, ClintR.
Greenland may radiate 1.5*10^22Joules/year. (I’ll take your word for it).
It also absorbs 1.5*10^22Joules/year.
They cancel out. Apart from a slight uptake causing ice melt the net energy flow through Greenland is close to zero.
Similarly energy flows into and out of the ocean mostly cancel out, but not to zero.
The 10^22Joules/year is the net accumulation.
Remember Ent, we’re “playing along” to even use the 10^22 Joules. That figure is VERY dubious, considering the source.
But the point is, even if the figure is correct, it means NOTHING in terms of the size of Earth. Remember again, that figure is for Earth’s entire oceans. But the Greenland ice sheet is only a fraction of Earth’s entire ice. You wouldn’t sleep at night knowing how much energy all of the ice is emitting….
Boo!
“Each of those people is earning money by finding evidence that CO2 heats the planet. Their problem is CO2 can NOT heat the planet. But that doesnt stop them.”
I think problem is none them or anyone can determine how much higher CO2 levels are warming Earth.
It would be nice it our ice house global climate was warming from whatever cause, but it still seems the Earth average surface air temperature is about 15 C and that Earth was colder than 15 C about
100 years ago.
I mistaking thought Earth was getting warmer than 15 C. And 15 C is cold.
And seems global emission of CO2 has flatten over last several years, that China is running out of coal and fracking will provide plenty of natural gas, which will lower emission further.
And wind mills increase pollution and don’t reduce CO2 emissions.
And electrical battery buses are really bad idea, but electrical bus and subways which fed electrical power still work fine and are cheaper and less dangerous than stupid electrical battery bus. All and all, government as a rule continues to screw up things and waste the wealth of it’s citizens.
https://cdn.simplesite.com/i/2d/39/285978583434475821/i285978589400487356._szw1280h1280_.jpg
The Planet Radiative Energy Budget
The Budget considers the planet’s energy balance in Total, and not in average as the Greenhouse warming theory very mistakenly does. The Planet Radiative Energy Budget can be applied to all planets and to all moons.
We have Φ for different planets’ and moon’s surfaces varying
0,47 ≤ Φ ≤ 1
And we have surface average Albedo “a” for different planets’ and moon’s varying
0 ≤ a ≤ 1
Notice:
Φ is never less than 0,47 for planets and moons (spherical shape).
Also, the coefficient Φ is “bounded” in a product with (1 – a) term, forming the Φ(1 – a) product cooperating term.
So the Φ and Albedo are always bounded together.
The Φ(1 – a) term is a coupled physical term.
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/448704125
That’s amazing Cristos.
Thank you, Stephen!
The Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/448704125
Φ is never less than 0,47 for planets and moons (spherical shape).
Also, the coefficient Φ is bounded in a product with (1 a) term, forming the Φ(1 a) product cooperating term.
So the Φ and Albedo are always bounded together.
The Φ(1 a) term is a coupled physical term.
Notice:
A smooth surface planet with no Albedo. A planet with
a = 0.
That planet still reflects the 0,47S portion of the incident solar flux.
An example close to that planet with no Albedo is the planet Mercury.
Mercury is a smooth surface planet with a very low Albedo.
a =0,068.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correction:
Instead of
“Notice:
A smooth surface planet with no Albedo. A planet with
a = 0.
That planet still reflects the 0,47S portion of the incident solar flux.”
It should read:
“Notice:
A smooth surface planet with no Albedo. A planet with
a = 0.
That planet still reflects the (1 – Φ)S portion of the incident solar flux, or (1 – 0,47)S = 0,53S .”
Sorry.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
La Nina effect
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/24/noaa-predicts-above-normal-2022-atlantic-hurricane-season/
All that energy not going to heat up the air.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
Nothing expected in 48 hours
But seems we “should” have lot of Hurricanes in Atlantic.
Or roughly cold on west coast, should cause something.
NOAA is in denial as to the extent La Nina plays in the climate at the moment. They claim to be studying the effect of anthropogenic warming and it must chagrin them to see natural variability playing such a large part.
–Former NASA official Lori Garver offers a front-row seat to the decades-long struggles within and among space bureaucrats and space billionaires. Bring popcorn, as you bear witness to an untold slice of space history.Neil deGrasse Tyson, Astrophysicist and author of Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier
How Lori Garver’s Battle Against the Greed and Corruption of the US Space Program Revolutionized NASA and Ushered in the New Space Age
Escaping Gravity is former NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver’s firsthand account of how a handful of revolutionaries overcame the political patronage and bureaucracy that threatened the space agency. The success of Elon Musk’s SpaceX, Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, and countless other commercial space efforts were preceded by decades of work by a group of people Garver calls space pirates. Their quest to transform NASA put Garver in the crosshairs of Congress, the aerospace industry, and hero-astronauts trying to protect their own profits and mythology within a system that had held power since the 1950s.–
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/escaping-gravity-lori-garver/1140514750
from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
more:
–t often takes decades of fits and starts and dedication by waves of reformers, overcoming occasional missteps, some self-inflicted, some because of government-imposed barriers to entry, to achieve modest, let alone, occasional major public policy reform.
Even then, there is no guarantee of success.
Just ask people who have devoted their lives working to achieve criminal justice reform, or universal civil rights, or major overhaul of the federal government acquisition systems.
Sometimes it even takes a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 event to traumatize the federal bureaucracy into dramatic change.
In the case of space commercialization, these past 40 years witnessed some very tough policy battles between government officials and space entrepreneurs seeking to break the chokehold on the marketplace by the Feds. (Admittedly, still a work in progress.) These efforts were often led by a cadre of fearless, visionaries.
Some of these champions are well known, others long forgotten.
For example, few recall the late Phil Salin, the brilliant Stanford MBA, who was the first to testify to the Congress in the early 1980s about the true costs of NASAs Space Shuttle. [Authors note: I worked for Phil and helped coordinate his testimony.] His detailed analysis showed the true costs to be far in excess of NASAs and its contractor claims and how its heavily subsidized pricing was profoundly discouraging the emergence of competitive private space launch systems. I recall how the lobbyists from Rockwell International, prime contractor at the time, ensured that only one or two Members showed up so that Phil was essentially talking to an empty room.
Phil and the handful of us at the time may have been outgunned and outflanked by NASA, its handmaiden contractors and political overlords, who had no interest in an open and honest discussion regarding the true costs of the program and how best to promote a market-driven space launch sector. But we at least got one of the first honest accounting of the Space Shuttle on the public record.–
and:
–Finally, one can only hope that one can find consensus regarding one of her key statements:
Those in power have long believed that escaping gravity should remain in their control. The truth is that advancing technologies and reducing barriers to entry for the US private sector, thereby allowing them to better compete internationally, are crucial roles of the government. As industries mature, government regulations related to public safety, environmental stewardship, and shared resource allocation must evolve to keep up with the pace of new capabilities. [Note: I would only add that market-driven innovation often leads to cost savings and efficiencies.]
That statement alone deserves to be copied and pinned to every government officials office wall as a reminder of what should be guiding their daily actions regarding the emergence of the commercial space domain. —
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/lori-garvers-book-escaping-gravity-her-personal-odyssey-stadd/?trackingId=yQoXtaKlxjOj%2B%2FVvgxeC5w%3D%3D
I would more go more with Lori.
And add, NASA job is to fight for American rights against other parts of governments, domestic or foreign.
Or make another part of government which does this, and/or I wouldn’t be against Space Force doing this, also.
I think the right to leave a country or planet is a human right given by God.
Talk about bad hair days, this is a bad posting day. Nothing seems to want to post. Sometimes posts show up much later, so if there are duplicates…sorry.
rlh…re PDO…
***
Here’s an interesting correlation between PDO phases and Roy’s UAH graph at the top of this page. Matches pretty good, and that’s just the PDO. Imagine having ENSO, the AMO, AO, etc., working in conjunction or opposition with the PDO. Could easily explain the global warming.climate change as of late. Combine that with recovery from the Little Ice Age and there’s no need for a greenhouse hypothesis.
NOTE!!!…you need to remove the asterisk in ncd*c in the URL below..
https://www.ncd*c.noaa.gov/teleconnections/pdo/
Also, for more PDO info…
check each tab at top of page…
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/645fall2003_web.dir/Jason_Amundson/enso.htm
The following is a paper by Hare and Mantua that reveals how Hare first coined the term Pacific Decadal Oscillation. He discovered it while researching changes in Pacific salmon runs.
The mention in the paper of changes in biota is interesting. That’s a precep.t of climate change and it may be nothing more than changes in ocean oscillations.
http://www.acoustics.washington.edu/fis437/resources/Week%208/Hare&Mantua%20PDO.pdf.
Here is the NOAAs dat for the PDO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/pdo.jpeg
And here is Shen’s 2006 proxy for the same thing
https://imgur.com/a/kfaISL9
rlh…Richard, I had included your links in the reply but for some reason they would not post correctly. Thanks for links.
Max of 4 urls per post.
–RLH says:
May 24, 2022 at 11:15 AM
Without our oceans we would just have land–
This reminds me of if Earth didn’t any atmosphere then it would be some average temperature [33 C colder]
And it should said if don’t have atmosphere AND a Ocean [or lakes and river] then you have some average global temperature.
But Mars has no liquid ocean nor lakes and rivers, or mud puddle and still have atmosphere of water vapor- it’s 210 ppm.
It’s kind of exaggerating to say Mars has atmosphere, but if say the Moon has atmosphere, than compared to Moon, Mars as a lot atmosphere.
But tend think the Moon has water vapor, maybe more they we know it has. Or I think when land anything on Lunar polar region, we should have something to measure how water vapor and other other are there.
But back to Mars, what happens if add a lake with 1 billion tonnes of water in it, one Mars.
Now there are billions of tons of water in the Mars atmosphere of about 25 trillion tons of CO2. Or spray 1 billion tons water over all of Mars and it will “disappear”, but I am talking putting one spot, as a lake. And quite simply there not enough energy in one spot to evaporate it. And it should gradient of sorts in distance around the lake. Or more water near lake, as compare to 1 km from Lake, and more at 1 km, then at 10 km away from lake.
Now Mars water is expensive and it will be, one have lake surface freeze, and froze lake will evaporate less, and as ice thicken to say 6″ thick, the surface can get colder and evaporate less.
Now, I think one need Mars water to be $1 per kg or $1000 per metric tonne. So billion ton is trillion dollars of water.
Well it’s possible Mars water can cheaper, it could be $100 per ton.
If it’s 1/10th cost, maybe evaporation loss over some time period is not much of issue as compared spending a lot effort trying not have any loss of water. Or there efforts to prevent evaporation loss of water reservoirs on Earth- which probably are not worth the costs.
Now what need for Mars settlement is probably less than 1 billion tonnes. So 1000 population town. So need water to be less than $1 per kg, but when getting population over 50,000. If started $1 per kg, by time got to 50,000 pop, water should less than $1 per kg.
Of course Musk wants a million people living on Mars. And water might start out at $100 per ton and for all water needed it could lower to $10 per ton within 5 to 10 years. So at kind of scale, one care less about water evaporation. And one get town near lakes and snow surrounding the town. Seems like cheap landscaping to me.
–TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
May 24, 2022 at 3:13 PM
gbaikie at 12:28 PM
What am dazed and confused about?
Its hard to pick one single item since youre all over the map, so to speak.
It is well known, by those who know it well, that the earth is in a 1 W/m^2 annual radiative forcing imbalance. If we could direct all of the annual surplus into the ocean, it would raise its temperature by 1 C to a depth of 11 m. Or put another way, if we could direct all of the annual surplus into the entire volume of the ocean it would raise its temperature by 0.0027 C per year.
The ocean takes about 1,000 times more energy than the atmosphere to heat it up by the same amount.–
Yes, but we could pump it down 100 meter. Could do 1000 meter but cost more. But also just in 40% of ocean surface which is tropical ocean.
1 year : 0.0027 C, 10 years .027 C
It should not take to long to green the desert, and could be cheaper way to green the desert [and other world’s deserts].
And if do this in tropical ocean it might not cool Earth atmosphere too much.
I have had more than 1 cup of coffee and finished listen to coffee with scott adams- not too interesting.
Waves cause warmed ocean surface to mix. So I think should use the wave energy to mix the warm surface water, better.
How many billions of tons water needs to mixed per year?
Earlier, Tyson McGuffin wrote –
“It is well known, by those who know it well, that the earth is in a 1 W/m^2 annual radiative forcing imbalance.”, and it’s well known by non- climate cultists, that there is no “energy imbalance” at all.
At night, the surface loses all the heat it absorbed during the day. plus a little bit of the Earth’s interior heat.
Climate nutters obviously do not realise that thermometers react to heat in a predictable way. For example, the UHI observation reflects increased temperature due to increased heat. Enough urban heat islands, and pretty soon you have a widespread global heat island, reflecting more than seven billion humans all intent on creating as much heat as they can.
Even this heat escapes to space – never to return. Climate cranks who bleat about “conservation of energy” either do not understand the conservation laws, or are being intentionally misleading.
No GHE. Just physical laws at work.
How would compare difference of Earth Geothermal heat vs “urban heat islands and/or heat generated by human and forest fires [or combustion or rotting or whatever- which heating other than sunlight- nuclear energy, or as said, whatever.
I tend to urban island effect are mostly regarding a wrong way to measure global average land temperature- and not much of a issue in terms of satellite measurements.
I think ocean geothermal thermal heat is issue relate to global climate, and land geothermal heat is not a significant issue.
As far warming for humans, human mostly live in urban area these areas can add several degree to that region’s average temperature and
UHI effects cause rain shadows, generally can have large effect on a localized climate.
–Jim Steele
In parts 1 thru 3 we detailed how ocean currents warmed the Arctic, how more La Ninas were warming the oceans and affecting jet streams. Here I examine the dynamics that warm the land. Because the degree to which the earths surface is heated by the sun determines air temperatures, landscape changes like lost wetlands, deforestation, overgrazing and urbanization have all contributed significantly to warming since the Little Ice Age ended. Although most landscape changes are caused by humans, the intent here is show how landscape changes largely account for the lands temperature trends that have been incorrectly blamed on rising CO2. —
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/24/the-big-5-natural-causes-of-climate-change-part-4-landscape-changes/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1294799
“At night, the surface loses all the heat it absorbed during the day. plus a little bit of the Earths interior heat.”
This is obviously wrong. Any given spot on the surface tomorrow morning could be warmer than this morning (losing LESS heat than it gained) or cooler (losing MORE heat than it gained).
Even averaged over the whole earth, the temperature 24 hours from now could be warmer or cooler than it is right now (ie a net gain or a net loss of heat). Roy’s data summarize these changes on a monthly basis.
There can and will be imbalances on daily and annual bases.
There can and will be imbalances on daily and annual bases.
———————————–
With none of it dependent upon radiation theory.
correction: None of it wholly dependent upon radiation theory.
Indeed, Bill.
Radiation isn’t completely ruled by radiation theory.
It is also ruled by Mike’s Insulation Theory.
And perhaps also Unicorn Fart Theory.
Yep thats a pretty good summary of the Greenhouse theory I would say.
Not really, Bill. That’s more a Sky Dragon Crank precis.
Here would be a better summary:
Hope this helps.
Indeed I got Swanson up above at:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1296608
claiming that cold objects sends radiation to warm object but it doesn’t warm them. And I got NOAA saying they can tell me how warm something gets by measuring how much radiation it receives.
I doubt you can make a better sky dragon soup sandwich than that.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
Maybe you don’t realise that “cooling” is not “warming”. Slowly or quickly, cooling means dropping temperatures, not increasing temperatures, moron.
If you stopped lying about having a Greenhouse Theory, you might be able to accept reality.
There is no GHE. CO2 heats nothing. You are delusional.
Off you go now.
Please continue to play dumb, Mike, and please continue to play squirrels, Bill.
Bill claims: “With none of it dependent upon radiation theory.”
Based on what evidence!? You can hypothesize this. But to state it as a fact requires evidence.
And that is a tall order! 99.9% of the energy input and 100% of the energy output from planet earth is in the form of EM radiation. And yet you seem to be 100% certain that radiation has 0% impact on energy balance for earth!
Tim, please stop trolling.
How about this for predictions
https://youtu.be/xOAqlOxOgSg
“In September 2021, Antarctic sea ice reached its annual peak early, on the first of the month. At 18.75 million square kilometers (7.24 million square miles), the maximum extent was well above the long-term average for that day of the year. However, ice extents dropped off rapidly throughout the month, and September as a whole was near average. On February 25, 2022, Antarctic sea ice reached its annual minimum extent. At 1.92 million square kilometers (741,000 square miles), it was the lowest on record, but the low value was likely due to natural variability rather than a long-term declining trend.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent
Arctic:
It’s winter is somewhere around 16 million square km
Summer {sept}
On September 16, 2021, sea ice cover appeared to reach its annual summer minimum, according to a preliminary announcement from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The area of the Arctic Ocean where sea ice concentration was at least 15 percent was 1.82 million square miles (4.72 million square kilometers).
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-summer-minimum
And wiki polar sea ice ice free:
–An “ice-free” Arctic Ocean, sometimes referred to as a “Blue Ocean Event”, is often defined as “having less than 1 million square kilometers of sea ice”, because it is very difficult to melt the thick ice around the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. The IPCC AR5 defines “nearly ice-free conditions” as a sea ice extent of less than 10^6 km2 for at least five consecutive years.–
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline
So summer Antarctic sea ice is scatter around continent and fair amount in Weddell sea:
–Various ice shelves, including the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf, fringe the Weddell sea. Some of the ice shelves on the east side of the Antarctic Peninsula, which formerly covered roughly 10,000 square kilometres (3,900 sq mi) of the Weddell Sea, had completely disappeared by 2002.–
–The Weddell Sea is one of few locations in the World Ocean where deep and bottom water masses are formed to contribute to the global thermohaline circulation. The characteristics of exported water masses result from complex interactions between surface forcing, significantly modified by sea ice processes, ocean dynamics at the continental shelf break, and slope and sub-ice shelf water mass transformation–
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weddell_Sea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weddell_Sea#/media/File:Small_Tabular_Icebergs_(26376305448).jpg
Or Antarctica does have thick polar sea ice.
Unless want floating ice islands/ice burgs as polar “sea ice”.
[[I think we should process and tow these ice burgs or mine/process thicker sea ice during the winter and tow them in summer.
Or stack sea ice. And trim ice burgs so they stay intact and can be towed easier]]
“Or Antarctica does have thick polar sea ice.” meant:
Or Antarctica does NOT have thick polar sea ice.
“Unless want floating ice islands/ice burgs as polar sea ice.”
Unless you want to call floating ice islands/ice burgs as polar sea ice.
Otherwise seasonal formed polar sea ice in Antarctica ocean is new or thin, rather old and thick as some arctic sea ice is.
Solar wind
speed: 405.9 km/sec
density: 4.49 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 137
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 24 May 2022
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.65×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.3% High
48-hr change: +1.2%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
{Neutron count didn’t go way I thought they would]
Also:
–Multiple forecasters agree that a meteor shower could erupt on May 31, 2022, when Earth runs into one or more debris streams from Comet 73P. The display could be as intense as a meteor storm (1000 or more meteors per hour) or as weak as nothing at all. No one knows how much debris is inside the approaching streams, so meteor rates are hard to estimate.
Whatever happens, people in North America are in a good position to see it. Almost the entire continent will be in Moon-free darkness when the shower peaks. Maximum activity is expected around 1:00 am Eastern Daylight Time (05:00 UT) on Tuesday morning, May 31st. The shower’s radiant (the point from which all meteors stream) will be almost straight above Baja California.–
{I am being attacked:}
Solar wind
speed: 304.4 km/sec
density: 12.22 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 93
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 26 May 2022
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.96×1010 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +6.2% High
48-hr change: -0.9%
I am not understanding this neutron count thing.
I was warned, it wasn’t predictable.
Maybe it’s a Universe thing.
Or going thru less dense galactic space??
Solar wind
speed: 456.9 km/sec
density: 8.43 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 87
Updated 27 May 2022
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.79×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +6.5% High
48-hr change: +0.2%
GCR space radiation is quite high
Sunspots are low for Solar max
Are heading to grand solar Min soon?
I expect sunspots to go higher than 100 and months of it,
but if “over” in less than 1 year, that seems to mean we now in the beginning grand solar min {or not}.
I guess going continue around 90 spot for about a week.
But it seem it Oulu neuton count have to lower to around 5% soon.
But I said that, before.
Solar wind
speed: 509.9 km/sec
density: 7.80 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 34
Updated 28 May 2022
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.73×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +4.2% Elevated
48-hr change: -2.0%
Below 5% …and sooner than I thought
And way lower sunspots, then I imagined
Should stop predicting but Oulu Neutron Counts
probably go to 5% rather going lower than 4%
And it might take a week but sunspot back +100
OR this max is done.
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Solar wind
speed: 537.9 km/sec
density: 8.01 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 42
Updated 29 May 2022
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.79×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +3.8% Elevated
48-hr change: -2.7%
-big drop
I guess it’s going stay around 4%
bob d…”Can I laugh instead?”
If you must. You can tribble your lips too if you must. Like a looney.
***
“Whats to stop the heat transfer between the different gases in the atmosphere?”
***
Nothing. Remember, KE = 1/2 mv^2 = heat, in this case. Temperature is a measure of heat, ergo a measure of KE.
Different molecules have different masses, and likely different velocities, therefore their KE’s will differ, therefore their heat content will differ. They will always be exchanging heat.
Since CO2 is only 0.04%, it will have a miniscule amount of heat but N2 and O2 will have a whole lot, like about 99%. The GHE and AGW theories simply don’t stand up under closer scrutiny.
I will repeat this very slowly.
The CO2 molecules absorb the IR and convert it to heat, and can transfer the heat to the N2 and O2 molecules. The N2 and O2 don’t absorb IR, or maybe a very tiny amount, they have to get their heat from the CO2 molecules.
The atmosphere is heated by the surface IR radiation because of the CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which transfer the heat to the O2 and N2.
CO2 may only have 0.04% of the heat at any one time, but the CO2 is responsible for absorbing all of the heat.
Land areas when sun reaches closer to zenith {or during summer} can be heated up quickly and land at night cools down quickly in contrast
to Ocean areas warm slowly and remain warmer at night.
And ocean areas cover most of Earth surface and control global air temperature.
Today will warm day, here, it’s suppose to warm up to about 37 C and night temperature were about 17. If lived on beach, night would warmer and day would be cooler, because ocean does not warm up to higher temperature but remains warm at night.
The Earth surface is warmed and air above is by heated surface by convectional heat transfer to atmosphere.
If didn’t live in dry desert, a wetter ground surface would warm up slower and higher humidity cause nights to remain warmer. But the dry ground today could reach 60 C while air above it 37 C. If my night was warmer than 17 C, say 22 C, my daytime high could higher than 37 C, today. Or if rained 3 days ago, I could have higher temperature today, because it could caused my night to be warmer. and ground today could been dry and reach 60 C. Or instead raining 3 days ago, if the ocean was warmer, it would have caused my night temperature to be warmer. But could or should have depends weather which roughly going on say in 500 to 1000 km radius of me. Or weather moves in and moves out which allow forecasting weather, or why one forecast the weather few days into the future.
Weather forecasts tell me, today will be the warmest, and next few days it will significantly cooler than today. Today I finally get a summer day.
Droege,
You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Did you take Pchem? You might go take a remedial class if so. You need to learn about IR spectroscopy and quantum states.
bob d…”The N2 and O2 dont absorb IR, or maybe a very tiny amount, they have to get their heat from the CO2 molecules”.
***
Horsefeathers!!! The N2/Co2 get the heat directly from the surface. There is no way that one CO2 molecules surrounded by 2500 N2/O2 molecules could warm them.
Gordon.
I am just talking about the greenhouse effect and the absor.ption of radiation in the IR bands.
Conduction and convection can also warm the CO2 in the atmosphere, which allow the CO2 to emit IR and send the energy back to the surface, about 50%.
Convection and conduction can’t cause energy to leave the atmosphere, or dissipate either, only transfer the energy to something else.
bob,
There is no greenhouse effect.
All matter both absorbs and emits IR.
CO2, like all matter, emits IR whether you “allow” it or not.
You are a moron.
Have you any facts to back up anything with which you disagree? No? Why is nobody surprised?
Swenson,
All matter does not emit IR.
Some matter is too cold to emit IR, but you don’t get that do you?
And then some matter in the atmosphere does absorb and emit IR better than other matter in the atmosphere.
Your claim that there is no greenhouse effect is one of the hardest facts to provide evidence for.
In my line of work, if I don’t detect something, I can’t say there is none, I can only say there is less than x amount.
You have your work cut out for you, better change out of those Angus Young pants and put on the big boy ones.
Stephen P Anderson,
Yes, I took Pchem.
Did you have something specific to criticize what I said?
I am listening.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H47-2DnnNw
“How CO2 Saves the Earth: Greenhouse Gases have Vital Warming & Cooling Effects”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg
https://imgur.com/gallery/jtDg4ir
RLH
Are you familiar with the term “stochastic”?
Yes.
“having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analysed statistically but may not be predicted precisely”
Note the apparent correlation between global air temperatures and the trended AMO (shown above). Does this predict the trend precisely or closely or at all?
….or not at all?
You are trying to interpret stochastic variation as a cycle.
Note that your supposed cycle decoupled from UAH between 2001 and 2015. Would this happen if AMO was driving UAH?
Well as the AMO only represents the North Atlantic it would be surprising if it followed it exactly the whole time. The puzzle is why it holds so well over the rest of the period.
“You are trying to interpret stochastic variation as a cycle”
Low pass filters do not represent random events as a continuous cycle.
“Would this happen if AMO was driving UAH?”
Correlation is not causation. I never said that one caused the other. Purely noted a that a correlation exists.
Nope.
You are pushing two “logical” arguments:-
AMO is a cycle.
AMO correlates with UAH.
UAH is a cyc!e.
UAH is a cycle.
Anthropogenic global warming is not a cycle.
UAH does not show global warming.
Just tell me that the 2 graphs do not line up on their 12 month low pass filters.
That is what a correlation means.
“The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) has been identified as a coherent mode of natural variability occurring in the North Atlantic Ocean with an estimated period of 60-80 years. It is based upon the average anomalies of sea surface temperatures (SST) in the North Atlantic basin, typically over 0-80N”
RLH,
You are making a major mistake here.
You don’t do x when you are doing y.
What are x and y?
Just to add to the mix, here is the SAM done likewise
https://imgur.com/a/IKvAIcH
“You are making a major mistake here”
What? Presenting climate data with various low pass filters added. Try LOWESS it will give the same graphs.
Had 5 also
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/had5.jpeg
SAM also
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/sam.jpeg
SOI
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/soi.jpeg
“In a 2021 study by Michael Mann, it was shown that the periodicity of the AMO in the last millennium was driven by volcanic eruptions and other external forcings, and therefore that there is no compelling evidence for the AMO being an oscillation or cycle.[28] There was also a lack of oscillatory behaviour in models on time scales longer than El Nio Southern Oscillation; the AMV is indistinguishable from red noise, a typical null hypothesis to test whether there are oscillations in a model.[29] “
“What? Presenting climate data with various low pass filters added. Try LOWESS it will give the same graphs.”
Right, you don’t do any of that and then test for correlation.
Even for correlation with the MK IV eyeball.
“Even for correlation with the MK IV eyeball”
Sure. Idiot.
https://imgur.com/gallery/jtDg4ir
“In a 2021 study by Michael Mann….”
I would not trust a word he said. I have his main 2 proxy series on my web site and they do not match anything in the climate record.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/07/04/mann-2003-1400-to-1980/
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2022/05/02/mann-2008-proxy-series/
“Presenting climate data with various low pass filters added”
I just use 12 month and 15 year Gaussian and S-G filters as I port those on here frequently for many series.
The LOWESS suggestion was if you wanted to do some work too on the data series.
Did any of you happen to look at the SAM (Southern Annular Mode) and think about what happened to it after 1980?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/sam.jpeg
entropic…”In a 2021 study by Michael Mann, it was shown that the periodicity of the AMO…”
***
This is the same Mann who co-authored a study on the Antarctic, with Steig, and concluded it had warmed over the past 50 years. Turns out the analysis was fraught with statistical weighting whereby warming in a tiny portion of the tip of the Peninsula was used to warm the rest of the continent.
The laugher was that one station used was under 4 feet of snow.
RLH,
What I am saying is you don’t smooth data before testing for correlation.
“What I am saying is you dont smooth data before testing for correlation”
Why? Do you expect the series not to match up if you apply the same ‘smooth’, aka a 12 month low pass filter, to them somehow? Are you a complete idiot?
If you look carefully then you will see that the little squares, which are the actual data, also match up quite well since 1980.
Care to do the actual calculation before claiming that my ‘eyeball’ observation is not correct or is that too much trouble?
Bob: You obviously have prejudices against low pass filters having been taught that they less reliable than the ‘standard’ statistics of mean, SD, r^2 and OLS.
Go study Anscombe’s Quartet and The Datasaurus Dozen as examples of how ‘standard’ statistics can simply be in error. In all cases plots, 5 figure summaries and low pass filters will uncover the differences which the ‘standard’ statistics do not.
I say once again, global air temperatures are NOT gaussian normal distributions but instead are skewed, bimodal distributions. Nowhere does it say that the ‘standard’ statistics apply to them.
RLH,
It’s a simple exercise, you can even do it with excel, that smoothing data changes the value of the Pearson coefficient.
“In statistics, the Pearson correlation coefficient ― also known as Pearson’s r, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (PPMCC), the bivariate correlation, or colloquially simply as the correlation coefficient ― is a measure of linear correlation between two sets of data. It is the ratio between the covariance[3] of two variables and the product of their standard deviations”
Standard deviations do NOT have any meaning on bimodal data. 1.5 SD can easily cover 100% of the spread.
I any case, an equal reduction in high frequencies to both series will not affect the statistics in a disparate way.
“smoothing data changes the value of the Pearson coefficient”
It changes the 2 series differently if the same low pass filter is applied to both? I think not.
You are comparing one series with itself before and after, not equal application to 2 different series.
If the 2 series were identical, a low pass filter will produce the same answer on both. If they differ purely on the high frequency details but the low frequencies are the same then the statistics of the low frequency components will not change.
RLH,
I thought we were talking about the AMO and UAH, are you now trying to tell me those data sets are bimodal?
I kind of doubt it.
“1.5 SD can easily cover 100% of the spread.”
Sorry I don’t think so, otherwise there would be no six sigma.
I’ll admit that I haven’t taken any course in statistics, so this is false, all I know of statistics is what I have learned on my own.
“Bob: You obviously have prejudices against low pass filters having been taught that they less reliable than the standard statistics of mean, SD, r^2 and OLS.”
What I think is that low pass filters may remove some of the signal that is of interest, and if you are looking for correlation that might not be a good idea.
I have a work thing where I am trying to get a low pass filter applied to data, to make things easier, but not having any luck there, but that is another story.
I do think that disk jockeys, particularly at weddings, tend to over use their low pass filters, and they should be shot.
Also, early on, I wasn’t impressed with digital music, because some of the high frequency signal was missing. Things are better now.
RLH,
“If the 2 series were identical, a low pass filter will produce the same answer on both. If they differ purely on the high frequency details but the low frequencies are the same then the statistics of the low frequency components will not change.”
Then we are in agreement.
But what if the high frequency details are important?
And looking at your graph, I wouldn’t conclude that AMO is the only thing driving UAH.
You can calculate the Pearson’s coefficient, but my eyeball says its not going to be very high.
There is some correlation there, but not that much.
“But what if the high frequency details are important?”
They must produce the same overall distributions, series compared to series, otherwise the low frequency components would be different. After all, the frequency components are simply the mean
addition of all of the numbers in the series over a given time period. (You could chose median instead but that would not make it differ)
All absolute temperatures are bimodal, that is what a sinusoid does. You may well claim that anomalies are unimodal but the range that they cover is tiny compared to the bimodal range.
c.f.
https://imgur.com/a/62XLL5S
https://imgur.com/a/Sc0mK5L
https://imgur.com/a/hMQbQuw
https://imgur.com/a/UW6VnCx
from various USCRN stations
One interesting point is that a good high quality 12 month filter produces the same outcome on absolutes or anomalies without the bias that any one 30 year period encompasses in the case of the later and is much better than a simple 12 month running mean.
“looking at your graph, I wouldnt conclude that AMO is the only thing driving UAH.”
Graphs, plural.
I agree. But it is obvious that the majority of any differences is quite small and quite limited in period. The simple fact is that after you apply an identical high quality low pass filter to both series, if the outcomes match then the underlying series do also. Be that at 12 months or 15 years.
“Sorry I dont think so, otherwise there would be no six sigma”
Do a 5 figure summary of the data and look at the inter-quartile range. That is virtually the same as an SD but applies to all types of distributions, not just gaussian normal ones.
The problem is that most of the climate discussion knows that the underlying data is a set of sinusoids (daily and yearly) but uses statistics that are truly applicable to unimodal rather than bimodal (i.e. sinusoidal) data.
The only possibly true unimodal data is that to do with weather.
See above for some typical daily profiles over a full year.
Here are some typical USCRN average daily profiles
https://imgur.com/a/JecVba4
Sorry, the last one should have been
https://imgur.com/a/wE3VOOp
–ROGER SIMON: To Change the Left, Be Their Psychiatrist.
If you think of these people as victims of that mass formation psychosis, you will realize they arent in their right minds. The word psychosis is there for a reason.
I hate to say this, because, as noted above, family and friends are often involved, but think of these people, bluntly, as mental patients.
If you wish to have any success at all in changing them, treat them that way. I know it sounds mean, but there really is no other way.
That means no arguments. Instead, ask them questions kindly about their views. Let them explain them as long as they wish. Dont interrupt. Let them finish and then ask another questiongently. Dont go too far. You are the psychoanalyst, ironically, in an era when the field of psychiatry has been almost entirely taken over by the left.–
https://instapundit.com/
This is obviously evil 🙂
But what does this have to do with changing lefty- why just do this, “normally”.
Why??
Arguing is fun and useful.
Maybe the argument is boring. That could be a reason.
It seems this arguing about global warming in an Ice Age, is a bit
boring. Isn’t the science settled that we just aren’t going to get warm enough to green our deserts, anytime soon?
It seems to me figuring what Venus temperature at Earth distance from the Sun, could be more challenging- and useful.
If we wanted to get colder, we know how to do it. But it seems it would better to cool Venus. We could pretend that just in case we want to cool Earth at some point in the future, that we should test it by cooling Venus first. Is there any known possible harm connected to cooling Venus?
We wasting trillions with this present insanity, we probably make solar shade to Venus, for less than 1 trillion dollar. Or in future, say 2 decades from now, it could less than 100 billion dollars.
One say that we not ready to do it now, but something to keep in mind in the relatively near future.
Perhaps you should psychoanalyse Righty.
I’m sitting here watching news of the third US mass shooting in ten days.
Ent, you might need to seek some psychoanalysis yourself.
You’re sitting around watching news of violence and fearing CO2 is going to boil the planet. When you’re not wasting your time on such nonsense, you’re making up things to fit your false beliefs.
Boo!
Two loons and one gang fight don’t make a Righty.
The Lefty President is driving most of us crazy.
Make that the loony Lefty President.
gb…I took 4 years of psychology as an elective while studying engineering. I do not regard myself as having expertise in the field, however, it is apparent that many leaders and governments in the world today are affected by some kind of mental problems.
Psychological ailments are divided roughly into neurosis and psychosis. In my own words, from memory, neurosis is an everyday affliction suffered by everyone to one degree or another. Basically, it is an inability, to resolve a conflict between reality and illusion. The conflict may be inconsequential or it may be serious and chronic.
For example, we might have a desire for something to happen and it is not happening. A healthy outlet might be the awareness of the conflict and resolving it through awareness. However, many people internalize the conflict as anxiety or frustration, perhaps anger/violence, and that internalization produces long-standing physical problems.
The other aspect in psychology is psychosis, which means roughly that a person is afflicted with a mental issue that is beyond their ability to control. It might produce delusion, paranoia, depression, etc., and that person may become a dangerous to himself/herself, or others.
I don’t quite know as yet how to summarize the behavior of the modern politically-correct mental issues. People involved tend to regard themselves as altruistic based on a cause but they cannot stop themselves forcing their views on others. It’s almost as if they are trying to act on behalf of others without consulting them.
I have concerns about our Prime Minister in Canada. As the trucker protest in Canada approached Ottawa, the capital, he took his family and ran, as if the truckers were fascists out to get him. When he finally came to his senses, he refused to meet with them and soon brought in a war measures act that had never been used before. He froze bank accounts, not only of the truckers, but of people financially supporting them.
That is not rational behavior or anywhere close to it.
For me, his actions were scary. This is a man who preached throughout the covid crisis that anyone opposing his views were racist, sexist, and particularly, scientifically uneducated. Yet after all his braying about science, he was forced in the end, to declare covid endemic and stop all efforts at masking, vaccination, and lockdowns.
Now he is on a tear about climate change. He is convinced the corrupt IPCC is advising him correctly and he is not willing to listen to alternative scientific views on the matter.
Many would write this behavior off as political opportunism, but I think this man is not dealing with a full deck, as are many of his ilk. This is far more than political, this is emotion gone wrong and in the wrong place.
Don’t know quite how to peg it, but it is an issue that produces mass hysteria and poor solutions.
I think it’s just bad education. And people normally are crazy.
I’ve been saying for years that to explain global warming you need to explain the warming of the oceans. I finally found a scientist that understands that, and guess what? The conclusion is CO2 is irrelevant. This video is game over for CAGW.
https://youtu.be/HXg5UCRPJJ4
You’re a bit late to this party. Part 1, Part 2 and before Part 3 came out. We are now on Part 4.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1294799
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1269744
co2…appreciate the link but the author is somewhat confused. Rather than illustrate the global effect of La Nina he actually agreed with much of the pseudoscience about back-radiation, heat budgets, and the bizarre notion that electromagnetic radiation is heat.
The notion that CO2 can affect the heat dissipation rate at the surface is even more bizarre. At least he is trying to get the message out that natural variability is an important factor in global warming. He misses the point that natural variability explains it completely, along with re-warming from the LIA, which he failed to mention as a factor.
“co2appreciate the link but the author is somewhat confused.”
Both “the author” and Roy Spencer thinks CO2 gas cools.
So, Gordon you don’t think CO2 warms much, do you think CO2 cools much.
Or does anything cool?
So, I think having ocean makes Earth warmer, but falling cold ocean water makes us in an Ice Age.
But despite being in Ice Age with the falling cold water, Earth still seems warmer because it has a ocean.
But thing is ocean water, both warms and cools.
Well there CO in atmosphere and CO burns with O2.
CO is a rocket fuel.
Oh, get a ref:
“In the past it has been assumed that this is true for the stratosphere, mesosphere, and lower thermosphere as well. However, in both the mesosphere and thermosphere COz is dissociated and/or ionized by solar (u.v.) radiation.”
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/32655/0000020.pdf;sequence=1
If made, it keeps on making more and more, or make some, and then it turns back into CO2 [it combusts with oxygen} or chemically reacts with something else.
Just because there are natural causes of climate change does not mean that there are not man made causes of climate change.
As usual, you have not made your case.
And you have not made your case that man made causes exceed that of natural causes. You (and others) have just assumed that it is the case.
RLH says: And you have not made your case that man made causes exceed that of natural causes
Are you saying that bobdroege hasn’t made a case that the anthropogenic contributions to recent warming exceed natural contributions or are you saying that case hasn’t be made by anyone.
The former may be true but is not particularly relevant. The latter is nonsense. It may be that you do not accept the various attribution studies that have been done, but the onus is on you to make that case if you expect to be taken seriously.
I’m trying.
RLH says: Im trying.
A cynic might say you’re displaying a limited repertoire of insubstantial arguments and repeating them endlessly. Some might say cyclically.
Mark B says:
”The former may be true but is not particularly relevant. The latter is nonsense. It may be that you do not accept the various attribution studies that have been done, but the onus is on you to make that case if you expect to be taken seriously.”
Which attribution study do you prefer? And why?
Bill Hunter says: Which attribution study do you prefer? And why?
One of the strengths of climate science is that one doesn’t have to have a preferred attribution study. The various studies using different approaches broadly agree that recent warming is likely dominated by the anthropogenic components.
That this is the case also gives one confidence that they are not falling victim to selection biases.
Gotcha! So you have no opinion on the better methodology and instead are simply convinced by the sheer number of them? Yeah if thats true then I have a bridge somebody wants to sell you and I can guarantee it has more approaches to its value than just about everything else.
Please still to Freedom Fighters trolling, Bill.
Big Space rock killed Dragon of Death
Science News
May 24, 2022 / 7:05 PM
Scientists discover fossil of massive flying ‘Dragon of Death’
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2022/05/24/argentina-scientists-discover-dragon-of-death-fossil/8821653431164/
The Best opportunities To Earn $62,000/Month. Stay at home safe and sound avoiding corona virus but do not sit idol work online and make full use of this hostage period and raise extra money to over come daily financial difficulties…
For more detail visit this web …….
The Best opportunities To Earn $62,000/Month. Stay at home safe and sound avoiding corona virus but do not sit idol work online and make full use of this hostage period and raise extra money to over come daily financial difficulties…
Visit this web ……. https://coinworks53.blogspot.com/
Superdeveloping triple La Nina effect
https://youtu.be/exYz9Lpbfek
Triple year La Nina.
Tim Folkerts does not want to accept reality, which is that the surface has cooled since it was molten.
I stated that “At night, the surface loses all the heat it absorbed during the day. plus a little bit of the Earths interior heat.
Tim responded “This is obviously wrong.”
Not so obviously, as observation shows. In any case, I suppose I could appeal to the authority of Baron Fourier, who said (in 1824 or thereabouts) “Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.”
The Earth is a chaotic system occupied by more than seven billion people, all furiously creating as much heat as they can, and as a result, individual thermometers will record continuously varying, and unpredictable temperatures.
Climate crackpots love averages, but not one can say what the global average temperature is at any given time. Pointless in any case, because temperature anomalies (or anomalies in general) are of no practical use when generated within a chaotic system. No “reversion to the mean” to be seen!
Whether GHE believers are stupid, ignorant, or intentional fraudsters is moot. There is precisely zero experimental support for the notion that increasing the amount of GHGs between a thermometer and the sun makes the thermometer hotter. In fact, exactly the opposite has been observed since the time of Tyndall, by innumerable experimenters, explorers, alpinists and natural philosophers.
Tim and his ilk are cultists, with nothing more than fantasies to support their bizarre assertions.
> There is precisely zero experimental support for the notion that increasing the amount of GHGs between a thermometer and the sun makes the thermometer hotter.
How about:
Mike?
Mike, Mike, Mike
What day is it?
bob,
Repeating a “silly sock puppet”s (according to Witless Willard) name three times, won’t make you look intelligent, will it?
Admitting that you are so stupid that you don’t even know what day it is, won’t help.
Or are you just babbling nonsense for no particular reason?
Maybe you and Willard the Wanker should just play with other!
Off you go now.
I would guess you haven’t seen the Geico commercial.
Come on, Willard.
Not only are you an idiotic liar, claiming to have a non-existent Greenhouse Theory, and thinking anybody will believe you, but you also don’t understand the difference between heating and cooling.
Maybe you meant to say that maximum surface temperatures on the Moon are far higher than on the Earth precisely because there are no GHGs between the sun and the Moon!
Just as I said, moron. Try being a lying idiot moron on your own websites. You aren’t getting a lot of traction on this one, are you?
Carry on.
Mike, Mike,
The Moon loses energy faster, and cools more quickly.
No atmosphere.
The Earth loses energy slower, and cools more slowly.
Atmosphere.
There must be something in the atmosphere.
Would you agree?
Wanton worthless Willard, Earth has an atmosphere. The mass in that atmosphere is tremendous. That means the heat capacity of Earth’s atmosphere is tremendous.
You should have learned that last year in your 7th grade class.
Obviously, you will be repeating 7th grade….
Pup, Pup,
You missed the last bit –
There must be something in the atmosphere.
What would it be?
C’mon Willard,
You are an idiotic liar. You lie about having a Greenhouse Theory, and expect people to believe your lie, which makes you an idiot.
Now you claim you don’t understand how insulation works. Not very clever, moron. What happened to your GHE nonsense? Do you now agree with Raymond Pierrehumbert, who wrote that “carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.”? No GHE, no non-existent Greenhouse Theory.
If you want to play “silly semantic games” about insulation, you are too late. It’s a well known phenomenon, and you can read about it on the internet. Why would you think I would waste my time trying to explain basic physics to to an idiotic lying moron like you, who seems far too lazy to learn anything for himself?
Go away, dummy. Play with yourself if you like. Set up a few more web sites if you want. It makes no difference – lying about having a non existent Greenhouse Theory still means you are a lying idiot.
Mike, Mike,
You are a silly sock puppet. You joke about never having seen the Greenhouse Theory, and expect to lolz, which makes you a sad troll.
Greenhouse theory is a well known phenomenon, and you can read about it not on the Internet but on this very page!
Why should I waste time trying to explain basic physics to to a silly sock puppet who can only ask for the same sammich over and over again while denying to ever receiving it?
Silly sock puppet.
Wanking Wee Willy,
You are still trying to convince people that you have a Greenhouse Theory by lying about it.
Won’t work, particularly if you think a theory is a “phenomenon”!
Calling Mike a “silly sock puppet” is about as stupid as calling me a “silly sock puppet”. Are you trying to troll? Do you really think that calling anyone a “silly sock puppet” is likely to offend, annoy, or insult them?
As to throwing gibberish like “lolz” or “sammich” around, hoping to sound sophisticated and intelligent – maybe you aren’t achieving the result you want.
You don’t have a Greenhouse Theory. There is no such thing. Go away and play with yourself, if you think it will make you appear clever. Nothing you have done to date seems to be working.
Carry on.
Still playing dumb, Mike?
Very well.
See you in a few hours.
Willard says:
Mike, Mike,
You are a silly sock puppet. You joke about never having seen the Greenhouse Theory, and expect to lolz, which makes you a sad troll.
Greenhouse theory is a well known phenomenon, and you can read about it not on the Internet but on this very page!
——————–
there are lots of greenhouse theories Willard. Which one are you claiming to be well known? All I see on this page is an unsupported claim of a greenhouse theory that has photons from cold objects warming warmer objects that also happens to be a violation of the 2LOT.
So you say, Bill.
Show me one.
Willard it wasn’t me claiming to have one.
You said there were two theories, Bill.
Please spell out your equivocation.
Willard says:
You said there were two theories, Bill.
Please spell out your equivocation.
———————————-
I think I said there were a lot of theories Willard. But perhaps only two classifications of greenhouses.
Classification One, The True Theory
An actual greenhouse.
Classification Two, Imaginary Theories
Namely, whatever somebody is imagining a greenhouse is, which based upon 15 years of evidence really has no limit in number as the theories of individuals seem to be in constant flux. But thats the nature of imagination, there are no limits to the number of unique imaginations.
Willard, it is indeed true that anything (for example CO2 or other GHGs) between a hot source of radiation (eg the sun) and a cooler object receiving the radiation (eg, a thermometer) has the direct effect of reducing the radiation received by the cool object and hence reducing the temperature of the object.
The important missing point is that anything (for example CO2 or other GHGs) between a hot source of radiation (eg the earth’s surface) and a cooler object receiving the radiation (eg, the 2.7 K universe) has the direct effect of reducing the radiation LOST and hence INCREASING the temperature of the radiating object.
Exactly, Tim. Some context to understand my comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1260431
Willard, I probably should have read more carefully. You do indeed seem to be addressing the heat LOSE side rather than the heat GAIN side.
Both are important. Some (correctly) see both sides; some (incompletely) see only one.
Swenson is stuck on one idea (where he is indeed correct), apparently unable to process more complex thinking on the issue.
Tim,
Where is the evidence that any increase in atmospheric CO2 from the current concentration will cause any further increase in average global temperature?
Tim,
Once we track down their infelicities, Dragon Cranks have little else than a few silly semantic games over “warming,” “flux,” and “rotation.”
As long as you can shorten and clarify your demonstrations and they spend more time than you, our silly sock puppets remain lousy trolls.
"The important missing point is that anything (for example CO2 or other GHGs) between a hot source of radiation (eg the earth’s surface) and a cooler object receiving the radiation (eg, the 2.7 K universe) has the direct effect of reducing the radiation LOST and hence INCREASING the temperature of the radiating object."
I’m well aware of the 2.7 K figure and its origins, Tim, but strictly speaking, space has no temperature. It’s largely a vacuum. It’s certainly misleading to think of it as a "cooler object" which has radiative exchange with the warmer Earth’s surface. Objects simply radiate into space based on their temperature and emissivity, you shouldn’t be thinking that space can be thought of as "surroundings" which go onto the "Tc^4" side of the radiative heat transfer equation.
Objects don’t lose heat to space, because there is nothing to lose heat to. Objects in outer space are cold because they lack a heat input.
Outer space has a brightness temperature and not a kinetic temperature, DREMT.
Objects in outer space decrease their thermodynamic internal energy by radiating and increase their thermodynamic internal energy by absorbing radiation, a reasonable balance is achieved at an equilibrium temperature.
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/space-human-body/
“One common misconception is that outer space is cold, but in truth, space itself has no temperature. In thermodynamic terms, temperature is a function of heat energy in a given amount of matter, and space by definition has no mass.”
Objects don’t lose heat to space, because there is nothing to lose heat to. Objects in outer space are cold because they lack a heat input.
“Objects dont lose heat to space, because there is nothing to lose heat to.”
That’s good to know if I forget to put a coat on when I get there.
You would indeed get very cold, because of a lack of heat input, and not because you are losing heat to space. You can’t lose heat to nothing, a vacuum.
“you shouldnt be thinking that space can be thought of as “surroundings” which go onto the “Tc^4″ side of the radiative heat transfer equation.”
Actually, that is EXACTLY how you should think of it. The universe radiates to earth like a 2.7 K blackbody. The earth radiates to “space” like it would to a 2.7 K shell surrounding the earth.
“Objects dont lose heat to space”
Yes. They do. The earth loses ~ 240 W/m^2 of heat. It leaves the planet. It goes to “space”. It doesn’t have to go to a specific “object”. It can simply leave as photons in the vast void of the universe.
What is the alternative you propose? That earth retains all the energy it receives from the sun?
"Actually, that is EXACTLY how you should think of it".
No, Tim, actually, it is not how you should think of it. It’s just the way you want people to think of it. Space is not "surroundings". It is the absence of "surroundings".
"Yes. They do. The earth loses ~ 240 W/m^2 of heat. It leaves the planet. It goes to “space”. It doesn’t have to go to a specific “object”. It can simply leave as photons in the vast void of the universe."
No, Tim, you can’t lose heat to nothing, a vacuum.
"What is the alternative you propose? That earth retains all the energy it receives from the sun?"
Obviously not, Tim. I’m not proposing an alternative, I’m just stating a fact. An object in deep space is cold because it lacks a heat input, not because it "loses heat" to nothing. The Earth is the temperature it is due to the Sun, the heat input, and its internal core, another heat input.
You guys desperately need space to be thought of as a cold object which CO2 molecules spare us from. That’s the narrative you need to continue to promote. I’m just setting that straight.
> Space is not “surroundings”. It is the absence of “surroundings”.
I thought space was the final frontier, Kiddo.
Please advise.
DREMT 12:17pm: “I’m well aware of the 2.7 K figure and its origins”
DREMT’s own 12:38 pm link: “in deep space where a thermometer might read 2.7 Kelvin (-455F, the temperature of the “cosmic microwave background” leftover from the Big Bang that permeates the Universe”
DREMT erroneously continues: “Objects don’t lose heat to space,” since actually they do, reducing their total thermodynamic internal energy by radiating to deep space.
Unpowered massive objects in outer space warmer than space brightness temperature of 2.7K will cool to kinetic temperature 2.7K at equilibrium with CMB – you know like the powered JWST cooling to the kinetic temperature of its electronics a few degrees above outer space brightness temperature of 2.7K at its working equilibrium.
DREMT desperately needed space NOT to be thought of as a cold object which CO2 molecules spare us from. That’s the narrative DREMT needed to continue to promote & that’s now debunked by DREMT’s own source link.
DREMT
Please NO!
YOU: “Objects dont lose heat to space, because there is nothing to lose heat to. Objects in outer space are cold because they lack a heat”
If you have a very hot object (like Swenson, Mike Flynn, molten Earth) in space it is going to lose energy to space and cool. I am having a hard time processing your protest on this issue.
The Sun continuously loses trillions of watts of power ever second to space. It leaves the solar surface and does not return.
What is the basis of your current insanity? What is it based upon? Why are you debating this and making a fool of yourself. Please just stop!
“If you have a very hot object (like Swenson, Mike Flynn, molten Earth) in space it is going to lose energy to space and cool.”
I am not arguing that it would not cool, Norman. I am simply pointing out that it would cool because in outer space there is no heat source to keep it warm. Not because it transfers heat to nothing, a vacuum. For heat to be transferred requires something physical for it to be transferred from and to. You have the “from” object, your very hot object in outer space, but space is not your “to” object, or surroundings. Space is not an object, or “surroundings”, it is the absence of an object, or “surroundings”.
Objects in space do not always cool, but when they do they do not transfer energy.
How cool can the Sky Dragon Crank universe can be?
Objects in outer space always cool, it is because no heat source is present.
“For heat to be transferred requires something physical for it to be transferred from and to.”
Not “to”, DREMT commits yet another physics error. Nonzero radiation is emitted from all matter, at all times, at all frequencies & all temperatures. There is no need for something else to exist for such radiation to be emitted cooling matter by reducing its thermodynamic internal energy.
As I said:
"Objects simply radiate into space based on their temperature and emissivity"
Swenson, you were responding to a comment about the earth accumulating energy.
The most obvious interpretation of your reply is a rebuttal to that claim. In which case you are wrong. The earth can as does at times accumulate energy over the course of a day, a month, or a decade.
If you were not rebutting this, then your comment has no point. If you agree the earth only APPROXIMATELY loses the same amount it gains each day, then you are agreeing that it could be gaining 1 W/m^2.
“The Earth is a chaotic system occupied by more than seven billion people, all furiously creating as much heat as they can, and as a result, individual thermometers will record continuously varying, and unpredictable temperatures.”
The ‘heat generated by people’ is only a SMALL part of the variations of ‘individual thermometers’ monitoring global atmospheric temperatures. Clouds and ENSO and GHGs are the larger driving forces.
The energy/heat from 1 million fusion nuclear bombs would warm our cold ocean by much [we would still be in coldest part of our 34 million year Ice Age.
Thick polar sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean for 1000 years, would warm the ocean more.
Alabama is at risk for flooding caused by thunderstorms from the south.
https://i.ibb.co/DYD3pGw/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
Weepy Wee Willard as well as being a lying idiot (claiming to have a Greenhouse Theory which doesn’t actually exist), now descends into imbecility. His full comment, in response to me pointing out that he is an idiotic liar –
“I see you keep denying having received your sammich, Mike.
We still have the receipt of the transaction.
We still have the camera footage of you receiving the sammich.
Would you like to lodge a complaint to the manager?”
What a moron he is!
Sir, is there any problem with your request?
I see you are holding the sammich you ordered.
Please pay for it.
Willard, kindly stop trolling.
RLH, Gordon Robertson
You are contradicting yourselves.
One of the major papers suggesting the existence of a cyclic AMO was published in 2000 by Michael Mann. Indeedit was he who christened it the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation.
https://zenodo.org/record/1232701#.Yo9YgN_TVTs
Yet
“RLH says:
May 25, 2022 at 4:47 PM
In a 2021 study by Michael Mann.
I would not trust a word he said. ”
Then in 2021 Mann publishes another paper concluding that there is no AMO.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abc5810
So, do you not believe Mann when he says there is an AMO or not believe him when he says there is no AMO?
“Evidence for a multidecadal climate oscillation centered in the North Atlantic began to emerge in 1980s work by Folland and colleagues”
Mann was not the first to suggest that the AMO was present or an oscillation. He is the only (main) person who later went back on that observation. Probably because natural cycles do not fit well into the ‘only CO2 causes warm temperatures’ that CAGW fanatics like him consider to be the ‘truth’.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation
Detrended AMO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/amo.jpeg
Trended AMO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/amo-trended.jpeg
” Probably because natural cycles do not fit well into the only CO2 causes warm temperatures that CAGW fanatics like him consider to be the truth. ”
A mirror of your position that CO2 does not fit well into the only cycles cause warm temperatures that climate sceptics like yourself consider to be the truth. “
So you are agreeing that Mann. et al. distort the data so as to fit their CAGW scenario.
Nope. I am saying that you distort the data to fit your “anything but CO2” scenarios.
I say that the data does not show that CO2 is the cause of everything. Time will tell.
I thin that Roy would agree with the statement that natural cycles are just as, possibly more, important as CO2.
I think that….
Big if true.
Wait and see.
You all are a pathetic lot. Go start your own Subreddit for off-topic discussions. This is no place for your off-topic, petty squabbling.
“2. Sea Ice Helps Prevent Atmospheric Warming
Sea ice acts as a blanket, separating the ocean from the atmosphere, according to Tilling. In addition to keeping sunlight out, sea ice traps existing heat in the ocean, keeping it from warming the air above.
The ability of the ice to keep heat in the ocean depends not only on its extent, but also on its thickness, Tilling said.
Every year, some ice survives the summer melt. Once winter hits, more water freezes and it becomes thicker and stronger multiyear ice. First-year ice is thinner and more likely to melt, fracture, or even be swept out of the Arctic. With more ice melting every year, there is less recuring, multi-year ice. As a result, Arctic sea ice is as young and thin as it has ever been, making it a less efficient blanket.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3122/five-facts-to-help-you-understand-sea-ice/
Since I am interested in Mars, I wonder about difference between freshwater and saltwater- which one is better.
So, as general idea say you had 6″ freshwater ice on top, then a salt gradient which was 12″ below it. Then had plastic liner and had 25 C
freshwater water below it.
So you solar ponds on Mars.
Though a simpler solar pond is having denser hotter saltwater below
a salt gradient of fresher water- and top of it would freeze- don’t need a liner. Though then one live in saltwater environment, and would need titanium, as saltwater is quite corrosive.
Entropic man 5/25 at 11:23 AM
“…
I’m sitting here watching news of the third US mass shooting in ten days.”
God does not have an AK47.
I am thinking the Government should make it illegal for anyone under 21 to buy any firearm other than a hunting rifle to see if that drastically reduces teen shooters killing a bunch of humans. If anyone gives a teen a gun and it is used in a mass killing then that person will be charged with murder.
You also do not need an auto-loader to hunt. A bolt action with a limited clip is quite enough.
rlh…”You also do not need an auto-loader to hunt. A bolt action with a limited clip is quite enough”.
***
Being a vegetarian, I prefer a pea-shooter at 100 metres.
However, I am not so naive as to think our current state of democracy will exist indefinitely. Things could change rapidly if fascists took over. Don’t laugh. General Tommy Franks claimed to have discussed such a takeover in the US following 9/11. A nuclear war could bring such a loss of security.
In such an event I’d like to have an AK-47 or an AR-15 with loads of ammo. Be nice to have a LAW rocket and other forms of ordinance.
One thing is certain, in an insurrection, US citizens will be well-placed to defend themselves while we here in Canada run for the hills.
“Id like to have an AK-47 or an AR-15 with loads of ammo”
One thing that preppers need to take into account is that ammo is not an infinite source. The faster you use it, the faster its gone. And you’re not about to find any replacements soon.
RLH says:
Id like to have an AK-47 or an AR-15 with loads of ammo
One thing that preppers need to take into account is that ammo is not an infinite source. The faster you use it, the faster its gone. And youre not about to find any replacements soon.
========================
actually Ukraine has one of the highest small arms per man fighting in the world. And that was true prior to the Russian invasion.
If you are a guy that is truly self sufficient, ammo replacement isn’t something you expect somebody else to give you.
“‘No way to prevent this’ says only nation where this regularly happens”
Got love The Onion.
Clearly there needs to be some legislation. But the more that legislation is decoupled from the government being involved in the implementation the better. A good model would start with something like the model of SCUBA Certification. Obviously one cannot get these kind of events down to zero. A friend of mine who spent a significant period of time in China where firearms are strictly forbidden has events with people coming into schools with machetes and carving up the kids.
So what are going to do? Outlaw Chef Knives?
Liberals really aren’t liberals anymore. They have unachievable aims and don’t care about the harm they do in pursuit of ridiculous goals.
For example in their zeal to stomp out COVID they fail to recognize the statistics that for the first 25 months of the pandemic the death rate of people under 40 is virtually the same as the death rate of people under 40 dying of the flu and that kids under 5 for which there is no COVID vaccine, flu is a significantly greater killer than is COVID. It seems they feel driven to provide the most aggressive argument as they can to scare people with shaky and tweaked facts. And they either are too stupid to realize how transparent that is or it is some other agenda they are pursuing and it is their objective to create skepticism. Can we call that Russian Disinformation too?
Norman says:
”I am thinking the Government should make it illegal for anyone under 21 to buy any firearm other than a hunting rifle to see if that drastically reduces teen shooters killing a bunch of humans. If anyone gives a teen a gun and it is used in a mass killing then that person will be charged with murder.”
———————-
I think there is the possiblity of creating laws to ensure some kind of better accountability. Strict criminal liability seems a cop out to what really needs doing. So we hang a few offenders and fail to really limit the damage.
One needs to look a little more broadly at the problem. Here is what I have heard of the current disaster.
First problem that enable this horrific event was a teacher propping the exterior door to the school open for the purpose of ventilation.
Now I went to elementary school in the desert 70 years ago and they had lousy ventilation then too. There is no excuse for not providing ventilation in classrooms without compromising security. Propping a door open is only a desperate attempt that provides little relief for the students. Strategically local fans to move air would do so much more! And this stop gap ended up compromising the security of the school from this nutcase.
I can understand in today’s fear environment of burning fossil fuels why a school district in a place like Uvalde doesn’t provide air conditioned enviroments for learning when you probably can’t find a place within a thousand miles that houses professionals working that doesn’t have air conditioning.
What that is just emphasizes the way we abuse powerless children and so many people just don’t give a shit.
So here you have a rebel teacher who refuses to allow her kids to be abused that way and she or he props the door open. Security compromised! However the nutcase attack is extremely rare. Its a remote threat when the heat has a really oppressive presence right now. So its hard to blame the teacher.
Next it seems you don’t have a cohesive law enforcement presence. Dang its the border patrol that puts an end to the devastation! Maybe the local police are overworked and underfunded. I don’t know. But this is a community issue and the border patrol is part of this community.
So the question is why are responses to these allegedly increasing events so disorganized? Obviously its a lack of planning by the community. How do we respond? What do we do when we respond? The only answer to that is drills. Drills organized by communities working with all levels of government.
It has already been admitted that the law enforcement present didn’t follow new protocols of immediate entry. And its clear than none of this has been community-wide drilled and planned.
I can’t see anybody to blame on this other than the lack of a comprehensive effort by all levels of government to work together, plan, drill, evaluate, adjust, and drill again.
Some idiots instead are going to attack the 2nd amendment. An amendment wisely put in place to defend freedom from tyranny and enable citizens to defend themselves in a reasonable way from all threats of tyranny or attack.
A response is called for. People want it. Government at all levels should begin organizing teams. Integrate with a system of keeping guns out of the hands of those who have established shouldn’t have them. Make that data assessible at all levels of planning. Push the effort down to the local level with the US government playing a role of guidance and a provider of resources along with State governments.
Charge city and county governments for the implementation, planning, motivating community involvement, and drills. Provide funds to make classrooms more comfortable. Propping a door open for ventilation is a symptom of bad planning and a lack of drills.
If all that had been done this disaster would have been far more limited and perhaps entirely prevented. Revocation of the 2nd amendment may or may not have gotten the job done in this case but would put the entire populace at risk from a whole plethora of other threats.
Sanctity of life
In religion and ethics, the inviolability of life, or sanctity of life, is a principle of implied protection regarding aspects of sentient life that are said to be holy, sacred, or otherwise of such value that they are not to be violated. This can be applied to both animals and humans or micro-organisms; for instance, in religions that practice Ahimsa, both are seen as holy and worthy of life. The value is inherent: Life is created in the womb (or artificial environment to mimic womb).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_life
Some religions also regarded some rocks as sacred. Also Doctors were seems as potential religious “problem”- particularly, what they did with dead people- due to religious ideas about the dead.
Our species calls itself Homo sapiens – “wise man” – but that is a self-bestowed designer license plate at this point and is aspirational at best. An honest taxonomy places us as one of three chimp species, genus Pan. Whether we ultimately become “sapiens” is at this point unknowable.
Perhaps Pan Stupididus would be more apropos.
Its a direct effect of lockdowns.
A lot of people go crazy when they are isolated for too long. As per the pointless lockdowns.
Then add in all the ‘woke’ BS about White Supremacy, Critical Race Theory, Gender Dysphoria, Climate Change Claptrap and all the other leftist crap that has no basis in fact, and its a wonder there are not more shootings.
It’s all the fault of the right wing.
Its Texas. What lockdown?
Ken
You might want to quit listening to the con-artist Tucker Carlson. He makes up things all the time for money and profit and he has a large audience of unquestioning fools that accept his ideas as true. I think he is a vile human but that is my opinion of him. I quit watching this dishonest charlatan a while ago.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/
Look at the number before lockdowns started and reevaluate Tucker stupidity with actual data. The more swill he feeds his followers the more loyal they are to him. Weird how many stupid people there are that are unable to think and evaluate things without some stupid talking head giving them all the wrong answers.
Ken you are smarter than accepting anything spewing out of the mouth of Tucker Carlson.
maguff…”if you read history you realize that God is one of the leading causes of death…”
***
Not so, it’s idiotic humans with pea-brains who cause death. They invoke God as their justification.
“NOAA predicts above-normal 2022 Atlantic Hurricane Season”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/feed/noaa-predicts-above-normal-2022-atlantic-hurricane-season
So cold water in the Pacific (La Nina) is responsible for a predicted bad hurricane season in the Atlantic. I wonder how long it will be for Global Warming to take the blame in the media?
From the bad elementary school teacher:
” So cold water in the Pacific (La Nina) is responsible for a predicted bad hurricane season in the Atlantic. ”
*
This is what I name ‘to dissimulate in order to manipulate’.
Look at how the Linsley-Hood guy one more time reduces a lot of complex factors to what he wants to tell about…
*
From the source
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/feed/noaa-predicts-above-normal-2022-atlantic-hurricane-season
we can read
” The increased activity anticipated this hurricane season is attributed to several climate factors, including
– the ongoing La Nina that is likely to persist throughout the hurricane season
– warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea
– weaker tropical Atlantic trade winds
– and an enhanced west African monsoon.
An enhanced west African monsoon supports stronger African Easterly Waves, which seed many of the strongest and longest lived hurricanes during most seasons.
The way in which climate change impacts the strength and frequency of tropical cyclones is a continuous area of study for NOAA scientists. ”
*
Let me be absolutely clear: this is not the kind of person I would trust.
Blinny thinks that everything is aimed at him. And I trust people who lie about things even less than normal. Like Blinny constantly does. Never did get round to acknowledging that using already rounded data produces errors in the least significant place. Never did acknowledge that I was careful to separate trended from detrended AMO. Constantly says that no one else can collect and analyze data as well as him.
What I actually said was
“I wonder how long it will be for Global Warming to take the blame in the media?”
Any guesses as to how long?
As usual, you try to divert, distort.
I just wanted to show how you reduced a complete NOAA text with your ideologically fixation.
You can’t change that with such a poor ‘Clint R’-like reply, Linsley-Hood.
I just said that the Hurricane season this year was caused by the current La Nina. As NOAA said and you have highlighted.
What I wondered, and still do, is how long we have to wait to see it being blamed on global warming instead.
….this year will be caused by….
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1297246
Linsley-Hood, you are the dishonesty in person.
1. NOAA did NOT SAY that ‘the Hurricane season this year was caused by the current La Nina’.
2. What I have highlighted is what you dishonest guy made out of NOAA’s publication: you intentionally left away 3/4 of their text, in order to give this blog’s readers the impression that La Nina was the only cause of the Hurricane season.
Thus, I repeat.
3. Your text above:
” So cold water in the Pacific (La Nina) is responsible for a predicted bad hurricane season in the Atlantic. I wonder how long it will be for Global Warming to take the blame in the media?”
4. NOAA’s original text:
” The increased activity anticipated this hurricane season is attributed to several climate factors, including
the ongoing La Nina that is likely to persist throughout the hurricane season,
warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea,
weaker tropical Atlantic trade winds,
and an enhanced west African monsoon.
An enhanced west African monsoon supports stronger African Easterly Waves, which seed many of the strongest and longest lived hurricanes during most seasons.
The way in which climate change impacts the strength and frequency of tropical cyclones is a continuous area of study for NOAA scientists. ”
You are exactly the same kind of poster as are Robertson, Clint R, Swenson and a few others.
Confuse, divert, discard, distort, dissimulate, discredit, denigrate…
No real difference between you and them!
Oh that’s new! the bold enhancement is not the same as what I wanted to post!
” The increased activity anticipated this hurricane season is attributed to several climate factors, including
the ongoing La Nina that is likely to persist throughout the hurricane season,
warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea,
weaker tropical Atlantic trade winds,
and an enhanced west African monsoon.
An enhanced west African monsoon supports stronger African Easterly Waves, which seed many of the strongest and longest lived hurricanes during most seasons.
The way in which climate change impacts the strength and frequency of tropical cyclones is a continuous area of study for NOAA scientists. ”
Hope it works now.
No.
“NOAA did NOT SAY that ‘the Hurricane season this year was caused by the current La Nina'”
Will be darling, will be.
The situation in the Atlantic with its warm water is caused by the cold water in the Pacific. This is not even contentious.
“During La Nia, westerly winds high in the atmosphere weaken. This results in an expanded area of low vertical wind shear, allowing more Atlantic hurricanes to develop during La Nia events. La Nia increases the number of hurricanes that develop and allows stronger hurricanes to form.”
Idiot.
Anyway you seem to agree that this is La Nina and not global warming.
Like I said
NOAA predicts above-normal 2022 Atlantic Hurricane Season
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/feed/noaa-predicts-above-normal-2022-atlantic-hurricane-season
So cold water in the Pacific (La Nina) is responsible for a predicted bad hurricane season in the Atlantic. I wonder how long it will be for Global Warming to take the blame in the media?
Worst 10 hurricane years
https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/top-10-most-extreme-hurricane-seasons
Looks like 6 have – nino indices. 4 + indices.
“What relationship is there between El Nino and North Atlantic hurricanes, La Nina and North Atlantic hurricanes?
El Nino events generally suppress Atlantic hurricane activity so fewer hurricanes than normal form in the Atlantic during August to October, the peak of Atlantic hurricane season. During La Nina, westerly winds high in the atmosphere weaken.” causing more and stronger hurricanes,
“During La Nia, westerly winds high in the atmosphere weaken. This results in an expanded area of low vertical wind shear, allowing more Atlantic hurricanes to develop during La Nia events. La Nia increases the number of hurricanes that develop and allows stronger hurricanes to form.”
If you differ from the above then you are going against established science.
From climte.gov
“Simply put, El Nino favors stronger hurricane activity in the central and eastern Pacific basins, and suppresses it in the Atlantic basin (Figure 1). Conversely, La Nina suppresses hurricane activity in the central and eastern Pacific basins, and enhances it in the Atlantic basin (Figure 2).”
the ongoing La Nina that is likely to persist throughout the hurricane season
warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea (caused by La Nina)
weaker tropical Atlantic trade winds (caused by La Nina)
and an enhanced west African monsoon (caused by La Nina)
Dr. Jim Steele has created the most comprehensive and devastating series of science based videos that totally destroy the CO2 drives warming theory that Ive seen. Most importantly he address how CO2 wont warm the oceans, and as Ive always said, if you cant explain how CO2 warms the oceans, you cant blame CO2. His video series is game over for CAGW.
https://youtu.be/kQbSplM6o9Y
https://youtu.be/I4_DjeCsgWk
https://youtu.be/HXg5UCRPJJ4
https://youtu.be/ja6ZRgntPsg
Jim’s website is at https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com
rlh…thanks for link to Jim’s site. Interesting read.
> the most comprehensive and devastating series of science based videos that totally destroy the CO2 drives warming theory that Ive seen
That should tell you more about what contrarians got left:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/like-a-boss/
Sierra Jim plays Climateball like a boss.
Willard plays at being the idiot that he is.
Whining Wee Willy is a lying idiot, who claims that he has a Greenhouse Theory, and complains bitterly if anyone points out that there is no such thing.
Now Willard pulls his usual nonsensical attempt at diversion, by providing a pointless link to his idiot cultist mate Ken Rice. How do I know its pointless? Because it was provided by a lying idiot!
Who would take take notice of the opinion of such a person, except to laugh derisively at such a pathetic attempt at trolling.
Willard is a moron.
Still playing dumb, Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Reading would do you good, Mike.
You should try it sometimes. YOLO.
Willard, please stop trolling.
CO2….”…if you cant explain how CO2 warms the oceans, you cant blame CO2…”
***
Skeptics here on Roy’s blog have been claiming that for years. However, alarmists think they can get around the 2nd law by using smoke and mirrors. Some claim the 2nd law is about net energy, never mind net heat transfer, and based on that pseudo-science they claim if the mysterious net energy is positive the 2nd law is not contravened.
There was not ‘net’ inserted in the 2nd law when Clausius defined it. His statement of the law was precise: heat can never be transferred, by it’s own means, from a colder body to a warmer body. He based that on the irreversible nature of a heat engine in which heat can produce work but no amount of work in a heat engine can recover the heat expended. It’s a one-way transfer of heat.
Many skeptics fail to understand that simple process, among them, the late Fred Singer and Anthony Watts at WUWT. Fred made some disparaging comments about skeptics who claimed heat could not be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface, based on the 2nd law. Anthony has banned people from WUWT for insisting on it, as far as I recall.
Ironically, the 2nd law is an easy law to understand intuitively. You don’t need a degree in physics to understand that heat cannot be transferred cold to hot unless compensation is provided. Such compensation is not trivial, it requires an easily compressible gas, a compressor, two radiators, an expansion valve, and the power to drive the compressor.
The alarmists have an answer for that too, that back-radiated IR from CO2 can be added to incoming solar energy to amplify the effect of the solar energy. This pseudo-science comes from a basic misunderstanding of the laws of physics. For one, you cannot add frequency components that are out of phase and outside the band of solar frequencies. For another, you cannot recycle heat from the surface to GHGs and back while amplifying it. It’s called perpetual motion.
Although what Jim has to say re surface is very good, he falls into the same trap of thinking IR from CO2 can warm the oceans at all. He is also confused about the difference between heat and IR.
Is there warming effect from the Ozone layer of Earth?
Gordon Robertson
It is not “alarmists” who make the statements. It is not even a climate science issue. It is just real experimentally verified physics that you, Clint R and Swenson cannot understand.
You accept that insulation will cause a heated object to get hotter than if left in cooler ambient conditions. You accept the insulation is cooler than the heated object yet it is able to slow the amount of heat transfer from the heated object to the ambient surroundings.
For some reason you can’t understand it when radiant energy is the main mechanism. No perpetual motions. Just real basic and simple physics.
If you accept insulation can increase the temperature of a heated object (and you can test this yourself as some poster suggested you wrap an old incandescent light bulb in thick insulation and turn it on, see if it gets much hotter.
I do not know why you think insulation will be a perpetual motions system.
Not sure why you are so dense on this topic. No amount of evidence or real physics can convince you. There is on perpetual here and it is not motion. It is the perpetual stupidity of you Clint R and Swenson. Hard to believe people can be so stubbornly stupid that they ignore all evidence and continue with their own arrogant made up opinions, over and over for years.
I linked you to Roy Spencer experiment that demonstrated you are an idiot that doesn’t understand physics but you ignored this link and continue with your endless BS.
Gordon, Clint R is a complete arrogant idiot. We have one type on this blog, do you have to be one too?
norman…”You accept that insulation will cause a heated object to get hotter than if left in cooler ambient conditions. You accept the insulation is cooler than the heated object yet it is able to slow the amount of heat transfer from the heated object to the ambient surroundings”.
***
Insulation does not cause a device to get hotter, it prevents it cooling as quickly. The heat comes from another source.
If you have a device heated by an electrical element, it is the element producing the heat. All insulation can do is prevent the heat supplied from dissipating as quickly. If there is no source supplying heat, the device will cool to the ambient temperature of its surroundings. The insulation only delays the cooling, it cannot stop it or cause the device to get warmer.
You misquoted me from my critique of Swannie’s experiment. I did not claim the GP, as an insulator of radiation from the BP, caused the BP to get hotter. It simply reduced the BP’s ability to radiate heat hence it warmed to a temperature indicative of a reduced heat dissipation.
BTW….the BP was being heated by an independent source. Had the BP been completely insulated with a metal foil to prevent radiation, it would have been warmed by the source to an optimal temperature, To. With full radiaiton, heat dissipation would have reduced To to Tdiss. With the GP in place, the temperature in the BP rose above Tdiss but not as high as To.
That’s in an idea world. In reality, IR from the BP would have heated the metal GP via Eddy currents, but it could never heat it to the temperature of BP. Hence, GP is always cooler and the 2nd law tells us it cannot transfer heat to the BP.
> Insulation does not cause a device to get hotter, it prevents it cooling as quickly. The heat comes from another source.
What do you think the Sun is, Gordon.
Gordon Robertson
You are not correcting anything I stated. You must learn to read.
I said insulation will cause a HEATED object to become hotter than it would be without the insulation.
Insulation does cause a heated object to get warmer!! Do some damn testing! Turn on a light bulb and measure the glass temperature in ambient conditions. Write down the value and then wrap the same bulb in insulation and turn on and get another temperature measurement and report your results here. I await your post.
Norman,
You sure are stupid!
Put a light globe in the Sun, you fool! Wrap the bulb in insulation. It gets colder, you idiot.
Just like the surface of the Earth. That’s what hats, roofs, and parasols are for, dummy!
Cooling, not heating.
Swenson
Before you “highjack” my post and call me an idiot you should maybe learn to read. You make a fool of yourself by using incomplete information. I think you are the idiot here.
Insulation works both ways dunce. I have read your numerous posts about how insulation keeps things cool. Everyone knows this Mr. Obvious. It is not some great revelation from your small mind.
Insulation slows down the rate of heat transfer from an object to surroundings.
If and object is heated and insulated in cooler surroundings, the insulation will drive the temperature up.
You do not have to be an idiot when you post. Think about things first if you can.
Gordon,
The two way energy transfer is in the equation
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ah
for heat transfer
From the engineering toolbox, something you are a little unfamiliar with.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Copy pasta didn’t work correctly
(Th^4 – Tc^4)
But everybody should know that by now.
yes…if my bank balance rose to the 4th power I’d be happier. Heck, even the 2nd power would be major.
That science has become more difficult for non-specialists to understand is a truth universally acknowledged.
In a nutshell, research papers are written for specialists. This style means that authors can be explicit in their referencing and economical with space. But whereas the approach produces succinct papers for editors and peer reviewers, it makes tough reading for non-specialists.
Specialization is for insects.
If you can’t write a version of your studies in a way that a reasonably literate person can understand then you aren’t a specialist either.
Ecce signum!
What sign?
“If you cant write a version of your studies in a way that a reasonably literate person can understand then you arent a specialist either”
What do you prpose they do with all the math? Convert diff equations to english?
Using the ‘correct’ statistics for skewed, bimodal data would be a start.
maguff…pseudo-science makes tough reading for anyone with intelligence. Climate alarmists have a penchant for naming their particular form of pseudo-science as ‘the science’, as if there are no other valid opinions based on real science. Did I mention that alarmist scientists tend to be arrogant and stupid?
When the ‘science’ is explained using ‘Baffle with Bullshit’ instead of English it usually means the ‘science’ isn’t.
You can explain how a 4 stroke engine works to an average ten year old kid.
There is no way a ten year old kid is ‘specialist’ enough to invent a 4 stroke engine.
‘Ecce Signum’ indeed.
You make my point perfectly and don’t even realize it!
TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
That science has become more difficult for non-specialists to understand is a truth universally acknowledged.
——————–
Yes ‘jargon’ of the trade in a paper aimed at specialists makes for a shorter paper. But once you plow through the jargon its easy to explain.
Its only difficult to explain when you don’t have good scientific experimental proof. Einsteins theory is easy enough to understand when put into common words (photon being one such jargon word that was naturally pushes the idea of a massless particle was objected to and ignored by Einstein for the rest of his life)
Massless particles belongs in the same category of words that almost nobody understands right along with dimensionless masses. . . . a slight of hand that deludes millions with no favoritism as to their scientific abilities.
The issue is not being able to explain science to someone, it is in making yourself understood. If the reader lacks the proper background, you might as well be talking to the wall.
If you don’t like “massless particles” as a descriptor, then just say “waves.” Problem solved.
You mentioned Einstein’s theory. There are many. Einstein Coefficients and their degeneracies are a fun topic of discussion at parties.
TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
”The issue is not being able to explain science to someone, it is in making yourself understood. If the reader lacks the proper background, you might as well be talking to the wall.”
—————————-
Thats only true Tyson when someone is in preach mode on a topic less than clear to the preacher or when a culpable person tries to steer any questioning down bunny trails in an attempt to head of the investigator finding the right trail.
As a professional investigator over the past 35 years one moves up the investigation ladder via intense 2-way dialogue that eventually reveals either the truth or exposes evasiveness.
Ever wonder why you don’t see high level debates on this topic? All you ever see is preaching by those far less knowledgeable and the preachers seem to never see why their preaching is like talking to a wall.
Okay, so you’re a “professional investigator over the past 35 years”; I am a Professional Petroleum Engineer with over 40 years experience; I will not discuss technical matters with anyone without the proper background. My time is more valuable than that.
You ask, “Ever wonder why you dont see high level debates on this topic?” No! You and I live in different worlds. If you screw up they just hire the next investigator. If I screw up, a whole lot of people get hurt or die; and if I’m in the field I may be one of the casualties.
TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
Okay, so youre a professional investigator over the past 35 years; I am a Professional Petroleum Engineer with over 40 years experience; I will not discuss technical matters with anyone without the proper background. My time is more valuable than that.
You ask, Ever wonder why you dont see high level debates on this topic? No! You and I live in different worlds. If you screw up they just hire the next investigator. If I screw up, a whole lot of people get hurt or die; and if Im in the field I may be one of the casualties.
———————
And that would likely remain true up to an until when somebody does get hurt or die. Then in a criminal court you will be able to remain silent and that might well be to your benefit. However, in the civil trial that followed silence would tend to lead to a large verdict against you. In my line of work typically its beneficial for the investigatee to say what he knows and take the time to answer the questions in detail. Especially since 90% of my work was in pursuit of avoiding risk for my client.
As a professional you probably already know that your best defense is to have done your professional work in complete 100% compliance with the standards of your profession.
Well, that’s the mother of all non sequiturs; but I’ll follow you down this rabbit hole.
I (my companies) have been sued plenty of times. I once had a deep well with high (38%) Hydrogen Sulfide content blowout less than 5 miles from a small town in a southern state. I had to evacuate the whole town while we fought to get the well under control. There is a reason why our lawyers and accountants outnumber our scientists and engineers. The latter make us money while the former help us hold on to it.
You say: “its beneficial for the investigatee to say what he knows and take the time to answer the questions in detail.”
Nope! I learned this early in my career, you only answer the question asked. It’s up to the other side to ask the right question.
Tyson I pointed out that what you say depends upon the circumstances. Obviously during criminal or civil prosecution you say as little as possible without appearing to be evasive at all. And you give an answer to every question unless you should invoke the 5th.
But that has nothing at all to do with the topics in this forum. What this forum discusses is the establishment of professional standards of behavior. The very standards that give one immunity from prosecution. So when I talk of openness and transparency I am talking about the processes that head off prosecution.
In general businesses don’t like to be regulated as it costs them a lot of money as you say in lawyers and accountants. The correct answer is to get rid of the lawyers. Accountants cost money but thats a necessity for any business of any size. The business assumes the liability for all the members of its staff and if you don’t have controls in place to ensure that every member of the staff is doing his job greatly increases the cost to the business when the lawyers have to be called. there is a lesson in there that can be difficult to see and a clear pathway to fewer costs over the longrun. The worst problem you can have is the erosion of science we are seeing. As science underlies it all. but most politicians are lawyers so its kind of a self perpetuating hell we are stuck in. the correct answer? I have a clear idea of what it is and the essential elements are independent science, open and transparent regulatory processes, laws and regulations that by virtue of establishing standards limit liability, and then the most difficult a less litigious nature replaced with a more cooperative one. There are good pathways to foster all of that. Some of those pathways have been eroded in recent decades.
“But that has nothing at all to do with the topics in this forum.”
The topic of this forum is [should be] whatever commentary is pertinent to the headline article; at the moment it happens to be the April temperature anomaly.
“The worst problem you can have is the erosion of science we are seeing.”
I said it before, you and I live in different worlds. In my world science is advancing at a vertiginous pace, so much so that specialization is a requirement. If you don’t believe me just pick up the latest issue of Physics Today: Space-colonization complications, Small Quantum Systems Instrument, 11-Atom molecule, Relaxation processes in linear and non-linear materials, Massive International Fusion Experiment, Innovations in Diffusion Analysis; and that’s only the first third of the issue.
As an outsider looking in you can’t see it. That’s your problem not mine. This is as far as I go.
CFSv2 predictions for next months Pacific ENSO regions
https://imgur.com/a/vP8B4Ma
Give it 2 weeks and we will se how far out they are (if at all).
Jim Steele wrote in one of his transcripts:
” During La Ninas, more heat is stored at depths, typically up to 200 meters, and those depths inhibit ventilation of that heat.
…
During an El Nino event hot water in the western warm pool sloshes eastward across the pacific. Heated waters that had been stored at depths in the west is brought closer to the surface in the east. Where strong evaporation ventilates a portion of that heat and cools the ocean. ”
Recently I wrote in a comment on this blog that I had read something similar, that namely while El Nino extracts heat out of the ocean, La Nina phases conversely stores heat into the ocean.
Even today, I still didn’t manage to find back the source of this info.
I was immediately criticized by somebody for this opinion, though it wasn’t my own.
*
But it seems that what I have read years ago might very well be correct, as it is confirmed by a guy who very certainly is no Warmist at all.
*
However, Steele loses credibility when he writes:
” But the estimated 3 Watts/m2 of infrared heat from the back-radiation of greenhouse gases, never penetrates more than a couple of microns below the surface. ”
Where the heck did anybody claim that 2 or 3 W/m^2 backradiation would warm the ocean???
Afaik, backradiation is measured to give us a proof that not all terrestrial LWIR emitted in response to solar radiation reaches outer space, and not to claim that this tiny stuff would ever be able to directly warm the planet. What a nonsense!
Should anybody here know of a REAL source for that strange claim, so s/he is welcome to reply to this comment with a link on the paper.
I want to see that with my own eyes.
During La Nina more cold water from the depths rises to the surface to be warmed by the Sun.
This cools the air above it until the Sun gets to warm it up.
And it seems likely to me the primary mechanism of cooling the air is by the reduction of evaporation that cold water brings with it. Henry’s law of vapor pressures. We can see in various energy budgets that latent heat being transported into the atmosphere is about 4 or 5 times that of thermals and the only place that goes on with significant climate altering results is over the oceans. The thermals are like a desert effect and run in opposition to variation of the oceans (e.g. thermals increase when clouds decrease).
I suspect that this has a great deal to do with multi-decadal ocean oscillations. E.g. record low arctic ice in the 1930’s accelerating downwelling of brines from record annual refreezes. High levels of ice in from 1950 to the early 90’s insulating the northern oceans from the heat loss from the warmer seas under the ice along with slower input to the thermohaline system due to more limited annual freeze.
Soe weeks ago, Ken wrote:
” Its la nina this year too, but this year its been wet and cool from early April… the snow pillow is showing snow still accumulating. ”
While In Western Canada people look at ‘snow still accumulating’, the situation in the Alps in Europe is quite a bit different: there, the lack of snow accumulated during the recent months is evident.
” Traffic has been rolling over the Swiss Alpine passes Nufenen, Furka and Grimsel again since Wednesday. The reopening could take place unusually early this year.
Due to the enormous lack of snow this spring, the clearing work has progressed extremely quickly. “
binny…”While In Western Canada people look at snow still accumulating, the situation in the Alps in Europe is quite a bit different:”
***
That makes sense. La Nina affects different locations differently. On the west coast of North America, the Pacific NW receives excess rain in autumn while 1500 miles south they are experiencing drought conditions. Even this May in Vancouver has produced a cooler, rainy month and we only recently began to experience warm temperatures.
Last summer, LN parked a heat dome over the Pacific NW in late June and the politicians shrieked ‘climate change’. In November, in the Vancouver area, there was well above average rainfall in a few days, and they shrieked ‘climate change’.
If the lack of snowfall in the Alps caused the Mer de Glace glacier to shrink even more, it has nothing to do with global warming/climate change.
Im making $80 per/hr to complete some jobs on the laptop.I have not at all believed that itd drd even possible but my close buddy was making $27k only in five weeks working this easy offer and she had influenced me to join. Check extra instructions by visiting following web
>>>>> https://extrasavingshere1.blogspot.com/
Catfish living longer than Humans.
Why Are Catfish in Sweden Living as Long as Humans?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/why-are-catfish-in-sweden-living-as-long-as-humans/ar-AAXCO1Y?ocid=EMMX&cvid=37457bbf82ff479da79df803fb61b236
–“With an estimated age of about 70 years at a size of 200 centimeters [6.5 feet] (which is not an uncommon length for catfish to reach throughout its distribution area including Sweden) this substantially exceeds the previously believed maximum age of catfish (approx. 35 years) and renders these individuals among the oldest freshwater fish in Europe.”–
Sharks:
–The longest-living fish (and the longest-living vertebrate, for that matter), the Greenland shark, also dwells in frigid waters and grows slowly. The oldest known is around 400 years old!–
Maybe Humans want it colder to live longer.
But they have stop living in heated home And probably does not for Monkeys. But maybe if flesh eating.
Bob is right –
https://youtu.be/7LtjzQaFZ3k
This is eerily reminiscent of a silly sock puppet we all know and love.
Willard, please stop trying to troll. You are embarrassing yourself.
Please hold, silly sock puppet.
An operator will be with you in a minute.
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
*Soft jazz music keeps playing*.
Willard,
Stick to lying that you have a Greenhouse Theory.
You are better at that than trying to troll.
Carry on.
*Coast to coast LA to Chicago, Aussie sock puppet*
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP5k3ZzPf_0
That is very interesting video
Do we need Starship and it’s planned way to work order to become spacefaring?
It seems it’s needed if you want towns on Mars in Elon’s lifetime.
As Musk’s says, rocket reusability is hard with Earth, and easy with Mars. It’s easier with the Moon.
But it’s also easier with Earth sub-orbital.
So, for me, sub-orbital was pathway, as is the Moon.
Mars?
If we can get humans to another planet we should be going to Fiddler’s Green.
The only thing driving us to Mars is Elon Musk.
But I think NASA should explore Mars.
I would rather live Mercury than Mars.
Mercury is shorter distance, but there huge energy cost to change the orbital vector. And it seems that problem one can solve with cheap enough rocket fuel on the Moon. But one have likewise explore Mercury, first.
One could say Venus orbit, doesn’t appear to need it to be explored- other aspect regarding artificial gravity and how much artificial gravity do have to make
Song Dedication to Clint R, Gordon Robertson and Swenson. Enjoy.
I doubt you will see the connection but hope you like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5JUD8zaK0
Song Dedication to Clint R, Gordon Robertson and Swenson. Enjoy.
I doubt you will see the connection but hope you like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5JUD8zaK0
The only thing good about the video is the guitarist using a Les Paul.
Earlie, Tim Folkerts wrote –
“The important missing point is that anything (for example CO2 or other GHGs) between a hot source of radiation (eg the earths surface) and a cooler object receiving the radiation (eg, the 2.7 K universe) has the direct effect of reducing the radiation LOST and hence INCREASING the temperature of the radiating object.”
Complete nonsense. Just another cultist fantasy.
I might point out that the Earth has cooled since its creation – that is a decrease in temperature.
Tim has fooled himself into believing that slowing the rate of cooling of an object means it has to “heat up”. No, it doesnt. As the cooling of the Earth demonstrates.
Tim accepts that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer results in a lower thermometer temperature, but then asserts that that thermometer must heat up because of the increased CO2 between the Sun and the thermometer! Simultaneous heating and cooling, making the thermometer hotter than it should be – or something!
No Tim, there is no GHE. Global temperature observations can be explained using normal physical laws. No post-normal climatological physics required.
Which normal physical laws, Mike?
Weepy Wee Willy,
Why am I not surprised that an idiotic liar who claims he has a non-existent Greenhouse Theory, does not know about physics?
That would make you a stupid idiotic liar – which of course you do not deny.
Best stick to masturbation. Reality does not care whether you are a stupid, idiotic liar. You can get to your “Oh! Oh! Oh!” moment all the same. Tell me if Im wrong.
Off you go now.
The basic physics you cannot cite or even name involves a greenhouse effect, Mike.
You can call an Isolation Effect if you like. It does not change the equations.
Sky Dragon Cranks like you lost.
Suck it up.
Whacky Wee Willard,
The is no greenhouse effect, dummy.
You can keep lying about having a Greenhouse Theory, but if you expect anyone to believe you, you are an idiot.
The Earth has cooled. You dont have to accept reality if you dont want to. Feel free to think that a rational person might care for your opinions.
I suppose you might be irrational enough to value the opinion of a delusional idiotic liar who claims to have a non-existent Greenhouse Theory, is so obsessed with “silly sock puppets” (Mike), that he cant help treating them as real, but nobody else will.
Carry on.
Ten years with the same silly denial, Mike. We must celebrate!
To another decade so you playing dumb!
Wonky Wee Willy,
Still no Greenhouse Theory, dummy?
Still lying that you have one?
Still trying to convince people you are not a lying idiot?
Good luck with that.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn soldiers on.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Superdeveloping triple La Nina effect
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/surf%E2%80%99s-how-does-enso-impact-hawaii
Hint – ʎɹǝʇsʎɯ ɐ s,ʇI
bob d…”Gordon,
The two way energy transfer is in the equation
q = ε σ (Th4 Tc4) Ah
for heat transfer”
***
The engineering toolbox does not offer that equation as a measure of two way heat transfer, it is offered only as a measure of heat dissipation at a surface. In the equation, Th is the surface temperature and Tc is the environment temperature.
If you expand the equation you get:
q = e.sigma.Ah.Th4 – e.sigma.Ah.Tc4
which makes no sense for several reasons.
For one, e and A are the same for both radiating bodies. For another, it contradicts the 2nd law.
I am not sure the S-B equation can be used in that manner, even for heat dissipation. Stefan only offered it as a relationship between the temperature of a body between about 600C and 1500C and the EM intensity it emitted. Neither did Stefan say anything about heat or heat dissipation.
It is an interesting use of the equation, but as I have pointed out, the parameters don’t match.
GR,
bob is just another demented cultist, trying to fool people into believing that energy can move from a cooler body to a warmer one, with the ridiculous consequence that the cooler body must, of necessity, become cooler (having lost energy), as the warmer becomes hotter (having gained energy).
So one body heats, the other cools, total energy remaining the same! Free refrigeration and heating simultaneously. And through the windows, the streets will be observed to be paved with gold, although slightly obscured by the flocks of flying pigs.
Dimwits like bobdroege dont think – they just “believe”.
Who needs facts, when fantasy requires so much less effort?
Swenson,
“trying to fool people into believing that energy can move from a cooler body to a warmer one, with the ridiculous consequence that the cooler body must, of necessity, become cooler (having lost energy), as the warmer becomes hotter (having gained energy).”
The first part is correct, but the conclusion is not my argument.
The equation shows two way energy transfer, but only one way heat transfer, and no the warmer object doesn’t become hotter.
bob,
If the warmer object doesn’t become hotter, and the cooler object doesn’t become colder, what’s the use of your equation? It shows that a colder object cannot heat a warmer one?
I already know that, without the need for an equation.
Have you an experiment that shows that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer, makes the thermometer hotter? Of course not. Even Tim Folkerts agrees that I am correct about this.
Maybe you could join Willard in claiming you have a non-existent Greenhouse Theory, and become an idiotic liar – just like Willard!
No GHE. Accept reality.
Swenson,
“Have you an experiment that shows that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer, makes the thermometer hotter?”
Of course I do.
Compare the Keeling curve with the graph at the top of the page. Now technically you may argue that the graph on the top of the page is not a thermometer, but that is rejected with prejudice.
And we have already provided you with the Greenhouse Effect Theory, you can stop lying that there isn’t one any day now.
swenson…”Free refrigeration and heating simultaneously”.
***
If you could apply CO2 as a heat amplifier all of our power problems would be solved. It would absorb radiant energy from a heat source and return it to the source so the source would never cool. Maybe we could have a control knob on the CO2 container to adjust the amount of heat feedback [sarc /off}.
Nifty. And then there’s reality that it won’t work…except in the make-believe atmosphere of Bob et al.
Gordon,
This is not the argument we are making.
“It would absorb radiant energy from a heat source and return it to the source so the source would never cool.”
CO2 would only return half, the other half goes up.
It’s not an amplifier.
I would have thought you would have figured that out.
My bad.
Gordon,
“If you expand the equation you get:
q = e.sigma.Ah.Th4 e.sigma.Ah.Tc4
which makes no sense for several reasons.”
If that makes no sense, then the original equation makes no sense as the transformation from one to the other is the distributive law of multiplication.
You keep forgetting, and I’ll keep reminding you that the law is named after two scientists, one for the experimental work, and one who derived the equation mathematically.
Like one of Einstein’s equations, it’s good for all temperatures.
Bob…you won’t find anything in the work of either Stefan or Boltzmann featuring an equation of their work as you have presented it. Anything they offer reprsents a one-way transfer of heat from a super-heated body to the surrounding environment. Nothing in S-B about a reverse transfer of heat from the cooler environment back to the super-heated body.
I don’t know what they were thinking at the Engineering Toolbox when they presented it. The equation does present a reality in that the rate of heat dissipation dos increase as the difference between Th and Tc gets larger. However, it cannot be written as you quoted it because is has to expand into two mathematical statements that make sense.
If you expand the equation, it almost represents a difference in EM intensity between the two bodies, which means zilch. As I pointed out, when expanded, it imposes the same emissivity and surface area of the hot body on both bodies. Makes no sense.
Gordon,
Time for an experiment if you think the equation means zilch.
Get a cooler and two blocks of ice, just big enough to fit in the cooler.
Put one block in the cooler and leave one block out of the cooler.
See which one melts completely first.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Bindidon wrote –
“Afaik, backradiation is measured to give us a proof that not all terrestrial LWIR emitted in response to solar radiation reaches outer space, . . .”
All terrestrial LWIR does indeed flee to outer space, never to be seen again.
Backradiation is just climate cultists fooling themselves into believing that they have discovered something new. No, all matter above absolute zero emits IR radiation. All. That includes oxygen, nitrogen, CO2, chocolate bars, tinfoil hats etc.
Air above absolute zero emits IR radiation in proportion to its temperature, all else being equal. It is measured as “air temperature”!
No GHE. Just thermometers responding to heat, as they were designed to do.
Flynnson
” All terrestrial LWIR does indeed flee to outer space, never to be seen again. ”
You are such a dumb moron…
You wouldn’t even be able to give us a proof of what you write.
How is it possible to post such ignorant nonsense?
Binny,
The fact that the surface cools below maximum daily temperatures at night, during winter, over the last four and a half billion years or so, supports me.
If you don’t want to accept reality, why should I care?
The ramblings of a sour kraut don’t bother me unduly. If you want to join Willard in the lying idiot category, just claim you have a Greenhouse Theory!
Dumkopf!
What can I do for you today, Mike?
Flynnson
Apart from your endlessly dumb stuff like
” The fact that the surface cools below maximum daily temperatures at night, during winter, over the last four and a half billion years or so, supports me. ”
what is a true non-sequitur, or
” The ramblings of a sour kraut dont bother me unduly. ”
what gives me a big laugh, please write next time
” Dummkopf! ”
that would be at least correct, though still dumb.
entropic…re AMO
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation
“Evidence for a multidecadal climate oscillation centered in the North Atlantic began to emerge in 1980s work by Folland and colleagues, seen in Fig. 2.d.A.[5] That oscillation was the sole focus of Schlesinger and Ramankutty in 1994,[6] but the actual term Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) was coined by Michael Mann in a 2000 telephone interview with Richard Kerr,[7] as recounted by Mann…”.
***
You are suffering from major naivete if you take the word of Mann for anything.
You might want to discuss it with RLH.
He certainly agrees with Mann’s earlier work suggesting that there is a cyclic AMO.
Personally I agree with Mann’s more recent study suggesting that the AMO is an illusion.
Mann was late to the party by about 20 years.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/amo.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/amo-trended.jpeg
Any oscillation you see there, according to Mann, is an illusion.
Humans are pattern seeking animals with strong tendency to see patterns even when they are not there.
That is why God invented confidence limits.
Could you add 95% confidence limits for the green and blue lines to these graphs, please.
Low pass filters do not generate confidence limits, being a pure mathematical function of the data. In this case the 2 LP filters are at 12 months and 15 years as the caption says. You may notice that the longer one is contained within the shorter one and follows the center of it quite well.
The longer one has a wavelength of 60-70 years, as has been claimed elsewhere.
The pattern you see is quite consistent (regardless of it source) covering 2 cycles.
“Confidence limits tell you how accurate your estimate of the mean is likely to be.”
The mean is not a good statistic to use an a skewed, bimodal data set. They are normally used on unimodal, gaussian distributions.
Perhaps I should make the question more concise.
The null hypothesis is that the data is stochastic and there is no cycle.
Your alternative hypothesisis that the data is cyclic.
Can you show that there is a statistically significant difference between the two hypotheses, enough to falsify the null hypothesis?
You are wrong. My alternative hypothesis is that that are long period frequencies in the temperature data. What the ‘cycle’ for those frequencies is is unknown and varied but it is most definitely not a single frequency that can be simply uncovered by DSP, wavelets, etc. but a combination of many such frequencies that come and go throughout time much the same as any complex, untuned, natural system would create.
A simple low pass filter, which is not ‘tuned’ to any one frequency other than its ‘corner’ does not make a preference for any particular frequency in its lower pass band and is an excellent tool to uncover any such long term patterns. I chose 15 years as being a place in the bandwidth as having very little energy in the system. It is also a long enough away from 60 years so as to make any impact on that important frequency as moot.
Weather may well be stochastic/random from day to day but seasons and diurnal temperature patterns are definitely not stochastic/random. Ocean currents and climate patterns also have long term frequencies in them and they are not constrained to single frequencies either like the natural patterns they are.
That the various long term series in the ocean and the atmosphere, as on my site, shows that they exhibit such waviness/quasi-cyclic behavior and is easily enough to dismiss the null hypothesis of stochastic/random.
The patterns are there no matter that you claim that they are just human invention. What you see is what you get.
You are trying to do the equivalent of saying that chaotic eddies in fluids should exhibit single long term frequencies when that is obviously not the case.
RLH says: . . . a combination of many such frequencies that come and go throughout time much the same as any complex, untuned, natural system would create.
How, in your mind, is this different than “random variation” with system memory/inertia?
Random/Stochastic input does not produce consistent large scale output patterns in low pass 15 year filters such as seen in AMO, PDO and other measurement series as shown on my website.
What ET is claiming is that eddies do not exists because they have no simple single frequency pattern associated with them.
Entropic man says:
”The null hypothesis is that the data is stochastic and there is no cycle.
Your alternative hypothesisis that the data is cyclic.
Can you show that there is a statistically significant difference between the two hypotheses, enough to falsify the null hypothesis?”
———————————————–
there is no need for the skeptics to show that ET. They are not the ones proposing that they know something which provides a justification of altering peoples behaviors by
the threat of force.
We have a group of people suggesting the world can be significantly changed to the worse by the modification of a very small parameter. The null hypothesis is that it can’t. That has to be the null hypothesis for a free world.
There is too much information in the public realm to be a denier of natural climate change like Al Gore and Michael Mann. The very fact they felt the necessity to suggest that is sufficient evidence they don’t know what they are talking about.
But you wish to reverse the burden of proof so you can have your way with others. Thats called ruling by fiat. . . .a hallmark of all authoritarian states throughout history. So don’t be surprised when you see a middle finger salute raised enmass in your direction.
The null hypothesis is that the data is stochastic/random and there are no eddies.
Your alternative hypothesisis that the data shows that there are eddies.
the commercial fishing industry is profitable on the basis of there being eddies all over the ocean. The main current creates a circular movement of water around the perimeter of any ocean (divided by northern and southern hemispheres.) Around each circulation exists numerous gyres both temporary and permanent. Gyres can be thousands of kilometers in diameter or very small. these gyres create what is called ‘structure’ to an otherwise uniform appearing ocean and fish love to congregate around these structures as the in many ways represent corrals to forage fish with fences of water of different temperatures.
There are no boats big enough in the industry to ignore this and fish profitably by a random selection of where to fish. Scientists know practically nothing about this, until of course they get into the field, and they learn to hire the fishermen to guide them.
gbaikie…”Is there warming effect from the Ozone layer of Earth?”
***
Nope. The temperature at bottom of stratosphere is -60C. And although they claim it is only -3C near the top, it’s still too cold to transfer energy to the Earth’s surface at an average +15C. It’s also too far away from the surface and too weak. Inverse square law.
“Inverse square law”
If you take 2 infinite parallel plates then the inverse square law does not apply. That only works for point or spherical sources and large distances.
The atmosphere, being very thin compared to the size of the globe, is more like parallel plates than it is a spherical source.
The atmosphere is about 60 miles thick, barely enough to reach the next town on the majority of the globe.
Flux leaving Earth surface would be reduced by 3%, at 60 miles altitude. More reduction as altitude increases. Earth is NOT flat.
The difference between 1/(3,959)^2 and 1/(4,119)^2 is quite small.
About
6.38e-8 compared to 5.89e-8
which is the same to the first 6 decimal places.
RLH, your first mistake was trying to comment about something you know NOTHING about. Your second mistake was not being able to add correctly. 3,959 added to 60 is 4,019, not 4,119.
That results in an inverse/square calculation of :
( 3,959)^2 /( 4,019)^2 = 0.97,
leading to a reduction of 3%, as stated above.
As it is the INVERSE SQUARE LAW between 2 objects, that is 1/r^2, so 1/(3,959^2) for the surface is not that dissimilar to 1/(4,019^2) for the TOA, to the first 9 decimal places approx. So even closer than I said.
RLH, you don’t understand any of the physics. Your “first 9 decimal places” is nonsense. But, you did correct your addition mistake (even though you didn’t acknowledge it). So I’ll take some extra time to explain the inverse-square law. Hopefully you will recognize your mistakes.
If Earth is emitting 400 W/m^2, with a radius of 3959 miles, then at 4019 miles (60 miles above the surface), the flux would be reduced by 3%.
The inverse-square law comes from the conservation of energy. At Earth’s surface, the energy emitted is E = 400*(4πr^2). At an altitude of 60 miles, the energy would remain the same, E = F*(4π(r+60)^2). So, since the energies are equal, we can set the two equations equal and solve for the flux at altitude.
400*(4πr^2) = F*(4π(r+60)^2)
400*(r^2) = F*(r+60)^2
F = 400*(3959)^2/(4019)^2
F = 388 W/m^2
A 3% reduction from that at the surface, as stated above.
Cult idiots can’t learn because they’re braindead. I’m curious to see if you can learn….
The inverse square law is about effects that change with distance, in this case the center of an object.
So we have 1/r1^2 compared to 1/r2^2. Not r1^2 compared to r2^2. Idiot.
If r1 = 1 and r2 = 2 then we have
1/1 compared to 1/4 which is exactly what the inverse square law says.
The circumference of a circle of 3,959 radius is how much smaller than the circumference of a circle of 4,019 radius?
C = 2πr
C1 = 2π * 3,959
C2 = 2π * 4,019
Let 2π = 6.28
C1 = 24,862
C2 = 25,239
C2 – C1 = 377 which is not 3% of either C1 or C2.
RLH understands NOTHING about the Inverse-Square Law, and he can’t learn.
I’ll keep this as a perfect example of how braindead they are.
Do you disagree that things at 2 and 3 times the distance of 1 show 1/4 and 1/9 of the effects seen at 1, according to the inverse square law?
Do you disagree that, using the inverse square law, the difference between 1/(3,959^2) and 1/(4,019^2) is quite small?
Do you agree that you didn’t have a clue about the law, and are only now getting a grasp due to my help?
I simply miscalculated (by a hundred) a subtraction. You got the whole inverse square law wrong.
RLH you are incorrectly using the circumference of the earth as a base. The correct method is to use the surface of the earth and it does come out to 3.054%
A = 4π r^2
A1 = 4π (3,959^2)
A2 = 4π (4,019^2)
Let 4π = 12.56
(3,959^2) = 15,554,911
(4,019^2) = 16,152,361
A1 =
A2 = 202,873,654.16
Posted to early sorry.
A1 = 195,358.24
I can’t get 3.054% out of that but it looks like you were more correct that I was. Thank you.
The real point is that the reduction is still quite small between the surface and the TOA. That does not alter.
Oops. Finger trouble this morning
A1 = 195,369,682.16
RLH says:
”The real point is that the reduction is still quite small between the surface and the TOA. That does not alter.”
—————————-
Yes and the true effect doesn’t seem to be well established with some emissions occurring at the surface and some occurring in the mesosphere. I haven’t seen anything that really tells us where emissions actually take place and because of the power equation involved a mean height of emissions is really meaningless.
When we look at energy budgets one has to be aware that they are greatly affected by plug values to fill in around uncertain values.
Not to speak of the wide disparity attributed to backradiation compared to actually pointing a IR thermometer at the sky. Trenberth says in at least one of his budgets that backradiation is a plug figure.
The only radiant energy coming from the sky is from Sun, Moon, and stars. And only sunlight warms anything.
The sunlight can heat the ground to 70 C and 70 C ground isn’t radiating energy very far, instead ground can conduct heat to your feet and warms the air by air molecules contacting the warm surface- convectional heating.
An air molecule is interacting with other air molecules which traveling faster than a bullet, but the air molecules travel no where, as a bullet would. The temperature or energy of air, depends on it’s mass within volume. A cubic meter of air at sea level at 15 C is about 1.2 kg. Or 1 by 1 meter and 1000 meters at 15 C is about 1200 kg. Which cool thing down to 15 C, or warm thing up to 15 C, if colder than 15 C. And the 1000 meter above this has less mass of air- and less temperature due to KE= Mass 1/2 times velocity squared.
There some huge number molecule in cubic meter of air and molecules very very small. And are roughly empty space with a lot of traffic in the space. And as elevation increases the traffic is less.
In Ozone layer is much more empty and molecules traveling faster and they are absorbing some kinds of UV light and molecules are chemically reacting due to them energized by sunlight [and other things].
On radiative exchange and blackbodies operating as insulators
There’s a nifty page where you can input some primary values, like emissivity and the temperature of the warmer and cooler object, and the rate of radiative heat transfer will be calculated.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
The default is an emissivity coefficient of 0.64, the warm body temp is 100C, and the cold body temp is 0C. The resulting radiative heat transfer is 501 W/m^2.
Change the temperature of the cold body to 50C and the transfer rate reduces to 307 W/m^2.
This should not be possible if the radiation from the cooler body has no impact on the warmer body.
The equation for this is on the same page, and it relies on subtracting the temperature of the cool body T(c) from the warm body T(h).
You’ll find equations like that in nearly every reference on radiative transfer – the temp and/or radiative emissions from cooler surface is subtracted from warmer one. The MIT links I showed did that. I can keep providing a huge number of examples.
Because the flow of heat is calculated from the NET exchange of energy.
We reduced the radiative heat loss of the warmer body just by making its surroundings a little warmer.
What happens when you reduce the rate of heat loss of a body receiving a continuous input of energy?
It heats up.
How many links must I provide to corroborate this before opponents provide corroborating links for their view?
Answer: they don’t have reputable references for their view, which is not rooted in physics.
But click on the link and play with the inputs. See for yourself.
Ah, but as I tried to explain upthread:
"[quoting Tim] The important missing point is that anything (for example CO2 or other GHGs) between a hot source of radiation (eg the earth’s surface) and a cooler object receiving the radiation (eg, the 2.7 K universe) has the direct effect of reducing the radiation LOST and hence INCREASING the temperature of the radiating object."
I’m well aware of the 2.7 K figure and its origins, Tim, but strictly speaking, space has no temperature. It’s largely a vacuum. It’s certainly misleading to think of it as a "cooler object" which has radiative exchange with the warmer Earth’s surface. Objects simply radiate into space based on their temperature and emissivity, you shouldn’t be thinking that space can be thought of as "surroundings" which go onto the "Tc^4" side of the radiative heat transfer equation.
So you can’t compare for example, BP > space with BP > GP and declare that the heat flow is smaller BP > GP, thus the BP should warm. Space is not some big cold object, or “surroundings”, it is the absence of surroundings.
“Im well aware of the 2.7 K figure and its origins, Tim, but strictly speaking, space has no temperature. Its largely a vacuum. Its certainly misleading to think of it as a ‘cooler object’which has radiative exchange with the warmer Earths surface.”
Gee I wonder where the 2.7 K figure came from? Could it have been from radiation coming from cold space and detected here on warm Earth? Yes that is was it.
The 2.7 K figure comes from the cosmic microwave background.
It would be a mistake to claim it came from something at 2.7 K because it is extremely red shifted and very old, from when the universe first became transparent to radiation.
As noted in the article, heat is transferred to space by radiation. For the purposes of calculating radiative heat transfer, the 2.7 K works just fine. And as it noted, thermometers will equilibrate to 2.7K.
Oh, I forgot a reference:
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/space-human-body/
“One common misconception is that outer space is cold, but in truth, space itself has no temperature. In thermodynamic terms, temperature is a function of heat energy in a given amount of matter, and space by definition has no mass.”
“space by definition has no mass”
Low mass, not no mass.
Yep can’t forget about that ‘medium’ of space even if folks are having a tough time integrating it into theories of energy.
DREMT’s own source debunks DREMT’s comments: “in deep space where a thermometer might read 2.7 Kelvin (-455F, the temperature of the “cosmic microwave background” leftover from the Big Bang that permeates the Universe)”
“One common misconception is that outer space is cold, but in truth, space itself has no temperature”.
in deep space where a thermometer might read 2.7 Kelvin”
Does the article contradict itself, or is Ball4 just an idiot?
No. You are an idiot.
Space has no temperature.
Interstellar space has a measured amount of mass, not very much and not very precise, or it varies quite a lot, but 1 molecule per cubic meter or so.
So we get into another argument about calling something zero, which is usually frowned upon in scientific circles, as well as those regulated by the FDA.
“One common misconception is that outer space is cold, but in truth, space itself has no temperature”.
“in deep space where a thermometer might read 2.7 Kelvin”
Does the article contradict itself, or is Ball4 just an idiot?
The article is self-debunking & debunks DREMT’s claims in the process.
Incorrect.
“in deep space where a thermometer might read 2.7 Kelvin” easily debunks DREMT – from DREMT’s own link.
“One common misconception is that outer space is cold, but in truth, space itself has no temperature” easily debunks Ball4 – from DREMT’s own link.
Nope it is DREMT that is debunked, and the article contradicts itself. This is what happens when a report by Dept. of Pathology is consulted by incompetent DREMT instead of the Harvard Dept. of Physics.
DREMT really should consult Harvard Dept. of Physics SME since DREMT demonstrates doesn’t understand the elementary difference between brightness temperature of deep space and kinetic temperature of all matter.
Yup, it is Ball4 that is debunked. This is far from the only article to state that space has no temperature.
You got some more that debunk DREMT claims? Bring em on. Better to get them from a Physics SME not a Pathology Dept. that so obviously contradicts itself and, also, not your blog of climate sophistry.
Find out. Report back. Do your own homework.
Sure. Homework already found out & explained. Ref.:
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
Space has no temperature.
As usual DREMT reads one sentence in an article, neglects all context, and misinterprets it.
True, Nate. Deep space without matter present has no kinetic temperature.
The fact is, you guys desperately need space to be thought of as a cold object, or surroundings, which CO2 molecules spare us from. That’s the narrative you need to continue to promote. I’m just setting that straight. Hence the unbelievably OTT reaction from trolls such as Ball4. The more you guys obsessively and relentlessly respond and react, the more you draw attention to it. So, please continue.
… correcting DREMT in physics. It’s a never ending task and so much fun.
The more you guys obsessively and relentlessly respond and react, the more you draw attention to it. So, please continue.
… continuously correcting DREMT in physics. It’s a never ending task and so much fun had by so many commenters more astute than DREMT.
…the more you guys obsessively and relentlessly respond and react, the more you draw attention to it. So, please continue.
the more you guys show you are idiots….
Yes, indeed, RLH…the more they show they are idiots. Space has no temperature.
“in deep space where a thermometer might read 2.7 Kelvin” easily debunks DREMT – quoted from DREMT’s own link.
… the more you guys obsessively and relentlessly respond and react, the more you draw attention to it. So, please continue.
“the more they show they are idiots”
I was talking about you, not them.
Yes, I know.
So you agree that you are an idiot.
No.
come on guys. Space has no temperature. You should know that.
“in deep space where a thermometer might read 2.7 Kelvin” debunks Bill – quoted from DREMT’s link.
the more you guys obsessively and relentlessly respond and react, the more you draw attention to it. So, please continue…
… correcting the physics of DREMT and Bill et. al. The task is fun & never ending.
The more you guys obsessively and relentlessly respond and react, the more you draw attention to it. So, please continue
Ball4 says:
”in deep space where a thermometer might read 2.7 Kelvin” debunks Bill quoted from DREMTs link.
————————–
Ball4 easily fooled and believes ‘might’ means for sure.
There is no heat in the vacuum of space. There are objects in space that have heat and my transfer that heat to a thermometer via radiation and you might get hit by a warm object but if you do get hit by an object with enough heat to feel it most likely you won’t feel it.
Riiight.
There is no temperature in space so, conveniently, we can never get real answer to this problem.
Gee, I wonder how spacecraft transfer heat to space? And how can spacecraft like the Webb space telescope ever be designed if heat flow to space cant even be calculated because it doesnt have a temperature!
Sorry folks, this is a basic textbook heat transfer problem that has been solved by countless college students.
And the Webb Space Telescope was successfully designed, with heat transfer to space being a critical element in the design.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/04/21/is-webb-at-its-final-temperature/#:~:text=The%20Mid%2DInfrared%20Instrument%20(MIRI,cryocooler%20to%20under%207%20kelvins.
“Gee, I wonder how spacecraft transfer heat to space?”
Magic?
Yes, indeed, RLH, it would have to be magic, since you cannot transfer heat to nothing, a vacuum. Energy can be radiated out to, or rather through, space, based on an objects temperature and emissivity, though. As long as you understand the difference between heat and energy, you should be fine.
“Yes, indeed, RLH, it would have to be magic, since you cannot transfer heat to nothing, a vacuum. ”
DREMT sez magic is involved in reality. Proves he’s a loser. No surprise.
Well spacecraft cool in outer space like the JWT does. And if you have no other explanation then it must be magic.
The explanation is the lack of a heat input.
For all intents and purposes 2.7k is zero. 2.7k produces a radiation field that is 3 millionths of one watt (3 microwatts). Clearly something that can be completely disregarded as an influence on temperatures. Heat coming from the earth’s core is more than 30,000 times greater than that and its disregarded as well.
correction: That would be 3microwatts/m2
“The explanation is the lack of a heat input”
But that would only keep things at the same temperature, not make them colder.
Wrong.
Anyone claiming the JWT has a lack of heat input is wrong. As the article stated, the instruments produce heat, and the sun shield (which uses MLI) cannot block ALL of the sun’s heat input.
DREMPTY,
You have to better than quote a research assistant in the department of pathology, writing in a blog, even if it is a Harvard blog.
There is still matter in space so space has a temperature, your guy writing in a Harvard blog is mistaken.
The matter in space might have a temperature, but the space itself does not have a temperature. A vacuum does not have a temperature.
DREMPTY,
Don’t forget your qualifiers.
A perfect vacuum does not have a temperature, but a perfect vacuum does not exist.
Well, Mr. Pedant, describing space as having no temperature is a lot more accurate than describing it as being cold. End of story.
DREMPTY,
Except one is completely wrong.
As usual you get the science wrong.
I believe I said, “end of story”, bob.
DREMT,
The temperature of space is irrelevant to the radiative transfer equation you can make use of with inputs at this link:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
I used 0 C and 50 C for the cold object – nowhere near the temperature of the void.
If the environment is warmer, the rate of heat loss from the warmer object is reduced.
Go on, click on the link. Change the temperature of the colder object see what happens to the rate of energy shed by the warmer object.
Change the emissivity to 1. Now you have a blackbody, if you want to plug that in.
All it’s showing you is that radiative transfer between a warm and hot object is the NET result of the different radiative fluxes.
And that the radiation from the colder object is absorbed by the warmer one.
The website is called The Engineering Toolbox, a repository of basic physics concepts and online tools.
It corroborates (yt again) what Nate, Tim and I and others here have been saying. Radiation is absorbed hot to cold and cold to hot, and the NET exchange is the result of 2-way radiative transfer. ‘Heat’ in classical terms flows with the result of that NET exchange.
The GPE works through GP radiation slowing the radiative heat loss of BP. This tool shows you the calculation for that, and lets you play with temps, surface area and emissivities to test it.
Click on the link. Check it out.
barry, “the void” has no temperature, but you need to be aware that you are not introducing me to the concept of the radiative heat transfer equation, as you seem to believe. I am already well aware of it, including its role in the debunking of the GPE. Try reading through the article and comments I linked to below.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1298416
The flaw in that post is the moment radiation from the plate to a wall of external power “negates” (his word) the radiation from the plate in that direction.
Oops!
Postma has just destroyed energy, breaking the first law of thermo. And this is the basis for his argument on the GPE.
In the comments, Postma gets something right.
“It is like the heat flow equation, where heat is the net difference between emissions:
Q = s * (T1^4 – T2^4) ”
Thank you Postma, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying.
Take note, Gordo!
Yes, Virginia, it is the NET exchange of energy.
Just what critics of the GPE can’t come to terms with, as they focus, with all the myopia you could ever need, on the emissions in only ONE direction.
No energy is destroyed, barry. Sorry you were unable to understand.
Ok, then what happened to it?
Where did it go?
It didn’t get reflected back the non-powered plate, because the non-powered plate would then absorb it, changing the radiative balance of the non-powered plate.
Bust Postma has no change in it.
It should get absorbed by the powered wall. But not according to Postma.
Postma set it up so that there are only 2 surfaces the energy can go to, and according to his math it goes to neither.
Where did the energy go, DREMT?
It disappeared. “Negated.”
Postma broke the 1st Law.
barry, first of all: in the standard setup of the Green Plate Effect, with the Sun as the heat source, the view factors between the source and the blue plate, and between the blue plate and the green plate, are not the same. So you have to treat the radiative transfer differently between the two scenarios. Do you agree, yes or no?
The view factors make no difference to how physics operates.
Having re-read the post, Postma believes that a universal view factor causes radiation to be “negated” in the direction of the warmer object, and pushed back out the other side of the cooler object.
Totally invented physics.
And that is why there is no formal reference for his claims.
And that is why none of the critics here will ever provide a formal reference for this claim, or any of the others against the GPE.
So a universal view factor makes warmer objects mirrors, and cooler objects totally transparent.
In the comments people see the problem with it, even aligned regulars, and one of them correctly states that the radiation from the plate would warm the source wall.
But what I’d like is even one formal physics reference for any of these weird views.
Come on – 2 years! Referenc, link, go!
I take it that your answer to my question was “no”. The correct answer to my question was “yes”. As the view factors are different between the source and the blue plate (1), and the blue plate and the green plate (2), you have to treat the radiative transfer differently between the two scenarios (1) and (2). Unless you think view factors make no difference to radiative transfer, in which case I will need you to support that with a reference.
Cult Leader grammie pup wrote:
I agree with Barry. Eli’s GPE discussion is based on a math model which excludes edge effects, thus edge losses due to “view factors” are not included. In the real world Greenhouse Effect, the situation is like that of large parallel plates with small distances between them, so, again, the edge effects can be ignored.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1302174
“barry, ‘the void’ has no temperature”
And yet, this is a big juicy red herring.
Since as we can ALL see with the Webb Telescope, in reality, heat is transferred to space. And it can be calculated!
DREMT is wrong, and dishonest, again.
Heat is not transferred to space Nate. You should know that.
BH: So why did the JWT get colder as time elapsed?
One thing for sure it wasn’t because it transferred heat to space.
Finish your checks, Bill –
It transferred heat to space where there is no temperature.
a) radiation is not heat.
b) space does not absorb radiation or heat
Whatver you declare, Bill.
The designers of the Webb Telescope were able to design it with the assumption of being able to sink its generated heat to space @ 2.7K.
It works. Thankfully you were not advising the heat transfer engineers involved.
Nate says:
Whatver you declare, Bill.
The designers of the Webb Telescope were able to design it with the assumption of being able to sink its generated heat to space @ 2.7K.
It works. Thankfully you were not advising the heat transfer engineers involved.
——————————
You are just making that up Nate. The heat transfer engineers do not have fine enough technology to differentiate the cooling needed between a 2.7k and 0k environment external to the ship as you are talking about 3microwatts/m2.
according to their website their estimate of achieving their target is somewhere within a range of about .5watts/m2. They are aiming at 40k and thats a temperature almost 50,000 times greater than 2.7K in terms of energy and appears they will be ecstatic if they reach that.
the 2.7K just doesn’t matter. Anyway thats not heat.
Your key error, Bill, is this “b) space does not absorb radiation or heat”
It certainly does. And the Webb Telescope makes use of that.
Indeed the 2.7K is hard to distinguish from 0 for that purpose, but it is distinguishable, as the 2.7K can be detected, and was back in the 1960s.
Nate says:
Indeed the 2.7K is hard to distinguish from 0 for that purpose, but it is distinguishable, as the 2.7K can be detected, and was back in the 1960s.
———————
Your claim is easily debunked Nate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space#:~:text=The%20earliest%20known%20estimate%20of,temperature%20of%205%E2%80%936%20K.
The 2.7K is an estimate not of the temperature of space but of the radiation coming from background stars. It is neither a temperature of space nor is it measured.
“The 2.7K is an estimate not of the temperature of space but of the radiation coming from background stars. ”
Not from stars. From in between the stars.
Since radiant heat transfer is what is of interest here. The radiation coming from space is what matters for calculating heat transfer to space.
And, as Ball4 pointed out, in DREMTs article they note that thermometers in space will equilibrate to 2.7K.
Indeed Nate things between stars have temperatures. Space between things does not.
barry is at it again. He can’t learn. He finds things on the internet that support his cult beliefs, and he goes with them. But worse, he rejects any physics that proves his beliefs wrong.
Because barry does not understand the physics, he makes gross mistakes in his rambling. barry believes that bogus equation means temperatures are subtracted — “…the temp and/or radiative emissions from cooler surface is subtracted from warmer one.” No barry, the bogus equation is attempting to subtract fluxes. But fluxes do NOT simply add/subtract.
You have no clue about any of this, and you can’t learn.
There are hundreds, maybe thousands of physics pages on the web with various iterations of radiative transfer equations using T1 – T2 and/or J – G (radiosity minus irradiance).
Those expressions are subtracting temperature and fluxes. The full equations usually include variables for view factor and sometimes other variables.
Look at page 8 and 11 on this university physics lecture notes, showing first the subtraction for radiosity and irradiance, and then the temperature subtraction to derive NET radiative transfer.
http://www.mhtlab.uwaterloo.ca/courses/ece309/lectures/notes/S16_chap7_web.pdf
Here again, subtracting temps, p. 14.
http://www.mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/courses/ece309_mechatronics/lectures/pdffiles/summary_ch12.pdf
That lecture includes this note:
“Note that the ab.sorp.tivity α is almost independent of surface temperature and it strongly depends on the temperature of the source at which the incident radiation is originating.”
Exactly as has been said here several times.
Also on p. 14, regarding blackbodies it says:
Q =
(radiation that leaves surface 1 that directly striking surface 2)
minus
(radiation that leaves surface 2 that directly striking surface 1)
I have found dozens of papers with these or similar equations during our chats. These are radiative transfer equations that express mathematically the NET exchange of absorbed radiation between surfaces at different temperature.
Instead of the usual waffling denial, how about for once corroborating your view with a formal physics text like I have done many times?
Failure to do this from now on will earn this remark.
“Unsubstantiated for 2 years despite repeated requests. Rejected.”
Enough is enough. If you can’t produce a formal reference for the guff that you’ve spouted for at least 2 years, then you just don’t deserve to be taken seriously anymore.
barry, I know you’re all bent out of shape over this. You feel like your whole world is caving in because your cult has misled you. That’s what meltdowns are all about.
I’m here to help.
No need to find 100s of links you can’t understand. Let’s keep it simple, so even stupid people can understand.
First, do you now see that your belief that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can add to heat a surface to 325 K is wrong? That’s where we need to start. Once you see that you’ve been bamboozled by Folkerts, other things will start to fall into place.
If the two fluxes can heat a surface to 325K, then three fluxes would result in a temperature of 359K, and four would result in 386 K, 113C, 235F. See, if you believe Folkerts’ nonsense, then you believe ice can boil water.
Once you understand how stupid that is, we can go on.
“Im here to help.”
Tee hee.
Translation from Clintspeak:
“Im here to troll and mislead people”
Nate, barry doesn’t need any help perverting and distorting reality. He’s been doing a good job by himself.
I’m sure he’ll call you if he needs you.
Nope, I already provided a reference corroborating that fluxes irradiating a surface are summed.
All you need to do is demonstrate that BP can’t absorb radiation from GP.
Your views to the opposite of these points remain…
Unsubstantiated for 2 years despite repeated requests. Rejected.
Enough gas-bagging, show us your formal physics reference, as I have done repeatedly, corroborating what I (and Tim and
Nat and others) have been saying, which is standard physics, and which is why it is substantiated in university physics texts linked for you here.
Reference. Link. Go.
barry, in your meltdown you may have missed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1299036
Trolls like Clint dont require links, references, or even facts. And thus never ever provide them.
Thats how we recognize trolling.
Listen to Nate on that! He seldom has science to back his opinions making him a expert troller.
“barry, in your meltdown you may have missed…”
What’s ben missing for 2 years in any formal reference for the weird and whacky ‘physics’ spouted by people her who don’t believe AGW is real.
Not. ONE. Reference.
To a formal physics text for any of it.
2 years.
For the love of science, stop relying on your ice cube straw man and reference a real physics text for your guff, Clint.
I have been casually bringing up physics text after text on search for radiative transfer, and every single one corroborates what Tim, Nate and I have been saying, and not one confirms the whacky BS spouted here by critics.
1. Radiation between bodies of different temp is exchanged.
2. The temperature of the receiving body has almost no impact on its capacity to absorb radiation.
3. The NET exchange of radiation determines the direction of the flow of heat.
Even the language in these texts is the same as used here. I read, “net heat exchange” and “net energy exchange” over and over in the sections dealing with radiative transfer between surfaces.
The NT exchange that critics want to deny.
There is NO exclusion for warmer bodies to receive radiation from cooler bodies, and all the math and all the comments in now dozens of physics texts corroborates this.
Which is why you guys have Never. Cited. Anything.
For 2 years at least.
Because your tweaks on physics are fictional.
Come on, Clint.
Why can I cite multiple formal references disproving your alternate view of physics, and you can provide none? For 2 years.
It’s becoming funny. I no longer find it frustrating, it’s making me laugh.
You guys are a joke.
barry says:
Whats ben missing for 2 years in any formal reference for the weird and whacky physics spouted by people her who dont believe AGW is real.
I have been casually bringing up physics text after text on search for radiative transfer, and every single one corroborates what Tim, Nate and I have been saying, and not one confirms the whacky BS spouted here by critics.
1. Radiation between bodies of different temp is exchanged.
2. The temperature of the receiving body has almost no impact on its capacity to absorb radiation.
3. The NET exchange of radiation determines the direction of the flow of heat.
——————————–
Wow again! This time I know I didn’t hit the submit button I just started typing. Weird!
Any way Barry nobody is refuting your 3 points.
1. Radiation between bodies of different temp is exchanged.
2. The temperature of the receiving body has almost no impact on its capacity to absorb radiation.
3. The NET exchange of radiation determines the direction of the flow of heat.
In fact conduction has analogs to all 3 points as well. But there is no concept mathematically equivalent to back radiation in the conduction model.
And since you can’t find a demonstration of this in any peer reviewed science paper that I am aware of somebody needs to properly quantify the effect with something other than an imaginary thought experiment.
The Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper explicitly pointed that out that it could not be found within the framework of physics.
What are you talking about, Bill?
“Back radiation” is no more than the radiative transfer from a cooler body to a warmer one, which is half of the NET exchange of energy that you just said no one disputes.
Just as no on disputes the “forward radiation” from the warmer object to the cooler.
Sadly, you’re wrong. People are actually disputing that radiation from the cooler object is absorbed by the warmer object.
barry says:
What are you talking about, Bill?
————————–
I am talking about what you have been talking about Barry.
You claimed authority! Then you listed it in 3 points!
I am merely saying we all agree with those 3 points and say that those 3 points apply equally to conduction and that there is no accepted concept of ‘back conduction’. (i.e. the 3 points do not make an argument for ‘back radiation’.)
So all your points are irrelevant to the argument in support of ‘back radiation’. If you have some authorities that list other features not found in conduction then we might have something to talk about.
…oh, and by the way:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/05/19/green-plate-analyzed-and-demolished/#comments
Your sophistry blog demolishes 1LOT? Hardly.
That’s right, it does not demolish 1LoT. No need to.
In order to debunk the GPE, your sophistry blog has to demolish the 1LOT upon which the GPE is based which that blog proceeds to claim to have done (demolishing 1LOT). Look up the meaning of “sophistry” in your blog’s name for a clue about its zero credibility.
No problem with 1LoT when debunking the GPE, sophist. Plates at 244 K…244 K means overall 400 W/m^2 is input and 400 W/m^2 is output.
Not that again, Kiddo –
> T]he atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat, but checks its exit; and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
Arguing with John Tyndall will make Mike Flynn sad.
The Green Plate Effect was debunked years ago, but barry keeps bringing it back up.
So you say, Kiddo. So you say:
> Having designed a refrigerator that operates at mili-Kelvin, I guarantee that Elis plate model is real, and that operating at mili-Kelvin requires multiple plates to cut heat flow between room temperature and the cold plate.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190565
Ever considered doing a Charmaster vid on this?
“So you say, Kiddo. So you say”
Indeed. I do say.
DREMT does say so erroneously claiming to have debunked the GPE that used the 1LOT years ago when saying that is the same as debunking the 1LOT which is expected to be found at DREMT’s useless blog named “sophistry”.
Anyone speak Ball4-ese?
Joe is running a con, and you are a mark, Kiddo.
Most welcome.
Actually, the GPE was already debunked on here before Postma got involved. I just link to his article for the convenience of it. Easier than rehashing all the old debate.
Nope, the GPE theory was upheld on this blog by several experiments so the 1LOT was again confirmed.
DREMT claims to have debunked the GPE thus the 1LOT went laughably unsupported, which is why DREMT must reference a climate sophistry blog running a con as Willard points out. Funny, but DREMT actually does so.
Yup, the GPE was theoretically debunked on here and later experimentally debunked twice by Geraint Hughes and most recently by Seim & Olsen. The S & O experiment led Vaughan Pratt to publicly denounce the back-radiation account of the GHE on here, even stating that the Wikipedia account of the GHE was incorrect.
Those careless experiments DREMT cited are not even replicable since needed details have not been published. The experiments reported on this blog have all the details published and are eminently replicable.
True, Vaughan’s derision of “back radiation” term is technically correct as in proper atm. physics the term’s meaning is really all-sky emission to surface or downwelling longwave radiation.
Ball4 lies through his teeth with absolutely no shame.
Kiddo will not link to a discussion where his older sock puppet was involved, and he editorializes on shame when the green plate experiment has little to do with the point made by Vaughan anyway.
Vaughan Pratt said:
"“[Quoting Bill Hunter] Seems a lot of university websites and textbooks need correcting.”
Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.” Wikipedia editor William M. Connolley continues to believe in the back radiation theory, though his source for this (a 2003 book on the earth’s biosphere) says nothing more than what’s in the IPCC’s definition in AR5, namely that when CO2 traps heat it reradiates it both up and down. Connolley overlooks that even more heat is radiated up from below as temperature rises.
While I have a number of textbooks on modern climate I don’t have any that support Wikipedia on its back radiation theory."
“Yup, the GPE was theoretically debunked on here and later experimentally debunked twice by Geraint Hughes and most recently by Seim & Olsen. The S & O experiment led Vaughan Pratt to publicly denounce the back-radiation account of the GHE on here, even stating that the Wikipedia account of the GHE was incorrect.”
These things would be true only if no one who understood ever pointed out the flaws in them.
But in fact many people pointed out glaring flaws in them right here. And DREMT knows this very well.
Just as people pointed out the flaws in his 2LOT violations in the GPE just discussed.
But DREMT acts as if no one made any arguments but him. As if only his arguments mattered.
This is of course very very dishonest. Then he wonders why he gets flak for this behavior.
The part of all-sky emission directed at the surface that is absorbed by the surface does thereby add to the L&O surface thermodynamic internal energy. Armed with Vaughan’s derision of the term “back radiation”, DREMT can now go correct the Wiki entry.
If Kiddo got the memo Pup left earlier, he might not go edit thy Wiki.
Might not? It’s a given, DREMT won’t do so. Thankfully.
Ball4 pretends Vaughan Pratt’s only dispute is with the term “back-radiation”. I suppose some people might fall for it.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Ball4 pretends Vaughan Pratts only dispute is with the term back-radiation. I suppose some people might fall for it.
———————
And I would be willing to bet who they are!!
Kiddo might believe that Vaughan’s point is related to Eli’s.
Sky Dragon Cranks say the darnedest things.
who cares what Eli thinks Willard?
Folks from Missouri at least at one time didn’t care about such stuff as a general rule. Not sure about the people in the rest of the states though.
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
The GPE in a nutshell…and Vaughan said it certainly needs correcting!
A *point* is not about what one thinks, Bill.
This is, like, a pretty basic point of argumentation theory.
Start with the very first sentence of the post, Kiddo:
> An evergreen of denial is that a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter.
*This* is what the green plate thought experiment refutes.
Willard dodges the point, as expected. No point talking to him, ever.
Kiddo keeps inflating the point made by Vaughan.
It simply does not imply that there is no green plate effect.
No point talking to him, ever.
Here is the point made by Vaughan:
> Hence in any slab of atmosphere, increasing temperature in the slab can only increase *net* radiation upwards, never downwards.
Too small of a word for Kiddo to notice, perhaps.
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
Kiddo STILL has not got the memo Pup sent him.
Such a shame.
Response.
Even more shameful might be that Kiddo STILL has not read what Eli wrote:
> Most importantly the post was to show the placing a colder body near a warmer body can make the warmer body hotter when it is being heated by another source.
Since he cannot read or do maths properly, no wonder he keeps repeating the same sentences over and over again.
The false accusations and insults continue.
Quote refuting Kiddo.
Another response.
Reminder that Kiddo soldiers on.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I don’t recall seeing the Postman’s comment before. He concludes the “A” case, writing:
I suggest that this conclusion is wrong. He fails to understand that the Green Plate is emitting his F/2 on two sides, not one, i.e., the GP emits ~F/4 per side, the sum from both sides being that received from the BP. As a result, given that the GP’s temperature is a function of the emissions per unit area, the emitting temperature must be lower.
In other words:
> What was shown is that when a surface is heated at a constant rate, introduction of a second surface which captures some of the thermal radiation from the first surface and re-radiates a portion to the first will raise the equilibrium temperature of the heated surface.
I wonder if Kiddo ever met Betty.
Swanson missed that the Green Plate is treated as plane parallel to the Blue Plate, and obviously failed to understand the discussion about the view factors involved in that treatment.
Cult Leader grammie pup, for the conceptual model of two infinite , parallel plates, the “view factors” don’t matter. With that model, there are still four (4) sides to the two (2) plates. With real plates of moderate size and a small distance between them, the “view factors” have little impact on the plate-to-plate transmission.
Swanson, first of all: the view factors between the source and the blue plate, and between the blue plate and the green plate, are not the same. So you have to treat the radiative transfer differently between the two scenarios. Do you agree, yes or no?
“If you analyze what he did when introducing the second plate, he treats the view factors as if the first plate is a point source relative to the second plate, and thus he splits the flux by two for the second plate. The view factor of the first plate relative to the second plate cannot possibly be the same as the view factor of the point source sun relative to the first plate, though. Thats his fundamental mistake, and again we will note that he doesnt address view factors at all. He has no idea what hes doing.”
Eli does not treat the first plate as a point source at all!
He treats the BP and GP appropriately as large, close together, parallel plates with view factor 1.
We know this because the lines of flux are all parallel.
The heat source is a point source but very far away so providing a uniform 400 W/m^2 to the BP, again parallel flux lines, and that is all we need to solve the problem.
All else is correct.
Postma is throwing out technical words, view factors, to impress people who are ignorant.
But using them erroneously. IOW pure sophistry!
Swanson, the only person I am responding to on this sub-thread…first of all: the view factors between the source and the blue plate (1), and between the blue plate and the green plate (2), are not the same. So you have to treat the radiative transfer differently between the two scenarios (1) and (2). Do you agree, yes or no?
I disagree with the Postman’s analysis.
I take it that your answer to my question was “no”. The correct answer to my question was “yes”. As the view factors are different between the source and the blue plate (1), and the blue plate and the green plate (2), you have to treat the radiative transfer differently between the two scenarios (1) and (2).
“you have to treat the radiative transfer differently”
doesnt say how VF changes things.
The BP and GP see all of the rad emitted from each other (on the facing sides) hence VF = 1.
The sun being far away provides a uniform 400 W/m^2 flux to the BP. That BP emission doesnt all go back to the SUN (VF << 1) doesnt make a difference in the problem as we do not care about the SUN.
We could replace the sun with a nearby parallel plate at constant 290 K which also emits a uniform 400 W/m^2 toward the BP with parallel flux lines.
The BP would have VF = 1 with this plate, and all of the BPs emitted would be abs*orbed by this plate.
And nothing would change in the problem.
Hence VF to source is a red herring.
Swanson, the only person I am responding to on this sub-thread…I take it that your answer to my question was “no”. The correct answer to my question was “yes”. As the view factors are different between the source and the blue plate (1), and the blue plate and the green plate (2), you have to treat the radiative transfer differently between the two scenarios (1) and (2).
I agree with Nate.
OK, Swanson. Let’s say you had a Sun plate instead of a point source Sun. The Sun plate is at 290 K, providing 400 W/m^2 to the Blue Plate. View factors between the two would be 1. The Sun plate is now very close to the BP. According to E-Lie’s "logic", the passive BP would then warm the heat source! The Sun plate would not remain at 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2, according to E-Lie. That is because it would have its internal source of power of 800 W (split two ways because the plate has two sides), but it would also be receiving energy from the BP. That, according to E-Lie, would make it increase in temperature beyond 290 K. Once you added the Green Plate, both the BP and the heat source would get warmer, according to his logic. Even though the BP obscures the view of the Sun plate from the GP completely.
So, the entire Green Plate Effect would be different, if the Sun was treated as an infinite plate instead of a point source. Thus you cannot even try to argue that view factors between the source and the blue plate do not make a difference. They do, even by E-Lie’s logic.
According to Postma, if you had a Sun plate instead of a point source Sun, the Sun plate would warm the BP to 290 K, the same temperature as the Sun plate. If you added a GP, that would also warm to 290 K. In real life, there would be a drop in temperature in the BP, and even more so in the GP, due to radiative losses past the edges of the plates. But, since they are treated as being infinite parallel plates for the purposes of the thought experiment, there are no losses past the edge of the plates, and thus they are simply warmed to the same temperature as the Sun plate.
Also according to Postma, if the Sun was instead a point source, it would only warm the BP to the familiar 244 K. This is because in that scenario the BP can lose energy from both sides. As Postma explains:
"With a point object as the source, then the view factor of the source relative to the plate is negligible, i.e., the point source occupies almost no or basically no angular view factor as viewed from the plate. Why is this important? It is important because it means that thermal radiation emitted from the plate on the side of the source can emit to open space, that there are no opposing vectors of input radiation from the source except for the infinitesimal vector pointed directly toward the source; being infinitesimal, it may therefore be ignored.
The result is that, for the equilibrium state of the plate, we must consider than it can emit freely to the entirety of both hemispheres of either side of the plate’s view."
So the incoming 400 W/m^2 is split by two, in that case, and the BP warms to 244 K, where is it emitting 200 W/m^2.
Thats the beauty of ‘thought experiments’.
You can imagine the earth as a plate and then you can imagine another plate of the same dimensions.
then somebody points out the view factor.
And the thought experiment goes: ”uh….er….argh….the plates have infinite dimensions! no leaks anywhere!”
OK,
then somebody points out that the ”insulation” is actually the dead air space and the thought experiment goes: ”uh. . . .er. . . .argh. . . .there is no air in the space”
OK,
then somebody points out that its better insulation to not have air in the dead air space because air via conduction and convection transfers heat and thus would move more heat not less. And the thought experiment goes: ”uh. . . .er. . . .argh. . . .Good! Dead air spaces are helping my greenhouse effect!
then somebody points out that there are no dead air spaces in the atmosphere. And the thought experiment goes: ”uh. . . .er. . . .argh. . . .choke!
then somebody points out that the sun is on the wrong side of the plates for a greenhouse effect: And the thought experiment goes: ”uh. . . .er. . . .argh. . . .choke!
I am dying to wait for the new changes to the experiment to show up! It all seems like desperation when they can’t make a simple IR opaque greenhouse to work better than an otherwise identical IR transparent greenhouse.
But one thing one can probably wager on is Swanson agrees with Nate.
“According to Postma, if you had a Sun plate instead of a point source Sun, the Sun plate would warm the BP to 290 K”
I notice some people here are deferring to the authority of a con-man, Postma, without actually understanding the physics themselves.
He is wrong, again. Oh well.
“According to E-Lies ‘logic’, the passive BP would then warm the heat source! The Sun plate would not remain at 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2, according to E-Lie. ”
Nope, he would not say such a silly thing about a plate held at FIXED T = 290 K.
There is a quite simple device to hold a thing at constant temperature, its called a thermostat. Most of us have one in our house.
“I am dying to wait for the new changes to the experiment to show up!”
Me too, Bill. Whatever next…a thermostat, perhaps!? Wouldn’t put it past them. I will wait to see what Swanson, the only one of them that I am responding to on this sub-thread, says in response.
Cult Leader grammie pup repeats the Postman’s Straw Man error. There is no “Sun Plate”, the real situation is that the Blue Plate receives 400 w/m^2 from the Sun, which is very far away. Even considering the concept is an attempt at obfuscation.
You note Postman conclusion:
And you note:
In case you haven’t noticed, that’s exactly what Eli showed for the single BP case in his post. That’s before the the effects of adding the GP.
"Cult Leader grammie pup repeats the Postman’s Straw Man error. There is no “Sun Plate”, the real situation is that the Blue Plate receives 400 w/m^2 from the Sun, which is very far away. Even considering the concept is an attempt at obfuscation."
Oh sorry, I thought you said "I agree with Nate". Try reading his comment, which prompted you to say "I agree with Nate", again. I thought you were able to follow a discussion. My mistake.
"In case you haven’t noticed, that’s exactly what Eli showed for the single BP case in his post. That’s before the the effects of adding the GP."
Indeed, Swanson. They agree up to the point of adding the BP, and before adding the GP. It’s rather important to note Postma’s reasons for dividing the incoming flux by two with the addition of the BP, because he does not do so for the flux from the BP to the GP after addition of the GP. As he explains:
"In this scenario we consider the [GP] and [BP] as extending “infinitely”, or at least being very close together, such that the view factor of the [BP] occupies the entire hemisphere of view from the [GP]. How is this different? This results in every single vector of emission from the [GP] being met with an opposing vector of input from the [BP]. That is, the [GP] cannot lose energy in the entire hemisphere of potential emission facing the [BP]. Whereas with the point source the plate may emit to empty black space all around the infinitesimal point source, with the plane parallel source the plate now cannot emit to empty space because that space is now occupied by input from the source [BP]."
The Green Plate can only lose energy on the side facing space, unlike the Blue Plate, which if you remember from my previous comment could lose energy on both sides. So the flux of 200 W/m^2 is not split by two, and the GP also warms until it too is emitting 200 W/m^2. BP and GP are both at 244 K.
Nate says:
”The BP and GP see all of the rad emitted from each other (on the facing sides) hence VF = 1.”
For parallel plates the VF only equals 1 when the plates are in contact with each other. If there is a gap, you have a VF<1.
Cult Leader grammie pup wrote:
No. If the GP can only radiate from one side, the same would be true for the BP. Both plates radiate from 2 sides and each has one side facing deep space. The difference is that the BP has more energy flowing thru it than the GP. The Postman ignores the fact that the BP is going to be warmer than the GP, once things settle to equilibrium.
The Postman (and pups) has no clue about the meaning of “view factors” in IR radiation heat transfer.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1302561
“This results in every single vector of emission from the [GP] being met with an opposing vector of input from the [BP]. That is, the [GP] cannot lose energy in the entire hemisphere of potential emission facing the [BP]. ”
Postma thinks the opposing BP vectors somehow BLOCK the vectors they meet from the GP coming the other way? But then continue on anyway to the GP?
This is extremely nuts!
What happens in reality? Flux lines don’t meet each other. Instead they continue until hitting something and get abs*orbed. The ones from the GP hit the BP and get abs*orbed.
They are lost to the GP, as are the ones emitted to space. The GP loses more than it receives from the BP and must cool to a lower T than the BP in order to satisfy 1LOT.
“For parallel plates the VF only equals 1 when the plates are in contact with each other. If there is a gap, you have a VF<1.”
By treating the plates as though they are infinite in size, you can have VF equal to 1 without the plates being in contact with each other. However, any infinitely-sized plates with a finite gap inbetween them are for all intents and purposes, effectively in contact, if you think about the scale involved. Of course, both sides of the argument agree that with the plates actually touching, they would both be 244 K.
Nate says:
”This results in every single vector of emission from the [GP] being met with an opposing vector of input from the [BP]. That is, the [GP] cannot lose energy in the entire hemisphere of potential emission facing the [BP]. ”
Postma thinks the opposing BP vectors somehow BLOCK the vectors they meet from the GP coming the other way? But then continue on anyway to the GP?
This is extremely nuts!
———————–
Source?
Postma’s criticism here is spot on. Something with a vf=1 view of another will warm the cooler object to equilibrium unless that object has excessive heat loss.(period)
Nate was complaining that not having a source made somebody a troll. So lets see him refute the notion he is nothing but a troll by his own measure.
We have two thought experiments here Eli’s and Postma’s. We need a decider between the two. (thought experiments need not apply as science is not a popularity contest).
Cult Leader grammie pup, two plates “touching” are essentially one plate with twice the mass. That doesn’t change the single plate’s temperature.
Two plates separated, one initially receiving 400 w/m^2 and the the other initially 200 w/m^2, the result would be the plate with more energy input would be warmer than the plate with less input, since both can only lose energy via IR radiation. The GP receives less energy than the BP, therefore it is going to be cooler than the BP. The whole “view factor” stuff simply attempts to quantify the amount of energy lost at the edges of the finite plates, but does not change the resulting fact that the BP is warmer than without the GP with the plates close together.
Yes, Swanson, we know all about how back-radiation supposedly has the capacity to warm, but back-conduction somehow does not. Already been through all that.
E. Swanson says:
Cult Leader grammie pup, two plates touching are essentially one plate with twice the mass. That doesnt change the single plates temperature.
Two plates separated, one initially receiving 400 w/m^2 and the the other initially 200 w/m^2, the result would be the plate with more energy input would be warmer than the plate with less input, since both can only lose energy via IR radiation. The GP receives less energy than the BP, therefore it is going to be cooler than the BP. The whole view factor stuff simply attempts to quantify the amount of energy lost at the edges of the finite plates, but does not change the resulting fact that the BP is warmer than without the GP with the plates close together.
Opps accidently hit the submit button.
E. Swanson says:
Cult Leader grammie pup, two plates touching are essentially one plate with twice the mass. That doesnt change the single plates temperature
——————-
Thats true depending upon the materials the plate is made of. Lets say a china plate, yep you are right as a china plate doesn’t insulate and is instead a conductor of heat. But thicken it enough and it will insulate. It just has to build up enough material to build up its resistance and as long as the resistance is less than the transport of heat through the air it doesn’t effectively slow anything down.
——————–
====================
E. Swanson says:
Two plates separated, one initially receiving 400 w/m^2 and the the other initially 200 w/m^2, the result would be the plate with more energy input would be warmer than the plate with less input, since both can only lose energy via IR radiation.
———————–
If you put a plate out there with a temperature enough to emit 200watts from all surfaces will stay at that temperature if it is being heated by a 400w/m2 source at VF=1? Do you have a source for that?
Blabber isn’t a source.
You don’t have one. I already know that and so does Postma, and so did Gerlich and so does Tscheuschner. All challenge the theory on the basis of seeing other alternatives that thought experiment wise have at least equal plausibility. Plausibility of course only suggests an answer.
I wonder what Postma was trained as. He seems to get it like G&T.
“If you put a plate out there with a temperature enough to emit 200watts from all surfaces will stay at that temperature if it is being heated by a 400w/m2 source at VF=1?”
Yes, that is what they think, Bill. With a BP put out there at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2, they think it would remain at 244 K even if it was being heated by a 400 W/m^2 source with VF=1 between it and the source…whereas Postma would argue that with VF=1, the BP would warm to 290 K, so it too is emitting 400 W/m^2.
“Do you have a source for that?”
Do you need a source to know that an object in direct sun is hotter than an object in the shade, Bill?
A single plate (like BP) placed in the sun is receiving 400 W/m^2, and will warm to 244 K, and will pass on 200 W/m^2 to anything behind it, in its shadow.
Whatever is shaded by it is clearly receiving HALF as much heat input, and must end up cooler. C’mon people. Use some common sense.
Bill you were using sound logic here:
“You insert the green plate between the blue plate and the ice box and it cools while the blue plate warms.”
Now apply the same ver same sound logic here.
We have a BP by itself seeing the sun on one side providing heat to it, like the ‘kitchen’. And seeing the ‘ice box’ of space on its other side.
Now insert the green plate between the blue plate and the ‘ice box’ of space and it cools while the blue plate warms.
Continue with your previous logic. My additions in ()
“The blue plate didnt warm from the green plate it warmed from the ambient temperature in the kitchen (sun) as it has been shielded from the ice box (space) by the green plate and thus is no longer transferring heat into the ice box (space) but is instead now transferring heat to a plate that is warmer than the icebox (space) so less heat is being transferred. Which makes perfect sense.”
Hunter troll, Conduction between the front and the rear of the BP would be expected in a real world situation. The rear of the BP would still radiate IR, but at a lower temperature. But, for discussion purposes, it was assumed that the plates were made of high conductivity materials, so this part of the problem can be ignored.
The energy source for the BP is the Sun, which has a small VF for emissions from the BP. The rest of the BP’s VF sees deep space. Again, the assumption is that the VF of the Sun is small enough to ignore in the idealized model. If the BP were heated internally, the result would be the same. There is no “Sun Plate”, so this your comment is another attempt at obfuscation.
So, another day, more troll poop in the continued attempts to ignore what happens to the IR radiation which the GP radiates toward the BP.
Answer: In the ideal case for VF’s = 1.0, that energy is absorbed, adding to the 400 w/m^2 from the Sun. The result is a warmer BP which must occur for the BP to reach equilibrium.
Nate says:
Do you need a source to know that an object in direct sun is hotter than an object in the shade, Bill?
A single plate (like BP) placed in the sun is receiving 400 W/m^2, and will warm to 244 K, and will pass on 200 W/m^2 to anything behind it, in its shadow.
———————-
No it will warm to 290K Nate, thats its equilibrium temperature.
That is Postma’s contention. He does not have a source and you do not have a source.
You call Postma a troll because he doesn’t have a source. So what does that make you?
You are saying use some common sense. For over 300 years common sense says do an experiment and establish these notions as facts.
Not doing so is a step far backwards. Why not ignore experiments and talk about men falling of the end of the earth? Or the Sun rotating around the earth. Or something like that?
Its like the UFO or Bigfoot arguments. Some excuse for not finding one is made up. . . .and of course there are all those claims of having found one.
Ah, but Postma does have a source, Bill! What is backing Postma’s explanation, as you may already be well aware, is called the radiative heat transfer equation. It can be found in textbooks on radiative heat transfer all over the internet. Indeed barry mentioned it in the OP that started this entire thread.
"With a BP put out there at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2, they think it would remain at 244 K even if it was being heated by a 400 W/m^2 source with VF=1 between it and the source…whereas Postma would argue that with VF=1, the BP would warm to 290 K, so it too is emitting 400 W/m^2."
According to the radiative heat transfer equation, when the View Factors (VF) are equal to 1 between the hot and the cold object, heat flow goes to zero simply when the two objects are at the same temperature. So if the heat source plate is at 290 K, and the Blue Plate (BP) is also at 290 K, heat flow has gone to zero between the two plates. That means the two plates are at equilibrium.
Now, as we’ve discussed, heat flow between the BP and space would also be at zero, because heat cannot be transferred to nothing, a vacuum. Instead, the BP just radiates out to space according to its temperature and emissivity, i.e. it just radiates 400 W/m^2 of energy (not heat, but energy) out to space.
Whereas, if (as they suggest) the BP were to be at 244 K, radiating 200 W/m^2, with VF between the source plate and the BP equal to 1…then there would be heat flow between the two plates, but no heat flow out to space! That would make absolutely no sense. In reality, the heat flow between the two plates would simply result in the BP warming up to 290 K, until the two plates were at equilibrium.
There is simply no reason for a thermal gradient to exist between the two plates! "Nature" acts to reduce that thermal gradient to zero.
And that, as they say, is that. That’s probably the simplest debunking of the GPE yet. I call it the "Blue Plate Debunking".
Bill,
“No it will warm to 290K Nate, thats its equilibrium temperature.’
According to your authority Postma?
You can figure it yourself Bill using SB law. And the answer is 244 K.
All agree.
Now what you sound ice box logic?
Bill,
Do you no longer stand by your common sense ice box logic?
Where your GP blocked the cold ice box and caused the BP to warm?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1303345
LMAO!
What I am going to impart to you is settled science.
The ice box experiment is occurring in a kitchen where there is air to breath. While the kitchen experiment seldom produces the ‘common sense’ results it does produce results that are close to what I am going to say.
What I am going to explain to you is how a single pane window performs to the exterior of a house. At nighttime when there is no direct sunlight to change the outcomes, the single pane glass (like the blue plate should if the view factors were right which seldom the case in this experiment but is right for most exterior windows without stuff like drapes, blinds, shutters etc.) will adopt a temperature half way between the inside and outside temperature.
So why is that. Lets say the inside is emitting 400 watts, and the view of the window from the outside is emitting 200 watts (and that ambient air temperatures are the same as those emissions) which is usually the case with the outside window mainly sees trees and shrubbery (I did this test in a home in a national forest in Oregon so it had tall trees). The trees and shrubbery are usually very close to the air temperature. The sky temperature may vary though.
Usually no problem at all on the inside unless you have a lot of windows or uninsulated exterior walls in the view of the test windown. If you do you might be able to close the drapes or find a window facing an interior wall. So there is a little prep you have to do to get the right result.
All this is taught in engineering classes keyed to the building industry. It is outlined in a US standard for measuring heat loss through windows.
So roughly math wise without getting into detailed formulas, which the do in classes, industry labs, and standards. There are two heat flows moving toward the window. 400watts of radiation, and the potential of up to 400watts of convection. So you have up to 800 watts moving to the window.
On the other side of the window you have up to 400 watts moving away from the window. 200 each for convection and radiation.
Some stuff not completely settled.
It does seem to make the temperature very stable because convection accelerates with the wind (known as forced convection). But I wasn’t able to find wind conditions that affected the temperature of the window. Now I have read that rain will but I never tested that myself.
From an insulating point of view folks like to call this insulation. But its not. Insulation works by slowing the movement of heat through the insulation here the speed of the flow is controlled by the conductivity of the window. There is no significant resistance to that flow and it is governed by demand.
Take the experiment to space and what happens? Well one thing is we shouldn’t expect the window to suddenly start insulating.
Myself I would like to see a test to decide between the two. But I am not all fired up to see one as it seems the only applicability would be to living or traveling in space.
Why don’t I just pick Eli’s? Well backradiation isn’t at all well described.
And there is one more thing to ponder that could be very important. The SB equations only deal with saying what the net heat loss is from the warm object is and how it diminishes as the cool object warms.
It doesn’t say anything about 200 watts of radiation being lost on the backside of a non-insulating window or 400 watts should the Postma vacuum model be certified.
So I think thats complete for now.
When you are an auditor you have to think of everything. Somebody should put to bed some of these questions. Maybe they have. I am not expert on what is known. I just ask questions and if folks cannot give me supportable and verifiable answers my job isn’t done. Simple as that and frequently it makes for burning a lot of nighttime fossil fuels.
Bill,
So you are, it seems, backing away from your sensible ice box logic in favor of vague contrarian science.
But sometimes, contrarians get things wrong and you should go with your original instincts. This is one of those of times.
“The SB equations only deal with saying what the net heat loss is from the warm object is and how it diminishes as the cool object warms.”
No, the SB law straightforwardly gives the emission from a surface given its T and emissivity (in this case 1). To know the NET heat loss, we need the T of its surroundings.
“It doesnt say anything about 200 watts of radiation being lost on the backside of a non-insulating window or 400 watts should the Postma vacuum model be certified.”
Yes it certainly does. The plates are black-bodies if the T is 244 k, then 200 W/m^2 is emitted from both sides.
“Now, as weve discussed, heat flow between the BP and space would also be at zero because heat cannot be transferred to nothing, a vacuum.”
Well, just brilliant. Then nothing in space can ever dissipate heat and be cooled! Except the JWT relies on such cooling to function
“Whereas, if (as they suggest) the BP were to be at 244 K, radiating 200 W/m^2, with VF between the source plate and the BP equal to 1then there would be heat flow between the two plates, but no heat flow out to space! That would make absolutely no sense.”
Yes that doesnt make sense, because “According to the radiative heat transfer equation, when the View Factors (VF) are equal to 1 between the hot and the cold object, heat flow goes to zero simply when the two objects are at the same temperature.”
And circumventing heat flow with an invented ‘energy flow’ that is ‘not heat; does not get you out of jail for breaking many laws of physics.
Postma is violating the radiative heat transfer law, not to mention 2LOT and 1LOT with this fraud designed for the ignorant masses.
Nate says:
Bill,
So you are, it seems, backing away from your sensible ice box logic in favor of vague contrarian science.
————————–
Nope Nate. You read and you didn’t comprehend! I get the same result as the ice box experiment when it is done carefully to ensure that FV=1.
But why I am willing to give consideration to Postma is because the specification was that Eli’s experiment was in a vacuum where convection does not need any consideration. And removing the convective path produces a full 100% 400watt flow of heat through the glass that ostensibly is only emitting 200watts in two different directions. I also noted that this outcome is supported by the US Bureau of standards for window construction.
However their is no outcome specified by the US Bureau of Standards for a plate and a sun and an ice box in outer space.
An actual experiment in a vacuum needs to be done, not just simply extrapolated from the standard results of window performance in the building industry. Do you dispute that?
Need to fix above. That should not be ‘removing the convective path’ but instead ‘providing the convective path’.
Nate says:
No, the SB law straightforwardly gives the emission from a surface given its T and emissivity (in this case 1). To know the NET heat loss, we need the T of its surroundings.
———————————–
I agree but what goes out the backside of a non-insulating pane of glass is part of the surroundings in a dynamic way.
Inside the atmosphere back radiation is negated by the flow of energy via convection/conduction through the glass.
Perhaps the back radiation for the outer space model gets bottled up inside the glass and that causes it to warm then to the 290K so it can dump it to space. Seems more than reasonable because it actually accounts for the effects of backradiation and you more clearly avoid violating the 2LOT. It also raises the spectre of whether the photon model is correct. It could be like schroedingers cat. always showing up as a force but look again and its an overcomed force. All I am saying is somebody needs to do the experiment if you want to see what is really going on.
Bill,
Your heat transfer principles in the kitchen ice box experiment are perfectly true even for heat transferred by radiation in a vacuum.
Those principles are that
1. Heat transfer requires a T gradient.
2. Heat is transferred down the gradient, from hot to cold. (2LOT).
3. The larger the T difference the larger the heat flow.
4. In the absence of work being done, If there is net heat flow to (from) an object, it warms (cools). (1LOT)
So when your BPs view of your ice box was blocked by the GP, the heat flow from it is reduced and your BP plate warmed.
When the BPs view of space is blocked by the GP, the heat flow from it is reduced and the BP warmed.
One thing not to lose sight of, Bill, is that space is not an ice box. It is more accurate to say that space has no temperature than it is to say space is cold. Space is not “surroundings”, it is the absence of surroundings. You cannot transfer heat to nothing, a vacuum. A vacuum cannot absorb radiation.
Do you think if you could put an outer shell around the Sun made of some highly conductive material, that it would warm until it was emitting to space only half of the energy that the Sun was emitting previously, just because there is an inside and an outside (2 sides) to the shell!? Or would it simply be warmed by the Sun until it was emitting to space nearly the full amount of energy that the Sun was emitting previously (a bit less due to the greater surface area of the shell than the Sun)?
https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/04/21/is-webb-at-its-final-temperature/#:~:text=The%20Mid%2DInfrared%20Instrument%20(MIRI,cryocooler%20to%20under%207%20kelvins
”
The near-infrared instruments also warm up during operations and have to dissipate heat, although for these instruments this is done with passive cooling; the heat from the detectors and electronics is radiated into deep space.”
Oh well. Maybe people will stop declaring that this cant happen.
Nate says:
Your heat transfer principles in the kitchen ice box experiment are perfectly true even for heat transferred by radiation in a vacuum.
————————
Thats an assumption.
In the atmosphere and a single plate BP between a room and an icebox (with FV=1 on both sides to the respective items) a room temperature plate will cool to half way between the room and the ice box. US Standards equations will tell you the energy flows.
If you take a second plate also FV=1 and put it between the ice box and the BP. the BP will warm and US standards equations of heat flows will tell you why. . . .namely that a dead air space creates a form of insulation and one now exists between the two plates. but what is important to know is that the blue plate will not warm to more than the ambient temperature of the room.
Now what this tells you is that there is indeed an insulation effect arising from dead air spaces.
But it is laughable to suggest CO2 molecules creates dead air spaces in the atmosphere. Thats why RW Woods experiment shows the result it did. Additional IR blocking didn’t do anything significant both greenhouses warmed and both were very near the same temperature.
If you build a pair of dual glazed greenhouses you will increase the greenhouse effect but there will still be no difference because of IR blocking. All this is almost endlessly tested.
And I remain curious of the mysterious fate of the backradiation in the outerspace model. It seems accounted for in the atmosphere model by convective heat transfer. Where does it end up in the space model?
I will remind you that my response is this:
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Do you think if you could put an outer shell around the Sun made of some highly conductive material, that it would warm”
——————————–
I will repeat ”Something with a vf=1 view of another will or should warm the intervening plate(s) to equilibrium unless that object has excessive heat loss.(period)”
The kitchen based experiment has more than one method of heat loss so the intervening plate(s) don’t warm to equilibrium with the source and is incapable of warming the source (2LOT)
The vacuum based experiment only has radiation so it should warm to equilibrium with the source and is incapable of warming the source (2LOT)
I get it Bill.
You have to stick with your team of contrarians no matter what weird ideas they promote.
So common sense heat transfer principles you used before must now be dicarded, because they contradict the party line.
“You cannot transfer heat to nothing, a vacuum. A vacuum cannot absorb radiation.”
So let me get this straight. With just the BP present we have the sun supplying heat to the BP, but no heat is transferred from the BP to space?
Then we have the BP with a net flow of heat to it, and no heat flow from it.
IlOT is clear on this. If an object has a net heat input and no work is being done than it must warm.
So since the BP is claimed to be at a steady Temperature, we have a major 1LOT violation.
Now when we add the GP behind the BP, it is claimed that no heat is flowing from the BP to the GP.
So again, the BP has a net heat input and a steady T, once again this is a major 1LOT violation.
If you grant that the GP can emit heat to space, but claim that no heat is transferred to the GP from the BP, then again you have a major 1LOT problem since the GP is at a steady T.
These are just a few of the problems with the Postma TEAM’s physics.
Nate says:
I get it Bill.
You have to stick with your team of contrarians no matter what weird ideas they promote.
So common sense heat transfer principles you used before must now be dicarded, because they contradict the party line.
———————
The pot calls the kettle black huh? Makes sense you would project your own modus operandi and everybody else.
Fact is my skepticism arose before I ever knew there were skeptics. Comes primarily from my construction experience as sort of a hippy engineer designing all sorts of stuff. In fact a real engineer living off the grid turned me on to the technology. Technology known to the egyptians but became almost entirely lost over the 60 some odd years from electrification of homes via inexpensive fossil fuels unto the 1970’s when fossil fuels started to get expensive. Some times you have to go out and build real shit to figure out all the angles of something. Sitting at your computer with only a college degree gives you more inculcation than knowledge. It only gives you the tools to qualify for an entry level job.
Dynamics is a facinating world and I gravitated to them. Still do electrical work on the side for friends. Designed my last passive solar energy system 20 years ago. Got into radiant heating and worked with and got advice from the biggest name in the business. He had many big projects like the Greek Theatre in Los Angeles. George Rusher.
Never did an outer space project though and I can respect the issue with TOA. I would be surprised if Postma is not correct. But the thing about dynamics is you can’t really know it until you have worked so to speak on the line and found out how your results vary with this and that.
And quite honestly and not in line with the hard skeptics I can’t be sure about a few things. The M&W theory which looks nothing like a green plate experiment talks about warming the midtroposphere via extension of essentially the troposphere. they won’t explain it because they can’t they don’t know. But its a plausible theory and it is not in any debunked by debunking these silly 3rd grade cartoon plate and greenhouse models.
I have a theory of how it really works and its supple enough I think to get by without an outerspace experiment. I won’t be talking about it because its not ready for primetime yet and I can’t even promise I will finish it. But be aware it does not require anything to exceed any equilibriums. CO2 is responsible for some of it but I seriously doubt its capable of hardly any additional warming. One scientists a few years ago talked about may a few tenths of degree warming left in the CO2 absorbing curve. Thats probably right. Now is Postma proposing anything like that? See I proved your claim false.
Nate says:
June 1, 2022 at 5:48 PM
You cannot transfer heat to nothing, a vacuum. A vacuum cannot absorb radiation.
So let me get this straight. With just the BP present we have the sun supplying heat to the BP, but no heat is transferred from the BP to space?
Then we have the BP with a net flow of heat to it, and no heat flow from it.
———————————-
Don’t be a moron Nate! Some people understand the difference between heat and energy.
Hunter wrote:
Don’t be a pedantic moron, Hunter! Some people know that “heat” is short hand for “internal thermal energy” and “radiant heat transfer” is shorthand for “transfer of internal energy between bodies via thermal IR radiation”.
…and space is not a body.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1304724
Some dishonest people here continue to push the demonstrably false notion that heat cannot be emitted to space.
“Never did an outer space project though and I can respect the issue with TOA. I would be surprised if Postma is not correct.”
Sounds like for Bill there is no way to know the answers because he has no experience in space. Yet he tends to believe the contrarians no matter what laws of physics they violate.
The point is that scientists and engineers have tested heat transfer laws, SB law, and the first and second laws of thermodynamics countless times in vacuum and even in space. So WE know that they apply even there, even if Bill doesnt.
You cannot have blue and green plates at the same constant temperature and have heat flowing between them.
And Swanson is correct that there is no energy transfer between objects that is neither Heat nor Work. Sorry you guys are not allowed to redefine scientific terms will nilly in order to distort reality.
Thus the BP receiving 400 W/m^2 of heat from the sun, emitting 200 W/m^2 of heat to space, and transferring 0 W of heat on to the GP, means that it has a net heat input of 200 W/m^2. Thus it needs to be warming, else this is a major 1LOT violation.
Same goes for GP. A 1LOT violation.
Again heat transfer works by T gradients, even in vaccum. If there are none, then no heat can be flowing and Houston we have major problems.
“Some people understand the difference between heat and energy.”
Yes indeed, Bill.
Read up on the First Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT).
It states that energy exchanges (in absence of mass exchange) is in the form of Heat, Q or Work, W. And internal energy U, relates to a bodies temperature via heat capacity.
Then the 1LOT is delta U = Q – W. All agree that the plates in vacuum are not doing work. So we just have
delta U = Q. Q is net input of Heat, which is thermal energy being exchanged.
It is obvious that Postma and some here are trying to evade the law, 1LOT, by inventing a fictional thermal energy exchange that is not Heat.
There is no such thing.
Nate says:
”You cannot have blue and green plates at the same constant temperature and have heat flowing between them.”
So what you are saying is if the source is providing 400w/m2 and shine through an infinite number of layers of fv=1 IR opaque plates the temperature of the first plate will rise in temperature to give off 400w/m2 to the second plate?
Nate says:
Some dishonest people here continue to push the demonstrably false notion that heat cannot be emitted to space.
——————–
Nope! Heat can’t be emitted. Heat can only be transferred to another body by conduction without undergoing a transformation. Pick up a physics book Nate and learn something.
Bill, you have admitted that you have no experience installing windows in space so you can’t know what happens with heat transfer in space.
But now you keep declaring things about what cannot be done with heat in space!
Make up your mind.
“Nope! Heat cant be emitted. Heat can only be transferred to another body by conduction without undergoing a transformation.”
Show us a source, any source that agrees with this pearl of wisdom.
And then explain how the many things in space dissipate internally generated heat to space?
Explain how they get around the 1LOT, when they have heat input and NO heat output?
Nate says:
But now you keep declaring things about what cannot be done with heat in space!
——————-
Physics definition of heat:
”Heat is the transfer of kinetic energy from one medium or object to another, or from an energy source to a medium or object. Such energy transfer can occur in three ways: radiation, conduction, and convection.”
Gee if space is a medium we can toss the photon theory. And we know its not an object Nate. Like I said pick up a physics book and learn some basics.
“Heat is the TRANSFER OF”
Thats the key point.
And the fact that you have thing, JWT, cooling in space, therefore losing heat, a long long time before that heat has hit anything.
Unless you want to revise the 1LOT ( I wouldnt be surprised), cooling requires loss of internal energy U, a delta U And 1LOT requires delta U = Q -W, and there is no work involved.
The JWT, or any radiatively cooling object in space, must have a Q output.
This is where Kiddo is wrong.
Willard please stop trolling.
"No. If the GP can only radiate from one side, the same would be true for the BP. Both plates radiate from 2 sides and each has one side facing deep space. The difference is that the BP has more energy flowing thru it than the GP."
Nobody is saying that the GP can only radiate from one side. Both plates radiate from 2 sides, and each has one side facing deep space. The difference is, the side of the BP facing the point source Sun can lose energy to empty space all around the infinitesimal point source, whereas the side of the GP facing the BP cannot emit to empty space because that space is occupied by input from the BP. Every single vector of emission from the GP is being met with an opposing vector of input from the BP. So, the GP cannot lose energy in the entire hemisphere of potential emission facing the BP. The GP has only one "losing side", the side facing space. The BP has two "losing sides" (it loses energy to the GP on one side, maintaining the GP’s temperature, and it loses energy to deep space on the other side).
Whether or not you agree with Postma’s explanation, the logic behind it is clear, self-consistent, and actually takes into account the difference in view factors between the source and BP, and the BP and the GP. Whether or not you agree with Postma’s explanation, E-Lie’s explanation has still been debunked a dozen times and in a dozen different ways already.
” can lose energy to empty space”
Tee hee hee!
Postma is a con man and his audience is gullible people who believe in magical thinking like flux lines meeting other flux lines, bocking their way, or some such gobbldegook.
He has a meltdown and bans anyone who isnt gullible and questions his physics.
Meanwhile his logic is not consistent at all. The BP side facing the GP is still allowed to radiate and lose energy even though it has no view of space!
Of course it does lose energy to the cooler GP, and thus loses less than it would with no GP, and must warm.
“…the logic behind it is clear…”
Well, clear to those with some intelligence. Let’s see if Swanson finally understands, or if he will attack some ridiculous straw man about vectors blocking other vectors.
Nate says:
” can lose energy to empty space”
Tee hee hee!
——————————-
Energy Nate, not heat but energy. the energy has to find ‘a thing’ before it can become heat.
The JWT is dissipating heat to space, and cooling itself, by radiation.
What happens to that lost heat (radiation) in millions of years is of no consequence to the cooling of the JWT.
Bill gets it.
Does he?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1303345
“Let’s see if Swanson finally understands…”
Looks like, from what he has posted elsewhere, that Swanson does not understand still. Oh well, no surprise really. They are not the best at following discussions.
Cult Leader grammie pup, I find it difficult to follow “discussions” when some post numerous blasts of spam (…”please stop trolling”) and split the discussion by starting new threads. Did I miss something important? No.
Swanson can rarely follow a discussion.
Nate says:
”Now when we add the GP behind the BP, it is claimed that no heat is flowing from the BP to the GP.”
Hold on here Nate you are not making sense. The BP is the plate I have been talking about. One plate between the source and the sink.
The GP in both experiments is inserted in between the BP and the sink.
Before it was insert the BP was flowing heat to the sink. Now the BP is flowing heat to the GP and the GP is flowing heat to the sink.
” Now the BP is flowing heat to the GP and the GP is flowing heat to the sink.”
Glad you agree. Now explain this obvious thing to DREMT.
D:
“So if the heat source plate is at 290 K, and the Blue Plate (BP) is also at 290 K, heat flow has gone to zero between the two plates. That means the two plates are at equilibrium.”
“There is simply no reason for a thermal gradient to exist between the two plates! ‘Nature’ acts to reduce that thermal gradient to zero.”
Bill, they seem to believe that 1LoT prohibits an object from being heated to the same temperature as the heat source, in an idealized scenario where there are no losses between the object and the heat source (VF=1). Weird.
We believe 1lOT violations are avoided even when that produces weird feelings in people.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Bill, they seem to believe that 1LoT prohibits an object from being heated to the same temperature as the heat source, in an idealized scenario where there are no losses between the object and the heat source (VF=1). Weird.”
Exactly the green plate experiment works but all it is doing is forcing the blue plate to be more completely warmed by the source towards an equilibrium with the heat source. Its real simple you start out with a power source say 400watts. You ensure your view factors = 1. A plate in that field of view will warm to half the temperature. This is basic stuff. Add another plate and it warms closer to the temperature of the source.
None of the green plate experiments establish a greenhouse effect. For the atmosphere all you are doing is playing with air molecules trying to make them as warm as the surface while greenhouse gases at the top of the atmosphere cools the atmosphere.
This is why the scientists promoting this won’t debate. They rest on the mathematical work of M&W by simply taking how much greenhouse effect there is and dividing it up in layers in the atmosphere. Ask them what they mean by that and all you get back is a blank stare and maybe some comment like ”the math works”. Even that got push back from the mainstream and they started to imagine how a hotspot would force heat to the surface essentially going backwards back into the phony 3rd grade model again.
“Exactly the green plate experiment works but all it is doing is forcing the blue plate to be more completely warmed by the source towards an equilibrium with the heat source. Its real simple you start out with a power source say 400watts. You ensure your view factors = 1. A plate in that field of view will warm to half the temperature. This is basic stuff. Add another plate and it warms closer to the temperature of the source.”
Thanks Bill for your agreement that the BP warms in the presence of the GP. It warms closer to but not all the way to the T of the sun, or whatever heat source.
Yes it is basic stuff and common sense.
Again showing that DREMT has gotten it all horribly wrong.
Oh well.
“A plate in that field of view will warm to half the temperature.”
With VF=1, between a powered plate and a blue plate, the blue plate will warm to the same temperature as the powered plate. How could it not? It’s an idealized scenario with no losses between the plates.
Think of the Sun Shell example, which every single one of the GPE defenders wants to avoid like the plague.
“With VF=1, between a powered plate and a blue plate, the blue plate will warm to the same temperature as the powered plate. How could it not?”
Argument by assertion.
Argument by incredulity.
Both are logical fails.
Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
Bill, just a reminder:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1303710
One of the many things they get wrong in the GPE is to completely ignore view factors. They think 400 W/m^2 should be dealt with in the same way if it is coming from a point source or from an infinite parallel plate!
“In radiative heat transfer, a view factor, F_{{A\rightarrow B}}, is the proportion of the radiation which leaves surface A that strikes surface B.”
Does anyone see anything about surface B becoming a mirror when VF = 1?
Maybe I missed it.
So VF1 between a power plate and a BP simply means that all of flux emitted by BP strikes the power plate. Thats all.
So none of the flux leaving the BP is returned to it by the not-a-mirror power plate. Same for its other side.
The BP must emit on 2 sides. But it receives power only on 1 side.
Thus each side of BP emits HALF of what it receives from the source.
It must be cooler than the source.
They think 400 W/m^2 should be dealt with in the same way if it is coming from a point source or from an infinite parallel plate!
People keep forgetting that their incredulity about what nature does is not an argument.
Some people here also need to stop thinking that VF is magically doing more than its definition allows.
It doesnt stop or block emissions from objects. It only tells you what objects the emissions hit.
They think 400 W/m^2 should be dealt with in the same way if it is coming from a point source or from an infinite parallel plate! And they refuse to address the Sun Shell example, Bill! Too funny.
Nate says:
It warms closer to but not all the way to the T of the sun, or whatever heat source.
———————-
In the case of the sun the maximum output of the sun is 341w/m2 corresponding to 278.5K. Obviously its warmer than that. So the question is exactly how does it do that.
this is why there are two answers to that question in a grand game of avoiding to explain in detail how it happens. We have stupid green plate experiments that don’t answer the question. We have thought experiments that no more validity than a dream without an experiment showing the dream works.
“should be dealt with in the same way”
Not sure why it is a problem to have ‘dealt with’ these problems with the same heat transfer principles.
Too funny.
Nate he means dealing with both without a viewfactor. the view factor is not the same in the 2 scenarios so the correct transfer equations are vastly different with 2 vastly different view factors.
the mean earth surface has a .25 view factor of that flux and you want to revert to 1.0 at will without explaining the specific mechanism that can make that happen does the earth unfurl like an orthogonal projection to capture more radiation from the sun like a unfurling a sail on a sail boat to capture the wind and we just don’t happen to notice it happening?
barry…from your link…
“Radiation Heat Transfer Calculator
This calculator is based on equation (3) and can be used to calculate the heat radiation from a warm object to colder surroundings”.
***
Seriously confused. They are confusing the amount of heat dissipated with the intensity of the IR radiated. They are also confusing heat with electromagnetic radiation. They have nothing in common.
Furthermore, their use of the S-B equation is incorrect. S-B does not calculate the EM radiated from a blackbody, it calculates the EM intensity from a body with temperatures ranging from about 600C to 1500C. The S-B constant is not a universal constant, it applies only within the temperature range indicated.
Deny Clausius, deny MIT, deny very source that disagrees with you.
But never ever do you provide a reference corroborating your ceaseless nonsense.
“S-B does not calculate the EM radiated from a blackbody, it calculates the EM intensity from a body with temperatures ranging from about 600C to 1500C. The S-B constant is not a universal constant, it applies only within the temperature range indicated.”
Nonsense. S/B himself calculated the temperature of the sun to within a few K, at 5430C.
S-B is also used in first year uni physics courses to calculate the temperature of the Earth, at 15C.
You’re simply making stuff up, or misremembering what you’ve read years ago.
What you’re NOT doing is ever providing a reputable reference for your claims. Her is a great opportunity.
“S-B… calculates the EM intensity from a body with temperatures ranging from about 600C to 1500C… it applies only within the temperature range indicated.”
Link please!
“deny [e]very source that disagrees with you.”
Deny this, barry:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1298416
Deny this, Kiddo:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?showComment=1507766848773#c3040983878004588319
Yes, the comments under that article are an entertaining read.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1299640
Indeed:
> What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
Kiddo might wish to take it up with Clausius.
Swanson is confused, as usual.
Kiddo soldiers on.
Willard please stop trolling
Hahahaha. After requesting repeatedly a formal reference to a reputable physics text and not a blog, DREMT links to a blog.
I’ve provided corroboration for standard physics from university physics texts.
Where’s a formal physics reference for your claims to the contrary?
Your views are…
Unsubstantiated for 2 years despite repeated requests. Rejected.
Silly barry…the Green Plate Effect was created on a blog…not in a reputable physics text. So it is only fitting that it be debunked on a blog.
All the criticism of the GPE remains…
Unsubstantiated for 2 years despite repeated requests. Rejected.
Whereas I’ve shown those criticisms to be false with reference to numerous formal physics texts.
Give us a reputable physics text reference to substantiate:
1) Objects cannot absorb the radiation of cooler objects
2) An object receiving continual power will NOT warm if its heat loss is reduced.
Or any item regarding the GP where you diverge from the original explanation.
2 years. Come on. Reference, link, go!
OK, barry. Your loss.
And so Kiddo soldiers on.
The GPE was debunked years ago. Kind of boring to have to rehash all the old arguments, but I will if people keep pressing the issue.
barry says:
All the criticism of the GPE remains
Unsubstantiated for 2 years despite repeated requests. Rejected.
Whereas Ive shown those criticisms to be false with reference to numerous formal physics texts.
Give us a reputable physics text reference to substantiate:
1) Objects cannot absorb the radiation of cooler objects
—————————
I don’t know about others but that is not a contention of mine.
It is entirely dependent upon one of two possible light quanta models being true.
We can detect a sign that represents a source of light quanta but its an assumption that the sign and the light quanta are the same thing. Blowing off evidence it could be sign as a statistical abberation of photon behavior is what drove Einstein to near despair replying that God does not play dice!
Who knows maybe God does play dice.
Einstein discovered light quanta and created a theory that steers light gravitationally. We also apparently know that cosmic rays are slip streamed around the earth with only a minor amount of them actually impacting the earth. There is a lot of weird phenomena going on in the universe.
Seems to me Einstein was credible and he is not alone. Science isn’t a popularity contest and people should maintain their skepticism and avoid jumping onto new extrapolations without experimental support like a bunch of socialists jumping when ordered to jump. That is far more dangerous and lemming like than each of us doing our own thing and loving our neighbors.
Bill please stop moving the goalposts.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ken 5/26 at 7:20 PM
“You can explain how a 4 stroke engine works to an average ten year old kid.
…”
This should have gone without saying, but my original comment here was aimed at, and about, those with a science and/or engineering background. Sorry but your 10 year old is excluded.
Any practicing scientist or engineer can attest to the specialization of science as written. In my professional field there was one monthly journal when I graduated college in 1979; today there are 5 specialized journals in addition to the general publication.
Your disagreement is only understandable from a layman’s perspective.
If you can’t explain it to a layman in plain English then you don’t understand it yourself.
ken…”If you cant explain it to a layman in plain English then you dont understand it yourself”.
***
I agree with you in principle. I could explain to a layman basically how a transistor works wrt current amplification. It would be a different matter trying to explain the atomic level physics upon which the transistor is based.
I tend to have a go at certain scientists with Ph.D degrees but I am under no delusion that I could match any of them in their specialty. From the time I spent studying engineering I grasped pretty quickly that all is not what it may seem in science. Some of our engineering profs were absolutely brilliant with their mastery of their specialties.
I know you assess me differently and I have no problem with your criticism. Each to his own. There comes a time, however, when you need to challenge stupid theories, like climate change theory and the covid virus theories.
I laid out my solution to the Moon’s non-rotation to NASA and they did not disagree. What they did was shift the goalposts by claiming they were regarding the rotation from the perspective of the stars. When I sent them evidence that was wrong too, there was a mysterious silence from them.
People who handle PR for NASA may have degrees but many of them cannot think independently of authority figures. What Maguff claims is true in principle but he is aiming it at people like me whereas it applies to the climate alarmists he supports far more.
Maguff excels at viewing reality through rose coloured glasses.
NASA stopped replying to you because they recognized that you are an idiot.
Anybody who thinks science is established by a thought experiment is an idiot.
How did Galileo refute the Aristotelian view of falling bodies, Bill?
If you think he went on the Tower of Pisa, I have a bridge in Rome to sell you.
Here is evidence he actually did do the experiment Willard.
https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi166.htm#:~:text=Galileo%20found%20that%20the%20heavy,abandon%20Aristotelian%20ideas%20about%20motion.
Most likely he did since he is sort of the grandfather of the scientific method.
But we all know all this starts at a minimum as a curosity. From that arises all sorts of wild thought experiments. It is only when those thought experiments are winnowed down to an ingenious test of there veracity and the results carefully measured does it begin to arise to the level of satisfying science as described by perhaps the greatest scientist of them all. Sir William Tomson/Lord Kelvin
”In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be.”
and
”I never satisfy myself until I can make a mechanical model of a thing. If I can make a mechanical model I can understand it. As long as I cannot make a mechanical model all the way through I cannot understand; and that is why I cannot get the electromagnetic theory ….. But I want to understand light as well as I can, without introducing things that we understand even less of. That is why I take plain dynamics. I can get a model in plain dynamics; I cannot in electromagnetics”
That’s an old canard, Bill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delft_tower_experiment
Notice the date.
In a way, contrarians are really like Galileo: they will never let go of a good story because it’s untrue.
Willard says:
Thats an old canard, Bill:
In 1586, scientists Simon Stevin and Jan Cornets de Groot conducted an early scientific experiment on the effects of gravity. The experiment, which established that objects of identical size and different mass fall at the same speed, was conducted by dropping lead balls from the Nieuwe Kerk in the Dutch city of Delft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delft_tower_experiment
Notice the date.
In a way, contrarians are really like Galileo: they will never let go of a good story because its untrue.
———————–
Thats your old Canard Willard. And after being caught you changed the subject to an irrelevant one of who might have been first to do it.
I did not change the subject, Bill –
There’s no evidence Galileo ever did the experiment, we have evidence that he know about who did it, and his book mentions a thought experiment, arguably more convincing since it’s more or less a demonstration.
Which was the point all along, besides reminding you that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I will concede there are laymen too rigid in their thinking to understand simple concepts.
We have a couple or three on this thread.
But we don’t have anybody on this forum that can resolve the fate of backradiation. one day they claim it warms the surface and then when somebody points out thats a violation of 2lot then they claim it only acts as an insulating resistance.
The problem with that is the fate of the individual photons has not been resolved. Does it become an inert insulation material floating around in the atmosphere? Must be something like that as it seems the effect is allegedly cumulative.
But of course what is really happening is the warm surface is trying to warm the cold atmosphere but it can’t because greenhouse gases are cooling the upper atmosphere to space too fast.
maguff…”In a nutshell, research papers are written for specialists”.
***
Yet, non-specialists are used to review the papers. Ask Roy how his papers have been misinterpreted by reviewers who did not understand what his paper was about.
Peer review was never intended to interpret a paper and reject it based on what the reviewer thought or understood. It was introduced as a process to eliminate papers that did not meet the requirements of the scientific method.
Your post applies to alarmist climate scientists, most of whom are not specialists in climate science.
Above, several of the cult idiots are confused about the bogus equation. Let’s see some more of their confusion:
For braindead bob, barry, Nate, or Folkerts — A radiative flux consists of photons. So, let’s dumb this down to just two identical photons coming directly at each other.
What happens when the two photons collide?
A) Since fluxes subtract, the two identical photons would cancel each other, and be annihilated.
B) Nothing
That turns out not to be the case. Photons do interact, but are not destroyed.
https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/7/5/146
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics
Those articles seem to be saying photon-photon interactions have not been observed – only predicted (modeled) & it takes ordinary matter tracking to imply the photon-photon interaction “may” have happened or have high probability it happened. As of April 2021 the conclusion is: “not found clear and significant evidence for deviations and need for new physics” so at that date photons have still not been found to interact experimentally which would need new physics.
Bottom line.
Photons have energy. If, as ClintR suggests, two colliding photons can annihilate, where does the energy go?
It converts to dark matter?
The photons don’t collide as they don’t interact as far as is known to April 2021; ordinary matter like positrons and electrons collide, annihilate, and their energy & momentum (linear and angular) gives birth to photons.
Dark matter also doesn’t interact with photons which is why they call it dark – absence of light.
two colliding photons – that’s a good one – do they make a spark ???
No, the passing photons just “wave” at each other.
Yep there are probably painted lanes on the dark matter that keep them from colliding so they can wave as they safely pass by.
Photons can’t see each other as they are both traveling towards each other at the speed of light.
entropic…the word photon is thrown around far too much.
Einstein developed the notion wrt the photoelectric effect, where it was convenient to particalize EM into quanta that would interact with electrons on a surface.
However, later in his career he questioned whether EM was a wave or a particle. He claimed many scientists thought they knew but they are wrong.
It is convenient to think of a photon as a particle but it’s not. No particle has a frequency or an intensity. An electron is said to have a frequency but that refers to its angular orbital frequency. The electron does no vibrate itself, and a quantum of energy has no angular velocity.
A quantum of EM, which is undefinable, could have a frequency as an extended quantity, and an intensity. However, how does it join with other quanta to form a wavefront?
I was thinking of that the other day. If a quantum of EM is emitted by an electron, it would be 300,000,000 metres away in one second. Explain that in terms of a photon vibrating at a certain frequency, along with a bazillion other quanta to form a wavefront.
“What happens when the two photons collide?”
That is the wrong question. As pointed out by others already, photon-photon interactions are EXTREMEMLY rare. When you shine two flashlight beams “directly at each other”, they simple pass through each other. Clint doesn’t even know the right question to ask. And consequently, he gives two possible answers that are both wrong.
A flux is a directional flow of something through a defined surface. A flow in one direction through the surface can be defined to be positive; a flux in the opposite direction negative. In many cases, it suffices to state magnitudes, but the direction is important.
In Clint’s case, there are two power fluxes of equal magnitude but opposite direction. The sum of the two (opposite) fluxes is zero.
They cancel in the sense that 3 + (-3) ‘cancels’ to give zero. They cancel in the sense that if I hand you a $5 and you hand me 5 $1’s the net transaction is zero. The money is not ‘annihilated’ by the transaction; nor are the photons ‘annihilated’.
The braindead cult idiots are attempting to answer the simple question, but it’s clearly over their heads.
Ent is so confused that he must believe CO2 emits gamma rays! The answer is right in the second sentence of his second link —
“Normally, beams of light pass through each other unperturbed.” But Ent can’t understand it.
Then Folkerts jumps in trying to pretend he understands the simple question. Apparently, he just starts abusing his keyboard without a clue.
That’s why this is so much fun.
.. and so laughable whenever Clint R avoids experimental results. Be in good humor Clint.
DFTT
U sure, Pup?
OK.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Willard please stop trolling
Wow, Clint again disputes something no one ever claimed, nor would claim.
Just like all the ice cube scenarios that no one argued.
Hes quite good at creating and knocking down these non-controversies!
Laughing at Clint’s bogus claims in the face of experimental evidence contrary to what Clint writes is indeed “so much fun”. It’s worth hanging around reading Clint’s latest antics and botched atm. physics.
Unable to answer the simple question, huh?
No surprise.
These two IR emission mechanisms cannot be compared, because they are different.
Here is the discovered Rotating Planet Surface Solar irradiation Interaction-Emission New Equation:
Jemit = 4πr^2σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)^1∕ ⁴ (W)
And compare with the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law equation:
J = σΤe⁴ (W/m^2)
When comparing with the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody emission it is obvious when planet emission is considered it is a different mechanism of emission.
Thus the equation describing IR emission from irradiated rotating planet surface is different.
–
When averaged over the entire planet surface, in order to compare with the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody emission:
Jemit = σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)^1/ ⁴ (W/m^2)
And compare with the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law equation:
J = σΤe⁴ (W/m^2)
It is obvious these two IR emission mechanisms cannot be compared, because they are different.
Thus, the planet effective temperature Te formula:
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]^1∕ ⁴
Which results for Earth Te =255K
cannot be compared with the planet measured average surface temperature Tmean = 288K.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thanks, Christos.
You might like:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2012/01/11/the-rotational-effect/
Since the last couple million of years has been the coldest time in our Ice Age. And since the coldest periods kill more humans and life
and since the sun is predicted to get warmer, and Earth is cooling instead, one might want to know what causes cooling. And since Earth has spinning slower and since slower spin would cause the Earth to cool, one might ask what other than the our longer days, is causing Earth to be cooler.
And since we just came out of cold period called the Little Ice Age,
one might asked what cause the Little Ice Age to cool which resulted in millions of people dying?
Instead we have a cargo cult that doesn’t understand why Venus is hot and who imagine Venus is like Earth and imagine Earth could somehow being similar to Venus.
Which everyone knows is idiocy.
Thanks gb.
You might like:
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/loopy.htm
Willard, please stop your idiotic trolling.
Thank Mike Flynn.
You might like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Billy_Goats_Gruff
Silly sock puppet.
gb…I have a new theory. Our part of the spiral Milky Way galaxy was moving through dust clouds that partially blocked out the Sun. Have to be a mighty big dust cloud to last for 400+ years.
Maybe Rogue planet we have seen yet, pass thru our system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_planet
And rogue planet has a lot dust and gas around it. Say 100 AU in radius. And got as close as 30 AU from Sun.
The earthen global, multiannual measured Te ~ 255K always needs to be compared with measured Tse ~ 288K.
Mars et. al. too; for example Martian clear atm. Te ~ 210K, Tse ~ 215K
Earth doesnt have a 255 K surface.
Does a cloud or a fog have a surface?
RLH, do you understand ANY of this?
RLH,
You wrote –
“Does a cloud or a fog have a surface?”
And anybody gives a crap about such a stupid gotcha because . . . ?
I suppose you think you have a clever answer to your own question, so lay it on me.
Dimwit.
Clint: Yes.
Swenson: From a distance both a cloud and a fog bank can have nicely defined borders/surfaces. When you get closer then any such distinctions are much more difficult.
RLH, if you want to pretend you know what this is about, then where is Earth’s 255 K surface?
About the same place as the surface of a fog bank or cloud.
Well, that’s obviously nonsense.
RLH has such a hard time with reality. He falls flat on his face every time he tries to fake a knowledge of the issues.
It’s you who spouts nonsense, not me.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“The earthen global, multiannual measured Te ~ 255K always needs to be compared with measured Tse ~ 288K.
Have you gone completely mad? Measured temperature is ~255 K and ~288K at the same time? You must be a climate cultist, surely.
Maybe you think slow cooling results in heating, or that Willard is not a lying idiot for claiming he has a Greenhouse Theory!
Maybe you could explain what the temperature of the Earths surface was before the first liquid water appeared, and what “equation” you used to establish the temperature.
You are purely deranged, and in complete denial of reality. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, and it does so every night, in winter and so on. No “trapped heat”, and “energy imbalances” are irrelevant. Every point on the surface is either heating or cooling – apart from at least two inflection points per day, when the temperature is neither rising or falling.
You are a delusional idiot. Keep it up, and find and “equation” which explains the molten initial state of the Earth.
Swenson asks: “Measured temperature (Te) is ~255 K and (Tse) ~288K at the same time?”
Yes Swenson, in the same exact periods of time! Also, the top post temperature anomaly graph shows Swenson wrong writing: “The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so”.
The overnight temperature in my area went UP a few nights ago, so Swenson is wrong about that too. Is there nothing in physics Swenson can get right? I doubt it since Swenson can’t even use google search to find the GHE theory Swenson so desperately seeks.
Fun to watch Swenson struggle in physics. Can no one help Swenson learn about physics?
Ball4,
There is no Greenhouse Theory. Neither you nor anybody else can find it, because it doesnt exist. You are as delusional as that other idiotic liar, Willard. He claims he has a Greenhouse Theory, too!
If you dont want to believe that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, good for you!
If you want to believe that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes it hotter, go your hardest. You will be in the company of all the other cultists who believe that the GHE performs this wondrous miracle!
I suppose, like Carl Sagan, and other authors of some textbooks, you believe that the Earth was created cold, and heated by the Sun to its present temperature! Of course, you might receive some objections from geophysicists and others who are convinced otherwise by observations and experiments. You no doubt have a cunning explanation for photographs of molten magma pushing up from ocean depths. Maybe due to sunlight descending into the mantle, do you think? Melting the rock under the ocean? Do you think this is where Trenberths “missing heat” went?
Moron.
I observe Swenson still has not figured out such a simple task as doing a google search to find the GHE theory AND its measurement. Really, it’s not that hard to do Swenson.
Trenberth’s “missing heat” has been found now too, Swenson is just way behind. Pity.
Ball4,
Insisting there is a Greenhouse Theory (but you can’t provide it because your dog ate it) puts you at one with that other lying idiot Willard.
You can’t even annoy me with your witless attempts at diversion and trolling.
As to Trenberth, there never was any “missing heat”. Where did you find it – on the bookshelf next to your bottle of phlogiston, or tucked behind Michael Mann’s self awarded Nobel Prize?
You really are a climate nutter, aren’t you?
[chortle]
Swenson, could provide the GHE theory for himself if only Swenson could figure out how to do something as simple as a google search.
So why did Swenson write about Trenberth’s “missing heat” if there never was any? Because Swenson was so offended, annoyed, and upset at frequently being corrected on physics errors that Swenson wanted to distract attention.
Ball4,
There is no Greenhouse Theory, you dimwit. There are lying idiots like you and Willard who claim to have one, but of course, such a thing doesnt exist, so you just hope that other idiots will believe your lies.
You seem to have convinced yourself that I value the opinions of lying idiots so highly that I would allow myself to be offended, upset or annoyed by their delusional babbling!
Nah. I might just as well allow myself to be offended by a dog turd.
Unlikely.
[snorts derisively at idiot]
Swenson, one could imagine author of theory of greenhouse cult cargo would be a famous author.
With Marxism the believers may not like Karl Marx {cause he sort of dickhead] but they do blame him for starting the idiocy.
Go argue with Gordo about Marx, Loopy.
This idiocy was around before Marx. He described it. Think Julius Caesar.
Superdeveloping triple La Nina effect – Farmers edition
https://youtu.be/DX5qilRFIk4
Another source saying that this years hurricane season will be caused by La Nina and not by global warming.
LN has already caused a heat dome to park over the Pacific NW last summer then caused excessive rainfall in November. These weather conditions are well known outcomes of LN yet the alarmist pundits are claiming both weather situations as proof of anthropogenic warming.
They have not explained how a warming of 1C over the better part of 2 centuries can create such climate change.
The purpose of simple questions and simple analogies is to demonstrate, rather conclusively, that the cult understands none of the science. The “two equal photons” question has the cult so confused that not one has been able to answer correctly.
It’s time for some more fun.
As before, two photons are coming directly at each other. But this time, the two photons are not equal. One photon has energy “E”, and the other photon has energy “2E”.
What happens when the two photons collide?
A) From Conservation of Energy, only one photon will be left. And it will have energy of “E”, since 2E – E = E.
B) Nothing
The passing photons don’t interact Clint.
The choices are A or B. Any other response is just evading, aka trolling.
A – Clint R is an idiot.
B – Clint R is an idiot.
Chose A or B.
Any other response is just evading, aka trolling.
A or B, Clint R is an idiot.
RLH
I agree to choose both A and B. How could a choice have been so easy.
Norman: And/or is an acceptable choice.
“simple analogies” like a ball-on-string being a perfect example of a stick rotating about one end.
Another reminder that you agree a ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the center of the ball, regardless of reference frame. Thank you for your continued support, RLH.
As I said, the ball-on-a-string is a perfect example of a stick rotating about one end. If you place a ball at the ‘correct’ end then it does indeed rotate about it. If you place it at the other it does not. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?
It is not difficult for me to comprehend, at all. You agree that a ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the center of the ball, regardless of reference frame. Thank you for your continued support, RLH.
I don’t support you or your idiotic ideas.
Except that you do support the idea that a ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the center of the ball, regardless of reference frame, as we established in previous discussions. Thank you for your continued support, RLH.
I support the idea that a ball-on-a-string is exactly like a stick rotating about one end as you agreed to below.
Sure. So you agree that a ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the center of the ball, regardless of reference frame. Thank you for your continued support, RLH.
No, I support the idea that a ball-on-a-string is exactly like a stick rotating about one end as you agreed to below.
…which is the same thing as saying that a ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the center of the ball, regardless of reference frame. Thank you for your continued support, RLH.
A disc rotating about the center does not rotate about an edge either. Your point was?
Draw a small chalk circle towards the edge of the disc. People here have genuinely argued that the contents of the chalk circle are rotating about an axis in the center of the chalk circle.
rlh…don’t know why you keep missing the obvious. Attach a ball to the end of the stick away from the axis about which it is turning. Is the ball rotating about its own axis while attached to the stick?
It cannot rotate about its own axis because it is attached to the stick. That was a partial inference in Tesla’s argument. He had balls attached to spokes which were rotating on a hub. He argued the attached balls had no angular momentum about their local axis since they were attached to the spokes therefore they could not rotate locally. Yet, the action of the ball were the same as the Moon, same side always pointing in.
(The ball) cannot rotate about its own axis wrt the stick because it is attached to the stick!
The ball rotates on its own axis once per orbit wrt the sun. The ball is not attached to the sun.
ball4…”The ball rotates on its own axis once per orbit wrt the sun”.
***
How does the ball rotate about its axis if it is attached to the stick? This is getting back to the wooden horse bolted to the floor of the carousel. Impossible for it to rotate about its COG since the bolts won’t allow the required angular velocity.
Is it really necessary to explain this? It should be blatantly obvious.
Tesla made the same point long ago, that rotation about an axis requires angular momentum about the axis. It is impossible for the ball to have angular momentum about its COG axis if it is attached to a stick. Same with the ball on a string or the wooden horse bolted to a carousal.
“How does the ball rotate about its axis if it is attached to the stick?”
Gravity does not ‘attach’ at the surface.
Impossible for wooden horse to rotate about its COG wrt to the mgr since the bolts won’t allow the required angular velocity. However, wrt to the sun, the wooden horse rotates on its own axis once per orbit of the mgr center.
Gordon just needs to think that through. Tough as it is for Gordon to think.
“It is impossible for the ball to have angular momentum about its COG axis if it is attached to a stick.”
It is impossible for one end of the stick to have any rotation compared to the stick.
Gravity does not act like a physical attachment.
Gravity does act like a physical attachment. Gravity is a force of one object on another object. Its physics so it is physical.
Word salad. I will change mine to rigidly connected with changing at all what I meant.
….without….
“Gravity does act like a physical attachment”
Gravity does not act like a rigid (or flexible) attachment such as a string.
It would produce a circle but gravity produces orbits which are not circular.
RLH says:
Word salad. I will change mine to rigidly connected with changing at all what I meant.
————————-
The word ‘rigid’ is word salad. I has no scientific definition. If you care to define it and show that gravity does not within the parameters you propose fit a description of rigidity thats your choice but its not a scientific choice.
I would argue that rigidity is something that causes something to perform consistently. Obviously everything has its breaking point. It seems to me that gravity qualifies as its ability to gravitationally lock all orbiting objects given enough time and other factors not intervening seems to qualify as rigid for that purpose.
Likewise a string attached to a surface makes a ball-on-a-string into a stick. Gravity acts on the COGs, not a surface.
RLH says:
Likewise a string attached to a surface makes a ball-on-a-string into a stick. Gravity acts on the COGs, not a surface.
————————–
Wrong! Gravity stretches round objects into oval objects by exerting more force on closer particles than more distant particles. You are confounding the COG as a mean force, a statistical concept used extensively to simplify calculations (as opposed to adding up all forces on individual particles.) That allows an object to stretch in two directions away from the COG.
The Earth is very close to a perfect sphere.
6,378.1370 km equatorial radius
6,356.7523 km polar radius
and those values are changing constantly as the Earth is more liquid than rigid at those dimensions.
With the distance to the Moon being an average 384,400 km the difference from a perfect sphere is tiny.
In any case, a ball-on-a-string is only a model for physically connected objects and the Earth/Moon is not that.
It may be tiny but it was sufficient to tidally lock it.
Put another way gravity exerts no torque on a perfect sphere. But no sphere remains perfect in the presence of gravity.
Thank you for your continued support, RLH.
I do not support you as well you know.
Not on the issue of the moon’s rotation, no. However, your support on the issue of a ball on a string not rotating about an axis going through the center of the ball, regardless of reference frame, is appreciated.
A ball-on-a-string is exactly the same as a stick rotating about one end.
Yes, exactly. Thank you for your continued support, RLH.
DREMT agrees that a ball-on-a-string is exactly like a stick rotating about one one. So making his claim that is a useful analogy to the Earth/Moon orbit a nonsense.
RLH, you still can’t understand the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. The analogy ONLY demonstrates “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
You are unable to learn, and we both know why.
The analogy of a ball-on-a-string only truly represents a stick rotating about one end. Call that what you like.
RLH says:
DREMT agrees that a ball-on-a-string is exactly like a stick rotating about one one. So making his claim that is a useful analogy to the Earth/Moon orbit a nonsense.
—————————
Sure its a useful analogy. Your argument is essentially that if the ball were out in space orbiting the earth while rotating on its own axis in perfect time the ball would look the same as the ball on a stick but the ball on the stick is instead rotating around the earth like a ball on a stick rotating around the far end of the stick.
But the moon is not out in space coincidentally rotating in perfect time with its orbit. It is rotating around a stick represented by the forces of gravity and if weren’t doing that originally that analogical stick would force it to do so eventually no matter which way or how fast it were rotating on its own axis originally.
Now that might not be strictly a perfect analogy. But statistics is allowed to be utilized in science and is currently probably used more than any other. And the statistical probability that anything will both orbit and spin on its own axis at the precise same rate is so statistically improbable that hypothesis can be rejected.
Bill Hunter
Maybe you need to do some more investigating before forming an incorrect conclusion.
The majority of moons in our Solar System are tidally locked. It is a known physics phenomena and they even have worked out equations to determine how long it takes for a moon to become tidally locked, rotation rate is equal to orbital rate, they both take the same length of time.
https://scopethegalaxy.com/are-moons-always-tidally-locked/
“Sure it’s a useful analogy” of a stick rotating about one end.
As gravity does not work at the surface of an object but at its COG then it is useless to describe anything in an orbit.
RLH is a nonsense.
Norman, you’re spreading falsehoods, again.
Gravity can NOT apply torque to a moon.
DREMT is an idiot. A ball-on-a-string is a very good analogy for a stick rotating about one end. It does not model anything to do with gravity, only things that are physically connected.
A stick rotating about one end is also fine as an analogy for “orbital motion without axial rotation”. After all, nobody would suggest that the other end of the stick was rotating on its own axis once per orbit.
“A stick rotating about one end is also fine as an analogy for ‘orbital motion without axial rotation'”
A stick rotating about one end is just a section of a full disc rotating about a center.
No-one is ever claiming that the disc is rotating about the edge. Talk about a strawman.
The end of a stick rotates through 360 degrees as it rotates, once per orbit.
Draw a small chalk circle towards the edge of the disc. People here have genuinely argued that the contents of the chalk circle are rotating about an axis in the center of the chalk circle.
Draw a thin rectangle on the face between the center and the edge of a disc. Notice how similar it is to a stick rotating about one end.
Yes, obviously. Now, about the chalk circle…you would agree that the people here (“Spinners”) who have argued that the contents of the chalk circle are rotating about an axis in the center of the chalk circle, are wrong. Yes?
“Yes, obviously”
So you agree that a stick rotating about one end is the same as a disc rotating about a center.
Yes, RLH…obviously. Now, about the chalk circle…you would agree that the people here (“Spinners”) who have argued that the contents of the chalk circle are rotating about an axis in the center of the chalk circle, are wrong. Yes?
So tell me what you would see if you stand at the center or at the edge to the disc. Would you see the same rotation? Once per revolution?
If you held a gyro at both locations, would it always point at the same location? Would you appear to rotate about the gyro once per rotation also?
Wherever I stood, and whatever I saw, the chalk circle would be rotating about the center of the disc, and not on its own axis.
What would you see on the 2 gyros?
Whatever I saw, the chalk circle would be rotating about the center of the disc, and not on its own axis.
A gyro placed at the center of the circle would say that it rotates about it.
That only proves that for some tests gyros are not reliable. Like our eyes sometimes also.
brandon…[GR]..”> Insulation does not cause a device to get hotter, it prevents it cooling as quickly. The heat comes from another source.
[Br]What do you think the Sun is, Gordon.
***
Red herring alert!!!
We are talking about the effect of an insulator on a heated object. It cannot possibly raise the temperature of the heated object, it can only slow the rate of heat dissipation.
Swenson put it best when he claimed you can insulate a corpse but it won’t get warmer. Why? The human body creates its own heat from food, so much so, that the body at 37C is 17C warmer than room temperature at 20C. If a human dies, the body temperature reduces to the temperature of the environment, 20C in the case of room temperature.
What do I think the Sun does? It acts as a source of heat. If it is shining on an object, the object will warm to a temperature which is a resultant between solar input and heat dissipation at the objects surface. If you insulate the body, its temperature will rise beyond the resultant temperature but it is not the insulation causing the warming. It is the reduction in heat dissipation that causes the warming.
That’s provided the object is internally heated. If it is not, and you apply insulation with a temperature at room temperature, the insulation will cool the object initially, if it is at a temperature > 20C. A resultant temperature will be reached as the insulation warms at the object’s surface and the object cools. When thermal equilibrium is reached, the body will cool more slowly but it can never warm up.
If you had a blanket heated to 40C and you wrapped yourself in it, the blanket would warm you till it cooled. Most blankets are at room temperature, at about 20C. How could they possibly transfer heat to a body at 37C?
Same with a tea cozy. The tea in the pot would be around 90C – 100C immediately after the tea is poured into the tea pot.
If it’s a metal tea pot, heat will be transferred through the metal rapidly. If it’s a ceramic/clay pot, not as quickly. In either case, the tea pot will be very hot to the touch.
Threshhold pain for human skin is about 44C.
The tea cozy is at room temperature, about 20C. How could it possibly transfer heat to the tea pot? It can’t. In fact, it will likely cool the tea pot till the inside surface of the tea cozy is in thermal equilibrium with the tea pot surface.
It’s all 2nd law stuff.
Gordon claims: “We are talking about the effect of an insulator on a heated object. It cannot possibly raise the temperature of the heated object…If you insulate the body, its temperature will rise..”
Gordon contradicts his own writing so Gordon doesn’t know what Gordon is writing about.
Enjoy some Sam Adams TeaPot, Gordon, and refrain from trying to write correctly about thermal physics until you understand the subject.
Ball4,
What are you blathering about, fool?
Insulating an object from the easy of the Sun makes it cooler, not hotter! Thats what sunshades, roofs, hats and so on are for. Thats why temperatures on the Earths surface due to unconcentrated sunlight never get as high as those on the Moon.
You need to learn how to troll. Do you think your aimless blathering really offends, annoys, or upsets anyone at all?
Moron.
I don’t think that at all Swenson. Though being corrected on physics does obviously offend, annoy, and upset Swenson. Figured out how to use google search to find your lost GHE theory yet, Swenson?
Ball4,
You wrote “I dont think that at all Swenson.”
What is it you dont think? You don’t think shielding a thermometer from the sun makes it cooler?
That would make you some sort of delusional dimwit, wouldn’t it?
By the way, you cannot offend, annoy, or upset me, you fool. Your mind reading capabilities are not as good as you assume. Why should I choose to be offended, annoyed or upset by a delusional dimwit? Maybe you are not quite as important as you think.
Moron.
Swenson should not be offended, annoyed, or upset when being corrected on physics as Swenson demonstrates, and even wrote, in comments. Swenson should be happy someone took the time to correct Swenson’s writing on physics.
Still haven’t found the GHE theory and its measurement? At least then Swenson won’t write incorrectly about the physics of the GHE.
Ball4,
There is no GHE theory, you donkey. Nor any Greenhouse Theory, either. You may lie about its existence until you are blue in the face, but it still won’t make fact out of your fantasy, will it?
Nobody seems to have corrected the laws of physics recently. Why should I be happy or unhappy about reality?
Your delusional ramblings, and your idiotic lies about having a Greenhouse Theory, are not “correction of physics”. If you want to take exception to something I wrote, and provide verifiable facts to back up your disagreement, by all means do so. Of course, quote the exact words I wrote.
A snivelling little coward like you can’t do it, can you? Come on, man up and grow a pair.
Give it a try.
Moron,
Swenson exact words: “There is no GHE theory”
Google search: There is GHE theory and GHE has been measured.
Verifiable fact. Swenson is wrong and obviously annoyed. Pity.
Ball4,
There is no GHE theory.
Blathering about a Google Search won’t do you any good. Try it, you nitwit. In any case, not everything you read is true, especially using Google. For example, was the Earth created in 4004 BC, (Bishop Ussher), 25,000 years ago (Buffon), 20 million or 40 million years ago [Lord Kelvin), or something else?
I won’t ask anybody to search for “GHE Theory”, but feel free if you like.
As to the GHE itself, there are all sorts of mad assertions on the internet – not one of which even tries to explain the cooling of the Earth since its creation.
You are a gullible, fact free, cultist.
Carry on. Appeal to a “college librarian” if you think it will make you look less like a fool. Maybe you can convince someone that you are important enough for me to allow myself to become annoyed, but it take a much better person than a lying idiot like you to impress me.
ball4…”Gordon contradicts his own writing so Gordon doesnt know what Gordon is writing about”.
***
Gordon did not contradict himself, bally misquoted Gordon intentionally to make it appear that way.
I said, “It [insulation] cannot possibly raise the temperature of the heated object…then later…If you insulate the body, its temperature will rise”.
No contradiction there, at no time did I claim the temperature rise was caused by the insulation. I explained clearly that an external source supplied the heat to increase the temperature and that the insulation acted only to slow the rate of heat dissipation.
Gordon contradicts himself again: “at no time did I claim the temperature rise was caused by the insulation.”
Then according to Gordon: “If you insulate the body, its temperature will rise”.
Shows Gordon just doesn’t know about which Gordon is writing.
Gordon says: “If you insulate the body, its temperature will rise beyond the resultant temperature but it is not the insulation causing the warming.”
This is some pretty specific semantics. If you change one and only one factor, and something else changes as a result, most people would say that one factor was the ’cause’ of the change. For example, if I flip a switch and a light comes on, most people agree that flipping the switch ’caused’ the light to come on. Only a pendant would insist that the powerplant miles away ’caused’ the light to come one and that the switch ‘allowed’ the power plant to ’cause’ the light to come on. Of course, both as necessary (are are the wires, and the steam to turn the turbine, and … ), but the immediate, proximate ’cause’ is the switch.
Similarly, could split hairs and and say the insulation ‘allows’ the heating element to ’cause’ the coffee be warmer. Or say the GHGs ‘allows’ the sun to ’cause’ the earth to be warmer.
If you want to insist on your wording, I won’t object. GHGs allow the sun to cause more warming.
tim…”if I flip a switch and a light comes on, most people agree that flipping the switch caused the light to come on”.
***
How’s it going, Tim?
Not quite the same issue. You might argue that the switch caused the light to go on but the switch really completes the circuit so electrical current could turn the light on. Without a power source, you can flick the switch all you want and the light won’t go on.
Based on your argument, if I flick the switch, I caused the light to go on. Strange how the human minds takes credit for things it cannot do.
With insulation, however, you cannot make that argument. Insulation has no heat or property that will warm an object, unless like I said, the temperature of the blanket is hotter than the object it is trying to warm.
What it comes down to is a transfer of heat. No insulation is designed to transfer heat, only to slow the dissipation of heat. A heating blanket is designed to transfer heat to a body, but it’s the electrical power built into the blanket that does the heating.
Tim Folkerts says:
GHGs allow the sun to cause more warming.
————————–
Interesting claim Tim. Fortunately for you you are not in violation of that law for claiming that unless of course you are selling insulation to the public as a private enterprise.
And unfortunate for if you were selling insulation on that basis to the public, you would at minimum be subject to a huge fine and possibly even jail time.
Fact is the law specifies that such claims must be backed up by labratory work. These laws arose in the 1970’s because of an epidemic of shysters trying to sell trailer trash insulation which was essentially tin foil to apply to the ceilings of poor peoples trailers to make they life more bearable in cold weather.
the allegation was the shysters claimed this as insulation, when all lab experiments available at the time said it was not.
So what arose was first a safe harbor calculation for insulation value, a law that said if you conformed to the safe harbor rule for insulation you were fine. But if you proposed something new like trailer trash insulation the burden would be upon you to prove it worked.
Of course academia and the government are immune to such laws. Thats because they are considered to not be selling anything.
Please stop disputing Mike Flynn’s theory that the atmosphere acts as an insulator, Bill.
Bill, you may also like:
https://inspectapedia.com/insulation/Reflective_Insulation.php
Brandon you don’t understand what you linked to.
The fact is you can purchase unwrapped 5 1/2″ fiberglass insulation batts that are rated at R-19. Add paper or foil wrapping and it is still R-19. You can deduce the rest I would hope.
Moar:
https://www.insulationstop.com/radiant-barrier-blog/enhancing-efficiency-insulating-exterior-walls-with-fiber-glass-and-foil-insulation/
Brandon R. Gates says:
Moar:
If you want to combine insulation types, using reflective insulation and fiberglass insulation in a wall space can boost the R-value by 3.9 points. By utilizing reflective insulation, an R-21 total wall assembly can be created, with a vapor and moisture barrier.
———————————
Yes you can do this. But you are miscomprending what is being done. I have built some of these myself. To get insulation value you must install a radiant barrier in combination with a dead air space.
Radiant barriers limit downwelling heat but not upwelling heat. In fact installing say a polished aluminum radiant barrier on your ceiling rafters instead of say wood or drywall can keep a room cooler on a summer day. But it will accelerate heat loss on a cold winter day by virtue of having higher conductivity than do the alternative building materials.
Cycles Summit 2022 Day 2
https://youtu.be/cG66JZS57M8?t=528
The Source of Water Ice on The Moon Could Be Traced to a Seemingly Unlikely Source
MICHELLE STARR
27 MAY 2022
“There’s not a lot, comparatively, going on at the Moon. There’s dust. There’s rock. There’s basalt plains, the product of extensive volcanism over much of the Moon’s history.”
https://www.sciencealert.com/moon-water-ice-may-have-come-from-moon-volcanoes
Linked from https://instapundit.com/
“And, as we have recently discovered, there’s water. Lots of water. Bound up in the lunar regolith. Trapped in volcanic glass. Possibly even in sheets of ice on or just below the surface, hiding in craters at the poles that lurk in permanent shadow, where it can’t be sublimated by the heat of the Sun.”
…
“Our model suggests that [around] 41 percent of the total H2O mass erupted over this period could have condensed as ice in the polar regions, with thicknesses up to several hundreds of meters,” wrote a team of researchers led by planetary scientist Andrew Wilcoski of the University of Colorado Boulder in their paper.”
Hundreds meters thick is crazy.
So I was thinking Mars could export water to Venus, if their model right, the Moon would better than Mars, to export to Venus.
But we don’t know, got to go there. And maybe, bring something that drill quite deep.
Of course if more 100 meter of water, remove water, gives a cave/tunnels.
gb,
Apparently, the total amount of water on Earth would fit into a sphere about 1400 km across.
Nobody has ever come up with a “reasonable” hypothesis as to where the Earths water came from. All hypotheses seem to be of the form “God done it!”
Have fun.
Everyone knows there is a lot water in our solar system and a lot water in our Galaxy.
Mainly because there a lot Hydrogen. And Oxygen is fairly common.
More 40% of earth, Moon, Mars, and suppose Mercury and Venus crust mass is oxygen.
Space rocks tend to likewise a lot oxygen or minerals oxidized, though rocks can be pure metals also. And most space rock are about 20% water. Jupiter moons have lots of water and do moon of other gas gaints.
It long “known” the polar region of Mercury have water ice. Mercury quite similar to our Moon, but only been known since 1998 that Moon polar region could water. Though some NASA guy is 1960’s thought might water in lunar polar region.
I recently guessed Venus might have a lot water in it’s crust/mantle.
Or let’s say something wild, Venus could have twice as much water as Earth.
In terms of Earth’s water, I think a lot of has to do with Earth’s plate tectonic activity, which stopped being a crazy idea, somewhere around 1970. And after that we realized that space rocks are currently hitting Earth and will continue pounding Earth for billions more years.
We should explore space. First Moon, then Mars. And after that, really get going at exploring space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qyp7mDddyoQ
Starting 9 min mark talking NASA planned Mars.
I like that they dealing with microgravity effect of the traveling time. Though it seems could consider giving artificial gravity in some ways, and don’t like the short stay time on Mars, but anyhow.
–The inverse relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and stomatal frequency in tree leaves provides an accurate method for detecting and quantifying century-scale carbon dioxide fluctuations. Stomatal frequency signatures of fossil birch leaves reflect an abrupt carbon dioxide increase at the beginning of the Holocene. A succeeding carbon dioxide decline matches the Preboreal Oscillation, a 150-year cooling pulse that occurred about 300 years after the onset of the Holocene. In contrast to conventional ice core estimates of 270 to 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), the stomatal frequency signal suggests that early Holocene carbon dioxide concentrations were well above 300 ppmv.–
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46595362_Early_Holocene_atmospheric_CO2_concentrations
Since CO2 levels are so important I was wondering what the global CO2 levels were during the peak temperatures of the Holocene.
Apparently well above 300 ppm.
Now our peak Holocene wasn’t as warm as past peak interglacial periods {where sea levels were 4 to 9 meter higher and ocean average temperature was 4 C [or warmer]}.
Was there even higher levels of global CO2 during these past warmer periods.
{I mean within the last one million years- there were interglacial periods with many temperatures, and there temperature peaks which were not interglacial periods. “Within the glacial periods, there are secondary fluctuations. These are known as interstadial and stadial periods, which occur when glaciers retreat and advance, respectively.” So, how much CO2 increased during interstadial?}
“Interstadials are regarded as the relatively short-lived periods of thermal improvement during a glacial phase, when temperatures did not reach those of the present day and, in lowland mid-latitude regions, the climax vegetation was boreal woodland (Lowe and Walker, 1997). Jessen and Milthers (1928) defined interstadials as periods that are either too short or too cold to allow the development of temperate deciduous forest of interglacial type in the same region. Interstadials are, however, not only defined on biostratigraphical grounds. In the USA, for instance, an interstadial is formally regarded as a climatic episode within a glaciation during which a secondary recession or standstill of glaciers took place”
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4020-4411-3_115
Also:
https://www.askdifference.com/interglacial-vs-interstadial/
We’re at a point in civilization where idiots can worry about nonsense such as climate and think they can control it. It is a point of peak opulence. Society doesn’t advance without energy and lots of it. People paying $70K for a bitcoin reminds us of the Tulip Mania. The idiots won’t have to worry about fossil fuels for a long time. Most are oblivious to what is about to happen. Civilization is about to take a centuries-long severe retreat. This Depression will be the Mother of them All.
Seen on a blog this week:
Called my stockbroker this morning and asked him what I should be buying.
He said “Canned goods and ammo”.
He’s as shortsighted as you are.
Ignore dates on canned goods. They store for decades as long as they don’t rust and keep the seal.
Ignore dates on canned goods. It stores for decades as long as it doesn’t rust and keeps the seal. Same for ammo.
Think of the children as they age.
Drill, baby drill.
And nuclear.
For the foreseeable future.
But space exploration probably something we need in longer
term. It lead to far cheaper energy in the future, say less than
100 years is possible.
It seems to me nuclear energy would be better off our planet.
And solar energy works in high orbit. And pretty good on the Moon, and better on Mars than the surface of Earth.
stephen…”The idiots wont have to worry about fossil fuels for a long time”.
***
I read a couple of years ago that we have at least 200 years of oil available. That’s just the oil they know about.
We cannot sit back and watch these clowns take over governments, we have to speak out forcefully. Our voices are being deliberately stifled and it may come down to civil disobedience to be heard.
During this worldwide depression, fossil fuel consumption will drop drastically. Fuel will be costly, relatively. All assets will drop in price. All the stuff in the middle of the grocery store will be cheap, but the stuff on the outside walls will be costly. Cash will be king.
At the height of the Depression in 1933, 25% of the US of A was unemployed. What’s the unemployment rate these days, Troglodyte?
The turbulences ahead will not require survivalism, at least if you’re not in Eastern Europe. So pray for Eboy instead of whining.
gbaikie…”With Marxism the believers may not like Karl Marx {cause he sort of dickhead] but they do blame him for starting the idiocy”.
***
You have to be careful not to take Marx out of context. He was born in 1818 and died in 1883. During that era, children were forced to work in factories and workers were treated abysmally. The cruelty and the arrogance of the business class was the problem, not Marx.
Many people have claimed to base their philosophies on Marx but he never condoned any of them. Early unions were urged to action by his work but most unions in democratic countries were not interested in communism. Some were communists but here in Canada, communism was an idealistic and accepted pastime for many. By and large, unions were happy to live within the framework of democracy except for brief forays into civil disobedience.
People who call themselves Marxists do not base their philosophy on Marx. Part of it maybe, but many are just anarchists looking for a fancy name to justify their brutality. Stalin for example.
Many of these movements are described as socialist, but Marx hated socialism. He was born in Germany where socialism developed as handouts from the wealthy to the poor. When Engels wanted to call their work socialism, Marx refused. It is ironic that nations claiming to base their philosophies on Marx call themselves socialist states.
Anyone who relates Russian or Chinese communism to Marx is seriously misinformed. They may have tried to follow his work but they failed miserably. With the advent of psychology around the beginning of the 20th century we have become to understand that humans don’t want to live under the controls imposed by communal living. They are certainly not as vital as may have been the case in the times of Marx.
I don’t think his work is applicable today but I am still interested in taking an objective view as to what he was about. He simply stood up to the capitalist tyranny of 19th century Europe which would never be accepted today either. We no longer use child labour or send people to debtors’ prisons. Employers are bound by laws and codes of ethics, and it was Marx who started that ball rolling.
Yep you are right. Marx was a European opposed to the aristocratic oppression of the elites. Elites who were granted vast estates.
Marx preceded Americans like Teddy Roosevelt who strived to protect environments but refused to do so like the Europeans who simply locked these areas up into private estates. TR saw conservation as a bonus for the common man instead and rejected the European model of conservation. A model still popular and coveted today by elites. Like Leonardo Dicaprio journeying to climate change conferences with Sean Penn and a couple of girl friends on a yacht that burns more fuel per mile than an entire fleet of 747’s like some emperor being carried by slaves in a palanquin.
Roosevelt the progressive of the day instead saw conservation as areas protected from the ravages of greed to provide natural environments for the rugged individual who sauntered out into the wilderness and became robust in his struggle for survival. There is a lot of native American philosophy in TRs vision. But TR also saw that the future depended on progress. So besides conservation areas he set aside reclamation areas where progress could grow based upon managed development to serve vast numbers of people rather than a few filthy rich aristocrats.
Roosevelt the true progressive, understood that only an individual can individually make determinations about what is good for him. Its the only thing at all that we know about how the world should be!!!!!
Beyond that ‘saving the world’ is essentially a meaningless meme. It becomes a mantra of those who believe they know what is good for everything else. Talk about hubris!!! Thats the pinnacle of hubris.
So what do we do? Well democracy seems to have a role where we do what the majority says we should do. but that is a bumpy road where you generate a whole bunch of lying sacks of shit that double speak, say what they think you want to hear, and use an elitist mentality of determining things by fiat rather than true science.
We do generated a whole bunch of lying sacks of shit, Karl Marx being a fine example.
At least Teddy was fairly amusing.
How about some quotes:
Marx:
“The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.
I guess in China or Cuba the oppressed are just oppressed.
And in US, we get people who are paid to rig the election- the oppressed get others doing a hard task of voting.
Teddy:
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are. Believe you can and you’re halfway there. It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed. It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
Teddy had a lot. And seemed to enjoy himself.
There is such low bar for pols, and Teddy counts as one of the best.
This is my favorite quote of TR.
”These things can be told. But there are no words that can tell the hidden spirit of the wilderness, that can reveal its mystery, its melancholy, and its charm. There is delight in the hardy life of the open, in long rides rifle in hand, in the thrill of the fight with dangerous game. Apart from this, yet mingled with it, is the strong attraction of the silent places, of the large tropical moons, and the splendor of the new stars; where the wanderer sees the awful glory of sunrise and sunset in the wide waste spaces of the earth, unworn of man, and changed only by the slow change of the ages through time everlasting.”
Quoted from the Foreword of African Game Trails, through the courtesy of Charles Scribners Sons.
To me this expresses the purpose of conservation. The reasons are essentially the same for all who enjoy the outdoors though people may vary on what they may personally prefer doing while enjoying the outdoors.
And the full version of the quote you mention that perhaps he is best known for:
The Man in the Arena
”It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
gb…I am curious as to where you get this venom about Marx? He was just a philosopher living in a much different time who spoke out against the oppression of the working class. He is in no way to blame for idiots who claim to have adapted his theories only to have seriously perverted them.
Unlike Stalin, who claimed to be implementing the theories of Marx, he did nothing to harm people. Your angst should be aimed at the likes of Stalin, who completely perverted the works of Marx to create an evil empire where he sent people to concentration camps as a means of cheap labour.
As far as your quote from Marx….”The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them”.
Insightful. That’s the way it was in the UK during his lifetime. Parliament was full of the wealthy elite who governed for their own interests while ignoring the plight of the working class and the poor.
His words are just as true today as back then, although conditions for the working class were horrible back then. Considering government actions against us re covid, and soon, carbon taxes and prohibitive costs for fuel, Marx called it pretty accurately.
What has Marx ever said that has directly affected you or harmed you, to the extent you hate him so much?
BTW, I am not a communist nor do I support their ethos, whatever that means. The world has never experienced a democratic communism so we have nothing to go on but evil dictators using communism as an excuse for their brutality and control.
Gordon Robertson says:
gbI am curious as to where you get this venom about Marx? He was just a philosopher living in a much different time who spoke out against the oppression of the working class. He is in no way to blame for idiots who claim to have adapted his theories only to have seriously perverted them.
————————-
I agree. Marx, Bernie Sanders, and Noam Chomsky are all good people with good intentions. However they are/were all naive.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You cannot have an egalitarian society without creating an enforcement agency with absolute power. These guys dream of wise King Solomons and being able to keep such a man in office. But when you can take money and give money at will you control all the resources and corruption will rise in proportion to the power you grant.
Some communist leaders can seem tolerable but the succession in a one party system is always the guy who runs the KGB, has the black shirts, the guns, and soon all the money too as he murders his opponents. Its simply a case of idealism meeting reality and its not pretty.
–gbI am curious as to where you get this venom about Marx? He was just a philosopher living in a much different time who spoke out against the oppression of the working class. He is in no way to blame for idiots who claim to have adapted his theories only to have seriously perverted them.
Unlike Stalin, who claimed to be implementing the theories of Marx, he did nothing to harm people. Your angst should be aimed at the likes of Stalin, who completely perverted the works of Marx to create an evil empire where he sent people to concentration camps as a means of cheap labour. —
Venom, and angst: “a feeling of deep anxiety or dread, typically an unfocused one about the human condition or the state of the world in general.”
Do I have angst?? Venom, I have more venom for Napoleon Bonaparte.
But venom seems long lasting sort of thing. I would prefer to say a bit annoyed, sometimes. What do I have venom about??
Teacher Unions. Ads. Must be something else. Can’t think of anything. But still not really venom, just a bit of impatience for these things to end as soon as possible.
In terms of the human condition- it’s interesting. It’s possible Humans are unique in terms of their sense of humor- which would be a rather precious thing- I would think. It’s possible that humans could have an even better sense of humor.
And possible it is something I am imagining as fantastic but it is solely due my very parochial awareness.
Marx seems rather humorless.
He was apparently quite the drunk. And probably did various kinds of drugs- or I, optimistically, hope he did.
State of World in general:
Pretty happy about it. But I hope this time is not the best ever.
Here is fire data to refute the pathological liars pushing the ‘Green’ agenda.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0345
Search for *We do not question* in the text, Kennui.
Thank you for this 2016 paper.
Gordon Robertson 5/27 at 7:17 PM
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1298963
If you are indeed an engineer you should know the importance of peer review. In the world of science, reviewing papers is a very important responsibility because as the gatekeeper you must avoid polluting the trove of scientific knowledge with papers that are wrong or don’t add significant knowledge. In engineering, because of the complexity and vastness of the projects, it is often a matter of life and death (financially if not literally) that errors of omission or commission be found and rectified before any physical work is started. In my over 40 years in engineering not once was one of my projects greenlighted before passing strict peer review.
In the scientific literature the decision to publish a paper is made by the editor. Your role as reviewer is only to advise the Editor and you don’t need to comment on stuff where you don’t have expertise. If you don’t understand some aspect of the paper it is the authors’ problem, not yours. Rather than assume that the authors are wrong, ask them to clarify.
The peer review process is not perfect but it’s the best we have.
TM, you’re as phony as Ent. You don’t have 40 years engineering experience. You’re making up that nonsense. The few times you’ve attempted physics here, you’ve slobbered all over yourself. You don’t even use your real name. You’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
You’re only fooling the other braindead cult idiots. Not those of us with REAL engineering backgrounds.
As Swenson would say, “Carry on”.
Clint R
Finally a time you can bring supporting evidence that TYSON MCGUFFIN has not been involved in engineering for over 40 years. What proof do you offer to support your allegations and conclusions?
Or are you just stating your uninformed opinion like you do with physics?
You make unsupported declarations constantly. I guess it is your pattern. State your opinion and then insult.
A distinct pattern with your program. State an unsupported opinion (even ones that contradict science and experimentation) and then insult. Crazy bot programming.
You know Elon Musk is wondering about Twitter. Wants to know how many posters are bots.
Sorry Norman but that’s NOT how it works.
You’re a proven phony. You have NO credibility. So until you get some credibility, you’re just another worthless troll.
Want to gain some credibility?
1) Support your claim that Earth has a “real 255K surface”, or admit you were deceived by your cult.
2) Support your claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can warm a surface to 325 K, or admit that you were deceived by your cult.
3) Show one time I have got my physics wrong, or admit you have falsely accused me many times.
You’ve got your work cut out for you. Get busy.
Clint R
I have already done what you asked. Again on 1) I said the Earth has a 255 K radiating surface. Not just a “surface”. Add the radiating to your accusations please.
2) This one has been experimentally verified by Roy Spencer experiment. You do not have the exact fluxes. One would have to do a specific experiment for that. One I will NOT do for you at all since you are not intelligent enough to accept it.
3) Several times on that. One the Moon does not rotate on its axis Wrong! There is not such thing as Tidal Locking, Wrong! The established radiant heat transfer equation is bogus, Wrong!
Fluxes don’t add, Wrong! That is just some I am sure there are more but these are enough to prove you are wrong with all your opinions on science.
Clint R
Your diversion tactics still do not support your allegation that TYSON MCGUFFIN has not worked in engineering for 40 years. What is your evidence that the poster is making a false claim?
Three FAILS don’t help your credibility, Norman.
Remember, you want to approach reality, not just make things up to fit your false beliefs.
You’re welcome to try again.
Clint R
The reality is either you are one of the dumbest humans around, you have no ability to reason or think or you are a mindless bot. Those are the only valid conclusions I can make from your stupid posts.
You are really stupid. Sorry it is true.
Norman, I see you’ve given up on trying for some level of credibility. Each to his own, as they say.
But, you should be happy with your choice to remain ignorant and braindead. Instead, you’re angry and frustrated. Maybe you’ve made the wrong choice?
Clint R is just an idiot.
”1) Support your claim that Earth has a real 255K surface, or admit you were deceived by your cult.”
———————————–
The earth having a 255K surface is where one becomes deceived by a poorly constructed thought experiment.
It assumes that an earth without an atmosphere would have a 255k surface when in fact it would have a 278.5k surface.
The way that is accomplished is by using all the albedo arising from clouds, snow, and scouring of ice by interaction with an atmosphere, which in fact is negative feedback associated with an atmosphere with water in it as if it were what the surface temperature would be without an atmosphere.
Now the path has been bulldozed clear in order allege a greenhouse effect that would be approximately 3 times the most it could be. 33k instead of 9.5k.
Bill Hunter
Clint R is a complete unthinking idiot. I have explained all his points many times but he ignores what is said and keeps repeating these endless stupid posts. Most annoying habit of his.
The radiant surface of the Earth emits, average, around 240 W/m^2 to space. It is a measured value so is not conjecture or abstract thought experiment. The surface is emitting around 390 W/m^2 hence the 33 K GHE. Based upon measured values.
You can accept the words of the fool Clint R. He wrongly thinks that a satellite 1000 miles from Earth is picking up this 240 W/m^2 value and the scientists don’t understand inverse square law. Yes he is that stupid. I have attempted to correct his stupid thoughts but it is not possible. He is too dumb to think or reason.
Please do not display this level of stupidity on this blog. One idiot is quite enough. You can research the values yourself if you don’t trust me.
Norman, as usual, you have no regard for truth.
But I always enjoy your feeble efforts to pervert reality.
Norman says:
”Clint R is a complete unthinking idiot. I have explained all his points many times but he ignores what is said and keeps repeating these endless stupid posts. Most annoying habit of his.
The radiant surface of the Earth emits, average, around 240 W/m^2 to space. It is a measured value so is not conjecture or abstract thought experiment. The surface is emitting around 390 W/m^2 hence the 33 K GHE. Based upon measured values.
You can accept the words of the fool Clint R. ”
——————————————
Norman, I was just answering Clints question since you didn’t seem to want to do so.
One could say a gross greenhouse effect is about 160w but thats only after the major greenhouse element in the atmosphere water reflected about 110watts of incoming solar away from the planet as a consequence of evaporating into water vapor and then condensing into clouds and precipitation.
Thus the surface before greenhouse gases began entering the atmosphere was approximately 278.5k not 255k.
So Clint was asking a very fair question and all you do in response is attack him.
Why is that?
No REAL engineer on Earth would ever describe Moon’s motion with something as stupid as your ‘ball-on-a-string’.
Most REAL engineers learned trigonometry at the university, and perfectly understand
Section 9.5.1 Locating the rotational axis
and
Section 9.5.2 The ‘method’ of averages
in the document
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
*
REAL engineers who understood the text but would disagree with the results would search for mistakes in the document, and when finding such mistakes, would publish them together with a valuable correction.
*
Conversely, APPARENT engineers don’t understand the text, and hence deny its results.
They denigrate astronomers and mathematicians of the XVIIIth century down to astrologers, distort and misrepresent lunar libration being a consequence of Moon’s orbital motion only, because APPARENT engineers never learned what is needed to understand what scientifically well educated people understood over two centuries ago.
Bindidon, do you still believe the ball-on-a-string is a model of Moon’s motion?
After all the times it has been explained to you that it is ONLY a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
You really are braindead.
This alleged apparent engineer has already disproved claims made in the article. The author points out that the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the Earth then insists that it rotates about a local axis as it orbits.
I have no argument that Mayer did important work re the Moon, and that he used precise methods for tracking the orbital motion of the Moon. For that he deserves immense credit. However, he completely missed the obvious, that an orb like the Moon orbiting the Earth, and keeping the same face pointed at the Earth cannot possibly have the angular velocity about a local axis to cause it to rotate 360 degrees about that axis per orbit.
Mayer went so far as to compute the alleged rotation using theory that has no basis in physics. In other words, he made up the theory upon which he based his rotation theory. With all the measurements he made, and the detail he used in error analysis, it’s amazing he missed the obvious, that the Moon is not rotating about its axis.
I find it amazing that so many in this blog cannot even begin to grasp the impossibility of the Moon rotating about a local axis while orbiting and keeping the same face pointed at the Earth. Those guilty of this delusion are basing their theories on the illusion that the Earth somehow rotate while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth, yet no one can explain it using the trigonometry you mention, or any other kind of physics.
We non-spinners have tried to prove the impossibility using models like a ball on a string, a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a carousel, coins marked to indicate the near face, etc. We have used cars on a track as an example and locomotives on a track, yet the deniers still revel delusion based on the pseudo-science of frames of reference and semantics.
The ultimate proof, AFAIAC, is the blatantly obvious. While the near side always points at the Earth, the far side must always point away from the Earth, at any instant. That means the near face and the far face are always moving in parallel. Ergo, it is impossible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis while both of those faces are moving in parallel.
Parallel motion of that kind can only be explained by curvilinear translation without rotation. Even Newton, in Principia, pointed to curvilinear motion as the motion of the Moon.
“The author points out that the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the Earth then insists that it rotates about a local axis as it orbits”
As it would if it rotated once on its axis per orbit of the Earth. Try a model and see.
Do you actually have a model of that, RLH?
Or are you just imagining again?
I have a model. Without turning the Moon once on its axis once per orbit of the Earth the same face does not point inwards.
“Even Newton, in Principia, pointed to curvilinear motion as the motion of the Moon”
He meant what we now call an orbit.
“That means the near face and the far face are always moving in parallel”
The radius that the near face traces is smaller than the radius that the far face traces thus they cannot be in parallel. They are concentric (and in any case are a ellipses not circles).
It apparently doesn’t matter if the rotation is elliptical or circular.
A rotation is just something that has certain properties unique to rotations. One of those rotational properties is an angular momentum of a specified object around a specified axis.
As we can see from this link we can do that for an orbiting object.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
A) Now the brilliant shortcut for doing that for object A around external AxisZ is Lorb+Lspin=L
B) And the brilliant shortcut for doing that for the angular momentum of an objectB spinning on its own axisX at COM is Lspin=L
But this is a different axis.
It is incorrect to say that an object cannot rotate on an external axis.
It is incorrect to say a curvilinear translation has an angular momentum greater than zero.
Yet thats what we are facing when we try to split apart a rotation around an external axis into two components.
In doing that you create a fallacy. Part of the angular momentum in A now has no home. For a limited number of analytical purposes you can choose to ignore part of A’s angular momentum. But you can’t deny it.
> It apparently doesn’t matter if the rotation is elliptical or circular.
To describe an orbital path it actually does, Bill –
A pure rotation preserves isometry.
Says who Willard?
Affine geometers, Bill –
https://sites.millersville.edu/rumble/Math.355/Book/Chapter%201.pdf
Check theorem 67.
We already went through this. Why are you playing dumb?
Willard your claim was it matters if a rotation is circular or elliptical.
Your source states a rotation is an isometry. It doesn’t state it must be a circle to be an isometry. I took drafting in the 7th grade and was assigned to do isometric projections. Doing that with an ellipse is a piece of cake.
Check Definition 43 to see what a half-turn looks like, Bill, then read Definition 66 to know what’s a rotation.
You might also like:
That’s Proposition 70.
willard I told you before you don’t understand what isometries are.
Here is a link to how to deal with ellipses in isometric projection drawing exercises. It also shows a handy diagram of circles appearing as ellipses when you tilt the axis of the circle.
https://www.g-wlearning.com/cad/0619/ch04/data/supmat04a.pdf
All this is about is properly preserving dimensions of a figure (a line, a rectangle, a circle and others) when you change views of the figure. The figure changes it shape in some motions (circles become ellipses, and ellipses become other ellipses and sometimes rarely a circle) Distance is preserved with respect to changes in the plane of the viewer. When I was in the 7th grade doing some of these with a building or an object was a required project to get a passing grade.
Today its been boiled down mathematically so as these effects can be properly displayed on computer screens without a draftsman actually drawing it.
For the nth time, Bill –
Circles are ellipses, but ellipses are not all circles.
Willard there is nothing to what you are saying. You have just self inculcated yourself and are grabbing at straws. Study isometry so at least you start making sense about what you are saying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiIUpRpEeGc
Here are the instructions for creating an isometric view of a circle that is an ellipse.
Much rarer one would convert the ellipse back to a circle. But no instruction is needed because all you do is reverse the procedure. And of course you can make ellipses like an elliptical pool appear as a different ellipse. As they say in isometry any function of change can be made as long you deep your box the same. Once it has been created then you can enlarge it or make it smaller by zooming.
this allows a computer programmer to make an elliptical pool and then show it at all sorts of view angles. Advanced drafting programs like autocad make isometry far easier to do than the way I had to do it as a 7th grader. You just need to catch up.
Changing the view of a circle does not turn it into a non-circle, Bill.
Please stop pulling my leg.
A classic philosophical problem Willard in the Philosophy of perception. Take a lincoln penny and look at it. Is it elliptic or circular? It depends upon which angle you look. So what is it?
G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell
And the purpose of isometry is precisely for those who much draw shapes at different angles. So for them when drawing them at different angles, yes they can be circles turning into ellipses and far far less frequently an ellipse turning into a circle. A draftsman with a drawing template knows he just looks at the print under the cutout to see which to use. For a computer guy you have to find the option on a menu to convert a circle to an ellipse.
Please stop making me giggle, Bill.
The “isometric projection” you found only switches the plane on which the circle rests. The circle remains the same. It has not been stretched. It does not transform the circle into a non-circle.
Are you suggesting that celestial bodies seem to be orbiting around non circular ellipses but in reality that elliptical path is circular?
As you yourself say, LMAO!
Willard!
Isometry is not about stretching circles. It is keeping them circles and correctly showing their shapes as ellipses when not gazed upon from perpendicular to the plane. E.g. isometry is nothing more than changing the angle of view of a plane or planes. A sphere looks the same from every point of view. A cube has up to 3 planes that must be altered when the angle of view changes. If we didn’t have isometry we wouldn’t have realistic computer games or cool presentations by draftsmen.
By boiling it down to mathmatics you can do this with any shape with the only limitation being the level of detail vs the computing power it requires.
The fact that many call ellipses stretched circles doesn’t in any way mean an ellipse was at one time a circle that got stretched.
> isometry is nothing more than changing the angle of view
No, Bill. An isometry is nothing more than a distance-preserving transformation between metric spaces.
The two metric spaces can be on the same plane. When you translate a circle on an Euclidean plane, you see the same circle. Same if you rotate the circle.
OK I can buy it does that also. Its for both flying over and moving objects mathematically without distorting them.
Great. So you have all you need to understand why from a non-circle one cannot create a circle using an isometry.
Sure you can Willard. You just reverse the steps of any isometry transformation you previously did or you can create a circle from an ellipse on one of the conjugates in two directions. . . .so a circle from an ellipse is far rarer than an ellipse from a circle.
I said *stretching*, Bill, not turning it on an axis so that it can look different when looking at it.
Willard stretching has nothing whatsoever to do with isometry.
You must be confusing isometric stretching exercises with isometry.
Exactly, Bill. Stretching has *nothing* to do with isometry.
Yet there’s no other way to turn a circle into a non-circle.
Just like Flop did: he stretched the circle.
totally unimaginative! You can make a letter D without stretching. How about a heart? A star? Uh. . . .Triangle
Semi-Circle
Square
Rectangle
Parallelogram
Rhombus
Trapezium
Kite
Polygons
and even an ellipse by squashing a circle.
Sheesh what a dummy!
What I am saying is not exactly related to imagination, Bill. Some might argue that intuition is involved, but that would be unfair to those who have none. Like you. So I prefer to speak of construction.
Did I pass your “rote learning” test well enough or do you still need more correction?
binny…”No REAL engineer on Earth would ever describe Moons motion with something as stupid as your ball-on-a-string”.
***
As Clint pointed out, the ball on a string was only intended as a model. However, the ball’s motion itself does replicate the lunar orbit quite well. It keeps the face attached to the string pointed at the external axis while the far side of the ball, from where the string attaches, moves in parallel at all time with the inner face. The ball’s COG also moves in parallel with both faces.
In fact, the ball itself gives a perfect example of the lunar orbit if the string is ignored. Replace the string with gravitational force and you have it.
Too bad Mayer et al missed the obvious.
“However, the balls motion itself does replicate the lunar orbit quite well. It keeps the face attached to the string pointed at the external axis”
No it doesn’t. The model only ‘works’ for circles and the Moon’s orbit is not a circle.
A ball-on-a-string is a good model for a stick rotating about one end. Nothing else. Certainly nothing that is to do with gravity.
RLH, the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string was never intended to be an exact model of lunar motion. The simple analogy ONLY demonstrates “orbital motion without axial rotation”. One side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit, just as one side of moon always faces the inside of its orbit.
One of your problems is you don’t have a simple analogy of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. That’s one of the reasons you can’t understand any of this.
The edge of a disk (which a stick rotating about one end is just a section of) always ‘faces’ the center. So your point was?
“orbital motion without axial rotation” is apparently the same as the rotation of a disc.
Yeah RLH, you don’t understand any of this.
I understand it enough to make you admit that your favorite analogy is nothing more that the rotation of a disc.
Wrong RLH, you don’t understand any of this.
You can’t understand the simple “ball-on-a-string”. For some reason, you believe it’s a disc???
If you understood orbital motion, you would understand the simple ball-on-a-string.
I notice you don’t have a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. That’s kinda revealing, huh?
Draw a small chalk circle towards the edge of the disc. People here ("Spinners") have genuinely argued that the contents of the chalk circle are rotating about an axis in the center of the chalk circle.
“For some reason, you believe its a disc???”
You said that a ball-on-a-string it the same as a stick-rotating-about-one-end.
I observed that a stick-rotating-about-one-end is just a section of the rotation-of-a-disk about a center.
Are you challenging that?
I had forgotten about the chalk circle, DREMT. Thanks for the reminder.
Maybe that’s where RLH is going. He’s going back over 2 years because he has NOTHING new, and doesn’t understand any of this.
Newton said that a sphere, without any other input, just like any other object would always face a fixed star. See Law 1.
RLH says:
Newton said that a sphere, without any other input, just like any other object would always face a fixed star. See Law 1.
—————————–
the moon does have another input completely consistent with the non-spinner point of view RLH. The moon rotates around the earth. It is amazing how quickly spinner brains spin and the pointer inside ends up on an imaginary gotcha. If fact it must do that to be a rotation like a ball on the end of a string or a chalked circle on a spinning merry-go-round whereever you choose to put the chalk.
DREMPTY,
“Draw a small chalk circle towards the edge of the disc. People here (“Spinners”) have genuinely argued that the contents of the chalk circle are rotating about an axis in the center of the chalk circle.”
You keep drawing your chalk circles and I’ll keep putting my non-rotating hole saw against them, and they will continue to pile up on the ground underneath the merry-go-round.
Proving once again that your chalk circle is rotating around an axis in the middle of the chalk circle.
When will you ever learn?
See, RLH? They do actually argue that it is rotating on its own axis!
I couldn’t resist…
… because APPARENT engineers
– never learned what is needed to understand what scientifically well educated people (*) understood over two centuries ago
and hence
– never will be able to provide for a really scientific contradiction, as REAL engineers would do.
—
(*) Newton of course included, who perfectly understood Cassini’s work, as he explained to Mercator.
Intentionally misrepresenting his Principia won’t help, of course.
Now it’s enough with this so much loved lunar spin!
Bindidon proves once again how braindead he is. For almost 3 years, he has been told the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string is ONLY to demonstrate “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Because the ball always keeps one side facing the inside of its orbit, it demontrates that Moon is ONLY orbiting but is NOT also rotating on its axis. The simple analogy is easy to understand, but not for the cult idiots.
So Bindidon finds links to things he can’t understand. This is from his latest (bold my emphasis):
It is well known that the moon always turns the same side of its surface towards the earth. Upon closer inspection this turns out to be only approximately true. For several reasons the moon is subject to a slight apparent wiggling, called libration. The reasons for this wiggling are as follows. First, due to the diurnal motion of the terrestrial observer, his aspect of the moon varies between moonrise and moonset. Second, the moon rotates (practically) uniformly around its axis while its velocity of revolution around the earth varies: consequently, a terrestrial observer sees sometimes a bit more of the leading half of the moon’s surface, and sometimes a bit more of the trailing half.”
The quote is wrong about Moon’s axial rotation, but notice the claim that its axial rotation is independent of Moon’s orbit! Bindidon won’t understand that, but his link has just debunked “tidal locking”.
“orbital motion without axial rotation” is a complex wording for the rotation of a disc.
RLH says:
”orbital motion without axial rotation” is a complex wording for the rotation of a disc.
Its a complex wording for anything. Much easier to refer to it as ”rotation around an axis”.
“Rotation around an axis” is a pleonasm.
“Rotation” is simpler.
Thats true but often one needs to specify where the axis is, especially and most frequently in this forum.
For that astronomers have two words, Bill –
“Spin” and “orbit.”
Of course they do Willard. They don’t have any missions that do both simultaneously so they have to analyze them separately. Thats what good tools do for you. Allows you specialize. Like trace an arm of a chair instead of simultaneously building all part of the chair at the same time with a multi-tool that simultaneously traces, saws, sands, drills, clamps, etc. all at the same time.
Of course they do, Bill –
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/lro/in-depth/
Looks like we agree. Another 2-step mission. fire the satellite into lunar orbit then switch to a gyro system to map the surface.
1. ” Bindidon, do you still believe the ball-on-a-string is a model of Moons motion?
After all the times it has been explained to you that it is ONLY a model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’. ”
*
Why is it so difficult to understand that ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ IS A MODEL of Moon’s motion?
But it is a much too simple model to depict the reality.
*
2. ” The quote is wrong about Moons axial rotation, but notice the claim that its axial rotation is independent of Moons orbit!
Bindidon wont understand that, but his link has just debunked ‘tidal locking’. ”
No it hasn’t, of course.
No one on Earth has ever claimed that tidal locking would have anything to do with ‘axial rotation’ being in any way ‘dependent’ on ‘orbiting’.
Tidal locking means that the rotation and orbiting periods are identical – independently of how regular or irregular these two motion components are. Not more, not less.
For most celestial bodies, the orbiting motion component is far less regular than their axial rotation. This simple evidence is due to the fact that orbits are much more influenced by external forces than are rotations about an internal axis.
Okay Bindidon, here are my interpretations of your broken English:
1) Moon has “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
2) Moon is not tidally locked, by Mayer’s observations.
If my interpretations are correct, then you’ve got it right.
That one is on you, Binny.
1) The Moon is in orbit around both the Earth and the Sun.
2) The Moon is tidally locked to the Earth.
Sorry Clint R, you are wrong as always.
1) ” Why is it so difficult to understand that orbital motion without axial rotation IS A MODEL of Moons motion?
But it is a much too simple model to depict the reality. ”
*
2) The major result of Mayer’s observations and computations, that of Moon’s rotation period about its polar axis, is not mentioned in Steven Wepster’s dissertation.
He computed out of his numerous observations during the years 1748 and 1749, for the rotation period:
27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, 11 seconds, 49 sixtieths of a second.
In decimal form: 27.3216645446 days.
Moon’s most recent sidereal rotation period: 27.321661 days.
This is exactly the same period as for Moon’s orbit around Earth.
You, Robertson, Flynnson, the pseudomoderator, Hunter and a few others will of course continue ad aeternam and ad nauseam to deny Mayer’s results, and those of hundreds of other scientists.
Doesn’t matter, Clint R.
Bindidon, again I’m having trouble translating that into English, but I think you are still confused about the observations. From Earth, Moon is NOT rotating. So obviously the early astrologers confused “rotation” with “orbiting”. That’s a fairly common mistake.
Did you ever come up with a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Once you understand what orbiting is, the rest will fall into place for you.
” So obviously the early astrologers confused ‘rotation’ with ‘orbiting’. Thats a fairly common mistake. ”
Sorry again, Clint R.
1. You still can’t manage to keep some respect to scientists who discovered things you don’t understand and which you therefore discredit and denigrate.
2. Newton (is he an ‘astrologers‘ too?) has clearly explained in Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV of his Principia that the Moon rotates about its axis, as do all other celestial bodies known to him at that time.
He was very well aware of the difference between ‘rotation’ and ‘orbiting’. You, Clint R, are NOT.
And in that very same theorem 15, he also explained the difference between ‘viewed from (the permanently moving) Earth’ and ‘viewed with respect to a fixed star’, i.e. to a point immobile on the sky.
I have posted his wording in both Latin and English many times, and won’t do that again.
Newton was the first, as far as I know, to discover what “orbital motion without axial rotation” looked like. He used his newly invented calculus to find the affect of gravity on a body like the moon. He discovered gravity would produce an orbit without axial rotation. For an orbiting body to also be rotating, it had to have an independent source of rotational momentum. Gravity would NOT provide it.
Did you ever come up with a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Once you understand what orbiting is, the rest will fall into place for you. You can’t understand Moon is not rotating until you understand what “orbital motion without axial rotation” is.
FWIW, Newton was not an astrologer.
But Galileo did some astrology:
https://fundacionorotava.org/media/web/files/page145__cap_03_07_Kollerstrom.pdf
Newton was more into alchemy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies
Silly sock puppets who know nothing about the history they whine about.
” Newton was the first, as far as I know, to discover what orbital motion without axial rotation looked like. ”
The all the time visible difference between Clint R and me is that I name sources about what Newton wrote.
Clint R guesses and claims but never shows any proof.
Where is your source, Clint R?
Orbital motion without axial rotation means one face always points to a star, just as Newton said it did.
Well Bindidon, I’m guessing I’ve mentioned Newton’s work to you about 5 times. So if you’re just now getting interested in learning, are you willing to not comment here for 90 days?
See, I’ve learned not to do extra work for braindead cult idiots that will not learn. Demonstrate your sincerity first, and I will do my part.
You don’t even have a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. You’re not even trying. You’re only interested in perverting reality to fit your cult beliefs.
RLH now claims “Orbital motion without axial rotation means one face always points to a star, just as Newton said it did.”
Of course Newton never said that. But, let’s go with RLH’s claim. He’s then accepting that a bicycle pedal is his model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, since one face always points in the same direction, if properly used.
His problem is, the bicycle pedal is rotating on an axle! The pedal is rotating as it revolves (orbits) around the sprocket hub. The pedal exhibits TWO motions. Moon only has ONE.
RLH doesn’t have a clue about the physics involved.
” Well Bindidon, Im guessing Ive mentioned Newtons work to you about 5 times. ”
No Clint R: you never presented any real Newton source like I did by naming the exact place of what he wrote.
I still wait for you naming such a place in his work where Newton allegedly wrote what you claim he did.
“Of course Newton never said that”
See Law 1 which applies to both translational and rotational physics.
See for instance:
[ISAAC] Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb.
From a translation of Newton’s original Latin text
https://tinyurl.com/ycokq9ys
we can see what he really wrote.
*
Planetarum motus diurnos uniformes esse, et Librationem Lunae ex ipsius motu diurno oriri.
Translation:
The planets’ daily movements are uniform, and Moon’s libration arises from its daily movement.
And what he means with ‘daily movement’ clearly has to be understood as ‘rotation about an own axis’:
” Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56′, Mars horis 24. 39′. Venus horis 23. circiter, Terra horis 23. 56′, Sol diebus 25 1/2, et Luna diebus 27 7 hor. 43′. ”
Simply because when Newton mentions Earth, he writes : Terra horis 23. 56′, what certainly does not mean its orbit around the Sun.
Thus, with ” et Luna diebus 27. 7. hor. 43′ “, he can’t suddenly mean Moon’s orbit around Earth.
In the footnote, he writes:
” Quoniam enim Luna circaaxem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circa Tellurem periodum suam absolvit… ”
Translation:
For the Moon uniformly revolves around its axis in the same time as it orbits around Earth…
*
Only absolutely ignorant deniers try to refute Newton’s own words, by e.g. claiming that no one understood really Newton’s ‘Ancient Latin’, and that hence no one can rely on Newton’s work.
Paradoxically, not one of these dumbasses say the same about those parts of Newton’s Latin text translation they agree the contents of.
Bindidon says:
From a translation of Newtons original Latin text
The planets daily movements are uniform, and Moons libration arises from its daily movement.
And what he means with ‘daily movement’ clearly has to be understood as rotation about an own axis:
—————————
Wrong! libration arises from the shape of the orbit not the rotation of the moon. Thus its the moon’s motion in orbit that creates libration.
———————–
=======================
Bindidon says:
Translation:
For the Moon uniformly revolves around its axis in the same time as it orbits around Earth
Only absolutely ignorant deniers try to refute Newton’s own words, by e.g. claiming that no one understood really Newtons ‘Ancient Latin’, and that hence no one can rely on Newtons work.
—————————–
Where did Newton actually do an work on understanding the moon’s motion? Spinners aren’t dumasses they just are epigones treating scientific texts as writen by some God.
Mentioning an opinion doesn’t mean its a studied opinion.
I review a lot of science professionally and to do that the primary job is to look at the claim, match the claim to the evidence collected as being reasonable, and the outcome of the test. And understanding of statistics today is essential as most of life science is statistical.
In the early 18th century the time of Newton, statistics wasn’t used to test scientific theories. It was all mechanical experiments. Lord Kelvin wasn’t even buying into statistics at the turn of the 20th century.
the statistical probability that the moon’s rotational motion was created by anything other than the earth’s gravity probably wasn’t even thought of. You can’t take 18th century men and make them into 21st century visionaries. They are dead!
———————–
=======================
Bindidon says:
Paradoxically, not one of these dumbasses say the same about those parts of Newtons Latin text translation they agree the contents of.
——————————–
thats completely uncalled for. Obviously Newton did do extensive studies on many physical/mechanical processes. I don’t know if the Latin is properly translated I just don’t see any effort devoted to writing a few words that does need some study.
maguff…”In the world of science, reviewing papers is a very important responsibility because as the gatekeeper you must avoid polluting the trove of scientific knowledge with papers that are wrong or dont add significant knowledge”.
***
Roy once complained that a reviewer failed to understand the point he was making. Therein lies the danger of what you suggest. How can a reviewer possibly have expertise on state-of-the-art science?
It is not the business of a reviewer or editor to decide whether the content of a paper are correct, it is their business only to ensure the paper is presented in a scientific manner. As I said, peer review was developed to ensure laymen with no understand of science or scientific procedures could publish papers.
There is an inherent danger in presuming laymen cannot understand science or produce a scientific paper.
Peer, in this case, does not mean a reviewer or an editor, it means all scientists who are peer to the author. All scientists should decide whether a paper has merit but how can they if a journal editor blocks them reading the paper?
You mentioned life and death. When Aussie researcher, Barry Marshall, put out a paper claiming duodenal ulcers were caused by a bacteria, h. pylori, the editor not only blocked his paper, he listed it as one of the ten worst papers ever submitted.
Marshall was forced to drink a concoction containing h. pylori to prove the gastric effect it had showing the precursor conditions for an ulcer. He became gravely ill but managed to heal himself using antibiotics. Had the paper been passed initially, as it should have been, Marshall’s peers could have tested his hypothesis. As it stood, lives of millions were placed in peril due to the arrogance and stupidity of an editor.
It is scientific insanity to have one person, an editor, deciding whether a paper is valid or not. That’s especially true in climate science where journals have been taken over by climate alarmists. At one time, the Journal of Climate, run by a climate alarmist, Andrew Weaver, had Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann as editors. Can you imagine Roy trying to get a paper past those two?
When Richard Lindzen called an editor to see why his paper was being held up, the editor told him it was due to his reputation as a skeptic. What???
Sorry, peer review is seriously corrupt. Uber alarmist, Kevin Trenberth of NCAR, once harassed a journal editor for publishing a paper by a skeptic (may have been John Christy of UAH) to the point the editor resigned. In the Climategate emails, Michael Mann, an editor of the Journal of Climate, was seen to be calling for the harassment of editors who published skeptic’s papers.
This is the same Trenberth who along with Phil Jones of Had-crut, were partnered at IPCC reviews as Coordinating Lead Authors. That meant they had considerable control over the appointment of lead authors, reviewers, and what papers made it to the peer review stage. In the Climategate emails, Jones bragged that he and Kevin would see to it that a certain paper did not reach the review stage.
That peer review corruption at the top. Between the chicanery of the IPCC peer review process and biased climate journals, politicians have become seriously biased about catastrophic global warming/climate change.
Your reply is nothing but politically charged BS. Can’t you talk about your own personal experience with the peer review process? From early school days we are taught to always check our work before releasing it to a wider audience. You first share your findings with a few close colleagues or maybe a departmental seminar; followed by a formal presentation at a scientific conference; and, if no problems turn up, submit it to an appropriate journal for publication. The goal is to catch obvious errors in the methods or reasoning and to ensure proper credit is given to previous work.
A I said before, the system works amazingly well; good work eventually rises to the top, while the clutter of shoddy science is kept manageable.
maguff…”good work eventually rises to the top, while the clutter of shoddy science is kept manageable”.
***
I addressed the lie in that statement in my reply to you with examples. Obviously, you had no comeback.
So you can’t speak from your own experience with the peer review process. Thanks for wasting my time again.
TM, what you need to understand is that YOU are wasting your own time.
NOAA’s June 2022 forecast for Northern America
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/usT2mMonInd1.gif
… and for Yurop
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/euT2mMonInd1.gif
tim f…”GHGs allow the sun to cause more warming”.
***
Where’s the proof for that, Tim? I suppose you are going with the CO2 as insulator meme. I compared that once to a person using a threadbare blanket to keep him/her warm, in other words, CO2 at 0.04% would represent a blanket worn down to a few threads.
Some claim that CO2 stacked in a vertical column would have thickness. I have pointed out in the past that I use a heart rate monitor for walking and the transmitter is on a strap around my chest that must transmit EM through several layers of dense clothing in winter. No problem, EM goes straight through. Even with CO2 molecules at different layers, surface EM would go straight through it. Only about 5% gets absorbed.
A blanket acts to slow the rate of heat transfer from a human body to the surrounding air via conduction. The same is suggested for CO2, but how would it work? A blanket, or any non-metallic insulator, cannot slow the rate of heat dissipation via radiation since radiation will pass straight through most non-metallic material.
The theory goes, according to alarmists, that CO2 acts to slow the rate of heat dissipation at the surface. How??? Absorbing radiation cannot slow the rate of it. The rate of dissipation is controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere at the surface-atmosphere interface.
Alarmists are claiming CO2, at 0.04% is warming the atmosphere, which should slow heat dissipation slightly, but they have not explained how CO2 at 0.04% warms the atmosphere.
The truth, according to the Ideal Gas Law, is that 99% of the heat in the atmosphere is due to nitrogen and oxygen. The NOAA satellites used by UAH detect the heat of oxygen in the atmosphere, which is 22% of the atmosphere, through the microwave radiation it emits, not the heat of CO2 which would be undetectable by instruments.
R. W. Wood, an expert on radiation from gases like CO2 hypothesized CO2 could not possibly warm the atmosphere.
> they have not explained how CO2 at 0.04% warms the atmosphere.
Where have you checked, Gordo, and how can a trace gas be the source of life on Earth?
Oxygen is approx. 21 percent. That is the source of life.
Tell that to the guys who claim that CO2 is Life, dummy.
There is even a commenter that goes with this handle.
You asked. I answered.
Chi,
CO2 is Life, dummy.
I was asking Gordo, dummy.
But now take on Troglodyte.
CO2 or O2 – fight, fight, fight!
CO2 is the product of Life, idiot.
willard…”Tell that to the guys who claim that CO2 is Life, dummy”.
***
CO2 is life for plants. You should appreciate that since your brain is in a vegetative state.
The Cycle of Contrarian Life:
[TROGLODYTE] CO2 is Life.
[RICHARD] CO2 is the product of Life.
[GORDO] CO2 is life for plants.
So beautiful.
Plants are so abundant on the Earth that CO2 is reduced to a trace gas whilst O2 sits at 23%.
Sorry, that should be around 21%.
You should sorrier to miss a simple presupposition, Richard.
Read my question again.
Plants are so abundant on the Earth that CO2 is reduced to a trace gas whilst O2 sits at 21%.
You insufferable twat.
Willard says:
The Cycle of Contrarian Life:
[TROGLODYTE] CO2 is Life.
[RICHARD] CO2 is the product of Life.
[GORDO] CO2 is life for plants.
So beautiful.
————————
Willard likes to call the pro-lifers contrarians. Willard is a pro deather especially for other humans.
CO2 had to come first.
Without O2 there would be no CO2.
Without H3 there would not be any O2.
Checkmate!
H3
“Being unstable the molecule breaks up in under a millionth of a second.”
I’m not sure its relevance to O2 unless you use fusion to produce the heavier elements. Fusing Carbon and Helium together produces Oxygen and whilst Helium is quite close to Hydrogen, Carbon is a lot further away.
Of course you’re not, dummy:
https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/c/Chemical+Composition
Takes a while to get to Carbon and even longer to Oxygen.
It sure does:
https://news.arizona.edu/story/h3-the-molecule-that-made-the-universe
What another creation story?
Please stop being incredulous for no good reason, Bill.
Why not Willard? I think all creation stories are incredible.
So what you really meant was
“Without Hydrogen there would not be any Oxygen or Carbon either’.
What I really meant was that you should stop being ridiculous once again,.
Willard please stop trolling.
” but they have not explained how CO2 at 0.04% warms the atmosphere.”
Its been explained and discussed here many many many times. Where were you Gordon?
So the correct statement is “I never understood the science behind the GHE, even though it has been explained here countless times”
Sorry Nate. What we want is for it to be tested rather than mansplained.
All we have is Ben Santer’s finding mankinds fingerprint on some of the gas in the atmosphere.
Not much else because if he redid that study today it would be a different fingerprint. Time to let the suspect go and keep looking.
brandon…re your quote…”If you want to combine insulation types, using reflective insulation and fiberglass insulation in a wall space can boost the R-value by 3.9 points. By utilizing reflective insulation, an R-21 total wall assembly can be created, with a vapor and moisture barrier”.
***
This is misleading. The R-value, meaning insulation resistance, is related only to the thermal conductivity of insulation. That means, it’s a measure of conduction only, not radiation.
from wiki…
“In the context of construction,[4] the R-value is a measure of how well a two-dimensional barrier, such as a layer of insulation, a window or a complete wall or ceiling, resists the conductive[5] flow of heat. R-value is the temperature difference per unit of heat flux needed to sustain one unit of heat flux between the warmer surface and colder surface of a barrier under steady-state conditions.
The R-value is the building industry term[4] for thermal resistance “per unit area.”[6] It is sometimes denoted RSI-value if the SI units are used.[7] An R-value can be given for a material (e.g. for polyethylene foam), or for an assembly of materials (e.g. a wall or a window). In the case of materials, it is often expressed in terms of R-value per metre. R-values are additive for layers of materials, and the higher the R-value the better the performance”.
The only way an R-value could be increased by a metal foil is the effect the foil has on conduction. The reduction of heat dissipation related to radiation is not a factor in the R-value. The material coated with a metallic coating will have a certain insulating value against conduction. The metallic coating is a very good conductor of heat but it is usually painted on a thin layer of insulation.
Once again, insulation cannot increase the temperature of an object. If an object has a temperature, T, insulation cannot increase T, it can only slow the negative gradient of heat dissipation.
In the case of the human body which has an ambient temperature of about 37C, and can maintain that temperature through converting fuel to heat, insulation will not raise body temperature beyond 37C, but it can help maintain that temperature for some time under adverse conditions. Eventually, under adverse conditions, and no fuel replacement, the body will continue to lose heat even though well insulated.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/28/climate-science-101-david-siegel/
–Cutting Through The Noise
May 25: This is a new, updated video after getting feedback on the previous videos. This is by far the best climate video I have ever made. Its a 40-minute class on climate science.–
That video, like Dr. Steele’s Videos are outstanding. The most important aspect of those videos is that they finally address the quantum mechanics of a CO2 Molecule and 15 Micron LWIR. CO2 can’t and won’t warm water!!!! I’ve been saying that for years. If you can’t explain the warming of the oceans you can’t explain the warming of the globe. You have to warm the deep oceans to impact the currents, and 15-micron LWIR doesn’t penetrate water, in fact, the surface skin layer of the ocean is COOLER than the water immediately below it.
Good grief.
We definitely need better contrarians,
I’m sorry Williard, did I miss how CO2 warms water? Especially deep water that impacts the global currents? Somehow I missed how you refuted the claim. Denying it isn’t a rebuttal.
Why would I need to rebut your silly claims, Life?
Start here:
> As greenhouse gases trap more energy from the sun, the oceans are absorbing more heat, resulting in an increase in sea surface temperatures and rising sea level. Changes in ocean temperatures and currents brought about by climate change will lead to alterations in climate patterns around the world. For example, warmer waters may promote the development of stronger storms in the tropics, which can cause property damage and loss of life. The impacts associated with sea level rise and stronger storm surges are especially relevant to coastal communities.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/oceans
For some reason this is not simple enough for Kennui. Perhaps you could try to armave your way out of this? Best of luck!
Chihuahua would have to find something else to do. He’s in it until the bitter end.
You can be sure not one person at the EPA has a clue about the relevant physics. They’re just copy/pasting from other cult sources.
All marching in lockstep.
They have yet to discover the Poll Dance analogy, Pup.
So do you. Try it. Report.
One thing mentioned is it takes a long time to cool and Earth might cool in 500 years.
And weather is quite different than global climate, or we could have cold weather in short time period and we have been having cooler weather in last couple years. And we could continue to have La Nina
conditions for quite long time- which is cooler weather, but it’s warming the ocean, and so might actually get some global warming. Or the long time to cool could take even longer than 500 years, maybe 700 years.
Of course China has been dumping a lot plant food into our Atmosphere and China going to run out coal fairly quickly. And probably China going to stop being country which does much exporting. In fact most countries generally don’t like to do a lot exporting. And China is running out of young people and as a nation it’s dying. Sort of like Europe, only a lot faster.
“In fact most countries generally dont like to do a lot exporting.”
Wrong. Without exports your currency has no external value.
Like Venezuela
Even they do quite a bit.
“The top exports of Venezuela are Crude Petroleum ($2.62B), Iron Reductions ($276M), Acyclic Alcohols ($208M), Refined Petroleum ($181M), and Crustaceans ($136M), exporting mostly to India ($2.03B), China ($464M), Malaysia ($387M), Spain ($302M), and Italy ($184M)”
Superdeveloping triple La Nina – kinder edition
https://youtu.be/-MwAbq3I0bU
“An Associated Press statistical analysis of winter La Ninas show that they used to happen about 28% of the time from 1950 to 1999, but in the past 25 winters, theyve been brewing nearly half the time. Theres a small chance that this effect could be random, but if the La Nia sticks around this winter, as forecast, that would push the trend over the statistically significant line, which is key in science, said L’Heureux”
A tale in one quote:
[BILL] You have been on this blog for years.
I have been here since 2021.
This kind of infelicity illustrates fairly well the problem contrarians have with seeking knowledge. They show no care for truth at all. Basic due diligence escapes most of them, including those who, like Bill, pretend to be auditors.
The tears of the world are in equal quantity.
100% of being an idiot since 2021.
So says a cycle nut who could have had the time to play Hall Monitor but prefers the role of the Black Knight instead.
Are eddies cycles?
Chi,
Is your ClimateBall named after Clint’s ball-on-a-string?
The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string is in the public domain. In fact, many colleges and universities use it in teaching orbital motion. I can’t take any credit for it.
Is O2 a trace gas, Richard?
It is less than the nitrogen which together with the oxygen make up 99% or so.
The best analogy of a ball-on-a-string is to a stick-rotating-about-one end and, by extension, a disc-rotating-about-a-center.
rlh…”The best analogy of a ball-on-a-string is to a stick-rotating-about-one end and, by extension, a disc-rotating-about-a-center”.
***
Richard, I see physics was not part of your curriculum at university. A stick rotating about one end is akin to the string rotating without a ball attached. A disk rotating about a centre has no ball attached to its circumference. Stick a little ball on the other end of the stick or the edge of the disk and the ball behaves just like the ball on a string.
“A disk rotating about a centre has no ball attached to its circumference”
Says who? It can have a lump attached at the edge just as easily as it has not.
If the ball is attached to the edge with a frictionless pivot at the center of the join then it will remain pointing at a fixed star.
“I see physics was not part of your curriculum at university”
I was taught the 3 Laws well before university.
Gents,
Please go argue about the Moon elsewhere than in this subthread.
Thanks.
Willard has enough problems with keeping his own idiocies in line.
Richard has problems grasping seasons.
You mean that quartiles in time are important?
I rather mean that not being able to respond to MarkB is all any Climateball player worth their salt needs to know that you’re posturing.
Seasons are an superb example of global temperatures being a skewed, bimodal distribution. Being essentially a quasi-sinewave in nature which produces just that pattern.
How many seasons are there, Richard, and whos many years will it take you to switch to anomalies?
Seasons are the perfect refutation of the idea that climate is non-linear.
Seasons are just well recognized quartiles in time throughout the year. Idiot.
Seasons show that global temperatures are a skewed, bimodal, temperature series.
Sure:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Variation-of-temperature-distribution-in-the-ground-over-the-year-6_fig1_242360492
Thus proving that Willard did not do statistics.
Bimodal
“In such case the data might very well look like a sine wave.”
Just as above.
c.f also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season#/media/File:Jones_et_al._Surface_air_temperature.jpg
Just about everything looks like a sine wave to a cycle nut, Richard.
So this should appear to be bimodal too:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/represents-the-temperature-distribution-during-a-whole-cycle-of-one-year-in-the-air-and_fig1_348336262
Even better:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/322658/monthly-average-daily-temperatures-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/
Still looks like a sine wave and that will produce skewed, bimodal histograms, as various USCRN sites show
https://imgur.com/a/hMQbQuw
https://imgur.com/a/Sc0mK5L
https://imgur.com/a/UW6VnCx
https://imgur.com/a/62XLL5S
Not a gaussian normal distribution in sight.
If everything looks like a sine wave, nothing does.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-seasonal-temperature
Are you saying that daily and yearly temperatures are not quasi-sinusoidal?
Here are some average daily temperatures for various USCRN stations
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04223_darrington_21-nne.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04237_quinault_4-ne.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne-1.jpeg
So bimodal:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Seasonal-changes-in-daylength-temperature-and-solar-radiation-The-daylength-data-a-d_fig2_248888134
So Willard won’t accept that quasi-sinusoidal temperature series produce bimodal histograms. Even though all the statistical sources say that they do. Nothing new there. Willard is a true contrarian when it comes to statistics.
Bimodal
“In such case the data might very well look like a sine wave”
“temperatures from year to year tend to undulate in a sinusoidal pattern”
“Two peaks could also indicate your data is sinusoidal”
Richard will not concede that his appeal to bimodality is at best silly. He puts January at the left and December at the right, and presto! Two modes.
Quite a statistical feat.
Well, well, well:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1302672
Willard cannot admit that anything that is cyclic (i.e. a quasi-sinusoidal pattern) will always produce a bimodal histogram.
He just ignores this fact and seeks to mislead. Checkout all the plots from USCRN shown above.
He even produces as evidence quasi-sinusoids himself but does not have the guts to produce a histogram of them. I wonder why?
“He puts January at the left and December at the right, and presto! Two modes.”
Wrong. The graphs that have Jan to the left and Dec to the right are yours, not mine.
The histograms of those sinusoidal like examples produce the bimodal distribution.
Prove it is not so by producing a histogram of them yourself.
“The graphs that have Jan to the left and Dec to the right are yours, not mine.”
Show me one, Richard.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/322658/monthly-average-daily-temperatures-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Seasonal-changes-in-daylength-temperature-and-solar-radiation-The-daylength-data-a-d_fig2_248888134
This one is in day of the year bit the same logic holds.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/represents-the-temperature-distribution-during-a-whole-cycle-of-one-year-in-the-air-and_fig1_348336262
None of these show modes in Dec or Jan, dummy.
Some dare to say even N2 is one.
So far it’s kind of boring:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtBecQ0Kb7o
But Scott Adams finally gets covid- and some might find
that interesting.
But I am late, and listen to it later
Today, all you have to do is be an anonymous idiot technically capable of spreading a message on YouTube, and anyone even more stupid than you will believe you instantly.
Sources? For what reason? Drooling is enough.
Stupid world is coming soon, for sure.
What?
Btw, are there any idiots posting here? And do any of them agree with anything.
Sources? Scott Adams is not anonymous, and tested positive for the chinese virus, and has not had it before.
I have not had it- that I know of. But it didn’t seem to last long for Scott [he was vaccinated] so if it lasts a short period, it’s possible I could have had it, and I didn’t know it. I have not had any serious cold since it started, so I probably didn’t get. And I got vaccinated fairly earlier. But if think I might be catching cold, I take vitamin C and D. And that has happened a few times
gb…”But Scott Adams finally gets covid- and some might find
that interesting”.
***
There is no way to test for covid, so anyone claiming to have it could as easily have the common flu, is physically run down, has some other illness, or has recently eaten a papaya. The covid tests cannot distinguish between the above.
Covid has never been physically isolated as a virus. No one has seen it on an electron microscope. The basis of the tests is strands of RNA THOUGHT to be from covid.
Re the vaccines. They are claimed to be based on spike proteins, another wild guess. The alleged spike on a virus has never been seen either since the electron microscope required to see them required very thin slices of a suspected virus sample about 100 billionth of a meter thick.
No spike has ever been physically isolated therefore the genetic makeup of the spike is guessed using computer models.
The proof of the ineffectiveness of the vaccines is in the data, Since early January 2022, 70%+ of people hospitalized around here for the phantom covid virus have been fully vaccinated. They did not mention that covid hysteria produces psychosomatic issues so serious that a person requires hospitalization.
That’s why governments have had to concede they cannot do anything about covid. They have quietly walked away from it, declaring it endemic. They could have done that two years ago and spared us all the grief.
Muggers are pleased with the masks, and defunding police, so some have come out ahead.
“the phantom covid virus” is real and has killed more than a few people.
CLIMATE ACTION 2030 Department of the Navy
The Department of the Navy this week released its strategy for how it will deal with climate change and proceed toward the government’s goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
“Our naval and amphibious forces are in the crosshairs of the climate crisis and this strategy provides the framework to empower us to meaningfully reduce the threat of climate change.”
“If we do not act, as sea levels rise, bases like Norfolk Naval Base and Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island will be severely tested in their ability to support their missions,” the 32-page report says. “If temperatures continue to rise, the oceans will get warmer, creating more destructive storms requiring our Fleets and Marine Corps forces to increase their operational tempo to respond.”
Oorah!
Electric jets and missiles?
Electrical batteries are dangerous, lob them at other ships and no one can put them out.
If temperatures continue to rise is a big if.
What if temperatures revert to 1850 levels?
That’s a bigger if, Ken.
“What if temperatures revert to 1850 levels?”
That’s the spirit! https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/1/4/1880-2022
Remembering High School Physics
“The position of an event can be specified only if a frame of
reference, or observer, is given. Physically, a frame of reference is a set of objects whose mutual distances
change comparatively little in time, like the walls of a laboratory [or] the fixed stars. . . Only if such a frame
is given for all times does it make sense to compare the positions of a particle at different times, and only
then can we speak about velocities, accelerations, etc. of a particle. . . “
Newton said that all motion is relative.
Definitions. Don’t need them in the real world. All my frames of reference are tucked away in my memory.
As Newton said, all motion is relative.
Gordon Robertson August 7, 2021 at 8:07 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-786333
“Forget the idiocy of reference frames”
Putin’s boot licker and his groupies should face reality instead of endlessly sucking misinforming contrarian blogs.
https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf
and therein
https://i.postimg.cc/x1tmGMdM/Screenshot-2022-05-30-at-00-55-20-COVID-19-Cases-Hospitalizations-and-Deaths-by-Vaccination-Status.png
Poor Bindidon has lost on La Ni&ntide;a and the Moon issue.
Now he’s linking to health sites he doesn’t understand.
The poor guy reminds me of Norman. He believes he’s an expert on everything because he knows how to use his “search” button!
Make that “La Niña”.
Clint R
Wrong again. I do not know everything nor pretend to. I just know you are blithering idiot with no thought process.
Did I also mention your posts are stupid. Yes I think I did.
Do you really need to be as dumb as your posts suggest you are?
Why so stupid? How many dumb people are there? Are you a bot?
Norma,
I will not repeat this twice. Please listen closely –
Trolls like to have fun. Your bombast makes Pup giggle. Worse, it gives him cues as to what buttons to push to get more of it.
It’s called lolz.
Treat Pup like you would do if you had to put out the trash. Nothing personal. Just another chore in your life.
That way he will get less lolz.
If you cannot do that, try to ignore him, for you are the opposite of helping.
Is that clear?
Norman, you’re a braindead cult idiot taking advice from a worthless troll.
Kinda tells you how low you are, huh?
Good news is the only way is up.
But, you have to start climbing out of your hole:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1300081
A bit would not misplace its comments, Pup.
It would also have something to say.
You got NOTHING.
Enjoy!
Superdeveloping triple La Nina effect
Who said it was too soon for Hurricanes
https://apnews.com/article/storms-mexico-caribbean-hurricanes-ee91b0005ed886ec78a6490cbd3208d3
“AccuWeather meteorologists noted they will be closely monitoring the “leftover energy” from Agatha as it crosses Mexico and enters the Bay of Campeche. “Here, there is a chance it could redevelop into the Atlantic basin’s first named storm,” the outlet reported.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/05/29/hurricane-agatha-threat-mexico/9986359002/
All caused by La Nina and not by global warming.
I have to be gone for several days, but for those confused about Moon, here’s a good way to learn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo-aQIX9ois
Have a good one.
Wrong as usual, and the song is crap too.
Incorrect.
Correct on both counts.
Incorrect.
Correct on both counts.
#2
Incorrect.
It will still be a correct observation no matter what you count to.
#3
Incorrect.
2: It will still be a correct observation no matter what you count to.
#4
Incorrect.
3: It will still be a correct observation no matter what you count to.
#5
Incorrect.
Ancient volcanoes could be a source of ice on the moon
The team used computer modeling to simulate the ancient moon and found that this volcanic activity could have thrown out large amounts of water vapor, which then settled on the surface and froze into deposits that could still be there today.
We envision it as a frost on the moon that built up over time, explained Andrew Wilcoski, lead author of the new study, in a statement. So there could be stores of ice below the moons surface as well as in craters. Its possible that 5 or 10 meters below the surface, you have big sheets of ice, said co-author Paul Hayne.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/space/moon-ice-volcanism/
It seems to me that NASA should focus H20 and CO2 at the surface- and bring back sample from the surface and perhaps as deep as 1 or 2 meters depth.
Or if there are sheets of it 5 to 10 meter under the surface, some will be at the surface.
Also it seems a purpose of sending crew is to test the orbiting robotic missions of lunar water exploration, get “ground truth” for the orbital of exploration which will done on Mars, Mercury, and lots places.
“Mars once ran red with rivers. The telltale tracks of past rivers, streams and lakes are visible today all over the planet. But about three billion years ago, they all dried up – and no one knows why.”
https://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Why_Did_Mars_Dry_Out_New_Study_Points_To_Unusual_Answers_999.html
— Kite and his collaborators ran many different combinations of these factors in their simulations, looking for conditions that could cause the planet to be warm enough for at least some liquid water to exist in rivers for more than billion years – but then abruptly lose it.
But as they compared different simulations, they saw something surprising. Changing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere didn’t change the outcome. That is, the driving force of the change didn’t seem to be carbon dioxide.
“Carbon dioxide is a strong greenhouse gas, so it really was the leading candidate to explain the drying out of Mars,” said Kite, an expert on the climates of other worlds. “But these results suggest it’s not so simple.”–
Why is stated endless that CO2 is weak greenhouse gas, and these children think it’s a strong greenhouse gas.
I have various thoughts regarding it, but I am interested what others think happened to the water of shallow oceans and rivers of Mars.
Nancy Pelosi Husband Arrested for DUI in Napa
https://www.tmz.com/2022/05/29/nancy-pelosi-husband-paul-arrested-dui-napa/
from https://instapundit.com/
So, they both drink a lot.
But husband is driving rather than being driven-
men, even if they have huge amounts wealth, they still drive their cars.
Nancy probably has not driven a car in decades. Which something to be thankful for.
If I was married to Pelosi, I’d be drunk all the time as well.
–NAPA, Calif. (AP) The weekend arrest of Paul Pelosi, the husband of U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, on suspicion of driving under the influence came after the Porsche he was driving was hit by another vehicle in Northern California’s wine country, authorities said.
Paul Pelosi, 82, was taken into custody shortly before midnight Saturday in Napa County, according to a sheriffs office online booking report.
He was driving a 2021 Porsche into an intersection near the town of Yountville and was hit by a 2014 Jeep, the California Highway Patrol said in a statement late Sunday.
No injuries were reported, and the 48-year-old driver of the Jeep was not arrested. —
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/dui-arrest-of-pelosi-s-husband-came-after-california-crash/ar-AAXTgSP
rlh…re Moon keeping same face pointed at Earth….”As it would if it rotated once on its axis per orbit of the Earth. Try a model and see”.
[RLH to CLint] “I have a model. Without turning the Moon once on its axis once per orbit of the Earth the same face does not point inwards”.
[GR]That means the near face and the far face are always moving in parallel
“The radius that the near face traces is smaller than the radius that the far face traces thus they cannot be in parallel. They are concentric (and in any case are a ellipses not circles)”.
***
1)Starting from your last point re concentricity and parallelism, concentric circles are parallel, curved lines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_curve
“a parallel curve of a line is a parallel line in the common sense and the parallel curve of a circle is a concentric circle”.
However, I have proved that independently using calculus.
Draw two concentric circles around 0,0 on an x,y plane. Where the x-axis intercepts the inner circle, draw a line perpendicular to the circle. Do the same for the outer circle. Both lines are tangent lines to the circles and both lines are parallel. That holds true for any point on a radial line on either circle. Therefore all points on concentric circles common to a radial line through them are on lines that are parallel. Ergo, concentric lines are parallel curves.
A circle is a special case of a curved line and all curves on a plane with points equidistant from each other on the plane are parallel.
2)re models… you stated “Without turning the Moon once on its axis once per orbit of the Earth the same face does not point inwards”
***
Visualize using two coins, the Earth as a stationary coin and the Moon as a moveable coin. Set them up so we are viewing the x-y plane as the lunar orbital plane. The Moon coin is situated along the x-axis and its position indicates an instantaneous moment in the orbital path as the Moon orbits CCW.
If I understand you correctly, you are claiming the Moon must rotate on a local axis in order to keep the same face pointing in. Set the coins up on a piece of paper on a table top with an x-y plane marked on it. The Earth is centred at 0,0.
Place the Moon coin along the x-axis and mark it with a felt pen with an arrow pointing from its centre toward the Earth coin. The idea is to keep the arrow pointing at 0,0 while observing the motion of the arrow as the Moon coin orbits the Earth coin.
Now consider a radial line along the x-axis from 0,0 passing through the near side of the Moon coin, through its COG, and out the far side. Draw three perpendicular lines: where this line meets the near face, one where the COG meets the line, and one at the far side of the coin from 0,0 where it meets the radial line.
Consider this a movable radial line. Let it rotate CCW as it tracks the motion of the Moon coin. The 3 perpendicular lines always move in parallel. If the are moving in parallel, they cannot rotate around the coin’s centre.
Note that the arrow must always point along the radial line.
QED.
You have a complaint that the Moon coin must be turned as it is moved, and you claim that as rotation. It’s not, all it represents is an adjustment to the Moon coin to replicate the true curvilinear motion of the real Moon.
Think of the Moon attached to a rigid spoke with its axis at Earth’s centre. As the spoke turns, the Moon must follow it. When you adjust the Moon coin, you are adjusting the coin to follow a similar path.
The closest you can come to this in reality and demonstrate clearly the one side always facing the Earth, is an airliner flying at 35,000 feet. Gravity has exactly the same effect on the airliner as on the Moon. It holds them both while the Moon’s momentum and the airliners momentum keep them moving along a linear, tangential line.
As you know, the airliner cannot rotate nose over tail, or vice-versa, or it will crash, yet it always keeps it under-side pointed at the Earth.
Remember, the real Moon has a large continuous linear momentum. It is always trying to move in a straight line perpendicular to a radial line through Earth’s centre. That’s for a theoretical circular orbit but the Moon’s orbit is almost circular anyway. I have also provided considerable detail in other posts to demonstrate why the circular motion applies equally to the elliptical motion.
With the slight elliptical shape of the lunar orbit, the radial line defining the lunar tangential motion points slightly away from the the Earth’s centre. That slight tilt provided by the elliptical orbit allows us to see about 5 degrees around the edge of the Moon, a phenomenon called libration. The Moon does not rotate at all and libration is a property of the orbital path.
Wrong. Using your 2 coin example. If I were to make the ‘Moon’ move in an ellipse around the ‘Earth’ then, without the rotation around its center, one side of it would always point to a fixed star/wall.
But there is no natural force which allows this.
Newtons 3 Laws cover both translation and rotation.
“It is always trying to move in a straight line perpendicular to a radial line through Earths centre.”
That’s called an orbit. Nothing to do with a rotation around an axis.
The Moon does not rotate at all on its own axis wrt Earth and libration is a property of the orbital path.
The Moon rotates on its own axis wrt the fixed stars.
The Moon orbits both the Sun and the Earth wrt the fixed stars.
Incorrect RLH!
It is widely accepted that the orbit has an angular momentum around an axis at the COM of earth. Translations have no angular momentum.
“Translations have no angular momentum”
Translations have a momentum, just not an angular one.
See Newton.
A ball on a string is trying to go in a straight line and would if not for the pull of the string.
Same for the ball on the end of a stick rotating on its opposite end.
Centripetal force
A statement like
” The Moon rotates on its own axis wrt the fixed stars. ”
is not much better than the nonsense written by the ignorant dumbass nicknamed ‘Robertson’.
*
That statement namely gives the impression that when observing the Moon without respect to a fixed point in space, it could appear as if it didn’t rotate, what is evidently wrong.
The lunar spin is an intrinsic property of the Moon, and therefore is independent of the point from which you observe it – with of course the trivial exception of a natural or artificial body which performs synchronized orbiting about the Moon.
*
Newton has clearly shown that he uses the expression ‘wrt the fixed stars’ not in order to observe rotation as such, but rather to observe rotation periods independently of the motion of the observing point.
A sun spot returns, for an observer on Earth, to the same apparent position after 27.5 days; but astronomers know how to calculate, by taking as absolute reference a fixed point in space, the rotation of the Sun independently of Earth’s motion; it is then 25.5 days.
The same is valid for e.g. the Moon, whose sidereal rotation (and orbiting) periods differ from their synodic counterparts.
“That statement namely gives the impression that when observing the Moon without respect to a fixed point in space, it could appear as if it didnt rotate, what is evidently wrong”
How can you get things so wrong? If you look at things from the context of the fixed stars, then the Moon will indeed rotate on its axis as expected.
All motion is relative, so you need to state the frame/context of your position as an observer.
Two planets with the same mean surface temperature can emit dramatically different amounts of energy
Moon’s average surface temperature is Tmoon = 220 K
Mars’ average temperature is Tmars = 210 K
Moon’s average surface Albedo a =0,11
Mars’ average surface Albedo a =0,25
It can be demonstrated that for the same Albedo Mars and Moon would have had the same average surface temperature.
The solar flux on Moon is So =1361W/m
The solar flux on Mars is S =586W/m
It is obvious, that for the same average surface temperature, the emitted amounts of energy from Moon are dramatically higher than the emitted amounts of energy from Mars.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Moon is not exactly a planet, Christos.
Oops!!!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Oh! How interesting…
Vournas’ comparisons of celestial bodies seem to be in between chosen such that the differences in rotational spin suddenly no longer are needed.
Ah yes, I understand!
To mention Moon’s rotational spin is politically incorrect with regard to this blog’s ignorant ‘non-spinner’ group, n’est-ce pas?
Mars and Moon have two major differences which equate each other:
The first major difference is the distance from the sun both Mars and Moon have.
Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth and Moon have.
Consequently the solar flux on the Mars top is 2,32 times weaker than that on the Moon.
The second major difference is the sidereal rotation period both Mars and Moon have.
Moon performs 1 rotation every 29,531 earth days.
Mars performs 1 rotation every 24,622 hours or 0,9747 rot /day.
Consequently Mars rotates 29,531 *0,9747 = 28,783 times faster than Moon.
So Mars is irradiated 2,32 times weaker, but Mars rotates 28,783 times faster.
It is obvious now, the Mars 28,783 times faster rotation equates the Moons 2,32 times higher solar irradiation.
That is why the 28,783 times faster rotating Mars has almost the same satellite measured mean surface temperature as the 2,32 times stronger solar irradiated Moon.
Thus we are coming here again to the same conclusion:
If Moon and Mars were the same distance from the sun, the faster rotating Mars would have been a warmer planet.
Earth and Moon are at the same distance from the sun. The faster rotating Earth is warmer than Moon.
This very important conclusion is based on satellite measured planets mean surface temperatures. It is based on the very reliable observations.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, it seems I underestimated your honesty.
I apologize for that.
DR. Spencer, there has been a seismic change to ESG Investing and Climate Science. A HSBC Analyst made PUBLIC STATEMENTS about financial models based on climate change risks. He basically made public statements that they are fraudulent, just like the Climate Models. They are literally adjusted to get the answer you want.
Every lawyer in the world now have evidence that can be used in a court of law, and unlike Climate Science, there are many financial experts that can be call on to testify as to the validity of the models and make the arguments understandable to disinterested jury.
If I was you, I would be reaching out to Lawfirms letting them know that you will act as an expert witness regarding the validity of the climate models used by Wall Street to base their financial models.
Key will be to demonstrate that CO2 can’t cause the warming of the oceans, and that ocean oscillations control the climate, not CO2.
As usual, CO2’IsLife’ restricts anything to what fits his personal narrative, and intentionally dissimulates the rest of the story.
https://www.fundecomarket.co.uk/help/responses-to-hsbc-kirk-climate-speech
This video will almost certainly be introduced in every future lawsuit. He specifically states that the financial models to justify the accounting for climate risk are manipulated to give the desired result. Sound familiar? Here is the video:
https://youtu.be/bfNamRmje-s
Also, more damning is the “Dog that Didn’t bark” situation that every good lawyer will exploit. If a bank claims that Miami will be underwater in 10 years, why do they grant 30-year loans to purchase property…and why isn’t that risk mentioned in any of the Prospectuses?
Foul language used in this video…but it make the point.
https://youtu.be/NjlC02NsIt0
This is America, land of free enterprise capitalism and the hard sell.
If you buy a horse the seller may tell you that it has four legs, but you are expected to count them yourself.
If you take out a 30 year mortgage on a house which will be under water in twenty years, then more fool you. The bank will still want their money.
Personally I wouldn’t trust any of you as far as I could throw an elephant.
“If you buy a horse the seller may tell you that it has four legs, but you are expected to count them yourself.”
It doesn’t work that way in the Financial World. There are prospectuses and risks must be explained to the investor. Facts are, the HSBC told all the lawyers where the bodies are buried. Juries may be fooled because they don’t understand the concepts behind climate change, they do understand income statements, disclosure rules, transparency, profit and loss, risk and return. Any advisor that recommends ESG had better be able to defend these climate financial models in cross-examination.
ESG is exactly there to provide more accountability, Life:
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/sustainability/sustainability-13-03090/article_deploy/sustainability-13-03090-v2.pdf?version=1615528852
I would imagine many sources supported the Mortgage Bonds marketed as facilitating the “affordable housing” initiative as well. I wouldn’t want my name on a document supporting known fraud. I notice they didn’t bother to review one of these financial models. That would have been the starting point for any honest source. Attacking the messenger in the #1 tactic of the leftists that know they are behind the fraud. THey have to prevent you from looking under the hood.
Advocating that someone commit perjury does not look good on you.
Superdeveloping triple La Nina effect has now triggered what is called a historic early-season hurricane with high risk to life and property by damaging winds and significant flooding.
Incidentally, it also triggered Bindidong , but only damage there is he zshat himself.
Hi Ebaby…
I couldn’t resist to again ‘dissect the past’, as you so nicely use to write.
I had a look at JMA’s world temperature grid for the month in which the ‘superdeveloping triple La Nina’ shows (by eye-balling of course) its maximum, i.e. the month in which the equatorial East Pacific surface temperatures seemed to be the lowest since this La Nina’s begin:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2022/gridtemp202204e.png
and compared the grid for this April 2022 to that month in which these equatorial East Pacific surface temperatures also seemed to be the lowest during the ‘subdeveloping {/sarc]} double La Nina’ in 2010/2012:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2010/gridtemp201012e.png
Enjoy!
Best greetings from Bidendong :- )
So you recon that the series of articles written by climate.gov about La Nina are not that important.
1. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/march-2022-la-ni%C3%B1a-update-three-bean-salad
2. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/april-2022-la-ni%C3%B1a-update-measuring
3. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/may-2022-enso-update-piece-cake
https://www.climate.gov/media/14522
Published in 1896 in a British Journal of Science: Arrhenius’s paper
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
With 2020 (or 2022) hindsight it’s frightening how dead on this is. So meticulous and detailed, diving into things like albedo changes playing into the process of warming. Even over 125 years ago, this great geophysical experiment was obvious to those who bothered to look.
Is it the part where he said the temperature would fall to -200C if not for selective absor.ption in the atmosphere? Is that the dead-on part?
Even this 1896 vintage science is over your head, huh?
Is it the part where the Moon has a mean effective temperature of 45C?
When am I going to get the spot-on part?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the science has grown exponentially since the 17th century. Stick with your political quick-hits instead!
Mind you that “grown exponentially” means more complicated and difficult for the layman to decipher.
Was it when he said the temperature of the Moon was nearly the same as the temperature of the Earth? Was that when he was spot-on? When was he spot-on? You luv’n some Arrhenius?
You’re a funny guy!
P.s.: mind you that’s funny ha ha (like a clown), not funny peculiar!
In hindsight it may have been better to keep Arrhenius’ Carbonic Acid sobriquet rather than the formal Carbon Dioxide.
It is truly amazing to see people discrediting and denigrating what they never have read let alone would understand.
It is no surprise since stephen p anderson is not a reader. He keeps asking a question that could be answered by simply reading my original post, slowly in his case, and carefully.
Oh, yeah, you said . You got me on that one. When was Arrhenius dead-on?
Like I said, stick with your political quick-hits instead! Science is not your thing.
Arrhenius and the rest failed to mention how the atmosphere really warms, from conduction of surface heat to the 99% of air that is nitrogen and oxygen. Most of that happens in the Tropics as pointed out by Lindzen.
R. W. Wood knew that in 1909 but it seems to have escaped Arrhenius and the rest. Fourier was known for his mathematics, physics was hardly his strong suit. To claim the atmosphere absorbs heat from the ground is ingenuous.
Your opinion is duly noted.
I would be remiss if I didn’t conclude my post with the following commentary:
Solar wind
speed: 551.2 km/sec
density: 8.19 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 30 May 22
Sunspot number: 42
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.77×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +3.9% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.3%
An average of 4% [or higher] seems like a lot of GRC radiation
or not Solar Max conditions of low GRC. Nor is 3.5%, and seems
it going to 3.5% to 4% for next several days. Or if one had launch crew to Mars in the next couple weeks, it doesn’t look good. Though seem likely we get to over 100 sunspots within a week. It seems we are as low as 3.9% because sun’s activity over last couple month and that activity is continuing to travel out on our solar system. But it isn’t Solar Max peak type activity. And it seems possible [to me] that we going get a long duration of solar Max peak type solar activity. Someone think we get large solar explosion some time soon [months] maybe that will have some effect upon Oulu Neutron Counts, but they would have long duration effect {which is possible, I guess]. Solar Max is like global warming, I wish we get some. But not seeing it.
“A METEOR OUTBURST MIGHT HAPPEN TONIGHT: Yes, debris from Comet 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 might actually be approaching Earth. A camera operated by the Spanish Meteor and Fireball Network caught a piece of the broken comet disintegrating over Europe on May 27th. The fireball they saw could herald a larger cloud of debris following close behind. If it exists, the approaching cloud could cause a meteor outburst over North America on the night of May 30-31. That’s tonight! Probably nothing will happen, but for enthusiasts it’s worth a look.”
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Solar wind
speed: 521.5 km/sec
density: 7.86 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 31 May 22
Sunspot number: 40
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.77×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +3.6% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.2%
–TAU HERCULID METEORS SIGHTED: Forecasters were right. Debris from Comet 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 did hit Earth last night. Observers across North America witnessed the resulting meteor shower. “In only 15 minutes I saw about 10 naked-eye tau Herculids,” reports Adam Sinclair, …–
https://www.spaceweather.com/
I looked for about 1 hour, didn’t see much. And couldn’t tell if forecasters were right. But I didn’t make effort to go to a darker sky- just backyard of city of Lancaster.
I saw one which was weird/unexplainable. It looked like bright ember rather bright white streak and seems last too long. And saw some short quick ones white streaks. Other bright ember thing, I would expect to see as many as would see on any night- if I was in a location of having dark sky. So, it seems if I was in dark sky, I could seen maybe as much as 100 small one in an hour, but I doubt they would big bright ones, like I seen in other meteor showers.
–Climate panic-makers like the Potsdam Institute like to claim the Gulf Stream is showing ominous signs of slowing down and thus threatening to send Europe into a deep freeze. Their dodgy models have predicted a decline of its strength, due to anthropogenic climate warming.
Surprise: Gulf Stream has strengthened —
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/30/new-findings-show-gulf-stream-has-strengthened-over-past-centuryheat-transport-has-increased-30/
But for how long?
We are going to get out of La Nina condition [I mean in terms of few years] Or climate panic-makers might correct in few years. But generally if you wait long enough, has story of “global warming”.
Though in terms couple decades the story of global warming will be, probably flat.
https://babylonbee.com/news/obama-encourages-americans-to-pause-this-memorial-day-to-remember-the-sacrifice-of-george-floyd
{this satire, btw, for any of morons}
–MARTHAS VINEYARD, MAFrom his coastal estate that will probably be underwater in ten years, former President Barack Obama issued a statement today encouraging Americans to honor Memorial Day by remembering the sacrifice of George Floyd.
The statement read in part, We mark this somber occasion by celebrating a hero who gave his all so that all Americans can be free to know what horrible racists they all are.”–
–“Four SBIR research contracts will go to Washington state companies. And two of those contracts are going to Everett-based Off Planet Research.
One Off Planet project focuses on the development of a flexible fiber seal that will hold up in dusty environments. The seal would make use of stainless steel and/or basalt fibers that align and interlock when compressed, conforming to surfaces to keep dust out.
Traditional soft seals do not hold up well in space, while hard seals often restrict sealing capabilities or mobility, Melissa Roth, lead researcher at Off Planet Research, told GeekWire in an email. Our dust seal does not rely on elastomers or polymers that fail due to intense temperatures or volatile depletion in the vacuum of space. The materials are resistant to many chemicals and oxidizers, making them ideal for a wide range of use cases.–
https://www.geekwire.com/2022/moondust-buster-nasa-funds-far-out-research-projects-including-four-in-washington-state/
Could be useful for Mars also.
Linked from: https://cosmiclog.com/
The ball is pretty round, everything perfect!
Basra (Iraq) 45.0 (degrees Celsius)
Abadan (Iran) 44.8
Damman Airport (Saudi Arabia) 44.2
Karbala (Iraq) 43.6
Aqaba (Jordan) 41.0
Nikosia (Cyprus) 39.5
Damascus (Syria) 39.0
Adana (Turkey) 39.0
Don’t mind, it’s just a tiny, little bit over norm.
binny…”The ball is pretty round, everything perfect!”
***
Yeah, but does it have a string on it?
If it does, does that mean that really a cross-section of it is just of a disc spinning around a center?
Small world:
DAMN YOU HTML!
Ah, well. Let’s add this answer:
https://stats.stackexchange.com/posts/573012/revisions
The follows a small demonstration. But it gets better. Richard, not content to query, lectures:
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/572657/statistics-to-use-on-bimodal-data#comment1062238_574900
Sporting good form!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1287444
You forgot about skew, where median is consider to be a better measure of central tendency than mean is.
You forget that you were supposed to get confirmation of your pet idea, Richard. Yet:
[SCORTCHI] See stats.stackexchange.com/a/96388/17230 – nothing in the data alone can tell you which to use. See stats.stackexchange.com/a/2550/17230 for the kind of considerations that might lead you to prefer one to the other. Think what you want a measure of central tendency to convey (& whether any measure of central tendency will be adequate).
[RICHARD] Thanks for that but it does not really answer the question, just says maybe this, maybe that. I am trying to determine which of the various summary statistics will show the best measure of central tendency. Are even skewness, kurtosis and standard deviation as normally calculated meaningful in the case of the data shown above?
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/572657/statistics-to-use-on-bimodal-data#comment1057307_572657
It did not go that well for you, did it?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1302740
So much for mean, SD, OLS, which are unable to distinguish between obviously different data distributions.
You made me look:
https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/14218
But that’s just Frank Harrell.
You do you.
“If the distribution happens to be symmetric and the tails are about like the normal distribution, the mean is a very efficient summary of central tendency”
As it isn’t does that mean that we should not use the mean (and SD) as they may well be a distortion?
“The median, while being robust and well-defined for any continuous distribution, is only 2π as efficient as the mean if the data happened to come from a normal distribution”
As it actually comes from a bimodal distribution what then?
“For non-symmetric populations, the Hodges-Lehmann statistic estimates the population’s “pseudo-median”, a location parameter that is closely related to the median“
https://imgur.com/a/zjtZRNy
Read the first sentence again, Richard.
This time, consider that the *because* was emphasized in the original test.
Willard: Read the difference between normal and bimodal distributions.
You are no better than Kiddo, Richard.
At least this episode showed that those on SE can see I that your personality stops you from learning.
Your narrow minded approach means that you do not see any difference between normal and bimodal data.
How many years will yet take you to realize that your main issue is not even with modality but linearity, Richard?
RLH says: Your narrow minded approach means that you do not see any difference between normal and bimodal data.
Let me assure you that everyone understands that station temperature data series include a diurnal and annual cycle. Let me assure you also that most everyone understands that cyclic components in a time series have an effect on conventional statistical metrics that may or may not be important in a given context.
What you’ve failed to communicate is why you are seemingly fixated on a circular discussion conventional statistic metrics and apparently unwilling or unable to move on to any meaningful discussion of when particular metrics are more or less useful and how the impacts of cyclic behavior are mitigated in statistical analysis of climate.
Statistics is an analytic tool. Without some overall context of what one hopes to learn from a time series, asking for a “best” metric or procedure is just silly.
Do you accept that the normals that are used to get to anomalies have the bimodal characteristics hidden in them and that the numbers there are the same or even bigger than any differences in the anomalies?
“Let me assure you that everyone understands that station temperature data series include a diurnal and annual cycle”
Tell Willard that. Why is it that otherwise sensible climate discussions balk at thinking about bimodal distributions and the effects that they bring to climate statistics?
Bimodal distribution are almost never talked about in general statistics other than the observation that gaussian normal ones are mostly not suitable for use on them.
And yet here we have them in all their skewed glory and even mentioning them is considered ‘bad form’. By Willard at least.
How many years will it take for Willard to realize that blindly using gaussian normal statistics on skewed bimodal data is just simply wrong?
You insufferable twat.
You idiot.
RLH says: Do you accept that the normals that are used to get to anomalies have the bimodal characteristics hidden in them and that the numbers there are the same or even bigger than any differences in the anomalies?
The cyclical characteristics of the station’s anomaly baseline are hardly “hidden”. Rather one of the explicit purposes is to transform the time series to something more statistically well-behaved by characterizing and removing the cyclical component.
The root issue is not “bimodality” of the probability distribution per se. Rather the issue is performing statistics on a time series that is “non-stationary” in that it has a time dependent, specifically seasonal, component.
So you accept that “the numbers there are the same or even bigger than any differences in the anomalies”.
“Rather one of the explicit purposes is to transform the time series to something more statistically well-behaved by characterizing and removing the cyclical component”
Why not call it by what it is then, an ad hoc quasi-sinusoidal regression with included distortions.
RLH says: Why not call it by what it is then, an ad hoc quasi-sinusoidal regression with included distortions.
Calling it “time series decomposition” as is common in the relevant literature, textbooks, and statistical analysis packages might make one more comprehensible.
Of course this presupposes one’s objective is clarity, understanding, and good faith analysis. Your choice.
Actually it is a sinusoidal regression (i.e. fitting of a sine like wave) to a sequence of the data. That sinusoid is itself composed of 30 years worth of data, so a skewed ad hoc rather than a calculated value.
A decomposition would imply that there was more than one frequency such as occurs normally in DSP but it is unlikely that any natural system is ‘tuned’ to any particular frequency. Thus both it and wavelets are a non-natural tuned fit which will probably not apply.
You would have it that eddies are not present unless they had a definite frequency when we all know that they exists regardless and span many widths and time periods.
I think we both know your full of it, but it’s the role you’ve chosen.
I answer the why quite simply. I was asking in another forum the questions I have often posed here.
No need to be shy, Richard.
Show us the answers you got. Here’s one I like:
[MATT] Using the mean is fine, but it doesn’t describe the bimodality. Given the more detailed description of the data, I would say that the simplest description capturing the bimodality would be the one I suggested first, with the min and max — otherwise known and commonly reported as the daily low and daily high.
[RICHARD] Min and max are by definition outliers which has the effect of distorting the data. Why is the mean fine rather than the median?
[MATT] I’d rather not engage further.
Why don’t you tell us about the Gauss-Markov theorem another guy told you about?
As the min and max does not describe the data distribution at all I discarded that quite easily. Same problem as with the middle of course.
Gauss-Markov theorem is all about OLS which, as you know, I have little time for either.
You have little time with learning in general, Richard:
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/96371/should-the-mean-be-used-when-data-are-skewed/96388#96388
Funny how you got the same response I gave you, don’t you think?
Yet again you quote statistics for gaussian, symmetrical, normal, distributions. Try finding out some things for skewed, bimodal ones instead.
“The Gauss-Markov theorem states that if your linear regression model satisfies the first six classical assumptions, then ordinary least squares (OLS) regression produces unbiased estimates that have the smallest variance of all possible linear estimators.”
and yet there are distributions that are quite different in fact but have the same mean, SD, OLS, etc. See the Anscombes Quartet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anscombe%27s_quartet) and The Datasaurus Dozen (https://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2017/05/the-datasaurus-dozen.html).
Try to read it slowly, Richard:
Yet it is well understood that mean, SD, OLS. etc. are actually a poor way of separating time series data sets that otherwise produce the same figures (see the Anscombes Quartet and The Datasaurus Dozen).
Richard, please leave the ad nauseam to Kiddo.
Willard: Please leave the statistics to someone who can read.
That would not be you, dummy, as your new discovery only establishes that graphs are as important as descriptive statistics to inform a reader, and that you kept ignoring what everyone was telling you on Stack Exchange. Just like here.
I mostly reply to you as you do not accept that normal and bimodal statistics are quite different.
You did the same in a statistical community to those who dared tell you that there is seldom categorical answers in statistics and that median and mean conveyed different information and helps answer different questions, Richard.
Do you not realize that you went to ask a basic question and ended up patronizing them with a YT vid?
See the Anscombes Quartet and The Datasaurus Dozen which says that mean and SD are not the only things to take notice of.
https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/96388
“median and mean conveyed different information”
but for you only the mean is important. Because ‘reasons’.
“it would require knowing something (or even quite a lot) about the distribution. We dont always have that luxury”
But we know in climate that the data is in a skewed, bimodal distribution. But as far as you are concerned, that doesn’t matter.
[ESTR] I told you at least ten times already that, as far as I’m concerned, you could show both statistics. In fact the more the merrier.
[VLAD] But for you only the mean is important. Because “reasons”.
So Willard, why do you always quote just the mean and SD and not the median and IQR as well (and a graph and a low pass filter to boot)?
https://www.voanews.com/a/weather-s-unwanted-guest-nasty-la-nina-keeps-popping-up/6593576.html
“An Associated Press statistical analysis of winter La Ninas show that they used to happen about 28% of the time from 1950 to 1999, but in the past 25 winters, they’ve been brewing nearly half the time. There’s a small chance that this effect could be random, but if the La Nina sticks around this winter, as forecast, that would push the trend over the statistically significant line, which is key in science, said LHeureux”
From the article
The current double-dip La Nina set a record for strength last month and is forecast to likely be around for a rare but not quite unprecedented third straight winter.
the world seems to be getting more La Ninas than it used to and that is just the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say should be happening with human-caused climate change
Normally second years of La Nina tend to be weaker, but in April this La Nina surprised meteorologists by setting a record for intensity in April,
I guess they are not reading postings from our enso mega-specialist
Binderdong
“not quite unprecedented”
Better tell Richard, Eboy.
As I have been pointing out for a long while that a triple year La Nina is not unprecedented (see climate.gov) but the strength of this one is, it looks like it is you who needs to reconsider.
The facts are that statistically it is getting colder not hotter now. at least in the Pacific.
1. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/march-2022-la-ni%C3%B1a-update-three-bean-salad
2. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/april-2022-la-ni%C3%B1a-update-measuring
3. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/may-2022-enso-update-piece-cake
https://www.climate.gov/media/14522
Dis u
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1268178
So you agree with climate.gov that this is unprecedented?
It would be hard to agree with you, dummy, as you do not even agree with yourself.
So you do agree with climate.gov that this is unprecedented?
I missed where your first mentions the U word, Richard. Neither I see it in your second one. And of course no U word does not seem to appear in the third one.
How about the fourth one? No U word either as far as I can see.
Who do you think you are kidding except yourself, Richard?
So this is not unprecedented even though 2022 at its end it is below all other traces on that graph.
https://www.climate.gov/media/14522
“if the La Nina sticks around this winter, as forecast, that would push the trend over the statistically significant line, which is key in science”
Not only unprecedented but statistically significant too!
[RICHARD] The current double dip La Nina is now into unprecedented territory.
[ALSO RICHARD] As I have been pointing out for a long while that a triple year La Nina is not unprecedented.
I ran that quote through google and the return I got included that and this:
“The current double-dip La Nina set a record for strength last month and is forecast to likely be around for a rare but not quite unprecedented third straight winter.”
And there’s more!
“An Associated Press statistical analysis of winter La Ninas show that they used to happen about 28% of the time from 1950 to 1999, but in the past 25 winters, they’ve been brewing nearly half the time. There’s a small chance that this effect could be random, but if the La Nina sticks around this winter, as forecast, that would push the trend over the statistically significant line, which is key in science, said L’Heureux. Her own analysis shows that La Nina-like conditions are occurring more often in the last 40 years. Other new studies are showing similar patterns.”
Journalists have run the math on this, and as we all know, the news media are the best source for science. “More often” isn’t as sexy, but it’s what those useless scientists said.
Did you get this by googling “la Nina unprecedented,” RLH, and was it the best you could come up with?
“The current double dip La Nina is now into unprecedented territory.
As I have been pointing out for a long while that a triple year La Nina is not unprecedented”
Not unprecedented in its length, but in its severity for this month (at least).
“is forecast to likely be around for a rare but not quite unprecedented third straight winter”
Unprecedented for this months severity but not for the length. Did you not read?
“An Associated Press statistical analysis of winter La Ninas show that they used to happen about 28% of the time from 1950 to 1999, but in the past 25 winters, theyve been brewing nearly half the time”
As I think I was the first to use that quote here you will pardon me if I am not surprised. First warm(er) and now cold(er).
“Journalists have run the math on this, and as we all know, the news media are the best source for science”
Are you saying the statistics are wrong or is this a strawman attack?
Or should that be an ‘ad hom’?
If you appeal to an authority it’s perfectly fine to shoot them down, dummy.
Yes, I can read, Richard.
RLH: “So you agree with climate.gov that this is unprecedented?”
RLH: “Those charts show it is unprecedented.”
When climate.gov said no such thing, and the term came out of your interpretation of graphs.
“Are you saying the statistics are wrong or is this a strawman attack?”
It’s not a strawman attack when I’ve quoted the source saying Associated Press ran the stats.
And the ‘trend’ is almost certainly a linear one, which doesn’t seem to interest you today while you defend the mathematical probity of journalists. Even when the subject is ENSO, almost certainly linked to those 30-year averaged fluctuations you chide us with.
“First warm(er) and now cold(er).”
Over the last 25 years, per their statistics? Or what on earth are you trying to say?
Barry: Actually the quote about statistical significance came from LHeureux. You may of heard of her. She runs the climate.gov ENSO blog.
“And the ‘trend’ is almost certainly a linear one”
The switch of a linear upward trend into a linear downward trend. I know.
RLH,
The trend analysis was done by the News Service.
“An Associated Press statistical analysis of winter La Ninas show that they used to happen about 28% of the time from 1950 to 1999, but in the past 25 winters, they’ve been brewing nearly half the time….”
L’Hereux remarks that that statistical significance is “key in science,” but the article doesn’t say she ran a trend analysis.
“There’s a small chance that this effect could be random, but if the La Nina sticks around this winter, as forecast, that would push the trend over the statistically significant line, which is key in science, said L’Heureux. Her own analysis shows that La Nina-like conditions are occurring more often in the last 40 years. Other new studies are showing similar patterns.”
I quoted her as saying “more often,” but if you have another article showing she did a trend analysis that could “push the trend over the statistically significant line,” this Winter, do offer us the link.
“The switch of a linear upward trend into a linear downward trend. I know.”
No you don’t. You have no idea what trend line they mean and you don’t even care. The optics is all you need.
Your desire to annoy ‘warmists’ with talk of cooling is juvenile, and so afflicts you that you end up being fatuous and wrong a lot of the time.
Do you know that?
The trend is to do with la Ninas lengthening and strengthening over the past 25 years.
The article puts it that this confounds scientists who expected el Ninos to lengthen and strengthen, but the IPCC, which collates and assesses the science last year (and in previous reports) advised there was no clear consensus on what would happen with ENSO events in a warming world, particularly as past behaviour has been so variable.
As usual, a news article looks for a sensational angle.
Which is why I am sarcastic about it.
Are you that credulous? Or is the need to needle more pressing than a genuine interest in facts?
Notes on future ENSO from AR6.
“Human influence has not affected the principal tropical modes of interannual climate variability (Table TS.4) and their associated regional teleconnections beyond the range of internal variability (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the El NinoSouthern Oscillation (ENSO) will remain the dominant mode of interannual variability in a warmer world. There is no consensus from models for a systematic change in amplitude of ENSO sea surface temperature (SST) variability over the 21st century in any of the SSP scenarios assessed (medium confidence). However, it is very likely that rainfall variability related to ENSO will be enhanced significantly by the latter half of the 21st century in the SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios, regardless of the amplitude changes in SST variability related to the mode. It is very likely that rainfall variability related to changes in the strength and spatial extent of ENSO teleconnections will lead to significant changes at regional scale.”
AR6 Technical Report
Richard, why not actually just go and rad for comprehension of what the science says in a technical journal rather than hunt down what you would like to read wherever you can find it?
An amusing irony in these discussions is that it is the critics that are pushing extreme ideas, like denying physics, speaking interminably of unprecedented events and resurrecting old disputes about celestial rotation just to troll the board. The ‘warmists’ I read here are pretty mild by comparison.
“La Nina has its biggest effect in the winter and that’s when it is a problem for the West because it’s the rainy season that is supposed to recharge area reservoirs. But the western states are in a 22-year megadrought, about the same time period of increasing La Nina frequency”.
***
Typical weather weenies, poor on geography. LN cause excess precipitation in the Pacific NW and droughts in the Pacific SW. It has rained here in Vancouver throughout the month of May, going into June. Whereas rain is not unusual in Van, the amount we’ve had this may is excessive and unusual.
Normally, the first two weeks of June are unpredictable. Last June we set a record for a coldest day in early June then had a heat dome park over us in late June.
I think LN is a hoot. Has no respect for climate models or eco-weenies.
This set of extremely weak La Nina’s hardly qualifies for a temperature changing set of events.
Now if we had a decent La Nina develop that would be a game changer.
“if the La Nina sticks around this winter, as forecast, that would push the trend over the statistically significant line, which is key in science”
Weak or not, it is getting colder in the Pacific at least.
https://www.climate.gov/media/14522
You understand that the trend line they’re talking about has a period of 25 years, right? It’s not about this la Nina, it’s about Winter la Ninas over that period.
“An Associated Press statistical analysis of winter La Ninas show that they used to happen about 28% of the time from 1950 to 1999, but in the past 25 winters, theyve been brewing nearly half the time. Theres a small chance that this effect could be random, but if the La Nina sticks around this winter, as forecast, that would push the trend over the statistically significant line…”
Now, RLH. Would it deplore you if you learned that this trend was a linear regression?
Or would a straight line trend be okay this time?
It can’t be a line, it must be a cycle. More warm, more cold. Idiot.
> It can’t be a line
What is “it,” Richard?
All your difficulties stem from misidentifying that “it.”
All your difficulties stem from you being an idiot.
‘It’ in this case is not a straight line, ‘it’ must be a curve, unless you think that before the start it was even colder/warmer.
“You understand that the trend line theyre talking about has a period of 25 years, right?”
If it has a period it cannot be a line, it must be a cycle.
I thought your all agreed that over a long enough time period the overall effect of ENSO came out to 0, implying that it must be a cycle not a trend.
> “It” in this case is not a straight line “it” must be a curve
You can’t even realize that we’re talking about a trend, dummy.
A trend.
That trend is not meant to represent anything in reality.
It’s just a mathematical representation.
And your curve is not more natural.
I pity the fool who would mistake his finger for the Moon.
RLH
“the overall effect of ENSO came out to 0, implying that it must be a cycle not a trend. ”
I think not.
If ENSO was a cycle you could predict the years in which El Ninos and La Ninas occured.
It is stochastic variation around a set point. You can say that the aaverage gap between El Ninos is five years, but you cannot say that the next El Nino will occur five years after the last one.
“If ENSO was a cycle you could predict the years in which El Ninos and La Ninas occured”
Why would you think that? A natural ‘cycle’ would be a varied period in length not a pure sinusoid. In any case it is the ratio between La Nina and El Nino that we are talking about, not if one follows the other.
I do find it ironic that I am suggesting a long term ‘natural cycle’ and you are just talking about linear trends or pure random patterns.
If you think things are so easy and will always fall into pure sinusoids what do you think about eddies in fluids (and gasses). Are they regular? Do they form a long term pattern instead? How many does it take one after the other for any underlying sequence to be determined? Are they just random or is there some structure (that is plainly detectable by eye) to them and how is it ‘discovered’?
Now we are into chaos theory or multi-jointed pendulums which have a definite pattern to them but are very difficult to predict in their exact future behavior.
“You cant even realize that were talking about a trend”
What a LINEAR trend when we are talking about the ratios between El Nino and La Nina varying over time. Is that trend always colder then in the future as the data suggests might be happening soon? Or is it some long term quasi-cyclic behavior? Idiot.
> What a LINEAR trend
As OPPOSED to what kind of trend, dummy?
Ok, RLH, when Associated Press said that they have assessed there is a 25-yar trend to la Ninas in Winter that is almost statistically significant…
What type of trend do you think they are talking about?
If it’s not a linear regression, then what is it?
(A period doesn’t automatically refer to cyclicity – in this case it simply means a time period – 25 years – obviously)
“As OPPOSED to what kind of trend, dummy?”
Quasi-cyclic of course.
Barry: Do you agree than the overall effect over many years of La Nina/El Nino is 0? Do you agree that there will be periods of, say, 25 years where there will be more La Nina than El Nino and vice versa.
What would you call that observation? Quasi-cyclic is my choice.
P.S. The quote about statistical significance was not AP but someone in the climate science community. Have a look and you will see. Ask Willard if you have any problems.
If you have another link that shows that l’Hereux calculated a trend for la Ninas, or said something more substantial than pointing out statistical significance is a key indicator in science, by all means link it yourself.
Can you link to something that actually illuminates this point, rather than dropping rhetorical questions or other stalling BS? That would be much appreciated.
Otherwise we’ll have to accept there’s not enough information in that article for what you’re saying.
“Barry: Do you agree than the overall effect over many years of La Nina/El Nino is 0?”
Over a century, pretty much. But sometimes la Ninas or el Ninos dominate for a while.
The point I’m guessing you’re leading to (because it wouldn’t be a conversation with you without having to guess what the fuck you are leading to over a period of days, if we ever actually get there) is that natural cycles dominate any purported CO2 warming trend.
If that’s your ultimate point, then my reply is that ENSO mod variability can either damp or amplify any underlying, long-term trend for a period of 2 to 4 decades (roughly), but this is not an inevitability for any given multi-decadal period.
ENSO is internal to the climate system, and not an external forcing for climate. Its mode variation is unpredictable, and in terms of AGW, of minor interest, though of course far more interesting on regional scale.
There are studies that attempt to isolate this variability from the global temperature record, which invariably leads to different trend results, and less variability in the global temp data so filtered.
5,621 Responses to UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2022: +0.26 deg. C
Not going to jinx it this time.
I do not believe there is any way this result in May could come in with a decent negative figure like -0.10 C.
Try that for a jinx, UAH.
You recon?
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/
Thanks for the link.
The cooling looks significant.
You do need to be careful as that is mostly for inside the SBL and UAH is from outside of it.
RLH, Don’t forget:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/2022/01/21/hunga-tonga-eruption-2022/
Yup. Most of the SO2 went into the water.
About the Hunga-Tonga Eruption 2022
” Yup. Most of the SO2 went into the water. ”
This is a typical Linsley-Hood post.
Just polemic, zero proof, and above all: the mental level of a 12-year old child.
*
How is it possible to think that an eruption taking place a bit below the surface and whose plume reached 30 km altitude, would leave all of its SO2 in the water?
You must really be plain dumb to think so.
Linsley-Hood calls nearly everybody an idiot on this blog; but he belongs to the most arrogant people posting here.
“Most of the SO2 went into the water”
That was not just a random suggestion by me.
“It has been pointed out that the reason the amount of SO2 emitted was small was that it was an underwater volcano. Volcanologist Masato Koyama of Shizuoka University pointed out, ‘SO2 has the property of easily dissolving in water, and is contained in the hot water from the crater. It’s possible that the amount dissolved in the seawater diminished the amount released into the atmosphere to the same degree.'”
Some studies have shown that in fact this was a VEI 6 event.
“Hunga Tonga Volcano Update; Volcano is Erupting, A VEI 6 Caldera Forming Eruption”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TbWskpiY6A
Mind you Blinny thinks that everything I post is wrong without trying to do any research on his part.
I predict less comments next month.
I predict that Willard will still be an idiot. This month and next.
I guessed +0.10 C
{just guess, as it’s weather and it’s random- but I would be bit surprised if -0.10 C or cooler}
“just guess, as it’s weather and it’s random”
Individual weather patterns are not random. The sequence, size and movement of them are. Just like any eddies in a moving liquid or gas.
Barcelona is setting up climate shelters for people to beat the heat.
Barcelona has been setting up climate shelters since 2020 to keep its residents cool amid rising temperatures during the scorching summer months. The city is turning schools, libraries, and museums into air-conditioned spaces. In 2021, Barcelona doubled the number from 70 to 163, placing 90% of its population within a 10-min walk from a climate shelter. As temperatures worldwide skyrocket, climate shelters could become as important as public restrooms.
Climate change has a disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations, so Barcelona’s shelters are particularly useful in lower-income neighborhoods but also for the elderly and people experiencing homelessness who may not have access to ventilated or air-conditioned spaces. (About 58% of homes in Barcelona have air-conditioning, and only one in three homes have it across the country.)
https://www.fastcompany.com/90755579/as-temperatures-skyrocket-barcelona-has-devised-a-simple-and-replicable-way-to-keep-people-cool?partner=feedburner&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feedburner+fastcompany&utm_content=feedburner
Is there any word on shelters to counter the plummeting worldwide temperatures yet?
This: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/adapting.html
This also: https://www.intactcentreclimateadaptation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/UoW_ICCA_2022_04-Irreversible-Extreme-Heat.pdf
I completely missed Gordon Robertson defending the fact that cooler objects can ’cause’ warmer objects to get warmer by slowing their rate of heat loss. Check this little beauty out.
“Swannie’s double plate experiment is based on Eli Rabbett’s pseudo-science of a two way transfer of heat via radiation. I applauded Swannie’s effort in putting the experiment together and lamented that he’d reached the wrong conclusion.
If you recall, he set up one plate, the blue plate, as a rigid body that could be heated through the glass of an evacuated chamber by the Sun. He measured the temperature of the BP. Then he raised another plate, the green plate, in front of the blue plate and observed the temperature of the BP. It rose, so Swannie concluded the GP was radiating energy from a cooler source to the BP, transferring heat that warmed it.
What in fact was happening was the green plate interfered with the radiation form one side of the BP, blocking off half its ability to dissipate heat. Therefore it warmed.
What Swannie failed to acknowledge is that prior to raising the GP, the BP had reached an equilibrium temperature between heat produced by solar energy and heat dissipated via radiation in the vacuum. In other words, if you cut off its ability to radiate, its only means of cooling, the temperature of the BP would be higher. When the GP was raised, it cut off half the radiation of the BP forcing the BP to that higher temperature.
That’s why the 2nd law was not contradicted, it had nothing to do with it. No heat was transferred from the GP to the BP, the only effect of the GP was to block heat dissipation due to radiation.”
Thank you, Gordon! We may quibble about the means, and I’d be curious to know what mechanism you think caused it, but you’ve finally confirmed that you can introduce a cool body to a heated system and cause a warmer object to get even warmer.
I fear you will now be trolled by critics, so stay strong!
My reply, to which Gordo has not responded:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1287516
Yet another debunking of the Green Plate Effect:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1303710
“not heat, but energy”
Some people understand the difference.
Some understand that there is no free lunch.
Otters become Sky Dragon Cranks.
🍟
“”Nature””
🍔
“View factors are purely geometrical parameters and are independent of the physical surface properties and temperature.”
Indeed.
“According to the radiative heat transfer equation, when the View Factors (VF) are equal to 1 between the hot and the cold object, heat flow goes to zero simply when the two objects are at the same temperature.”
Another correct statement.
“In a closed room, the view factor from the fireplace surface to all the objects in the room adds up to 1.”
🌮
“An Fij = 1 indicates that surface “j” completely surrounds
surface “i”.”
🍕
“if (as they suggest) the BP were to be at 244 K, radiating 200 W/m^2, with VF between the source plate and the BP equal to 1…then there would be heat flow between the two plates, but no heat flow out to space!”
Indeed. So, all that would happen in that situation is, the BP would warm until it was the same temperature as the source plate. Then there would be no heat flow between the plates, and no heat flow out to space. The BP would just have been warmed to 290 K, and would emit accordingly 400 W/m^2 out to space. Energy, not heat. The BP has just effectively become the “outer skin” of the source plate.
Do you think if you could put an outer shell around the Sun made of some highly conductive material, that it would warm until it was emitting to space only half of the energy that the Sun was emitting previously, just because there is an inside and an outside (2 sides) to the shell!? Or would it simply be warmed by the Sun until it was emitting to space nearly the full amount of energy that the Sun was emitting previously (a bit less due to the greater surface area of the shell than the Sun)?
[KIDDO] but no heat flow out to space!
[ALSO KIDDO] Energy, not heat.
Some people understand the difference between heat and energy.
Some know what a View Factor of 1 means.
Otters are Sky Dragon Cranks.
Yes, some know what VF=1.0 means. Others are Willard et al.
When will Sky Dragon Cranks release VF 1.1, Kiddo?
I don’t know, when will you lot release it?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1304006
Willard, infinite parallel plates have VF=1 between them. Just another fact for you to deny.
If a scale goes from 0 to 1, Kiddo, adding decimals after the 1 makes little sense.
Scroll down, find where Swanson originally said 1.0, and go and correct him with your extraordinary pedantry.
ES is not responsible for your mistakes, Kiddo.
Here you are, trying to save Sky Dragon crankery by distinguishing heat and energy for nothing else than a silly semantic game, confusing space with vacuum along the way, whining about pedantry.
You don’t understand anything that has been discussed. Not a sausage. So begone, troll.
🐉
Willard, please stop trolling.
Sorry, DREMT.
Gordon has explained it mostly properly – the heat loss from the plate is slowed by the presence of another, cooler one. When there is power to the system, this causes the powered plate to heat up.
Postma simply invented some physics where the equation he mentioned in comments doesn’t apply to the powered wall. He doesn’t subtract the energy between the powered wall and the BP.
Like the addled critics here, he too supplies no reference for his peculiar view that when F = 1, the source becomes a mirror, and the target becomes perfectly transmissive (while at the same time being not transmissive, or how could it radiate back to the powered wall?).
Postma’s guff is off the wall.
Thankfully, Gordo has stepped up to remind us that cool objects can slow the heat loss of warmer objects and make them even warmer if the system is powered. Like shutting a window in a heated room.
Try again, barry:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1303710
Read it a bit more carefully this time. The equation he mentions in the comments is the equation I am referring to. The radiative heat transfer equation.
I know. I mentioned it in the post that started the thread.
He’s still not applying it to the powered wall.
It should give him a result of power to the non-powered plate of half the radiative flux leaving the powered wall.
But no subtraction occurs, because the flux goes in one direction, unimpeded, at full power.
Postma gets the first bit right. Let’s say 400 W/m^2 is sent from powered wall to plate.
Plat emits 200 W/m^2 each side
So 400 minus 200 = 200 W/m^2 is the NET exchange between them.
That’s the equation in flux, which Postma does in temps [Q = s * (T1^4 T2^4) ].
But Postma drops the ball here.
It’s 400 W/m^2 between powered wall and BP, and this is perfectly transmitted by BP to GP – 400 W/m^2. GP then emits 400 W/m^2 to the void.
No subtraction has happened, there is no NET exchange, Postma contradicts a basic heat transfer equation, and thus physics, with the whacky idea that if view factor is total, BP can only emit out of one side – the side facing away from the powered wall.
Which is nuts.
Which is why there is no formal reference for this absurdity.
As I patiently explain barry, if both the “powered wall” and the BP are at 290 K, each emitting 400 W/m^2, and the view factors between them are equal to 1, then according to the radiative heat transfer equation the heat flow between them will be zero. This is what is known as “equilibrium”. If the BP was at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2, then there would be heat flow between the wall and the BP. This heat transfer would have no reason to stop until the BP was at 290 K, when equilibrium is reached. There is no heat transfer to space, since you cannot transfer heat to a “void”. So with the BP at 244 K, you would have no heat transfer between the wall and the BP, and of course no heat transfer to space. The BP instead simply radiates energy to space based on its temperature and emissivity. The BP has effectively just become the outer “skin” of the powered wall.
*So with the BP at 290 K, you would have no heat transfer between the wall and the BP*
The BP cannot emit at the same power as the powered plate emitting at 400 W/m^2 on only one side.
BP receives 400 W/m^2 because F = 1.
BP radiates from both sides, being a blackbody and not transparent.
It cannot possibly radiate 400 W/m^2 from both sides. That would make it warmer than the powered plate.
BP also can’t emit 400 W/m^2 from one side, because it is not perfectly transmissive, it is a perfect absorber – a blackbody, not a window.
BP must emit 200 W/m^2 each side – if we hold the temperature of the powered plate fixed regardless of what happens.
400 W/m2 minus 200 W/m2 = 200 W/m2
That is the NET irradiance on BP surface facing powered wall.
That’s the subtraction of flux between surfaces Postma pointed out.
So 200 W/m2 is what BP must emit from its other surface.
Energy conserved, no magic transparent blackbodies required.
In reality powered plate would warm, because BP would “interfere” with its radiative heat loss, as Gordon puts it. But we held the temperature constant to keep the figures simple.
You are confused beyond belief, barry. As just one example:
“It cannot possibly radiate 400 W/m^2 from both sides. That would make it warmer than the powered plate.”
The powered plate, at 290 K, emits 400 W/m^2. That of course means that it radiates 400 W/m^2 “from both sides”. If the BP radiates 400 W/m^2 “from both sides” then it too would be 290 K. The same temperature. With VF=1.0 between the two plates, and both at the same temperature, each radiating 400 W/m^2, the radiative heat transfer equation shows that heat flow between the two would have gone to zero. That is equilibrium. The equilibrium temperature of the BP is 290 K.
So powered plate emits on both sides? Ok!
BP can’t possibly be radiating at the same temperature as the powered plate, because it is only getting half the energy of the powered plate.
You’re creating energy that isn’t there.
400 W/m2 requires 400 watts of energy for 1 square meter
400 W/m2 requires 800 watts of energy for 2 square meters
You understand that, right?
The powered plate emits half its energy to BP, half to space from its other surface. How on Earth does BP get all of powered plate’s energy and be at the same temperature?
1st Law broken in Postma’s GPE
barry, the powered plate sends 400 W/m^2 to the BP. Due to the view factors involved, the side of the BP facing the powered plate sees only the powered plate along every possible vector of emission. Every possible vector of emission from the BP on the side facing the powered plate is met with energy coming from the powered plate. So the BP cannot lose energy on the side facing the powered plate, it can only lose energy on the side facing space. Hence it must warm until it is losing 400 W/m^2 from that side. It will still radiate 400 W/m^2 from the side facing the powered plate, but as I just explained, it is not losing energy on that side, it is gaining energy from the powered plate along every possible vector.
You wanted to bring the radiative heat transfer equation into this. According to that equation, with VF=1 between the two objects, heat flow between them goes to zero when the two objects are at the same temperature. So the equilibrium temperature for the BP is 290 K.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1304691
Read the second paragraph in that post. Think about it.
“Do you think if you could put an outer shell around the Sun made of some highly conductive material, that it would warm until it was emitting to space only half of the energy that the Sun was emitting previously, just because there is an inside and an outside (2 sides) to the shell!? Or would it simply be warmed by the Sun until it was emitting to space nearly the full amount of energy that the Sun was emitting previously (a bit less due to the greater surface area of the shell than the Sun)?”
How about you actually answer, Willard?
It appears nobody can answer that question. Makes sense it would. I am not aware of any physics law that would give the answer. The answer is always given on the basis of actually believing the photon model is in fact exactly as described. Einstein never bought into that theory and he discovered what is known about photons.
His awareness of the odd behavior of light of being there and not being there should give these guys a hint. But no way all they are is a bunch of troglodytes running buzzing around like flies while not even noticing how silent the smarter guys who actually believe that CO2 is the gas that controls temperatures but can’t explain why so they silently support the idea.
Yep they are smart they know that if they speak up about uncertainties its going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Being in the consulting industry its well known that when someone hires you to give advice on how to solve something like CO2 warming and educate the public on it. . . .well the first thing you do is pat them on the shoulder and tell them they are doing the right thing. They will leap into endless action like Dr Fauci. And the troglodytes? Well its their money and time and they can spend it anyway they like.
Please stop pulling legs, Bill.
Here is a pro-tip – if you need another thought experiment to counter a thought experiment, you lost.
Willard was unable to answer. No surprises there.
Kiddo is playing the Riddler.
Mildly surprising, usually Pup has that role.
Willard is playing the "never answer a question idiot". No surprises there.
Kiddo plays the answer-a-thought-experiment-with-another-thought-experiment.
That is all he got left. Les him cherish it.
Willard plays the "its all he’s got left" game.
The GPE was debunked years ago. I’m just trying to help barry, who obviously has doubts about the GPE (that’s why he keeps bringing it up).
The GPE was never correctly debunked because it is based on 1LOT.
DREMT now even agrees with Eli on the GPE by writing the same as Eli. Or, if not agreed, DREMT doesn’t know what DREMT is writing about.
Ball4 plays his usual "you agree with the person you are arguing against" game.
Kiddo is playing The Game.
The Game does not like it.
Willard plays his usual “call someone a condescending name in a constant effort to undermine them whilst falsely insinuating they are always trying to trick people” game.
Clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Isometry as the answer to rotations. LOL!!! Even his coherts haven’t gone that far! Not a peep! Of course here is the moment for ‘me too’ as the gang tries to rally! ROTFLMAO!
I love it when grammie pup claims to have debunked something while demonstrating again that he doesn’t understand basic physics. For example, he wrote:
Temperature represents the thermal energy contained in a mass of material, i.e., it’s “heat content”. That 400 w/m^2 is a unit of power, that is, the rate of energy transfer via radiation. So, for the single BP facing the Sun, (400 w/m^2)/2 sides or 200 w/m^2 radiated to space is the rate of energy loss. There is no “Sun Plate” heating the BP with a VF = 1.0.
Swanson, a BP at 290 K converts via the SB Law (with emissivity = 1) to an emission of 400 W/m^2. That is what I meant by “BP just radiates out to space according to its temperature and emissivity”.
This is a thought experiment. In this discussion, barry and myself are talking about a situation where there was a powered wall, or Sun plate, heating the BP with VF=1.0. barry thinks the BP would still equilibrate at 244 K. I was just explaining that the equilibrium temperature would be 290 K…and pointing out that this debunks the GPE.
No, Swanson is right.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1305184
Swanson was not even following our discussion, barry.
barry…[GR]…”Thats why the 2nd law was not contradicted, it had nothing to do with it. No heat was transferred from the GP to the BP, the only effect of the GP was to block heat dissipation due to radiation.
[Barry]”Thank you, Gordon! We may quibble about the means, and Id be curious to know what mechanism you think caused it, but youve finally confirmed that you can introduce a cool body to a heated system and cause a warmer object to get even warmer”.
***
I want to be clear that the cooler body is not the means by which warming takes place in the warmer body. The warming is a local phenomenon to the warmer body produced by a change in its ability to dissipate heat. Ergo, the warming comes from the source warming the hotter body.
I am sure your compliment comes with tongue in cheek. You are using my explanation against me and other skeptics to imply that a colder body can transfer heat to a hotter body to make it warmer, a direct contravention of the 2nd law.
My explanation was aimed specifically at Swannie’s experiment conducted in an evacuated chamber, wherein the only means of heat dissipation in the hotter blue plate was via radiation.
Swannie has claimed in this same thread that I did not respond to an earlier post of his. I will do so here. He claims the BP only responded slowly re warming as the GP was raised in front of it, the implication being that I had implied a rapid warming. I did not touch on the rate of warming and it is no surprise to me that the rate of warming was slow.
Swannie correctly pointed out that the BP warmed rapidly as the chamber was evacuated. That removed the ability of the plate to dissipate heat due to direct conduction to air molecules and the subsequent convection, if much inside a sealed chamber.
The whole point to the exercise is the 2nd law. As stated by Clausius heat can never be transferred, by it sown means from cold to hot. Swannie still claims the GP is transferring heat cold to hot.
Re Barry’s queries as to my explanation for the GP blocking radiation from the BP, I don’t have a good explanation. I have presumed Swannie’s GP was made of metal and it is a fact that metal absorbs electromagnetic energy. When it does, it can set up electrical currents in the metal which form their own counter electromagnetic fields. I am wondering if those fields can somehow interact with the EM field from the BP.
Here is one alternative explanation for his results:
https://principia-scientific.com/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/#comment-28851
Gordo still can’t explain what happens to the energy radiated from the GP toward the BP.
Gordo should remember that it’s the surface treatment which determines the emissivity and I used black paint on the aluminum plates to produce high emissivity in my experiment. It’s well known that highly polished metals with low emissivity will exhibit high emissivity when given a coating of paint with the appropriate properties, thus having metal plates makes no difference.
The GP does not “block” or “cut off” the emissions from the BP, as you claimed many times. The energy radiated from the GP toward the BP does not disappear, it’s absorbed by the BP and is thus added to the rate of energy supplied to the BP and which must then be radiated away. Clearly, that’s why the BP’s temperature increases.
You can continue to chant your 150 year old mantra while ignoring the massive pile of evidence collected since, but doing so will not change the science.
“Gordo still can’t explain what happens to the energy radiated from the GP toward the BP.”
Why is everybody so obsessed with “what happens to the energy radiated from the GP toward the BP”? Nobody cares about what happens to the energy conducted from the GP to the BP when the plates are pushed together. They just accept that “back-conduction” has no capacity to warm.
Cult Leader grammie pup, You comments about “when the plates are pushed together” is just a meaningless red herring.
Real materials exhibit thermal resistance, and thus heating one side of a plate would result in thermal energy flowing toward the other side. For any material, the thermal resistance would result in a lower temperature for the opposite side, so there could not be any of your “back conduction” from the cooler side to the warmer one.
Radiation heat transfer is not the same as heat transfer via conduction.
Interesting. Most Green Plate Effect Defenders pretend there is no “back-conduction” when the plates are “perfect conductors”. Swanson pretends there is no “back-conduction” when the plates have thermal resistance. Swanson breaks from the herd.
Either way, they all accept that “back-conduction” has no capacity to warm, but strangely believe that “back-radiation” does.
Yep Swanson’s crystal ball works a lot differently than Nate’s.
But both like to sit there promoting the thought experiments of their personal grand pooh butts while telling others slower to accept to move along there is nothing to see here.
You don’t hear top level scientists nearly as much pushing the narrative as they were 15 years ago. better to stay quiet and make sure the checks get cashed fast. Hope they are all being wise and saving for a chilly day.
the cult wants folks to ignore the 2nd Law when it suits their narative, like that bogus “back conduction” stuff, but still refuses to tell us what happens to the IR radiation emissions from the GP toward the BP. The “back radiation” is really “forward radiation” from the GP toward the BP and is the same as that emitted on the other side toward the surroundings. Gordo couldn’t do it and you clowns haven’t either.
No, Swanson, nobody is ignoring 2LoT when it comes to “back-conduction”. “Back-conduction”, like “back-radiation”, has no capacity to warm.
DREMPTY,
You guys are rewriting the second law.
The GHE defense team is properly interpreting the second law.
Incorrect.
With the quantity of science mistakes you have made on this blog, DREMPTY, I am not taking your incorrect statement as anything other than another mistake.
‘Back conduction’ is not defined in physics, it is just a means of obfuscating.
Conduction is defined in physics, and it is well understood.
That a thin metal plate is a good conductor of heat thru it is not a major mystery. It requires very little T gradient to transfer lots of heat.
That a thin layer of vacuum is not a good conductor of heat like metal is not a mystery. It requires a large T gradient to transfer the same heat as a good metal conductor would.
If this anyone is incredulous of these facts they can read up on heat transfer.
Incorrect, bob.
Nate says:
That a thin layer of vacuum is not a good conductor of heat like metal is not a mystery. It requires a large T gradient to transfer the same heat as a good metal conductor would.
—————————
Sorry Nate, bad analogy. Drop the word ‘thin’. A layer of vacuum is not a good conductor of heat as it makes no difference if it is thin or thick. And increasing the delta T doesn’t close the gap between the vacuum and the metal.
Study some physics Nate!
“Sorry Nate, bad analogy. Drop the word ‘thin’. A layer of vacuum is not a good conductor of heat as it makes no difference if it is thin or thick. And increasing the delta T doesnt close the gap between the vacuum and the metal.
Study some physics Nate!”
I see no disagreement here between you and me here, Bill.
Except its not an analogy. It is directly addressing DREMTs comparison between plates separated by a vacuum gap vs plates joined together.
The point is radiation across a vacuum gap will never be as good at transferring heat by conduction through a THIN piece of metal.
You need to explain your sound logic to DREMT.
“it makes no difference if it is thin or thick’
Keep tryin to tell the ladies that, Bill.
For conduction, thickness matters.
They cannot decide what they want, Bill. One minute the Green Plate is meant to be the insulator, the next minute the vacuum gap is meant to be the insulator. Then the next thing you know, they more or less imply that the GP warms the blue directly with its back-radiation. That is quickly denied though, and then they are back to insulation.
yep thats pretty crazy but nothing tops the end of the world outcome they believe in. If they didn’t believe in that they would probably be more curious than afraid especially if they had a single drop of science in their veins.
It takes seeing outside of the box to make discoveries and if you fear looking outside the box you can’t be a visionary scientist.
Einstein is The Visionary of all this and his discovery spurred generations of folks running computer programs and doing mathematics inside the box he described even while he was screaming NO!
Perhaps Einstein more than anybody else could see the work of describing light was far from being done. Today Einstein’s skepticism is covered up by hordes of statisticians running roughshod over what is yet to be learned. That is apparent not only to the discoverer of the photo electic effect but is also comprehended by the towering minds of folks like Curry, Lindzen, Happer and many others who recognize the uncertainty the authoritiarian power seekers are running rough shod over and haven’t sold out like some of their peers have.
Richard the Magnificient was right all along:
[2022-05-03] The current double dip La Nina is not ordinary. In fact it is unprecedented.
[2022-05-31] Not only unprecedented but statistically significant too!
https://www.climate.gov/media/14522
Click on “View Image Caption,” dummy.
Look at the pretty picture, idiot. See that this year is below all the other traces at the right hand edge/current month.
“Three-year history of sea surface temperatures in the Nio-3.4 region of the tropical Pacific for 8 previous double-dip La Nia events. The color of the line indicates the state of ENSO for the third winter (red: El Nio, darker blue: La Nia, lighter blue: neutral). The black line shows the current event Monthly Nio-3.4 index is from CPC using ERSSTv5. Time series comparison was created by Michelle LHeureux, and modified by Climate.gov.”
Oh, look! The back line is lower this month that had ever been seen before at this time of the year.
…in a 3 year La Nina.
Let me read the caption to you, dummy:
Recognize Michelle’s name by any chance?
Yup. Do you? It was she who wrote those articles I quoted above and drew up the pictures I used. Including the one in ‘unprecedented’ territory.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso
“The ENSO blog is written, edited, and moderated by Michelle LHeureux (NOAA Climate Prediction Center)”
My apologies, it was Emily Beker who wrote 2 out of the 3. The 3rd (and earliest) was by Michelle L’Heureux.
Let me remind you of one of your quotes, dummy:
So let’s recap:
First, you claim that a climate.gov chart shows that we’re entering into unprecedented La Nina territory.
Second, when called out, you quote a newsie in which Michelle L’Heureux says that, in contrast to your first claim, we are rather entering a statistically significant line.
Third, the climate.gov chart you posted is the result of Michel L’Heureux herself.
I mean, srsly.
“we are rather entering a statistically significant line”
You do realize that she was indicating a forthcoming downwards (i.e. cooling) trend?
What is the statistical significance of an unprecedented event, dummy?
“Third, the climate.gov chart you posted is the result of Michel LHeureux herself”
I know. And it shows that for this month at least we are into unprecedented territory.
It was the increase to more than 50% La Ninas that was statistically significant. Idiot.
“An Associated Press statistical analysis of winter La Ninas show that they used to happen about 28% of the time from 1950 to 1999, but in the past 25 winters, they’ve been brewing nearly half the time. There’s a small chance that this effect could be random, but if the La Nia sticks around this winter, as forecast, that would push the trend over the statistically significant {downwards} line, which is key in science, said LHeureux”
Who should we believe, dummy – Michelle L’Heureux or a cycle nut?
Only you call me a cycle nut. I just observe that natural irregular periodicity is what all large physical systems always generate and climate is no different in that regard.
“Theres a small chance that this effect could be random, but if the La Nia sticks around this winter, as forecast, that would push the trend over the statistically significant {downwards} line, which is key in science, said L’Heureux”
I support her observation with which you wish to disagree apparently.
You support her observation that an event is becoming statistically significant by suggesting that it’s unprecedented?
Something tells me that there’s a concept that escapes you.
As usual you are your idiotic self.
There are 2 things in what I posted.
The line on the graph she created that shows we are in unprecedented territory for this month at least and the statistical observation that there will have been close to 50% La Ninas over the last 25 years.
I suppose 2 things are 1 too many to hold in your mind at the same time.
God you’re dumb.
Here’s what could arguably be unprecedented:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/may-2022-enso-update-piece-cake
So that would be the strongest average anomaly. Now, compare and contrast with your first comment:
Ever wondered why people took issue with the fact that there is nothing unprecedented about a double dip La Nina? What is unprecedented is not the event itself, but (arguably) its intensity. In other words, it’s the anomaly, dummy.
You really have a problem spelling out when you’re talking about anomalies. But not as much as when you’re talking about linear trends, which is what Michelle is talking about when she says “that would push the trend over the statistically significant line.”
What trend, BTW?
Pray tell what would be statistically significant, Richard!
Michelle said that having nearly 50% La Ninas in the last 25 years would soon be statistically significant. Do you dispute that?
Micelle also drew a graph that had this year’s trace extend below that of all other years traces. Do you dispute that either?
“talking about linear trends”
Would that be a linear cooling trend?
“Ever wondered why people took issue with the fact that there is nothing unprecedented about a double dip La Nina?”
Strawman. I never said there was anything unprecedented about a double dip La Nina.
So you cannot provide a precise answer to a question that only requires you to read your damn quote, Richard:
What would be statistically significant is having winter La Ninas half of the time, Richard. The test would span on 25 years of observations.
As a climate scientist, she’s waiting for having almost 30 years to call it a trend. You, on the other hand, will call a 7 years drop statistically significant…
[RICHARD] I never said there was anything unprecedented about a double dip La Nina.
[ALSO RICHARD] The current double dip La Nina is now into unprecedented territory. Is that weather or climate?
The rhetorical question is actually interesting –
To what refers that?
So Willard being the pseudo scientist that he is doubles down on what was actually said.
“The current double dip La Nina is now into unprecedented territory”
This month (at least) shows that the black line in the graph is below all the other blue lines for this month in a 2 year La Nina. Fact.
“What would be statistically significant is having winter La Ninas half of the time, Richard. The test would span on 25 years of observations”
As I have constantly said, 25 Years of more La Nina than El Nino would be statistically significant. She recons that it will happen later this year. We shall see wont we.
Do you want me to switch my LP filter corner frequency to 25 years instead of 15?
This is getting dumber and dumber, Richard.
You asked – “Is that weather or climate?”
I asked to what that refers because you said that “The current double dip La Nina is now into unprecedented territory.”
Are you are referring to the current happenstance of a double dip La Nina, its recurrence, or the intensity of its anomaly?
No wonder you keep posting unexplained graph!
This ‘unprecedented’ event reminds me of the obscure sports trivia the sportscasters come up with in boring baseball games.
‘This is only 4th time that we had a scoreless game up to the 7th inning, two nights in a row, during the month of June, since 1956.’
LOL! Boring? The Dodgers never had a boring game with Sandy Koufax and Maury Wills. Every game was a nail biter.
“April global temperature drops to 0.77C”
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=10273
https://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/April-2022-Monthly-768×431.png
LOL Bindidong forgot whose side he is on
No, Ebaby: I didn’t.
You should better ask yourself why I posted the graph, instead of posting you eternally simplicistic thoughts. The world doesn’t end at the end of your noose.
Shows quite clearly that global temps have been on a downward slide since 2016 and are predicted to continue on for at least the rest of this year (statistically significantly so).
> statistically significantly so
This is getting ridiculous.
I know you are ridiculous. It shows every time you post. Idiot.
Usually Bindidong talks like a total retard with half unfinished sentences and psycho-babbles that make no sense and meaning , then he claims everybody is stupid because they don’t understand he is saying.
But now he topped it, doesn’t say anything at all , and claims you must be a psychic to see what he is thinking.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1303562
Nate wrote, “You already with this”
Assuming you meant I already agreed with B&E, I only agreed that the math is correct. That doesn’t mean their model is physically correct. B&E is not a textbook. Even a textbook could get by without proper peer review, but you can start with that for now. B&E need theoretical confirmation by someone other than you and the other AGW shills that proportionality to the imbalance is physically correct.
“the flow is proprtional to imbalance (deviation from Henrys law concentration)”
No, my statement and your translation are not the same. Now you have gone back to obfuscation, misrepresentations, assertions without evidence, appeals to authority, no data, no models, etc. Back to being a useless troll?
I think all agree that dPa/dt = inflow-outflow and that the ML/atm must satisfy Henry’s Law.
Then based on these two principles we find this equation, which you agreed was fine (if we ignore land flux, which could be added later).
dPa/dt = beta * [CO2]aq -alpha*PCo2.
Similar equations are used in many box-models of the carbon cycle.
Then I showed BE similar eqn 16 based on the very same principles.
Your objection was the subtraction of Pre-industrial values. I showed that they amount to subtracting 0 to both sides of the equation. You say is mathematically correct but you FEEL that is physically not. I dont know what that means.
The point is BE eqns 16 are based on the same valid physical and mathematical principles that we discussed above.
But you don’t like their consequences. C’est la vie.
To now reject them you need a valid rationale.
You keep showing me handwaving arguments, but you never back them up with data or anything other than the B&E model which I am challenging on the basis that the driving force of CO2 uptake is proportional to the total concentration, not just an imbalance. Your move is to show me that conventional first-order principle is wrong with evidence from a standard textbook or some experimental data.
“but you FEEL that is physically not.”
Untrue obfuscation. Although entirely typical for you, Nate.
Look up pressure in basic physical chemistry or themodynamics textbooks. Partial pressure is mole fraction of atm CO2 times the total pressure. Systems involving partial pressure are based on all the molecules, not just those mathematically determined by an imbalance. Again, I can explain this stuff until the moon rotation issue is resolved, but I can’t understand it for you.
“But you dont like their consequences.”
Your hutzpah is off the charts. It is you that is proposing invalid physical and mathematical principles and you that need a valid rationale. Put up or shut up.
Do you have an issue with Henrys Law? If not then I dont undrstand your issue.
It simply states that a gas above a body of water will be abs*orbed, UNTIL an equilibriim is reached: the ratio of pressure of gas to concentration in the water p/c= k. Henrys constant.
As you stated
”
o generally, yes, the deviations from a theoretical Henrys Law constant will produce a flow in or outflow from the atmosphere
IOW when there is a deviation of p from kc, there is an imbalance, a departure from equilibrium.
If the atmosphere has an excess p > kc then there will be a flow from atm to water. The driving force for the flow is indeed the pressure difference p – kc.
The flow will cause pressure in the gas to decrease
dp/dt = alpha(kc-p).
Very good. Did you come up with that yourself or finally look at a textbook?
Now the expression you wrote says “the change in the partial pressure of atm CO2 is proportional the difference in the relative concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to seawater. By relative, I mean the constant k. Do you consider k a pure Henry’s constant or one that includes the effect of carbonate equilibria?
Notice that your definition of imbalance, “when there is a deviation of p from kc, there is an imbalance, a departure from equilibrium,” is not the same as the imbalance B&E define as “deviations from the equilibrium values given above” which are current levels compared to preindustrial.
If I’m wrong, then both my spreadsheet models should give the same results.
” Do you consider k a pure Henrys constant or one that includes the effect of carbonate equilibria?”
Carbonate equilibria matters. BE eq 17 i think.
Nate,
You’re essentially using the same concept as the Bern Model which claims e-time is slower than the slowest e-time. You’re saying the ocean’s mix layer determines CO2’s e-time. No, CO2’s e-time is faster than the fastest e-time. Look at Berry’s papers.
Stephen,
I think you are right, but it has been a long time since I reviewed the Bern model and the arguments against it.
But no, a fast e-time cannot be faster than the fastest e-time. Please clarify.
Nate is zeroing in on reality and I wouldn’t want him to lapse back into simply defending the AGW religion.
stephen…chic…not up on e-times or whatever, I do think the pre-Industrial concentrations of CO2 used by the IPCC as a baseline were that low due to more CO2 being absorbed by colder oceans from the Little Ice Age. Both that and fudging Antarctic ice core data. As the oceans have warmed since the LIA, CO2 out-gassing has caused the atmospheric concentration to increase.
A German scientist, Kreutz, specializing in chemistry, reported atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 400 ppmv+ during the 1930s or ’40s.
Find the section on Kreutz…
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CO2%20Gas%20Analysis-Ernst-Georg%20Beck.pdf
The knock on the author of the paper is that he was just a school teacher. He never claimed to have a strong scientific background, all he did was collate scientific papers from experts. Calling him ‘just’ a school teacher is like shooting the messenger.
Natem
B&E’s equation (17) says the fractional deviation of [CO2}aq from its preindustrial equilibrium value is 12.5 times the fractional deviation of total carbon (DIC) from its preindustrial equilibrium value. They state that with no proof beyond their derivation given in Eqn (9). Again I implore you to provide any experimental evidence of the validity of that statement.
Chic,
For instance, you have etimes for C12, C13 and C14, with C12 being the fastest etime. The total etime will be faster than C12 etime. The etimes are not partitioned as in the Bern Model.
It would be like having a tank with a 3inch drain, then you add a two and a one inch drain. The total outflow is faster than the fastest drain.
“Again I implore you to provide any experimental evidence of the validity of that statement.”
As discussed several times, Revelle Factor has been measured the world over. You even quoted some. Go look.
Eqn 9 is properly derived. Did you find a flaw in it? It is a well established property of the ocean chemistry. See if you can find a paper from the last 60 y disputing it.
“Eqn 9 is properly derived. Did you find a flaw in it? It is a well established property of the ocean chemistry. See if you can find a paper from the last 60 y disputing it.”
The Revelle factor derivation assumes no change in alkalinity and very small change in pCO2, [CO2]aq, and DIC. The reality is those assumptions may inflate the magnitude of the factor. It has been reported in one paper I saw, but no description of how it was measured.
What seems odd to me is this. If it is such an established property, why would you have been unable to find any experimental evidence of its measurement?
If you had only three sinks with e times of 2, 3, and 4 years, under the Bern model the e time would be 2+3+4=9 years. That’s not the correct solution to the differential equation.
1/e = 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 = 1/12/13
The total e time for atmospheric carbon would be 12/13 or 0.92 years and not 9 years. It is faster than the fastest e time of 2 years.
Stephen,
Right you are. The general form of your example is equation (28) on page 149 of Harde’s 2019 paper “What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO2: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with Observations.”
Professor Harde describes it this way, “This decay rate is faster than the rate of any individual sink and it prevails as long as its concentration C or its difference to external reservoirs remains nonzero.”
The total e-time is always shorter than any individual contribution from all the sinks.
Thanks, Chic. Berry has it in his paper too.
> The total e-time is always shorter than any individual contribution from all the sinks.
Just like e-mail.
Srsly, guys – don’t you ever think things through?
Etimes always shorter?
Cmon guys. Think series and parallel. They dont behave the same.
The atm/ml/deepocean are (mostly) in series.
Thinkers can think and remain ignorant, while doers eventually get it right.
What did Nate and Willard write, if not think?
More Revelle Factor Measurements.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-55039-4#Fig4
You will undoubtedly be unhappy with it. Those are the rules of the game.
But look up the references.
Nate,
In Berry’s paper, he uses the IPCC’s e-times for deep ocean and surface ocean. He applies it to natural carbon cycle and human carbon cycle. Those e-times should work for either cycle. They only work for the natural carbon cycle. How is that possible? Albert Einstein would like to know.
Einstein offered this famous scientific principle, the Principle of Equivalence when explaining his Special Theory of Relativity. He was applying it to gravity and acceleration. If it looks the same, acts the same, and measures the same, then it is the same. Human carbon and natural carbon look the same, act the same and measure the same. They are the same. It is an inescapable scientific principle.
“You will undoubtedly be unhappy with it.”
Without even looking, I am pretty sure I won’t be. I am only interested in the truth and reality. I will be very pleased to find out how and where the Revelle factor is measured.
I forgot to mention how hard it has been looking for a needle in a haystack.
Nate,
You were right. I’m not happy with your reference which I had already read, but rejected as not showing any actual measurements. There was no mention of how the Revelle factors are measured. It seems both pH and RF are calculated and even that calculation seems to involve models. Pretty sad.
From the methods section:
“Seawater CO2 chemistry data needed for the pH and Revelle Factor calculations were extracted from the 6th version of the Surface Ocean CO2 Atlas (SOCATv6, 19912018, ~23 million observations).”
“pH on the total hydrogen scale (pH) and Revelle Factor were calculated from in-situ [variables] using the MATLAB version of the CO2SYS program.”
“The calculated pH and Revelle Factor were adjusted from their sampling year to 2000 by assuming….”
“Surface ocean pH and Revelle Factor were further adjusted from their sampling month to all 12 months of 2000 by assuming….”
“Similarly, the historical surface ocean pH and Revelle Factor from 1870 to 1990 were calculated….”
Nate,
If the Revelle Factor is such a bottleneck for absorp.tion of CO2 then why does using the IPCC’s carbon cycle data give an e-time of 8.8 years?
Chic,
Again you make an assumption that the calculation of Revelle Factor frpm measurements of the concentrations of various species is somehow based on flawed or untested chemistry principles. You keep showing skepticism that eq 9 is valid but cannot find a flaw in the math or the chemistry, and really dont seem to get it.
So you reject science that you dont get.
And thus feel empowered to ignore the Revelle Factor.
Like Berry, who has not even mentioned it in his paper.
Not reassuring.
“6th version of the Surface Ocean CO2 Atlas (SOCATv6, 19912018, ~23 million observations).”
So there are plenty of measurements here that you can use to find evidence of your massive new natural carbon inputs. Have at it.
The longer both of us fail to find actual measurements of a Revelle factor, the more reasonable my skepticism becomes.
Your failure to find measurements of the Revelle factor and any evidence that it causes a bottleneck leaves you with nothing but useless and false statements about my knowledge of science. You continue to project your feelings of inadequacy on me.
Meanwhile I will continue to investigate the science I don’t understand, which includes the illusive evidence of a measured RF.
nate…Henry’s Law is not the mitigating factor for atmospheric CO2 solubility in the oceans, it is ocean temperature. CO2 is absorbed better by colder oceans, or colder parts of oceans. It is out-gassed in warmer ocean water.
It needs to be clearly understood that Henry’s law applies at a constant temperature. As the temperature changes the relationship changes. Note that the equation you supply for the instantaneous rate of change has no temperature component. There is a form of Henry’s Law based on the Ideal Gas Law, Henry’s Law being part of the IGL.
Henry’s Law is actually a ratio of the gas-phase concentration of a gas and the aqueous concentration of a related solution. However, the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere 0.04%, is hardly enough to be subjected to Henry’s Law.
If you have a can of pop, where CO2 has been injected into solution at several atmospheres, that’s a different matter. There is a high concentration of CO2 dissolved.
When a diver reaches a certain depth in water, it is the nitrogen in his blood becomes an issue, not the CO2. That’s if he/she is inhaling air, which is 77% nitrogen. Inhaled CO2 from air has no effect.
It’s the temperature of water that affects the solubility of CO2, not the partial atmospheric pressure, a la Henry.
> As the temperature changes the relationship changes.
And what does that imply regarding Chic’s model, Gordo?
I have not been following Chic’s model I just saw Nate’s comment on Henry’s Law.
I am sure Chic is correct.
C’mon, Gordo.
Of course you are. Oh, another question –
Do you think Henry’s Law stops working as the temperature of the oceans increase?
I have already commented on that, the ratios in Henry’s Law change with temperature.
Do please pay attention, there will be a quiz in a few days that accounts for 5% of your term marks.
C’mon, Gordo –
You said that Henry’s Law was not “the mitigating factor for atmospheric CO2 solubility in the oceans,” whatever you might mean by that. Salinity and alkalinity are also involved. And all kinds of other processes, among them biological ones.
The reason I ask is simply this: if you have not followed Chic’s model and Henry’s Law still works with temperature increasing, there is little point behind your soap boxing. Nate simply reminded Chic of a formal constraint.
“However, the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere 0.04%, is hardly enough to be subjected to Henrys Law.”
Hee hee
Science deniers say the darndest things.
Google: how long have we had ice ages
—
When and how did the ice age end? Could another one start?
Chase H., Grade 3
https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/earth/ask-a-scientist-about-our-environment/how-did-the-ice-age-end
…
“It turns out that we are most likely in an “ice age” now. So, in fact, the last ice age hasn’t ended yet!
Scientists call this ice age the Pleistocene Ice Age. It has been going on since about 2.5 million years ago (and some think that it’s actually part of an even longer ice age that started as many as 40 million years ago).”
So, we in icehouse global climate and colder in last 2.5 million years.
What average global air temperature been for last 2.5 million years and how warm has been during this cold period of last 2.5 million years. And what was average global air temperature in earlier part of the ice house global climate: 40 – 2.5 = 37.5 million years?
It seems to know the average global air temperature, you need to know the average ocean temperature, which presently about 3.5 C.
If the average ocean temperature was 4 C, we would have a much higher average global air temperature.
And it seems in last 2.5 million years we probably had average ocean temperature as warm as 5 C. And recent interglacial periods have about 4 C or warmer.
What determines global air temperature, other than the average ocean temperature is the average ocean surface temperatures.
It has been long said that our average ocean surface temperature has been about 17 C. And it been determined that our current average land temperature is about 10 C.
Largely due to our hottest continent, Africa, with large part of it in the northern Hemisphere and the cold continent of Antarctica, the northern hemisphere land averages around 12 C and southern land averages about 10 C. Oh, that’s not right. See what others say:
“The yearly average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere is approximately 15.2C, while that of the Southern Hemisphere is 13.3C.”
http://itg1.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/chap14/climate_spatial_scales.html
“The average temperature on Earth lies somewhere around 57 degrees Fahrenheit (13.9 degrees Celsius). According to climate information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (opens in new tab) (NOAA), that was the 20th century average temperature, measured across land and ocean, night and day. ”
https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html
Since 22 years is too short a time period, let’s say Earth average temperature is about 14 C with average ocean temperature of about 17 C and average land of about 10 C. Average temperature entire of about 3.5 C.
So if ocean was 4 C, we would have ice free sea ice in both North and South polar regions in the summer. And considerable less polar sea ice in the winter.
And it seems can get 4 C ocean when we have a greater axis tilt [and other changes in Earth orbit]
“During a cycle that averages about 40,000 years, the tilt of the axis varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees.”
An we at “about 23.5 degrees”.
Or even with present cold ocean of 3.5 C, and our tilt 1 degree greater, we might have ice free polar sea ice [at both poles] and if keep our ocean temperature of 3.5 C, if tilt was about 23 degrees, we would more polar sea in summer at both poles.
gb…”Google: how long have we had ice ages”
***
There is a lot of bs out there about Ice Ages. I just read a book in which it was claimed several miles of ice scoured out lochs and glens in northern Scotland. They claimed upper ice layer were moving over lower ice layers.
In geology classes they explained U-shaped valleys as being caused by glaciation. However, many of these valleys were nowhere near downhill glaciers. It’s true that a downhill glacier still pushed ice on the level, however, there are valleys that are U-shaped nowhere near mountains.
That is glacier theory and glaciers require gravity to move. There is no evidence to support the theory that ice was ever several miles thick anywhere on Earth and that it moved. I would think that ice that thick would destabilize the Earth’s rotation, causing a wobble from which it should never recover.
Whereas I can understand that we’ve endured ice ages, all we really know about them is nada, zilch, essentially nothing. I refuse to accept that ice piled up two miles above the surface. There is no scientific reason for that whatsoever and the only proof is the consensus of geologists, whose forte is drinking beer and making up stories, along with their buddies in astronomy.
Well do you doubt continental shelves and having sea levels 100 meter or more lower.
“A continental shelf is a portion of a continent that is submerged under an area of relatively shallow water known as a shelf sea. Much of these shelves were exposed by drops in sea level during glacial periods.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_shelf
gb…”Well do you doubt continental shelves and having sea levels 100 meter or more lower”.
***
I’m not doubting the we’ve had Ice Ages, or as you claim, that we’re still in one, I am doubting only the more extreme claims about them, like ice piled miles high that can flow like a glacier. I agree in general about what you write about them.
Well we had a lot glaciation periods. And ice sheets are mot likely to be uniform or they could be varied as “weather”.
And got different people who are all blindfolded and describing an elephant {or many elephants and other creatures}.
And no doubt, they probably mostly disagree with each other.
You should visit Northern Ireland. You can see rock scrapes U-shaped valleys, morraines, eskers, drumlins, kettle holes. All the features of a landscape shaped by ice and not a glacier or ice sheet in sight.
Their arrangement matches what you would expect if ice sheets formed on the high ground and then spread out across lower ground .
Ice sheets form when snow falls in the Winter but fails to melt away in the summer. Over years they get thicker until the lower layers compress into ice.
Initially they form on high ground, and then flow downhill onto the flat. The thickness stabilised when the rate of accumulation on the hills matches the rate of outflow. For a small ice sheet in Ireland the maximum thickness probably never got over a kilometre. The biggies in Greenland and Antarctica are a lot thicker.
Ice sheets form when snow falls in the Winter but fails to melt away in the summer. Over years they get thicker until the lower layers compress into ice.
Initially they form on high ground, and then flow downhill onto the flat. The thickness stabilised when the rate of accumulation on the hills matches the rate of outflow. For a small ice sheet in Ireland the maximum thickness probably never got over a kilometre. The biggies in Greenland and Antarctica are a lot thicker.
One analogy I read described Antarctica as a garden table covered with wet cement. As you pile more cement onto the centre the pile slumps and flows off the sides.
“I just read a book in which it was claimed several miles of ice scoured out lochs and glens in northern Scotland”
Do you have any other explanation for the U shaped valleys and the moraines?
That worked, so if ocean was 4 C and tilt was more than 24 degrees
we would have ice free in summer and a lot less polar sea ice in winter, at both polar regions. And how warm would global air temperature? Well probably have less deserts and much higher global water vapor. And with green sahara, it seem global average air temperature could warmer than 17 C.
And if ocean was 5 C, it seems we would much higher global water vapor and could around 20 C.
But if ocean 5 C, it might cooler when tilt closer to 22 degrees.
So say Earth had about 22 degree tilt and became 1 degree cooler so it was 4 C.
It seems there would less difference in summer and winter polar sea ice. Antarctica sea ice would not grow much in winter, and not become ice free in the summer. Or Antarctica currently doesn’t have much old polar sea ice, and with much warmer ocean, but less tilt, it develop more older sea ice. And arctic ocean could increase to amount old sea ice, as compared to what it currently has.
But anyhow it seems in last 2.5 million, we have had thousands of years with average global air temperature of 20 C.
And it seems in we in the latter part of Holocene are not going to get average global air temperature of 20 C.
Barry asked me above if I had an explanation for how a radiant barrier, as in Swannie’s experiment (the GP), could cause a hotter body to warm. I don’t, other than a weak theory based on my experience and training wrt EM, but the question got me reading on radiant barriers as used in homes.
Swannie did mention that the temperature of his BP shot up quickly when the air was removed from the chamber, meaning the evacuation of air from the chamber had affected the temperature far more than the GP, which he claimed caused the BP to warm more slowly.
To me, this is proof-positive that most heat dissipation from the surface is due to air in contact with the surface, and not radiation.
Radiant heat barriers are surprisingly ineffective at reducing energy costs re heat transfer, about 5 – 10%. I was surprised they are most effective in warmer climates and that their primary use is not in lowering heat dissipation from inside a house but from lowering heat transfer into a house, through the roof especially.
Apparently, in warmer climates, the Sun heats the roofs and the heat moves via conduction through the roof to the attic. Radiant barriers are used under the roof in an attempt to prevent heat being dissipated via radiation from the under-side of the roof.
https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/radiant-barriers
I think this information poses a serious threat to the alarmist GHE/AGW theories, which are based on radiation as the prime dissipators of heat. A further impediment to the theory is that only GHGs can absorb and radiate heat. I don’t think any alarmists have ever bothered to check, or wanted to know.
According to anything I have read ***ALL*** materials above 0K radiate energy. Against common wisdom, nitrogen is known to radiate in the IR spectrum. Maybe not as much as CO2 but there is a whole lot more of it to radiate energy away…77% of the atmosphere compared to 0.04% for CO2.
I am calling for a re-evaluation of science in that regard. Alarmist climate science is based on nothing more than opinions of 19th century scientists. They have no proof that CO2 and water vapour are wonder gases that can bypass the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
“Radiant barriers consist of a highly reflective material”
Ah, they work via reflectivity, and not absorp.tion/emission. Got it.
Gorrdo wrote:
Well, DUH. But, it’s also well known that materials which emit IR thermal radiation at a specific wavelength also absorb at that wavelength. Furthermore, while solid or liquid materials emit over a rather continuous range of wavelengths, gasses emit at very specific wavelengths which appear as “lines” in spectral analysis. Those “lines” are also influenced by pressure, with the width increasing with pressure. While nitrogen and oxygen emit, the wavelengths are mostly outside the ranges of concern for the GHE.
Gordo also forgets that the radiation environment for the BP and GP includes the emissions from the glass bell jar, which is a good IR emitter, thus the temperature change for the BP with the GP raised is not as great as it would be where the experiment conducted outside the atmosphere.
–“We need Starship to work and to fly frequently, or Starlink 2.0 will be stuck on the ground,” the tech billionaire told YouTube show Everyday Astronaut.–
https://www.zdnet.com/article/elon-musk-says-starship-needs-work-to-send-spacex-starlink-2-0-satellites-into-orbit/
**According to Musk, the first Starlink 2.0 has already been produced, weighing about 1.25 tonnes and measures about seven metres long. He also believes Starlink 2.0 will supersede by an order of magnitude SpaceX’s first generation of Starlink satellites.**
[[Starship has been delayed by the FAA for another 2 weeks.]]
I have been wondering but it’s tiles and whether they work.
Starship seems to have about twice the re-entry cross section as Shuttle. And with test launch the second stage will have about same mass of Space Shuttle. Or it will float better.
Of course, if and when it loaded 100 ton payload it would be about twice mass of Shuttle.
Anyhow, I think it might survive re-entry with tiles missing.
Gordon,
“I want to be clear that the cooler body is not the means by which warming takes place in the warmer body. The warming is a local phenomenon to the warmer body produced by a change in its ability to dissipate heat. Ergo, the warming comes from the source warming the hotter body.”
This is exactly how w have ben explaining it, Gordon.
barry:
“Th introduction of the green plate certainly doesn’t warm the blue plate “of its own accord.”
The sun warms this system. That is the source of all the energy and heat, not the green plate.
All the green plate does is slow the rate of heat loss from the BP/GP system.”
Nate:
“In neither case is radiation of a cold object to a warm object happening in isolation. In both cases there is a heat source present, heating the warm object.
The radiation from the cold object to the warm object is simply impeding the loss of heat from the warm object that is provided from the heat source.”
Nate again:
“We have a heat source (hot object 1) supplying a constant flow of heat Q12 to a warm object (2) who is in turn supplying heat, Q23 to a cold object (3).
T1 > T2 > T3 for 2LOT to be satisfied.
In steady state with constant T2 the heat flow into and out of object 2, must be equal, Q12 = Q23, by 1LOT.
In all forms of heat transfer, Newton showed that the heat flow rate Q is proportional to the difference in temperature.
If we increase the temperature of the cold object, T3, then T2-T3 is reduced and the heat flow Q23 is reduced.
Now object 2 has a net input of heat because Q12 > Q23. It must warm!
T2 rises, because the heat flow into it from the heat source is steady, but the heat flow out from it dropped.
Its added heat obviously came from the heat source (1).
At no time was there a net transfer of heat from the cold object (3) to the warm object (1).”
Gordon again:
“Insulation does not cause a device to get hotter, it prevents it cooling as quickly. The heat comes from another source.”
——————————————————-
So we all agree that a cooler object can slow the radiative loss of a warmer object, and that the cause of the warming is not the cooler object but the heat source.
DREMT, maybe you should ask Gordon about the “of its own accord” thing. He’s already answered it, mind, just as we all have.
No heat engine is required to slow heat loss.
No work is needed to slow heat loss.
The heat source powers everything in the system.
The NET exchange of energy is hot to cold throughout the system.
The NET exchange of energy is hot to cold before, during and after.
Th 2nd Law remains unviolated.
There is no heat transfer to space, barry. You cannot heat a vacuum. So if there is heat transfer between the plates, that heat flow will have to go to zero for the system to be at equilibrium. That way, there is no heat transfer from the powered plate to the BP, and of course no heat flow out to space. No heat flowing at all. Just a powered plate that has warmed a BP up to the same temperature, because the view factors between them are 1. Both the powered plate and the BP radiating the same amount of energy to space.
Cult Leader grammie pup posts more BS:
NASA would be amazed to learn this. They spent tons of money including radiators in the design for the ISS in order to cool things inside. Those radiators are the A/C system, necessary to remove all the energy used inside, which is supplied by the solar panels and is necessary to power all the systems inside.
Swanson disagrees with barry (they won’t argue between themselves about it)…
Not my problem.
It certainly isn’t my problem, or barry’s problem, that you think a vacuum can be heated.
Cult Leader grammie pup, Are you saying that NASA doesn’t understand radiation heat transfer? Thermal energy can be radiated to Deep Space via IR radiation, a well proven fact of space science. Your ignorance is showing again.
barry’s ignorance is not showing again, Swanson. barry is correct. You cannot heat a vacuum.
“There is no heat transfer to space, barry. You cannot heat a vacuum.”
DREMT’s ignorance of thermodynamics is showing. There is energy transfer to/from space, DREMT. You can add energy to space.
An object can emit energy through space, indeed.
Yes, thus DREMT agrees Eli’s solution is correct since the GP & BP both can emit energy through space. Indeed, accordingly the GPE has NOT ever been correctly debunked.
We were only talking about a powered plate at 290 K and a BP, troll, with view factors = 1 between them. The BP can emit energy through space. Not heat. You cannot transfer heat to space, as barry agrees. Thus, once the BP has been warmed to its equilibrium temperature of 290 K, it simply radiates 400 W/m^2 of energy through space. No heat is being transferred from the powered plate to the BP, since they are at equilibrium; and no heat is going out to space. Heat flow is at zero. The powered plate simply warmed the BP until it was the same temperature as the powered plate, because with VF = 1 between them there are no losses. It’s an idealized scenario.
“We were only talking about a powered plate at 290 K and a BP”
No, there is a GP discussed too so DREMT is wrong yet again showing ignorance of the latest discussion: “barry: Th introduction of the green plate certainly doesn’t warm the blue plate “of its own accord.””
barry and I have been going back and forth for a while, Ball4. You’ve obviously not been following it. Currently, we are discussing a situation where there is a powered plate and a BP, only.
Doesn’t matter the exact situation DREMT, an object can emit energy through space as you write just like in Eli’s correct solution for the GPE.
E-Lie and the gang need it to be heat, not energy.
Postma and toadies invented a new form of thermal energy that can be exchanged between bodies that is NOT HEAT.
Why? To evade the law. The First Law of Thermodynamics, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Of course they can cite no physics source that agrees with them.
Because it is total fiction.
They have a weird desire for the BP and GP to be at the same temperature.
But of course this makes absolutely no sense.
All agree that the BP has heat input from the sun. TO insist that it has NO HEAT output and yet reaches a steady temperature is just plain dumb, and violates 1LOT.
…and, Ball4, E-Lie and the gang need to remember that space is not a body.
As does DREMT need to remember such – since Eli has Earth as a body, not space when Eli writes:
“warm body the Earth, which then radiates the same amount of energy to space.” so DREMT writing 3:18 pm “An object can emit energy through space” indeed agrees with Eli’s workout of the GPE.
E-Lie and the gang wants you to believe that 1LoT prohibits an object from being heated to the same temperature as the heat source, in an idealized scenario where there are no losses between the object and the heat source (VF=1). Very strange.
🐉
Very strange.
Gang signs mean no peace and violence is imminent.
I have not come here to bring peace, Bill.
But what a joy it is to take note of the multifarious ways you, above all, can torture implication.
Willard, please stop trolling.
🐉🐉
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard continues to flash his gang sign as the self annointed Grand Wizard of the Sky Dragon Cult.
Uh… did you see any comment quoted there that said heat heat was transferred to space?
No, you just invented that position to argue against it. Commonly known as a straw man.
The powered plate emits on two sides – you said so yourself.
Half its energy is radiated to the BP, half to space.
How does BP get as warm as powered plate if it only receives half the energy of the powered plate?
1st Law violated.
So you agree there is no heat transfer to space. Excellent. The rest should follow, if you just give it some thought.
If you see that the powered plate only gives half its energy to the BP, you will surly see that there is no way the BP can be at the same temperature as the powered plate. It’s a violation of the 1st Law.
The fact that heat can only be transferred to matter has zero bearing on this. BP is still getting only half of the heat the powered plate is giving off.
It is impossible that it can be the same temp as the powered plate.
This is as simple as it gets. How can you not see this?
barry, the powered plate sends 400 W/m^2 to the BP. Due to the view factors involved, the side of the BP facing the powered plate sees only the powered plate along every possible vector of emission. Every possible vector of emission from the BP on the side facing the powered plate is met with energy coming from the powered plate. So the BP cannot lose energy on the side facing the powered plate, it can only lose energy on the side facing space. Hence it must warm until it is losing 400 W/m^2 from that side. It will still radiate 400 W/m^2 from the side facing the powered plate, but as I just explained, it is not losing energy on that side, it is gaining energy from the powered plate along every possible vector.
You wanted to bring the radiative heat transfer equation into this. According to that equation, with VF=1 between the two objects, heat flow between them goes to zero when the two objects are at the same temperature. So the equilibrium temperature for the BP is 290 K.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1304691
Read the second paragraph in that post. Think about it.
You’re breaking the 1st Law of thermo.
Flux area for both sides of the plate is 1 square metre X 2 –> front and back surface.
Powered plate = 400 W for each square meter X 2 = 800 W
It requires 800 Watts for powered plate to emit 400 W in a square metre from both sides at once.
Th BP gets 400 Watts from the powered plate for every square metre it faces the powered plate.
But it has to radiate from 2 faces, as you say –> front and back.
BP = 200 W for each square X 2 = 400 W
It takes 400 Watts for BP to emit 200 W in a square meter from both sides at once.
BP is getting half the energy the powered plate is.
That’s the math.
But surely all you have to do is see the powered plate emitting half its energy to space to realize that this energy is not going to the BP.
How in the world do you imagine BP can reach the same temperature as the powered plate when it gets only half the energy that the powered plate does?
Come on, DREMT. This is something a child could understand.
If I give you a dollar from one hand and a dollar to someone else, you cant then give me a dollar and a dollar to someone else. You only have a dollar!
If I do this once every minute, you can’t match my output with any tactic. You can only hand off 2 dollars for every 4 I hand off.
I can’t believe you don’t see this. It’s so basic. It’s not complicated at all. It’s not tricky, it’s simple math. The BP gets half powered plate’s energy. It’s simply ludicrous that they could be the same temperature, regardless of view factor.
"This is something a child could understand."
Yes, it’s very simple, barry…but thermodynamics isn’t simple. If the BP is at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2, then according to the radiative heat transfer equation, there would still be heat flowing between the powered plate and the BP. You agree there would be no heat flowing from the BP to space, however…and so, until there is no heat flowing between the powered plate and the BP, the system would not be at equilibrium. The equilibrium temperature of the BP would thus be 290 K. Did you have an answer to the "Sun Shell" problem I referred you to earlier?
“If the BP is at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2, then according to the radiative heat transfer equation, there would still be heat flowing between the powered plate and the BP.”
That’s correct, heat flows from hot to cold. The situation we have here is a steady state, not an equilibrium. Just as we have in real life through Earth’s climate system.
The mechanics of the system bring us cold ocean depths, warmer surface, cooler up through the troposphere, and warming again through the stratosphere. These temperature gradients remain and do not resolve to equilibrium. Without the sun powering everything, these layers would cool and equilibrate (well, there would be a far less dynamic gradient from earth’s core outwards).
In the GPE we’re discussing there are only 2 layers, with a temperature gradient from powered plate to BP. In the original GPE, there are 2 layers and a point source providing the heat.
“You agree there would be no heat flowing from the BP to space”
This is a pedantic quibble. Both plates are losing heat, via radiation, from their outward facing surfaces.
But tell me, so I understand how you see it…
If we vanished the powered plate, obviously the BP would cool down in the middle of empty space.
It loses heat. In your own words, where would you say the heat has gone?
If you vanished the powered plate, the BP would cool due to the lack of a heat source, not because heat was being transferred to nothing.
barry, you completely dodged the point being made. Firstly, it is an equilibrium problem, not a steady state problem. Secondly, the whole point I am making is, you do not have your beloved “thermal gradient” to help you any more. You used to claim that there “should be” a thermal gradient from source to blue plate, from blue plate to green plate, and from green plate to space. Well, with the powered plate and blue plate, there is no thermal gradient. The equilibrium temperature for the BP is 290 K, the same temperature as the source. Space has no temperature, and is just the absence of surroundings. So there is no thermal gradient there, either. Heat flow has gone to zero.
Why is it so hard for you to process that given there are no losses (VF=1) the heat source just heats up the passive object until it is the same temperature? Do you finally have an answer to the “Sun Shell” question, or are you just going to keep avoiding it?
I’m trying to show that your pedantic quibble is meaningless.
“If you vanished the powered plate, the BP would cool due to the lack of a heat source, not because heat was being transferred to nothing.”
1) The heat is leaving the BP. Where, in your own words, would say it goes?
Asserting that there isn’t a temperature gradient isn’t an argument.
And that’s what you’re doing now, simply repeating an assertion and not dealing with the rebuttals.
2) How can BP possibly get the same energy and thus temperature as powered plate when it is only getting half the energy of the PP?
If PP radiates both sides, half its energy is radiated away from BP. BP can’t possibly be given the same energy that PP has if PP only gives half its energy to BP.
No, this isn’t covered in anything you or Postma has said, and is a rebuttal you are ignoring while pointing back to what’s ben said that doesn’t deal with it at all.
Please explain.
Actually, your quibble might not be meaningless. If you can answer the question, which might be unlikely, that might reveal something about how you understand the physics.
BP temperature reduces once PP is removed. It cools. Therefore heat leaves it.
1) Where in your own words would you say the heat goes?
2) How can BP possibly be at same temp as PP when it only gets half the energy PP has?
1) What heat? Without a heat source, there is no heat.
2) You wanted to bring the radiative heat transfer equation into this, but now you want to ignore what it tells you! Typical barry. How can a perfectly conducting passive object not be warmed to the same temperature as the heat source when there are no losses between the heat source and the passive object (VF=1.0)?
Answer to the Sun Shell question, please. No more evasion, barry.
Ok, you can’t answer the first question.
I thought that would most likely be the case. For you the BP cools when PP vanishes, and yet somehow no heat is lost. I guess it will remain a mystery how you piece that together in your own mind.
And you can’t answer the second question either.
You are not disputing that BP only gets half PP’s energy, so I guess it’s going to remain a mystery why you think it would be as warm as the PP. You are Simply. Not. Answering. That. Question.
If you linked me to some shell argument I didn’t bother clicking on it. Nor am I going to when you refuse to deal with the rebuttals I’ve given you for the current discussion, and which demolish your thesis.
barry knows that his answer to the Sun Shell question sinks his entire argument. So he has to pretend he did not even see it. Poor barry.
You can’t defend someone else’s crap, so now you’ve found some other crap you expect people to be interested in when all you can do is parrot the source?
No, I haven’t read it. But keep telling yourself stories, golden boy.
Oh dear, barry’s getting all childish and silly.
“Ok, you can’t answer the first question.”
Willard, on the other hand, has always been childish and silly.
“🐉”
“I’m trying to show that your pedantic quibble is meaningless.”
“Willard, please stop trolling”.
Summary stats for thread:
link MayPosts.png
RLH : 1070
Willard : 868
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team : 456
Swenson : 388
Bill Hunter : 346
Nate : 313
gbaikie : 309
Gordon Robertson : 299
bobdroege : 195
Clint R : 192
barry : 163
Bindidon : 159
stephen p anderson : 142
Chic Bowdrie : 134
Entropic man : 124
E. Swanson : 88
Brandon R. Gates : 83
Eben : 76
Ball4 : 72
Norman : 69
TYSON MCGUFFIN : 65
Ken : 53
Antonin Qwerty : 44
Christos Vournas : 35
I would rather discover a single fact, even a small one, than debate the great issues at length without discovering anything at all. – GALILEO GALILEI
Merci
KIDDO RETURNS FROM VACATION – PART III
[G] I want to be clear that the cooler body is not the means by which warming takes place in the warmer body. The warming is a local phenomenon to the warmer body produced by a change in its ability to dissipate heat. Ergo, the warming comes from the source warming the hotter body.
[B] This is exactly how w have been explaining it, G.
[K] There is no heat transfer to space, barry. You cannot heat a vacuum.
[B] Uh did you see any comment quoted there that said heat heat was transferred to space?
[K] So you agree there is no heat transfer to space. Excellent.
[S] NASA would be amazed to learn this. They spent tons of money including radiators in the design for the ISS in order to cool things inside. Those radiators are the A/C system, necessary to remove all the energy used inside, which is supplied by the solar panels and is necessary to power all the systems inside.
[K] S disagrees with B (they won’t argue between themselves about it)…
Stop trying to ridicule barry…he’s right. You cannot heat a vacuum.
“Uh did you see any comment quoted there that said heat heat was transferred to space?” might not imply what you make it imply, Kiddo.
barry agrees that you cannot transfer heat to space. That’s why he said, "the fact that heat can only be transferred to matter…"
He might have said that the issue has no bearing on what we are discussing…and he would have been wrong on that. As many other commenters, more astute than Willard, understand. That’s why barry is currently being attacked for his correct assertion that you cannot heat a vacuum, by multiple commenters.
You don’t understand any of this Willard, so don’t worry your pretty little head about it.
Barry made no such agreement, Kiddo.
But your tentatives at deflection are entertaining.
Do continue.
“The fact that heat can only be transferred to matter…”
And the energy or heat if you will, just keeps going until it hits matter, some chance that that will never happen, still whatever cools.
Here’s something right at your level, Kiddo:
https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-how-does-heat-travel-through-space-if-space-is-a-vacuum-111889
No wonder you keep shifting from “space” to “vacuum” as if they were synonymous.
#2
“The fact that heat can only be transferred to matter…”
Oh apparently I’m being attacked on multiple fronts. I missed all that.
And yes, DREMT has no idea. If you said the heat from the cooling body in the depths of ‘space’ was being lost to the universe, that would be a fair colloquial comment, as the universe includes all the matter that the thermal radiation could possibly reach (or never reach).
You can say it is losing energy to space, the vacuum, the void or whatever colloquial term, because there is no classical notion of energy having to be transferred to matter in order to be lost from a body.
Informal language is pounced on by a witless pedant desperately trying to gin up some cred.
And hopes that falsely announcing a ruckus about the issue will set the natives to bickering.
DRMT, you’re even more transparent than the BP you’re touting.
Sun Shell, barry:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1304691
“The fact that heat can only be transferred to matter
Yes but sometimes it takes a while, and sometimes the radiation never interacts with matter, and just keeps going and going and going.
Sun Shell, bob.
My pony first, Kiddo.
Sun Shell, Willard.
https://img.icons8.com/dotty/344/kawaii-french-fries.png
#2
Sun Shell, Willard.
🐎
We can observe with IR astronomy all sorts of distant objects like the remnants of exploded stars that have been cooling by emitting IR for millions of years, until the radiation finally reached us.
And then and only then, we are to believe, did they lose heat!
#3
Sun Shell, Willard.
Of course the 1LOT objects to this. Because objects that have been cooling, and not doing work, must have been losing heat.
#4
Sun Shell, Willard.
Counterpoint, Nate –
Kiddo is not doing any work but is not losing any heat.
Willard, you cannot transfer heat to space. You cannot warm space up. That is not to say that objects without a heat source, in deep space, do not cool. Of course they do. If you people cannot sleep at night without thinking that means those objects must be “losing heat to space” then carry on thinking that. Doesn’t bother me. Where this impacts the GPE is that GPE proponents try to pretend that a plate radiating energy to space constitutes part of some sort of “thermal gradient”. That is the misconception I am arguing against. That’s all.
You cannot react to any wrench Barry throws at you, Kiddo.
Why would you think yourself ready to play Dodgeball?
#5
Sun Shell, Willard. Not a single one of you dare address that point, it seems. Funny.
[HOW IT STARTED] I want to be clear that the cooler body is not the means by which warming takes place in the warmer body. The warming is a local phenomenon to the warmer body produced by a change in its ability to dissipate heat. Ergo, the warming comes from the source warming the hotter body.
[HOW IT IS GOING] sUN SHeLl
No, this whole argument started a long time before that. The GPE was debunked years ago.
I am just interested as to why nobody, not one single GPE defender, has anything to say about the Sun Shell comment. Not here, or at the comments under the new temperature update article. Curious.
If some people cannot sleep at night without thinking that means those objects are cooling, while not losing any heat, they are welcome to carry on with this erroneous, law-breaking way of thinking.
Doesnt bother me, unless they keep bringing it up to try to support their other erroneous, law-breaking ways of thinking.
I am just interested as to why nobody, not one single GPE defender, has anything to say about the Sun Shell comment. Not here, or at the comments under the new temperature update article. Curious.
🐉
Curiouser and curiouser.
Is energy intensive or extensive, Kiddo?
Either provide an answer on the Sun Shell question or begone, troll.
How do you feel about the P = (sigma) (Th^4 Tc^4), Kiddo?
The radiative heat transfer equation. Willard reveals he has not been paying any attention.
Some argue it’s a bogus equation, Kiddo.
I want to know where you stand on this.
Also, you’re in my thread.
So you begone unless you answer my questions.
How does insulation work exactly, BTW?
Willard continues to embarrass himself by revealing how little he has followed the discussion.
Kiddo will play the Riddler in *my* thread instead of answering the simplest question, perhaps because that would set him apart from other Sky Dragon Cranks.
He should begone, but The Game is all he got left.
If you had the capacity to follow and understand the discussion up until now you would not need an answer. You would already know.
Kiddo refers to a “discussion” but there’s never any discussion to speak of when he’s involved. Perhaps he’s idealizing his trolling here for more than three years around a simple model with only three terms two of which are identical.
I’ve read my share of that “discussion,” and might soon pay due diligence to it if his trolling continues. He should know by now that making me work always comes at a price. He could have made a simple gesture of cooperation. It would have saved time, and it would show he has some honor left.
Sky Dragon Cranks ought to beware their wishes. They never do.
Sad.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re in my thread, Kiddo.
Go PST elsewhere.
A thread you created about me, in a pathetic attempt to humiliate and discredit me. Willard, please stop trolling.
The thread started by this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1306213
This comment was written by me.
Go PST somewhere else, punk.
Yes, it was written by you. About me. Hence I have every right to ask you to stop trolling. Willard, please stop trolling.
You don’t get to PST me in my thread, Kiddo. Read the exchange reproduced in the comment that starts it. Your silly riddle have little to do with it, in fact you’re the one trolling right now.
As far as ridicule is concerned, you certainly don’t need me.
Same trick you always pull…remove all the necessary context to understand the point I was making, omit crucial details like barry saying, “the fact that heat can only be transferred to matter…”, i.e. agreeing with me…omit most of what I said. Omit most of what barry said. What you present is nothing like a true picture of what I was trying to get across. Which you will never understand, and which you have absolutely no interest in even trying to understand.
Willard, please stop trolling.
No amount of context will justify you PSTing in my thread, Kiddo.
Answer Barry’s question. Then try to bait him with your silly bait.
If that does not work, make your damn point.
You cannot play The Game.
The Game is not for you.
Be gone.
It is a thread about me, idiot. If you are going to start threads about me where you misrepresent me in an attempt to ridicule and discredit, expect pushback. Willard, please stop trolling.
“I am just interested as to why nobody, not one single GPE defender, has anything to say about the Sun Shell comment. ”
Why won’t anybody follow me down this other rabbit hole of misdirection?
If your efforts to fool people on one problem have failed, just switch to another one. Troll Handbook: Chapter 11.
DREMT has not used any real science to solve the GPE problem.
He just argues based on the principle that his intuition about what the answer should be, ought to give the correct answer.
But his intuition is often nonsensical:
Objects in the shade are just as warm as objects in the sun?
Vacuum should be just as good at transferring heat as conduction by metal in contact?
Has he ever burned himself by NOT touching the hot pan?
Then he attempts to rationalize his intuition with pseudoscience:
Flux lines hitting each other and cancelling out.
Thermal energy transfer without heat flow.
Then he tosses out sciency phrases like ‘view factors’ or ‘idealized scenario where there are no losses’, but just misuses them to justify any answer, specifically his.
When other people point out the correct science, he just ignores it.
Changing the problem won’t change the result, unless D suddenly starts using real science.
Nate says:
DREMT has not used any real science to solve the GPE problem.
——————
The pot calls the bacon in the pot black.
Nate says:
He just argues based on the principle that his intuition about what the answer should be, ought to give the correct answer.
But his intuition is often nonsensical:
——————
The pot calls the bacon in the pot black.
Nate:
Objects in the shade are just as warm as objects in the sun?
Vacuum should be just as good at transferring heat as conduction by metal in contact?
Has he ever burned himself by NOT touching the hot pan?
Then he attempts to rationalize his intuition with pseudoscience:
Nate:
Flux lines hitting each other and cancelling out.
————————
cold stuff warming hot stuff is a violation of 2LOT Nate.
Nate:
Thermal energy transfer without heat flow.
————————-
2 entirely different things Nate. Heat flow is the flow of heat from one object to another. You can’t have heat flow from a cold object to a warm object. Thats a violation of 2LOT.
Nate:
Then he tosses out sciency phrases like view factors or idealized scenario where there are no losses, but just misuses them to justify any answer, specifically his.
When other people point out the correct science, he just ignores it.
————————
Still waiting for your corrections Nate.
Nate:
Changing the problem wont change the result, unless D suddenly starts using real science.
————————-
One cannot prove a negative Nate. The ball is in your court or are you going to wiff? Statistics resoundingly says YES! You are like an 0-12 team playing for the Natty.
there are a number of possible explanations for why the theorized photon theory doesn’t warm warmer objects and these theories have analogs in a number of theorys regarding the transference of energy through space and solar systems.
The solar wind and magnetic belts for example both deflect radiation flying through space. Yet our warmists on this board insist it is settled science that radiation from cold objects warm warmer objects and just simply arm wave away the 2LOT.
And of course they want the skeptics to prove their theory doesn’t work instead of themselves proving their theory works.
So they always respond to such answers, despite the existence of analogs that slipstream the radiation of energy around planets and suns.
Einstein is the one who discovered this rather peculiar behavior and no doubt it provides the foundation of those that took his discovery and abused it much to Einstein’s protestations.
But NO protesteth the warmists. Fossil fuel bad! Bad needs to prove its innocence.
that explains why the only evidence claimed arises from black box models, statistics, and liars.
I have studied the problem and see possibilities and alternative theories for what causes climate variability. But why throw them out as they will just face a wall of denial in exact the same way the popular theory creates a wall. Some of us are from Missouri the only State with the motto: Show me! Show me why I must submit to the authoritarian state! And thats the whole deal in a nutshell. Just because you want your theory to be true doesn’t mean I should be forced to live it.
"Nate: Flux lines hitting each other and cancelling out. ———————— cold stuff warming hot stuff is a violation of 2LOT Nate."
You see, Bill, this is part of why I don’t bother responding to Nate any more, and haven’t done for years. Nowhere did anyone ever say or even imply anything about "flux lines hitting each other and cancelling out". He either dishonestly misrepresents, or genuinely doesn’t understand, what was said on the matter. Either way, from experience I know that no amount of going over what was actually said and attempting to explain it to him will ever get through to him, so I simply don’t bother. He’s just "No Point Nate". No point ever talking to him. I admire your persistence in trying, though.
Yep only two possibilities here. Inculcation or private agenda.
This is not a thread about you, Kiddo.
It is a thread about your silly semantic game about vacuum and space.
It is a thread about you trying to misinterpret what Barry said.
It is a thread about The Game.
About how you suck at it.
You suck at it so much you cannot even realize what this thread is about.
And here you are, trying to PST me in my thread.
Bill forgot a third possibility, and a fourth.
He forgot education, which you do not have.
And manners, the lack of which will lead to your demise.
Manners make the the Climateball player.
Begone, troll.
You have not the foggiest idea what any of this is about. Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard says:
He forgot education, which you do not have.
———————————–
Education is a mixed process of inculcation and learning how to prove something is true with plenty of examples. We know each classroom has its share of rote learners using cheat sheets to pass tests without having ever really learned the lesson. It requires a curious and interested mind to avoid that trap.
Being truly educated is not a result of time in class, but instead is a combination teacher competence and student interest and his desire to reach for a deeper understanding than rote memorization.
Rote learners tend to project and extrapolate because they don’t really understand the tools they are working with. Its like a carpenter learning how to use a chisel to chisel out a mortise for a door hinge and then that same carpenter taking his prized chisel to a steel door jamb to do the same.
One can easily identify the inculcated as they can never ever provide clear blueprinted proofs of what they tell you to be a fact. And you willard are the most inculcated of the whole lot in here as you consistently demonstrate a complete lack of that deeper understanding. You are even a non-spinner who fancies himself as a spinner. That comes out everytime you try to get to the bottom of something. You are aware of your own shortcoming so instead your main stock in trade are pointless attacks on others. As was demonstrated by your top post here . . . .Kiddo returns from vacation where you continue to make an idiot of yourself by continuing to use incorrect language regarding heat and energy. Yeah Willard real impressive argument that anybody who has a single course in physics can easily see through.
I do know what this thread is about, Kiddo.
I wrote the comment, and know what it’s about.
Go PST somewhere else.
Begone, troll.
No, you don’t have a clue. Willard, please stop trolling.
You should beware your wishes and bide your time, Kiddo.
Here’s another way to echo the point I was making above:
[BARRY] Maybe you should ask Gordo about the “of its own accord” thing. He’s already answered it, mind, just as we all have.
[KIDDO] There is no heat transfer to space, Barry.
Not only you no business playing The Game, but you should not play Questions.
Go PST elsewhere, punk.
That proves once again that you have absolutely no idea what any of this is about. Not a Scooby. Please, keep embarrassing yourself. Say more stupid things, for my amusement.
DREMPTY,
Your sun shell is just the iron shell game from WUWT, that does not produce any extra knowledge of the greenhouse effect.
That’s a dead horse and you know you never saddle a dead horse.
You can ride it all you want but you won’t get out of the box canyon.
Tonto won’t even get his hands dirty, even though he works for free.
bob carefully avoids answering the question.
Why would I bother DREMPTY,
Until you get the Green Plate question answered correctly there is no point, you will just run off to another problem you can’t correctly solve.
Another interesting back and forth, Kiddo:
[BARRY] Where in your own words would you say the heat goes?
[KIDDO] What heat? Without a heat source, there is no heat.
Notice how you once more you fail to answer a question?
You always do that.
That disqualifies you from playing Questions.
You suck at The Game.
Go PST elsewhere, punk.
bob knows he would look ridiculous if he answered that the Sun would only warm the shell until it was emitting half of the energy (in W/m^2) to space that the Sun was previously emitting, just because there is an inside and outside (2 sides) to the shell. He knows he would look even more ridiculous if he said the shell would cause the Sun to warm up. Yet that is what his GPE logic says would happen. So he is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Hence he avoids answering.
Willard somehow missed that a full answer to barry is given in my comment here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1307917
He is not the brightest, though.
Once again Kiddo relies on handwaving to cover his failure to cooperate. Another funny one:
[K] By treating the plates as though they are infinite in size, you can have VF equal to 1 without the plates being in contact with each other. However, any infinitely-sized plates with a finite gap inbetween them are for all intents and purposes, effectively in contact, if you think about the scale involved.
[ES] Two plates “touching” are essentially one plate with twice the mass. That doesn’t change the single plate’s temperature.
[K] We know all about how back-radiation supposedly has the capacity to warm, but back-conduction somehow does not. Already been through all that.
He sucks at trolling. He sucks The Game.
Does he remember what The Game is?
“Nowhere did anyone ever say or even imply anything about ‘flux lines hitting each other and cancelling out’. He either dishonestly misrepresents, or genuinely doesnt understand, what was said on the matter.”
Here’s the quote from DREMT.
“This results in every single vector of emission from the [GP] being met with an opposing vector of input from the [BP]. That is, the [GP] cannot lose energy in the entire hemisphere of potential emission facing the [BP].”
“The Green Plate can only lose energy on the side facing space, unlike the Blue Plate”
But this is completely nonsensical! Nothing to do with VF = 1. He is trying to double count the BP emission.
If as he erroneously assumes, both BP and GP were emitting 200 W/m^2 toward each other, then both are STILL LOSING that energy.
The GP would still be losing 200 W/m^2 of energy on both sides, and receiving 200 W/m^2 of energy from the BP, on only one side.
This means 200 input and 400 output. 1LOT is not happy with that.
Willard is just going to keep quoting snippets of conversations that he does not understand, whilst insinuating that I am not sincere.
Kiddo is wrong once again, this time suggesting that I question his sincerity. He should rest assured that I don’t doubt it. Whether he’s sincerely wishes to break the Cooperation Principle or not matters little.
It just so happens that he does.
Time and time again.
All while playing The Game.
Does he recall to what The Game refers?
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Go PST in someone else’s thread, punk.
The Game – remember it?
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
Kiddo carefully avoids answering the question about The Game.
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Another interesting “conversation”:
[B] Where in your own words would you say the heat goes?
[K] What heat? Without a heat source, there is no heat.
[B] Ok, you cannot answer the first question.
[K] B knows that his answer to the Sun Shell question sinks his entire argument. So he has to pretend he did not even see it. Poor B.
DREMPTY,
I would chose the more ridiculous answer, if I were to answer, because that’s the one that satisfies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, however, I am not answering because
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
etc.
Wow obfuscation mode on steroids! Folks get over it!
The greenhouse effect requires greenhouse gases, clouds, and more. A simple greenplate experiment is simply not going to warm the mean temperature of any plate more than to the equilibrium established by the mean energy received.
Get over it and grow up and stop whining about what your daddy told you was so. In any simple heat transfer situation, by radiation or conduction, you have to reduce heat loss to zero! Thats a fact!
…and no doubt if the Sun was actually touching the inside of the shell, bob would go for the correct answer…however when there is even just a tiny vacuum gap between the Sun and the shell, magic happens. The Sun is warmed by a passive shell, and the output from the passive shell is halved, just because there is an inside and an outside to the shell (which there still was when it was touching the Sun anyway, but all logic and common sense goes out the window because we have switched from conductive heat transfer to radiative heat transfer)…
…Willard, please stop trolling.
To recap, in DREMTs scenario the GP is 244 K and receives 200 W/m^2 from the BP also at 244k, but the GP emits in only one direction, 200 W/m^2 into space. The 200 W/m^2 it emitted toward the BP: “every single vector of emission from the [GP] being met with an opposing vector of input from the [BP].” and this meeting of the vectors somehow causes the GP emission to VANISH.
While the sane people think the GP would still emit 200 W/m2 toward the BP. It still emits in two directions! And the math would say 200 W/m^2 into, and 400 W/m^2 out of the GP.
And thus the GP must cool, and the BP must warm to make the math work out.
Maybe Bill can get inside DREMTs head and explain to us what he thinks DREMT thinks is going on between the BP and the GP to causes the emission from the GP toward the BP to magically vanish, as if it was never even emitted?
So, to recap, Team GPE believe that 400 W/m^2 received from a point source is to be handled in the exact same way as 400 W/m^2 received from an infinite parallel plate. View factors be damned! The fact that a BP emitting towards a point source can lose energy in the entire hemisphere of directions facing the point source bar the one direction exactly perpendicular to the plate (so in effect the BP can lose energy from both sides of the plate), whereas with the infinite parallel plate source every possible vector of emission from the BP towards the source is met with energy coming the other way from the source (not meaning that any energy is "blocked", by the way), is just ignored.
This extraordinary lapse of logic leads them to all sorts of absurd conclusions. Like, in the case of the Sun Shell (where view factors between the Sun and the shell are again = 1, like with the infinite parallel plates), if you have a tiny vacuum space between the Sun and the shell, they believe the shell will only warm until it is emitting half the energy (in W/m^2) to space that the Sun was emitting previously. Until, of course…the passive shell starts to warm the Sun!
Whereas, if the Sun was actually touching the shell, and heat transfer to the shell was via conduction and not radiation, they would be perfectly happy to believe that the shell would simply warm until it was emitting much the same amount of energy (in W/m^2) to space as the Sun was previously…slightly less because the surface area of the shell would be a tiny bit larger than the surface area of the Sun…but basically a very similar amount of energy (in W/m^2).
So…Sun touching shell, the Sun/Shell emits about 63,204,400 W/m^2 to space at a temperature of 5,778 K. Tiny vacuum gap, the Sun/Shell emits only about 31,601,200 W/m^2 to space at a temperature of 4,859 K! That is, until the Sun itself starts to magically increase in temperature due to the back-radiation from the passive shell…
…"you couldn’t make it up".
DREMPTY,
I am sorry, but you don’t understand the physics involved.
I can’t help you figure it out.
Try to do some experiments you can do, rather than make up scenarios that would be impossible to do.
Have a nice life.
Yes indeed, only very "special" people like bob understand the physics of the Sun Shell…
DREMPTY,
Seems you get your jollies from this.
But try this, right hand on hot griddle, left hand one millimeter above hot griddle.
Then let your brain tell you that the heat transfer is the same.
Sure, there are differences between conductive heat transfer and radiative heat transfer…
"So…Sun touching shell, the Sun/Shell emits about 63,204,400 W/m^2 to space at a temperature of 5,778 K. Tiny vacuum gap, the Sun/Shell emits only about 31,601,200 W/m^2 to space at a temperature of 4,859 K! That is, until the Sun itself starts to magically increase in temperature due to the back-radiation from the passive shell…"
…but they’re not that different!
Put the shell around the Sun, it would just warm up until it was emitting much the same to space as the Sun was previously. That would be the case if the heat transfer from the Sun to the shell was by conduction, or radiation.
DREMPTY,
“but theyre not that different!”
You are making a fallacious argument.
Put your hand on a hot griddle, put the other hand just above the hot griddle and then tell me the heat transfer is the same.
I double dog dare you.
What’s the matter, are you too lazy?
Is my hand a perfectly-conducting blackbody plate, bob? Would the experiment be taking place in a vacuum? No, obviously not, is the answer to both those questions. With your hand on the hot griddle, there is only conduction. With your hand held over but separated from the hot griddle, there is conduction (to the air), convection, and radiation taking place. So there is cooling by the air currents, which is partly why your hand does not get as hot. Even with the radiation, there will be losses past the edges of your hand. With VF = 1 between objects, there are no losses at all. In a vacuum, the switch is from purely conductive transfer to purely radiative transfer. No additional cooling from air to confuse the issue…
…but by all means, keep trying to distract from the Sun Shell example…
> obfuscation
Oh, Bill. As far as obfuscation is concerned, Kiddo bows to no one except you.
Please stop trolling.
Have you too forgotten what is The Game?
Kiddo sucks at it, yet he cannot let go of it.
He should not have tried to PST me in my own thread.
DRMEPTY,
You don’t get that conduction works better than radiation at transferring heat.
Man, that’s a whole bushel full of stupid.
You don’t get that the Sun shell example shows exactly how ridiculous your beliefs are.
Infinities and exactness do not work well together, Kiddo. How much watt an infinite solar panel can produce? Not that this is of any relevance for this thread, which is about The Game.
The Game. You know what it is?
Start with this post on a primer on how to use the engineering toolbox and SB equations correctly.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1310432
Use all my comments as a guide. Verify everything. Its all verifiable on the internet.
If you find something wrong with what the equations tell you and DREMT or my conclusions. Be sure all energy flows and their sources are accounted for. don’t just start handwaving. Be explicit in your criticisms.
Meanwhile you can do the same thing for this experiment.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf Its a bit more advanced but operates on the same principles.
And remember in the atmosphere experiments have heat flows that are not just radiation flows. Those flows can be located in classroom engineering courses on heat flow through windows.
So don’t take my word for it. Don’t just wave your hand and pick what you want to pick. Trust but verify!
Fact is all this is is very basic physics properly applied. Old time heating and air guys had to do this without a formal education. High school graduates that might take a vocational course, read a book, pass a test and get their license. It really isn’t difficult to figure out if you dive into the details.
So please no hand waving. If you want to dispute this be very specific about what you are disputing.
See, Bill?
That is obfuscation.
The Game. Do you know The Game?
So it looks like Bill cannot get inside DREMTs head and explain to us what he thinks DREMT thinks is going on between the BP and the GP to causes the emission from the GP toward the BP to magically vanish, as if it was never even emitted?
Thats ok, Bill, DREMT cant explain this magic vanishing either.
#5
Willard, please stop trolling.
Go PST somewhere else, punk.
I agree with DREMT that the GPE is incapable of warming something to a level higher than the SB calculated equilibrium.
I disagree with the notion that two plates together 244k/244k do not become 262k/220K when separated because they do.
I agree with DREMT that it is not because the 262k plate was warmed by the 220k plate.
The warmth of the 262k plate is due to the insulation effect of the vacuum gaps and a plate interrupting the loss of heat to the abyss. Its a passive resistance not a forcing.
Insulation does not create a forcing it merely resists the loss of heat.
For some strange reasons sky dragon cultists believe that this resistance results in the blue plate getting warmer than the original source of radiation. When all it does is retain heat more heat as the energy flow decreases.
Equilibrium results when two 290k objects come into a FV=1.0 of each other. Forcing advocates believe that would cause both plates to spontaneously combust if insulation of the system was sufficient.
Its hard to say if the politicians were fooled by James Hansen or they saw an opportunity in James Hansen. Mostly likely it was a combination of both and certainly the latter.
Jim may not have been alive during Rudolf’s times, Bill. He may have had a chance to meet Svante with a premature birth of 14 years.
It’s about time you stop JAQing off and take a stand.
Welcome to the Sky Dragon Cranks Fight Club!
"I disagree with the notion that two plates together 244k/244k do not become 262k/220K when separated because they do.
I agree with DREMT that it is not because the 262k plate was warmed by the 220k plate.
The warmth of the 262k plate is due to the insulation effect of the vacuum gaps and a plate interrupting the loss of heat to the abyss. Its a passive resistance not a forcing."
Ah, but it’s supposed to be "The Green Plate Effect", and not "The Vacuum Gap Effect". The warming of the BP is meant to be the result of the back-radiation from the GP, and not the presence of a vacuum gap.
In any case, before you go ahead and commit to agreeing with the GPE guys in their 2-plate scenario, you should probably be made aware of the 3-plate scenario.
In the 3-plate scenario, a central blue plate has an internal energy source such that it emits 200 W/m^2 to space at a temperature of 244 K. Now, adding a green plate either side of the blue, with VF=1, supposedly causes the central blue plate to rise in temperature to 290K, such that it emits 400 W/m^2! That’s according to the exact same logic that E-Lie and the gang use for their 262 K…220 K solution to the 2-plate scenario.
So, this is what they’ve suggested in the past. Plates together: 244 K…244 K…244 K. Plates separated, 244 K…290 K…244 K!
So that’s a 46 K warming of the blue plate, simply by separating the plates!
Correct solution would be 244 K…244 K…244 K, separated or together.
Well its incredibly simple to verify what I am saying as true.
Take Eli’s math and check it.
He has a 2 ‘floating’ plate system that blocks 300w/m2 of heat loss from the 400w/m2 source.
Follow his mathematics and if you have a 20 ‘floating’ plate system it blocks 399.9969w/m2 with the last plate contributing .000381w/m2.
The max in this system is 400w/m2 and only at that point does equilibrium exists between the source and the first floating plate.
The earth’s surface is such a system with more than 20plates except for it only being a conduction resistant equivalent.
Eli is just tossing these guys mackerel like the showman does at Sea World with the trained seals.
And absolutely correct it is a vacuum gap effect and not a green plate effect. The green plate isn’t doing much of anything at all other than forming the barrier for the gap. Its insulating resistance is a pittance. Now if the earth were solid copper it would still be a lot of insulation.
To become a forcing agent it needs to get hotter than 290k
There’s nothing wrong with E-Lie’s math, it’s the physics that it represents that he gets wrong. As I said, Team GPE believe that 400 W/m^2 received from a point source is to be handled in the exact same way as flux received from an infinite parallel plate. View factors be damned! They don’t involve the radiative heat transfer equation in their solution. They don’t really consider heat flow at all, in fact, although no doubt someone will try to convince you that they do.
Plates together at 244 K…244 K…244 K, plates separated at 244 K…290 K…244 K should tell you that’s something’s badly wrong with their physics.
Just trying to help
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
Perhaps, Bob, but what about Backconduction?
Anyway…the GPE’s debunked.
I don’t know about backconduction Willard.
Reflected power can blow a 50 amp fuse.
…reflection…not absorp.tion/emission.
Unreflected powerlessness too, Bob.
Just look at Kiddo, blowing a fuse at The Game, waiting for a response from Bill.
Plates together at 244 K…244 K…244 K, plates separated at 244 K…290 K…244 K should tell you that something’s badly wrong with DREMT’s physics. DREMT has yet to prove the 1LOT, 2LOT, and experimental evidence don’t hold in order to debunk the GPE.
Oh yeah! Ball4 agrees that plates together 244 K…244 K…244 K, plates separated 244 K…290 K…244 K is wrong. I almost forgot about that. He criticized it a few years ago. Then he realized that everyone else in Team GPE was defending it, so had to find some way to wriggle out of what he’d said.
Anyway, Kiddo is still playing The Game.
Yes shifty Eli said enough to create the false impression of a greenhouse effect without saying anything that could was outside the realm of science. He was ecstatic to have created the concept of GHE and left to everybody’s imagination what the next step was.
Obviously it was enough to fool a lot of people. Thanks to DREMT and Postma for calling out his BS.
Obviously if you believe he was promoting the 3rd grader model you should note his math is wrong for that. The first plate should now be emitting more in both directions and thus the greenplate more also. But gee he didn’t do that! Why is that Swanson?
I always love the dilemma of how the blue plate can warm to virtually 400w/m2.
Then you can have two plates each emitting 400w/m2 facing off with each other.
It is amusing to think which plate, in the mind of a radiation only GHE true believer, would be warmed by wattage from the other. The one on the left or the one on the right? Or do they warm each other? That last one is really amusing because if they do then you got 800w/m2 facing off with each other and then what do they do? Oops now they are ‘forced’ to do it again. . . . and again. . . . and again. . . .
Willard do you want to take a shot at this? You seem the most qualified to do so. Its a great mystery to me.
> He was ecstatic to have created the concept of GHE
I’m quite sure Eli was not the first to speak of the Greenhouse Effect, Bill. Why “GHE”, BTW? That’s not how abbreviations work.
Greenhouse. Not Green House.
Why don’t you tell me if you recall to what The Game refers?
E-Lie is very, very sneaky indeed. When you have the Green Plate on just one side of the Blue Plate his math works out that the more GPs you add to that one side, the closer the temperature of the BP gets to a theoretical maximum e.g. 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2. That at least seems plausible enough to fool people. Whereas if you have GPs on both sides of an internally-heated BP, or if you have shells around an internally-heated sphere, his math works out that the more GPs you add to both sides, or the more shells you add, the more the BP or sphere warms indefinitely. That should give people pause for thought, however it is not unless and until you really investigate his thought experiment that you find this out.
Kiddo discovered B A C K C O N D U C T I O N.
Who can argue that The Game was puerile?
GHE defenders love back-conduction:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1162952
Kiddo found a non-native English speaker who disappeared since the ZZs invaded Ukraine and who admitted was seeing facetious. Physicists ought to invest a bit more on their PR front.
With a little bit of luck he might phage found an older mention:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
Notice how that Sky Dragon Crank was not happy about the new pet concept Kiddo toys with while playing The Game.
So, to recap:
– Cranks deny the Greenhouse Effect because of B A C K C O N D U C T I O N is true.
– Cranks deny it because it is false.
Really hard to win against Cranks.
Back-conduction really has very little to do with it. It’s just a small sanity check like, "nobody thinks back-conduction has the capacity to warm/insulate, so why do they think back-radiation does?"
Just something to ponder over.
Or at least, it certainly used to be the case that nobody thought back-conduction had the capacity to warm/insulate…nowadays you find people openly stating that it does, or conflating the concept with thermal resistance…
…oh, how times have changed.
[SVANTE] Please do show us an example of energy that is NOT HEAT being transferred by conduction. From anywhere??
[KIDDO] Back-conduction (although you would probably like to claim that is heat ).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359439
Times change until they do not.
I wonder what happened to Svante…
I wonder when Kiddo will clarify if his B A C K C O N D U C T I O N is heat or not…
No need to wonder what happened to The Game…
Of course back-conduction isn’t heat. It has no capacity to warm. Just like how back-radiation isn’t heat. It has no capacity to warm. Weird how Willard can’t follow even the simplest things.
[KIDDO, QUOTING COT] If back-conduction and back-convection exist and even back-evaporation exists, then the back-radiation exists for sure, because those all those processes are fundamentally quite similar, both macroscopically in their essence of facilitating/retarding heat transfer, but also MICROscopically.
[ALSO KIDDO] Of course B A C K C O N D U C T I O N is not heat!
I wonder if Kiddo will ever stop equivocating…
What is Willard confused about now? Who knows.
When caught having told a porky about how *his* B A C K C O N D U C T I O N is “loved,” Kiddo plays dumb.
I wonder if Kiddo realizes he has returned to The Game…
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
E-Lie is very, very sneaky indeed. When you have the Green Plate on just one side of the Blue Plate his math works out that the more GPs you add to that one side, the closer the temperature of the BP gets to a theoretical maximum e.g. 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2. That at least seems plausible enough to fool people. Whereas if you have GPs on both sides of an internally-heated BP, or if you have shells around an internally-heated sphere, his math works out that the more GPs you add to both sides, or the more shells you add, the more the BP or sphere warms indefinitely. That should give people pause for thought, however it is not unless and until you really investigate his thought experiment that you find this out.
——————-
Yes exactly. A clear violation of 1LOT.
We always have folks in here quoting Clausius and then projecting Clausius’ findings to backradiation. Gee folks energy can’t be destroyed!!!
But keep in mind that Einstein’s photo electric discovery and the invention of the photon theory to give a cartoon type visual model to it all occurred after Clausius was dead. He based his work on wave theory.
Einstein balked and refused to use the word photon preferring to keep to the inspecific name of light quanta that doesn’t imply a particle. Yes we know that light quanta exerts a resistance on energy tranfer by light quanta to an object as does conductive materials like the soil of the earth providing an equilibrium to the surface at our 400w/m2 from a 400w/m2 source. .
But we don’t know how it does it but its a pretty good analog to conductive resistance. . . .which is something else we don’t understand well either. So stick to the math and stop making stuff up. Heating engineers like Merry-go-round engineers do a fine job getting the job done without installing separate rotational motors or heaters on every particle.
It is appalling that the experts allow these stupid theories to exist without straightening them out publicly. The only reason they don’t straighten it out is then somebody is apt to ask them how does the greenhouse effect that we can measure and live within actually works. So what we have here is the blind leading the blind with the ‘printer of money’ ‘OP money grows on trees’ funder leading the wagon train. IMO, no better way to find a cliff to fall off of. Diversity has its virtues. . . .
It’s not "my" back-conduction. That was the point of linking to coturnix’s comment. GHE defenders use the term too…and even try to make out that it has equally magical warming properties as back-radiation…
Kiddo cannot bring himself to admit his equivocation. Considering cannot bring himself to accept that heat transfer is about heat, what else is new?
Another interesting cope, this time around “flow”:
[KIDDO] This all started because I said there could be energy flowing through a system at equilibrium. You demanded that I explain what that energy was.
[NATE, QUOTING PUP] No heat, but there can be net energy flow, as in the three plates in full contact, or in the correct solution
[KIDDO] I have explained it my way, Pup explains it his.
Source: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359178
Kiddo does not always evade outright contradiction, but when he does that’s because he explains things his way.
Willard is obviously bored today.
Glad Bill sees there’s a big problem with the Green Plate Effect logic, especially when it comes to having green plates either side of a heated blue plate, or multiple shells around a heated sphere.
Willard says:
When caught having told a porky about how *his* B A C K C O N D U C T I O N is loved, Kiddo plays dumb.
I wonder if Kiddo realizes he has returned to The Game
——————————-
Willard flirts with DREMT.
Something to cure your jalousie, Bill:
[KIDDO ENTERS THE HEAT TRANSFER SALOON] What heat flow? We’re talking about energy flow.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2019-0-38-deg-c/#comment-373706
If only Sky Dragon Cranks could rewrite all their
heatenergy transfer textbooks.Will Kiddo never get bored of The Game?
That was a rhetorical question.
Willard’s always flirting, Bill. He seems quite obsessed with me. Spending all hours of the day poring over old discussions…
Willard has a thing for the insertive type.
I wish could get bored with Kiddo like he himself gets bored with Bob, Bill. However, compare and contrast:
(1) W is obviously bored today.
(2) You already know, as it has been explained at great length, in multiple discussions, that you have been a part of (or have seen linked to since)… so why pretend otherwise? I will answer for you: it’s because you hope I will get bored of repeating myself, and so will not answer, thus making it appear to readers as though I have no answer. This, I refer to, as playing “the game”.
Yep, Willard…that’s what they do. Every single time.
Except that I’m the one who’s supposed to be bored, Kiddo. That suggests you seek to bore me. Try as you might, your repetitions will fail.
I said you must be bored because you obviously had nothing better to do yesterday than obsess over my every word from past discussions. I expect you will waste even more of your own time today.
And I am saying that The Game is the only thing you do here, Kiddo.
Please stop projecting.
That’s just your usual attempt to turn my observations around onto me. We all here get involved in discussions, month after month, which involve things that have already been discussed previously. I would like to think the people I talked to would acknowledge that fact, but every month they start again from the beginning as though nothing has ever been said. Look at the discussion of the GPE that began again in next month’s temperature update. We had people like bob bringing up the insulation examples again, as if all that has never been refuted. Norman and Swanson going into the details of the GPE "logic", as if it was not already understood.
I am at least trying to bring up new points, that have not really been discussed before, like the "Sun Shell" example.
It doesn’t really matter what I say or do, though. According to you, everything I say or do is just some sort of trick. You will respond. This will go on all day again.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo –
You made no “observations,” but interpreted the behavior of those who respond to Sky Dragon Cranks crap by projecting your own modus operandi, which is to bore people to death with your inanely humdrum comments. Just like you pretend to request to stop trolling except you and your allies, some of whom are the worst trolls here.
So let’s recap –
You misinterpreted Barry’s comment.
You kept trying to peddle your red herring.
You kept trying to PST me in my own thread, even arguing it was yours.
You kept ignoring my questions as to what The Game refers.
You are still trying to dodge my proof that you equivocated on “backconduction” and that your notion of flow does not cohere with Pup’s.
You never cooperate.
Please keep your food fights for another commenters. It never works against me.
Willard says: "DREMT is bad, mmm-kay."
None of what he said is correct. Let’s go through it:
"You misinterpreted Barry’s comment."
False. barry said “The fact that heat can only be transferred to matter…", and I agree with that 100%. There is no way to "misinterpret" it. If people want to argue that an object in deep space, with no heat source, that’s cooling, is "losing heat to space" then fine. However, an object in equilibrium with a heat source, in space, is not transferring heat to space. It’s simply radiating energy to space based on its temperature and emissivity. It’s at equilibrium, hence no heat is flowing…either from the source to the object, or from the object to space.
"You kept trying to peddle your red herring."
No idea what you’re talking about.
"You kept trying to PST me in my own thread, even arguing it was yours."
I never argued it was mine, I argued that since you had created the thread about me, I had every right to ask you to please stop trolling. No doubt, that’s how this thread will end. With me asking you to please stop trolling again.
"You kept ignoring my questions as to what The Game refers."
That’s because I had no idea what you were talking about, until you finally revealed the particular comment from however many years ago. I ignored your questions because I simply wasn’t interested in another diversion from the topic at hand. I had forgotten all about "The Game", other than experiencing it frequently when the regulars here play it. I’d forgotten I had ever called it something, is what I mean. So I had no idea what you were on about.
"You are still trying to dodge my proof that you equivocated on “backconduction” and that your notion of flow does not cohere with Pup’s."
Clint R is a separate human being from me with his own ideas. He can defend his ideas, I can defend mine. I never equivocated on back-conduction, you just misunderstood the point being made.
"You never cooperate."
I see no evidence that anybody on your side of the debate wants to cooperate. They never concede even the tiniest point, and won’t listen to logic or reason.
Now…Willard, please stop trolling.
Kiddo cries and cries, forever the victim, eternally being pushed to the brink of letting go of trolling.
But no, he *must* soldier on.
And so everybody is responsible for his comments, except himself.
"Kiddo cries and cries, forever the victim, eternally being pushed to the brink of letting go of trolling."
No tears, except possibly from laughter, Willard.
"And so everybody is responsible for his comments, except himself."
I’m responsible for my comments. Can you take responsibility for yours? Your comments tend to veer away from science wherever possible, and go into the territory of playing the man, not the ball. As you’re doing here.
Laughter is good for the soul, Kiddo.
Here’s a funny one:
This is what you quoted from Barry. Here’s the complete sentence:
And here’s the sentence from Barry I unterlined in the comment that starts this thread:
So we can see that your quote was as irrelevant then as it is now. And once again you try to redirect the exchange toward your pet topic.
Now that is funny!
HAHAHAHAHHAHHHAHA!
…and because barry says that it has no bearing on the discussion, Willard unquestioningly believes him…
And because he gets caught misidentifying what was being discussed while trying for the fifth time to peddle his irrelevant quote, Kiddo soldiers on.
The Game is not for him. He might never be able to let go of it.
#6
Willard, please stop trolling.
Kiddo has been told not to PST me in my thread.
Many times. Yet he soldiers on.
And then he has the nerves to suggest that people are forcing him to repeat himself.
#7
Willard, please stop trolling.
THE GAME
You already know
it has been explained
at great length
in multiple discussions
that you have been a part of
or have seen linked to since
so why pretend otherwise?
I will answer for you
It is because you hope
I will get bored
of repeating myself
and so will not answer
thus making it appear
to readers as though
I have no answer
This,
I refer to
as playing
The Game
#8
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please stop PSTing me in my own thread, Kiddo.
#9
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hey, Kiddo.
#10
Willard, please stop trolling.
Round and around we go in these discussions, and the only thing that in inevitable is that DREMTY starts lying.
“We had people like bob bringing up the insulation examples again, as if all that has never been refuted.”
DREMPTY lies so often he does not know the difference between his lies and the truth.
I’ll remind you DREMPTY, you have never refuted the insulation that is caused by separating the plates.
So sorry charlie.
Fine, bob. Then rename the GPE, “the Vacuum Gap Effect” and never pretend that the warming is the result of back-radiation from the GP ever again.
DREMTY,
“Fine, bob. Then rename the GPE, the Vacuum Gap Effect and never pretend that the warming is the result of back-radiation from the GP ever again.”
Wait a second mister, which experiment was I talking about?
I wasn’t referring to the Green Plate Effect, now was I?
I was referring to the example where the plates are together and then separated, when using the insulation argument.
The back radiation argument works fine for the original Green Plate Effect.
Completely nonsensical, bob.
DREMPTY,
Just because you think it’s non- sensical, does not make it so.
Just your usual tricks, when you can’t argue the facts, you attacke the arguer.
You lost another one.
Another one bites the dust.
I didn’t attack you bob, I attacked what you said, because it was completely nonsensical. Either you are arguing that the BP warms because it is insulated by a vacuum gap, or you are arguing that it warms as a result of the back-radiation from the GP. Make up your mind. Whether you go with “plates together, then separated” or “traditional GPE setup” makes absolutely no difference to this conundrum.
DREMPTY,
The vacuum gap is working because of the back radiation.
It’s not an either or situation, both principles are at play.
So exactly how much of the supposed warming is due to the insulation from the vacuum gap, and how much of the supposed warming is due to the back-radiation from the GP, and how do you calculate the vacuum gap insulation, bob? Show you work.
DREMPTY,
“So exactly how much of the supposed warming is due to the insulation from the vacuum gap, and how much of the supposed warming is due to the back-radiation from the GP, and how do you calculate the vacuum gap insulation, bob? Show you work.”
I am not doing calculations and homework assigned by you until you can prove you have taken the appropriate thermodynamic coursework.
I have provided evidence that I have passed thermodynamics courses.
Anyway, the calculation is done with the same equations whether or not you consider it back radiation or insulation.
Go to Rabbett Run for the correct calculations.
"Anyway, the calculation is done with the same equations whether or not you consider it back radiation or insulation."
OK, bob. So you’re admitting that it isn’t vacuum gap insulation at all, it’s just back-radiation warming. If it was vacuum gap insulation your calculations would be involving the insulation value of the plates plus vacuum gap between them.
DREMPTY,
Can you show me that the calculation for the vacuum gap heat transfer is different than the back radiation calculation?
Show a source and how the calculation is different.
There is no such thing as back-radiation heating, so that might be difficult, bob.
I thought you did not deny backradiation, Kiddo.
I don’t deny back-radiation. I said “there is no such thing as back-radiation heating“, Willard.
DREMPTY,
Notice that I didn’t ask you to calculate how much heating is done by back radiation.
Back radiation causes the temperature to go up, but doesn’t provide any heat.
You still haven’t demonstrated that you can do the calculations and get the right answer whether you do it assuming the process is due to insulation or assuming the process is due to back radiation.
You got to get with the program.
Lurkers lurk, you don’t want them laughing at you, now do you?
OK, bob.
Just for the record:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1318789
Kiddo the Master Explainer:
[TIM] Gordo, let’s skip the semantics (“photons flying both ways” vs “thermal IR” vs heat vs “EM radiation”) for a moment and see if we can agree on numbers. After all, that is the ultimate goal – to be able to calculate how the universe works. *Then follows some basic equations.*
[KIDDO] Tim, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344562
#11
Willard, please stop trolling.
See you tomorrow.
Willard, please stop trolling.
How’s everything?
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Sup.
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hey, Kiddo.
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
[Gordon Robertson December 12, 2021 at 8:54 PM] ” It is not true that materials continuously absorb/emit EM by virtue of their temperature above 0K.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1066273
[Gordon Robertson May 31, 2022 at 8:48 PM] “According to anything I have read ***ALL*** materials above 0K radiate energy.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1304014
You’re welcome GR!
maguff…did you miss the ‘continuously’ in my comment. No material emits over a continuous spectrum. Materials emit in discrete spectra (called spectral lines).
You should really comment on quantum theory you don’t understand. In my second comment I say all material ‘radiates’ energy. It radiates it in discrete spectra, not continuous spectra.
To upgrade your training in quantum theory, allow me to explain. All EM emitted from material is generated by electrons as they fall from one energy level to another. The emitted energy has the frequency of the electron in its upper energy level, making the emitted frequency discrete.
You could have gotten me more easily on my use of ‘material’, which is far too vague. If the material was pure copper, it would emit in discrete spectra but a material could be made of many elements. At the following link is a spectral emission diagram for a certain variety of quartz (lapis quartz), comprised of silicon, lithium, aluminum, sodium, calcium, manganese, and magnesium. Note how some elements have more than one spectral line.
ps. don’t let rlh tell you its spelled aluminium. Brits can’t spell and don’t speak English very well.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-representative-emission-spectrum-of-lapis-quartz-along-with-the-relevant-atomic_fig5_311423481
Like i said, you’re welcome.
Gordon Robertson: “The emitted energy has the frequency of the electron in its upper energy level,…”
???
Gordon Robertson: “You could have gotten me more easily…”
First of all, I’m not out to “get you.” I’m not trying to “get” anyone. I only care about science, technology, and numbers, not feelings.
Second of all, as someone who “took 4 years of psychology as an elective while studying engineering”, you should recognize how this comment diagnoses the classic Adler Inferiority Complex in you. Time for some self-evaluation, GR, no?.
Test
หาเงินช้อป ikea เข้า Megaslot game ใครๆก็สมัครเป็นครอบครัวIKEA กับพวกเราได้แล้วรับสิทธิพิเศษอีกเยอะมากที่พวกเราจัดแจงไว้ให้ท่านทั้งปี เเล้วหาเงินช้อปที่ Megaslot game
Amazing article with full of information.
https://www.orbitalpineadventure.com/everest-base-camp-helicopter-tour,
https://www.orbitalpineadventure.com/everest-base-camp-trek-return-back-by-helicopter,
https://www.orbitalpineadventure.com/everest-base-camp-trek,
https://www.orbitalpineadventure.com/manaslu-and-tsum-valley-trek