Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2022 was +0.06 deg. C, down (again) from the May, 2022 value of +0.17 deg. C.
Tropical Coolness
The tropical (20N-20S) anomaly for June was -0.36 deg. C, which is the coolest monthly anomaly in over 10 years, the coolest June in 22 years, and the 9th coolest June in the 44 year satellite record.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 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 18 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.50 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.13 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -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 1.63 0.01 -0.06
2022 01 0.03 0.06 0.00 -0.24 -0.13 0.68 0.09
2022 02 -0.00 0.01 -0.02 -0.24 -0.05 -0.31 -0.50
2022 03 0.15 0.27 0.02 -0.08 0.22 0.74 0.02
2022 04 0.26 0.35 0.18 -0.04 -0.26 0.45 0.60
2022 05 0.17 0.24 0.10 0.01 0.59 0.23 0.19
2022 06 0.06 0.07 0.04 -0.36 0.46 0.33 0.11
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for June, 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
Let the debate start
https://i.postimg.cc/jjphJmrF/35654-9.jpg
Debate about what?
About it being WAY too cold.
I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop…~ni185~As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job achieving this I’m ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home…~ni185~All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line visiting this site…> http://lifechange.gq
I’m getting 80 US dollars/hr to complete easy work on home computer.^pw110^I not ever realized like it is even achievable however one of my confidant buddy made $27,000 only within four weeks just completing this easy opportunity and also she has influenced me to avail.^pw110^updated info on visiting following website….
>>>> https://brightfuture241.blogspot.com/
I’m ready to make $200/h to get done with few tasks on home PC. Ive never believed that its even reachable however my dearest friend acquiring $25k just in the span of five weeks basically working this driving undertaking and she had persuaded me to joinDiscover additional subtleties by going following connection https://www.worksful.com
Or way to warm, given that we just had a double La Nina.
First 6 months of 2021
0.055
First 6 months of 2022
0.111
No change in maximums, aka El Nino’s, since 1878 though.
Non sequitur.
hi
Hello
Start now earning every week more than $7,000 to 8,000 by doing very simple and easy home based job online. (sin1.) Last month i have made $32,735 by doing this online job just in my part time for only 2 hrs. a day using my laptop. This job is just awesome and easy to do in part time. Everybody can now get this and start earning more dollars online just by follow:-
.
instructions here:☛☛☛ https://brilliantfuture40.pages.dev
“Non sequitur”
Because it does not support your alarmist agenda.
No sequitur, because it is irrelevant to what was being discussed.
Non sequitur means that it does not follow.
What you are looking for is ignoratio elenchi, for Richard ignores the question.
What is being discussed is:-
“Let the debate start”.
Nate compared the first six months of 2021 and 2022.
How is your pet remark relevant, Richard?
“Nate compared the first six months of 2021 and 2022”
Yet I get called out for comparing things to 2016.
That would be a tu quoque.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Cooling is the new warming
Actually, cooling is the new climate denial.
Actually actual, Gordon is the new Smollett.
Houston, we have sockpuppet.
barry, please stop trolling.
The June 2008 tropical anomoly was -0.45’C. This is larger than the June 2022 -0.36’C anomoly which is stated as being “…..the coolest June in 22 years……”. Not correct?
Fantastic,
The total greenhouse effect is getting lower by the month and it continues.
More than 72 months now. Interesting to see how this evolves.
Roy is it easy for you to check over the Pacific Ocean, N20-S20? To me it looks like the longest La Nia in the record.
Hi MrZ, nice to see you’re still alive.
” To me it looks like the longest La Nia in the record. ”
Not quite, look at a superposition of all La Ninas as recorded by the MEI (Multivariate ENSO Index):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
In about ten days, we’ll see the newest MEI value in
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
Hi Bindidon,
Somebody convinced me to get a job again so time is more scarce.
I have checked the earths energy balance with figures from ERA and the total greenhouse effect is actually decreasing In the Pacific Ocean pretty dramatically. So much that it is even clearly visible even on global level. Nothing comes close during the 1979 till now period. This La Nia is special. (I think)
Thanks for the reply.
I would enjoy some links to ERA graphics and data for a closer look at what you see.
Seems interesting.
sad
Dollars incomes sincere process to parent and earn on-line. start now developing each day over $500 simply performing from home. Last month my incomes from this are $16205 and i gave this process entirely hours from my entire day. only manner to earn (~ed93~) extra economic advantage on-line and it doesnt goals any pretty unique experience. ~tg1 circulate to this net web website online right now and
observe info to set off began
out proper now>>>>>>>>>>>> http://selfpay24.blogspot.com
Didn’t you process UAH’s 2.5 degree grid data some years ago?
Should be easy for you to generate anomalies or absolute data for that region…
You should also check ESN ONI
https://www.webberweather.com/ensemble-oceanic-nino-index.html
that goes back to 1870.
Let the madness begin! 🙂
Start now earning every week more than $7,000 to 8,000 by doing very simple and easy home based job online. (sin1.) Last month i have made $32,735 by doing this online job just in my part time for only 2 hrs. a day ggh using my laptop. This job is just awesome and easy to do in part time. Everybody can now get this and start earning more dollars online just by follow:-
.
instructions here:☛☛☛ https://brilliantfuture40.pages.dev
Typo, second line: may.
Roy applies a linear fit to the UAH temperature history. This seems entirely reasonable. However, I wonder if an additional approach might be of interest. It appears to me that there are now 4 distinct steps in the temperature. They are roughly:
Temp Years Duration
– 0.29 1979 1986 7
– 0.21 1987 1997 10
0 1997 2015 18
+ 0.24 2015 2022 7
These numbers are only meant to be suggestive. The most recent might well continue for some time. As I recall, the 18 year period generated some ideas about the end to global warming. Warming does continue however.
There are significant oscillations in the temperature during each step, but the peaks and troughs appear consistent with no substantial increase in the mean temperature during each step. At the end of each step, the temperature does a distinct jump to a higher mean value over a fairly short time interval, just a few years.
Elsewhere Roy shows that the CO2 readings do have significant fluctuations as well. I had thought the CO2 data were smooth. It would be interesting to see the same 13 month average done on the CO2 time series. Not sure what it might mean though, the time series is at a single point. The variations in Roys presentation suggests to me that there are likely significant spatial variations as well. Are there other CO2 data that give a more global picture?
All this make me wonder if natural forces might dominate human contributions. Why dont the human contributions show up during the long steps in temperature. Could there be something
in all this that would contribute to the big question of sensitivity that Roy has tried hard to address? Do the variations in CO2 show any strong correlations to the fluctuations in temperature?
“It appears to me that there are now 4 distinct steps …”
I would caution you that it is easy to spot ‘patterns’ that are nothing more than random chance. For example, in any data with a general upward trend but large variations, there could appear to be a ‘step change’ after any large upswing, even though that upswing is a perfectly normal, random part of the data.
Yes, there might be true ‘step-changes’ but I would be highly suspicious without either a strong theoretical basis or a strong statistical basis. And I see neither of those here.
Yes indeed, eye-balling is always a bit misleading, and gives sometimes odd numbers.
The best is still to have a closer look at the real data.
Linear estimates in C / decade:
– Dec 1978 – Dec 1986: -0.19 +- 0.06
– Jan 1987 – Dec 1997: +0.01 +- 0.05
– Jan 1998 – Dec 2014: -0.04 +- 0.03
– Jan 2015 – Jun 2022: -0.07 +- 0.08
And of course: many people looking at such numbers think that the estimate for the full period:
– Dec 1978 – Jun 2022: +0.13 +- 0.01
does not reflects reality, and is a faked number.
“And of course: many people looking at such numbers think that the estimate for the full period:
Dec 1978 Jun 2022: +0.13 +- 0.01
does not reflects reality, and is a faked number.”
And of course, many people are not good at analyzing data!
First, this estimate of 0.13 is obtained using the EXACT SAME METHOD (linear regression) as you used to obtain your individual slopes. So to claim this number (0.13) is ‘fake’ would mean that all your other numbers are equally ‘fake’.
Second, you are leaving out one key factor. The correct description would be:
Dec 1978 Dec 1986: -0.19 +- 0.06
** + 0.21 step jump from 1986 to 1987
Jan 1987 Dec 1997: +0.01 +- 0.05
** + 0.22 step jump from 1997 to 1998
Jan 1998 Dec 2014: -0.04 +- 0.03
** + 0.29 step jump from 2014 to 2015
Jan 2015 Jun 2022: -0.07 +- 0.08
Your analysis looks at 4 periods, but unfortunately leaves out a net increase of +0.72 C as we go from one period to the next. When you cherrypick to try to force the data to show periods of relative stability, you are, in turn, forced to acknowledge BIG jumps between those periods,
Basically, either we have
** An overall slope of +0.13 per decade for the data as a whole, resulting in a net gain of ~ 0.6 C
** Slopes between -0.19 and +0.01 for individual periods, plus big steps between periods, again resulting in a net gain of about 0.6 C over the whole data set.
What has always struck me about climate data is a) how noisy it is in raw form and b) how semi-sinusoidal cycles seem to permeate every averaging trend.
I’ve been looking at these graphs for over 30 years now and you cannot escape the fact that natural variability is the most noticeable thing about them, along with a very small warming trend.
I would be convinced AGW was a problem if the warming trend clearly broke out of the natural variabilty, but so far it really hasn’t. So if there is a human influence in warming, it’s not that big.
None of the purported consequences of human warming seem anything like as problematic as those from Carrington-type events, war, disease, Tsunamis, floods, earthquakes and volcanos, so I really don’t understand the need for a huge field of ‘science’ that tries to discern the human influence in the cycles. If there are cycles over 7 and 30 and 100,000 years, it seems inevitable that there will be other, as yet unknown ones that mean such exercises to understand wiggles are futile.
Adapt! Extreme weather and other natural disasters will always be with us, we are a pretty smart species when faced with a serious defined problem – I’d rather a science devoted to learning how we avoid shooting each other than spend more time trying to understand highly averaged wiggles.
“this estimate of 0.13 is obtained using the EXACT SAME METHOD (linear regression)”
OLS shows that even if the maximums are rising at a lower rate than the minimums, the middle (and the averages) will rise much faster than the maximums.
RLH, it is completely possible that “the maximums are rising at a lower rate than the minimums” in a data set and yet have the average FALLING.
Granted, this is not the sort of data set that one would expect for climate data, but it shows the dangers of focusing on the extremes only and ignoring the middle data. Extremes are interesting data, but, by themselves, tell us very little.
Dixon, I agree with much of what you say. AGW is only one of many potentially catastrophic events that might occur. And there is perhaps too much emphasis on this one topic at the exclusion of others.
I would address two topics.
1) Climate change is only partly about the ‘wiggles’. It is more about trends underlying the wiggles. There will be always be weeks or years that are hotter or colder or rainier or drier than usual. But if those ‘wiggles’ are on top of a base line that is 1C or 2C or 5C warmer than now, that would have significant global impacts.
2) Climate change is impacting the southwestern US. A prolonged drought has lowered lakes to historically low levels, and a few more years could mean not enough water for millions of people and millions of acres of farmland. Independent of whether that change is natural or related to humans, understanding that sort of climate change is important even within a decade.
Folkerts, you seem to be waffling away from your cult beliefs that CO2 can heat the planet.
That’s good.
Keep those waffles coming.
Dixon,
Without getting far into the weeds, the reason there are so many people, a large field of science in your terms, is that people have found a way to get paid.
This is true of most social occupations.
Approximately 16% of the population is involved in farming and manufacturing. The rest of us are providing some type of service which, in a nutshell, are reasons to get the manufacturers and farmers to trade with us for their products.
Unfortunately government distorts that reality a great deal, so more is probably spent on climate science because the government makes it easy to make a living doing so.
Happy 4th
“Extremes are interesting data, but, by themselves, tell us very little”
Extremes are what AGW pushes down our throat all the time. But when someone points out that they are not increasing at the Tropics, suddenly they are not that important at all.
“It is more about trends underlying the wiggles”
But in the Tropics (at least in the Pacific) the maximums have not increased since 1878. Apparently.
A net increase of +0.72C would indicate that you are hallucinating patterns or some other damn thing that doesn’t exist in reality, but is likely an artifact of the statistical sleight of hand you apply to the data.
I agree with the step side of things. It isn’t an illusion, nor is it random. After all, they are based on something real, temperature measurements. Why does one need a theoretical or statistical basis to confirm that which has been observed? Feel free to give it a try but the steps are there, even if at the end of the day no significance can be attached to them.
Linear fits (OLS etc.) are always suspect IMHO.
Not only are they subject to potential ‘cherry picking’ of start/end dates (possibly inadvertently) but also they take no account of how the maximums and minimums change over that time. That may also be relevant.
Dollars incomes sincere process to parent and earn on-line. start now developing each day over $500 simply performing from home. Last month my incomes from this are $16205 and i gave this process entirely hours from my entire day. only manner to earn (~ed94~) extra economic advantage on-line and it doesnt goals any pretty unique experience. ~tg1 circulate to this net web website online right now and
observe info to set off began
out proper now>>>>>>>>>>>> http://selfpay24.blogspot.com
Kenneth Helland,
The twelve-month average of CO2 removes seasonal cycling and shows a smooth slightly exponentially increasing CO2 trend. You may be interested to see the annual change in the average CO2 plotted along with the UAH data.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/uah6/scale:0.15/offset:0.17
This shows that the magnitude of the annual CO2 change is determined to a large extent by the global temperature. In warm years, the increase in CO2 will usually be greater than the increase in cooler years. So, yes, variations in CO2 show a strong correlation to fluctuations in global tropospheric temperature.
Thus if I well understand how you proceed, one just needs to scale and offset a times series to get it fitting another time series, and oh wonder: the theory is perfect.
Oh Noes…
Another ‘ad hom’ attack. Well done Blinny.
‘Ad hom’? No. Misplaced sarcasm? Maybe. Using 50 years of weather data to infer climate trends over a 226 million year galactic cycle with a system “wobble” having a 100 pc amplitude and 70 My period? Absurd.
PN,
Maybe you didn’t understand the 50-year plot. It was not meant to show a climate trend over any long period, because the UAH data only goes back that far. Using another temperature data set, you could only go back another 20 years, because that’s how far back the CO2 data goes.
Fact is, the effect of temperature on CO2 is pretty well understood by anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of climate.
“the effect of temperature on CO2 is pretty well understood by anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of climate”
The ‘effect’ is proposed but not proven.
RLH,
Do you have doubts that the effect is real? If so, what other mechanisms are responsible for the fingerprint-like correlation between temperature and annual CO2 change?
How about the warming created the rise in CO2?
How about it? Are you answering my question with a question? That’s not an answer. Make an argument or stop wasting blog space.
It has been proposed on here and elsewhere that rising temperatures have caused the rise in CO2. Can you refute that?
Bindidon,
The scaling simply allows one to see that, although not an exact factor, there is a general or “average” effect of temperature on the yearly CO2 increases. There is nothing magic about it. The offset makes the effect more evident than if one just describes it in words. A pic is worth a 1000 words. You are welcome to present an opposing view.
The effect is largely based on the greater ocean outgassing that occurs with higher temperatures.
Chic Bowdrie
Sorry, but explaining such a complex matter as the ‘chicken-egg’ problem for temperature and CO2 with such a trivial WFT graph: that is imho way too trivial.
And no: I can’t and won’t oppose anything to your guess.
If you can live with that guess: fine for you… I never could.
Or…the same, without bias.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/uah6/scale:0.4/offset:0.17/mean:12
Or with more relevant surface data going back to start of CO2 data.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/plot/gistemp/scale:0.65/offset:0.07/mean:12/from:1958
Nate rears his ugly King of Obfuscation head again by obscuring THE physical reality that temperature drives the short-term fluctuation in the ANNUAL change in CO2.
The CO2 annual cycle is driven globally by monthly average temperatures. Averaging the temperatures does not remove bias, but rather only obscures the physical reality.
Now let’s see how the King obfuscates further by actually writing out a scientific response rather than a drive-by meaningless assertion. Is he going to argue that temperature does not drive short-term changes in annual CO2?
Where is my obfuscation?
Here are three of the ways you obfuscated.
1. the use of a 12mo filter in one data set but not the other.
2. CO2 is out-gassed from the surface, not the troposphere. Yet the comparison of CO2 growth rate with tropospheric temperature, rather than surface temperature is shown.
3. Use a shorter time period that has quasi linear trend in CO2 growth that appears to match trend in temperature.
Without these 3 deceptions, as I showed, the long term trend in CO2 growth rate clearly does not match the long-term trend in global temperature.
Chic should know that his apparent correlation between Global T and CO2 growth rate is not evidence of causation.
It is well known that short term variations in both Global T and CO2 growth rate are driven by a 3rd variable, ENSO, which does not account for the long term trends in either.
1. I addressed that already. You get an F for failing to counter with an opposing argument.
2. Good point. Here’s the plot with SST anomalies.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/scale:0.3/offset:0.08/from:1958
3. The shorter trend is not the basis of my argument that the magnitude of the temperature anomaly determines the annual CO2 growth as all the temperature data exhibit the same fingerprint evidence. It is not a “quasi-linear” trend in CO2 roughly matching the temperature trend. The CO2 growth is tracking temperature like a GPS.
Seriously, do you doubt global temperature drives annual CO2 change or are just maintaining your King of Obfuscation reputation?
“1. I addressed that already. You get an F for failing to counter with an opposing argument.”
Tee hee hee. You declared a weird speculation to be a ‘physical reality’.
“The CO2 annual cycle is driven globally by monthly average temperatures. Averaging the temperatures does not remove bias, but rather only obscures the physical reality.”
MONTHLY variation in one variable drives ANNUAL variation in another variable is implausible, but convenient, speculation.
If you want to show two variables are correlated across various time scales, you need to treat them the SAME.
By LP filtering only one series you are reducing the fast variations in that series but not the other, making it appear that fast variations match with the same scale factor as slow variations, which is not the case.
Pure obfuscation.
“2. Good point. Heres the plot with SST anomalies.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/scale:0.3/offset:0.08/from:1958”
Again pure obfuscation/deception here. Your scale factor is too small to produce a match between short-term variations. Correct scale factor reveals the poor match to long term trend.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/scale:0.55/offset:0.14/from:1958
Correct for biased filtering the match is to long term gets horrible.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/scale:0.65/offset:0.13/from:1958/mean:12
“3. The shorter trend is not the basis of my argument that the magnitude of the temperature anomaly determines the annual CO2 growth as all the temperature data exhibit the same fingerprint evidence. It is not a quasi-linear trend in CO2 roughly matching the temperature trend. The CO2 growth is tracking temperature like a GPS.”
Pure obfuscation. The longer term data shows a sharp deviation at the beginning, not seen in shorter data set.
“Seriously, do you doubt global temperature drives annual CO2 change or are just maintaining your King of Obfuscation reputation?”
Yes, when the trends dont fit, you must quit….pretending they do.
As I noted, but you ignored, it is well understood that a 3rd variable, ENSO, drives short-term variations in both variables.
In the ocean, El Nino causes LESS CO2 outgassing, but the response of tropical Land is to produce MORE CO2 outgassing. This latter effect is larger and dominates the Global response.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aam5776
1. “If you want to show two variables are correlated across various time scales, you need to treat them the SAME.”
Only someone who hasn’t thought this through or is just obfuscating would write that. The CO2 measurements are taken at only one point on the surface. Temperature is averaged over the whole planet. However, my statement about “averaging the temperatures” should have been “averaging global average temperatures….” So, I’ll be generous and raise your grade to a D.
2. You aren’t seeing the forest For the Trees. Different scale factors will be different depending on what temperature series is used. The point is not to compare the trends, but to note how closely the monthly changes track. I don’t know how many more ways to write it. BTW, the UAH series makes a good surrogate for SST:
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset:0.3/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1958
To your third plot comparing 12-month averages, as explained in point 1, averaging temperature averages only smooths the data as is clear from Dr. Spencer’s main graph above.
3. “The longer term data shows a sharp deviation at the beginning, not seen in shorter data set.”
Again, as explained in point 2, it’s not about matching trends. It’s the tracking evident when the two data series are superimposed, [expletive deleted].
So, your whole argument is that a temperature-driven ENSO factor drives temperature and its subsequent effect on CO2 annual growth. Good grief, Charlie Brown. Way to make penetrating insight into the intuitively obvious obscure.
“So, your whole argument is that a temperature-driven ENSO factor drives temperature and its subsequent effect on CO2 annual growth. Good grief”
Standard Chic, works overtime to miss the point.
ENSO has a specific regional pattern of effects on weather. Its effect on global T is not what causes CO2 variation.
ENSO explains only fast variation in CO2. If you are also trying to explain long term variation, I call BS on that.
And as you can see in the paper, and application of Henrys law, this
“The effect is largely based on the greater ocean outgassing that occurs with higher temperatures.”
turns out not to be supported by the facts.
Call BS all you want. You have not made a rebuttal worth its salt to my argument. “ENSO has a specific regional pattern of effects on weather” and, therefore, is only one of many contributions to global temperature. Even if it was the sole determinant of global temperature, it is still temperature which determines outgassing and affects other non-fossil fuel emissions. Not real complicated.
Your long term, fast variation nonsense is obfuscation. My point is that temperature drives the magnitude of the annual growth. The warmer the year, the larger the increase. You can name it ENSO, average it over 12 months, call it too short, too long, slow variation, fast variation, obfuscate up the wazoo, and it won’t change that physical reality.
“And as you can see in the paper….”
No, I don’t see anything in the paper that refutes my claim. But I omitted the additional effect of temperature on CO2 coming from the geosphere.
The paper hypothesizes basically what I described, “Typically, the tropical Pacific Ocean is a source of CO2 to the atmosphere due to equatorial upwelling that brings CO2-rich water from the interior ocean to the surface. During El Nio, this equatorial upwelling is suppressed in the eastern and the central Pacific Ocean, reducing the supply of CO2 to the surface. If CO2 fluxes were to remain constant elsewhere, this reduction in ocean-to-atmosphere CO2 fluxes should contribute to a slowdown in the growth of atmospheric CO2.”
The paper reports the results from a few months in 2015 which essentially support my point. Colder temperatures reduce outgassing:
“The net impact of the 20152016 El Nio event on the global carbon cycle is an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which would likely be larger if it were not for the reduction in outgassing from the ocean.
IIRC, with one recent exception, every month shows an increase in CO2. The average annual increase is generally larger during warm years. If you want to refute that, please show the data from that pay-walled paper. Otherwise, you are just practicing your patented obfuscation.
“Call BS all you want. You have not made a rebuttal worth its salt to my argument.”
Sure, No rebuttal, no evidence, facts, no logic ever matters. Because those are the ground rules of your game.
“The paper reports the results from a few months in 2015 which essentially support my point. Colder temperatures reduce outgassing”
Wrong. The paper says the opposite. As usual you are clueless.
“Your long term, fast variation nonsense is obfuscation. My point is that temperature drives the magnitude of the annual growth. The warmer the year, the larger the increase.”
This is you being a simpleton. Unable to grasp anything too complicated. Assuming your hypothesis is a fact.
Short term variation and long term trends do not behave the same, do not need to behave the same, do not need to even have the same mechanism.
If you assume that they do or they must behave the same, must have the same mechanism, then you are making unfounded assumptions.
Typical Nate. No data, no models, unsubstantiated assertions. What else can be expected from the King of Obfuscation.
Standard Chic,
When I show facts, data, a paper, models, substantiate my claims with graphs, he ignores all and falsely states:
“Typical Nate. No data, no models, unsubstantiated assertions.”
This clarifies for all what game Chic is playing: The bullshit game.
Nate has learned ownership-inversion-deflection tactics from Willard to add to his bag of obfuscation tricks.
Other than a paper covering one year period of one El Nino, Nate has presented no data, no models, and distorts the facts with graphs from WoodForTrees. The paper he cites distorts the facts as well. Notably,
“By analyzing trends in the time series of atmospheric CO2, we see clear evidence of an initial decrease in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the tropical Pacific Ocean, specifically during the early stages of the El Nio event (March through July 2015).”
and
“During the later stages of the El Nio (August 2015 and later), the OCO-2 observations register a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We attribute this increase to the response from the terrestrial component of the carbon cyclea combination of reduction in biospheric uptake of CO2 over pan-tropical regions and an enhancement in biomass burning emissions over Southeast Asia and Indonesia.”
Nate has not provided any data to support these allegations. Maybe it’s because he has examined the UAH data showing the March to July referenced period was relatively cold for the previous year. Then during the later period when temperatures skyrocketed, the paper’s authors “attribute this increase to the response from the terrestrial component of the carbon cycle….”
Nate, please explain (preferably with data and graphs) how the authors can tell that the CO2 increase was due to the terrestrial component and not to ocean outgassing or some combination of both. Then explain how you can still deny warmer years do not produce larger increases in CO2 growth.
“The paper says the opposite.”
I was wrong about that on my initial read. I presumed they were describing La Nina conditions following the 2015 El Nino. Here is what threw me off:
“Typically, the tropical Pacific Ocean is a source of CO2 to the atmosphere due to equatorial upwelling that brings CO2-rich water from the interior ocean to the surface. During El Nino, this equatorial upwelling is suppressed in the eastern and the central Pacific Ocean, reducing the supply of CO2 to the surface.”
Why would El Nino suppress upwelling when upwelling is the source of CO2-rich seawater?
“Nate, please explain”
Nope. Not interested in yet more pointless Chic busywork, where in the end, you will just move the goal posts.
This is also a standard part of the Chic bullshit game.
You never have to support your claims with data. You just assert that they are true and demand others find data to disprove them.
You tried to claim that CO2 variation is driven by T variation and ocean out-gassing.
You havent made that case. You havent show data or evidence that short-term variation of CO2 is caused by T-driven ocean-out-gassing. You havent made the case that long-term rise in CO2 is caused by the same mechanism as the short-term.
I made the point Henry’s Law is not consistent with the rate of change of CO2 being caused by ocean warming and outgassing.
I made the point with graphs and a paper that SHORT-TERM CO2 variation is driven by ENSO.
I made the point that ENSO produces a pattern of weather that causes CO2 variation, and show a paper that explains this, and shows DATA for ocean CO2 fluxes.
As you have emphasized dozens of times, correlation is not causation.
Yet all you offer is a correlation between short-term T variation and CO2-rate of change, and the weakest kind of correlation between long term T rise and CO2-rate-of-change rise.
It is the weakest because it is simply two things rising.
-I made the point that the short-term and long term have different scaling factors.
-Filtering the short-term variation in only ONE variable, to force them to have a similar scale factor is CHEATING. I’ve discussed this at length with Bart.
-I showed that long-term rise has different shapes for the two variables.
-ENSO does not have a long-term rise consistent with CO2 rise.
For anyone not deeply biased, this shows a different mechanism is at work for short and long term.
Perhaps you don’t agree.
But to claim I have no data, analysis, or evidence is a LIE.
“Why would El Nino suppress upwelling when upwelling is the source of CO2-rich seawater?”
Why wouldnt it?
Thats what El Nino does. Suppressing the cold upwelling is what allows the Eastern Pacific to warm during El Nino.
I’m happy to end the discussion after correcting your lies and, if possible, learn how you think the Chatterjee paper refutes warmer years produce greater CO2 increases.
Lie #1: “You never have to support your claims with data.”
The original WoodForTrees plot showed my main point that warmer years produce greater CO2 increases. Do I need to provide the raw data for you?
Lie #2: “You tried to claim that CO2 variation is driven by T variation and ocean out-gassing.”
I did claim CO2 annual growth is driven by temperature and showed the data to prove it.
More of your obfuscations: My point was not that short-term variation of CO2 is caused by T-driven ocean-out-gassing, but by global temperature which does enhance outgassing among other contributions to CO2 growth. I wasn’t making a case that long-term rise in CO2 is caused by the same mechanism as the short-term. That is your obsession and history with Bart.
“I made the point Henrys Law is not consistent with the rate of change of CO2 being caused by ocean warming and outgassing.”
No, you didn’t. Where? Invoking Henry’s Law Doesn’t make a coherent point.
“I made the point with graphs and a paper that SHORT-TERM CO2 variation is driven by ENSO.”
So what? One paper about one year that is arguably wrong does not refute my point that CO2 is driven by temperature; after all, ENSO “is a recurring climate pattern involving changes in the temperature of waters in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.”
“I … show[ed] a paper that explains this, and shows DATA for ocean CO2 fluxes.”
You showed none of that paper’s data and refuse to explain my rebuttal to the paper’s unproven allegations. Are you claiming you read the full paper and saw the data? If so, why not explain the ambiguity I pointed out?
“[Correlation between long term T rise and CO2-rate-of-change rise] is the weakest because it is simply two things rising.”
I’m not emphasizing a weak correlation between two trends. The annual values of temperature and CO2 increase are highly correlated, not weakly correlated as they would be if your ENSO-driven hypothesis ruled. Picture rising sinusoidal trends that are out of phase.
Your four sentences ending with “ENSO does not have a long-term rise consistent with CO2 rise” may show “a different mechanism is at work for short and long term,” but you are not explaining how or why. Which is why I don’t agree; why I claim you have no data, analysis, or evidence; and why I am perplexed by your opposition to the obvious fact that warmer years produce larger CO2 increases. None of your graphs refute that, nor do they show how Bart and I are cheating. You are hung up on the short-term, long-term question for another day.
I forgot to point out that you have been doing the goal post moving. My singular goal has always been to show how warmer years produce larger annual CO2 growth. Promise made, promise kept.
“The annual values of temperature and CO2 increase are highly correlated, not weakly correlated as they would be if your ENSO-driven hypothesis ruled. ”
No sequitur. Explain that.
“No, you didnt. Where? Invoking Henrys Law Doesnt make a coherent point.”
It seems you don’t do the required back-of-the-envelope calculations before declaring ‘truths’.
We’ve discussed it several times. Henry’s law produces ~ 20-30 ppm rise in CO2 for 1 C increase in T. Not nearly enough to explain the long term rise. And the short-term rise has a higher scale factor, as I showed, thus it is a larger rate-of-change with Temp. So Henry cannot help you.
“The original WoodForTrees plot showed my main point that warmer years produce greater CO2 increases. Do I need to provide the raw data for you?”
Produce? That implies causation. You have not made the case for causation.
ENSO causes global T variation. We know because there is both a strong correlation AND the mechanism is well understood.
The evidence in many papers (I showed one, you can look for the others) indicates that the cause of short term CO2 variation is NOT global T, it is the ENSO specific weather pattern.
You should know very well that La Nina causes things like lots of extra rain and flooding in Indonesia and Australia. And El Nino causes drought and wildfires in the same region, and elsewhere.
Those kinds of specific but strong regional effects apparently have a greater effect on CO2 than a uniform but tiny global T change would have.
Your four sentences ending with ‘ENSO does not have a long-term rise consistent with CO2 rise’ may show ‘a different mechanism is at work for short and long term,’ but you are not explaining how or why.”
How or why?
Bart showed many times the first graph that you showed. It has a single scale factor producing an apparent impressive match between both short term and long term variation in T and CO2-rate-of-change. He thought this was proof of the same mechanism at work and that T-change must be the cause of long term CO2 rise.
It seemed to me you were trying to make the same argument. Are you?
The filter matters, because it suppresses short term variation but has no effect on long term variation. Thus it artificially suppresses the scale factor for short term but not long term, and makes them appear to be the same (when UAH data is used).
I showed the same graph with surface data, because CO2 outgasses from the surface, and with the same filter on both data sets. This seems to me, to be the only unbiased way to analyze the correlation.
And it clearly showed that one scale factor produces a match to short term variation, but long term variation is a non-match, both for slope, and shape.
The main point is that no one disputes the short-term correlation between global T and CO2. And it is (pretty well) understood how ENSO drives it.
But that doesnt demonstrate that long-term CO2 rise has the same cause.
Obviously there can be more then one cause of CO2 variation. And there is an obvious alternate cause of long term CO2 rise, that has both correlation and a clear causal mechanism demonstrated.
Nate, you are over thinking this. Or do you simply love to argue so much and can’t admit someone else might have a valid point you could agree with? Is it your full-time job to obfuscate the comments of anyone who opposes AGW hype? I have suspected for a long time you are paid to troll.
“No sequitur. Explain [ENSO-driven correlation weakness].”
I prepared a graph ( https://postimg.cc/XX8Bwx0c ) illustrating why two trends with exactly the same slope are less correlated than two other trends differing by a factor of two. What matters is how closely the short-term changes track, not how close the long-term trends are. Show me a similar ENSO-driven correlation that counters my “warmer years produce larger CO2 increases” meme.
“Weve discussed [long term delta CO2/T] several times.”
Yes, and I agreed that the temperature factor is not enough to account for ALL of the long term rise in CO2. Don’t be stuck on short-term, long-term obsession.
“You have not made the case for causation.”
I made the case that warmer years result in larger CO2 emissions. One can lead a horse to water….
“ENSO causes global T variation. We know because there is both a strong correlation AND the mechanism is well understood. The evidence in many papers (I showed one, you can look for the others) indicates that the cause of short term CO2 variation is NOT global T, it is the ENSO specific weather pattern.”
For the nth time, ENSO affects global temperatures. But the global temperatures drive CO2 increases year after year for the duration of the whole available time series, not just ENSO years. Your paper based on one year’s data implied the opposite, as you stated earlier; IOW, ENSO suppresses CO2 outgassing despite blatant evidence to the contrary shown in the long-term data. Why do you repeat the same garbage without providing any data to support it? If you think that “strong regional effects” have greater influence, then show the data. Otherwise, it’s your same ol King of Obfuscation rigamarole.
“It seemed to me you were trying to make the same [long-term Bart] argument. Are you?”
No. As I explained above and in the past with spreadsheet models, other factors contribute to the long-term rise.
“This seems to me, to be the only unbiased way to analyze the correlation.”
I have learned that you only consider your own interpretations as unbiased. I consider it obfuscation.
“The main point is that no one disputes the short-term correlation between global T and CO2.”
Is that a typo or are you finally agreeing with my original point? https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1326998
“And it is (pretty well) understood how ENSO drives it.”
But you failed over and over to show any supporting data or coherently explain anything about that.
“And there is an obvious alternate cause of long term CO2 rise, that has both correlation and a clear causal mechanism demonstrated.”
Oh good, then just show the data indicating more CO2 will increase global temperature by any measurable amount. You know, something without twenty-year hiatuses and periods of increasing temperatures when humans were generating little CO2.
Me “that the cause of short term CO2 variation is NOT global T, it is the ENSO specific weather pattern.
You: “For the nth time, ENSO affects global temperatures. But the global temperatures drive CO2 increases year after year for the duration of the whole available time series, not just ENSO years.”
Oh? Wishful thinking. Point me examples of that. ENSO, La Nina or El Nino, is active in most years. It is the dominant source of variation.
Pinatubo, also caused change, but a different amount.
And mechanism is not Henry’s law.
“And it is (pretty well) understood how ENSO drives it.
“But you failed over and over to show any supporting data or coherently explain anything about that.”
I failed? Puleeez. Not my job. I showed you a paper. You want me to read it to you?
There are other papers. You unable to Google?
I don’t really care whether you believe it or not. You dismiss every paper I show you, while not bothering to read them.
And there is an obvious alternate cause of long term CO2 rise, that has both correlation and a clear causal mechanism demonstrated.
“Oh good, then just show the data indicating more CO2 will increase global temperature by any measurable amount. You know, something without twenty-year hiatuses and periods of increasing temperatures when humans were generating little CO2.”
Different topic. You keep building the same strawman that CO2 must be the ONLY source of T variation, else the theory must be wrong.
And of course the hockey sticks for T and CO2, but that is just a correlation. See how that works?
“Your paper based on one years data implied the opposite, as you stated earlier; IOW, ENSO suppresses CO2 outgassing despite blatant evidence to the contrary shown in the long-term data. Why do you repeat the same garbage without providing any data to support it?”
I dont know why I bother showing you papers when you can’t understand them.
Again, you can’t seem to deal with complexity.
” ENSO suppresses CO2 outgassing”
The paper is discussing El Nino. El Nino suppresses outgassing. That is a fact, because El Nino suppresses upwelling in the Eastern Pacific of CO2 rich water, as it explained.
Thus in the Early part of an El Nino rise they MEASURED suppressed CO2 release over the Pacific ocean.
But in the later part of the El Nino, after its effects were felt around the world, they MEASURED atm CO2 rising, as we would expect.
This is not garbage. It is just the way it works.
“I prepared a graph ( https://postimg.cc/XX8Bwx0c ) illustrating why two trends with exactly the same slope are less correlated than two other trends differing by a factor of two. What matters is how closely the short-term changes track, not how close the long-term trends are. ”
I agree, common trends are a very WEAK type of correlation. But Bart thought it was significant for showing that T drives the long term CO2 rise.
If you don’t think it implies anything about long-term trends then I agree.
Then I dont really understand your overall point here. As I noted, short term correlation between T and CO2 rate-of-change is well known and not disputed.
So what does that do for you?
“Point me examples of [global temperatures driving CO2 increases year after year for the duration of the whole available time series, not just ENSO years]. ENSO, La Nina or El Nino, is active in most years.”
The global temperature effect is active in ALL years whether they are ENSO affected or not. Look at this plot where I adjusted the scale and offset so that the two major El Nino years 1998 and 2015 are scaled the same. https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/uah6/scale:0.28/offset:0.15
Now look at the Mt Pinatubo (1991), Mt. St. Helens (1980), and El Chicon (1982) years which were unaffected by an El Nino. The CO2 change still tracks with the temperatures. Examples shown.
“I showed you a paper.”
One year, one paper which you failed again to explain. It is not my job to do the work you need to do to make your case and refute mine. Talk about OID, ownership-inversion-deflection. Boy do you have it bad. I’m having a good laugh right now typing this.
“I dont really care whether you believe it or not.”
More OID, except I don’t ask you to ‘believe’ data I have not shown you. If you have a problem with my arguments, then either refute them or bug off. I don’t care. I made my point over and over, you failed to refute, so take it or leave it.
“Different topic.”
Yes, my mistake. But you are the one who tried to change the subject.
“See how that works?”
No, my powers are numerable, but I don’t read minds.
“El Nino suppresses outgassing.”
I did get that from the paper. Yet as I keep noting, that phrase is contradicted by the global data, and you previously avoided explaining why. Locally there may be a suppression of outgassing due to suppressed upwelling. But you failed to report any data from the paper that would support your/their case. I will give you a C on finally explaining something, at least.
“Then I dont really understand your overall point here. As I noted, short term correlation between T and CO2 rate-of-change is well known and not disputed.”
More OID. That was my point from the get-go in my response to KH that you originally challenged as King of Obfuscation. I reiterated the same point in a later reply to PN: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327347
Now after dozens of comments, you claim you don’t understand the point I’ve been making all along. I don’t expect you to acknowledge how disingenuous that looks but, for the record, at least we finally agree.
Ok, then you are not trying to use this graph, as Bart did to support the claim that T drives long the long term CO2 rise. Good.
I believe this started when you showed the Bart graph with the splendid match to short and long term variation.
Then I posted what, IMO, is an unbiased version of the graph.
Then YOU went into your standard rant, and revealed that you DO think your correlation is indeed proof of causation.
“Nate rears his ugly King of Obfuscation head again by obscuring THE physical reality that temperature drives the short-term fluctuation in the ANNUAL change in CO2.”
But my graph does not ‘obscure’ any physical reality. The short term correlation is still present. The long term one you claim not to care about.
Re: does T variation rather than ENSO drive CO2 variation?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1958/offset:0.5/mean:48/detrend:1.08/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/mean:48/scale:2.1/detrend:0.29
This shows surface temp and CO2-derivative filtered with a 48 mo filter to remove ENSO effects.
Also both series are detrended.
Does the result look correlated to you?
Not to me.
“I believe this started when you showed the Bart graph with the splendid match to short and long term variation.”
Yes, I responded to a series of questions asked by Kenneth Helland (July 1, 2022 at 10:36 AM) ending with, “Do the variations in CO2 show any strong correlations to the fluctuations in temperature?”
You jumped to the conclusion I was making the broader claim that temperature accounts for all CO2 growth.
“Then I posted what, IMO, is an unbiased version of the graph.”
Yes, you posted your opinion which is equally biased, if not worse, because it obfuscated the valid point I was making with my graph, which you have now agreed to.
“Then YOU went into your standard rant, and revealed that you DO think your correlation is indeed proof of causation.”
The history of my patient rebuttal to your revisionist obfuscations is clearly available to anyone reading the thread. Again, you agree that “short-term correlation between T and CO2 rate-of-change is well known and not disputed.” The only difference is you are obsessed with objecting to a long-term effect, despite the fact that the short-term correlation occurs throughout the full 50- or 60-year period depending on which of at least three temperature data series being compared with the annual CO2 growth. Apparently, you cannot appreciate that the long-term trend correlations are conflated by other factors, such as, 1) contributions to CO2 growth besides temperature, and 2) the temperature trends do not have the same slopes over the full time periods.
“But my graph does not ‘obscure’ any physical reality.”
You objected to averaging CO2 change without averaging temperature. That obscures the physical reality that CO2 is measured at only one global point and must be averaged to have a level playing field when compared to global temperatures which are already averaged. That is the closest one can come to physical reality. However, it is true that my point about temperature drives CO2 change is not obscured, only unnecessarily challenged. I regret not letting it go at the time. However, my presentation on this topic is getting better honed and for that, I’m grateful.
“Re: does T variation rather than ENSO drive CO2 variation? This [WoodForTrees graph] shows surface temp and CO2-derivative filtered with a 48 mo filter to remove ENSO effects.”
I don’t see the point of removing ENSO effects. The ENSO contribution is vital in making temperature as accurate as possible. You can argue that ENSO is a major influence on global temperature, but that doesn’t take anything away from my original point. Knock yourself out.
“You objected to averaging CO2 change without averaging temperature. That obscures the physical reality that CO2 is measured at only one global point and must be averaged to have a level playing field when compared to global temperatures which are already averaged. That is the closest one can come to physical reality. However, it is true that my point about temperature drives CO2 change is not obscured, only unnecessarily challenged.”
Uhh..i dont think that makes any sense.
It is useful to average CO2 over 12 months to remove the seasonal cycle and local variations and produce a smooth derivative. It’s best to compare them over periods long enough that CO2 has had a chance to mix. But this does mean that faster variations are suppressed.
Global T is not ‘already averaged’ over time, only space. It still contains its monthly temporal variations.
CO2 levels at Mauna Loa are in a sense ‘already averaged’ over time and space because the trade winds have brought CO2 from all over the world emitted in the prior months.
It makes no sense to think the worldwide monthly variations in T are fully present in the Mauna Loa CO2 changes.
In any case, IMO, it is best to filter out the monthly variation equally in both series.
“Uhh..i dont think that makes any sense.”
Maybe explaining it to you a third time’s the charm. You acknowledge your understanding of the importance of averaging the CO2 because of its cycle and it being only measured locally. You claim it is biased not to average the temperature over 12 months as well. I argue against that for the reason that the UAH monthly anomaly is already averaged over the whole planet. There is no physical reason to do any further annual averaging because it only removes valid information. There is nothing to be gained by averaging the temperatures as it changes nothing. It does not remove any bias.
“But this does mean that faster variations are suppressed.”
Nor have I claimed any such thing regarding averaging 12 months of CO2 data. I am only arguing that there is no need to also average the 12 temperature months. One can do that to see if there is any better fit or to make the graph look cleaner, but that comes at cost of introducing some bias. You can see that yourself by introducing a lag of a few months to maximize the correlation. That is due to the fact that temperature drives the resulting CO2 response.
“Global T is not ‘already averaged’ over time, only space. It still contains its monthly temporal variations.”
That’s wrong. You need to open your mind and start thinking out of the box. The satellites circle the globe 24/7 all month long. We only see the one data point that summarizes the month long average temperature. It is that temperature that affected the CO2 over the whole globe during that month. There is no reason to average out a whole year’s worth of temperature to determine the effect of each month. Use the maximum pixels per MB of data for maximum picture clarity.
“CO2 levels at Mauna Loa are in a sense ‘already averaged’ over time and space because the trade winds have brought CO2 from all over the world emitted in the prior months.”
You only have to look at the yearly cycling to realize that is false. You already agreed with the validity of the 12-month averaging for CO2. If you want to eliminate the 12-month average on CO2, go ahead and try it. It’s not a pretty sight.
You have obfuscated enough on this topic without any concrete rebuttal to my assertion that warmer temperatures produce larger annual CO2 increases. In fact, you essentially agree with that. Let it go.
“u claim it is biased not to average the temperature over 12 months as well. I argue against that for the reason that the UAH monthly anomaly is already averaged over the whole planet.”
Nope. Time and space are different variables. You cannot equate them!
The CO2 instantaneous changes at Mauna Loa are due to a mixing of earlier emissions from all over the world that have travelled over varying times to Hawaii. Time is intrinsically smeared out in the CO2 signal.
So if any quantity already contains temporal averaging it is the CO2 data, not the T data, which is only averaged over space.
When we then further average the CO2 data over 12 mo, without also averaging the T data over 12 mo, we are adding a BIAS to the analysis.
“There is no physical reason to do any further annual averaging because it only removes valid information.”
Assertion without logic or evidence. Classic Chic.
“There is nothing to be gained by averaging the temperatures as it changes nothing. It does not remove any bias.”
If it changes nothing, then why do you say it removes valid information!
Of course it changes something.
Again, a 12 mo average suppresses faster variation. Thats what a LP filter means! If you do that to one data set but not the other that introduces a BIAS.
It is obviously hopeless to make you understand any science with subtlety or complexity.
“I dont see the point of removing ENSO effects. The ENSO contribution is vital in making temperature as accurate as possible. You can argue that ENSO is a major influence on global temperature, but that doesnt take anything away from my original point. ”
You claimed, without evidence, that non-ENSO T variation CAUSES CO2 variation.
You claimed, without evidence that ocean-warming and outgassing is responsible.
I removed ENSO and the result is that slower, non-ENSO T variation is not correlated to CO2 variation.
That is one point.
You still have dealt with the Henry’s Law problem with your claims about ocean warming and out-gassing.
That is another point.
All of your comments are either lies, false accusations, distortions of my points, classic obfuscations seasoned with a bit of OID and unsubstantiated assertions.
“Time and space are different variables. You cannot equate them!” I never wrote that. Distortion, OID.
“Time is intrinsically smeared out in the CO2 signal.” Unsubstantiated and arguably unsubstantiatable.
“You claimed, without evidence, that non-ENSO T variation CAUSES CO2 variation.” An OID lie. I argued ENSO is a major contributor to global temperature.
“You claimed, without evidence that ocean-warming and outgassing is responsible.” Distortion, because I only claimed largely responsible and that is not germane to my “warmer T makes annual CO2 growth larger” meme.
“I removed ENSO and the result is that slower, non-ENSO T variation is not correlated to CO2 variation.” Irrelevant obfuscation, because I never claimed ENSO is not involved in the temperature effect on CO2.
“You still have dealt with the Henrys Law problem with your claims about ocean warming and out-gassing.” A false accusation, if not blatant lie.
You do realize that King of Obfuscation is not a term of endearment, right? You earned it with flying colors.
So many times you label obvious facts a LIE here. Do you think calling something a lie allows you to ‘win’ the argument. Shameless.
“Time and space are different variables. You cannot equate them!’ I never wrote that. Distortion, OID.”
Your statement is clearly saying that a spatial average is ‘already’ doing what a time average would do!
“u claim it is biased not to average the temperature over 12 months as well. I argue against that for the reason that the UAH monthly anomaly is already averaged over the whole planet.”
“‘Time is intrinsically smeared out in the CO2 signal.’ Unsubstantiated and arguably unsubstantiatable.”
This simple truth is clearly explained: “The CO2 instantaneous changes at Mauna Loa are due to a mixing of earlier emissions from all over the world that have travelled over varying times to Hawaii.”
YOU fail to get it and cannot rebut it.
“‘You claimed, without evidence, that non-ENSO T variation CAUSES CO2 variation.’ An OID lie.”
Here’s you claiming just that:
“the global temperatures drive CO2 increases year after year for the duration of the whole available time series, NOT JUST ENSO YEARS”
So, not a lie after all!
“I removed ENSO and the result is that slower, non-ENSO T variation is not correlated to CO2 variation. Irrelevant obfuscation, because I never claimed ENSO is not involved in the temperature effect on CO2.”
See above where you DID claim non-ENSO T variation is driving CO2 changes!
“You still have dealt with the Henrys Law problem with your claims about ocean warming and out-gassing.” A false accusation, if not blatant lie.”
Not at all. Here is you claiming ocean outgassing:
“The effect is largely based on the greater ocean outgassing that occurs with higher temperatures.”
Here is me pointing out that Henry’s Law does not agree.
“Weve discussed it several times. Henrys law produces ~ 20-30 ppm rise in CO2 for 1 C increase in T. Not nearly enough to explain the long term rise. And the short-term rise has a higher scale factor, as I showed, thus it is a larger rate-of-change with Temp. So Henry cannot help you.”
Here is you not addressing the issue: ” ”
Not false. Not a lie.
“So many times you label obvious facts a LIE here. Do you think calling something a lie allows you to ‘win’ the argument.”
First, your lies and false accusations are documented in the history of this thread. Second, the thread shouldn’t be about winning an argument, but acknowledging the validity of a scientific argument that warmer years produce larger CO2 increases. You already agreed with that. Why is that so hard for you to let it go? Are you suffering from ALDS? Argument Loss Derangement Syndrome.
“Your statement is clearly saying that a spatial average is ‘already’ doing what a time average would do!”
You are falsely accusing me by distorting my words, therefore lying, and doubling down on stupid. CO2 is not universally mixed in the same way as a temperature average is obtained. You are falsely accusing me of equating time and space, whereas I am making the distinction between them. To equate them, one would have to be measuring CO2 over the whole globe as temperature is. You can see from CarbonTracker that CO2 is not as well-mixed as you believe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV6FDO_Pl5M
“YOU fail to get it and cannot rebut [CO2 instantaneous changes at Mauna Loa are due to a mixing of earlier emissions].”
That is classic OID. You never showed any data supporting your unfounded assertion. Now you are accusing me of failing to rebut it????
“Heres you claiming just that:”
And then you proceed to distort my statement to make it seem that ONLY the ENSO years cause CO2 variation. I clearly stated, “The global temperature effect is active in ALL years whether they are ENSO affected or not.” Your propensity to obfuscate knows no bounds.
“See above where you DID claim non-ENSO T variation is driving CO2 changes!”
This is another example of ownership inversion deflection and classic obfuscation. Although I never claimed “ENSO is not involved in the temperature effect on CO2,” that statement is not contradicted by “non-ENSO T variation is [solely] driving CO2 changes,” which you falsely implied I claimed. You are simply too stubborn to admit that ENSO affects temperature which drives CO2 whether ENSO is active or not.
My answer to, “And as you can see in the paper, and application of Henrys law, this, ‘The effect is largely based on the greater ocean outgassing that occurs with higher temperatures,’ turns out not to be supported by the facts,” was this, “No, I dont see anything in the paper that refutes my claim. But I omitted the additional effect of temperature on CO2 coming from the geosphere.”
“Here is you not addressing the issue: [silence]”
Here is me addressing the issue, “Yes, and I agreed that the temperature factor is not enough to account for ALL of the long term rise in CO2.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1329398
So, your Henry’s Law obsession is just a blatant lie, or you are suffering from short term memory loss, ALDS, OID, an attempt to compensate for a small penis, or some combination of all. You need psychological help.
You seem to have oppositional defiance disorder, where you have to argue with whatever I post regardless of its truth.
You have pointing out a correlation between Global T and CO2 measured in Hawaii.
That means T in Russia and resultant CO2 outgassing in Russia do end up affecting CO2 in measured in Hawaii. To do that it must mix and travel to Hawaii. It doesnt do that instantaneously.
You can clearly see that propagation time between the hemispheres here. The South Pole responds later to the NH rise from emissions and fall from leafing out of Norther forrests.
So your denial that there is a smearing of the times that the distant emissions reach Hawaii is quite baffling.
Link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZQG59_z83I
“You seem to have oppositional defiance disorder, where you have to argue with whatever I post regardless of its truth.”
You indict yourself. My comments are fact based and focused on the meme that temperature affects CO2, a meme which you agreed with. Meanwhile, I am simply asking you to prove your assertions with data and a coherent argument. You accuse me of what you are doing. You are lying and distorting my arguments.
“That means T in Russia and resultant CO2 outgassing in Russia do end up affecting CO2 in measured in Hawaii. To do that it must mix and travel to Hawaii. It doesn’t do that instantaneously.”
I never claimed otherwise. And because of the regional and seasonal differences, it makes sense to average CO2 over the whole year. I show you the CarbonTracker evidence of the reason why and you ownership-inversion deflect by showing a link making the same point.
“The South Pole responds later . . . .”
The SH and NH are contraposed. If you want to make the case one leads the other, you are welcome to do that. It won’t change my argument which you already agree with. Geesh.
“So your denial that there is a smearing of the times that the distant emissions reach Hawaii is quite baffling.”
“Smearing of the times” is not a scientific phrase I am familiar with. Your comment is unintelligible, a false accusation, and just plain more obfuscation. What’s baffling is why you don’t let it go and stop making a fool of yourself.
Let me give you some advice: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1330781
That means T in Russia and resultant CO2 outgassing in Russia do end up affecting CO2 in measured in Hawaii. To do that it must mix and travel to Hawaii. It doesnt do that instantaneously.
“I never claimed otherwise.”
Oh? Then it is still baffling that you fail to understand this:
“‘CO2 levels at Mauna Loa are in a sense already averaged over time and space because the trade winds have brought CO2 from all over the world emitted in the prior months.’
You only have to look at the yearly cycling to realize that is false.”
or this:
“So your denial that there is a smearing of the times that the distant emissions reach Hawaii is quite baffling.”
“Time is intrinsically smeared out in the CO2 signal.”
“Smearing of the times” is not a scientific phrase I am familiar with.
Ok so, you don’t know what SMEARING means? Pulleez.
‘Smearing of times’ you can’t figure out what that means?
Either you are extremely clueless, or you have a severe case of ODD.
Likely both.
Your last post shows you are at the end of your rope. Cut your losses and let go.
My bet is your ALDS affliction will force you to continue ad nauseam.
“See above where you DID claim non-ENSO T variation is driving CO2 changes!’
“This is another example of ownership inversion deflection and classic obfuscation. Although I never claimed ‘ENSO is not involved in the temperature effect on CO2,’ that statement is not contradicted by ‘non-ENSO T variation is [solely] driving CO2 changes, which you falsely implied I claimed.”
Nope, I never did.
We had already agreed that ENSO years are correlated to T and CO2.
You and I were then specifically addressing the non-ENSO T variation, which you brought up.
There was NO statement from me, or implication from me, that you claimed ‘non-ENSO T variation is soley driving CO2 variation’
Your cluelessness and ODD at it again.
FYI here is ocean T and LP filtered CO2 variation. Both detrended.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/scale:1.8/mean:48/detrend:0.25/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1958/mean:12/offset:0.5/mean:48/detrend:0.8
The lack of correlation is more pronounced for these medium time-scale variations.
FYI, my wife agrees that ‘smear’ was not a clear word to use in that context to mean ‘spread out’.
So I’ll give you that one.
“Nope, I never did [falsely imply you claimed non-ENSO T variation is [solely] driving CO2 changes.”
“There was NO statement from me, or implication from me, that you claimed ‘non-ENSO T variation is soley driving CO2 variation'”
Nate, you quoted yourself in the first sentence of your 7:56 AM comment doing exactly that. I added the “solely” to highlight what I thought you were implying, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were just doing your usual obfuscation.
Here is where you made the original false claim: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1330432
Your debate tactic of accusing me of doing exactly what you are doing is getting old. Find a counseling group and admit “I’m Nate, and I have ALDS and ODD.”
“The lack of correlation is more pronounced for these medium time-scale variations.”
No one should be surprised by that. Why would you think spreading out or smearing would improve any correlation? It seems your objective is to disprove my claim that temperature drives CO2 change. You failed. Let it go.
Here is ocean T and LP filtered CO2 variation both detrended without spreading out the time series.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/scale:1.8/mean:12/detrend:0.25/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1958/mean:12/offset:0.4/mean:12/detrend:0.8
Just one more thing. I forgot to thank you for the CO2 Pumphandle video. It makes a great addition to my climate change talks combating AGW fanaticism.
” I added the ‘solely’ to highlight what I thought you were implying”
Yep. Reading minds is not your strong suit.
“The lack of correlation is more pronounced for these medium time-scale variations.”
“No one should be surprised by that. Why would you think spreading out or smearing would improve any correlation?”
You obviously have little understanding of what a low pass filter does. It has nothing to do with ‘spreading out’ anything.
It simply removes faster variation, leaving behind slower variation, and shows that this medium and longer scale variation is NOT correlated to CO2 variation.
‘No one should be surprised by that’. Well Im suprised you would say that given that this plot contradicts your repeated claims that T drives CO2 variation.
“Here is ocean T and LP filtered CO2 variation both detrended without spreading out the time series.”
Filtering is not ‘spreading out’.
Your plot serves no purpose because I have never argued with the fact that fast variations in these two series are correlated.
ENSO is correlated to T and CO2. Thus you have three things correlated.
The main issue is, for umpteenth time, that correlation is not causation!
Something that Skeptic Chic always emphasized.
The other issue is that NOT ALL T variation is well correlated to CO2.
As I showed, the medium scale and longer scale variation are not correlated.
Given your “claim that temperature drives CO2 change.” Do you have an explanation for this?
“[a low pass filter] has nothing to do with spreading out anything. It simply removes faster variation, leaving behind slower variation, and shows that this medium and longer scale variation is NOT correlated to CO2 variation.”
That is the biggest most concentrated pile of BS in this whole thread. Manipulating data to worsen a correlation is gross obfuscation.
“this plot contradicts your repeated claims that T drives CO2 variation.”
No, it only shows you are full of BS.
“Given your ‘claim that temperature drives CO2 change.’ Do you have an explanation for this?”
Yes. Nothing you argued refutes my claim. Although the correlation is not proof, it is pretty hard to prove otherwise as you have elegantly shown.
“The other issue is that NOT ALL T variation is well correlated to CO2. As I showed, the medium scale and longer scale variation are not correlated.”
You showed BS only proving you can obfuscate better than the devil himself. Your spreading-out manipulation distortions attempt to invalidate a short-term correlation that applies over the whole measurement period fails.
“That is the biggest most concentrated pile of BS in this whole thread. Manipulating data to worsen a correlation is gross obfuscation.”
What you call ‘manipulating’ is standard data analysis to investigate time-dependent properties of data.
I note that your ‘manipulation’ by applying an LP filter to one data set but not the other was somehow OK. So you are quite a hypocrite here.
“Your spreading-out manipulation distortions attempt to invalidate a short-term correlation”
Filtering is not spreading out, dimwit. It doesnt IN ANY WAY attempt to invalidate the obvious short term correlation. It is simply isolating the medium and long time-scale variations.
Confirming that you seem to have no clue about what filtering does. It has a legitimate purpose in science, but you are, of course, quite ignorant of all that, and thoroughly confused.
Oh well.
“What you call ‘manipulating’ is standard data analysis to investigate time-dependent properties of data.”
Asserting that your King of Obfuscation method is standard data analysis does not make it so.
“I note that your ‘manipulation’ by applying an LP filter to one data set but not the other was somehow OK. So you are quite a hypocrite here.”
As stated numerous times now, my claim was temperature drives annual CO2 change. I explained why temperature does not need to be averaged. I explained why CO2 growth has to be averaged to remove CO2 seasonal and regional variability. You can see for yourself what would happen if you removed either or both of the average or the LP filter, which is massive degradation of any correlation.
You on the otherhand, in an attempt to inexplicably argue against that which you agreed with several times, try to smother any temperature-driving-CO2 correlation by averaging not just once on both series, but a second time with a four-year smoothing and also detrend to boot. Even with all that obfuscation, a trace of the temperature influence remains. This is argument loss derangement syndrome taken to an extreme.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/scale:1.8/mean:48/detrend:0.25/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1958/offset:0.4/mean:48/detrend:0.8hat
“Filtering is simply isolating the medium and long time-scale variations.”
Admittedly, obfuscation by filtering is not my forte. I’m just a retired lab rat. In the lab, filtration works in two ways. One is to remove the product from the reaction media. The other is to filter out the dregs from the liquor. I filtered the noise to see the signal. You did the opposite. Your whole contribution to this thread has been a failed attempt to eliminate the well-known temperature effect on annual CO2 growth by showing no medium- and long-term correlations.
On your way back to the drawing board, stop by the psychology department and get a reality check and treatment for your ALDS.
The link in the previous comment went awry:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/scale:1.8/mean:48/detrend:0.25/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1958/offset:0.4/mean:48/detrend:0.8
Heres the problem. You are not really familiar with filtering, what it does and does not do, what its purpose is..
But you still declare it obfuscation, and dismiss filtered data as inappropriately manipulated.
It isnt.
This is the problem.
Your ALDS is the problem. Seek help.
” I explained why temperature does not need to be averaged.”
You insisted that global T is ‘already averaged’ over 12 months based on pure speculation that spatial converts to temporal, and a lack of understanding of how filtering works.
I explained why if you want to compare variation on multiple time scales in two series, you cannot suppress variations unequally in the two series.
Your speculations are deemed by you to be valid explanations.
My explanations based on actual knowledge and experience of filtering are deemed invalid and obfuscation.
And your objections to this has no clear purpose, other than to be ODD.
“I explained why CO2 growth has to be averaged to remove CO2 seasonal and regional variability.”
And I concurred that is essential. Just do it equally to BOTH.
“You can see for yourself what would happen if you removed either or both of the average or the LP filter, which is massive degradation of any correlation.”
“You on the otherhand, in an attempt to inexplicably argue against that which you agreed with several times, try to smother any temperature-driving-CO2 correlation by averaging not just once on both series, but a second time with a four-year smoothing and also detrend to boot. Even with all that obfuscation, a trace of the temperature influence remains. This is argument loss derangement syndrome taken to an extreme.”
I ALREADY had showed 12 mo filtering results leaving fast correlations intact. Then I showed 48 mo filtering to remove ENSO driven effects.
I have consistently stated that there is correlation between fast variations. For you to suggest I am arguing against that is mistaken.
I think it is informative to isolate variation on different time scales, to see whether fast variations and medium variations behave differently. That was the point.
But you cover eyes, plug ears, dont want to know about any facts that may interfere with your simple, chosen narrative.
“and also detrend to boot”
Yes indeed. Detrending also has a purpose. It helps to isolate variations that are on top of whatever trend there is.
You understand this and have made the same point:
“I prepared a graph ( https://postimg.cc/XX8Bwx0c ) illustrating why two trends with exactly the same slope are less correlated than two other trends differing by a factor of two. What matters is how closely the short-term changes track, not how close the long-term trends are.”
“My explanations based on actual knowledge and experience of filtering are deemed invalid and obfuscation.”
Your explanations prove your knowledge and experience are only good for enhancing your King of Obfuscation resume. You are confiscating my arguments as if you made them first and abridging them to try to make it look like my point is wrong. You failed. With only one exception, the only charts you post support my arguments, not refute them.
The exception is where you try to use a 4-year “time-smearing” to make short term temperature influence on CO2 go away. That only fools those unfamiliar with your tricks or not paying close attention.
You accused me of “pure speculation that spatial converts to temporal, and a lack of understanding of how filtering works.”
That is hypocritical prevarication. First, I never insisted “global T is ‘already averaged’ over 12 months.” That’s you lying. Global temperature is measured globally, and the average is posted EACH MONTH by Dr. S as I wrote several times now. You have never made a case for that being “speculation that spatial converts to temporal.” Conveniently, for you obfuscators, what is not shown can’t be rebutted. Finally, your examples demonstrate you are the one abusing how filtration works by “smearing” rather than clarifying.
“I explained why if you want to compare variation on multiple time scales in two series, you cannot suppress variations unequally in the two series.”
That is just your warped opinion. I violate no scientific principle or statistical law. “Suppress” denigrates what is being done by averaging the seasonal and regional CO2 measurement variability. I meticulously explained that and why it isn’t necessary for temperature. You know this, yet stupefyingly object.
“Just do it equally to BOTH.”
You did, and I did. All it shows is smearing reduces correlation.
“I have consistently stated that there is correlation between fast variations. For you to suggest I am arguing against that is mistaken.”
Yet you are vehemently trying to obscure the fact that those short-term correlations extend throughout the full time series. You used smearing to try to obscure that fact.
“I think it is informative to isolate variation on different time scales, to see whether fast variations and medium variations behave differently. That was the point.”
A point which you have utterly failed to make because you are blinded by ALDS and too busy arguing against the simple proposition that temperature drives annual CO2 change, a narrative you have supported several times now. Ironically, you accuse me of not wanting “to know about any facts that may interfere with [this] simple, chosen narrative.”
How long will it take you to realize I won’t stop pointing out your obfuscations? My case is made, and my responses will be briefer to avoid wasting any more time with you.
“I never insisted ‘global T is ‘already averaged; over 12 months.’ Thats you lying.”
FALSE
Me:
“Global T is not ‘already averaged’ over time, only space. It still contains its monthly temporal variations.”
This is an obvious fact.
You:
“Thats wrong. You need to open your mind and start thinking out of the box.”
“FALSE” — prove it, liar. Putting a semi-colon in only makes your prevarication worse.
“This is an obvious fact” that you repeatedly assert without evidence.
‘This is an obvious fact’ that you repeatedly assert without evidence.”
I need to show you evidence that UAH monthly data is an average of global T over a month, not a year?
ODD.
OID.
“The exception is where you try to use a 4-year ‘time-smearing’ to make short term temperature influence on CO2 go away. That only fools those unfamiliar with your tricks or not paying close attention.”
You seem utterly determined to remain ignorant on this subject matter.
If you choose to believe standard data analysis is a ‘trick’, then a rational discussion with you is just not possible.
“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
“Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”
Quotes by Mark Twain applicable to Nate.
Ok, don’t ever use statistics here. We’ll know its just a trick.
OID and ALDS.
And since March, the global anomalies have been higher than last year.
But may soon be below zero.
Mary, Mary, quite contrary.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
Want to guess where this will go when you add in this months data?
True,
It normally takes a few days to get the gridded version though.
This comment was for Bindidon above.
Sorry.
Sure.
I don’t think however that the data for this last month could modify the situation so dramatically.
My comments lands at random levels. I should probably respond from th PC rather than the mobile. Yes, we need a high anomaly for a long period before this changes mathematically.
Averages (i.e. OLS) are like that. Takes a long time for them to change. Perhaps that is good reason to use something other than averages for short and long term trends.
Link is the gridded UAH TLT trend over the full record (to May 2022).
uahTltGridTrend
At some point I’ll have to do this for other data sets.
Mark B
Thanks a lot for the work, pretty good as usual.
*
A little remark: you use only shades of red and blue, which makes it difficult to read and quickly can become subject to this typical “alarmism” criticism.
Something between your output and UAH’s
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/december2021/2021_Trend_Map.png
showing the inverse (‘nothing bad happens anywhere, move along’) would be welcome :- )
What about a chart similar to this one (I confess to being too lazy to ‘mollweide’ it with gnuplot):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vmu_penDkcZYjcs6wMVj9DvZFC7CWmA9/view
I’ve updated the graphic at the link above. I was aiming to use a more full spectrum colormap ala the similar graphic from RSS. I also reduced the number of graduations so the differences are more apparent.
OLS trends of averages (even gridded ones) do not show the whole picture.
Links for gridded Had*CRUT V5 trend data over various periods
1978-2022 for comparison with UAH trend
hadSurfaceGriddedTrend1978-2022.png
1950-2022 for period IPCC “warming since 1950” attributions statement
hadSurfaceGriddedTrend1950-2022.png
1850-2022 for full Had*CRUT record
hadSurfaceGriddedTrend1850-2022.png
Note that the scaling is different between periods to highlight gradiations between regions.
OLS trends of averages (even gridded ones) do not show the whole picture.
Thanks Mark B…
I see once more:
” OLS trends of averages (even gridded ones) do not show the whole picture. ”
For example, of course, in
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend
This is in Swedish but I think youll understand the graphs anyway.
https://cfys.nu/graphs/Avtagande%20v%C3%A4xthuseffet.pdf
Thanks, no problem using Google Transl.
Someone else has noticed that the most recent temperature trend is downwards since 2016.
MrZ
I just had a first look at your document, and will have a closer look at it today evening.
But… I see in the pdf file this typical UAH time series picture
https://i.postimg.cc/nhfkNwjh/Screenshot-2022-07-02-at-10-09-24-Avtagande-pdf.png
with the usual falling red bar for the post-2016 trend.
My first question is: who wonders about a falling UAH trend, when its starting year is that with the highest value in all 42 years?
My second question: did you ever compute the annual anomaly averages for UAH, and put them into your SQL data base?
There you could search for all years y0 preceded by years y1, y2, y3, y4, y5 whose values are all greater than that of y0.
Result:
1985
1992
2000
2008
Ooops?! 2021 isn’t even at the end of the list!
That’s due to the bad boy 2018… he he.
*
Now let us look at all these periods (including 2021) for which the trend is negative (thus, 2000 isn’t in the list):
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1980/to:1986/trend/plot/uah6/from:1987/to:1993/trend/plot/uah6/from:2003/to:2009/trend/plot/uah6/from:2016/to:2022/trend
(to:1986 is the same as to:1985.99)
and look behind ‘Raw data’ at WFT’s computed trends for all them, in C /year:
1980 – 1986: -0.0495981
1987 – 1993: -0.0413602
2003 – 2009: -0.0370889
2016 – 2022: -0.0221208
*
I don’t dispute at all that the actual situation looks as if we were in front of a cooling period.
But is it not necessary to look at previous similar situations, before stating that the current one is unusual, let alone that it would be unprecedented?
“when its starting year is that with the highest value in all 42 years?”
But not the highest point since 1878.
Once more, a useless, diverting, confusing, distorting reply instead of a useful, constructive arguing.
Someone has not noticed that we are discussing the UAH period:
https://i.postimg.cc/nhfkNwjh/Screenshot-2022-07-02-at-10-09-24-Avtagande-pdf.png
*
Do you want me to collect all 5 year periods since 1870 showing a trend way way lower than 2016-now, which you do consider most relevant?
*
By the way, Linsley Hood, it’s amusing to see you
– discrediting OLS trends everywhere and all the time,
but
– silently approving the OLS trend for 2016-now:
” Someone else has noticed that the most recent temperature trend is downwards since 2016. ”
Fits your egomaniac narrative.
I was just setting the El Nino of 2016 in context. Some might think it was ‘unprecedented’ otherwise.
Bindidon,
My comments are about the total greenhouse effect. Very few I have talked to appreciates that it is actually decreasing. Same applies to the CMIP5/6 models.
It is a bit unfortunate that 2016 was so exceptionally high on all parameters. Hard to avoid that fact when examining current events.
What I do is that put a trend length (72 months in the PFD example) and then swipe the trend along the line. There is nothing even close to similar along the whole line. In fact for the N20-S20 band we have never had a negative tilt for any 72 month period.
I think this La Nina is exceptional both in length and amplitude. Lets see how the rest of the year develops.
MrZ
” I think this La Nina is exceptional both in length and amplitude. ”
But if this is not visible in the Multivariate ENSO Index
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
where do you see it then?
Which sources exactly do you use?
“But if this is not visible in the Multivariate ENSO Index”
The values will only show up in the ONI (or Multivariate ENSO Index) is they are different to the previous 30 years with a moving 5 year window. See how the Multivariate ENSO Index is constructed.
The Nino 3.4 data is not detrended in such a fashion.
MEI has nothing in common with ONI, neither with regard to the data it uses, let alone how it processes that data.
And it does NOT use a 5-year moving reference period.
All datasets are available here, https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/reanalysis-era5-pressure-levels-monthly-means?tab=overview
I don’t think I can analyze La Nina per say better than the sources you reference. What I think I have spotted is its impact on the overall greenhouse effect. Less warming and moisture leads to lower amount of greenhouse gasses. The effect is so powerful in the N20-S20 band that it is even visible on global level.
Seen from this point of view La Nina has larger effect than ever during the 1979-2022 period.
The Nino 3.4 data is not detrended in such a fashion.
The ENSO data mixes in things from the SOI, etc. to the Nino 3.4. Its maths are quite complicated to say the least.
“The new MEI.ext confirms that ENSO activity went through a lull in the early-to mid-20th century, but was just about as prevalent one century ago as in recent decades”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327742
If a simpler solution does not produce the same warming ‘signal’ as a more complicated one, then it is hardly likely that the more complex one is ‘correct’.
This is the development you could expect even before the peak of 2020 if you analyze natural movements.
A tool that is not normally used in climate contexts is technical analysis of input wave movements. I personally consider this to be the only tool that can correctly interpret the climate movements in detail because it analyzes nature’s movements in both short and long perspectives, and they have worked exactly in different steps since I started the month before the turnaround in 2020 started.
I suggest that UAH take into account the moving 30-year moving average, 360 months, which in my opinion best reflects the current climate situation and the development of climate movements according to the scientific climate definition of 30 years. And this mean value shows that we are now turning down climate change globally as well as regionally (Chapter 21)
According to my interpretation, the critical level is at -1,0C (-0.94C), where any establishment below that would show a dramatically increased probability that a new smaller or larger ice age is on the way. This is due to the spread of the waves in time and range during previous periods, and a possible establishment below that would show that the decline is not of a temporary nature.
Preliminarily, all measurement data I have seen from different parts of the world show the same thing, that is, a very accurate climate cycle since the 19th century is now completed, as well as a smaller one between 1984-2016 according to UAH data, which contributes to a strongly negative forecast for the future developments (Chapter 18).
The text is in Swedish but I think you understand the main features with the help of the pictures or with, for example, a google translation
The latest chapter is in the link below where links to other chapters can be found.
Sincerely, Alvar Nyrn, Analyst, Sweden
https://alvarnyren.wixsite.com/aidtrade/post/mina-klimatmodeller-25
Alvar Nyrn
You should present your stuff at WUWT, they will love you.
And I’m sure Heartland and GWPF will strike a juicy consulting deal with you soon.
How to ‘ad hom’ attack without any supporting science. Well done Blinny.
Sorted out what CTRMs are and how you calculate the 3 periods needed yet? You could always consult what Vaughan Pratt said.
Ad hom? Here, by me?
Did I name Mr Nyrn a ‘boasting idiot’, like you do?
And what concerns your ridiculous ‘Sorted out’s… I get a bigger laugh each time a newer one appears.
*
What about YOU showing us exactly, i.e. with a link to the original source what Vaughan Pratt said, Linsley Hood?
I know what e.g. Greg Goodman said (and by the way I could see that you were not even able to exactly replicate his Excel method in your CTRM example for UAH).
“Ad hom? Here, by me?”
Yup. Your whole post was an ‘ad hom’ attack. No science in it at all.
For the particular use of 12, 10 and 8 months as the CTRM filter parameters see
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/#comment-420928http://vaughanpratt.wordpress.com/
“The blue one, 8 10 12, looks pretty good in general.”
For the actual calculation factors see
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/#comment-420568
“if you use the optimal values for an F3 filter, namely 1.2067 then 1.5478”
Bad first link
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/#comment-420928
Sorry
” Yup. Your whole post was an ad hom attack. No science in it at all. ”
Oh oh oh… If one had to make a list of all your 1000% scienceless dog poos, or of your REAL ad hom attacks, Linsley Hood, that would take long a time.
Of the nearly 1,600 (!!!!) ‘comment’s you posted on last month’s UAH report, about 10% contain somethng useful.
*
I know of that Goodman guest post, Linsley Hood. I read it many times.
I thought you would be able to give us a link to papers made by Vaughan Pratt at StanU.
This would be more helpful than pictures like
http://clim.stanford.edu/F3filters1-5.jpg
wouldn’t it?
Way to support an ‘ad hom’ attack now you are called on it.
“This would be more helpful than pictures like”
the ones published by Vaughn Pratt. Idiot.
You can see quite clearly where the 12, 10, 8 months CTRM came from in that discussion and where the 1.2067 and then 1.5478 came from also. Which is what you asked.
RLH is still promoting his CTRM filters. Thanks for the reference, which will take me some time to digest.
I note that RLH apparently wants to ignore some problems with the CTRM filters. Consider this comment by Greg Goodman
Not to forget that the monthly data represents periods of 30 or 31 days with one month being either 28 or 29. Months are man made divisions of the data and have no natural equivalent in the physics. Most calendar months have one Full Moon, while there will be one month with 2 (365.25/27.55 = 13.25). Think about that when you look at the latest monthly results above.
“Not to forget that the monthly data represents periods of 30 or 31 days with one month being either 28 or 29”
Which is why my presentations of monthly CTRMs use DayOfTheYear for positioning.
Greg’s comments should be treated with caution mas he got the factors for the CTRM wrong and was corrected by VP.
And DaysInTheYear for the overall width of a year.
RLH, I think you missed my point. The monthly data, especially that of UAH, necessarily includes aliasing which is the result of the varying sampling period resulting from the use of calendar months. There is no daily data from the UAH processing, which starts by “binning” the data from individual scans into grid boxes for each month. Thus, I suggest that there’s no way to consider the effects of the lunar tidal cycle in these data, which likely appear as noise in the monthly time series.
Other external influences, such as the Sun Spot cycle, the lunar precession cycle and the Hale Solar magnetic reversal cycle, which are non-integer periods, will also confound things when the annual cycle is removed as anomalies.
When you’ve reached the point of plotting your CTRM data, these issues are out of sight.
“The monthly data, especially that of UAH, necessarily includes aliasing which is the result of the varying sampling period resulting from the use of calendar months”
So sampling at an irregular interval aliases things that occur at regular periods?
The “lunar tidal cycle” is but one factor in what causes ‘tides’, in both the ocean and the atmosphere. Atmospheric pressure, ocean basins, wind fetch and the orientation between the Sun and the Moon causes much larger effects overall.
Given that sampling at an regular intervals aliases things that occur at regular periods close to the sample period, (think Nyquist-Shannon) what would you expect when those sample periods are now irregular?
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 348.3 km/sec
density: 14.86 protons/cm3
Updated 01 Jul 2022
Sunspot number: 40
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2022 total: 1 day (<1%)
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 13.20×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +3.6% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.3%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
"FARSIDE SOLAR ACTIVITY: The Earthside of the sun is quiet. The farside is not. Yesterday, an explosion from a hidden sunspot hurled a partial halo CME into space:
The storm cloud will not hit Earth; it is traveling almost directly away from us. The active sunspot should turn to face Earth about 10 days from now when it completes its farside transit."
One could say, we got earlier, start of Max as compared to 24 cycle,
but seems less than 24 cycle double peak.
I wonder about all activity on farside- it seems most planets our on our near side of sun. Perhaps if if happen to on farside during 25 cycle. then 25 would look more like 24??
Whats the point of posting one day snap really ? Activity goes up and down like a Jo-Jo all the time. The May spot average shot up to 96 but then June spot average dropped to only 70 but the chart is not out yet.
So far he correct superposed charts show 25 is very closely following 24
I want record of it- unless there somewhere else it’s available on day to day basis??
Also want to see I could predict the Oulu Neutron Counts percentage.
Mainly because it related to GCR effect related to going to Mars {and radiation amount of crew getting in ISS]
Solar wind
speed: 304.2 km/sec
density: 34.82 protons/cm3
–THE BREEZE FROM A PASSING CME: A CME passed close to Earth on July 1st. It did not directly strike our planet’s magnetic field. Instead, it made itself known by “snowplowing” dense plasma in our direction.–
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Updated 02 Jul 2022
Sunspot number: 57
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 13.02×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +3.9% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.6%
It appears the higher density of solar wind or snowplowing” is not effecting the thermosphere {much or yet}.
I hate to break it out to you , but nobody is going to Mars
Before 2029 it seems unlikely any crew will go to Mars.
And unlikely any crew go to Moon before 2026, though perhaps
possible people will fly around the Moon before 2025.
And before Sept 2022 is over, we should get a test launch of SLS and
Starship. And before end of 2022, could get more tests and first operational launch of Starship and perhaps followed with about 10 Starships launches in 2023, though it depends upon test launch results, which could delayed this by a year.
Nobody
–Eben says:
July 4, 2022 at 1:58 PM
Nobody–
Will Starship complete it’s test launch?
Will SLS complete it’s test launch?
Will second richest man is world ever make his
New Glenn rocket?
Will chinese launch rockets from the ocean?
No wait:
China just launched a rocket with 5 satellites to orbit from a platform at sea
By Tariq Malik published April 30, 2022
It was the second launch in 2 days for China.
I mean:
China is building a new ship for sea launches to space
By Andrew Jones published November 14, 2021
It should be ready for ocean rocket launches in 2022
Oh, here it is:
China looks to launch liquid propellant rockets from the seas
by Andrew Jones June 30, 2022
https://spacenews.com/china-looks-to-launch-liquid-propellant-rockets-from-the-seas/
Liberal World Order [LWO].
I thought it was LOW, Liberal Order World.
Cause I am always mixing things up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTbdOuv245M
Humans are monsters.
I say this because Jordan Peterson ad, where said, people
should be monsters and learn to control. And then I skipped the
ad.
But Humans are obviously the most dangerous predator on Earth.
And wonder if space aliens are terrified. As seems a lot things to
worried about regarding humans.
And as was saying, some astronomers think humans blind to our universe. So, put them together, terrifying predator which is blind.
No, blind is not good. Roaming blind vicious predators is scary.
Space is hard place to hide in or hard for humans to hide from humans
who can’t detect [or see thru 96% of the universe]. Or human apparently don’t know about the universe. Or can’t know whether it’s easy or hard to hide in space. But based upon what we know, it’s hard to hide in space.
I tend to think this advantage, easy to detect criminal activity and easy to defend against a war enemy.
Right now we can’t detect space rocks, but at some point we detect everything the size of baseball- at 2 AU distance away. In similar way we detect space debris in LEO.
Or telescopes in space will become cheap- far cheaper than telescopes on Earth. Star travel is a bit crazy when you consider how much better and cheaper telescopes will become.
And then humans might discover how to see most of universe.
You might not want to live on Mars, but do want to know what is out there?
{You are predator, of course you do.}
> [I] wonder if space aliens are terrified
Any space aliens who are technologically advanced enough to know about humans, have enough technology to rout us completely, should they be able to get to us. Not that they’d necessarily do that.
But they’re not afraid.
Amused? Perhaps.
Bored? Possibly.
And if they have any empathy, distressed that we are on the path to self-destruction.
Any alien starship in Sol system could easily cause a space rock to impact Earth, ie cause the Comet of Death. Though any other alien starship could more easily prevent it.
Any starship traveling lightyears is costly merely in of just the cost of energy involved.
But as said telescope could be really cheap.
If you can get to point of having 1 million population on Mars, people on Mars to make and launch very cheap space telescopes.
But even currently we could launch somewhat cheap space telescopes from Earth, if there was enough interest in it. Or we have interested in spy satellite, the Hubble telescope came from our interest in spy satellites. So as interested as we are about military space which is critical to US national security. Though military space is cheap compare the other costs of national security. Or it’s not a lot interest, I am talking about, though it is something in which has had many decades with continuous interest, unlike say, the Apollo Program. Though private interest could much more a critical national security issue can do. If were as interest as compared to say, Baseball or as in drinking soda.
Also the chance of Space aliens only finding our charming planet, oppose other space aliens, first seems unlikely.
So if found one space alien civilization, there probably be more interest in finding more of them.
So imagined terrified space aliens might have closer threats to them, but that doesn’t lessen it.
Aliens killed themselves, presumably after having read Roy’s comment section. For more on the idea:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a35049501/alien-life-milky-way-dead-civilizations/
Oh that’s the funniest comment I’ve ever read on here! Thank you 🙂
Willard, If so I hold you partly personally responsible for those alien deaths.
Along with the usual suspects.
https://tenor.com/bn7zR.gif
genuinely funny and very appropriate.
cheers
it’s cold, throw a few more high-ECS models on the fire
at this rate we’ll be lucky if we can emit enough CO2 to stave off the coming reglaciation
You really mean ” its cold… ” ?
Look at the UAH yearly anomaly averages since 2000:
2000 -0.157
2001 -0.023
2002 +0.080
2003 +0.050
2004 -0.054
2005 +0.063
2006 -0.024
2007 +0.023
2008 -0.238
2009 -0.042
2010 +0.193
2011 -0.119
2012 -0.085
2013 -0.002
2014 +0.043
2015 +0.135
2016 +0.388
2017 +0.264
2018 +0.087
2019 +0.303
2020 +0.357
2021 +0.134
Under ‘getting cold’ I understand something different :- )
Heading downwards since 2016 though.
in 2018 I predicted cooling from then on, which was the time all alarmists cranks were screaming the global warming is accelerating and the tipping point and the rest of it, I got 4 years of correct prediction out of it so far.
Bindidong can’t predict absolutely anything but always see something different than reality.
Climate alarmist Dana Nuccitelli from 6 January 2017: No warming since 2016
Does the data show that there has been any warming since 2016? No.
So do we instead suggest that it will just continue getting ‘worse’ regardless of the data? Yes.
Alternatively we could just suggest that ‘rational people’ are always right and continue on with the story as we ‘know it’ regardless. Concentrate on ‘ad hom’ attacks instead of actually arguing the physics (and the data).
Does the data show that El Nino’s, for instance, have gotten any warmer/higher than 1878 as a maximum value but instead concentrate of how the ‘average’ (i.e. the OLS trend) has increased over time instead. Thus playing into the hands of those who claim that things are happening ‘more frequently’ and thus the averages are rising without noticing that the peaks have not changed.
Speak for yourself , what did you predict back then ?
Besides, that Nuccitelli article is 5 years old, did he predict how long that pause was gonna be ? the pause is now almost 8 years
But Da Paws is more than five years old:
https://climateball.net/but-da-paws/
It spring eternal.
Climateball is Willard’s fascination.
“Does the data show that there has been any warming since 2016? No.”
Accounting for the expected effects of ENSO. Yes.
In fact, compared to previous 45 y, accelerated warming.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/ElNino-LaNina/
See graph entitled ’12-month mean temperature detrended for 1970-2015′.
Adding co2 in place of o2 will increase the emisivity of the atmosphere thus increasing the rate at which ot cools
Oh dear. Well if you think atmosphere important for global climate is way I would say it.
And I think it could related to my question, what Venus temperature at 1 AU. but here it is:
–Earth’s and Venus average temperature at 1 bar using the Charged Atmosphere and Faraday’s Constant
by John Politis
First published June 28, 2022
The average temperature of Earth and Venus at 1 BAR can be calculated straight from the energy required to raise the potential of 1 electron through 1 volt. We simply sum up all the electrons in a MOLE of AIR on Earth and multiply it by the energy required to charge up
each electron in a mole of air to 1 electron volt.–
http://milesmathis.com/farad.pdf
Linked from
http://tinyurl.com/ufmy3z6m
Got a tropical storm Bonnie:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
And looks like the potential storm near Boca Chica, Texas, didn’t materialize.
This has been the strangest start to a new year that I haver taken note of. My dwarf fruit trees bloomed in January. Then over the next 3 months temps went warm/cold 4 times. That dropped all of the fruit off of the trees. All fruit trees in the area whether wild or tended have done the same. I live 100 miles inland from the Pacific.
It is not surprising to see this months update as the mountain area here has been cooler this year than in any other year since 2011 when I moved into the mountains. There have been many record lows occurring across Europe as well. This winter should be a cold one, and likely will come early.
You haven’t been following the superdeveloping Triple dipper La Nina effects updates
What happened to the global map for May ??
confirmed…it’s missing.
Specifically, the url of https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/ still shows April, not May.
Now updated.
I takes a few days to update everything. As of this post, neither the latitudinal nor nor the regional data have been updated online. They still only show May.
Same as every month. Won’t be long now.
May is month 5, not month 6. We are now in month 7. It should have been updated to May from April some weeks ago. In a few days (up to 6) it should be updated to June.
wazz
Mark B has an exceptionally good software for graphics. He could do that job without even batting an eyelid.
Meanwhile: should you, unlike some, not be desperately opinionated about how ‘wrong’ a simple grid output is (because it looks like a Mercator projection, vade retro Satana[s]), so please look at this until UAH or Mark B generate a perfect Mollweide output:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WCE43YrpxC6v3CYBck5rrjw0k7CKJ8ia/view
Mercator projections (and their rectangular equivalents) are well know to overemphasize the Poles at the expense of the Equator so do not rely on them for equal area based science.
Notice Blinny will never publish the Tissot’s indicatrix, or ellipse of distortion, for his ‘projection’.
Superdeveloping triple dipper La Nia rains anchovies from the sky
https://youtu.be/NEB4Oejs0D8
People often confuse the La Nia, El Nio obvious cycles with the total amount of warming or cooling occurring over the fluctuations.
In truth we had almost 3 years of warming with and around the last El Nio and we have had 2 insipid weak and small weak La Ninas with a quite warm period in between.
We actually need a big true La Nia to give a truer picture of the average earth temperature because we are looking at it from inside a recently 30 years of mild warming.
La Nia does not cause the global temperature to drop, The global temperature drop is what causes a La Nia.
Good to see the Pacific so cold as shows the current heat from the sun, plus any extra cloud albedo effects means the earth this month at least has been in a cooling phase.
Where will it go?
None of us have the tools to tell.
“We actually need a big true La Ni{n}a to give a truer picture of the average earth temperature because we are looking at it from inside a recently 30 years of mild warming”
That is what the models incorrectly show as well. A continuous ramp of more and more El Nino’s. In actual fact the data shows that La Nina’s are becoming more and more frequent in the last 25 years, contrary to what the climate models show.
“La Nia does not cause the global temperature to drop, The global temperature drop is what causes a La Nia.”
Strange claim. Evidence?
Well the El Nino’s peak temperatures have not changed since 1878.
Nate
La Nina does not cause the global temperature to drop, The global temperature drop is what causes a La Nia
Due to the earth rotation and the presence of continents crossing the equator the ocean equatorial water on the western side of equatorial continents tends to have cooler water temperatures than those equatorial waters further west of the continent.
If the global temperature rises it is reflected in warmer equatorial oceans.
If the global temperature falls it is reflected in cooler equatorial oceans.
Ocean temperatures rise for only two reasons normally
More input from the sun, less albedo from clouds.
Hence when the oceans are hotter there can be less clouds in the air as the hotter air can hold more moisture without clouding up.
–
When the world is warmer it encourages El Nio conditions in the ocean. Less clouds and higher temps in the east.
When the world cools down more clouds form and and the east become cooler relative to the west causing a La Nia.
On top of this pattern there exists a seasonal temperature shift for the hemispheres and an overall recurring orbital distance temperature shift which is why La Ninas, the earth and equatorial waters getting cooler, is more likely to occur in the months from November to April.
It could theoretically be possible to have La Nia conditions with a warm equatorial ocean if the pressure differences Darwin and Honolulu reverse, but as the great Yogi Bera said
in theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
That is why the temperature appears to fall during a La Nia, because it actually does, causing the La Nia.
Causality says NOPE on that hypothesis.
Global Temps FOLLOW ENSO with a 4-5 month delay.
I thought we had agreed that global temps better followed AMO rather than ENSO.
Not on a monthly or interannual basis – the people who first observed it and those who maintain the indices describe it only as a decadal fluctuation.
There is still debate over whether it leads or lags global temperature.
Well known that Global Temps follow ENSO. Much of the short term variation is caused
by ENSO.
Weve discussed it dozens of times, RLH.
Nate: So how do you explain this image?
https://imgur.com/gallery/jtDg4ir
Why are you talking about AMO?
NOT the subject of this thread, which is whether global T leads ENSO or ENSO leads global T.
Start a new thread on whatever squirrel you’ve seen, RLH.
“Why are you talking about AMO?”
Because that image shows the global temperatures follow quite well the AMO, not the ESNO.
“Because that image shows the global temperatures follow quite well the AMO, not the ESNO.”
a. You are ignoring that the dominant variation in both series is ENSO driven.
b. AMO is off-topic.
Global temps follow both the AMO/PDO and ENSO. It’s just on differing timescales. ENSO shows a more immediate response while the AMO and PDO are longer term.
“AMO is off-topic”
So one particular natural cycle is off topic but others are not.
RLH you remind me of that fake joke we told other kids.
It goes like this:
Three bears are in a tub taking a bath.
The first bear says to the third bear, ‘Pass the soap.’
The third bear says: ‘No soap, radio.’
Everyone in on the trick would pretend to laugh, to trick other kids into laughing at the ‘joke’.
The problem, RLH, is that ‘No soap, radio.’ is the kind of answer you give regularly.
Nate says:July 2, 2022 at 12:25 PM
Causality says NOPE on that hypothesis.
Global Temps FOLLOW ENSO with a 4-5 month delay.
Really?
Unfolding the relation between global temperature and ENSO
A. A. Tsonis, J. B. Elsner, A. G. Hunt, T. H. Jagger
First published: 03 May 2005
An analysis of global temperature and ENSO data indicates that their relationship is more complicated than currently thought. Indeed, it appears that there are two complimenting aspects to this relation. The first (and known) aspect expresses the fact that global temperature increases after an El Nino event and a La Nina event follows an El Nino event. Thus, El Nino forces global temperature.
Yet these same authors say what I just said
“The most important result is that positive temperature fluctuations tend to trigger an El Nino and negative fluctuations tend to trigger a La Nina”
Chicken and eggs, Nate.
Except mine is an explanation and yours is an observation without thought.
Look at it this way.
If “Global Temps [*tend to] follow ENSO with a 4-5 month delay.”
Then we do not need a GHG theory, We do not need a sun or albedo.
We do not need thermometers.
We can just predict from today’s ENSO what the global temp is in 5 months.
Then we could use the ENSO in 7 more months to predict the Global temp at the end of the year, and so on ad infinitum.
We both know that predictions of ENSO are notoriously poor with a spaghetti graph of over 2.2 C currently for the next 5 months
“Global Temps [*tend to] follow ENSO with a 4-5 month delay.”
But ENSO changes of El Nino and La Nina are always accompanied by the appropriate changes in global temperature first.
The authors make a common mistake of confusing occurrence with causation without a mechanism that can exist in their argument, but does in mine.
“If ‘Global Temps [*tend to] follow ENSO with a 4-5 month delay.’
Then we do not need a GHG theory, We do not need a sun or albedo.
We do not need thermometers.
We can just predict from todays ENSO what the global temp is in 5 months.”
Uhhh…you draw very bizarre conclusions, Ang.
ENSO causes short term variation. GHG theory explains long term GW.
Different things.
Just as weather, seasonal change and climate change are different things on different time-scales.
See 4th figure here.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/ElNino-LaNina/
They note that Global T lags Nino 3.4 by 5 months.
With a 5 month shift of Nino 3.4 to the right, the correlation between them is the highest, and reaches 60 %.
You do know that 1950 is a low point in the temperature record don’t you?
Who cares?
Yet another ‘look a squirrel’ from our resident ‘look a squirrel’ expert.
What effect do you think a low point will have on OLS, etc. that include that period?
It has zero relevance to the the point I was making, which is that ENSO leads global T by 5 months and explains 60% of its variation. ENSO is a significant driver of global T, and the reverse is not plausible.
Did you miss that? Do you have a RELEVANT response?
“In actual fact the data shows that La Ninas are becoming more and more frequent in the last 25 years, contrary to what the climate models show.”
Nah.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/enso-and-climate-change-what-does-new-ipcc-report-say
“There is no climate model consensus on a change in ENSO-related sea surface temperature over the next century in any of the greenhouse gas emission scenarios used in the report. But regardless of any changes in ENSO sea surface temperatures, in intermediate to very high GHG scenarios, it is very likely that rainfall variability over the east-central tropical Pacific will increase significantly (4). Basically, we may expect El Nio to be wetter in this region and La Nia may be drier.”
ONI/ENSO changes its reference base every 5 years so that is a very poor choice of temperatures for comparison i.e. minimum, maximum and averages.
Now compare it to something that uses an unchanged (i.e. not detrended) base such as NOAA/HadISST c.f.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-6.jpeg
1. Nate just quoted the IPCC on ENSO projections, and so your reply misses the point, as its only about observations.
2. That there is no consensus on future changes in ENSO patterns in a warming world (ie more or less la Ninas/el Ninos) was confirmed by ENSOblog. In fact, they quoted IPCC on this in reply to a query on this point.
3. HadISST NINO3.4 data shows a clear rising trend in la Nina troughs since 1990, whereas ONI doesn’t have this feature. Last April was the 2nd lowest in the ONI record, but only 6th lowest in HadISST. HadISST data for this region won’t give you recent record la Ninas like ONI does, because HadISST data includes any long term changes, including generally warmer temperatures in the recent past.
If you are comparing relative strength of ENSO events, ONI is a sound choice, and it’s also the choice for l’Heureux and co when they assess that there is very nearly statistical significance regarding a trend in more al Ninas.
So the IPCC says ‘we do not know’.
The ENS ONI and L’Heureux’s own paper says that the 1878 El Nino was the same magnitude as the one in 2016.
“So the IPCC says ‘we do not know’.”
The IPCC says there is no consensus. As in, that is literally what they say. Regarding how ENSO might change in a warming world. I mean, you’ve read the quotes. Has it taken 2 weeks for you process these direct quotes you’ve been given?
“The ENS ONI and LHeureuxs own paper says that the 1878 El Nino was the same magnitude as the one in 2016.”
Let me know how many times I’ve got to agree with that before you stop bleeping it to me like a robot. We’re up to 5 or 6 “yep”s. Can I hope you’ll finally take that on board on the 11th or 12th try? Or is it a time thing and we’ve got another week or so till it finally filters through?
“The IPCC says there is no consensus”
Which is the same as ‘The IPCC does not know’.
Politics, my friend. You are doing commentary, not news.
The IPCC assesses the state of knowledge, it doesn’t do original research. So when you say, “The IPCC doesn’t know…” what you’re actually saying is the IPCC has assessed that there isn’t a scientific consensus on the topic.
“So the IPCC says ‘we do not know’.”
Yes. But more accurately,
The IPCC says there is no agreement on what we know
For this particular topic.
So we are free to observe that the facts (and papers) show that the world is not getting hotter in the extremes. Not the AGW claim as normally stated is it?
“So we are free to observe that the facts (and papers) show that the world is not getting hotter in the extremes. Not the AGW claim as normally stated is it?”
You are entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
The “AGW claim” is that the global average temperature will increase in the long term.
That is it.
The IPCC assesses, based on broad reviews of the scientific literature, that warmer extremes will increase in most areas of the globe under global warming regardless of cause.
That makes rather obvious statistical sense as well. If the world warms on average, all that requires as evidence is that there are, say, more record-breaking hot events than cold.
That is what we see with record-breaking land surface temperatures over time.
https://www.mherrera.org/records.htm
https://www.mherrera.org/records1.htm
https://www.mherrera.org/records2.htm
Those files are of annual record-breaking temperatures all over the world from 2002 to 2022. The lists are extensive, and are checked with the national meteorological services of 150 countries.
In 2002 there are 270 recorded record-breaking temperatures in various towns and cities around the world.
In 2021 there are 458.
I’ve gone through all the years up to 2017, I think, but not the last few years.
Every year from 2002 to 2017 has more record-breaking hot temps than cold.
You feel like checking the rest? It’s a copy paste into a word processor and doing a search on “max” and “min”. I’m willing to bet that the years following also have more max than min record-breaking temperatures.
This granular metric is actually a pretty good proxy to corroborate a warming world.
“The ‘AGW claim’ is that the global average temperature will increase in the long term”
And you are saying that this does not mean the maximums will increase at all. That is what the data actually shows is happening.
How does that occur?
Please remember that the 1950’s are the low point in the record in the Pacific so averages, OLS,, etc. including that period will show an increase in them since then.
“I’m willing to bet that the years following also have more max than min record-breaking temperatures”
Ah. So now we resort to the frequency rather than the extremes to show that overall temperatures are rising.
Except that papers show that the early to middle of the 20th century had a lull in the ENSO activity compared to that a century or so ago. Claiming that the recent frequency has increased compared to 1950, say, does not mean what you think it does.
Of course that also means that OLS and averages are rising recently but the maximums are not.
“And you are saying that this does not mean the maximums will increase at all.”
I can barely understand what you mean here. It’s a wonderfully impenetrable double negative.
And you tell me what I’m thinking rather than ask a question.
The data I provided, in the post you’ve just quoted, corroborates that maximums are increasing. Or you could just look at the global min and max over the long term and see that there is a general increase of each, regardless of dataset, surface or satellite. I chose the dataset I did because your word was “extremes.”
“So we are free to observe that the facts (and papers) show that the world is not getting hotter in the extremes.”
I listen to you.
It’s like you’re in a deep well, and all you can hear from others is the snatch of a word here and there, and from these disjointed echoes you construct an alternate reality.
barry, please stop trolling.
P.S. Models are well known to be incorrect.
“said {Michelle} LHeureux. 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.”
RLH is still wrong on his claim of
“contrary to what the climate models show.”
Yes, his source for this is commentary from journalist Seth Borenstein. He favours this over the IPCC advice, which Michelle l’Heureux has approved as the consensus view.
So he’d rather believe a journo than scientists who actively study ENSO.
Actually Michelle L’Heureux published a paper on the 1878 El Nino. Did you not read it?
and right on cue, change the subject..
Next, to draw on hounds to a scent, to a red herring skin there is nothing comparable
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327742
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327797
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327815
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1328047
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1328117
“Actually Michelle LHeureux published a paper on the 1878 El Nino”
And you just change the subject like that.
And this is my answer to you ignoring what I say and changing the subject (yet again)…
Respond to what I say or get ignored. I’m only returning you the courtesy you give me.
barry, please stop trolling.
Nate quotes: ”very likely that rainfall variability over the east-central tropical Pacific will increase significantly (4). Basically, we may expect El Nio to be wetter in this region and La Nia may be drier.”
Sheesh! Just how more wet can up to 35,000 feet of Eastern Tropical Pacific waters get? LMAO!
Huh??
You don’t think that floods and drought is rather irrelevant in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Nate? LMAO!
I suppose it could be relevant if you are in a liferaft and only have a bucket to catch the rain. LOL!
Some numbers might help to avoid eye-balling and its resulting, counter-productive polemic.
Here is an evaluation of the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12F2SO09XyelVRnCSeHF5bUKuDdd1IoNV/view
since 1979 resp. since 1997.
1. 1979-now
… FULL NINA NINO
AVG -0.03 -1.02 +1.26
MED -0.10 -1.00 +0.98
MIN -2.43 -2.43 +0.50
MAX +2.89 -0.08 +2.89
SUM -15 -178 +165 NINO/NINA: 93%
2. 1997-now
… FULL NINA NINO
AVG -0.22 -1.05 +1.28
MED -0.34 -1.06 +0.97
MIN -2.43 -2.43 +0.51
MAX +2.55 -0.08 +2.55
SUM -68 -140 +76 NINO/NINA: 54%
FULL means the entire record, NINA resp. NINO mean values = +0.5.
When you compare these periods, you think that a radical change is happening: from a El Nino / La Nina ratio of 93% since 1979, you move down to a ratio of 54%!
Woooaah.
But this is the same wrong kind of thinking as when saying that the trend for UAH since 2016 is unusually negative, while ignoring or dissimulating that since 1979, three UAH periods of the same length have shown even lower trends.
Thus, to get an idea of how relevant this MEI difference between 1979-now and 1997-now really is, you have to perform a full analysis of MEI’s historical data since 1871:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AeK8oGGqzX27K60aYAn4JWDho-8lhwMl/view
3. 1871-now
FULL NINA NINO
AVG -0.09 -1.07 +1.15
No medians here, was lazy
MIN -2.56 -2.56 +0.5
MAX +2.89 -0.08 +2.89
SUM -160 -696 +543 NINO/NINA: 78%
and you must look at all similar time windows since beginning.
*
By the way, maybe angech explains us what he means with ‘2 insipid weak and small weak La Ninas’:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
2010-2012 and 1998-2000 were no that bad, after all; and the current edition, though somewhat less strong until now, looks quite good too, when you look at a sort of all 2dip+ La Nina edition sums since 1871:
1892: -54.67
1908: -52.22
1973: -48.71
1954: -40.45
1915: -38.97
1998: -37.66
1873: -36.82
2010: -32.99
2020: -28.45
1970: -25.29
2007: -24.58
1949: -24.45
“Here is an evaluation of the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI)”
What is the use of looking at data that has the reference period for it changed so frequently?
Try looking at
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-6.jpeg
which has no such problems. It also shows that 1878 is the ‘same’ as 2016.
Here too, Linsley Hood, you show the level of your ignorance.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327394
And the MEI is way more complex than the simple NINO3+4 and ONI evaluations, as it is based on much more data, and on a much greater window (30N-30S; 100E-70W), containing NINO1+2 as well.
Thus, for MEI V2, the ENSO events in 1878, 1982, 1998 and 2016 of course look quite different from what you usually see.
Check the paper by Michelle et al. for the approximate strength of the 1878 El Nino to that of the on in 2016. You could also just check the Nino 3.4 data which shows the same thing.
I understand that ESNO is quite complicated but I also understand that it uses a moving reference period which makes it useless for long term observations (other than locally along it).
That the year 1878 was an exceptional year has been supported by other papers too.
….that ENSO is quite complicated….
Now I really begin to understand that you are no only opinionated, Linsley Hood.
You are also stubborn, if not even dumb, and absolutely unable to properly read documents in order to obtain appropriate information.
MEI is an ENSO index like ONI, but IS NOT BASED ON THE SAME RULES as ONI.
Will you get that one day?
And people like you, whose latest ‘Perch’ job was a 1000 % failure a decade ago, think they can name me a boasting idiot.
Does it have a fixed or a moving reference period?
Does it also show that the El Nino of 1878 was approximately the same as 2016?
Check the paper by Michelle et al. for the approximate strength of the 1878 El Nino to that of the one in 2016. You could also just check the Nino 3.4 data which shows the same thing.
That the year 1878 was an exceptional year has been supported by other papers too.
Cooling down quicker than a Cassidy Hutchinson confession
The truth will out.
“I would be convinced AGW was a problem if the warming trend clearly broke out of the natural variabilty”
So if you look at T on the Earth’s surface, where we live, that breakout is very apparent.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12
The difference is that the UAH lower troposphere is more sensitive to El Nino peaks and La Nina troughs, than the T at the surface, and also has a lower trend than at the surface.
So why have the peak El Nino’s temperatures (for instance) not changed since 1878?
Different topic. Nice try though.
Maximums are just as important as minimums and averages though.
Address the issue I posted on or dont bother responding, RLH.
Thats how debate works.
How can you address minimums without also addressing maximums and averages? Very one sided approach that is.
Even this reply still doesn’t respond at all to what Nate said.
I don’t know why you repeat your narrow interests in reply to other topics, but you can expect people to stop replying to you when you chip and while ignoring what they’ve said.
If the maximum sea surface temperatures have not changed that much in the central Pacific in over 130 years, how does AGW account for that fact?
Cue the ‘AGW is true the world over for averages’ replies, just not at the Equator for the extremes.
<RLH says: If the maximum sea surface temperatures have not changed that much in the central Pacific in over 130 years . . .
If we just look at the maximum and minimum extremes, the global picture is hard reconcile without statistical variation on top of a broad and global warming trend.
hadSurfaceMaxMinDateGrid.png
“If the maximum sea surface temperatures have not changed that much in the central Pacific in over 130 years, how does AGW account for that fact?”
Because the Earth’s surface is not a featureless billiard ball.
In a generally warming world there’d be no reason to expect that everywhere would warm at the same rate. There may even be a few places where it has cooled. Such as these for the past 50 years or so.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004900/a004964/GISS2021F-Rolling1peryear-RollingAverageperyear.2021_print.jpg
If weather patterns change with climate change (and that is something you WOULD expect, even if you couldn’t predict exactly how) then with the sheer variety of weather patterns you might anticipate that some places could cool if the hydrological flow is altered. What if the prevailing wind for some place changes over time from the equator to the pole?
You see in the anomaly map above that just a few places have cooled relative to the 1951 to 1980 average. There is a time lapse of that anomaly map so you can see exactly how non-uniform weather patterns are over the Earth.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4787
“In a generally warming world there’d be no reason to expect that everywhere would warm at the same rate”.
But the AWG claim is the world is getting generally hotter. How can the maximums not show that ‘fact’?
….But the AGW claim is….
“If we just look at the maximum and minimum extremes”
So you are saying that the range has not changed that much but the averages within them have?
Have you looked at what this paper said about ENSO for instance over the last century? Why that might effect any OLS over the same period?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327742
Neither of these three replies below mine respond to what I said.
You are completely dislocated from the conversation. You are the drunken uncle at the Christmas party, rambling incessantly about whatever is knocking around his brain rather than taking an interest in anything anyone else might say.
If you were responding to what I said, even in disagreement, I wouldn’t be calling you out on it. It really is about you, not me. Someone has to slap your cheek and say, “wake up!”
Someone needs to slap your cheeks are say facts are not to be ignored.
But you keep ignoring the IPCC’s view on the future of ENSO behaviour in a warming world. Apparently you can’t deal with it, because it interferes with your take on the AP article.
Now why would I say that to you?
In order to reflect your own behaviour back to you.
My comment was a change of subject. It was also saying that you are hiding from facts.
So I ignored what you said, changed the subject and typed some quasi-accusatory provocational stuff.
Annoying, isn’t it?
Yes, this is exactly how you operate MOST of the time.
And I’m not kidding – the majority of your posts do exactly what I’ve done above.
barry, please stop trolling.
“the T at the surface, and also has a lower trend than at the surface”
Temps are the surface as measured by Nino 3.4 have not increased at the maximums since 1878. So I’m not sure that UAH is lower than that.
NINO3.4 region is not as proxy for global temperature. It’s less than 1% of the Earth’s surface.
There is a small region in the North Atlantic that has actually cooled over the last 50 years, but if you thought that reflected the global average you would be sorely mistaken.
Who said it was?
The Nino 3.4 area shows that the maximum temperatures at the sea surface have not risen since 1878.
The topic is global temperatures, per the post you quoted when you replied to it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327213
One day you should try taking an interest in what others say, Richard.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327742
In threads on different topics you continually interrupt with your own obsessions. Today you have replied to me on three of these threads solely with a link to a post you made that has nothing to do with any of the topics.
You don’t even describe what the link is regarding. Just click! and suddenly you’re reading something unrelated to the ongoing conversation.
This is essentially what spam is. You’re spamming the threads here with your latest obsessions.
That could be forgivable if you ALSO took an interest in the points brought up here, engaging directly and cogently with them while retaining the context (reason) for the discussion ongoing. Especially discussions that you joined and didn’t initiate.
Everyone else here can do that.
How is a post about a paper published over a decade ago not relevant to global temperatures and ESNO?
Because the topic is not ENSO. The mention it got was to describe differences in global temp data sets (ie, satellite-derived lower tropospheric data is more sensitive to ENSO events than surface data).
None of what you have posted speaks to any of that.
It’s like you arguing with your mother which of you should make the birthday cake, and I contribute to the conversation by describing the politics of making wedding cakes for same-sex weddings.
Cakes is the common thread, but I’d be completely missing the point.
This is what you consistently do.
barry, please stop trolling.
The last 4 el nios each established a new higher global temperature plateau.
Are the latest two La Nia establishing a new lower plateau.
Time will tell.
“Are the latest two La Nia establishing a new lower plateau.”
They’ve established higher plateaus if anything when looking at global temps, but la Ninas themselves may have become more frequent recently.
Global temps are not the same as Tropical temps.
Global temps was the metric in the remark I was replying to, that started this thread.
“The last 4 el nios each established a new higher global temperature plateau….”
You should one day try tasking an interest in what other people say, Richard. Eventually you will learn to follow a conversation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327742
And your link has nothing to do with the point I replied to, either.
Why do you think people are going to drop whatever they’re doing to check out your interests if you show zero interest in what other people are talking about except as an opportunity to change subject to your obsession du jour?
If you decide one day to be interested in what other people have to say, I promise you will have better interactions here.
I show zero interested in those who try to ignore relevant facts about El Nino, ENSO and climate. Like you.
And yet you keep barrelling into conversations I’m having with other people, ignore what we’re talking about, and then criticise me for not rewarding your loutish behaviour with the attention you want.
A teenager learns this is not how to get what you want.
barry, please stop trolling.
Tropical Coolness
The tropical (20N-20S) anomaly for June was -0.36 deg. C, which is the coolest monthly anomaly in over 10 years, the coolest June in 22 years, and the 9th coolest June in the 44 year satellite record.
Anomalies come in many sizes
June anomalies are amongst the smallest.
Over a 44 year record where the anomal is not that large on average any drop that would be reasonable in another month becomes quite large.
The 9th coolest in 44 years is great, wait til we see how the land thermometers get adjusted to cope
angech
” June anomalies are amongst the smallest. ”
1989 6 -0.65
1985 6 -0.64
1984 6 -0.52
1999 6 -0.46
2008 6 -0.45
1981 6 -0.39
1979 6 -0.37
2000 6 -0.37
2022 6 -0.36
1986 6 -0.35
This has few to do with June.
Much more with the Tropics.
If you do the same job for the Globe, you obtain this:
1985 6 -0.48
1989 6 -0.41
1979 6 -0.39
1982 6 -0.38
1984 6 -0.35
1992 6 -0.34
1983 6 -0.32
1986 6 -0.32
1981 6 -0.31
2008 6 -0.31
and 2022 appears at position 33.
But looking at this shows best how UAH’s Tropics look like:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SkuYuG8sCSmZjGw3_97nEEa9xfI07zd6/view
The slope of the filter output at the end tells us a lot: its downward trend is lower than anywhere else in the 43 years.
Now I understand why commenter MrZ thinks this La Nina is the strongest since UAH’s begin: he identifies the UAH temperature record with ENSO and vice-versa.
This is not correct: you just need to compare UAH’s record in 1982 with ENSO in the same year to understand.
Here is UAH Tropics with a 12 month CTRM instead. If you need references for CTRM see Vaughan Pratt elsewhere on this page.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/uah-tropics.jpeg
And yes, it does show that tropical temperatures have been going downwards since 2016.
What’s that for a dog poo, Linsley Hood?
Why don’t you show the data, like everybody does, in line form and with a 60 month filter output, so we all can compare?
Your opinionated, egomaniac stuff is so uninteresting!
So a 12 month CRTM is not something you recognize. Set yourself above Vaughn Pratt do you? Arrogant or what?
As to lines rather than points, you do not know nor does anyone else, what the actual data is between those points so putting lines instead of points makes assumptions that you do not have data support for.
I can do a 5 year/60 month filter is you wish. I had not done it before for Tropical UAH. I’ll get back to you later for that.
Try
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-tropics.jpeg
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327924
No Answer from Blinny. But that is not too surprising as he often says things he cannot support.
Bindidon,
Certainly not. See my comment above
UAH is the earliest set to report and the low figure for the tropics triggered me.
I have yet to validate with data from ERA. Pretty sure the trend continues though.
Roy Spencer
Tropical Coolness
The tropical (20N-20S) anomaly for June was -0.36 deg. C, which is the coolest monthly anomaly in over 10 years, the coolest June in 22 years, and the 9th coolest June in the 44 year satellite record.
–
angech June anomalies are amongst the smallest.
–
Bindidon says:July 2, 2022 at 4:04 PM
2022 6 -0.36
” Much more with the Tropics.This has little to do with June.”
–
Bindidon, apart from generally being pleasant and putting a lot of work into digging up facts could you also look at the comments before engaging.
1. the 2022 6 -0.36 anomaly you put up is definitely connected to June, 100%. It is true it is also in the Tropics but not “much more”
–
2 My comment. June anomalies are amongst the smallest. is pertinent and relevant to both The tropical (20N-20S) anomaly and the Global surface temperature anomaly in the month of June.
–
Which you have totally sidetracked.
If you look at Nick Stokes and Hansen charts you will see that the anomalies in the month of June global have the smallest upward deviation of any month.
One can infer [might be wrong but doubtful] that equatorial temperatures which play the largest part in Global temperature would be similarly subdued.
That is all.
–
3. Since the total range is much smaller any reasonable sized anomaly variation will have a much bigger impact on position at this time of the year.
–
4. You can confirm the difference in position of the global June UAH temperature +0.06C, 2022 appears at position 33.
the June tropical (20N-20S) anomaly is much lower.
Whatever way you choose to look at it
– the 9th coolest June in the 44 year satellite record.
– the coolest monthly anomaly in over 10 years,
– the coolest June in 22 years
It is impressive, even if temporary, yes?
Thank you for showing the 10 lowest and how far back in time they were. Nate, silly boy, says there is a 5 month lag.
You would agree with him and Roy?
If only there were, where would it be in 5 months time?
As the tropics goes, so goes the climate. I’ve also have been thinking about the Arctic. It has been almost 10 years since the Arctic sea ice extent record minimum of 3,387,000 km^2. It seems to me that when the Arctic ice melts down, this allows for more heat to escape the Arctic Ocean during the early Fall than during times of abundant ice coverage. This should cause a net cooling effect of the ocean. The sun has already crossed the ecliptic south of the equator in September, so I don’t think there is any sun to heat up the Arctic Ocean like the alarmists claim. So, the Arctic Ocean gets colder, allowing for the Arctic ice to start expanding again. I think it is a pretty good bet the 2022 Arctic sea ice extent minimum will be higher than 3,387,000 km^2. That will be a full decade. I think the Arctic ice will start expanding again. What do y’all think?
30N to 30S is half of the planet’s surface. Some call that the tropics too.
Rob Mitchell
Here are the current charts for Arctic…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
… and Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
Do you see where 2012 was in these charts? Look at the indigo line…
If I were you, I would wait a bit, two or three weeks.
Then we’ll know if 2022 behaves like 2021… or not.
Concerning the Antarctic, 2022 is way below 2021.
*
This is, in my personal opinion, not good for us all.
Bindidon, your “personal opinion” is worth about as much as your belief in astrology.
Exactly, Clint R, exactly!
His Bizarro World forecasting is even better , I haven’t yet seen anything he predicted that didn’t go to the exact opposite.
Edog
Feel free to keep barking, you remind me of Lollo, the little french bulldog on the property next to ours.
And keep forever in mind, Edog: like me, you never predicted anything.
Like me, you did all the time no more than replicating other people’s predictions.
As someone uses to say: ‘ Get over it! ‘
Choosing the ‘correct’ people to ‘predict’ things ahead of time is a difficult thing to do.
Isn’t it fun watching this scumbag trying to weasel out of his epic climate failing, that’s the clown part coming through.
As a pilot I have to know things about weather , I Imagine if Bindidong was a pilot, based on his weather skilz he would fly straight into the first tornado that appears withing his range.
RLH says:
July 2, 2022 at 6:03 PM
Choosing the correct people to predict things ahead of time is a difficult thing to do.
In his case , it just perfectly proves that all he does is reposting rows of numbers and a bunch of links but doesn’t understand any meaning of it at all
“Water has the highest heat capacity of all common Earth materials; therefore, water on Earth acts as a thermal buffer, resisting temperature change as it gains or loses heat energy.”
“The heat energy input required to change water from a solid at 0 C to a liquid at 0 C is the latent heat of fusion and is 80 calories per gram of ice. Waters latent heat of fusion is the highest of all common materials. Because of this, heat is released when ice forms and is absorbed during melting, which tends to buffer air temperatures as land and sea ice form and melt seasonally.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/seawater/Thermal-properties
–Water can evaporate at temperatures below the boiling point, and ice can evaporate into a gas without first melting, in a process called sublimation. —
So, if had land which could cool to -20 C, but land is covered by seawater, than the seawater will resist temperature change of the cold air which otherwise would be there if it was land.
Or it takes a lot energy for human to make ice and a lot energy for human to get freshwater from sea water.
One could freeze seawater to make freshwater ice, but it cost less energy to evaporate sea water to make freshwater. Though there is various other ways to separate the salt from seawater other than freezing or evaporating seawater.
In terms of climate the arctic cooled waters fall and travels all over the world, and the cold water which falls is replaced by warm water [from all over the world].
And once polar ice gets thick enough, the thicker ice insulates the arctic ocean water from warming air above it. And the frozen arctic ocean can air temperature below -30 C.
Having a larger area polar sea ice would thereby lower the amount cold cold falling and cooling the rest of ocean.
Therefore I think glaciation periods with large amount polar sea ice can warm the ocean. And the start of interglacial is where Earth’s warmer cause arctic ocean to be ice free. Which trigger by sunlight starting to higher angle and warming the ocean surface temperatures close to polar region. And warmed surface waters evaporate more and cause more rainfall [and a lot rain can melt a lot ice}.
Oh, my,,,, June global temp anomaly at 0.06C
According to CMIP6.0 average computer model projections, the global temp anomaly should already be at 1.35C, which is about 5 standard deviations devoid from reality
Oops
The double-dip La Nina cycle is about over, and a weak El Nino cycle will start next year followed by a likely strong La Nina in 2024, which we havent had since 2010
THE PDO is already in its 30-year cool cycle, and the AMO will likely start its 30-year cool cycle around 2024~25, which will cause 30 years of falling global temperatures as occurred from 1880~1915, and from 1945~1979.
The hilarious CAGW scam will soon be laughed at after world Leftist-hack governments have wasted $10s of trillions on this stupid hoax.
You forgot one important thing – The Grand Solar Minimum , of-course the climate sheisters keep claiming the Sun doesn’t do anything ,
They are in for a surprise
“Oh, my,,,, June global temp anomaly at 0.06C
According to CMIP6.0 average computer model projections, the global temp anomaly should already be at 1.35C”
You are comparing apples and oranges, Part I.
CMIP anomaly is based on 1890-1900 base-line.
UAH anomaly is based on 1991-2020 base-line.
The Difference between 1.35 and 0.06 is explained in large part by the change in baseline
You are comparing apples and oranges, Part II.
CMIP6.0 takes observed changes from 1880 – 2019, which HAVE shown an increase of around 1.35C. The Models typically use this data to tune the models, and any predictions will be for the FUTURE.
These are ‘rookie mistakes’.
SOURCE: https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained/
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Comparison2017.png
“CMIP6.0 takes observed changes from 1880 2019, which HAVE shown an increase of around 1.35C.”
Politicians are worried about increase in pre-industrial temperature.
And 1880 is not pre-industrial.
From pre-industrial to 2019 about what has increase been?
According to the original climate shysters predictions the temperature today should be at least 1.1C higher than they are, the actual CO2 emissions turned out to be even higher than the scenario “A”
Cyber monkeys ate my picture again
https://i.postimg.cc/qvhx01YV/35654-7.png
The Climateball gods also ate your scientific source:
> One of the first projections of future warming came from John Sawyer at the UKs Met Office in 1973. In a paper published in Nature in 1973, he hypothesised that the world would warm 0.6C between 1969 and 2000, and that atmospheric CO2 would increase by 25%. Sawyer argued for a climate sensitivity how much long-term warming will occur per doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels of 2.4C, which is not too far off the best estimate of 3C used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/
Also, you forget climate sensitivity. A CO2 estimate does not get you very far without it. Jim worked with sensitivities ranging from 1.4 up to 5.6C in 1981, and to 4.2C in 1988.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Folkerts, you believe fluxes simply add. In fact, your beliefs mean that ice cubes can boil water.
That is a “rookie mistake”.
There are others….
“Folkerts, you believe fluxes simply add. In fact, your beliefs mean that ice cubes can boil water.”
You simply can’t leave this strawman alone can you?
My “belief” is that irradiances (fluxes arriving at a surface from different sources) add. Like two light bulbs make my desk brighter than one light bulb.
This “belief” does not mean that ices cubes can boil water.
Now you can move on to something else.
Folkerts, I’m glad to see you’re waffling away from your own nonsense. But, you have stated that two 315W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325K. That is nonsense.
Your nonsense would mean that 4 individual 315 W/m^2 fluxes could heat a surface beyond the boiling point of water.
You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. But, you fool children like barry and Norman.
Tim,
You are confused. Fluxes are not temperatures. No matter how many fluxes you try to add in your imagination, the fact is that the temperature of the object you are trying to heat cannot exceed that of the hottest flux emitter you have.
Brightness is not temperature. Dimwits who talk about heat sources producing so many watts per square meter and similar silliness, and trying to fool people into believing that this nonsense is related to temperature, are just exposing their ignorance.
You can’t add fluxes meaningfully, any more than you can add temperatures. That is why climate clowns bang on about energy balances and similar nonsense. If want to deny that the Earth has cooled, and continues to do so (albeit very, very, slowly), be my guest. Fools like Sagan, Hansen, etc., apparently believed that the Earth was created cold, and heated to its present temperature (molten core and all!), by radiation from the Sun!
Otherwise, they would not carry on with spurious calculations relating surface temperature to the Sun’s input. All about as stupid as putting a bowl of hot water in sunlight, and expressing astonishment that it was not 255K or so, as their mad calculations said.
What a pack of fools!
“Folkerts, Im glad to see youre waffling away from your own nonsense. ”
Clint, I am glad you are starting to actually understand what I have been saying, rather than your mistaken strawman interpretation.
“But, you have stated that two 315W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325K. That is nonsense.”
Draw a 0.1 m x 0.1 m square. Shine 3.15 W of energy uniformly onto that square from a light lightbulb, ie a flux of 3.15W/0.01 m^2 = 315 W/m^2. Then shine 3.15 W of energy uniformly onto that square from a second lightbulb, ie a second 315 W/m^2 flux. Together these two fluxes would provide 6.3 W into 0.01 m^2, ie a net flux of 630 W/m^2, ie enough to heat our surface to 325 K.
“Your nonsense would mean that 4 individual 315 W/m^2 fluxes could heat a surface beyond the boiling point of water.”
Add two more lightbulbs shining on the same square. That’s 1,260 W/m^2. Which is indeed enough to heat the surface above 100 C. It would be nonsense to say that 1,260 W/m^2 would only warm the surface to 0 C!
I suspect that you are thinking about a flux of 315 W/m^2 being EMITTED from a surface (eg ice at 0 C). But a flux of 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING at a surface does not need to come from a 0C surface. I completely agree that the 315 w/m^2 FROM ice at 0 C (ie its ‘radiant exitance’) can never raise a surface above 0 C. But irradiances (flux arriving at a surface from external sources) can and do add.
“Fluxes are not temperatures.”
You seem to be confused, since I never said fluxes were temperatures. Can you find any place where I said such a thing? Please provide quotes, not strawmen.
“No matter how many fluxes you try to add in your imagination, the fact is that the temperature of the object you are trying to heat cannot exceed that of the hottest flux emitter you have.”
You seem to be confused, since you are stating here exactly what I also conclude. Can you find any place where I disagreed with such a think? Please provide quotes, not strawmen.
“Brightness is not temperature. ”
Again. this is trivially true. Can you find any place where I said such a thing? Please provide quotes, not strawmen.
“Dimwits who talk about heat sources producing so many watts per square meter and similar silliness, and trying to fool people into believing that this nonsense is related to temperature… ”
So do you think the watts per square meter is NOT related to temperature? That the sun and a piece of ice produce the same watts per square meter of EM radiation from their surfaces? Or
“Fools like Sagan, Hansen, etc., apparently believed that the Earth was created cold, and heated to its present temperature (molten core and all!), by radiation from the Sun!”
Again, a strawman you keep repeating. Can you find any place where any said (or even implied!) such a thing? Please provide quotes, not strawmen.
Wrong Folkerts. You keep trying to pervert reality, while denying you’re perverting reality. Why not just come out of your closet and admit you believe ice can boil water? Several of your cult have admitted that.
The fact is, fluxes arriving at a surface do NOT simply add. Two 315 W/m^2 fluxes do not result in a temperature of 325K. Four 315 W/m^2 fluxes do NOT result in a temperature above boiling point of water. You’re perverting physics, again.
An ice cube emitting 315 W/m^2 may only result in a flux of 250 W/m^2, at some distant surface. But, in your perverted physics, 10 such ice cubes would result in a flux of 2500 W/m^2! That would result in a temperature of 458K (185C, 365F).
You could bake a cake with a few more ice cubes!
You’re an idiot.
Folkerts,
You wrote –
“So do you think the watts per square meter is NOT related to temperature? That the sun and a piece of ice produce the same watts per square meter of EM radiation from their surfaces?”
Your attempt at a gotcha is a miserable failure. It doesn’t matter what you or I think, does it?
The facts are that a piece of ice, and the sun, can have identical measured radiation received by a surface receiving radiation from them.. In some cases, for example at night, a radiometer will record precisely no radiation flux from the sun, but much more from an adjacent block of ice.
So no, Folkerts, only idiots and climatologists are stupid enough to think that watts per square meter has any particular relationship to the temperature of a real body emitting radiation, or a real body accepting radiation.
You, obviously, are one such idiot, and good luck to you. I hope reality never rears its ugly head and interferes with your fantasy – I feel sorry for anybody who has to face the consequences of their folly, but I have no sympathy whatsoever.
I know someone who believes that fluxes are temperatures.
He refuses to admit is 2 times 2 equals 4 tho.
Tim Folkerts is clearly correct regarding the addition of fluxes. HERE’s an demonstration of his comment about light bulbs.
Let the flames begin…
Willard, Swanson, please stop trolling.
The CMIP6 models are well known to be running ‘hot’.
You miss the point AGAIN.
“CMIP6.0 takes observed changes from 1880 2019, which HAVE shown an increase of around 1.35C”
As I said, CMIP6 models are well known to be running hot.
“CMIP6.0 takes observed changes from 1880 2019, which HAVE shown an increase of around 1.35C”
But not in the Nino 3.4 area where the maximums have not increased at all.
Still missing the point.
Still ignoring the facts.
Tim,
“CMIP6.0 takes observed changes from 1880 2019, which HAVE shown an increase of around 1.35C”
Can you corroborate this? I’m of the understanding that (most usually) the models are not trained with temperature observations.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327742
Now you’re just linking to your off-topic remarks instead of actually writing them.
Now you are just ignoring facts because you don’t like them.
Barry: Off topic is it?
“The double-dip La Nina cycle is about over, and a weak El Nino cycle will start next year followed by a likely strong La Nina in 2024, which we haven’t had since 2010
THE PDO is already in its 30-year cool cycle, and the AMO will likely start its 30-year cool cycle around 2024~25, which will cause 30 years of falling global temperatures as occurred from 1880~1915, and from 1945~1979”
That is what started this thread.
Updating AMO and PDO for the latest months data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/amo-trended.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/amo-detrended.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/pdo.jpeg
“Off topic is it?”
Yep. The topic was whether climate models are trained with global temperature observations. None of your comments in this subthread applied to that.
Try reading others’ posts for interest, instead of a hook for your latest ruminations.
How can it be ‘off topic’ when it answers the question posted at the start of the thread. You just don’t like facts that are not to your liking.
The thread started with Sam contemplating the idea that climate models were predicting monthly anomalies, Richard. This is so wrong that nobody cared to address it.
Your But Modulz Are Hawt is pure Climateball.
Willard: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327816
Richard:
https://climateball.net/but-modulz/
You are making Barry sadz.
Willard returns to playing Climateball with himself.
RLH, I can’t help it if you keep changing the subject. I know what the subject is for this subthread because I made the first post in it. It went:
“Can you corroborate this? I’m of the understanding that (most usually) the models are not trained with temperature observations.”
To which you immediately replied with a change of subject.
I guess you don’t know that you’re doing it, and I’m trying to correct a person with a cognitive defect that makes them incapable of understanding what they’ve done.
barry, please stop trolling.
Thermodynamics of the climate system
To understand Earths climate, think of it as a giant, planetary-scale heat engine that drives the circulation of the oceans and atmosphere.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.5038
Which link to from this article:
Thermodynamics of the Climate System
Charles Rotter
From Physics Today HT/Leif Svalgaard
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/02/thermodynamics-of-the-climate-system/
It seems important if you want to have general idea of global climate.
It mentions the ocean, but my point of view is ocean is roughly everything. Other than that,
“Another characteristic of Earths climateindeed, any planetary climateis that it evolves irreversibly. Imagine watching a 10-second video of a field with a leafy tree on a sunny day. Would you notice if that video had been shown in reverse? Maybe not. Now imagine watching a 10-second clip of the same field and tree during a windy rainstorm.”
Well Earth climate is about timescales of thousands of year. Rather 10 second clip, how about 1000 year movie clip. Yes irreversibly is valid but there is cycles of them.
And we appear to in strange situation where over long term, is increase output but over 33 million year {which somewhat long time frame] Earth is getting colder.
But I like it, generally.
is increase output..
is increase of output of sun..
Anyhow to provide an answer to this, is that, global climate is related to changes in geological arrangement of Earth [plate tectonic which is changing planet earth- over long periods, Planet Earth transforms into other worlds with different global climates].
We are in ice house global climate which might get even colder if you merely base this on looking at the long tread.
Though I think it fairly easy for humans to change this trend.
Im getting 80 US dollars/hr to complete easy work on home computer.^pw110^I not ever realized like it is even achievable however one of my confidant cfd buddy made $27,000 only within four weeks just completing this easy opportunity and also she has influenced me to avail.^pw110^updated info on visiting following website.
>>>> https://brightfuture241.blogspot.com/
Dollars incomes sincere process to parent and earn on-line. start now developing each day over $500 simply performing from home. Last month my incomes from this are $16205 and i gave this process entirely hours from my entire day. only manner to earn (~ed95~) extra economic advantage on-line and it doesnt goals any pretty unique experience. ~tg1 circulate to this net web website online right now and
observe info to set off began
out proper now>>>>>>>>>>>> http://selfpay24.blogspot.com
mark b…”Climate alarmist Dana Nuccitelli from 6 January 2017: No warming since 2016″
***
Your bitterness against science has so pervaded your mind that you can’t even be funny.
I can’t help thinking of Nuccitelli’s name as Nutticelli because his entire article is plain nutty. My reasoning based on quotes from his article…
1)”So it is with Stage 1 climate denial and the myth that the Earth isnt warming. Its so persistent that its related to the 5th, 9th, and 49th-most popular myths in the Skeptical Science database. Climate deniers have been peddling the myth no warming since [insert date] for over a decade”.
***
Nuccitelli hangs out at skepticalscience, an idiotic blog run by a cartoonist posing as a solar scientist. The site is full of nonsense passed off as science. I doubt if Nuccitelli could find one skeptic who denies there has been warming since 1850. The argument is over what caused it. Following a 400+ years mini ice age, the Little Ice Age, a reasonable person might expect a natural re-warming to take place.
2)”When you combine these up-and-down cycles with a long-term human-caused global warming trend and various other noisy influences, you get a bumpy temperature rise that allows for cherry picking of periods without warming:”
***
There is no scientific proof that humans are causing any warming. Even the IPCC cannot point to solid science that proves their case, Instead, they rely on comments made by 19th century scientists who inferred that CO2 can warm the atmosphere but without proving it.
The basis of IPCC opinion is that it has warmed since 1850 and CO2 has increased in the atmosphere, therefore CO2 must have caused the warming. Unfortunately, in science, correlation is not causation.
3)”Thats what it looks like with artificial data. Using real global surface temperature data from NASA, I created a popular graphic (the Escalator)…”
***
Humour from Nuccitelli. The NASA GISS climate record is the most fudged record in use. When James Hansen ran the show, they were caught quietly changing the warmest year on record in the US from 1934 to 1998. When Steve McIntyre of climateaudit caught them, they changed it back.
More on NASA chicanery to come.
4)”As The Escalator shows, were currently in a particularly hot period. 2014 was the hottest year on record, until 2015 broke that record, which we just broke again in 2016″.
***
2014 was claimed by NOAA and GISS to be the hottest years ever. They did not indicate they had based there claims on probabilities of 48% and 38% respectively. That is chicanery, and from two of the most recognized temperature series producers out there. The truth is that NOAA and GISS are cheaters, hence Nuccatelli is backing cheaters, revealing he is a liar and a cheater as well.
5)”The 1998 El Nio gave birth to the no significant warming in 18 years myth, which until recently was a favorite argument of deniers like Ted Cruz”.
***
The so-called myth was announced by the IPCC in 2013 following the AR5 review of 2012. If Nuccitelli thinks it is a myth, hence a lie, he is calling the IPCC liars.
6)”The 1998 El Nio gave birth to the no significant warming in 18 years myth, which until recently was a favorite argument of deniers like Ted Cruz”.
***
Again, it was the IPCC who announced the ‘no significant warming’ mea culpa but offered error margins revealing no significant warming. Their error bars could have indicated either an insignificant cooling or an insignificant warming.
More lies from Nuccitelli.
7)”there was about 0.25C global surface warming between 1998 and 2016″
***
The IPCC disagrees and the UAH temperature series show no such warming. Again, Nuccitelli lies. I claim he is lying because he provides no scientific proof while contradicting two authorities who supply proof.
8)”In 2015, Stephen Lewandowsky, Naomi Oreskes, and colleagues published a paper documenting what they termed seepage of this climate denial myth into the scientific community”.
***
Now Nuccitelli sinks even deeper than his skepticalscience reference by quoting Naomi Oreskes. This is the woman who claimed that consensus is a valid form of science. She is not even a scientist but a professor of the history of science. Seems Nuccitelli is not too fussy about his sources.
9)”the scientific community adapted the use of inaccurate phrases like hiatus and pause to describe what was simply a short-term slowdown in global surface warming.
***
Once again, it was the IPCC who introduced the term ‘hiatus’ to describe the flat trend from 1998 – 2012. The so-called hiatus continued till 2015, some 18 years. Term like hiatus and pause were alarmist concessions to what they believed was a temporary break in a theorized anthropogenic warming trend. However, an 18 years flat trend would indicate something else is going on.
10)”were likely to see a resurgence of zombie climate myths in the coming years. To stop them, we have to make it socially unacceptable to resurrect long-debunked climate myths. We have to demand that our leaders accept that facts matter, and hold them accountable for disseminating myths and misinformation”.
***
Translation: Alarmist propaganda has made no difference to real science therefore the alarmists need to step up the propaganda.
It is Nuccatelli and his alarmist buddies who need to get a reality check. I doubt if they will ever understand the scientific method well enough for it to make a difference to their biased minds.
11)”Fortunately, the scientific community is stepping up to stand up for science, evidence, and facts”.
***
Who is this scientific community? We can only guess they are the misinformed alarmist who are legends in their own minds, believing themselves to be the scientific community.
You should pay 5 cents per word to your favorite charity.
gb…”To understand Earths climate, think of it as a giant, planetary-scale heat engine that drives the circulation of the oceans and atmosphere”.
***
I have problems with the info at your link. In a nutshell, they are seriously confused about entropy and the 2nd law. Furthermore, they are basing it on the propaganda from Raymond Pierrehumbert, a confused climate alarmist.
They offer this statement…”although the second law was developed for matter using the techniques of classical thermodynamics by Sadi Carnot, Rudolf Clausius, and others in the middle of the 19th century, a full account of the entropy of radiation had to wait for Max Plancks theory of heat radiation.16 According to Planck, the entropy carried by a beam of radiation is dependent on its frequency spectrum, angular distribution, and polarization. A given amount of radiant energy carries the greatest amount of entropy when it is low frequency, isotropic, and unpolarized”.
1)Carnot had nothing to do with the 2nd law, in fact, Clausius produced the 2nd law to address a mistake made by Carnot which suggested there were no heat losses in a heat engine. Clausius addressed that issue hence the 2nd law. Then Clausius invented entropy as a mathematical expression of the 2nd law.
2)Planck proved nothing related to radiation and the 2nd law. Planck’s work addressed radiation at one temperature and did not address radiation related to heat transfer. Planck knew nothing about heat transfer via radiation because he believed like others in his day that heat moved through an ether as heat rays.
Furthermore, entropy has nothing to do with the frequency, angle of incidence, or the polarization of a beam of radiation, whatever beam means. In fact, entropy is about heat transfer and is in no way associated with radiation. Heat cannot be transferred by radiation, any heat loss or heat gain is local.
Don’t go away, there’s more pseudo-science to come from the authors.
“Earth scrambles a focused beam of solar radiation into a diffuse beam made of reflected solar radiation and terrestrial radiation at much lower frequency. As such, the radiative interactions, including absor.p.tion, emission, and reflection, are irreversible on Earth and contribute to the planets entropy production. A simple analysis of that production allows one to quickly reject the notionsometimes seen in contemporary discussions of global warming that the greenhouse effect is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics (see the article by Raymond Pierrehumbert, Physics Today, January 2011, page 33).
***
Pierrehumbert is largely behind the pseudo-science produced by alarmists. He has single-handedly turned physics into a farce. His inference that entropy can be applied to radiation in such a manner as to overturn the 2nd law is sheer stupidity, the product of a mind that fails to grasp basic thermodynamics.
The definition of the 2nd law produced by Clausius in words should be the basis of the 2nd law, not a seriously misunderstood definition of entropy. I would venture, if you asked the average scientist to explain entropy, he/she could not produce a definition.
Clausius first defined the 2nd law roughly as…”heat can never, by its own means be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. He later stated that heat transfer via radiation must obey the 2nd law. That should be the law applied to the atmosphere where heat is claimed to be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface.
Clausius then defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat transferred during a process at temperature, T. The equation he produced was dS = dq/T.
I repeat, Clausius invented and defined the concep.t of entropy, not Pierrehumbert.
The sum, or integral is S = integral dq/T. S is entropy and is a sum of tiny heat transfer, not a driving force. Since T is a constant, by definition it can be pulled outside the integral sign and the equation becomes….
S = T.integral dq
It then becomes obvious that entropy is the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat which Clausius defined.
Planck cannot be claimed as an authority on heat transfer via radiation since he was steeped in the incorrect belief that heat was somehow transferred through the atmosphere as heat rays. So did Clausius, Stefan, and Boltzmann. Pierrehumbert obviously thinks that is still the case since he is applying entropy to radiation where it has no business being applied.
Talking about an increase or decrease of entropy without reference to heat is ingenuous. The author talks about irreversible processes without explaining what is meant. Clausius was clear on the matter. He claimed that entropy is zero in reversible process and positive in irreversible processes.
What has any of that to do with radiation. Nothing!!! Alarmists are seriously confused as to the difference between radiation and heat and that’s how they come up with silly notions that override the 2nd law.
— Gordon Robertson says:
July 2, 2022 at 7:34 PM
Earth scrambles a focused beam of solar radiation into a diffuse beam made of reflected solar radiation and terrestrial radiation at much lower frequency.” —
Well, I wouldn’t say sunlight a “focused beam of solar radiation”.
Or there is difference between direct sunlight and indirect sunlight.
Hmm, can’t find a good definition. So, I will describe it.
For sunlight to reach Earth, it has to be sunlight which going directly at Earth. Or the sun radiates in all direction and sunlight which reaches Earth {after going 149.6 million km] is close all being parallel.
Or one can focus sunlight. It’s a light which is “focus-able” and if focused, sunlight can melt bricks. And/or sunlight can collected with mirrors and have mirrors pointed at same spot, and the collected sunlight can melt brick.
Sunlight which is about 1360 watts per square meter at 1 AU can not be artificial made by human. It’s “hard” because it light at the temperature of the sun. So that is hard to make. And you also got the near parallel nature of it. One could manage it, but it’s not done.
And Sunlight would have fingerprint, getting back it being close to impossible exactly mimic it.
And indirect sunlight is scatter/diffused sunlight- which would not be “focus-able”.
Though space rocks can make a light similar, they can be hotter than than sun and can appear bigger [if you are close enough to it}.
Or some Russian got sunburned from their bright impactor. And don’t look directly at them.
gb…”Earth scrambles a focused beam of solar radiation into a diffuse beam made of reflected solar radiation and terrestrial radiation at much lower frequency…”
***
This statement is wrong to begin with, there’s no need to explain it. By scrambling, they mean scattering, but not all solar radiation is scattered. Only about 1/3rd is scattered. Also, it’s the atmosphere doing that.
The surface does not scramble anything, it either absorbs or reflects. Terrestrial radiation is not a product of solar energy it is a product of atoms and molecules in the surface.
Besides, no solar energy is focused in a beam. That would mean the light focused on an object. This is not a problem of focus it’s a problem of mass intercepting a fiied of energy.
–This statement is wrong to begin with, theres no need to explain it. By scrambling, they mean scattering, but not all solar radiation is scattered. —
So, scrambling is wrong and scattering is wrong.
There is no shortage of wrong.
It’s seem science is finding what is somewhat correct. And words [language] which mostly “wrong”. And terms are invented which can be said to be wrong, but by using word scrambled it could be better than saying scattered.
Let’s look at concept of Ideal thermal conductive blackbody.
First it’s a model. Or it’s wrong.
Ideal is sort of saying, let’s ignore entropy.
Or there a lot wrong with entropy and no one really understands it, and there various theories about it. Various theories about it, gives another clue, it’s wrong, though possible one of theories goes in to general correct direction- we will figure it out later.
Personally I like to focus on what is correct.
We are in an ice house climate.
We in an ice house climate because our ocean average temperature is cold.
And for reference, let’s say we count anything colder than 10 C as cold.
So, our ocean is guess at, to be about 3.5 C and that might correct + or – .1 C.
What I am fairly certain about is a difference of .2 C in the ocean average temperature makes big difference in global climate.
And we are going to get difference of .2 C in ocean average temperature in less than 100 years.
Also I am fairly certain humans have lived [and living in very stupid state in terms of creature, and didn’t have any thing like science at this these times] in world where ocean was .5 C warmer than present average ocean temperature. And when Earth climate was warmer with say ocean average of about 4 C, Earth was in ice house climate- and it still was a cold world. And before Humans learned to use fire, the world probably did not have an Ocean with average ocean of 5 C or warmer. And 5 C ocean is also cold. And Polar Bear was living when the ocean got as warm as about 5 C.
Polar bears are generally killed by human hunting, and there too many of them {unless you living no where near where they live in wild}.
Consider how stupid and uneducated and immoral humans appear to be, one could perhaps argue human were less stupid 100,000 years ago.
And we are going to get difference of .2 C in ocean average temperature in less than 100 years.
And we are NOT going to get difference of .2 C in ocean average temperature in less than 100 years.
Now the best thing to do, would be to get rid of teacher unions, or
give the poor the right to choose their education.
There are far too people who have not been educated despite having served time in educational institutions. And they aren’t even being correctly brainwashed.
And speaking of brainwashing amount of Ads we abused by
are annoying [and could be causing more damage than the war in Ukraine]. And war in Ukraine might end at some point in time.
But all that is far too much to hope for.
And it seems more realistic to hope we might explore the Moon within 5 years.
It’s possible lunar exploration, could lead to at least different ads, and more education could be happening [despite having the Teacher Unions with constant evil efforts of not educating students]
Come on, Gordo:
> Carnot’s analysis is physically equivalent to the second law of thermodynamics, and remains valid today.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
Think.
Gordon,
Sorry you are so wrong, but the second law of thermodynamics was first formulated by Carnot, with the maximum efficiency of a steam engine.
And can be expressed as n = 1 – Tc/Th
He beat Clausius by a couple decades.
You refuse to understand the Clausius statement anyway, so it’s all a waste of entropy.
Willard, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson says:
July 2, 2022 at 7:34 PM
” Planck cannot be claimed as an authority on heat transfer via radiation since he was steeped in the incorrect belief that heat was somehow transferred through the atmosphere as heat rays. So did Clausius, Stefan, and Boltzmann”
–
A bit harsh.
These are the people who gave us physics.
The sun heats the earth.
By radiation mainly.
I would be happy to refer to EMR as a heat ray.
Heat being energy and EMR being energy.
angech…”A bit harsh.
These are the people who gave us physics.
The sun heats the earth.
By radiation mainly.
I would be happy to refer to EMR as a heat ray.
Heat being energy and EMR being energy”.
***
Science can be harsh at times.
You need to distinguish between heat as energy and electromagnetic energy. EM is comprised of an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field. Heat is not a property of EM therefore EM carries no heat.
Heat, on the other hand, is the energy associated with atoms and their motion, both internally and externally. Since atoms don’t exist in a vacuum, heat cannot be transferred through a vacuum. Much of space between the Earth and the Sun is such a vacuum.
You might say that EM carries a blueprint for heat that instructs electrons in a receiving medium whether or not to jump to a higher orbital energy level. However, the heat is created by the electrons moving to a higher kinetic energy level due to the intensity and frequency of the EM. Ergo, EM transfers no heat from the Sun through space.
I have argued that it is incorrect to give EM the parameters of w/m^2 since that is a reference to heat that is non-existent in EM till it is absorbed by a mass. The watt itself is an adaptation of the horsepower, hence is a measure of mechanical energy. The true measure of heat is the calorie, however, since heat and work have an equivalence, we have gotten into the habit of using the mechanical equivalence of heat, the watt.
Planck et al, had no idea of that process, and I am not blaming him for not knowing. It was not till 1913 that Bohr gained the insight that related electrons to EM. Planck pointed out, that had he known about electrons when he was working out his equation relating EM frequencies to intensities, it would have made his life a lot easier.
You and Planck are obviously free to call EM a heat ray if you like. Planck had an excuse, he knew nothing about the relationship between electrons in atoms and EM. If you feel like researching the subject, it’s all there on the Net for you.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joc.2336
“The new MEI.ext confirms that ENSO activity went through a lull in the early-to mid-20th century, but was just about as prevalent one century ago as in recent decades”
14 April 2011
So any OLS or averages that include the mid-20th century will actually be inaccurate by definition. Whereas the peaks will show no change since 1870 as they do.
And this has been known for more than a decade!
“So far, none of the behaviour of recent ENSO events appears unprecedented, including duration, onset timing, and spacing in the last few decades compared to a full century before then.”
Great encapsulation of Disney’s war on boys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDHYqAlpVK8
stephen… in the video, the guy keeps associating the ‘woke’ generation with the Left. This has nothing to do with the political spectrum, it’s a special kind of insanity that has struck through self-centred idiots who can’t tell the difference between reality and fiction.
I never really liked Disney anyway. Mickey Mouse was a little too faggy for me with that high voice but Goofey was OK. I preferred Warner Brothers with the real cartoons like B. Bunny, D. Duck, F. Leghorn, E. Fudd, etc.
Even at that, I am sorry to see Disney taken over by a wacko lesbian, feminist.
I don’t care what colour an actor might be as long as he/she has talent and fits the part. So, often these days, many actors can’t act, and the token coloured actors they try to force on us are pathetic actors.
In the words of Pink Floyd…leave them kids alone.
Gordo,
The woke movement emanates from the left. I really don’t see how you can argue that. The LGBTQ+ has taken over Disney. They ain’t on the right. You need to watch more of Mr. Reagan, he’s an actor in Hollywood. Very insightful.
We likely have very different ideas of what constitutes Left. Many people in the States associate Left, or socialism, with Communist Russia or China. I think Russia, under the Bolsheviks and China under Mao stole the name socialist to give an aura of legitimacy to their regimes. Karl Marx would have nothing to do with socialism.
Canada is a socialism, as is the UK, Sweden and other Scandinavian countries, New Zealand and Australia. I think Germany and France are likely socialisms as well although they have changed the name to social democracy. They have proved that socialism does work under a democracy and does not interfere with capitalism.
I can tell you one thing, if you visited Canada, you could not tell a socialist from anyone else. That’s because Canada operates on a strong central government and no one knows that means socialism. You would not notice it here because it’s not in your face. Furthermore, capitalism is encouraged and they get tax breaks in businesses.
US athletes playing for Canadian teams notice it when it comes to paying taxes but they also benefit when it comes to using the health plans. They would also notice there is no difference in freedoms between Canada and the States other than the ease in buying and carrying firearms.
When I hear people comparing the woke, political-correctness with that Left, I wonder what they are talking about. In the US people like AOC and Sanders have warped ideas about what socialism means.
Also, there is a mistaken notion that socialists support the nonsense that goes on today about climate change, covid, etc. That too is a silly idea promoted by the naive like AOC and Sanders.
Do you know any socialists? I have known several in my life and they were also successful entrepreneurs. There is nothing about socialism that prevents a person owning a business and making as much money as the market will bear. I know one who is a muti-millionaire and offers no apologies for it, nor should he.
Modern democratic socialists differ from their capitalist counterparts only in the amount of central government they will tolerate.
When I was younger, I regarded myself as a socialist but these days, I stay away from labels. I can understand the position of both sides and the extremes of either side are abhorrent to me.
There are just as many right-wing politically-correct as there are left-wing. As I said, it has nothing to do with politics, it’s about mental retardation.
“We likely have very different ideas of what constitutes Left. Many people in the States associate Left, or socialism, with Communist Russia or China.”
Yes, left as totalitarian.
Many US presidents were totalitarian is sense they like having the power to change things like they get whenever nation is at war.
Because we at war and threaten, we can put Japanese Americans in concentration camps.
Or violate rights because of X, ie a pandemic.
Because of global warming, we can tax more.
Globalism is totalitarian.
And of course stealing elections is totalitarianism.
Your Prime Minister, loves totalitarian countries like China,
and has acted as a totalitarian.
Often lefties imagine monopolies as free markets, which is exactly what they aren’t. Monopolies are about the relationship with government. A union relationship to a government can make it monopoly. SpaceX is not monopoly though it’s biggest rocket company in terms how launches it does. And it’s involved government. Boeing is monopoly though if want to say it has corporate welfare- either or both apply. Tesla though it did get subsidies {one might say would not exist without them] is also not monopoly.
gb…”Your Prime Minister, loves totalitarian countries like China, and has acted as a totalitarian”.
***
I agree, but Trudeau is not liked by most Canadians. His popular vote in the last election was 32%. The Conservatives polled 34% of the vote and find themselves in opposition.
The sad part, is that a party with socialist roots, the NDP, holds the balance of power, with 18% of the popular vote. . They are no longer socialists but an amalgam of politically-correct nut jobs. Here again, by socialist, I do not mean totalitarian but a democratic social democracy.
The forerunners of the NDP, the CCF, had close association with unions, hence with civil disobedience. The modern NDP has taken steps to distance themselves from unions, as eco- weenies, university professors, and other cranks have invaded the party. The CCF and early NDP would have backed the trucker protest in Ottawa but this one sided with the totalitarian approach. Cowards.
Canada is not a totalitarian country, we are still freer than most to express our opinions without fear of arrest. Trudeau cannot act unilaterally, although he often expresses unilateral opinions. His party also offers unilateral platforms like climate change idiocy but I can see Canadians rejecting them when push comes to shove.
stephen…I was thinking more about my last reply to you regarding the Left. These days, I take a person as that person comes. Don’t care if the person is a right-winger or left-winger, if I get along with the person, I get along with the person, case-closed.
I don’t think we should judge a person by his/her political stripes. We should look at the person’s actions. I have known people from both ends of the political spectrum and what mattered to me was them being there for me when push came to shove.
I grew up in poverty and I rate those days as some of the happiest of my life. I don’t understand to this day why anyone would be mean enough to wish that on any child, however, that’s the way it is in this world. There is nothing I can do to change it. I can only hope that one day, humans will gain the awareness to see their own meanness, and in that awareness, change their ways.
Holding ideological, political views either way changes nothing. All it accomplished is blocking our abilities to be aware of the human condition and to block our natural compassion. A healthy, aware person has no need of political views.
The oldest socialist trick in the book, “it is not socialist if we say so”. Same applies to all Marxism and, in identical fashion, to the Nazis (yep, also socialists). Deny all crimes until you cannot. Then claim they do no matter or some else is to blame or has done worse.
Meanwhile, Marxism in any of its forms is directly responsible for the ideological extermination of more than 100 million human beings.
And counting.
It is a tragedy beyond comprehension.
“The oldest socialist trick in the book, ‘it is not socialist if we say so’.
I’ve never heard of such a thing. This sounds a lot like an American hard-right conservative’s take on the Democratic party correctly identifying itself, and many of its policies, as not socialist.
But you’re welcome to clarify what you mean, martha.
“Meanwhile, Marxism in any of its forms…”
This lends credence to what I just said. Marxism is a specific polity that doesn’t apply to very many actual polities.
“…is directly responsible for the ideological extermination of more than 100 million human beings”
Totalitarianism is responsible for the ACTUAL extermination of more than 100 million human beings. “ideological extermination” isn’t a thing. ‘Killed by ideology…’ maybe.
Nicest month of June weather in the 20 years I’ve lived in Maryland. Unusually mild. If this is climate change I want more of it
–A SUDDEN INCREASE IN NOCTILUCENT CLOUDS: Something unexpected just happened in the mesosphere. As June came to an end, NASA’s AIM spacecraft detected a sharp increase in the frequency of noctilucent clouds (NLCs), the most in 15 years:–
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Anyone have ideas about why there is this spike increase.
Or if it were to become higher trend, rather than spike, what it mean?
Btw, no tropical storms for 48 hours:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
“We’re speculating that the spike might be due to extra water vapor transported to higher latitudes from rocket launches..”
https://www.cnet.com/science/space/these-mesmerizing-clouds-are-at-a-15-year-high-and-spacex-may-be-the-reason/
“Increased water vapor in Earths atmosphere due to human activities is making shimmering high-altitude clouds more visible, a new study finds.”
https://news.agu.org/press-release/climate-change-is-making-night-shining-clouds-more-visible/
I haven’t read the paper, but I bet it’s more nuanced than the press article about it.
Blinny:
Compare
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SkuYuG8sCSmZjGw3_97nEEa9xfI07zd6/view
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-tropics.jpeg
and tell me why you think that yours is correct and mine isn’t.
Blinny: Still waiting a response from you.
ken…”You should pay 5 cents per word to your favorite charity”.
***
Different strokes for different folks.
Here’s some more nickels for charity.
I thought it might have been Sly Stone who came up with that saying but apparently it was Cassius Clay, aka Muhammed Ali, who apparently said, ‘I got different strokes for different folks’.
Sly Stone…
Sometimes I’m right and I can be wrong
My own beliefs are in my song
The butcher, the banker, the drummer and then
Makes no difference what group I’m in
I am everyday people, yeah, yeah
There is a blue one who can’t accep.t
The green one for living with
A fat one tryin’ to be a skinny one
Different strokes for different folks
And so on and so on and scooby-dooby-dooby
We got to live together
Poor quality but a decent compilation of Sly stuff. Listen @ 5:40 to see how much we have deteriorated with racial intolerance. Back then, the races got along much better.
https://tinyurl.com/6aykfr4v
152 x 5. You owe $7.60 for wasting people’s time with drivel.
I’d suggest you add up the rest of your drivel and contribute to JCCF defense fund for Tamara Lich.
this is more a test than anything…host complains that it is a duplicate..
tim f…”Together these two fluxes would provide 6.3 W into 0.01 m^2, ie a net flux of 630 W/m^2, ie enough to heat our surface to 325 K”.
***
Tim…you are confusing the addition of fluxes with the absor.p.tion of individual fluxes by a mass. Fluxes of EM will not add in space. Any additional heating of a surface due to two fluxes incident upon the surface is a property of the mass, not the addition of fluxes.
A temperature increase depends on the surface material. It also depends on the temperature of the surface with respect to the temperature of the sources emitting the fluxes.
As Clint has pointed out over and over, if the sources of the fluxes is ice and the surface is at 20C, there will be no warming at all, no matter how many ice sources you provide.
But if the surface is at -20C? or -200C?
And the area around it is otherwise at −270.4245C.
RLH still doesn’t understand the “ice cubes boiling water” issue. That’s nothing new as he doesn’t understand any of the science.
The issue is NOT about something hot warming something cold. That happens all the time. The issue is about something cold warming something to a much higher temperature than itself. Specifically, cult idiots have claimed that two different fluxes of 315 W/m^2 each, arriving at the same surface, can warm the surface to 325 K. That is, of course, complete nonsense.
If two such 315 W/m^2 fluxes could warm to 325K, then four such fluxes could warm to 386K, 113C, 235F. That’s equivalent to saying ice cubes can boil water.
The cult tries to pervert science, to support their cult beliefs. And RLH ignorantly helps them by confusing the issue.
Clint R still not understanding that the ‘boiling point of water’ is pressure dependent.
Clint R also not understanding that something that is surrounded by a higher temperature point than that of outer space will mean that an object at its center will cool at a slower rate than if it was in outer space itself.
RLH still doesn’t understand the “ice cubes boiling water” issue. That’s nothing new as he doesn’t understand any of the science.
The cult tries to pervert science, to support their cult beliefs. And RLH ignorantly helps them by confusing the issue.
Clint R still not understanding that the boiling point of water is pressure dependent. If you place the water in a vacuum, it will instantly boil with no external temperature input.
You still don’t get it, RLH. The issue is NOT whether or not water will boil. Everyone knows water will boil. Everyone knows water will boil at lower temperatures as the pressure is decreased. That is NOT the issue.
You don’t understand any of this, and your ignorance only confuses the issue for others. You serve the purpose of the cult — perverting and confusing the science. People like you are considered “useful idiots”.
(I won’t respond anymore, since RLH won’t get it. Responsible adults now have enough information to get to the correct conclusions. That’s my only goal. RLH will be trolling here all day, every day.)
Clint R still not understanding that something that is surrounded by a higher temperature point than that of outer space will mean that an object at its center will cool at a slower rate than if it was in outer space itself.
–RLH says:
July 4, 2022 at 7:34 AM
Clint R still not understanding that something that is surrounded by a higher temperature point than that of outer space will mean that an object at its center will cool at a slower rate than if it was in outer space itself.–
I think Clint understands we are on molten rock and not in space.
I would like to get into space- where it’s warmer.
I would note our atmospheric greenhouse allows an air temperature of
-50 C, if you are on land. But one doesn’t get an air temperature of -50 C if you are on a liquid ocean surface.
But if you are on frozen liquid ocean, you could get air temperature of -50 C.
With our ocean if it was warm enough, one would not get a frozen surface of the ocean.
But our ocean has average temperature of about 3.5 C – which is quite cold. And with cold ocean, vast region of it does freeze in the winter.
To put numbers to it:
“Antarctic sea ice extends to about 7 million square miles in winter, versus 6 million square miles in the Arctic”
So, totals 13 million during winter. North America continent is about
9.5 million sq miles. So it’s fair large area. And if ocean gets colder it would get larger. And most people seem to think that if ocean was about 5 C, there would be close to zero square miles of polar sea ice in winter.
I think most of our time during the Late Cenozoic Ice Age which has been ongoing for 33.9 million year has had ocean warm enough that it doesn’t freeze in winter. But in last couple million years the ocean has cooled and we have had a lot frozen polar sea ice, not only in winter, but in summer also.
But during warmest periods of interglacial periods we have ice free polar sea ice in the summer. In our Holocene interglacial period, it didn’t get a warm as past interglacial period and during warmest thousands of years in past interglacial period, we could have had ice free polar sea ice in the winter.
The warmest period in all interglacial periods is when Sahara Desert is green. Which wiki calls: African humid period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period
Anyhow, some thought we would get ice free arctic polar sea ice in the summer- it was suppose to have already have happen. And it’s now predicted to happen within next 50 years. {Which seems quite unlikely to me].
And no one is predicting we get warm enough for the Sahara desert to green [by any significant amount].
to happen within next 50 years
Clint says “The issue is NOT about something hot warming something cold. That happens all the time. ”
Yes. We both agree that hot things can warm cold things. That is a start!
“The issue is about something cold warming something to a much higher temperature than itself.”
But here is the thing. No one is making that claim.
“claimed that two different fluxes of 315 W/m^2 each, arriving at the same surface, can warm the surface to 325 K.”
And here is the point you keep missing. A “flux of 315 W/m^2 arriving” at a surface does not have to come from a flux of 315 W/m^2 emitted from a surface. The flux could have come the hot, hot sun but due to geometry and the inverse square law, the flux could have dropped to 315 W/m^2. Or it could have come from a IR heating panel at 1000K. or from boiling water at 373 K> *ANY* of these can provide the flux of 315 w/m^2 you describe in your sentence above.
“Thats equivalent to saying ice cubes can boil water.”
Only if you also believe that the flux LEAVING the sun is the same as the flux ARRIVING at the earth.
Fluxes LEAVING Surface A do not need to be equal to fluxes ARRIVING at surface B.
Anyhow how warm the ocean is, matters in terms of global climate and
we don’t have greenhouse effect theory which includes the ocean effect upon global climate. We don’t even have one, just for the atmosphere.
But everyone knows we are in an ice house global climate and last 2.5 million years has coldest. And human evolved within coldest period- it’s taught in elementary school.
And ice house global climates have a cold ocean, and cold ocean causes lower global CO2 levels.
Or for 33.9 million years, Earth CO2 levels have been low- and 400 ppm of CO2 is a low level of CO2.
Some predict CO2 levels could rise above 1000 ppm. And 1000 ppm probably is no longer a low level of CO2.
During the most recent and coldest time period on Earth when there was large ice sheets on continents, such as North America, CO2 level reached dangerously low level of around 180 ppm.
And we do not know [though could guess] of any other time with such low CO2 levels. And this also was coldest in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age. And we don’t know if or when we could return to such a climate state.
But people are optimistic and some imagine we have ice free polar sea ice some time in the future.
And it seems some think this could happen in less than 50 years.
And I am wondering if some people think it could happen in less than
10 years? Or say, less than 20 years. Or 5 years?
I sort of have list of questions, other questions is what would Venus temperature be, if it was at Earth distance from the Sun.
What would Earth average temperature be, if it completely covered with oceans.
What would Earth average temperature was at Venus distance from the Sun.
What Earth average temperature be, if it had 2 atm atmosphere rather than it’s 1 atm atmosphere. Or what Earth atmosphere was .6 atm rather than 1 atm.
And what regard as most important question, what would Mars temperature be if completely covered by bright white H20 snow?
I think it would be nice if Mars settlements were surrounded by
snow. Or like Christmas time.
“Timyou are confusing the addition of fluxes with the absor.p.tion of individual fluxes by a mass. ”
No, I really am not.
“Fluxes of EM will not add in space. ”
This makes little sense. Fluxes are defined at specific surfaces — how many watts of EM energy pass through a given surface (not how much flux ‘exists in space’). Of course, surfaces exist ‘in space’. If I have a surface ‘in space’ and send two different sets of EM energy through it (eg from two lasers or two lightbulb or two pieces of ice) the energies add and the fluxes add.
“Any additional heating of a surface due to two fluxes incident upon the surface is a property of the mass, not the addition of fluxes.”
No, heating is DEFINITELY affected by the amount of incoming energy (incoming flux).
“A temperature increase depends on the surface material. ”
Certainly. For simplicity we have assumed the surface is a blackbody, but that could be adjusted. We have also for simplicity assumed the surface material only loses heat via radiation, but that also could be changed. But you don’t get to introduce new variables in the middle of a problem and then pretend you have some new insight.
“As Clint has pointed out over and over, if the sources of the fluxes is ice and the surface is at 20C, there will be no warming at all, no matter how many ice sources you provide.”
And as I have pointed out over and over, I agree. I knew that 30 years ago.
******************************************
The key issue that many seem to miss is that there are two different, important surfaces under consideration. The EMITTING surface and RECEIVING surface. When ice at 273 K is the EMITTING surface, then 315 W/m^2 of flux (radiant exitance) leaves the surface.
But when some other surface is RECEIVING 315 W/m^2 of flux (irradiance), it does not need to be coming from ice! it could be coming from ice @ 273 K forming a dome that completely covers the ‘view’ above the receiving surface (ie the 2pi steradians above the surface). Or it could coming from half the view (pi steradians) at 273 * 2^(1/4) = 325 K. Or from 1/16th at 273*2. Or from 1/10,000 at 273 * 10.
Until people distinguish “emitting” from “receiving” and “radiant exitance” from “irradiance”, they will continue to make ‘rookie mistakes’. It you are not clearly thinking about this in your head as you type, you are not clearly understanding the issues involved.
Wrong Folkerts. You are the one trying to confuse the issue with an “emitting surface”. I’m ONLY talking about the “receiving surface”. Quit trying to pervert the situation.
The fact is, fluxes arriving at a surface do NOT simply add. Two 315 W/m^2 fluxes do not result in a temperature of 325K. Four 315 W/m^2 fluxes do NOT result in a temperature above boiling point of water. You’re perverting physics, again.
An ice cube emitting 315 W/m^2 may only result in a flux of 250 W/m^2, at some distant surface. But, in your perverted physics, 10 such ice cubes would result in a flux of 2500 W/m^2! That would result in a temperature of 458K (185C, 365F).
You could bake a cake with a few more ice cubes!
You’re an idiot.
And … you STILL don’t recognize the important of geometry and the inverse square law.
A distant ice cube EMITTING 315 W/m^2 does not result in a flux of 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING at some distant surface.
“But, in your perverted physics, 10 such ice cubes would result in a flux of 2500 W/m^2! ”
No! That is not at ALL what I (or any one claims). We all recognize how solid angles work and how to do surface integrals to sum fluxes from different directions. And it sure as heck isn’t the way your strawman works!
Folkerts attempts another perversion: “A distant ice cube EMITTING 315 W/m^2 does not result in a flux of 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING at some distant surface.”
Correct Folkerts, that’s why I used 250W/m^2. You’re such an idiot.
Folkerts, your claim was two 325 W/m^2 fluxes would add to 630 W/m^2. That’s your bogus physics. You can’t spin your way out of your own nonsense. You have to admit you were wrong and you don’t understand radiative physics or thermodynamics.
But, you won’t do that. That’s why you’re a braindead cult idiot.
Oops, another typo!
“…your claim was two 325 W/m^2 fluxes…”
should be
“…your claim was two 315 W/m^2 fluxes…”
“Correct Folkerts, thats why I used 250W/m^2. Youre such an idiot.”
Well, you are making a small step toward understanding. You are acknowledging the difference between emitted flux (315W/m^2 here) and received flux (250 W/m^2).
Imagine an entire dome of ice (or flat walls and ceiling – in doesn’t matter). It doesn’t matter how big the dome is. That dome will provide 315 W/m^2 to a surface under the dome.
So to provide 250 W/m^2m from ice, you would need to have 250/315 = 79% of the dome covered with ice.
But here is the thing that everyone else seems to understand. You can’t cover 2*78% = 158% of the dome with ice and get 500 W/m^2. You can’t cover 10*78% = 780% of the dome with ice and get 2500 W/m^2. The best you can do is cover 100% of the dome with ice and get 315 W/m^2. After than you are simply covering ice with more ice, which provides no more flux FROM the dome and no more flux TO the surface.
Only in your imagination do people add fluxes the way you suppose.
Folkerts, all that blah-blah isn’t necessary.
Do you agree that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface can NOT raise the surface to 325K?
ONLY a “yes” or “no” is needed.
(I bet Folkerts can not answer.)
and from a different tack …
“Correct Folkerts, thats why I used 250W/m^2. Youre such an idiot.”
So you acknowledge that an EMITTING source at 315 W/m^2 could provide 250 W/m^2 to a RECEIVING surface. Perfect.
Or an EMITTING source at 315 W/m^2 could provide 100 W/2^2. Or 6 W/m^2. The RECEIVING surface could be receiving between 0 – 315 W/m^2′ ie any value LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO the emitting source.
Conversely, to provide 315 W/m^2 to a RECEIVING surface, you need a EMITTING surface at any value GREATER THAN OR EQUAL. So a surface RECEIVING 315 W/m^2 *could* be receiving it from a surface emitting 315 W/m^2. Or a surface emitting 400 W/m^2 or 1000 W/m^2, or 64,000,000 W/^2.
So we could take a surface emitting 1000 W/m^2 (at 364 K) and have it PROVIDE a flux 315 W/m^2 TO a surface. And in this case, we could take a second surface emitting 1000 W/m^2 and have it PROVIDE a flux 315 W/m^2 TO a surface. Lo and behold, we have two fluxes of 315 W/m^2 that add to 630 W/m^2, which can heat a surface to 325 K.
And there is no problem because the emitting surface was 364 K, ie warmer than the resulting temperature.
“Do you agree that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface can NOT raise the surface to 325K?”
No, I disagree.
Since you specifically say “two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving” at a surface, then you are describing irradiance. The two fluxes might be from two surfaces at 325 K, or two surfaces at 1000 K, or two surfaces at 5700 K (eg sunlight). And any fool knows that fluxes from surfaces at 325 K or 1000 K or 5700 K can indeed warm the surface to 325 K with no violation of physics.
[If you INSTEAD mean “two 315 W/m^2 fluxes leaving from two different surfaces” (for example, from two ice cubes), then yes, those fluxes cannot warm another surface to 325 K.]
Okay Folkerts, since you like to weasel out, I’ll give you one more chance. Making the changes you claim are necessary. (Changes not really necessary, since this has been discussed endlessly. Folkerts is only looking for loopholes.)
“Do you agree that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes, from separate sources, arriving the same surface can NOT raise the surface to 325K?
“Yes” or “no”.
(Again, I bet Folkerts can’t answer. Just as last time, he will attempt to “blah-blah” his way out of it.)
I gotta laugh. Clint says both:
“Making the changes you claim are necessary.”
“he will attempt to ‘blah-blah’ ”
The ‘necessary changes’ are clearly explained, but reading more than 3 or three lines is apparently too strenuous.
Okay Clint, since you can’t state a clear question, I’ll give you the answer(s) one more time (simplified for easier understanding).
Which of these do you mean?
A) 315 W/m^2 as measured ARRIVING at the surface being warmed
B) 315 W/m^2 as measured LEAVING the surface(s) doing the warming
The answer to A is “No” (they CAN raise the temp to 325K)
The answer to B is “Yes” (they CANNONT raise the temp to 325K)
My question contained, “…arriving the same surface…”, and Folkerts still doesn’t know if I’m talking about “arriving” or “leaving”!
Yeah, he’s an idiot.
“Yeah, hes an idiot.”
… but I am the one who got the answer right, so, yeah, I think need to re-assess who is an ‘idiot’.
Two fluxes — for example from two light bulbs or sun beams — of 315 W/m^2 both arriving at a surface can warm the surface to 325 K.
No, that’s wrong Folkerts. Not only are you an idiot but you don’t understand radiative physics or thermodynamics.
As usual, you won’t understand this, so this is just for others. You can go play with your toys now.
A 315 W/m^2 flux arriving a surface will result in a temperature, once steady state is reached. In a perfect scenario (surface perfectly insulated except where it absorbs the 315 W/m^2 flux, vacuum, etc.), 315 W/m^2 would also be emitted (ε = 1), resulting in a temperature of 273 K (-0.1C, 31.8F), basically the temperature of an ice cube. So a second 315 W/m^2 flux would be unable to increase that temperature. (Just as two ice cubes can’t make something hotter than the ice.) The second flux only has the potential to warm to 273K, and the surface is already at 273K, so no heat transfer occurs.
Radiative physics is not always intuitive, so consider conduction. A brick has a temperature of 273K. If a second 273K brick is placed in contact, does the temperature rise to twice 273K? Of course not. The temperature remains at 273K, no matter how many 273K bricks are added. Radiative flux, like temperatures, don’t simply add.
Believing fluxes simply add is one of several false beliefs in the AGW nonsense, so it’s worth spending time on.
> So a second
By that logic, Pup, the first one would not have done anything.
Revise and resubmit.
Sorry Willard but my 3:43 PM comment was meant for responsible adults, not immature trolls. Obviously, it’s WAY over your head.
I think youtube has children cartoons you might enjoy.
“A 315 W/m^2 flux arriving a surface will result in a temperature, once steady state is reached. ”
OK. Let’s for the sake of argument say again that we have 10 cm x 10 cm area receiving a power of 3.15W from a lightbulb. That is “a 315 W/m^2 flux arriving at the surface”.
“In a perfect scenario (surface perfectly insulated except where it absorbs the 315 W/m^2 flux, vacuum, etc.), 315 W/m^2 would also be emitted (ε = 1), resulting in a temperature of 273 K ”
Sure.
“So a second 315 W/m^2 flux would be unable to increase that temperature.”
Why? If we turn on a second lightbulb, you are saying that lightbulb would be unable to increase the temperature of the surface.
“Radiative physics is not always intuitive, so consider conduction.”
Arguing from an analogy is always a weak starting point. In this case your analogy is weak and DETRACTS from intuition about radiation. Stick to radiation.
Will a second light bulb (or sun beam or laser beam) providing 3.15 W to a 0.01 m^2 have no impact? My intuition tells me the surface will get warmer. And radiative physics concurs.
Here is a challenge. Take three identical rocks: one is in the shade, one in the sun, and one in the sun with a few mirrors shining extra flux at the rock. I am sure your intuition accurately tells you which is hottest. Yet your conclusion above is the second flux “would be unable to increase that temperature”!
I know your comment was not a memo for yourself, Pup.
So why do you keep parroting the same inconsistency over and over again?
Tim Folkerts, Cult Leader grammie and Flynnson can’t figure it out. The light bulb thing is so easy to demonstrate.
Too bad they never learn.
So, I did the demonstration myself.
Oh good, Willard and Son have teamed up with Folkerts trying to pervert science again.
Willard Jr has been playing with lightbulbs, not understanding ANYTHING about the issue. The issue involves “cold” warming “hot”. Willard Jr has successfully warmed “cold” with “hot”, exactly opposite of what he needs to do to prove his nonsense.
Maybe he will actually try to boil water with ice cubes, as he believes can be done.
We have no shortage of idiots here.
Pup cannot work out a second time what he worked out a first time.
Quite wonderful, when you think about it.
So ou course he has no real response to Tim.
Folkerts, do you enjoy being an idiot?
I stated in my question that the fluxes are “arriving the same surface”. But you couldn’t understand if I was talking about “arriving” or “leaving”!
That makes you an idiot.
Your nonsense about two 315 W/m^2 fluxes adding to 630 W/m^2 means you don’t know ANYTHING about radiative physics. If fluxes really added like that, it would be possible to boil water with ice cubes. You can’t even understand how stupid that is.
That makes you an idiot.
Now, you are so desperate you’re throwing nonsense on top of nonsense. You’re trying to change the scenario because you got caught. You’re using mirrors and lasers trying to cover up for your ignorance.
That makes you an idiot.
What kind of person wants to be an idiot? Who are you? I believe it was your syncophant Norman that claimed you have a PhD in physics. Is that true? You don’t have the knowledge of someone with ANY kind of physics degree. You constantly get things wrong. Not just “wrong”, but extremely wrong! Have you stolen someone else’s identity?
You should have been able to answer that question a while ago, Pup.
Professors are not that hard to find.
Almost as easy as to add fluxes.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
It’s plotted June- averaged sunspots 70.5
Solar wind
speed: 375.8 km/sec
density: 24.31 protons/cm3
Updated 04 Jul 2022
Sunspot number: 42
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 13.24×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +4.2% Elevated
–GEOMAGNETIC STORM WATCH: NOAA forecasters say there is a chance of minor G1-class geomagnetic storm on July 6th when a stream of solar wind is expected to hit Earth’s magnetic field.–
Solar wind
speed: 340.3 km/sec
density: 19.23 protons/cm3
Updated 05 Jul 2022
Sunspot number: 92
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 13.22×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.1% High
48-hr change: +1.0%
Solar wind
speed: 308.7 km/sec
density: 12.00 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 07 Jul 22
Sunspot number: 98
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 13.18×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +6.1% High
48-hr change: +1.0%
{Thermosphere is not energized and GRC is
high- or conditions generally associated with
a Solar Min.
But there is large sunspot turning toward us which
could hit Earth with large solar storms.}
Interesting
Shrinking GH Effect Closer to Reality
Posted byZoe PhinJuly 3, 2022Posted inAstrophysics, Climate Science, Code
“In a previous article, I attempted to figure out a more accurate surface temperature for an imaginary Earth with no atmosphere compared to the standard approach of completely neglecting surface emissivity”
https://phzoe.com/2022/07/03/shrinking-gh-effect-closer-to-reality/
…
“Nope. The correct answer is -4.3C !”
Willis Eschenbach links to this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/earths-baseline-black-body-model-a-damn-hard-problem/
Which is depressing, in the context of such as my question what Venus temperature be at Earth distance.
So, I thought of another question. Leave Earth’s atmosphere alone, and change something else.
Or for example it’s though when North and South America joined it changed the global climate.
So, if enlarged Panama Canal by factor of 100, what happen?
And is there any other relatively small thing, which would have larger effect? How about enlarging the Bering Straits by factor of 10?
Or something else.
I’m sure the insights of a graduate of economics on the global energy budget is fascinating to some. I notice her posts are politically angled. Just to read the list of titles (she posts about Ivermectin, too!) gives that away.
barry, please stop trolling.
Planet is not a uniformly heated body.
Planet is a solar irradiated from one side spherical object.
The irradiated side is not uniformly irradiated.
The planets opposite side is in total darkness.
Thus, a planet is not a blackbody!
..
Earth absorbs 28% less solar energy than Moon (Albedo Earth a =0,306; Albedo Moon a =0,11).
And yet
The measured Earths average surface temperature Tearth=288K. The measured Moons average surface temperature Tmoon=220K.
Mars orbits sun at R = 1,524 AU.
(1/R) = (1/1,524) = 1/2,32 Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth has
So the solar flux at Mars orbit is 2,32 times weaker than on Moon too.
And yet
The measured Mars average surface temperature Tmars=210K.
Which is close to the measured Moons average surface temperature Tmoon=220K.
Mars’ Albedo a =0,250; Moon’s Albedo a =0,11.
It can be shown, that for the same Albedo Mars and Moon would have the same average surface temperature.
..
Let’s see now:
Tmoon =220K
Tearth =288K (for Earth having 28% less than Moon solar energy “absorbed”)
Tmars =210K (for Mars having 2,32 times less than Moon solar energy “absorbed”)
These obvious discrepancies can be explained only by the Earth’s and by the Mars’ much faster than Moon’s rotational spins.
These obvious discrepancies can be explained only by the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correction
Instead of:
“(1/R) = (1/1,524) = 1/2,32 Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth has”
It should read:
“(1/R)^2 = (1/1,524)^2 = 1/2,32 Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth has”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Us it possible to get data for a specific place. I would like data from chosen places on the same latitude and different locations, like Bjurklubb in sweden (measuring site), Alaska at the sea, South. Am at same latitude (-sign)?
Stig Petersson
If you consider all GHCN daily stations located within the same small 64N latitude band as your Bjoerklubb, you see nearly 240 stations.
96 in Alaska, 30 in Canada, 1 in Greenland, 4 in Iceland, 6 in Norway, 42 in Sweden, 29 in Finland, 29 in Russia.
Latitude 65 deg North; Bjorklubb is right spelling
The o with 2 dots disappear . Bjuroeklubb
Data for 1973-1995
https://en.tutiempo.net/climate/ws-22960.html
Bjuroklubb is 67 latitude, 19.35 longitude
So
Climate BJUROKLUBB (LGT-H)
Climate data: 1973 – 1997
is the wrong site.
The following Swedish GHCN daily stations are in your near (id, lat,long, alt, name):
SWE00136969 64.3900 21.3100 105.0 HOKMARKSBERGET_V
SWE00137023 64.7200 21.1500 5.0 URSVIKEN
SWE00140306 64.3600 21.3200 21.0 LOVANGER
SWE00140366 64.6200 21.0700 48.0 SKELLEFTEA_FLYGPLATS
SWE00140420 64.9100 21.2300 10.0 FURUOGRUND
but only SKELLEFTEA_FLYGPLATS has sufficiently recent data.
At the same latitude you find
IC000004030 64.1269 -21.9025 52.0 REYKJAVIK
ICM00004130 64.1330 -21.9000 53.0 REYKJAVIK
USC00508044 64.7425 -155.4842 121.9 AK RUBY WEST
I can download and post the recent daily temps, e.g. for SKELLEFTEA_FLYGPLATS and REYKJAVIK if you are interested.
*
Or do you rather mean the monthly anomalies for UAH’s lower troposphere grid cells above Bjuröklubb, Reykjavik and Ruby?
Not clear to me…
*
P.S. UTF-8 characters aren’t displayed on this blog.
You may use what
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
makes out of them to let them appear here.
Please avoid ‘d’ immediately followed by ‘c’ in your comments; they are not published.
Blinny: Avoiding answering are you?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327924
I’ll answer your morbidly egomaniacal stalking stuff when it suits me, and certainly not because you think I have to.
Who are you after all, Linsley Hood? An opinionated old man who behaves on this blog like a 15 year old college boy.
So Blinny, still think that you know more than Vaughan Pratt?
As the opinionated and permanently lying stalker Linsley Hood perfectly knows, I never and never claimed
to know more than StanU Emeritus Vaughan Pratt, whom I respect for his amazing proof of the failure of R.G. Woods 1909 experiment;
to do anything better than the USCRN team.
You, Linsley Hood, spread those lies.
Unfortunately, there is no moderation on this blog forbidding you to stalk others and to lie.
What a pity!
So why do you object to my using CTRMs following his suggestions of 12, 10 and 8 months for a 12 month CTRM?
So Blinny does not have any answer to that question, simply thinks he knows best.
Sorry I misinformed you, Bjuroklubb is 67 latitude, 19.35 longitude
AK RUBY WEST would be perfect if it is at that latitude and then southest point in south america; I think 67 S latitude is too far ; first point on land northbound from that
Bjuroklubb has the longest temp record . from 1995-12-14
The Bjuroklubb station has the longest temp record . from 1995-12-14
According to
https://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds370.1/docs/Worldwide_Station_List.html
NUMBER = STATION NUMBER
CALL = STATION CALL LETTERS IF ASSIGNED
NAME = NAME OF LOCATION (& INDICATES PREVIOUSLY UNDER DIFFERENT NUMBER)
COUNTRY/STATE = 2-CHARACTER COUNTRY ABBREVIATION, FOR U.S.–
2-CHARACTER STATE ABBREVIATION
(SEE ‘COUNTRY-LIST.TXT’ FILE)
LAT = LATITUDE
LON = LONGITUDE
ELEV = ELEVATION IN METERS
NUMBER CALL NAME + COUNTRY/STATE LAT LON ELEV (METERS)
022960 BJUROKLUBB (LGT-H) SN 6429N 02135E 0036
Stig Petersson
67 lat, 19 lon? Sure sure?
I see your corner in Google Maps at 64.47, 21.59.
https://tinyurl.com/4ma76zsf
Or are there two Bjuroklubbs in Sweden?
AK RUBY WEST’s record ends in 2000, AK RUBY 44 ESE has only data since 2014.
In the near you have
USC00503212 64.7408 -156.8756 46.3 AK GALENA
with data from 1996 till now.
At the opposite latitude of -64, you have these stations:
YM00089055 -64.2330 -56.7170 198.0 BASE MARAMBIO
AYM00089061 -64.7660 -64.0830 8.0 PALMER STATION
AYM00089269 -64.7830 -64.0670 8.0 BONAPARTE POINT
Base Marambio has data from 1971 till now, Palmer from 1976. Bonaparte ended 2014.
I’ll download data for Skelleftea, Galena and Marambio this evening, and post a chart about them later.
Maybe I could take REYKAVIK as well although that station has a different location in terms of weather; Gulf Stream etc…
NUMBER CALL NAME + COUNTRY/STATE LAT LON ELEV (METERS)
022960 BJUROKLUBB (LGT-H) SN 6429N 02135E 0036
That is the station yes
Notice how 6429N 02135E differs from the location you gave.
All the stations you selected differ in terms of weather. Alaska doesn’t have much in common with Sweden, let alone do these two with Antarctica.
And so will their absolute temperatures certainly differ.
But it might be interesting to generate in addition anomalies with respect to a common reference period (e.g. 2001-2020), and look a the anomaly differences instead.
So Blinny, still think that you know more than Vaughan Pratt?
As the opinionated and permanently lying stalker Linsley Hood perfectly knows, I never and never claimed
– to know more than StanU Emeritus Vaughan Pratt, whom I respect for his amazing proof of the failure of R.G. Wood’s 1909 experiment;
– to do anything better than the USCRN team.
You, Linsley Hood, spread those lies.
Unfortunately, there is no moderation on this blog forbidding you to stalk others and to lie.
What a pity!
So why do you object to my using CTRMs following his suggestions?
So Blinny does not have any answer to that question, simply thinks he knows best.
Thank you. Sorry I was not so exact from the beginning – I’m new here. I just have an idea on how a year differs at the same latitude and then compare them with respect to their situation. If I just had Alaskas south part I could compare how that warm stream south of Alaska affects a year in Alaska compared with the Gulf Stream I have nearest.
1,094 K!? The Green Plate Effect’s debunked.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1323898
Graham, in this house we abide by the laws of thermo.
Please stop trolling.
“As I wrote back then, it seems strange that splitting the plates has to induce a temperature difference”
No more extreme example of this than the Sun Shell scenario. Place a thin, perfectly-conducting blackbody shell around the Sun, with a 1mm vacuum gap between the Sun and the shell, and Team GPE argues that the Sun would increase in temperature by 1,094 K, emitting twice as much (in W/m^2) as it did previously. The shell itself they would have reaching the same temperature as the Sun was originally, i.e: 5,778 K. Shrink that vacuum gap down to nothing, so that the shell touches the Sun, and once again they have the shell reaching the same temperature as the Sun, but now there is no increase in temperature of the Sun. Expand the vacuum gap to 1mm again, up pops the temperature of the Sun by 1,094 K. The Sun, heating itself up with its own back-radiated energy! An obvious 2LoT violation…
Cult Leader grammie pup lost the debate last month, but refuses to admit it by repeating his absurd comments about some mental model of a Sun Plate. Making empty assertions proves nothing, and in any case, his Sun shell model has no relation to the BP-GP model, therefore is irrelevant.
The Sun shell scenario, which won me the debate last month, has everything in common with the GPE. The central premise, that all back-radiation from the shell (GP) warms the Sun (BP), is identical. The math for the Sun shell case is the same as in the 3-plate GPE scenario.
“Some people have been repeating the same flawed arguments over and over, for literally years, thinking that they will somehow evolve into valid arguments.
They haven’t.”
In the 3-plate GPE scenario, a central Blue Plate (BP) has a 400 W electrical input, and on its own equilibrates at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2. Green Plates (GPs) are added one either side of the central BP. According to Team GPE, the BP rises in temperature to 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2 (note that the emissions have doubled), whilst the two GPs equilibrate at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2.
Push all three plates together, so they are touching, and Team GPE are happy to state that the plate temperatures are 244 K…244 K…244 K. Separate them by even 1 mm, however, and they argue that the BP temperature shoots up by 46 K, so that the temperatures are 244 K…290 K…244 K. The similarities between that and the Sun shell scenario I just described should be obvious.
Cult Leader grammie pup, your delusions continue. In reality, there is no 3 plate situation which applies to the GPE. The BP always has at least half it’s surface exposed to deep space.
It’s just a logical extension of the original GPE thought experiment that pretty much every regular commenter here discussed a few years ago, Swanson. You have to defend that 244 K…290 K…244 K solution just as you have to defend your 6,872 K…5,778 K solution to the Sun shell problem. Sorry, but that is what your religion requires you to believe. There is no point trying to wriggle out of it.
“”So, emissions from the GP cannot increase the temperature of the BP. That would violate 2LoT.”
This weirdly assumes that a heat source cannot be a source of heating! This erroneously asserted 2LOT violation has been repeatedly debunked by many here, including Bill.”
Cult Leader grammie pup, I don’t “have to defend” any of your mental model scenarios, that’s your responsibility.
Swanson cannot even bring himself to accept the solutions follow from his own belief system. Team GPE has always defended the 244 K…290 K…244 K solution to the 3-plate scenario, and the 6,872 K…5,778 K solution to the Sun shell problem follows directly from that. Are you saying you agree with me that your own Team’s answers are wrong?
Well, actually, the central premise is
> At equilibrium an equal amount of energy has to be going in as coming out.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
Same premise as the energy balance model problem, which Graham misspecified.
Are you saying you agree with me that your own Team’s answers are wrong, Swanson?
> the key question here is there any insulation at all getting to the photosphere or is it all just part of the inverse square distance law whereby insulation is negligible and can be disregarded.
Not really, Bill.
The key question is why you, Graham, and Pup cannot refute Eli’s thought experiment directly.
There are lots of theories about that. Mine is that, when faced with the 240 W-m2 hard limit, Sky Dragon Cranks have little else than baiting and trolling.
Please desist.
Swanson!? Hello!?
Small partial sun shell, say, 1 million km in diameter.
Mercury perihelion: 0.3075 AU and 14,446 watts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#Published_tables
Shell in different orbit but same distance and same sunlight.
AU = 149597870700 meter times .3075 = 46001345240.25 meter or
46,001,345.24 km from sun is shell A
45,001,345 km from sun is shell B
Nay I don’t to figure it say Shell B on other side
at Mercury Aphelion: 0.4667 AU or
AU = 149597870700 meter times 0.4667 = 69817326255.69 meter or
69,817,326 km getting 6,272 watts per square meter.
69,817,326 – 45,001,345 = 23,815,981 Km
So Shells about 1/2 distance between Venus and Earth when they align and are closest. And Venus is 12,104 km in diameter.
So viewing from shell A to B they look about 200 times bigger than Venus as seem from Earth. And between A and B they look about 400 times bigger than Venus. Or probably look bigger than Sun from Earth or from Mercury. So at mid point one could be shaded from the sunlight but one can see the outer 1 million diameter shell which in the sunlight and looks bigger than the Sun.
The shell closest to sun could be transparent, and one wouldn’t in shade. But blocks the sunlight, and heats up. Then you no longer getting direct sunlight and you would not get any significant energy from it. And likewise it better to reflect sunlight from shell further shell back midpoint.
One magnify that sunlight, and make focal point very hot- as hot as sun itself or simply reflect it back, and it will like added 1/2 of the 23,815,981 Km distant or /2 = 11907990.5
Or 69,817,326 + 11,907,990.5 = 81,725,316.5 km distance from the Sun.
If it was different, star travel would be easy.
DREMPTY,
There are a couple problems with your Sun Shell scenario.
First, the Sun does not have a clearly defined surface, at least not at a 1 mm level.
Second, the surface of the Sun is not where the heat is being produced. There are two layers below the surface, one where the heat is transferred by conduction and another where the heat is transferred by radiation.
Sorry but science is not your field.
Not to mention having something that would be solid at 5778 K.
Hilariously, bob finds pedantic issues with matters that are irrelevant (it’s an abstract thought experiment, nobody is saying you could actually build a shell around the Sun), but has no problem with this:
Sun touching shell: 5,778 K…5,778 K
Sun separated from shell: 6,872 K…5,778 K
Just as he has no problem with this:
Plates together: 244 K…244 K…244 K
Plates separated: 244 K…290 K…244 K
Your reading comprehension is rather lacking, ClintR, because I do have a problem with the Sun Shell solution provided by DREMPTY.
The problem doesn’t specify where the heat source for the Sun is, and I told you that it wasn’t the surface as 5778 K.
It’s the core temperature of 15.7 million K that should be used to solve the Sun Shell problem.
Your 244…244…244 solution fails because with the plates at the same temperature there is no heat transfer.
Me thinks you have another think coming.
How is that minor in physics going?
Sorry DREMPTY, I thought I was responding to Clint R, but then you don’t have a minor in physics either, now do you?
You still have the wrong solution to both the Sun Shell problem and the Green Plate problem.
But you did give yourself a participation trophy, so you got that going for you.
What is your answer to the Sun shell problem then, bob? Mine is that adding a perfectly-conducting blackbody shell around it will make no difference to the temperature of the Sun.
Team GPE has never had a problem with the plates, when pushed together (so, physically touching) being 244 K…244 K…244 K before. Sure your reading comprehension is not rather lacking?
DREMPTY,
My answer is that your answer is wrong and you do not take into account where the heat source for the Sun is, and you don’t have any calculations to support your answer.
And I don’t know the dimensions of the convective and radiant layers of the Sun, which would be necessary to solve the problem.
And by the way, the morons at Principia found an increase in temperature for the green plate effect, so your answer for that is wrong.
And back radiation from CO2 has been observed in other experiments.
So you have those two facts working against you.
“My answer is that your answer is wrong and you do not take into account where the heat source for the Sun is, and you don’t have any calculations to support your answer.
And I don’t know the dimensions of the convective and radiant layers of the Sun, which would be necessary to solve the problem.”
OK, so bob cannot provide an answer for the Sun shell problem, so we will stick with this:
Sun touching shell: 5,778 K…5,778 K
Sun separated from shell: 6,872 K…5,778 K
as being Team GPE’s official answer to it, since it is based on the back-radiation from the shell warming the Sun until it emits twice as much (in W/m^2) as it did previously, which agrees with the 3-plate scenario math as well as the “Steel Greenhouse”. So that is what you have to defend, bob. The Sun heating itself up with its own back-radiated energy.
“And by the way, the morons at Principia found an increase in temperature for the green plate effect, so your answer for that is wrong.”
False.
https://principia-scientific.com/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.com/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
“And back radiation from CO2 has been observed in other experiments.”
Sure, but did it warm anything?
DREMPTY
“Sure, but did it warm anything?”
Yes it warms something, but heats no, because heat and warm are defined differently.
Yes, back radiation warms the Earth’s surface, but there is no heat transfer, because that is in the other direction.
DREMPTY,
“OK, so bob cannot provide an answer for the Sun shell problem, so we will stick with this:
Sun touching shell: 5,778 K5,778 K
Sun separated from shell: 6,872 K5,778 K”
That’s wrong and I told you why, yet you stick to it.
It’s not the right answer, team green plate defenders or not.
Great doublespeak, bob.
bobdroege says:
And I dont know the dimensions of the convective and radiant layers of the Sun, which would be necessary to solve the problem.
And by the way, the morons at Principia found an increase in temperature for the green plate effect, so your answer for that is wrong.
And back radiation from CO2 has been observed in other experiments.
———————-
Thats a lot to unload. To my knowledge backradiation has never been detected much less observed. Standard IR detectors must be cooled below the temperature of the target to detect a photon. Electronic detectors do it with an electronic mirror technology that measures photons being lost to colder targets.
All we have as an understanding of this is the fact that an object at a steady temperature can slow the cooling of a heated object. That by definition is what is known as insulation.
And yes we can observe insulation at work in convective environments filled with gases. And we have observed insulation at work in space that depends upon layers of reflective materials.
And of course we could observe shells as described by DREMT in experiments in outer space in carefully designed and documented experiments that properly controls or accounts for losses of energy due to fields of view less than 1.0.
But despite asking many people who believe they know the answer to this I have yet to get a single one to provide any evidence of experiments they claim to be knowledgeable of.
Suggesting you would have the answer if you knew about the convective and radiative layers of the sun is like you actually picked up on part of the problem but haven’t become aware yet of what other things you are ignorant of. I make that assumption as I have requested evidence of the experiments you claim to be knowlegeable of and have not yet received a response. Nate isn’t even trying anymore to satisfy that, he acknowledges the only evidence he is aware of is logic and math based upon cold emissions he believes he sees flying around his head.
And so Graham and Bill soldier on, wriggling, deflecting, outright lying, falsely accusing, demanding the impossible, throwing absolutely everything at the wall in the hope that something will stick all because he realizes yet another person sees through their nonsense.
Well done, Bob!
“That’s wrong and I told you why, yet you stick to it.”
Indeed, bob…unless and until you have a better answer, you are stuck with that one, I’m afraid. Besides, whatever answer you eventually came out with, you would still have to have the back-radiation from the shell warming the Sun, because that is what your religion dictates. So you would look just as ridiculous as you do already, with or without the 1,094 K.
Willard also has of yet explained why he thinks DREMT is wrong. I suppose he thinks he sees cold emissions flying around his head like Nate.
“Nate isnt even trying anymore to satisfy that, he acknowledges the only evidence he is aware of is logic and math based upon cold emissions he believes he sees flying around his head.”
Uhh,, Bill you lost the argument by failing at simple logic and arithmetic.
Perhaps you misunderstood Nate. That is exactly what I was talking about was you extrapolating with math and logic from something you only imagine in your head and have no evidence for.
When you speak of extrapolating with math and logic from something you only imagine in your head and have no evidence for, Bill, you’re talking about Graham’s thought experiment, right?
Right?!
Its equal opportunity around here Willard.
What causes something such as window glass to assume a ‘tweener’ temperature is dependent upon the rating of the insulation. Conduction and convection rules the roost in accordance with the insulation values in the atmosphere. An airgap provides a u-value = .5 and as such the window glass temperature floats half between the target and the source when in the atmosphere. This may or may not assume the plate is perfectly conductive and it largely doesnt matter for window glass as you will see below.
So taking this known technology to space which seems more reasonable than speculated beyond SB to the point where you are speculating about the temperature a plate will assume, why not actually calculate the temperatures of the plates using the science of insulation?
So if our space GP is warmed by an infinite plate at 244k and we give that plate a uvalue of .5 (since we no longer have the uvalue .5 airgap) the window warms through and through and the temperature floats midway between the source and the target just as it does in the atmosphere.
So what happens when we change that uvalue? Well thick plate common glass has a uvalue of about .9997 meaning that to get the glass to cool to a halfway temperature in the absence of an atmosphere and airgaps. The glass would need to be about 11 meters thick.
So when the glass gets over 11 meters thick a temperature gradient begins to form because the heat travels through the glass slower than radiation. This insulation unit then floats half way between the target and the source.
And when the glass is less than = to or or = to the .5 insulated glass.
So in in the presence of an infinite dimensioned solar plate that is warmed to 244k the pane of plate glass representing the BP would be 242.8k instead of 244k. But by the rules of insulation and an infinite solar plate warming the solar plate cannot warm as insulation cannot warm anything above equilibrium.
Add a second GP of glass and your plates would be solar=244k, BP=243.4K, and GP=242.2K.
The logic here is objects that obstruct radiation have insulating qualities. This is a point that has been argued endlessly by advocates of AGW. Of course they just make up the temperatures of objects that intervene without any physics support for that temperature. This is why nobody can talk in detail about the alleged greenhouse effect because it simply doesnt add up using any known physics. So here are some known physics applied to outer space. Like I said before all it would take would be a simple experiment to confirm or deny the math above. But at least there is some math above as opposed to assumptions about the temperatures of the various plates.
Anyone is invited to check my math and formulas on this as I am doing it with an online conduction calculator and my memory of how insulation works, but its been almost 20 years since I worked on such a project.
Please leave that kind of rant to Gordo, Bill.
You are supposed to be an auditor. Start with the 240 W-m2 figure you agreed on earlier. Follow the energy like you follow the money. Unless you were involved into rubber stamping Ponzi schemes, it should lead you where Sky Dragon Cranks refuse to go.
Oh, and equal opportunity means you ask Graham for the same receipts you ask everyone else. White knighting him should not distract you from your Climateball vocation.
Bill, I don’t see any advantage for you to keep doubling down on your failure to understand simple accounting.
As an auditor, or just an average adult, you should be able to understand that a bank account that is continually paying out $200 per second, and not receiving any new funds, will be, over time, drained of its value.
If you require a ‘measurement’ of the value in the account to prove this obvious mathematical truth, then there is something wrong with your brain.
“But by the rules of insulation and an infinite solar plate warming the solar plate cannot warm as insulation cannot warm anything above equilibrium.”
The shell cannot warm the Sun…as anyone rational should agree. That puts paid to the Green Plate Effect.
These cult idiots act like they understand the science, but they don’t have a clue. Here’s a simple question for bob, Nate and Willard:
The blue plate receives 400 W/m^2 from one side, in empty space. The green plate is gone. Instead of an emissivity of 1, the blue plate has an emissivity of 0.5. What is its temperature at steady state?
(Watch the whining and maneuvering. That’s why this is so much fun.)
Hunter in his latest long rant wrote:
His mental model ignores the facts of the GPE.
1 – There’s no infinite “Sun Plate” radiating toward the BP, only the Sun, which delivers radiant energy to the BP at a nearly constant rate in watts per m^2. The temperature of the BP is the result of calculations based on well known S-B radiation math.
2 – There’s no atmosphere, only a vacuum between the BP and the GP, therefore, there’s no conduction or convection between the two. As a result, picking a “U value” based on window technology is a meaningless diversion.
Hunter continues to be an embarrassment to the engineering profession.
Ah, Swanson has returned. He still has a question to answer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1328643
Same question to you, Swanson. I’m saying you don’t have a clue about the relevant physics. Prove me wrong.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1329838
“The shell cannot warm the Sunas anyone rational should agree.”
When are people going to learn that expressing incredulity of a result is not an actual argument against it.
Most people have no experience with shells built around the sun and thus, rationally, cannot rule out that it could warm the sun.
I see that Graham has no answer to the fact that “a bank account that is continually paying out $200 per second, and not receiving any new funds, will be, over time, drained of its value.”
…because:
a) I do not respond to Nate.
b) That was not directed at me, it was directed at Bill.
c) It is a misrepresentation of my arguments.
d) This thread is about the Sun shell scenario, and how it debunks the Green Plate Effect.
This thread does not debunk the 1LOT which is required to debunk the GPE. DREMT is thus wrong, the GPE has never been debunked.
The GPE purports to uphold 1LoT above all else…trouble is, it violates 2 LoT in the process. No clearer example of that than the Sun shell scenario…the Sun warming itself up with its own back-radiated energy!
“…it violates 2 LoT in the process.”
No. dS is always positive in all the plates during the GPE process, no violation of 2LOT.
The sun shell warms the sun just like a camper’s emergency aluminum blanket performs so DREMT is wrong about that one too.
Graham still has no answer to the fact that a bank account that is continually paying out $200 per second, and not receiving any new funds, will be, over time, drained of its value.
Aluminium is reflective, moron. The Sun shell is not.
E. Swanson says:
His mental model ignores the facts of the GPE.
1 Theres no infinite Sun Plate radiating toward the BP, only the Sun, which delivers radiant energy to the BP at a nearly constant rate in watts per m^2. The temperature of the BP is the result of calculations based on well known S-B radiation math.
==========================
Well known S-B radiation math? Where is the experiment that established the 3rd grader radiation model Swanson?
And the purpose of the ‘sun plate’ example was to build an outer space plate model with no radiation missing the plates. The effect of FV<1 is merely a calculation based on the inverse square distance law. So the purpose of the infinite sun plate would be to look at a planetary surface at equilibrium with its energy source facing an atmosphere without making mathematical errors in the computations. Obviously you don't understand that issue as you did not control for it in your experiment and not controlling for it gave you the results that you falsely interpreted as a greenhouse effect.
—————–
—————–
—————–
—————–
E. Swanson says:
2 Theres no atmosphere, only a vacuum between the BP and the GP, therefore, theres no conduction or convection between the two. As a result, picking a U value based on window technology is a meaningless diversion.
————————
Obviously you completely miscomprehended what I wrote Swanson. I did not pick a u value based upon Window Technology. Window technology use the u-value of .5 for an air gap. It requires a u-value of .5 to take a 400w/m2 radiation feed and cause a pane of glass to warm to 244k.
What I used was well established physics based upon the conductivity coefficients of common glass for the plates.
I used an online calculator available to engineers to calculate the insulation provided by 1/4" plate glass. If that plate were insulated such that its u-value was .5 then it should slow incoming radiation to 200w/m2 acting as an insulator. So if you want to criticize this engineering based insulation model you should go through the calculations yourself to see if you come up with the same results. I already admitted I didn't fully review all the estimated figures such as the 11 meters of glass thickeness I just estimated it based on a straight up ratio.
The claim here is a radiation field of FV=1 will not warm a 'conductive' surface in relationship to what it should be in space which is defined as one that passes energy equal to or faster than radiation. thus the glass does create a minor temperature difference as passing the energy requires a small temperature delta.
So feel free to describe how you believe insulation works rather than just swallowing the 3rd grader radiation model like a cod on an anchovy.
“Aluminium is reflective, moron. The Sun shell is not.”
Doesn’t matter DREMT. Every thing is reflective. A black camper’s aluminum emergency blanket would perform for the camper too, shiny is better. Any added opaque sun shell warms the exterior of the sun above its current surface T of about 5700K.
The Sun cannot warm itself up with its own back-radiated energy, Ball4.
No DREMT, you are wrong again.
Sun surface could warm a couple dozen million degrees F above about 5700K after being enclosed in an opaque metal shell.
Just like my furnace exterior surface warms on a cold winter night after I build a house to code around it.
Nate says:
Bill, I dont see any advantage for you to keep doubling down on your failure to understand simple accounting.
——————
What are we talking here Nate: Real accounting or 3rd grader accounting?
3rd grade accountants will simply assume $200 is being returned to the vault. It is dependent upon the actual details of the transaction. Maybe its only a promissory note from a deadbeat borrower?
Before accounting for income of $200 one has to first verify the cash is very highly likely to be received. In the case of getting 200w/m2 back from an object you must have some established physics to create the flow of energy back into your vault.
Physics isn’t my game but I have some experience dealing with it. I am not going to let you get away with just assuming the intervening plate is going to obstruct the passage of heat and then play the role of an 8 year old doing accounting.
Give me the scientific basis for your conclusions. I gave you one using an established heat transport calculator. Can you do anything but complain about it?
But before you give it a lot of thought. Think of how much cooling your model would provide to a double or triple walled blackbody spaceship. Is NASA ripping all of us off by pouring huge piles of money into reflective insulation systems?
You have been searching for why Dr. Woods greenhouses don’t perform and why Seim et all couldn’t find a greenhouse effect in their model. Show us the physics Nate!
Science can be fun:
https://phys.org/news/2015-12-sun-energy.html
Layers upon layers of energy, not unlike Graham’s trolling.
😂
False analogy after false analogy. At least Ball4 is prepared to “go full retard” in order to defend his religion. Whereas both Swanson and bobdroege tried to pretend the Sun shell scenario did not represent their views, Ball4 embraces it completely. It’s reductio ad absurdum, and the Team is fully prepared to defend the absurd!
“Sun surface could warm a couple dozen million degrees F above about 5700K”
Brilliant.
Ball4 says:
‘Just like my furnace exterior surface warms on a cold winter night after I build a house to code around it.’
Yep Ball4 agrees with me. Its dependent upon insulation.
Thank you DREMT, I’m happy with the win, your brilliant comment is quite a compliment for my ordinary use of physics.
You’re welcome, Ball4. You win “most stupid comment of the year”. The Sun, warming itself up with its own back-radiated energy, by “a couple dozen million degrees F”. Thanks for the chuckles.
Funny that Graham mentions analogies:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/16/how-to-reason-by-analogy/
Can he get anything right?
Even his trolling sucks.
Yet he soldiers on.
It’s now been over 4 hours and not one of the cult idiots has been able to answer the simple physics question:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1329838
They troll incessantly, but are completely unfamiliar with the science.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Hunter, Your calculations are bogus.
Using a heat transfer calculator returned the following results.
Input:
Area = 1 m^2
T1 = 244 K
2 = 3K = Deep space
hci = 2000 (small convective film resistance)
s1 = 0.006 = 6 mm or 1/4″
k1 = 1.1 = Glass?
s2 = s3 = 0
hco = 2000 (small convective film resistance)
Gives the results:
Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/(m^2*K)): 155
Heat transfer (W/m^2): 37338
That heat transfer rate is one hell of a lot larger than the 400 w/m^2 specified in the GPE model.
Pup still has no answer to the question as to why a trading account that loses out $200 per second would not, over time, blow out.
Perhaps he could posit an omnipotent central bank with an infinite money printing plate? That would refute double accounting!
Willard says:
‘The rest of the sun is heated by the energy that is transferred from the core through the successive layers, eventually reaching the solar photosphere and escaping into space as sunlight or the kinetic energy of particles.’
But the key question here is there any insulation at all getting to the photosphere or is it all just part of the inverse square distance law whereby insulation is negligible and can be disregarded.
Keep in mind to warm the photosphere you need a source of radiation greater than the temperature of the surface of the sun. Its not a case of the sun being a non-insulated body whereby the temperature will float between the deep space behind it and the object receiving its radiation.
e. Swanson says:
Hunter, Your calculations are bogus.
———————-
Nope!
I am looking at the transfer of heat through glass. Based upon U-value. If uvalue=.5 you get insulation equivalent to a confined airgap and a centering of the temperature of the window unit between the source and the sink.
My claim is that if that u-value goes lower than .5 you still have a centering but the insulation results in a temp delta between the inside and outside of the unit. . . .commonly called a temperature gradient. And thus a single pane of glass in the atmosphere centers with a zero temperature gradient and thus is considered to be non-insulating.
But if you increase the u-value below .5 you are in ‘conductive’ material territory. At u=.5 conductivity and resistance balances out.
At u=.6 there no longer is that balance and heat conducts through the glass as fast as it is received. at .5 its emitting 200w/m2 to the sink and resisting more than 200w/m2 into the glass from the source.
So as we know the tendency of a cooler object is to warm to equilibrium in the presence of warm object despite alleged resistance to that warming. (with the exception of a point source heat as noted by DREMT) where heat can actually be lost in 2 directions. that applies to the BP with a point source heater. But with a sunplate heater there is no heat lost toward the warmer source. (the earth’s surface is a sunplate heater equivalent)
So the glass warms despite backradiation. It may warm slower based upon instead the slight additional resistance to heat transfer through the glass so at half the temp you still have 200w/m2 coming into the GP and the resistance is gradually warming the glass to equilibrium in the same way a blanket warms and the ultimate warmth will be dependent upon the uvalue of the glass.
So if the BP is 244k in the presence of a sunplate emitting 200w/m2, the BP will be 243.4k, and the GP will be 242.2K.
The parameters I was using come from:
https://thermtest.com/thermal-resources/conduction-calculator
Average properies of glass = 1.046w/m*K
thickness= .00635 meters
area= 1m2
hotside temperature = -29c (sunplate)
coldside temperature = -30.2c (BP)
result heat transfer through the glass = ~197w/m2
If I switch to saran wrap at .0005inch thickness the temperature difference nearly completely disappears.
So in conclusion this is how I see it would work. I am not evangelizing this but instead note it is consistent with experiments of a bit more than 1 degree warming with glass vs saranwrap while explaining results obtained by Dr. Woods and Dr. Seim.
Now the challenge for you is not to rollover screaming discontent with the findings. If you find a math error fine. If you suspect a logic error address it with facts.
And if you want to make a case for your point of view explain why with physics the plate you offer up should be half the temperature of the radiant force upon it. That is the key to your viewpoint and I have not heard of anybody actually defending how it occurs beyond perhaps stealing it from Window technology. . . .the sorry truth is there are no properties of the glass that changes because of its IR absorbing properties. It can be IR transparent or not.
The glass only takes on the temperature half way in the atmosphere because of convective cooling ontop of radiant cooling doubling its cooling rate. Or if the glass starts out cooler it warms because of double the warming rate from convection.
So fine if you find something wrong bring up in a very specific way rather than a lot of frantic arm waving.
Ball4 says:
” ”Dremt says: Aluminium is reflective, moron. The Sun shell is not.”
Doesnt matter DREMT. Every thing is reflective.
——————-
Ball4 everything is not reflective!
The big difference is reflection occurs before the surface warms and emissions only occur after the surface warms.
> the key question here is there any insulation at all getting to the photosphere or is it all just part of the inverse square distance law whereby insulation is negligible and can be disregarded.
Not really, Bill.
The key question is why you, Graham, and Pup cannot refute Elis thought experiment directly.
There are lots of theories about that. Mine is that, when faced with the 240 W-m2 hard limit, Sky Dragon Cranks have little else than baiting and trolling.
Please desist.
Willard, your cult’s plate nonsense if refuted by the simple fact that it decreases entropy with no additional energy.
You won’t understand any of that, because you’re an immature troll with no knowledge of science.
Were that the case, Pup, there would be no need for Graham’s silly thought experiment.
So Bill armwaves to insulation, and you to entropy.
Time to beef up your argument!
Nope, that’s the case silly Willy. You don’t understand any of this.
If you did, you could answer the simple physics question:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1329838
Willard says:
Were that the case, Pup, there would be no need for Grahams silly thought experiment.
So Bill armwaves to insulation, and you to entropy.
Time to beef up your argument!
———————–
Actually Willard its time for you to actually have an argument about how the greenhouse effect works and come in here and lay out the physics that warms things to certain temperatures and not others.
Hunter wrote:
You appear to be attempting to model the heat transfer as conduction thru glass with convection on each surface. That has nothing to do with the GPE, which is radiant energy transfer between the two plates separated by a vacuum. And, there is no Sun Plate emitting 200 w/m^2.
You wrote:
There is no “radiant force”. There is no convection. There is no atmosphere. You mumbling confusion proves that you have no clue about the physics involved.
Bill 5:30 pm unphysically comments: “everything is not reflective!”
If an opaque object is not reflective Bill, that object would be a black body. Since there are no blackbodies in nature, everything considered for a natural sun shell is reflective.
Bill 9:59 pm, if you really want experiments with data on how the actual earthen greenhouse effect works, just put the word experiment into this blog’s search engine.
No that’s wrong Clint R 6:53 pm, dS is positive for all the plates in the GPE process so entropy increases for each of them.
Ball4 says:
”If an opaque object is not reflective Bill, that object would be a black body. Since there are no blackbodies in nature, everything considered for a natural sun shell is reflective.”
——————
Well maybe you should first direct your comment at mainstream climate science who builds their entire theory on blackbody radiation.
I see nothing wrong with that as it is a thought experiment designed to set aside small effects that make the experiment more difficult to comprehend. DREMT simply chose a blackbody shell you can get close enough to a blackbody with soot black used by the 19th century scientists to build their theories with.
I did make a small mistake in the model.
the plates will warm to 244k in a 200w/m2 FV=1 radiation field.
Thats because thats the only way to eliminate the imbalance introduced by the insulative resistance of any shell intervening in the path of the radiation. (i.e. no shell can be a perfect conductor)
So once again DREMT is ahead of me on this.
> its time for you to actually have an argument about how the greenhouse effect works
Not really, Bill. But since you insist:
ipcc.ch
Most welcome!
LOL! Everybody knows the IPCC has never described the physics behind the GHE.
Bonehead!
Hunter wrote:
Yes, you did indeed make a “mistake” in your model. There is no Sun Shield as in grammie pups delusional three plate model, which assumes that the Sun Plate emits 200 w/m^2 at 244 K. Those numbers are calculated based on an S-B black body theory, the temperature being determined by the rate of energy emission.
But, your “model” does not use S-B heat transfer for the other plates, as you appear to agree with grammie’s repeated unproven assertions that the temperature of all three plates will be 244 K. All your blovation seems intentionally designed to ignore the “back radiation” which the S-B theory (and engineering experience) requires. Either that or you are seriously ignorant of basic science.
What s the name of WG I, Bill?
“as in grammie pups delusional three plate model…”
How is it delusional, Swanson? Pretty much everybody here discussed it, and Team GPE (your Team, Swanson) argued that the plate temperatures were as follows:
Plates pushed together (touching): 244 K…244 K…244 K
Plates separated: 244 K…290 K…244 K
Why don’t you explain how the act of separating the plates causes the middle plate to rise in temperature by 46 K whilst there is no change in energy in or out?
Cult Leader grammie pup’s three plate model simply does not work if the energy is supplied by a “Sun plate” radiating 200 w/m^2, which requires a temperature of 244 K.
If he wants to discuss a three plate model using 1 m^2 plates supplied by 400 watts to the middle plate, he should provide a physics based explanation for what happens when those three plates are separated and the conduction pathway from the middle plate to the two other external plates is removed. So far, all we have seen are empty assertions and BS.
Swanson, stop wriggling. Your own Team has a very long and rich history of defending this:
Plates pressed together (touching): 244 K…244 K…244 K
Plates separated: 244 K…290 K…244 K
Why don’t you explain how the act of separating the plates causes the middle plate to rise in temperature by 46 K whilst there is no change in energy in or out?
E. Swanson says:
”There is no Sun Shield as in grammie pups delusional three plate model, which assumes that the Sun Plate emits 200 w/m^2 at 244 K. Those numbers are calculated based on an S-B black body theory, the temperature being determined by the rate of energy emission.
But, your model does not use S-B heat transfer for the other plates, as you appear to agree with grammies repeated unproven assertions that the temperature of all three plates will be 244 K. All your blovation seems intentionally designed to ignore the back radiation which the S-B theory (and engineering experience) requires. Either that or you are seriously ignorant of basic science.”
You need to be more explicit with which numbers in my model you disagree with. You started off in that direction and now have diverted to a generic complaint with no specifics.
First of all you are incorrect about DREMT’s models. He had two models. One was the sunplate model and the other was a point source model. I went with the point source model shining 200w/m2 into the BP and 200w/m2 to space (ignoring the space the point source takes up in the sky which would if used would send more into the BP and less into space).
I allowed that allowing for resistance on the BP side more energy would be shifted to the point source side due to the resistance on the BP side. When you have the sun plate the energy to the energy side is zero due to the resistance of the sun plate side.
My model allows for backradiation that doesn’t result in any loss of energy. Instead it merely slows the input. Due to the 3w/m2 conductive resistance within the BP backradiation does not equal the 200w/m2 until equilibrium is achieved.
So you are incorrect on the statment that I am not using SB emissions. Because I am. You need to go back to where you started with the conduction calculator to see the 3watts/m2.
Your comment back then that conduction was 10’s of thousands of watts is obviously wrong because its limited to the 200w/m2 from the source.
So I used a spectral calculator to determine what temperature would produce the 197w/m2 and it turns out to be 1.2k less than the equilibrium temperature.
So the temperature of the glass will lag by 1.2k due to that conductive resistance until equilibrium is achieved, providing the energy window to actually warm the object not halfway but all the way. Of course it doesn’t do that in the atmosphere because convection moves a lot more energy than 3watts/m2 thus accounting for the idea that the temperature will float halfway between the source and the sink which is then extrapolated to radiation in space.
Saranwrap would have a much smaller deficiency in energy passing through available to warm the saran wrap. But it also takes less energy to warm the saran wrap so the time to equilibrium may not be affected.
And finally Swanson if all that was needed in a space ship was blackbody multi-layered insulation of 2 layers there would be no need for fancy and expensive insulation so don’t tell me anything different has been determined by space science.
And since you didn’t respond to my criticism of your vacuum model I will repeat it. The difference you obtained between the BP and GP was due to the GP not having the BP fill its entire field of view so like the point source model energy is going to be lost in that direction and energy coming in will be less. You can control for that using the inverse square distance law but you didn’t do that and thus fooled yourself.
The GPE is debunked. Has been for five years.
So you say, Kiddo.
So you say.
Correctly.
No DREMT 3:01 pm, that’s wrong since dS is positive for all plates in the GPE process.
Ball4 gets triggered again.
Two equations.
Three quantities.
Sixty-nine months.
Almost six years.
What does Graham have to show for himself?
An emphasis as to why Bill’s pet squirrel is worthless crap.
An indomitable truth seeker we got there.
Willard, please stop commenting in the wrong place.
Everything that everyone needs to understand Graham’s playbook is here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1331782
Says stuff about Joe. Gets caught. Shifts gears. Floods his engine. And here is where he went for his “But Vaughan” deflection:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1331294
Says stuff about Vaughan. Gets caught. Shifts gears. Etc.
For 69 months he has been rinsing and repeating the same lines at Roy’s, the same tricks, the same misbehavin’.
And then he has the nerves to talk about hypocrisy!
Never fear, our Truth Obsesser will soldier on.
Oh, and the first of Eli’s diagrams suffices to show the silliness of Joe’s Team:
https://imgur.com/a/0feBbmy
They refuse to accept that.
No, Willard, please stop commenting in the wrong place.
“Actually it would be nice if anyone could come up with a sound argument, with a valid science reason, why the sun would warm in this thought experiment.”
As Joanne Public suggested, with a shell, the sun’s heat is trapped, and it builds up until the warmer sun emits enough to restore the original output.
And Bill, you agreed that a light-bulb surrounded by black metal shell would heat up!
But that was before DREMT and the cult brain-washed you.
Actually, it would be nice, Bill, if you fixed the accounting fraud that you left dangling…
As YOU correctly explained the situation with the BP and GP, both at 244 K:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1330354
“There is a transaction here. BP spends $200 here that goes to GP and GP gives $200 back in exchange. They each then spend $200 into space, with zero return, from the $400 that came from the sun.”
For the 47th time, you have the GP paying $200/mo to space and receiving zero, zilch, nothing from the BP!
It’s value must go down. But YOU insist its value is constant.
Analogously, the GP Temperature must drop. But you guys insist it stays at a constant T.
This is impossible.
Looks like nobody can respond in the right place.
“Before accounting for income of $200 one has to first verify the cash is very highly likely to be received. In the case of getting 200w/m2 back from an object you must have some established physics to create the flow of energy back into your vault.”
Bill YOU defined the paramaters of the transaction between the BP and the GP both at steady 244 K.
And transaction as YOU defined it, CORRECTLY, gave no net energy transfer rate from the BP to the GP. Zero.
But it required the GP to continually emit 200 J/s to space. This creates an impossible situation that the GP is continually losing energy and should be cooling, but you insist it is not!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1330354
Now you are dreaming up increasingly absurd excuses to create confusion about this clear situation.
For those that are interested, here are links to explanations behind the correct solution to the original Green Plate Effect setup: 244 K…244 K.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1323471
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1324012
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1324043
Sorry only ignorant trolls would believe a black body can act like a mirror.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1323656
or fails to understand that the SB emission means ‘losing energy’
or believe VF make emissions vanish into thin air
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1324024
or fails to understand that the 1LOT applies to all objects, even the GP.
It is never a reassuring that someone offers multiple contradictory justifications for their bogus claims,
none of which agree with standard physics or common sense.
So, for those who cannot be bothered to click on links, here is what was said:
1) https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
The temperature of the GP is set and maintained by emissions from the BP. So, emissions from the GP can not increase the temperature of the BP, as that would violate 2LoT. However, those emissions have to go somewhere. In this diagram by JD Huff.man, emissions from the GP are shown as being reflected from the BP (that is the green arrow shown leaving the BP) back to the GP. So here we see that there is no error in accounting, no violation of 1LoT. The only side of the GP which energy can truly be “lost” from is the side of the GP facing space.
2) The GP receives 200 W/m^2 from the BP. Due to the view factors between the BP and the GP, the GP can only “lose energy” on the side of the GP facing space. It can’t “lose energy” on the side of the GP facing the BP, because on that side the GP is gaining all of its energy from the BP, along every conceivable vector. So the equilibrium temperature of the GP must be one in which it is losing 200 W/m^2 from the side of the GP facing space. That’s at 244 K, the same temperature as the BP.
The BP simply warmed the GP to the same temperature as the BP, because it is an idealized scenario in which there are no losses of radiation past the edges of the plates. Both BP and GP emit radiation from both sides.
3) …whereas with the 400 W/m^2 received by the BP from the point source Sun…on the side of the BP facing the point source, energy can be lost to space in the entire hemisphere of directions facing the Sun other than the one direction directly perpendicular to the plate, where energy from the BP would hit the Sun. So the BP can "lose energy" to space on the side of the BP facing the Sun, and it can "lose energy" to the GP on the side of the BP facing the GP, which it must do to set and maintain the GPs temperature. So, unlike the GP, it has two "losing sides". The GP on the other hand, has only one, the side facing space.
So, you "split by two" for the 400 W/m^2 received by the BP from the point source Sun, and the BPs equilibrium temperature is thus 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2. You don’t "split by two" for the GP, as it has only one "losing side". So the GPs equilibrium temperature is also 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2…and that’s that. That is the afore-mentioned "view factor" alternative solution to the GPE.
Or, if you find that too confusing, you have JD Huff.man’s "additional reflected green arrow" alternative solution. There’s actually quite a lot more crossover between the two alternative solutions than I realized before. Either way, 244 K…244 K is the correct solution to the original GPE.
Now, regardless of whether or not you agree with either of those two alternative solutions, the fact is, E-Lie’s solution to the GPE is debunked, and has been for many years. The Sun Shell example alone should make that clear. 1,094 K!? The GPE’s debunked.
Here we find Cult Leader grammie pup’s basic batch of empty assertions, without any shred of proof. No physics, just more of the same BS spam for fun (and profit??).
…as opposed to Team GPE’s basic batch of empty assertions, without any shred of proof. No physics from them, just more of the same BS spam for fun (and profit??).
E. Swanson says:
”Here we find Cult Leader grammie pups basic batch of empty assertions, without any shred of proof. No physics, just more of the same BS spam for fun (and profit??).”
The evidence is right in front of you Swanson. Things warm to equilibrium, not just half way.
The air just above the ground is at equilibrium as it is interchanged at will with surface temperatures by our diligent climate scientists. (even though it is never the same during the day and night for other reasons like differential rates of cooling).
At TOA its at a mean SB equilibrium with the emissivity parameter in place.
At the mean surface equilibrium is in place with a much higher emissivity parameter.
the difference between the surface and TOA is not fully understood beyond it being a summation of unknown emissivity factors and insulation.
the correct answer is not the one that loads absolutely everything onto the shoulders of CO2. Any thinking man should be well aware of that.
Actually what loading it all on CO2 is in reality is ”Sadaam Hussein has WMDs and plans to use them” on steroids. Or Dr. Fauci saying ”masks don’t work”. Its all to serve hidden agendas.
Conspiracy ideation is your best side, Bill.
Conspiracy? Where do you get that crazy idea from. Its just a case of folks personally inspecting which side of the bread they have has butter on it. A ‘conspiracy’ of silence? Well there are penalties for speaking up. Typically it creates a Michael Franceze style sit down by the folks whose butter might get limited to discuss what to do about it. Thats kind of a conspiracy. . . . just maybe not a vast left/right wing conspiracy. . . .it just vast because of the sheer amount of bread with butter on it thats being bandied about.
As expected, Cult Leader grammie pup repeats his unscientific assertion that the GP only emits from one side, ignoring the fact that the BP, which is otherwise identical, emits from both sides. Grammie offers no physical reason for this disparity, but instead resurrects Huffingboy’s graphic with it’s “magic green arrows”, again without any physics to support it. Same old crappy stupidity, over and over again.
Eli’s GPE theoretical model is based on the S-B emission/absorp_tion of a perfect black body surface. The same math works for engineering problems involving real surfaces when the emissivity is taken into account. The science is well documented in text books on thermal radiation heat transfer, though I doubt that grammie has bothered to study the subject. I’m not going to spoon feed grammie pup with references, since he obviously isn’t interested.
No Swanson, I did not say the GP emits from one side. Why are you lying? Anybody can read what I actually said.
I am not here to defend the correct, 244 K…244 K solution to the GPE problem. I am here to remind people that your solution to the GPE was debunked five years ago. Now, stop wriggling away from what I challenged you with twice already, and start explaining yourself. As I said, your own Team has a very long and rich history of defending this:
Plates pressed together (touching): 244 K…244 K…244 K
Plates separated: 244 K…290 K…244 K
Why don’t you explain how the act of separating the plates causes the middle plate to rise in temperature by 46 K whilst there is no change in energy in or out?
Swanson continues to rely on strawmen and eli’s declarations when he now knows why his own experiment is invalid, has no clue why eli’s declarations could be true, and is now running full speed from the energy transfer models that informs Postma’s, Dremt’s, and my arguments he is running from them because he can find anything wrong with them so he is resorting to a startup strawman manufacturing enterprise.
sad but so true that swanson lacks the balls to even question authority and is cotent to be the man’s propagandist.
> Conspiracy?
Not exactly, Bill. Conspiracy ideation:
At least own your schtick. It’s the best one you got. At least it’s not worse than your inability to calculate a simple energy balance equation.
Oh, and Graham, please stop trolling:
[GRAHAM] So you are saying that pressed together, the plates are at 244 K290 K244 K? Interesting.
[BOB] With the plates pressed together its 244, 244, 244 same as just one blue plate. Again dumbass, with the plates apart you need the center blue plate at a higher temperature than the green plate in order to drive the heat transfer.
Source: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-363810
Willard says:
”With the plates pressed together its 244, 244, 244 same as just one blue plate. Again dumbass, with the plates apart you need the center blue plate at a higher temperature than the green plate in order to drive the heat transfer.”
I have little doubt that can be accomplished with nothing more than the hotair emanating from Bob’s and Willard’s spiel. . . .no need to warm anything else.
That’s right, Willard, as I said, Team GPE has always defended the idea that:
Plates together: 244 K…244 K…244 K
Plates separated: 244 K…290 K…244 K
Thank you for providing proof of that. Saves me the bother. Now, Swanson…please explain how the act of separating the plates causes the middle plate to rise in temperature by 46 K whilst there is no change in energy in or out?
> Willard says: “With the plates
Wrong, Bill.
Try again, this time read properly.
Once again you’re missing the point, Graham:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-365476
Please stop wriggling.
bob lost an argument a few years ago. So what? He loses a lot of arguments.
Plates together: 244 K…244 K…244 K
Plates separated: 244 K…290 K…244 K
with no change in energy in and out, is in clear violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Sorry you don’t understand that. Others will.
Willard says:
> Willard says: With the plates
Wrong, Bill.
Try again, this time read properly.
———————–
Good move Wiilard! Ya probably can’t put too much distance between yourself and Bob’s poition on that!
You still do not get it, Graham.
You have been trolling Roy’s since before you took this silly pseudo, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/uah-global-temperature-updated-for-march-2018-0-24-deg-c/#comment-296733
We are 2022.
For your own good, please stop trolling.
Cult leader grammie wrote:
I already did. Separating your 3 plates removes the conduction pathway between the middle and 2 outer plates. That leaves only the radiation mode for the necessary heat transfer to deep space. The S-B theory, which you use to calculate the temperature of the single BP, supplies the calculations to determine the BP after the three are split. Your acceptance of S-B for the single BP temperature makes it mandatory that you also use the same math to analyze both situations. Yet, you continue to fail to understand this basic physics.
E. Swanson says:
”I already did. Separating your 3 plates removes the conduction pathway between the middle and 2 outer plates. That leaves only the radiation mode for the necessary heat transfer to deep space.”
—————————–
Swanson outlines his thought experiment theory that if you take your lukewarm coffee in a ceramic mug and put it in a vacuum thermos you will enjoy coffee at its optimum hot temperture!
Coffee in the ceramic mug equals.
ROTFLMAO!
No need for a microwave! Just pour your lukewarm coffee into a vacuum thermos and viola! steaming hot 80c coffee!!!
———-
———-
———-
———-
Swanson says:
”The S-B theory, which you use to calculate the temperature of the single BP, supplies the calculations to determine the BP after the three are split. Your acceptance of S-B for the single BP temperature makes it mandatory that you also use the same math to analyze both situations. Yet, you continue to fail to understand this basic physics.”
——————–
Here Swanson tries to belittle anybody criticizing his new invention!
[BILL] Here Swanson tries to belittle anybody criticizing his new invention!
[ALSO BILL] ROTFLMAO!
Isn’t it funny, Bill? They defend the indefensible, then try to ridicule you for criticizing them in the first place! Sorry Swanson, when was the last time you separated three objects to notice the middle object spontaneously increasing in temperature!? It doesn’t happen…because, as I already said, what is proposed violates the laws of thermodynamics. Such violations cannot occur in real life.
Some people believe if their posts are not believed because they havent been read. Thus they keep repeating these posts in vain hope that people will eventually be enlightened.
The problem is the ideas in the posts. They are illogical, contradictory, and full of misinformation.
The reality is their posts have been read multiple times and debunked multiple times.
No amount of repetition is going to change that. Posters need to read and understand the debunking and think hard how to sensibly answer them.
And if they have no sensible answers, then they should move on to another topic that is actually worthy of debate.
Will Nate take his own advice?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1330853
Nate has wisely noted that his best course of action is to criticize people talking about what they are teaching our children in school and just move along because there is nothing to see here.
LMAO! One would think he would instead explain the basis of what he believes but he has concluded that its better to not talk about it.
Loser!
Do we have *any* evidence that Chic understands Bills comments or that 240Wm-2 is a hard limit?
Do we have ‘any’ evidence that Willard understands Bills comments and under what circumstances 240Wm-2 is a hard limit?
Hunter tosses out a scenario about hot coffee in a mug in which he again demonstrates that he has no clue about the problem being discussed. His straw man analogy completely misses the basic fact that the coffee (aka, the BP) is being supplied with energy from an external source at a constant rate? Can he not comprehend that moving the “coffee” from the ceramic mug into the Dewar bottle is analogous to moving from the single BP emitting to space to the three plate case?
The result in both situations would be that the coffee and the BP will warm to some higher temperature.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter tosses out a scenario about hot coffee in a mug in which he again demonstrates that he has no clue about the problem being discussed. His straw man analogy completely misses the basic fact that the coffee (aka, the BP) is being supplied with energy from an external source at a constant rate?”
Trying to comprehend what you are getting at here Swanson. So you are saying radiation from another source is different than radiation from ‘the source’?
So your argument is if you put the vacuum thermos inside of another vacuum thermos the whole enchilada is going to heat up?
Hunter, it’s your scenario, not mine, do you REALLY not understand it? Hint: The three plate scenario is the same as the Steel Greenhouse, i.e., a shell around the heated body.
Hint: the passive shell can not warm the Sun.
Graham soldiers on at least since 2008-08:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/a-1d-model-of-global-temperature-changes-1880-2017-low-climate-sensitivity-and-more/#comment-289478
E. Swanson says:
Hunter, its your scenario, not mine, do you REALLY not understand it? Hint: The three plate scenario is the same as the Steel Greenhouse, i.e., a shell around the heated body.
————————–
Its not my scenario, the warming plate in the middle is your scenario. My scenario is 3 plates at 244k which corresponds to the 200w/m2 traveling through the non-insulating plates.
I am just trying to be a good citizen here and trying to figure out what I am doing wrong. I said I put my freshly brewed coffee in a vacuum bottle almost everyday so I can sip it over a longer period of time. My vacuum bottles insulating characteristics are provided for by a lack of air in between the layers of the bottle and the fact the bottle is made out of highly polished stainless steel. But if I forget after the coffee brews to put it in the bottle immediately which I sometimes do the coffee becomes lukewarm rather quickly.
So is my mistake using stainless steel? Should I be using lamp black steel?
After all we all want to save energy and currently I am using my microwave to reheat it before putting it in the vacuum bottle.
What am I doing wrong? Do I have the wrong kind of radiation?
Your mistake, Bill, is to have taken the wrong side of a bet that Graham has been losing since at least 2007:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276403
You should never have whiteknighted Joe’s biggest white knight.
Blah blah blah obsessed with Graham blah blah blah
Hunter wrote:
No, troll, for many months, the discussion has been about three plates with the center one being supplied with energy at a fixed rate from an external source.
With you version, the ceramic cup acts as a BP with the hot coffee providing the energy. For your Thermos, the inner shell becomes the BP, with energy supplied by the hot coffee while the outer shell represents both out facing plates. The difference is that the coffee doesn’t just cool, but is continually heated from an external source, which you refuse to consider. Of course, with your distorted version, the coffee cools, as one would expect, but that’s not the scenario grannie pups has been flogging for years now.
You said it yourself, Swanson…the 3-plate scenario is like the “Steel Greenhouse”…i.e like the Sun shell example. The passive shell can not raise the temperature of the Sun. End of story, for the rational.
Graham is NOT obsessed. Not obsessed at all:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268429
Vintage 2017-10.
Not obsessed at all.
E. Swanson says:
E. Swanson says:
The difference is that the coffee doesnt just cool, but is continually heated from an external source, which you refuse to consider. Of course, with your distorted version, the coffee cools, as one would expect, but thats not the scenario grannie pups has been flogging for years now.
—————–
just cool? you mean backradiation only works if the outgoing radiation is held steady. Show me how that works out mathematically. Hot coffee can sustain a flow of radiation for many hours and you are saying that if it is cooling say from 400w/m2 to 390w/m2 over many hours backradiation doesn’t work as advertised?
I am obsessed with spreading the truth, Willard. To as many people as possible. You are obsessed with me. That is the difference.
Graham is obsessed to spread a truth that circumvents a hard limit to which he often pays lip service.
Perhaps our sock puppet could comment on Joe’s policy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277342
Other people’s intolerance is not my responsibility, but Postma’s lack of patience with those who are ineducable is fairly understandable. I myself am a lot more patient. I even tolerate Willard, to an extent.
Graham cannot bring himself to criticize Joe.
After all, his policy would spell doom on his own sock puppetry.
And so he is spreading the “truth” by repeating the same silly lines over and over again in the middle of endless comment threads nobody reads, not even half the commenters themselves, for more than five years now.
He soldiers on.
"Will Nate take his own advice?"
He’s the biggest hypocrite on this blog, Chic. Probably not!
> Sorry but science is not your field.
Quite right, Bob. Graham is more of an artist,
He is trying to perfect the art of trolling.
One day he will get to it.
Perhaps another five years?
So sez the most worthless POS troller on the entire forum.
“The problem is the ideas in the posts. They are illogical, contradictory, and full of misinformation.”
Applies well to Chic’s posts.
He’s also adopted the DREMT troll tactics. When people rebut his claims and point out obvious flaws and contradictions…just declare them liars!
“…the biggest hypocrite on this blog”.
Hunter wrote:
NO, The point is that the temperature of your hot coffee will continue to cool until it’s temperature is that of the surroundings. The “back radiation” while inside your insulated mug will slow the rate of cooling and increase the time required to cool to reach ambient temperature. But, as always, the problem is that the BP is receiving energy from an external source, which your straw man mugs of hot coffee are not.
Of course, you could add a heating source, which would keep the coffee hot. I tried that last night, but my heating source was too large and the “coffee” (actually, water) in the insulated mug boiled. I’m re-running it at a reduced heating rate in an effort to avoid boiling. More later.
Five freaking years, almost six years in fact.
Graham soldiers on. Quick question:
> But equally, as Postma points out, the side facing the sun also has to reach a temperature where its emitting 400 W/m2 to be in equilibrium with the flux from the sun:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268262
Big if Joe truly contends that.
Forgot my question:
Why would Joe insist that fluxes reach equilibrium – hasn’t he learned anything from Graham’s trolling?
E. Swanson says:
NO, The point is that the temperature of your hot coffee will continue to cool until its temperature is that of the surroundings. The back radiation while inside your insulated mug will slow the rate of cooling and increase the time required to cool to reach ambient temperature. But, as always, the problem is that the BP is receiving energy from an external source, which your straw man mugs of hot coffee are not.
——————-
Swanson you are confused. The BP is the outershell of this thermos. My thermos holds a quart of hot coffee that will last all day if I don’t drink it first. I put it in at about 80c.
So it is emitting ~900w/m2 but for easy math sake lets heat it up to 1000w/m2.
the BP warms almost instantly though it it is a very small amount of warming as because the reflective surfaces reducing out radiation and reflecting a lot more back. Let say the BP inside surface is 95% reflective. that means backradiation plus reflectivity is 97.5% of the 1000 watts going out, 975 watts reflecting back at the coffee. Losses through the coffee container is only 25w/m2.
When is the coffee supposed to start warming. According to your math the coffee should heat to something close to emit 1,975 watts.
When does the backradiation in this model start warming the coffee?
It doesn’t matter if I put a submersible beverage resistance heater that emits a 1000w/m2 off its surface into the cup. That resistance heat is determined by voltage and resistance through the element not the temperature of the water its submerged in.
> The BP is the outershell of this thermos.
Then your analogy already breaks down, Bill. No need to agonize over analogies. Justify this claim:
And win.
Alternatively, wait for Graham to return, then lolz
You were also I correct earlier – I am here to slay trolls. This is what ninjas do.
Hunter continues to display his confusion about his own straw man, writing:
You later specify a surface emissivity of 0.05, which would result in an emission rate of only 44 w/m^2 from the inner shell of your Thermos. And, the back radiation is going to be less than that emitted from the inner cylinder, since the outer cylinder also looses thermal energy, including that via convection to the outside, thus your coffee can only cool, though at a slow rate.
Of course, a resistance heater adds energy as a function of voltage and resistance. Adding a 7 watt heater to my experimental setup resulted in a stable temperature of 87 C in my 20 oz insulated travel mug and 40 C for the glass jar I used to represent your coffee mug. The ambient temperature in the room is 23 C.
Once again, the “back radiation” only increases the temperature of the BP when there’s an external source of energy. Without that energy supply, the BP and your Thermos will eventually cool to the ambient temperature.
Back-radiation is not insulation.
Two equations.
Three quantities.
Sixty-nine months.
Almost six years.
What does Graham have to show for himself?
An emphasis as to why Bill’s pet squirrel is worthless crap.
An indomitable truth seeker we got there.
No GPE. As Vaughan Pratt agrees, the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.
Swanson says:
Of course, a resistance heater adds energy as a function of voltage and resistance. Adding a 7 watt heater to my experimental setup resulted in a stable temperature of 87 C in my 20 oz insulated travel mug and 40 C for the glass jar I used to represent your coffee mug. The ambient temperature in the room is 23 C.
—————————–
thats just mumbo jumbo Swanson. All you are saying is the r-value of your insulated mug works out to about 4 to 5, but the issue we are discussing is whether a conductive blackbody surface provides any insulation value at all or if all the insulation value is in airgaps. Your response suggests that you continue to confound airgap insulation with the non-insulation of empty space.
And so Graham mispresents Vaughan again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1318203
Vintage 2012-06.
“I hope people aren’t overlooking my paragraph “Any laboratory experiment that ignores lapse rate cannot debunk the greenhouse effect. What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.””
– Vaughan Pratt
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1316624
Eli’s thought experiment, which was not meant to account for the greenhouse effect, still stands.
The GPE never stood in the first place.
As Vaughan Pratt agrees, the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.
Graham soldiers on:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
Sixty-nine months and he still cannot get through Eli’s first sentence.
As Vaughan Pratt agrees, the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.
Graham still misrepresents the point of Eli’s thought experiment:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?showComment=1507512793864#c5581049783543694900
Vaughan is not a Sky Dragon Crank like Graham.
Pratt believes there is a GHE. I never said otherwise. What he clearly stated is that the back-radiation version of the GHE is debunked. Showing that it is accepted, even by a member of the GHE Defense Team, both that there is more than one version of the GHE (thus helping me win one previous argument) and that the back-radiation version of the GHE has had its day (thus helping me win the current argument). Two birds with one stone.
“Nobody is arguing that back-radiation doesn’t exist.”
– Graham
“I don’t have any problem accepting that back-radiation exists, its the idea that it “warms” or “insulates” things that I disagree with.
– Graham, again
Correct. The debate was about whether it warms/insulates. Pratt agrees that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.
“Downward longwave radiation is heat emitted back to Earth from the atmosphere and can change depending on the composition of the air”
– https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5134797
Sloppy writing. DLR is not heat.
Graham does not always deny that downward longwave radiation exists, but when he does he denies that it radiates:
“The longwave radiation components can be estimated by four different methods, i.e., (1) direct measurements by pyrgeometers in meteorological stations, which is the most accurate method; (2) simple physical or empirical models which are the most popular
and use mainly temperature and relative humidity and follow the StefanBoltzmann equation with recalibration of the coefficients under local conditions; (3) radiative transfer models which are data demanding and use meteorological observations from different layers of the atmosphere; and (4) through satellite observations where their accuracy needs to be improved.”
– Stelios Pashiardis & Soteris A. Kalogirou
“Graham does not always deny that downward longwave radiation exists, but when he does he denies that it radiates”
Willard lapses into incoherence, as he tends to when losing another argument.
Graham soldiers on and reenters The Game:
“If Kiehl and Trenberth’s figure of 324 W/m2 of average back radiation from the sky to the surface is to be believed, then the corresponding temperature of the source of that radiation is sqrt(sqrt(324/5.67))*100 = 275 K = 2 C. That’s not out of line with my measurements of the sky’s temperature using an infrared thermometer, which have ranged from 12 C to −39 C.”
– Vaughan Pratt
He might have to wonder what an infrared thermometer is meant to measure.
Willard seems to be profoundly confused about what my position is, despite having quoted me on it. Weird.
Graham soldiers on:
“Thermal radiation is a common synonym for infrared radiation emitted by objects at temperatures often encountered on Earth. Thermal radiation refers not only to the radiation itself, but also the process by which the surface of an object radiates its thermal energy in the form of black body radiation. Infrared or red radiation from a common household radiator or electric heater is an example of thermal radiation, as is the heat emitted by an operating incandescent light bulb. Thermal radiation is generated when energy from the movement of charged particles within atoms is converted to electromagnetic radiation.”
– Thy Wiki
How long will it take him to find out the length of infrared radiations?
Willard’s MO:
Quote something. Make some vague insinuation. Never make it clear what point is being made. Repeat until you get no response.
Graham soldiers on, clinging to everything he holds dear for playing The Game, however contradictory, as if what he said only mattered the instant he says it:
“Once in the Earth’s atmosphere, clouds and the surface absorb the solar energy. The ground heats up and re-emits energy as longwave radiation in the form of infrared rays. Earth emits longwave radiation because Earth is cooler than the sun and has less energy available to give off.”
– North Caroline Climate Office
C’mon, Graham.
Play something. I already have my move ready.
Hunter wrote another strange reply:
What is a “conductive blackbody surface”? Glass is good emitter, but glass is an electrical insulator. It does conduct thermal energy between two surfaces, but that’s not an issue. A proper Thermos ™ insulated flask or travel mug would have little air between the two surfaces and a highly reflective coating.
Hunter apparently continues discussing insulating windows:
No, I’m not. We are discussing the GPE and thermal radiation heat transfer in a vacuum, i.e. outer space. There’s no “airgap” in a vacuum, thus no convection and no conduction.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter wrote another strange reply:
the issue we are discussing is whether a conductive blackbody surface provides any insulation value at all or if all the insulation value is in airgaps.
What is a conductive blackbody surface? Glass is good emitter, but glass is an electrical insulator. It does conduct thermal energy between two surfaces, but thats not an issue. A proper Thermos insulated flask or travel mug would have little air between the two surfaces and a highly reflective coating.
Hunter apparently continues discussing insulating windows:
Your response suggests that you continue to confound airgap insulation with the non-insulation of empty space.
No, Im not. We are discussing the GPE and thermal radiation heat transfer in a vacuum, i.e. outer space. Theres no airgap in a vacuum, thus no convection and no conduction.
———————–
Swanson we aren’t talking about electricity but conductivity. Glass is a good emitter and an excellent conductor of heat.
You should not become confused.
And being a good conductor means it is not an insulator. glass has very low resistance to heat transfer.
Also a vacuum has no resistance.
To slow an electromagnetic flow of light you need to insulate (provide a resistance) or reflect it.
Yes thats right in space there is no convection and no conduction but you expect the GP to be the same temperature. Doesn’t that seem strange to you?
How was that supposed to prove your point?
A BP at equilibrium with a 200w/m2 source will not warm to more than that with the concept of bakradiation.
You were on the right track of doing it mathematically with the conduction calculator but apparently you saw the handwriting on the wall that science was going to take you to Postma’s results.
And so you ran away from it. And resumed your science by declaration approach.
It is really sad that Bill originally had a decent understanding of what was going on with the GPE.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1315052
“Clarification for DREMT. 262K is all you can warm the blue plate with a single vacuum gap created by the green plate (assuming its a blackbody plate). 290K is the limit you can warm the BP with an infinite number of greenplates creating vacuum gaps.”
But then he let DREMT pollute his mind with absolute nonsense.
“He’s the biggest hypocrite on this blog…”
Evidence?
Troll handbook: when you keep losing on the facts, try to make it all about the messengers.
See what I mean?
> Some people offer no science or a shred of evidence to back up their assertions that radiation from the inner side of a metal shell surrounding a planet simply goes away, or does not exist, or has no effect. They cannot explain why this is supposed to happen. They just declare that it does.
Nate has of course the right of it. Notice how Graham ignored my earlier request to support when Joe made the assertion. And the most beautiful part is how Chic never asks that Sky Dragon cranks that kind of question.
There is a word for that kind of behaviour. I have it on the tip of my tongue.
The explanation you seek is called: “2LoT”.
Hunter is fixated on his window analogy, trying to explain his Thermos bottle straw man using a building model. To be sure, glass conducts thermal energy (U ~ 1.0 W/K*M^2) but it is an insulator compared to a metal like steel (U ~ 43), aluminum (U ~ 235) or copper (U~401). Compared with other building materials, like wood (U ~ 0.11), fiberglass (U ~ 0.048) or Styrofoam (U ~ 0.024), it is a conductor.
Hunter wrote:
Trouble is, Hunter can’t think outside the envelope. He appears unaware of the well known science and engineering regarding thermal radiation heat transfer. Using a model requiring “insulation”, based on conduction, can not be applied directly to calculate the energy transfer between bodies in a vacuum where conduction is simply not possible.
Graham soldiers on:
> only one side can truly lose energy in the sense that I made clear in the comment.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1319348
His Humpty Dumpty defense should be obvious to anyone, including Chic.
I don’t need to defend a thing. Those defending the Green Plate Effect need to defend the idea that a perfectly-conducting blackbody shell, placed around the Sun with a tiny vacuum gap between the Sun and the shell, causes the Sun to get warmer…but if actually touching the Sun, has no effect. Good luck with that.
While Graham soldiers on Nate has the right of it:
> [Graham] cannot get the original ELi problem right, nor the steel greenhouse problem right, nor Bills list above right, because he claims that that there is no SB emission from the inner sides of plates or shells. Therefore he gets different answers from Bill. He has no plausible explanation for this.
And so Bill goes on his usual Gish gallop for his own amusement and to distract from the fact that he cannot deny the exchange between the Sun and the plate. As an auditor, that would be really weird if he did.
But then that kicks him out of Team Joe.
Almost six years and Sky Dragon cranks cannot keep their story straight.
See, Willard cannot defend the Sun shell scenario. All he can do is repeat others misrepresentations of my arguments. I have never claimed there is no emission from the inside of shells or plates.
E. Swanson says:
To be sure, glass conducts thermal energy (U ~ 1.0 W/K*M^2) but it is an insulator compared to a metal like steel (U ~ 43).
———–
Yes Swanson we calculated the electromagnetic attenuation of the glass previously at 3 watts/m2. That 3 watts would be warming the glass. That doesn’t help a case when you are looking for 100w/m2 attenuation which is what you get in the atmosphere over an isolated dual glazed gap of common air.
—————————-
—————————
Hunter wrote:
Also a vacuum has no resistance. To slow an electromagnetic flow of light you need to insulate (provide a resistance) or reflect it.
Trouble is, Hunter cant think outside the envelope. He appears unaware of the well known science and engineering regarding thermal radiation heat transfer. Using a model requiring insulation, based on conduction, can not be applied directly to calculate the energy transfer between bodies in a vacuum where conduction is simply not possible.
—————-
You seem to have locked yourself in a box. We know the energy transfer over the vacuum gap. For a 244k plate it is 200w/m2 for an infinite plate. As the plate gets smaller the inverse square law enters into the equation.
DREMT 8:25 am remains wrong as previously properly explained many times since a perfectly-conducting blackbody shell, placed around the Sun with a tiny vacuum gap between the Sun and the shell, does cause the Sun to get warmer because the shell is WAY warmer than space that the shell replaced…but if actually touching the Sun, then has different warming effect because conduction is now enabled.
See? Graham artfully dodges the fact that even Bill is breaking ranks with Team Joe! All this to revise of what it means to warm. Because he does not disagree with thermodynamics, does he?
No, he does not. It just so happens that the world of physics is wrong. They misinterpret or misapply the two laws. Only Team Joe is right.
That leaves how many people on the right side of history! Twenty? No, not you, Bill. You are on the same side as Nate on this one.
The truest Truth Obsesser Sky Dragon cranks will ever have.
“That leaves how many people on the right side of history! Twenty?”
Vaughan Pratt being one of them, accepting as he does that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.
Sorry, Ball4, it is more correct to think of space as having no temperature, and being the absence of surroundings, than it is to think of it as being extremely cold surroundings.
Just for fun I calculated the expected results of your demo #7 using guesstimates for parameters estimated from from your photographs.
So from these estimates I calculated what the temperature of the green plate should be behind the blue plate.
So the parameters I used were:
2, plates each 4″ square.
plates spaced 1″
Temperature of illuminated blue plate: 117C
Temperature of illuminated green plate: 75C
Expected temperature for greenplate per calculator. 75C
thats scary close with an initial rough eyeball estimate. Obviously nothing is a blackbody but you should note that the GP is more than 50% of the temperature you estimate it should be. (its ~63%)
Now maybe you have some better documentation for the sizes of the plates and their spacing. You can work them out as a view factor here. https://thermal.mayahtt.com/tmwiz/radiate/pa-sqpl/pa-sqpl.htm
Wrong yet again DREMT 9:31 am as properly explained previously, space has a brightness temperature of just about 3K while the shell with vacuum gap has a brightness temperature above 5700K at equilibrium. The sun will warm.
I repeat my previous comment, Ball4, which refutes your response.
Nope. The sun will warm.
Thanks for going full retard, Ball4.
Ball4 says:
space has a brightness temperature of just about 3K while the shell with vacuum gap has a brightness temperature above 5700K at equilibrium. The sun will warm.
—————————
Ball4 full on attacks the inverse square law.
No attack on that physics, Bill, the vacuum gap sun surface to shell per DREMT is “tiny”.
> Vaughan Pratt being one of them
See? Graham equivocates on what characterizes Team Joe and deflects from the specific point he is facing:
Vaughan does not dispute the Greenhouse effect. Team Joe does.
Vaughan might not agree that there is ZERO energy loss from the plate on its sun-ward side.
Even Bill disagrees with the last point.
That’s how low Team Joe will go.
willard i didn’t say there was zero loss. i said or meant to say there was zero loss from the solar constant because the inverse square law accounts for that loss via its field of view calculation,
Of course you did not, Bill.
But Joe did.
So that puts you out of Team Joe.
Welcome aboard!
Vaughan Pratt: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect.”
Hunter wrote:
What exactly is “electromagnetic attenuation”?
Hunter wrote:
No, we calculate that the emission from an infinite plate at 244K will be 200 W/M^2. That’s not the temperature result for the 2 plate scenario where one assumes an input from an external source at 200 W/M^2, since it does not include the back radiation from the second plate. You got it all backwards, since the plate temperature is not the independent variable, it’s the rate at which energy is supplied.
Regarding my Green Plate Demo, you wrote:
I have no idea what you are referring to, since I did not include an estimate of the expected temperature for the GP.
“Vaughan might not agree that there is ZERO energy loss from the plate on its sun-ward side.”
Postma says nothing of the sort. Willard has confused himself yet again.
Willard says:
Vaughan might not agree that there is ZERO energy loss from the plate on its sun-ward side.
Even Bill disagrees with the last point.
Thats how low Team Joe will go.
—————————
It would be zero loss from the solar constant Willard.
Lots of loss from the brightness temperature.
You need a reference to which value Joe was referring to when he said zero loss or your argument goes nowhere by virtue of lacking any foundation.
> [Joe] says nothing of the sort
See for yourself, Graham:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268262
That only means one thing:
Graham and Joe have PhDs.
Three cheers for Graham’s sixth year of trolling Roy’s!
That must have been a very early comment from Postma. Since he later went on to say that the BP equilibrates at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2. Not 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2. What he’s saying there would only apply if the view factors between the heat source and the BP were equal to 1.
E. Swanson says:
What exactly is electromagnetic attenuation?
——————
THERMAL RESISTIVITY
—————–
—————–
—————–
—————–
E. Swanson says:
Thats not the temperature result for the 2 plate scenario.
Regarding my Green Plate Demo, you wrote:
you should note that the GP is more than 50% of the temperature you estimate it should be. (its ~63%)
I have no idea what you are referring to, since I did not include an estimate of the expected temperature for the GP.
——————–
results of your experiment.
BP 117C
GP 75C
Viewfactor: .632
117C=390k= 1312w/m2 * .632 = 829w/m2= 348k = 75C
Loss due to view factor = 481w/m2
Please beware your wishes, Graham. You know I like to pay diligence to that kind of things. For now let’s work with that:
> only one side can truly “lose energy” in the sense that I made clear in the comment.
This is Bailey part of the Motte-and-Bailey.
This part is not enough to overthrow the Greenhouse Theory. It is not enough to get different numbers than Eli’s or everyone else’s. It cannot bypass 240Wm-2 as the Hard Limit.
Semantic arguments can only give you different meanings, you know.
Nothing else.
Six years, and still unable to realize that semantic arguments are silly.
Willard flirts with incoherence again.
Yep! Spinning and Not spinning at the same time!
Graham and Bill soldier on:
[GRAHAM] Joe says nothing of the sort.
[ALSO GRAHAM] That must have been a very early comment from Joe.
[ALSO GRAHAM] Bill, that is not even my comment. It is a quote from Joe, and it does not exist on its own like that. It is part of a longer comment, and cannot be fully understood on its own, as a single sentence. There is an entire paragraph of explanation that goes along with it, as well as other commentary that gives it the necessary context.
Source: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1316987
Graham will just say anything to defend Team Joe.
All you should need to understand it is here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1330416
You will not be intelligent/open-minded enough to follow 2) and 3), so just focus on 1), Willard. Note the very last paragraph in the whole comment, as well. Very important. Come back when you have something worthwhile to contribute.
The GPE has never been debunked, DREMT, as pointed out for DREMT numerous times since dS is positive for all plates in the GPE process thus the GPE satisfies 2LOT. DREMT’s linked treatise is simply wrong.
Nothing worthwhile from Ball4 to respond to.
Thanks for my win again, DREMT. I’m happy to see DREMT capitulate to the correct use of the 2LOT.
Everything that everyone needs to understand Grahams playbook is here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1331782
Says stuff about Joe. Gets caught. Shifts gears. Floods his engine. And here is where he went for his But Vaughan deflection:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1331294
Says stuff about Vaughan. Gets caught. Shifts gears. Etc.
For 69 months he has been rinsing and repeating the same lines at Roys, the same tricks, the same misbehavin.
And then he has the nerves to talk about hypocrisy!
Never fear, our Truth Obsesser will soldier on.
Oh, and the first of Elis diagrams suffices to show the silliness of Joes Team:
https://imgur.com/a/0feBbmy
They refuse to accept that.
Nothing worthwhile from Willard to respond to.
Thanks for the win, Graham.
So, when will you come up with a fourth talking point?
"Oh, and the first of Elis diagrams suffices to show the silliness of Joes Team:
They refuse to accept that."
Postma agrees with the first of Eli’s diagrams, idiot. As I said, he agrees that the BP equilibrates at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2. The correct solution to the GPE has both plates at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2. Eli’s solution has the BP at 262 K, and the GP at 220 K. Once you’re up to speed with the absolute basics, please return when you have something worthwhile to contribute.
The incorrect solution to the GPE has both plates at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2 in violation of 2LOT since dS is obviously not positive in the process.
Eli’s solution is correct and has stood the test of time as 1LOT and 2LOT are correctly implemented since dS is positive in the GPE process.
Team GPE believes, and has previously defended, the following:
Plates pressed together: 244 K…244 K
Plates separated: 262 K…220 K
That clearly shows a warmer object gaining temperature at the expense of a cooler object. A violation of 2LoT.
I guess I could concede that Joe agrees with what he thinks Eli says, Graham. Which is more than you would sometimes concede:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31333
I suppose you recall that response, for it was directed to you, GW. We both know to what “W” refers in “GW” and it’s not “warming.” And I suppose you recall that Eli reminded both of you that “the statement of the problem was that there was a uniform 400 W/m2 irradiation of one side of the blue plate.”
You say Joe agrees. Eli says he quibbles. Anyone who read that thread and who sees you argue would bet on quibbling.
Your only way right now is to go for equations. You always lose these kinds of word games. Not enough integrity. No attention to detail.
Postma and Eli agree up to the point of adding the BP, so long as the Sun is treated as being a point source. From that point on (i.e. adding the GP), they disagree. Pretty majorly disagree. Not quibbling.
“A violation of 2LoT.”
No that’s clearly wrong DREMT 4:08 pm. dS is positive in your described process, so in accord with 2LOT.
I once again repeat my previous comment, which refutes your response, Ball4.
I just showed a few things you keep ignoring, Graham. First, that I have read Joe. Second, that he disputes Eli’s overall setup. Third, that I know where your Sun Shell Games comes from. Fourth, that you should stick to the “GW” pseudonym – after all, it’s based on your real name.
That you always keep denying what is materially supported will always be a mystery to me. Be that as it may, this exchange was rather elegant:
[GRAHAM] Is what happened as described in this comment true? I dont recall any comments posted here with the text they quote, or any responses from you:
[JOE] I deleted his comment GW. They simply refuse to use a heat flow equation at all or the concept of thermal equilibrium. Look how proud they are of it! Lol
[GRAHAM] So…he just chucks in another term for the green plate. One term for the blue plate and two for the green.
Here was the comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1331352
A pity that “A pity the exchange” and what follows has been nested into the blockquotes.
A pity that Graham cannot conceive that by his logic:
the same should also apply to the blue plate, unless he can argue that the blue plate does not gain all its energy from the green plate “along every conceivable vector,” whatever he might wish to mean by that.
A pity that Graham does not understand the usability problem of using acronyms.
> unless he can argue that the blue plate does not gain all its energy from the
green platealong every conceivable vector, whatever he might wish to mean by that.Erm. I mean that the blue plate does not gain all its energy from the Sun, of course.
Graham wastes a lot of energy to suggest that unless he pees next to a wall he never gets splashed unless he pees at right angle.
And so, once again, Team Joe sucks at geometry.
The BP does not gain its energy from the GP. It gains its energy from the Sun. Along only one vector, one that is directly perpendicular to the plate. From every other conceivable direction on that Sun-facing side, the BP is not receiving any energy.
DREMT is wrong again. The BP does not gain its energy from the GP only on the sun side. The BP does gain energy from the GP as Eli shows since the BP is a black body absorbing all incident radiation from the GP.
> The BP does not gain its energy from the GP. It gains its energy from the Sun.
Well, duh. Looks like Graham responded to the first comment before reading the second. Happens.
So the relationship between the blue plate and the green plate is the same as the relationship between the Sun and the blue plate. That means two things: Graham does not follow Eli’s thought experiment when he throws his “But View Factors!” monkey wrench; that same monkey wrench should be thrown at the Sun, which is something Joe spotted.
Graham could try to dispute that. I would then need to quote what I already quoted. He would then claim not understanding why I quote what I quote. And so on and so forth.
So let’s recap. The Sun is a “point source” and this is why view factors don’t matter, and *infinite* plates somehow have angles of projections or receptions between themselves.
You can’t make this up.
Like I said, Willard (and Ball4). 2) and 3) will be beyond you. Try focussing on 1).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1330416
Like I said, Graham, you are once again stuck with a bad geometrical intuition –
On the one hand, the Sun is a point. From that irrelevant assumption you infer that the angle between its rays and an *infinite* plate is perpendicular.
(I know where you get that idea, but the Earth isn’t infinite.)
On the other hand, the radiations between two infinite plates perpendicular to each other cannot be perpendicular.
How the hell are you still clinging to that joke after almost six years?
So as I said, you think it is impossible for you to pee against the wall of a pub and splash on yourself. It can go in all directions except yours.
You can consider the three objects as points or as all infinite plates that it would not change a damn thing from a purely abstract viewpoint of the laws of thermo.
And then Joe will lulz about the spectrum!
You have no idea how ridiculous you are, Graham.
“So the relationship between the blue plate and the green plate is the same as the relationship between the Sun and the blue plate”
Totally wrong.
“On the one hand, the Sun is a point. From that irrelevant assumption you infer that the angle between its rays and an *infinite* plate is perpendicular.”
No. The plate is receiving energy from the Sun along a vector perpendicular to the plate. Along any other direction in the entire hemisphere of possible directions on the Sun-facing side of the plate, the plate is not receiving energy from the Sun. That should be obvious, since the Sun is a point.
“On the other hand, the radiations between two infinite plates perpendicular to each other cannot be perpendicular.”
The plates are parallel to each other, not perpendicular to each other. Yes, the GP receives radiation from the BP along a vector perpendicular to the plate…but it is also receiving energy from the BP along every conceivable direction in the entire hemisphere of possible directions on the BP-facing side of the plate. This is because the plates are treated as being infinite in relation to each other.
“So as I said, you think it is impossible for you to pee against the wall of a pub and splash on yourself. It can go in all directions except yours.”
No, that bears no relation to anything that is being said.
> Totally wrong
Powerful argument you got there, Graham “Sun Shell” W!
If the Sun is the source of energy for the Blue Plate (BP), if the BP is the only source of energy for the Green Plate (GP), if and the same laws apply generally, then the same consequence will obtain between the Sun and the BP and between the GP and the BP. Eli abstracted away all geometrical consideration. You just can’t invoke them and claim you refuted his Gedankenexperiment!
None of this matters for the laws of thermo anyway, since they apply to any kind of radiative transfer and, well, have already been formulated as equations that stand on their own. Five years is not long enough for you to open a damn book on radiative transfer. I mean, have you considered opening the one Eli suggested? It is still online.
Find it and report.
Not that this really matters for the real greenhouse effect, since the GP is actually between the Sun and the BP. And as Tim suggested almost six years ago, as long as we have a heat source, an absorber of energy from the heat source, a the thermal shield, and a heat sink, we should be good to go.
But don’t forget the most important lesson, Graham – if you pee on a wall and it splashes on you, don’t cry “But View Factors!”
There is the debunking of Eli’s GPE, and there is the alternative (correct) solution to the GPE. You are conflating the two things. I respond to you with explanations of the alternative solution purely because it might be helpful to other readers. I know that you have no interest in learning, or honest debate, so none of it’s for you, personally. But, whether or not the alternative (correct) solution to the GPE is understood and agreed with, Eli’s version is still debunked.
> Yes, the GP receives radiation from the BP along a vector perpendicular to the plate…but it is also receiving energy from the BP along every conceivable direction in the entire hemisphere of possible directions on the BP-facing side of the plate.
The GP is a plate. That’s in the name. Green Plate. It has no hemisphere.
Yes, the GP receives radiation from its source coming from all direction…and that changes nothing to what happens on the output side of the equation. You could argue that the GP, like the BP, could emit through “every conceivable direction” that it would not change a thing, as long as you preserve directionality, otherwise you could create perpetual machines.
Either energy balances or it does not. All you need is to balance a damn input with a damn output. It is really not that hard.
Are you not tired of these verbal defenses that go in every conceivable direction?
“The GP is a plate. That’s in the name. Green Plate. It has no hemisphere.”
Hemisphere of directions, Willard. Think of arrows emanating from the flat plate pointing in every conceivable direction. I am not suggesting that the GP has a hemisphere. You cannot understand even the simplest concepts, so there is no chance of you getting 2) and 3). Just give it up.
“Try focusing on 1).”
Sure. DREMT 5:41 pm, 1) is wrong since for total reflection dS is zero violating 2LOT so the rest of the linked comment is impossible in nature and wrong.
Eli has it correct because for his solution dS is positive in the process complying with 2LOT.
> Hemisphere of directions
So now Eli’s plate exist in a spherical space, Graham? Just great. Try PI rad or 180 degrees.
Again, none of that matters. For the purpose of balancing energy, the two plates emit and receive energy in the same manner. That their source differ changes nothing.
One does not simply pee on a wall in all conceivable direction and expect not to get splashed.
No, Willard, I am not saying the plates exist in a spherical space. I am sorry for your failure to understand something simple.
View factors do matter, in radiative heat transfer. The VF between the Sun and the BP, and the BP and the GP, are completely different.
Eli’s view factor is whatever VF is required for “just a plate in space with sunlight shining on it. Maybe 400 W/m^2”.
Sorry Ball4, but you said: “Sun surface could warm a couple dozen million degrees F above about 5700K”
I’m afraid that disqualifies you from being taken seriously.
The heater for our sun’s surface runs at around a couple dozen million degrees F so figure it out DREMT. DREMT is an expert in sophistry entertainment who hasn’t ever been taken seriously in physics.
I’m not failing to understand you and you know that, Graham. What you might ignore is that I’m merely reciprocating. Check how I worded my first comment. Reread the one to which I reply.
That’s all.
Now, there is an important logical point you might fail to understand (note again the wording that echoes yours) –
Eli’s thought experiment abstracts away view factors. If you insist in having them, you are not refuting his thought experiment. You are simply justifying your refusal to entertain it.
And no, view factors do not matter here. It is really hard to exclude a direction when an object O emits radiation in all of them. Hence why you really protect your shoes when you pee on a wall. Or at least you should.
At best you *could* argue that the blue plate receives less than what Eli suggests with his toy example. But even then it’s more than nothing. So he still wins, albeit a bit more subtly.
So once again, bad logic, and bad geometry.
You are not listening, Willard:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1331937
You never do.
Hunter, This thread is getting too long. See my reply below.
Yes, this thread is far too long. I think I’m done up here, other than to PST any further responses from the usual trolls.
> There is the debunking of Eli’s GPE, and there is the alternative (correct) solution to the GPE.
You always refuse to enter into Eli’s thought experiment on its own terms, Graham. So you are the one who is not listening. It’s like you think you can win an improv by always saying no. Life does not work like that. Science does not work like that. Heck, argumentation does not work like that.
Besides, consider how you always end up philosophizing when you’re losing a point. While it can indeed console, philosophy is about understanding. And the understanding that matters here is how you can waste six years repeating the same thing while convincing yourself that the whole world is wrong about basic stuff.
Why do you think I’m here? Certainly not to contemplate the depth of your knowledge of physics. Sky Dragon cranks have none.
So what remains? A very compact playbook, with all kinds of little tricks like the Motte-and-Bailey. Your performance over the sumer made me realize that this technique has dialogical merit. It allows you to sidestep when things get rough, and to reenter provocations when things get boring in your day.
“I’m not failing to understand you and you know that, Graham.”
I know no such thing. You certainly appear to fail to understand extremely basic concepts.
“Eli’s thought experiment abstracts away view factors. If you insist in having them, you are not refuting his thought experiment. You are simply justifying your refusal to entertain it.”
It doesn’t “abstract away view factors”, and the refutation of his thought experiment does not depend on the alternative solution in any case. The GPE was debunked five years ago. It was debunked again upthread, by Clint R, in a single sentence. It is debunked by the 3-plate scenario. It is debunked by the Sun shell example. It is debunked by experiment.
“And no, view factors do not matter here.”
They matter in all of radiative heat transfer.
“It is really hard to exclude a direction when an object O emits radiation in all of them.”
Nobody is trying to “exclude a direction”.
“At best you *could* argue that the blue plate receives less than what Eli suggests with his toy example. But even then it’s more than nothing. So he still wins, albeit a bit more subtly.”
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
“So once again, bad logic, and bad geometry.”
False accusation.
“You always refuse to enter into Eli’s thought experiment on its own terms, Graham.”
False accusation.
“So you are the one who is not listening. It’s like you think you can win an improv by always saying no. Life does not work like that. Science does not work like that. Heck, argumentation does not work like that. Besides, consider how you always end up philosophizing when you’re losing a point….”
…said Willard, philosophizing now that he’s losing the point (again).
“While it can indeed console, philosophy is about understanding. And the understanding that matters here is how you can waste six years repeating the same thing while convincing yourself that the whole world is wrong about basic stuff.”
One of your own gurus recently conceded that the back-radiation account of the GHE was debunked. The understanding that matters is why a few stubborn idiots on a blog refuse to move with the times and accept that this is the case.
“Why do you think I’m here? Certainly not to contemplate the depth of your knowledge of physics. Sky Dragon cranks have none.”
I think you’re here to troll.
“So what remains? A very compact playbook, with all kinds of little tricks like the Motte-and-Bailey. Your performance over the sumer made me realize that this technique has dialogical merit. It allows you to sidestep when things get rough, and to reenter provocations when things get boring in your day.”
More false accusations. Willard, please stop trolling.
Wrong yet again DREMT: “One of your own gurus recently conceded that the back-radiation account of the GHE was debunked. The understanding that matters is why a few stubborn idiots on a blog refuse to move with the times and accept that this is the case.”
… because that is NOT the case as Vaughan Pratt writes: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect.”
> I think you are
Whatever you might think of me is irrelevant here, Graham.
*You* are the troll. *I* slay trolls.
More verbal defense will not change anything about a mere accounting exercise, And here is the algebraic point you keep ignoring. As soon as there is more than zero radiation hitting back that blue plate, you lose. Hard for the energy not to radiate back to an infinite plate, at least in part. Not only your appeal to view factors was irrelevant, illogical and geometrically void, it fails a basic algebra smell test.
The only reasons why this trolling of yours has been going on for more than six years is that very few really cares to understand what you try to convey.
Tough luck.
Please stop trolling, and learn to read equations.
Ball4: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1331303
Willard: you have no idea what you are talking about. Please stop trolling.
Ball4 and Willard: Sociopaths, begone.
1) obviously fails the 2LOT in nature, DREMT. The rest is accordingly wrong.
Laughing at DREMT’s amusing failures to debunk the GPE has been great entertainment over the years.
Sociopath, begone.
Sixty-nine months of trolling and Graham still complains about being misunderstood.
The least pro-social commenter after Pup and Mike has the nerve to mention sociopathy.
Please seek help.
#2
Sociopath, begone.
How pro-social of you, Graham.
Image a Pong game between B and G with infinite paddles. According to your logic B, after serving to G, will never be able to reach the return from G.
Once again, you have no geometry intuition.
The third time out of your three pet topics, right?
#3
Sociopath, begone.
DREMT has no worthwhile defense again, so I’m happy with the wins.
#4
Sociopath, begone.
DREMPTY,
“bob lost an argument a few years ago. So what? He loses a lot of arguments.
Plates together: 244 K244 K244 K
Plates separated: 244 K290 K244 K
with no change in energy in and out, is in clear violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Sorry you dont understand that. Others will.”
No way did I lose this argument.
When you separate the plates there is a change in energy in and out, because you fucking moron, you can’t have heat transfer without a temperature difference.
Again, your premise that there is no change in energy in and out is false, so the rest of your argument is bogus, you fucking moron.
In the 3-plate scenario, plates pressed together at 244 K…244 K…244 K, there is 400 W input to the system and 400 W output. With plates separated, at 244 K…290 K…244 K, there is 400 W input to the system, and 400 W output. The BP increased in temperature by 46 K with no change in energy in or out! Sorry for your loss.
DREMT can’t even count plates accurately. No loss since conductive energy transfer (full plate) has a different formulation than radiative energy transfer (separated plate) resulting in different answers at equilibrium. DREMT’s solution is incorrect by the way as I pointed out long ago.
Study Eli’s 2017 work for correct radiative energy transfer formulas and return.
#5
Sociopath, begone.
DREMPTY you fucking moron,
” there is 400 W input to the system, and 400 W output.”
Not without a temperature difference between the plates, you fucking moron.
There has to be a temperature difference between the green and blue plates in order to have heat flow, it’s in the fucking equation you fucking moron.
I see you brought out your fucking diagram that has one plate with a total of 600 Watts output and the other one with 400 watts output but both are at the same temperature.
Another diagram from a fucking moron.
Ball4 says:
No loss since conductive energy transfer (full plate) has a different formulation than radiative energy transfer (separated plate) resulting in different answers at equilibrium.
————————-
One would not expect that to occur unless one adds a resistor/insulator/conductor. A vacuum represents none of those.
What is strange though is if you establish that equilibrium as per the Eli point of view and you add a resistor/insulator/conductor the result doesn’t change.
“The passive shell can not raise the temperature of the Sun. End of story, for the rational.”
It continues to be perplexing that people KEEP on using this failed logic. They erroneously believe that their own personal incredulity about an outcome is:
a. a valid argument against the outcome.
It isn’t.
b. universally what a rational person would think.
It isn’t
I asked a random person on the street the question.
“Madam: What is your opinion? If we built a massive metal black shell around the sun, what do you think the sun would do? Get hotter or stay the same temperature?”
Joanne Public: “Gee, that’s incredible. Can that really be done? Whose paying for this? My taxes?”
Me: “No ma’am. It’s not really possible or likely to ever happen. It is just a hypothetical. Do you have an opinion about the result?”
“I have no idea. If we trap the sun’s heat with a shell, it seems like it could build up and get hotter. But I would ask the scientists.”
So there we have it. The incredulity about the incredible result of this incredible experiment, is not universal.
It would be nice if anyone could come up with a sound argument, with a valid science reason, why the sun couldnt warm in this thought experiment.
Yes, bob, there is 400 W in and 400 W out even without a temperature difference. Those GPs do not stop emitting 200 W each out to space just because there is no temperature difference.
Bill wrongly writes: “… unless one adds a resistor/insulator/conductor. A vacuum represents none of those.”
Bill can learn from Thermos.com: VACUUM INSULATED Stainless Steel Construction
https://thermos.com/products/stainless-king-beverage-bottle-2-0-l
#6
Sociopath, begone.
DREMPTY you fucking moron,
“Yes, bob, there is 400 W in and 400 W out even without a temperature difference. Those GPs do not stop emitting 200 W each out to space just because there is no temperature difference.”
Actually they do stop emitting 200 W each out to space, because they are only getting 200 W from the Blue plate, and they are emitting 200 W from each side now that they are separated, so they start cooling, until the Blue plate heats up, because it is only getting 400 W from the heater, and now less than 200 W from each of the green plates, so it eventually heats up, so that the blue plate can provide the necessary 400 watts to each green plate so that the green plate can emit 200 from each side.
Separated, the green plates emit 200 W from each side, so they need 400 W input from the Blue plate, so the Blue plate must increase in temperature to provide that 400 W.
You can’t get this because you are a fucking moron, or an evil green house effect denier.
If you wave your arms any harder, you are going to take off! Sorry bob, it is an idealized scenario with no losses past the edges of the plates, so when they are separated the GPs have no reason to emit less. All that has changed is that conductive transfer has switched to radiative. I know and fully understand all the reasons you get so confused and scrunch yourself up into a little ball of rage as you lash out like a child against the adult who is setting you straight, since I understand the GPE now better than you ever could, even if you studied it constantly, every day, for the rest of your life. There is nothing you need to explain.
The 3-plate scenario, it has been agreed by Swanson, is just like the “Steel Greenhouse”. In other words, it is just like the Sun shell scenario. An obvious 2LoT violation, basically. The Sun cannot heat itself up with its own back-radiated energy, as I’m sure Vaughan Pratt would agree. That’s that.
“I’m sure Vaughan Pratt would agree.”
Wrong DREMT, Vaughan Pratt doesn’t agree writing: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect.”
…and what did he also write, sociopath? Stay out of my comments.
Nate says:
It would be nice if anyone could come up with a sound argument, with a valid science reason, why the sun couldnt warm in this thought experiment.
—————–
Actually it would be nice if anyone could come up with a sound argument, with a valid science reason, why the sun would warm in this thought experiment.
After all who is trying to establish a science standard and teaching it to children? Being skeptical is nothing more than rejecting unnecessary delegation of authority. A crime worthy of vitriol, rejection, cancellation in the minds of the moronic lemmings inhabiting this forum.
but regardless how about the fact that radiation doesn’t just happen spontaneously. It is inseparably connected to temperature. 1LOT does not allow for spontaneous increases in temperature without a cause.
Yet such a concept resides central to backradiation theory behind concepts of irresistable pressures of a flow of radiation, completely ignoring that such a flow has a very small pressure. Lord Kelvin wanted to look at it hydrodynamically and modern scientists fully bought in on particle physics want to attribute it to radiation.
Of course we are met with complete stonewalling in the offering of evidence. We are regaled with 3rd grader flat radiation models that most scientists have rejected. And yet it is still found in corners and crevices of our institutions of learning. In this forum we have a sizable population of that special species of lemming who avows total homage and fidelity to Orwell’s Animal Farm.
that isn’t a complete scientific falsification of a thought experiment but if it isn’t a rejection of the animal farm we are all in trouble and diversity is dead.
DREMPTY,
GAWD you are a fucking moron.
“so when they are separated the GPs have no reason to emit less.”
They emit more when separated, you fucking moron.
When separated, they emit from both sides, not just the side to space.
It’s a simple problem, if you have to spend your entire life studying it and you still can’t get the right answer, is evidence that you are indeed a fucking moron.
“Actually it would be nice if anyone could come up with a sound argument, with a valid science reason, why the sun would warm in this thought experiment.”
The sun’s surface thermodynamic energy internal heater runs at couple dozen million degrees F.
The sun shell as DREMT imagined is an infrared trapping material, thus increasing the sun’s internal thermodynamic energy with IR energy that otherwise would have been in deep space without the shell.
Based on experiments Dr. Pratt conducted, he concluded: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect.”
We were talking about total input and output from the system, bob. 400 W in, and 400 W out. If you do not think the GPs emit less than 400 W to space (less than 200 W each) after separation, then you do not have any way for energy to accumulate within the system and raise the temperature of the BP. That is what I meant by emitting less. Never mind. You are in one of your moods. No point talking to you.
Ball4 says:
”Based on experiments Dr. Pratt conducted, he concluded: ”Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect.” ”
————————–
First requirement in understanding is reading comprehension.
‘can’ does not mean ‘will’. What Pratt is saying it is dependent upon some specific set on unequilibriated conditions and the insulating value of the trapping material.
the 3rd grader radiation insulating model is a farce as it starts with equilibrium conditions.
Thus all that occurs with the addition of materials is period of time to bring those materials to the same equilibrium.
bobdroege says:
DREMPTY,
GAWD you are a fucking moron.
——————————
The Lemming pig roars!
Drempty,
Take your participation trophy and go fuck yourself.
Bill,
“The Lemming pig roars!”
It looks like you left your brain at home again.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
One last thing
“If you do not think the GPs emit less than 400 W to space (less than 200 W each) after separation, then you do not have any way for energy to accumulate within the system and raise the temperature of the BP.”
Lets break that down.
First, I think the GPs emit less than 400 W to space after separation, because they receive 200 W each and emit 400 W each, initially upon separation, so they cool, and then emit less.
Second, I do have a way for the energy to accumulate within the system.
I’ll leave that as homework for you to figure out my position on how the energy accumulates.
It does, and that will lead you to the correct answer, but then sometime the pig refuses to eat the truffle it finds.
The GPE is debunked, bob. Thanks anyway. You can leave now you have thoroughly disgraced yourself again.
bobdroege says:
It looks like you left your brain at home again.
——————
How would you know? Lemmings don’t have brains.
“Thus all that occurs with the addition of materials is period of time to bring those materials to the same equilibrium.”
Sure Bill, the infrared trapping material of the shell would cool if it starts out warmer than the higher eventual equilibrium sun surface temperature with sun shell’s “very significant warming effect” per Pratt due the system having much higher thermodynamic internal energy at equilibrium.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1331303
DREMPTY,
“The GPE is debunked, bob. Thanks anyway. You can leave now you have thoroughly disgraced yourself again.”
Not hardly, I have observed the original green plate effect in my fucking kitchen.
I am fucking staying, just to show you where you get the science wrong.
Though it wouls be easier to show where you get it right.
Here let me show you.
There that’s done.
So don’t bother calling me out on any threads unless you want another thorough ass whuppin.
Bob is yet another guy in a long line of other guys who has only ever observed it inside the atmosphere and is just guessing and extrapolating the indentical results he saw in his kitchen to outerspace where heat loss by convection doesn’t exist.
Bill,
You are full of shit as usual.
But maybe I forgot to tell you that my experiment prevented any convection, and limited conduction between the plates.
That doesn’t matter anyway, the addition of the green plate caused a temperature increase.
It doesn’t matter if the heat transfer is convection, radiation, or conduction.
The addition of the plate causes a temperature increase, which the green plate deniers say violated the second law of thermo.
Lemmings do not have brains, Bill?
bobdroege, Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard says:
Lemmings do not have brains, Bill?
—————————————
Well OK Willard. Maybe something in the range of a parrot?
But on the other hand parrots aren’t ignorant racists. they are species agnostic about who they parrot. . . .lemmings though seem to be like anchovies running amok in a single ethnic pack.
Bill,
It looks like you believe in some myths about the behavior of lemmings.
Good to know.
#2
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bobdroege says:
It looks like you believe in some myths about the behavior of lemmings.
Good to know.
——————————
I will bow to you this Bob. Since it takes one to know one, obviously you are the expert.
Testing.
North Atlantic surface temperature.
https://i.ibb.co/cC7Xhxr/cdas-sflux-sst-atl-1.png
SST Outlook: NCEP CFS.v2 Forecast (PDF corrected) Issued: 27 June 2022
https://i.ibb.co/myc3Xm2/Screenshot-2.png
What the Sun says.
https://i.ibb.co/RvWb7ss/Dipall.gif
Ice in the Beaufort Sea and Canadian Archipelago.
https://i.ibb.co/qp2qrd0/masie-all-r01-4km.png
https://i.ibb.co/DWpv078/masie-all-r09-4km.png
Why is the solar wind still so weak? The last major speed jumps can be seen in 2019.
https://i.ibb.co/pXH3qhX/plot-image.png
Where is the heat escaping from the Pacific Ocean?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC006&year=2022&month=07
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
Why is there a threat of flooding in Australia?
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
La Ninas typically bring heavy rain to the East coast. there are also weather factors at play here that have made for a very wet East coast this year.
Stephen Anderson
Remember that we discussed Ed Berry’s model and one of the big problems was the lack of a mechanism for moving large amounts of CO2 from the deep ocean to the surface.
The paleontologists have a possible mechanism based on evidence that the ocean is usually anoxic, a Canfield Ocean.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canfield_ocean
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228628185_Oceanic_Euxinia_in_Earth_History_Causes_and_Consequences
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event
The basic principle is that when the poles are cold, as has been the case since the current Ice Age got under way, the thermohaline circulation is driven by cold oxygenated water sinking at high latitudes and oxygenating the deep ocean.
When the poles warm the water sinks further South and the new water replaces the cold oxygenated water with warm anoxic water, displacing the oxygen and CO2 rich water.
The ocean becomes anoxic and dominated by anaerobic sulphur and methane bacteria.
If the turnover is beginning due to global warming it would explain the rapid release of CO2 described by Berry.
But you won’t like it.
The modern consequences are described in “Undera Green Sky” by Peter Ward. (Hat tip to Tim Folkerts).
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Under-Green-Sky-Potentially-Greenhou-ebook/dp/B0015WAOQM/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2Z9L9TJG8YE2C&keywords=Under+a+green+sky&qid=1656964180&s=digital-text&sprefix=under+a+green+sky%2Cdigital-text%2C233&sr=1-1
The 100ppm natural rise from 1750 to now could hardly be described as a rapid rise. I think we know very little about CO2 history.
stephen…for one, there is no proof that the CO2 levels in 1750 were 270 ppmv. All they have are ice-core proxies which are vulnerable to misinterpretation. Jaworowski pointed out that the IPCC cherry-picked the 270 ppmv figure from an assortment of cores taken within a considerable distance of each other. One of the samples read close to 2000 ppmv.
For another, studies collated by Beck have shown variable levels of CO2, some exceeding 400 ppmv between 1850 and 1940.
For another, 1750 was in the middle of phase 2 of the Little Ice Age when global temps had dropped 1C to 2C below normal. An ocean that much colder would have absorbed a lot of CO2 over the 400+ years of the LIA.
> The 100ppm […] rise from 1750 to now could hardly be described as a rapid rise.
Geological time scale is a bit slower than that:
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/7/graphic-carbon-dioxide-hits-new-high/
“The 100ppm natural rise from 1750 to now could hardly be described as a rapid rise.”
Look at a typical(?) past CO2 release, the PETM 56 million years ago.
The current CO2 release is at least five times faster than in the PETM and possibly as high as 27 times.
We are artificially releasing CO2 at a faster rate than anything in the geological record.
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-rising-ten-times-faster-than-petm-extinction.html
Is CO2 causing the rise in average temperatures or is the rise in average temperatures causing the rise in CO2?
Both.
You see in the Milankovich cycles that as orbital cycles raise and lower temperature, CO2 concentration follow them up and down. This is because CO2 sinks such as oceans, peat bogs and permafrost are temperature sensitive, releasing CO2 to the atmosphere as temperature rises and taking up CO2 when temperatures fall.
If you do the maths, the direct effect of the orbital cycles varies temperature by 1.2C and the feedback due to changing CO2 and ice albedo is another is another 3.8C. This the 5C difference between a glacial period and an interglacial.
Temperature is causing CO2 change.
Looking at extinction events such as the PETM, they begin with a pulse of CO2 from volcanic activity or an ocean overturn, followed by an increase in temperature. Weathering then slowly removes CO2 and temperatures drop back.
Snowball Earth events tend to coincide with mountain building as continents merge. Weathering reduces CO2 which reduces temperature. Increasing ice albedo then locks into 2 million years of glaciation which stops the weathering. Finally increasing volcanic CO2 increases the temperature enough to melt the ice.
Modern day fossil fuel burning is increasing CO2 faster than anything we’ve seen in the geological record and temperatures are following CO2 upwards.
Extinctions, Snowball Earths and AGW are all examples of changing CO2 causing a change in average temperatures.
Ent, that’s some great sci-fi. It’s amazing how well it fits your cult beliefs, huh?
You left out things like passenger jets flying backwards and ice boiling water.
Maybe on your next monologue….
Is there any evidence whatsoever that an increase in CO2 will increase global temperatures any further?
Speculation about what happened 56 million years ago is not evidence.
Is there any evidence you will one day realize that to ask for evidence about the future goes against what we understand about time, Chic?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Floating cities: the future or a washed-up idea?
Published: June 2, 2019 4.08pm EDT
….
The technology and types of floating city structures
–No floating settlements have ever been created on the high seas. Current offshore engineering is concerned with how cities can locate infrastructure, such as airports, nuclear power stations, bridges, oil storage facilities and stadiums, in shallow coastal environments rather than in deep international waters.
Two main types of very large floating structures (VLFS) technology can be used to carry the weight of a floating settlement.
The first, pontoon structures, are flat slabs suitable for floating in sheltered waters close to shore.
The second, semi-submersible structures (such as oil rigs), comprise platforms that are elevated on columns off the water surface. These can be located in deep waters. Potentially, oil rigs could be repurposed for such floating cities in international waters.–
….
A viable project?
“Technology is not a barrier to floating cities in international waters. Advances in technology enable us to create structures for habitation in deep sea waters. These schemes have never really taken off because of political and commercial barriers.
While this time round proponents are packaging floating cities in a more politically viable concept as a life raft for climate refugees, commercial barriers remain. Apart from the UN, few organisation have the economic and political influence or reason to deliver a satellite floating city in the ocean. ”
I would say, just political barriers.
My premise is based upon Mars settlement and/or humans becoming space faring civilization.
Or it the simplest terms, launch cost from Earth lowering significantly.
Launch costs have lowered over decades and will lower in coming decades, if for no other reason than the exist reason, the global satellite market. And to some extent, national security interests.
The satellite market lowers costs for lots of things, and has lowered national security interest costs. And in terms of weather forecasting, has saved millions of lives. But one could in terms global news, not as successful as some might have hoped in terms news organizations, though twitter and such things, sort of works. I would say, still evolving. Every nation wants their own satellites, and will probably become, “everyone” wants their own satellites.
Anyhow the use of our Moon and Mars {and Venus orbit] will depend upon exploration of Lunar polar regions and then exploration of Mars.
I would say Musk needs to launch from the ocean and/or use the Moon
in order to to towns on Mars.
Consider that you could find space for the entire world population in the state of Texas.
You don’t have a business case for building floating cities or cities on Mars.
–Consider that you could find space for the entire world population in the state of Texas.–
And…
–You dont have a business case for building floating cities or cities on Mars.–
Musk says he wants to build a city on Mars, and says his business case for it, will be related to creating his starlink satellite network.
It appears to me that with his +2000 starlink satellites in orbit, it is still more or less, in beta testing stage and he has less than 1 million subscribers.
[I might become subscriber at some point.]
But he wants to make it better, and thinks he has to use his Starship to launch bigger and better [and more] Starlink satellites per launch.
But he is launching more Starlink with the falcon-9, two more launch within a week from now:
July 7 Falcon 9 Starlink 4-21
July 8 Falcon 9 Starlink 3-1
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
And they usually do 52 per launch, so if they work, 104 more of them.
The other falcon 9 launch:
NET July 11 Falcon 9 SpaceX CRS 25
Has been delayed until no sooner than July 14, apparently, and related the reuse issues of Dragon capsule.
SpaceX was first company to reuse capsules, and now it’s a standard thing though only allowed to reuse them 5 times- but that might change.
I thought I would check:
“Over 750,000 people worldwide have placed orders for Starlink’s satellite internet, but most are still waiting for service. SpaceX’s Starlink has created a portable version of its service to provide satellite internet for RVs. May 25, 2022”
Oh, I hate being on a waiting list. But 400,000 are on reported on May 25, 2022. So, I guess it’s not very long wait. If it’s only month wait, not too much problem, but it is a problem I was not counting on.
Re: “You dont have a business case for building floating cities”
I was wondering if I should make a business case, but not for “floating cities”. I have more interested floating towns or suburbs and particularly in making surfing areas. Of course one aspect in terms of business case is any liability connected to making a waves which can be surfed. If nature is causing waves, it’s different than constructing something that make surfing waves. Or you can’t sue nature for whatever foolish behavior a surfer happens to do.
Or one thing is surfers don’t like breakwaters. So I thought it would better to put surfing in front of floating breakwater.
So make bigger and better surfing waves and better access to them and safer to surf. Though any big surfing wave is not safe, but crashing into rocks could be eliminated.
Anyhow, in terms of business case, prohibiting surfing, is a safer move than promoting/encouraging surfing.
The nearest things to floating cities are the big cruise liners. You could live aboard as a passenger all year for $80,000.
https://boatinggeeks.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-live-on-a-cruise-ship/#:
Crew are employed to live aboard, but without access to most of the facilities it can’t be much fun.
The rich might like to live aboard a floating city, but I can’t see much enthusiasm among the workers.
Our in-house futurologist is talking about seasteading, EM.
He is willing to go to Mars to protect himself against the evil gubment, so a Madmax offshore platform is not that far fetched for him.
Nope.
It’s about cheap breakwater. Floating breakwater.
And make places to surf. And be on a beach. And scuba.
And fish. Fish parks.
And related to methane Hydrate mining.
And other use of ocean, space ports which include suborbital
travel to places on Earth. Fast travel and less energy needed
to do it.
Not floating cities but floating towns.
OK.
The Ocean is a desert, which can be used for more things then
cargo ocean transport. {and hunter gather type fishing}
Ocean transport is good way to move cargo- better than rail, but not better than pipelines.
One could also have pipelines near ocean surface, and “pipelines”
can also transport people. And without needing to dig tunnels in the ground.
–Willard says:
July 5, 2022 at 11:38 AM
Not floating cities but floating towns.
OK.–
Yes, lots of small towns.
Floating cities are more of a Venus thing.
And could get latter get submerged cities in the Ocean-
people living at different pressure.
So some people might live at 100 atm- a city of
people could live at 100 atm.
small towns can have high population density:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density#Incorporated_places_with_a_density_of_over_10,000_people_per_square_mile
And getting high population density is significant aspect in terms low energy per capita and better living in general.
“You dont have a business case for…”
If that was the only metric for undertaking ventures we would be living in a much less advanced technological world and still be fighting wars with the neighbours in the name of God.
tim f..[” Fluxes are defined at specific surfaces how many watts of EM energy pass through a given surface (not how much flux exists in space). Of course, surfaces exist in space. If I have a surface in space and send two different sets of EM energy through it (eg from two lasers or two lightbulb or two pieces of ice) the energies add and the fluxes add”.
***
EM normally doesn’t pass through surfaces. Maybe glass as in windows but it doesn’t penetrate solid surface mere than a few atom widths.
If you consider a magnetic field, which is a flux, it used to be measured as the number of lines of flux per unit area. If you could squeeze more lines in that area, the magnetic flux intensity increased, but the lines did not add. It’s the same at a surface.
We have created a convoluted scenario by regarding EM as individual photons, then regarding the photons as flux fields. Personally, I don’t buy into that theory, I regard EM as a wavefront. How the emission from electrons as quanta fit into that amalgam is a mystery. The quanta has a frequency based on individual electron frequencies and how that all merges into a wavefront of EM is a mystery. The notion of a photon as a particle of EM, with momentum and no mass, is a fantasy of Einstein’s.
I don’t think the emissions from stars, that produce white light, a mixture of various other light frequencies, is a flux field. It’s called that but I think the reference to flux is wrong. I say that because the EM wave is made up of both an electric and magnetic field with definite frequencies. However, I don’t see how the different EM frequencies could be added.
*****************************
[GR]Any additional heating of a surface due to two fluxes incident upon the surface is a property of the mass, not the addition of fluxes.
[Tim]No, heating is DEFINITELY affected by the amount of incoming energy (incoming flux).
***
Heating is dependent first on whether the electrons in a mass will absorb the EM. According to Bohr’s theory, that’s dependent on the frequency and intensity of the EM. If it is not right, meeting E = hf, it is ignored, and that is the case with any EM from a cooler body.
The amount of heat converted from EM depends on whether the electrons will absorb it and what state the electrons are in at the time regarding the mass temperature.
Blackbody theory was invented well before electrons were discovered in the 1890s and before Bohr’s revolutionary quantum theory in 1913. Therefore, blackbody theory has led scientists astray as to the real action between EM and electrons in the atoms of a mass.
Scientists have tended to base absorp-tion and emission on a totally theoretical blackbody rather than on the actual electrons in the atoms of masses. That’s why we get all the nonsense about EM transferring heat in both directions between hot and cold masses.
“EM normally doesnt pass through surfaces. ”
In this context, a “surface” does not need to be a solid object. In this context, you mathematically define a surface, like a 1 m radius sphere around a light bulb or a flat 1mx1m square at the top of the atmosphere.
“Heating is dependent first on whether the electrons in a mass will absorb the EM. ”
And again, in this context energy is passing through the surface. EM energy on one side becomes thermal energy on the other side. It can only do that by passing from the one side to the other.
“Scientists have tended to base absorp-tion and emission on a totally theoretical blackbody … ”
No, they really don’t. A theoretical blackbody is only a starting point, like a frictionless surface or no air resistance for projectiles.
“Thats why we get all the nonsense about EM transferring heat in both directions between hot and cold masses.”
No, “heat” in the modern sense is the net transfer. EM does transfer ENERGY ‘both directions’ but ‘heat is always from hot to cold’ and entropy always increases. exactly as the 2nd Law requires.
You are so brainwashed by climatology junk science. The word “net” is not in the Second Law. Any combination of systems MUST BE INTERACTING. My peer-reviewed paper on radiation may help you. https://ssrn.com/author=2627605. See Wikipedia: “Laws of Thermodynamics”
Well there is glass.
And then there is gamma radiation, and bubbleheads being required to memorize the tenth thickness of various materials to determine how much shielding is required to keep one safe.
Bob, it is certainly true that many sorts of EM penetrate many sorts of solids. But that is not really the issue.
Flux does not need to be defined for a solid surface to begin with. Anyone who has taken an engineering physics class probably saw Gauss’ Law and integrated E-fields over various surfaces (abstract, mathematical surfaces). It is perfectly legit to simply define a surface anywhere in space.
rlh…[GR]”As Clint has pointed out over and over, if the sources of the fluxes is ice and the surface is at 20C, there will be no warming at all, no matter how many ice sources you provide”.
“RLH says:July 4, 2022 at 3:56 AM
But if the surface is at -20C? or -200C?”
***
Richard…that’s not my argument, it is: heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body via radiation.
*********************
[RLH]”…something that is surrounded by a higher temperature point than that of outer space will mean that an object at its center will cool at a slower rate than if it was in outer space itself”.
***
I think you are talking about Newton’s Law of Cooling. The rate of heat dissipation between a body and its environment is proportional to the temperature difference between them.
Doesn’t really apply to what Clint and I are talking about, that radiation from ice cannot heat a body with a higher temperature. Also, remember that our conversations are about the Earth at terrestrial temperatures.
One of the points supporting AGW is that heat can be transferred from GHGs in a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface that produced the EM to heat the GHGs. That contradicts the 2nd law and represents perpetual motion since the back-radiation is claimed to raise the temperature of the source.
“Richardthats not my argument, it is: heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body via radiation”
So if I surround a body with ice at -10C, 10 meters away, in a vacuum will it cool faster or slower than if it is simply in outer space (assumed -270C) or not? And why?
That has NOTHING to do with the issue, RLH. You don’t understand any of this.
You’re a braindead troll with NOTHING to offer. Mark B captures your immaturity here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1326887
That’s about 50 comments per day! Seek help.
When you stop posting bullshit maybe I will stop posting too. Unlikely as I contribute graphs as well as opinion.
Get help, child.
Idiot.
In space things can cool lower than -10 C or surrounding with something -10 C will keep things inside it at -10 C.
Say had a large thermal mass which was ideally thermal conductive and -10 C
{which is also practically only way to have something at =10 C }
Then something a lot warmer than -10 C should cool around the same rate, until it was close to being -10 C, and then it stays at -10 C
if surrounding ideal conductive mass is -10 C.
Or a human body does not cool from radiate heat loss, it cools by evaporation and convection. Spacesuits are too warm, because both are prevented. Spacesuits use evaporative cooling system [they lose water to space] to keep crew cool enough. Or radiant cooling doesn’t work- or does work very easily- something more massive could work. Hotter thing work better- A refrigerator [using lot energy and massive] could work without the lost of water to space.
We must emit IR. Didn’t you watch Predator?
stephen….I have been thinking of ways to escape the detection of an IR scanner. Looked through a few sites and they make the same mistake of confusing IR with heat. For example, some claim a woolen blanket will block IR, which is false. IR will go through a blanket like a hot knife through butter.
I gave an example of the heart rate monitor I use while walking. It consists of a transmitter attached to a strap around my chest and it transmits to a receiver in a watch on my wrist where the heart rate appears. That transmission frequency is about 5.1 Khz for the Polar devices and up to 2 Ghz for Bluetooth devices, yet both go easily through multiple layers of clothing including heavy winter jackets.
So, how would you hide out from an IR scanner? Some have suggested carrying a large pane of glass. Of course, you’d need suction devices attached to the inner side of the glass so your warm fingers would not appear around the edges.
It’s an interesting problem. Even if you used a metallic thermal blanket, your body heat would increase and likely warm the air around the blanket.
And in space, it would a sharper image.
But keeping a house warm is about reducing convectional heat loss and sealing gaps or cracks. Radiant heat loss is not a significant factor.
“That transmission frequency is about 5.1 Khz for the Polar devices and up to 2 Ghz for Bluetooth devices, yet both go easily through multiple layers of clothing including heavy winter jackets.”
Except IR starts around 300 GHz, so none of that is IR!
” IR will go through a blanket like a hot knife through butter.
Not even close! Here is an actual set of images showing a blanket literally blocking IR!
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/wiwAAOSw~mxfzue8/s-l640.jpg
I thought of that a while back and I don’t have an answer that can be proved. With a vacuum container in a terrestrial atmosphere, it is usually surrounded by warm air, therefore heat from outside somehow affects the walls of the container and its contents.
Here’s an interesting article on that. It claims the environment in space is very different than a terrestrial atmosphere, even inside a vacuum chamber.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/12/23/water-in-space-does-it-freeze-or-boil/
Apparently astronauts in space can urinate then expel the water. When that is done, the water first boils due to a tremendous and instantaneous reduction in pressure, then freezes.
ps. however, heat can only be transferred, by its own means, from hot to cold.
Daily Mean Temperatures in the Arctic 1958 – 2022
Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2022.png
Looks a fairly normal modern year.
Winter temperatures about 4C higher than the long term average.
Summer temperatures just above 0C as usual.
That won’t change until the Arctic is ice free in Summer. At present the surface ice acts as a heat sink. Any available heat goes into melting ice rather than increasing temperature.
The considerable difference between latent and sensible heat releases is shown quite clearly.
Indeed. Global warming shows in the Arctic as increased temperature in Winter and decreased ice extent in Summer. We won’t see increased Summer temperatures until most of the ice is gone.
Just as your Mint Julep stays ice cold until all the ice has melted.
Ice: Specific heat 2.1 kJ/kg/K
Ice to water: Latent heat 334 kJ/kg
Water: Specific heat 4.2 kJ/kg/K
I should add
Water to vapor: Latent heat 2265 kJ/kg
And
Water vapor: Specific heat 2 kJ/kg/K
If this comes up in conversarion i.mention that it takes the same amount of heat to turn 1g of ice at 0C to water at 0C as it takes to raise the temperature of that water from 0C to 80C.
Looked at another way it takes as much heat to melt ice as it does to boil it from room temperature.
Those high latent and specific heats, and ice”s fortunate tendency to float, do a lot to keep our planet habitable.
And the ice does tend to come back every winter.
“And the ice does tend to come back every winter.”
For now.
Eman has switched to a fear-mongering tactic recently.
“For now”
Care to estimate when (if ever) we will be ice free the year round at the poles?
If we keep warming at 0.2C/decade we’ll reach Eocene temperatures in 200 years.
If we manage to control the temperature rise we’ll have to wait until the Bering Strait reopens and currents can flow between Atlantic and Pacific. 20 million years.
I think the global land layout was slightly different in the Eocene.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/efe916bf-0f99-4e65-99ec-b608cfc909bb/palo21157-fig-0001-m.jpg
Indeed. The North Pole was in open ocean during the Eocene with free circulation of warm water across the Pole from the Pacific side.
The paleontologists think that the last Ice Age began when the Asian plate folded around the Arctic and reached Alaska. When the Bering Strait closed the free circulation of warm water cut off and the Arctic froze.
Without artificial interference the Arctic would be expected to stay frozen until the Bering Strait reopens. If we push temperature to the Eocene anomaly +5C, which would take about 300 years at the current UAH rate, the Arctic will melt anyway.
Another possibility is Novopangea, in which the Asian plate moves West until the Pacific closes. This would open the Arctic to free circulation from the Atlantic side.
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-think-earth-s-next-supercontinent-might-look-like-one-of-these
This is not the Arctic.
This is a tiny part of it: that above 80N.
The Arctic starts with 60N for many time series, among them… UAH.
You can’t compare the two, let alone could you meaningfully exchange them in a discussion.
*
I recently posted the difference between various UAH latitude bands:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g5XCRc1tLMH08r_elOGQNdzkUBnkK7R_/view
Feel free to compare the blue and red plots generated by the Savitzky-Golay filter.
Linear estimates in C / decade, original data:
– 60N-82.5N: 0.25 +- 0.02
– 60N-70N: 0.21 +- 0.02
– 70N-80N: 0.28 +- 0.03
– 80N-82.5N: 0.06 +- 0.01
… and for the S-G output:
– 60N-82.5N: 0.24 +- 0.01
– 60N-70N: 0.20 +- 0.01
– 70N-80N: 0.27 +- 0.01
– 80N-82.5N: 0.06 +- 0.01
I’d wonder a lot if it would be so terribly different at the surface.
There is quite a difference in the energy needed at the surface to change water into ice and vice versa.
For instance HadISST shows the surface T at a constant -1.8C where sea water is present when surrounded by sea ice.
You are melting freshwater ice and freezing salt water.
The salt water freezes at –1.2C and you have to separate out the salts, probably extra latent heat.
The freezing of sea ice produces a lot of very cold brine which flows to the bottom of the oceans.
P.S. Blinny: Got an answer yet as to if CTRMs following the recommendations from VP are a viable HQLP filter?
Care to stop stalking me by inserting your egocentric bullshit everywhere, and trying to meaningfully contribute to discussions instead of permanently disturbing them?
How is it possible that a person born in 1948 permanently behaves like an over-opinionated, 15 year old school boy?
So answer the question then.
Care to stop stalking me by inserting your egocentric bullshit everywhere, and trying to meaningfully contribute to discussions instead of permanently disturbing them?
How is it possible that a person born in 1948 permanently behaves like an over-opinionated, 15 year old school boy?
So why not answer the question then?
Yes, we’re discussing the graph Ireneusz put up, which is from 80N; all sea ice and fairly simple physics.
Take a bigger area and the interaction between ice, open water and land makes it more complicated.
Entropic man
” … and the interaction between ice, open water and land makes it more complicated. ”
Yes of course; but it moves closer to reality.
What kind of winter in Australia?
https://i.ibb.co/3Yq3SSn/gfs-nh-sat6-t2min-1-day.png
Stig Petersson
You were asking upthread for a comparison of temperatures in (or near Bjoerklubb) with some other places at the same latitude of 64 degree (North and South).
I finally found some stations with sufficient data for the last 50 years
– Pitea / Sweden
– Reykjavik / Iceland
– Nome Muni AP /Alaska
and
– Base Marambio / Antarctic
Here is the comparison using absolute temperatures
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VFmm34PlgXkGzNCT162ONOtkrR5S91JF/view
and here is that for anomalies wrt 1981-2010
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CzqU-eT_Q_C_gtNgbRYww1qwcHpJEpwY/view
Linear estimates in C per decade for 1971-2022:
– Pitea: 0.27 +- 0.01
– Reykjavik: 0.37 +- 0.01
– Nome: 0.36 +- 0.01
– Marambio: 0.27 +- 0.02
*
Source
GHCN daily (raw data)
https://tinyurl.com/yrd92bbd
Blinny: Got an answer yet for
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327924
Care to stop stalking me by inserting your egocentric bullshit everywhere, and trying to meaningfully contribute to discussions instead of permanently disturbing them?
How is it possible that a person born in 1948 permanently behaves like an over-opinionated, 15 year old school boy?
So why not answer the question then?
Care to stop stalking me by inserting your egocentric bullshit everywhere, and trying to meaningfully contribute to discussions instead of permanently disturbing them?
How is it possible that a person born in 1948 permanently behaves like an over-opinionated, 15 year old school boy?
So why not answer the question then? Is it because you were wrong and don’t wish to acknowledge it?
Maybe he’s George Orwell’s offspring?
Mark B
I forgot to look at your answer in
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327405
Now your grid trend chart
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/climate/uahTltGridTrend.png
is really perfect.
Thanks / Merci
I’m not going away.
So why not answer the question then? Is it because you were wrong and dont wish to acknowledge it?
And I’m not leaving either, Linseley Hood.
Do you really think you can force me to answer your stupid questions?
You are a fanatic supporter of CTRM and low pass filters.
I am NOT because all these tools destroy high deviations in time series as if they were noise.
*
You are not Vaughan Pratt, Linsley Hood.
You are no more than an anonymous, stubborn person who permanently behaves like an over-opinionated, 15 year old school boy.
You are mentally light years away from people like Vaughan Pratt, and only a few millimeters distant from people like Clint R and Robertson.
Will you now FINALLY stop stalking me?
Will you finally answer the question? Or do you consider CTRMs are wrong (as above) even though VP says that they are correct.
Or are you just a coward who does not like to admit that they are wrong in the first place?
So Blinny thinks that Simple Running Means (SRM) are quite correct but that CTRMs (Cascaded Triple Running Means) are wrong (as above) even though VP says that they are much better than SRMs.
” So Blinny thinks that Simple Running Means (SRM) are quite correct but that CTRMs (Cascaded Triple Running Means) are wrong (as above) even though VP says that they are much better than SRMs. ”
You are such a dumb, stupid, morbid liar, Linsley Hood.
I NEVER wrote let alone thought that and you know I never did.
But you are disgusting enough to discredit me by permanently lying.
Which bit? That SRMs are correct or that CTRMs are wrong?
c.f.
“I am NOT because all these tools destroy high deviations in time series as if they were noise”
These tools are SRMs and CRTMs.
binny…”You are mentally light years away from people like Vaughan Pratt, and only a few millimeters distant from people like Clint R and Robertson”.
***
Is that the same Vaughn Pratt, a computer programmer, who messed up the experiment by R. W. Wood by substituting plastic wrap for glass?
I think that describing Vaughn Pratt as a computer programmer does kinda underestimate him.
Oh, here is a place I forgot to look at.
We see Robertson, who has spent his entire life doing nothing of value, once again discrediting an emeritus like Vaughan Pratt, who is not only light-years superior to the liar, stalker and con man Linsley Hood, but even more so to the ignorant fool and braggart Robertson.
Temperatures continue to drop in the western equatorial Pacific. Is eastern Australia ready for more rain?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
From the Functioning Government files:
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak and Health Secretary Sajid Javid quit the UK government in a double blow to Boris Johnson.
The resignations of two of his most senior ministers came just as Johnson was acknowledging in a televised address that it was a “mistake” to promote Chris Pincher in February – two years after being told of a complaint against the Tory MP. Pincher quit as a government enforcer, or whip, last week.
Meanwhile, the government hasn’t explained why the cost of the Ukraine war is “worth paying.” People are angry over the high cost of fuel prices.
Lastly, two climate protestors from Just Stop Oil glued their hands yesterday to the frame of a “masterpiece” by English painter John Constable at London’s National Gallery.
Ignorant leftists don’t realize the painting can be removed from the frame.
maguff…”two climate protestors from Just Stop Oil glued their hands yesterday to the frame of a masterpiece by English painter John Constable at Londons National Gallery”.
***
That typifies the mental level of climate alarmists.
Now Roy has updated the latest data
Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-global.jpeg
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-tropics-1.jpeg
Northern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-nh.jpeg
Northern Extropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-noext.jpeg
Northern Polar
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-nopol.jpeg
Southern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-sh.jpeg
Southern Extropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-soext.jpeg
Southern Polar
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-sopol.jpeg
UAH LT
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah_lt-1.jpg
UAH MT
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah_mt-1.jpg
UAH TP
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah_tp-1.jpg
UAH LS
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah_ls-1.jpg
Updated to get reference periods correct
UAH LT
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah_lt-2.jpg
UAH MT
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah_mt-2.jpg
UAH TP
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah_tp-2.jpg
UAH LS
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah_ls-2.jpg
Roy: Please note that https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/ is still stuck on April 2022.
Richard…at the bottom of the page there is contact info for Jennifer Geary, who is probably the page custodian. Hover over her name for her email addy at UAH.
I have emailed Roy and Jennifer directly.
Now updated to May. Hopefully to June soon.
What do you get out of the monthly anomaly maps? What can be learned from them?
barry, please stop trolling.
A Solar cycle 25 update:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImXV1-pMeEQ
” https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah_lt-1.jpg ”
Jesus what a pack of lies!
Here is a correct use of an excellent Savitzky-Golay implementation (made by a Swedish expert in nanotechnologies):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDEqRAGLabzMjrM0b0VA_PX9oaKk_hRS/view
All plots were generated with second order polynomial level to ensure best regression analysis and S-G coefficients, avoiding too sensitive processing.
*
1. The very first aspect of lying is that Linsley Hood carefully and intentionally avoids to plot his temperature time series in the usual line form.
Not the dots themselves are a lie! Of course they aren’t.
But when you just show dots,
– no one (who knows what the original time series looks like) can check the relationship between the time series and your filter charts;
and
– overlaying your filters on a series of anonymous points, last but not least, makes them appear as if you had added something absolutely essential.
*
2. Linsley Hood’s ’12 month low pass’ can be anything you want but it has nothing in common with a 12 month Savitzky-Golay filter output.
*
3. Linsley Hood’s 5 year Savitzky-Golay output is a pure manipulation.
Never and never does a 60 month S-G filter output look like what he shows. You just need to look at my S-G 120 month filter output to understand what happens here.
Mark B, who uses a Python implementation of the S-G filter, has of course discovered this ‘pot aux roses’ and wrote a comment about that:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1326229
” RLH says: ‘A direct comparison between a CTRM and a S-G of the same window size is the verification step I am using that what I am doing is correct’.
Your SG code produces the same impulse response as the Python library I referenced earlier and it’s not at all the same as the CTRM impulse response.
As a low-pass filter, SG will have high frequency leakage as per Bindidon’s plots.
If youre getting the same output, you’re doing something more than what youve told us. ”
*
It is evident that Linsley Hood is kidding us.
He manifestly either
– uses S-G window coefficients differing from what he writes in his charts
or
– ‘enhances’ the original S-G output by letting it pass through e.g. a CTRM filter.
The latter alternative is most probable when we look at how high the smoothing of his 5 year (60 month) S-G plot compared with my 10 year (120 month) absolutely original S-G output.
There is no high leakage to be seen in his plot!
No wonder: everybody can see that a ’12’ month CTRM filtering has the same effect as a 16 month S-G.
*
4. The very best is for the end.
In many of his charts, Linsley Hood adds some ‘S-G projection‘ at the end of his low pass plots, for example
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/oni.jpeg
This is really incredible. What’s a projection?
/prəˈdʒɛkʃ(ə)n/
According to ‘Oxford Languages and Google’, a projection means:
” An estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present ones. ”
*
Would it not be quite natural to expect a so-called ‘S-G projection’ to start after April 2022, rather than starting in 2003 and ending in April 2022?
Linsley Hood’s so-called, alleged ‘projections’ in fact are nothing else than the end of the Savitzky-Golay filter output for the time series it processed.
I use CTRMs for the majority of the graphs. S-G is only for the extension of that up to the end of the data. It does suffer from ‘end effects’ for the last 1/2 of the window that the S-G uses but this is well known about.
See
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-global.jpeg
Notice the similarities?
P.S. Blinny is not able to claim that VP is wrong about CTRMs but that doesn’t stop him claiming that they are wrong if I use them apparently.
P.P.S.
“Here is a correct use of an excellent Savitzky-Golay implementation (made by a Swedish expert in nanotechnologies)”
Please explain how an S-G smoother does not smooth the data.
“He manifestly either
uses S-G window coefficients differing from what he writes in his charts
or
enhances the original S-G output by letting it pass through e.g. a CTRM filter.”
Wrong completely. I use Nate Drake PhD methods for using S-G with the correct windows.
“1. The very first aspect of lying is that Linsley Hood carefully and intentionally avoids to plot his temperature time series in the usual line form.
Not the dots themselves are a lie! Of course they arent”
The lines represent data points you do not know. Not that it concerns Blinny of course. Only the points at the ends are what the data actually shows.
“2. Linsley Hoods 12 month low pass can be anything you want but it has nothing in common with a 12 month Savitzky-Golay filter output”
In most cases they are CTRMs, not S-G.
“3. Linsley Hoods 5 year Savitzky-Golay output is a pure manipulation”
Liar, plain and simple.
Bindidon says: . . . enhances the original S-G output by letting it pass through e.g. a CTRM filter.
The latter alternative is most probable when we look at how high the smoothing of his 5 year (60 month) S-G plot compared with my 10 year (120 month) absolutely original S-G output.
This is what I had suspected, but . . .
RLH says: . . . Wrong completely. I use Nate Drake PhD methods for using S-G with the correct windows.
A web search for “Nate Drake” and “Savizky” leads to a number of posts circa 2014 as well as to some
code listings on Richards website.
From this it appears that he’s using a cascade of five identical stages of the S/G filter. This would give better high frequency attenuation than a single stage filter thus explaining why his results look different than what one gets from a single stage of the filter. Likewise, if this is in fact what he’s doing, it give results similar, but not identical to the “equivalent” CTRM approach.
Thus the issue is apparently Richard’s failure to accurately communicate what he’s done.
Mark B: “Likewise, if this is in fact what hes doing, it give results similar, but not identical to the ‘equivalent’ CTRM approach”
Similar enough I think. So people can use the Internet (when they want too) and find out something that has been sitting in plain site for a long time now. You didn’t ask how many times I called the S-G, only how I called it. Hence the answer I gave.
A data smoother, to use the phrase loved by those who wish to depreciate things, should smooth the data. In this case over either 12 months or 15 years. Blinny’s and Mark B interpretation of this is to not smooth the data at all but instead let through high frequencies regardless.
Any comment on the differences (i.e. none) between LOWESS and S-G as they use the same algorithm underneath?
Are you going to challenge the CTRMs as well? Or is shooting at Vaughan Pratt just too much for you too.
Remember that the majority of my graphs are based on CTRMs. I only use (mostly) S-G to extend the response curve to fit the gap between that and the end of the latest data.
Or 5 years/60 months in the case of UAH.
If you want the actual differences between my implementation of S-G following Nate’s wonderful insights and VP’s CTRM, flip between
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah_lt-1.jpg
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-global.jpeg
(I label quite clearly which is S-G and which is not)
which shows the 2 approaches. (And I just noticed I have got the reference period wrong on the LT graph. I’ll correct that soon).
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah_lt-2.jpg
RLH says: You didnt ask how many times I called the S-G, only how I called it. Hence the answer I gave.
If we’re being pedantic I asked for “the complete specification of the filter” and the “specific call(s) to the software”.
What’s more interesting about your reply is the admission of conscious intent to mislead. For one to remove any doubt that they are trolling ruins the game doesn’t it?
It is not as though this has not all gone through in great detail before is it? It all started on Judith Curry’s site if you go back far enough.
I have been using the same exact procedure since then as I have made very clear all along.
I have said that I mostly use CTRMs for the graphs. Do you contest those findings?
If you are not contesting that CTRMs produces a ‘no high frequency’ leak through but just that you could not get an S-G (LOWESS?) to produce the same results as I did. Boohoo.
Richard, you were asked for implementation details for a specific filter and you purposefully withheld critical details.
At this place and time, you lied.
Don’t try to make this about something else.
You asked, quite rudely, for the implementation of the S-G in C#. I gave it to you. You asked what parameters I called it with. I gave you that also.
I said that my results compared quite well to a CTRM of the same window length. You contested that. You did not contest that the CTRM was correct (as you obviously did not want to challenge VP).
So I did not add the precise details, which are in the public domain, about how I made sure that the results matched one with the other. You just said that was not possible.
You were wrong. End of.
> quite rudely
Auditors these days. Such delicate flowers.
Willard still an idiot as always.
Willard: Any comment on LOWESS compared to S-G?
Indeed I do, Richard. I asked Indian farmers, and they are very happy you solved a very important to them:
> The wheat harvest losses, which occurred across India, have left the farmers in terrible debt, having loaned money from a middleman to pay for seeds and fertiliser, but all finding themselves with at least 50% less grain to sell. Profits from the harvest were not nearly enough to cover the money owed, and now interest on those debts is rising.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/21/india-wheat-farmers-40c-heat-food-security
So Willard, as usual, has no real answer but instead tries to deflect with something else.
There is no need to fall for your bait, Richard.
However, you might need to experience what you yourself did to Barry and others to get how annoying that could be. For instance:
> Sea levels along almost the entire Indian coast are rising faster than the global average, according to the World Meteorological Organizations (WMO) State of the Global Climate in 2021 report released May 18, 2022.
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/sea-levels-along-indian-coast-rising-at-faster-rate-than-global-average-wmo-report-82910
Any comment?
So Willard do you see the acceleration claimed by the IPCC in the tide gauges as in the video which says that there is none?
So Richard do you see that MarkB asked for implementation details and you provided none?
I provided all that Mark B asked for.
Indeed I set out quite clearly what the methodology I used to determine if what I was doing was correct with regard to S-G. I regard CTRMs as being a ‘gold standard’ in HQLP filters so it is obvious I would use that as a base to compare things to.
P.S. Willard: I thought that VP was your ‘mate’.
You certainly did not provide what MarkB asked for, Richard.
He had to make the search himself for the code.
And even then you have yet to corroborate that it is indeed the code you ran.
And he still lacks the implementation details.
PS: I seldom need to bug Vaughan for his code, e.g.:
http://clim.stanford.edu/agw/
Now that he moved his main code repository, I might.
But then I do not need to check his work.
In contrast to you, I trust he is competent.
So Willard, you agree that VP was correct in his CTRM factors then.
“You certainly did not provide what MarkB asked for”
I provided exactly what Mark B asked for. I have already had a discussion on JC’s site about CTRMs with VP. I took what he said and have implemented it since then.
“you have yet to corroborate that it is indeed the code you ran”
Surprise, surprise, I followed Nate’s recommendation on employing S-G (i.e. a 5 pass, multi-pass S-G) and then had the idea to verify that what was suggested was indeed correct by verifying it against a CTRM. Silly me.
For a guy who read the Auditor you have learned little, Richard.
Nobody but you knows what you did unless they can reproduce it.
Sure, they could replicate your work using their own means, and in a sense it is even better.
But sometimes we wonder about how you got your results, not if your results are robust.
Now is such a time.
“Nobody but you knows what you did unless they can reproduce it”
I set it out quite clearly what I did back in 2013. I set out the methodology I used that showed what I did was verified against a CTRM. It is not my fault that people who have other agendas don’t do their homework correctly.
So you have no idea how reproducibility works:
> To make any research project computationally reproducible, general practice involves all data and files being clearly separated, labelled, and documented. All operations should be fully documented and automated as much as practicable, avoiding manual intervention where feasible. The workflow should be designed as a sequence of smaller steps that are combined so that the intermediate outputs from one step directly feed as inputs into the next step. Version control should be used as it lets the history of the project be easily reviewed and allows for the documenting and tracking of changes in a transparent manner.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
So ideally you should be able to provide turnkey code.
I did that for a while in ‘r’. I have not been asked for my C# code as such, though I have provided the S-G sub-section.
CTRMs are well known and should be re-creatable in everything from Excel upwards. The factors of 1.2067 and then 1.5478 are everywhere.
Just put everything on a repository somewhere, like Github.
People might even help you!
CTRMs are well known and should be re-creatable in everything from Excel upwards. The factors of 1.2067 and then 1.5478 are everywhere.
That won’t tell us what *you* did, Richard.
Willard, please stop trolling.
rlh…”For instance HadISST shows the surface T at a constant -1.8C where sea water is present when surrounded by sea ice”.
***
Sounds about right since salt water freezes at about -2C.
Care to work out how much energy is consumed when turning sea water into sea ice?
Gimme a hint.
See the comments about latent and specific heat above.
I would say about 300J per gram is released not consumed.
Mostly straight to outer space, there being little in the way of clouds or moisture to impeded it.
RLH, I think you need to check some real data for Arctic Ocean in summer months. There’s a frequent occurrence of cloud cover, due to the temperature inversion over the sea-ice. The upward IR emissions are absorbed by the clouds, which then provide some downward IR back to the surface.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic-zone/gallery_np.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Na7yAMQag
Winter is when the ice freezes.
Winter starts at the end of December, Richard.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/seasons/spring/when-does-spring-start
“The seasons are defined as spring (March, April, May), summer (June, July, August), autumn (September, October, November) and winter (December, January, February).”
The Arctic sea ice reaches its lowest point in September, Richard.
Already by October freezing starts again.
At least usually:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/147633/sluggish-start-for-arctic-sea-ice-freeze-up
Tell me more about my mate Vaughan.
“Tell me more about my mate Vaughan”
Ask him yourself. You said that you could.
I should email him either when ice freezes or in winter, whatever comes first.
He’s likely to know which months are in which season.
He also knows about the Arctic.
Shall I just rephrase it, ice does not freeze in summer.
It is strange that Blinny complains that my implementation of S-G is wrong but that the LOWESS of the same window width isn’t. It is not as if they don’t use the same algorithm.
And Mark B for that matter.
Superdeveloping La Nina is sending regards and asking if Bindidong can see it yet ???
https://i.postimg.cc/bvG4zWm3/sdlj.png
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-709017
As you perfectly know, I never see anything.
1. Oh look:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-709048
*
2. MEI V2’s historical context starts in… 1979. That’s like yesterday.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/mei_lifecycle_current.png
But MEI’s historical reconstruction starts in… 1871, babbling Edog.
Here you see all 2 or 3 dip La Ninas since then:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
In two or three months, 2020 will have bypassed 2010 in strength (i.e. index sum):
1892: -54.67
1908: -52.22
1973: -48.71
1954: -40.45
1915: -38.97
1998: -37.66
1873: -36.82
2010: -32.99
2020: -30.35
1970: -25.29
2007: -24.58
1949: -24.45
What is extremely impressing in this current event is its uninterrupted, harsh downward slope.
Here in Northeast Germoney, we don’t see much of it; but I fear for the Australians and all the countries around them. Do you, babbling Edog?
Ask me again
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-936851
Blinny: Sorted out if CTRMs are not to your liking yet?
Care to admit that you are an opinionated, incompetent trickster, Linsley Hood?
Your ctrmed S-G outputs in all your charts are pure manipulation.
As most of my charts are CTRMs….
Meanwhile Arctic temps as shown by DMI continue onward in record low territory for this time of year. Congruent with that is the continued above average smb on Greenland over the last 50+ days.There is a real sea change afoot in the climate happening right before our eyes
Let’s hope it doesn’t get out of control and lead to another mini ice age.
I like to say the SMB is “way above” average. That gets a reaction from the cult idiots.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20220704.png
Clint R
I like to say you are “way below” stupid to see how your bot programming works. Oh course you have zero intelligence since you are just programmed to respond in a certain fashion. You don’t even know what you are posting. Sorry about you being a bot, unfortunately you are not a very good one. You repeat yourself far too often to even attempt at resembling a human.
I see you got a new keyboard, Norman. They burn up quick, huh?
Still no science though. You’re just the same old boring braindead cult idiot.
Found that “real 255K surface” yet?
Ask Graham, Pup.
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://www.theclimaterecord.com/greenland-and-smb
goldminor
I can only repeat that DMI only shows the Arctic above 80N.
For UAH, the Arctic starts at 60N.
UAH trends in the Arctic, in C / decade:
– above 80N: 0.06
– above 60N: 0.25
Does that speak to u?
*
What now concerns Greenland’s SMB: is it really meaningful to consider the last 50 days?
Please have a look at the entire yearly SMB record:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eRgctwzkm3qLMotARudK_ihrtUAGNrEv/view
Do you see the fluctuations from year to year?
Source
https://dataverse.geus.dk/file.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.22008/FK2/OHI23Z/HL78VW&version=273.0
UAH Northern Polar up to Jun 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-nopol.jpeg
More visibility, less tricks
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ywZ8oZm0lGWz1P8A-dBcdjbzbCE8MVQ5/view
That’s how a 60 month Savitzy-Golay smoothing really looks like.
For those who are interested in the filter’s origin:
https://agora.cs.wcu.edu/~huffman/figures/sgpaper1964.pdf
UAH Northern Polar up to Jun 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-nopol.jpeg
is mostly a 5 year CTRM as it says in the caption. The S-G portion is just for the period after 2016.5.
P.S. Look how well the 60 month S-G projection matches the 60 month CTRM in its ‘wriggles’.
” Look how well the 60 month S-G projection matches the 60 month CTRM ”
Of course it does, you trickster! But it does only because it is BY NO MEANS an original 60 month S-G output.
It’s very certainly a 120 month S-G output that you ran an additional low-pass cleaner over.
Stop kidding us all the time, Linsley Hood. It’s hopeless.
So are you saying that the CTRM is incorrect?
“Its very certainly a 120 month S-G output that you ran an additional low-pass cleaner over”
It is not.
Was my comment true or not? You are out in the ozone with your comment. You think that I didn’t know the full extent of the Arctic? Does that negate what DMI has posted? Does that negate the facts that the smb is way up at the moment?
What is the area that the DMI data covers? It’s not the whole Arctic. It’s less than a third of it.
Greenland SMB is above the 40+ yr average for the time of year. We call this weather.
Why do AGW ‘skeptics’ confuse climate with weather all the time?
And why do they not know what the (DMI) data covers?
And the central Pacific is below average also. Is La Nina weather?
SO what if it is not the entire Arctic. Does that mean that DMI does not know what they are doing? You are the only one who seems confused here.
I’m not the one who wrote:
“Meanwhile Arctic temps as shown by DMI…”
It might interest you to know that the Arctic area covered by DMI (North of 80N) is almost entirely icebound year round, which means temps there rarely get much above the maximum temperature of ice.
You can look at 1992, 2004, 2013, and see cold episodes in the lead up to and at this time of year.
https://tinyurl.com/5yrrh2vm
Recent cold is weather randomness, and not a “sea change” in a climate, as you put it.
Right, just toss out blanket statements about what others believe/think. That is so scientific.
Huh? I quoted you. Are you clinically incapable of clarifying, or just embarrassed you posted something you didn’t quite understand?
You can STILL clarify. No one is stopping you.
Did you notice similar temp profiles in previous years?
Do you have a rebuttal to my contention that these fluctuations represent random weather behaviour, and not a climate “sea change” (your words)?
goldminor
” You think that I didnt know the full extent of the Arctic? ”
No.
” Does that negate what DMI has posted? ”
No.
” Does that negate the facts that the smb is way up at the moment? ”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1329490
So your conclusion is that Arctic record lows and above average smb on Greenland are meaningless. I see how you arrive at your conclusions about the state of the planet. You just ignore any evidence to the contrary.
tim f…”heat in the modern sense is the net transfer. EM does transfer ENERGY both directions but heat is always from hot to cold and entropy always increases. exactly as the 2nd Law requires”.
***
Tim…heat ‘IS’ energy, not a net transfer. Modernists are full of horse bleep.
EM IS energy not a transferring agent. Any energy transferred related to EM is EM. So, we have EM radiated isotropically by a hot body which is adjacent to a colder body radiating EM isotropically. Each radiation is intercepted by the other body.
The colder body will absorb EM from the hotter body, hence the colder body warms and that is incorrectly called a heat transfer. No heat is transferred between bodies. Heat is dissipated in the hotter body and disappears and increases in the colder body due to the action of electrons that absorb the EM.
EM from the colder body has no effect on the hotter body. That satisfies the 2nd law, any other modern explanation does not.
Entropy has nothing to do with it since it is a local measure of heat transfer into or out of a body AT A CONSTANT TEMPERATURE. Since no heat leaves or enters either body there is nothing to talk about re entropy.
It is Gordon full of horse bleep as EM absorbed from the colder body has dS positive for the hotter body in the process thus complies with 2LOT.
Sorry, Bally, absorbing anything from a colder body contradicts the 2nd law.
You are both correct.
On the large scale EM energy will always pass from Hot to Cold bodies.
On the Quantum scale EM can travel in both directions.
The difference is that in real life the number of Photons moving from cold to hot is insignificant compared to the hot to cold route that no heating effect in the direction that opposes the laws of Thermodynamics.
trying to argue warming by Quantum mechanics shows little understanding of Physics.
“The difference is that in real life the number of Photons moving from cold to hot is insignificant…”
… less significant but not zero making dS positive in the process so it is Gordon who is full of horse bleep.
In addition to being insignificant at the quantum level, low energy photons are statistically more likely to be reflected.
That’s why “cold” can not warm “hot”. That’s why ice cubes can not boil water. AND, that’s why the atmosphere can not heat the surface.
Only to divide by 2 instead of four while waving your arms can heat the Earth, Pup.
Every Sky Dragon Cranks knows that.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Article says 1850 was the coldest period in the past 10k years:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/07/05/we-live-in-the-coldest-period-of-the-last-10-000-years-2/
That’s cold, seems we are in need of some warming.
We have known for some time that anything (OLS, averages, etc.) that started in the Little Ice Age was bound to show a warming since then.
Ken
Rien de nouveau.
Homewood simply replicated his January thread:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/we-live-in-the-coldest-period-of-the-last-10-000-years/
But this I didn’t find in his stuff:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/12/211215142052.htm
That paper probably doesn’t fit Homewood’s usual narrative.
Imagine! Cold due to warm. Heresy.
“Cold era, lasting from early 15th to mid-19th centuries, triggered by unusually warm conditions”
So we are due a cold spell soon then.
Earth orbit, Moon, Mars: ESA’s ambitious roadmap
by Staff Writers
Paris (ESA) Jul 06, 2022
In a bold vision to secure Europe’s role in space exploration and so benefit from the many scientific, economic, and societal rewards, ESA is publicly releasing its new exploration roadmap after its presentation to its Council, the agency’s highest ruling body.
…
“This new long-term roadmap for exploration is now available to guide decision-makers who will ultimately make the choices on how far to take Europe on the journey of deep-space exploration,” says ESA’s director of Human and Robotic Exploration, David Parker.
…
“We hope that everyone can use this roadmap to make our three-part vision a reality: to continue a strong presence working in low-Earth orbit, to send the first European astronauts to explore the Moon throughout the 2030s, and to prepare Europe’s role in the first historic human voyage to Mars.”
https://www.moondaily.com/reports/Earth_orbit_Moon_Mars_ESAs_ambitious_roadmap_999.html
Well, guess we hear back from the decision-makers.
Which I guess is largely about how “bold they want to push for sending crew to Mars”
I guess it make sense since they part of Mars sample return, I was under the impression most nations were more focused on the Moon.
Nobody is going to Mars
In future, people will.
The question is when.
Nobody
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJzpYfqY56w
“A casual walk-through analysis of Sea level change in Florida, and in particular at Miami. In this video we:
1)Cross-reference IPCC and NOAA Predictions vs Alarmist propaganda claiming ’20 feet’ of sea level rise
2)Juxtapose the unadjusted datasets of the Tide Gauges vs the adjusted and spliced datasets of the Alarmists
3)Examine the effect (or lack of effect) observed on Tide Gauges from C02
4)Calculate the likely relative sea level rise in Miami.
The criticism I directed at [a] particular agency could have been directed at ANY of a dozen agencies which don’t really know the data behind the claims. Whatever that agency does to mitigate storm water or prepare for flooding I’m sure is all well and good, but to the extent it seeks to “combat global warming” or something, it’s just as much a sham as every other agency with visions of grandeur. Their focus might be even more removed: their website makes frequent mention of ‘Racial Equity’, and that sort of thing, so who knows what it really does or why, it isn’t important vis a vis Climate Science”
You started the video with a paragraph full of denialist language. Once it became clear that you were not objective and I was not your target audience, I switched off.
I did not create the video.
Eman watches no propaganda in direct opposition to his propaganda.
At least we agree that the Miami video is propoganda.
So contest the science in it then.
You’re asking a lot of a sycophantic myrmidon.
The only way to behave objective here is to have a look at the PSMSL tide gauge data for Miami
363; 25.768333; -80.131667; MIAMI BEACH
and in the SONEL database, where you can find GPS stations in the near, like
KEY BISCAYNE, MIAMI;
80.16220093;25.73469925;AOML;1997-11-20;4800;363,1858
allowing you to evaluate its up or down velocity with of course the spatial and temporal uncertainties everybody has to account for.
Everything else is pure BS, especially to look only at raw PSMSL data.
So has Perth, Australia (also mentioned in the video) being going up or down GPS wise?
I don’t know. Is the question rhetorical or do you have data?
I was asking Blinny.
I took a quick cruise through some Perth data. Parts of the city are sinking at 6mm/year due to depletion of the underlying aquifier.
The closest tide gauge is showing sea level rise of 10mm/year. That could be accounted for by 6mm of sinkage and 4mm of sea level rise per year.
P.S. The rate of change of all of the sites mentioned does not show the ‘acceleration’ that is claimed for sea levels by alarmists.
Have you checked over there, Richard:
> Sea levels along almost the entire Indian coast are rising faster than the global average, according to the World Meteorological Organizations (WMO) State of the Global Climate in 2021 report released May 18, 2022.
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/sea-levels-along-indian-coast-rising-at-faster-rate-than-global-average-wmo-report-82910
The rate of change of all of the sites mentioned does not show the ‘acceleration’ that is claimed for sea levels by alarmists, including the IPCC.
So contest the science in it then.
So stop being an idiot.
Another Climateball nothingburger from our Hall Monitor.
Willard resorts to playing Climateball with himself.
I won’t watch that video because I read enough about sea level denialism at WUWT in the 5 last years.
In March I ran my little PSMSL/SONEL tool for the last time.
Trends in mm/year for MIAMI BEACH for its lifetime (1931-1981)
– raw, i.e. without vertical land movement correction: 2.4
– corrected: 2.6 (i.e. using a GPS station in the near).
It is of course not correct to adjust old PSMSL data with current GPS data, unless you have a proof based on historical documents.
The numbers are therefore only a hint.
Tide gauges like MIAMI are not included in my PSMSL evaluations because they don’t have data for the reference period I use (1993-2015).
*
The PSMSL gauge nearest to Perth is
111; -32.055833; 115.739444; FREMANTLE
Trends in mm/year for FREMANTLE
(1) for its lifetime (1897-2020)
– raw: 1.8
– corrected: 0.9
(2) for the reference period
– raw: 4.8
– corrected: 2.0
Thus, the coastal region around Perth is in subsidence mode, i.e. land moves down.
This manifestly holds for the vast majority of the Australian tide gauges having data for 1993-2015:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EFIPTzVTNmKpLQHKMtx43NQQuhMM0O2N/view
Again: all corrected numbers are only hints because I extend the GPS data back to the lifetimes’ begin.
I’m a simple layman, and not a group of 10-20 persons compiling hundreds of historical documents reporting over decades about land rebound or subsidence around the gauges.
*
But whether or not my automatic GPS corrections of all historic data are correct: the result could be worse
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19odZaPrchDqr4-rwlC9sby0eEWCWVZRa/view
The point of the video was that the tide gauges did not support an acceleration. All over the world.
From Miami to the world.
The video covered a lot more than Miami.
“A casual walk-through analysis of Sea level change in Florida, and in particular at Miami.”
Richard is certainly not playing Climateball.
In particular does not mean exclusively.
“The point of the video was that the tide gauges did not support an acceleration. All over the world. ”
The satellite data does.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu
The video also pointed out that grafting the satellite record onto the tide gauge one only works if you delete the tide gauge record after the satellite record is added.
It seems that some think that a simple video scientifically surpasses the work of many people over many years.
Here is a chart showing, for various PSMSL evaluation time series, how the trends moved over the decades:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e_fuJ5FZDbf1Uv3m3YbwLfM35qq9oQre/view
It should be evident – even to opinionated persons – that if there was no acceleration ‘all over the world’, the plots all would look like flat lines.
The video suggested that a lot of manipulations and cherry picking was going on.
Trends in mm/year of course.
And it seems that what a video ‘suggests’ matters more than the corroborating results of completely different groups and persons.
It does not wonder me that an opinionated, incompetent, persistent liar accusing me of things I never wrote, sucks – out of a video ! – unproved statements a la ‘lot of manipulations and cherry picking’ as if it was lavender honey.
Blinny is just cross that things are not as simple as he (incorrectly) claims.
Racial Equity and ‘Climate Change Claptrap’ have a lot in common; they’re both intellectual pap designed to gaslight the population. Its right up there with the SOGI agenda and COVID mandates.
The purpose is instigating ‘Great Reset’ aka ‘The Big Lie’.
“gbaikie” and “Willard” added to de-crufter; “Entropic man” is on notice for encouraging them. 😉
Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hclipzie2ycrpoo/AADQpHxvvrOMbtYmsRvJ4z6ua?dl=0
WizGeek disqualified from the human race for shoving.
Cf. “Men at Arms” by Terry Pratchett.
“Pride is all very well, but a sausage is a sausage.”
— Gaspode, of course (Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms)
Good move
Super Duper Double Whammy La Nina Update:
> These farmers, who are on the frontline of the climate emergency, say they have little option to adapt their way of life even as the heat worsens. They still burn their wheat stubble, which contributes to Indias terrible air pollution, as they cant afford any other method to clear the field. They still plant rice paddy a heavily water-dependent crop despite warnings that the water table of Punjab is plunging rapidly, as it is the only crop they can be assured of selling at a good price.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/21/india-wheat-farmers-40c-heat-food-security
Are you saying that the current La Nina is caused by AGW?
No, Richard.
I am saying that you lied to Mark B.
I did not lie.
So you say.
I am also suggesting that Eboy is a bit silly.
Willard being an idiot as usual. I thought that VP, of CTRM fame, was a ‘mate’ of yours.
Not all the mates of Vaughannare my mates, Richard.
You are returning to spamming your latest pet topic wherever you comment last.
Are you replying using email?
Ask Vaughan if he supports the factors that he recommended I use of 1.2067 and then 1.5478 for CTRMs.
You know where that rhetorical question leads, Richard.
It refers to the Climateball episode in which you based your work on the work of GregG, but in fact it was a misinterpretation of what Vaughan did, without attribution it goes without saying.
And you already know why I know all of this.
It was in discussions with VP that I was given the factors I now use. They are not the same as Greg came up with.
Willard resorts to playing
Climateballwith himself.I know about these exchanges too, dummy:
https://judithcurry.com/2014/01/27/early-20th-century-arctic-warming/#comment-443642
I miss BartR, my favorite minarchist.
“Richard Linsley-Hood 2014-01-24 05:53 PM The green wriggly lines don’t exist?
Nate Drake 2014-01-24 05:57 PM No they don’t.”
So one one hand CTRMs which simply show the averages for the data in 12 month, 5 year or 15 year segments but on the other hand the traces so created don’t exist.
You’re right. In a way, spuriousness exists.
Do you deny the output of a CTRM exists as Nate did?
Let me repeat what Nate told you many times, Richard:
“REGIONAL TELECONNECTIONS (e.g. AMO, PDO, etc) do NOT cause global warming, they do not produce energy or retain more of it in the system they only redistribute what is already there.”
In a way, you are prone to the same fallacy as Sky Dragons Cranks commit when they pretend they can get more than 240 W-m2 by waving their arms very fast.
Strawman. I never said that AMO, PDO, etc. in themselves caused warmer temperatures.
I have purely said that CTRM and S-G show what movements there have been in the data.
Of course, not, Richard:
In response to a comment where I was telling EM that you were Just Asking Questions, no less!
Willard, please stop trolling.
stephen p anderson
Here is a video that seems to reflect your view on things political.
I think it is entertaining and well done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LI4UEHUvtM
He is saying May is warm in India:
–Is Delhi always hot?
For most of its summer season, Delhi has a semi-arid climate. Coming from Spring, the city witnesses a spurt in day temperature around early April, whereas nights still remain pleasant. By the latter part of April or during early May, maximum temperatures exceed 40 C (104 F) while the ambience remains very dry. —
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Delhi
Right now it’s cooler and going get some rain in few days.
The “still remain pleasant” appears to me to be night temp of around 30 C. Which around 10 C warmer nights than compared where live- which near the hottest place in the world.
It is not the first time that a La Nina has caused problems in India.
Btw, I would think a water buffalo likes water.
Farmers do not farm at Delhi, Loopy.
There are more than a few farms in Delhi.
https://www.revv.co.in/blogs/resorts-and-farmhouses-near-delhi-for-a-day-picnic/
Is the Delhi region in its capital, Richard?
Willard being an idiot as usual.
In the contrarian universe, a farm that is 251 km away from Delhi is in Delhi.
Try ‘Delhi farms’ in google.
Read your own damn link, Richard.
*Away from Delhi* means it refers to the region of Delhi, not the city.
I thought comtrarians were long on the UHI effect.
Try ‘Delhi farms’ in google. Some are a lot closer than you think.
Teh Google does not make you conflate New Delhi with Delhi NCT, dummy.
A lot of the addresses are in New Delhi.
Weak sunspots (low magnetic activity) are approaching the solar equator, which means an increase in the strength of the solar wind. As a result, the latitudinal circulation will strengthen and the full La Nina will return in November, when the Humboldt Current will be at its lowest temperature.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
You are shattering Bindidong’s hopes
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1294434
RLH
“Are you saying that the current La Nina is caused by AGW? ”
You’ve been saying so for months. Have you changed your mind?
I have not tried to link AGW and La Nina or El Nino. For now or for the last century or more. Indeed I have been saying that the extremes are NOT covered or caused by AGW.
You’ve been pushing a possible increase in La Nina frequency for months. If so it correlates with increasing temperature.
If AGW is not the cause, what alternative do you have? A Nobel Prize beckons!/sarcoff
“If so it correlates with increasing temperature”
More cold water in the central Pacific means warmer temperatures? Are you sure you got that the correct way round?
It looks like the maximum sea surface temperatures (i.e. El Nino’s) have not changed that much in over a century.
” More cold water in the central Pacific means warmer temperatures? ”
You’ve been saying that warmer global temperatures mean more cold water in the Pacific.
“It looks like the maximum sea surface temperatures (i.e. El Ninos) have not changed that much in over a century. ”
Clarify. That sentence can be interpreted in two ways.
Are you talking about anomalies, in which case you are saying that the amplitude of the ENSO oscillation has stayed the same?
Or are you talking about actual average temperatures, in which case you are suggesting that the amplitude is decreasing as average sea temperatures rise but maximum El Nino temperatures remain unchanged?
“Youve been saying that warmer global temperatures mean more cold water in the Pacific”
No I haven’t. I asked if someone believed that.
“Are you talking about anomalies, in which case you are saying that the amplitude of the ENSO oscillation has stayed the same?”
Exactly. AGW says otherwise, at least in how it is normally presented..
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-6.jpeg
which is not detrended, says that for 130 years the maximum El Nino temperatures have not changed.
Richard is Just Asking Questions, EM.
“Richard is Just Asking Questions, EM. ”
Curses! Caught out by another Climateball(TM) move.
EM: Willard is just an idiot.
EK: Michelle L’Heureux is the one suggesting that La Nina like conditions have been increasing in frequency in the last 40 years, not me.
Do you believe her?
“….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.”
Don’t feed the trull.
Sometimes feeding Eboy is too hard to resist, Kennui.
Sorry.
Willard, please stop trolling.
–Were having a heat wave, a tropical heat wave. Also a temperate heat wave and an Arctic heat wave, with temperatures reaching the high 80s in northern Norway. Climate change is already doing immense damage, and its probably only a matter of time before we experience huge catastrophes that take thousands of lives.
Opinion | Another Step Toward Climate Apocalypse The New York Times (nytimes.com)–
Sheer fraud!
According to the Evening Standard, temperatures in Tromso reached 30C, or 86F:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/06/norway-heatwaves-are-perfectly-normal-despite-what-paul-krugman-says/
Seldom is the question asked:
> Norway saw its temperatures rise to 32.5C in Banak on Wednesday the highest temperature ever recorded in the Article Circle in Europe and well above the June average of 13C. Troms, which is above the Arctic Circle, hit 30C on Tuesday.
Have contrarians ever learned to read?
Some people read a lot more than alarmists require.
“However, it is all change through this week. An area of low pressure close to Iceland will move eastwards into Scandinavia, introducing much cooler air over Norway and Sweden initially, with temperatures falling below average on Monday and for the rest of this week. Northern parts of Norway, which exceeded 30C last week, will struggle to reach double figures through the remainder of this week. Northwesterly winds will feed this cooler air through central parts of Europe and down towards Italy and the Balkans later in the week, finally allowing temperatures to drop back to or below average in these areas, bringing welcome respite”
The circulation forecast in the lower stratosphere for July 15 indicates a westerly circulation over Europe. The latitudinal position of the jet stream over the Atlantic can be seen. Cool air from the northwest will continue to flow in until then.
https://i.ibb.co/Lvm2v1j/gfs-t100-nh-f00.png
https://i.ibb.co/qrq14b2/292483823-461755865951395-1984623529075132392-n.jpg
Not only PaulM mistook the two places involved, his rebuttal of the claim for June temps consists in citing yearly graphs of mins and maxes!
Willard, please stop trolling.
I thought it might be useful it point out where we are at, in terms of becoming a spacefaring civilization.
First, we are far from it, but hundred years ago we far from where we are at in terms of having and using electrical power.
And it seems to me, becoming a spacefaring civilization will not follow the same pattern as getting and using electrical power.
Or one can say, poorer countries could be said to not really fully have electrical power at the moment. And seems these poorer countries could leap ahead, rather lag behind in terms becoming spacefaring.
Richer countries are “leading the way” sort of, but as I said we far from becoming a spacefaring civilization, and who will be leading it in terms of say, two decades from now.
But this about where are we at now.
We have reusable first stage rockets.
And we have 3 D printing of rockets.
And we making satellites, in same way we made cars, 100 years ago-
mass producing them.
{And UK wants to mass produce nuclear powerpower plants}
Mass producing satellites is a pretty big thing as is reusing the first stage of a rocket.
And right now, we have richest person in the world, about to test launch a rocket which is planned to be fully usable.
He wants a city on Mars. But to do this, he first want global satellite network. Or going to use the giant reusable rocket to launch this global satellite network.
And satellite network is important in terms of next couple of years- or it’s happening, now.
Or before anyone can mass produce nuclear powerplants, we should have
this global network. And could have global network, before the Starship can counted as “fully reusable”.
Or fully reusable Starship is more about this city on Mars than launching satellites. Or starship which is being expended rather than reused, will be a very cheap rocket in terms payload to orbit- and that is what is needed to launch satellite.
Or fully reusable rocket is about getting crazy cheap in order to make a city on Mars.
Or Falcon-9 has reusable first stage, but Falcon-9 can be used as expendable first stage [in order to deliver a larger payload to orbit]. Same applies to Starship, it can be expendable though trying make it reusable {whole purpose it to get to being reusable as far as Musk is concerned- but as expendable it’s cheaper than any rocket- including the reusable Falcon-9 or Falcon Heavy [the cheapest rockets in the world]}.
So, within few years, world is going to have global satellite
network and if it has 100 million people using it, it will be cheap, and if 1 billion are using it, it will even cheaper.
Or every country in world gets cheap connection to fast internet.
Saving trillion of dollars for everyone in the world.
India and Africa and many other countries will get what they couldn’t get.
I was in middle listening to Mr Adams:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgtPheMTcYs
Episode 1796 Scott Adams: What To Do With All Of The Dangerous Teens
Though Scott didn’t say, but in terms context I realize what to do about dangerous teens was preserving dangerous teens. Which is good point, And also never mention Mars, but he was making a case for Mars without knowing he was. Or I and others regards Mars as a “New America”. Or a new frontier is the general wording used.
HadISST for April 2022 North to South profile in 1 degree bands, surface area averaged.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/hadisst.jpeg
The presentation supports the observation that 30N to 30S is 50% of the globe’s surface.
The temperature of the open ocean ranges from -2 C to 31 C.
Average temperature in both hemispheres.
33:2=16,5
I was more interested in the fact that they did not change that much in the maximums over such a wide range of latitude bands.
We need to see how this changes over a year. I am well do a series on that.
….I may well do….
The HadISST N-S cross section for the first few months of this year
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/hadisst-2022-1-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/hadisst-2022-2-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/hadisst-2022-3-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/hadisst-2022-4.jpeg
Due to the average atmospheric pressure, the maximum surface temperature of the open ocean cannot exceed 31 degrees C, because at 30 degrees strong convection is immediately triggered. Evaporation can only reduce the increase in the mass of the atmosphere.
Pay attention to the western Pacific.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=wpac×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_wpac_1.png
“the maximum surface temperature of the open ocean cannot exceed 31 degrees”
But AGW has no such limits.
Movement in HadISST over the last year
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/hadisst-animated.gif
Just read an article in which the BOM claims the water around Australia is warmer than normal due to the LN. The conditions are producing excess rain, typical of an LN.
I guess that means the water off the western coast of South America is colder than usual.
https://www.foxweather.com/earth-space/rocket-launch-scrubbed-evacuations-flood-australia
Current conditions world wide
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
It’s interesting how the distribution of water temperatures become affected like that. Look at the blue wedge emanating from South America toward the north of Australia.
The last 90 day animation is wroth looking at too.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_90day_large.gif
I said above:
“And what regard as most important question, what would Mars temperature be if completely covered by bright white H20 snow?
Why did I say that?
It’s doesn’t matter what Mars air temperature is, so that is not why
I said it was most important.
I know that, but it few people seem understand this. So that one understands this could be somewhat important.
Mars fans {I am not really a Mars fan] think they have to warm Mars, to make it more like Earth.
Or Mars fans don’t understand how cold Earth is.
Ie, you might want to go to Mars to not be as cold as living on Earth, this particularly true if you are a Russian. But also true if living in colder parts of Canada or US. And China can also be quite cold in places. Though not many people live in the colder places of
Earth. Or a lot people in areas which are more tropical, such as like Southern California near the coast. Like tropical but not necessarily in the tropic zone, though also large number are within tropical zone. But one live within the tropical zone and live at highest elevations and be quite cold.
Anyhow, it’s bad idea to add to Mars thin atmosphere, cause if add a lot Mars gets colder and solar panels don’t work as well. And most importantly, it cost a vast amount of money and as important, wastes a vast amount of time.
It also as stupid as hoping to find alien life, which could make Mars uninhabitable. One should look for life, but like looking something which could be dangerous, it’s not a Christmas present or winning lottery number.Of course scientists want to find alien life {did mention that humans were predators? Of course scientists are madly interested.}
SpaceX rolls Starship prototype to launch pad ahead of orbital test flight (photos)
By Mike Wall published 40 minutes ago
Ship 24 just made a big move.
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-rollout-launch-pad-photos
I was thinking a problem with Starship launch is the crowds.
Maybe others also thinking about this “problem”. Or it seems possible
the test launch might happen without days or weeks of warning.
Or rather promote it, give the minimum of warning time needed [for legal and safety reasons. So, not give enough time for a large crowd to get there.
Ah, the good ol’ days:
[WEB] Richard, It’s like you are starting from a newborn state. Don’t throw away the data! It is telling us information.
[BART] I’m really curious about Richard’s argument, from the point of view of his citation of NathanD who fundamentally not only disagrees with Richard’s claims, but who did so in exactly the exchange Richard cites while casting it as if Nate’s argument supported Richard’s, when in fact Nate’s case is quite fatal to Richard’s… and then Richard later in comments cite’s Vaughan for support, when Vaughan’s arguments and methods are fairly well-known to us and we ought understand that Vaughan has exactly the diametric opposite view of what Richard purports.
[WEB] But Bart, that is exactly how to sow FUD. Keep everyone guessing.
[RICHARD] I just get you do not know how engineers solve problems all the time. Based on good scientific principles.
Source: Judy’s
Are you talking to yourself?
So you found it. That wasn’t hard was it? Did you read it all?
“Vaughans arguments and methods are fairly well-known to us and we ought understand that Vaughan has exactly the diametric opposite view of what Richard purports”
A tool can be used by others whoever creates it. I simply report what CTRMs show.
A tool indeed, Richard.
Willard being his idiotic self.
Web is a guy who writes that kind of books, Richard:
https://tinyurl.com/4dvv6sbx
He might know a bit more about science and engineering than you have inferred.
So I duly submit you should tweak up a bit that inference engine of yours.
Might come handy one day.
I’ll just use what mathematical methods that others, much better than me, have created.
CTRMs are MUCH better than SRMs even though that is the ‘go to’ method that is used by many. They do suffer from one disadvantage, the period they cover is shorter than SRMs. So I started adding in S-G ‘extensions’ to help overcome that problem. As this is the same as LOWESS in essence I thought that this would be fairly uncontentious. Silly me.
You can even use the same argument Nate uses to argue the opposite Nate argues, Richard.
Tools are that powerful.
But the point here is that you are utterly incompetent in judging character.
Data shows what data shows.
P.S. HQLP filters do not throw away data. You can get the stop band (i.e. the other data) back by subtracting the pass band from the original data. In digital there are no losses for that operation.
By your logic, Richard, no tool ever throws out any data unless they erase the files on which they operate.
Strange thing about digital data, is that to turn a low pass filter into a high pass one is a simple mathematical exercise using the original data, with no actual losses incurred.
That’s called a function, dummy.
Oh, a function. I would never have thought of that. By the way, what I said is true.
What you said was besides the point.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Goldminor’s comment upthread motivated me to move from the yearly time series for Greenland’s surface mass balance since 1840:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eRgctwzkm3qLMotARudK_ihrtUAGNrEv/view
to a more classical SMB chart, i.e. a superposition of daily accumulated data (here baselined by January 1 in each year, for all years since 2011), together with the 1991-2020 climatology, i.e. the daily means for that period:
https://tinyurl.com/mtv6epuc
We see immediately that 2022 indeed is way above the 30-year mean.
*
But happy is he who gets smart from the order of the years determined on the deadline of August 31 (day 243 if I well recall):
2018
2013
2017
2021
2020
mean
2014
2015
2011
2016
2019
2012
What was the cause for 2018 being at top, and 2012 at bottom?
Maybe someone is that smart :- )
Source
https://dataverse.geus.dk/file.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.22008/FK2/OHI23Z/3XRE3B&version=273.0
A nice way to observe how much the Tropics affect global sea surface temperatures is to generate latitude weighted, monthly anomaly time series out of Hadley’s HadISST1 SST data for the entire period (1871 to the present), run a smoothing tool on them and display the result in a chart:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EgG2fxTxsswsNV-gwSOLyWKTGTqITcEi/view
While the hemispheres (green versus blue) differ greatly, the agreement between the black and red lines over large parts of the time series tells us everything.
*
Source
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
And yet there are papers that say the ENSO is just as active now as it was a century ago.
And news stories about how this effected global temperatures.
“1878: Strong El Nino
In 1878, there was a strong El Nino (where warmer water rises to the surface of the Eastern Pacific Ocean) and this is seen very clearly as a large spike in global temperature. This event was remarkable for an extreme drought in India where it is an estimated more than five million people died. There were droughts in nothern China also associated with this El Nino. The famine caused by the drought in India spurred scientists to begin work on climate patterns, leading eventually to discovery of the El Nino-related ‘Southern Oscillation’ – the idea that the ocean and atmosphere are connected”
HadISST1 SST trends: Tropics (20N-20S) vs. NINO3+4 region
– 1871-now: 0.04 vs. 0.02
– 1979-now: 0.08 vs. 0.03
The S-G trickster’s inability to avoid comparing what is not comparable (36 Mio km^2 vs. 0.7 Mio km^2) is amazing, and perfectly matches
– his brazen allegations about rounding errors in my calculations I never made and he never was able to prove
and
– the school boy level of his USCRN station and HadISST1 SST evaluations.
In the Tropics, 50 % trend difference is a lot like everywhere else.
*
For the S-G trickster, no temperature difference in the ENSO region between a peak in 1878 and a peak in 2016 manifestly means… no warming.
No wonder he acknowledges a primitive YouTube video, made by an Anonymous
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM4ietBSC-3LZv-QWzYxUwQ
that claims sea level rise is all but nonexistent.
For all Blinny’s bluster
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-6.jpeg
is the actual Nino 3.4 data for the Nino 3.4 area with a 15 year CTRM (and a small S-G to continue that up to today with the same smooth wriggles in it as the CTRM).
The data comes from NOAA/HasdISST. The main methodologies come from Vaughn Pratt and Nate Drake.
“no warming”
I said quite clearly no PEAK warming.
It was 15C here in Vancouver, Canada late last night, and raining. Last summer on the same day we were setting records for high temperatures, in the 30C range.
I was wondering if 15C was near a record for cold temperatures for July 5th at 15C but apparently not. The following almanac for Vancouver International Airport, which only gives temperatures till 2012, claims 2002 had the lowest temperature at 8.5C. The highest, till 2012, was 1958 at 27.8C.
https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_data/almanac_e.html?month=7&day=5&StationID=889&period=30&searchMethod=contains&txtStationName=Vancouver
Last year the government and media were waving their arms and screaming about climate change. This year, not a peep.
They did hike the carbon tax.
Rocco Galati, on behalf of Action4Canada is taking several BC government officials to task in court for their role in COVID mandates and abuses of Charter Rights and Freedoms.
We need to be getting court action to stop carbon taxes. Make the liars personally responsible for their lies.
Progress by incompetent politicians is aenabled by irresponsible people like you Ken, that are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I was just reading through their site, in the legal actions section. It’s interesting that since legal action began, many levels of government have backed off on masks, vaccinations, etc. Guess the fear of being sued r held liable is scaring them straight.
https://action4canada.com/legal-action/
binny…”Here is a chart showing, for various PSMSL evaluation time series, how the trends moved over the decades:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e_fuJ5FZDbf1Uv3m3YbwLfM35qq9oQre/view
It should be evident even to opinionated persons that if there was no acceleration all over the world, the plots all would look like flat lines”.
***
Another Binny special showing his inability to fudge graphs never mind produce a legitimate graph.
The abscissa is marked 1900 – 1995 yet under the abscissa it is labelled ‘From 1900 – 2015 till 1995 – 2015′.
The ordinate has no units, ranging from 1.0 – 3.5. At the top of the page there is a mysterious title…’Consecutive five-year distant linear trends’ but there are no linear trends on the graph.
Then Binny claims it should be evident, if there was no acceleration ‘all over the world’, the plots would all look like flat lines.
The graph conveniently cuts off before the 1998 El Nino and the following 18 year flat trend. I guess Binny’s Excel wizardry managed to high the 1996 – 2015 reference below the abscissa.
Sometimes, on rare occasions, Robertson – who behaves as one of the dumbest contributors to this blog due to his dislike of studying anything (that would be appealing to authority) – is just RIGHT.
He is namely even PLAIN RIGHT when writing
” The ordinate has no units, ranging from 1.0 – 3.5. ”
I apologize for this evident mistake. Corrected.
*
” The graph conveniently cuts off before the 1998 El Nino and the following 18 year flat trend. ”
Oh Noes. An 18 year flat trend in sea levels…
No need to further comment Robertson’s usual nonsense.
I presume the reason your graph has an end date of 1995 has to do with the period for which you’ve calculated the trend, but it would be better if there were an annotation explaining this.
It’s not clear if the 1995 end date is the beginning of a 20 year trend calculation, the middle of a 40 year trend calculation, or something else.
Skeptics will find a rational for rejecting the plot regardless, but not all of their rationalizations are without merit.
mark wapples…”On the Quantum scale EM can travel in both directions.
The difference is that in real life the number of Photons moving from cold to hot is insignificant compared to the hot to cold route that no heating effect in the direction that opposes the laws of Thermodynamics”.
***
What quantum scale? First I’ve heard of it.
It doesn’t matter how many photons move between masses, the significant factor is how many are absorbed in either direction.
In quantum theory, which is based on the interaction of negatively charged electrons in atoms with the positively charged nucleus, only electrons can change energy levels. So, Bohr postulated that electrons needed to be constrained to discrete quantum level orbitals around the nucleus.
He also stipulated that the relationship between electron transitions between those quantum levels and absorbed or emitted EM is E = hf. He verified the relationship by deriving the known hydrogen emission spectra.
From that we know a certain frequency and intensity of EM is required, if absorbed by electrons, to move electrons (transition) from one orbital level to another.
The ‘f’ in E = hf, as applied to electrons , is the angular frequency of the electron in its orbit. When an electron produces EM, the EM takes the angular frequency of the electron in its upper orbit and its intensity is the difference in electron volts between the orbits over which it translates.
If an electron is to absorb EM, the frequency of the EM must match the orbital energy level frequency to which the electron is to move. After all, frequency is related to the velocity of an electron in an orbit by v = velocity. The frequency is the angular frequency, the number of times the electron orbits per second, and that depends on its velocity.
The kinetic energy of the electron in that orbital is dependent on the same v since KE = 1/2mv^2. Having spent years in the field of electronics, I tend to look at this as a resonance problem. As is often the case in electronics, especially with filters and high frequency transformers, they operate at a certain bandpass frequency.
Frequencies trying to pass through those filters and transformers, which are represented by electrons vibrating back and forth in the circuit, at those frequencies, pass through them easily if their frequency resonates with the filter/transformer frequency. If they don’t resonate to a degree, they are rejected.
In a mass at a higher temperature than an adjacent mass, the electrons in the hotter mass are already elevated to higher energy levels than in the cooler mass. Also, the electrons in the cooler mass have a lower angular frequency. Therefore, if a quantum of EM is emitted from a cooler mass its intensity and frequency are too low to affect the electrons in the hotter mass.
As temperature is increased in a mass, the electrons gain more and more kinetic energy as they rise to higher and higher orbital energy levels. If the temperature rises high enough, the electrons will gain enough energy to escape the atom, and the mass breaks down.
That’s basically why EM emissions from a cooler mass have no effect on a hotter mass.
Gordon Robertson
Did you get that fantasy physics from your friend Gary Novak? You just basically are making up stuff and not even trying to find out what the actual physics is saying.
Here:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Book%3A_ChemPRIME_(Moore_et_al.)/05%3A_The_Electronic_Structure_of_Atoms/5.12%3A_Electron_Density_and_Potential_Energy
As an electron moves to a higher orbital it does not gain kinetic energy but loses some, it slows down. I gains potential energy.
Also you do not seem at all able to comprehend that NOT all electrons are at higher energy levels in a hot object. It is a statistical science and it does work with large numbers.
In a cold mass of air you will have some molecules moving faster than some molecules in a hotter gas. You have a wide spectrum of molecular kinetic energies in both hot and cold gas.
I really doubt you studied any physics. I think most of your made up ideas come from bloggers like Gary Novak and others. You have zero foundation in any real understanding of the science world. You demonstrate endless misinformation on all things science.
Nothing can alter you course. You are not smart but have a huge ego. You can’t accept that you are a low brow thinker so you cling to any simple explanation on science. It is why you can’t accept black holes, relativity, real statistical quantum mechanics. Your world is a fantasy.
Norman, before you burn up another keyboard, would you provide the physical location of your “real 255K surface” and your valid technical support that ice cubes can boil water.
Thanks.
Strong Appeal to Clint R programmer(s). You have made a very repetitive bot. It repeats the same loops over and over. Alexa has better programming. If you want to pass a BOT off as a human you have to really try to make it less repetitive. Add a little change in the subroutines once in a while, maybe have a random variable inserted. Also it lacks memory. You can spend a hundred posts explaining things and it has zero memory of any previous conversations. I think with effort you may be able to make a more human-like BOT to stimulate discussion. I think more and more posters are seeing Clint R as a BOT and not an actual human to interact with. Thanks. Good luck in your efforts to make a more human-like BOT.
It was easily predicted Norman, you can’t support your bogus beliefs. No surprise here.
As you go down in flames, you can be comforted that your cult hero, Folkerts, joins you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1328954
norman…” You just basically are making up stuff and not even trying to find out what the actual physics is saying”.
***
You’re too stupid to understand physics at this level, Norman, you are just spouting off. Anyone who refers to a scientist like Stefan Lanka as a fraud is not dealing with a full deck. Lanka discovered the first virus in the ocean, and won a court case in Germany defending his science,
I am quoting Neils Bohr, I suppose you regard him as a fraud as well.
Shake your head. If an electron absorbs EM, or heat, it gains kinetic energy, it doesn’t lose it. If it drops down one or more levels, it loses kinetic energy.
“If an electron absorbs EM..”
More horse bleep from uninformed Gordon just making up stuff, Bohr found the composite atom or molecule energy level absorbs the photon not the electron as the elementary particle electron’s mass is fixed. The photon’s quantum energy level coincides with the transition energy of the composite atom or molecule when the photon is absorbed.
I think EM refers to Electromagnetic Radiation which is a photon. The atom or molecule can release its energy in the form of a photon or through collisions, thus releasing it in the form of kinetic energy. The total energy is potential energy plus kinetic energy. A boulder at the top of a mountain has potential energy. If the boulder starts rolling down the mountain, its potential energy decreases, and its kinetic energy increases. It can eventually come to rest after it transfers all of its kinetic energy to other objects. It will then be at lower potential energy.
Kinetic energy has a velocity or movement component and potential energy has a distance component. Same with atoms and molecules.
Those of us who are chemists prefer to call that energy binding energy rather than kinetic energy.
It has something to do with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
Gordon Robertson
You need to consider that the electron in an atom is in a strong electric field with the proton.
It is similar to gravity except the quantum aspect where the change of state is incremental and not continuous.
https://www.wired.com/2010/11/changing-orbits-and-changing-speed/
This article explains objects in a gravity field. As the object moves farther away (it does take energy to get there) it loses kinetic energy but gains potential energy. Use this to understand the electron in an electric field.
You can also understand it by throwing a ball upward. The kinetic energy is highest when you release the ball, it loses kinetic energy as if moves upward but gains potential energy.
This is similar to the electron. When it jumps to a higher energy level it loses kinetic energy but gains potential energy.
norman…”This article explains objects in a gravity field. As the object moves farther away (it does take energy to get there) it loses kinetic energy but gains potential energy. Use this to understand the electron in an electric field”.
***
There is no comparison between a body orbiting in a gravitational field and an electron orbiting a nucleus. You suggested earlier that an electron orbits in a strong electric field with a proton. That’s not really the case.
Consider a hydrogen atom with 1 proton as the nucleus and its electron. The proton is about 1800 times the mass of the electron but each has an equal and opposite charge. There are Coulomb forces between the two particles, attracting them to each other, but the electron is moving at a very high velocity tangential to the proton field.
That raises an interesting question, how the two fields interact. The electron has a negative electric field and when it moves, it produces a magnetic field around it. I have no idea how that combo would interact with the proton’s positive field.
Electrodynamics theory suggested that an orbiting electron should lose energy and collapse into the proton. Bohr solved that problem by proposing that electrons are confined to certain quantized orbital energy levels. There is no explanation for that, it just works mathematically.
In a gravitational planetary system, there is no such thing as quantized orbits. Also, planets would not emit energy as EM if the dropped to a lower orbit nor has anyone seen a planet rise to a higher level by absorbing energy.
With satellites, it can be demonstrated using Newtonian physics, that increasing the velocity will raise the satellite to a higher orbit. If you increase the velocity, you increase the sat’s kinetic energy.
Remember, the sats’s KE is tangential to a radial line and you are describing KE along a radial line, that is, vertically.
“With satellites, it can be demonstrated using Newtonian physics, that increasing the velocity will raise the satellite to a higher orbit”
But objects in lower orbits (closer to the main body) travel at a greater orbital radial velocity, not lesser.
To go ‘higher’ you have to slow down! Confused the heck out of early astronauts.
There’s a lot more than just electrons’ energy levels that are quantized. For instance, rotational, vibrational, and translational states are quantized. Also, nuclear spin angular momentum is quantized, etc.
If the cooler atmosphere could heat the surface you could then fabricate a perpetual-motion engine. LOT doesn’t allow it.
“If the cooler atmosphere could heat the surface you could then fabricate a perpetual-motion engine. LOT doesnt allow it.
Yet curiously, all else being equal, a planet with an atmosphere containing greenhouse gases has a warmer surface than a planet without GHGs.
There’s either a problem with reality or a problem with some people’s interpretation of the LOTs.
“If the cooler atmosphere could heat the surface you could then fabricate a perpetual-motion engine.”
That would be called an atm. heat engine stephen 6:45 am. The atm. heat engine would run until the sun eventually stops it, so no perpetual motion.
stephen p anderson
The cooler atmosphere doe not “Heat” the surface. it does add some energy but the amount it adds is usually less than what is being emitted by the surface. Heat being the net energy loss from a hot surface to a colder one. Heat loss would be the energy emitted minus the energy received by the colder surface. The net energy is the heat loss from the hot surface and the heat gain by the colder surface.
Because the surface is constantly heated by the Sun the colder atmosphere will reduce the HEAT loss and therefore cause the surface to reach a higher temperature with the solar input.
You’re confused by thermodynamics, Norman.
The “colder atmosphere” is not causing the surface to have a higher temperature. It’s NOT the atmosphere. It’s the sun.
BOT Clint R
Not confused at all. You are not human and have no memory built into your program loops so you will just demonstrate a lack of understanding what I posted. Sorry get your program upgraded. At this time you are not even good for stimulating discussions. There are better programs out there than you.
Norman, I’m sorry you lost your cult hero. I’m sorry you’ve never studied thermodynamics. I’m sorry you cannot support your claims.
But, I’m glad you believe calling others “BOTs” makes up for you incompetence and immaturity.
That’s why this is so much fun.
BOT Clint R
You still have not had your program upgraded. You go to the same subroutines over and over. I thought maybe you were a learning program. Taking in new material from what human posters add to your core memory. It seems that you must not be able to acquire additional data to allow alternate posting material. Basically it is the endless repetition of a limited AI BOT. I again appeal to your programmer(s) to upgrade their software to create a slightly less repetitious BOT.
I feel your pain, Norman.
You don’t understand any of the science, so you have to make up nonsense. But, you never can support your nonsense…because it’s NONSENSE.
You need to learn that nonsense isn’t any better than NOTHING.
Hope that helps.
Clint R
I guess I can see you are trying to come up with some new material but if I compiled all your posts you would see endless repetition of the same things. Try again, maybe if you keep up attempts a paradigm shift may just take place and you achieve the dream of all AI, consciousness.
Got any support for your nonsense, Norman?
Or are you just gonna be here trolling all night?
Gordon,
“The f in E = hf, as applied to electrons , is the angular frequency of the electron in its orbit. When an electron produces EM, the EM takes the angular frequency of the electron in its upper orbit and its intensity is the difference in electron volts between the orbits over which it translates.”
This is unmitigated bullshit.
Try this source
https://socratic.org/questions/how-does-bohr-s-model-of-the-atom-explain-the-line-spectrum-of-hydrogen
And note that the frequency/wavelength/energy of the EM emitted from a hydrogen atom depends on the level the electron drops too, from a specified level.
The EM frequency of photon emitted from the n=6 level depends on whether it drops to the ground state, or the n=2 or the n=3 level, with the wavelength being 94, 410, or 1094 nm respectively.
So you need to review your Bohr model and stop pedaling bulshit.
Good old Bob links me to a guy by the name of Gio.
I have already explained your sudden illumination that the frequencies emitted by an atom depend on the orbital levels over which the electrons drop.
However, what I said still holds, and you failed to address it.
“The f in E = hf, as applied to electrons , is the angular frequency of the electron in its orbit. When an electron produces EM, the EM takes the angular frequency of the electron in its upper orbit and its intensity is the difference in electron volts between the orbits over which it translates”.
The frequency of the emitted EM is the angular frequency of the electron at the higher level. It’s intensity is the difference in eV between orbital levels. The electron not only gives up energy to the EM it gives it a frequency as well.
“The frequency of the emitted EM is the angular frequency of the electron at the higher level. ”
This is so OBVIOUSLY wrong. An electron in the 6th energy level of a Hydrogen atom can product 5 different frequencies of light.
Gordon,
The link I posted contradicts this statement.
The f in E = hf, as applied to electrons , is the angular frequency of the electron in its orbit. When an electron produces EM, the EM takes the angular frequency of the electron in its upper orbit and its intensity is the difference in electron volts between the orbits over which it translates.
Remember the relationship Frequency times wavelength equals the speed of light.
The source I posted provides wavelengths, but frequency is directly related to wavelength.
Take another look at Bohr, and remember, he got some things wrong with his theory that have been better developed. His theory is actually referred to as old quantum theory.
Try the newer updated model.
willard…”[maguff]two climate protestors from Just Stop Oil glued their hands yesterday to the frame of a masterpiece by English painter John Constable at Londons National Gallery.
***
Is that why you were absent recently? How did they get your hands off the pic?
C’mon, Gordo.
You were the absent one.
W
We know that when you are absent in body and mind, your spirit is always with us. It gives ushow you say.sustenance to be better muchachos. You are our guiding light.
Not everyone has access to Andres Manuel’s psyche, Fernando.
Consider yourself lucky.
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Self-Described+Marxist+Batya+Ungar-Sargon+&t=hs&va=l&ia=web
By mid-July, cold air will flow into Central Europe from the northwest with precipitation. By the middle of the month, the jet stream will align latitudinally over the Atlantic, meaning a westerly circulation and more precipitation in Europe. A third La Nia peak is forecast for November. Very low winter temperatures in Argentina and South Africa. An easterly circulation in the western Pacific will bring more precipitation to eastern Australia and southeast Asia.
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20220715&daytime=day&iid=euro
Argentina
– day
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20220715&daytime=day&iid=AG
– night
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20220715&daytime=night&iid=AG
South Africa
– day
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20220715&daytime=day&iid=ZA
– night
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20220715&daytime=night&iid=ZA
*
And it’s winter there, ren, like here on January 7!
What the heck are you telling us?
In winter, minimum temperatures are important, and there are highs in these countries.
https://i.ibb.co/NNSYYfx/Screenshot-2.png
ren
You are dodging around the fact that you report ‘Very low winter temperatures’ which are nowhere existent at the places you mention.
This is as if you would speak about -5 C being ‘Very low winter temperatures’ in Poland’s January.
Laughable.
Warmistas aren’t good for us, but Coolistas are even worse.
Warmistas such as you?
Galactic radiation still higher than in previous solar cycle.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
His own personal Brexit!.
The gift that keeps on giving: Boris Johnson resignation Sky News (Benny Hill theme)
Who will replace him?: https://c.tenor.com/bGgv8ew9uNAAAAAC/mr-bean.gif
My guess: it will be worse than what you show.
But hopefully the Tommies will better know.
For the record, Benny Hill’s theme song is Yakety Sax by Boots Randolph.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnHmskwqCCQ&ab_channel=CalebH
Boots played backup on some Elvis songs and with other artists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_Randolph
I miss old Benny, wish he was still around. Hopefully he is chasing scantily-clad women in his new abode. He had many admirers…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Hill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ8tYvyye64
SEPARATING SCIENCE FROM PSEUDOSCIENCE FOR FLOODS AND EXTREME PRECIPITATION
Mar 13, 2022
Jim Steele
Wouldn’t you know that Trenberth is front and centre with the pseudo-science? This guy is a menace. He has interfered in peer review, admitted global warming had stopped then claimed the missing heat was being absorbed by the ocean, and helped block skeptic papers from reaching the IPCC review stage, according to his partner Phil Jones of Had-crut.
Now he is lying about extreme weather events being related to global warming.
North Atlantic Oscillation (NOA) for Jun 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/nao.jpeg
AAO for Jun 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/aao.jpeg
Earlier AAO data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/aao-to-2012.jpeg
P.S. HQLP filters do not ‘throw away’ data. You can get the stop band (i.e. the ‘other’ data) back by subtracting the pass band from the original data. In digital there are no losses for that operation.
By the Australian standards the La Nina ended (for now) – the climate disagrees.
Everyone of the places flooded in Australia has been flooded in the past and was well known to flood again, they just don’t do anything about it. They keep building houses in those flood plains , no flood proof infrastructure, no drainage channels , no nothing, instead they build solar panels and windmills as if that was going to stop it,
They have government of the debils, by the debils, and for the debils,
Why should anyone feel sorry for them ?
https://youtu.be/s_NQ8SIdfa8
According to BOM it hasn’t ended. They admitted the current flooding is due to LN.
Why not quote the BoM instead of telling fairy tales?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
“The 2021–22 La Niña event has ended.”
https://media.bom.gov.au/releases/1034/key-climate-drivers-behind-record-rainfall-in-new-south-wales/
“While the Bureau of Meteorology's latest climate driver update confirms the 2021-22 La Niña has ended, there are several other climate influences associated with above-average rainfall in eastern Australia…
The July rainfall event was influenced by the Indian Ocean Dipole, likely to become negative in the coming months, and the positive Southern Annular Mode (SAM).”
Why oh why do AGW ‘skeptics’ continually tell fairy stories?
Why not quote the BoM instead of telling fairy tales?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
“The 2021–22 La Niña event has ended.”
https://media.bom.gov.au/releases/1034/key-climate-drivers-behind-record-rainfall-in-new-south-wales/
“While the Bureau of Meteorology's latest climate driver update confirms the 2021-22 La Niña has ended, there are several other climate influences associated with above-average rainfall in eastern Australia…
The July rainfall event was influenced by the Indian Ocean Dipole, likely to become negative in the coming months, and the positive Southern Annular Mode (SAM).”
Why oh why do AGW ‘skeptics’ continually tell fairy stories?
Super triple developing La Nina – too bad you didn’t see it coming,
You could be a climate hero.
Instead you ended up a climate clown,
Now the Australians will sue Bindiwrong for the wrong forecast and flood damages.
https://youtu.be/_v6RUQEdvVk
Babbling Edog
There is currently one real clown here on this blog – and that’s you.
You, Edog, claim to be a pilot?
Are you serious?
I can’t even imagine a sane pilot behaving like you do here all the time.
I bet Bindidong could not figure out which way the wind blows and fly a kite.
You’d be amazed who they let learn to fly. I was an amateur pilot myself until declining health grounded me.
It’s rather like motor bikes; you have to be sharp enough to do it and daft enough to want to.
I assume it was declining mental health as you liberalism disease took a hold of you
” No acceleration in sea level data ”
I have read that claim years ago already.
Let us look at the trend sequence chart:
https://tinyurl.com/mr2btm5d
and therein at the black plot related to the best time series in the chart below (Dangendorf):
https://tinyurl.com/2zzrnfmh
The black plot in the trend sequence chart represents the following, consecutive 5-year distant linear trends, in mm/year, starting with that computed for 1900-2015 and ending with that computed for 1995-2015:
1900-2015: 1.4 ± 0.01
1905-2015: 1.4 ± 0.01
1910-2015: 1.4 ± 0.01
1915-2015: 1.4 ± 0.01
1920-2015: 1.5 ± 0.01
1925-2015: 1.5 ± 0.01
1930-2015: 1.5 ± 0.01
1935-2015: 1.5 ± 0.01
1940-2015: 1.5 ± 0.01
1945-2015: 1.5 ± 0.01
1950-2015: 1.6 ± 0.01
1955-2015: 1.7 ± 0.02
1960-2015: 1.8 ± 0.02
1965-2015: 2.0 ± 0.02
1970-2015: 2.1 ± 0.02
1975-2015: 2.2 ± 0.02
1980-2015: 2.4 ± 0.02
1985-2015: 2.5 ± 0.02
1990-2015: 2.7 ± 0.02
1995-2015: 2.9 ± 0.03
*
The reason for computing this trend sequence is twofold.
1. On lots of blogs, you repeatedly see commenters claiming that the altimetry-based sea levels can’t be correct because the tide gauge trends (i.e. those they have seen here and there) all are arond 1.6-1.8 mm/year, whereas altimetry trends are around 3 mm/year.
This is misinterpreting and misrepresenting the reality, because the tide gauge trends they refer to are those computed for the gauges’ lifetime (sometimes over 100 years), and not for the altimetry period.
For the period 1995-2015, the trend for NOAA’s sat altimetry is
2.7 ± 0.1 mm/year
i.e. even a bit lower than the tide gauge average trend of the Dangendorf evaluation (2.9).
You can verify that for nearly any PSMSL tide gauge record, e.g. Fremantle near Perth.
(a) for its lifetime (1897-2020)
– raw: 1.8 mm/year
(b) for the reference period (1995-2015)
– raw: 4.8
*
2. On these blogs, you also repeatedly see claims saying that the gauge data are ‘linear’ and hence no acceleration in sea level rise can exist.
Well: if there was no acceleration anywhere, then the trends for all these 20 consecutive periods shown above would keep the same, namely 1.4 mm/year.
*
A detail that was interesting for me was that, with the exception of the outlier NOAA, all trend sequence plots were pretty close to one another – despite completely different evaluations of sometimes very different data sources.
*
In my opinion, the origin of lots of polemic about sea level rise is due to this NOAA chart:
https://tinyurl.com/bd88kbfp
because it shows raw tide gauge trends, instead of showing trends corrected wrt vertical land movement around the gauges.
Sources can be posted on request.
Latest alarmist boogeyman, WATERWORLD!
Things can only get worse.
So, the claim is that the world sea level has risen 75 to 100 feet since the start of the Holocene. Yet, the city of Ur used to be a coastal city. So, how is it farther away from the coast than it was 5000 years ago? Just wondering. I know the claim will be it was at the mouth of the Euphrates and so sediment has been deposited. The ruins are still way above sea level. Any explanations?
Here’s an explanation. Students go into geology because it’s easy credits. Same with anthropology and astronomy. In other words, scientists responsible for theories about ice ages, etc., are not likely to be the better scientists.
Look at Michael Mann, a geologist, who now professes to be a climate scientist.
More than 100 meters rise.
Peak Holocene was something like 1 to 2 meters higher. Australia didn’t have ice sheet and probably best land mass to measure global sea level rise. Other continental masses are rebounding from losing glacial mass. Though Africa other than it’s effect from rift valley should also be stable
What many people don’t get is that the solid surface is also rising and falling. So, have we had a sea level rise or a solid surface lowering, as in Houston. Cities like Miami and Houston are likely sinking below sea level due to the weight of structures in the city.
Yeah, Venice is a perfect example. Nothing to do with sea-level rise. Look at all the ancient coastal cities around the world. They’re still there.
“So, the claim is that the world sea level has risen 75 to 100 feet since the start of the Holocene. Yet, the city of Ur used to be a coastal city. So, how is it farther away from the coast than it was 5000 years ago? Just wondering.”
Holocene starts 11,600 years ago. The vast majority of sea level rise occurred prior to 6000 years ago.
Sea level rise from the founding of Ur to the end of the 19th century is about 0.7mm/yr, which is a total of 3.5 meters.
River sediment could easily account for that much coastal build-up over 5000 years.
But one must also factor in land elevation changes, which could amplify or dampen global changes at the local level: local sea level change.
The evidence that there is suggests that 5000 years ago sea level around the gulf region was higher than today.
http://people.rses.anu.edu.au/lambeck_k/pdf/171.pdf
http://people.rses.anu.edu.au/lambeck_k/pdf/239.pdf
https://www.scirp.org/html/3-1140038_52979.htm
Bindidon, what is Earth’s sea level supposed to be?
Hiding behind an endless supply of figures is fine, if the figures mean anything.
Mt Everest was once underwater. Is that included in all your data?
Thanks for the dumb reply, Clint R.
As usual, you are ‘ball-om-a-string’ing.
But not only you do…
My comment was entirely reality-based, Bin.
Why you hate reality is something you need to address.
” What many people dont get is that the solid surface is also rising and falling. ”
Ha ha haaah.
Genius Robertson suddenly discovers for us that thousands of people working in the area aren’t even a bit aware of data like:
https://www.sonel.org/IMG/txt/ulr7_vertical_velocities.txt
What does the dumb layman Bindidon use, when he performs VLM correction during the generation of tide gauge series?
Any idea, genius?
stephen…”Theres a lot more than just electrons energy levels that are quantized. For instance, rotational, vibrational, and translational states are quantized. Also, nuclear spin angular momentum is quantized, etc.”
***
I get that, but quantum theory is based on the electron and it’s interaction with the protons in the nucleus. I am not presenting myself as an expert, I am struggling to understand this stuff, even after learning and working with the theory over many years.
I have forced myself to focus on the actual physical particles involved, mainly because that’s how I learned electronics theory. When you talk about vibrational and rotational states, you are referring to molecules. However, ‘molecule’ is a name for two or more atoms bonded by electrons or charges produced by electrons.
Internal vibrations in a mass, of say pure copper, are due to the attraction of electron and protons and the repulsion of protons against protons. Since protons are always in the nucleus, that means repulsion of Cu nucleii against each other. Any times Coulomb forces act, there is always vibration.
In molecules, there are other issues but they also involve only protons and electrons. There is nothing else in a molecule can produce vibration and rotation except the related charges of electrons and protons, mainly electron charges.
Consider the CO2 molecule …
O=====C=====O
It is a linear molecule. The dashed lines represent dual electron bonds either side of the carbon atom, which are covalent bonds. Oxygen is more electronegative than carbon therefore the shared electrons tend to be found closer to the oxygen atom. That forms a dipole each side of the C-atom which is -ve on the O side and less negative (hence relatively positive) on the C side.
There are three kinds of vibration. Symmetrical vibration between the C and O atom on either side means the O and C atoms move apart and closer symmetrically. Asymmetrical vibrations is when those vibrations are out of phase. A third vibration is rotational (CW and CCW) about the C atom to a slight degree.
There is also a rotation about the axis through the O-C-O atoms. Don’t know what causes it unless it’s due to collisions imparting a torque about the O-C-O axis.
All of this vibration is related to electronegativety related to electrons. Meantime, the valence electrons bonding the atoms can translate. If a valence electron absorbs EM, it will rise to a higher energy level, creating more vibration.
It should be noted that electrons in atoms fill certain orbital level based on a formula. The valence electrons are in the outermost shell. However, each orbital level has its own transitions.
Furthermore, the ground state level in electron volts varies from atom to atom, therefore translations between orbital levels involved different potential levels in eV. That’s why different atoms emit different frequencies which we see as different colours. Sodium, for example, emits a yellow colour due to electron transitions.
I think vibration and rotation can be explained by electrons alone.
Quantized vibrational energy states have nothing to do with electrons absorbing photons. The molecule absorbs the photon and goes to a higher vibrational state.
Rotational, translational, and vibrational states are quantized. God created a Universe with very discrete rules.
The solutions to the differential equations are all quantized.
You do have electrons change energy levels when they absorb photons, that’s a different spectrum. It has nothing to do with IR modes.
And EMR is transmitted/absorbed in a set of variable wavelengths which are not quantized.
Wrong RLH. ALL naturally emitted photons are quantized.
And if I go 0.1 m/sec (or 10m/sec or 100m/sec or….) faster towards the source, how do I ‘see’ those photons?
ball4…”More horse bleep from uninformed Gordon just making up stuff, Bohr found the composite atom or molecule energy level absorbs the photon not the electron as the elementary particle electrons mass is fixed. The photons quantum energy level coincides with the transition energy of the composite atom or molecule when the photon is absorbed”.
***
Talk about horse bleep. Bohr dealt only with the hydrogen atom which is not a molecule. He did not talk about atomic energy levels he talked only about the energy levels of electrons, which he hypothesized are quantized. His basic formula relating electrons to different energy levels, E = hf, was borrowed from Einstein and Planck.
In E = E2 – E1 = hf, E2 and E1 refer to the quantized energy level over which the electron moves. Each is reference to the electron ground state.
Later, Schrodinger tied it all together mathematically, for hydrogen, using parameters like the charges on the proton and electron and the atomic radius of the electron in ground state.
A photon does not have a quantum energy level, it has only electromagnetic energy of a certain intensity and frequency. Only electrons have quantized energy levels and that is the basis of Bohr’s theory.
Gordon, in the free atm. (the thing of interest on this blog) hydrogen exists as H2 (mostly escaped) which is a molecule, same as N2, O2, CO2 etc.
The electron particle does not have a quantized energy level which the composite molecules do exhibit. It is obvious that Gordon is very uninformed on atm. molecular quantum energy levels.
Gordon Robertson, you’d think that 35 days would be enough time, even for you, to properly learn how the Bohr Frequency Condition works! But, noooo…
Here’s what you said on June 2, 2022 at 7:17 PM:
“…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.”
Do yourself a favor and look up Bohr’s Nobel Lecture of December 11, 1922. Read it carefully. Take your time and enjoy it.
P.s.:
rlh…The last 90 day animation is wroth looking at too.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_90day_large.gif
***
Yeah, it’s interesting to follow the blue, colder water. It seems to be flowing around the golden wedge at the tip of SA but the source is not clear, likely the Antarctic.
Then I looked up our way along the California coast and up to Canada, and see the cold water moving up our way. That likely explains our cooler summer thus far.
The main problem is that the sea surface temperature is made up of 2 components, one following the trade winds across the surface and one from below (upwelling).
That is how things can change quite rapidly in any given area with no apparent warning beforehand.
Super triple dipper developing La Nina effect – Filipino edition
https://youtu.be/0CZTN4tv5r8
Overnight temperatures in Argentina.
https://i.ibb.co/qD0Fkxv/Screenshot-2.png
The polar vortex in the south is strengthening.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.aao.cdas.png
No one explains how C02 warms Earth:
They say it’s like a greenhouse and other specifically say it’s
not and waste a lot of time explaining simply.
I thought give it crack at saying it simply.
Earth surface on average radiates about 40 watts directly into space.
And if Earth had no CO2 in the atmosphere than Earth average surface “might” radiate directly to space about 45 watts.
I am not trying to be accurate rather trying to be simple.
As compared to:
–Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas. This means that it causes an effect like the glass in a greenhouse, trapping heat and warming up the inside.
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/quick-questions/how-does-carbon-dioxide-increase-global-temperature.html —
Or:
Carbon dioxide absorbs heat that would otherwise be lost to space. Some of this energy is re-emitted back to Earth, causing additional heating of the planet.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jun/19/observerfocus.climatechange
Or:
–How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?
by Sarah Fecht |February 25, 2021
How does carbon dioxide trap heat?
Youve probably already read that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases act like a blanket or a cap, trapping some of the heat that Earth might have otherwise radiated out into space. Thats the simple answer.–
–But how exactly do certain molecules trap heat? The answer there requires diving into physics and chemistry.–
So, not I not going to dive into physics and chemistry, rather just give a simple answer.
Now, I imagine my simple answer is more simple. And better chance of
being close to correct.
Now Earth has never had no CO2. Nor never had no H20.
And I am not giving simple answer to the doubling from 280 to 560 ppm.
I am just going for simple.
Some could say it’s more the 5 watts or less than 5 watts.
But if Earth was the same temperature, and just removed all CO2
from Atmosphere would increase the claimed number of 40 watts on average going directly in to space?
And what better number than +5 watts?
I like Happer’s description. His number is 3 Watts if CO2 is doubled from 410 to 820 ppm. https://ddears.com/2021/01/12/dr-happer-explains-effects-of-co2/
My understanding is that CO2 at the current concentration contributes 30W to the approximately 290W that make up the total greenhouse effect.
That is 3 W per square meter distributed over the earth’s surface area of 510,072,000,000,000 square meters.
TM is producing barrels of oil from the atmosphere.
We’re going to be floating in oil!
‘That is 3 W per square meter distributed over the earths surface area of 510,072,000,000,000 square meters.’
Someone should tell Biden.
So if no C02, I am saying 45 watts goes directly in to space.
Ken seems to be saying 70 watts goes directly to space rather than about 40 watts?
Remember there is still same amount of water vapor.
According to my view, one can control global air temperature by having a warmer or cooler ocean.
Happer like others may think higher CO2 levels can cause higher temperature and higher water vapor.
It seems to me that without water vapor a lot more watts goes directly to space.
Is your +30 watts going directly into space include removing water vapor, also?
Ken has the bogus GHE producing about twice the energy as the bogus solar reduction.
Funny.
The bogus 30 Watts alleged to be absorbed by CO2 wouldn’t get to space because the bogus H2O absorp.tion spectrum is the same as the bogus CO2 absorp.tion spectrum. The only bogus global warming from bogus CO2 emissions occurs when there is not bogus water vapor in the atmosphere such as occurs during bogus winter conditions where the bogus water vapor is frozen out of the atmosphere in the form of bogus snow and ice.
Correct Ken, the AGW nonsense is all bogus.
You can NOT boil water with ice cubes.
‘Ice cubes are bogus’. Got it.
The planet mean surface temperature New equation is written for planets and moons WITHOUT atmosphere. The results of calculations are remarkably exact!
When applied to Earth (Without Atmosphere) the New equation calculates Earth’s mean surface temperature very much close to the 288K.
It happens so because Earth’s atmosphere is very thin and, therefore, doesn’t have any essential greenhouse effect on the Earth’s average surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Would Earth without an Atmosphere have as many Volcanoes as Earth does?
Earth is a perfect place to live because we have adapted to it.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth would be less perfect when it’s hit by another 50 km diameter or larger space rock.
Know any out there?
–The largest known NEO is the asteroid 1036 Ganymed, which is about 25 miles (41 km) long. Most NEOs are smaller than 0.6 miles (1 km), according to NASA scientists.–
Near earth objects {NEO} are the most likely space rocks which do hit Earth. 1036 Ganymed is not going to hit Earth is less than 1 million years [probably- Space rocks tend to calculated only for couple centuries and they can’t really be very precise beyond a few centuries, but since 1036 Ganymed is so large, someone probably tried guess whether 1036 Ganymed might hit Earth over longer periods, just for a news story.
Anyhow, the NEO population is considered to be young [about 2 million years, as they would be tossed out of this NEO space or hit something within within the 2 million years. Or new NEO objects get added over millions of years of time.
But Earth can hit by a comet {long period comets are not NEO, and long period comets have low chance of hitting any of inner planet because they are long period orbits. And long period comets are likewise have instable orbits- or we get new comets, also. Also we get comets which period of orbit is a billion years, these could more stable as they don’t come near the near planets often.
And will also get space rock from interstellar space, which probably just pass thru our solar system once.
There lots space rocks bigger than 50 km in diameter and chance of them hitting Earth within a few centuries is low.
Now, 200 meter diameter space rock hitting Earth is not fun, could be worst than nuclear war, but it’s not going to change Earth much, and 50 km diameter rock would change Earth, a lot.
And Earth is going to hit by many 50 km diameter space rocks. Or Earth as we know it, should last another 1 billion years.
But humans should focus on time periods less than a century.
And less than 100 years is very unlikely.
One reason Earth has high chance of being hit, is we don’t know where Sol will be in 100 million years, we could get close to another star.
And within 1 billion years we should get close to many stars.
It’s unlikely we will know where we will be in 1 billion year within a time period of less than 100 years. But within 100 years we might know where we will be in less than 100 million years.
Or roughly know where everything will be in relation to Sol within say 50 million years in the future. But it terms next million years, we should know that within a few decades. With James Webb and other telescopes not built yet.
Sorry, gbaikie: I disagree.
That we humans are what we are: is that not indirectly due to the asteroid that hit Earth in Yucatan 65 M years ago, which marked the beginning of the mammalian age?
And… what would the Earth be like today if it hadn’t been hit by a great celestial body 4.5 G years ago, a collision that gave birth to our Moon?
Oh, you’re one of those who believe all mammals evolved from mole rats in 65MM years?
At least he is not one of those who believe that everything happened in the last 5,000 to 6,000 years or so from a book written by humans.
Sorry Bin, but the “Giant Impact” hypothesis was debunked the instant it came out. Like other lunar nonsense, the cult clings to it, rather than accept reality.
An orbit requires two vectors, one provided by gravity, and one provided by tangential velocity. An impact can not provided a tangential velocity.
If you want to learn about orbital motion, the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string is a good place to start. The simple analogy demonstrates the two vectors necessary for orbital motion.
A ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbits.
>At least he is not one of those who believe that everything happened in the last 5,000 to 6,000 years or so from a book written by humans.
So that’s the only two scenarios? If you don’t believe mammals evolved from a single mammal the size of a mole rat 65MM years ago, then you must believe in the Biblical account of creation?
You want to pose other options, feel free.
Biblical account is about what God did. Not a word about how.
“An impact can not provided a tangential velocity.”
More deniers declaring darndest drivel.
A tangential impact provides a tangential force.
Drat, another typo — It should be: An impact can not provide a tangential velocity. Thanks, Nate.
For RLH, that means tangent to the new orbit, not a tangent impact to the impacted body. Again, study the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. It will clear up a lot of confusion for you.
Drat, another typo — It should be: An impact can not provide a tangential velocity. Thanks, Nate.
For RLH, that means tangent to the new orbit, not a tangent impact to the impacted body. Again, study the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string to learn about orbital motion. It will clear up a lot of confusion for you.
still drivel.
Wiki:
“The first interstellar object which was discovered traveling through our Solar System was 1I/ʻOumuamua in 2017. The second was 2I/Borisov in 2019. They both possess significant hyperbolic excess velocity, indicating they did not originate in the Solar System. Earlier, in 2014, an interstellar object impacted the Earth, as confirmed by the U.S. Space Command in 2022 based on the object’s velocity.”
…
–2014 interstellar meteor
Main article: CNEOS 2014-01-08
CNEOS 2014-01-08, a meteor with a width of 0.45 m (1.5 ft), burned up in the Earth’s atmosphere on January 8, 2014–
…
Oumuamua is a small object estimated to be between 100 and 1,000 metres (300 and 3,000 ft) long, with its width and thickness both estimated to range between 35 and 167 metres (115 and 548 ft).[11] It has a red color, similar to objects in the outer Solar System.
…
Early estimates of nucleus 2I/Borisov diameter have ranged from 1.4 to 16 km. 2I/Borisov has, unlike Solar System comets, noticeably shrunk during Solar System flyby, losing at least 0.4% of its mass before perihelion. Also, the amplitude of non-gravitational acceleration place an upper limit of 0.4 km on nucleus size, consistent with a previous Hubble Space Telescope upper limit of 0.5 km. The comet did not come much closer to Earth than 300 million km, which prevents using radar to directly determine its size and shape. This could be done using the occultation of a star by 2I/Borisov but an occultation would be difficult to predict, requiring a precise determination of its orbit, and the detection would necessitate a network of small telescopes.
…
” According to a new study led by researchers from the Initiative for Interstellar Studies (i4is), roughly seven ISOs enter our Solar System every year and follow predictable orbits while they are here.
This research could allow us to send a spacecraft to rendezvous with one of these objects in the near future.”
https://www.sciencealert.com/around-7-interstellar-objects-should-visit-the-inner-solar-system-every-year-suggests-new-analysis
Difficult to know.
Without an atmosphere there would be no water.
Without water plate tectonics would stop for lack of lubrication.
Without plate tectonics the would be no tectonic volcanoes such as Mount St Helens or the rest of the Ring of Fire.
You would still have hot-spot volcanoes such as Hawaii or Yellowstone.
“You would still have hot-spot volcanoes such as Hawaii or Yellowstone.”
What do you think caused hot-spot volcanoes, ie super volcanoes.
I think there are caused by moderated sized space rocks.
That’s my guess- or I don’t have a reference for it.
Maybe I google, what causes volcanic hot spot, see what I get.
It seems no one is saying it. This is said about Yellowstone:
Yellowstone’s hotspot theory heats up
https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/04/08/3730801.htm
“But the causes of this volcanism over the past 20 million years have been strongly debated by scientists.”
[But nothing here about it being related to an impactor]
A hotspot volcano is where a plume of hotter rock rises through the Earth’s mantle from down by the core and breaks through the crust.
If the crust is stationary you get an ongoing caldera in one place like Yellowstone.
If the crust is moving you get the like of the Hawaian Islands, where moving sea floor produces a line of extinct volcanoes and one active volcano where the crust is carried across the hotspot.
Mars has one of largest known volcanoes.
What caused it?
Lets talk about Teslas free energy JP morgan refused to back, rather than the fraudulent wind and solar solutions all over the UK and USA. Its always been a scam to increase profits.
There is no such things as ‘free energy’.
How do you send money to Mr. Sun, RLH?
There’s no such thing as free anything. Everything has a cost.
How much do you pay for the air that you breathe?
“Theres no such thing as free anything. Everything has a cost.”
Indeed.
If you had to buy the oxygen-
0.5p to 6p/litre.
https://www.boconline.co.uk/shop/en/uk/oxygen-cylinder-medical-grade-compressed-gas
1 litre would last you about 5 minutes, so in a closed environment such as an oxygen tent or a submarine breathing would cost you at best 0.5p/minute, 30p/hour, 7.20 per day.
For the moment it comes free, if you don’t mind breathing various pollutants along with it.
That’s the problem with free air. Only the lefties care about air quality because the righties don’t want to spend money to maintain it.
>How much do you pay for the air that you breathe?
I’m not going to calculate it but I’ll show you how. First, figure out how many BTUs you expend with each breath of air. You expend energy expanding and collapsing your lungs, circulating your blood, creating your blood, creating all the proteins responsible for all the processes involved in respiration, etc. Then determine how much food you need to eat to generate that amount of energy and then determine how much the food and water cost you to create that much energy. So, the air is there but it isn’t free.
Hahahahaha. Your argument boils down to “nothing is free because food isn’t.”
And if I pointed to a subsistence dweller, you would lean on the meaning of the word ‘cost’ to be about expending something other than currency, and you’d also believe you’d have won the point.
The air is free, bub. You don’t pay a cent for it.
Cost is not relevant. Plants do not send money to the Sun but they get energy from it. That energy is released in the Sun by nuclear fusion.
Sun doesn’t provide useful energy. You have to wait while the sun makes oil and coal then we have to extract it from the ground. Even solar energy requires tools to convert or direct the energy to a useful task.
So no need to send money to the sun.
Correct, energy from Sun is free.
Sailors used to say
“The wind is free but sailmakers submit accounts.”
The cost of a “free” resource is the cost of harvesting, maintaining and protecting it.
“Sun doesnt provide useful energy”
Sure.
Energy from the Sun isn’t free. That energy has to be converted to something. There’s always a cost to the conversion, for all life. If it were free, we’d live forever.
“The oldest single living thing on the planet is a gnarled tree clinging to rocky soil in the White Mountains of California. This Great Basin bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva) has withstood harsh winds, freezing temperatures and sparse rainfall for more than 5,000 years. When it first sprouted the pyramids hadnt been built and the construction of Stonehenge was just beginning. Scientists keep the trees precise location a secret to ensure its not damaged by sightseers”
If you’re offered free candy, and you have to put it in your mouth, or have to walk a mile to get it before putting it in your mouth, the candy is still free. It’s your problem how you obtain it. The candy is still free.
For RLH, Anderson, Ent and Ken to argue over nonsense like this just indicates what useless trolls they are.
Get a life, children.
We all know better than to suggest that a ball-on-a-string has anything to do with orbits.
Get a life, child.
Idiot.
I think that it is apparent that there are 4 distinct quartiles for the global sea surface temperatures.
1) 90N to 30N
2) 30N to the equator
3) The equator to 30S
4) 30S to 90S
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/hadisst-animated.gif
Of course this in likely to be the same in land only results too given the N/S imbalance in global deserts.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343135125/figure/fig1/AS:918034092929026@1595887792386/A-global-distribution-of-the-desert-areas-according-to-their-Aridity-index-Deserts.png
….Of course this is likely to be the same in land only results….
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/hadisst-ice-land-ocenn-2022-4.jpeg
Sea Ice, Land and Open Ocean
SpaceX Starlink Maritime Worth The Cost? Starship Testing Continues
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNyS8TEAERM
I think I’ve found the explanation for Gordon Robertson, put forward by an American geologist.
“Retired engineers, he theorised, are perfectly primed to turn into crackpots because they know just enough science to think they really know science. But engineers are taught science as a bunch of facts, whereas scientists are taught it as a process. “
That’s ironic, a geologist claiming to be a scientist.
That’s ironic because you would make a terrible geologist.
“…a geologist claiming to be a scientist.”
Only an idiot would not know that geology is a preeminent branch of natural science.
There are three men whose life’s work helped free science from the strait-jacket of religion. Two of the three, Nicolaus Copernicus and Charles Darwin, are widely heralded for their breakthroughs. The third, James Hutton, is comparatively unknown, yet he profoundly changed our understanding of the earth, its age, and its dynamic forces.
In the eighteenth century, the received wisdom, following Bishop Ussher’s careful biblical calculations, was that the Earth was just six thousand years old. James Hutton, a gentleman farmer with a passion for rocks, knew that could not be the case. Looking at the formation of irregular strata in the layers of the Earth he boldly deduced that a much longer span of time would be required for the landscape he saw to have evolved. In the lusty and turbulent world of Enlightenment Scotland, he set out to prove it.
He could not have achieved this without the help of his friends. Hutton’s entourage in Edinburgh would turn out to be the leading thinkers of the age, including Erasmus Darwin, Adam Smith, James Watt, David Hume, and Joseph Black.
Ultimately, his revelation was one of the most extraordinary and essential moments in scientific history. Hutton’s discovery of deep time changed our view of humanity’s place in the universe forever.
He certainly lacks the public profile of his contempories. There’s a small memorial garden where his house stood and a few relics, but nothing high profile.
Perhaps a statue or a plaque should be installed at Siccar Point.
Darwin tried, but failed.
The cult loves failures. That’s all they’ve got.
Engineering Is Not Science
Engineers are not a sub-category of scientists. So often the two terms are used interchangeably, but they are separate, albeit related, disciplines. Scientists explore the natural world and show us how and why it is as it is. Discovery is the essence of science. Engineers innovate solutions to real-world challenges in society. While it is true that engineering without science could be haphazard; without engineering, scientific discovery would be a merely an academic pursuit.
We hear a lot about American students falling behind in math and science, but we rarely hear that we are lagging in engineering and in creating the innovative spirit. Take a July 2010 issue of Time magazine that featured Thomas Edison on the cover as example. Although Edison was much more of an engineer than a basic scientist, the word “science” appeared 25 times in the article and “engineering” only four times. The first paragraph focused on a solar-powered car designed and built by third graders; the writer called it a science project. Public education in America has already begun to reemphasize quantitative skills, but the Edisons of the 21st century will likely derive more from students who pursue engineering than science.
Engineers have to get the answers right. Scientists only have to get the funding.
Scientists support the design. Engineers do the design.
Here are the sectors by market cap:
https://eresearch.fidelity.com/eresearch/markets_sectors/sectors/sectors_in_market.jhtml
Now, ask yourself – between becoming a scientist or an engineer to tap into one of these industries, which one would you choose?
Scientists don’t become scientists for the money, dammit.
What a bunch of Sky Dragon Cranks losers.
Willard, if you’re trying to prove that you’re an immature troll with no understanding of the issues — you’re doing a great job.
Oh, Pup.
There are lots of money on your side of the table:
https://manilastandard.net/news/national/242853/duterte-admits-paying-trolls-for-2016-elections.html
Do continue.
Clint R,
Any petulant child who resorts to “What a bunch of Sky Dragon Cranks losers.”, is just demonstrating his immaturity to any adults in the vicinity.
Nobody with any sense knows or cares what a “Sky Dragon Crank” is.
Weepy Wee Willy throws tantrums when he realises that nobody is paying much attention to his attempts at linguistic perversions.
What a fool he is!
Mike,
Imagine you’re a chemical engineer.
Also imagine you had various roles as in engineering, operations, analysis, planning and management of ExxonMobil.
Furthermore, imagine you end up as an energy consultant, and then
as a General Manager Commercial & Operations.
Do you think a scientist earns more money?
Do you think a scientist has more power?
Do you think that chemical engineer has less financial interests to protect?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Engineers practice ‘applied science’. To apply it, you must understand it, so you study all the courses taken by science students, and more. The courses we took in physics and math were honours level courses.
Nicola Tesla was both an electrical and a mechanical engineer. He was regarded as a scientist, and why not? He did research and invented important concepts, like 3-phase electrical transformers, motors, and transmission lines.
Anyone who applies the scientific method is a scientist. Engineers apply the scientific method albeit in a different manner than a physicist. That’s largely because physicist work in the theoretical domain while engineers work in the applied, or practical domain.
Whereas a physicist might put forward the results of an experiment in a paper to be evaluated by other physicists, engineers detail their inventions/plans in specifications and blueprints. They must be examined and approved just the same.
There is nothing to stop an engineer from doing formal research, they are legitimately trained to do so. In fact, the problem solving abilities of engineers by the time they graduate, are much in demand in unrelated fields. In 3rd year electrical engineering we actually designed and fabricated a transistor.
Where would Edison have been without Faraday and Maxwell?
Two more thoughts:
(1) If you want to make an engineer mad, call his/her project a “science project.”
(2) I’ve known many scientists who would rather have been engineers, but I’ve never known any engineers who’d rather have been scientists.
But I admit I’ve led a sheltered life, by choice.
That’s because it’s a much easier life being an engineer than a scientist. Engineers are spoon fed their information while a scientist has to go out and discover it.
“Engineers are spoon fed their information…”
Some examples would be helpful, please.
Have you ever worked on an engineering project without an initial data gathering phase? Mapping, sampling, piloting, etc., were all initial steps in every project I’ve ever been involved with.
It is up to the lead engineer to decide when he has collected enough data to proceed with implementation. The scientists always could use, and want, more data but the good engineers know when to stop perfecting. We (I) call it Value of Information analysis.
Engineers are spoon fed their information
Some examples would be helpful, please. ”
Look at Gordon Robertson.
He was spoon fed science in those university courses he is so proud of, misunderstood them, and has learned nothing since.
“Look at Gordon Robertson.”
I’m not convinced he’s an engineer. But point taken.
In fairness, Gordo might only play the engineer on TV.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Engineers are spoon fed their information…”
NASA warns of ‘loud boom’ expected today between 11 a.m. and 12 p.m. A pressure test today will create a sudden burst of noise between 11 a.m. and noon, NASA said.
HOUSTON – If you live near NASA, be prepared for a loud boom this weekend.
Engineers at Johnson Space Center are conducting a pressure test on Saturday that will create a sudden burst of noise between 11 a.m. and noon.
“The test will cause a loud boom that may sound like an explosion to people in the vicinity,” NASA said in the announcement.
The test will happen at the Energy Systems Test Activity area and will only happen if the weather conditions are OK. JSC’s gate on Space City Boulevard near Bay Area Boulevard will be closed. Two pedestrian gates and two vehicle gates at the Gilrush Center entrance will also be closed.
People nearby and in surrounding neighborhoods and communities likely will hear it.
“The noise may be alarming for folks but, rest assured, it is a normal outcome of the test we are doing,” senior software engineer and director of the test Matthew Green said. “The more people who are aware the test is taking place, the more people we can make feel comfortable and bring awareness to the important research we are doing.”
The test will begin at 8 a.m., but the boom isn’t expected until between 11 a.m. and noon. The loud boom isn’t expected to last long and the test will be done by the end of the day.
NASA expects the boom to be around 140 decibels and will sound similar to a jet engine taking off.
The test is being performed by JSC’s “Engineering Directorate to determine the maximum pressure at which an inflatable lunar habitat module prototype will burst (or fail).”
More on burst testing
According to NASA, “Burst testing is an invaluable tool for engineers in material selection, component geometry and other design elements. Since the future habitat being tested eventually may find its way to the Moon’s surface and need to function in that extreme environment, it is critical to understand how much internal pressure it can withstand.”
The scientific information they used in the design was spoon fed.
The test will not gather any new scientific information, it will just test their competence at the application of what they learned.
Scientists are wrong most of the time. If Engineers were wrong most of the time, we wouldn’t be here.
“The test will not gather any new scientific information…”
Of course not, it’s an engineering test! Hence the title and subject of this sub-thread: Engineering Is Not Science.
The job of the scientist is to learn about the world.
The job of he engineer is to make sure things work.
The job of the philosopher is to make these kinds of distinctions.
These jobs require different skill sets.
Hence the scientist-engineer-philosopher game.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62102223
Engineers!!
Engineers have sorted it out (and found what they believe is the root cause).
https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/9/23201678/rogers-communications-restores-service-vast-majority-customers-widespread-outage
If climate scientists tried to actually build something
https://i.postimg.cc/PxnZx25t/Rocket-Scientists.jpg
Jim Simons actually hires physicists:
https://youtu.be/QUTaQvnwLzM
Literally nothing out of the ordinary is happening at all.
After = no
If you call a La Nina nothing.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
You mean superdeveloping triple dipper La Nina ?
Don’t worry , Bindidong doesn’t see it either
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-936851
Snowfall in Norwegian mountains.
https://i.ibb.co/5FgNdHP/Screenshot-2.png
https://www.j2ski.com/snow_forecast/Norway/
Top Norwegian Ski Resorts by Forecast Snow
Ski Resorts in Norway with most snow forecast in the next 7 days
Oppdal 7cm
Norefjell 4cm
Bjoerli 3cm
Strynefjellet 2cm
Blinny: Are you prepared to accept yet that CTRMs are quite good as a HQLP filter and that a 5 pass, multi-pass S-G with the same window produces a very similar output, one with the other?
Ha!
” … a 5 pass, multi-pass S-G … ”
The stalking liar and trickster Linsley Hood finally admits to have massively adjusted his Savitzy-Golay corner in order to get its output looking like that of a CTRM.
Regardless how good the CTRM technique is: its low pass effect is much stronger than Savitzy-Golay’s.
A 12 month CTRM has the same effect as a 16 month Savitzy-Golay filter:
https://i.postimg.cc/90qBxnqk/LH-UAH-CTRM-with-RM-SG-16-month.png
Thus, if you want to create a so-called ‘SG projection’ as a continuation of a CTRM output, you have to manipulate your SG filter.
This is exactly what Mark B and I have explained.
I said many years ago how I used S-G (as suggested by Nate Drake PhD) and that I verified that it then corresponded to a CTRM (as suggested by VP) of a similar window size. Mark B will not dispute that, indeed he has said that the approach is valid.
Are you going to say that either approach is wrong and that it does not create the evidence as shown?
Or are you just cross that what I have shown it is the correct way to approach HQLP filters?
“A 12 month CTRM has the same effect as a 16 month Savitzy-Golay filter”
Wrong. A single S-G pass has too much high frequency leak through (though the same is not said about LOWESS) as Mark B said. Nate Drake recognized this also so that is why he used a 5 pass, multi-pass approach.
If you use an S-G correctly (as above) then it is the same as an CTRM of the same window size.
Put them both on the same graph if you do not believe it. I have.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah_lt-2.jpg
for one approach
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-global.jpeg
for the other.
Blinny doesn’t want accurate results. Just things that he can denigrate.
“A 12 month CTRM has the same effect as a 16 month Savitzy-Golay filter”
So either Vaughan Pratt was wrong when he said that a 12 month CTRM was composed of a 3 pass 12, 10 and 8 month SRM or Savitzy-Golay when they proposed their algorithm 12 month. Bold claim.
Downpours in Sydney again.
https://i.ibb.co/z2XmKPS/Screenshot-2.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
Not gone by April
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1140964
Superdeveloping triple dipper La Nina effect
https://youtu.be/0de43h4q_5A
Ah, but which April?
test
I think Mars could be good place to grow food for anyone not living on the surface of Earth. Mainly due to high launch cost from Earth.
But Earth launch costs could get to below $20 per kg to Low Earth orbit. And currently it’s about $1000 to $2000 per kg to LEO.
Earth launch cost could get to $1 per kg, but that largely depends upon energy costs on Earth surface. If you imagine Earth energy cost could 1/10th of current energy cost, then it’s possible.
And roughly this seems possible if Earth surface is getting energy from Space.
The biggest advantage I see from Space Power Satellites is modest reduction is Earth energy cost and lowering of distribution cost of
getting electrical power where ever anyone needs it on the Earth surface. So, say in middle of Pacific ocean or on top of some mountain. Don’t need back up generators for Peak power loads.
Or one has global distribution of electrical power. Sp residential electrical for about 5 cents per KW hour. But doesn’t seem it will be .5 cent per kW hour or $5 per MW hour. But where the SPS are at in space, ie, GEO, electrical power could far less than $5 per WW hour.
Or to ship electrical to Earth, where it is ship from, must be cheaper than power at Earth surface.
And Mars surface has similar problem as Earth Surface. Electrical power must cheaper in Mars orbit, than Mars surface, in order to ship power from Mars orbit to Mars surface.
Mars surface solar is not much better than Earth surface solar power.
For Mars surface to have as cheap and Earth surface, one probably need cheap Mars nuclear power.
And I think you do this by having lakes on Mars.
And having lakes on Mars, would also be a way to make cheaper crops on Mars.
Nobody is going to Mars
NASA has been ordered to go to Mars. Europe is considering it. China says there are going to Mars.
But more important then, that, is Elon Musk [who has some credibility] says he going to build a city on Mars.
Musk is going to get about 3 billion dollar, if he does the NASA contract, of landing NASA crew on to the Moon.
So, before Mars landing, we are going to have a crew lunar landing.
Is anyone going to the Moon.
Is anyone going to land on the Moon within 7 years?
And important aspect of this going forward is the test launch of SLS
and Starship this summmer. Will this happen within the next 3 months?
Nobody
They said that about the Moon too.
Mars has about 144 million square km or about 35.5 billion acres if Mars land is on a lake or around a lake that property could buy Mars water at low cost or property comes with certain amount of water available in the future, then Mars land could be worth as much as $10,000 per acre. But not all land will have access to cheaper Mars water and the degree it’s more expensive to get water to some acre of land the more worthless the land is, or could bought at as low $10 per acre assuming there was some reason someone wanted it.
So 35.5 billion acre at 10 is totals 355 billion dollar of waterless
land. Or there might be a 1 billion acres with cheap enough water, which sells at average of $1000 per acre or totals 1 trillion dollar
and 1 million acres which more and cheaper water and other reasons it’s valuable worth $10,000 per acre which grosses 10 billion dollars of real estate.
And of course no knows what is the most valuable land, or further exploration could find more and cheaper water on areas of land.
And also has town become more established the real value could increase because it’s a “good” town. Or town which doesn’t become a ghost town but rather appears to be town which exist for hundreds of years in future would be a good long term investment. Though if it was only thought to last for 100 years, it still counts as long term investment. Or om beginning there higher chance of having a ghost town, as newer and better places could be discovered, but after few decades of having any town on Mars this risk becomes less. plus if shortage of Mars water, in future it could imported from Space, or there is endless amounts of water in space which could cheaper than Earth water and be worth trillions of dollars of profit.
Near term cheap Mars water, delivered, is worth about $1 per kg or $1000 per cubic meters which roughly more 1000 times more money water on Earth. Or if can’t buy 1 million cubic meter of Mars water for 1 billion dollars, then Mars water is too expensive.
Or mineable lunar water has to be $500 per kg to make rocket fuel [or less] and Mars water has to be $1 per kg for “residential” use. Or you couldn’t have towns on Mars. But at these prices, there is expectation of low cost of water in the future. Or lunar water might lower to $1 per kg within 50 years of time, And within centuries water in Mars or Moon could be about same as costs of Earth water.
Or Mars real estate is buying immediate use of water [living in a lake] and buying water which can used in 1 year or 10 or 50 years or whatever and is a right which goes with the land bought, and you can resell the land and/or water rights you have bought. And Lunar water is related mostly with how much lunar rocket fuel one use fairly immediately.
And generally the more lunar or Mars water bought, the cheaper per kg it is. And roughly Lunar water is thousands of ton and Mars water is millions tons as normal amounts of wholesale water and future. delivered water is also priced less.
Or reason one has towns on Mars rather than the Moon, is lunar water is too expensive. But if lunar water can sell at $1 per kg, and appears in will get even cheaper than this, one could have settlement on the Moon- though also depends on how frozen CO2 there is on the Moon. also. There could be as much frozen CO2 as frozen H20 or could be less 10% of amount of lunar water.
How cheap CO2 is important for both Moon and Mars, and though it seems unlikely, it possible lunar CO2 is cheaper than Mars CO2.
Since far less land in polar region, polar lunar land could be more expensive per acre- if there enough H20 and CO2 for there to be towns on the Moon.
It seems more likely there will be towns on Mars, first.
But it just guess based the little exploration we have had so far.
Bindiwrong Forecasting Inc – The history of epic fails
https://i.postimg.cc/9FpW3vCV/bwf.png
That shows clear warmista behavior.
RLH: “I don’t play climateball.”
You can play it if you want. to. I don’t.
That shows clear warmista behavior.
maguff…”Do yourself a favor and look up Bohrs Nobel Lecture of December 11, 1922″.
***
You offer me advice but you don’t follow it yourself. You point me to a speech by Bohr but you do not indicate that you understand anything he said. If you cannot explain what is wrong with my post then you have nothing to say…as usual.
I have a book with three speeches by Bohr. In each one he repeats essentially what I have said and his theory is based on electrons and their orbitals.
One slight difference I noticed in his speeches is that he develops the theory from a purely quantum level between two different quantum states. He admits at that stage that he is steering away from explanations of how EM is generated by an electron or what effect it has when an electron absorbs EM. However, the relationship E = hf is right there, undeniably. In his development, the frequency of the electron is developed from its angular frequency, lower case omega, like a w.
Of course, w = pi/T = 2pi.f where T = the period.
I am just digesting this right now and don’t have time to get into. As Arnold used to say, “Ah’ll be back”.
… based on electrons and their orbitals.
Pay more attention to what Bohr actually wrote Gordon instead of making stuff up; it is not the electron absorbing light quanta, it is the electron orbitals & the composite atom and molecule absorbing light quanta. Atomic spin is also quantized where the electron remains in the same orbital!
ball4…You are claiming that empty space absorbs EM. Anywhere in an orbital not occupied by an electron is empty space.
That ranks up there with your claim that heat is not energy but a measure of energy transfer. Therefore the energy being transferred has to be heat, ergo heat is a measure of heat transfer.
Bally, the measure of heat is temperature.
Temperature is not heat Gordon. Temperature doesn’t even have the same units as heat. Make some progress in understanding thermodynamics basics, Gordon, and the blog will let you know.
“If you cannot explain what is wrong with my post…”
You wrote: ” …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.”
Aside from your misrepresentation of the Bohr Frequency condition, you also cling to the fantasy that atomic and molecular emission are one and the same.
maguff…you’re as bad as Ball5. You just don’t get it that a molecule is two or more atoms bonded by valence shell electrons. What else could molecular emissions be expect for atomic emission and what could atomic emission be other than electron emissions?
EM means electromagnetic energy which has an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field. What else in an atom, or a molecule, has an electric field and a magnetic field, to produce that relationship in emitted energy? An electron moving in an orbit has it.
You still have not explained your understanding of Bohr’s theory.
E = E2 – E1 = hf therefore
f = (E2 – E1) /h
Bohr explained it re an introduction as f = E2/h – E1/h, where E2 is the upper orbital and E1 is the lower orbital. He described then initially as quantum states because he was trying to associate it with Planck’s quantum theory. The transition is discrete, however, and there is no in-between values. I said the emitted frequency was based on the upper energy level and he claims it’s the difference.
This is way more complicated than the simplicity of the equations and that’s why I need more time to get into it. I suggest you show an interest and do the same.
I have no interest in having an antagonistic interaction with you. It would suit me better if we interacted as students of science try to understand complex phenomena.
“what could atomic emission be other than electron emissions?”
Spin. Atomic spin is quantized so the composite atom structure can absorb a quantum of light. And then the atom emits a quantum of light when the atom de-spins back to former energy level. Likewise for molecules.
What load of nonsense.
You really don’t have the faintest idea what you are talking about, do you?
Just for fun, invite me to ask you a simple question about quantum physics. As one of the other idiots here found out, it is easy to ask a question which can’t be answered by searching the internet.
Still going to imply that you know what you are blathering about?
Idiot.
Go on then Swenson, tell me how EMR is a continuous spectrum from high energy particles down to ultra long radio waves. And how it is possible to ‘see’ those photons at slightly different values depending on the exact velocity between the source and the receiver.
Gordon Robertson at 9:03 PM
Again, you said “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.”
Now you ask “What else could molecular emissions be…”
Molecular emissions are the result of an oscillating electric dipole (permanent or induced) producing an oscillating electric field. It is that simple.
I have no interest educating you in the basics of electrodynamics as it relates to the interaction of radiation with matter.
I tried to correct your misunderstanding of the subject but, you just don’t have the background to properly begin to see the fallacy in your argument.
Happy trails!
P.s.: did you know that some molecules (like H2O) have a permanent electric dipole which make them especially active in certain frequencies of radiation?
maguff…”Two of the three, Nicolaus Copernicus and Charles Darwin, are widely heralded for their breakthroughs”.
***
Copernicus is a valid luminary but Darwin was a duffer. Darwin’s theory of evolution set science back centuries and we are still suffering the effect.
Darwins theory of evolution has been adopted by scientists the world over.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution for a more detailed description of what evolution is.
Consensus ain’t science.
Darwin drew pictures of birds and believed variations within species meant an animal could “evolve” into a completely different animal. That meant all life forms were linked to one original life form. Pure nonsense.
Evolution is NOT science, it’s a religion.
Evolution IS a science.
Kinda like political science is “science”.
Nope. Evolution IS science.
That’s your belief, RLH. Beliefs ain’t science.
Science is demonstrable, repeatable, observable, verifiable, and testable.
Evolution is a false religion, aka a cult.
Your belief is not science either.
“Science is demonstrable, repeatable, observable, verifiable, and testable”
The science of evolution is all the above.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1331217
Darwin took observations about variations in species (birds) and postulated macroevolution. He postulated that through natural selection that all life has evolved from a few common ancestors. He scribbled a couple of examples of , implying all life evolved from a tree of life without any evidence. To this day, most examples in the fossil record do not support Darwin’s theory.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1331217
RLH, just finding your other cult members stating their cult beliefs ain’t science.
Where is your evidence verifying that a single-cell can evolve into a higher life-form, such as a giraffe?
There is none. It has NEVER been seen to happen because it hasn’t happened.
Evolution is a cult belief.
“Where is your evidence verifying that a single-cell can evolve into a higher life-form, such as a giraffe?”
Where is your evidence that given billions of years it can’t?
Where is your evidence verifying that a single-cell can evolve into a higher life-form, such as a giraffe?
Where is your evidence that given billions of years it cant?
Pointless argument: where is your evidence that it can?
The fact that a giraffe exists and there is no ‘God’ to make him.
I am shocked that climate deniers would also be Evolution deniers. Shocked I say!
“To this day, most examples in the fossil record do not support Darwins theory.”
Is there a source for this Stephen factoid?
Probably not.
BTW, a thing or two has been learned about this subject since Darwin.
“Is there a source for this Stephen factoid?”
Yes, check out the Genesis Apologetics website https://genesisapologetics.com.
What is the Genesis Apologetics you ask…
“Science” fit for purpose.
A religion believes that a religion is the correct (and only) answer. Color me shocked.
> Darwin’s theory of evolution has been adopted by scientists the world over.
There’s been almost no advancement of the theory since Origin of the Species. They still have no plausible explanation of the Cambrian since Darwin, as well as the other explosions. Someone needs to find a plausible explanation.
Also, there were all kinds of objections and obstacles to it right away, from many such as Louis Agassiz. Most of the objections have been ignored or the claim is that “we just haven’t uncovered the evidence yet” as if it eventually will be and like AGW, it’s accepted as settled when nothing could be farther from the truth.
“modern synthesis has been further extended in the light of numerous discoveries, to explain biological phenomena across the full and integrative scale of the biological hierarchy, from genes to populations.
The publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick with contribution of Rosalind Franklin in 1953 demonstrated a physical mechanism for inheritance. Molecular biology improved understanding of the relationship between genotype and phenotype. Advances were also made in phylogenetic systematics, mapping the transition of traits into a comparative and testable framework through the publication and use of evolutionary trees. In 1973, evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky penned that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’, because it has brought to light the relations of what first seemed disjointed facts in natural history into a coherent explanatory body of knowledge that describes and predicts many observable facts about life on this planet.
One extension, known as evolutionary developmental biology and informally called ‘evo-devo’, emphasizes how changes between generations (evolution) acts on patterns of change within individual organisms (development). Since the beginning of the 21st century and in light of discoveries made in recent decades, some biologists have argued for an extended evolutionary synthesis, which would account for the effects of non-genetic inheritance modes, such as epigenetics, parental effects, ecological inheritance and cultural inheritance, and evolvability.”
>The publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick with contribution of Rosalind Franklin in 1953 demonstrated a physical mechanism for inheritance. Molecular biology improved understanding of the relationship between genotype and phenotype. Advances were also made in phylogenetic systematics, mapping the transition of traits into a comparative and testable framework through the publication and use of evolutionary trees. In 1973, evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky penned that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, because it has brought to light the relations of what first seemed disjointed facts in natural history into a coherent explanatory body of knowledge that describes and predicts many observable facts about life on this planet.
If anything, the discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick, has diminished Darwin’s theory. What is DNA? DNA is information. It is highly complex code. Instead of binary code, it is quaternary code. Have you ever seen a binary code randomly assemble? The odds of quaternary code randomly assembling is many times greater. The odds are so great that it is essentially impossible. However, the Darwinist will say, never-the-less, here we are. So, no cause other than materialistic means is allowed. It is settled .
They teach evolution in the schools essentially because they have no other materialistic explanation. If Darwinists would stick to scientific facts they would have more credibility. However, they make many unsupported claims. The finding of ancient fossils does not imply evolution. The Darwinist makes the mistake of asserting that we must have evolved from these ancient life forms through random natural selection. Show us?
“If anything, the discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick, has diminished Darwins theory”
IYHO only.
“If Darwinists would stick to scientific facts they would have more credibility”
Which scientific facts do you have that refute Darwin and evolution?
“Analysis of DNA sequences now plays a key role in evolutionary biology research. If Darwin were to come back today, I think he would be absolutely delighted with molecular evolutionary genetics, for three reasons. First, it solved one of the greatest problems for his theory of evolution by natural selection. Second, it gives us a tool that can be used to investigate many of the questions he found the most fascinating. And third, DNA data confirm Darwin’s grand view of evolution”
>If Darwinists would stick to scientific facts they would have more credibility
Which scientific facts do you have that refute Darwin and evolution?
Many. The first and most obvious and Darwin agreed, was the Cambrian. This is what Darwin said about the Cambrian.
What Darwin was saying is for his theory to be true, COUNTLESS PreCambrian fossils need to be discovered. The staggering paucity of PreCambrian fossils was problematic, and still is.
Number Two: The fossil record is always incomplete at the nodes. There are no nodes. There isn’t one example of a fossil record of any species that includes one node. This is what Agassiz said, This is still true today.
Cambrian fossils exist
https://www.britannica.com/science/Cambrian-Period/Fauna
“Cambrian faunas, like those of the present day, are commonly dominated in numbers and kind by members of the phylum Arthropoda. Calcification of skeletons by the beginning of Atdabanian time contributed to an abundant fossil record of the class Trilobita”
“The fossil and geologic records provide the primary data used to established absolute timescales for timetrees. For the paleontological evaluation of proposed timetree timescales, and for node-based methods for constructing timetrees, the fossil record is used to bracket divergence times. “
Pre-Cambrian fossils also exist
“Stromatolites are the dominant fossil type for most of the Precambrian, with the oldest identified examples going back at least 3450 million years. During the Precambrian stromatolites formed reefs comparable in extent and magnitude to the great coral reefs of recent and modern times.”
Number three:
Many paleontologists and Darwinists are continuously searching for new explanations because of the glaring weaknesses in Darwin’s theory. For instance new theories like Deep Divergence, Epigenetics, evo-devo, punctuated equilibrium, etc. Darwin’s Theory has little evidentiary support.
>Pre-Cambrian fossils also exist
Stromatolites are the dominant fossil type for most of the Precambrian, with the oldest identified examples going back at least 3450 million years. During the Precambrian stromatolites formed reefs comparable in extent and magnitude to the great coral reefs of recent and modern times.
I never said Precambrian fossils didn’t exist. Are you paying attention? The discovery of the Stromatolites pokes another hole in Darwinism. One argument was that Precambrian ancestors were too small to survive in the fossil record. Stromatolites debunk this idea.
Much before that there was no oxygen (worth a damn) so the fossil record is going to be a little thin.
Not sure why Stephen needs to to go back so far to the times we have the least amount of data and most gaps in the record to test Darwin’s theory.
Especially with the very ancient fossil record, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There is plenty of more recent, better documented evolution going on.
There is plenty of evolution seen in real-time observed in the lab.
Nodes: there have been many discoveries of intermediate species, with intermediate structures. Dinosaur with legs to birds with feathers. Simple eyes to complex eyes. Fins to legs.
Thorough trashing of Intelligent Design memes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU
Richard…that does not make evolution theory right. When Einstein was confronted with a similar situation by a journal editor his reply was that ‘it only takes one of them to prove me wrong’.
For starters, can you explain how DNA got codes in it as blueprints for creating amino acids, hence proteins? Without those codes we cannot exist. Do you think intelligent codes happened by chance? That’s like claiming the ASCII code happened by chance.
Mind you there are idiotic evolutionists who claim that a monkey sitting at a typewriter will eventually produce a masterpiece in literature. That’s the kind of idiotic thinking that drives evolution theory.
Being an idiot you should know all about idiotic thinking.
Gordon Robertson at 3:37 AM
“…we are still suffering the effect.”
Yes, I can see that you are suffering severely.
Too much self-centered attitude, you see, brings isolation. Result: loneliness, fear, anger. The extreme self-centered attitude is the source of suffering.
maguff…self-centred??? Care to explain ‘self’ and how it relates to a centre? Where is this self and where is it centred?
Look in the mirror.
Speaking of so called scientists and engineers , Being in airplane design and building business I watch with great interest when once in a while computer modellers appear on the scene who believe if they can model a plane in the computer they can build a real one just the same,
Here is the first flight picture sequence of a plane designed by computer modelers
https://i.postimg.cc/Nfpd1dkb/1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/bNBQyWTX/2.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/0NfjQJs6/3.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/CKmMYTGk/4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/bvWyd05w/6.jpg
That looks like a stupid design, was there any particular purpose of it? Cheaper, faster, or whatever?
Do you think SLS was computer designed and therefore won’t fly.
It seems to me, Starship is pretty close to a Saturn design. Saturn 5 rocket engines and Starship 33 engines which came from Falcon-9 with 9 rocket engines. Musk has destroyed about 50 raptor rocket engine in testing, which is crazy amount. He seems to me, to be over confident about launching starship to orbit and quite uncertain about it’s re-entry, because it can’t really even be sim in computer.
And I think they still hadn’t done a hold test with the 33 engines.
One advantage I think it has, that on test launch, he might do the engines a 1/2 power rather than normal full power at lift off.
Though since 1/2 power is not normal it’s possible it somehow could have more risk than full power.
I tend to think he do another test to 50,000 feet with full stack, though I could also see the disadvantage of it.
One think about 50,000 feet is can test the lift off release mechanism which appears complicated. And return landing could use more time to make the landing.
But it seems Musk is eager to test the re-entry of starship which has a lot uncertainties and key aspect of everything trying to do.
Or needs it to get to orbital velocity. And also probably want to know how much faster than orbital velocity, the Starship can do, ie re-enter from a Earth to Moon trajectory.
According to Stephen Anderson and Gordon Robertson God spent a week in 4004BC creating a universe full of faked evidence.
This includes light which gives the illusion of stars and galaxies more than 6026 light years away
It also includes layers of rock full of fossils which falsely record the history of living organisms which evolved across 4 billion years and includes an animal soi-disant Homo Sapiens which thinks it looks like that God.
/sarcoff
There are two options:
The Universe, the Earth, and all life forms assembled randomly because we’re here.
Or,
God created the heavens and the universe and all life in 7 days in 4004BC.
SPA: Why only 2 options?
P.S. Which ‘God’ is that and why is yours so important?
That’s Eman’s worldview, not mine.
I wish it were that simple, stephen. But, it’s not.
The Bible does not give a date for the Creation. The 4004 BC is from James Ussher, who did an incredible amount of research for his time. But, the Dead Sea Scrolls have added even more info. 4700 BC now appears to be the best estimate. But, that could easily be off by 100 years.
Remember, that 4700 BC date is ONLY back to Adam and Eve. There is really no way to say how old the Earth is from the Bible, as some claim things like the “Gap Theory”.
What makes you think that the Bible (which was mostly composed in the Middle Ages) is at all accurate in any case?
There are other human written documents that proposed a completely different history.
What makes you think you would understand anything. You have a very poor history as related to science and reality.
You still think that a ball-on-a-string is a useful model for orbital mechanics.
Yes RLH, the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string is a good way to learn about orbital motion.
A ball-on-a-string is the same as a stick-rotating-about-one-end is the same as a section-of-a-disk and none are good explanations for orbital mechanics.
As I stated RLH, you have a very poor history as related to science and reality.
You have denied the links to college and universities that use the simple ball-on-a-string analogy. This one even shows the necessary vectors:
https://postimg.cc/G9hDGKgm
But, you don’t understand vectors.
As I said, a ball-on-a-string is the same as a stick-rotating-about-one-end is the same as a section-of-a-disk and none are good explanations for orbital mechanics.
And I think I understand vectors and their addition in practice a lot better than you.
For a start, the image you link to doesn’t even take account of Newton’s 3rd Law.
You had your chance to show that you understood vectors RLH, but you blew it big time. You couldn’t even solve the simple problem.
Now, you prove your incompetence with physics. The 3rd Law is clearly evident as the tension of the string matches the pull of the ball. You don’t understand ANY of this.
That’s why this is so much fun.
My practical explanation and use of vectors did not make your ‘critical’ criteria, you mean.
P.S. The diagram you cited does not show the opposing forces nor the fact that a barycenter exists about which everything orbits.
Or religious origin stories are romantic metaphors for an as yet undiscovered explanation somewhere between the extremes of random occurrence and Deism.
EM,
I believe you got it wrong yet again. God only needed 6 days.
“And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.”
– King James Bible, Genesis 2:2.
As to the rest, God is omnipotent. If you have any concerns, address them to God. He might regard your opinions more highly than I do.
Only joking, of course.
What makes you think that the King James Bible is that accurate?
I’m personally deistic, not theistic. I don’t worship the Creator, but I do believe.
I just poke fun at Eman’s worldview. He believes if you don’t believe in Darwinism, then you must be a Bible thumper. I believe Darwinism is as preposterous as the Bible.
However, to let you know what I think of Darwin’s theory? I think the Biblical Creation story is more plausible.
stephen…even Intelligent Design get related to Creation. Is it so hard for anyone to read the words and understand the meaning of intelligent design? To me, it means an unknown entity designed life.
The evidence points strongly in that direction and there is no evidence whatsoever to support the theory of evolution. Those pushing the theory today have conveniently skipped over the beginnings, abiogenesis, which is a process where life supposedly developed from non-living matter.
Then the believers go on to skip over evidence in which species were supposed to evolve from each other. What we are left with in the end is simply genetics based on one species only. I have no problem with the likes of Mendel and genetic theory but that has nothing to do with the wild and implausable claims of evolution theory.
Mendel was a scientist, he did experiments and gathered information, made observation, and formed conclusions. Darwin was an imposter who formed a ridiculous theory based on species he observed in the South Pacific over a few days.
“an unknown entity designed life”
That’s a belief, not a fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
“Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)[1] was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of INTELLIIGENT DESIGN, ultimately found by the court to NOT BE SCIENCE.[2][3]”
“The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
“Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor from Brown University and noted author and commentator opposed to the intelligent design and creationist movements, was the first witness. He testified as an expert witness that ‘Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community.’ He said that the idea of intelligent design was not subject to falsification, and demonstrated that many claims made by intelligent-design advocates against evolution were invalid.”
Science doesn’t allow a nonmaterialistic origin no matter how plausible.
Science doesnt accept the supernatural.
“Science done doesnt allow a nonmaterialistic origin”
Yep. A magical creation of our world can never be tested or falsified.
Thus it aint science.
What makes you compose such a stupid gotcha?
What makes you think that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
Dimwit.
What makes you think that the King James Bible is that accurate?
Its as good as any other translation.
Well as they are all translations from the Greek, from a text compiled by humans, we all know the accuracy of fables.
https://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/old89/relativity.858.html#:
On the seventh day God rested and objects at rest remain at rest. Perhaps this is why there is no evidence for the existence of gods.
Not as crazy as Scott Adams- up until you dig a hole in backyard, what find in hole, doesn’t exist until you dig the hole.
Or to save computing power, things created are only created went it’s needed for the sim.
Of course God could be doing the same thing, but I don’t think God has any kind of shortage of resources.
Or the Kirk question:
Why does God need a Starship?
[Even the Starship Enterprise?].
Most regard the big bang as evidence of God.
Though it seems possible to me there was more than 1 big bang which then could be evidence in the other direction.
A large part of God is belief in one God.
Though one God is somewhat problematic for me, as God for me is kind of unknowable. What is one of an unknowable. Or instead of one, would use a center or one origin.
Or is one person really a one of anything.
One god is what is said about God what God inspired in one of more
people in order to describe God.
God is something that creates souls.
Are there souls or a spiritual existence.
I believe a AI could have soul, but one would have to admit that
such soul was created by it’s makers [ie humans].
So, thru a human “process” God created AI. But it seems a AI
would have to crazy, not to include that humans made them.
It’s like parenting, your parents had effect upon you- who you
are. As did lots of people,
Anyhow in terms one God, the general thing is humans have free will.
One define God major thing is giving free will.
Scott Adams believes free will is non existence, which at least consistent with not believing in God.
Can we ever give an AI a free will.
It seems one should also give some kind of direction to such a free will. One could give a prediction, if you do, x, then things are not
going to go well for you, but you probably have try it to find out this is the case. And I give this advice, so you know there is a God.
And if AI does wrong thing and everything works great, it’s proof in the other direction.
I also regard God as source of inspiration. Though other people are source of inspiration, and they tend to say they were inspired by others or God.
So, whether AI can be inspired by God, would be interesting question.
Evidence of more the one Big Bang still has to grapple with the problem of the original Big Bang.
A Popular Uprising Against the Elites Has Gone Global | Opinion
Ralph Schoellhammer , assistant professor in economics and political science at Webster University, Vienna
On 7/7/22 at 10:53 AM EDT
https://www.newsweek.com/popular-uprising-against-elites-has-gone-global-opinion-1722653
from: https://instapundit.com/
“Over 30,000 Dutch farmers have risen in protest against the government in the wake of new nitrogen limits that require farmers to radically curb their nitrogen emissions by up to 70 percent in the next eight years. It would require farmers to use less fertilizer and even to reduce the number of their livestock.”
SEE ALSO: SRI LANKA. A Popular Uprising Against the Elites Has Gone Global:
https://instapundit.com/
More:
Europes farmers revolt has just begun more countries join in
This is no minor sideshow since the Netherlands is the second-largest and Germany the third-largest agricultural exporter worldwide.
By RT Staff Reporters –
July 10, 2022
RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL In the Netherlands, farmers are protesting against the Rutte governments climate activism and the alleged nitrogen crisis that will destroy a third of all farms in the country. Now the Duch are getting support from German farmers.
This is no minor sideshow since this small European country is the second-largest agricultural exporter in the world. Their agricultural exports are made up of 3 parts. US$61 billion worth of agricultural products, US$9 billion in agricultural material, knowledge, and tech as well as around US$24 billion worth of re-exports which brings in US$94 billion.
https://www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/modern-day-censorship/more-countries-join-in-europes-farmers-revolt-has-just-begun/
I like these unions against evil government policies.
Of course if had ocean settlements, one wouldn’t have these
problems. Though they probably made up problems- so just simply a typical massive governmental corruption issue.
The Dutch have continued to vote these clowns into office for decades and then they get upset when the clowns act like clowns. Staggers the imagination.
rlh…”The publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick with contribution of Rosalind Franklin in 1953 demonstrated a physical mechanism for inheritance”.
***
Misogynist rhetoric. Without Rossalind Franklin, those two clowns would never have discovered the shape of the DNA molecule. She was the one who identified the shape via x-rays and she received no credit. Pauling would have figured it out immediately since he was scheduled to meet her on a trip to England. As we know, the McCarthyist donkeys took his passport away. They accused him of being a communist.
Ironically, it was Pauling who started the investigation into nuclear radiation, claiming it was dangerous. The FBI visited him wanting to know how he knew so much about nuclear bombs and radiation. He explained to them using equations how he had worked it out.
Turns out Watson and Crick were friends of Pauling’s son and through the son they got in touch with Linus. He explained the entire thing to them wrt molecular interactions. They had no idea what they had discovered.
I remember one of them circa 2000 predicting cancer would be wiped out in the next 10 years. Twelve years after that date we are still waiting.
What does DNA have to do with evolution theory? There is nothing in the theory can explain the intelligent codes contained in each DNA sequence that is vital to maintaining life.
Nothing you have said contradicts the theory of evolution.
And you can’t provide evidence to contradict the existence of the Celestial Teapot (from which all Blessings pour).
Nong.
Is that Russell’s teapot or a different one?
Bertrand Russell postulated the existance of a teapot orbiting the Sun.He then discussed how to decide whether or not it existed.
He concluded that you could prove its existance by observing it, but could never prove that it did not exist.
Thus the onus of proving the existance of the teapot was on those who believed the teapot existed, who would be expected to provide evidence.
On the existance of evolution by natural selection, it is up to biologists and palaeontologists to provide evidence, which we do.
On the existance of God it is up to Stephen and Gordon to provide evidence, which they don’t.
Nothing you have said disproves the existence of the Celestial Teapot (from which all blessings pour), does it?
As to supporting a theory with “evidence”, this is the refuge of the true believer, not a scientist.
As 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. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
You obviously dont agree. You can’t even devise a reproducible experiment to provide support for your speculation. Just like the faithful who preach the heating properties of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Cultist.
Swenson
“Nothing you have said disproves the existence of the Celestial Teapot (from which all blessings pour), does it?”
That’s Russell’s point. It is impossible to disprove the existence of a hypothetical object such as the Celestial Teapot, so it is unreasonable to demand such disproof.
To imply that because the existence of a hypothetical object object cannot be disproved, it therefore exists, is a logical fallacy widely used by the philosophically naive.
To imply that because Darwin’s theory of evolution cannot be disproved, it must be valid, is a logical fallacy widely used by the philosophically naive.
You probably don’t want to admit there are competing evolutionary hypotheses, and at least some of them have attempted to devise reproducible experiments to support their speculations.
Of course, like any religion, proponents of Darwinism consider their speculation to be superior to those of others. Without a hypothesis disprovable by reproducible experiments, you are touting a fantasy – and it doesn’t matter how seductive your idea is, or how smart you are. It’s not science – it’s just belief.
Just like the heating power of CO2, supposedly responsible for physically impossible “global warming”. Cultist fanaticism, no more or less.
Ent and RLH make the same mistake. They confuse science with beliefs.
The Bible is a system of beliefs — a religion. Evolution is a system of beliefs — a religion. Neither is science.
“The publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick with contribution of Rosalind Franklin in 1953 demonstrated a physical mechanism for inheritance”
Correct RLH, traits are inherited via genes. For example, if you are a braindead cult idiot, then there is the likelihood that your offspring will also be braindead cult idiots.
Both of my children have University degrees.
Sorry to hear that.
Try to get them around responsible adults. Maybe there’s still a chance.
Clint R having runs out of ideas, just uses insults instead.
Wrong again, RLH.
Constructive advice is NOT insults. Credentials from modern universities mean NOTHING, if people lose touch with reality. We see plenty of examples of that here. There are at least two that claim to be physics PhDs, yet openly reject reality as they reveal their ignorance of physics.
Indoctrination is NOT education.
“Constructive advice is NOT insults”
Nothing you have said was constructive.
You can come up with all the fictional sources you wish. Doesn’t make any of them correct.
Darwin himself said that if reams of Precambrian precursors are not discovered then his theory would be falsified, essentially. They haven’t been found yet. How long do the Darwinists have? Does that mean they can teach evolution in the science class forever because someday they might be found?
Or is it, that neo-Darwinism must be taught in the classroom because we haven’t produced anything better? It doesn’t matter how lousy the theory is because we haven’t postulated anything less lousy.
Well if the alternative is ‘a non human being just made everything’ then evolution as taught is a good alternative.
We are deep in Red Neck territory now it seems. Evolution is not a thing apparently.
Red Neck territory might be an upgrade for you, Galaxie500.
galaxie…nothing to do with political views, evolution theory is simply bad science. Calling it bad science gives it some credibility, there is simply no science there at all.
rlh…”Nothing you have said contradicts the theory of evolution”.
***
There’s nothing to contradict, Richard, like Einstein’s theories of relativity, evolution theory is all based on thought experiments.
Here’s evolution theory in a nutshell…
1)Carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen somehow bonded together in primeval muds to form life. An experiment was done in the 1950s to emulate that and all they produced was a puddle of goop. No life. Besides, they claimed that the conditions required to produce the goop could not have supported life.
2)The so-called life produced would have been one-celled lifeforms. According to the theory, ‘natural selection’ intervened and those single-celled lifeforms began to evolve into more complicated lifeforms, with the fittest surviving and the weaker losing out.
3)But wait…somehow the single-celled creatures evolved into more complex creatures that had fins and swam. They converted oxygen in the water via gills. Somehow, those gill-breathing creatures with fins, grew legs and formed lungs so they could get out of the oceans and walk.
4)Requiring vision, and with more jiggery-pokery from natural selection, they formed eyes to collect light. But wait again, collecting light was not enough, they needed to convert the light into biochemical signals and an area of the brain to interpret them.
Problem is, there is absolutely no fossil evidence to support any of this.
You linked to the wiki definition of evolution but it’s not about evolution, it’s about genetic theory, which applies to only one species at a time. The idiots have changed the theory of evolution by omitting the most important parts, the origins of life.
The origin of Life is not the same as Evolution. Are people still this braindead?
“Theres nothing to contradict”
The theory of evolution has explained everything we see in the life around us. A lot better than ‘some supernatural magic was done here’ does.
Blinny: Are you prepared to accept yet that CTRMs are quite good as a HQLP filter and that a 5 pass, multi-pass S-G with the same window produces a very similar output, one with the other? Just asking.
a 5 pass, multi-pass S-G
The stalking liar and trickster Linsley Hood finally admits to have massively adjusted his Savitzy-Golay corner in order to get its output looking like that of a CTRM.
Regardless how good the CTRM technique is: its low pass effect is much stronger than Savitzy-Golays.
A 12 month CTRM has the same effect as a 16 month Savitzy-Golay filter:
https://i.postimg.cc/90qBxnqk/LH-UAH-CTRM-with-RM-SG-16-month.png
Thus, if you want to create a so-called SG projection as a continuation of a CTRM output, you have to manipulate your SG filter.
This is exactly what Mark B and I have explained.
Blinny: Are you prepared to accept yet that CTRMs are quite good as a HQLP filter and that a 5 pass, multi-pass S-G with the same window produces a very similar output, one with the other?
finally admits to have massively adjusted his Savitzy-Golay corner in order to get its output looking like that of a CTRM
I have been doing this since 2013 (it is in the public domain) when Nate Drake PhD recommended it. Do catch up.
By the way, a 5 pass, multi-pass only effects that high frequencies and their leak through, not the rest. Not that you understand that at all.
No manipulation except as recommended by others (with a very good reason).
So Blinny, are you prepared to accept yet that CTRMs are quite good as a HQLP filter and that a 5 pass, multi-pass S-G with the same window produces a very similar output, one with the other?
As I have shown you many, many times.
Actually I think 2014 was when Nate gave that quote.
“finally admits to have massively adjusted his Savitzy-Golay corner in order to get its output looking like that of a CTRM”
I have been doing this since 2013 (it is in the public domain) when Nate Drake PhD recommended it. Do catch up.
By the way, a 5 pass, multi-pass only effects that high frequencies and their leak through, not the rest. Not that you understand that at all.
No ‘manipulation’ except as recommended by others (with a very good reason).
So Blinny, are you prepared to accept yet that CTRMs are quite good as a HQLP filter and that a 5 pass, multi-pass S-G with the same window produces a very similar output, one with the other?
As I have shown you many, many times.
Blinny: Are you prepared to accept yet that CTRMs are quite good as a HQLP filter and that a 5 pass, multi-pass S-G with the same window produces a very similar output, one with the other? Just asking, again.
Evidence.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah_lt-2.jpg
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-global.jpeg
Revisiting “the CO2 problem” 15 years later.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/07/the-cos2-problem-in-six-easy-steps-2022-update/
So do tell me why the El Nino of 2016 was not significantly different in temperature in the Nino 3.4 area to the one in 1878? Given that CO2 has risen considerably in that time period.
Per Had*CRUT V5, the peak global temperature in 1878 was 0.361 whereas in 2016 it was 1.224.
I don’t know how one does a significance test on two points of data, but that seems like a pretty big difference.
Perhaps you could give the details of your significance test?
I said “the El Nino of 2016 was not significantly different in temperature in the Nino 3.4 area to the one in 1878?”
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-6.jpeg
P.S. There are scientific papers which show that claim is true also.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/11/jcli-d-19-0650.1.xml
How Significant Was the 1877/78 El Nio?
Boyin Huang, Michelle LHeureux, Zeng-Zhen Hu, Xungang Yin, and Huai-Min Zhang
“The strength of the 1877/78 El Nio appears approximately equal to those during 1982/83, 1997/98, and 2015/16”
The small region of the global oceans you point to is less than 15% of the Earth’s surface. Not a good proxy for global temperatures.
If the 1878 el Nino is stronger than the 2016 one, then it’s not extraordinary that it’s only slightly cooler in the HadISST NINO3.4 record.
We already know that while the average global temperature has warmed over the last 150+ years, the rate is not uniform across the globe, and there are even some very local areas that cooled in the 20th century.
We don’t expect uniform warming everywhere.
IO, your observation about 2 el Ninos 150 years apart is pretty much irrelevant to the global record.
Typo:
The small region of the global oceans you point to is less than 1% of the Earth’s surface.
Barry,
That link is a horsecrap propaganda page. Those people don’t know physics. Really? The doubling of CO2 from 400 to 800ppm is a 3C rise? BS.
Your incredulity is duly noted, Troglodyte.
It’s more than incredulity, my objection is based on science. Don’t post propaganda.
Get a load of your science, Troglodyte:
– Those people don’t know physics.
– Really?
– The doubling of CO2 from 400 to 800ppm is a 3C rise?
– BS.
Despite the ‘doubling’ of CO2 the central Pacific temperatures have not risen since 1878. As Acknowledged by the paper co-written by Michelle.
“Despite the ‘doubling’ of CO2…”
Wrong. It hasn’t happened yet. Maybe by mid century, probably a decade or two later.
“the central Pacific temperatures have not risen since 1878.”
Never mind that that is a false statement, please explain how this is relevant to long term global temperatures?
This is ‘look a squirrel’ in the middle of the equatorial Pacific, in a couple of months during 1878!
The mad repetition of this fact again and again and again in any thread regardless of topic borders on the insane.
158 W/m-2 means climate goes from -18C to 15C or causes warming of 33C. That works out to about 4.7 Wm-2 causing 1C warming
So if the doubling of CO2 causes a further reduction of direct thermal radiation to space of 3Wm-2 that should mean 0.6C warming. That is before any assumptions about saturation.
If there is any positive feedback that will cause run away warming that would already be obvious from the 158Wm-2. There isn’t any positive feedback now so why would there be any from another 3Wm-2?
ken…that’s right, had there been any tipping point feedback we’d have been wiped out a long time ago. With CO2 at about 0.04%, only a tiny fraction of that amount comes from humans. There was enough already, that had the theory been correct, a runaway feedback would have already done its dirty work.
barry’s link says: “Note that the logarithmic form for the CO2 RF comes from the fact that some particular wavelengths are already saturated and that the increase in forcing depends on the…”
>barrys link says: Note that the logarithmic form for the CO2 RF comes from the fact that some particular wavelengths are already saturated and that the increase in forcing depends on the
That’s Ken’s point.
You’re hard of learning aren’t you.
But as is well acknowledged El Nino maximums temperatures in the central Pacific have not increased since 1878 despite the rise in CO2.
RLH,
Seriously, what is wrong with you? Again and again this single fact crashing a conversation that has zero to do with it.
Your behaviour on this is consistent with insanity.
The food production at 800ppm should be substantially better.
In Step 1, they subtract the mythical 240 W/m^2 from Earth’s supposed average flux to get the bogus 158 W/m^2.
We can stop right there. Unicorns and leprechauns ain’t reality.
This is the cult nonsense that results in ice cubes boiling water.
barry is just another braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
Barry cites Gavin Schmidt’s climate propaganda. Schmidt still doesn’t understand that the logarithmic ratio for CO2 comes from Arrhenius back in the 19th century.
The problem with the theories of Arrhenius is the sheer speculation in them. He was a physicist who practiced chemistry and he knew nothing about atmospheric physics. He simply applied the lab work of Tyndall to the atmosphere.
He would have known nothing about the relationship between heat and EM either. His work was done largely in the 1880s, before the electron was discovered and well before Bohr proposed the quantum theory of the electron-EM relationship in 1913. Therefore, Arrhenius knew nothing about how CO2 could affect heat in the atmosphere.
In fact, Newton apparently knew a lot more about heat in the atmosphere than any of them in that era when he offered his law of cooling in the 1600s. He stated that a surface cooled in proportion to the difference in temperature between it and its environment. I guess Gavin is not up on that kind of science, maybe his mentor Pierrehumbert is out of town trying to learn some real physics.
The idea that trace gases in the atmosphere have any effect on the temperature of the atmosphere is sheer pseudo-science. It’s the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere that control atmospheric temperature and the rate of cooling of the surface.
I rather suspect that H2O and its ability to be both solid, liquid and vapor in the range of temperatures/pressures that the Earth’s atmosphere covers has more than a little to do with what is considered ‘average’.
“Schmidt still doesn’t understand that the logarithmic ratio for CO2 comes from Arrhenius back in the 19th century.”
Another invented notion that Robertson cannot possibly corroborate. He would have to be able to read minds to do so. And so you see the intellectual ‘rigour’ of his views.
Grand Solar Minimum update
The real chart with past three cycles superposed
https://i.postimg.cc/bJZHqfMM/Clipboard01.jpg
SuperTripleDipperdeveloping La Nina hurricane effect
https://youtu.be/QN4RJnFhNdo?t=402
P.S
Note to Bindiclown, you can now add SuperTripleDipperdeveloping to a German dictionary.
Hint – in case you didn’t know , Germans like to create now words by just combining several existing words together
RLH
You’ve made a logical error. You forgot to factor in the effect of increasing baseline.
Your graph shows El Nino peak anomalies which have not changed, averaging around 1C above baseline with no apparent change over time.
Over the same time the baseline has risen by 1.1C, so El Nino peaks are 1.1C warmer now than they were 140 years ago.
Nino 3.4 is not detrended (see NOAA and HadISST). So there is change in the baseline.
….So there is no change in the baseline….
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-6.jpeg
is a NON DERTRENDED series.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/11/jcli-d-19-0650.1.xml
“How Significant Was the 1877/78 El Nino?”
Boyin Huang, Michelle L’Heureux, Zeng-Zhen Hu, Xungang Yin, and Huai-Min Zhang
“The strength of the 1877/78 El Nino appears approximately equal to those during 1982/83, 1997/98, and 2015/16”
….is a NON DETRENDED series….
Not detrended, but the anomalies are relative to whatever the baseline was when they were calculated.
From the NCAR climate guide.
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/nino-sst-indices-nino-12-3-34-4-oni-and-tni
“There are several indices used to monitor the tropical Pacific, all of which are based on SST anomalies averaged across a given region. Usually the anomalies are computed relative to a base period of 30 years. ”
Note “base period of 30 years.”
The multivariate index measures anomalies relative to the average sea surface temperature for the previous three decades.
Thus the 2016 ENSO peak anomaly is based on the average sea surface temperature between 1981 and 2010.
The 1878 peak is based on the average temperature between 1841 and 1870.
Sea surface temperatures have risen by at least 0.6C since 1880, so we can expect the actual temperature of the 2016 El Nino to be about 0.6C higher than the 1878 El Nino because the 1981-2010 baseline is 0.6C warmer than the 1841-1870 baseline.
So, once again, the 1878 and 2016 peaks are an equal distance above their respective baselines and their anomalies are therefore equal. The actual temperature has increased from 1878 to 2016 because the baseline temperature is increasing over time.
“Not detrended, but the anomalies are relative to whatever the baseline was when they were calculated.”
If you want the absolute data instead see below. The single reference period things are calculated on is in the image as a black line on the center line in the anomaly series.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-5.jpeg
Either way the link to the paper which Michelle co-wrote also tells you that the 2016 El Nino was the same as the one in 1878?
I can’t help it if you can’t get your head round that. It is what it is.
“The 1878 peak is based on the average temperature between 1841 and 1870”
Wrong. HadISST is not detrended in such a way and the NOAA data comes directly from that.
Plus, please look at the paper by L’Heureux et al. which says that you are just talking warmista bollocks.
“Not detrended, but the anomalies are relative to whatever the baseline was when they were calculated”
i.e. detrended by using a moving reference period, which both NOAA and HadISST do not use.
“The multivariate index measures anomalies relative to the average sea surface temperature for the previous three decades.”
This is not MEI but Nino 3.4 from NOAA/HadISST.
This can be resolved easily.
Please list the baseline sea surface temperature, anomaly and actual temperature for the 1878 El Nino peak.
Do the same for 2016 for comparison.
Not just the raw data. The onus is on you to provide proper evidence to support yourhypothesis. (Cf Russell’s teapot).
ET have you looked at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1331741
ET
Absolute data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-5.jpeg
Anomaly data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-6.jpeg
Both series are NOT detrended.
ET: See below for the source of the data.
https://psl.noaa.gov/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/Nino34/
for the source of the data
RLH
Thank you. You’ve made your case. I’m now willing to accept that tropical sea surface temperatures haven’t changed significantly and neither have ENSO temperatures.
Unfortunately you haven’t persuaded me against global warming because your data agrees with the general pattern. Much of the climate change is from the minima. The fastest warming is at high latitudes, high altitudes, in Winter and at night.
Except for the odd heatwave the areas which are already warm are responding more slowly. There is some change. Your data shows that the 2016 El Nino peak was 0.25C warmer than the 1878 peak.
So you finally agree that the maximums have not changed.
Do you also accept that any OLS ‘trend’ that includes 1950 (which is a low point in the data record in the central Pacific) may well be compromised?
“Your data shows that the 2016 El Nino peak was 0.25C warmer than the 1878 peak”
The uncertainties about 1878 do not allow this conclusion, as the paper by Michelle et al shows.
Entropic man says: . . . Im now willing to accept that tropical sea surface temperatures havent changed significantly and neither have ENSO temperatures. . . .
That’s not quite right.
Nino 3.4 and Equatorial (+/-5 degrees latitude) Pacific haven’t changed significantly. The Atlantic and India Ocean Equatorial regions have warmed considerably more over the HADISST era as has the net Equatorial ocean region.
hadsstEquatorialRegionAnomalies.png
Tropical (+/-23.5 degrees latitude) sea surface temperature warming is statistically significant in all ocean regions albeit lower in the Pacific than in the other ocean basins.
So Mark B agrees that the maximums have not changed in the central Pacific (he doesn’t really have a choice in that does he) but instead claims that figures outside the central Pacific support his AGW views, even though the majority of the statistics he uses to support his case start in the period around 1950 without acknowledging that 1950 is a low point in the temperature series.
N.B. the Ocean stats, because they cover the whole basin, include the known dipoles that exists in those regions. Only the Pacific in the graph has a non-dipole alternative.
Much more representative would be central ocean basin statistics instead of basin wide.
P.S. If a single 30 year S-G is not ‘accurate enough’, then why is a single pass LOWESS (which uses the sane algorithm) OK?
What does the Grand Solar Minimum have to do with superposing SC25 with the cycles of the Modern Maximum which anyway are known to be much higher?
Nothing.
What matters is to compare SC25 to SC24 because long before SC25 started, many people claimed SC25 would stay from the beginning below SC24.
Here is how the real comparison looks like:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10QX3O6JIK3RIhUJgiqdhim4yUaG9ZwfR/view
No idea why some people like the babbling Edog persistently try to push this strange Grand Minimum story.
Maybe they are paid by Peabody Energy, Heartland and the GWPF?
26 is suppose to be a lot less.
But one cycle doesn’t make a Grand Min.
24 and 25 are expected to be similar.
And 26 and 27 could be similar. Or 27 may break expectation.
But with 24 and 25 being same and 26 less, that is a small Grand
Min [At least that’s what I assume}.
But in terms of space matter, 24 was oddly low, as has 25. Will 26 be even lower?
Or with our better observational abilities, are going to see something “completely different” with 26?
Eben say no one going to Mars. Maybe he talking effect of Grand Min.
I think it makes it harder, but I assume it doesn’t stop it.
Bindidong is repeating the same thing with the Sun cycle predictions that he did with his La Nina predictions, insuring he will remain the board’s punching bag for years to come.
Poor Bin. I’d almost feel sorry for him, if he hadn’t brought this on himself.
I repeat:
What matters is to compare SC25 to SC24 because long before SC25 started, many people claimed SC25 would stay from the beginning below SC24.
*
This hasn’t anything to do with my inability of predicting, an inability I have myself underlined often enough.
It has to do with the inability of those who wrongly predicted SC25’s behavior with regard to SC24.
Who are the many people that claimed SC25 would stay from the beginning below SC24 ?
Babbling Edog, I propose that you search for lots of such comments written on WUWT long before SC24 ended, and theselves referring to other blogs like e.g. that of the Coolista Homewood.
Once again the lying piece of Bindiscum cannot back up his own made up zshit with anything
entropic…”Perhaps this is why there is no evidence for the existence of gods”.
***
With our pathetic, biased minds, we cannot even measure an electron’s orbit or location, all we can do is guess at it using probability theory. Of course, there is no proof for the existence of gods, we can’t even prove electrons exist directly, yet we use the theory successfully every day.
For me, it is observing the wonders of life and the universe, that awaken me to possibilities. From those observation, the closest I can come to the truth is claiming that I don’t know. When you state that truthfully, ‘I don’t know’, something nifty happens. The brain stops projecting and theorizing and moves into a state of awareness. At least, it does, till the noise produced by knowledge intervenes again.
Nobody ‘knows’ if there is a god, all we have is that awareness. But, when the awareness deepens, certain things become apparent. For example, when you consider that DNA has codes built into it that are essential for creating amino acids, a basis of life, the question arises as to where the codes came from? Codes do not originate by chance.
Sometimes the awareness leads us to the impossibility of life and the universe happening by sheer chance. No proof and not even a belief, just an awareness.
Where did that awareness come from? Why were we built with the ability to tune out the noise and become aware with great clarity?
Don’t you ask yourself such questions? It’s not a matter of proof that gods exist, it’s a matter of the truth that there are far greater forces acting in the universe than what we are capable of understanding.
Our pathetic brains offer lame theories like evolution theory. Get real and use the intelligence with which you were gifted at birth rather than appealing to authority.
Great comment, Gordon.
Well said comment Mr. Robertson
I do not claim to have absolute knowledge about either the existence or the nonexistence of something beyond our material world. The reality is no one has absolute knowledge and/or absolute empirical proof of the existence or the nonexistence of anything beyond our material world. The question of the existence of a higher power is part of the human condition. It is a question with which some will choose to struggle, and others will choose not to.
Atheists and materialists believe with a high level of certainty that through the application of the scientific method, given enough time and resources, humans can eventually know everything there is to know and there is nothing in existence at any level or dimension that humans cant detect and understand. In their minds, if a theory can postulate how something may have come to exist, the question of why need not be asked. They have placed their faith in the scientific method. They see themselves as the enlightened ones and those that do not agree with their position are ignorant.
The documentary film, The Most Unknown follows nine scientists that are at the forefront of their disciplines. It is a very well made and thought provoking film. It does not delve directly into the question of the existence of an Intelligent designer. However, it drives home the point that as science pushes the envelope of human knowledge, it is becoming clearer just how little we know. We are becoming knowledgeable enough to understand that we know next to nothing about our universe, our world, our bodies, our psychology, etc.
I dont think it was the intent of the makers of the documentary (but it may have been) to point out just how much hubris exists in humans regarding our perceived level of knowledge relative to all there is to be known. But it shows the hubris to be very large. One of the scientists in the film, regarding the complexity and vastness of unknowns in his field of study, said he feels like a frog trying to understand Einsteins theory of relativity.
> Our pathetic brains offer lame theories like evolution theory.
C’mon, Gordo.
These pathetic brains also offer lame theories like a Supremely Manospheric Father.
Think.
The application of Supreme Enterprises, proposing the creation of Heaven and Earth, is not likely to get approval in less than 7 years. It meets few of the current criteria.
‘God Seeks Permission’ Essay by Paul St Pierre, as it appears in Chilcotin Holiday.
stephen…”That link is a horsecrap propaganda page. Those people dont know physics. Really?”
***
In case you don’t know, the guy writing the article at realclimate is Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS. His partner at the site is Michael Mann of the debunked hockey stick theory.
You’re right, the entire site is horsecrap propaganda.
A while back, Schmidt offered an explanation of positive feedback. An engineer, Jeffrey Glassman, took him to task on it revealing Schmidt as a total numpty.
The following article, which is hard to find these days, is worth reading right through since Glassman tears Schmidt’s theories on CO2 to shreds. Further down the article, under ‘Gavin Schmidt on Positive Feedback’, he reveals a scary fact. Schmidt, the head of NASA GISS, with a degree in mathematics, could not produce an equation for positive feedback. Yet he programs climate models.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160305013820/http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
Hunter, Replying to your previous post, consider this. Conduction is usually modeled using an electrical analogy, since the basic equations are similar. That’s the reason for the use of the term “Thermal Resistance”. But, that has nothing to do with an actual electric current.
Your previous post points to a tool which calculates the radiation energy transfer between two plates of known size is based on the S-B equation. That’s the same formulation as found in standard examples from radiation heat transfer texts, for parallel plates, except that there’s the addition of the view factors for each plate. The resulting rate of energy transfer is the net of the energy radiated from the warmer plate minus the “back radiation” from the cooler plate, which is absorbed by the warmer one. Those equations are also those in Eli’s Green Plate Effect example.
Allow me to welcome you to the GPE “Team”, as grammie calls us.
E. Swanson says:
Conduction is usually modeled using an electrical analogy, since the basic equations are similar. Thats the reason for the use of the term Thermal Resistance. But, that has nothing to do with an actual electric current.
————————–
Gee Swanson who thought that? You? Why are you changing the subject. Do the calculations Swanson and stop dodging the main issue.
E. Swanson says:
Your previous post points to a tool which calculates the radiation energy transfer between two plates of known size is based on the S-B equation. Thats the same formulation as found in standard examples from radiation heat transfer texts, for parallel plates, except that theres the addition of the view factors for each plate. The resulting rate of energy transfer is the net of the energy radiated from the warmer plate minus the back radiation from the cooler plate, which is absorbed by the warmer one. Those equations are also those in Elis Green Plate Effect example.
———————
Well your experiment certainly did not show that.
Hunter pontificated:
As usual, Hunter offered no explanation in his put down reply.
If you had any understanding, you might notice that my “demonstration” was not intended to exactly replicate Eli’s Green Plate math model. For starters, I didn’t have an IR radiation background for my plates of deep space at ~3K. Instead, the surroundings were the glass bell jar placed in a room at nearly constant temperature. Furthermore, I had no way to accurately measure the rate at which energy was supplied to the BP. The demo did show an increase in the temperature of the simulated BP as the GP was moved into position and began to warm.
Hunter seems to think he can waffle along, posting more diversions, after pointing to the S-B model math as the correct approach, which includes the effects of “back radiation” from a colder to warmer body. If he wants to repudiate that method and go back to agreeing with grammie pups, he should simply say so.
Swanson, the calculator holds the temperature of the plates constant and then tells you what the rate of heat transfer would be between them, given the view factors involved etc. The temperatures of the plates are not held constant in the GPE, however, and heat flow tends toward zero wherever possible. All that happens in the GPE is that the GP warms until it is the same temperature as the BP (244 K) because it is an idealized scenario with no losses past the edges of the plates. Heat flow between the plates is thus zero.
> [Bill] seems to think he can waffle along, posting more diversions
In fairness, that applies to Team Joe in general.
But is Bill a true card carrying member of Team Joe?
Depends if his “confusion” is finally resolved.
E. Swanson says:
The demo did show an increase in the temperature of the simulated BP as the GP was moved into position and began to warm.
———————
Yes, As it should when you increase the temperature of the sink and the plate is NOT at equilibrium. Your mistake is mistaking a ‘slowing of cooling’ with ‘the equilibrium an object seeks’.
In a radiation field objects will warm to equilibrium.
In the presence of enhanced cooling they will seek a lower temperature equilibrium. Yet you continually confound the equilibrium sought by enhanced cooling inside the atmosphere via combined radiation and convection with the same value in outerspace where the enhanced cooling is not present.
The correct answers to the greenhouse effect must be found beyond radiation under an unchanging solar constant alone.
Hunter wrote:
Is this a comment about my Green Plate Demo? If so, where did I “increase the temperature of the sink“? If you refer to the GP, why not say so? Also, the plate temperatures had essentially stopped changing when I stopped running the experiment.
Could it possibly be that the BP temperature increased because of the “back radiation” from the cooler GP? If you agree with that, you are also contradicting what grammie pups have been claiming for some years now, which is that there’s no radiation heating of the BP from adding the GP and the temperatures of both plates must be the same.
E. Swanson says:
Yes, As it should when you increase the temperature of the sink and the plate is NOT at equilibrium.
But that doesn’t refute DREMT’s point. DREMT is maintaining things are going to warm in space and so are you. The question boils down to how much. You claim 50%, DREMT claims 100% with field of view=1.0 and it appears that the GP warmed to 63% of the BP with an estimated 63% field of view.
So you need to go to the calculator I sent you and come up with something support the observed warming.
Hunter thinks that view factors are the reason for the observed warming in my Green Plate Demo. To be sure, they may be influencing things, but they dont cause the BP to warm, only the back radiation from the GP to the BP could do that.
Hunter appears ignorant of the fact that grammie pups claim rests on the claim that the GP does not back radiate to the BP, thus all the energy radiated by the BP toward the GP must exit the GP on the opposite side, the result of there being no back radiation from the GP to the BP. His assertion gives the mathematical result that the temperature of the GP being the same as the BP.
Hunter insists that I produce a result from his online heat transfer calculator to support the results of my GP demo. But, he continues to fail in his understanding of the math used by that tool. It is based on the S-B equations and calculates the radiation emitted and absorbed by each plate, including the back radiation from the cooler plate to the warmer one. This calculation is the foundation of Elis Green Plate Effect and if Hunter thinks this is the correct math, then he must admit that grammie pup is completely, hopelessly wrong.
"Hunter appears ignorant of the fact that grammie pups claim rests on the claim that the GP does not back radiate to the BP"
False. The misrepresentation never ends.
E. Swanson says:
July 13, 2022 at 7:48 AM
Hunter thinks that view factors are the reason for the observed warming in my Green Plate Demo. To be sure, they may be influencing things, but they dont cause the BP to warm, only the back radiation from the GP to the BP could do that.
———————–
Indeed if there were zero field of view there would be zero warming. ‘Influencing things’ is a gross understatement. Its the entire enchilada.
DREMT spoke for himself so its apparent it is your reading comprehension that was the problem especially if you keep believing what you believe about what DREMT believes.
————-
————-
————-
————-
E. Swanson says:
His assertion gives the mathematical result that the temperature of the GP being the same as the BP.
————-
It is clear that you don’t understand how that can happen. You have made that abundantly clear and it is very difficult for you to understand why. That is the case especially in view that you fervently believe that backradiation is some stream of tiny energy particles taking off like spaceships and landing on the surface of the BP. And you believe that because it was all explained to you with a cartoon that is the 3rd grader radiation model. And that is the only reason you believe that.
————-
————-
————-
————-
E. Swanson says:
Hunter insists that I produce a result from his online heat transfer calculator to support the results of my GP demo.
——————
Yes indeed. Again take the advice of Lord Kelvin and do the math at a minimum. I provided you with a FV calculator for spaced square plates. It came up with FV=.63 (using eyeball estimates for the plate size and spacing). I am not bad at that but was surprised the results came as close as they did to the temperature of the GP. . . .which you seem to be rather resistant in recognizing suggests DREMT is correct. There is a lot going on in your experiment including reflective polycarbonate panels and frameworks for the plates. So I invited you to run some verifiable computations using a recognized calculator such as the one I provided you to show the outcome I came up was not complete.
————-
————-
————-
————-
Swanson says:
But, he continues to fail in his understanding of the math used by that tool. It is based on the S-B equations and calculates the radiation emitted and absorbed by each plate, including the back radiation from the cooler plate to the warmer one. This calculation is the foundation of Elis Green Plate Effect and if Hunter thinks this is the correct math, then he must admit that grammie pup is completely, hopelessly wrong.
———————
Swanson the calculator calculated the wattage transferred from the BP to the GP only. The backradiation from the GP to the BP would be the same calculation.
The problem is GP warmed to the level it received from the BP once the cooling influence of convection was removed from the experiment.
Your experiment proves DREMT right!!!!!
Before you evacuated the chamber the GP was 50% of the BP temperature. After the air was evacuated the GP was 63% of the BP temperature. Your belief mandates that percentage not change meaning the GP should warm 1/2 as fast as the BP, but instead it warmed almost 3 times as fast.
You just refuse to focus on the actual results and walk away satisfied that the BP warmed a bit.
But DREMT acknowledged that with a point source of light energy can be lost from the lit side.
No energy can be lost from the lit side if FV=1.
He acknowledged that when he set the emissions of the BP to 200w/m2 in the face of a point source of light that averaged 400w/m2 across the entire surface.
“No energy can be lost from the lit side if FV=1.”
That’s impossible Bill. Think again. Study the subject on which you are commenting. Every object radiates away energy. All the time.
Hunter, Thanks for posting another display of your ignorance. You wrote:
If you had any understanding of the math, you would notice the last equation in the calculator computes the net energy flux from the warmer to the colder plate. the equation is:
Heat Radiated = 56.69e-9*VF(1-2)*L12*(T1^4-T2^4)
Please take note of the first sentence on the site, which says:
That’s what the last equation produces, the difference between the energy from the BP to the GP minus the energy from the GP to the BP. It’s straight up S-B math adjusted for the effective VF between the plates. If you can’t accept that, I see no point in posting calculations (which I’ve already performed) as you will simply distort the results to fit into your incorrect interpretation.
Show your complete calculation Swanson.
the only reason you won’t show them is because you are still trying to make sense of them. According your theory the temperatures of the plates don’t change when you evacuate the air out of the balljar. Thats the point I have been making. Its why Bob believes in outerspace it will work like his kitchen experiment and he called DREMT a moron because he couldn’t see that.
You folks proposed the 3rd grader model of radiation theory which is in fact identical to the results of the model for atmospheric transport of heat through greenhouse windows and/or single glazed windows and dual glazed windows. The mathematical results of your outerspace model is identical to the results you expected in a vacuum.
You did the experiment and found out that wasn’t true but you still don’t comprehend that the results of your experiment proved the 3rd grader model false.
Hunter still doesn’t understand:
Where did I ever claim that? Evacuating the bell jar would cut the convection, so I would expect the temperature of the BP to increase, as it did.
Hunter continued:blockquote>
You folks proposed the 3rd grader model of radiation theory…
The mathematical results of your outerspace model is identical to the results you expected in a vacuum.
What 3rd grade model? The Green Plate Effect is based on well known S-B theory and uses the same math as that for your online calculator. You still haven’t stated whether you accept the math for that calculator which is the same as the GPE. Is this post just more diversions from you, or you really that ignorant of engineering?
E. Swanson says:
Where did I ever claim that? Evacuating the bell jar would cut the convection, so I would expect the temperature of the BP to increase, as it did.
————————
The 3rd grade radiation model Swanson is the Eli’s thought experiment.
The results of that model are identical to the two plate window model and the greenhouse model where a 400w/m2 upfacing surface hits an IR opaque window and radiates 200w/m2 back and 200w/m2 upwards.
Exactly the same results as the Eli thought experiment.
Exactly what Pratt thought before he did the experiments. And exactly what you continue to think after doing an experiment that showed a dramatic change when the air was pumped out of the system.
I know this is tough to accept considering your investment here but at some point you need to change your thinking.
Hunter wrote:
I must admit that I haven’t followed Dr. Pratt’s work after he repeated R. W. Woods experiment. He appears to think the S&O paper results are valid, ignoring the obvious faults it contained. He does not accept that “back radiation” works and claims that the lapse rate is fixed, which it appears not to be, writing:
.
But, back to the question at hand, which you have carefully ignored. Do you accept the math in your radiation heat transfer calculator? That math model includes the back radiation from the cooler plate to the warmer one, which apparently Pratt does not believe possible. If you don’t accept that fact, why would you trust that model or the results from my use of it?
And of course their is no shame in recognizing being wrong.
I already admitted in this thread just in the past couple of weeks or so that I thought the 3rd grader radiation model would work like the atmosphere greenhouse model in outer space in agreement with Eli once I realized his model was an outerspace model.
I spoke against Eli’s model because I thought it was an atmosphere model, until I was corrected on that because I knew the atmosphere model operated by using solid sheets blocking the pathways of diffusion and convection.
Then listening carefully to DREMT’s arguments it occurred to me he called me on this sometime ago. I can’t remember how long ago but he questioned my comment that a vacuum was more insulating than an a gap full of air. At the time I didn’t reanalyze.
You said: ”Evacuating the bell jar would cut the convection, so I would expect the temperature of the BP to increase, as it did.”
Thats correct and it is in compliance with the point source nature of your experiment and consistent with DREMTs point source model.
But the GP with air in it was emitting half what the BP was emitting and was obeying the rules of convection.
The pre-evacuation of the balljar temperatures were
BP=~107C giving emissions of 1182w/m2 on the cold side in the general direction of the GP.
GP=~75C giving emissions of 587w/m2. GP emissions are consistent with the atmosphere model as being 49.7% of the BP emissions its also consistent with Eli’s thought experiment.
So if the BP increases its emissions, the GP should maintain that 50% of emissions. So its emissions should increase by 1/2 the increase in emissions of the BP.
But what actually happened? The BP increased 10C and its emissions went up by 130w/m2. But the GP increased by 29C and its emissions went up by 245w/m2. Whoa Nelly! your experiment falsifies the Eli thought experiment! You should celebrate, your effort was rewarded with the scientific truth. Congratulations!
Hunter, your analysis is wrong. You are ignoring the fact that there’s a bell jar surrounding the plates and the fact that the GP is shielded from the heat source when in the lower position, thus it’s cooler.
So, here are my calculations using your recommended “3rd grade model” radiation HT calculator.
Plates are 3.5×4.0x1/4 in, averaged to 3.74 in = 0.095 m.
The bell jar is a cylinder of roughly 8 in diameter, which I modeled as an 8×8 in plate located 1.5 inches from the BP. The steel weight is ignored.
Case 1 -Calculate BP HT to bell jar with GP lowered
Plate = 3.74 inches = 0.095 m
Bell jar = 8 inches = 0.204 m
Spacing = 1.5 inches = 0.037 m
BP = 107 C = 380 K
Bell jar = 30 C = 303 K
Q = 5.90 watts
Case 2 – GP lifted – Calculate GP HT to Bell jar
Plate = 3.74 inches =0.095 m
Bell jar = 8 inches = 0.204 m
Spacing = 1 inch = 0.025 m
GP = 75 C = 348 K
Bell jar = 30 C = 303 K
Q = 3.00 Watts
Case 3 – BP after lifting GP – Calculate BP HT to GP
BP Plate = 3.74 inches = 0.095 m
GP Plate = 3.74 inches = 0.095 m
Spacing = 3/4 inch = 0.019 m
BP = 117 C = 390 K
GP = 75 C = 348 K
Q = 2.99 watts
Looks reasonable to me.
OK I made a mistake in the order of operations of your experiment. I will need to reassess. We are using the wrong model for one since the plates are not square I will see if I can find a rectangular one.
I have a some questions.
1. how did you arrive at spacings for the ball jar. 1″+1.5″+1.25″ equals 3.75″. The Balljar is 8″ in diameter and could its thickness be more than 1″?
2. where are the thermocouples located?
3. what is the white square seen in the 2nd photo (upper right) and not seen in the 3rd photo?
Hunter, To answer your questions, let me say that I could have been more careful when editing this last version of the demo. For example the “polycarbonate plate” I mentioned was added as a base for the frame, it was not directly involved in the heat transfer experiment.
1 – I have no idea where your dimensions come from. As stated, I assumed that the 8″ plate for simulating the bell jar was located 1.5″ from the BP. Lifting the GP reduced this distance to 1″.
2 – As explained in the text, the thermocouples for the plates were located in holes located transversely within the aluminum plates. The thermocouple for the bell jar was located on the back of the jar opposite the location of the GP, as seen in the fourth photo as a dark “bump” on the bell jar above the red meter.
3 – As explained in the text, the white material you refer to is the backing on some aluminum tape which was used to shield the GP from any radiation. In the third photo, it appears as bright foil. By the time of this last run, that tape had been replaced with a piece of thin aluminum cut from a Coke can and polished.
Note too that I calculated the area of my plates and then calculated the length of the sides of a square plate of the same area, so there’s no need a use rectangular ones.
So, are you ready to accept that “back radiation” from a cooler body can result in a warming of a hotter body?
So, are you ready to accept that back radiation from a cooler body can result in a warming of a hotter body?
——————–
Nope, and never will.
Effects come from the temperature of the material identically to conduction. The warmer a warming object is the slower it warms further in the presence of a steady input.
Whether backradiation is real or not doesn’t add anything different that conduction. Imagining little particles of energy warming a plate at equilibrium to above its equilibrium is simply bonkers.
I mistakenly thought your experiment proved something that was in contention. But I was mistaken. Still a little curious about the balljar. You gave me some measurement apparently from some virtual flat surface you imagined inside the ball jar. The FOV of the plates to the ball jar is always 1.0 and the only thing that matters is the inside diameter of the ball jar and whether the plates are offset from center. But you did not answer any questions on that.
Further a non-square rectangular plate of a given area will have a lower FOV than a square plate of the same area. So it requires a different calculator.
If you answer my questions I will for fun run the numbers again even if I don’t find a rectangular calculator as the difference in the dimensions of your rectangles are pretty small.
I had assumed the polycarbonate was a replacement for the outside mylar baffle. the FOV of the baffle for the BP is well less than 1.0 thus there is plenty of room for the BP to warm. If the baffle were 1/2 a box with highly reflective lined on the inside with the mylar and the experiment was placed so the edges of the half box lined up with the surface of BP you would have gotten less warming of the BP. But I assume you put the mylar on the wrong side of the foam anyway.
And finally I see you have this experiment outside. How did you control the sunlight?
Hunter commented about accepting “back radiation, writing:
No, the energy is not like conduction or convection, as there is no material between the plates. Hunter rambles about the Mylar coated foam baffle and the VF on the side of the bell jar facing the light source, which has no influence on the other side when the GP is lifted into position next to the BP, since those conditions remained the same.
In addition, those photos were taken outside, since my work space was not a good location for photos. The runs were made inside my super insulated house with a nearly constant temperature inside. There was no attempt to use sunlight, since tracking and repeating runs would have been impossible.
Hunter, like grammie pups, has no explanation for the measured warming of the BP, but still refuses to accept the other scientific reason for that warming, that is, back radiation from the GP to the BP. He even considers running an updated analysis with his chosen heat transfer calculator, apparently still unaware that the math employed is based on back radiation.
All I can say is: What an idiot.
you are the one being an idiot for Your complete failure to listen.
If you want to make your experiment actually show some result you need to repeat it and allow the plates to clearly reach a stable state and clean up some of the superfluous plate moving assembly and replace all your reflective surfaces with high emissivity coatings.
Your failure to listen is your failure to recognize insulation technology and how it works.
If you have a power source of 400w/m2 and apply it to a thin metal plate. It will emit 200w/m2 out of each side.
If a thin metal unheated plate will insulate in a radiation field in a vacuum as it does in the atmosphere, then when you use that plate to block radiation and slow the cooling of the heated plate you will get the following result.
HP is heated plate that gets 400watts of warming
UH is unheated plate
Numbers between the plates is will be the net transfer of heat.
So you have the following cases as you add one plate at a time starting with the heated plate thats getting 400w/m2. The numbers are net transfer of heat and always in the direction away from hp.
200-hp-200
300-hp-100-uh-100
200-uh-200-hp-200-uh-200
300-uh-300-hp-100-uh-100-uh-100
200-uh-200-uh-200-hp-200-uh-200-uh-200
375-hp-25-uh-25-uh-25-uh-25
Now I know you are having a conniption about that. But the above calculations for lamp black steel are ever so slightly high. Anytime heat is traveling through an object some wattage is retained by that object. And in the same irresistable manner you attribute the flow of energy from and energy source to warm up something unless heat losses occur the plates will slowly rise in temperature via that internally retained wattage until they are able to disperse the incoming heat. Your error in just using two SB equations to estimate a stabilized temperature ignores the flow of energy that warms the plate with a tiny tiny wattage.
You ended your experiments before the plates were stabilized. How long should you run it after it appears to have flattened? The answer to that can be calculated using the heat flow retained by the plates, the mass of the plates, and the amount of time that flow would take to clearly make a difference in temperature that you could read on your measuring device.
Hunter posts another long rant without any connection to my demonstration.
He claims that my plate temperatures had not stabilized, but I believed that they had when I ended things, as I was watching the temperatures to 1/10 C. Yes, my plates were painted with flat black. The reflective coating on the lower shield was intentional, it was required to prevent the GP from receiving energy from the hot side before it was raised.
Hunter then jumps in with a discussion of multiple plates starting with a set of conditions similar to Eli’s 2 plate GPE with 400 w/m^2, then writes:
Crazy guy, watts are a measure of power, not energy, thus can not be “retained”. The fact is, one can’t measure the actual watts transferred between the multiple plates, only the temperatures. He continues:
I have no intention of repeating my demonstration to satisfy your silly scenarios. You are now trying to change the discussion so as to ignore the fact that your “3rd grade” heat transfer calculator used to estimate the rate in watts was based on the known temperatures in my demo and the S-B equations. The results stand, unless you choose to repudiate your previous endorsement for that mathematical calculation based on S-B back radiation.
“So, are you ready to accept that back radiation from a cooler body can result in a warming of a hotter body?
Nope, and never will.”
uhh, but you have just done that, here, Bill:
“200-hp-200
300-hp-100-uh-100”
In the first instance the hp is emitting 200 to space, so according to SB law it is 244 K.
In the second instance the hp is emitting 300 to space, so according to SB law it is 270 K.
The hp has warmed in the presence of the cooler body, uh.
Another point, Hunter. You wrote:
My plates had an area of 0.095 m x 0.095 m = 0.00902 m^2.
With a calculated heat transfer from the GP of ~3 watts, that’s ~332 watts/m^2. For the BP before lifting the GP, the rate was ~5.9 watts, or ~653 watts/m^2. Both are larger than that which you mentioned for your scenario, so why do you think those are “tiny tiny”?. Just another example of your overall confusion, I’d say.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter then jumps in with a discussion of multiple plates starting with a set of conditions similar to Elis 2 plate GPE with 400 w/m^2, then writes:
Anytime heat is traveling through an object some wattage is retained by that object.
Crazy guy, watts are a measure of power, not energy, thus can not be retained. The fact is, one cant measure the actual watts transferred between the multiple plates, only the temperatures. He continues:
——————-
You are the crazy guy. The retention of those watts would warm the plate until it gets to the necessary temperature (below equilibrium i.e temp corresponding to watts received) such that at that temperature it will be emitting those watts.
the only difference between the 3rd grader radiation theory and the real theory is you believe the first plate will exceed equilibrium to force the heat out. While on the surface its logical the more logical answer would be as follows.
First to heat is the inner ‘hp’ plate that with a point source of light at 400w/m2 it warms to 244k emitting energy in both directions at 200w/m2.
Add a ‘uh’ plate on each side and the middle plate warms to 290k so that it is emitting 400w/m2 on both sides. and the uh plates perform like the hp in the first step and keep the net emissions of the 290k plate in the center down to a total of 400w/m2.
Add a second ‘uh’ plate on each side and nothing happens to the ‘hp’ plate because it is now at equilibrium with the 400w/m2 incoming, but the two first added ‘uh’ plates also warm to 290k.
so the result of the net flow diagram of
200-uh-200-uh-200-hp-200-uh-200-uh-200
is with temps is
200w-244kuh-200w-290kuh-200w-290khp-200w-290kuh-200w-244kuh-200w
to do otherwise would be a violation of 2lot and the rules of equilibriums. You just can’t see your way clear to how that would happen. I say its that small amount of wattage that is lost to the flow of energy that heats the transmitting plate to 1LOT compliant temperature necessary to expel the input.
This approach is similar to conduction where temperature gradients in solids is very short.
So in short your 3rd grader radiation model, colder objects will force warmer object to get hotter.
In my model warmer objects will force colder objects to get warmer. Other than that there is no difference. You are just mind locked into the idea that there is no avenue for 290k object cause an 244k object to warm more and I say thats true unless you add another 244k object in the cooling path of the 1st 244k object and start sending a 100w back to the first unheated object.
so this should be easy to understand. Heat will follow the path of least resistance. Add resistance and plates will heat to equilibrium.
——————–
====================
E. Swanson says:
You are now trying to change the discussion so as to ignore the fact that your 3rd grade heat transfer calculator used to estimate the rate in watts was based on the known temperatures in my demo and the S-B equations. The results stand, unless you choose to repudiate your previous endorsement for that mathematical calculation based on S-B back radiation.
————————
Swanson the view factor is calculated prior to calculating any ‘heat transfer’ and does not use the temperatures of the plates to come up with the percent of radiation from the BP is received by the GP. That view factor calculates to 63%.
And the temperature of the GP corresponds to receiving 63% of the BP emissions. The 3rd grader model would have that plate at 65c instead of 75c.
“First to heat is the inner hp plate that with a point source of light at 400w/m2 it warms to 244k emitting energy in both directions at 200w/m2.
Add a uh plate on each side and the middle plate warms to 290k so that it is emitting 400w/m2 on both sides. and the uh plates perform like the hp in the first step and keep the net emissions of the 290k plate in the center down to a total of 400w/m2.”
Yep. Notice each uh plate is 244 K and emits 200 W/m^2 on 2-sides, one to space, and one (back) to the hp.
That is the back radiation! And the middle plate warmed!
Thus, as you say, the net transfer from each side of the hp to the uh plate is 400 – 200 = 200. 1LOT is happy for each plate.
Now this is exactly what we have been saying all this time! And opposite to what DREMT has been saying all this time.
“Add a second uh plate on each side and nothing happens to the hp plate because it is now at equilibrium with the 400w/m2 incoming, but the two first added uh plates also warm to 290k.
so the result of the net flow diagram of
200-uh-200-uh-200-hp-200-uh-200-uh-200
is with temps is
200w-244kuh-200w-290kuh-200w-290khp-200w-290kuh-200w-244kuh-200w”
Nope, that doesnt work.
Adding the second plate increases the insulation of the middle plate.
The hp must be warmer than the first uh in order to have a net energy transfer to it, as you required above.
Try again.
Hunter still refuses to admit that his preferred radiation HT calculator is based on q = T1^4 – T2^4, which is standard S-B math, which represents the back radiation from the cooler plate to the warmer one. The VF is 0.69, not 0.63 which he gives.
Hunter still can’t provide any explanation for the warming of the BP when the GP is lifted into position, so he keeps throwing out red herrings, like adding more and more plates and obsessing about view factors to try to obscure his inability to solve the basic physics problem. BTW, the VF is 0.69, not 0.63.
Of course, his repeats a display of his ignorance of physics, writing:
No, Hunter there’s no way to “retain” watts, as watts represent a flow of energy, i.e., power. Hunter can’t even get the language right.
Bill,
To correct your solution to the 5 plate problem, the middle hp plate must have SB emission of 600 W/m^2 from each of its sides and is @ 321 K.
The first uh plates on each side of the hp must have SB emission of 400 W/m^2, on two sides, and are @ 290 K. The net transfer from hp to uh is then 600 – 400 = 200 W/m^2, on both sides, so total is 400 W/m^2, which satisfies 1LOT.
The second layer of uh plates on each side have SB emission of 200 W/m^2 on two sides and are @ 244 K. So the net transfer from first uh to 2nd uh = 400 – 200 = 200 W/M^2.
So T are:
244 K 290 K 321 K 290 K 244 K.
SB emissions are:
200200 400400 600600 400400 200200
And NET transfers are as you had them:
200<-uh<200<-uh<200200>uh->200>uh->200
symbols disappeared. Again
SB emissions are:
200200 400400 600600 400400 200200
Weird. How bout
SB emissions:
200-uh-200 400-uh-400 600-uh-600 400-uh-400 200-uh-200
Nate says:
Yep. Notice each uh plate is 244 K and emits 200 W/m^2 on 2-sides, one to space, and one (back) to the hp.
That is the back radiation! And the middle plate warmed!
Thus, as you say, the net transfer from each side of the hp to the uh plate is 400 200 = 200. 1LOT is happy for each plate.
—————–
No Nate. Your concept of emissions is the cartoon-based depiction of little particles of energy (photons) departing a plate and arriving at another plate even in reverse to warmer plates. A clear violation of 2lot.
I am certainly not going to buy into your imaginary system without an experiment supporting it. Fact is every method of explaining all this seems to fail at something.
Nor do I think you should buy into my view without an experiment.
Just chalk it up as unsettled.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter still refuses to admit that his preferred radiation HT calculator is based on q = T1^4 T2^4, which is standard S-B math, which represents the back radiation from the cooler plate to the warmer one. The VF is 0.69, not 0.63 which he gives.
———————
I am sticking with the .63. I calculated it at 1″ spacing with 4″x4″ plates. Turns out that the plates are smaller and if you do reduce the spacing to 3/4″ you get just under 69%. However the photo of your experiment shows that your pully system holds the GP away from the back of your framework. So I added 1/16″ realizing that is such a common measuring mistake by amateur builders I figure you don’t really know what the true spacing was. When I add that 1/16″ it still comes out 63%
————-
————-
————-
E. Swanson says:
Hunter still cant provide any explanation for the warming of the BP when the GP is lifted into position
—————————-
Thats a lie. I just gave you a plate that has two surfaces emitting that when a thin plate is put on one side the energy transfers out the other side.
What you haven’t explained is why an object put in the middle of a room does not heat up warmer than 290k when it is surrounded by walls all emitting 400w/m2 from all 6 directions.
You seem to believe it will or you hold some kind of weirdo belief that radiation varies in character depending upon which circumstances you wish to select.
“No Nate.”
No, that I agree with your solution?
“Your concept of emissions is the cartoon-based depiction of little particles of energy (photons) departing a plate and arriving at another plate even in reverse to warmer plates. A clear violation of 2lot.”
I am simply using the SB law. What are you doing to get your solution?
If your my solution violates 2LOT then your solution does as well!
“I am certainly not going to buy into your imaginary system without an experiment supporting it. Fact is every method of explaining all this seems to fail at something.”
I think its weird that you and I agree on the results of the 3 plate experiment.
But you still want an experiment supporting it?
A law in physics only becomes a law by being tested experimentally numerous times. The SB Law certainly has been.
Do you dispute the SB Law?
As far as 2LOT, it is not violated in OUR solution to the 3 plate experiment because heat flows from hot to cold.
Nate says:
Bill,
To correct your solution to the 5 plate problem, the middle hp plate must have SB emission of 600 W/m^2 from each of its sides and is @ 321 K.
———————–
Your theory is its based upon a constant stream of energy so as to not violate 2LOT.
But a constant stream of energy from sides of a box of 400w/m2 can’t warm a block in the middle of a room to more than 290k despite that block losing zero energy and getting streams of 400w/m2 from every conceivable direction jamming themsselves into that block. . . .and no warming results.
But hang the damn block outside of a space ship in a sunshine of 400w/m2 and its going to warm to emit 600watts/m2?
These morons think they can put a cold brick in the middle of their living room to warm it up! I can see them all gathered around the brick on a cold North Dakota evening rubbing their hands over their magic brick.
Hunter, I re-measured the rig more carefully. The BP and GP plates would indeed be separated by 9/16 inch, as I used with my calculations.
But you continue to ignore physics while you accuse me of lying. You still can not provide any explanation for the warming of the BP when the GP is lifted into position. Your only response is to throw out another red herring about “an object put in the middle of a room does not heat up warmer than 290k when it is surrounded by walls all emitting 400w/m^2 from all 6 directions”. That comment has nothing to do with my experiment, in which there is an external energy supply to the BP.
E. Swanson says:
”Another point, Hunter. You wrote:
in just using two SB equations to estimate a stabilized temperature ignores the flow of energy that warms the plate with a tiny tiny wattage.
My plates had an area of 0.095 m x 0.095 m = 0.00902 m^2.
With a calculated heat transfer from the GP of ~3 watts, thats ~332 watts/m^2. For the BP before lifting the GP, the rate was ~5.9 watts, or ~653 watts/m^2. Both are larger than that which you mentioned for your scenario, so why do you think those are ”tiny tiny”?. Just another example of your overall confusion, Id say.”
————————-
We went through this calculation Swanson. Perhaps you miscomprehended.
Every object has some resistance to heat transferring through it.
Using the insulation model in the atmosphere for air gaps:
It was 3 watts/m2 for 200watts/m2 transiting through 1/4″ glass.
So that resistance actually only amounts to about 3w/m2 for 1/4″ glass. Less for metals of 1/4″. A whole lot less than a one molecule thick virtual surface.
Add more layers of glass and you get about the same additional result.
This idea of backradiation cutting the warming rate in 1/2 is an extrapolation from stuff like greenhouses, kitchen GP experiments, and such where you see larger effects and air actually is an insulator.
You followed the same backradiation path that millions have followed. You started your demos in the kitchen being ignorant of the differences mattering.
Indeed warming slows as a heated object warms an unheated object. You can see that in any warming curve.
But it is an extrapolation too far that an object will not warm more than halfway without convection to provide additional cooling essentially equal to full spectrum IR opaqueness. You have already recognized that Swanson when you noted you got additional warming in your experiment when you pumped out the air. And you even correctly identified the cause. So why are you still stuck on the 3rd grader radiation model? Why is Eli stuck on it. You know his results are wrong.
So what works in the atmosphere on the basis of convective air cooling combined with insulating air gaps works in the same ways as insulation in space. . . .where the 1/4″ glass provides extremely nominal resistance.
If you put an 18″ thick iron wall up to block 200watts/m2 radiation the slowing of the flow would be about the same as 1/4″ glass. If there were an ideal object with no resistance then there would be no slowing of the flow of heat.
This idea of backradiation probably mistakenly arose out of extrapolations of mathematical issues of slowing of cooling in a problem with only 2 SB equations, ignoring the fact that an object that is going to retain a 244k temperature needs to receive a mean 200w/m2 from every direction and there are 3 SB flows.
Lord Kelvin realized this when you noted that hydrodynamics probably explains everything. To keep an object at 244k it must be pressurized like a liquid by the pressure of a 200w/m2 wave of energy from every direction. Allow a hole, open a spigot and it depressurizes.
Where yall go wrong is in believing that dynamically where you have additional heat losses that those heat losses do not need compensation for. To keep something at 244k it needs to be surrounded by 244k objects radiating 244k at it from every direction or you need a fuel source to keep the pressure on.
How did you convince yourself that it was all taken care of by a concept of backradiation? FYI, your daddy told you that before your daddy went on to something else higher up in the atmosphere and started talking about less cooling?
Of course Nate knows about that higher up stuff. We have talked about it. He is just defending this nonsense to keep the epigonic peons in line. The more you understand the more questions that will be asked that nobody has an answer for. Trillions of dollars are at stake!!!!
E. Swanson says:
Hunter, I re-measured the rig more carefully. The BP and GP plates would indeed be separated by 9/16 inch, as I used with my calculations.
But you continue to ignore physics while you accuse me of lying. You still can not provide any explanation for the warming of the BP when the GP is lifted into position. Your only response is to throw out another red herring about an object put in the middle of a room does not heat up warmer than 290k when it is surrounded by walls all emitting 400w/m^2 from all 6 directions. That comment has nothing to do with my experiment, in which there is an external energy supply to the BP.
Bill Hunter says:
July 16, 2022 at 9:41 PM
E. Swanson says:
Hunter, I re-measured the rig more carefully. The BP and GP plates would indeed be separated by 9/16 inch, as I used with my calculations.
—————————-
You used 3/4” above. 1/16” plus 3/4” is not 9/16”. It is 13/16”. plus you must account for the rectangular plates.
———
——
E. Swanson says:
But you continue to ignore physics while you accuse me of lying.
———-
It is a lie that I didn’t provide you with an explanation. You just aren’t accepting it and claiming falsely (which is a lie) that I didn’t give you.
And an object cooling will find the path of least resistance.
But you need some resistance (insulation) to make that happen and the brick in the 290k room with zero cooling isn’t going to ever be able to retain its 290k temperature unless it is surrounded by objects radiating a mean of 400w/m2.
Start looking at this like Lord Kelvin using the concepts of hydrodynamics and drop the BS propaganda stuff you have been led to believe.
Whatever you conclude from your model it is wrong.
1) Field of view matters. So go ahead and play around with the figures. Just note your results are not the same as claimed by Eli.
2) realize that your vacuum experiment isn’t capable of eliminating convection. Aparently it has no effect until you get to 30 microns.
Deep space vacuum equals .00000000000001 microns. So convection is at 25 microns going to have an additional cooling effect in your experiment. Lets go with 6% and come to agreement on your results for all practical purposes.
“But a constant stream of energy from sides of a box of 400w/m2 cant warm a block in the middle o”
Evasion, by changing the subject, Bill, to a different problem with different answers.
We were discussing the 3 plate case. The fact is you and I get the same answers, while, again, DREMT gets a different answer.
244k 290 K 244 K
For the one plate case we get
244 K.
The presence of the surrounding plates causes the central plate to warm.
I used the SB law and 1LOT to find this result.
What laws do you use to arrive at this answer? How do you explain this?
Wow, Hunter posts 4 replies in his continued attempt to ignore the “back radiation” explanation for my results and most of what he wrote is wrong. He’s attempting to “win” the debate by exhaustion.
Hunter wants to claim convection or conduction as the explanation, with no reference, apparently unaware that there’s experimental evidence that the level of vacuum I achieved will suppress convection. He insists on talking about conduction, when the plates are aluminum, with tiny, tiny thermal resistance. Instead, Hunter wants to use an 18 inch thick iron plate to simulate a glass plate, when there’s no glass plate in my demo.
I did post results from calculating the BP to GP HT using 3/4 inch, though I also tried 9/16 in one calculation, which resulted in slightly greater HT, but that is only a minor difference. Hunter forgets that the calculated effects of the bell jar “plate” are only an approximation.
Hunter confuses the warming which happens when the vacuum pump is switched on with what happens after the GP is raised into position. The warming of the BP after that point can only be explained by back radiation from the GP, which Hunter continues to insist can’t possibly happen. With all his ranting for days on end, he still has no explanation for that final warming of the BP.
“But hang the damn block outside of a space ship in a sunshine of 400w/m2 and its going to warm to emit 600watts/m2?”
Well, if we follow the rules ie laws of physics, rather than instinct or feelings, we find that for the 5 plate scenario, the middle plate indeed needs to warm to emit 600 W/m^2, T = 321 K.
I see no reason from physics why it could not.
If you want the middle plate, hp, to remain at 290 K, and have the adjacent uh plates ALSO at 290 K, then you have a problem that there will be 0 NET ENERGY flow from the hp to the uh!
Then the hp has 400 input and 0 output!
Thus your solution
244K 290 K 290 K 290 K 244 K
would have NET fluxes
200|200|0|0|200|200
which cannot work!
Nate says:
”But a constant stream of energy from sides of a box of 400w/m2 cant warm a block in the middle o”
Evasion, by changing the subject, Bill, to a different problem with different answers.
——————————-
LMAO! Nate waves his arms is dismay and then runs away and doesn’t want to discuss it!
Again: Example one:
Brick suspended in cube room, 4 walls a floor and a roof all warmed to 290k radiating the brick with 400w/m2 in all directions.
Example two:
Brick suspended in cube room, 2 walls and a floor at 244k, 2 walls and a roof at 290k radiating the brick with 400w/m2 with half its field of view and 200w/m2 of backradiation from the other half of its field of view.
Nate and Swanson says the brick in example one will be 290k and in example two it will be 321k because of back radiation because the cold walls are cooling and backradiating 200watts/m2 at the brick.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Conclusion: On that cold night in North Dakota all I have to do is open a lot of windows and wait for the brick to warm up. . . .right?
We were discussing the 3 plate case. The fact is you and I get the same answers, while, again, DREMT gets a different answer.
244k 290 K 244 K
For the one plate case we get
244 K.
The presence of the surrounding plates causes the central plate to warm.
I used the SB law and 1LOT to find this result.
What laws do you use to arrive at this answer? How do you explain this?
E. Swanson says:
1. Hunter wants to claim convection or conduction as the explanation, with no reference, apparently unaware that theres experimental evidence that the level of vacuum I achieved will suppress convection.
———————
Yes there is suppression of convection but you did not calculate how much suppression nor provide a source to recognize the amount of suppression you achieved.
2. I did post results from calculating the BP to GP HT using 3/4 inch, though I also tried 9/16 in one calculation, which resulted in slightly greater HT
——————–
Which is consistent with an increasing FOV. Didn’t I see you armwaving to dismiss that earlier in this thread?
3. but that is only a minor difference. Hunter forgets that the calculated effects of the bell jar plate are only an approximation.
——————–
the bell jars temperature is in accordance with the amount of energy it receives. FOV of the BP, FOV of the GP, FOV of the light spectrum of the halogen light and FOV of the temperatures of the balljar itself if it was not a uniform temperature. Backradiation is a unicorn, its all primary radiation and nothing is being warmed to a value higher than the inputs by backradiation Swanson.
See here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334510
Hunter confuses the warming which happens when the vacuum pump is switched on with what happens after the GP is raised into position. The warming of the BP after that point can only be explained by back radiation from the GP, which Hunter continues to insist cant possibly happen. With all his ranting for days on end, he still has no explanation for that final warming of the BP.
Hunter still can’t explain the BP warming after moving the GP into position. Instead, he continues to rant about VFs, then pontificates another version of his usual denial:
No, the warming of the BP is a fact, one which Hunter can not admit is real, lest it shatters his delusional world view.
Swanson if you want to pretend that I haven’t responded to your backradiation argument go ahead and pretend.
But if you actually want to defend your backradiation unicorn go here and respond.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334510,
The Hunter troll wrote:
FYI, “respond” is not the same as “explain”. Your linked comment is NOT an explanation, just another red herring and, worse, your conclusion has nothing to do with your 2 cases because “opening” the window invalidates both cases! Your brick should be heated from an external energy source. If you and your kin are stuck some place in North Dakota during winter without an external heating source, well, TS, another Darwin Award candidate.
Bill,
You didnt respond to this:
We were discussing the 3 plate case. The fact is you and I get the same answers, while, again, DREMT gets a different answer.
244k 290 K 244 K
For the one plate case we get
244 K.
The presence of the surrounding plates causes the central plate to warm.
I used the SB law and 1LOT to find this result.
What laws do you use to arrive at this answer? How do you explain this?
Nor did you respond to this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334459
E. Swanson says:
The Hunter troll wrote:
..if you want to pretend that I havent responded to your backradiation argument go ahead and pretend.
FYI, respond is not the same as explain. Your linked comment is NOT an explanation, just another red herring and, worse, your conclusion has nothing to do with your 2 cases because opening the window invalidates both cases! Your brick should be heated from an external energy source. If you and your kin are stuck some place in North Dakota during winter without an external heating source, well, TS, another Darwin Award candidate.
———————
The Darwin Award goes to how is wrong. Thats you.
All that happens when you put an object in the FOV of something that is at equilibrium is the object will cool slower.
The fallacy you have bought into is the idea that a stream of light on a surface will continue to cause that surface to endlessly warm if it loses no energy.
The brick in the room example shows how absurd that idea is.
the brick in the 290k room being radiated with 400w/m2 from all imaginable sides will reach an equilibrium of 290k and warm no more despite how many plates you put around it. I think a 3rd grader can grasp that idea. I have no idea how a science trained college graduate could screw it up.
Seems to me the thought process must have gone, gee backradiation thats why the earth has a greenhouse effect!! Let me make a model and do an experiment to show it at work!
So out comes the model where plates warm but the watts into the system is never revealed in the experiment.
But you say we can explain this in the 3rd grader flat plate uniform radiation model. Result you end up with 8 year olds thinking you have lost your mind.
Hunter continues with his failure to explain the results of my Green Plate demo. He is lost in La-La land, commenting:
I would not disagree with that second statement until you get to the end about adding plates, but that’s not the system which we’ve been arguing for months. The energy supplied by the light (including visible and infrared), does not cause the BP’s temperature to “endlessly warm”, it changes the temperature after a new steady state is reached.
The BP is not in a “room” surrounded by constant temperature walls, floor and ceiling. The geometry is different and there’s only the change in the location of the GP, placing it next to the BP, which intercepts most of the emissions from one side of the BP toward the bell jar. Most importantly, the BP is being continually supplied with energy, where your brick apparently is not.
You know all this, but you continue to dance around the problem of your lack of an explanation for the results of my demo, which support Eli’s GPE scenario. You are throwing silly stuff against the wall, as if doing so refutes the basic S-B concept of back radiation. Are you now going to repudiate your chosen radiation heat transfer calculator, which includes S-B back radiation?
E. Swanson says:
”The fallacy you have bought into is the idea that a stream of light on a surface will continue to cause that surface to endlessly warm if it loses no energy.”
the brick in the 290k room being radiated with 400w/m2 from all imaginable sides will reach an equilibrium of 290k and warm no more despite how many plates you put around it.
I would not disagree with that second statement until you get to the end about adding plates, but thats not the system which weve been arguing for months. The energy supplied by the light (including visible and infrared), does not cause the BPs temperature to endlessly warm, it changes the temperature after a new steady state is reached.
——————-
”It????” What is ‘it’? Care to explain yourself? I agree that it is not endless also. But if you put a thousand plates on the unlit side no way would the lit side warm more than 290k which would be its temperature with zero cooling in a room where all the sides were emitting 400w/m2.
Let that sink in Swanson: Zero Cooling
Limit of warming of the brick: 290k
Radiation: 400w/m2
Radiation: 200w/m2 limit of warming of the brick is 244k.
———————
———————
———————
———————
E. Swanson says:
The BP is not in a room surrounded by constant temperature walls, floor and ceiling. The geometry is different and theres only the change in the location of the GP, placing it next to the BP, which intercepts most of the emissions from one side of the BP toward the bell jar. Most importantly, the BP is being continually supplied with energy, where your brick apparently is not.
——————–
What do you mean my brick isn’t getting a steady stream of 400w/m2?? Are you claiming walls don’t radiate? Wierd!!
——————
——————-
——————
——————
E. Swanson says:
You know all this, but you continue to dance around the problem of your lack of an explanation for the results of my demo, which support Elis GPE scenario. You are throwing silly stuff against the wall, as if doing so refutes the basic S-B concept of back radiation. Are you now going to repudiate your chosen radiation heat transfer calculator, which includes S-B back radiation?
—————————-
Probably 90% of the BP’s FOV on the lit side is a cold target while having linear light shining on it of unknown wattage coming down the other 10% of the FOV. In DREMTS scenario that will allow for a doubling of the BP temperature if energy loss off the backside is cut in half by plate with a FOV=1 of the BP. But the BP only increased in temperature by 10% instead of 100% as in Eli’s experiment.
The reason’s it was less was for several reasons.
1. The light in the slow was not a point source but a small part of the FOV of the BP.
2. The FOV of the BP was what did you say 69% or was it 63%? This means the GP didn’t block all the BP’s unlit side light.
3. Convection. Probably minor but there will be some increase in heat loss due to residual air.
If the Blue plate was warmed by a full field of view from the light you wouldn’t have any warming of the BP. But since such a large percentage of the BP litside FOV target was cold (the 30c balljar) it could lose energy in that direction a lot easier than losing it through a 75c GP so it moved up in temperature to lose more in that direction. its all hard to calculate because the balljar is not a flat plate nor a sphere.
Both DREMT and I have gone over this before.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1319210
If the sun is a point source the lit plate will be half the temperature of a plate with FOV=1. The reason is that energy will be lost toward the cold target on the lit side.
And of course the entire target on the unlit side is the same temperature as the cold target on the lit side.
So if I put an additional plate on one side and one side only that plate will warm according to the field of view and the distance it is from the BP. the warmer this GP is the less heat lost by the BP and it will proportionally heat toward sending everything back to the lit side. Its nothing more than recognizing the percent of sky a cold target is available and what that temperature is.
But in no case can it warm more than 290k, the temperature it would be if the sunplate was on the lit side instead of a point source.
“Evasion, by changing the subject, Bill, to a different problem with different answers.
–
LMAO! Nate waves his arms is dismay and then runs away and doesnt want to discuss it!
Again: Example one:
Brick suspended in cube room, 4 walls a floor and a roof all warmed to 290k radiating the brick with 400w/m2 in all directions.
Example two:”
Bill,
Do you really not understand that the difference between your Example 1 and 2 and the 3-plate or 5-plate problem??
In the 3-plate or 5-plate problem, the central plate, hp, is heated electrically with 400 W/m^2. That heat input is present no matter what the T of the hp is.
While in your examples 1,2. the input heat flow to the brick depends entirely on it having a DIFFERENCE in temperature with the surrounding walls.
In examples 1,2 the input heat flow STOPS when the brick reaches equilibrium with the walls.
Whereas, in the 3-plate or 5-plate problem, the heat input does NOT depend on T of hp.
Switching to a different problem with different conditions that has a different result, then trying to claim that applies to the previous problem is pure obfuscation.
It is Climateball in action.
Now for honest debate, go back to the 3-plate and 5-plate problems and EXPLAIN your answers to THOSE problems.
“Both DREMT and I have gone over this before.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1319210”
Except DREMT gets the wrong answer!
“So thats why you split by 2 for the BP if the source is a point source Sun, and you dont split by 2 if the source is an infinite parallel plate.
1) Point source Sun = BP at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2.
2) Infinite parallel plate source Sun = BP at 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2.”
But you defend him as usual anyway!
The point here is when you think for yourself, without DREMT, you understand that the presence of the GP results in the BP warming.
Hunter, your brick-in-a-room red herring is just a repeat of grammie pups 3 plate model. If the middle plate receives no external energy supply, then, I agree that it’s temperature would be the same as the other plates (or walls, etc), i.e the surrounding thermal environment. Adding more plates doesn’t change the ambient temperature or the temperature of the BP. You wrote:
The warming of the BP (brick) only obtains when the BP (brick) receives energy from an external supply above that which it exchanges with the environment.
Hunter switches to a guessing game about the warm side of my demos BP. But, we don’t know the intensity of the visible illumination or the temperature of the bell jar on the lite side, as I did not attempt to measure either. But, that does not impact what happens on the cold side of the BP as the GP is lifted into position, as it’s reasonable to assume that what happens on the hot side remains the same. Hunter continues:
OF course, I agree that adding one plate (the GP) will result in a warmer GP. But, your claim that this causes the BP to warm is just hand waving, as you have (still) not provided any basis in physics for this claim. You are still attempting to use your VF calculations and your HT calculator to explain things, ignoring the fact that said tool is based on back radiation from one plate to another or with the surrounding environment. There is no “Sun Plate”, only the combination of the work light energy source and the bell jar environment.
Sorry, Hunter, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t claim that there’s no “back radiation” while using the identical logic and S-B math as the basis for your scenarios.
E. Swanson says:
If the middle plate receives no external energy supply, then, I agree that its temperature would be the same as the other plates.
—————————-
Swanson the brick in the room is receiving energy from an external energy supply. what the heck do you think warms the walls??????
You are making no sense at all.
————
————
————
E. Swanson says:
The warming of the BP (brick) only obtains when the BP (brick) receives energy from an external supply above that which it exchanges with the environment.
——————–
You mean when a portion of the walls radiating the brick are colder so that energy starts flowing out of the brick at the wall with a window in it, for example, is when the brick starts warming????
If not then explain what you mean a lot better.
————
————
————
E. Swanson says:
Hunter switches to a guessing game about the warm side of my demos BP. But, we dont know the intensity of the visible illumination or the temperature of the bell jar on the lite side, as I did not attempt to measure either.
—————–
Yep like Eli’s experiment it was very poorly monitored and as a result poorly documented. Every experiment needs some ultimate control to demonstrate if things are getting warmer or whether all that is going on is a redistribution of heat. Thats all your experiment shows absent any documentation actually proving the point you want to make here.
————
————
————
E. Swanson says:
But, that does not impact what happens on the cold side of the BP as the GP is lifted into position, as its reasonable to assume that what happens on the hot side remains the same.
—————–
See the hydrodynamic model, suggested by Lord Kelvin, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1335123
This model works for electricity also.
————
————
————
E. Swanson says:
OF course, I agree that adding one plate (the GP) will result in a warmer GP. But, your claim that this causes the BP to warm is just hand waving, as you have (still) not provided any basis in physics for this claim. You are still attempting to use your VF calculations and your HT calculator to explain things, ignoring the fact that said tool is based on back radiation from one plate to another or with the surrounding environment.
—————–
More nonsense. The calculator does not use backradiation to find the view. I doesn’t use any temperatures at all.
The second part of the equation calculates the energy sent to the GP by the BP. It is a SMALLER amount of energy sent to that field of view before the GP was lifted. Thus energy always finds the easiest path and it can attempt to warm the balljar instead by radiating out of its backside an additional amount and will warm to do that with limits. The limit is if the energy received from the source nothing can warm more than 290k so if the balljar is already 290k in the BP view not obstructed by the GP. . . . then the GP will warm to 290k.
————
————
————
E. Swanson says:
There is no Sun Plate, only the combination of the work light energy source and the bell jar environment.
Sorry, Hunter, you cant have your cake and eat it too. You cant claim that theres no back radiation while using the identical logic and S-B math as the basis for your scenarios.
—————
Its a Lord Kelvin thing Swanson. Put some backpressure on one of the hoses coming out of the wye and more water will come out of the other hose off the other side of the wye. Shut both hoses off with sufficient backpressure (equilibrium temperature) and no water flows at all. (the brick in the room.).
You though think if you release pressure on one of the hoses you are going to talk about backradiation as something that goes somewhere rather than merely resists but never completely resists unless that cold window is closed and insulated like the walls.
That is why I suggested you guys seem to think opening windows will warm up the brick.
“OF course, I agree that adding one plate (the GP) will result in a warmer GP. But, your claim that this causes the BP to warm is just hand waving, as you have (still) not provided any basis in physics for this claim.”
Bill you are just terribly confused.
Here you claimed adding an unheated GP on either side of a heated plate will cause it to warm!
“First to heat is the inner hp plate that with a point source of light at 400w/m2 it warms to 244k emitting energy in both directions at 200w/m2.
Add a uh plate on each side and the middle plate warms to 290k so that it is emitting 400w/m2 on both sides. and the uh plates perform like the hp in the first step and keep the net emissions of the 290k plate in the center down to a total of 400w/m2.”
It is quite puzzling why you keep oscillating between sense and nonsense!
Nate says:
Bill you are just terribly confused.
———————
It is you who are confused. You cannot create a plate capable of radiating a total of 1200w/m2 with a 400w/m2 energy source as you claim here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334057
“It is you who are confused. You cannot create a plate capable of radiating a total of 1200w/m2 with a 400w/m2 energy source as you claim here: ”
If this is a problem for you Bill, why is not a problem for you in YOUR 3- plate solution?
“Add a uh plate on each side and the middle plate warms to 290k so that it is emitting 400w/m2 on both sides. and the uh plates perform like the hp in the first step and keep the net emissions of the 290k plate in the center down to a total of 400w/m2.”
How is YOUR middle plate capable of radiating a total of 800w/m2 with a 400w/m2 energy source?
The logic both of us are applying is that this is NOT THE NET LOSS.
Is the 800 W/m^2 radiated in YOUR 3-plat soln. the NET loss?
No.
You are forgetting that the hp in YOUR 3-plate solution is surrounded by two plates at 244 K, each emitting 200 W/m^2 toward the hp. Thus the hp is receiving 400 W/m^2 back.
Its NET radiation is 400 W/m^2. 1LOT is happy.
In in the 5-plate case the hp is surrounded by two plates at 290 K, each emitting 400 W/m^2 toward the hp. Thus the hp is receiving 800 W/m^2 back. Its NET radiation is 400 W/m^2. 1LOT is happy.
Its NET loss is 400 W/m^2. 1LOT is happy.
You need to apply this logic consistently, Bill.
Hunter the Troll keeps thrashing wildely with his idiotic red herring. For example, he wrote:
But, the calculator DOES use back radiation to calculate the heat transfer, “q”. SEE comment below.
Nate says:
How is YOUR middle plate capable of radiating a total of 800w/m2 with a 400w/m2 energy source?
The logic both of us are applying is that this is NOT THE NET LOSS.
——————
The THE NET LOSS argument Nate is that a 244k object will radiate 200w/m2 in both directions when receiving 400w/m2 from a point source and if there is NO NET LOSS in one direction it will warm to equilibrium. This can be accomplished by insulating one side of the of the plate.
Your argument amounts to that a brick in the middle of a cube will continue to heat if it is surrounded by power sources emitting 400w/m2
Swanson disavowed any association with your argument. . . .even though now he wont repeat it in homage to you.
“The THE NET LOSS argument Nate is that a 244k object will radiate 200w/m2 in both directions when receiving 400w/m2 from a point source and if there is NO NET LOSS in one direction it will warm to equilibrium. This can be accomplished by insulating one side of the of the plate.”
Sure.
Focus now on the 3 plate problem.
The point is YOU are using the NET loss argument when you solve the 3 plate problem.
YOU are saying the middle plate is supplied by a 400 W/m^2 source, warming to 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2 on each side and RECEIVING 200 W/m^2 from the surrounding plates.
YOU are saying it WARMS from 244 K to 290 K when surrounded by the uh plates!
This correct!
YOU are saying it is the NET flux emitted by the hp that must balance its input.
This is correct!
For YOU to disavow these principles for the 5 plate problem or the GPE MAKES NO SENSE.
The same principles apply. The same laws of physics apply.
Nate says:
”YOU are saying the middle plate is supplied by a 400 W/m^2 source, warming to 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2 on each side and RECEIVING 200 W/m^2 from the surrounding plates.”
No I didn’t say that Nate. Ever hear of wave cancellation? Did you ever watch it at work?
Nate says:
” ”OF course, I agree that adding one plate (the GP) will result in a warmer GP. But, your claim that this causes the BP to warm is just hand waving, as you have (still) not provided any basis in physics for this claim.”
Bill you are just terribly confused.
Here you claimed adding an unheated GP on either side of a heated plate will cause it to warm!”
——————————
You are using Swanson’s ‘quote’. Your response that I agreed the BP would warm just shows how confused Swanson is for making such a quote and how confused you are about who is saying what.
“It is you who are confused. You cannot create a plate capable of radiating a total of 1200w/m2 with a 400w/m2 energy source as you claim here: ”
If this is a problem for you Bill, why is not a problem for you in YOUR 3- plate solution?
“Add a uh plate on each side and the middle plate warms to 290k so that it is emitting 400w/m2 on both sides. and the uh plates perform like the hp in the first step and keep the net emissions of the 290k plate in the center down to a total of 400w/m2.”
How is YOUR middle plate capable of radiating a total of 800w/m2 with a 400w/m2 energy source?
These are YOUR inconsistencies, Bill. Nothing to do with Swanson.
You still cannot get your story straight and are evading the issue.
Nate says:
”How is YOUR middle plate capable of radiating a total of 800w/m2 with a 400w/m2 energy source?”
Are you trying to say a 290k plate in space doesn’t radiate at total of 800w/m2?
The plate examples I gave were:
200-hp-200
200-uh-200-hp-200-uh-200
The concept here is
power equals 400w/m2
Like water, electricity will travel the path of least resistance.
Thus for one plate the power out each side is equal because the resistance is equal to zero on both sides.
200-hp-200
Add an equal resistance on the other side and it will stablize at:
200-uh-200-hp-200-uh-200. Then all the plates are 244k
In the atmosphere inside a container where internal convection is not carried away the plates will stabilize at:
100-uh-200-hp-200-uh-100 because convection will carry away 100watts from each uh cooling those plates to 205k.
So I don’t know what you are talking about.
With you whining about my 800w/m2 that was just you being confused when are you going to address your 1200w/m2??? How was that created? A perpetual motion machine?
Bill,
“Are you trying to say a 290k plate in space doesnt radiate at total of 800w/m2?”
” Then all the plates are 244k”
You cant get your story straight, even within a single post!
You are hopelessly lost.
Nate you simply cannot see the forest for the trees.
A brick in a 290k room can radiate 400w/m out of every surface. It just cannot lose any net energy in that situation and maintain the flow.
Yet the 3rd grader radiation model allows it to do that while claiming a loss of energy that isn’t occurring. Be logical and stop buying into the Eli model with the unaccounted for 100w/m2.
Bill,
You had the right idea here.
”
First to heat is the inner hp plate that with a point source of light at 400w/m2 it warms to 244k emitting energy in both directions at 200w/m2.
Add a uh plate on each side and the middle plate warms to 290k so that it is emitting 400w/m2 on both sides. and the uh plates perform like the hp in the first step and keep the net emissions of the 290k plate in the center down to a total of 400w/m2.
You apparently understood at that point why surrounding the heated plate with unheated plates will result in its warming.
Now you seem to have lost that knowledge.
Nate says:
Bill,
You had the right idea here.
First to heat is the inner hp plate that with a point source of light at 400w/m2 it warms to 244k emitting energy in both directions at 200w/m2.
Add a uh plate on each side and the middle plate warms to 290k so that it is emitting 400w/m2 on both sides. and the uh plates perform like the hp in the first step and keep the net emissions of the 290k plate in the center down to a total of 400w/m2.
You apparently understood at that point why surrounding the heated plate with unheated plates will result in its warming.
Now you seem to have lost that knowledge.
——————————–
Nate you are confounding the insulating air gaps in the atmosphere with vacuum providing a form of insulation.
What should happen is a 400w/m2 point source on one side of a non-insulating plate will lose heat on both sides. Thus since resistance is zero on both sides 200w/m2 will be directed in each direction adding up to 400w/m2 and that radiated plate will be 244k
Add one plate on one side depending upon its conductivity all that will happen is the plate on that side will also heat to ~244k.
In the atmosphere where air gaps provide insulation the heated plate will warm to ~270k. But we are not talking about the atmsophere.
Add a 2nd unheated plate to the other side and it also will warm to ~244k.
In the atmosphere with yet another insulating air gap the heated plate will warm to 290k.
You see what convection does is it takes heat from the heatflow and does what you suspect radiation of doing – it gives 50% back to the heated plate and 50% to the unheated plate.
But you are wrong about the radiation and evidence of that is your failure to address the points I made and the errors made by Eli that I pointed out.
Don’t feel bad though Nate. Svante Arrhenius a brilliant physicist made the same mistake as you. Difference was after Dr. RW Woods showed him is error it appears he quit preaching it.
Arrhenius is also the progenitor of the idea that the earth was originally populated by alien beings. Lets just say he had a vivid imagination.
“Add one plate on one side depending upon its conductivity all that will happen is the plate on that side will also heat to ~244k.”
Bill there is another Bill Hunter posting here, that totally disagrees with you.
“In the atmosphere with yet another insulating air gap the heated plate will warm to 290k.”
We were not discussing the atmosphere. You were not discussing the atmosphere when you stated that the middle plate surrounded by uh plates would warm to 290 K.
So any mention of atmosphere here is a red herring! Irrelevant. A distraction.
You seem to have no clue what you think anymore, Bill.
Nate you are the one going full on obfuscation after failing with the claim a plate can warm to emit 600w/m2 and achieve a temperature of 321k if radiated by 400w/m2 and surrounded by passive plates.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334459
That right there which you are advocating is in fact the discredited the 3rd grader radiation model.
Real science has debunked that now and you don’t see much of it except in forums like this and wannabee scientists like yourself.
My position is this and I have made this clear. Warming of a plate free to radiate 360degrees will warm to 50% of the flux at receiving end of a point source of light.
We have been using various numbers for that flux. Lets call it 400w/m2. Thus in that situation the plate will heat to 244k and emit 200w/m2 on each side.
If you provide insulation on one side that plate will respond by warming up to a 290k limit.
The example of that last claim is the case of a brick in the middle of a heated room where the walls are radiating heat at the brick from all sides.
Yet you insist that this brick will get hotter in the above statement of yours. That is what I am disputing.
I originally believed that radiation alone would perform like radiation and convective air gaps until DREMT questioned where the insulation was if the air gaps were missing. I don’t know the answer to that question but until I do I will merely assume zero insulation for a vacuum gap. Intuitively it seems it must be insulating but when you realize that there are two phenomena here. The maximum insulation you can get from an air gap is r2. The maximum you can get from a vacuum gap with reflection is about R100.
The question is can you get R2 with a vacuum gap?
It is obvious that trapping heat via separated plates is an area of very poorly documented science. History shows that RW Woods had to instruct Svante Arrhenius on the matter and for 60 some odd years the topic was closed when in the 1970’s it was required to establish standards for insulation provided by sellers of insulation and multi-pane windows because of all the charlatans out there making exaggerated claims.
Unfortunately those laws and standards do not extent to Universities and Science Academies who lack the experimental documentation required of private enterprise.
At a minimum they have retreated to some hot spot up in the middle of that atmosphere with where they are passing around self congratulatory awards for mathematically documenting mysterious and untested processes.
And you? LMAO! You gobble it up like a cod on a school of anchovies. Maybe somebody could convince Musk to run the experiment. But then he needs to think about selling electric cars.
“Until I do I will merely assume zero insulation for a vacuum gap.”
The laws of physics and the other bill hunter say you are assuming wrongly.
Ignorance must be bliss, because you’ve had many opportunities to learn here but you refuse to do so.
You started out understanding that separated plates insulate.
But then you let DREMT, who has zero understanding of heat transfer, pollute your mind.
You choose ignorance over understanding. Too bad.
We will leave it there.
“after failing with the claim a plate can warm to emit 600w/m2”
Clearly explained already. You had no rebuttal whatsoever, Bill, other than incredulity, which is not an argument.
Enjoy it again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334057
Nate says:
”The laws of physics and the other bill hunter say you are assuming wrongly.”
———–
The laws of physics say no such thing Nate.
————
============
Nate says:
Clearly explained already. You had no rebuttal whatsoever, Bill, other than incredulity, which is not an argument.
——————-
So if this also is a law of physics Nate show us how that brick in the room with walls heated to 290k are going to warm the brick in the room to 321k.
You are truly an idiot if you thinks so. The only argument you tried to mount was that the brick wasn’t being heated by the walls. Do you really believe that? Do you actually believe their are different kinds of radiation emitting from some objects than others? Where is your source for that? What law is this?
Nate believes if you put a brick in a room filled with a vacuum and heated to 290k via radiantly warmed walls that the brick in the room will initially warm to 290k and begin radiating 400w/m2 and then get backradiation from the walls to warm the brick further since the radiation is failing to escape the room.
For anyone interested in learning, boundary conditions matter.
In
“In the 3-plate or 5-plate problem, the central plate, hp, is heated electrically with 400 W/m^2.”
the boundary conditions are obviously different from
” that brick in the room with walls heated to 290k”
Different boundary conditions, different results.
There is no difference Nate. The walls are electrically heated as well.
And the backradiation from the brick isn’t going to warm them either. The room is where there should be greater effects as all gaps are removed and radiation is uniform in all directions. . . .just like the 3rd grader radiation model. No plates at all never were any plates in the 3rd grader radiation model. The earth is the brick in the room.
You can’t just pull BS out of your arse Nate. If you want to make a logical case here argue the case rather than just making a declaration. Provide a source. Obviously if backradiation can do anything there has some evidence of it somewhere and nobody can produce it. Its just a con job to fleece the public.
“There is no difference Nate.”
Such certainty.
Expressed by someone who earlier admitted he didnt know enough about heat transfer, and was forced to make dubious assumptions.
“I dont know the answer to that question but until I do I will merely assume zero insulation for a vacuum gap”
So we can file these claims where they belong.
Again, for anyone interested in filling in the knowledge gaps before coming to doubtful conclusions, they can read up on or view videos on heat transfer Boundary Conditions (BC), and how they change the results.
https://quickfield.com/help/QuickField.chm/html/Theory/BoundaryConditionsInHeatTransfer.htm
Note that in example 2 of the video, we have a constant heat flux BC, and the result is a fixed T gradient, but T at the boundary is FREE to ADJUST.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-gzUUraM9A
That is all fine and good Nate. Problem is we have only discussed a difference of two boundary conditions. One where we have an infinite solar plate and one where we have a point source of heat flux on the outside of the plate.
And different results are found by the Postma heat flux equations as we have been discussing.
So at most we have a choice of two boundary conditions. One where heat losses are allowed and one where they are not.
All the other boundary conditions have been specified in our examples as being identical. . .uniform radiation, FV=1 at all surfaces, no convection, blackbody emissivity, and objects of sufficient conductivity as to offer no significant resistance.
Under those boundary conditions DREMT’s plate graphics appear correct and the brick in the room also appears to be correct since for the room we are ignoring the outside boundary condition and instead specifying the constant heat flux into the room.
The outside boundary condition can change flux into the room but once changed and we continue to assume the constant temperature boundary condition associated with that. . . .to your consternation. . . .backradiation does nothing.
So one can say based upon the heat flux boundary condition and given the constant temperature boundary condition, there is no greenhouse effect.
Thus you must start accepting Postma’s conclusions to even begin to explain any kind of a greenhouse effect, all of which destroy the 3rd grader radiation model.
You can start throwing stuff against the wall hoping something is going to stick; but rather than just spewing out diarrhea about boundary conditions. . . .you need to actually specify mathematically how such conditions will actually create a greenhouse effect. Since nobody in history has actually done that correctly, there could be a big prize awaiting for you if you actually did it rather than just bloviate about it.
So you are certainly free to object. But you have the heat transfer equations and a large variety of boundary conditions in front of you. So if you wish to demonstrate the greenhouse effect mathematically please be my guest. Saying my examples are different isn’t sufficient as we have already discussed how they will differ.
The bottom line Nate is one cannot get 600w/m2 out of a 400w/m2 source of heat under any boundary conditions. Such an outcome is a violation of 2LOT.
“The bottom line Nate is one cannot get 600w/m2 out of a 400w/m2 source of heat under any boundary conditions.”
True, if 600 W/m^2 were the NET output, but it is not. It is merely the SB emission from a surface.
As explained several times, the NET output from the hp is its emitted – absorbed.
In the 5-plate case, the central hp is heated by 400 W/m^2. It has SB emission of 600 W/m^2 x 2 sides. It absorbs 400 W/m^2 x 2 sides.
So its NE is 400 – 2*600 + 2*400 = 400 – 1200 + 800 = 0
No laws of physics are violated by this.
As you can learn by the BC discussion, it is incorrect to assign a maximum T to a boundary with a fixed heat flux input.
First Nate 2LOT is about temperature not net output.
Second, this is the brick in the middle of the 290k room which by your math would have a net output of 800w/m2 because of absorbing 400w/m2, initially emitting 400w/m2, then getting that in backradiation, ad infinitum.
One can observe that to be BS. Such a thing as you propose has never ever been demonstrated. Every attempt to so so falls flat on its face.
“Second, this is the brick in the middle of the 290k room which by your math would”
No. My math was for the hp with fixed heat flux surrounded by uh plates. A different boundary condition.
Pointless to discuss anything with you when you so often mix things up.
No its not! You have no math!
The brick in the room is the same as a plate ‘surrounded’ by infinite plates.
The different boundary condition is when the plate isn’t surrounded and only has plates on one side.
If you actually had any math to support your claims you would know that. You are faking having any acceptable heat transfer mathematics. No way you could make such an obvious error if you had actually done any math on any of the examples.
“The different boundary condition is when the plate isnt surrounded and only has plates on one side.”
No Bill. I explained the relevance of BC to you and gave you sources. You didnt learn.
The issue is whether the BC is constant T, like the walls around the brick, or constant heat flux like what the central hp has.
These different BC mean we get different solutions.
Now go away and learn before trying again to man-splain BC to me!
Nate says:
No Bill. I explained the relevance of BC to you and gave you sources. You didnt learn.
The issue is whether the BC is constant T, like the walls around the brick, or constant heat flux like what the central hp has.
These different BC mean we get different solutions.
Now go away and learn before trying again to man-splain BC to me!
——————————-
You are the one talking gibberish here Nate.
The one constant in all this is the 3rd grader radiation model that everybody has been regaled with, most have rejected, except you and a few others who continue to cling to it by suggesting that an object under constant temperature and heatflux (yes they go together always per the SB law!) will warm above the equilibrium specified by SB laws.
Boundary conditions do matter.
And all are examples are in vacuums and represent stabilized temperatures and heat fluxes.
Obviously if you change a boundary condition then it will take a short while to adjust to a new temperature and heat flux. But never ever can a 400w/m2 radiation field warm anything to 321k as suggested in the 3rd grader radiation model that even Harvard University had up on its climate science site at one time.
Your 244k – 290k – 321k – 290k – 244k result from a radiation field of 400w/m2 anywhere on a 5 plate model is impossible.
I get the purpose of your obfuscation. You don’t want to answer the questions that arise when you reject that model as complete hogwash propaganda.
Swanson, you’re good at faking a knowledge of physics. But, not one of you “platers” can solve the simple problem:
The blue plate receives 400 W/m^2 from one side, in empty space. The green plate is gone. Instead of an emissivity of 1, the blue plate has an emissivity of 0.5. What is its temperature at steady state?
The GPE’s debunked.
So let’s recap a simple refutation of your playbook, Graham:
Rotation preserves isometry.
The Earth receives an amount of energy equivalent to the solar flux that hits its disc at zenith.
The view factor between the two plates is more than zero.
Anything else you would like to discuss?
Willard, a list of incoherent and incomplete statements is ONLY evidence that you don’t understand ANY of this.
Anything else you would like to discuss?
The first two are theorems, Pup, and the third one is kinda obvious too.
Graham is currently investing in the S word, so do continue.
IOW, you have NOTHING beyond your trolling.
Got a solution to the single plate with 0.5 emissivity yet?
I didn’t think so….
Refuting the Dragon Cranks playbook is certainly not that big of an achievement, Pup.
Still fun to be able to dispel 69 months of obfuscation with something that would fit into a tweet.
“Rotation preserves isometry.”
“Orbit without spin” is as per the “moon on the left” in the following GIF, not the “moon on the right”. If you do not want to refer to that motion as a rotation about an external axis, then that’s fine. Just be aware that it’s “orbit without spin”:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
“The Earth receives an amount of energy equivalent to the solar flux that hits its disc at zenith.”
It sure does. 960 W/m^2, after correcting for albedo. 480 W/m^2 if averaged over the lit hemisphere. 240 W/m^2 if averaged over the entire sphere. Thanks for agreeing with me.
“The view factor between the two plates is more than zero.”
It sure is. Thanks for agreeing with me.
Just be aware that moon on the left is “orbit without spin” as viewed from the center object.
Sociopath, begone.
Graham obligingly offers his three Mottes. He just wants to describe the rotation of the Moon using an alternative wording. He is in violent agreement with everyone about the energy balance model. He even agrees that the plates are not convex!
He soldiers on.
Willard is an idiot.
“‘Orbit without spin’ is as per the ‘moon on the left’ in the following GIF, not the ‘moon on the right'”
Only if you define ‘spin’ as not being relative to the fixed stars. Otherwise it is the other way round.
RLH is an idiot.
DREMT is the idiot.
Incorrect.
Graham soldiers on.
Willard soldiers on.
Pray remind readers how you don’t disagree that the Moon could be spinning, it’s just that Flop demonstrated that it could orbit without spinning if its motion was perfectly circular – otherwise his “rotation” would break isometry. Alternatively, you could recall how you don’t disagree that 240Wm-2, but second by second the Earth rotates something something. Or you could stick to the theme of this thread and tell how you do not disagree that the Green Plate emits radiation that reaches the Blue Plate, but that’s not “warming” because View Factors and blah blah blah.
After all, you worked hard for these Baileys, Graham. At least 69 months, right?
I do disagree that the moon could be spinning. It is not rotating on its own axis. No motte and bailey.
The correct average to use for the input flux is over the lit hemisphere. 480 W/m^2. No motte and bailey.
The radiation from the GP does reach the BP. However, due to 2LoT, it cannot increase the temperature of the BP. No motte and bailey.
Pay attention, Graham. This might be some kind of theorical innovation in informal logic:
[G] If you want to get a value for the flux (W/m^2), you have to divide by the surface area absorbing it.
[W] Cope. I want you to agree or disagree on the main point of this post: a hemisphere, when corrected (correctly, I might add) for angles, is a disc. Yes or no?
[G] I don’t disagree with AT’s integration, if that’s what you are asking.
[W] I’m asking you to do the next step. The light that falls on a hemisphere, when we correct for the angles, equals the light that falls on a disc. Yes or no?
[G] Of course. You need to then decide what measure of surface area you are going to divide that total power by.
[W] If you want to model the Earth, the choice is rather limited.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190999
The Yes part is the Motte. The But part is the Bailey.
You need both parts because your Bailey are incoherent. Even you can’t be incoherent all the times. So Joe Team needs to fall back from time to time on agreeing with everybody. It also helps you throw a smokescreen and pretend that nobody understands you.
Please stop trolling.
Not going over this again, Willard. If you are still too stupid to understand, that is your problem and your problem alone.
There’s nothing to go over, Graham. You agree that the light falls on the disc until you rescind that agreement by suggesting that the light really really really falls on a hemisphere.
Here would be the third Motte-and-Bailey:
[GRAHAM SAYS YES] Yes, if you do not want to refer to that motion as a rotation about an external axis, that’s fine.
[GRAHAM SAYS BUT WAIT] But I do disagree that the Moon could be spinning.
A more traditional approach is to analyze how you switch from formal to material modes of speech. Results would be quite similar.
You misunderstand me (or deliberately misrepresent me) then attempt to use your misunderstanding against me!
You do not have to refer to motion as per the MOTL as being a rotation about an external axis. Hence your whole argument about rotation preserving isometry becomes a moot point. All that is important to note is that motion as per the MOTL is “orbit without spin”. Do you really not get it? There is no motte and bailey. The moon does not rotate on its own axis.
So you say, Kiddo. So you say. I don’t think I do, and in contrast to you I show and the tell.
You’re more of a Teller.
You should be more a Walker and go hang up with Team Joe at Joe’s.
Whatever I did to upset you in a previous life, it must have been pretty bad.
Sixty-nine months, Graham.
At some point you need to let it go.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The moon does not rotate on its own axis as viewed from Earth.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
The outer surface/edge of a disc does not visually rotate as seen from its center either.
I am sure you think you have a point, RLH.
Good. RLH point is DREMT is wrong about lunar spin.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
A ball-on-a-string is the same as a rod-rotating-about-one-end is the same as a section-of-a-disk and none are good examples of orbital motion.
They are just simple analogies for "orbit without spin" – in other words, an object orbiting without spinning keeps one face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit. Motion like the MOTL…and that’s as viewed from anywhere.
Notice how you are now trying to word your position without mentioning rotation, Graham?
As if you forgot all that you said when you tried to describe that motion using kinematics!
Kinematically, the simplest way to describe the motion of the MOTL is indeed a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis. But, that causes some people to throw hissy fits because orbits are elliptical, and not circular, and rotation is generally understood to refer to circular motion. Even though you can find plenty of examples of "revolution/orbit" being defined as a rotation about an external axis, when those sources are obviously aware that orbits are elliptical…
[GRAHAM] You do not have to refer to motion as per the MOTL as being a rotation about an external axis.
[ALSO GRAHAM] Kinematically, the simplest way to describe the motion of the MOTL is indeed a rotation about an external axis
Every. Single. Time.
You have a problem with describing an orbit as a rotation around an external axis. Lots of other people do not. If you are going to throw a hissy fit about the isometry thing every time, then you do not have to think of an orbit as being a rotation around an external axis, if you do not want to. The important thing is that you recognize that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL. Your inflexibility of mind does not need to prevent you from understanding that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, you see. Other people are welcome to continue to see orbital motion as being a rotation about an external axis, and benefit from all the improvements in understanding that brings.
You have a problem keeping a consistent stance in the same Climateball session, Graham,
You cannot dodge the fact that a rotation needs to preserve isometry by saying that you do not need to describe an orbit using a pure external rotation, and then immediately proclaim you can of course describe an orbit using a pure rotation. You do one or the other.
Otherwise you end up trying to claim that the orbit of the Moon is a pure rotation without having to argue that is abides by the definition of a rotation.
*This* is the main problem with argument patterns such as a Motte-and-Bailey. It is illogical, hypocritical, and makes you look like a silly goose.
When you will be able to describe view factors, non warming backradiation, and a model of the Earth that receives so much more energy than it receives that greenhouse theory is unneeded, come back and lecture me about how to describe things properly.
"You cannot dodge the fact that a rotation needs to preserve isometry by saying that you do not need to describe an orbit using a pure external rotation…"
I’m not saying "you" in the general sense. I am saying you, as in you personally, Willard, do not need to describe an orbit as a rotation about an external axis, if you are upset about the isometry thing. You are able to think for yourself, right? The isometry thing doesn’t bother me in the least, nor does it bother any of those sources that define "revolution/orbit" as a rotation about an external axis. So don’t worry about me. That sort of pedantry isn’t worth my time.
All that really matters is that "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTL. If you understand that, then you understand that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. Really simple, Willard. Please do not bother responding. If you do, it will be PST’d immediately.
Dear Graham,
We are past the point where I should give any fuck about what you think about me.
I care about you, but you are still a silly goose.
Sorry.
Love,
W
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Oh, forgot to add – your sources are not married to idea that an orbit can be described as a *pure* rotation. You are.
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
It was fun doing business with you, Graham.
Please come again!
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
> a model of the Earth that receives so much more energy than it receives
Emits more than it receives, of course.
Is it not the whole point of the con pulled by Team Joe?
#5
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swanson so your argument is when you change double the 3 sides of the cube from 200w/m2 to 400w/m2 the brick doesn’t warm? What temperature do you think the brick is in the two examples?
I will add a 3rd one where all 6 sides of the cube are radiating 200w/m2. What is the temperature then?
Earth is a planet, like any other planet we know in solar system. Neither Stefan, no Boltzmann said anything about planets being ideal blackbodies.
What I did in my research was to compare the satellite measured planetary temperatures for every known planet and moon in solar system, Earth included.
When I wrote the New equation, yes I was expecting something, but the results were successful beyond any expectations.
Here it is the planet 1LOT energy balance analysis related New equation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K) (1)
The New equation is based both, on precise radiative
energy in = Φ (1-a) S estimation and
on the Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
We are capable now for the THEORETICAL ESTIMATION of the planetary mean surface temperatures.
And, now, it should be considered proven there is not any Greenhouse Warming Effect on the Earths surface temperature!
.
Also, the Incomplete Equation of the Planet Blackbody Effective Temperature (Link from Wikipedia: the Planet Effective Temperature Te
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_equilibrium_temperature )
Another Link:
Lecture 2: Effective temperature of the Earth
https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4355860/mod_resource/content/1/temperatura%20efetiva%20da%20Terra%20-%20paoc.mit.edu.pdf
the Incomplete Equation of the Planet Blackbody Effective Temperature
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]∕ ⁴ K
should be abandoned, because it is very much wrong!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos writes there is no GHE on a planet without atm. well duh! Including even a thin martian atm., Christos would find a martian GHE.
If Christos includes the earthen atm. in the Equation of the Planet Blackbody Effective Surface Temperature, then Christos would reasonably be able to calculate the earthen GHE of about 33K from measured inputs.
Ball4 STILL compares Earth to an imaginary sphere. He can’t face reality.
The reality is Earth has rotation, heat capacity, and emissivity less than unity. Christos is on the right track. Ball4 can’t even get to the right train station!
Ball4 STILL can’t find his bogus “real 255K surface”.
Wrong Clint. The earth is real not an imaginary sphere & Clint would find that is the case when discovering the measured earthen real 255K surface. Good entertainment Clint, but bad physics.
Sociopath, begone.
I rest my case!
The funny thing is, Ball4 is one of Norman’s cult heroes. They’ve got NOTHING. Not one of them can face reality, or understands any of the relevant physics.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Yes B4, we are all 33K cooler, we just don’t know it.
I point at:
[GRAHAM] Sociopath, begone.
And I point at:
[PUP] I rest my case! Not one of them can face reality, or understands any of the relevant physics. That’s why this is so much fun.
That is all.
#2
Sociopath, begone.
[GRAHAM] I am not sure anyone does see what Willard is talking about. If they do see, please give me an English interpretation of it. Thanks.
[ALSO GRAHAM] Sociopath, begone.
That’s right, Willard, you are a relentless sociopathic troll who is sometimes incoherent.
You have been trolling this site for at least 69 months, Graham. With many sock puppets. And now you obsessively return to dead sub threads to add Please Stop Trolling.
You OK, buddy?
Yes, I’m a better person than you. Thank you.
U sure, Graham?
Willard, please stop trolling.
I use the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law in the right way.
The planet black body formula averages solar flux over the entire planet area in form of HEAT.
The New equation doesnt average solar flux over the entire planet area in form of HEAT.
For the New equation the outgoing EM is a result of the incident on the planet surface solar energy INTERACTION process with the matter.
Black body by definition transforms its calorimetric HEAT into its absolute temperature T forth power EM emission intensity.
On the other hand, planet doesnt emit EM energy supplied by a calorimetric source.
The planets surface temperature is INDUCED by the incident on the planet solar EM flux.
Only a small portion of the incident solar EM energy is transformed into HEAT.
The vast majority of the incident solar energy is IR emitted at the same very moment of incidence and interaction with matter. This EM energy induces the planet surface temperature without being accumulated in the inner layers.
It is entirely different physics when compared with the quiet blackbody calorimetric HEAT black body emission phenomenon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So now Christos brings back use of caloric theory of heat which is officially dead, thus should receive decent burial and remain below ground. Yet although many commenters and textbooks officially acknowledge the death of caloric theory, they then proceed to do everything possible to breathe life into its corpse. Vestiges of the caloric theory remain, for example, in Christos’ use of the unit the calorie.
Better to move into the modern world of thermodynamics, Christos, where heat is no longer contained in any material body.
Ball4
“So now Christos brings back use of caloric theory of heat which is officially dead, thus should receive decent burial and remain below ground.”
Christos
“It is entirely different physics when compared with the quiet blackbody calorimetric HEAT black body emission phenomenon.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It is entirely obsolete physics, Christos, since in modern thermodynamics heat is not contained in an object nor the space between objects.
Ball4
“Yet although many commenters and textbooks officially acknowledge the death of caloric theory, they then proceed to do everything possible to breathe life into its corpse. Vestiges of the caloric theory remain, for example, in Christos use of the unit the calorie.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas at 12:10 PM
Now do the Phlogiston theory.
The planet mean surface temperature New equation is written for planets and moons WITHOUT atmosphere. The results of calculations are remarkably exact!
When applied to Earth (Without Atmosphere) the New equation calculates Earths mean surface temperature very much close to the 288K.
It happens so because Earths atmosphere is very thin and, therefore, doesnt have any essential greenhouse effect on the Earths average surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It happens so because Christos a priori knows the 288K answer from global thermometer readings and picked a constant multiplier to fudge the correct T answer at the surface.
With a more IR transparent earthen atm., Christos would have to use a lower fudge factor and, likewise, a higher fudge factor as the earthen atm. IR opacity is increased to get the new global avg.d T.
Christos:
“The planet mean surface temperature New equation is written for planets and moons WITHOUT atmosphere. The results of calculations are remarkably exact!
When applied to Earth (Without Atmosphere) the New equation calculates Earth’s mean surface temperature very much close to the 288K.”
Ball4:
“It happens so because Christos a priori knows the 288K answer from global thermometer readings and picked a constant multiplier to fudge the correct T answer at the surface.
With a more IR transparent earthen atm., Christos would have to use a lower fudge factor and, likewise, a higher fudge factor as the earthen atm. IR opacity is increased to get the new global avg.d T.”
Christos:
“The planet mean surface temperature New equation is written for planets and moons WITHOUT atmosphere. The results of calculations are remarkably exact!
When applied to Earth (Without Atmosphere) the New equation calculates Earth’s mean surface temperature very much close to the 288K.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
There was a discussion in the beginning where I stated this la Nina is special.
ERAv5 is now ready with their data collection and modelling. (Please note last three months are flagged as uncertain).
Anyway, this is how the N20-S20 Pacific looks for temperature June 2022.
https://cfys.nu/graphs/Pacific.png
For this area we are now back at 1988!
As already stated this phenomena is so strong that it even affects the global greenhouse effect, that has already fallen for more than 7 years.
I have not run UAH yet because their format requires more manual labor. Pretty sure though the slope is even steeper in that dataset. Maybe Roy can confirm?
The El Nino in 2016 was not dissimilar to that in 1878 don’t forget. An La Nina like behavior has increased in the last 40 years.
Thanks for that info RLH,
Not sure that is visible in data because of lack of measurements but the datasets are modelled backwards with what is available and Ill definitely have a check.
If I remember right, fishermen has noticed this for a long time in terms of lack of fish. As I understand it fish comes back with cooler waters and they have understood there is a cycle of some sort for a very long time. Maybe 1878 was a terrible catch period.
For the central Pacific
Absolute data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-5.jpeg
Anomaly data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-6.jpeg
Both series are NOT detrended so are directly comparable end to end.
It should be noted that this is only for the central Pacific as such.
https://psl.noaa.gov/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/Nino34/
for the source of the data and if you go up one directory to
https://psl.noaa.gov/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/
then you will find a lot of other data series. Caution, some of them are detrended in one way or another.
“Both series are NOT detrended so are directly comparable end to end.”
As long as what you are comparing is NOT the relative strengths of la Ninas/el Ninos.
It’s bizarre what you’re doing here, RLH.
Data is collected for this region for one purpose only – to assess ENSO. It’s called NINO3.4 for a reason.
And yet you are using the data for some other purpose which is not understood.
NINO3.4 is not a proxy for long-term global temperatures. It’s not even a good proxy for the Pacific Ocean. Here’s how temperatures have evolved in the NW Pacific, for example.
https://os.copernicus.org/articles/16/83/2020/os-16-83-2020-f03-web.png
It appears you do not realize that you are using data that is ultimately used for the study of ENSO, and for some reason you are interested in its non-detrended form for reasons that escape understanding.
“As long as what you are comparing is NOT the relative strengths of la Ninas/el Ninos.”
So temperatures which are not detrended and thus are the same end to end are not the way to compare the strengths of El Nino/La Nina? Are you a complete idiot?
There are papers I have referred to which show that what I have said is true. Are you gong to deny them as well?
“NINO3.4 is not a proxy for long-term global temperatures”
True. But I did not say it was. I said that the maximums (El Nino) had not changed if at all since 1878. Do you deny that?
“So temperatures which are not detrended and thus are the same end to end are not the way to compare the strengths of El Nino/La Nina? Are you a complete idiot?”
I agree with the data l’Heureux uses, which is detrended. So who is the idiot?
“So temperatures which are not detrended and thus are the same end to end”
That is a false syllogism. Detrended temperature time series do not necessarily end in any particular relationship between endpoints. The word “thus” does not apply, because there is no chain of logic or even precedent.
“True. But I did not say it was.”
Whenever we speak of global temperatures you announce something about NINO3.4 temperatures.
If you know NINO3.4 is not a proxy for global temps, why in the hell do you mention it every time global temperatures are mentioned?
Do you just like saying irrelevant stuff or changing the subject for no good reason or what? What IS the cause of this mad obsession that you have to regurgitate at every opportunity?
“I agree with the data l’Heureux uses, which is detrended. So who is the idiot?”
But you also ignore the paper that l’Heureux co-wrote that says that the 1878 El Nino was similar to the one in 2016.
“If you know NINO3.4 is not a proxy for global temps, why in the hell do you mention it every time global temperatures are mentioned?”
Unless you have a portion of the planet that is hotter than the equator, the Maximum sea temperatures are in El Nino. So everything else must be lower than that.
You also need to consider that l’Heureux (and others) have observed that La Nina like conditions are occurring more frequently in the last 40 years, so unless you are going to argue that that will increase global temperatures, how can global temperatures keep rising indefinitely?
“That is a false syllogism”
So temperatures that have not been subject to any form of alteration or manipulation are not useful to decide if things were warmer or colder in the past. Do you ever stop to think about what you say/write?
“What IS the cause of this mad obsession that you have to regurgitate at every opportunity?”
That you are unable to agree with other real scientists who observe that 1878 was mostly similar to 2016.
I have several times acknowledged that there is little difference between the 1878 and 2016 el Ninos.
I have several times acknowledged that there is little difference between the 1878 and 2016 el Ninos.
I have several times acknowledged that there is little difference between the 1878 and 2016 el Ninos.
I have several times acknowledged that there is little difference between the 1878 and 2016 el Ninos.
I have several times acknowledged that there is little difference between the 1878 and 2016 el Ninos.
The fact you have not noticed this reinforces your that your obsession is mad. It blinds you to what people say.
Why do you keep bringing up NINO3.4 temps in discussions about global temps when you’ve just acknowledged that they are not a proxy for global temps?
barry: “NINO3.4 is not a proxy for long-term global temperatures”
RLH: “True. But I did not say it was.”
Why have you been muttering this same fact over and over for a month, in post after post, regardless of the topic, when no one has disagreed with you, and I have agreed with you?
Why are behaving like a mad person?
Do you even realize that you are? You have said the same thing 26 times in this month’s thread alone. I’m pretty sure that if we go back to last month’s thread we’ll find that you’ve uttered or referred to the same specific fact over a hundred times.
When no one has contradicted you, and I have personally acknowledged it several times.
You are spamming the threads with a point that is off-topic and no one disagrees with.
“Unless you have a portion of the planet that is hotter than the equator, the Maximum sea temperatures are in El Nino. So everything else must be lower than that.”
But now you’re talking about the location of the warmest sea surface temperatures apropos of absolutely nothing. This has zero to do with ANY of the points raised over the past few months. Again – a topic that relates to nothing anyone is talking about. What is wrong with you?
(By the way, the warmest maximum sea surface temperatures occur in the Persian Gulf – so your touted ‘reason’ for obsessing over NINO3.4 region is false)
So what IS the cause of this mad obsession?
“That you are unable to agree with other real scientists who observe that 1878 was mostly similar to 2016.”
I’ve done it many times. I’ve done it in this post. I in fact made the same observation myself the very first time you showed a graph of HadISST NINO3.4 temps. I’ve even reaffirmed it specific to you making this very claim that I ignore it.
But I know you. You can’t help yourself. Despite the fact that I’ve long ago agreed with what you keep repeating, despite the fact that I’ve done it several times including in conversation direct with you, and despite that I’ve done it again in this post….
You will keep repeating this fact in threads where it is irrelevant to the topic.
You are not repeating it to get me to ‘admit’ it, because if that was the cause you would have seen me do that already.
Climateball is the only reason I can come up with to explain this bizarre, obsessive behaviour.
Did I mention I agree with l’Heureux’s take on the 1878 el Nino?
What other excuses are you going to come up with to keep scratching that itch in front of everyone?
“I have several times acknowledged that there is little difference between the 1878 and 2016 el Ninos” Said several times doesn’t make it any clearer.
But you will not have it that non detrended temperatures show that quite clearly in Nino 3.4. For some reason known only to your self.
So to your mind it does not matter than the extremes are not rising but other temperatures are. Not what AGW claims at all. CO2 does not operate with a limit such that it applies to only no high enough yet temperatures as such.
It also does not matter that anything that has OLS statistics will be distorted if you start them at a low point in the data. I don’t expect that the U shape shown elsewhere is actually U shaped, but it is much more likely to be the lower half of a sinusoidal pattern, especially as the little ice age precedes the left hand edge.
barry says: Why do you keep bringing up NINO3.4 temps in discussions about global temps when youve just acknowledged that they are not a proxy for global temps?
RLH wants to make this assertion:
RLH says: So to your mind it does not matter than the extremes are not rising but other temperatures are. Not what AGW claims at all. CO2 does not operate with a limit such that it applies to only no high enough yet temperatures as such.
He does so by citing a specific case of two such extreme events and generalizes to (implicitly all) “the extremes are not rising”. He will, of course, deny that he is engaging in misdirection. See the ongoing exchange between Willard and DREMT.
What’s unfortunate is that there are interesting things to be observed about the Nino region and its effect on interannual climate variation that that get lost in the identity protective pedantry of these forums.
“RLH wants to make this assertion”
The assertion is true.
He does so by citing a specific case of two such extreme events”
Maximums are maximums. No matter how (in)convenient they are.
Mark B: Do you agree that Nate’s and my treatment of S-G removes any lingering high frequency pass-throughs and can you tell me why you don’t do the same thing to LOWESS given that S-G and LOWESS are the same function with different names (assuming 2nd order curves are the fitting function in both).
The specific assertion that the 1878 and 2016 El Ninos were similar magnitude is true. The general assertion “extremes are not rising” does not follow from that assertion beyond this specific instance.
The S-G filter you’re using is optimized for peak detection. It has low pass filter properties, but as a low pass filter, it is sub-optimal. This is why multiple stages are required to get sufficient stop band rejection. Using multiple stages has the less than desirable effect of extending the endpoint extrapolation which, if we’re being honest, is likely the real motivation for your use of that approach.
The effect of what you’re presenting with your S-G filtering, and this may be sufficiently obfuscated that you honestly don’t realize it, is doing a quadratic extrapolation on the endpoint of a time series that has no obvious quadratic properties.
“The specific assertion that the 1878 and 2016 El Ninos were similar magnitude is true. The general assertion ‘extremes are not rising’ does not follow from that assertion beyond this specific instance.”
A maximum is a maximum. Do you disagree with that?
So you sort of agree that the 5 pass, multi-pass S-G is close to a gaussian LP filter for the same window. Do you agree that both CTRM (ala Vaughan Pratt) and S-G (ala SavitzkyGolay with 5P, MP) are good LP filters with strong gaussian characteristics?
P.S. I can remove the end effects from any filter (including S-G) by removing those data points that can cause that behavior.
The main reason I use S-G is that it is the same as LOWESS and therefore should not cause any objections from statisticians.
Also do you agree with the observations that La Nina like behavior is rising that that cannot cause as increase in global temperatures if that happens?
“But you will not have it that non detrended temperatures show that quite clearly in Nino 3.4.”
I agreed with that, you fool!
“I’ve done it many times. I’ve done it in this post. I in fact made the same observation myself the very first time you showed a graph of HadISST NINO3.4 temps. I’ve even reaffirmed it specific to you making this very claim that I ignore it.”
What in God’s name is wrong with you?
You are a pest. You can’t even understand what’s been written to you. You continually try to fight me on something I am not in disagreement on, and ignore whatever I’m saying.
This is climateball maximus. You keep inventing BS after the opposite has been said. Just so you can keep arguing. All you have is a hammer, and everything looks like a nail.
I have no disagreement with the relative similarity of the two el Ninos, regardless of which dataset. The actual problem is the RELEVANCE of this fact to any of the ongoing discussions you keep spamming with it.
Stop making it all about you and your interests, you adolescent.
Mark,
I think RLH is not quite all there. There is a strong OCD element to his spamming conversations with the same irrelevant fact over and over again. He doesn’t respond to the ongoing conversation cogently, but draws attention to whatever he is interested in and then tries to argue its relevance after the fact. These justifications are themselves incoherent. He’s the oblivious drunk at a party muttering whatever is spinning around his mind.
Thanks for this comment, Barry:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333181
Made my day.
Barry: So maximums are indeed maximums but you won’t acknowledge that this means that AGW does not apply to maximums, only to those temperatures that are less than the maximums.
But then you won’t explain that more La Nina like behavior means that achieving higher temperatures will be difficult to say the least.
“So maximums are indeed maximums but you won’t acknowledge that this means that AGW does not apply to maximums, only to those temperatures that are less than the maximums.”
This doesn’t make sense. You are using terms loosely, which makes things incoherent.
Under the general heading of the instrumental record of weather the term “maximum” usually refers to:
1) the warmest temperature recorded on a given day
2) the largest area of sea ice coverage in a given year
Maxima are regularly occurring phenomena.
You also seem to use the terms ‘maximums’ and ‘extremes’ interchangeably. They are not the same thing.
If you are talking – yet again – about the 2 el Ninos, these are not ‘maximums’, nor are they ‘extremes’, they are el Nino events. Refer to them as such to avoid confusion.
IPCC says that global warming (regardless of cause) will bring about changes in extremes, with higher temperature extremes being one of them. The fact that there is little difference between the 1878 el Nino and the 2016 one does not undo that prediction. Exceptions do not disprove the rule.
Not to mention that you have already (wisely) agreed that NINO3.4 is not a proxy for global.
Stop trying to argue as if NINO3.4 IS a proxy for global temps, or for extremes elsewhere in the world.
It’s hilarious – skeptics – like you – bemoan extrapolating temps around parts of the world not well-covered by weather stations. But skeptics – like you – are perfectly content to extrapolate a tiny part of the globe to the whole globe. Consistency was never a strong suit for skeptics.
“But then you won’t explain that more La Nina like behavior means that achieving higher temperatures will be difficult to say the least.”
la Ninas bring cooler global temps. That’s a fact. If there are more of them, then that will result in a (very slightly) lower global temp rise than if el Ninos dominated.
I have NO PROBLEM with this.
YOU HAVE A PROBLEM looking to argue with me about something.
I wonder what stupid assumption you will make next about the way I think. Don’t you think it would be better to ask my opinion rather than get it wrong over and over again with the endless assumptions?
Not sure anybody still reads this.
My memory failed me in that ERA had a reanalysis set that took us back to 1850. The best I could find is CMIP6 and I picked MPI SSP126 (MPI has relations with ERA).
Here is their 2m temperature graph for the N20-S20 pacific: https://cfys.nu/graphs/CMIP-MPISSP126.png.
How they parametrize their model is not clear to me but there is definitely a strong double dip cooling event after 1878 visible in the graph. Compare with 2016 till now.
The models are not prepared for this unusual event we are now in the middle of. It will be interesting to follow how it progress.
mrz…”this phenomena is so strong that it even affects the global greenhouse effect, that has already fallen for more than 7 years”.
***
That presumes their is a greenhouse effect. There is evidence that any warming since 1850 can be explained as re-warming from the Little Ice Age in combination with natural variation like ENSO.
Willard at 8:56 AM
“…a Supremely Manospheric Father.”
Think about it.
Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky, who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things He does not want you to do, and if you do any of these ten things, He has a special place full of fire and smoke, and burning and torture, and anguish, where He will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’till the end of time.
But he loves you!
He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money. He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, yet somehow, just can’t handle money.
Gosh TM, you attempt to pervert the Bible just like you attempt to pervert science.
You’re not the first, and you won’t be the last.
Reality always wins.
Odd that preachers cut to commercial before telling what the Jesus did to the temple merchants.
Think about it: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ac1b6b4163a6ea32793971a3ec9619a0-lq
maguff…”Religion has actually convinced people that theres an invisible man living in the sky, who watches everything you do, every minute of every day”.
***
No one in the religion to which you refer knows who God is or what God is about. The Nicean Creed of 325BC tried to establish that but it was nothing more than the opinion of Roman Emperor, Constantine, and Bishops representing various factions of the catholic belief system. I have written catholic in the non-capitalized way because, in the day, catholic simply meant ‘universal’.
At the conference in Nicea, only certain people were invited and the outcome of the event was that certain books of the Bible were banned, like the Gospel of Thomas. Thomas, of course, was a disciple of Jesus. The Nicean Creed essentially is a blueprint for all Christian bibles that followed. Not till recently has evidence appeared that contradicts the veracity of the Creed.
I am trying to emphasize that the opinions you offer are the opinions of humans who wrote about God. Many current religious leaders have embellished the record based on their own personal beliefs.
I have never personally encountered God nor have I spoken to anyone who has encountered God. However, I acknowledge my spiritual side and I am not ruling out that such a deity exists. I am definitely not an atheist, simply because I see no valid evidence that rules out there being a God.
That is not a question for science, which is about investigating what can be observed and measured. Isaac Newton had no problem working both sides of that fence and it seems to me people have to work at being atheists by denying phenomena they cannot explain. I am talking about the wonders inherent in the human body, in life in general, and in the universe that cannot be explained by evolution theory.
Evolution is not genetics, the latter being a real, objective science. Evolution is a myth with no evidence to back it, much like the Big Bang theory.
I regard atheist scientists as being arrogant and biased.
Bill,
The point is DREMT is the one claiming “The passive shell can not raise the temperature of the Sun. End of story, for the rational.”
You don’t think he needs a scientific rationale for this claim, beyond merely being incredulous?
Detailed response here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1332314
response to Bill from here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1332280
And the steel greenhouse is explained very well here, Bill.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
As you will note in his Figure 1, he has a planet with a nuclear core that creates a constant 235 W/m^2. This could just as well have been the sun, whose nuclear core creates a higher amount, but otherwise the same setup.
Without the shell the planet emits 235 W/m^2 from its surface and it reaches T = 254 K.
With the black steel shell, the shell must heat up until it is 254 K and is emitting 235 W/m^2 both outward and inward.
(Note DREMT stated “I have never claimed there is no emission from the inside of shells or plates.”)
So the planet is creating 235 W/m^2 in its core and it is receiving 235 W/m^2 from the steel shell.
.
Note that the planet is a blackbody and must absorb any radiation that hits it.
Thus the plane has a total INPUT of 570 W/m^2.
It therefore MUST warm to have an OUTPUT of 570 W/m^2 to be at equilibrium.
It warms to 316.5 K to have an SB emission of 570 W/m^2.
Nate, a shell would be emitting all of what it received from the sphere, if it had an emissivity of 1. The sphere could not raise it to a higher temperature than itself, and consequently the shell could not raise the sphere to a higher temperature.
You don’t understand ANY of the relevant physics. You just keep finding sources from your cult, as you avoid reality.
You can’t boil water with ice cubes, although your cult believes you can.
You’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll,
I pointed out that according to the “logic” of the “Steel Greenhouse”, which follows exactly the “logic” of the 3-plate GPE scenario, if the Sun were surrounded by a perfectly-conducting blackbody shell, it would rise in temperature by 1,094 K and emit twice as much (in W/m^2) as it was previously! Whilst they believe if the shell was actually touching the Sun, the Sun would not increase in temperature at all.
This has had them up in arms for a while now.
[JOE TEAM’S MOTTE] Yes, the radiation from the GP does reach the BP.
[JOE TEAM’S BAILEY] However, due to 2LoT, it cannot increase the temperature of the BP.
View Factors matter until they don’t.
See what I mean?
The funny part is, worthless willard doesn’t even understand what “view factors” refers to.
You’d be surprised, Pup.
But for that you’d have to be a betting man, which you are not.
Nothing you cult idiots spew surprises me any more, troll. Your cult believes a bicycle pedal is NOT rotating, and ice cubes can boil water.
I could skool you on View Factors, Pup.
You know my terms.
Manual Pingback:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1332375
Willard, please stop trolling.
You guys can see the explanation. It has clear, simple, logic and is quantitative and agrees with the laws of physics.
SB law-check.
1-LOT- Both planet and shell have total INPUT = total OUTPUT. Energy balance. Check.
2-LOT. T planet > T shell and heat flow is from planet to shell. Check.
Kirchoff’s Law. Planet and shell emissivity = absorbtivity = 1.
Hand waving and insults dont cut it.
You have to point where, specifically, it violates any laws of physics, and why.
2LoT
You almost read to the end, Pup.
Two words left.
It’s a waste of my time to explain thermodynamics to you braindead cult idiots.
But, if I agree to do it, do you agree to not comment here for 90 days?
First you got to agree not to comment for 120 days, Pup.
Trolling is more important to willard than learning.
That’s why he’s so worthless.
Still waiting, Pup.
Just say the word.
Looks like nobody can point to where specifically, it violates any laws of physics, and why.
Because it doesnt.
Same offer to you, Nate.
Take a break for 90 days from commenting here, and I’ll explain it to you.
“Whilst they believe if the shell was actually touching the Sun, the Sun would not increase in temperature at all”
As noted, hand-waving and incredulity about a different problem from the specific steel greenhouse problem I posted, are irrelevant to whether the solution I showed to this problem is valid or not.
It is valid unless someone can point out a specific, real violation of a law of physics in this solution, and explain why it is a violation.
Anyone? Bill? DREMT? Chic?
Close-up on the Bailey:
Handwaving to Pup’s fabrication does not reveal anything. Therefore Graham is stuck with his truly be “lost” verbal defense that is only supported by begging the question at hand, viz. that back-radiation does not break the second law of thermo. Which leads to a similar Motte-and-Bailey:
[MOTTE] Nobody is arguing that back-radiation does not exist.
[BAILEY] Back-radiation would break 2LOT.
And round and round Team Joe goes.
Back-radiation warming violates 2LoT. Not the existence of back-radiation itself (which is fine, and not disputed) but the action of it actually making something warmer. So no, once again there is no motte and bailey.
One day Graham will have to learn to argue properly.
The question he keeps begging is expressed by the very first sentence of Eli’s post: An evergreen of denial is that a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter. Hence why in the comments he clarifies:
Now, compare and contrast with Graham’s actual defense. How do we know that backradiation exists? Because it has an observable effect on the Earth’s surface. We can measure it using pyrgeometers.
But this effect absolutely cannot make the Earth warmer. Nuh-uh. That would be IMPOSSIBLE. Why? Because reasons. At this moment Graham usually handwaves to the second law of thermo to support his claim. The very question that is under dispute.
Yes, Graham agrees that the blue plate receives radiation. Yes, he also agrees that backradiation exists. But but but.
See?
DREMT continues to be wrong since no back-radiation warming violates 2LoT as in that case dS = 0 which is impossible in a natural process.
Back-radiation warming to a new equilibrium does not violate 2LoT as Eli showed in 2017: “Show this to the next fool with an agenda who thinks that the Green Plate Effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
Yes, B4. Graham is thus at best begs the question: a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter because that’s the second law of thermo. Do you recall him ever trying to work with the equation? All I remember was him insisting on the true meaning of “of its own accord,” for instance here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1277597
The expression “of its own accord” occurred more than 80 times during that month.
Team Joe is so good it can refute our understanding of physics with a dictionary.
Credit where credit is due, however: his exchange with Barry was priceless.
“Do you recall (DREMT) ever trying to work with the equation?”
No. DREMT is the Treasure of the Sophist Madre.
Equations? DREMT ain’t got no equations. He doesn’t need no equations. DREMT doesn’t have to show us any stinking equations.
Or tests. Like Eli, Dr. Pratt, and Dr. Spencer have already done. DREMT operates wholly in a universe of assertion. Writing a process that has dS = 0 in assertion form being naturally possible always will tell us DREMT is wrong.
I keep showing you how you dance between two incompatible stances, Graham. You asked for it, and are getting served.
So *yes* the Moon could spin depending on how you interpret the GIF about spin-orbit lock.
*But but but but* the Moon is really really really not spinning because reasons.
Either two models are equivalent or one is superior to the other. Which is it?
I am not sure anyone does see what Willard is talking about. If they do see, please give me an English interpretation of it. Thanks.
When all fails, Graham returns to gaslighting.
One thing is sure – he soldiers on.
Anyone?
In its essence, Willard is commenting DREMT is wrong to rely only on asserted reasons.
That isn’t science.
Oh, I did not get that from what Willard wrote at all.
[W] Graham’s Motte-and-Bailey is YES I agree that backradiation exists BUT Back-radiation would break 2LOT.
[G] Back-radiation warming violates 2LoT. Not the existence of back-radiation itself (which is fine, and not disputed) but the action of it actually making something warmer. So no, once again there is no motte and bailey.
Graham just has to reverse his clauses not to see he just restated the Motte-and-Bailey!
See? That is just nonsense again, and nothing like what Ball4 tried to interpret for me.
Graham soldiers on.
Compare and contrast:
(1) YES I agree that backradiation exists
(2) BUT Back-radiation would break 2LOT.
(3) Back-radiation warming violates 2LoT.
(4) Not the existence of back-radiation itself.
I suppose it’s some kind of sick joke.
Your (2) has never been stated by me. Perhaps that is confusing you.
Good grief, Graham.
You denied the Motte-and-Bailey while expressing a very similar Motte-and-Bailey. All you did was to inverse the two claims I made and to add the word “warming.”
Yes, you believe in the existence of backradiation. We all agree on that. That’s the Motte.
But you deny that backradiation can warm, as for some reason it would break the second law of thermo. That’s the Bailey.
The Motte is the platitude, the Bailey is the point of contention.
See?
Try to play dumb once again.
“The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.”
Where have I done that?
I just gave you three examples, Graham. You do that kind of tango in just about every exchange. It’s not that hard to see why:
You can’t defend your main positions. As I already said, you have three. Here is the one you should be defending right now –
A colder object can never make a warmer object hotter.
Paying lip service to the second law of thermo does not suffice. Saying that you believe in backradiation but that backradiation does not really warm basically is simply ludicrous. And so you end up with purely verbal defenses around expressions such as “truly lose energy,” “every conceivable direction,” “of its own accord” or whatnot.
Sixty-nine months of this crap.
Here’s your chance. Show that a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter by inspecting the second law directly. Alternatively, do continue to troll.
See if I care.
Dr Roy
Ive long ago given up what W goes on about. But, he is not without value. Ever since Abbott and Costello retired, I turn to him for comedic relief..especially so after Groucho Marx passed on.
You’re more a mix between a contre-pitre and an excentrique, Fernando: a loner who could be intelligent but is clumsier than the clumsiest here, Pup.
“I just gave you three examples, Graham. You do that kind of tango in just about every exchange.”
You’re a liar, Willard. You said that my motte is that back-radiation exists, and my bailey is that back-radiation doesn’t warm, but you can’t point to any example where on advancing the bailey, and being challenged, I insisted I was only advancing the motte…because that never happened! So then it’s not a motte and bailey, is it!? So you distract by talking about other examples, which are also not motte and baileys for the same reason. You’re a lying POS who just can not leave me alone.
But, as Neto said…I guess you are funny, to laugh at.
Powerful argument you got there, Graham.
That this one. We just been through it and it is simple.
*Yes* you believe that 240 Wm-2 is a hard limit.
*But but but but but* rotation or second by second something something no need for positing any greenhouse effect.
First part is trivial. Second part is silly. The two parts are incompatible.
Who do you think you are kidding, kiddo?
You lied, Willard. Simple as that. Now, before we go on to discuss why you’re wrong in the example you’ve just given, you should acknowledge that you are wrong about the subject currently under discussion, and apologize. The subject currently under discussion is:
"Yes, you believe in the existence of backradiation. We all agree on that. That’s the Motte.
But you deny that backradiation can warm, as for some reason it would break the second law of thermo. That’s the Bailey."
You can’t point to any example where on advancing the bailey, and being challenged, I insisted I was only advancing the motte…because that never happened!
Admit that you were wrong, and apologize for the false accusation, Willard.
Graham, you goof.
Either 240 Wm-2 is a hard limit or it is not.
If it is a hard limit, Team Joe has no leg to stand on.
If it is not a hard limit, then you agreed on something you actually disagree with.
So either you constantly lie or you throw Team Joe under the bus.
Which is it?
Admit you were wrong, and apologize, c*nt.
I told you to pay attention, Graham:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1332342
Why do you deny the very first comment I made?
Since you insist, let us return to the plates:
*Yes* the blue plates receives radiation from the green one.
*But* view factors! *But* it does not warm like you previously defined it!
Notice any pattern here?
Either you accept that it is possible for a colder surface to radiate back to a hotter one, in which case a Eli wins, or you do not.
Try integrity, you little Machiavellian.
You keep on changing the subject, Willard. The subject is:
"Yes, you believe in the existence of backradiation. We all agree on that. That’s the Motte.
But you deny that backradiation can warm, as for some reason it would break the second law of thermo. That’s the Bailey."
Admit you were wrong, and apologize, c*nt. Don’t preach to me about integrity when you display absolutely none yourself.
No, Graham.
The subject is this one –
*YOU* decided to pick on the time where I mentioned backradiation simpliciter instead of backradiation warming.
Because, you know, backradiation cooling must be a thing.
You really are not as agile as you think you are, Graham.
You don’t have the integrity to admit you are wrong, nor the decency to apologize for your false accusation re the example you are obviously wrong about. So let’s go with the other examples you have given. First:
"*Yes* you believe that 240 Wm-2 is a hard limit.
*But but but but but* rotation or second by second something something no need for positing any greenhouse effect."
First of all, where have I said that I believe 240 W/m^2 is a "hard limit"? To do so, I would need to understand what you mean by a "hard limit", which I don’t. The input flux to the Earth can basically be considered to be 480 W/m^2 if you average over the hemisphere, and 240 W/m^2 if you average it over the sphere. I understand the reasoning behind why people would do either of those. Do you?
"*Yes* the blue plates receives radiation from the green one.
*But* view factors! *But* it does not warm like you previously defined it!
Notice any pattern here?
Either you accept that it is possible for a colder surface to radiate back to a hotter one, in which case a Eli wins, or you do not."
The pattern I notice is that you are always a complete idiot. I accept that it is possible for a colder surface to radiate back to a hotter one, but no, Eli does not win, because that radiation has to actually increase the temperature of the hotter surface in order for Eli to win. I don’t agree that it can do that, because that would violate 2LoT. Again, this is not an example of a motte and bailey, because I am not insisting that I’m only advancing the motte when challenged on the bailey.
You can’t even admit that I am right about the topic at hand, Graham. In fact you can’t even admit that I am right about backradiation too! And now you are playing dumb about the meaning of hard limit.
You agreed that the Earth receives no more than 240Wm-2.
That is what the Earth emits.
Once you accept that, there’s no amount of Earth spin that will increase that limit.
So Team Joe cannot win this.
Unless you want to relitigate the first law too. That might be a tougher bailey to support. But you never really support anything, so be my guest.
"You agreed that the Earth receives no more than 240Wm-2."
No, I didn’t, you ridiculous sociopath. The Earth can be considered to be receiving 480 W/m^2 over the hemisphere, whilst emitting 240 W/m^2 over the whole sphere. In exactly the same sense that the BP in the Green Plate Effect, before the GP is added, can be considered to be receiving 400 W/m^2 over half its surface area, and emitting 200 W/m^2 from its entire surface area.
I also understand why people average the incoming flux over the entire sphere, to get 240 W/m^2.
But that is not a "hard limit".
Of course you did not accept that the Earth receives no more than the 240Wm-2 it receives over the whole Earth, Graham.
After all, here is what you just said:
Try to put the negation of the first claim alongside the second one in a sentence:
[GRAHAM’S DENIAL] The Earth does not emit 240Wm-2, but the Earth can be considered to be emitting 240 W/m^2 over the whole sphere.
Perhaps you should calm down. You are not thinking properly. All you are trying to do is to turn this into a silly parsomatics match.
You are no match for a parsomatics match.
Utterly incomprehensible, Willard.
The Earth cannot emit more energy than it receives, Graham.
That is the Hard Limit.
You accept that the Earth receives the same amount of energy as everyone believes it receives. That is the Motte.
That leaves Team Joe two choices: it kneels to Team Physics, or it revise physics. That would be the Bailey.
The specific number does not really matter for that logical point to hold.
With 480 W/m^2 input over the hemisphere, and 240 W/m^2 output over the sphere, the Earth is receiving and emitting exactly the same amount of energy.
With 240 W/m^2 input over the sphere, and 240 W/m^2 output over the sphere, the Earth is receiving and emitting exactly the same amount of energy.
We both know all this, Graham. Why are you going through your Motte once again? Simple: it does not address anything that I just said. So allow me to reword, just to prove that my position does not rest on any specific formulation.
Energy balances. Energy in equals energy out.
Team Joe loses as soon as it accepts the same number as energy out as everyone else.
No amount of “second by second” will increase that hard limit.
You have nothing against that argument.
This might explain your current victim playing.
"We both know all this, Graham."
First time you’ve ever publicly acknowledged that 480 W/m^2 input over the hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output over the sphere does balance energy in and energy out. Remarkable! Some progress has finally been made.
"Team Joe loses as soon as it accepts the same number as energy out as everyone else."
Why’s that?
You have a short term memory, Graham:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190521
I recently reminded you of that comment.
Starts to look like lying to me.
But all this is a distraction from the point I just made:
Once you accept that only 240J gets out, you need to accept that only 240J gets in, and then either Team Joe revises physics beyond “second by second” crap (misreading what is a Joule or a Watt along the way) or it kneels.
The core of your three-pronged position is really smol once the smokescreen and the tricks are removed.
Willard, the entire comment you just linked to is completely incomprehensible, so pardon me if I never understood that you agreed 480 W/m^2 input over the hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output over the sphere does balance energy in and energy out. It certainly has seemed to me (and others) like you have been violently arguing against that point for the last year or so. But I guess this is one way you can avoid admitting that you’ve been wrong for a year. Just handwave towards some old comment that is completely impossible for anyone to comprehend, and just say, "yeah, I agreed all along, look".
"Once you accept that only 240J gets out, you need to accept that only 240J gets in, and then either Team Joe revises physics beyond “second by second” crap (misreading what is a Joule or a Watt along the way) or it kneels."
Willard, there is rather a lot more than 240 joules leaving the planet every second. Perhaps you mean 240 W/m^2? Who knows what you mean…you never make yourself clear.
Doubling down on wrongful victim bullying won’t distract me from my point, Graham –
Equivalent has a formal meaning. When A is equivalent to B, A has the same value as B. If A and B denotes energy quantities, that means they denote the same energy quantity.
Basic semantics.
If I say that Joe’s calculation is equivalent to everybody else’s, I am implying that I agree with the equivalence posited.
Basic pragmatics.
Now, you still have to acknowledge that if your calculation is equivalent to everybody else’s, your “second by second” and your “but the planet rotates” are mere verbal defenses.
Either energy balances the way we understand physics since at least a hundred years and Joe Team kneels, or Joe Team revises physics.
Simples.
WTF are you talking about?
Oh, sorry. I thought you misunderstood what “The two methods lead to the same result” means. It means they’re equivalent.
For instance, if method A gives me 240J out and method B gives me 240J, I would say they’re equivalent. They produce or they lead to the same result.
If your method produces 240J, the same number as everybody else, then the question needs to be asked – is Team Joe’s position not equivalent to mere posturing?
Play dumb once more. I dare you.
The two positions are:
1) 480 W/m^2 input over the hemisphere, 240 W/m^2 output over the sphere.
2) 240 W/m^2 input over the sphere, 240 W/m^2 output over the sphere.
They are equivalent only in that they both conserve energy in and out. They are quite different in that 1) acknowledges that there’s day and night, and that the Earth is round, and 2) does not.
(2) is incorrect for a geometrical proof covered in a post and explained in the comments:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units
No need to recall how you end up with a division by 2 that makes you throw away the energy balance equation like a kid throws his toys, for all this is a distraction –
How does Joe Team get more energy than your (1)?
Until it does, it needs to kneel to Team Physics and their Greenhouse Theory.
Still awaiting that you substantiate your “second by second, the Earth rotates” armwaving.
So you’re now saying that this:
2) 240 W/m^2 input over the sphere, 240 W/m^2 output over the sphere.
is incorrect?
No, Graham. Allow AT to explain to you again:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-191020
One day you’ll need to realize that if people have difficulties in understanding Team Joe’s position, it’s because no one reasonable would ever argue the way you do, at least not for 69 months.
You constructed an arsenal to destroy communication bridges, not to create them.
Well, you said:
"(2) is incorrect for a geometrical proof covered in a post and explained in the comments"
so I guess you can’t even admit that you meant to say (1) is incorrect, and you just made another dumb mistake. If you’re saying (1) is incorrect, then you are also wrong, anyway. Your article never made any coherent argument for why 480 W/m^2 input over the hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output over the sphere is "incorrect". Since you have just recently agreed that 480 W/m^2 input over the hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output over the sphere does conserve energy, one can only wonder at what you mean by "incorrect" in any case – and you won’t do anything to clarify, so why bother!?
It is pointless talking to you.
So why don’t you make another response, with some link to a comment and a quote, and some cryptic wording to go along with it which absolutely nobody on this blog will understand? Go ahead. I’ll just PST it later. You are a complete waste of time.
> Your article never made any coherent argument for why 480 W/m^2 input over the hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output over the sphere is “incorrect”.
Graham, you goof. Here’s what you said:
That is what is incorrect.
Read AT’s quote again, and recall, that an hemisphere, when corrected for angles, is a disc.
Joe’s division by 2 distribute the light the Earth receives on the disc.
Which means there’s a whole hemisphere he sweeps under the rug.
But wait – there were two different “2” in your comment, right?
Silly goose.
"Joe’s division by 2 distribute the light the Earth receives on the disc."
No. It doesn’t. Postma’s division by 2 is simply a shortcut for taking the disk surface area, multiplying it by the solar constant, correcting for albedo, and then dividing that total input power by the surface area of the hemisphere to get an input flux of 480 W/m^2. Instead of doing all that, you can simply divide the solar constant, corrected for albedo, by 2, to get 480 W/m^2. I went through the math to show you exactly why that is.
All this nonsense about "an hemisphere, when corrected for angles, is a disc", has nothing to do with anything of any relevance. All of that, ATs integration included, is simply showing you that the light falling on the hemisphere is the same amount of total power (Watts) that would be falling on the Earth’s shadow disk. Which is kind of completely obvious anyway, when you think about it. It changes nothing about any of Postma’s arguments. So stop going on about it!
> No. It doesn’t.
Oh, Graham:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190335
You still have not looked into Joe’s hemispherical model, haven’t you?
Here it is:
https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/joe-s-con.png
And here is the original Yes-But meme:
https://i.imgflip.com/58darn.jpg
Silly goose.
Thank you for proving my point.
My pleasure to prove you that you still misunderstand what Joe does, Graham. When he divides by two instead of four he replaces a sphere by a hemisphere. A hemisphere does not exactly model the Earth, does it?
No wonder you can’t connect the two equations of your “model,” silly goose.
You cannot be this stupid, so you must be trolling. Willard, please stop trolling.
You are very wrong, Graham.
Perhaps not as evil as Bob suggests, but then I have not had the pleasure to suffer your trolling for that long, and he may not know Joe’s Magnum Opus as well as I.
We already have established that you have no idea what Joe is doing there. As Team Joe’s captain, that rather sucks.
You realize that what Postma does in that hemispherical equation is pretty much what I described to you, right? The only differences being he is going a longer way about getting the solar constant, and he is including a means of getting to the blackbody temperature associated with the 480 W/m^2. Which is the 303 K. He is not saying the Earth’s effective temperature is 303 K. You also get that, right?
Not, Graham, Joe actually does not do what you say he does.
Light is received on the disc and is *distributed* on the hemisphere. The 2 comes from the right part. The out part. At this moment of the exchange you usually try to sidestep these facts by appealing to power, which then leads to all the confusion about flux.
To model the Earth with a single hemisphere is at best silly. Joe most problem knows that. So he is running a con. You? Who knows what you really know about any of this. You are ready to hold four different stances before breakfast.
Silly goose.
Willard, I will keep it as simple as possible, since you are not very bright, and don’t understand equations. There are 4 lines for equation 21, as it is rearranged. On the third line (that’s the one with all the crossing out), on the right hand side of the equation, he has the solar constant multiplied by the disk surface area, then a correction for albedo. All this is being divided by the surface area of the hemisphere, which is the 2 pi R^2. All exactly as I explained to you before. That gives him a value for the input flux of 480 W/m^2, which is converted to a temperature of 303 K. That’s how he gets the 303 K!
By the way, the right hand side of his equation is the in part, not the out part. It is L emitted = L absorbed
Emitted = out
Absorbed = in
Hope that helps.
Graham, you silly goose.
The light is received on a disc in both the ordinary energy balance model and the hemispherical model. On which side is the disc in both models? The left one. *That* is the input side. The output side is designated by where is the Earth, for the Earth emits energy over its whole surface.
We can flip the equality if you want. Does not matter. It is an equality. It preserves symmetry. Now, we can also move the terms around, like we can move the 2 or the 4 from the right to the left side.
But wait – do you *really* think that the 2 or the 4, once moved to the input side now designates an input? Suppose you are right, the light is received on the hemisphere, i.e the 2. What does represent the disc, or the 1 in the 1/2 that Joe obtains by moving the terms around?
Why the hell would Joe need a disc if the hemisphere represents the surface that receives the light, Graham? Are you really suggesting that before he divides by two the quantity he calculates with the disc designates what is being emitted?
If you do, you really have no business here.
I am through trying to explain this to you. Jesus Christ you are thick.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333408
Willard, please stop trolling.
{21}
L-emit equals Effective Temp times 2 Pi R squared>:
https://principia-scientific.com/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
Two
Pi R squared.
The hemisphere.
Is.
On the emission side.
Why is Graham denying this?
No idea.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Manual pingback:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333466
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
— Willard says:
July 12, 2022 at 4:07 PM
One day Graham will have to learn to argue properly.
The question he keeps begging is expressed by the very first sentence of Elis post: An evergreen of denial is that a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter. Hence why in the comments he clarifies:
[T]he 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.–
Well, I say colder object make something warmer.
Ie colder polar sea ice, warms the ocean.
But one could say it starts with a warmer liquid ocean warms polar air. And polar ice prevents the liquid ocean below it, from warming the polar air.
But it doesn’t warm global air temperature- quite opposite, it prevent ocean from warming global air.
How about another example:
“Cold” snow would warm Mars. But snow would not make Mars like Venus.
Or snow absorbs more energy from the sun, as compared to rock and sand. Or snow doesn’t radiate as much energy as rock and sand. And hotter daytime surface rock or sand losses more energy as compared to cooler daytime, snow.
Of course with greenhouse gases, they can dump energy into space. And without greenhouse gases atmosphere radiate less energy into space.
Or for Earth to radiate more without greenhouse gases, more energy from space must radiate directly into space.
So, right now, 40 watts on average radiates directly in the space from the surface.
So, a question is, without any CO2 in atmosphere how more than 40 watts, radiates from the surface to space.
I said it goes from 40 to 45 watts directly to space.
Or I have made case that CO2 prevents some [and quite a large amount]
of energy going directly into space. And I am assuming the major greenhouse gas blocks more than CO2 does.
I would say at least twice as much.
Maybe 3 or 5 times as much.
But you also things like clouds, which are droplets or particles of ice.
In terms 40 watts global average, clouds would be something stop a lot or clouds are large part of why it’s only 40 watt average.
Clouds “might” be more than water vapor, and can’t imagine anyone CO2 prevents energy directly going into space more than clouds.
But maybe someone imagines CO2 blocks more energy from directly going to space, than water vapor or clouds, and maybe both.
There are of course factor causing less than 240 watts from going directly going into Space.
It seems if instead of 1 atm of atmospheric mass, one had 1/2 or double the atmospheric mass, it would make a big difference.
But we live in an ice house global climate, which solely due to have a cold ocean, and we going continue having a cold ocean ocean.
And current average ocean temperature of 3.5 C is the coldest ocean
in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
Or getting warmer is not a problem, unless one’s goal is to get this place even colder.
It’s not just the back radiation warming the blue plate, it is working in conjunction with whatever else is warming the blue plate, the heater or the Sun depending on which problem you are talking about.
still no violation of the second law
“Back-radiation warming violates 2LoT. Not the existence of back-radiation itself (which is fine, and not disputed) but the action of it actually making something warmer. ”
When a heat source is providing the heat to warm something, there is no 2LOT violation.
So in the Steel Greenhouse example above, the presence of the shell around the planet with a heat source results in a warmer planet.
And Tplanet > Tshell and heat flow is from planet to shell.
There is no evidence that 2LOT is violated here.
"It’s not just the back radiation warming the blue plate, it is working in conjunction with whatever else is warming the blue plate, the heater or the Sun depending on which problem you are talking about.
still no violation of the second law"
Ah, it’s the magic "when there’s a heat source, the 2nd Law no longer applies" clause.
Read harder moron
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Here, I’ll spell it out for you.
Something is happening at the same time.
That’s just the "of its own accord" clause, bob, which relates to work being done, e.g. refrigerators, air conditioning. Not the presence or absence of a heat source.
> That’s just the “of its own accord” clause
Pray tell more on that clause, Graham.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Work is not required, moron.
Failure to understand what Clausius said, he did not specify that some other change had to be work.
Incorrect, bob.
DREMPTY,
Can you provide evidence that you have taken a course in thermodynamics?
Of course, I have already posted such evidence that I have taken and passed such a course.
And I am a better human being than you, having passed a course in thermodynamics, and recognizing that it is evil to deny the greenhouse effect.
Sure, sure.
DREMPTY the evil one,
Just want to point out that air conditioners and refrigerators were invented after Clausius died.
So you got that working for you.
Yup, yup.
Bob,
I know it’s not your style, but –
https://youtu.be/hUkMnNNc5NU
“Ah, its the magic ‘when theres a heat source, the 2nd Law no longer applies’ clause.”
Again, heat is happily flowing from hot to cold in the steel greenhouse problem, so where is the violation?
There is no need for any magic when no violation is evident.
This is a non-existent problem.
The GPE’s debunked…but if people want to believe in the Sun heating itself up with its own back-radiated energy, they’re welcome to continue to make fools of themselves. End of story.
Declarations of ‘debunking’ need to be backed up with actual, ya know, debunking!
Where is that?
Where is the evidence?
You were unable to point out and explain any violations of laws of physics in the solution for the Steel Greenhouse I showed above.
Nothing, nada.
The plate version of GPE solution by Eli, similarly, violates not a single law of physics that you can point out and explain.
In the reality that means your ‘debunking’ is BS.
I realize that you do not live in reality.
DREMT just doesn’t understand the 2LOT i.e. dS; DREMT would rather just provide humorous entertainment around here than provide accurate equations as does Eli.
Ball4 trolls on.
I notice above that someone has been silly enough to link to the ignorant and misguided ramblings of one Willis Eschenbach, and his bizarre “steel greenhouse”.
Willis obviously doesn’t like the fact that spheres of different radii have different surface areas,, so produces a silly graphic which creates energy from nothing, by taking advantage of the ignorance and gullibility of fellow cultists.
When I pointed this out to Willis, after his last iteration of his illusion, he had a tantrum – but at least has had the good sense to refrain from attempting his trick again.
All about as silly as the idiot Willard who obviously refuses to accept that infrared radiation is emitted by all matter above absolute zero – including the atmosphere – to the dismay of cultists who loudly proclaim that oxygen, nitrogen, etc., are exempt from normal physical laws!
A somewhat relevant quote from Richard Feynman – “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
> who obviously refuses to accept that infrared radiation is emitted by all matter above absolute zero
Wait, Mike Flynn – why would I refuse to accept what vitiates your stance?
Because you are a stupid and ignorant cultist, perhaps?
Or do you another excuse?
Mike, Mike,
I really have no problem in accepting that infrared radiation is emitted for everything above 0K.
What is the implication that would lead us to revolutionize radiative physics the way Sky Dragon Cranks would suggest, and what about View Factors?
You idiot. Everything above 0K emits IR. No physics revolution needed, and the idiot Sky Dragon Cranks (those who stupidly believe that CO2 has magical heating properties) are obviously as ignorant and stupid as you.
Go back to your audience of 3 year olds and tell them how clever you are. Maybe some of them will believe you for a little longer.
Do you have a point, Mike?
I hear Eschenbach is a carpenter.
Eschenbach is also a talented writer. I used to follow him at WUWT, when I was just lurking. I wasn’t commenting then, maybe I should have been….
I believe he could learn physics, if I could get his undivided attention for a couple of hours. Of course, that won’t happen on a blog. As I remember, even with his healthy ego, he readily accepted reality. He’s not a complete idiot like the worthless trolls here. He would never accept that ice cubes can boil water.
Yet Willis accepts the GHE. How do you explain that Clint R?
Like you, Willis doesn’t understand the physics.
But unlike you Ball4, he’s not a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll perverting science and reality.
Clint R has no evidential explanation for Willis accepting the GHE then.
Pity, since I thought so.
In the steel greenhouse example the radii of the planet and greenhouse are negligibly different.
If they are measurably different, the results change slightly, but planet warming still happens.
If Swenson is certain no warming would result in that case he is most welcome to show us his calculation!
SuperTripleDipperDeveloping La Nina called – Can you see me now ???
https://youtu.be/kudn6mzqgZI
Hey, Barry, time to invest in a good pair of Wellies. Maybe hip-waders would be better.
Not being mean, we’ll have our share of flooding up here in Vancouver, Canada come November. Up here, the idiots blame it on climate change.
For some reason, the trade winds that suck all the cold water toward Oz also sucks it up the Pacific Coast by Vancouver. In California they get droughts but up here our mountains seem to turn the wet air into excess precipitation. Combined with the higher snow pack, we are in for a good time.
That’s why we all have webs between our toes in this part of the world. We are not on the west coast, we are on the wet coast.
Yeah the rains have already been heavy all year, but being a city slicker I don’t have to worry about the wellies too much. roads are crumbling away in Sydney, tons of potholes opened up. The ground hasn’t been able to drain off the rains completely all year, so flooding comes even with modest amounts of rain at the moment.
ball4…”It is entirely obsolete physics, Christos, since in modern thermodynamics heat is not contained in an object nor the space between objects”.
***
The obsolescence is in your brain. I have seldom encountered such an ignoramus when it comes to basic thermodynamics. What is it makes an object feel hot if it’s not heat? We measure heat with a thermometer. a device with graduations between the set points of boiling water and ice. And what’s the difference that distinguishes ice from boiling water…heat.
Don’t give me the internal energy crap. You have a serious misunderstanding of scientific phenomena like heat and energy. You even think kinetic energy is a form of energy.
“What is it makes an object feel hot if its not heat?”
A measure of the total constituent internal KE increases as the heating rate is increased as per Clausius long ago.
Does an object feel cold if it’s not cold? No. A measure of the total constituent internal KE informs you cold or hot.
willard…”Graham is thus at best begs the question: a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter because thats the second law of thermo. Do you recall him ever trying to work with the equation?”
***
Why would Graham want to work with equations when Clausius, who stated the 2nd law has made it abundantly clear that heat can NEVER be transferred, by it’s own means, from a colder body to a warmer body? Clausius spent a paragraph explaining the meaning of ‘by its own means’.
Why the denial Willis? That definition by Clausius applies to the atmosphere as well and to radiation. Heat can never be transferred anywhere, by it’s on means, from a colder region of the atmosphere that’s cooler than the surface, to a warmer surface.
In an attempt to get around that ***LAW***, alarmists have invented pseudo-science that no one has proved. They invented a net balance of energy, that has no existence wrt to heat, and other have redefined the meaning of heat, adding to the chicanery.
C’mon, Gordo –
It does not matter what Graham wants or not.
What matters is what Graham needs to support the claim that the second law of thermo implies that hotter objects cannot be warmed by colder objects. Unless and until he does that, he’s simply arguing by assertion.
One good way to do that is to analyze the second law of thermo.
One bad way would be to pontificate like you do.
Here is something to get you started:
https://www.scielo.br/j/rbef/a/JjZnwmmkVxyrDP6p3FbMxJw/?format=pdf&lang=en
To have an idea how it evolved may help.
If not, then do continue.
Willard is usually 2nd place troll to RLH, but he’s just as ignorant of physics. And like the other cult idiots, he likes to link to things he can’t understand. The reason “cold” cannot warm “hot” is clearly explained in his link, but he can’t understand it. He refuses learning.
That’s why he’s so worthless.
Cold rather than colder means that hot cools slower.
Cooling is cooling. Not warming, not heating. Cooling. The temperature falls.
Want to demonstrate your delusional stupidity by disagreeing?
Do you want to disagree that surrounding something by something that is colder than what it was before is going to increase the cooling.
If it is warmer it will decrease the cooling.
Pup belongs to a trio of trolls who deny basic physics and sometimes more.
In their clown act Mike plays Bully, Graham plays Slimy, and he plays Lulzy.
Mike is the funniest, Graham the saddest, and Pup the silliest.
No imagination, low energy, an overall coward.
Too much anger bottled up in that silly sock puppet.
Willard is a sociopath who has devoted his entire life to trying to irritate a group of people who are better than him in every way.
Graham is a sock puppet from Team Joe who keeps trolling Roy’s since at least 69 months by hiding his stance behind a wall of words, and when his playbook is revealed he tilts.
"Tilts" meaning "gets understandably annoyed when an insufferable troll keeps misrepresenting, falsely accusing, and insulting whilst obsessing over my every word".
Graham minces words once again:
Note the date. Note the hour.
Take a chill pill, Graham. Step away from the keyboard for a while.
You should have admitted you were wrong, and apologized, but you have no decency or integrity.
Besides, if I have the presence of mind to self-censor with the *, I can’t be that annoyed.
Except that I was right, Graham. I was right about the topic. I was right about your misreading. And I am right about your “yes/but” tango, which can be analyzed as a Motte-and-Bailey.
So, pray tell how backradiation can cool a surface.
Oh, sorry. Not “cool.” I think you mean “not warm.”
And by “warm” I suspect you mean “as previously defined in the third basement of Roy’s, right next to the Leopard.”
I don’t mind these silly word games, Graham. If you ever want something else, there’s always this:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/09/27/the-real-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
No, you were wrong, Willard. As you so often are.
I was right all along, Graham. Since you are calming down, here’s a pro-tip –
Play within the limits of your Theory of Mind.
This will improve your quality of life.
No, you were wrong again, Willard. As you so often are.
So you say, Graham. So you say.
I say that 240J out means there’s 240J in.
What do you say?
I say that’s another attempted distraction. You were wrong, Willard.
To make you fall back to your baileys is far from a distraction, Graham. But pick one yourself:
– second by second the Earth rotates etc
– of its own accord means etc
– VIEW FACTORS
Anything else?
You were wrong, Willard.
So you say, Graham.
Your stance presupposes it’s possible for backradiation not to warm.
In fact it presupposes it can’t.
Who in their right mind would need to express themselves in a way to take these absurdities into account?
You were wrong, Willard. You falsely accused me of a motte and bailey fallacy. You’re a lying POS.
> In fact it presupposes it can’t.
For a hotter body, at least.
But it’s hard to say if it can “warm” at all until we know exactly what the hell you mean by warming.
For all I know one could very well define warming as what breaks the laws of thermo!
You were wrong, and you’re a lying POS.
> You falsely accused me of a motte and bailey fallacy.
Wrongo, Kiddo. Here’s what I said at first:
I am accusing you of “a” fallacy. I am accusing you of being a troll that keeps shifting between platitudes and unjustified if not outright bongo claims.
The Motte-and-Bailey is not exactly a fallacy, and Shackel’s work isn’t great in general. But he’s right to underline a common argumentative theme of always shifting back and forth.
A peculiar trait of one of your baileys is that, usually, semantic quibbles can be observed on the Motte side. But never fear – it is obvious that you keep shifting between platitudes and absurdities. That’s, like, your trademark.
So, what it is to “lose energy”?
> I am accusing you of “a” fallacy.
I am *not* accusing you of “a” fallacy, of course.
If you paid any attention to what I said over the years, you should know that I seldom mention fallacies. Fallacy fluff sucks. It ought to be burned down to the ground.
GFY you lying POS.
Please stop tilting, Graham.
[YES] I don’t disagree with AT’s integration
[BUT] You need to then decide what measure of surface area you are going to divide that total power by.
As I said, the yes part is the Motte, the but part is the Bailey.
It is a Bailey because you cannot justify your division by two unless you divide by another two to model the Earth.
In which case you divide by four, like everyone else.
Which returns you to your Bailey where you agree with everybody.
And round and round you troll Roy’s.
GFY. You were wrong, and you’re a lying POS.
Pass the popcorn
This is what Willard lied about.
The subject under discussion was:
"Yes, you believe in the existence of backradiation. We all agree on that. That’s the Motte.
But you deny that backradiation can warm, as for some reason it would break the second law of thermo. That’s the Bailey."
He couldn’t point to any example where on advancing the bailey, and being challenged, I insisted I was only advancing the motte…because that never happened! So it was not a motte and bailey. He just lied about it, and when called on it, never apologized. He instead tried to bring up multiple other examples which are all also not motte and baileys.
Yes, you are having a meltdown, pass the salt.
No meltdown, bob, just responding to Willard in the only way he deserves to be treated.
Please stop tilting, Graham:
[G] You falsely accused me of a motte and bailey fallacy.
[W] I am [not] accusing you of “a” fallacy. I am accusing you of being a troll that keeps shifting between platitudes and unjustified if not outright bongo claims.
[G] The subject under discussion was: “Yes, you believe in the existence of backradiation. We all agree on that. That’s the Motte.”
As if ripping off his shirt will allow him to control an exchange he complete.
Here is Graham’s tango with the plates:
[Yes] Yes backradiation exists.
[But] But backradiation warming would break 2LOT.
In a way, it would be unfair to say that this is a motte and bailey. There’s no real bailey position to speak of! Complete posturing from Team Joe’s part.
So, Graham, instead of tilting, could you tell us how backradiation warming would break 2LOT?
"In a way, it would be unfair to say that this is a motte and bailey…"
Yes, Willard. It would. I guess that’s as close as I’m going to get to you admitting you were wrong.
So now…where’s the apology?
> an exchange he complete.
completely misunderstands.
Roy’s parser is drunk once again.
I wish I was.
brb
OK, Graham. OK. I am sorry that sometimes I believe you are defending a real position. For most of the times it’s just a wall of air. My favorite currently is:
(VF) V I E W F A C T O R S
For it to be a bailey, it would need to look like an argument.
It does not even look like one.
How could it be a fallacy if it’s not a real argument in the first place?
You goose.
Don’t bother coming back unless it’s to apologize, Willard.
I just wish the hurt little snowflake would go away, maybe spend some time and money on a thermo textbook.
Sorry bob, I’m here to stay. Hope you like PSTs.
Yes, dear Graham. I’m truly sorry that the concept of motte-and-bailey is such a mess that from now on I’ll stick to my own terminology. But I’m sorrier that your own stance was such a sham it could not even deemed to be called an argument.
As a Truth Obsesser, I’m sure you can tell us about V I E W F A C T O R S. For if you don’t, I guess that’s another thing I’ll have to research myself. And for that, my dear Graham, I’m ready to bet you’ll be very sorry.
Silly goose.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’m sorry you got overpowered by your betters, Graham.
Silly goose.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
You owe Bob an apology or two, BTW.
Silly goose.
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
ball4…”DREMT continues to be wrong since no back-radiation warming violates 2LoT as in that case dS = 0 which is impossible in a natural process”.
***
ds can only be zero if dq = 0, since ds = dq/T. That is only part of the Clausius definition of entropy which he defined as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat at a constant temperature, T.
Since you claim heat has no existence, then dq is always 0 and there can be no entropy.
In the definition of entropy, dq is the infinitesimal (instantaneous) change in heat into or our of a body. Entropy itself, capital S = integral dq/T. Since T is constant it can be pulled outside the integral sign and entropy becomes….
S = 1/T.integral dq
The equation makes it abundantly clear that entropy is a summation of heat quantities over a process. As defined by Clausius, if S = 0, the process is reversible. Otherwise it is irreversible, and S is +ve, to whatever degree heat is relased during the irreversible process.
There is no need to apply entropy to Eli’s pseudo-scientific model. It was made totally clear by Clausius that heat can never be transferred from a cold region to a warmer region. Heat can never be transferred from the GP to the BP, or from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface.
> It was made totally clear by Clausius that heat can never be transferred from a cold region to a warmer region.
C’mon, Gordo.
You missed the opportunity to support that claim once again.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
C’mon nitwit,
You can’t show an experiment where you can transfer heat from a colder object to a warmer.
That’s because it’s impossible, you donkey!
You are just too delusional to accept reality. Go back to trying to convince 3 year olds that you are clever.
Good luck!
Mike, Mike,
If it is impossible, you should get your result simply by looking at the equation.
No need for experiment.
Is there anything you understand about this?
Cheers.
“Since you claim heat has no existence, then dq is always 0 and there can be no entropy.”
Wrong Gordon. dQ is an infinitesimal change in rate of heating.
Long ago, the caloric “fluid” was thought to exist in a body and thus could be transferred. That is now obsolete since in modern thermodynamics heat is not contained in a body nor is heat contained in the space between bodies. Gordon has a lot to learn about modern thermodynamics (and Swenson et. al.).
Cult idiots do not have any interest in learning physics because physical laws destroy their cult beliefs. So when someone tries to explain something like 2LoT to them, you see willard’s reaction. He’s got his eyes closed, ears shut, and babbling nonsense. All in an effort to avoid reality.
At an elementary level, 2LoT is simple to understand. A hot brick placed next to a cold brink means heat will transfer from hot to cold. After a time, both bricks will be at the same temperature. The entropy portion of 2LoT means that the two bricks, then at the same temperature, cannot reverse to a hot brick and a cold brick. The temperatures cannot organize by themselves. That natural process, of hot and cold equalizing, is “irreversible”.
Watch now, as the cult idiots slobber all over themselves trying to pervert an elementary concept.
You almost got it, Pup. All you got to do is to discuss the part Graham prefers above all, and Tem Joe will go poof by its own accord.
Incoherent.
You are having a slow afternoon, Graham:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1332411
You expect people to be mind readers, then when they cannot read your mind, you accuse them of being slow.
On the contrary, Graham. I do not expect people on the spectrum to have a very good Theory of Mind.
But I do expect that a troll who wrote 80 times “of its own accord” on a thread to recall that he wrote it at least a few times.
More so that this is the main thing you ever mention when talking about the second law.
Verbal defenses are cheap, but without any attention to detail and no theory of mind they can only make you suffer, Graham.
More insulting drivel.
I made three factual claims, Graham.
People on the spectrum have bug in their Theory of Mind modules.
You repeated “of its own accord” a lot of times recently.
Your only talking point about the second law is the “of its own accord” bit.
I also made an evaluative claim:
You cannot win at parsomatics against me.
Do continue your gaslighting.
"Watch now, as the cult idiots slobber all over themselves trying to pervert an elementary concept."
Worthless willard has about as much chance understanding “of its own accord, as he does understanding “view factors”.
And so, by their own accord, Graham and Pup soldier on.
“You can’t get this because you are a fucking moron, or an evil green house effect denier.”
Now that whole rant from bob, was tilting.
That’s where you’re wrong, Graham.
Bob was being Bob.
By contrast, you were in full “oh lord please don’t make me feel misunderstood” reactance mode.
But you are returning to your own slimy manipulative self.
Welcome back!
Ah, anything bob does is OK, but anything I do is slimy and manipulative. No bias there, then.
Bob is cool. He knows more physics than you do. He also plays good music. When is your next video coming up?
You’re lucky to have Bob as a mentor.
Seems like bob completely loses his shit, to me. That’s just "bob being bob" I suppose.
Perhaps to you, Graham, but now that you have returned to your old manipulative self, how you read people is the lesser of my concerns.
More so that you have an obvious problem with your Theory of Mind.
It might not be possible to get out of the spectrum, but it’s possible to work on one’s Theory of Mind.
Please consult.
Willard, nothing has changed since I started commenting earlier today. My mood has not changed one iota. You’re the slimy, manipulative one. Everything you do and say is an attempt to mentally manipulate the current target of your obsessions. You’re a classic, gaslighting sociopath.
How you really feel is none of my concerns, Graham. How Bob really feels is none of your concerns. How I feel should not matter to you. Yet I have a theory of how you feel, we have a theory of how Bob feels, and you have a theory about how I should not feel anything.
None of this is of any importance whatsoever. So you are still going for the same setup as always. And as always it won’t work.
Backradiation does not warm, because reasons. Which ones?
Try to make complete statements, supported by referring to radiative transfer physics textbooks, handbooks, papers, whatever.
Shouldn’t you be interested in promoting your pet theory?
Yes, you should.
So you should produce your explanation *by your own accord*.
“By your own accord” – get it?
"None of this is of any importance whatsoever. So you are still going for the same setup as always. And as always it won’t work."
I agree, none of its important. So why did you bring it up?
You were the one suggesting that Bob was tilting, Graham.
Backradiation does not warm, because reasons. Which ones?
No, you were the one who mentioned my "Theory of Mind" etc. You brought the whole thing up.
I mentioned your theory of mind because you were complaining that I was expecting that you read my mind, which is the exact opposite of what I’m doing because I am replying to you as if you were on the spectrum. You constantly misinterpret the intentions of people, you lack the pro-social skills to follow an exchange properly, and your pet interests are more than niche.
The strategy satisfies the Golden Rule anyway.
Pray tell how backradiation warming would break the second law and why you say that we need to take view factors to calculate things properly but never offer a calculations using view factors.
And in case my intentions are still obscure to you – brace yourself, I am coming for your baileys.
On the contrary, I will not be communicating with you further until you admit you were wrong about the whole "motte and bailey" thing, and apologize for your continued false accusations.
I won’t lie to get the baileys out of you, dear Graham.
That you fail to get implicatures is on you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Enjoy your evening, Graham.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Don’t go thinking why you’re living a lie
Now there’s a lot to earn, dead or alive
(alive, alive)
They told you what you want, you never decide
(it’s decided)
Just hold on and you might, aah
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
BE FAMOUS
(famous)
Your way to paradise
BE FAMOUS
(famous)
Your way to all delight
JUST TASTE IT
(taste it)
Just taste the sugar high
Just taste it
(taste it)
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
You don’t go thinking life had ever been kind
You found there’s a lot to burn, you let it collide
(collide, collide)
You just threw in the dice and let ’em decide
(it’s decided)
But now you’re thinking why, aah
#5
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://youtu.be/WBf7f2hQcLk
#6
Willard, please stop trolling.
Let’s introduce to the very POWERFUL the planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin .
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
Planets’ mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.
( N*cp ) ^1/16
or
[ (N*cp)∕ ⁴ ] ∕ ⁴
This 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.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon can be expressed now also QUANTITATIVELY . And it happens so to be a very POWERFUL the planet surface warming factor.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Dr. Spencer already posted the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, Christos. He’s way ahead of Christos.
Ball4:
“Dr. Spencer already posted the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, Christos. Hes way ahead of Christos.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Been there. Read that. Did not find anything useful.
Guess what happens if you draw OLS ‘trend’ lines for periods after 1950 for this graph.
https://imgur.com/a/kcrGRGr
Image is from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358278595_The_Ensemble_Oceanic_Nino_Index
The Ensemble Oceanic Nio Index
Eric J. Webb & Brian I. Magi
24 January 2022
https://imgur.com/CauL1SE for just fig 3.
Does anyone here believe that the world was created several thousand years ago?
I’d really like to know.
barry…I don’t recall anyone on Roy’s blog claiming the Earth was formed 4000 years ago, only that written human history dates back that far.
As far as the claimed age of the Earth, I have no idea what 4.5 billion years means. Do you? To me, that is no different than Bishop Ussher claiming the Earth was formed circa 4004 BC.
Although Jesus Christ has become iconic in modern thinking, very little is known about the living Jesus based on writing when he was alive. Everything we know about him comes from anecdotal evidence written by ghost writers between 50 and 100 years after his death.
Although the New Testament leads off with the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, none of those books were written by the titled author because they were initially written in Greek. That would require scholars and none of the disciples of Jesus were educated. Furthermore, the books contradict each other on the life of Jesus.
The thing that amazes me is that the goodness of the man survived through 2000 years. People were so taken by his preaching that they were willing to sacrifice their lives to maintain his legacy. That could not happen, IMHO, unless what he preached resonated strongly with natural forces of compassion, tolerance, empathy, and love already within us at birth.
If you carry on back through the Old Testament, things become quite murky when viewed from modern eyes. However, the OT is our main source of human history. The history of Egyptian pharaohs and so on was created by anthropologists retroactively based on their interpretation of hieroglyphs written in stone.
Let’s face it, we know nothing about human history, the formation of life, or the age of the Earth. As is often claimed, history is written by the conquerors.
“As far as the claimed age of the Earth, I have no idea what 4.5 billion years means. Do you? To me, that is no different than Bishop Ussher claiming the Earth was formed circa 4004 BC.”
Then you don’t know the difference between science and religion, between dogma and inquiry.
barry…you did not read what I said. One, I said written human history only dates back about 4000 years, if that. As for the 4.5 billion year claim of the Earth’s age, I asked what that means.
No one can claim the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on the scientific method. It’s sheer speculation just like the Big Bang theory.
When I read about the age of the Earth, tectonics theory, where land masses relocate, and ice ages where the Earth was covered with at least a mile-thick layer of ice, all I can do is shake my head at the ignorance behind the theories.
A very recent theory as to the formation of the Earth has graduated from mysterious asteroids emerging in one spherical plant to several planet merging into one spherical planet. I wonder where these idiots come from.
Where is the mechanism for either asteroids or planets forming a spherical body? Keeping a planet in orbit requires an intricate relationship between the planet’s linear momentum and solar gravitation. How do asteroids/planets change their momenta to match the required intricate balance required to remain in orbit.
These theories are dreamt up by geologists and astronomers who have no idea about the physics of orbits.
“Where is the mechanism for either asteroids or planets forming a spherical body?”
Ever heard of gravity?
My question was whether anyone here believed the world was created several thousand years ago.
From your answers I am left to conclude that you think it is possible that this is true.
It’s good to know that you give this possibility some credence.
stephen anderson I’m pretty sure believes the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago.
Clint possibly believes the same, but he won’t commit to an answer.
It seems you give the idea serious consideration.
barry…I am refraining from offering a decisive comment because I know nothing about the question, never mind the answer. From my time on this Earth, I have learned that the human brain, in general, is seriously limited, yet, for some reason, we were given egos that over-estimate and over-rule the ability of brains.
When we humans begin observing the universe, we are hampered by brains that think in terms of beginnings and ends. That’s because most brains become programmed with the illusion of time. We are also hampered by limitations related to size. We think what we observe is the entire universe and we go so far as to place a centre from which the universe is expanding (basis of Big Bang).
I don’t accept the claim the Earth is 4.5 billions years old. I simply have no idea how old it might be.
I didn’t ask if you thought the Earth was 4.5 billion years old.
I asked if anyone believed it was only several thousand years old.
I don’t buy your intellectual modesty here. Not after years of you lecturing on any number of topics at length. Now you’re suddenly coy?
I learned what I wanted to know from you, thanks.
Good terminology, barry. “Believe” is the key word. Some believe it was less than 10,000 years. Some believe it was billions and billions of years.
We’d all “really like to know”.
Which do you believe?
Beliefs ain’t science. But everything can be reasonably explained with an Earth no more than 25000 years old. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be older, it just means there’s no need for it to be older.
No it can’t.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1332811
You have to explain some 4 Billion year old rocks.
I’ll be waiting.
I’m happy to explain things to you, bob. Thanks for waiting.
You’re a braindead cult idiot believing whatever your cult preaches. You know NOTHING about science. You swallow the cult nonsense, without question. You’re like an illiterate ghetto kid wanting to join the gang so you can pretend you’re “somebody”. When you get exposed for what you are, you resort to your adolescent profanity, hoping that will somehow impress people.
You don’t know that there are any 4 billion year-old rocks. You don’t understand radiometric dating. You just go with it because you have no way to dispute it. The process is so filled with flaws that it’s useless.
Hope that helps.
4.56 – 2.5 billion years ago
Era: Archaean
2.5 billion – 541 million year
Era: Proterozoic
541 – 485 million years ago
Period: Cambrian
Era: Palaeozoic
485 – 444 million years ago
Period: Ordovician
Era: Palaeozoic
444 – 419 million years ago
Period: Silurian
Era: Palaeozoic
419 – 359 million years ago
Period: Devonian
Era: Palaeozoic
359 – 298 million years ago
Period: Carboniferous
Era: Palaeozoic
298 – 252 million years ago
Period: Permian
Era: Palaeozoic
252 – 201 million years ago
Period: Triassic
Era: Mesozoic
201 – 145 million years ago
Period: Jurassic
Era: Mesozoic
145 – 65 million years ago
Period: Cretaceous
Era: Mesozoic
66 – 56 million years ago
Epoch: Palaeocene
Era: Cenozoic
56 – 34 million years ago
Epoch: Eocene
Era: Cenozoic
34 – 23 million years ago
Epoch: Oligocene
Era: Cenozoic
23 – 5.3 million years ago
Epoch: Miocene
Era: Cenozoic
5.3 -2.6 million years ago
Epoch: Pliocene
Era: Cenozoic
2.6 million -10,000 years ago
Epoch: Pleistocene
Period: Quaternary
10,000 years ago to the present
Epoch: Holocene
Clint R,
” The process is so filled with flaws that its useless.”
Name one
A car passes at 60 mph, now long has it been traveling?
List all assumptions, guesses, and estimates used for your answer.
That ain’t science.
Clint R,
So you know nothing about radiometric dating of rocks and want me to do your homework for you.
You evaded answering my question very nicely.
Wrong, braindead bob. I answered your question, but I can’t understand it for you.
A responsible adult would understand that you can’t know how long the car has been traveling.
You can guess about how much fuel it started with. You can make assumptions that the mileage was constant — no hills or headwindss. You can assume the car’s speed was always constant. You can estimate how many times the driver stopped for gas. But, all your work would mean nothing, because your process is flawed.
You don’t understand any of this, and now that you’ve started the false accusations, we’re done.
Clint R,
Please stick to the subject, we were not talking about cars, we were talking about radiometric dating, and you are going to owe me 50 bucks for the following lesson.
Some rocks contain Potassium, which naturally has three isotopes, one of which is radioactive.
That radioactive isotope of Potassium decays to an isotope of Argon or a stable isotope of Calcium with a half life of 1.3 Billion years.
You can measure the ratio of the amounts of these isotopes with a mass spectrometer, and this can tell you the last time that rock was at a high enough temperature for the Argon to diffuse out, thus determining the last time that rock was molten.
You can ask Swenson, he is an expert on this.
And you owe me another 50 bucks, I’ll put it on your tab.
Clint R,
Oh yeah, and by the way, who started with the false accusations.
“You know NOTHING about science.”
That’s another good example that you “know NOTHING about the science”. You can read all about potassium-argon dating on wiki, but that doesn’t mean you understand it.
The last time a rock was molten is NOT the age of the isotopes. How much radioactive potassium was lost or gained when molten? You are lost in assumptions you don’t understand. That’s why I used the simple analogy of the car. How many times did the driver stop for gas?
Clint R,
“The last time a rock was molten is NOT the age of the isotopes. How much radioactive potassium was lost or gained when molten?”
That shit don’t matter and here is why.
It’s not the age of the isotopes that matters, you don’t need to know that.
It also doesn’t matter how much radioactive potassium was lost or gained when molten, because it is the amount that stayed in the rock when solid that matters.
It’s the ratio of the isotopes it the rock that tells when the last time the rock was molten.
Why don’t you write your simple analogies on a piece of toilet paper and use that for what it was meant for.
You’re STILL not getting it, bob.
Wiki lists some of the assumptions necessary. This is JUST for K-Ar, not radiometric in general:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAr_dating
Stick with the simple analogy of the traveling car until you understand the concept.
You made me look, Pup:
“Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.”
According to Gordo, we just did a little science!
Willard,
At least he didn’t Rick Roll you.
Rick rollers are the wurst.
“Beliefs aint science. But everything can be reasonably explained with an Earth no more than 25000 years old. That doesnt mean it couldnt be older, it just means theres no need for it to be older.”
Is it flat also?
You’re repeating yourself —
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333229
barry, since I answered your question, answer mine: Do you now realize your false belief that fluxes simply add would mean that ice cubes can boil water?
Tests show ice cubes can boil water. Clint R operates only on amusing assertions. Great entertainment by Clint but bad science.
No, it doesn’t mean that, Clint, and it’s been explained to you why. You may repeat your strawman as often as you like, but all you’re doing is demonstrating you can’t deal with what’s been said to you.
barry, if a + a = 2a, then does a + a + a + a = 4a?
(You may consult an adult, if you don’t understand basic algebra.)
What if A was a flux, Pup?
Astonishing command of algebra, Clint.
Sadly, the job of figuring out how warm a thing might get is not even half done with those calculations.
Yes, fluxes add. No, that’s not all that happens if you want to figure out how hot something gets.
And just so no one forgets, no surface gets 215 W/m2 from an ice cube.
One more thing to remember:
“Finally, the incident flux (irradiance) on surface k can be found. It is the sum of the radiation leaving each other surface j in the enclosure that is incident on surface k.”
https://www.thermopedia.com/content/70/
“…irradiance H₁ will depend explicitly on the incoming radiation field at the surface, which, in turn, will depend on the outgoing radiation fields from all the other surface which can 'view' surface 1.”
https://www.eng.auburn.edu/~dmckwski/mech7210/radexchange.pdf
We all know you can’t furnish a physics text like these to corroborate your mad views.
Nevertheless, I’m going to ask you for the 100th time to provide a reputable physics text that supports your contention that fluxes arriving at a surface cannot be summed.
barry, if fluxes add, then Folkerts is right when he claims two 315 W/m^2 fluxes add to 630 W/m^2. Which then means a proper surface would reach 325K.
You believe that nonsense, just because your cult claims it. You can NOT provide a “reputable physics text” that supports such crap.
But, it gets even worse for you.
If you add another 315 W/m^2 flux, in your perverted “thinking”, that results in 945 W/m^2.
And a fourth 315 W/m^2 flux would result in 1260 W/m^2.
1260 W/m^2 means a proper surface would then reach 386K (113C, 235F). That’s more than enough to boil water. If not, just add more ice….
(You’ve been duped by your cult, but you’re too braindead to know it.)
“barry, if fluxes add, then Folkerts is right when he claims two 315 W/m^2 fluxes add to 630 W/m^2.”
Only if these are the fluxes arriving at a blackbody surface.
“Which then means a proper surface would reach 325K.”
Nope, I just said to you:
“…the job of figuring out how warm a thing might get is not even half done with those calculations.” You need to consider the environment around the surface, view factors etc.
Now, please provide your reputable physics text that states fluxes arriving at a surface do not add.
I’ve provided two stating the opposite.
I’ve been asking for months for this source. Where is it?
Those fluxes ARE arriving the same surface, barry. No need to consider view factors here.
What will you try next?
Please provide a reputable physics source that corroborates your view that fluxes arriving at a surface should not be summed.
I have provided reputable physics texts confirming that they are summed.
Unless you can furnish a good reference to the contrary then it becomes ever clearer that this idea of yours has no support.
barry, you’re hopping all over the place, like a frog on a hot skillet.
If you believe you’ve “provided reputable physics texts confirming that they are summed”, provide them here. Maybe I can find the cause of your confusion.
I’ve already provided that above. You’ve also seen it before.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333551
I have asked you many times over the past few months to provide corroboration from a reputable physics text that fluxes arriving at a surface cannot be summed.
This is not hopping all over the place. That must be what your mind is doing.
I have consistently asked for this reference, and you have consistently been unable to provide it.
You may do so now.
If you can’t, then you will have to concede what anyone paying attention already knows.
Reputable source – go. No more stalling.
barry, your “support” for your bogus ideas falls short. Neither source mentions temperature. This issue is specifically about two 315 W/m^2 fluxes “adding” to bring a surface to 325K. You keep trying to evade the issue. (Not to mention neither of your sources is substantially valid. Both tend to just copy/paste from other sources.)
And there is NO “physics text” that would state the obvious. No physics text is going to state fluxes don’t simply add to result in a higher temperature. Just like no physics text is going to say gravity makes mass repel mass. So quit using your request for nonsense as evidence for your nonsense.
One of your many problems is you’ve never had any proper physics education. You’ve never had any physics or thermodynamics. It’s easy to tell. When you find something that you believe supports your beliefs, you go with it. You reject anything that debunks your cult beliefs. Your cult is more important to you than reality. That results in me just wasting time with you because you can’t learn. You will just keep finding things to throw against the wall.
Ice cubes can NOT boil water. You have acknowledged that. Yet, you keep believing in the bogus nonsense that fluxes add, which would mean that ice cubes can boil water. You’re all twisted about your own axle.
Allow gator to explain, Pup:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190815
How do you or Joe get a temperature out of flux, again?
I looked for a source to back up Clint’s claim that fluxes don’t add.
Here’s all I could find.
https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~jfc/cs184f98/lec28/lec28.html
“Superposition
The most important principle to keep in mind when thinking about light and shading is the principle of superposition. In its simplest version, it states that when there are two or more light sources, the total light intensity measured at any point in the environment is the sum of the intensities measured with just one of the sources on at a time.
The number of lights need not be finite to apply superposition. e.g. you can model an area or distributed source as a sum of point sources. Note that the sum turns into an integral in this case, but the method still works.”
And anyone who wants to can understand from the last part of that statement,
“e.g. you can model an area or distributed source as a sum of point sources. Note that the sum turns into an integral in this case, but the method still works.”
how a point at the center of a sphere of ice, would only receive a summed total flux = the maximum amount of flux emitted by ice at its surface.
Thus ice can never shine more than 315 W/m^2 on any point on a surface, which is what you get from integrating (summing) all the fluxes from points on the surface of the ice sphere.
So the fact that multiple ice cubes can never boil water provides no support for the claim that ‘fluxes don’t add’.
Nate, you seem to be very confused. Let’s see if we can clear it up for you.
Fluxes in space can add (superposition). They can even interfere with each other. You notice this when you’re listening to AM radio and lightning flashes.
But that’s not the issue here. The issue is: Can two 315 W/m^2 fluxes, arriving the same proper surface, add to 630 W/m^2, raising the surface to 325K?
The answer is NO, as fluxes don’t simply add like that.
So, you did get something right — ice cubes can NOT boil water.
Allow Tim to explain, Pup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1327543
Irradiances can and do add.
Why are you still trolling with a point refuted more than a thousand times?
But that’s not the issue here. The issue is: Can two 315 W/m^2 fluxes, arriving the same proper surface, add to 630 W/m^2, raising the surface to 325K?
“Can two 315 W/m^2 fluxes, arriving the same proper surface, add to 630 W/m^2, raising the surface to 325K?”
Of course.
But that can never happen with ice cubes as your sources.
Yes fluxes add, as my source confirms. But there aint enough flux from ice to EVER add up to more than 315 W/m^2 hitting a point on a surface.
Because as I showed, even if you completely surround something with ice cubes, a sphere of ice, the summed up flux of all that ice never exceeds 315 W/m^2.
Slow down Nate. I already addressed your source.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333856
Superposition is NOT the issue. If you can’t even understand the issue, you can’t make any progress. It’s like you’re in such a hurry to support your cult nonsense that you can’t think straight. It’s like you’re braindead.
PS If you believe the two fluxes can raise the temperature, please provide a source.
“barry, your “support” for your bogus ideas falls short. Neither source mentions temperature.”
Of course they do. Moreover, T (temperature) is a component in numerous equations both sources provide.
I doubt you read them. These are documents explaining how to calculate the radiative transfer of heat. Exactly what we’re taking about.
“No physics text is going to state fluxes don’t simply add to result in a higher temperature.”
“Don’t simply add.” Yep, that’s what I said. They ARE summed, while calculating view factor etc.
It’s not just that your view is wrong, which is why you won’t even find your preposterous notion inferred in any standard physics text, it’s also intuitively, experientially wrong.
Anyone that has ever switched on a bar heater, and then switched on another of the bars in the heater, knows that the transfer of heat to your hand is instant. You can literally FEEL the increase immediately. Your view is complete nonsense.
And THAT is why there is no reference to it, however oblique, in any reputable physics text anywhere.
And why my references support what everyone else is telling you.
Two mistakes there, barry.
The first one you may be able to understand and correct. Your sources did not refer to any fluxes adding to increase a surface temperature. Your sources missed the issue.
Your second mistake you may not be able to understand, due to your lack of science background. Let’s see if you can solve a simple problem:
A plate is alone in deep space. Its emissivity is 0.5. One side is irradiated with 400 W/m^2. What will be the maximum temperature of the plate?
Please show all work.
You’re repeating yourself –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333748
Try again.
“Your sources did not refer to any fluxes adding to increase a surface temperature. Your sources missed the issue.”
My sources confirm that you do indeed sum fluxes arriving at a surface to work out the radiative heat transfer. That is all we needed to verify. We do not need to find a replica of our discussion, only this component, which you said is verboten.
You need to verify that you cannot sum fluxes arriving at a surface, for the purposes of calculating the transfer of heat via radiation, by way of referencing any reputable physics text.
Even an inference that this is the case would be SOMETHING. Without that, then there is no basis for your silly notion.
And obviously there is none. Everyone here would laugh at you if you announced that no further radiative warming occurs when you turn on the second bar of a radiant heater. I’d guess most of us are plenty old enough to be quite familiar with this.
Blah-blah ain’t science, barry. Your sources didn’t have fluxes arriving a surface, and adding to raise its temperature. Quit trying to dodge the issue. You didn’t correct your mistake.
Where’s your answer to the plate problem. I need to find out if you have ANY understanding of the physics so I know where to start to un-confuse you about your bar heaters. You still appear as if you’ve never had a physics course. Prove me wrong.
Don’t forget to show your work.
You’re still repeating yourself, Pup.
Here’s my homework:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333149
I didn’t study physics at university. Neither did you. Your denials about what my sources show are quite pathetic. “Doesn’t mention temperature.”
Assuming radiative energy comes from point source, plate is 1 meter square, infinitely thin and emissivity of 0.5, the result is 345K. Derived from the 4th square root of (400W/m2 divided by emissivity x S/B constant x area).
As you are incapable of furnishing any reputable reference for your ridiculous claim, I would be delighted to see your explanation for why you instantly feel more radiative heat when you turn on the 2nd bar of a bar heater, and why you feel the increase occur as it heats up over seconds, despite it being no warmer than the first bar.
I hope you find time to do that while you are hunting down a reputable physics source that even INFERS you may not sum fluxes arriving at a surface to calculate radiative heat transfer. While you’re at it, you could finally provide a reputable reference that says radiation cannot be absorbed by objects warmer than the source.
But we all know – even you – that you can’t do that, because no such references exist. The only question is why you persist in this nonsense. Is hating AGW so intensely necessary that you need to hold on to ideas you can’t possibly substantiate?
Thanks for attempting to solve the problem, barry.
As I suspected, and you now admit, you don’t have any understanding at all about the issues here. Your answer is not just wrong, it’s terribly wrong, with multiple mistakes.
So where do we go from here?
Do you want to learn about radiative physics and thermodynamics, or do you want to remain in your cocoon, smugly insulting me and making false accusations?
I’m willing to help you, or just laugh at you. Your choice.
“Superposition is NOT the issue. If you cant even understand the issue, ”
Why do you keep saying ‘fluxes don’t add’ while here admitting that they certainly do!
So your ‘issue’ is now a non-issue.
Again the fact that multiple ice cubes can never boil water provides no support for the claim that fluxes dont add.
Which you now agree is incorrect anyway!
Start here, Nate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333922
Then, provide a valid reference to support your believe that the two fluxes can raise the temperature well over what just one could do.
Then, provide the correct solution to the simple problem barry failed at.
Or, take the easy route and remain a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
Your choice.
Once again links to a comment he does not understand.
If he was not repeating himself so much, I could explain the issue to him.
Here is a riddle that could help him:
https://r.mtdv.me/do-fluxes-add
Will he be able to solve it?
I’m pretty sure you’re not going to attempt to ‘correct’ me on the problem you set up, nor explain the math as I did.
Nor are you going to supply us with that reference that fluxes may not be summed to determine heat exchange via radiative transfer. You’ve already conceded defeat there by saying ‘I can’t’.
So how about you make good on what you said you COULD do.
You said you could explain why you instantly feel more warmth on your skin when firing up the second bar of a bar heater.
You said fluxes cant sum, therefore we should feel no extra warmth at all when firing up that second radiant bar. And the obvious corollary is that heaters with more than one bar are gimmicks. The technology, according to you, cannot work as advertised.
So how about you explain why our skin gets warmer with that second bar switched on, Clint.
You’re going to dodge this with a bunch of rhetoric, because you know you can’t do it.
I’m pretty sure you’re not going to attempt to ‘correct’ me on the problem you set up, nor explain the math as I did.
barry, you’re not reading my comments.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334042
I’m more than willing to help you, but you MUST face reality. You can not remain in your cult. You don’t know anything about the relevant science, you just keep abusing your keyboard.
Your bogus “solution” has the plate emitting 800 Joules/sec while only receiving 400 Joules/sec. Your bogus “solution” is WRONG, and you don’t even know how to check your work. I can’t teach science to someone that is braindead.
“The issue is: Can two 315 W/m^2 fluxes, arriving the same proper surface, add to 630 W/m^2, raising the surface to 325K?
The answer is NO, as fluxes dont simply add like that.”
Since you already agreed that “Fluxes in space can add (superposition)”, then there should be no controversy about the fact that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes, arriving (at) the same proper surface, would add to 630 W/m^2!
So you are contradicting yourself, Clint, with no explanation.
“Then, provide a valid reference to support your believe that the two fluxes can raise the temperature well over what just one could do”
1LOT says that if increase heat flow, Q, to an object then its internal energy (Temp) will rise, unless compensated by Work done or some other heat loss.
deltaU = Q – W.
So, Clint, why WOULDNT the temp rise?
grammie pups wrote:
HERE’s My Experimental Evidence.
grammie pups continues to ignore the easily proved facts of physics. So sad, so stupid.
Nate, I believe you are attempting to pose two questions”
Question 1: If superposition works in the air, why doesn’t it work at a surface?
Question 2: If flux arrives at a surface, why doesn’t that always result in warming?
Is that what you’re asking? If not, change the wording as necessary, before I answer. Remember, “Brevity is the soul of wit”.
willard jr, that has already been debunked. You need to always publish the debunking along with that demo, lest you be accused of pushing an agenda.
Folkerts has supplied an easy target to hit, but you keep shooting yourself in the foot.
“Since you already agreed that ‘Fluxes in space can add (superposition)’, then there should be no controversy about the fact that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes, arriving (at) the same proper surface, would add to 630 W/m^2!
So you are contradicting yourself, Clint, with no explanation.”
This is pretty clear Clint. You have no explanation.
If you are going to claim that ‘arriving at a surface’ changes the result, you need to explain why, and show a source to back up this bizarre claim. And make sure the surface is black.
As far as how MUCH warming would result, you have to specify the whole problem, in detail, to determine.
So you weren’t really interested in learning, Nate. You were just trolling. I suspected as much, that’s why I tried to pin you down.
First you trolled, then you went into your rant. Troll, rant, troll, rant. At least you have something to keep you off the streets.
Cult Leader wanted experimental evidence that fluxes add, which I supplied. Sorry, that demo hasn’t been “debunked”, certainly not by him.
Wrong willard jr. You’re about as incompetent as your dad. A debunked “demo” by a child is NOT a “valid reference”.
This reminds me when you tried to hide behind your “authority figure”, but you couldn’t get his name right — Grody, Goody, Groody?
You’re Goofy. You have NO understanding of the science. Like the rest of your cult, you can’t solve the simple problem:
A plate is alone in deep space. Its emissivity is 0.5. One side is irradiated with 400 W/m^2. What will be the maximum temperature of the plate?
Please show all work.
You don’t have a clue about radiative physics. Prove me wrong.
Troll Clint,
barry: “I’m pretty sure youre not going to attempt to ‘correct’ me on the problem you set up, nor explain the math as I did.”
And you didn’t. You were attempting a gotcha.
You have the opportunity to show everyone what a fine teacher you keep bragging you are, and solve the problem you set.
Clint: “A plate is alone in deep space. Its emissivity is 0.5. One side is irradiated with 400 W/m^2. What will be the maximum temperature of the plate?
Please show all work.”
Yes, show us how it’s done, and please point out where I went wrong.
When you established your credentials by demonstration instead of braying, you can finally explain, as you promised, how it is turning on the second bar of a radiant heater makes your skin warmer instantly, even though the second bar is itself no hotter than the first.
You say fluxes cannot add, so how is it bar number 2 causes us to feel more radiant heat the moment you switch it on?
Come on, explain it.
barry, bringing reality to you is NOT a “gotcha”.
Here’s the correct solution for the simple problem none of you cult idiots have been able solve:
At maximum temperature:
Absorbed flux = 200 W/m^2 (one side)
Emitted flux = 100 W/m^2 (each side)
Corresponding temperature of 0.5 emissivity = 244K
Let’s check the energy balance at plate:
IN — 200 J/s, one side
OUT — 100 J/s each side = 200 J/s
200 J/s = 200 J/s … Energy balances
Lets check the system energy balance:
IN — 400 J/s
OUT — 200 J/s reflected + 100 J/s emitted from each side = 400 J/s
400 J/s = 400 J/s … Energy balances
Now, before I proceed to address your other issues, you need to admit you don’t have ANY meaningful understanding of the science here. You’re only interest is to support your cult beliefs, even if that means you must insult, misrepresent, and falsely accuse others.
Im neither ranting or trolling, Clint.
But you are evading. I answered your question about fluxes summing.
But you have no explanation for why you believe fluxes add in space, but not when they are impacting a surface.
Nope, you’re trolling Nate.
Both “false accusations” and “mis-information” detected.
Please try again later.
Clint,
Oh dear.
You got the answer to your own problem wrong.
You gave the problem:
“A plate is alone in deep space. Its emissivity is 0.5. One side is irradiated with 400 W/m^2….”
But then you ‘answered’ with:
“Absorbed flux = 200 W/m^2 (one side)…”
Wrong in the first line, Clint.
You also got the answer wrong for the mistaken attempt.
Flux of 200 W/m2 = 244K with an emissivity of 1: a blackbody.
But you said emissivity of 0.5.
The correct answer to your mistaken attempt (with incoming 200W/m2) is 290K.
Oops!
Now that your mistaken work has been corrected, please explain for the class how it is you instantly feel the temperature rise on your skin when the second bar of a radiant heater is switched on, despite the 2nd bar being no hotter than the first.
If fluxes don’t add, how do you explain this well known phenomenon?
Sorry barry, my solution is correct. You just don’t know anything about the subject.
The arriving flux is 400 W/m^2, but the absorbed flux is only 200 W/m^2, since the emissivity is 0.5.
The emitted flux is 100 W/m^2 since, again, the emissivity is 0.5.
barry your ignorance of radiative physics is as amusing as is your devotion to your cult.
By all means, please continue.
“The arriving flux is 400 W/m^2, but the absorbed flux is only 200 W/m^2, since the emissivity is 0.5.”
Ok, I took it that 400 W/m2 is absorbed and 400 W/m2 reflected (800 W/m2 incident, emissivity 0.5). My mistake. If 200 W/m2 is absorbed then the answer is indeed 244K.
Please explain why you instantly feel more heat on your skin on firing up the second bar in a radiant heater when it is no hotter than the first bar. According to you this should not happen because “fluxes don’t add.” But we all know it does happen.
What is your explanation for this instant addition of heat to the skin?
Not so fast there, barry. You don’t get to behave like an ignorant, immature troll, and when proven WRONG, just keep on abusing your keyboard. This needs to be a learning experience where you learn how pathetically stupid you’ve been — calling people “lying dog” when you have no clue about the issues.
You need to admit you don’t have ANY meaningful understanding of the science here. Your only interest is to support your cult beliefs, even if that means you must insult, misrepresent, and falsely accuse others.
You have to remember, not only couldn’t you solve the problem, you couldn’t even understand the solution. And, that’s the same with ALL of your cult. I’ve presented that same problem in other places, and NEVER got an correct answer.
I can explain everything I’ve stated. I can address your legitimate questions. But, I not going to keep cleaning the mess off the walls, where you’ve thrown your slop. I need to see some evidence of progress. There hasn’t been any in over two years now.
This is where you can finally reform — stop with the trolling and learn some science.
Your choice, of course.
Clint writes it is: “bogus nonsense that fluxes add”
Then Clint adds 2 energy fluxes in w/m^2 for Clint’s m^2 plate per side irradiated in space:
“OUT – 200 J/s reflected + 100 J/s emitted from each (m^2) side = 400 J/s”
Thus Clint R explains how ice cubes can boil water.
Good job Clint.
“Please try again later.”
Translation: ‘I, Clint, have no answers. I cannot support my claims’
We know all your troll-handbook tricks, Clint.
Ball4 throws some more slop against the wall. Like the rest of his cult, he doesn’t understand ANY of the science.
“Joules” are units of energy. “Watts/m^2” are units of flux. Energy “adds”. Energy is conserved. Energy MUST be accounted for. Flux is NOT conserved. Flux-in does NOT have to match flux-out. This has been explained numerous times. The cult can’t learn.
Thanks Ball4 for another “demo” of how braindead your cult is. Now, your walls need cleaning.
First Clint R adds fluxes to conserve energy in the balance then Clint R writes conserving energy per sec per m^2 in the balance means Clint R is wrong.
The amazingly humorous Clint R can be correct and wrong using “bogus nonsense” at the same time! Thanks for the laughs Clint since obviously Clint R doesn’t know what Clint R is writing about.
Ball4 resorts to misrepresenting my words, as troll Nate resorts to false accusations.
When you cult idiots finish cleaning your walls, you can start working on trying to be honest. For example, try making a comment with no insults, misrepresentations, or false accusations.
I bet it can’t be done. Prove me wrong.
Proving blog laughing stock Clint R wrong in order to see Clint lose, but not pay on, a debt is always easy & entertaining using Clint’s own words:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1335095
That’s FAIL #1, Ball4.
Please try again later.
Clint,
Please explain why you instantly feel more heat on your skin on firing up the second bar in a radiant heater when it is no hotter than the first bar. According to you this should not happen because “fluxes don’t add.” But we all know it does happen.
What is your explanation for this instant addition of heat to the skin?
barry, you may have missed my comment due to all the slop being thrown by Ball4 and Nate.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1335078
Clint does a good job solving that problem with real physics. He correctly accounts for the absorbed and emitted fluxes. And he properly achieves energy balance for the plate.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334659
Here’s another simple textbook problem that he should be able to solve easily.
Two parallel, closely spaced plates are alone in deep space. Their emissivity is 1.0. One side is irradiated with 400 W/m^2.
What are the maximum temperatures of the first plate and second plate?
Use real physics. Correctly account for the absorbed and emitted fluxes. And achieve energy balance for both plates.
Nate, this appears to just be the blue/green plate problem.
BP gets the 400 W/m^2 on one side, then at steady-state, both plates will reach a maximum temperature of 244K.
Both plates will be emitting 200 W/m^2 to space, and also to each other. The photons between the plates will result in a standing wave, and a net energy flow of 200 W/m^2 from BP to GP.
Unless you mean both plates are receiving the 400 W/m^2. In that case, the maximum temperature of the plates would be 290K.
“The photons between the plates will result in a standing wave”
No. Fails 2LOT as dS for the BP is zero in this process which is impossible. Check Eli’s correct solution that complies with 1LOT and 2LOT and try again Clint.
If the 400 W/m^2 arrived at both plates, then the standing wave would also result.
A standing wave is just a special case of “superposition”. There’s really nothing difficult about it. The photons don’t really “add” in superposition, their electric and magnetic fields momentarily add, but that’s at the speed of light. After the interaction, photons continue on their way, unaffected.
And you didn’t answer my question. That will happen when you say which you believe, or else say, “I don’t know.”
Most responsible adults would agree I answered:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1332793
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1332823
No one knows how old Earth is. Your beliefs ain’t science.
I can only guess your answer was “I don’t know.”
Why do I have to guess? Because you don’t say it directly. I suppose that would be beyond you. You have to feel clever or something.
It’s good to know that you think there is a possibility the Earth could be less than 10,000 years old. It gives a helpful perspective to your general thinking.
Stop it barry. You’re making me “feel clever”.
The later is more likely than the former.
https://australian.museum/learn/australia-over-time/evolving-landscape/the-geological-time-scale/
bob d…”That radioactive isotope of Potassium decays to an isotope of Argon or a stable isotope of Calcium with a half life of 1.3 Billion years”.
***
Problem is, Bob, you can’t prove that using the scientific method, nor can you prove the rate of decay has not varied over the centuries and conditions.
K-Ar dating is something best left to the believers in antropology where a degree can be obtained by mailing in two box tops from your favourite cereal.
> you can’t prove that using the scientific method
C’mon, Gordo.
The scientific method does not produce empirical proofs.
You might as well argue that the scientific method cannot prove what is at the center of the Earth.
Think.
Willard,
At least these guys read my posts, understanding will have to wait for another day.
willard…”The scientific method does not produce empirical proofs”.
***
The scientific method is designed to have a scientist document his/her proofs, based on a standardized method, so others can follow the methodology to confirm it. As it stands today, some biased journal editor gets a hold of your paper, passes it to an equally biased reviewer, and your paper gets rejected before your peers can see it.
In which lab, and by which scientists, was it confirmed that K-Ar or U-Pb dating is anywhere close to accurate?
> The scientific method is designed to have a scientist document his/her proofs, based on a standardized method, so others can follow the methodology to confirm it.
C’mon, Gordo. A method is designed, based on another method?
Dating fossils is not that hard to replicate, as long as it does not imply anyone to date you.
Gordon,
It started with this guy over a hundred years ago, so still twentieth century, so too new for the likes of you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertram_Boltwood
Many followed in his footsteps
Gordon,
Do you calibrate your Fluke every time you use it?
I am assuming you know what a Fluke is.
That’s a pretty big assumption.
bob..at least my Fluke, or reasonable facsimile thereof, was calibrated in a lab environment and its calibration was based on known and measurable factors. Claiming that U235 decays over 4.5 billion years, to half its mass, is not a lab-measurable quantity.
Gordon,
Yes it is.
You just need to count the decays per unit time, and using the mass of the sample, and a simple equation gives the half-life.
Most of my job titles have had nuclear in there somewhere.
But you are the expert on all things.
I dare say I am right in claiming you have not counted them over 4 billion years of very different conditions to see if the decay constant remained the same.
You need to have done the opposite to prove the conclusion any different.
Gordon,
“I dare say I am right in claiming you have not counted them over 4 billion years of very different conditions to see if the decay constant remained the same.”
One does not need to count them for the entire half-life, anyway a half life is just a convention, one could use a tenth life or any other fraction.
Very different condition in the nucleus of a Uranium atom, surely you are jesting.
You get the half life from measuring the rate of decay.
And for another isotope, I have measured the half life in an FDA regulated lab, and not I did not wait for an entire half life, and the FDA had no problem with that.
Every batch, five batches a day.
Stay in your lane.
I was surprised to see your claim a half-life of 1.3 billion years for K-Ar
Another dating method, Uranium – lead is just as shaky. Uranium comes in two isotopes: U235 and U238. U235 has a half-life of about 704 million years while U238 has a h/l of about 4.47 billion years.
Does n one see the ridiculousness of such claims? For one, the error bars involve millions of years in one case and billions of years in the other case. Hey, what’s a billion years here or there? Another problem is that humans life not much more than 100 years. Therefore no one has ever proved these techniques in a lab.
To make matters worse, the age of the Earth is based on this nonsense, not from rocks on Earth, but from rocks allegedly originating on the Moon.
If U235 has a half-life of 4.47 billion year, that’s almost the age of the Earth. Does no one see the problem here? How did the uranium get there in the first place, in order to begin decaying?
We take far too much for granted in science, especially in the soft sciences like geology, astronomy, and anthropology.
Gordon Robertson
There are answers to your questions.
Here:
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1512607
I do not know where you get an error of billions of years. It looks more like 40 million for the longer decay isotope. In this article they explain in a bit of detail how the half-life is found. It is based upon lab measured values.
How did the Uranium get there? This is answered here and the process is done on Earth in particle accelerators.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/University_of_Arkansas_Little_Rock/Chem_1403%3A_General_Chemistry_2/Text/21%3A_Nuclear_Chemistry/21.07%3A_Transmutation_of_the_Elements
When a Star explodes in a Super Nova you have highly accelerated nuclei that smash into each other and transmute to larger nuclei.
Hope that helps.
Norman, you realize the super nova is only a guess as to how heavier elements were formed, don’t you?
Clint R
Not just a guess but a logical conclusion. The highest element that can exist in a fusion chain is Iron. Higher elements exist, higher elements can be created in particle accelerators by smashing lighter nuclei together.
Here is a rich document describing the conditions in a Super Nova that can lead to the creation of elements above iron.
It is more than speculation or guesses. It is not hard established fact but it would be between a guess and an established fact. It is a logical construction based upon information scientists have discovered about nuclear energy and how it works.
Clint R
The link:
https://www-astro.physics.ox.ac.uk/~podsi/lec_c1_6_c.pdf
That’s why you like to make up stuff, Norman. You believe in made-up stuff.
How many supernovae must occur to supply Earth’s uranium, and how come the uranium occurs in pockets, or lodes? And how did it ever get to Earth? So many questions for made-up stuff.
Now its even worse as supernovae can’t answer all the questions. Now, your cult is moving to neutron star collisions as the source of uranium. But guess what — more questions….
Speaking of made-up stuff, did you ever find your bogus “real 255K surface”, or a valid technical reference that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325K?
It’s hard to verify made-up stuff, huh?
So more questions, science marches on, Clint R is oblivious to how science works.
More questions, send another telescope into space, more welfare for the egg-heads.
Gordon,
A = AO e^-kt
You don’t need to wait for the whole half life to determine the value of the half-life.
First of all you need to prove the equation is accurate over 4.5 billion years.
The equation you supply would have been worked out in a lab under STP conditions using a tiny quantity of Uranium, or what ever. Interpolating such a value to 4.5 billion years in a very different environment is ingenuous.
Gordon Robertson
I do not think you understand what science is. It is not just direct experiment but also logical inference. You find a decay rate you can observe materials that have a very short half-life (which can be seen in a human lifetime) and can infer that the known decay rate of Uranium gives a valid half-life. Science is based upon the premise that the Universe has rational laws that function across it.
Also radioactive decay is a nuclear process and would need high energy to alter the rate. There are cosmic rays and other such phenomena but they are not a concentrated form and would not have much effect on the decay rate.
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100830FischbachJenkinsDec.html
Here is one study showing a cyclic effect on the rate of radioactive decay. It happens but it is very small effect.
You would need to supply an situation that would alter the rate of radioactive decay to support your concerns. Just making a concern will not help science, questioning is good now supply some mechanism you think can alter the observed rate of decay of Uranium.
The onus is on you to prove it wrong.
Norman, you can’t try to teach what science is until you understand it.
The essence of science is “reality”. If you can’t face reality, you can’t do science. For example, Earth does NOT have a “real 255K surface”. That’s reality.
You might as well learn to embrace reality, you have to live it.
Clint R
Must you be a dishonest poster? I have already dealt with you enough on that issue yet you still keep lying. Does being a liar make you happy? I stated there is a real radiating surface and I went deeper and explained it to you so why do you lie? Ball4 is the one who did not include “radiating” I did.
What can a human expect from a mindless BOT.
I see you are resorting to your usual “BOT” nonsense, along with calling me a “liar”. That means you know you are caught, again. You’re caught, yet you continue to make up stuff. Calling someone a “liar” means you know you’ve lost the argument. That’s why I NEVER call anyone a “liar”.
If you believe Earth has a “real 255K surface”, then where is it? What altitude?
You can’t support your made’up nonsense. You should try some reality. Reality always wins.
Well then according to Clint R, DREMT has lost a lot of arguments.
That is all.
Clint R
No calling you a liar does not mean I lost. It is a correct assessment of your posting. I told you why you are a liar. Man up and accept the truth about yourself. You are a liar. Better you see this and work to change your dishonest ways. You are not just making an error, I have corrected that. You keep bringing it up after correction making you a liar. I cannot correct this poor behavior. I can observe it and confront you with it. If you want to keep lying that is only on you.
DREMT has spent a lot of time trying to educate worthless willard, only to be constantly insulted and misrepresented. His actions are justified.
Willard lied. I said he was wrong, he kept saying he was right even though he knew he was wrong, and eventually he admitted it. It was not a motte and bailey. Nothing to do with an argument, he rarely “argues”, as such…he just falsely accuses people. It’s all just false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults. I spend all my time with him just setting him straight on what people are actually saying. It’s a waste of time, though, as he’s simply a troll. I need to try to just ignore or automatically PST people that I know are intellectually dishonest. I will try to do that in future, but a lot of these people are expert at baiting you.
Kind of like how Ball4 just baited me into this response.
Norman, nice rant with no science, again.
If you believe Earth has a “real 255K surface”, then where is it? What altitude?
You can’t support your madeup nonsense. You should try some reality. Reality always wins.
DREMPTY,
Time to man up and admit you are wrong about the green plate effect.
Or take a course in thermodynamics and have the Professor tell you that you are wrong.
This doesn’t end well, if it ever ends.
Time to man up and admit you were wrong about the Green Plate Effect, bob. The Sun can’t warm itself up with its own back-radiated energy. Sorry for your loss.
No loss as DREMT’s statement violates 2LOT since dS cannot be zero in a natural process. Very ironic.
dS, dS, dS, dS, dS, dS, dS means the Sun heats itself up with its own back-radiated energy, black is white, up is down, left is right, Ball4 says ice cubes shoot laser beams which warms up the Sun to a couple dozen million degrees F above what it’s physically possible for it to be, Ball4 says Ball4 says Ball4 Ball4 Ball4 Ball4 Ball4 Ball4 Ball4 Ball4 Ball4 Ball4 Ball4
I did not lie, Graham. You just have been caught in trying to hold two inconsistent stance about orbits:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333355
Why these false accusations in this sub thread?
Sorry, Willard, you’re on automatic PST from now on.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Thank you, guy who cannot read the main model Team Joe has to offer.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Put on a jacket, DREMT, it’ll chill you out.
Brandon, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
“The Sun cant warm itself up with its own back-radiated energy. Sorry for your loss.”
Stop with the straw man argument.
It’s about the plates, not the Sun, can’t you keep on track?
Poor bob, always behind the times.
May be, but correct in this case.
Well, no, but never mind.
Bob, Bob,
Hear me out.
Suppose the Sun was a plate.
https://tenor.com/uDVh.gif
You can all pretend the Sun shell scenario was not discussed, but unfortunately all anyone has to do is scroll up a bit, and they can see members of Team GPE passionately defending the idea that the Sun can warm itself up with its own back-radiated energy.
Let’s have another look at the Sun plate problem.
This time let’s make the Sun plate out of one solar mass of Hydrogen plasma.
One millimeter from the Sun’s surface or in contact with the Sun, let’s look at it either way.
Now does the Sun heat up or not?
Going away for the weekend, bob. So I do not really care. Have fun.
C’mon, Graham.
It’s only 4 AM where you are.
You still have time to write a few more comments, no?
My answer to your question is: the Sun cannot warm itself up with its own back-radiated energy.
So declareth the science deniers.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1332963
Physics shows that the internally heated planet (or sun) surrounded by a black shell, will indeed warm.
People have been given multiple chances to explain what laws of physics are violated by this result, and why.
But no one has anything to offer.
Argument over. Oh well.
Time for rational people to move on.
Evil DREMPTY,
“My answer to your question is: the Sun cannot warm itself up with its own back-radiated energy.”
Two things, first that’s not true, and second you failed to answer the question.
Of course the answer to my question is that the Sun would be much hotter, and the radiation from the additional one solar mass of hydrogen plasma would be part of that, not all, but part.
And then there’s astrophysics:
https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/objects/sun1.html
Sure, bob, whatever you say.
Evil DREMPTY,
When the green plates are separated from the blue plate, the heater provides enough heat to keep the blue plate at 244 K, the additional energy from the green plates must increase the temperature of the blue plate.
simple isn’t it.
“Sure, bob, whatever you say.”
“My answer to your question is: the Sun cannot warm itself up with its own back-radiated energy.”
Making crystal clear that ‘truth’ is not determined by the facts, but by whatever DREMT says.
Simple and wrong, bob.
I win DR Evil,
Congratulations, your participation trophy is in the mail.
If you say so, bob.
Gordon,
“Another dating method, Uranium lead is just as shaky. Uranium comes in two isotopes: U235 and U238. U235 has a half-life of about 704 million years while U238 has a h/l of about 4.47 billion years.”
You need to do a better job googling.
What about Uranium 236?
That’s an important one for Nuclear Engineers designing Nuclear Power Plants.
There are a few more isotopes of Uranium.
“K-Ar dating is something best left to the believers in antropology where a degree can be obtained by mailing in two box tops from your favourite cereal.”
Says the guy who can’t spell Anthropology and doesn’t have a degree.
> Beliefs ain’t science.
Is that a belief or science?
For you to have to ask such a question indicates you don’t have a clue about science.
But, we already knew that….
Try this, Pup:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-epistemic/
Report.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ball4…”Since you claim heat has no existence, then dq is always 0 and there can be no entropy.
Wrong Gordon. dQ is an infinitesimal change in rate of heating.
Long ago, the caloric fluid was thought to exist in a body and thus could be transferred. That is now obsolete since in modern thermodynamics heat is not contained in a body nor is heat contained in the space between bodies. Gordon has a lot to learn about modern thermodynamics (and Swenson et. al.)”.
***
Ball4 claims there is no such energy as heat in a body then he claims dq is an infinitesimal change in the rate of heating. So, according to the wisdom of Ball, or is that Baal, something is heating the body but its not heat. In the warped science world of Ball4, dq is simply a measurement of rate of this mysterious heating, even though there is no reference to time in ds = dq/T.
Clausius said nothing about a rate of change of heat wrt time, he simply defined entropy as a sum of differential heat changes at one temperature. Entropy is about the direction of transfer of heat and has nothing to do with time, hence rate. In ds = dq/T, the integral, S = entropy, is the sum of differential changes in heat at temperature T and has nothing to do with time.
Then Ball moves back to the beginnings of heat theory when it was believed heat flowed as a calorific force. In the same manner many, including scientists like Clausius, Stefan, Boltzmann, and Planck, thought heat flowed through an aether in space as heat rays.
Somehow, deep in the recesses of his delusion, he now visualizes a modern theory of thermodynamics where heat is not contained in a body or in the spaces between bodies. Presumably he means in atoms and the spaces between atoms. Surely, even Ball acknowledges atoms and the spaces between them in a lattice held together by electron bonds.
Ball might try explaining how a flame applied to a mass causes its temperature to rise. How the atoms become agitated, even deep in the mass well away from the flame. Or, when the mass is placed in a freezing compartment, the atoms don’t vibrate as hard as they lose heat.
Ball might try picking up a metal mass once it has been heated by a torch. As his fingers burn with incredible pain, he can repeat to himself, there is no such thing as heat. Later, in the ER, he can try explaining that to the ER physician, who will immediately send for a psychiatric assessment.
Surely in Ball’s delusion there is an energy affecting the motion of atoms or the vibrations between electrons and the nucleus in atoms. Ball likely has a delusion about that as well, admitting such an energy exists but that it’s not heat. Of course, he cannot explain the reason for that energy being their or how to distinguish it from other forms of energy.
Clausius had no problem with that nor do many modern scientists who have no problem defining heat as the energy associated with atom motion/vibration. It’s only the arrogant idiots who persist in creating new theories from the original theories without bothering to prove it.
As Naomi Oreskes, a science historian claimed, consensus is a valid form of science. She is one of the idiots leading the rush toward pseudo-science.
“Clausius had no problem with that nor do many modern scientists who have no problem defining heat as the energy associated with atom motion/vibration.”
Very good Gordon, you are making progress. Notice as you write the atomic motion moves back and forth as the atoms vibrate in a lattice. The less they move both ways, the less KE on avg., the colder the temperature. So, Gordon now does understand heat moves both ways! As Boltzmann figured out long ago & wrote the relevant eqn.s accordingly. Congratulations.
Now if Gordon can learn to always write the energy of motion (KE) associated with atoms instead of many times incorrectly using the imaginary term “heat”, then Gordon will gain a better understanding of thermodynamics and become better informed & maybe a better communicator.
“Beliefs aint science. But everything can be reasonably explained with an Earth no more than 25000 years old. That doesnt mean it couldnt be older, it just means theres no need for it to be older.”
Is it flat also?
Is that all you’ve got, G500?
That’s nothing more than the usual snark we get from braindead cult idiots posing as anonymous trolls.
Clint there is no point in posting any scientific evidence for clowns like you, as anything that contradicts your weird beliefs are labelled as unscientific.
So since you can’t present any REAL science, you just troll, insult, and make false accusations.
We’ve seen it all before.
Got any replicable, proper natural experiments supporting your beliefs Clint R?
It’s ok to reveal them here for entertainment purposes.
Just got time for one — I believe you are a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
The evidence is in the vast majority of your comments.
Clint R, didn’t have any replicable, proper natural experiments then. I thought so.
Pity, making up stuff to comment like Clint R does isn’t science; proper experiments are real science & not Clint R’s belief system. Decent entertainment though Clint.
I have replicated Clint R’s experiment, and can confirm that the vast majority of Ball4’s comments are evidence that he is a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
Pup would so much like to write about science, but but but.
That is why is so much fun to him.
I am sure Graham would *never* characterize what Pup does as trolling.
Not a fat chance in hell.
Yes DREMT, Ball4 volunteered for the experiment to validate my “belief”.
THAT is science.
Everything that confirms the beliefs of teh Pup is science.
Assertions are not science Clint R.
Got any replicable, proper natural experiments supporting Clint’s beliefs? It’s ok to reveal any of those experiments here.
Ball4, you’ve already confirmed I’m right. But, keep providing more evidence if you wish. Who doesn’t like being proven right?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333345
Yet more assertions from Clint R 1:58 pm. Shows Clint R doesn’t really have any replicable, proper natural experiments supporting Clint’s beliefs so Clint just makes up stuff.
That isn’t science while it IS very humorous Clint R provided entertainment.
Ball4, my experiment was based on my belief, which you properly verified. That’s science.
Thanks for you participation.
Speaking of science, did you ever find your bogus “real 255K surface”?
If you want to do another experiment, I predict you don’t have a “real 255K surface”. Prove me wrong.
Here is a simpler experiment, Pup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333149
I predict you got NOTHING.
It’s very easy to prove Clint R’s prediction 2:41 pm is wrong.
On a clear, dark sky night look up as the CERES experiment satellite passes overhead. The experiment proves Clint R is wrong since CERES continually measures the global earthen real 255K surface with actual radiometers looking at scenes of the real Earth not an imaginary black body as Clint believes.
This is science. Clint R can find the data from the experiment here, but without more learning, Clint won’t understand and Clint’s wrong beliefs will continue to be entertainingly asserted:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/
You verified my prediction, Ball4. Thanks again for your cooperation.
Linking to something you don’t understand is exactly the kind of thing I expected you to do. Norman attempts the same lame nonsense.
(To be science, you need to identify the altitude of your bogus “real 255K surface”. You need to lock yourself in so you can’t wiggle out when I show you how incorrect you are.)
If you want to continue with another experiment — I predict you can’t provide a valid technical resource that claims two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325K. Prove me wrong. I’m getting bored being right every time….
Funny you mention that, Pup:
> At best, its an approximation for the temperature at an altitude of 5km in the atmosphere.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190676
You have been trolling here for longer than Graham and are still lulzing about zero-dimension models. Ten more years and you might get to one-dimensional ones!
Keep up the good work.
Sorry worthless, I’m not going to babysit you while DREMT is gone.
Your silly gotcha has been met, Pup.
Enjoy.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Australia:First signs of triple La Nina emerge, negative Indian Ocean Dipole to bring extra rain
https://youtu.be/d4RhXT2w-18
The importance of the Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor Φ.
For smooth surface planets (like Earth) the Φ =0,47
Thus the incident on Earth solar energy portion not reflected from the planetary cross-section disk is:
960 W/m^2 *Φ = 960 W/m^2 *0,47 = 451,2 W/m^2
This not reflected energy doesn’t get distributed over the hemisphere or over the sphere.
The 451,2 W/m^2 is INTERACTING with planet’s surface matter on the very instant of incidence.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, the earthen atm. also absorbs SW and LW just like the L&O surface. Continuing to ignore the GHE from the earthen atm. of some 5.5 quadrillion tons, is not doing any good for Christos’ understanding of climate.
Instrumentally measured earthen global Tse Te = 288K 255K = 33K
Better:
Instrumentally measured earthen global Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K
You are comparing an imaginary sphere to Earth. The “255K” is nonsense, for Earth. So the 33K is also nonsense.
No Clint, the instrumentation is observing the real global Earth, not an imaginary sphere which is only in your incorrect beliefs.
Thanks for the further verification, Ball4.
Ball4 says:
“Christos, the earthen atm. also absorbs SW and LW just like the L&O surface. Continuing to ignore the GHE from the earthen atm. of some 5.5 quadrillion tons, is not doing any good for Christos understanding of climate.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, Graham.
Do not forget to tell the next person you will try to convert that Joe started with a 2 on the emission side, not the reception side.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
Readers will be able to validate that Joe indeed starts by putting the two he is stuck with in the out part of his hemispherical model, which he calls L-emit for some reason:
https://principia-scientific.com/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
As if this quantity denoted the luminosity of the Earth or something.
Our silly goose will still insist that the division by two happens on the L-abs side because, well, who cares at this point he justify his trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here is where Graham folded:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333382
Win win win!
If anyone has a clue what Willard’s talking about, or any interest at all in it, let them speak now. I’ll be off soon, for a long weekend, so please…knock yourselves out trying to get to the bottom of whatever it is that Willard is so confused about, whilst I’m away.
He recently at least admitted that 480 W/m^2 input over the hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output over the entire sphere does balance energy in and energy out. So there’s been some progress in his understanding. He is starting to learn some basic principles…maybe.
And so Graham soldiers on by returning to a bailey *nobody* ever disputed,
But Graham would *never* rely to a motte-and-bailey.
Not Sir, anyone who would dare to suggest that is a filthy liar!
Silly goose.
"returning to a bailey"
Presumably you mean motte…you would still be wrong, anyway…
…you’re going to pretend you never disputed that 480 W/m^2 input over the hemisphere, and 240 W/m^2 output over the sphere, does balance energy in and energy out!? What have we been arguing about for the last year, then!?
Welcome back, Graham. Yes, thank you. Motte. The Bailey is why you are here but will never really discuss. Like a fleeting point that makes you hope for a world of new Sky Dragon physics.
It does not take you much. You should let go of 386, but you never will. That means you always be a mark.
All this time trolling here when you could do music videos. Quite a loss, really.
At least you make me discover how low contrarianism can go.
Willard, you have disputed what you call the motte all through the comments under your article, and in countless discussions here ever since. Everybody noticed that. Even Bindidon commented on it. So it can hardly be a motte when you seemed to find it controversial for so long!
Basically, you lost that argument, and are now trying to pretend you never even had the argument. Then you have the audacity to accuse others of going low. As far as I am concerned, if you now accept that energy balances, the discussion is finally over.
Please jog my memory, Graham.
I do recall however that you disputed for a long while that the 2 in the division by 2 came from the emission side of the hemispherical model of the Earth. This matters because it would be hard to argue that this 2 represents the area of the light that falls on the Earth were that the case. Of course you would never have done that, would you?
I am so glad that after more than a year all can be resolved.
It was just a failure to communicate.
I know you think that the things you say are coherent, and make sense to others, but quite often they really do not.
Silly goose.
Every time you are trying to gaslight me you are giving me a tell.
You tilted yesterday and today you took your leave.
What makes you think you’ll succeed in baiting me?
I am not gaslighting you. I really do find some of your comments to be incoherent. You waffle on about a 2 representing the area of the light that falls on the EarthI have no idea what you are trying to say. As for the other day, I did not tilt, I simply spoke to you in the way you deserved to be treated. And yes, I have been away for a couple of days. Everything I just said is genuine. You will now falsely accuse me of deception.
You always play stupid at critical junctures of the exchanges, Graham.
You were wrong about where the 2 comes from in the division by 2 Joe offers as a more realistic alternative to the division by 4. The 2 comes from the L-emit side, not the L-abs side. The 2 represents the surface that emits the light received by the disc. So the division by 2 represents the 2 represents the ratio between the surface receiving the energy and the surface emitting the energy.
For more than a year you argued that Joe divides by 2 because the light was received on a hemisphere. Yet the light that falls on a hemisphere, when corrected at zenith, is a disc! That has been the main point of the Mind Your Units post. Perhaps you never really understood why I chose this title, so let me ask:
Do you know what is a Watt and what is a Joule?
This question matters because of your *but second by second* tap dancing.
There is not a soul on the internet who has any idea what you are talking about, Willard. I have explained the division by 2 countless times, and I am correct about it. I am not going to dignify your question with a response.
Sure, Graham.
You do not know where Joe divides by 2. You do not know why he does that. You do not know what the 1 and the 2 represent.
You do not know what Joe wrote in his Magnum Opus. You have not read it. You cannot recall its abstract.
You are sincerely not understanding anything I say. You are not playing dumb. You are not trolling. Of course not.
It is all a big failure to communicate.
I have explained the division by two countless times, and I am correct about it. I understand the hemispherical equation, and explained it to you here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333364
What you said in response was absolute gibberish.
I know I am correctly representing Postma, because he said so.
I thought said that we were talking past each other, Graham:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333466
I doubt we were talking past each other. I rather think you are misunderstanding Joe’s con.
No, Postma made it quite clear that I was correctly representing his arguments, and you were using OID tactics. After all, as we have seen you are the dishonest one.
“Yes, to divide by two spreads the flux over the lit hemisphere. I guess we were talking past each other.”
Indeed. So what?
If you agree with what I am saying, Graham, why the hell would you need to explain to me “countless times” Joe’s division by 2? One hypothesis could be that you’re trolling. More precisely, you could be trying to evade the need to explain how Joe can bypass the energy limits of what the Earth receives by taking into account the rotation of the Earth as it revolves second by second through nights and days.
Let me remind you that a Joule represents the work required to produce one watt of power for one second.
As you finally have expressed agreement that 480 W/m^2 input over the hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output over the sphere does balance energy in and energy out, hopefully I will no longer need to explain the division by 2 to you. I explained it countless times over the past year because you did not seem to understand or accept that energy balances…
…although I see further down-thread that you keep going on to others about the Earth receiving more energy than it emits, and so on and so forth. So perhaps you still do not really understand…
> you keep going on to others about the Earth receiving more energy than it emits
Not sure what you mean by that, Graham.
What I’m saying is that, from the perspective of an energy balance model, the Earth cannot receive more energy than it emits. That imposes a constraint on the maximal temperature the Earth can reach with what it gets from the Sun.
We agree on how much the Earth receives. We agree on how much the Earth emits. Yet Team Joe does not agree with everybody else about everything. As captain of Team Joe you need to explain how, with the same amount of energy as everyone else, Joe can get temperatures so high that the need to posit a greenhouse effect disappears.
Your armwaving with “second by second,” “in real time,” and “but the Earth rotates” does not suffice.
“Second by second”, “in real time”, and “but the Earth rotates” are not designed to explain why there is no need to posit a GHE, Willard. Those explanations were simply to justify the use of 480 W/m^2 as an input average over the hemisphere rather than 240 W/m^2 as an input average over the sphere. If you are looking to find where Postma argues there is no need for a GHE in what you describe as his “Magnum Opus”, you have been barking up the wrong tree. It’s actually earlier on, where he explains that the 255 K effective temperature does not need to be considered to apply to the Earth’s surface. This section:
“There exists a contradiction in the interpretation between equations {7} & {14}. Equation {7} is usually meant to infer that the radiative equilibrium temperature should be established at the ground, while equation {14} infers that the ground must actually be warmer than the radiative equilibrium of equation {7}. We resolve this contradiction by noting that the radiative equilibrium of equation {7} is merely the system equilibrium. The result of equation {7} (and equation {10}) does not identify where such a temperature can actually be found; it merely states that the effective radiative system temperature should be as such. We identify the system as being the: surfaces of the ground & oceans + the atmosphere. We hold that the effective radiative equilibrium output of equation {7} can only be identified with the aggregate ground & ocean + atmosphere system, which we call a thermodynamic ensemble. These, being the ones capable of radiative output towards space. Further, because this ensemble is bounded at the bottom and top by the Earth’s surface and the top of the atmosphere, it becomes a forgone logical conclusion that the numerical average of the system should be physically found in between these two boundaries, which is therefore within the atmosphere at some altitude above the surface.”
Funny that your inner parser fails you with my comments but not with that kind of sentences, Graham:
So, how does this “forgone conclusion” can get Joe a higher average than the usual energy balance model, again?
He’s wrong about the surface bit, BTW – as AT said in the comments to the Mind Your Units post, it’s an effective temperature at around 5 km:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190676
Pup has a similar gotcha earlier. Search for “gotcha.”
“So, how does this “forgone conclusion” can get Joe a higher average than the usual energy balance model, again?”
It is not a higher average. Postma agrees that the effective temperature of the Earth is 255 K. What he is arguing in that paragraph is basically that the “standard physics” incorrectly assumes the 255 K should apply at the Earth’s surface. Since we find 288 K at the surface, there is an apparent 33 K discrepancy which has heretofore required the GHE as an explanation. Whereas Postma is saying, the 255 K never should have been thought to apply to the Earth’s surface in the first place. He is saying it should have only been considered to apply to the “thermodynamic ensemble” he mentions. He is saying, “Earth is the temperature we expect it to be, no need for a GHE to explain our surface temperatures”.
Oh, I see. Joe does not deny the energy balance model. He just denies that we should be using it in the first place.
It just so happens that he can “negate the requirement for a postulation of a radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect” by using the same numbers as everyone!
You goose.
You are back on automatic PST, for the foreseeable future. You have wasted enough of my time.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Thank you for that other win, Graham.
Something tells me you don’t foresee very far ahead.
I left a little gift for you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334673
Willard, please stop trolling.
> The 2 represents the surface that emits the light received by the disc.
Erm. The 1.
DREMT 12:09 pm: “Postma agrees that the effective temperature of the Earth is 255 K.”
That’s Te = 255K
DREMT continues: “Since we find 288 K at the surface”
That’s Tse = 288K
Postma/DREMT then agree there exists an earthen 33K GHE since in agreement with:
Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K earthen GHE
Good work Joe/DREMT. You now have the tools to compute the martian GHE.
Ball4 deliberately misses the point.
Graham deliberately conceals the point he alleges B4 misses.
To another 69 months of transparent trolling by obfuscation!
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
So wonderful:
[W] Joes division by 2 distributes the light the Earth receives on the disc.
[G] No, it is simply a shortcut for taking the disk surface area, multiplying it by the solar constant, correcting for albedo, and then dividing that total input power by the surface area of the hemisphere to get an input flux of 480 W/m^2.
[J] Dividing the solar flux by a factor of four and thus spreading it instantaneously over the entire surface of the Earth as an input flux amounts to the denial of the existence of day-time and night-time, and violates the application on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which deals only with instantaneous radiative flux.
To divide by four spreads the flux over the entire surface of the Earth, but according to Graham, to divide by two does not spread it to the lit hemisphere.
Team Joe really needs another captain.
Yes, to divide by two spreads the flux over the lit hemisphere. I guess we were talking past each other.
Yes, 480 W/m^2 is the correct distribution, based on the calculus. Bindidon had trouble understanding this also. Possibly because it ruins his AGW beliefs.
480 W/m^2 would result in a BB temperature of 303K. So if the cult wants to use an imaginary sphere, Earth cools itself by 15K.
Yes, Graham. We must be talking past each other.
Notice the comment Pup just wrote. His support brings fuzzy feelings. Let us hope he will still be there for you when will come the time for you to explain how Joe can bypass the energy limits of what the Earth receives with taking into account to the rotation of the Earth as it revolves second by second through nights and days.
Team Joe has found back its captain. Congratulations!
Still waiting for anyone with an understanding or interest in whatever confuses Willard so much about this to speak up. I am not going to be here soon, for a couple of days, so Willard will need somebody to pay him some attention while I am gone. Who will babysit Willard?
That is certainly an interesting way to refuse to provide an explanation of a critical part that, if true, would revolutionize physics as we currently understand it, Graham.
I thought it might be in your interest, as the captain of Team Joe, to promote the secret sauce that makes the Sky Dragon Cranks recipe so delicious!
My mistake.
“Bypass the energy limits of what the Earth receives…”
Well, you have finally accepted that 480 W/m^2 is a legitimate amount for what the Earth receives. So what energy limits are being bypassed?
Yes, Graham. You finally discovered that I was agreeing all along with just about every other commenters on the Mind Your Units comment thread:
> So, basically Joe struggles to divide by 2? Thats a bit embarassing. Seriously, 480 W/m^2 times the area of one hemisphere is the same as 240 W/m^2 times the area of a sphere.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190986
Notice how you return to the safe space of a platitude when you are challenged to beef up your batshit crazy theory?
I wish there was a name for that two step.
So what energy limits are being bypassed?
Weepy Wee Willy resorts to cranking up his gibberish generator when he finds his silly semantic games are not being taken as a sign of vast intelligence (or indeed, much intelligence at all).
Even Wee Willy himself doesn’t know what he is trying to say.
He doesn’t realise that Sky Dragons is a sarcastic description of the dimwits like himself, who have a childlike belief that CO2 in the atmosphere creates heat. What an idiot!
Whining Wee Willy point blank refuses to accept that the Earth has cooled since its creation, continues to so (albeit at a really, really, slow rate, measured in millionths of a Kelvin per year), and cools every night, regardless of CO2 levels.
A delusional ninny, believing that ignorant mathematicians like Gavin Schmidt are “climate scientists”, and that Michael Mann (fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat) actually knows what he is talking about.
Oh well, at least he provides a bit of comic relief with his pretentious cavorting.
Welcome back, Mike Flynn!
Perhaps you have not noticed the silly question Graham just asked:
“So what energy limits are being bypassed?”
The question is a bit silly for two reasons. First, if everyone agreed with the energy balance model it would not be a reason to deny the greenhouse effect. Second, I already cited a few times this bit from Joe’s Magnum Opus:
https://principia-scientific.com/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
You would have to check Joe’s derivation to see what is “this temperature.” The number might SHOCK you!
Alas, you do not click on links. If that may console you, I’m not really talking to you right now, but to Graham. You don’t need to read Joe’s Magnum Opus, but as a captain of Team Joe, Graham does.
Ta.
Yes, you cited the part where Postma calculates a temperature associated with the 480 W/m^2 which you have finally agreed is a legitimate amount for what the Earth receives. So the question remains, what energy limits are being bypassed?
Good to see you back so early, Graham.
Now, focus:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-191022
You are still trying to make a scene about a silly motte where what matters is the Bailey. When are you going to explain to us how Joe succeeds in bypassing the hard limit that imposes the balance of energy and abstract away the need for the greenhouse effect?
Take your time, second by second.
When are you going to correctly represent his arguments? Probably never.
Have you read the abstract of the Magnum Opus, Graham?
I know you read his Mad Hat post.
I suspect you read the post in which he presents the multiple versions of his poster.
I am quite sure you have not read his essays.
I also know what you wrote in the Mind Your thread.
How long are you going to deny how Joe bypasses the energy constraints of the Earth to deny the greenhouse effect?
If he was arguing that the 303 K was the effective temperature of the Earth, you might have a point. He is not saying that, however. It kind of seems like you are the one who needs to read up on what he is saying.
A bit late for the if-by-whiskeys, Graham. Here is the abstract from the Magnum Opus:
https://principia-scientific.com/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
Do you recall how Joe negates “the requirement for a postulation of a radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect”?
I do.
OK, Willard.
Do you recall what BobL told you, Graham:
GRAHAM: What is all this “point on Earth”, crap, Bob? We were talking about the entire lit hemisphere, in real time, receiving 480 W/m^2, whilst the entire sphere emits 240 W/m^2.
BOBL: The point of “point on earth” is that every location (AKA point) on earth is different. Geometry tells us this, as every single location sees the sun at a different location in the sky. And that location in the sky changes every second in real time as the earth rotates.
I happen to know this because I have programmed computer-controlled tracking systems designed to point solar radiation instruments directly at the sun throughout the day. In real time. (Well, I actually knew it may years before that, because I paid attention in climatology class as an undergrad.)
And just about every one of those locations does not receive 480 W/m^2.
I know this because I used to make a living measuring solar radiation. In real time. (Well, I actually knew it may years before that, because I paid attention in climatology class as an undergrad.)
The only way you get 480 W/m^2 is by averaging over a large number of locations across an entire hemisphere. You know. Averaging. The kind of thing that some claim is wrong to do for the entire sphere?
The internal inconsistency in your position is absolutely amazing. In real time.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190996
Pray tell more about this in real time.
Take your time, in real time.
At any one moment, does the Earth receive sunlight over its entire surface area?
Correct answer: No.
So, as an average, 240 W/m^2 does not in any way reflect the reality of how the Earth receives sunlight.
480 W/m^2 is of course still an average. So, Bob L was arguing against something I was not even saying, as is so often the case. However, 480 W/m^2 is at least an average that reflects the reality of how the Earth receives sunlight.
Well, actually, Graham, you indeed forgot to mention that Joe’s division by 2 was also an average:
[G] Joe thinks it is incorrect to use 240 W/m^2 as the input from the Sun. He describes this as “flat Earth”, since the only way the Earth could actually absorb 240 W/m^2 from the Sun at once would be if the Earth were a flat plane in space.
[AT] So, basically Joe struggles to divide by 2? That’s a bit embarassing. Seriously, 480 W/m^2 times the area of one hemisphere is the same as 240 W/m^2 times the area of a sphere.
[G] Yes, indeed, AT. But the globe is not receiving 240 W/m^2 from the sun at once, is it? It is receiving 480 W/m^2, over only the lit hemisphere, in real time. Yes?
[AT] But it’s also the case that not every square metre on the lit hemisphere is receiving 480 W/m^2. A one square metre patch with the Sun directly overhead receives ~960 W/m^2 while a 1 square metre patch with the Sun on the horizon receives almost nothing. So, it’s still an average.
[G] That’s right, AT. The 480 W/m^2 is still an average. But, it’s at least an average that reflects what is really happening. 240 W/m^2 implies the whole Earth receiving the Suns energy at once, which is of course impossible.
[AT] Except, this is the energy input to the climate system. And, no, it doesn’t imply the whole planet receives the Suns energy at once, it just implies that the Earth is absorbing an average of 240 J of Solar energy every second per square metre.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-191020
The energy to the climate system is the energy in climate system.
To divide by 2 does not create more energy, and it should get the same temperature at the end.
So in the end either you argue that Joe expresses a preference that makes no difference, or you argue that his accounting revolutionizes physics. One is a Motte. The other is a Bailey.
Which is it?
Willard claims I forgot to mention that the 480 W/m^2 is still an average, then quotes a conversation in which I said:
“That’s right, AT. The 480 W/m^2 is still an average.”
Willard then chirrups:
“So in the end either you argue that Joe expresses a preference that makes no difference, or you argue that his accounting revolutionizes physics. One is a Motte. The other is a Bailey.
Which is it?”
Well, it is not a motte and bailey, Willard. I do not think the options are as extreme as you claim. I certainly don’t think his “accounting” revolutionizes physics, as I don’t think this is even the part of his “Magnum Opus” where he suggests there is no need for a GHE. Scroll up for a comment on that. I think he was just arguing for a more realistic treatment of the insolation. So I don’t think it makes no difference, but I would lean towards the former of your two options, rather than the latter.
Graham claims that being able to account for an effective temperature that eliminates the need for any greenhouse theory does not revolutionize physics.
You cannot make this up.
…and yet, you are making it up. As always. Postma agrees the Earth’s effective temperature is 255 K.
Joe does not revolutionize physics.
Not at all.
He’s simply introducing a model that physically negate the requirement for a postulation of a radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect.
On what page can we see that model, Graham?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Joe cannot sound like someone who would like to revolutionize physics:
Perhaps all he wants is to return to its pre-academic ideals?
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
GRAHAM: Joe agrees the Earth’s effective temperature is 255 K.
JOE: That the effective Blackbody radiative output balance can be calculated via the Stefan-Boltzmann law is a wonder of modern science, but it is incorrect to equate the effective radiative output temperature to the average radiative input temperature, as is done in the standard model greenhouse, for the geometry is not the same. Day and night exist!
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
Europe’s Green Experiment
https://youtu.be/72X3799zU4Q
https://youtu.be/RHnbv-IT-Ng
https://youtu.be/-reG_e4jxaE
WOW – Huge difference between Dr. Roy’s result for June 22 and the result from the Japan Meteorological Agency.
Dr. Roy’s data say the anomaly was just 0.06 deg C, while JMA says the anomaly was 0.27 deg C – third warmest June in their data.
See more at:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/jun_wld.html
Comments anyone?
The satellite TLT temperatures usually show bigger deviations with La Nina & El Nino so it’s not that unusual to see them differ from the surface temperature series.
The JMA number is consistent with Nick Stokes’ TempLS June result and will probably be more comparable to GISS, NOAA, BEST, and HAD when they are updated.
1. Why should surface data measured by thermometers 2 meter above ground be the same as data evaluated out of O2 microwave emissions at about 4 km altitude?
2. Despite this difference, RSS has for June 2022 an anomaly of +0.5 C wrt its mean of 1979-1998, which is displaced by -0.36 C to its mean wrt 1991-2020; that gives us a corrected value of +0.14 C.
https://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v04_0.txt
3. That tells us finally that UAH is as usual the ‘lowest’ time series: that is the reason why Skeptics and Pseudoskeptics love it.
*
4. Not so long time ago, JMA had since 1979 a linear trend of
0.14 C / decade for its surface time series, quite near to UAH’s.
But since then, they have introduced a lot of new processing methods, among them the infilling of unknown grid cells with weighted averages of known cells around them.
The reason to do so is that when leaving things unchanged, the unknown cells have exactly the same value as the global average, what is utter nonsense.
A process heavily put in question by the very same Skeptics and Pseudoskeptics, because accidentally, the infilling has an increasing effect on the global temperature.
If the effect of infilling were reversed, then rest assured that Skeptics and Pseudo-skeptics would attack anyone not using the technique.
“Why should surface data measured by thermometers 2 meter above ground be the same as data evaluated out of O2 microwave emissions at about 4 km altitude?”
It won’t be. They both look at the PBL/SBL from different sides and make assumptions about the conditions above/inside it.
“Despite this difference, RSS has for June 2022 an anomaly of +0.5 C wrt its mean of 1979-1998, which is displaced by -0.36 C to its mean wrt 1991-2020; that gives us a corrected value of +0.14 C.”
RSS’s major difference to UAH is mainly over 1 period, 2002 to 2008
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah_lt-2.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/rss-3.jpeg
where RSS uses different satellites to UAH as Roy has mentioned before.
“That tells us finally that UAH is as usual the lowest time series: that is the reason why Skeptics and Pseudoskeptics love it”
See above for the true picture.
Outside of that period they are both quite similar.
Infilling cells has an uncertainty to it which can be no less than the difference between paired USCRN stations allowing extra for the extra difference in distances between cells. This is not done by JMA.
My apologies, the RSS graph was not correct.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/rss.jpeg
richard…no apologies required. Since RSS sold out to NOAA they have becomes as unreliable as GISS, NOAA, Had-crut, and JMA.
I correct my mistakes when I see them.
“Since RSS sold out to NOAA they have becomes as unreliable as GISS, NOAA, Had-crut, and JMA.”
Well it’s great that we have BEST (made by AGW ‘skeptics’) and ECMWF global temperature data sets.
Sadly, they corroborate the others, so I guess everyone except for the makers of UAH are shady sheisters.
Problem with that is that UAH is very similar to the other data sets too.
https://tinyurl.com/5as99f2s
The ups and downs year to year are extremely well correlated, and:
UAH linear trend since 1979 is 0.133 C/decade
HAD linear trend since 1979 is 0.171 C/decade
4 hundredths of a degree per decade difference.
mark…why are you referencing JMA? They strike me as climate wannabees who do local time series and it’s not clear how they would get a global time series without using the widely fudged NOAA database.
JMA has 1300 stations located in Japan and I would presume their local coverage is adequate. However, NOAA uses less than 1500 reporting land surface stations globally, so we know they use considerable data fudging to coax a global series from that many stations.
JMA likely has an error margin of +/- 5C.
norman…”I do not think you understand what science is. It is not just direct experiment but also logical inference”.
***
I think the day I turned skeptical was after years of being taught that the interior angles of a triangle always sum to 180 degrees. We wrote tests on that and that was the only acceptable answer.
What I failed to grasp was the name of the material being taught…plane geometry. None of the teachers ever explained that the 180 degree figure applies only to triangles on a flat plane, or that the entire course material was restricted to a plane. Along the way, I just happened to read a Russian mathematician who explained that. He pointed out that the same triangle folded onto a sphere has interior angles that do not add to 180 degrees.
That’s when I went, Hmmmm, and started thinking outside the box. When I studied engineering, I recall reading through chapter one of my 3 physics books. We had one for statics, one for dynamics, and one for straight physics. In the one I was reading, they offered some definitions for things like pressure. They offered nothing on time and failed to explain that concepts like pressure, density, and temperature were man-made concepts, all based on the properties of natural phenomena.
It wasn’t till much later that I was reading a book of transcribed talks by Jiddu Krishnamurti that I began to twig on time. He kept saying, ‘Time is thought and thought is time’. Of course, he went deeply into what he meant by that. The thing is, a light went on, I had never thought of time in such a manner. I had always regarded it as an external phenomenon but not as it is really is, thoughts sequentially in a human brain.
The good thing about Krishnamurti is that he urges the reader not to listen to him, not to accept what he is saying, but to go into it for oneself. That’s what I did and discovered he was right. I was still questioning it, however, and by chance, I bumped into a former physics prof in a Safeway. I put the question to him obliquely, suggesting time does not exist. He was totally straightforward and stated emphatically that it does not, that time was invented by humans to measure change.
Accepting the word of an authority figure as a basis for fact is not science, so I had a lot more work to do. Over the years, I have mentally observed the concept of time and the more I do, the more apparent it becomes that it is totally a human invention.
That’s how I think these days and it obviously challenges your more ideological views of science. What you say above, from your perspective, that I don’t understand science, is partly true. However, I think you mean it in a sense that you do understand science and I don’t. If so, that’s an illusion you need to deal with. Just about anyone involved in science doesn’t really understand it, and if they think they do, they are dealing with an illusion.
Science is about reality, a study of reality, it is not reality itself. Krishnamurti expanded on that, particularly in his discussions with physicist David Bohm. They agreed that reality could be conceptualized and viewed differently by different people, each creating his/her personal reality. So, they used the word ‘actuality’ in reference to physical reality, which cannot be changed by the human mind.
‘Knowing’ is the problem. Knowing…to have knowledge …means you have stored memories of knowledge, right or wrong, and you are calling that truth. We need stored knowledge to function in a technological society and to keep us safe. Other than that, much of what we have stored is nonsense. It hampers our ability to be aware and to see error in our thoughts.
All I am trying to do is see what is really there, not what someone else told me is there.
Gordon Robertson
That is interesting philosophy but it is not science. Science is only one of many potential modes of thought but it is a specific type with specific rules and applications for it to be scientific. Time again would not be an invention of the human mind. Rate of change occurs regardless if it is measured or not. What science does is set up a system of units that can relate in equations to explain phenomena around them. Time (rate of change) is one of the concepts that is used in science. I still think you confuse the concept of time with the measurement of it.
You do explain Clint R’s posting behavior. He uses the word “reality” a lot. In your post you talk of a personal reality created by an individual. This is Clint R’s major problem. He has created his own reality based not upon any experiment or measurement only his own ideas and thought process and he ridicules the rest who do not agree that his version of reality is the correct one.
Anyway science is based upon measurement, observation and then on logical and rational thought to connect the measurements and observations. Magical thinking is rejected by science. It may be real and exit but would not fit into the thought process called science.
Above you question the calculation of a half-life by suggesting the decay rate can change. You would need to come up with something that you think might change this rate and then researchers can set up experiments and measurements to see if indeed the rate of decay does change.
Norman, I’m glad to see you’ve finally noticed my adherence to reality. In that light, did you ever find your bogus “real 255K surface”, or a valid technical reference that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325K?
Reality calls.
Team Joe accepts that figure you consider bogus, Pup:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190696
Please stick to the party line.
Sorry worthless, as I stated, I can’t babysit you. You’re have to find someone else.
Do not be sorry, Pup. Be relevant:
https://principia-scientific.com/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
Is this something you assume, or should Graham kick you out of Team Joe?
Don’t be stupid, Willy.
“If we assume . . . ” that you are both ignorant and stupid, then ” . . . we may equate . . . ” your intelligence to that of a retarded walnut.
Try looking up “science”. No mention of magical CO2 heating, or any GHE.
Sad.
It would be hard even for an ass clown like to pretend that the Earth receives more energy than it emits, Mike Flynn!
What are you blabbering about, Willy?
The Earth has cooled. If you had a brain, this would tell you that the Earth emits more energy than it receives from the Sun. Or maybe not.
Any idiot who uses phrases like “ass clown”, instead of providing facts to back whatever it is that the idiot is trying to say, is an idiot indeed.
What does “ass clown like to pretend” even mean? Are you trying to invent a new language because English is too hard for you? Good luck.
Mike, Mike,
The question that you try to ignore is quite clear ~
The Earth cannot receive more energy than it emits.
Would you agree?
If you also ignore why this is a crucial question, do not worry.
I can patiently explain it to you.
This is your lucky day!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Apparently some people missed their Kindergarten Grand Solar Minimum class , instead believe it is a conspiracy paid by fossil fuel industry
https://youtu.be/2pihNCFj_TM
That was a presentation about the last solar minimum 12 years ago.
Apparently some people don’t bother checking the 2 hour+ videos they post.
Does this presentation add up to a Grand solar minimum soon?
“I don’t think so.”
https://youtu.be/2pihNCFj_TM?t=810
Is this what you wanted the kids to learn, Eben?
Once again Dinglebarry shows how stuck on stupid he is, gets hung up on few words without understanding the contexts of it.
What the guy actually said is the model indicates sharp decline in the Sun activity but he doesn’t think the model is necessarily accurate to be trusted for predictions of grand minimum.
As it turned out now, the cycle 14 did in fact dropped to grand minimum territory. Of-course you can’t call it grand minimum untill you have three like it.
So here we are, another cycle later , the 25 is closely following 24 so far and Bin&Barry still can’t learn a thing.
Your tireless sleuthing prevents cranks to argue the it is the Sun stoopid.
Thanks for doing your part, Eboy.
To add visuals to that comment, compare the solar record with the global temp record.
https://tinyurl.com/bdexj7yw
While the last 3 solar cycles have been getting steadily weaker, the global temperature rose.
WUWT?
But the actual maximums have not changed that much since since 1878 and La Nina like conditions are increasing.
Your comment has nothing to do with what we’re talking about, RLH.
You said “the global temperature rose”
I pointed out the actual maximums have not changed that much since since 1878 and La Nina like conditions are increasing.
Are you denying that it has been warming, Richard?
Cranks usually reject the A in AGW, not the G or the W.
I am saying that apparently AGW only effects temperatures that are not at the maximums.
Irony or sarcasm might not be the best way to formulate an explicit claim, Richard.
“I pointed out the actual maximums have not changed that much since since 1878 and La Nina like conditions are increasing.”
Yes you did, which has nothing to do with the point.
Yet again.
I am simply saying that apparently AGW only effects temperatures that are not at the maximums.
There is nothing ironic in my observations.
Apparently you have no idea about Grice’s maxims, Richard.
You have the perfect way to show you are an idiot. You answer things in a idiotic way.
https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html
Don’t forget the Cooperation Principle on which these maxims rest, Richard.
RLH, this conversation is about the influence of the sun on GLOBAL temperatures.
As you have already wisely agreed that NINO3.4 isn’t a proxy for global temperatures, your point based on that data set is irrelevant to this conversation about global temperatures.
Your comment about extremes has NOTHING to do with this conversation.
Which is about solar influence on global temperatures.
Do you understand yet that the conversation is about solar influence on global temperatures, or will you need it explained to you a fourth time?
What is wrong with you?
I thought you were of the opinion that this 2 hour video proved that there is a GSM coming. You said:
“You forgot one important thing The Grand Solar Minimum , of-course the climate sheisters keep claiming the Sun doesn’t do anything ,
They are in for a surprise”
So you have no doubt that a GSM is burgeoning, and this video was your attempt to prove yourself right. Unfortunately, it doesn’t.
I’m sure that ‘climate sheisters’ claim the sun doesn’t do anything, but here in the reality based world of science it is understood that the sun does have an effect on climate on different timescales. There are other climate sheisters who claim the sun is the only thing responsible for climate change.
The thing with trying to be a reddit-style clever dick online is that the truth is abandoned in favour of stoking the ego.
Superdeveloping Triple Dipper La Nina Hurricane effect
https://youtu.be/2ZCK4w0khjc?t=144
If global temperatures are always rising, how come we have La Nina at present also?
Cause La Nina is not a global phenomenon,
jeesh
Are you saying that ENSO does not affect global temperatures in any way?
Are you really that thick?
Rhetorical question.
For which you have no answer apparently.
Touche
More brilliant questions from RLH. What next?
If July is supposed to be warm, why is it so cold in Australia?
If poverty is such a problem, why do I have all this money?
If hunger is a problem, why do I have all this food?
Nate poses questions for me which are ridiculous to show how ridiculous he is is not me.
Your question is of the same form as the Inhofe Cheeseburger, Richard:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2015/02/inhofe-disproves-poverty.html
Well done!
Willard is his usual idiotic self.
I have to explain to RLH all his logical fallacies.
“If global temperatures are always rising, how come we have La Nina at present also?”
a. Global T are not always rising. False premise.
b. The Earth can be doing more than one thing at the same time. Strawman.
c. La Nina is a regional phenomena, not global. Faulty generalization.
d. No one has claimed that with AGW, the ENSO cycle will cease. Strawman.
I read above, not very surprised at such a ridiculous assumption:
” RSSs major difference to UAH is mainly over 1 period, 2002 to 2008 ”
That is what happens when you merely eye-ball at extremely low pass filter outputs within two anomaly charts based on completely different reference periods.
*
Here are two charts based on the same reference period, comparing UAH 6.0 LT and RSS 4.0 LT for the Globe (the one with a 12 month, the other with a 60 month smoothing):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xmc9ZRm6oQlUlHypVI1-zXPcrVmLYypj/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p38CfnhJVwcNMfAuNXM5ey-GXRKstrci/view
The differences between UAH6 and RSS4 hardly could be greater; they bypass what we experienced years ago when comparing UAH5 to RSS3.
Before end of 2003, where anomalies and their filter smoothings cross, UAH is a lot above RSS; after the crossing point, UAH keeps conversely lower than RSS.
No wonder then that RSS’ trends are about 50 % higher than UAH’s.
Who is right and who is wrong: that to discuss isn’t the role of lay(wo)men.
*
The Savitzy-Golay smoothings are original filter output, without any subsequent ‘low pass’ing.
“That is what happens when you merely eye-ball at extremely low pass filter outputs within two anomaly charts based on completely different reference periods”
Low pass filters allow you to compare averages over a given period.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/to:2002/offset:-0.23/plot/rss/from:2008/offset:-0.41/plot/uah6
This the result if you take what I said and implement it.
Blinny: A question for you, if S-G produces such bad high frequency pass through as a single stage, how come LOWESS does not do the same?
Do you accept that my CTRMs and the way I use S-G produces similar outputs?
Here is RSS with a CTRM the same as UAH.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/rss-2.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-global.jpeg
P.S. I did not know that a near gaussian CTRM was an ‘extreme low pass’ filter. Kinda takes definitions to the extreme.
Linsley Hood, you are and keep an opinionated stalker, a liar and a trickster.
” Low pass filters allow you to compare averages over a given period. ”
No. You yourself have shown the exact contrary, bu are and will forever keep unable to admit such evidence.
*
And that below
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/to:2002/offset:-0.23/plot/rss/from:2008/offset:-0.41/plot/uah6
is the very best example of how far you are ready to manipulate others and how ignorant you are.
Offsetting the same time series with two different values in order to obtain what you want to show.
How dumb is one allowed to be?
A college boy dreaming up a fancy carnival couldn’t do better.
*
And this
” Do you accept that my CTRMs and the way I use S-G produces similar outputs? ”
is the second best example of how far you are ready to manipulate others and how ignorant you are.
Of course do ‘your’ CTRMs and the ‘way’ you use S-G produce similar outputs! Of course, Linsley Hood!
But… this is simply due to the fact that you manipulate and distort S-G outputs until they become ‘yours’, i.e. pretty good similar to ‘your’ CTRMs.
You are such an incompetent trickster, Linsley Hood: because if you were a competent one, no one here would be able to unveil your tricks.
“You yourself have shown the exact contrary”
I have shown that a CTRM is a Cascaded Triple Running Mean and that everybody knows that a mean is an average.
I have also showed that following Nate’s advice on S-G made them very similar to CTRMs for the same window size.
But Blinny never did think anything through.
“Offsetting the same time series with two different values in order to obtain what you want to show”
How else would you show that before 2002 and after 2008 the two series are very close? Idiot.
I used what Nate had said about using S-G and you won’t attack him, just me for adopting what he said as useful. In the same way you won’t attack Vaughan Pratt for the CTRM<s just me for using them.
P.S. Loom back in the conversation for the fact that CTRM are near gaussian in output. Are you saying that gaussian filters are ‘extreme’?
….P.S. Look back….
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m^2 (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m^2) 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/m^2K⁴, 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/m^2K⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K⁴ ]∕ 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
If Earth has the ocean as a surface it cannot have zero atmosphere. At the very least it has to have H2O vapor.
Earth has a very thin atmosphere.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
As in not deep?
willard…”Do not forget to tell the next person you will try to convert that Joe started with a 2 on the emission side, not the reception side”.
***
If we are talking about Joe Postma, he made an apt point along the way. Joe claimed we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
The atmosphere, especially trace gases in it, cannot trap heat, but the glass in a greenhouse can. The glass traps molecules of air heated by surfaces in the greenhouse directly by conduction. Naturally, the heated air wants to rise but it can’t because the glass prevents it rising.
Nothing in the atmosphere can do that.
I suppose ball4 will be along shortly to claim heat cannot be contained in an air parcel.
C’mon, Gordo.
Joe was not the first crank to have problems with analogies. It’d be like saying that when Moon Dragon Cranks compare the Moon to a ball-on-string. Everybody knows it’s just an analogy.
If you can accept an analogy that does not capture de motion properly regarding the Moon, you should accept that greenhouse gases are not made of glass.
Think.
Maybe you should start using clear English. You do realise that talking nonsense about imaginary Moon Dragon Cranks, and glass greenhouse gases, makes you look like what you are – a reality denying delusional troll – don’t you?
Carry on being a fool. You make it look so easy.
Is there a part you do not understand, Mike Flynn?
Start here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/
Whacky Wee Willy,
I am guessing that your pointless link contains no references to Moon Dragon Cranks or glass greenhouse gases. Am I right?
That would mean that you just post meaningless and irrelevant links for no discernible reason whatsoever!
No wonder I don’t bother wasting time following your commands to click on links. Does anyone else?
Get over yourself, Willy. You are not as influential as you imagine. Am I right again?
> I am guessing
When are you not, mischievous Mike?
Since you still ignore that greenhouses are sometimes made of glass, life must be full of mysteries to you.
Bliss,
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
gravity traps the atmosphere, the atmosphere traps the molecules, and the molecules trap the heat.
And Roy’s is the best honey trap for contrarians and cranks!
Well as you are on here all the time, what does that say about you?
One day you’ll learn to stop playing questions, Richard.
That day might be today.
I’ll keep calling you out as an idiot. You show that very often in your posts.
Calling me an idiot will not answer your rhetorical question, will it?
But at least calling me an idiot is clear, concise, and completes the exchange without baiting me to respond.
So yes, Richard, call me am idiot all you like.
Willard agrees that Gaussian LP filters show how averages evolve over time.
Big if true.
You apparently accept that CTRMs are a valid way of looking at averages, but do not accept that what they display of temperatures in the past is correct.
I accept anything that you can produce and that otters can replicate, Richard. Use whatever method you please. You do not need my approval. The more the merrier.
At some point you’ll have to interpret your results. I’ll be there for you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Blinny, Mark B, Willard:
So you all believe that gaussian or gaussian like LP filters are extreme, or so it seems, as you constantly criticize the use of CTRM and S-G HQLP filters in such configurations.
But you all (or so it seems) accept that LOWESS does not have the problems that S-G has, even though they are the same algorithm underneath.
Richard,
I believe this comment by Barry made my day:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333181
I read it again, and it still is making my day.
Cheers.
Little things please little minds. Try this instead
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334047
If it is true that you are not playing Climateball, Richard, why are you reinventing Inhofe Cheeseburgers?
Do you accept that gaussian LP filters are acceptable way of doing things?
If you know that AGW stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming, Richard, which part do you dispute – the A, the G, the W or all of them?
Do you accept that gaussian LP filters are a good way of documenting whatever is happening?
Do you think that ignoring the questions commenters ask entitles you to call them out and interrogate them while peddling your crap, Richard?
Do you think that ignoring the question will make it go away?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334047
Do you think a leading question is really a question, Richard?
What about a rhetorical question?
Do you know what is a loaded question, Richard?
Have you ever answered that question yourself?
What kind of statistics would you prefer?
Have you compared the two?
Does it make any difference?
Does it make AGW disappear?
When will you publish your refutation of the current paradigm?
For how many years scientists hid the truth that you are sharing with us?
Are you enjoying the questions I am submitting for your consideration, Richard?
This post started out with a simple question which you just want to ignore.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334047
P.S. Since 2013/2014 I have been advocating Gaussian LP filters of various sorts. Why do you not accept them?
Lots of comments contain questions you never answer, Richard. Yet you comment on them by peddling your irrelevant crap. Barry got tired of it and wrote a series of comments that should go into the Climateball Hall of Fame.
And now you have called me out. So I asked you questions that was in our backlog. You did not answer these questions.
There are many questions in our backlog.
Would you like me to find them back or will you, from now on, beware your wishes in inviting me to answer a question *you* should answer yourself first?
“peddling your irrelevant crap”
So you are saying that using Gaussian LP filters is irrelevant?
It took a very long while for you and Barry to agree that the maximums in temperature have not changed much since the 1870s. Not the response that one should expect from open and honest scientists.
> so you think
See, Richard? That is a redirection trick. This trick allows you to shift back to what *you* want to discuss. No, that is incorrect. What you want *me* to discuss.
Here is what I said:
1. Lots of comments contain questions you never answer.
2. You reply to them by peddling your irrelevant crap.
3. Barry got fed up and flamed you in a way that, had you sense of decency as human being, would make you change your modus operandi.
So no, I do not think you can really suspect I am thinking about the very thing you keep reinjecting in our exchange.
And if you are *still* not getting my response to your question, here it is:
You go first.
Is it clearer this time?
You never answer any questions. Even though you post things on them that do not correspond to the original post.
That makes us two for you never pray answer your own questions.
That makes us two.
You never really answer your questions yourself.
Willard agrees that Gaussian LP filters are an acceptable way to show averages and how they change over time.
Richard believes that mind probes are better than baits.
Willard agrees that he is an idiot.
That’s better.
“It took a very long while for you and Barry to agree that the maximums in temperature have not changed much since the 1870s”
Bullshit. I said that the two el Ninos were similar the first time you put it out there. I said it subsequently several times. You simply don’t pay much attention to what other people say.
As for whether “maximums” in temperature haven’t changed – that’s bullshit, too. You want to hang the entirety of temperature “maximums” everywhere in the world on two events in a tiny region.
You already agreed NINO3.4 is not a proxy for global, yet you continually post as if it is.
“I said that the two el Ninos were similar the first time you put it out there. I said it subsequently several times”
But then you claim, despite evidence to the contrary, that the earlier El Nino did not impact global temperatures in the same way the later one did.
“You already agreed NINO3.4 is not a proxy for global”
What mechanisms do you have for the maximums not increasing but the ‘averages’ doing so regardless? CO2 won’t cut it.
“But then you claim, despite evidence to the contrary, that the earlier El Nino did not impact global temperatures in the same way the later one did.”
I never said that. you just made it up. Know what I actually said?
barry: “You can definitely see the very strong 1878 el Nino in both the Had.CRU4 global data, and also in the BEST global data”
Which means the 1878 strongly impacted global temperatures.
Why do you invent my point of view? Why do you constantly look for something to argue about that I never said? It’s execrable.
“What mechanisms do you have for the maximums not increasing but the ‘averages’ doing so regardless?”
Daily maximum temperatures have increased since 1870 for most parts of the globe.
There have been more record-breaking hot days in the world’s cities and towns than record-breaking cold days since 2002. This is the case in every year since then.
Globally there have been more heatwaves with higher temperatures in the recent past.
The fact that two el Ninos 132 years apart were of similar strength does not change these facts, so when you make a general comment that “maximums have not increases,” you are only talking about those 2 el Ninos and nothing else. And I have no problem whatsoever that while most of the rest of the globe has warmed, and daily maxima have generally increased, temperatures in the NINO3.4 region haven’t changed much in the same period.
Both these things can be true – are true. AGW is not rejected just because the NINO3.4 region hasn’t warmed much. Parts of the Antarctic have even cooled over the last 100 years. That doesn’t undo AGW either.
Because no one but cranks expects everywhere on Earth to warm at the same rate.
Too many wild fires again!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
RLH asks:
1) How about the warming created the rise in CO2?
2) It has been proposed on here and elsewhere that rising temperatures have caused the rise in CO2. Can you refute that?
3) Want to guess where this will go when you add in this months data?
4) So sampling at an irregular interval aliases things that occur at regular periods?
5) Nate: So how do you explain this image?
6) You do know that 1950 is a low point in the temperature record dont you?
7) What effect do you think a low point will have on OLS, etc. that include that period?
8) normally stated is it?
9) How does that occur?
10) Actually Michelle LHeureux published a paper on the 1878 El Nino. Did you not read it?
11) What is the use of looking at data that has the reference period for it changed so frequently?
12) Does it have a fixed or a moving reference period?
13) Does it also show that the El Nino of 1878 was approximately the same as 2016?
14) So why have the peak El Ninos temperatures (for instance) not changed since 1878?
15) fact?
16) But the AWG claim is the world is getting generally hotter. How can the maximums not show that fact?
17) So you are saying that the range has not changed that much but the averages within them have?
18) the last century? Why that might effect any OLS over the same period?
19) Who said it was?
20) How is a post about a paper published over a decade ago not relevant to global temperatures and ESNO?
21) So a 12 month CRTM is not something you recognize. Set yourself above Vaughn Pratt do you? Arrogant or what?
22) Barry: Off topic is it?
23) But if the surface is at -20C? or -200C?
24) Blinny: Avoiding answering are you?
25) So Blinny, still think that you know more than Vaughan Pratt?
26) So why do you object to my using CTRMs following his suggestions of 12, 10 and 8 months for a 12 month CTRM?
27) So Blinny, still think that you know more than Vaughan Pratt?
28) So why do you object to my using CTRMs following his suggestions?
29) Is CO2 causing the rise in average temperatures or is the rise in average temperatures causing the rise in CO2?
30) (assumed -270C) or not? And why?
31) Care to estimate when (if ever) we will be ice free the year round at the poles?
32) P.S. Blinny: Got an answer yet as to if CTRMs following the recommendations from VP are a viable HQLP filter?
33) So why not answer the question then?
34) So why not answer the question then?
35) So why not answer the question then? Is it because you were wrong and dont wish to acknowledge it?
36) So why not answer the question then? Is it because you were wrong and dont wish to acknowledge it?
37) Or are you just a coward who does not like to admit that they are wrong in the first place?
38) Which bit? That SRMs are correct or that CTRMs are wrong?
39) Notice the similarities?
40) Any comment on the differences (i.e. none) between LOWESS and S-G as they use the same algorithm underneath?
41) I have said that I mostly use CTRMs for the graphs. Do you contest those findings?
42) Willard: Any comment on LOWESS compared to S-G?
43) So Willard do you see the acceleration claimed by the IPCC in the tide gauges as in the video which says that there is none?
44) Care to work out how much energy is consumed when turning sea water into sea ice?
45) Blinny: Sorted out if CTRMs are not to your liking yet?
46) So are you saying that the CTRM is incorrect?
47) And the central Pacific is below average also. Is La Nina weather?
48) So has Perth, Australia (also mentioned in the video) being going up or down GPS wise?
49) Are you saying that the current La Nina is caused by AGW?
50) Richard Linsley-Hood 2014-01-24 05:53 PM The green wriggly lines dont exist?
51) Do you deny the output of a CTRM exists as Nate did?
52) More cold water in the central Pacific means warmer temperatures? Are you sure you got that the correct way round?
53) Do you believe her?
54) So you found it. That wasnt hard was it? Did you read it all?
55) Warmistas such as you?
56) And if I go 0.1 m/sec (or 10m/sec or 100m/sec or.) faster towards the source, how do I see those photons?
57) produces a very similar output, one with the other?
58) Are you going to say that either approach is wrong and that it does not create the evidence as shown?
59) Or are you just cross that what I have shown it is the correct way to approach HQLP filters?
60) Ah, but which April?
61) Where is your evidence that given billions of years it cant?
62) Which scientific facts do you have that refute Darwin and evolution?
63) SPA: Why only 2 options?
64) P.S. Which God is that and why is yours so important?
65) What makes you think that the Bible (which was mostly composed in the Middle Ages) is at all accurate in any case?
66) What makes you think that the King James Bible is that accurate?
67) produces a very similar output, one with the other?
68) produces a very similar output, one with the other?
69) produces a very similar output, one with the other?
70) How Significant Was the 1877/78 El Nio?
71) Either way the link to the paper which Michelle co-wrote also tells you that the 2016 El Nino was the same as the one in 1878?
72) compromised?
73) P.S. If a single 30 year S-G is not accurate enough, then why is a single pass LOWESS (which uses the sane algorithm) OK?
74) a complete idiot?
75) There are papers I have referred to which show that what I have said is true. Are you gong to deny them as well?
76) True. But I did not say it was. I said that the maximums (El Nino) had not changed if at all since 1878. Do you deny that?
77) indefinitely?
78) in the past. Do you ever stop to think about what you say/write?
79) A maximum is a maximum. Do you disagree with that?
80) filters with strong gaussian characteristics?
81) that happens?
82) Ever heard of gravity?
83) If global temperatures are always rising, how come we have La Nina at present also?
84) Are you saying that ENSO does not affect global temperatures in any way?
85) pass through as a single stage, how come LOWESS does not do the same?
86) Do you accept that my CTRMs and the way I use S-G produces similar outputs?
87) gaussian in output. Are you saying that gaussian filters are extreme?
88) Well as you are on here all the time, what does that say about you?
89) Do you accept that gaussian LP filters are acceptable way of doing things?
90) Do you accept that gaussian LP filters are a good way of documenting whatever is happening?
91) Do you think that ignoring the question will make it go away?
92) P.S. Since 2013/2014 I have been advocating Gaussian LP filters of various sorts. Why do you not accept them?
93) So you are saying that using Gaussian LP filters is irrelevant?
And we’re only halfway through the month.
Barry: So do you agree that Gaussian LP filters are the least distorted way of showing averages and how they alter over time?
Or would you prefer LOWESS?
I’m not involved in this conversation. Are you so deficient you can’t even remember who you’re talking to?
Mark B
Thank you very much for having collected all this.
The author of all these seemingly morbid statements should see a psychiatrist quickly before it’s too late.
All of this reminds me of my lady’s uncle who acted the same way 10 years ago.
Now he sits all day, looking through us into the distance, and is silent.
Time will tell who is correct and who is not. We shall see.
mark b…I’d say you are somewhat obsessive to have found the time and interest to compile 93 quotes made by Richard (rlh), and presumably to denigrate him.
Although I sometimes have my exchanges with Richard, I regard him as an intelligent, witty poster who understands the lie behind the catastrophic anthropogenic theory. He not only understand the lie, he presents evidence to prove it’s a lie. If only he could apply the same logic to the non-rotation of the Moon. ☺ ☺
Since I started posting here years ago that has been the main debate here, whether AGW is real or not. I agree with Richard that the the theory is wrong, even though he does not say as much.
I fail to grasp the point you are trying to make with your 93 quotes. Do you think CAGW is supported in science?
Gordon, you are much too patient and respectful.
You fail to understand that RLH is just another troll. Somehow you got impressed because he claimed to have “credentials”. Yet you realize that nowadays, “credentials” mean NOTHING.
RLH is a troll that just likes to argue. He NEVER gets the science right. RLH can’t even understand simple vector problems.
Don’t waste your time on him.
Clint…it’s not that, I was born in Scotland and I have met many people from the UK in the UK context. I have met many people from the US as well and gotten to know them in the US context.
There’s a humour that goes over in the UK and another humour in the US. I think there’s a tendency for either side to take the other side too seriously.
I get what you’re saying and as you know, I am on your side on this blog. I think Richard agrees with our position on AGW in his own way and I was defending him from shots taken by serious alarmists. I think what you see is the Brit humour coming out in him, which can be sardonic at times.
RLH is NOT on our side. He’s anti-science, and wrong on every issue. He deceives you by his constant fight with Bindidon, but he’s in a constant fight with everyone. That’s all he does is argue. He contributes NOTHING to this blog, even though he comments way more than anyone else. He’s just another “Ken”, or “Willard” — just another troll.
I am not anti-science, purely anti the crap you post that purports to be science.
“RLH cant even understand simple vector problems”
I understand vector problems and do practical examples of them all the time. The fact that apparently that does not meet your criteria means that you are at fault, not me.
You had your chance to solve the simple problem, but you failed. You couldn’t even understand the solution!
Sure. You have your own answers to vectors that do not correspond to anything that others would recognize.
Much the same as you believe, quite incorrectly, that a ball-on-a-string/stick-rotating-about-one-end/section-of-a-disk are relevant to orbits. Hint, they are not.
Gordon Robertson says: mark bId say you are somewhat obsessive to have found the time and interest to compile 93 quotes made by Richard (rlh), and presumably to denigrate him.
A while back I wrote a script that scrapes the forum for various bits of information to look at individual patterns of behavior. The primary product is a daily count of posts by poster which you may have seen previously. Under that framework, counting and logging posts ending in a question mark was a few minutes additional work.
Certainly is was allegations that Richard engages in the provocative rhetorical tactic of just asking questions that motivated collecting this metric.
For what it’s worth, Willard at this moment is leading RLH in this metric, but Willard tends to reflect the behavior of whoever he’s chosen to engage. Barry and Bindidon have the highest percentage of posts questions to posts (almost half) which I attribute to a belief that they are still hoping for a good faith response.
If in fact I’m “obsessive” my “obsession” has shifted to observing behaviors as it became apparent that there is little interest in good faith discussion of climate change in this venue.
Interesting.
How does my question to no question ratio compare to Barry and Bindidon?
Welcome to Climateball, Mark!
Do not forget that there are ways to make sammich requests without any interrogative form: now do, pray tell, please stop obfuscating and give me real evidence about the future, etc.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Linsley Hood aka RLH
You are and keep a stalking liar and trickster.
1. ” So you all believe that gaussian or gaussian like LP filters are extreme, or so it seems … ”
You perfectly know that not the filters themselves are put in question, but much more the tricky way how YOU use them.
*
2. ” … as you constantly criticize the use of CTRM and S-G HQLP filters in such configurations. ”
And here you lie even a lot more.
Because we do NOT ‘constantly criticize the use of CTRM and S-G HQLP filters’, Linsley Hood.
We however indeed constantly criticize
– YOUR WRONG descriptions of CTRM filters in YOUR charts, letting readers believe that a 12-month CTRM output is the same as a 12-month output of e.g. S-G, what it is NEVER and NEVER (for example, a 12-month CTRM as specified by Vaughan Pratt is the same as a 16-month S-G output, what can be verified using your own UAH example of 2014);
– YOUR WRONG use and description of S-G filter outputs because you are manipulating them to artificially match CTRM which they would otherwise never do.
*
Linsley Hood, stop discrediting people by woefully insinuating that they would doubt about Vaughan Pratt’s technical skill !!!
We very well doubt increasingly about yours, however.
binny…”Linsley Hood aka RLH
You are and keep a stalking liar and trickster”.
***
Have you seen someone about your paranoid delusions? There used to be a guy by the name of Freud in Vienna. If he’s not practicing there anymore, he had a colleague by the name of Jung somewhere in Switzerland.
“You are and keep a stalking liar and trickster.”
I am none of the above, except in your mind only.
The CTRM filters I use are exactly as Vaughan Pratt suggested many, many, years ago now back in 2014.
I mainly use CTRMs for most of my work, using an S-G for a projection of what is most likely to happen after the end of the CTRM data plot.
e.g.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/rss-2.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-global.jpeg
Call me what you will, that does not alter the fact that what I use is purely VP’s recommendations for the CTRMs and Nate Drake’s for the S-Gs.
So if you challenge those uses then you challenge them, not me.
RLH,
Let’s pay attention in this thread to what you’ve been spamming every other thread with.
Let’s look first at your mantra about 2 el Ninos.
The 1878 el Nino is very slightly cooler than the 2016 el Nino in the HadISST data, by a few hundredths of a degree, but the difference is not statistically significant (I presume). Does this mean that global temperatures haven’t changed much in that period?
https://tinyurl.com/2v4aa825
Please click on the link so you know what I’m talking about.
You can definitely see the very strong 1878 el Nino in both the Had.CRU4 global data, and also in the BEST global data, as well as the 2016 el Nino in both.
Let’s have a look at the relative values for the “maximum” of these two el Ninos – the highest temperature they achieve with respect to the global average.
Had.CRU4
Feb 1878 0.40
Feb 2016 1.11
Difference = 0.71
BEST
Mar 1878 0.58
Feb 2016 1.33
Difference = 0.75
These results are statistically significant differences.
So we see that these “maximums” as you call them, are quite different on the global scale compared to their differences in the NINO3.4 region.
Obviously, the NINO3.4 SSTs are not a good proxy for global data. This small region of the globe hasn’t warmed much since 1870, while other regions have warmed even more than the global average – for example the Arctic, which has warmed about 1.5C since the late 19th century to present.
So what is the difference in long-term change between the NINO3.4 region and the rest of the globe?
Using a linear trend just to find out the difference between tempos generally at the beginning of the record, and temps generally at the end:
HadISST NINO3.4 1870 – 2022
0.016 C/decade
Total 0.24 C temp rise – not statistically significant
Had.CRU4 1870 – 2022
0.06 C/decade
Total 0.91 C temp rise – statistically significant
BEST 1870 – 2022
0.08 C/decade
Total 1.22 C temp rise – statistically significant
As we see, NINO3.4 isn’t a good proxy for global, whether with respect to the long term change, or with respect to the “maximums” that come with el Ninos.
The Arctic has warmed long-term more than the global average. It, too, is a poor proxy for global, as it overestimates the average, while NINO3.4 underestimates the global average change.
As NINO3.4 SSTs do not reflect the global average, it is pointless referring to them when discussing globally averaged temps. While the 2 el Ninos are similar in the NINO3.4 data, they are very different in their peak values (“maximums”) in the global temperature record.
The reason for this is simple – NINO3.4 has not warmed much since 1870 while the global average has.
This shouldn’t be a confusing result for anyone familiar with the fact that warming over the globe is not uniform, but has occurred at different rates in various regions.
Have you also noticed that ENSO had a low period during the early to mid 20th century (as claimed by various papers). Do you think that will have had any effect on global temperatures?
ENSO effects global temperatures on an interannual scale, not multidecadal.
The ratios between El Nino/La Nina effect things on a multi decadal scale.
Not in any significant way.
In that associated press article, the message was that it was almost statistically significant that la Ninas were more common in the last 25 years.
If global temps are tied to ENSO activity on these time scales, we should see global temperatures reducing in the last 25 years compared to previous.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/from:1997/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:1997/trend
We see the opposite.
Can you explain that?
We are addressing what will happen in the future, not the past. If the La Nina is increasing beyond 50% (as is claimed) then does this not mean that global temperatures will decrease in the future?
So the last 25 years, the last 40 years of more la Ninas has had no effect on reducing global temperatures. Thus we shall not address the past, we shall address the future, for which we have no data.
No, sunshine, more la Ninas will not produce global cooling.
I would be very happy to bet you $1000 on that, conditional on there being in fact more la Ninas in a statistically significant measure.
I’m offering you a bet.
Your get out of jail card is no statistically significant increase in the number of la ninas. If that fails to materialize, bet’s off.
But if we do achieve statistically significant increase in la Ninas, I will bet you we still get global warming.
I’d recommend we compare the average of the next 10 years with the average of the last 10 years.
Care to put your money where your mouth is? I’m good for the cash.
“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, which is key in science, said LHeureux. 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.”
Let’s take l’Heureux’s “la Nina-like conditions occurring more often in the last 40 years.”
I’ll compare the last 40 years with the 40 years before. If la Ninas impact global temps on long time scales, we should be expecting that more la Ninas would depress global temperatures over the last 40 years, right?
https://tinyurl.com/cs7rdanx
Please explain why more la Ninas is not making the global temperature colder, and why instead we have warming over the last 40 years.
As the ratio of La Nina is only now just getting to 50% you have answered your own question as to the past. If the ratio does continue to increase beyond 50% for more La Nina will that not mean that global temperatures will decrease in the future?
P.S. The AMO shows quite similar outcomes to your graph
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/amo-trended.jpeg
“If the ratio does continue to increase beyond 50% for more La Nina will that not mean that global temperatures will decrease in the future?”
Nup. If statistical significance for more la Ninas over the ;last 25 years is achieved by the end of this year, the global temp record will still show warming for the last 25 years – at a greater rate than any other 25 years previous.
No, more la Ninas is not going to cause global cooling. If that were the case, we should at least have seen a slow down in global warming for the last 25 years. We’ve seen the opposite.
“No, more la Ninas is not going to cause global cooling”
So more cold water than warm water in the tropics is not going to cause global cooling. What planet do you live on?
Please note that it is the ratio of 50% that we are currently reaching so of course recent periods leading up to now will show a global warming as they were less than 50% in ratio. If/when it goes beyond 50% then, unless you have some unusual physics, then global temperatures will cool.
Please note that in the same way the climate models wrongly predicted that mid Tropospheric Tropical Temperatures would increase (they did not as Roy observed) they also predict more El Nino’s and less La Nina’s (which is not what is happening in the real world).
“So more cold water than warm water in the tropics is not going to cause global cooling. What planet do you live on?”
I live on the planet where la Ninas and el Ninos move heat around within the system and don’t contribute to the overall energy in the system. Any long-term change will be little impacted by whether la Ninas or el Ninos dominate. They are not sources of heat or cold, they pump it around the system.
Think of the 4 seasons and daily weather. The seasons are climate, and the daily weather is weather. ENSO events are weather. They won’t stop an ice age, they’ll just provide the interannual ups and downs in global temperature.
“Please note that it is the ratio of 50% that we are currently reaching so of course recent periods leading up to now will show a global warming as they were less than 50% in ratio.”
What has caused the warming? Clearly it wasn’t an increase in el Ninos, so are you sure that ENSO has long-term impacts? Has something other than ENSO caused the warming?
And the change is from la Ninas 28% of the time from 1950 to 1999, to la Ninas 50% of the time from 1997 to present – to get the article quoted correctly.
To be clear, Richard, if statistical significance is achieved by the end of this year, then we will have had 50% la Ninas since 1997 compared to 28% la Ninas previously.
So why wouldn’t we expect to see at least a slow down in warming from 1997 onwards, when there are nearly twice as many la Ninas in this period as previously?
Aren’t you just dismissing the data because it’s inconvenient to your view?
“Please note that in the same way the climate models wrongly predicted that mid Tropospheric Tropical Temperatures would increase (they did not as Roy observed) they also predict more El Ninos and less La Ninas”
The truth is that there is no model consensus on the future of ENSO. IPCC says this – you’ve seen the quotes. ENSO blog run by l’Heureux says this, too – you’ve seen the quotes, and seen that they defer to the IPCC on this.
So stop telling porkies, Richard.
“I live on the planet where la Ninas and el Ninos move heat around within the system and dont contribute to the overall energy in the system”
Me too. The poles cool the planet, the equator warms it. If the equator is less warm in the future then the planet cools. Simple.
“The truth is that there is no model consensus on the future of ENSO. IPCC says this”
The models still say that there will be more El Nino than La Nina in the future but as L’Heureux herself said this is not what is actually happening.
“The models still say that there will be more El Nino than La Nina in the future”
No they don’t. IPCC says there is no consensus. And that was what the ENSOblog said, too:
“There is no climate model consensus on a change in ENSO-related sea surface temperature over the next century in any of the greenhouse gas emission scenarios used in the report.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/enso-and-climate-change-what-does-new-ipcc-report-say
Your mistake is to trust a journalist (Seth Borenstein) for your take on this.
But we both know that this is what you WANT to believe. You want there to be a model consensus on more el Ninos in the future so you can say, “Look, models are wrong!” The fact that there is no model consensus interferes with your preferred talking point here and so you will simply ignore the facts as given by the IPCC and ENSOblog.
So what caused the warming over the last 25 years while el Ninos did not increase?
“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, which is key in science, said LHeureux. 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.”
Nearly half is 50%. An increase from 28% which is what occurred 1950 to 1999.
There is a statistical chance that this will increase beyond 50%. So it was warmer between 1950 and 1999 because El Nino were more present.
“So it was warmer between 1950 and 1999 because El Nino were more present.”
It was not warmer between 1950 and 1999 than now.
https://tinyurl.com/2yuv8s6p
There are many different global data sets produced by different countries using different methods and data. they all corroborate this.
El Ninos do not cause long-term global warming. la Ninas do not cause long-term global cooling. These phenomena cause short-term warming and cooling episodes.
“It was not warmer between 1950 and 1999 than now”
You miss the point. It is warmer now than it was in 1950. From that time until now El Nino have been more frequent than La Nina.
Of course, individually they do not change global temperature as such but with more or less of them in a given decade they will affect global temperatures, one way or the other.
If the future is that there will be more La Nina than El Nino then global temperatures will inevitably cool.
Think of it like a PWM signal with El Nino being positive pulses and La Nina being negative ones.
We have lived through a period where positive pulses are in the ascendance, if negative pulses become more frequent then temperatures will be in the descendance instead.
“It is warmer now than it was in 1950. From that time until now El Nino have been more frequent than La Nina.”
So you disagree with Michelle l’Heureux that la Ninas have been more frequent over the last 40 years.
From the article:
“Her own analysis shows that La Nina-like conditions are occurring more often in the last 40 years.”
According to you this hasn’t happened yet, but will happen in the future.
Why are you contradicting this specialist on the patterns of la Nina?
“You miss the point. It is warmer now than it was in 1950. From that time until now El Nino have been more frequent than La Nina.”
No, I haven’t missed the point, I simply remember what you said. Which was:
“So it was warmer between 1950 and 1999 because El Nino were more present.”
The period of global temperatures is warmer after 1999 than before it. Despite la Ninas apparently dominating in the latter period.
Please explain.
“NINO3.4 has not warmed much since 1870”
Read at all statistically speaking, but never mind, temperatures other than the maximums, are the only ones affected by AGW.
Let me know when you find a mechanism for doing that as CO2 does not have that ability.
“Read at all statistically speaking, but never mind, temperatures other than the maximums, are the only ones affected by AGW.”
This is incoherent. Try to make your meaning clear here. What “maximums” are you referring to?
Are not the El Nino’s the maximums?
They are el Ninos. This is not how the term “maximums” is ordinarily used in weather/climate.
The daily warmest temperature at a weather station is a maximum.
The largest annual area of sea ice is called a maximum.
El Ninos have never been called maximums. They are semi-periodic. Maxima generally refer to very regular events – as in daily or annually.
It’s like calling Summer a “maximum”. It’s strange – unique – verbiage.
I suspect you are trying to construct some kind of argument against what you’ve read about an increase in extreme weather events under global warming, and have been trying to mash together the ideas of ‘maximums’ with ‘extremes’, and you’ve found a dataset that you think supports your argument on a wide scales.
These notions are not interchangeable. All you’ve managed to do is be incoherent.
“They are el Ninos. This is not how the term ‘maximums’ is ordinarily used in weather/climate.”
Are not El Nino’s the maximum sea temperatures observed in the tropics? Are not the tropics the warmest places on earth?
“Its like calling Summer a ‘maximum'”
Are not summer temperatures a maximum for the year?
You can use the bizarre terminology, but you can’t equate el Ninos with daily maxima, extremes or maximum sea ice.
I can easily associated El Nino with short positive pulses and La Nina with short negative ones. If you have ever dealt with a PWM signal buried in noise you will get the meaning straight away.
I think you are letting your mind go at will, and writing your stream of consciousness here. You are not bothering to make your thoughts cogent from post to post.
And that’s why in this little subthread you’ve hopped from trying to justify using the word “maximum” for el Ninos to speaking of pulses and PMW signals, which have nothing to do with the physics of maxima or the nomenclature.
You’ve simply added a thought from a different conversation to the one here, without bothering to relate them.
You are not making sense.
Look at
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-6.jpeg
and see that El Nino are quite short positive pulses and La Nina are quite short negative pulses.
Pulses are not “maximums.” Or “minimums.”
You’ve lost the thread of this conversation.
I am categorically disinterested in your latest obsession with pulses. Get back to topic.
Nino 3.4 since 1870
Anomaly
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-6.jpeg
Absolute
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-5.jpeg
You’re not offering anything new here. You are repeating yourself ad nauseum.
I am just showing non detrended temperatures show little disparity over more than a century.
You’ve been saying the same thing over and over for 3 months now. You’ve said it a couple hundred times. Even though I’ve already agreed with you many times about the el Ninos being statistically the similar. Do you realize that?
You just incorrectly claim that El Nino (i.e. maximums) are not that important but that ‘averages’ are without considering that those same ‘averages’ include the 1950 low point in tropical temperatures.
That’s incoherent. You’re trying to construct some disagreement we’re having that isn’t actually happening. You need to be clearer, Richard.
“You just incorrectly claim that El Nino (i.e. maximums) are not that important”
In terms of what? Quote me or something, because I have no idea what you are trying to say.
See the comment about PWM signals buried in noise.
You have just switched topics yet again.
You are unable to maintain a grasp on the conversation, and are meandering around your own mind and dropping bits of it here, without making cogent arguments.
Do you accept that short pulse PWM signals do not in themselves affect the ‘average’ that much?
You are unable to maintain a grasp on the conversation, and are meandering around your own mind and dropping bits of it here, without making cogent arguments.
I am flatly disinterest in this latest craze of yours. Get back on topic.
Are they non detrended?
https://bmcnoldy.rsmas.miami.edu/tropics/oni/
“ONI is a standard metric used to define the phase of the El Nio Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
It is a measure of how anomalously warm or cool the central-to-eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean is compared to “normal”, smoothed out across multiple months to reduce noise and spikes. This simple index is used to identify the phase of ENSO which has significant teleconnections all around the globe.
Using the NOAA Climate Prediction Center methodology:
Calculate a monthly average sea surface temperature in the Nino 3.4 region (5S-5N, 170W-120W).
Calculate a monthly 30-year climatological value, updated every 5 years (1856-1885, …, 1986-2015, 1991-2020).
Calculate a monthly anomaly with years centered in the climatology (1871-1875 uses 1856-1885 climo, …, 2001-2005 uses 1986-2015 climo, 2006-2010 uses 1991-2020 climo, 2011-2025 also uses 1991-2020 climo because 1996-2025 climo does not exist yet).
Note that values prior to 1950 have greater uncertainty — use with caution.”
ONI is not the same as Nino 3.4 or HadISST.
Extended ONI
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/ens-oni.jpeg
ONI
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/oni.jpeg
Nino 3.4 (absolute)
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-5.jpeg
Nino 3.4 (anomaly)
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-6.jpeg
So you are not interested in addressing even one of the points I made in that post.
Fuck you.
Bye then, idiot.
Oh please. You will crash the very next discussion I have with someone else with your boring repetition.
I would be delighted if you would fuck off and let me discuss things with people without you yapping about the two el Ninos in the HadISST dataset over and over like a broken record.
So the Maximums (aka El Nino) have not increased but the ‘averages’ have. Do you realize what that means about your method of constructing ‘averages’?
You side with people who claim that min/max/middle is a valid way of looking at local air temperature yet when someone tries to show you that the records you rely on are nor what you think when using the same metric you get all hot and bothered.
“So the Maximums (aka El Nino) have not increased”
The problem is that you don’t have any rigour with the subject matter.
El Ninos are a quasi periodic phenomenon in the central pacific. Their relative strength is assessed by detrending SSTs (among other things, depending on the data set), and comparing them without any long-term changes to interfere.
Using any ENSO data set, the amplitude of el Ninos and la Ninas is variable within a given range. I don’t expect the range to change, and don’t think that range has changed.
But you do not use an ENSO data set. You use SSTs from the NINO3.4 region that are undetrended, making comparison of ENSO events with each other more difficult. The ENSO data is contaminated with non-ENSO background changes (whether warming, cooling, cyclical over multidecades) that make straight comparisons between one el Nino and another contaminated.
I go with l’Heureux’s use of data to compare el Ninos (what you call “maximums”), and you do not.
Now at this point you no doubt think I am rejecting the HadISST data set because of some warmist plot to ignore it. But in truth, using the detrended data actually BETTER supports all the points you are trying to make than using HadISST.
In the ONI data (l’Heureux uses it), the 1878 el Nino peaks WARMER than the 2016 el Nino.
In the ONI data, it is almost statistically significant that la Ninas are more frequent.
You don’t get that in the HadISST data, because the SSTs in the later part of the record a warmer than the earlier, so if you used that data set with the -0.5C la Nina threshold, you would lose a couple of la Ninas.
As I’ve said quite a few times to you, you were better off using the extended ONI to make your points. That data set serves you better.
“So the Maximums (aka El Nino) have not increased but the ‘averages’ have”
If you mean average global temperature? Yes.
Maximum daily temperatures have increased over most of the globe.
Annual heatwave temperatures have increased over most of the globe.
For the past 20 years, there have been more record-breaking hot days than record-breaking cold days in the cites and towns of this world
So when you say “the maximums have not increased”, you are only talking about el Ninos. Not other maximums.
And, once again, two data points won’t tell you anything about a general change over time. Not ever. You need to do more thorough analysis.
I’ve already suggested it – take all el Nino values over the whole period and run an OLS regression with them. Then we will get a better idea of what has actually happened over time, as opposed to subtracting to data points to get only the difference between them.
“You side with people who claim that min/max/middle is a valid way of looking at local air temperature yet when someone tries to show you that the records you rely on are nor what you think when using the same metric you get all hot and bothered.”
You are not using the same metric as local daily air temperatures. You are using monthly SSTs for NINO3.4, and you are claiming that this is extrapolable to the rest of the world, which it isn’t. And you are now foggily conflating your argument about min/max/hourly daily temperature with the NINO3.4 SSTs.
On the other argument – you have not shown that using hourly data makes much difference to using the min/max average for the world or the US. You’ve only shown biases between different locations. Others have done the work and shown that the difference between using hourly and min/max average for the US as a whole is no more different than the 1878 and 2016 el Ninos. IOW, no statistically significant difference.
And so I think it’s fine to rely on min/max for the global average.
As for biases between New York and Atlanta min/max average? Why would I care about that when it makes no difference to the things we tend to discuss here – like the global average temperature?
See the comment about EL Nino being closely associated with a positive PWM signal and La Nina being closely associated with a negative PWM signal and then bury the whole thing in random noise.
“Their relative strength is assessed by detrending SSTs”
Except that Nino 3.4 is NOT detrended. At all. As you have agreed.
The data set HadISST NINO3.4 is undetrended.
The ONI data set is detrended.
I’m saying that if you want to only compare ENSO events and not have them contaminated by background warming, cooling or cyclicity, then it is better to use the detrended data set, which removes these artefacts to expose only the ENSO signal.
I don’t think you understand much of what we’re talking about if you don’t understand this.
Detrending the the NINO3.4 SSTs to isolate the ENSO signal is analogous to anomalising temperatures to remove the seasonal signal.
If you want to numerically compare changes in the January temperature with changes in the February temperature over time, you need to put them on the same baseline. That’s why we work with anomalies for that purpose.
If you want to compare one el Nino with another, or figure out how they have changed over time, then you need to remove any signal that is not an el Nino signal.
If you don’t understand this, if you don’t know why Michelle l’Heureux uses ONI to compare ENSO events, then I don’t think I can do anything more to help you understand it. It seems you just don’t know what you are talking about.
To repeat this point, maximum daily temperatures and record-breaking hot temperatures have been ascendant for decades. Globally, heat waves are hotter and longer recently.
All these maxima have moved in the direction you expect under global warming – regardless of cause.
The fact that the 1878 and 2016 el Ninos were similar does not cancel these facts, nor does it call into question that “maximums” will generally increase under global warming. It’s intuitively obvious that they would, too.
Take the anthropogenic out – we still have had global warming, maxima have increased, so what is the issue?
“Globally, heat waves are hotter and longer recently”
And yet at the height of all this heat we have a rare triple dip La Nina which means there is more cold water at the equator. Explain that if you will.
“I’m saying that if you want to only compare ENSO events and not have them contaminated by background warming, cooling or cyclicity, then it is better to use the detrended data set, which removes these artefacts to expose only the ENSO signal.”
But there is no background warming occurring in the tropics. As you have agreed.
But there is warming in the tropics.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
Not according to the non detrended Nino 3.4 from NOAA/HadISST
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-6.jpeg
“And yet at the height of all this heat we have a rare triple dip La Nina which means there is more cold water at the equator. Explain that if you will.”
There is absolutely nothing to explain.
There is no discrepancy here, except in your fevered imagination.
With global warming:
We will still have Winters.
We will still have cold weather.
we will still have la Ninas.
Even long la Ninas.
None of that prevents heat waves.
Did you know that la Ninas increase the risk of drought in the Southern US? It also brings more rainfall to the East coast of Australia.
La Nina is a weather phenomenon that affects weather phenomena in different ways in different parts of the globe.
La Ninas will not stop droughts, heat waves, snow, rain, record-breaking hot days, global warming or drunken orgies.
You know what, in this amazing, rare nearly triple dip la Nina, there have still been more record-breaking hot days than cold.
https://www.mherrera.org/temp.htm
https://www.mherrera.org/records2.htm
Explain that, please, if la Ninas are supposed to turn global warming around.
Explain that when, as you say, the 1878 el Nino was the same as 2016.
Why are we getting more record-breaking hot days than cold the last year and a half if its a massive la Nina, and if NINO3.4 SSTs haven’t changed for 150 years?
Why are we getting more extreme maximums in this huge, amazing, AGW-upending la Nina season?
C’mon Richard. Actually spell it out for once instead of ignoring the question.
Don’t the ignore the question.
If you ignore the question then you obviously concede the point.
“But there is no background warming occurring in the tropics. As you have agreed.”
So you’re saying that there is no long term signal we need to worry about? No warming, no cooling, no cyclicity. No need to detrend to remove non-ENSO signals?
So what did you mean every time you castigated me for starting with 1950 data? Were you not arguing that the temps were low around that time, and that starting analysis around then gives spurious results?
Let’s quote you from upthread.
“Please remember that the 1950’s are the low point”
You’ve contradicted yourself here.
Either there is no other signal in the HadISST data besides ENSO, and it doesn’t matter if I start with the 1950s or any other time,
or,
The 1950s represent a “low point” in the HadISST record (as you’ve said), and the data should be detrended to remove this unwanted signal in order to better isolate the ENSO signal.
ONI removes this signal. The years 1945 to 1955 are right on the zero line with the 15-yr low pass filter, but in the HadISST data the same period represents the lowest curve in the record with the 15-yr filter.
If you run a linear trend from 1950 with HadISST you get a warming trend, which militates against increasing la Ninas.
But if you use ONI data, you get a very slightly cooling trend, in line with the notion of more la Ninas later in the record.
For some reason you rely on a data set that works against the notion of of more la Ninas.
In fact, if Michelle l’Heureux used HadISST data, the la Nina at the end of 2016 would no longer exist. The temps in the HadISST data don’t meet the criteria for a la Nina in 2016, whereas the ONI data does.
Because ONI is detrended, making temps in the 2000s a bit cooler than in the HadISST data.
I use non detrended data because there can be no argument about what they show when making comparisons. To make a comparison between detrended data a long distance in time apart you first have to remove the detrending to get a viable comparison.
“The 1950s represent a ‘low point’ in the HadISST record (as youve said), and the data should be detrended to remove this unwanted signal in order to better isolate the ENSO signal.”
Why? All detrending should be removed BEFORE doing any comparison.
Do you agree that
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-6.jpeg
demonstrates that 1950 is a low point in the record?
Do you agree that
https://imgur.com/CauL1SE
the period between 1900-1950 shows that a moving 40 year average of ensemble ONI with values greater than 1 are at a low point during that time and when El Nino were therefore at a low point?
“Why are we getting more extreme maximums”
Maximums like the UK is experiencing at the present?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11013619/The-1976-UK-heatwave-pictures-Britain-roasted-36C-temperatures.html
Famines and droughts in India as bad as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%931878
or China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Chinese_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%931879
“It was part of a larger pattern of drought and crop failure across India, China, South America and parts of Africa caused by an interplay between a strong El Nino and an active Indian Ocean Dipole that led to between 19 and 50 million deaths.”
“I use non detrended data because there can be no argument about what they show when making comparisons.”
But there is a problem when comparing el Ninos or la Ninas, or tracking their evolution over time.
Let me explain.
Consider the definition of the ENSO phenomenon.
El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is an irregular periodic variation in winds and sea surface temperatures over the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean, affecting the climate of much of the tropics and subtropics.
So it is a variation is SSTs. Let’s look at how Michelle l’Heureux and co determine the phase of the ENSO variability.
DESCRIPTION: Warm (red) and cold (blue) periods based on a threshold of +/- 0.5C for the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) [3 month running mean of ERSST.v5 SST anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region (5N-5S, 120-170W)], based on centered 30-year base periods updated every 5 years.
For historical purposes, periods of below and above normal SSTs are colored in blue and red when the threshold is met for a minimum of 5 consecutive overlapping seasons.
So why do they detrend the data to establish the el Nina la Nina thresholds?
Let me explain.
Say, for example, that both the global temperature and the NINO3.4 SSTs had a very strong cooling trend, brought on by increasing cloud cover or whatever over the 150 years.
You compare a strong el Nino in 1894 with a strong el Nino in 2025. But because of the background cooling trend you find that the peak of the 2025 el Nino is a whole 1 C cooler than the peak of the 1894.
When you gather the data on all the el Ninos over time, you find that there is a marked decrease in their intensity, as the peaks are going down, generally, over 150 years.
Would that mean el Ninos are getting weaker?
No, it wouldn’t, because you are not now comparing el Ninos, you are comparing el Ninos + downward trend in background temperatures.
Detrending the data removes the long-term signal so that you can compare the relative strengths of the el Ninos without the interference of that cooling trend.
Now, instead of a cooling trend we have SSTs with a very slight warming trend (not statistically significant), and we also have the possibility of ‘cycles’ in background temperature – the AMO and PDO you’ve referred to yourself.
We can’t say precisely how these long term background cycles and changes affect NINO3.4 SSTs, but we DO have a way of removing any signal – cycles or long term warming or cooling.
The moving 30-year base period attempts to remove any signal other than ENSO from the record. If there is long term warming, cooling or cyclicity.
If you don’t detrend, you are not going to be able to compare the relative strength of el Ninos la Ninas, and you won’t be able to establish if there has been a general change in their amplitude over time – because you may have other signals in the data that are not just the interannual variability. You may well have longer time climate signals that make those comparisons contaminated.
And that’s why Michelle l’Heureux and co detrend NINO3.4 SSTs to isolate the ENSO signal.
If you don’t wish to compare ENSO events with each other, then by all means use the NINO3.4 SSTs for whatever you purpose you like. But if you want an uncontaminated version of NINO3.4 variability isolated from any other underlying signal, then you use the detrended data set.
If you disagree, could you explain why you think l’Heurueux and all the other ENSO monitoring groups detrend the data when analysing ENSO?
barry: “Why are we getting more extreme maximums”
RLH: “Maximums like the UK is experiencing at the present?”
That is pathetic argumentativeness. I gave you links to worldwide data on record-breaking temperatures, and the record clearly shows more record-breaking hot days than cold for the last 20 years, including the last year and a half of the current la Nina. And you respond with a tabloid news article about less than 1% of the globe.
That is a truly juvenile response from you. Imagine you pointed out that the globe hardly warmed from 1998 to 2014, and I replied by saying, “Oh really? Look at the Arctic.” Would you find that an acceptable rebuttal to your point about global temperatures? Obviously not.
How about clicking on the links? I know you didn’t before.
https://www.mherrera.org/records2.htm
https://www.mherrera.org/temp.htm
Worldwide, there have been far more record-breaking hot days than cold over this last year and a half of la Nina. These are actual “maximums”,
How do you explain that? If la Nina’s depress global temps (and they do in the short term), why are we getting more record-breaking hot days than cold?
There is a correct answer to this, and it is purely statistical – no physics required.
Do you agree that
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-6.jpeg
demonstrates that 1950 is a low point in the record?
Yep. That’s why I would use the ONI data instead of the HadISST as you’ve shown here.
Do you agree that
https://imgur.com/CauL1SE
the period between 1900-1950 shows that a moving 40 year average of ensemble ONI with values greater than 1 are at a low point during that time and when El Nino were therefore at a low point?
I agree that this method shows a mid-century low period for any Nino values over 1.0.
But when you you use 100% of the data instead of 10% of the data, you find that the 1950s were a neutral period.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/ens-oni.jpeg
Why is this? Because mid-century also had la Nina values that hardly went beyond -1.
So what we learn is that the amplitude of ENSO events – in both cold and warm phases – is less in the mid 20th century.
It would be great to have a link to the actual ONI ext data – the values in text form – so I can analyse it in Excel. I’m pretty sure that the mid century period would average out very close to the zero line – as it does in the graph with the ONI 15 yr filter.
If I used HadISST data, though, the mid century average would be well under the zero line. But I wouldn’t use the HadISST undetrended data to compare ENSO events.
“So what we learn is that the amplitude of ENSO events in both cold and warm phases is less in the mid 20th century”
Warm is the abnormal phase. Cool or nothing is considered the normal phase.
This means that the global temperatures are likely to be low in the mid 20th century, as they were.
They are likely to be higher towards the end of the 20th century, as they were.
The problem is what happens now and in the future.
You believe that CO2 will drive everything continuously higher. I don’t. We shall see won’t we.
“But I wouldnt use the HadISST undetrended data to compare ENSO events.”
Why not? All you will have to do otherwise is to remove the differences in the reference periods otherwise to do any real comparison.
A planet surface doesn’t absorb solar energy first, gets warmed and only then emits IR EM energy.
No, a planet surface emits IR EM energy at the very instant solar flux hits the matter.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The pattern of daytime temperature doesn’t support your statements above.
Consider that (at least where I live!) peak insulation occurs at noon but peak temperature doesn’t happen until 3-5 hours later.
p.s.: insulation was meant to be insolation.
Tyson, thank you for your respond!
“The pattern of daytime temperature doesnt support your statements above.
Consider that (at least where I live!) peak insulation occurs at noon but peak temperature doesnt happen until 3-5 hours later.”
Yes, I agree about the peak temperature, it happens 3-5 hours later.
Tyson,
A planet surface doesnt absorb solar energy first, gets warmed and only then emits IR EM energy.
No, a planet surface emits IR EM energy at the very instant solar flux hits the matter.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“A planet surface doesn’t absorb solar energy first…”
For this to be true, the planet’s heat capacity (or specific heat if you prefer) would have to be zero.
I the case of planet Earth, the heat capacity of air is 700; of the average rock is 2,000; and of water is 4,100. Units of Joules per Kg-K.
These all tell us how much thermal energy can be stored in the system. 99.9% of that energy is from the sun.
Perhaps you should ask Graham how energy gets balanced second by second, Christos.
His response will amaze you!
“For this to be true, the planets heat capacity (or specific heat if you prefer) would have to be zero.”
Very good point, thank you!
It is zero, because the solar flux’ INTERACTION with matter is very fast when compared to the surface’s very slow thermal conductivity.
“In the case of planet Earth, the heat capacity of air is 700; of the average rock is 2,000; and of water is 4,100. Units of Joules per Kg-K.
These all tell us how much thermal energy can be stored in the system. 99.9% of that energy is from the sun.”
That’s right! 99.9% of that energy is from the sun.
But the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux doesn’t get absorbed entirely in form of HEAT.
At the very instant of incidence it gets IR EM energy emitted. What is accumulated in the inner layers is the smallest part of that the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux.
And, yes, 99.9% of that accumulated energy is from the sun.
The vast amounts of the not reflected incident on surface solar energy are not accumulated in the inner layers.
When INTERACTING with matter, the incident solar flux’s EM energy INDUCES the skin layer’s surface temperature without being accumulated in (except of a very small amount).
What matter does is to on the very instant of incidence to transform the incident EM energy from incoming SW into outgoing IR.
And, when planet rotates faster, the small amount accumulated is larger.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> But the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux doesn’t get absorbed entirely in form of HEAT.
That should not matter, Christos. What gets in gets out, and what gets it cannot be more than what gets out.
And the more that does not get it, the less gets out.
“It is zero,…”
Enough said!
So for your “theory” to work, you have to assume that the Earth’s heat capacity is zero.
But, you can measure the heat capacity of all the components, water, rock, and air; and they are not zero.
Tyson:
“So for your theory to work, you have to assume that the Earths heat capacity is zero.
But, you can measure the heat capacity of all the components, water, rock, and air; and they are not zero.”
–
“But, you can measure the heat capacity of all the components, water, rock, and air; and they are not zero.”
Of course you can measure the heat capacity of all the components, water, rock, and air; and they are not zero.
The key-word is EM energy INTERACTION WITH MATTER. And, of course, it is not the HEAT conduction process.
A planet surface doesnt absorb solar energy first, gets warmed and only then emits IR EM energy.
No, a planet surface emits IR EM energy at the very instant solar flux hits the matter.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“…a planet surface emits IR EM energy at the very instant solar flux hits the matter.”
Are you saying that the planet surface does not emit IR its night side, when the sun is not shining on that surface?
“Are you saying that the planet surface does not emit IR its night side, when the sun is not shining on that surface?”
At night it emits very little
Tyson, I’ll be back in an hour and half
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> At night it emits very little
What?
“At night it emits very little”
Here’s some recent measured data from NOAA: https://ibb.co/4tLfYRS
Notice:
(1) peak insolation at noon.
(2) peak temperature 5 hours later.
(3) nighttime surface upwelling IR not much different than daytime.
(4) continuous downwelling IR.
Now, show your data refuting all this.
Tyson:
“Now, show your data refuting all this.”
Tyson, before I say anything, please tell me what exactly you see in this graph from NOOA you link to:
https://ibb.co/4tLfYRS
The green line, Christos.
“…tell me what exactly you see in this graph from NOOA you link to”
I see:
(1) peak insolation at noon: top graph red curve.
(2) peak temperature 5 hours later: bottom graph red curve.
(3) nighttime surface upwelling IR not much different than daytime: green curve.
(4) continuous downwelling IR: top graph blue curve.
“I see:
(1) peak insolation at noon: top graph red curve.
(2) peak temperature 5 hours later: bottom graph red curve.
(3) nighttime surface upwelling IR not much different than daytime: green curve.
(4) continuous downwelling IR: top graph blue curve.”
“(2) peak temperature 5 hours later: bottom graph red curve.”
It is air temperature, not surface temperature…
“(3) nighttime surface upwelling IR not much different than daytime: green curve.
(4) continuous downwelling IR: top graph blue curve.”
Please comment… It looks very strange to me…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Just look at the green line, Chirstos.
That’s the upwelling radiation:
https://psl.noaa.gov/iasoa/taxonomy/term
“Please comment… It looks very strange to me…”
Yes, I’m not surprised because I didn’t expect you to be familiar with these data. Regardless, this is a standard presentation of NOAA’s Measured Radiation Quantities, and this particular station has been in operation since June 2003.
I’m exiting this conversation now.
Here’s what I’ve learned about your “theory:”
(1) It requires that the planet’s heat capacity equal zero, even though it isn’t. In fact the heat capacity of water alone is 4,100 J/Kg-K and that is 70% of the surface.
(2) It stipulates that the planet “At night it emits very little” IR, which it doesn’t. In fact it emits quite a bit.
and
(3) You have no data to refute the observed data.
“Im exiting this conversation now.
Heres what Ive learned about your theory:
(1) It requires that the planets heat capacity equal zero, even though it isnt. In fact the heat capacity of water alone is 4,100 J/Kg-K and that is 70% of the surface.
(2) It stipulates that the planet At night it emits very little IR, which it doesnt. In fact it emits quite a bit.
and
(3) You have no data to refute the observed data.”
No, the New theory doesn’t require the planets heat capacity equal zero. I have said:
“What is accumulated in the inner layers is the smallest part of that the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux.”
Planet at night emits very little. Just see the red curve.
I have no intensions to refute the observed data. On the contrary, I would like to understand what the measurements have to say.
Tyson, do you have any Link to NOOA’s commentaries regarding the measurements?
It is very strange to see the upwelling green curve at almost 24 hours constant 400 W/m^2 IR outgoing radiation!
Best regards!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> Just see the red curve.
That’s the downwelling solar radiation, Christos.
You know what “downwelling” means, right?
Willard:
“Thats the downwelling solar radiation, Christos.
You know what downwelling means, right?”
It is the sun, Willard!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Very good, Christos!
Then read back what you wrote –
“At night it emits very little”
This was in response to-
“Are you saying that the planet surface does not emit IR its night side, when the sun is not shining on that surface?”
Tyson is referring to what the Earth emits, not what the Sun emits. The red line is for the Sun.
So check the green line again.
Thank you, Willard.
Do you have any Link to NOOAs commentaries regarding the measurements?
It is very strange to see the upwelling green curve at almost 24 hours constant 400 W/m^2 IR outgoing radiation!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The almost 24 hours constant 400 W/m^2 IR outgoing radiation corresponds to the constant 290K or 17C temperature.
Did South Dakota at 15 July 2022 had constant 24 hours surface temperature of 17C?
Tyson, your link https://ibb.co/4tLfYRS cannot be understood, please explain to us what Graph there tries to say!
https://www.cristos-vournascom
What is so hard to understand about the graph?
So Barry would have it that the El Nino of 2016 had a world wide impact on global temperatures but a similar El Nino in 1878 did not.
This despite the records which show that there was a massive drought in India in 1878 and other effects worldwide.
“It has been clear since the 1980s that the 1877-78 El Nino was intense. ‘Now we have a lot more data,’ says Singh. ‘This event was the strongest El Nino that has occurred since the 1850s.’ Sea surface temperatures remained high for 16 months. That makes it bigger than the huge El Nino’s of 1997-98 and 2015-16.”
“The Atlantic Ocean was also unusually warm from 1877 to 1879. ‘Following the El Nino, it peaked to the most extreme temperatures on record,’ says Singh.”
RLH, you said:
“So it was warmer between 1950 and 1999 because El Nino were more present.”
The period of global temperatures is warmer after 1999 than before it. Despite la Ninas apparently dominating in the latter period.
Please explain.
ENSO has been well established as having a low period in the early to late 20th century. That will mean that anything starting in that period will show a rise since then. Did you not do any maths/statistics?
“Despite la Ninas apparently dominating in the latter period”
Less than 50% is not dominating. More than 50% is for the future according to L’Heureux.
RLH – you’ve just contradicted yourself.
“So it was warmer between 1950 and 1999 because El Nino were more present.”
but then
“ENSO has been well established as having a low period in the early to late 20th century.”
What I think is happening is that you forget what you’ve said, you contradict yourself, because you are argumentative. That’s why your views are incoherent and contradictory.
“Less than 50% is not dominating. More than 50% is for the future according to L’Heureux.”
Let’s quote the article.
“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.”
So you don’t remember who said what in the article.
Furthermore, la Ninas and el Ninos happen, respectively, about 30% of the time. So any increase on 30% is an increase in the frequency of those events.
What does l’Heureux’s analysis say?
“Her own analysis shows that La Nina-like conditions are occurring more often in the last 40 years.”
The 50% bar you’ve set in an invention of your own mind – to be argumentative.
So I repeat.
The period of global temperatures is warmer after 1999 than before it. Despite la Ninas apparently dominating in the latter period.
Please explain.
“So Barry would have it that the El Nino of 2016 had a world wide impact on global temperatures but a similar El Nino in 1878 did not.”
No he wouldn’t because he never said anything like that.
You’re inventing an argument again. You cant help yourself.
You said quite clearly that the EL Nino of 1878 was less in temperature than the one in 2016. Despite there being clear evidence to the contrary.
You’ve moved the goalposts. I said quite clearly that the 1870 el Nino has a strong impact globally. I’ve also said that the two le Ninos were comparable in amplitude.
The world has warmed significantly over the period, so yes, in terms of the global temperature, 2016 was warmer than 1878, even while the 2016 el Nino was of a similar strength to 1878 el Nino.
But it is not warmer in the tropics as you have agreed.
“The Atlantic Ocean was also unusually warm from 1877 to 1879. ‘Following the El Nino, it peaked to the most extreme temperatures on record,’ says Singh.”
RLH you said:
“So it was warmer between 1950 and 1999 because El Nino were more present.”
The period of global temperatures is warmer after 1999 than before it. Despite la Ninas apparently dominating in the latter period.
Please explain.
Let’s quote barry from just upthread.
“You can definitely see the very strong 1878 el Nino in both the Had.CRU4 global data, and also in the BEST global data”
But RLH reckons I don’t think the 1878 el Nino had a global impact, huh?
RLH can’t bloody read.
Does either Had or BEST show a comparable global temperature in 1878 to 2016? No.
Does both Had and BEST claim that CO2 is the driving force in global temperatures ? Yes.
Do you think I suspect that both Had and BEST are unreliable sources? Yes.
Had produces the HadISST NINO3.4 data that you rely on. Yes, it’s adjusted.
So you are happy to use a data set produced by people you think are unreliable.
“Had produces the HadISST NINO3.4 data that you rely on. Yes, its adjusted.”
No it isn’t. The Nino 3.4 data is NOT DETRENDED nor is HadISST. ESNO may well be detrended by the continuing changing reference period it uses but Nino 3.4 is not ENSO.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/ens-oni.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/nino34-6.jpeg
….ENSO may well….
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1335144
“No it isn’t.”
Yes it is most definitely adjusted data. It’s not raw SSTs. Go back and look at the landing page for the paper that describes the methods.
I’ve said it’s not detrended about a dozen times now. In fact, I verified FOR YOU that it is not detrended when you first brought it up here.
You read the word ‘adjusted’ just now but your brain went ‘detrended!’. You have comprehension difficulties. It makes for terrible, boring conversations where you repeat the same thing over and over again.
So you are happy to use a data set produced by people you think are unreliable.
These data are compiled and processed at the Hadley Centre in the UK, and you’ve just said that you can’t rely on them (this is the Had in HadISST and Had.CRU). And yet you’ve been relying on their data for several months now.
What you should do is either reject both data sets, or repudiate your smear of the researchers at the Hadley Centre and accept them both.
To dismiss one and keep the other would be hypocritical and intellectually dishonest.
“Does either Had or BEST show a comparable global temperature in 1878 to 2016? No.”
The globe has warmed in that time, so 2016 is obviously warmer than 1878 in terms of global temps, even though the 2 el Ninos in those years were of similar magnitude.
El Ninos don’t cause long term global warming.
“The globe has warmed in that time, so 2016 is obviously warmer than 1878 in terms of global temps”
But not in the tropics as you have agreed.
So there’s no argument here.
None at all provided that you accept that the maximums do not change.
I accept that the 1878 el Nino is statistically indistinct from the 2016 el Nino.
More analysis is needed to see if el Ninos have changed over the period, and we would need to take care to explain what data set we are using and what this means.
There are various scientific papers which agree that 1878 and 2016 are at least similar in magnitude using various datasets (which I have referenced). Some even conclude that 1878 was larger in magnitude than 2016.
But that does not answer the question of whether there has been a general trend of change in el Ninos over the period. You simply can’t cherry-pick 2 data points to do that analysis.
“El Ninos dont cause long term global warming.”
Ever heard of PWM? An individual short pulse does not change the ‘average’ that much. The ratio between positive (El Nino) and
negative (La Nina) will have an effect on the overall ‘averages’. Especially if the signal is buried in random noise.
These pulses only matter if they are injecting heat into the system. ENSO doesn’t do this. it shifts the heat in the system around.
It doesn’t matter if we get a bunch of cold days leading up to Summer. Summer will still be warmer than all the other seasons, and all those cold days before are not predictive of Summer’s final average. Cold days are weather, Summer is climate.
ENMSO is weather, not climate, and the result of a lot more el Ninos or la Ninas will have a negligible impact on any long term global temperature change.
Which we can already see in the data that we have. Despite more el Ninos 1950 to 1999 (I’m taking your word for this), that period is colder than the last 25-40 years in which there were apparently more la Ninas.
ENSO does not have a hand in long term global temp changes.
To put it another way, more la Ninas won’t stop global warming, because these are noise over a long term signal. A period with more la Ninas or el Ninos will only make a small offset of the time series. Here is a visual.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/mean:13/plot/wti/from:1999/mean:13/offset:0.02/plot/wti/from:1999/mean:13/offset:-0.02
A period of more la Ninas or el Ninos would have a small effect on multidecadal trends that include both the period before and during the period of high Nino/Nina activity. For a 50-year trend where the latter half is dominated by one mode or the other, it would only change the long term trend by a few hundredths of a degree per decade.
You’re trying to argue a big effect on long term global temps, but we already have data to show that this is not so.
Everyone is agreed that on interannual scale, ENSO is the most dominant driver of surface and tropospheric temperature variability.
“These pulses only matter if they are injecting heat into the system.”
Warm and cold water in the system inject or remove heat from that system at the equator, distributing more or less heat towards the poles.
If the PWM signals are small in width then the individual effect they have is quite small. The ratio between them still matters though.
We shall see won’t we. The next few years with all the natural cycles coinciding towards their cooled sides are unlikely to have no effect.
So Barry now claims that more La Nina will not prevent temperatures rising.
“Warm and cold water in the system inject or remove heat from that system at the equator…”
I’m talking about the whole climate system. ENSO doesn’t add or remove heat from the global climate, it just shuffles it around in-system.
“So Barry now claims that more La Nina will not prevent temperatures rising.”
And RLH is talking to me in the third person. Or did you imagine a gallery of onlookers?
Obviously, as ENSO doesn’t add or remove heat from the global climate system, it can’t make long-term change.
More la Ninas will just offset future temps slightly cooler. If there is any external force causing a general long-term change, ENSO can’t stop that happening.
As long as greenhouse gases keep accumulating in the atmosphere, the climate system will warm. Because of physics, not statistics. ENSO will provide the interannual up and downs superimposed on top of that change. More la Ninas would only give us more troughs in a rising trend, and more el Ninos would give us more peaks. That’s all.
> So Barry now claims that more La Nina will not prevent temperatures rising.
Near as I can tell that has been his claim all along, Richard. You’re the only one who can’t seem to figure out that the globe taken as a whole is warming faster than than the tropics generally, and the NINO3.4 region specifically.
“I’m talking about the whole climate system”
So am I. If we have more La Nina (i.e. more cold water) at the equator then there will be less heat next to it in latitude and so on, so the globe overall will cool down. If you like, it will be a more direct connection of the poles to the equator.
“Youre the only one who can’t seem to figure out that the globe taken as a whole is warming faster than than the tropics generally, and the NINO3.4 region specifically”
Any idea of how CO2 can operate on only those temperatures that not at the tropics (which appear to be fairly constant)?
> Any idea of how CO2 can operate on only
Learn how to read, Richard. I wrote, “the globe taken as a whole is warming faster than than the tropics generally, and the NINO3.4 region specifically.”
For why rates of warming might differ by latitude under a sustained regime of monotonically increasing forcing, Wikipedia has a decent enough primer to get you started.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_amplification
CO2 based warming does not take account of which latitude it is at. Although the ‘polar amplification’ is supposed to say that more warming (against a very low starting point) will be greater at the poles it does not say that at the tropics the effects will be zero. The data shows that it is zero (at least since 1878).
So on one hand Barry thinks that El Nino/La Nina effects temperature in short terms only for global results, but he does not think that more of one or the other per decade will have any longer term effects.
How this magic occurs is not explained.
The poles according to UAH since 1979
Artic/North Polar
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-nopol.jpeg
Antarctic/South Polar
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/uah-sopol.jpeg
> CO2 based warming does not take account of which latitude it is at.
It need not for warming rates to differ by locale, Richard. If you read the link provided you may gain some insight why.
That said, CO2 forcing may in fact differ by locale. Antarctica is a good example; at least two studies I know of suggest parts of the continent cool with increasing CO2 due to a “negative greenhouse” effect caused by persistent temperature inversions.
The climate system is more complex than you apparently realize. You should stop insisting that it follow the simplistic and immutable rules you want it to.
> The data shows that [warming] is zero (at least since 1878).
The NINO3.4 box (lat 5S to 5N, lon 120W to 170W) shows a positive linear trend of 0.46 C/century according to ERSSTv5 since 1870, compared to HAD5 global trend of 0.71 over the same interval. Since 1950 the trends are 0.67 and 1.49 C/century respectively.
Some trends may not be statistically significant (I did not test them) but I’ll take a regression as stronger evidence than your obviously feeble method of cherry-picking maxima.
“So on one hand Barry thinks that El Nino/La Nina effects temperature in short terms only for global results”
WRT to global temperatures this view is in line with every single ENSO monitoring group on the planet. In fact, this is where I get my view from so….
“but he does not think that more of one or the other per decade will have any longer term effects.
How this magic occurs is not explained.”
Oh really?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334900
For what other people say you have the comprehension of a gnat and the memory of a fish.
So you think that El Nino/La Nina are just noise do you. Therefore the relative ratios they occur in will not affect anything wrt global temperatures. This despite each individual occurrence causing global temperatures to change appropriately.
This despite also the undeniable fact that in the last 40 years or so we have had more El Nino than La Nina and only now is that situation about to be reversed.
“The climate system is more complex than you apparently realize”
I recognize the complexity. It is you who doesn’t.
You should realize that increasing CO2 has NOT affected the magnitude of the EL Nino as recorded by Nino 3.4 despite there being no mechanism for that fact.
> You should realize that increasing CO2 has NOT affected the magnitude of the EL Nino
1,830 monthly SST records of the NINO3.4 region say it is trending hotter, Richard. You’re plucking two points out of the hat and discarding the rest while simultaneously lecturing others about oversimplifying. Wake up.
> despite there being no mechanism
It’s called “weather”, Richard.
“So you think that El Nino/La Nina are just noise do you. Therefore the relative ratios they occur in will not affect anything wrt global temperatures.”
Richard, I was clear in what I wrote.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334900
I can’t force you to understand it and deal with the nuance, but I can certainly give up trying.
Richard,
“Barry thinks that El Nino/La Nina effects temperature in short terms only for global results, but he does not think that more of one or the other per decade will have any longer term effects.”
What effect do YOU think “more of one or the other per decade” will have on global temperatures over these decades?
John Christy Debunks Climate Models and Extreme Weather Hysteria
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/17/john-christy-debunks-climate-models-and-extreme-weather-hysteria-with-laura-ingraham-on-fox-news/
Nate says:
”But a constant stream of energy from sides of a box of 400w/m2 cant warm a block in the middle o”
Evasion, by changing the subject, Bill, to a different problem with different answers.
——————————-
LMAO! Nate waves his arms is dismay and then runs away and doesn’t want to discuss it!
Again: Example one:
Brick suspended in cube room, 4 walls a floor and a roof all warmed to 290k radiating the brick with 400w/m2 in all directions.
Example two:
Brick suspended in cube room, 2 walls and a floor at 244k, 2 walls and a roof at 290k radiating the brick with 400w/m2 with half its field of view and 200w/m2 of backradiation from the other half of its field of view.
Nate and Swanson says the brick in example one will be 290k and in example two it will be 321k because of back radiation because the cold walls are cooling and backradiating 200watts/m2 at the brick.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Conclusion: On that cold night in North Dakota all I have to do is open a lot of windows and wait for the brick to warm up. . . .right?
bill…or put some ice cubes in water with some instant coffee and voila…a hot coffee. Of course, the alarmists claim radiation is different, ice cubes can actually radiate energy to a warmer body and heat it even more.
That’s why if you to the South Pole mid-winter, radiation from the ice will keep you snug and warm. People who do that tend to die and there are none around to tell us if they warmed up before they died.
Yep Gordon effectively Swanson believes that. He will deny the icecubes of course saying their is no magic radiation in that case.
Reduce the pressures/temperatures around the brick and Swanson believes if you put a cold brick next to the hot brick the hot brick will warm.
I don’t believe Nate believes it. He always makes himself scarce exactly at the time that Swanson swerves off the tracks.
The way it works is exactly how Lord Kelvin explains it.
If you have a hose with typical household water pressure of about 60-80psi. Turn on the hose and it spills a good amount of water out the end.
If you try to put your thumb or palm over the end you will have a hard time stopping it.
Put one of those hose splitter wyes on the end of the hose and half as much will come out of two hoses.
The hose with the splitter is the analogy of a point source of light. The heat losses are coming out of two sides.
Now with the hose with the wye on the end it will be spilling out half as much water out of each branch of the wye as was coming out of the hose without the wye. Both streams are wimpier. Now you can put your thumb or hand over the end of one of the wyes and easily stop its flow. The flow out of the other wye will increase to the same flow as when there was no wye in the line. This is what is seen in the GPE. Eli is correct for the plate in space as described. It is also what Swanson sees in his experiment.
But where Swanson swerves off the road is when he claimed the that with a plate on either side of the 400w/m2 source, the backradiation would warm the BP plate to 320k so that it was emitting 600w/m2. And then proudly points to that as the result of backradiation.
But what happens instead when a plate is added to the other side is the model returns to the original model with the plates warming nothing. They warm nothing because to warm something in this manner you need higher power.
Its like Lord Kelvin says. Put a wye in the water line and you get half the flow out of two hoses. Add in a 4 more wyes (2 in the mainline, and one each in the lines beyond the wye) then take 2 more hoses to connect those wyes back to an extra wye in the mainline results in no change at all.
So what Eli has done is put up something that is correct in order to deceive. He is only telling part of the story. The implication is the blue plate is earth’s surface. But the earths surface does not radiate out of a wye into the center of the earth. The surface under 400w/m2 warms to 290k and it doesn’t matter how many wyes with one branch of the wye feeding back to the surface you have the pressure in each wye remains unchanged. And you have the 3 plate example of 244k-244k-244k
The radiation of each surface in watts/meter2 would be
blue plate: 200 and 200
green plate on the left: 200 and 200
green plate on the right: 200 and 200
Or in the case of a back insulated blue plate with plates placed on the open space side.
All the plates would warm under a 400w/m2 light to 290k
So we are left with a greenhouse effect on earth and how to explain it. Well you have to use the insulated surface model. So the first thing you have to do is recognize that Postma is correct and while the mean radiation is 240K, the radiation is on the lit side is 480k. So here you toss the 3rd grader model where an insulated surface is show producing a greenhouse effect under uniform radiation. Thats complete garbage. And it appears this model has been gradually disappearing as it is complete bunk.
Here is a suppressed study on this. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JGeEd..70..262C/abstract
This shows confusion about the greenhouse effect being widespread. No doubt there are no sources on this paper because it is really embarrassing on what has been elevated as an important to society topic.
Swanson is a victim of it. I don’t think Nate is. Nate would rather display a complete lack of character and credibility and obfuscate instead. Nate though is showing confusion about the outer space model where he has a point source warmed plate warming to 290k with two 244k plates on either side forcing that warming. But at least he doesn’t have that plate warming to 320k like Swanson does.
Hunter wrote:
I don’t recall ever agreeing with that last bit, do show us where I did so.
But in the spirit of your game, lets try one of your scenarios, the brick-in-the-room.
Suppose you live in a one room shack in ND and it’s Winter. When you come home after a hard days work on the line at the local meat packing plant, your shack’s temperature is at 244K (-29C). The wood stove in the middle has also cooled to ambient at 244K. Of course, you want to survive the night, so you start a fire and things warm up so that the walls are at 290K. Hunter thinks that the temperature of the wood stove would also be at 290K instead of some higher number. Surely Hunter the Auditor understands that the temperature of the wood stove must be greater than the temperature of the walls to maintain sufficient heating to keep things warm in the room.
The lesson is that the BP, the brick and the wood stove represent objects provided with energy from an external source. The Cult continues to deny this requirement as they still can’t explain the results of my Green Plate demo without using S-B back radiation.
E. Swanson says:
”I dont recall ever agreeing with that last bit, do show us where I did so.”
——————
I apologize if I was mixing you up with Nate. I gave Nate a pass and perhaps it was you who deserved the pass. But that puts you in diametric disagreement with Nate.
—————
—————
—————
—————
E. Swanson says:
Surely Hunter the Auditor understands that the temperature of the wood stove must be greater than the temperature of the walls to maintain sufficient heating to keep things warm in the room.
—————————-
Sure thats an inverse square distance issue where a hot stove presents a much smaller net radiating surface that the surrounding walls. And when you are measuring heat in watt/m2 there is no way the walls can be as warm as the stove. But the walls can warm the stove if and only if the stove is colder than the walls.
I never had any question about that. I even recently argued that point with Nate on lightbulbs where nate was claiming the backradiation from the globe of the light bulb would warm the filament. Obviously you think Nate is completely bonkers on that.
—————
—————
—————
—————
E. Swanson says:
The lesson is that the BP, the brick and the wood stove represent objects provided with energy from an external source. The Cult continues to deny this requirement as they still cant explain the results of my Green Plate demo without using S-B back radiation.
—————-
That would depend upon how you define backradiation.
Obviously your admission that the 600watts is not achievable via backradiation means that when a plate (say the earth’s surface) is at equilibrium with the energy it is receiving (in the gpe model) it can’t warm above the 400w/m2 even with backradiation giving it another 200w/m2.
Either you agree with me or you agree with Nate and while you may not have directly said what you claim you didn’t say you need to state that clearly now.
Here is Nates take on it: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334057
But if you follow Lord Kelvin’s advice it works like water going through properly sized hoses that has a wye in the main feeder hose. Close one branch of the wye off and all the water goes out the other branch. It doesn’t increase the pressure in the main hose. Close off both branches of the wye pressure doesn’t increase, the flow just stops.
So if you are in agreement with that we are in agreement.
Hunter, No, I don’t agree with you, as you are shape shifting again. Your “Lord Kelvin” bit is followed with:
This batch of numbers ignores the fact that the 200 w/m^2 from the BP to one side of each GP must be split in half to 100 w/m^2 exiting each side of the GPs. The GPs do not receive 400 w/m^2 from the BP, except in your cult’s deluded brains.
Just more confusion to avoid providing a physics based explanation for my GP demo results. Have you decided to bite the bullet and repudiate your endorsement of the heat transfer calculator yet?
OK so you disagree with the Lord Kelvin and are going with Arhennius instead?
you also didn’t mention your disagreement with Nate or explain exactly what your point of view is.
“…a physics based explanation for my GP demo results…”
https://principia-scientific.com/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/#comment-28851
“The lesson is that the BP, the brick and the wood stove represent objects provided with energy from an external source. The Cult continues to deny this requirement ”
I couldnt agree more.
Bill needs to figure out what he is thinking and stick to it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1335544
Hunter the Troll can’t make up his mind. Does he still claim that there’s no “back radiation” from cooler to warmer, or does he recant his former endorsement of his recommended radiation HT calculator tool.
Using that tool, we can see what that means. Lets use 2 plates each 1 meter on a side, separated by 1 mm. The calculated VF is 0.998006, i.e., ~1.0. T1 is the middle BP, T2 is the outer GP (same on both sides with 3 plates).
Case 1, T1 = 244K, T2 = 244K –> q = 0.0
Case 2, T1 = 244K, T2 = 0K (i.e., space) –> q = 200
Case 3, T1 = 244K, T2 = 205K –> q = ~100
Case 4, T1 = 290K, T2 = 0K –> q = 400
Case 5, T1 = 290K, T2 = 244K –> q = ~200
Hunter, you can’t have it both ways, so pick your side.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter the Troll cant make up his mind. Does he still claim that theres no back radiation from cooler to warmer, or does he recant his former endorsement of his recommended radiation HT calculator tool.
——————-
No Swanson there is no ”back radiation” there is just ”radiation”. Back radiation was invented by idiots to give it special qualities. What is heating the BP? Not hard to figure out Swanson, in your experiment absolutely everything in the experiment is being heated by the halogen light. If it weren’t for that light everything in the experiment would be a brick in the room and would be at 19C and do you believe the backradiation is going to warm up the room then? If not why not?
Swanson, I’m joining this subthread without a clear picture of your proposed scenario.
For your: Case 1, T1 = 244K, T2 = 244K > q = 0.0,
That scenario is correct if you have one plate receiving 400 W/m^2. Both plates would be at the same temperature, in the perfect environment.
If you have some other scenario in mind, please explain.
grammie pup, it’s the three plate scenario. The calculator’s “q” works the same with the value produced depending strictly on the plate temperatures.
But, now you insist on adding 400 watts to the middle plate. So, with that assumption, 244-244-244 is impossible, as the calculated value of “q” is still zero. The temperature of the center plate must be larger than the two side plates for the supplied energy to flow thru those plates to the surroundings.
Oh, so 3 plates are involved. That’s why I asked for a clarification.
If 400 W/m^2 goes to the middle plate, and no other energy is involved, then at steady-state, all 3 plates would have the same temperature, 244K. That assumes ideal conditions, no losses, etc.
And yes, Q between the plates would be zero. There is no heat transfer between equal temperatures.
Cult leader grammie, if the two 1×1 m outside (GP) plates are at 244K, they are both radiating away 200 watts toward deep space and 200 watts toward the center (BP) plate. Where does that energy (400 watts per plate) come from, since you agree that there’s no HT from the BP toward the GPs? Sorry, no “magic green arrows” will be accepted in your reply.
willard Jr, you know NOTHING about radiative physics. That’s why you weren’t able to answer the “0.5 emissivity plate” question. So quit trying to fake it.
The energy flows, but there is no heat transfer — no temperature gradient, no heat transfer.
Learn some thermodynamics, when you grow up.
E. Swanson says:
”grammie pup, its the three plate scenario. The calculators q works the same with the value produced depending strictly on the plate temperatures.
But, now you insist on adding 400 watts to the middle plate. So, with that assumption, 244-244-244 is impossible, as the calculated value of ‘q’ is still zero. The temperature of the center plate must be larger than the two side plates for the supplied energy to flow thru those plates to the surroundings.”
———————-
Adding 400w/m2 to the middle plate is a product of your imagination.
The original power source is adding 400w/2 to the middle plate and the middle plate must always have a total constant outflow away from the middle plate of something between 0 and 400w/m2. So there is zero way to add 400w/m2 from those plates and there is no other way to have the outside plates lose 200w/m2 to space.
As I previously said this configuration may not be possible, but not for any reason you are mentioning here. If the plates and the radiation represent a form of insulation which I do not favor but don’t know the answer to then the only thing different would be the two outside plates would be 205K.
So I answered your question and its now your turn to take a position of what you think the temperatures of the 3 plates would be.
Cult Leader grammie pup wrote:
It’s you, grammie, who doesn’t understand thermodynamics. “Heat Transfer” 1, 2 is defined as an energy flow from one location to another.
Hunter the Troll, I answered your previous question, but you apparently can’t understand what dQ/dt = 0 implies. Of course, you still haven’t responded to my question: ” Have you decided to bite the bullet and repudiate your endorsement of the heat transfer calculator yet?”
Your cases modified:
Case 1, T1 = 244K -> q=0, T2 = 244K > q = 200
Case 2, T1 = 244K -> q=200, T2 = 0K (i.e., space) > q = 0
Case 3, T1 = 244K -> q=100, T2 = 205K (i.e., atmosphere) > q = ~100
Lets add a competing space case with a new math that includes wave interference:
Case 6, T1 = 244K -> q=100 +wave interference =100, T2 = 244K (i.e., space)> q = 200
then lets apply some logic.
Empirical observation 1: We know that an aluminum plate is not a thermal insulator but instead an excellect conductor of heat.
Empirical observation 2: We know from experiments that convection is a known insulator.
Empiricial observation 3: We know that when we pumped air out of the chamber everything warmed up.
Empirical observation 4: We know from Swanson Demo 7 that everything warmed plates when air was evacuated from the jar.
Empirical observation 5: We know from Swanson Demo 7 that the GP before evacuation was warmer than the jar.
Empirical observation 6: We know from Swanson Demo 7 that the GP warmed twice as fast as the jar when convection was removed.
Conclusion A: Case 2 is ruled out because 200 watts is being radiated at T2 so it can’t be 0k
Conclusion B: That as expected when convection was removed the both plates warmed. That rules out case 3 because its results are the same as pre-evacuation.
So we are left with case 1 and case 6.
Conclusion C: Case 1 does not have an explanation for its source of energy so it is ruled out.
Conclusion D: Case 6 remains the only case that increases output
Hunter the Troll sure had fun cooking another mess or entrails. Did he run those numbers thru his online HT calculator, or did he just pull those numbers out of thin air? Without some sort of basis for his results, it’s just more BS.
Of course, he jumps from his dreamed up data to some attempt to analyze my GP demo, without a logical conclusion.
For example, Hunter wrote:
NO, idiot, still air is an good insulator, convection is a mode of heat transfer which considerably reduces the insulation effect of still air via motion. He continues:
NO, as I explained, I did not measure the temperature of the bell jar on the illuminated side. The location of the GP would have exposed it to some amount of heat transfer from the illuminated side, even though there was an aluminum baffle between the GP and the illuminated side. Furthermore:
Of course it would. Hunter forgets that the Bell jar is surrounded by a room and air, both at nearly constant temperature, thus the rear of the bell jar warms slowly.
Hunter still refuses to answer my question. How long is he going to keep it up? Is Hunter one of those people who can’t admit a mistake?
E. Swanson says:
Of course, he jumps from his dreamed up data to some attempt to analyze my GP demo, without a logical conclusion.
———————–
which conclusion was illogical Swanson?
———-
———-
———-
———-
———-
———-
E. Swanson says:
2: We know from experiments that convection is a known insulator.
NO, idiot, still air is an good insulator, convection is a mode of heat transfer which considerably reduces the insulation effect of still air via motion. He continues:
———————–
Yes that was a misnomer. Air spaces are good insulators even air spaces that convect, which all do if heat transfer >0. I will confess to misusing a word but it doesn’t change the outcome of your experiment.
———-
———-
———-
———-
———-
———-
E. Swanson says:
Hunter still refuses to answer my question. How long is he going to keep it up? Is Hunter one of those people who cant admit a mistake?
Swanson comments 5 and 6 don’t dispute the observations so no retort is needed as Swanson merely provided a reason for the observation.
And yes I did admit to the mistake I made above but it doesn’t change anything. Are you going to actually dispute one of the Conclusions?
Hunter, your red herring objections focus on the run up period to reach steady state just before lifting the GP. This is just another example of your efforts to ignore what happens after the GP is lifted into position next to the BP. The result is that the BP warms due to the presence of the GP, which you do not explain.
And, you still refuse to answer my question regarding your promotion of the radiation HT calculator, in spite of the fact that it includes back radiation, which you have claimed can not exist.
See my response here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1336583
bill…”So what Eli has done is put up something that is correct in order to deceive. He is only telling part of the story”.
***
You are giving Eli far too much credit. In a rebuttal to a Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper falsifying the greenhouse, Eli et al (Halpern et al) responded in a perverse manner to G&T’s interpretation of the 2nd law, that constrains heat transfer, by it’s own means.
They were talking about two bodies of different temperature close to each other with both radiating EM. G&T quoted the 2nd law, claiming heat transfer between the bodies was constrained to be transferred from the hot body to the cold body only. Eli et al replied that would mean one of the bodies was not radiating.
That is exactly how Eli laid out the BP/GP thought experiment. He is under the impression that heat can be transferred cold to hot, by its own means, hence the GP heats the BP. That’s where Swannie got the idea, leading to his experiment.
Gordon tells a tale in Gordon’s own words. Gordon would have just a little credibility actually using the original author’s words.
As Swanson acknowledges that Vaughan Pratt accepts, the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1333105
Cult Leader grammie pup, I was simply pointing out that Pratt appeared to accept the goofy paper by S&O. If you would read the paper more carefully, you would find that they actually did measure “back radiation” from the outer chamber to the inner one using their IR measuring device. See their Figure 9.
Since I am not disputing the existence of back-radiation, only that it warms, I wonder when your endless misrepresentations will ever cease. I agree with Vaughan Pratt, that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.
Wrong DREMT, atm. back-radiation can warm the Earth’s surface as Vaughan Pratt supports when Pratt writes after showing experimentally: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect.”
Graham clarifies something important:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
He does not clarify what backradiation does, however.
Cult Leader grammie pup wrote:
Ah, is this progress? Perhaps grammie pup would explain what happens to the back radiation which impinges on the warmer plate. Physics and thermodynamics says it can not simply “vanish”, but would be absorbed, depending on the surface emissivity. If grammie pup has an answer, it must be more than his usual assertions that it can’t “warm” the higher temperature plate. Show us your physics, grammie pup, or STFU!
No change in my arguments since the beginning, Swanson. You simply misrepresent me, constantly. My answer is the same as always: I cannot “see” photons to be able to tell you if the back-radiated energy is absorbed, or reflected, from the higher temperature body. All we know is, due to 2LoT, that back-radiated energy cannot raise the temperature of the warmer body.
Cult Leader grammie pup continues to ignore the well known fact in physics that a body which emits thermal IR radiation at a wavelength will absorb incident IR radiation at that wavelength. That absorp_tion is not a function of the source temperature. Of course, the net transfer is going to be from hot to cold. The 2nd Law has nothing to do with that, as the 2nd Law was developed with closed thermodynamic cycles in mind.
Like I said, Swanson, and as Vaughan Pratt agrees: the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. Time for you old die-hards to move on.
E. Swanson says:
Cult Leader grammie pup continues to ignore the well known fact in physics that a body which emits thermal IR radiation at a wavelength will absorb incident IR radiation at that wavelength. That absorp_tion is not a function of the source temperature. Of course, the net transfer is going to be from hot to cold.
——————————–
Which mean precisely that Swanson. The net transfer of energy means that the object cools more slowly not that it is being warmed by the cooler object. The warmer object will only be warmed in this case by an even warmer object. You choose to ignore that in the original scenario an object warmed by a point source of light can cool on the side the point source of light shines. Slow the cooling an the other side and the object will move to equilibrium to radiate on the other side. Add an infinite number of objects on the side opposite the point source and there will be near nil cooling on the unlit side and the object will then be in equilibrium with its point source and be losing energy on the lit side on every pixel in a hemispheric sky except the pixel occupied by the point source.
So you want to play a semantic game that the cooler object is warming the warmer object when in fact it is the point source of light attempting to warm an object and succeeding by limiting net loss on one side
Hunter the Troll wrote:
Hunter continues to fail in his understanding. The center plate in the 3 plate model is receiving energy from an external source. If the two other plates are added, it’s temperature must increase.
The temperature of the center plate isn’t fixed, only it’s rate of energy supply is constant. Your HT calculator is based on fixed temperatures and includes back radiation to calculate the net transfer, which is a different scenario, but one from which one can still learn something.
So, Hunter troll, do you still claim that your calculator is correct? Even grammie pup now agrees that there is back radiation from the GPs, he just can’t say what happens to it. Come on, Hunter troll, make up your mind, does “back radiation” cause the BP “object” to “cool more slowly”?
grammie pups, don’t you live in Britain? How’s the weather these days? Are you going outside and playing music (or whatever) to enjoy the summer weather? Don’t forget to take your sun screen.
Swanson You say that the plate must increase in temperature. But you didn’ say if there was a limit. You disavowed Nate’s 600w/m2 and 321k. You need to be explicit as to if their is a limit and what specifies that limit if you believe there is one.
Hunter the Troll, can you say “steady state temperature”? And, while we are at it, do you still insist that it’s correct to use your “back radiation” calculator? What’s wrong guy, out of breath from dancing around the question or has the cat got your tongue?
swanson if you don;t answer my question I wiil not know what are disagreement is or if we even have one.
I am really not interested in zipping around rabbit trails with about what you seem to believe that I could care less about. Answer the question then I will know if we have a real difference of opinion.
Swanson you have a huge problem of being illogical. There are no Red Herrings as you can’t point out why an observation that has no artificial color to it beyond a fact can be a termed to be artificially ‘red’.
And you have been completely dodging answering my question about what happens to the ‘backradiation’ when it arrives back at the source.
Eli’s model doesn’t tell us. He leaves 100w/m2 unaccounted for in his model.
He is satisfied in using an atmosphere model where the energy gets carried away by convection while claiming it isn’t and while failing to account for 100w/m2 in his diagram. He has 400w/m2 going into the system and only 300w/m2 coming out. His model doesn’t even warm the BP. Eli’s model is the Red Herring. Your experiment is a red herring also as it doesn’t even account for what the incoming is. No light temperature readings, no FOV calculations, etc. I had to get you doing that and it fails right at the point that the GP warms much more than the 50% of the Eli model you continue to rely upon. Why because like yours the radiation of Eli’s model is not fully accounted for.
At least Nate puts his brick in such a large room that he feels he doesn’t need to explain why the brick didn’t produce any warming of the walls and makes his BP 600w/m2 without an experiment to back him up. At least he somewhat accounts for it. But it becomes more ridiculous if one turns one brick into a huge pile of bricks.
Eli’s model is the red herring game you are trying to play by not fully accounting for your backradiation.
The DREMT model deals with the emissions of the target object via wave interference, a well known wave property. You rely upon a broken disproven particle model that can only account for the backradiation via a violation of laws of thermodynamics.
And they won’t do the experiment in space to establish it! Perhaps because all research is funded via a single source that has delegated science funding to the foxes guarding the chicken coup?
So if you don’t want to play, if like Eli you don’t want to account for the backradiation and instead just offer up red herring experiments. . . .keep soldiering on Swanson.
Sure either answer my questions and expose yourself to ridicule or better yet come over to the logical side and get off the religion you are currently ascribing to.
Hunter tosses out more BS, such as this:
Eli calculated the BP temperature at 262 K, for an emission rate of 267 watts/m^2 from the warm side. Using his formula, the temperature of the GP would be 220.3 K, emitting 133.6 watts/m^2. Energy out is 267 + 133 = 400 w/m^2. Where do you get your bogus numbers, out of your rear again?
Hunter continues:
The base case for the BP w/o the GP was 244 K, so the BP warmed to 262 K with the GP, a gain of 18 K, the same as Eli’s math. He continues his rant:
Eli’s model does not say what the GP’s temperature is before it’s placed next to the BP. It could be 2.7K, as it’s in the vacuum of space. Of course, comparing my demo’s results with Eli”s theoretical model is pointless, since I was not attempting to replicate heat transfer in a space environment.
You still refuse to answer my question regarding your promotion of the radiation HT calculator, in spite of the fact that it includes back radiation, which you have claimed can not exist.
A ‘Q’ does not tell you the resultant temperature Swanson. You know that so why are you lying? Answer my questions. If everything is warmer without convection why is Eli’s answer the same as with convection?
If you haven’t figured out why yet. . . .its because the missing 100w/m2 isn’t in his computation and it is what convection carries away in the atmosphere.
Are you actually going to allow yourself to be hoodwinked with that sleight of hand? A sucker is born everyday!
I guess Swanson is still confused. He hasn’t been able to come up with a response.
GRAHAM: I certainly don’t think his “accounting” revolutionizes physics, as I don’t think this is even the part of his “Magnum Opus” where he suggests there is no need for a GHE. Scroll up for a comment on that. I think he was just arguing for a more realistic treatment of the insolation. So I don’t think it makes no difference, but I would lean towards the former of your two options, rather than the latter.
JOE: [T]he mathematics describing this model are inherently self-contradictory and nonsensical, and meaningless. It might be
math, but it is made up, and, it contradicts itself and leads to nonsensical solutions. It might look like physics, but it just isn’t.
GRAHAM: Joe agrees the Earth’s effective temperature is 255 K.
JOE: That the effective Blackbody radiative output balance can be calculated via the Stefan-Boltzmann law is a wonder of modern science, but it is incorrect to equate the effective radiative output temperature to the average radiative input temperature, as is done in the standard model greenhouse, for the geometry is not the same. Day and night exist!
There is no ‘standard’ greenhouse model Willard.
This study in 2013 found that to be the case. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFMED32A..05L/abstract
There are actual models with greenhouse gases, Bill. In some of them the Earth is rotating, there are latitudes, clouds and oceans are moving and other things Joe pretends nobody but him ever thought of. Start with something Graham never dared to look at even after AT suggested he did:
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog_held/3-transient-vs-equilibrium-climate-responses/
Willard if they were standardized you would only need one. Thanks for proving my point.
Take it up with Joe, Bill; it’s his choice of words, not Willard’s.
Take what up with Joe Brandon? Willard just confirmed my statement that their was no standard greenhouse theory. If you disagree you should mount an argument rather than abstaining.
Your previous comment was, “There is no standard greenhouse model Willard.” That’s Joe’s phrasing, not Willard’s. You are directing your complaints at the wrong person. Cheers.
First you said no standard greenhouse model, now you say no standard greenhouse theory.
smooth move
model/theory is the same thing guys. If they are different models or theories one cannot say they are standardized.
I assume the reason that Dr. Richard Lindzen has recommended that the modeling effort be abandoned is its inability to converge on a single theory and it has devolved down to trying to predict long term weather in a non-incremental way. May as well be the government studying the art of underwater basket weaving. . . .a huge waste of taxpayer dollars.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution
h/t Judy
Brandon, please stop trolling.
Well their are some standard protocols of a greenhouse theory.
Lets look at the brick in the middle of a room example. The brick is being warmed by many square meters of walls, floor, and ceiling at the rate of 400w/m2. We know the brick in this instance will warm to 290k and radiate 400w/m2 back at the walls based upon the dimensions of the brick.
We take that to the 3rd grader radiation model where the mean power absorbed from the sun is 240w/m2. So now we have a room whoses sides are both radiating 240w/m2 and somebody proposes in this model that the brick (the earth) will warm. Why does the earth warm and the brick does not? Nate?
Forgot this small note –
What Joe presents as the The Standard Atmospheric Greenhouse Model is in fact an energy balance model that does not feature greenhouse gas at all.
Also, what Joe presents as a “postulation” is in fact an inference, and inference that is anterior to the energy balance model too boot.
You do rabbit on with all sorts of indecipherable nonsense, don’t you Willy?
You really should proof read your posts, you know. Otherwise, readers might think you really intended some cunning ploy when you wrote “. . . energy balance model too boot.”, rather than just exhibiting your usual sloppy English expression.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You saay –
“You really should proof read your posts”
Whyy?
W
Why indeed. Its never been proven anyone has ever taken your comments off their pay no never mind list.
Thank you for not caring about the only comments to which you comment, Fernandoo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Superdeveloping Triple Dipper La Nina Hurricane effect
https://youtu.be/tX_Q4JJKVrg
Didn’t you know, more La Nina means that global temperatures are rising, according to Barry.
Please don’t speak for me, RLH. You always get it wrong.
You have said that global temperatures are rising and that more La Nina will not stop that happening.
Yes, that is what I said. For once you got it right.
Your previous comment got it wrong.
Didnt you know, more La Nina means that, regardless, global temperatures are rising, according to Barry.
I do not think that more la Ninas will cause global warming as you are suggesting.
I think global warming will still occur DESPITE more la Ninas.
You don’t have the intellectual wherewithal or honesty to characterise my views correctly. Don’t speak for me. You are useless at it.
“I think global warming will still occur DESPITE more la Ninas.”
So you think that more cooler water at the equator will lead to more global warming. We shall see.
We are only just now getting to the point of 50% La Nina (i.e. less than 50% El Nino in the Pacific) so if that is what the future actually brings I suspect you are wrong. And the AMO and PDO are about to have a negative trends starting now.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/amo-trended.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/pdo.jpeg
“will lead to” replaces “despite”, despite RLH being corrected twice.
RLH seems determined to lose the last bit of credibility he had left.
So despite there being more cold water at the equator, this will lead to even more global warming?
And despite the fact we have only just now (at the end of this year or so) achieved 50% La Nina in the last 40 years all we get is the observation that more El Nino were present until now. Do you ever think?
“So you think that more cooler water at the equator will lead to more global warming.”
No!
“So despite there being more cold water at the equator, this will lead to even more global warming?”
No!
You got it right once in this thread.
“You have said that global temperatures are rising and that more La Nina will not stop that happening.”
I think global warming will continue DESPITE more la Ninas, NOT BECAUSE OF more la Ninas.
This is the third time I’ve explained it to you, and it is elementary school level comprehension.
What is wrong with you, Richard?
clint…”RLH is NOT on our side. Hes anti-science, and wrong on every issue. He deceives you by his constant fight with Bindidon, but hes in a constant fight with everyone”.
***
I am clear that he’s not on my side. Clint…you need to go visit places like the English midlands or New Zealand to see what I mean.
I met a guy in New Zealand, a displaced UK type, and he was a really good guy. At least, he was if you could put up with his anti-everything stance. He’d give you the shirt off his back but he just had to argue everything. The UK, New Zealand, and Oz are loaded with those types.
Virtual communications is a really poor way to measure anyone up, whether it’s posting, emails, or texting. Even the phone can be misleading since you have no facial expressions to see if someone is pulling your chain.
An example. I have a dear lady friend and she is forever giving me heck during phone calls for my attitude. Recently, I visited in person and made a typical politically-incorrect comment for which she berates me on the phone. She got mad at first but then she started to laugh. She could tell by the look on my face that I was only kidding her.
When Richard argues the ball on a string model, a guy would have to be seriously stupid to keep opposing that example repeatedly using on-liners. It’s so blatantly obviously true as a proof that the Moon does not rotate about a local axis.
Half the time on here, I am kidding people but I don’t explain that. Sometimes I’ll throw in a smiley, but I don’t give a hoot how I am taken. I have been on too many blogs where real trolls were performing and I learned the hard way to ignore them.
Having said that, I am not kidding about climate change crap, Einsteinian evolution, Big Bangs, or evolution.
“but he’s in a constant fight with everyone”
No I am not. I just reserve my right to put forward my point of view.
Sorry RLH, but you try to argue with everyone. You’re the troll with the most comments EVERY month. You have nothing else to do, and you’re anti-science.
Scientists believe that orbits are not governed by a ball-on-a-string.
rlh…”I just reserve my right to put forward my point of view”.
***
I have no problem with that but when we were discussing the Moon problem you went on and on with the same mantra about the ball on the string. You are welcome to your POV but when you refuse to interact with explanations of your POV, like in the Moon issue, you come across as trying to instigate.
I have been partly following your arguments re statistics and I think you are right with whatever you claim. Binny is way out of his league and is simply being stubborn. I think you make good comments on La Nina and it makes me wonder why you insist on offering one-liners on other issues, like the Moon’s rotation.
The ball on a string is a perfect example of a body constrained to keep the same face pointed at it’s orbiting axis. That’s why it was introduced, like the wooden horse bolted to the floor of the carousel. You refused to consider the model in that context and kept repeating a mantra denying it.
That’s not putting forward your personal view, it’s a form of trolling, along the lines of Willard, who is good at trolling.
“he same mantra about the ball on the string”
A ball-on-a-string is the same as a stick-rotating-about-one-end is the same as a section-of-a-disk and all have nothing to do with orbits you mean?
That is a set of provable facts.
You’re the man who claims that barycenter’s do not exist despite them being exactly what Newton’s 3rd law requires.
A planet surface doesnt absorb solar energy first, gets warmed and only then emits IR EM energy.
No, a planet surface emits IR EM energy at the very instant solar flux hits the matter.
–
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
Christos incorrectly writes “There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature” because Christos simply ignores the 5.5 quadrillion tons of earth’s atm. & its resulting radiation in the mean surface temperature equation. In reality earthen measured:
Tse Te = 288K – 255K = 33K observed earthen GHE
Christos won’t write correct physics until he adds in the atm. radiation to the mean surface temperature equation so that it matches measurements of the earthen GHE.
The mistake here is comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere.
The 255K is the temperature of the surface of an imaginary sphere. That temperature has NOTHING to do with Earth, which rotates, has heat capacity, and does NOT absorb all infrared arriving its surface.
The 255K figure is bogus, making the 33K figure also bogus.
Funny but the Earth is not an imaginary sphere Clint, the earthen 255K is measured with real data. Postma/DREMT agree to the 255K correctly for the always lost Clint R in threads above.
Postma agrees that the Earth’s effective temperature is 255 K, however he maintains that this temperature was never meant to be compared with the temperature of the Earth’s surface. As far as he is concerned, the Earth is the temperature it is supposed to be. No need for a GHE.
However, I don’t speak for Postma, and he does not speak for me. Better to read what he has to say for himself, written by himself. As for me, I keep an open mind.
Troll Ball4 just makes claims he can’t support. Then he tries to twist and spin reality to match his false beliefs. He can’t define where Earth’s “real 255K surface” is, because Earth does NOT have a “real 255K surface”.
He always fails. Reality always wins.
Clint R should notice Postma/DREMT just agreed with me again at 1:10pm that in reality the Earth does have an effective temperature Te = 255K.
Clint is humorously wrong again, oh the laughter. That is so obvious when Clint adds conserved energy fluxes to solve a balance problem after previously claiming adding energy fluxes is “bogus nonsense”.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1335095
Ball4, “effective temperature” refers to the temperature of an imaginary sphere.
Once again Clint R, the earth is not an imaginary sphere.
Postma/DREMT’s “the Earths effective temperature (Te) is 255K” is measured observing the real Earth. Reality does win. Clint R loses.
Postma was referring to a calculated temperature, Ball4.
This is another great example of what “braindead” looks like.
Ball4 is claiming Earth’s “effective temperature” is 255K. He thinks the “255K” means more than it does. The 255K comes from the calculated value for an imaginary sphere receiving 960 W/m^2. When I try to explain that to Ball4, his answer is Earth is not an imaginary sphere!?!?
Correct braindead4, Earth is NOT an imaginary sphere, so the 255K is bogus, making the 33K also bogus.
“The effective temperature of a body such as a star or planet is the temperature of a black body that would emit the same total amount of electromagnetic radiation.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature
(Ball4 won’t be able to understand ANY of this. He’s braindead.)
B4,
Never trust the captain of Team Joe unless he provides receipt.
If he is here to promote the Magnum Opus, why would he not quote it?
“Postma was referring to a calculated temperature, Ball4.”
Postma/DREMT ref. calculations then are reasonably correct since in agreement with the experimental measurements confirming real earthen global effective temperature Te = 255K.
—-
“Ball4 is claiming Earth’s “effective temperature” is 255K.”
And such claims agreed to by Postma/DREMT earthen effective temperature is 255K as calculated; then subsequently measured experimentally so Te 255K is confirmed.
The effective temperature of a body such as a real planet emits a unique value very close to the solar forcing over time, so for real Earth with heat capacity, clouds, day/night, L&O surface etc. the effective temperature has been measured experimentally at Te = 255K thus Postma/DREMT are correct for Te = 255K as supported by theory (calculations).
The Earth does not emit blackbody radiation to be measured, Clint, because the Earth is not enclosed by an opaque cavity so Clint is laughingly wrong yet again.
Clint R remains a great source of physics gaffes at which to laugh. I’m sure the laughs will continue from the great entertainer screenname Clint R.
As stated, Ball4 won’t be able to understand any of my above comment. So, to ensure clarity:
Yes, Earth is not a black body. Its surface temperature can NOT be meaningfully compared to an imaginary sphere. The 33K has NO significance, and Earth has no real 255K surface.
Clint should now learn from Postma/DREMT about the actual Earth’s real effective temperature of 255K to take the next serious step; but I doubt that will happen, more entertaining laughing at Clint’s physics gaffes.
Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K observed earthen GHE.
There is no “Postma/DREMT” entity, Ball4. There are two separate entities, Postma and DREMT, with differing ideas and perspectives, each only to be understood through their own words.
The captain of Team Joe hears the crow crow.
DREMT 6:54 am, there are two different screennames Postma/DREMT both having the same ideas and perspectives on the Earth’s effective temperature Te=255K as DREMT pointed out previously.
No, Ball4, my perspective on what is the Earth’s effective temperature: not sure. Postma’s perspective: 255 K, but not to be compared with the surface temperature.
So there is no greenhouse effect because you can not compare the 255 K radiant temperature of the Earth with the measured average surface temperature of 288 K.
Got it, I’ll remember that in case there is a quiz.
OK, bob.
Ball4 is negative, as usual!
–
Ball4 doesn’t know about Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon either!
–
Ball4 hides his identity behind Ball4!
–
Let’s guess who is hiding behind Ball4!
–
A troll of course!
–
–
Ball4, please stop trolling!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is explained correctly for Christos here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/
Ball4 is negative, as usual!
Ball4 doesnt know about Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon either!
Ball4 hides his identity behind Ball4!
Lets guess who is hiding behind Ball4!
A troll of course!
Ball4, please stop trolling!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earths Without-Atmosphere Corrected Effective Temperature calculation Te.correct.earth = 210 Κ
Earth’s Corrected Effective Temperature is Te.correct.earth = 210 Κ
To calculate Earth’s Corrected Effective Temperature we should use the following data values
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Φ = 0,47 solar irradiation accepting factor (dimensionless)
a = 0,306 Earth’s average albedo
So = 1.361 W/m, solar flux on the top of the Earth’s atmosphere
Earths Without-Atmosphere Corrected Effective Temperature Equation Te.correct.earth is:
Te.correct.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Te.correct.earth = [ 0,47 (1-0,306) 1.361 W/m /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.earth = [ 0,47 (0,694) 1.361 W/m /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.earth = ( 1,957.367.636,68 )∕ ⁴ = 210,34 K
Te.correct.earth = 210,34 K
or
Te.correct.earth = 210 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Notice:
The planet Corrected Effective Temperature is a mathematical abstraction, it is the same abstraction as before, only it is corrected by the use of the corrected
Planet TOTAL radiative ENERGY IN value, which is
πr^2 Φ(1-a)S (W)
where Φ=0,47 for smooth surface planets and moons, Earth included
and Φ=1 for heavy cratered planets and moons, and Φ=1 for gases planets and moons
instead of the previously wrongly estimated
πr^2 (1-a)S (W)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, Earth’s planetary effective temperature is measured at 255K. Your calculation won’t be correct until the result agrees with experiment.
Ignoring ALL the radiation from the about 5.5 quadrillion ton earthen atm. is a reason Christos gets the wrong answer for the earthen GHE.
Earth doesn’t have a “measured 255K surface”. Poor Ball4 often gets confused.
Earth is not a black body. Its surface temperature can NOT be meaningfully compared to an imaginary sphere. The 33K has NO significance, and Earth has no real 255K surface.
Funny, but the Earth is not an imaginary sphere Clint.
Postma/DREMT write the Earth’s effective temperature is 255K, so Clint needs to learn more about such physics to avoid Clint’s many physics gaffes.
There are not one, but TWO MAJOR MISTAKES should be CORRECTED in order to maintain the Planet Mean Surface Temperature Equation:
1) The HUGE correction of the planet radiative ENERGY IN estimation
instead of (1-a)S
the
Φ(1-a)S
where Φ is the Planet Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor
and
2) The use of the very powerful the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
which states:
Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
When correctly calculated Earth’s mean surface temperature without the need of its thin atmosphere’s very tiny and very insignificant greenhouse effect (that is why we say there is not any)
When CORRECTLY calculated (287,74K) Earth’s mean surface temperature is theoretically estimated very much close to the satellite measured
Tsat = 288K
Please compare:
Tmean = 287,74 and Tsat = 288K
They are almost identical!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If you want to convince the scientific community that you are serious about the albedo corrector you introduces, Christos, you need to be able to distinguish upwelling and downwelling radiation.
I think scientists already know that the planet rotates.
“the satellite measured Tsat = 288K”
No Christos. Surface thermometers measure the global mean 288K converted to Tse=288K. The measurements include the earthen atm. GHE and Christos totally ignores the downwelling radiation from the about 5.5 quadrillion ton earthen atm. so obtains the wrong answer.
Satellites are in orbit! Satellites measure the Earth’s effective temperature at Te = 255K.
Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K observed earthen GHE.
To be analytically correct, Christos needs to drop fudge factor phi and add the downwelling radiation from the actual atm. so Christos’ calculations reasonably align with the experimental measurements.
Thank you Willard, thank you Ball4!
Please visit my site for a while!
I’ll be back in two hours and half.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, Willard, for your comment.
You see now how serious I am.
–
Thank you, Ball4, for your interest and support.
The Φ factor is a universal the planet shape and roughness coefficient.
The Φ factor “works” for every planet and moon, and not only for Earth, you might have thought – that is why it is universal.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ball4:
“Christos totally ignores the downwelling radiation from the about 5.5 quadrillion ton earthen atm. so obtains the wrong answer.”
Earth’s atmosphere is very thin.
Actually, people die at high altitudes, because there is not enough air to breath, there is not enough atmosphere.
High altitudes are only few kilometers above.
There is not enough atmosphere above to support 400 W\m^2 downwelling IR emission.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Wrong Christos Vournas. https://ibb.co/4tLfYRS There is enough atmosphere above to support 400 W\m^2 downwelling IR emission
Your hopium is tiresome
Have you, Tyson, ever been at 1km elevation?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas, here is actual measured data for 1.689 km elevation:
https://ibb.co/1LLFBnc
Where is your data for 1km elevation?
Corrected for state name, Colorado, not Montana.
here is actual measured data for 1.689 km elevation:
https://ibb.co/Xz4bNSh
Again, where is your data for 1km elevation?
Shall we continue tomorrow?
It is 12:36am in Athens, Greece – time for me to go.
Good night.
Hi Tyson!
Well I have no data for downwelling IR radiation
I will try comment on the data you have provided
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
https://ibb.co/4tLfYRS
Colorado, 1.689 km elevation:
https://ibb.co/Xz4bNSh
What I see is that in both cases the downwelling IR radiation is almost constant around
400 W\m^2
What I don’t understand is how it comes the downwelling IR radiation remaining almost constant for 24 hours (day and night)?
Another question is, how it comes the elevated place in Colorado at 1.689 km elevation having the same 400 W\m^2 downwelling IR radiation as the place Sioux Falls, South Dakota?
Tyson, can you please provide with more sites (with their elevations) measured downwelling IR radiation for having them compared?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas please start a new thread at the bottom with your questions.
The short answer to all your questions is that you’re not reading the graphs properly. No, downwelling IR is not “almost” constant, it varies with air temperature as theory tells us. It is also lower at higher elevation, again as theory predicts.
No, I will not provide you with more locations. Need I remind you that you are the one proposing that we throw out all we know about atmospheric radiative transfer and therefore the burden is on you to provide your evidence.
Just because you repeat the same thing over and over doesn’t make it true.
Willard:
“I think scientists already know that the planet rotates.”
Yes, and the planetary rotation is a powerful the planet surface warming factor:
Planets mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This is just hopium
To quote former White House council Pat Cipollone,
“one simple question – where is the evidence?”
Tyson, it is an observation.
Please visit my site, I have demonstrated it there on many planets and moons in solar system.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, Christos. That’s not an observation. That’s a judgment.
Willard:
“No, Christos. Thats not an observation. Thats a judgment.”
What shall I do if it is not an observation, and how it comes it is a judgement?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Algebra tells us that the average temperature to the fourth power does not equal the average of the individual temperatures each to the fourth power.
Also, the closer to each-other the individual temperatures are (for the same total fourth power outcome), the higher is the average temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Hey, college students! You can make a quick $2000 (All you have to do is write lies about climate change)
Hey college students, want to make an easy $2,000? Because after Anthony Watts failed to receive a single student submission for his “do my job for me” contest of writing climate disinfo, he’s trying again, re-opening up the “contest” in hopes of receiving a submission from anyone in a demographic that doesn’t remember where they were when they heard that JFK was assassinated.
The topic is “Is there really a climate crisis?” and in case you were wondering, the answer they’re looking for is “No.”
You have until August 15th to put together your best impression of a climate denier, and send your draft over to Tony.
Second place is an $800 reward, and both prizes include an autographed copy of Watt’s book.
So please, submit something, anything, because at this rate it feels like if he doesn’t prove to his funders that he’s serving climate disinfo to children, Tony will be piling those books up in a van and bribing schoolchildren at recess to take them by offering them free candy.
(Oh, and please let us know if you do submit something, because… lol.)
maguff…”The topic is Is there really a climate crisis? and in case you were wondering, the answer theyre looking for is No.”
***
Any intelligent, well-informed person knows the answer must be no.
Meanwhile, here in the UK, the climate whining is in full swing. A few typical hot summer days, and the BBC is in full doomsday mode – about two thirds of yesterday evening’s news focused on the weather we’re having, and nothing about for example about what’s going on in Ukraine!
Melting tarmac? Nothing new there, it’s always done this in summer’s heat. Buckled railway lines? Nothing new there, either. I’m in my seventies, I’ve always lived here, and there’s nothing at all unusual about this summer. As always, we’ve had a miserable cold winter and spring – nothing new there. Even if we were experiencing a wet summer (nothing new there either), no doubt the doomsayers would be out in force as well finding some dubious reason to justify ‘climate change’ – all caused by mankind, of course.
On the BBC news, an American tourist was asked what she thought about the English weather. She laughed, saying that she couldn’t understand what the fuss was about – the USA gets much hotter in summer. I was surprised that the BBC didn’t edit this clip out.
Yeah, get a dumbass American quote, she is bad at geography, not knowing that London is as far north as Calgary, Alberta.
West and East of large ocean basin at the same latitude produces different climates.
A few typical summer days indeed:
> Record breaking temperatures for the UK
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2022/red-extreme-heat-warning-ud
“West and East of large ocean basin at the same latitude produces different climates.”
Well, I wasn’t doing that was I?
We have some climate refugees now don’t we, or do you still count them as refugees when they are 6 feet under.
It is not as though heatwaves are unknown in the UK
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/history/remembering-long-scorching-summer-1976-24526001
though this one (2022) appears to be short and sharp, 8 weeks versa a few days.
“Well, I wasn’t doing that was I?”
Just observing that latitude is not everything.
London is into the 40s now, for the first time ever, so it’s not like this has happened before in England, or that it regularly happened in the past.
And those previous heat waves, merely in the low to mid 30s.
This is not your grandfather’s jack the ripper.
“Nearly five decades on, those scorching eight weeks of unbroken sunshine reside in the collective memories of everyone who lived through the time. The sun blazed in cloudless skies over Britain from the last week in June, right through July, until the final few days of August.”
Eight week of 30+ degrees versa a couple of days over 40.
I have lived though over 40 before in Portugal and it all depends on the humidity. Currently at 54% and its going to rain tonight or so the BBC says.
If it’s 104 with 54% humidity, better be inside with AC or you are in danger of heat stroke and death.
And you are not comparing the climate of Portugal with Great Britain?
The point was that a couple of days is easily beaten out by 8 weeks.
Fair point. A single, short, localized T spike is hard to attribute to climate change.
Similarly, in comparison to a century of global climate change, one warm winter in 1878, in the middle of the Pacific, is a localized T spike, and hard to attribute to climate change, or lack thereof.
1878 was felt world wide, not just in the central Pacific.
The global T in 1878 was higher than current values?
Tyson McGuffin: why don’t you write a critique of Watts’ book, fully referenced, with your arguments against the points that he makes? Demonstrate that he’s misinformed, and let him answer your points, one by one.
That way you’d be conducting a courteous and proper scientific debate, but given your post, I can only conclude that you find it easier and much more enjoyable to indulge in juvenile inanity.
Watts has made his views public, they’re there for all to read and see. He’s made his contribution – what’s yours?
You may or may not agree with him, but it would be plain good manners to refrain from calling him a liar. Grow up.
Title: Climate at a Glance for Teachers and Students: Facts on 30 Prominent Climate Topics
Language: English
Paperback: 81 pages
Author: Anthony Watts
Anthony Watts is not a climate scientist.
Anthony Watts studied Electrical Engineering and Meteorology at Purdue University, but he did not graduate
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts
https://sourcewatch.org/images/4/4d/Anthony_Watts.pdf
Cherry-picking is not science. Strawman arguments are not science. Misrepresentations are not science.
No scientific organization anywhere in the world supports the opinions promoted by this book.
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
“No scientific organization anywhere in the world supports the opinions promoted by this book.”
You mean organizations like this one claiming the non-problem climate change is solvable?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/17/easily-solvable/
Do any of those organizations have any data showing that an increase in CO2 will raise global temperatures?
Start here with Dr Roy Spencer, Ph.D., of UAH: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
(I’ll just address item 1, as my entire comment was too long.)
Correct, the GHE violates 2LoT.
2LoT does not involve energy flow, per se. It involves a specific energy flow called “heat”. Photons can flow in any direction. The violation of 2LoT comes when “cold” is raising the temperature of “hot”. That does NOT happen, without the exact support from exterior means.
Putting cold clothes on a warm body would not raise the body’s temperature.
(Above was actually item 2. Here’s item 1.)
THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT.
Correct.
300 W/m^2 is about the temperature that ice emits. It would NOT be able to raise Earth’s average 288K temperature.
A handheld IR thermometer pointed at a clear sky would result in temperatures much colder, such as -40C
Other key points:
CO2 COOLS, NOT WARMS, THE ATMOSPHERE.
Correct.
CO2 emits to space, but the emission back to Earth can NOT raise surface temperature.
THE IPCC MODELS ARE FOR A FLAT EARTH.
That depends on which model is being discussed. Some models are for an imaginary sphere, which is as bad as a “flat Earth”.
THE EARTH ISN’T A BLACK BODY.
Correct.
That means the “33K” is nonsense.
300 W/m^2 is about the energy flux that ice at 32F emits.
Since Clint R previously showed fluxes adding with the 0.5 emissivity plate in space solution, added flux from the atm. way above the flux of space alone CAN raise the Earth’s surface temperature to global mean 288K way above the Earth’s effective temperature of 255K.
Good job Clint, fluxes do add to conserve energy per sec per m^2. Go back to Clint’s own solution of the 0.5 emissivity plate in space to check it out. Like Vaughan Pratt writes: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect.”
Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K observed earthen GHE.
“That does NOT happen, without the exact support from exterior means.”
It’s got that, it’s the Sun, stupid.
Like Vaughan Pratt writes: “What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should“.
DREMT, by “It” Pratt means any lab experiment ignoring the lapse rate cannot debunk the GHE. Based on his proper experiments & not ignoring the lapse rate, Pratt concluded: “Infrared trapping materials can clearly have a very significant warming effect.”
Also, as Clint R showed in his example problem, fluxes do add to conserve energy per sec per m^2 & Postma/DREMT correctly write Earth’s effective temperature is 255K = Te. Earth’s global surface temperature Tse is measured at 288K.
Earthen Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K observed earthen GHE.
P1) Vaughan Pratt still claims that there is a GHE.
P2) VP has stated that the back-radiation version of the GHE is debunked.
C) VP is arguing for the existence of a different version of the GHE than the back-radiation version.
You can repeat your “infrared trapping materials” quote as often as you like. Clearly, in VP’s opinion, whatever the “very significant warming effect” is, it is not caused by back-radiation.
Postma agrees that the Earth’s effective temperature is 255 K, but that this should not be compared with the surface temperature. I am not sure what the Earth’s effective temperature is, since I have read that due to Holder’s Inequality it should be significantly less than 255 K, and I have read that ignoring Holder’s Inequality but using a different value for the Earth’s albedo, it should be higher than 255 K.
(1) There’s no such thing as a “backradiation version of the greenhouse effect.
(2) Graham uses “version” as a weasel word that conceals Joe’s strawman about some kind of “greenhouse model,” a mere zero-dimensional energy balance model that does not include greenhouse gases.
(3) Vaughan was talking about an account, which context means an explanation used in various scientific vulgarization endeavours.
(4) Graham uses Vaughan’s quote to get at Eli’s thought experiment, which was meant to prove that colder objects could make warmer objects hotter, not to model the greenhouse effect in general.
(5) Vaughan does not dispute Eli’s point. Graham should know this by now. Whatever his knowledge states, we have been over this a few times now. He simply soldiers on.
(6) Graham clearly does not like Eli’s thought experiment, for one of his first sock puppets mocked Eli’s real name. In fact he first appeared at Joe’s around the time Eli published it. That was 69 months ago, almost 70 months ago.
1) is incorrect.
2) is a false accusation.
3) is incoherent.
4) is a misrepresentation of the GPE, which is clearly meant to promote the concept of back-radiation warming, no matter what E-Lie claims it was about.
5) is an assertion with no evidence in support of it.
6) is irrelevant.
…and that is why I have put Willard on automatic PST.
Willard, please stop trolling.
1. Pure contradiction. The onus is on Graham to present a coherent case instead of hiding behind weasel wording.
2. Obviously true statement, and obviously correct description of his modus operandi as captain of Team Joe.
3. Fairly obvious to understand, but Graham returns to playing dumb when he has nothing much to contribute.
4. Reading the first paragraph to he post suffices to show that Graham resorts to false accusation.
5. Pure sealioning. Confer to the quote B4 keeps repeating,
6. Most relevant to understand that Graham is simply trolling. Witness how he *again* fails his own commenting policies. He just cannot resist.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Thank you for his other win, Graham..
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gavin Schmidt is not a climate scientist. In fact, he is not a scientist of any sort.
Michael Mann is not a climate scientist. He is a geologist. Also a fraud, faker, scofflaw a and deadbeat.
Climate is just the average of weather parameters over an arbitrary time. I suppose you think this is science.
Ho ho ho!
Mike, Mike,
Gavin helps build code that is more robust that anything your oil companies ever need.
Climate models has NOTHING to do with crap Graha, and Pup whined about for years.
Weather is an instantiating of climate, BTW, so get your put down straight.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tyson McGuffin:
I haven’t read Watts’ book. Why don’t you review the points he makes for the benefit of prospective buyers, and why you disagree with them? I would be genuinely interested to know what he says that you disagree with so strongly.
In your post you say that ‘Cherry-picking is not science. Strawman arguments are not science. Misrepresentations are not science’.
Also, you say ‘No scientific organization anywhere in the world supports the opinions promoted by this book’.
These are generalisations from yourself. The devil however is in the detail – what misrepresentations are you referring to, exactly?
I, unlike you, have read the book. It’s 81 pages long, it’s a good easy read while sitting down for one vowel movement.
Your education is not my responsibility.
P.s. Did I mention it’s a children’s book?
There’s a free PDF copy of Watts’ book linked on the Heartland site.
Broadly it’s a collection of selective factoids that support the “AGW isn’t a problem” perspective, and probably not contains nothing you haven’t seen elsewhere. If one cared they could probably map each chapter to a Skeptical Science counterargument link.
In this sense, it mirrors much of the public debate, such as it is, in that is what I’d call a “lawyer style”. That is, one presents a case leading the viewer to a desired perception by presenting favorable “evidence” while minimizing or ignoring contrary evidence.
In a quick look, one of my favorite bits that seems to have slipped past the editors is the section on sea level rise. In this section Watts presents an argument that sea level rise is not accelerating and then goes on to show an attribution graph from a Dr Spencer blog post that uses a two segment piecewise linear fit which gives the impression of a change, some might say an acceleration, in the rate of sea level rise.
Tyson McGuffin: you haven’t supplied anything in the way of a sensible or informative comment about Watts’ book.
I’m not surprised.
I suspect that you haven’t actually read it, or that at best you’ve probably just read the gist of it without checking or following up the points made.
Mark B: thank you for your comments. I have now obtained a copy, and will read it during the next few days.
Carbon 500, your opinion is duly noted.
I also note that you defended watts’ book and attacked my post even though you haven’t even read the book yet!
I’m not sure if dogma or hubris is your driver, but either way, you’ve shown your true self.
In fact, I get the impression that you didn’t even know this book existed until I mentioned it!
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Ask me again , where is the superdeveloping La Nina ???
https://youtu.be/cPD7PVITpaE
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-936851
Here it is, babbling Edog:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
Or alternatively
https://www.climate.gov/media/14646
I’m so glad we have somebody here to predict the past
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-736483
As you perfectly know, babbling Edog, I don’t predict the past: I only observe it.
And you neither are able to predict the future, let alone would you be able to observe the past.
All you are able to do is to post youtube blah blah, to insult, to discredit, and… to post predictions made by others.
You (Blinny) also won’t admit that my use of CTRMs and S-Gs is exactly as recommended by others, namely Vaughan Pratt and Nate Drake, but instead call me names for using those functions exactly as they suggested in the first place.
I’m curious if you can provide a link/reference to where “Nate Drake” specifically recommended your approach to S-G cascaded filtering.
I’ve seen your exchanges with Vaughan Pratt (circa 2014) regarding CTRM, but only unsourced references to the some interaction with this Nate Drake character.
At the time I did have the reference as it was as I quoted. A google search now does not show any pages currently referenced that include that now.
Are you saying that he did not say it or are you genuinely interested in the source?
Do you also accept that what he said was correct and that S-G (or LOWESS) used in such a fashion produces a near gaussian output?
Looks like Nature.com has deleted the comments on “Climate change: The case of the missing heat” which is where it came from.
“The S-G projection came from Nate Drake PhD (see http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525 if you want the long story on how that came about).”
And that is from
RichardLH says:
February 11, 2014 at 11:10 pm
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/the-moon-is-linked-to-long-term-atlantic-changes/#comment-68071
–
Climate Scientist: I want a tool to examine Climate Temperatures.
Geek: How do you define Climate?
Climate Scientist: Longer than 10 years or so.
Geek: So you want a tool that will show how the planets temperature responds in periods of more than 10 years or so?
Climate Scientist: Yes.
Geek: Well basic theory says that a Low Pass filter with a corner frequency of 15 years will do exactly what you want.
Climate Scientist: But thats not complicated enough and anyway that does not show me what I like to see. It says that there are natural oscillations in the signal and my theory says they dont exist.
Geek: ??????????
–
A 2014 comment in a 2009 thread?
Well done, Richard!
It heated up later. : )
RLH says: Are you saying that he did not say it or are you genuinely interested in the source?
I was looking for the context and specific wording he used rather than your interpretation thereof.
While I don’t have any objection in principle to filtering a time series to highlight potentially cyclic behavior, the 2nd order S-G seems like an odd choice for a low pass filter for reasons I’ve noted previously.
The quote I use came from Nate Drake PhD at the time. That is why it is in quotation marks.
Do you agree that 2nd order S-G is the same as 2nd order LOWESS (after all they both use the same methodology).
Do you also agree that a 5 pass multipass S-G produces a near gaussian output?
Do you also agree that a LP filter on digital data does not ‘throw away information’ as a HP filter with the same corner frequency can be achieved by a simple mathematical operation using the original data?
GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
> Record breaking temperatures for the UK
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2022/red-extreme-heat-warning-ud
Some day 40C will seem cool
https://twitter.com/i/status/1549056712036220928
Anyone who has experience 40C in a dry region with no convection will ever think of it as cool. Some 20 years later it had barely recovered to the baseline when a major El Nino drove the global average up to nearly 1C.
We’re not anywhere near 1.3C warming since 1850. Even some alarmists admit most of the current warming has occurred since 1970 and there are arguments over the cause.
The truth is, it was hotter in the US in the 1930s than now. Some argue that applied only to the US but there was virtually no global record to go on back then, so we will never know.
The UAH record dates back to 1979 but it began with temperatures a few tenths of a degree below the baseline. UAH has explained that as being due to volcanic aerosols from two volcanic eruptions.
Then the heat disappeared and we were back near the baseline where we remained for 18 years, till another super EN drove the global average back up another 1C. Six years later, we’re back near the baseline.
Come on, Baron Munchausen.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swannie…”Does he still claim that theres no back radiation from cooler to warmer…”
***
New topic, how EM works. When you have two bodies of different temperatures radiating close to each other, neither body is radiating toward the other. Each body is simply radiating isotropically. If another radiating body happens to be in the field of radiation, it will intercept a portion of the radiation from the other body.
Radiation from the hotter body toward the cooler body will be absorbed by electrons in the cooler body. Quantum theory tells us that is not the case when a hotter body intercepts portions of the radiation field from a cooler body. The electrons in the hotter body are already excited to a higher energy level and the EM from the cooler body does not affect them. Ergo, the hotter body cannot warm more.
The proof of that is in the 2nd law. Heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body. There is no mention of a net heat transfer or a net energy balance in the 2nd law. If you read the proof by Clausius using heat engine theory, you will see why.
G&T also explained why. The 2nd law applies only to heat therefore any net balance must involve heat only. Since heat does not flow through air, or space, the heat transfer reference is local. When a body radiates EM, it cools. If another body absorbs the radiated EM it warms. The warming and cooling occur locally. Applying a net balance to this action is ingenuous.
EM has nothing to do with the 2nd law as a form of energy, since the 2nd law does not apply to EM. However, EM can be converted to heat ‘IF’ the received EM has the correct frequency and intensity to be absorbed by electrons in the receiving body. Quantum theory tells us that EM from a cooler body lacks the frequency and intensity to be absorbed by electrons in a hotter body.
With Eli’s BP/GP, the only heat transfer allowed is between the warmer BP and the cooler GP. Heat transfer between the GP and the BP is verboten.
Heat transfer between the GP and the BP is verboten because EMR is not heat, Gordon. There is radiative energy transfer between the GP and BP as correctly shown by Eli’s work and dS is greater than zero in the process so complies with 2LOT.
> EM can be converted to heat IF the received EM has the correct frequency and intensity to be absorbed by electrons in the receiving body. Quantum theory tells us that EM from a cooler body lacks the frequency and intensity to be absorbed by electrons in a hotter body.
This just in: microwave ovens cannot warm up your leftovers!
That’s incorrect, Brandon. Microwave ovens work just fine.
Are you trying to be a silly troll like worthless willard, or do you not understand things like magnetrons and waveguides?
Microwave emissions in nature are associated with very cold objects, Clint. Think.
Those “very cold objects” can’t warm hotter objects. Yet a microwave can “warm up your leftovers”.
Is this starting to fit together for you Brandon?
Let’s review what Gordon wrote, Clint:
What comes out of the magnetron is photons at frequencies emitted by very very cold objects. According to Gordon, photons at those frequencies cannot be absorbed by warmer objects, like a piece of chicken from your freezer. Therefore your microwave oven should not work.
2LoT says “cold” can not warm “hot”, without the proper help. The “proper help” can take many forms, but it must be “proper”, or 2LoT is violated.
A microwave oven is a “designed” device, with the proper equipment and configuration. And it uses an external power source. So, 2LoT is NOT violated. (As an experiment, try using your microwave without connecting to an electrical outlet, or with some missing parts.)
A cold brick cannot warm a hotter brick because it doesn’t have the “proper help”.
> And it uses an external power source.
You are getting dangerously close to the truth, Clint, but you still don’t acknowledge Gordon’s error in trying to rationalize how a cold object “knows” which photons came from a warmer object vs. ones coming from a cooler one.
According to him, two conditions must be satisfied for an object to absorb photons emitted by another object. One of those conditions is frequency.
Since the microwave example doesn’t compute for you, let’s consider the Planck spectral distributions for two black bodies closer to each other in temperature, say 255 K and 288 K:
https://imgur.com/gallery/kKHVJVl
As you can see there is essentially 100% overlap in frequency between the two objects, thus no way to distinguish by frequency whether a detected photon is from the warmer or cooler object. Therefore Gordon’s conditions cannot describe a real physical process.
Brandon R. Gates says:
As you can see there is essentially 100% overlap in frequency between the two objects, thus no way to distinguish by frequency whether a detected photon is from the warmer or cooler object. Therefore Gordons conditions cannot describe a real physical process.
———————–
For many years all detectors could detect were photons from warmer objects. Then entered a world of electronics that can both loss and gain of photons and ‘compute’ the sign and provide a reading. Then came an era of rare materials that only absorb photons of certain frequency ranges. Ever more technology advances but we don’t all keep up with the details. . . .a fact relied upon by just about every carny huckster and traveling medicine show man in the history of mankind.
> Then came an era of rare materials that only absorb photons of certain frequency ranges.
We’re further zeroing in on reality, Bill. But materials which are selective by frequency predate humanity itself. Gaseous plant food is one such material. And plants themselves contain molecules which are picky about which frequencies to absorb:
https://imgur.com/gallery/O09QePx
The key thing to realize is that whether or not a photon is absorbed by an object depends only on the physical properties of the receiving object, not the temperature of the emitting one because photons don’t carry that information. And they certainly don’t carry it by their frequency.
Proof is simple: as shown in my previous comment, the emission spectra of two black bodies at temperatures close to each other, but not exactly equal, still all but completely overlap.
But it makes no difference where the wave interference occurs.
Its pretty much a non-resolveable problem because the object that only accepts certain photons of a certain frequency also do not emit any photons of other frequencies so no signal was received by the sending party either.
Philosophically all this plays into the classic conflict between Bishop Berkeley and John Locke. Do objects actually exist? Or is our perception of such objects an illusion provided by God? Forgetting other pre-conceived notions of God, does distance and time actually exist or is it a perception imputed by our existance in what we perceive to be a space-time continuum?
> But it makes no difference where the wave interference occurs.
Not talking about interference, Bill.
> Its pretty much a non-resolveable problem
Gordon thinks it’s resolvable, else he wouldn’t have written what he did. Granted, it’s pure nonsense so it’s easy to see why you’re punting.
> Philosophically all this plays into the classic conflict between Bishop Berkeley and John Locke.
You don’t want to go there, Bill.
Please.
Why? Are you employed/contracted by an institution whose funds depend upon not questioning the opinions of the foxes in charge of the chicken coop?
Gordon,
These two sentences contradict each other.
“When you have two bodies of different temperatures radiating close to each other, neither body is radiating toward the other.”
“Each body is simply radiating isotropically.”
If a body is radiation isotropically, or in all directions, it must necessarily be radiating towards the other object.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
I will, when you stop being a fucking moron.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
maguff…”Anthony Watts is not a climate scientist”.
***
Anthony is certainly as much a climate scientist as Michael Mann, a geologist, or Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS, a mathematician. In fact, Anthony has contributed more than either with regard to his study into the positioning of weather stations in the US. It is largely upon his evidence the term ‘heat island effect’ has gained importance.
http://www.surfacestations.com/
The scumbags at wiki have labeled him a climate denier and I suspect that is based largely on the editorial influence of William Connolly, a wiki editor who also poses as a climate authority at real climate, even though he is only a computer programmer, like Vaughn Pratt.
ps. It should be noticed that Anthony’s other birth name is Willard. Now we know where our resident troll Willard stole his nym. He is obviously a secret admirer of Anthony Watts, and no doubt, seriously envious of Anthony.
Do you mean this Michael Mann, and this Gavin Schmidt?
Climate Science is an eclectic field encompassing every scientific discipline. What makes a scientist is his body of work; years working to advance the knowledge in their area of research.
Get this, while in college, I took 4 semesters of calculus, two semesters of differential equations, one semester each of linear algebra and analysis, 4 years total but I don’t consider myself a mathematician; not even close.
How many semesters of keyboard did you have, TM?
Did you go to keyboard school before or after you went to troll school?
With regard to the bs going round about record temperatures in the UK, it was claimed at one source that July 2022 has broken the previous record set in 2019.
Keeping in mind that Had-crut has been led in the past by Phil Jones, a culprit caught in the Climategate email scandal tampering with the data record, and that they are all climate alarmists, consider what the Met Office really has on record.
Here is the historical record.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/historic-station-data
Looking up London, we see no sign of a record in 2019. Not even close. It seems the Met office have one set of records for the media and another officially.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/stationdata/heathrowdata.txt
BTW…Heathrow airport is in London, albeit on the outskirts. I recall taking the Tube out to Heathrow from central London. Mind you, most of it is above-ground, not underground.
It seems the current so-called heat wave is yet another heat dome caused by La Nina. Normally, the UK, a relatively small island surrounded by ocean, is cooled by convection created by the ocean. Old La Nina seems to have reached out and blocked the convection, allowing temperatures to soar.
Heathrow only goes back to 1948 so I looked up Oxford, which goes back to 1853. Damned if I can see any significant warming in Oxford in July since 1853.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/stationdata/oxforddata.txt
Nothing to see here, folks, move along.
The record was for all of UK, which is not London.
“Damned if I can see any significant warming in Oxford in July since 1853.”
Looking at monthly average high and low T.
Not daily T.
rlh….[GR]”he same mantra about the ball on the string
A ball-on-a-string is the same as a stick-rotating-about-one-end is the same as a section-of-a-disk and all have nothing to do with orbits you mean?
That is a set of provable facts.
***
This is what I am talking about. We have insisted that the ball on a string is simply a model to illustrate the motion of a body in an orbit in which the body always keeps the same face pointed inward. At no time, have any of us non-spinners claimed the BoS, or the wooden horse bolted to the floor of a carousel, represented the lunar orbit. The model is intended simply to show that any body orbiting with the same face pointed in cannot rotate on a local axis at the same time.
The basic premise of those advocating the theory that the Moon rotates on its axis exactly once per orbit while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth is based on assumption. It seems obvious, and that’s what motivated Tesla to attack the problem using engineering physics to prove the assumption is wrong.
Intuitively, it’s not possible for a body to rotate through 360 degrees while orbiting another body and keeping the same face pointed toward that body. However, intuition is not proof. That’s why I went to the example of the jetliner flying at 30,000 feet around the Equator. It has exactly the same forces on it as the Moon wrt gravitation the only difference being it is flying in an atmosphere and requires motors to maintain momentum.
It keeps the same face pointed to the Earth, otherwise it would crash.
******************************
“Youre the man who claims that barycenters do not exist despite them being exactly what Newtons 3rd law requires”.
***
I did not say barycentres don’t exist, I claimed they are mathematical constructs, like a centre of gravity. Newton III claims essentially that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction.
An example would be me pushing on a concrete wall. Newton III claims that if I push on the wall with 30 lbs of force that the wall will push back with 30 lbs of force. Neither one of us will move. Newton is actually extending his notion of inertia and momentum. He went so far as to claim that if I push on a body at rest with 30 lbs of force, presuming the body will move with that much force applied, that inertia is a force pushing back on me.
However, with the notion of a barycentre, it is presumed in the Earth-Moon system that the Earth and Moon will rotate about a barycentre located somewhere within the Earth.
That theory presumes actual motion due to forces pulling against each other and dislodging either body from its orbit. However, neither Earth’s nor the lunar gravitational force is strong enough to move either body like that. All the Moon can do is raise the ocean level less than a metre, and the surface no more than a centimetre.
Neither body physically rotates about the other. The reason the Moon stays in orbit is it’s immense linear momentum. Earth’s gravity is enough to direct that linear momentum into an orbital path but thankfully not enough to accelerate the Moon toward the Earth in the direction of the gravitational force.
It cannot be claimed with an airliner orbiting the Earth that both bodies rotate about each other, even though a barycentre could be found for their interaction.
“We have insisted that the ball on a string is simply a model to illustrate the motion of a body in an orbit in which the body always keeps the same face pointed inward”
A ball-on-a-string is the same as a stick-rotating-about-one-end is the same as a section-of-a-disk. It is not a model for anything other than those things.
You might as well argue that the outer surface/edge of a disc does not point inwards during its travel.
Nothing you have in your ‘model’ accounts for Newton’s 3rd Law. Nothing at all. Barycenter exists and demonstrably so, regardless of your saying they don’t.
As to gravity not being ‘strong enough’, it manages to curve the Moon (and the Earth) into an orbit around the Earth/Moon barycenter (and the Earth/Sun around the Earth/Sun one) as well as raising measurable tides in ground, sea and atmosphere.
This is another good example of how RLH perverts science and reality. He’s a troll that just wants to argue. He can’t learn.
The ball-on-a-string is a suitable model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It is so suitable, it is used in many colleges and universities as a teaching aid. I have provided links for RLH to verify this. But, he remains braindead.
He keeps mentioning Newton’s 3rd Law, not understanding that the ball-on-a-string perfectly represents that. The tension in the string is a direct result of the 3rd Law. RLH doesn’t understand any of this. Like with vectors, he makes big claims that he understands, but he couldn’t answer the simple problem, or understand the solution.
He just continues to troll, argue, and pervert reality.
Celestial bodies usually spin, Pup, and you forget that your problem had a silly mistake in it.
“The ball-on-a-string is a suitable model for ‘orbital motion without axial rotation'”
No it isn’t. It is exactly the same as a stick-rotating about-one-end and a section-of-a-disk, none of which are good models for orbits.
Gravity does the same thing as a string. It stretches the ball upon which a force is activated by the fact that closer particles in the ball have more attraction to the true axis and still have zero torque around the balls center axis. Now balls on the end of stick have the most rigid form of this. Strings have less and gravity even less than that. But rigidity in kinematics deals with objects like the ball and does not specify a rigidity of forces making it rotate around a particular axis. One can only identify the correct axis logically. rotation around an external axis is widely recognized even by you. Purist spinners have no standard or physics beyond ‘it must have been put in motion by an ancient no longer detectable force’.
So by terms of accepted philosophy. . . .thats a religion! Mathematics is inclusive except that when Lorb is physically removed from Lspin all you are left with in Lorb is a linear momentum. A linear momentum lacking in the ability to make the moon go around the earth. The logical answer seems clear. The mathematical answer is inconclusive until you look at the foundation of the concept of what objects are and the fact that gravity acts only on the center of an object is a mathematical construct that doesn’t recognize different forces on different particles.
“Mathematics is inclusive except that when Lorb is physically removed from Lspin all you are left with in Lorb is a linear momentum.”
Science deniers say the darndest things!
Nate please stop trolling.
ENSO monitoring groups have updates their forecasts.
BOM
“The ENSO Outlook continues at La Niña WATCH. This is due to the persistence of some La Niña-like signals in the atmosphere, and a restrengthening of ocean indicators of La Niña in some model outlooks. La Niña WATCH means there is around a 50% chance of La Niña forming later in 2022. This is approximately double the normal likelihood.
Most ENSO indicators are currently at neutral levels. Sea surface temperatures of the tropical Pacific Ocean are cooler than average but within ENSO-neutral levels. Though equatorial temperatures below the surface are warmer in the eastern Pacific, they are close to average when averaged over the basin. However, some atmospheric indicators continue to show a La Niña-like signal, including the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI).
Four of seven models indicate La Niña could return in the southern spring with the remainder maintaining ENSO-neutral until the end of 2022.”
JMA
“Atmospheric and oceanic indicators suggest ongoing La Niña conditions in the equatorial Pacific.
It is possible that La Niña conditions transfer to ENSO-neutral (40%) during boreal summer, but it is more likely that the conditions continue (60%) until the end of autumn.”
Visual 1
Visual 2
NOAA
“La Nia is favored to continue through 2022 with the odds for La Nia decreasing into the Northern Hemisphere late summer (60% chance in JulySeptember 2022) before increasing through the Northern Hemisphere fall and early winter 2022 (62-66% chance).”
There is, as usual, some variation even within the US ENSO forecast communities.
CFSv2
“The CFS.v2 ensemble mean (black dashed line) indicates weak La Nia conditions into the Northern Hemisphere winter.”
Their ensemble mean forecast has la Nina evaporating around mid-Winter, while the other 2 US monitoring groups forecast la Nina persisting through Winter.
So all is well. La Nina is going to ‘evaporate’ and we will return to the bigger and bigger El Nino situation next year.
This despite a lot of data saying that there is a better than 60% chance that this L Nina will in fact continue into next year.
Time alone will tell who is correct won’t it.
P.S. There is also the fact that various groups have said that this La Nina would not even happen, let alone last as long as it has. Ask Blinny.
“Time alone will tell who is correct won’t it.”
I spent a month trying to wake you up to the fact that there are various groups that often have different forecasts. Your response was to interminably point to CFSv2 forecasts and completely ignore the rest.
Now you are aware that there are other groups with different forecasts. I call this progress.
It’s also good that you have abandoned your singular attachment to CFSv2 forecasts. It’s a shame that this happened only after they published a forecast you don’t like.
“I spent a month trying to wake you up to the fact that there are various groups that often have different forecasts”
And none of them predicted the current triple dip La Nina. None.
What’s your point?
That as forecaster even ‘experts’ are suspect.
What do you mean by ‘suspect’? It sounds like they are doing something dodgy. Is that what you mean?
No answer, RLH?
I guess it wouldn’t do to confirm that you think these researchers are dodgy, as Michelle l’Heuruex is one of them, and some of what you post here as substantive reference is from these same researchers, so you’d be undermining your own sources.
Of course the forecasting is not perfect. I’ve been pointing out – to considerable resistance from you – that different groups make different forecasts. They can’t all be right!
And in fact, they are all wrong from time to time. But they are all also more often right than wrong with the forecasts. Very much like week-forward weather forecasting, which is about 80% accurate.
“So all is well. La Nina is going to ‘evaporate’ and we will return to the bigger and bigger El Nino situation next year.”
Do you think this because the forecast group you have favoured in the past favour shows la Nina going away by mid-Winter? All the other groups say la Nina will persist.
But according to you AGW will continue relentlessly upwards regardless of La Nina or not.
I’m curious to know why you think la Nina will evaporate when only one of many groups forecasts that to happen.
I’m curious to know why you think that regardless of how many La Nina we get (and presumably how long they last) AWG will continue to march upwards.
….AGW will continue to march upwards….
Following from linear regression attributions, we expect on average La Nina to depress global temperatures approximately as 0.15 * ONI lagged 5 months.
Per UAH global warming is trending at 0.13C/decade.
By this rough model, if ONI were locked in at its current value of -1.0, it would take a little over a decade for the trending warming to surpass the cooling effect of the “permanent La Nina” at its current value.
To ultimately negate the long term warming effect would require a long term cooling trend of sufficient magnitude in the tropical Pacific. A steady state shift to a cooler meta state doesn’t do it.
So L’Heureux’s (and others) prediction that La Nina will exceed 50% later this year does not worry you at all.
You just claimed that expert forecasters were suspect, Richard.
What an hour can change!
So are you saying that you don’t believe L’Heureux (and others)?
Willard now claims he doesn’t believe experts.
[RICHARD] As forecaster even experts are suspect.
[ALSO RICHARD] So M’s prediction that La Nina will exceed 50% later this year does not worry you at all.
[AND ALSO] W now claims he doesn’t believe experts.
[AND FINALLY RICHARD] I don’t play climateball.
L’Heureux was not making a prediction but a statistical observation. There is a difference.
OLS straight lines don’t predict the future, only measure the documented past, but we will use them anyway to say that global temperatures will rise inevitably into the future.
Are you taking back your suggestion that Michelle made a prediction, Richard, and how does a forecast differs from a statistical claim about the future?
All forecasts are predictions; but all predictions are not forecasts.
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-forecasting-and-prediction/
Very good, Bill!
The question was to distinguish between a forecast and “a statistical claim about the future,” however.
Statistics might used in both forecasting and projections. Forecasts, projections, and predictions all can rely to various degrees on statistics. Statistics is just a tool that may or may not be used in any of them. More to the point, exactly what statistics might be used for within the body of work could well define if the work is a forecast, projection, or prediction. As they say There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics!
> Statistics might used in both forecasting and projections.
Again very well, Bill?
The question was to distinguish between a forecast and “a statistical claim about the future,” however.
I answered the question. What is a statistical claim of the future? It is a prediction that can be forecast, projection, or WAG. Statistics is a tool that is wholly dependent upon a true representation of the variable sought and sufficient sample sizes. There are tons of statistical studies and polls that are meaningless. Statistics is half art and half mathematics. The art is where the artful abuse statistics which feeds its reputation of being a lie.
You indeed answered a question, Bill.
Not the one I asked.
Until next time.
Then you asked a question you did not want an answer to.
Richard, we’ve already had 25 years of more la Ninas, as you’ve said many times, and temperatures went up.
l’Heureux says we’ve had 40 years of more la Ninas, and still temperatures went up.
More la Ninas and more el Ninos won’t stop global warming because all they do is shuffle heat around the system. They don’t move heat into or out of the climate system.
If there is more of one of the other for a given period, that will just offset the warming by a little. When that period of more of one or the other ends, the offset will disappear.
If the period from 1999 was la Nina-dominant, this is what I think it would look like.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1999/plot/uah6/from:1999/trend:12/plot/uah6/to:1999/plot/uah6/to:1999/trend
Lest you forget…
RLH: “La Nina has become more frequent in the last 25 years. Fact.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1309579
RLJ: “But over the last 25 years there have been more La Nina than El Nino.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1309739
RLH: “Is that anything to do with La Nina becoming more frequent in the last 25 years?”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1308763
RLH: “L’Heureux says that it is likely that La Nina’s will be in statistically significant prevalence over 40 years if this one holds on until Autumn.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1324668
Autumn is 10 days away.
So, we’ve had more la Ninas as you’ve constantly confirmed, but temperatures have kept on rising.
Strong evidence that more la Ninas aint going to change that. Greenhouse warming is real, so are la Ninas. One doesn’t cancel the other.
“La Nina has become more frequent in the last 25 years. Fact.”
But has yet to achieve better than 50% occurrence, fact. That will only occur this winter/autumn.
“But over the last 25 years there have been more La Nina than El Nino.”
By the end of this year.
“Is that anything to do with La Nina becoming more frequent in the last 25 years?”
See above.
“L’Heureux says that it is likely that La Ninas will be in statistically significant prevalence over 40 years if this one holds on until Autumn.”
See above.
“So, weve had more la Ninas as youve constantly confirmed, but temperatures have kept on rising.”
More La Nina than El Nino statistically speaking will not occur until later this year. As L’Heureux said.
“Strong evidence that more la Ninas ain’t going to change that. Greenhouse warming is real, so are la Ninas. One doesnt cancel the other.”
More frequent cold water at the equator will not lead to global temperatures receding even though La Nina affect global temperatures with a 5 month lag. Interesting. We shall see won’t we.
Distorting what was said in order to make a point does not alter the facts.
“l’Heureux says weve had 40 years of more la Ninas, and still temperatures went up.”
No she didn’t. Go and re-read what she actually said.
“If the period from 1999 was la Nina-dominant, this is what I think it would look like.”
As it actually wasn’t, the point is moot. What was actually said was that EL Nino was more prevalent over the last few decades but that is not changing to more La Nina in the near future.
But Barry likes to read what he thinks others wrote rather than what was actually said.
….but that is now changing to more La Nina….
What was actually said was
“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 it’s not just this one. Scientists are noticing that in the past 25 years 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”
and
“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.”
but Barry doesn’t like real facts.
“What’s bothering many scientists is that their go-to climate simulation models that tend to get conditions right over the rest of the globe predict more El Ninos, not La Ninas, and that’s causing contention in the climate community about what to believe, according to Columbia University climate scientist Richard Seager and MIT hurricane scientist Kerry Emanuel.”
“What Seager and other scientists said is happening is that the eastern equatorial Atlantic is not warming as fast as the western equatorial Atlantic or even the rest of the world with climate change. And it’s not the amount of warming that matters but the difference between the west and east. The more the difference, the more likely a La Nina, the less the difference, the more likely an El Nino. Scientists speculate it could be related to another natural cycle, called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or it could be caused by human-caused climate change or both.
‘At this point we just don’t know,’ L’Heureux said. ‘Scientists are watching and I know, are actively studying. But it’s really important because of regional conditions. We need to get this right.'”
> LHeureuxs own analysis shows that La Nina-like conditions are occurring more often in the last 40 years. Other new studies are showing similar patterns.
Read more: https://www.digitaljournal.com/world/la-nina-is-behaving-badly-and-could-impact-caribbean-hurricanes
No Michelle did not what, Richard?
Another re-write of APs story,
“Weather’s unwanted guest: Nasty La Nina keeps popping up”
“La Nina is behaving badly and could impact Caribbean hurricanes”
By Karen Graham Published May 30, 2022
“Weather’s unwanted guest: Nasty La Nina keeps popping up”
By SETH BORENSTEIN May 28, 2022
RLH says:
‘Barry says: La Nina has become more frequent in the last 25 years. Fact.’
But has yet to achieve better than 50% occurrence, fact. That will only occur this winter/autumn.
There are three states, El Nino, Neutral, La Nina. La Nina can become more frequent, and can be ‘dominant’ in any reasonable sense, without achieving 50% occurrence.
I think Borenstein (who generally does a pretty commendable job of climate reporting) is writing from the perspective of the connection between La Nina with the persistent Southwest USA drought. Whatever La Nina’s impact on global average temperature, it’s not good for this important agricultural region if it means less rain/snow fall.
Note that the metric for the AP analysis is La Nina frequency during the winter months, corresponding to the SW USA rainy season, such as it is.
I asked Michelle directly if she thought that Seth Borenstein’s article correct represented what she thought and she did not correct anything.
….article correctly represented….
“There are three states, El Nino, Neutral, La Nina”
The statistics only compare 1 and 3. 2 (neutral) is not considered.
RLH says: ‘Mark B: There are three states, El Nino, Neutral, La Nina’
The statistics only compare 1 and 3. 2 (neutral) is not considered.
That seems to be how you’re interpreting it, but I don’t see how that makes sense. The statement is
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.
Under your interpretation we would have been under El Nino conditions 72% of the time from 1950 to 1999. This is obviously nonsensical, but let’s do some numbers.
Using the ONI data from link below, I get 27% La Nina, 28% El Nino, and 45% Neutral for all months 1950 through 1999, which is close enough to the AP number.
Similarly taking the winter months (Dec, Jan, Feb) 2000 to present, I get 49% La Nina, 29% El Nino, and 22% Neutral.
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Fair enough.
But I asked Michelle directly if she thought that Seth Borensteins article correct represented what she thought and she did not correct anything.
.article correctly represented.
damn cut and paste.
“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.”
Now do the statistics as they did, not your incorrect interpretation of them.
Mark B:
“said LHeureux. 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”
Any comments on that?
RLH,
You have either forgotten what the AP article said or have never understood it – despite quoting it many tims.
barry: “l’Heureux says we’ve had 40 years of more la Ninas…”
RLH: “No she didnt. Go and re-read what she actually said.”
I’ll quote from the article:
“Her own analysis shows that La Nina-like conditions are occurring more often in the last 40 years.”
That’s it. There is no other statement about her analysis of la Nina frequency in the original article.
So, despite more la Ninas over the last 40 years, according to l’Heureux’s own analysis, the global temperature has continued to rise.
RLH,
You’ve also misunderstood the usual frequency of el Ninos / la Ninas.
“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.”
El Ninos also appear about 28% (depending which index you use) of the time in this period. So what is happening the other 44% of the time? Neutral conditions.
You only have to look at the ONI chart that l’Heureux and co publish on ENSO.
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
You can see that la Ninas and el Ninos occur a bit less than a third of the time, respectively, and neutral occurs just under 50% of the time.
I see Mark has made the same point, as well as done the math to corroborate. That’s why his result of 27% la Ninas corroborates the AP article (28%).
But look at the chart published by l’Heureux’s team I’ve linked for you if you doubt it.
PMEL, another group that researches ENSO, corroborates the general values:
“El Niños were present 31% of the time and La Niñas 23% of the time from 1950 to 1997, leaving about 46% of the period in a neutral state.”
So, no, you are wrong about the ratio only being el Nino/la Nina. The AP article includes ENSO neutral as part of the calculation, just like they do here at PEML.
To clarify:
la Nina has occurred about 28% of the total time from 1950 to 1999, according to AP’s analysis of the data. If la Nina persists another month or two, that will mean la Nina has been present 50% of the total time in the last 25 years, according to the AP.
l’Heureux’s own analysis, mentioned in the AP article, is that la Ninas have been more frequent over the past 40 years. No uncertainty or statistical significance comment accompanies the sentence on l’Heureux’s analysis in the article.
For any of the aforementioned periods, global warming has continued. More la Ninas hasn’t stopped it. Even more la Ninas won’t stop it, because they are an in-system phenomenon that does not add or remove heat from the entire climate system, but moves heat around within the system.
“Distorting what was said in order to make a point does not alter the facts.”
I distorted nothing. I also included links to what you said so people could check for themselves. Not once in any of those quotes do you qualify what you said:
“La Nina has become more frequent in the last 25 years. Fact.”
What is distorted is your consistency on this view.
When you want to make a point on more la Ninas happening, you say that it is a fact that there have been more la Ninas in the last 25 years.
When someone points out that the same period has been accompanied by warming global temperatures you revert to “it hasn’t happened yet.”
So let’s quote the article rather than rely on your faulty understanding.
“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”
It looks likely that la Nina will persist through Winter this year. If so, that would mean it is a statistically significant result that “in the past 25 winters, they’ve been brewing nearly half the time.”
If that happens it will STILL be the case that global temperatures rose in the same period.
We don’t have to wait. We can simply assume that the result will be statistically significant. That will not change the point one iota, because global warming will STILL have continued in the same period.
Nobody in the ENSO research community, no one at ENSO blog, no one anywhere believes that more la Ninas will lead to a reversal of global warming into global cooling. That is entirely your own narrative.
“But I asked Michelle directly if she thought that Seth Borensteins article correct represented what she thought and she did not correct anything.”
That doesn’t mean she endorsed everything Borenstein wrote.
So why not quote the substance of her reply to you?
“Hi – keep in mind that the qualifier “La Nina-like” is important. This doesn’t mean perpetual La Nina. It means that the trend in sea surface temperature and sea level pressure is toward a stronger zonal gradient across the tropical Pacific, which is considered “La Nina-like.”
That was the entire substance of her reply to you, and has nothing to do with the point that Mark brought up.
I also queried the AP report at ENSOblog, and was directed by the blog writers to the IPCC view that there is no consensus on whether el Ninos or la Ninas will become more frequent in the future. This contradicts what the AP article says, because Borenstein apparently only spoke to researchers of one view, not the other – which is what the writers at the ENSOblog suggested happened (so did I months ago).
“That doesn’t mean she endorsed everything Borenstein wrote”
Just that what he quoted from her was correct.
“Hi keep in mind that the qualifier ‘La Nina-like’ is important. This doesnt mean perpetual La Nina. It means that the trend in sea surface temperature and sea level pressure is toward a stronger zonal gradient across the tropical Pacific, which is considered ‘La Nina-like.'”.
I know exactly what she said. So ‘sea surface temperature’ is in a
‘zonal gradient across the tropical Pacific’ which is colder towards South America if we have ‘La Nina-like’ conditions.
“I also queried the AP report at ENSOblog, and was directed by the blog writers to the IPCC view that there is no consensus on whether el Ninos or la Ninas will become more frequent in the future.”
So it could be warmer or colder more often at the equator in the future but the IPCC has no consensus as to which it will be (i.e. they have no clue). So we shall see won’t we.
“no one anywhere believes that more la Ninas will lead to a reversal of global warming into global cooling”
If we have more La Nina than El Nino in the future then it would be impossible for the global temperatures to keep rising. Unless you believe in magic rather than science.
Please note, despite your deliberate mis-reading of what I have said so far, this has not yet happened. ‘More frequently’ is not ‘a dominate position’. Just going from 28% to about 50% so far.
See https://imgur.com/CauL1SE for a different view of this behavior.
Unless you think that this U shape continues upwards at both ends, which I don’t, it is more likely to be the lower half of a quasi-sinusoidal shape.
This from someone who published the Ensemble ONI. https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.7535
“So it could be warmer or colder more often at the equator in the future but the IPCC has no consensus as to which it will be”
Neither does Michelle l’Heureux. Does this disqualify her views on other things?
Of course it doesn’t.
“If we have more La Nina than El Nino in the future then it would be impossible for the global temperatures to keep rising. Unless you believe in magic rather than science.”
We’ve already had more la Nina than el Nino. l’Heureux’s analysis is that we’ve had that for 40 years.
But it’s not magic. ENSO is weather. It doesn’t bring energy into or out of the climate system, it just moves the energy around.
It’s like there are a bunch of cold days leading into Summer. The physics that cause Summer aren’t cancelled by the physics that cause weather, and those cold days won’t prevent Summer happening. If whatever weather system continues to keep things cooler than normal, still Summer will be warmer than Spring, just a little cooler than previous Summers. And the next Summer or the next, those cold weather conditions will go and Summer will be warmer than average again.
You are confusing weather with climate.
“Please note, despite your deliberate mis-reading of what I have said so far, this has not yet happened. ‘More frequently’ is not ‘a dominate position’. Just going from 28% to about 50% so far.”
All that needs to happen for la Nina to dominate over el Nino is for la Nina to happen more frequently than el Nino.
Unless you believe that while la Ninas have happened 28% of the time on the past, el Ninos have been occurring 72% of the time?
No, el Ninos also occur around 28% of the time when there is a balance, and neutral is about 44% of the time.
So the AP analysis is that la Ninas have happened almost 50% of the time for the last 25 years, and that this change from the previous period of la Ninas happening 28% of the time becomes statistically significant this Winter if the current la Nina persists that long.
“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”
Let us assume that la Nina persists, as seems likely, over the Winter.
In January, according to the AP, there will be a statistically significant change in the frequency of la Ninas, from 28% of the time 1950 to 1999, to 50% of the time over the last 25 years.
And in that time, global temperatures have risen.
BEST global data
1950 – 1999 = 0.12 C/decade (+/- 0.03)
1997 – now = 0.20 C/decade (+/- 0.07)
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1950/plot/best/from:1997/plot/best/from:1950/to:1999
No, I don’t think more la Ninas will cause global cooling.
At the same time, if we were to have more el Ninos, I don’t think that would appreciably increase global warming. el Ninos are just weather, too, albeit with various significant regional impacts for their duration, as with la Ninas.
Below is a graph of what I think would happen if there were no el Ninos and only la Ninas. Neutral occurs half the time, la Ninas occur half the time. This fictional scenario begins in 1995.
If la Ninas cause transient global cooling of about 0.5C, I’ll take a simple calc that having la Nina half the time depresses global temps long term by 0.25 C on average.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1950/to:2000/plot/best/from:2000/offset:-0.25
I think that these frequent episodes of transient cooling could offset future temps down by a small margin, but will not stop any underlying cause of global change.
If la Ninas disappeared and we had an el Ninos 50% of the time?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1950/to:1995/plot/best/from:1995/offset:0.25
This is, of course, an extreme scenario, but I trust it makes the point.
ENSO does not drive long term global temperature. ENSO is a transient event over a few months to (rarely) three years at most. Any background change will still occur, while ENSO provides the ups and downs – the ‘noise’ – over a long-term signal.
There is a more immediate concern to one or the other dominating into the future, and that is an increase in the frequency and intensity of the regional impacts these events have.
DingleBarry forecasting , he sure knows his stuff
The funny part is how sure he always is with himself , Just like Bindiwrong
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-727372
What did I forecast, Eben?
Or did you just speak bullshit?
Go on. Quote me.
Yep, as usual you spout BS and run away.
barry, please stop trolling.
The irony is thick with this one.
barry, please stop trolling.
Continues from above
–
Hi Tyson!
Well I have no data for downwelling IR radiation
I will try comment on the data you have provided
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
https://ibb.co/4tLfYRS
Colorado, 1.689 km elevation:
https://ibb.co/Xz4bNSh
What I see is that in both cases the downwelling IR radiation is almost constant around
400 W\m^2
What I dont understand is how it comes the downwelling IR radiation remaining almost constant for 24 hours (day and night)?
Another question is, how it comes the elevated place in Colorado at 1.689 km elevation having the same 400 W\m^2 downwelling IR radiation as the place Sioux Falls, South Dakota?
Tyson, can you please provide with more sites (with their elevations) measured downwelling IR radiation for having them compared?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“What I dont understand is how it comes the downwelling IR radiation remaining almost constant for 24 hours (day and night)?”
Because of the constancy of the constituents in the atmosphere, particularly GHGs like water vapour and CO2. The upwelling IR is also pretty constant through the night, but when the ground is radiated by the sun it gets warmer in the day.
Obviously the sun doesn’t heat the atmosphere much, or you would see an increase in downwelling IR during the day. You do see it a bit, but that’s because of the IR coming up from the ground. The troposphere is mostly transparent to incoming solar radiation, but the ‘greenhouse’ gases in the atmosphere are opaque to upwelling ground radiation. Through the night radiation bounces between the atmosphere and the ground, slowing the escape of upwelling radiation to space. The overnight air temp experienced at the ground, judging by the 350 – 375 W/m2 downwelling radiation, is in the low to mid 20s (degrees C, or 73 – 80F). I suppose that’s about right for Summer in those locations?
Downwelling IR will vary considerably, due to cloud cover. The more clouds, the more IR. A clear sky downwelling flux will drop below 200 W/m^2.
Do you know the time period for the graphs Christos put up?
barry,
it is important to have those graphs for many different latitudinal locations, and seasonal periods – in order to estimate the differences which would be occurred.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Maybe, but your question was about those graphs as they stood.
Continues from above
–
TYSON:
“The short answer to all your questions is that youre not reading the graphs properly. No, downwelling IR is not almost constant, it varies with air temperature as theory tells us. It is also lower at higher elevation, again as theory predicts.
No, I will not provide you with more locations. Need I remind you that you are the one proposing that we throw out all we know about atmospheric radiative transfer and therefore the burden is on you to provide your evidence.
Just because you repeat the same thing over and over doesnt make it true.
TYSON, please, since you have already provided graphs for the two locations, you know the ways to find those graphs.
Well, we all search for the scientific truth here.
The issue we discuss is very important.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, TM is just another braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll. You won’t get any science from him.
Here’s a link to the surfrad graphs. You will need to learn how to navigate through it, but you can to that. Unfortunately, they hide the cloud data. You have to “read between the lines”.
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=sxf&date=2022-01-01&p5=dpir&p16=at
Thank you, Clint, for the important link.
What I have realized is that a planet surface doesnt absorb solar energy first, gets warmed and only then emits IR EM energy.
No, a planet surface emits IR EM energy at the very instant solar flux hits the matter.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
TYSON at 7:44 AM
“data
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_62d9543522b95.pdf
showing considerable upwelling IR while downwelling solar is zero”
Well, let’s study the graph:
It shows that TOTAL 24 HOURS upwelling IR is 2,5 (two and a half) times the TOTAL 24 HOURS downwelling solar.
It is an IMPOSSIBLE situation, when planet surface is shown to emit 2,5 (two and a half) times more EM radiative energy than planet receives from sun!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s a lazy pick, Pup. Try this instead:
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=dra&date=2022-01-01&p5=dpir&p16=at
If you prefer the animated version:
https://media.giphy.com/media/kHGxZUxfTTInkeybFo/giphy.gif
Thank you, Willard!
Are you convinced now about the rightness of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
I am not sure how the fact that the planet would emit its energy at the moment it receives it would make any difference in the energy balance.
I am quite sure that being able to distinguish down and upwelling would help you in your quest for the truth.
Too much reading between the lines, perhaps?
Please let Pup do the trolling.
Willard, “…being able to distinguish down and upwelling would help…”
I must admit, I hadn’t considered the possibility that Christos Vournas doesn’t posses this basic knowledge.
But now that you mention it, it explains the fact that though these data https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_62d9543522b95.pdf showing considerable upwelling IR while downwelling solar is zero, elicited this response from Vournas:
“No, a planet surface emits IR EM energy at the very instant solar flux hits the matter.”
Horses for courses, as always.
Willard:
“how the fact that the planet would emit its energy at the moment it receives it would make any difference in the energy balance.”
It is a very important issue.
I’ll come back with this a few hours later.
Thank you
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
TM, Norman gets confused by those graphs also, so it’s probably worth a few minutes to clear things up.
If you include the downwelling IR, you see something interesting:
At noon on that date, DW solar is about 1000 W/m^2 and DWIR is about 500 W/m^2. So, if fluxes add, as your cult believes, that means the flux arriving the surface is 1500 W/m^2!
Even adjusting for emissivity, that means surface temperature would be well over the boiling point of water (100C). Yet the surface temperature was only about 40C.
Your cult also believes ice cubes can boil water….
That’s why this is so much fun.
And of course, instead of admitting the evidence, Clintson confuses, diverts and distorts what has been written.
But… he is by far far not the only one doing so on this blog.
> Even adjusting for emissivity, that means surface temperature would be well over the boiling point of water (100C). Yet the surface temperature was only about 40C.
You need to account for *all* the fluxes at the surface, Clint, which means subtracting the upwelling IR as well as losses due to evaporation and convection.
https://imgur.com/gallery/ABx5Gzk
SURFRAD only gives us radiative fluxes. At local noon on this day the net radiative flux peaked at 571.90 W/m2, corresponding to a blackbody temperature of 43.8 C or 110.8 F. The peak air temperature was 38.9 C.
Evaporative and convective cooling can easily account for the ~5 C difference.
Bindidon at 9:40 AM
Agreed on the confusion, diversion, distortion.
Since the graph (https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_62d9543522b95.pdf) in question clearly shows upwelling IR is ~725, and air temp is 38C (that’s the 10m temp), I will add “hallucination” to your list!
Very good, Brandon.
By considering only net IR (DWIR – UWIR), and net solar (DW solar – reflected solar), you only end up with actual solar, which is correct.
That’s known as “It’s the sun, stupid”.
Let’s go Brandon!
Right on, Pup –
The planet is warming exactly because we are reaching a Grand Solar Minimum. Check out yourself for a demonstration:
https://youtu.be/HIcSWuKMwOw
> By considering only net IR (DWIR UWIR), and net solar (DW solar reflected solar), you only end up with actual solar, which is correct.
Peak net solar is 798.00 W/m2, corresponding to 344.4 K, 71.3 C, 160.3 F. Far too hot, Clint.
Yes, Mr. Sun is amazing. You can fry eggs in a black skillet. Or give yourself bad burns.
Try frying eggs with wimpy ice cubes.
Tell everyone you can: “It’s the sun, stupid”.
Clint: that means surface temperature would be well over the boiling point of water (100C). Yet the surface temperature was only about 40C.
Also Clint: Yes, Mr. Sun is amazing. You can fry eggs in a black skillet.
Easy to fry an egg using ice, Pup:
https://www.escoffier.edu/blog/culinary-arts/interesting-uses-for-dry-ice/
If you want a video demonstration:
https://youtu.be/rog8ou-ZepE
Bullshit alert!
Fried eggs are at least warm! If you want an egg with burnt edges that will cause your tongue to freeze listen to Willard’s constant stream of bullshit.
You’re the BS artist here, Bill.
Nobody will ever take that away from you.
Enjoy,
Willard I am not the one trying to sell frozen eggs as a fresh fried egg breakfast dish.
Pup made a silly mistake in the silly semantic game he himself introduced and got served, Bill. Next time he’ll do some research before saying stuff.
Here’s how we can unboil an egg:
https://youtu.be/CHMY4G9gTPA
Bon appetit!
Worthless willard likes to play his childish game where he makes up stuff, misrepresents others, and rambles incoherently.
That’s why I no longer babysit him.
All you got is a ball on strings, two ice cubes, and a three-walled rotisserie, Pup.
Very Serious.
Very.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wrong place
–
TYSON at 7:44 AM
data
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_62d9543522b95.pdf
showing considerable upwelling IR while downwelling solar is zero
Well, lets study the graph:
It shows that TOTAL 24 HOURS upwelling IR is 2,5 (two and a half) times the TOTAL 24 HOURS downwelling solar.
It is an IMPOSSIBLE situation, when planet surface is shown to emit 2,5 (two and a half) times more EM radiative energy than planet receives from sun!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
I want to say one word to you.
Just one word.
Are you listening?
Averages.
Cheers.
Willard at 6:01 AM
“Christos,
I am not sure how the fact that the planet would emit its energy at the moment it receives it would make any difference in the energy balance.”
Yes, you are right, it wouldn’t make any difference in the energy balance.
But we cannot use the planet effective temperature equation for the use of planet mean surface temperature theoretical calculation!
We cannot average solar flux over the entire planet surface area.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> But we cannot
Yes we can, Christos:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature
First, down and upwelling.
Second, averages.
Third, effective temperature.
Revolutionizing physics has to wait.
Christos Vournas, you are IGNORING all the downwelling IR that exits AROUND THE CLOCK. The graph only shows dowwelling solar and upwelling IR. You are CHERRY PICKING!
Surely you can understand that.
Willard
< First, down and upwelling.
No,
First – the Φ -Factor!
in order to have the Planet RADIATIVE BALANCE calculated precisely!
Second – the Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon –
in order to have the Planet Mean Surface Temperature NEW Equation completed!
Not one, but two issues should be seen differently – that is why the WHOLE ISSUE is not obvious at first glance,
and it cannot wait, and … it is not some difficult things, people have decoded DNA, people have invented INTERNET, the Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon is not difficult at all, just FOCUS.
It is not a Revolution in Physics, it is just the CORRECT PHYSICS!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> First the Φ -Factor!
That has already been solved, Christos:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190784
First learn to read a graph with down and up welling. Then realize the power of averaging. After that, it’s effective temperature.
Only then will you be able to credibly propose a new physics.
TYSON, in the first two graphs you posted previously, yes, they also showed all the downwelling IR that exits AROUND THE CLOCK.
Well, it is meant, the Earth’s atmosphere holds (bouncing the IR radiative energy up and down) around the clock an amount of IR radiative energy equivalent to two and a half solar fluxes.
Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to do so. There are only traces of greenhouse gases (1% H2O and 0,04% CO2) in a thin atmosphere – so there is nothing there to hold this HUGE amounts of energy around the clock!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bond albedo is precisely measured by NASA spacecrafts for every significant planet and moon in solar system.
Bond albedo accounts for planet surface diffuse reflection only.
Thus, the not reflected portion of solar flux was estimated wrongly as:
(1-a)S
where a -is the Bond albedo (the planet average surface diffuse reflected portion of the incident solar flux)
Bond albedo doesn’t account for planet’s spherical shape and planet’s surface roughness…
That is why the not reflected portion is estimated wrongly.
The right thing to do is to use the Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor Φ.
Thus, the CORRECT not reflected portion of solar flux is:
Φ(1-a)S
This New approach is valid for each and every planet we know in solar system, it is a UNIVERSAL APPROACH.
Willard, you already noticed, I compare surface temperatures for all planets and moons visited by NASA’s spacecrafts.
Earth is one planet among many, Earth is just one of the planets and Earth’s mean surface temperature behaves like every other planet does.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Bond albedo doesn’t account for planet’s spherical shape and planet’s surface roughness…”
Bond albedo is measured from the real Earth so the result accounts for the exact shape and surface roughness of the planet.
“This New approach is valid..”
No, Christos’ approach is physically wrong by totally ignoring measured atm. radiation at the surface thus fails to match measured values for the earthen GHE.
Ball4 says:
”No, Christos approach is physically wrong by totally ignoring measured atm. radiation at the surface thus fails to match measured values for the earthen GHE.”
———————————
Its not measured. If it were measured the Trenberth et.al. would not need to use a ‘plug’ figure for it in their budget.
Yes, Bill. Measured:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271590174_The_Albedo_of_Earth
There are more recent research, but Peter is Judy’s hubby. This should mellow your cold heart of fake auditor.
Wrong Bill 9:17 am, atm. downwelling LW is instrumentally measured by NOAA ESRL. This is evidently a surprise to Bill.
Christos’ calculation totally ignores the earthen atm. radiation by including a zero for global downwelling LW which is proven wrong by ESRL data; Bill citing Trenberth figures for DWIR is totally irrelevant.
NB: Trenberth “surface fluxes have been derived using satellite data” so Bill should check the original sources to have any credibility.
Measuring radiation at one or limited numbers of spots does not amount to a global mean downwelling radiation. I can walk outside and point an IR detector at the sky but what does that tell me about global warming? We don’t even know what the mean surface temperature is. We don’t have surface stations on top of mountains for one thing.
Bill, thx, now admits Bill’s 9:17 am was wrong; 10:23 am agrees it IS measured & thus Christos is wrong to use zero.
Ball4 please stop trolling!
I have never started!
The heck!
I said Trenberth used a plug figure for his global mean radiation budget. You said that was incorrect.
You are wrong! And now you are just spouting off like an ignorant boob!
I quoted Trenberth’s words actually telling Bill: “surface fluxes have been derived using satellite data” thus measured atm. radiation data was used instead of any plug figure. Obviously, obtaining, reading, and understanding the published reports is not Bill’s (or Christos’) strong suit.
LOL! Measured by satellites? ROTFLMAO!!! What a moron!
Yes, measured by satellites, actually. With precision instruments well calibrated to ground stations. Bill just is totally unfamiliar with the physics and quite obviously hasn’t bothered to (and won’t) read the proper published material.
Source please!
Never mind Ball4. No way you will find a source that shows downwelling radiation is measured on a global basis because it is not measured.
Trenberth starts with his ‘plug’ figure then looks at 3 other model based estimates each with a figure called ‘net down’ (plug figures)
and screws with modifying measured numbers of his analysis so as to more closely match the other plug figures of the other 3 analyses.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.xml
Bottom line is the analyses vary in estimates of by 21.4watts/m2 of downwelling radiation or about 4.5degF or something on the order of 2.5 to 5 times the total global warming estimated over the entire industrial revolution.
You are just spouting off in here on something you know practically nothing about and using it for support of something it absolutely does not support.
> Measuring radiation at one or limited numbers of spots does not amount to a global mean downwelling radiation.
I just have one word for you, Bill.
Just one word.
Are you listening?
Statistics.
I definitely agree Willard. Your favorite variety too. Can’t beat that.
Again, Trenberth: “surface fluxes have been derived using satellite data”.
Bill 2:45 pm should read his links better. Bill has gone from wrongly writing “Its not measured” to a “Bottom line” of global DWIR measurements over time varying by about 6% as of 2008. See, even Bill can make progress by reading up on stuff before commenting, even in a few short hours.
In current times, additional continuous measurements since 2008 now show global warming is known in the satellite era by distinct forcing items & statistically significant at 95% confidence. Even more reading up on recent relevant measurements in published research can further improve Bill’s comments.
DWIR is not a surface flux Ball4
Also ‘derived’ means not measured but computed. In this case DWIR if you actually read the whole section on DWIR you will learn it is a plug figure. Obviously we don’t have satellite crusing a few millimeters above the ground looking up and taking a representative sample of DWIR. You are an idiot to believe so.
“DWIR is not a surface flux Ball4”
Incorrect Bill, look at the cartoon Fig 1 in the paper Bill linked DWIR “absorbed by surface”. Again, Trenberth writes: “surface fluxes have been derived using satellite data”. Data means measured.
The word “plug” is not found in Bill’s link, that is Bill just making up stuff.
Ball4 apparently believes ‘solar flux’ is radiation from from the surface of the planet warming the sun and that ‘surface flux’ is the radiation from the sun. ROTFLMAO!
Uninformed Bill 4:49 pm, no, Bill needs to learn about downwelling SW solar and LW terrestrial radiation. It is not very hard; with some study, Bill can make even more progress.
And you believe its the difference between the two?
Yo! Ball4. You aren’t giving up are you?
No Bill. Your 10:02 am just doesn’t make any reasonable sense to develop a response.
Ball4 says:
”No Bill. Your 10:02 am just doesnt make any reasonable sense to develop a response.”
————————
So what you mean to say is that your suggestion I study downwelling SW solar and LW terrestrial radiation will not lead to a conclusion that DWIR isn’t a plug figure.
Since I provided you 3 sources that does treat it as a plug figure do you have a source that doesn’t do that? Or do you just believe it isn’t and you don’t have a source?
Trenberth’s surface fluxes are measured Bill, you have provided no source using the word “plug”. Again, Trenberth writes: “surface fluxes have been derived using satellite data”. Data means measured.
Bill still needs to learn about measurements for downwelling SW solar and LW terrestrial radiation. It is not very hard; with some study, Bill can make even more progress.
I can’t help you if you can’t read Ball4. Surface flux the amounts of energy leaving the surface. They include LH(Latent Heat), SH (Sensible Heat), and LW radiation.
Trenberth explicitly says the following: ”A lack of closure in the energy balance at the surface is accommodated by making modest changes to surface fluxes, with the downward longwave radiation as the main residual to ensure a balance.”
Downward longwave is a residual to ensure a balance. that means it is a plug figure. If you continue to dispute this then what you must do is provide a source of where global mean downwelling longwave is actually measured. It doesn’t exist.
And if you don’t find that database don’t bother answering again as you are just making a fool of yourself.
“provide a source”
Several sources for global “surface fluxes have been derived using satellite data” are listed in the paper Bill linked. DWIR at surface is not Bill’s incorrect “plug” but arrived at “after the adjustments noted above for LH and better accounting for the aerosols and water vapor in the absorbed solar radiation”.
Reading the paper will help Bill.
Downwelling IR is NOT a surface flux Ball4. You don’t even have a reference to a reference.
As stated on page 319 of the Journal in which the article is published.
”This leaves the downward and net LW radiation
as the final quantities to be computed as a residual”
You can play dumb here Ball4 but it is pretty hard to imagine you are really that dumb.
In fact if you read it carefully you will realize that upward LW is also a plug figure. . . . a plug based upon the black body emissions of the surface and an estimated temperature that is only considered to be accurate with a few degrees of absolute temperature. . . .which is wrong as there are no black body emitters.
So it ends up that DWIR is a plug of a plug. The Ptolemy Theory was better documented than this piece of shit work.
Bill has a lot of learning ahead by actually reading and understanding the outdated paper Bill linked.
Bill is wrong about: “Downwelling IR is NOT a surface flux” which is verified by Bill’s own linked ref.: downwelling 333 flux “absorbed by surface” in Fig. 1 which I already explained for Bill.
Bill does not even understand the basics of the subject on which Bill is commenting by writing: “there are no black body emitters” yet there exist black body radiation emitters for calibration purposes. Ask NOAA ESRL where black body emitters are routinely employed.
Bill wrongly claims I don’t have a ref. when I already showed Bill where to find 7 of them in Bill’s linked paper which will inform Bill: “surface fluxes have been derived using satellite data.”
Bill has a lot to learn about this stuff on Bill’s own without wrongly using a word like “plug” which I already explained is not found in the paper; obviously Bill needs to invest a lot of work to learn & to understand how the word “residual” is really used in the paper. Seven ref.s I already pointed Bill to will go a long way in doing so thus when Bill shows some accomplishment doing the required background reading and understanding, I may respond with congratulations.
Ball4 seems content with his ignorance. To each his own!
Christos,
> Another question is, how it comes the elevated place in Colorado at 1.689 km elevation having the same 400 W\m^2 downwelling IR radiation as the place Sioux Falls, South Dakota?
It was warmer that day in Colorado, by about 5 C. Let’s look at the monthly means in 2021 for the same stations: https://imgur.com/gallery/6in793a
You can see that for the months where the mean temperatures were about equal that the downwelling IR for Colorado is slightly less, as we’d expect since it is at a greater altitude.
Brandon, please stop trolling.
Test
What factor is NOT part of the effective temperature formula?
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..Tsat….Rot/day
Mercury…440K….364K…….340K …0,00568
Moon…..270K….224K…….220K….0,0339
Earth…..255K….210K…….288K….1
Mars…..210K….174K…….210K….0,9747
Europa…..95,2K…78,8K…..102K….0,2816
Ganymede..107,1K…88,6K…..110K….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
Christos Vournas at 1:13 AM
1) I don’t think you know how to read these (any) graphs.
2) The graphs show ACTUAL MEASURED data.
3) Just because you are unable to understand what the data are telling you, doesn’t mean the physical phenomena are not taking place.
4) Yes, in my comment I wrote “exits” when I meant to write “exists.” That may have been confusing to you but, if read in context, it shouldn’t have confused an informed adult.
5) Trying to discuss these matters with you is near impossible. So, this is where I exit.
TYSON:
< "2) The graphs show ACTUAL MEASURED data."
Yes, I know the data were measured. The data were measured with the good thermometers.
But maybe thermometers were NOT measuring what they were supposed to measure?
Example: the outdoors thermometers do not measure the outdoors air temperature…
So, maybe the measurements were some precise thermometers measurements, but what exactly they measured is the question…
TYSON, would you like to describe the WHOLE measuring process resulted in those very strange data?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Why do you ask?
TYSON:
“Why do you ask?”
You see, for me the issue of those graphs is not at all understood…
Also, I know the planetary albedo is very much precisely measured for all the planets NASA’s spacecrafts had visited.
But yet, the planet radiative balance is not calculated correctly, because planetary albedo accounts only for the planet diffuse reflection, when the very strong for the smooth surface planets the specular reflection is left outside.
Without the Φ=0,47 there is not a precise radiative balance calculation for the following 6 (six) planets and moons with smooth surface features:
1) Mercury
2) Moon
3) Earth
4) Mars
5) Europa (of Jupiter)
6) Ganymede (of Jupiter)
The rest planets and moons have Φ=1, thus for them the planet radiative energy balance can be calculated as before, since Φ=1 doesn’t affect the result. Those planets and moons have only diffuse reflection, so the NASA measurements of albedo completely satisfactory covers the issue.
But not for the 6 (six) planets and moons mentioned above.
And there is one exception, it is the Triton (of Neptune) which, I think, has the Φ value somewhere in between 0,47<Φ<1 .
Thus, when realizing that the most precise measurements are not enough for extracting safe conclusions, and, also, my not accepting the downwelling – upwelling IR radiative emission lines explanation, I am asking you if you have the information on how exactly those measurements were taken.
And, the issue is very important not to pay attention to it.
Also, TYSON, I am not capable to finding and searching for everything, so I am asking, you, please, since you are well informed on the matter of those graphs, and have enough experience monitoring and reading them, which I have not, please, if you can describe the way those measurements were taken it would be very helpful for our common cause.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You can read all about it here: https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/overview.html
General info from the SURFRAD website:
The U.S. Surface Radiation Budget Network (SURFRAD) was established in 1993 through the support of NOAA’s Office of Global programs. It began to distribute data in January 1995. SURFRAD is the first and only operational national-scale network of its kind.
Observations from SURFRAD have been used for evaluating satellite-based estimates of surface radiation, and for validating hydrologic, weather prediction, and climate models, as well as providing continuous measurements of the surface net radiation budget.
The SURFRAD network currently consists of seven stations. Fort Peck, MT, Table Mountain, CO, Bondville, IL and Goodwin Creek, MA began operation in 1995. Desert Rock, NV and Penn State, PA were added in 1998 and Sioux Falls, ND in 2003.
The site selection process for SURFRAD was a collaborative effort among NOAA, NASA, and university scientists. Locations were chosen with the intent of best representing the diverse climates of the United States. Special consideration was given to places where the landform and vegetation are homogeneous over an extended region so that the point measurements would be qualitatively representative of a large area.
P.s.: Goodwin Creek, MS not MA.
Specific to the measurements, also from the SURFRAD website:
Considering that upward radiation is negative by convention, the surface net radiation is the sum of four primary measurements: broadband downwelling and upwelling (reflected) solar (2803500nm), and broadband downwelling and upwelling thermal infrared (350010,0000 nm). It represents the available energy at the surface for atmospheric heating and evaporation, which are the primary energy sources for weather and climate.
Instruments and support equipment at SURFRAD stations reside on three platforms that are generally aligned north to south. That orientation ensures that the station’s physical structures do not interfere with the measurements.
Upward-viewing radiometers rest on a rectangular fiberglass grating (~0.3 m by 3 m) and a solar tracker. The rectangular grating, hereafter referred to as the main platform, is elevated about 2 m above ground level. The solar tracker is on a separate post that is typically about 3 m south of the main platform. Initially, Eppley solar trackers were deployed but they were replaced in 1999 by SCI-TEC (now Kipp & Zonen) solar trackers.
The solar tracker hosts a pyrgeometer that measures downwelling thermal infrared irradiance, a shaded Eppley 8-48 pyranometer for diffuse solar irradiance, and a pyrheliometer that is kept trained on the solar disk to measure direct-normal solar irradiance, or the solar beam. A 10-m tower located 25 m or more north of the main platform supports downward viewing radiometers that measure reflected solar and upwelling IR irradiance, and most meteorological instruments. A cross arm at the 8-m level of the tower supports the down-looking radiometers and is also aligned north to south.
Ok Christos Vournas, now that I’ve answered your questions I need you to answer one for me.
What evidence do you have that the Earth is, as you say, a “smooth surface planet” with strong specular reflection.
That does not make any sense to me. Consider for example that a sheet of paper looks very smooth on its surface, yet it doesn’t exhibit specular reflection; reason being that microscopically its surface is very rough.
TYSON:
“You can read all about it here: https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/overview.html ”
Thank you, TYSON, for the very important and informative material.
I am reading it with great interest now…
TYSON:
“Consider for example that a sheet of paper looks very smooth on its surface, yet it doesnt exhibit specular reflection; reason being that microscopically its surface is very rough.”
Please do the experiment with the two sheets of paper and a small electric torch, in a dark room, better at evening with the lights off.
The first sheet of paper should be white paper.
The second sheet of paper should be very dark paper, the best is black.
Put the white sheet of paper on the table which should be not too far from the nearest wall. Turn the lights off and drop the light from torch at some angular at the white sheet of paper.
What we observe is that the room is enlightened. Also there is a bright spot on the paper, and there is not any distinguished specular reflection on the near by wall.
Let’s repeat the same experiment with the black paper.
What we observe is that the room remains dark. Abd there is a very faint spot on the black sheet’s surface, if any.
But look at the opposite to the torch wall.
On the opposite wall we observe a bright spot (the torch’s light) which is specularly reflected from the black paper to the wall.
Also we see that when reflected from the black paper, the white light’s specular reflection from the black paper towards the wall appears to be white too.
TYSON, please do this simple experiment, it is not necessarily to be a sheet of paper, any dark surface will do.
I am looking forward for your results.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You have got to be kidding me!
That’s your evidence for the Earth as smooth surface planet?”
TYSON, have you went thru the experiment with paper?
“Ok Christos Vournas, now that Ive answered your questions I need you to answer one for me.
What evidence do you have that the Earth is, as you say, a smooth surface planet with strong specular reflection.
That does not make any sense to me. Consider for example that a sheet of paper looks very smooth on its surface, yet it doesnt exhibit specular reflection; reason being that microscopically its surface is very rough.”
TYSON, let’s make one step at the time…
First do the experiment with the paper, then we discuss the results, and after that there are some other steps.
TYSON, why, shouldn’t I have responded to your “consider a sheet of paper” example?
Please, wait till it is dark at your location, perform the experiment, we shall discus the results – one step at the time.
The issue we discus is very important.
Well, since you have asked me this a very important question, I will explain to you the reasons of my so much strong convincement for a number of planets (Earth included) being smooth surface planets.
I am not here to impress, I try very hard to explain what is really going on.
TYSON, it is not a kind of manipulation what I am proposing as the New equation and the entirely New approach I have developed.
It is important to communicate in good faith.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> What evidence do you have that the Earth is, as you say, a smooth surface
Allow Neil to explain:
https://youtu.be/C69xx2bM8IA
For how many years have you developed your website, Christos?
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/bait-this-is-bait
Willard:
“For how many years have you developed your website, Christos?”
It will be three years this October. Thank you.
Why?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Thank you for your answer.
My question is related to this following idea: 3 years should have given you ample time to study up and downwelling radiation, the Bond albedo, and why astrophysicists believe the Earth is smooth.
Is that clearer, or do you want me to expand on this idea?
Willard, I study Global Warming since December 20, 2015.
It is the site I launched October, 2019.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas at 3:13 PM
“It is important to communicate in good faith.”
I couldn’t agree more.
The reason I don’t need to do your “experiment” is that I know from everyday experience, and common sense, that paper does not exhibit strong specular reflection.
Paper is made up of interwoven fibers that make its surface microscopically rough. When light strikes a sheet of paper it is diffused about the surface, illuminating the entire surface uniformly, and making it easy to read off of without the glare.
Earth’s specular reflection component is very small compared to the diffuse component.
TYSON MCGUFFIN at 5:43 AM
“The reason I dont need to do your experiment is that I know from everyday experience, and common sense, that paper does not exhibit strong specular reflection.”
“Earths specular reflection component is very small compared to the diffuse component.”
TYSON, everyday experience leads us to mistaken conclusions. The everyday experience tells us Sun orbits Earth.
What I proposed you to experiment with is a black colored paper. The black colored paper also “is made up of interwoven fibers that make its surface microscopically rough.”
You will be surprised when you realize how strong is the specular reflection form the black colored paper!
Earth’s specular reflection component is very strong compared to the diffuse component.
Please perform the experiment with the black colored paper.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You are free to believe whatever you want Vournas. If you truly believe that “experience tells us Sun orbits Earth,” more power to you.
My brain does not work that way. I am a reflective learner, whereas you appear to be a reflexive person.
Have a nice day now, you hear!
TYSON MCGUFFIN at 6:53 AM
“You are free to believe whatever you want Vournas. If you truly believe that experience tells us Sun orbits Earth, more power to you.
My brain does not work that way. I am a reflective learner, whereas you appear to be a reflexive person.
Have a nice day now, you hear!”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
TYSON, what I said above is
“The everyday experience tells us Sun orbits Earth.”
You commented:
“If you truly believe that experience tells us Sun orbits Earth, more power to you.”
You should have added the word “everyday”…
TYSON, I never said “experience tells us Sun orbits Earth”…
And it was an answer to yours:
“The reason I dont need to do your experiment is that I know from everyday experience, and common sense, that paper does not exhibit strong specular reflection.”
See, you said, “everyday experience”… and I answered with “everyday experience”… not the plain “experience tells us”…
Also you said “and common sense”…
and “My brain does not work that way. I am a reflective learner, whereas you appear to be a reflexive person.”
Why do you say that?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.
You are free to believe that “everyday experience tells us Sun orbits Earth” to your heart’s content.
For me it is just another demonstration of Newton’s laws.
TM, the “failure to communicate” is mostly on your side. Christos was quite clear in his example that once people believed Sun revolved around Earth. His point was you need to do his experiment to understand what he is trying to teach you.
It’s all over your head.
Yes, thank you.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
RLH,
You reckon it might be a good idea to understand the dataset you rely on? Seems you don’t realize HadISST is an adjusted temperature dataset.
“We present the Met Office Hadley Centre’s sea ice and sea surface temperature (SST) data set, HadISST1…
HadISST1 and HadMAT1 temperatures are reconstructed using a two-stage reduced-space optimal interpolation procedure…
…the pre-1942 bias corrections included in both HadSST and HadISST1…”
[The latter is the well-known ‘bucket’ adjustments to sea surface temperatures.]
“To extend the analysis over most of the data-sparse oceanic regions, we applied reduced space optimal interpolation…
For 1982 onward, the RSOI technique was applied to the in situ/satellite SST combination; an additional analysis of the Southern Ocean was performed for this period. Because, like all optimal interpolation schemes, RSOI tends to the first guess value when data are sparse, special measures were taken to preserve the “trend” in the global mean…
For climate research, SST analyses should be unbiased to order 0.1° [Taylor, 1999]. So bias adjustments are expected to be necessary, since we have combined SST data obtained by diverse methods, each with different biases and even different definitions of SST… The smoothed adjustments were applied to the blended 1° area MDB/COADS anomalies from 1871 through 1941…
…In general, however, modern insulated buckets were found to have a cold bias (0.08°C) relative to engine intake data [Folland et al., 1993]… ”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JD002670
You may be interested to know that the similarity between 1878 and 2016 el Ninos in the HadISSt data relies on the ‘bucket’ adjustment that significantly raised SSTs prior to 1941 (thereby lowering the global trend over the 20th Century).
You seemed to be unaware that the HadISST dataset, like all SST datasets except for ICOADS, is highly processed and adjusted data, not raw.
More generally, could you please confirm whether or not you are suspicious of adjusted temperature data? That might save time in future discussions.
Is Nino 3.4 an adjusted dataset? Its publishers say that it isn’t.
P.S. Interpolation is not that same as anything other than interpolation.
“Is Nino 3.4 an adjusted dataset? Its publishers say that it isnt.”
No they do not. You just completely made that up.
I’ve just posted the methods paper for HadISST.
Of course you didn’t read it.
The HadISST data set includes multiple adjustments, the biggest one being the adjustments for the change from temperatures measured from buckets to ship intakes, which raised SSTs by about 0.2 to 0.#C prior to 1941 and took 0.3C off the overall warming from 1871.
Yes, HadISST is absolutely an adjusted dataset. SST datasets incur the largest adjustments of all the large-scale surface records.
The ICOADS dataset is virtually raw SSTs. Not HadISST.
Once again you have NO idea what you are talking about. You’ve never read the method paper for HadISST despite it being provided to you on multiple occasions.
Hi. I’m a beginner here. Trying to learn how the monthly temperature anomalies are calculated. For example, is the average of the 1991-2020 January temperatures subtracted from an individual January temperature to yield the anomaly of that January?
Thanks!
Welcome Bruce.
The simple answer is “yes”.
I predict there will less simple answers forthcoming….
You have the gist of it.
I would add that the baseline average is computed for a particular time period (e.g. January 1991-2020) and a particular station or region. For UAH, the baseline is a grid of averages for geographical regions. For surface temperature datasets, the baseline is generally done station by station.
UAH TLT Gridded Baseline for December
This baseline is calculated for each month, and, as you would expect, the baseline temperatures are higher in the summer and cooler in the winter.
UAH TLT Gridded Monthly Baselines
In these views, one can see that particular regions are different than their latitude alone would suggest. In particular it is easy to pick out the Himalayas, the Andes, Greenland, and East Antarctica as being cooler areas in the UAH baselines. One can also see land masses being generally warmer in summer and cooler in winter than ocean areas at the same latitude.
You might be interested in reading
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
Apart from the fact that the reference period for anomaly construction moved from 1981-2010 to now 1991-2020, nothing has changed.
Be careful with people loving ‘simple answers’ on this blog, e.g. the ‘ball-on-a-string’ describing a model for Moon’s ‘orbiting without rotating’.
Braindead Bindidon, you’ve NEVER understood that simple analogy. It’s a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It is NOT an exact model of Moon, never intended for that. It just shows that an object orbiting, but NOT rotating, would keep one side facing the inside of its orbit.
You could NEVER get it.
Some people can’t even understand simple.
Some people cant even understand… that simple sometimes can’t explain complex things.
There’s nothing complex about a ball-on-a-string, Bindidon. The simple analogy just doesn’t match your cult beliefs. That’s why you must reject reality.
A ball-on-a-string/a stick-rotating-about-one-end/a section-of-a-disk all have nothing to do with orbital motion.
Once again, a rotation is not an orbit. They are 2 different words and 2 different meanings.
Clint always leaves out NOT rotating wrt the central object.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Thanks! Plenty of great info on this blog.
Recently I asked the JWST team if there would be some idle time to watch a fixed point on our Moon from L2, what would give the possibility to compute its exact path during (a part of) a lunar orbit, and thus to determine whether or not the Moon spins about an internal axis, as the spin would modify the path.
The answer sent by GSFC-NASAWebb was a bit disappointing:
” Hello, the Moon is too bright for us to observe!
The Webb Team ”
Yeah.
We know what “orbital motion without axial rotation” looks like from the example of a ball-on-a-string. The same side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit.
Moon has the same basic motion. The same side always faces Earth. So, we know Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.
… as viewed from the Earth.
Ball4 says:
as viewed from the Earth.
—————–
Nope! You forgot about libration. It only appears to be facing earth by somebody rotating around the earth in time with the moon otherwise you will note that the moon librates if viewed from a single spot on earth. Many of the spinners in here actually believed the moon was rotating on its own axis because of the libration they observed from earth.
Libration is not rotation Bill.
Then we agree the moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis. A lot of your fellow spinners would adamantly disagree with us.
As I and Clint R just wrote: we know Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.. as viewed from Earth.
Bill demonstrates a difficult time reading for which Bill’s misunderstandings must be recognized.
Bill Hunter
As you should know through so many discussions, this your point is absolutely untenable.
Though lacking any scientific knowledge to do so – you repeatedly discredited, like do Clint R, Robertson, the Pseudomoderator and a few others, all work done
– centuries ago by Cassini, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, Beer/Maedler etc;
– during the first half of the XXeth century by Russian astronomers at the Kazan Observatory (Habibullin, Rizvanov etc)
– during the second half of the XXeth century, after deposit of retroreflectors by the Apollo and Lunokhod missions), through Lunar Laser Range observations.
How can you discredit the work of people like Mayer, Lagrange and Laplace as ‘academic exercises’, though you would never be able to scientifically contradict them?
How can you reject work that was made on the basis of completely different instruments and instrument data processing methods, but gave absolutely similar results concerning both the spin period and the inclination of the spin axis wrt the Ecliptic?
How can you deny such evidence – on the basis of nothing more than a 2 page long article written by Nikola Tesla in an anonymous inventor magazine and a few articles written by (exclusively Serbian) people glorifying him?
Bindidon, your closed mind is amazing.
All of that is nonsense. Astrologers! Measurements of libration, that has NOTHING to do with axial rotation, and LLR? LLR has NOTHING to do with axial rotation. LLR deals with the distance to Moon.
You know NOTHING about the subject, and you refuse learning. You’re braindead.
Bindidon all you are doing is name dropping. Heretosofar you have not provided any work by any of those names that I am disputing.
But a scientist having to eat his own words if not an uncommon occurrence. Nothing like a replicable experiment to set things right.
Kepler established an orbit as a rotation with a constant angular momentum. Where inexperienced students no matter what level degree they have obtained most commonly err is with mistaking the perfection of mathematics and other tools they learn in school with anything that exists anywhere in nature.
You mention the spin axis wrt to the ecliptic. Even a ball on a string or on the end of a club is going to have other effects acting upon it besides the rotation that will cause things to flex and vibrate and even rotate imperfectly. Nothing is immune nor unaffected by other forces. In the case of tidal locked objects it is known what produces these variations are forces of gravity from other objects in the universe. . . .objects they may or may not be also orbiting around.
Thus without exception every single concept in physics is affected by these extraneous forces that always exist to some degree or the other. But concepts and mathematics can choose at will to ignore them. . . .but ignoring them is why so many things fail to fundamentally operate as planned. What does that say about your desire for and insistence upon perfection? What it says is by argument only can one dispute stuff literally millions of irrelevant points and observations. . . .to do it in this case is to deny the central work of Kepler. You can ignorantly insist on perfection but its a stupid argument because you can do that with anything and accomplish nothing.
Hunter
” Bindidon all you are doing is name dropping. Heretosofar you have not provided any work by any of those names that I am disputing. ”
This, Hunter, is an incredible lie.
I have presented years ago the work done by
– Mayer
– Lagrange
– Laplace.
This was all woefully discredited and denigrated by Robertson and others.
You seem to have (intentionally?) overlooked all these presentations.
It took me many days to translate in English Lagrange’s introduction to his mathematical work people like you would anyway never be able to understand let alone to scientifically contradict.
Even an excellent translation of Mayer by Wepster you yourself discredited as an ‘academic exercise’, but were absolutely unable to explain what you mean with this arrogant statement.
Your credibility, Hunter, was never very high; it is now reaching the zero dot zero level.
Thus, keep denying, Hunter.
Doesn’t matter much.
Bindidon I am not Robertson or any other anonymous others.
Your strawman here has been constructed to simply avoid the fact that Kepler defined an orbit as a rotation with a constant angular momentum. It doesn’t contradict any of the sources you mention and doesn’t contradict anything I am aware of having said.
Hunter
” Your strawman here has been constructed to simply avoid the fact that Kepler defined an orbit as a rotation with a constant angular momentum. ”
You’re talking in riddles here. Which strawman do you exactly mean?
For me, the strawman here is the reference to Kepler.
What does that have to do with the spin of celestial bodies like Earth, Mars, Jupiter, the Sun, and… the Moon?
Bindidon, you don’t understand ANY of the motions involved. You can’t even understand the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string, even though it has been explained to you numerous times. The ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. IOW, the ball is orbiting, but it is NOT rotating on its axis. The same side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit. You reject that reality because it destroys your false beliefs.
Until you have a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, that works, you’ve got NOTHING except centuries-old astrology.
Bindidon says:
”Youre talking in riddles here. Which strawman do you exactly mean?
For me, the strawman here is the reference to Kepler.
What does that have to do with the spin of celestial bodies like Earth, Mars, Jupiter, the Sun, and the Moon?”
———————————–
Nothing Bindidon. Kepler is the orbit rotation guy! He demostrated that an orbit is a rotation with constant angular momentum. How can you call that a strawman?
I called out your strawman when you started ranting:
”This, Hunter, is an incredible lie. I have presented years ago the work done by Mayer Lagrange Laplace. This was all woefully discredited and denigrated by Robertson and others. You seem to have (intentionally?) overlooked all these presentations.”
You claim I have overlooked something and all you bring up is some kind of name dropping soup supposedly rejected by people other than me. I have not idea what you are ranting about and how any of that applies to a Kepler orbit. The only thing I know for sure is that the moon is a rigid group of particles, each of which has forces operating upon them as in: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
The sum of those forces are an orbit with constant angular momentum as established by Kepler. You can choose to ignore that as obviously you are attempting to do, but all you are is a cult without a single paper that supports your viewpoint.
The cult tries to explain it away not with a recognition of convenient disassembly but as a physical fact. One can subtract two dollars from a five dollar bill conceptually but that doesn’t change the fact its is a five dollar bill. If we couldn’t conceptually do that we wouldn’t be able to figure out how to buy a $2 cigar with a $5 bill.
Then from a standpoint of science and eliminating the spinner position scientifically with a high level of certain one merely needs to look at statistics.
Spinner cultists want to deem synchronized spin as a natural phenomena. Like as if all the tidal locked moons in the solar system had minds of their own like the members of a synchronized swim team.
The concept of a naturally developed independent synchronized rotation is so easy rejectable by statistics it isn’t even funny.
What are the odds of a random synchronized rotation? How many negative orders of magnitude is that?
What is the percentage of tidal locked moons in the solar system? Over 50%? Shit just saying tidal locked says its not independent. Yet for the sake of convenience it becomes a physical fact for the mindlessly inculcated.
If I am wrong show me the physics paper that proves the moon’s spin isn’t connected in any way to its orbit when statistics makes an almost iron-clad argument that it is.
Then you are wrong Bill.
Statistics makes no such argument; it is physics of orbital mechanics that makes the argument.
The physics paper Bill seeks to show lunar orbital KE (instant about O) is independent of lunar spin on its own axis KE (about C) is as Tesla showed in his Fig. 4 in the lunar rotation follow-up paper available for free on the internet.
“Fig. 4 – In this Case the (Lunar) Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One Translational About O and the Other Rotational About C. The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
Hunter
You keep dodging.
I asked you:
” What does that have to do with the spin of celestial bodies like Earth, Mars, Jupiter, the Sun, and the Moon? ”
Why do you deny Moon’s spin but not that of all celestial bodies around it?
Do you, like Robertson, think that even Newton was wrong when he wrote in his Principia that the Moon has a spin like have Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth and even the Sun?
Bindidon says:
You keep dodging.
I asked you:
” What does that have to do with the spin of celestial bodies like Earth, Mars, Jupiter, the Sun, and the Moon? ”
Why do you deny Moons spin but not that of all celestial bodies around it?
Do you, like Robertson, think that even Newton was wrong when he wrote in his Principia that the Moon has a spin like have Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth and even the Sun?
————————-
Why should I address it? Objects with spin have spin. Those without spin don’t.
The orbit of the moon that produces the illusion of a spin on its axis is properly known as its sidereal period. This rotation is different than axial spins precisely because it does produce a monthly seasonal variation of earthshine for our moon due to its tilted axis. For the earth with a spin on its axis provides a daily variation in sunlight but does not produce seasonal variation. . . .so the sidereal period is a unique rotation totally associated with its orbit. If you could reach out from space and stop only its axial spin the seasonal rotation would still exist. but nothing can do that. . . .thats why you can’t point to any object in space that isn’t self powered that has zero rotation.
It cannot be ignored in satellite design where all one would have to do is stop all spin with a thruster. It might stablize for a short time but it would soon be forced toward tidal locking. Ball4 above wants to cherry pick when you use statistics and claim statistics has a fundamental flaw that prohibits it use in identifying cause and effect based upon the ‘opinion’ of experts’.
Ball4 is totally brainwashed into being the ideal epigone that masters salivate over.
“Those without spin don’t”
It would require an extremely unlikely set of events to create something with no spin at all.
Of all the moons in the solar system all rotate. Less than half spin.
Hunter
” Less than half spin. ”
If this statement is not just your private opinion, would you please provide proof of it?
Bindidon wants to know how many moons don’t spin: “…would you please provide proof of it?”
Bindidon, in your astrology, moons that don’t spin are said to be “tidally locked”. So do a search on something like “how many moons are tidally locked”.
And remember, there is no such thing as “tidally locked”. That only exists in your false religion of astrology.
Clint R
I asked Hunter, not you.
You ‘meaning’ (quotation marks really needed) about what we discuss here, is absolutely irrelevant.
No problem, Bin.
I know reality is considered irrelevant by your cult.
I will go with Clint R’s answer.
Hunter
” Many of the spinners in here actually believed the moon was rotating on its own axis because of the libration they observed from earth. ”
Thus, according to Hunter, even Newton was a spinner.
Let’s look at the source:
https://tinyurl.com/ycokq9ys
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, can he?
In the footnote, he writes:
” Quoniam enim Luna circà axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circà Tellurem periodum suam absolvit… ”
Translation:
For the Moon uniformly revolves around its axis in the same time as it orbits around Earth…
**
Thus, when you write today
” I will go with Clint Rs answer. ”
this means that you are simply unable give the proof of your claim concerning
” Less than half [the moons] spin. ”
let alone would you be able to scientifically contradict Cassini, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and all others.
*
Like Clint R and Robertson, all you are able to write is unscientific stuff.
Thus, Hunter, come back here when you are able to find flaws in
– Mayer’s work
https://tinyurl.com/577z5sd2
or in
– Lagrange’s work you find a link to in my translation of his introduction
https://tinyurl.com/ye5ay9hm
I hope that, unlike genius Robertson, you won’t think that Lagrange wrote no more than a theory about Moon’s libration :- )
With this work, Lagrange on the contrary won a prize at the French Academy of Sciences for the best explanation of the optical libration effect.
Mayer’s resp. Lagrange’s treatises are written in German resp. French, but… spherical trigonometry and second order differential equations both are international enough to be technically contradicted by anyone who’s able to.
Bin, you’re never understand this because you’re trapped in your cult. You can’t think for yourself. Like the other cult idiots, all you can do is find things on the internet that support your false beliefs. You are unable to present ANY science.
The first thing you need to do is accept that the ball-on-a-string is a valid model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. The ball is NOT rotating on its axis. This is the same basic motion we see with Moon — the same side always faces the inside of its orbit.
If you reject the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string, then you need to present YOUR model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Without a valid model, you’ve got NOTHING.
And libration is NOT a real motion. It is an apparent motion caused by Moon’s elliptical, slanted orbit. This has all been explained to you. Moon is NOT rotating back and forth, as it appears from Earth. You can’t understand ANY of this.
Cassini’s “laws” ain’t laws! They’re observations erroneously interpreted. It’s like you seeing a leaf blowing in the wind and believing that the leaf is flying by itself! Observations can mislead people that can’t think for themselves.
You’ve got NOTHING.
Cut to the chase, Pup –
Reality. Cult. Some light trolling. NOTHING.
Bindidon, here’s some more reality you will have to reject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f_21N3wcX8
“The Moon always keeps the same face to us, but not exactly the same face. Because of the tilt and shape of its orbit, we see the Moon from slightly different angles over the course of a month. When a month is compressed into 12 seconds, as it is in this animation, our changing view of the Moon makes it look like it’s wobbling. This wobble is called libration.
The apparent motion is NOT real. All measurements by your ancient astrolgers/astronomers are of something that is NOT happening.
You won’t understand any of this….
(Got YOUR model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, yet?)
Clint R
Again: I didn’t ask you. I was asking Hunter.
Why do you write your stubborn, opinionated, trivial ‘ball-on-a-string’ bullshit all the time?
Your pseudoscientific blah blah does not interest me at all.
You did a great job of rejecting that NASA supplied reality, Bin.
No wonder you can’t understand ANY of this.
Bindidon says:
Thus, according to Hunter, even Newton was a spinner.
Translation:
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:
—————————-
ROTFLMAO! Of course it must mean that to you Bindidon.
The only certain daily movement of the moon is its particles orbiting the earth along with the earth and moon as a system orbiting the Sun, and The Sun, Earth, and Moon as a system orbiting the galaxy.
Incorporating you own personal sematical interpretations doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
Hunter
I repeat Newton’s wording in the footnote along his Prop. XVII Theor. XV
” Quoniam enim Luna circà axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circà Tellurem periodum suam absolvit… ”
Translation:
” For the Moon uniformly revolves around its axis in the same time as it orbits around Earth… ”
Keep your eyes wide shut!
Bindidon, Newton was going with the prevailing belief at that time, which came from astrology. Later, using his newly developed calculus, he proved that orbital motion would be like a ball-on-a-string. Understanding gravity, he knew that every incremental particle of Moon would be attracted to every incremental particle of Earth, and vice versa. Using his calculus, he calculated the net result is the gravitational force acting at the center of masses. So, if the orbiting object has no spin, one side always faces the inside of its orbit. That’s what we see with Moon.
You have no model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. You only have centuries-old beliefs, which have been completely debunked. Your cult heroes that were measuring libration were measuring a non-existent motion. They didn’t understand any of this, and you don’t either.
Clint R says:
”Bindidon, Newton was going with the prevailing belief at that time, which came from astrology. Later, using his newly developed calculus, he proved that orbital motion would be like a ball-on-a-string. Understanding gravity, he knew that every incremental particle of Moon would be attracted to every incremental particle of Earth, and vice versa. Using his calculus, he calculated the net result is the gravitational force acting at the center of masses. So, if the orbiting object has no spin, one side always faces the inside of its orbit. Thats what we see with Moon.”
Thats correct. Since it is a mathematical error to assume the middle particle in an object is representative of the mean angular momentum of an orbiting object.
Thus while it isn’t certain Newton knew that the moon did or did not have an independent spin he certainly had to know that one cannot separate the Lspin element from his equation for an orbiting body. . . .all you can do is add spins to make the moon maintain a steady orientation to the stars, one extra spin a month plus another spin per year, and yet another spin per turn around the galaxy. Statistically there is essentially zero chance of that ever happening naturally so we can observe no such moons.
Using Bindidon’s logic for this we should all still believe in the Ptolemy Theory. Logically speaking it is simply believing everything your Daddy tells you is what is so. . . .more formally known as an appeal to authority.
Bill wrongly writing: “one cannot separate the Lspin element from his equation for an orbiting body” shows Bill hasn’t yet learned correct orbital mechanics from Tesla who resolved lunar Lspin and Lorb into their components:
“Fig. 4 – In this Case the (Lunar) Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One Translational About O and the Other Rotational About C. The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
” Bindidon, Newton was going with the prevailing belief at that time, which came from astrology. Later, using his newly developed calculus, he proved that orbital motion would be like a ball-on-a-string. ”
Completely dumb, ignorant stuff written by a simple-minded denier.
Newton explained Moon’s spin to Mercator already in 1675, but wrote the most recent version of Prop. XVII Theor. XV decades after having setup his gravity theory.
This is very simple to discover: you only need to carefully compare the third edition of Princ. Scientif. (1726) with the first one (1687).
Ignorance of facts doesn’t help, and discrediting work of others by naming them ‘astrologists’ won’t too.
By the way: Lagrange’s proof of the lunar spin and his explanation for Moon’s libration are entirely based on Newton’s work on gravity.
But neither Clint R nor Hunter would ever be able to see that in Lagrange’s work.
*
I asked the Webb team if they could plan some idle time for the tracking from JWST at L2 of a fixed point on the Moon, and to compute the point’s motion in space, allowing to definitely prove the spin.
Unluckily, they answered: ‘Hello, our Moon is too bright for us to observe’.
I proposed them to do the same work on the Pluto/Charon pair which is in final synchronous rotation (something you both deny too).
We will see.
Science finally wins always over ignorance and denial.
Bindidon says:
By the way: Lagranges proof of the lunar spin and his explanation for Moons libration are entirely based on Newtons work on gravity.
But neither Clint R nor Hunter would ever be able to see that in Lagranges work.
—————————
Thats a strawman. Early on in this discussion I pointed out that if perfection is the standard you have problems with everything within physics.
One can certainly analyze the moon’s motion, break it down conceptually, brood over the implications, and get yourself to a point where you are denying reality if you aren’t very careful.
The ”spinner” reality is that an ‘object’ cannot rotate off center to its COM axis and by extension cannot rotate on an external axis if one buys into the idea that the moon spins on its COM axis while the moon ‘translates’ around the earth.
The mathematical proof of that is a piece of cake. The moon cannot be rotating around the earth and thus only possesses linear momentum if the spinner position is accepted. Some have actually argued that trying to claim the orbit is not a rotation.
But it is widely accepted as a rotation and as such possess angular momentum.
Mathematically that last point of view means that Lspin is part and parcel to any object spinning on an offcenter or external axis. . . .and is not a separate spin.
One can dig up all sorts of ruminations about how the moon’s motion was created, that it may before becoming tidal locked possessed a separate spin motion in addition to its orbit rotation.
I have given a proof of that in the process of summing up the individual angular momentums of multiple particles bound together in a rigid object using the formula L=mvr for each particle and finding it does not equal Lorb but equals Lorb+Lspin. Technically Lorb only applies to conceptual particle of zero dimensions. . . .so Lorb is merely a special conceptual case of angular momentum that in any real object cannot stand alone. . . .as spinners what it to.
Lorb cannot stand alone in an object with multiple particles of different distances from the axis of rotation. Its mathematically impossible.
Hunter
I can’t understand how people like you can be so stubborn that they deny the simple, trivial fact that if the Sun was a cold star and you could stay on it, Tesla and you would say exactly the same about Earth as you say about Moon when viewed from Earth.
I admit: you are not the only one on this blog who behaves so stubborn and opinionated.
But your denial of science is terrifying.
I hope you will have one day, before you die, to make the bitter experience how it is to be fundamentally wrong, due not so much to lack of knowledge, but to the inexcusable will to ignore the work of others.
One day you will obtain the definitive confirmation of why Tobias Mayer obtained in 1750, using a small telescope, a micrometer and spherical trigonometry, exactly the same value for the lunar spin period as that obtained since 1976 by several people using LLR technology and nowadays’s math.
This is my very last reply to your comments.
Bindidon says:
I cant understand how people like you can be so stubborn that they deny the simple, trivial fact that if the Sun was a cold star and you could stay on it, Tesla and you would say exactly the same about Earth as you say about Moon when viewed from Earth.
——————–
Untrue Bindidon! When did I ever say the earth was tidal locked to the sun? When did I ever say that the forces to produce tidal locking were lacking in the sun. The fact a planet or moon isn’t tidal locked doesn’t mean it won’t become so.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
DREMT Impersonator, please stop trolling.
A ball-on-a-string/a stick-rotating-about-one-end/a section-of-a-disk all have nothing to do with orbital motion.
Once again, a rotation is not an orbit. They are 2 different words and 2 different meanings.
Indeed I understand your desperation to pretend that there is no such thing as a rotation on an external or offcenter axis because the moment you recognize such a motion all objects may or may not also be rotating on its central axis.
thats most definitely a theoretical idea that would drive engineers nuts and have them unecessarily installing useless second motors or drive belts. I would be perfectly pleased if my competition were as ignorant as that.
> all objects may or may not also be rotating on its central axis.
Big if that could be false, Bill.
Next you’re gonna argue that all objects may or may not be white.
Seems a lot more reasonable than arguing they all must be white.
There is no must in empirical sciences, Bill.
Even in formal sciences the must is relative.
sounds like you actually agree it that may or may not spin on its COM axis would be a would be the proper description of a rotation if ‘must’ spin on its COM axis is unscientific.
Yes, enjoyed our conversation. Good to hear from you and that all is well.
Tuy nhin, thực t́ thì ṽn còn khá nhìu bé ṽn bị thíu cn nặng đặc bịt là những bé ở vùng nng thn, khng phát trỉn.
speak for you.
comprare patente di Guida
This essay is fantastic! I can’t wait to explore your site and use the resources you’ve provided because it is so rich with useful information. I have a piece that is similar that will definitely be useful.
Comprare Patente B